After reloading rifle and handgun ammo for a long time, it seems like variations in loading data as published in the manuals has gotten less reliable. As a matter of fact, as a rule, I can have a buddy or someone on the internet give me a load, says it shoots well in his rifle and the velocity is 2970 fps and often mine is almost identical. Yet you take a load from a manual that says it's a 2900 fps load and it goes 2750 over my chrono. I understand that they could be using a minimum match type chamber, but so are mine. It just doesn't make sense that I often get more reliable data from experienced individuals than reputable manufacturers. In my opinion the, the max loads are getting lighter and lower pressure every time a manual comes out, with the end result being that some reloaders get used to loading over book maximums, which isn't a healthy situation. I started loading when I was 13, and of course have got more sophisticated equipment with the chronos, a pressure trace and better measuring equipment than when I started, so am quite comfortable working up my own even on a wildcat round. Does anyone else feel this way or is it just me? By the way I'm not a rifle hotrodder by nature and have blown just one primer in all that shooting and that takes in a lot of calibers and a lot of rifles traded and sold over the years.

I've also found that many reloading manuals tend to 'exagerate' the performance you get using their components. The manuals put out by companies that make bullets are especially prone to this 'exageration'.

I've found that the Lyman manuals have always been pretty accurate.

Jstevens, Wow, that's a tough one! Actually there is a tremendous amount of variability in all loading and testing of cartridges. I do agree that the manufacturers recomended loads are "coming down." But the lot to lot variation of components is a factor, and newer more accurate digital methodology may be showing us that many previously safe loads were in fact border line. The largest change which I think has to do with loading technique has been in the measurment of pressure methods. The older crusher method while labratory consistant could not in my opinion compare to todays transducer measurments. The calibration of equiptment and the simple variation experienced from one day to the next should explain some of the black magic which we reloaders must contend. In the end, myself and many others like yourself go forward cautiously with experience and both eyes open. Good shooting.

I guess what bothers me is I would rather have someone give me a max. load and work up to it carefully and know it was 63000 psi in their rifle. I just think it is a bad thing to lighten up the max loads in the manuals and get people accustomed to thinking they can always load 2 or three grains over book maximums because they did last time. I'm not talking about us experienced handloaders, I'm talking new guys and casual loaders who may not spend the time tinkering with loads. I get better data from individuals than the manufacturers.

quote:

Originally posted by jstevens:
I guess what bothers me is I would rather have someone give me a max. load and work up to it carefully and know it was 63000 psi in their rifle. ....

And "How?" would they know that??? Surely not with a totally worthless, non-calibrated HSGS.

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:

quote:

Originally posted by jstevens:
I guess what bothers me is I would rather have someone give me a max. load and work up to it carefully and know it was 63000 psi in their rifle. ....

And "How?" would they know that??? Surely not with a totally worthless, non-calibrated HSGS.

Well actually Strain gauges are avialable to measure chamber pressure and are well within the buget of serious shooters.

Strain gauges.

quote:

Well actually Strain gauges are avialable to measure chamber pressure and are well within the buget of serious shooters.

quote:

Originally posted by DaMan:
I've also found that many reloading manuals tend to 'exagerate' the performance you get using their components. The manuals put out by companies that make bullets are especially prone to this 'exageration'.

I've found that the Lyman manuals have always been pretty accurate.

Da Man:

I am not convinced of the exaggeration of reloading manuals from bullet manufacturers as I have seen many that were close to what I was getting in severals rifles in the same caliber...

Just that there is too many variables....

However I back ya up a 1000 % that the Lyman Manuals.... purely unbiased...

IN fact my most used manuals are the Lyman 47th, and the Hodgdon 26th manuals......they give a good cross reference of a wide variety of powders....Hodgdon's list powder charges from IMR , Alliant and Winchester besides their own...

cheers
seafire

quote:

Originally posted by Jay Johnson:
...Well actually Strain gauges are avialable to measure chamber pressure and are well within the buget of serious shooters. ...

Hey Jay, Really?

1. How do you serious shooters measure the Chamber Wall thickness "accurately" without the use of a l-o-n-g reach Coordinate Measuring Machine?

2. How do you serious shooters hide the Strain Gauge without destroying the bedding?

3. What do you serious shooters do with the wire leads when actually hunting with the rifle?

4. How much of a monetary Percentage Loss do you serious shooters have when someone notices a Strain Gauge was previously attached to the rifle?

But I suppose after #1, my favorite question is:

5. How do you serious shooters Calibrate the HSGS?

Now after it becomes obvious there are no "good answers" to the above questions, do you realize that:

A non-calibrated HSGS = Reloaders Pyrite(aka Fool's Gold)

Not this again! Don't make me answer those silly questions AGAIN!

HC, have you ever passed on picking a fight over strain gauge systems for home use!?!?!?

I think the comment about 'knowing it is 63000 psi in their rifle' referred to knowing it is 63000 psi in the LAB'S RIFLE!

