The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Reloading Old vs New Reloading HandbooksGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Old vs New Reloading Handbooks | Login/Join |
One of Us |
THE FOLLOWING ARE NOT LOAD RECOMMENDATIONS. THESE LOADS ARE FOR DISCUSSION ONLY. I was looking for a somewhat warm load for my 624 for an upcoming shoot and was a little surprised to find the huge load variations found in todays books versus older handloading books. I know the companies have lawyered up. I was looking at a new reloading manual at a store and I think the top load for a 44 special using 2400 and a 240gr bullet was 11grs.of 2400. Looking at one of my old manuals, a Lyman 43rd edition, a top load using a 235 gr bullet is 19grs of 2400. Wow what a difference. I think Elmer Keith’s load for the 44 was 17gr 2400 with a 240gr bullet. And that was hot. Another top load in Lyman’s 43rd edition for the 240gr bullet is 8.1gr Unique. I’m a life long reloader and have probably used some of these loads. I’m looking at these loads now and am thinking am I crazy to put this much powder in the case? Has anyone used any warmer 44 special loads recently? How did they shoot? | ||
|
| One of Us |
BE CAREFUL not to blow yourself up. You should use the most accurate (exact components) and recent load data available. The loading companies have indeed reduced many max loads but this is due to several factors. 1. The pressure testing equipment is better now than even ten years ago. 2. Powders and primers have changed. (old 2400 vs. new 2400) 3. Firearm used may be different (S&W vs a test barrel). The people that publish the load data do their very best to give the people the best and most appropriate loads. They do have to take into consideration that "bubba" will substitute something wether it is a bullet of (hopefully) the same weight, a different primer, case or something. They also realize that giving too light of a load can also be dangerous. Remember that there is not a critter in the world that can tell the difference in 100fps of velocity. It's not all about speed. Stick to the book and standard practices of common sense and you'll be fine. Just don't think that data is entirely determined by lawyers. Lawyers are where really heavy, non adjustable, triggers come from. I hope this adds something meaningful to the discussion. Joe | |||
|
one of us |
I only load 180 grain bullets in my Special, on top of 15.5 grains of 2400 and a CCI-350 primer. It's impressive. For my Magnum loads I use 240's on top of 25.8 grains of H-110 and the same primer. It's even more impressive. Now, about the manufacturers publishing the most exact and reliable data available. Balderdash! If that were the truth, then every manual would have the same listings... What the manufacturers have are different lawyers... When the max load in one manual is the same as the starting load in another, you just gotta wonder. | |||
|
one of us |
Igotta agree with Steve. I have been loading a load of 4064 in the 35 Whelen since the early 70's, and by todays standards it is 2 or 3 grains over max. Worked than, and works now. Pressure signs don't change from decade to decade, they are consistant, and that is what the handloader needs to pay attention to. Jerry NRA Benefactor Life Member | |||
|
one of us |
I have a Lew Horton 3" 624 and a 3 screw Blackhawk converted to 44 spec. I have used with no problems E.K.'s, 17gr/2400/250 K style cast bullets. This load worked for him and countless others since. For a mid-range load, same bullet with 7.5gr Unique, very nice. My lamea$$ factory dupe load is, 4.0gr Bullseye with the same cast bullet used in the above loads. That said do not use the 17gr/2400 load in the Italian colt clones, their steels are to soft for this level of power. They probably would not do a rapid disasssembly, but they will suffer some damage. Hog Killer IGNORE YOUR RIGHTS AND THEY'LL GO AWAY!!! ------------------------------------ We Band of Bubbas & STC Hunting Club, The Whomper Club | |||
|
| One of Us |
Please accept my apologies, I had no idea that you fella's had modern ballistics labs with computer pressure testing equipment. As for different manuals having different minimum and maximum loads listed... I guess if every lab was using the same make and lot of powder, the same make and lot of bullets, primers, brass, barrel etc. They might get the same results or not. What they do, is publish the results they get and they publish the exact components used in the gun or barrel used. The truth of the matter is that the "traditional" pressure signs show the effect of brass flowing. Brass does not flow until after, established safe pressures are exceeded. If you see "pressure" signs you are way over pressure and should thank the firearm manufacturer for making such strong test specimens for you to try to blow up. I understand that they spend tens of thousands of dollars and years developing this wienie data, and that they really don't have any idea what they are doing...so why even bother buying the manuals. I guess that is why Nosler calls their manual a guide... a place to start for the experts at home. Just because it "works" does not mean it is within safe pressure limits. Did I mention that powder may change over time or even from lot to lot by +/- 5%. Not that it would make any difference anyway. I'm not even trying to say that you guys do not know what you are doing. I'm sure you are well experienced in reloading. What I'm trying to say is that things change over time, and if you venture outside of current published data, you are taking yours (and anyone near you) safety into your hands. Good luck. Joe | |||
