I am also posting this on the Reloading forum.. So he ya go...



Forums are always filled with armchair ballisticians, who inform we reloaders of what we should and shouldn’t do, because they read in some book or in some article.. “ Yadda Yadda Yadda..â€.. and then they present themselves as an expert on the subject, using the article or book as a reference to back them up…

Well some of we reloaders have taken offense to this at times.. yet when we point out something to these folks, we are rewarded with getting flamed, name called etc..
And then told we have no proof to back up what we say and we are going to hurt someone…

I am working up a load to use in a Ruger 77 Mk2 sporter weight 22.250 with a 22 inch barrel. I have picked the bullet weight of 50 grains for the application. I have picked several powders to load and try out….

The two I want to relate to the above is BLC 2 and Benchmark.

Hodgdon’s Annual Manual for 2004 lists a charge of 34.5 grains as a max charge with a pressure of 48,400 CUP.. and an MV of 3740 fps.

Older manuals and Steve Riccardelli’s site list a max charge of 38.5 grains with this same powder, although no pressure was listed that I can find for this charge, nor was any MV given.

Well testing the 34.5 grain Load over my chronograph, my MV came up a little short on what was listed in the manual.. 350 fps short to be exact. Several shots with my 22 inch barrel Ruger gave an MV of 3390 fps.. none were higher than that.

So next I worked up loads with 36 grains and 38.5 grains listed as max from other sources…Now according to our ‘on line’ armchair ballisticians exceeding the 34.5 grain load would be “Idioticâ€.. “Dangerous†etc…. However, the 36 grain load and the 38.5 grain loads were just fine… they would have been quick to point out that the 38.5 grain load was more than 10% over the recommended max… I would have been accused of potentially killing someone….

Instead of killing some one this shows the importance of “working up†your loads….. and also manuals are strictly that, a reference… Plus it shows the importance of a chronograph… 2 rifles and 8 reloads of the same charge failed me to get within 350 fps of the MV listed in the reference… even tho I used the same primer and powder charge.


Now lets take a look at the Benchmark loads…

The same reference manual recommends a charge of 36 grains as max, for an MV of 3903 fps, and a pressure of 51,400 CUP, which is still below SAAMI pressure specs for this cartridge.

Well the old chronograph was out testing the real world also with this load.
First of all, I quit testing the max 36 grain load, when the third primer out of 3 blew in the rifle…. So the load listed in the manual was too hot for that Ruger 22.250 Sporter. I also tried a couple in a Ruger VT in 22.250.. the loads were too hot for that rifle also.

So contrary to our “ online†armchair ballistic experts, what is listed as max in a manual or reference material IS NOT what is always safe.. two different rifles wouldn’t take this load without blowing primers.. they extracted, but did blow the primers.. Once again another proof to ‘working up†a load.. Just because the “manual†says it will be safe in your rifle doesn’t mean it will….

So I dropped down to 35.5 grains and 35 grains to test those out. Both of those loads were safe in both of my rifles.. although the chronograph had me wondering what the pressures were, if just half a grain more was eating primers….

The chronograph also told me some more info. At 36 grains the MV was supposed to be 3903 fps or so. Well at 35.5 grains, the MV turned out to be between 3988 and 3994 fps… 100 fps faster with Half a grain of less powder.. Hmmm…

Another deviation from the theories of our armchair ballistician experts…. Looks like manuals make a good reference, not a good Bible on the subject.

Now the 35 grain loads… they had MVs ranging from 3820 fps to 3909 fps….wide deviation spread, yet the loads were accurate in that rifle. Still some more deviation from the “gospel according to†the Hodgdon Manual….

And finally lets look at the chronograph itself. I have had forum members tell me many times that my chronograph must be registering things faster than what they really are, because it registers faster velocities with loads, than they get with their chronograph or according to their reload manual’s listed MVs…

Well those that say “each rifle is an entity onto itself†are the only ones that are really correct.

In the case of BLC2, my chrony was listing MVs at least 350 fps slower than the book model’s results.

Yet on the same page and same manual, when using Benchmark Powder, my chronograph was registering results 100 fps faster, with ½ grain less powder…. And was equaling results the same as the reference manual with an entire grain of powder less…

So here is the same chrony, same day, same rifle… registering ONE load 350 fps slower than the manual stated… and registering another load 100 fps FASTER than the manual listed, and that was with a load ½ a grain less…..

So does that make my chrony slow or faster than actuality.. or can I just assume it is just perfectly fine and is recording what it sees??? I chose the latter analogy.

Quoting a good friends saying “ So what does it all mean???â€â€¦

Well, reference materials are just that, REFERENCE… Reload manuals are guides, not bibles. People, who just pass on what they read, don’t know what they are talking about in the real world of reloading, whether they flame you in the process or hoop and holler with all the “authority†they can muster…. Effort doesn’t make them any more correct.