To the original question, I put many factors on it...not the least of which is a less aggressive attitude towards the data. I do think that measurement methods have also gotten MUCH better in the ballistics labs in the last 20 years, so the old data is subject to more healthy respect...and caution! None are perfect, though, hence the oft quoted advice to:

1) seek info from multiple sources (and internet forums are NOT the place to trust data!)
2) to start low!
3) see below

I was referring to the pressure in the lab rifle, obviously they have no way to know what it will be in mine or yours. My strain gage works about as well as the speedo in your car, it may be off a bit but is a lot closer than guessing how fast you're going. Same as a chron, how do we calibrate our chronographs? If the pressure trace gage is off ten percent which I doubt, it's still the best we have available unless there's someone who can afford a complete test lab. I can't. This inconsistency I was originally talking about was more to do with wild velocity claims than anything else anyway. What I was trying to say is that my velocities will be closer to what's under the AR reloading section than the various reloading manuals as a rule. An example was my brother who is a less sophisticate reloader than I am, but a super hunter was loading some 55 grain .243's that were supposed to be 3900-4000 fps (according to the manual). I shot them over the chrono, they were under 3600 and he about died, thought my chrono was broken, so I shot a .30-30 over it went 2130, shot my .220 Swift AI went 3990 fps, the shot his muzzle loader over it with sabot and it went 1770 fps. I find it difficult to believe those .243 loads went 3-400 fps faster in anyone's rifle ever anywhere.

quote:

Originally posted by CDH:
...Don't make me answer those silly questions AGAIN!

Hey CDH, Unless you are posting as both "Jay and CDH", feel free to ignore the brilliant, precise and pertinant questions.

quote:

HC, have you ever passed on picking a fight over strain gauge systems for home use!?!?!?

Picking a fight?!?!?!? Obviously you have me mistaken with some of the more Roudy folks that frequent this Board like Vapodog, Digital Dan and Ol' Joe. Naw, not old HC.

However, I am looking forward to what Jay has to say in response to the questions. Should be a grand opportunity for me to learn something from a "Serious Shooter" about these Strain Gauge thingys.

Stay tuned and we will see what he has to offer. Same Bat time - same Bat channel.

quote:

I am not convinced of the exaggeration of reloading manuals from bullet manufacturers as I have seen many that were close to what I was getting in severals rifles in the same caliber...

Just that there is too many variables....

I may be a bit more finicky than most. I've found that the listed velocities and BCs in many of the bulletmakers' loading manuals tend to error a little on the "optimistic" side.

In any case, I chrono and document all of my reloads and even figure out the BCs from my range testing.

Probably overkill..... but it keeps me occupied and I enjoy the testing as much as the shooting and reloading!

DaMan
Using a pair of chronographs and figuring BC and actual muzzle velocity will put you in a state of depression if you've believed in the manuals all these years. A lot of the BC's are off by almost .100 if not most of them. I quit doing it as it's a pain to do and what I really want to know is trajectory and I can do this by shooting at 300 and 400 yards. For 95% of the shooting which is 300 yards on in, BC is almost irrelevant. After all, the Sierras won't kill game better than a North Fork just because the BC is higher anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by jstevens:
...what I really want to know is trajectory and I can do this by shooting at 300 and 400 yards. For 95% of the shooting which is 300 yards on in, BC is almost irrelevant. After all, the Sierras won't kill game better than a North Fork just because the BC is higher anyway.

Hey jstevens, An absolutely excellent post.
---

Kind of surprised that Jay hasn't got back to us with answers for the questions. He must be out doing some Serious Shooting.

By the time a handloader gets to this forum, there is a good chance he knows enough to write a load book about the calibers he hand loads.

There is also a good chance someone here will flame any post that exceeds his favorite load book.

So we have reformers and fundamentalists, with the reformers pointing out, "Look, the start to max ranges of these two books don't even overlap!" and the fundamentalists saying, "You are crazy and dangerous to question load books. There are millions of handloaders that are dumber than me that would follow your post and die!"

quote:

After all, the Sierras won't kill game better than a North Fork just because the BC is higher anyway.

jstevens, I agree ..... personnally tested target/range data is the proof of the pudding.

But I still like crunching the numbers to figure out more accurate velocity and BC figures. It's what "ballistic geeks" do for fun!

PS - In your example above, you mentioned "Sierras". Did you think I was talking about Sierra BC data for some reason?

No, I just pulled one out of the air, but one that usually doesn't the published BC data would be Sierra. They are certainly not alone in that group.

Funny, I just had the opposite problem.

In working up a load for my father in law's Savage 99 in 300 Savage, the Hornady book lists the max charge of IMR 4064 as 44 grains, while the IMR manuel lists it as 40 grs.

4 grains is a bit of difference.

These posts include a bunch of great reasons to never rely on internet loads.

And reason enough to have no less than three different books and never load from any ONE of them without consulting all you can find.

Make sure the books you consult are well up to date and not the OLD books from before 1980. The makers made lots of changes in powders between those years.

I'd only use someone else's loading info to start consulting the books for comparison sakes. I'd sure as hell never take anyone's word then go load it. That's worse than a gamble.

Stay safe, or don't do it.

George

Actually, these posts give reasons to rely on anyone's loads without caution, whether you got it from the internet, a loading manual, or a shooting buddy. The info from the internet is at least as pertinent as what's in the manuals, as it was developed in a hunting rifle with a normal barrel length,etc. Another way of looking at it, would you grab a handful of your buddy's handloaded ammo and fire it in your rifle? Not me.