Thanks for any info.

RSY

OKShooter:
Oddly enough, my old copy of Hornady LoadNotes for the .270 Win. specifies a C.O.L. for the 130-gr. SP as 3.275". I wonder if they've changed the ogive on the 130-gr. SP to match that of the SST. Any thoughts?

Also, a C.O.L. of 3.180" puts the SST's cannelure a good bit down in the neck of my brass (trimmed to 2.53"). In fact, at 3.200", the cannelure's already out of sight. I don't crimp, but it just seems strange that the recommended C.O.L. would prevent someone from using the cannelure. Again, any thoughts?

Thanks,
RSY

quote:

---

Originally posted by jagtip:
I'd phone Hornady.

---

Yeah, I e-mailed them this morning. It being Sunday, I didn't figure anyone would be there to answer the phone, though.

Thanks,
RSY

An interesting thing becomes apparent if one looks at the specs for the 280 Remington (page 281). They are showing an COL of 3.345" with all of their 139 gr. bullets. The nominal max COL of the 280 Remington is 3.330". (Keep in mind, the 139/140 gr. 7mm bullet is about the same as the 130 gr. 27 caliber bullet.)

My initial guess is that the Hornady bullets should wind up with a COL of about 3.240" if you seat to the cannelure, but why don't you seat a bullet out so that it enages the lands and go from there?

quote:

---

Originally posted by OKShooter:
RSY -- My thought is that the 3.180" COL specified in the manual, page 253, is a misprint. My next thought is that the cannelure on the SST looks to be pretty far forward -- much farther forward than on their 140 gr. BTSP.

---

The scary thing is, it may not be a misprint. Last year, with my first batch of SST's I seated to the middle of the cannelure just to start with. Well, I could hardly chamber any of the rounds in my rifle. I wound up having to seat down to 3.2" to get chambering with any kind of ease.

Oh, and I ran and checked the cannelures on the two bullets you mentioned and they are basically the exact same distance from the base on both, though the SST's cannelure is wider than the 140 Interlock's.

I think it's getting to be time I broke down and bought a Chamber-All gauge.

Thanks for taking the time.

RSY

Now the 140gr hornady bullet is .650" from the top of the cannelure to the tip, add that to the 2.530" and your COL is 3.18"; the book recommends a COL of 3.20", so thats ok. The 150gr hornady bullet is .625" top of cannelure to the tip, giveing a COL of 3.155" if using the cannelure at its top. The book gives a COL of 3.18". So that is ok too.

So in summary the book SST COL of 3.18" is alittle too short. The COL should be 3.21" or longer.

Please post the response to your email to Hornady. I just got a box of SSTs for my 270 this week. I looked at (didn't have time to measure) my 130 gr Interlocks and SSTs and there is quite a difference, no doubt.

Well, the fat lady ain't sung yet, but here it is so far. My response to their last e-mail should have been "Well, no sh*t, Sherlock!"

Most recent e-mail is at the top, so start at the bottom and work your way up.

RSY

Subject: RE: Question re: 130-gr. .270 Win. bullets...
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 12:25:23 -0600
From: "Webmaster" <webmaster@hornady.com>
To: <snmyeag@flash.net>

I'll have to have a technical person get back to you.

-----Original Message-----
From: snmyeag@flash.net
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 6:45 AM
To: Webmaster
Subject: Re: Question re: 130-gr. .270 Win. bullets...

Thanks for the reply. However, if I do load 130-gr. SST's down to 3.180", the cannelure disappears down the neck of the case (trimmed to 2.53"). How can this be correct? It appears that 3.180" is a mis-print. 3.280" sounds more reasonable, since 3.275" was the earlier printed number. Unless, of course, the bullet was re-designed recently, as I asked in my initial question.

Thanks, again,
RSY

Webmaster wrote:

Our load notes for the 270 130 grain bullet show 3.200 and our new books shows. 3.180. Not a big deal. You should always use the current data and the load notes are from our Fourth Edition handbook. We current sell our Fifth Edition.

-----Original Message-----
From: snmyeag@flash.net
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 9:59 AM
To: webmaster@hornady.com
Subject: Question re: 130-gr. .270 Win. bullets...

Hello, from Texas:

Something is baffling me, and I'm hoping you can help.

I have an old copy of LoadNotes for the .270 Win., and in it, it specifies a COL of 3.275" for the 130-gr. Interlock load. But now I see the COL has been reduced to 3.180" in the newest manual. What happened? Was the ogive changed and cannelure moved in the recent past on these bullets? What other .277" bullets has this occurred with? I'm wondering if I should quit using this copy of LoadNotes? I also have a copy for .308 Win.

Thanks,
RSY

Then you have to deal with their attitude, which is nicely summarized in some of their statements on their website, and alluded to in the correspondance cited above, that the customer is trying to get over on them by asking for FREE stuff, which might include loading data for the bullets they are trying to get you to buy. Apparently this "getting over" also includes basic information about the use of their products.

When you write or email them with observations or comments about their products, they generally ignore you. And you can take all kinds of game all over the world and use their bullets, but they will hardly ever acknowledge you. And forget about getting into their catalog if you hunt overseas.

A good joke is that they encourage the shooter to join their "Power Club". Then they send you an offer to buy "up to 2 boxes" of their Light or Heavy Mag ammunition at a "special price" for a "limited time". Meanwhile, you can just call Graf & Sons or Cabela's and get the same ammo for LESS, any day of the week.

They have a very Madison Avenue brochure, but the personal angle is ignored.

Contrast them with Sierra Bullets. These people bend over backwards to help you, thereby encouraging the consumer of their products to use more. Smart. They publish a newsletter 4 times a year with reloading and technical info. They have a FAQ section on their website with technical info. They publish all their B.C.s and S.D.s. And they have a staff of at least 5 guys who are experienced reloaders, shooter and/or hunters, who will answer your email or phone call promptly with accurate information.

Now that is a good company to deal with.

You might also ask what color her/his hair is! Duh?!?!

Dave

Then you have sierra who I agree has great customer service but, their bullets just don't seem "up to speed". They have changed virtually nothing in the last 10 years. All these new laser beam magnums have come along and they still have bullets that are marginal for holding up in our good old calibers. Sounds like one company should throw a little money to customer service and the other should throw a little more towards product developement.

Their bullets are not all the same, there are differing core and jacket constructions that perhaps they do not advertise as well as they should. For example, the .308 200 grain SBT has a 3% anitmony core and is a fairly hard bullet for standard construction. Launched at .300 Win Mag velocities it has an excellent reputation on large game. I have used it with great success in Africa on plains game.

Sierra hasn't changed their designs because there is no need to. Those who place a premium on accuracy and reasonable bullet performace are very satisfied, and Sierra is doing very well with what they have offered for years: reliable performance. Why change a winner?

Those who are "super-premium" addicts and buy into that nonsense will never be happy with Sierra. The current craze for high-priced "virtual solids" that are lacking in accuracy and/or velocity and foul your bore to no end is the product of media hype. The rest of us just keep buying our Sierras and Hornadys... and shooting more.