Both these examples also show the real importance of a chronograph and the importance of the information that it can give you.

Thirdly, the old advise of “Work UP†& every rifle is an entity onto itself, holds truth.
Hodgdon is probably accurately reporting the actual results that they received in their testing. But the results their rifle got and the results my rifles got, varied dramatically.
ONE varied to be equal to a lot less ( 350 fps less), while the other load was blowing primers in two different rifles… and both of them got 100 fps more velocity, with ½ a grain of less powder…..

No amount of reading can replace at the reload bench and at the range experience..

Cheers
Seafire
January 1, 2008

Seafire before my first chrono I had a .30-06 load of 57 grains of IMR 4350 and a 165 Nosler solid base. All the books pretty much showed that as a 2,800 to 2,850ish load. Some of the real old manuals showed that as a mid range load as well. Long story short, I got an Oehler 35P and anxious to play with it I grabbed a couple rifles the chrono and hit the range. Keep in mind that "2,800+ fps" load had been my go to load for years and had killed boo-coo deer, elk and antelope. Imagine my surprise when the first time over the chrono I discovered my trusted load clocked about 2,670ish fps .
You couldn't be more right on all counts. I've had rifles and "specific powder lots" (a big part of it IMO) that safely allowed me to go fairly well over book max. I too have had the reverse situation where max in the book is over the top with my particular rifle , powder lot etc. On a couple occasions by quite a bit. That's also the reason I buy powder in bulk lots and when I run out of one for a specific load I back up a ways and see what's happening with the new batch before trusting it. If I find a lot that creates a great load in a particular rifle I'm going to use a lot I mark it and set it aside for that rifle and load only.
One thing that scares the heck out of me for newer reloaders is when guys on web sites push the idea that lawyers run the show at the powder companies and therefore all the loads are neutered to lawyer proof them simply not true as both our experiences prove. Some times a rifle and load will go over book and sometimes not.
One thing ya didn't mention but I'm sure your aware of is some barrels just seem to be faster or slower than others with all loads.
Sure keeps it interesting don't it?

By Jimminy! you're really getting religion, John! Nice expose. roger

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:
By Jimminy! you're really getting religion, John! Nice expose. roger

Aww just trying to keep up with an internet buddy's wisdom from down in LA is all Roger...

quote:

Originally posted by seafire2:
..... lists a charge of 34.5 grains as a max charge with a pressure of 48,400 CUP.. and an MV of 3740 fps.
…….
Well testing the 34.5 grain Load over my chronograph, my MV came up a little short …..
...this shows the importance of “working up†your loads…..
So next I worked up loads with 36 grains and 38.5 grains listed as max from other sources…...
The same reference manual recommends a charge of 36 grains as max,.....I quit testing the max 36 grain load, when the third primer out of 3 blew in the rifle….
.......wondering what the pressures were, if just half a grain more was eating primers….

Ummmmm..... Please tell me you did not start 'working up' your load using the max listed ..... - well, that's how it sounds!

ALL THE BEST FOR THE NEW YEAR!

Well actually 303 Guy.. If you read the entire post closely, you will notice that I also listed other sources as saying the max load was at 38.5 grain.. so if you look at one source, then yes, I guess I was starting from max load...

however from another couple of sources, I was starting at approximately 10% under max load...

so I guess it depends upon one's perspective.....

seafire - thanks for the very interesting post. My experience has been very similar to yours and owning and using a chronograph for over 15 years has been an educational experience. Most rifles/loads I've tested have read slower than published data, but not all. Two rifles in particular have shot consistently faster than published data. Another rifle needed two grains "over maximum" powder charge to perform as expected. When working at maximum levels I have also used a ten-thousandth reading micrometer to check expansion. While it is not perfectly precise, it does provide another tool to read pressure. Finally, I have found such wide variations in published maximum data that it is often necessary to make (hopefully informed) choices about where to start and how far to go.

Having worked in the USAF testing tunnel in the 60s and 70s, I totally concur with your findings. We would often find barrels chambered with the same reamer and fitted to the same action that gave different velocities and pressures with the same powder charge. The changes in lot numbers for powder and bullets also resulted in changes. Being safe and starting low has had some definite benefits for my eyesight and fingers.

i did a bunch of testing a few years back and my results certainly mirror yours.

But it's so much easier being an armchair ballistician (or bench racer if you're into cars). You don't get your hands dirty and no need to clean guns. And above all, you are always right and don't have to prove it, only site your "expert".

I agree with your statement that each rifle is a "rule onto it self".
I have had many experiences such as you are relating. One thing though your benchmark load is probly still a little on the "warm" side as you are suspecting. I have found that when less powder equals more velocity, it usually means more pressure (I know an assumption). One test I do is to load that load in the same case and keep firing until the primer pockect starts feeling loose, if you get past ten it usually means you have a safe working pressure.(usually)
I have also had loads with sd's that are under 10fps that were not the best groups the rifle would shoot, but unless you are shooting paper who cares? When I look at a hunting load, function is paramount with velocity and group size coming in a 60/40 split. I have been threatening to buy a Oehler 43 because enquiring minds want to know.
One other thing is that the loading manuel never lists their actual seating depth, just a max OAL, which only means that it fits the magazine box. Actual seating depth can have a considerable effect on the pressure and velocity results.
I fire the first load through any barrel in an arms extended, face turned away posistion- that way the big chunks should miss a my face.


www.duanesguns.com

I agree that the reloading manuals are just a guide for general information.

I have a similar experience with my 22.50 and H380. One of the most common loads quoted for the 22.250 is a 50-55 grain bullet with 38 grains of H380. On Hodgon's website this is the starting load and their recommended maximum is 41 grains of H380.

38 grains of H380 with a 50 grain Hornady SX is above maximum pressure in one of my 22.250s. Bolt lift is sticky and primers are cratered.

39 grains of H380 with this same bullet blows the primers out of the cases and actually split the casehead on one case.

This gun has no problem with running max loads with Hodgon's recommendations for H4895, H322, BL-C(2), IMR4064, etc. but H380 almost grenades this gun.

quote:

One test I do is to load that load in the same case and keep firing until the primer pockect starts feeling loose, if you get past ten it usually means you have a safe working pressure

Duane,

I do exactly the same thing.. but if the primer is tight after 5 reloads and the primer goes in tight on the 6th reload, I call it good...

on the opposite end of all of this spectrum... I can relate experiences that go the other way...

Example one: Several years ago, I kept working up a loads with the 220 grain RN in the 30/30 with W 748 powder... Loads up to 35 grains of W 748 with this bullet seated deep enough to function in a 30/30 action.. and giving an MV of 2100 fps...

I posted it and had so many people flame me for telling this load, and that I was going to kill someone...

however 5 different cases were loaded 5 times each.. and on everyone of them, the 6th time I put a primer in them, they went in just as tight as when they were new....

I called it good...

example 2.. Someone asked about max load and capability in a 30/06.. that intrigued me enough, that I went and looked at some reload manuals and noticed that Max loads of H 4831 SC were listing pressure of 46,000 CUPs...

So I worked up loads with the 200 grain Speer and 200 Grain Sierras, using 4831 SC... I worked up to 62.5 grains and was getting MVs of like 2900 fps...

Once again, I loaded up 5 cases each and shot them 5 time each, checking the primer pocket with a new primer each time.. they went in fine...

I stopped at 62.5 grains, because that was all the case would hold with that bullet...

I also then did the same thing with 180 grain bullets, and worked up to 65 grains with 4831 SC.. and primer reloading tests, showed the same tight primers on the 6th seating.. on 5 different cases, so I called it good...

Well I got flamed for a couple of pages on that one, until some other member came on and supported my findings and said that one could not put enough 4831 SC in an 06 case to run into trouble...

So the others flamed him and asked both of us if we had any 'professional equipment" to pressure test those statements...

I didn't, but the other member did... and even gave his phone number and said to ask for Mike...

I noticed it was an Oregon area code, so I gave it a ring... turns out the other guy was Nosler's chief Ballistician at the time...

Well after a few others evidently called it, and the operator answered "Nosler Bullets".... that thread sure died out real quickly after that, when the armchair ballisticians flaming me and Mike moved on to another thing to gripe about....

But in closing, I add, those type of things are for those of us that have been reloading a while and know what we are doing...

and in our politically correct world., we still aren't responsible for the health and safety of the stupid... you can't fix stupid or can't fix "dumbass"

Totally agree and now it's even worse because you can buy computer programs that supposedly give exact data.
Met a friend at the range with his new rifle and several loads that he said were "starters"
to break in the barrel.
He couldn't understand why we had to hammer the bolt open because "Quickload says this one is only in the yellow zone"

whatever that means.
I convinced him to pull all those loads and start off right.

I ran into the same situation with Quick Load and my 257DGR, the calculated load was 1-1.5 grains more than I decided were maximum.
I have seen many loads listed on the net that were it would be way more powder than I would shoot in my rifle, but hey the fellow is still alive to tell about it.

quote:

Originally posted by seafire2:
Well actually 303 Guy.. If you read the entire post closely,.........

Yup, I did. I was just kidding!

Your point was well taken. I have found listed loads and pressures from the same manufacturer giving rather different charges for the same components and pressures with no powder lot numbers being stated. I could very easily use the latest table for an earlier lot of powder, which would not be good!

I did wonder 'though, what those first two primers looked like - obviously they did not give you any warning.