|
| one of us |
I use an Oehler 43PBL. Personal Ballistic Lab. Close enough for me. Logic would dictate that random changes in components over time would cause random changes in bullet speeds. I just don't see that happening. All I hear is that max loads keep getting slower. I certainly never hear longtime handloaders rejoice the 21st century achievements allowing 300fps more speed from their 30-06 than they could get in 1965. | |||
|
| one of us |
 Flame mode on... Okay, Joe, you know more than all of us. That's pretty good for a new-comer. Nowhere do I see where you list your backgound or qualifications. Unless you consider living in Bend, OR, as your qualification. My background is fairly well known, and my reloading experience spans over 45+ years. In that 45+ years I have loaded over 333 different rifle calibers, from .140 to .700. In addition, I have managed to squeeze in another 108 handgun calibers, from .172 to .500. I have never damaged, nor destroyed, any firearm I used for testing. MY maximum loads, in many cases, hell, in a majority of cases, is well above what is found in today's manuals. Being an individual, and not a company, I don't have to worry about SAAMI, nor do I have a flock of lawyers waiting in the sidelines, both for and against me. As I state on the "warning page" of my reloading section: _________________________________________________________ Number One: The information and data contained on the reloading pages is for informational purposes only. I do NOT assume, nor do I accept ANY responsibility, implied or expressed, for the accuracy of the material posted, nor do I assume or accept ANY liability or responsibility, implied or expressed, of the results you will obtain by using any of the data posted on these pages. I have no control over variations in components, reloading tools or your procedures. YOU are solely responsible for EVERYTHING that may occur using this data. Number Two: The information listed for MAXIMUM loads may be safe only in modern firearms of current manufacture and in excellent condition! The age and condition of YOUR firearm is the determining factor! NEVER, EVER, START WITH ANY OF THE MAXIMUM LOADS!!! Number Three: Always start out with the lightest powder load listed and work up GRADUALLY until signs of case failure or excessive pressure become evident! Or until the level of performance you desire is reached. WHICHEVER COMES FIRST!! Number Four: The data contained herein is NOT bounded by SAAMI limitations! Because of this fact, be ABSOLUTELY sure you understand numbers one, two and three above!! The highlighted powder in the selection area is NOT sacred, truth, fact nor absolute. It is the powder and primer combination I chose as best when I was reloading that caliber, with that bullet. It is based on three simple facts: 1) A "gut feeling"; 2) Almost 50 years of experience; 3) They worked just fine in the firearm I was testing. Number Five: The data contained here is for copper-jacketed with lead-core bullets. It can be used with lead bullets and solid bullets (but YOU must take into consideration the composition and construction of the bullet). It is not designed to be used with coated bullets of any type. If you are intent on using coated bullets, buy yourself the reloading manual published by the bullet manufacturer! _________________________________________________________ Now, all that being said, yes, I do have reloading manuals in my library. I have manuals (if they were published) from 1960 until 2005. And it has always amazed me that when lawyers became involved in stupidity cases, the suggested "maximum" loads have taken a dive. Hell, even factory loads today are not what they were 20 or 25 years ago. Not because of new testing equipment, but because each year our universities graduate a new crop of product liability lawyers! When some jerk can sue a firearm manufacturer, the gun dealer, and the registered legal owner of a firearm, when that firearm was stolen and used in a crime, AND WIN THE FRIGGING CASE, the lawyers have a field day, and the manufacturers run scared! PSI has always been PSI, CUP has always been CUP, and LUP has always been LUP. Lawyers are 90% of the problem, but dumb-assed shooters have been the other 10%. How many times have we read where someone with his El Cheapo Colt SAA clone wants to load it to .44 Magnum specifications. The reloading manuals have also taken into consideration this type of "reloader", protecting not only themselves from such an idiot, but also the idiot! There, my rant and flame is over ... I feel better now...  | |||
|
One of Us |
To paraphrase what Bob Hagel said in his book, GAME LOADS AND PRACTICAL BALLISTICS FOR THE AMERICAN HUNTER, "Every (gun) is an individual. What proves to be maximum in one may be quite mild in another one, and vice versa." This is just as true today as in 1978, or 1900, for that matter. What does this mean? It means you never know what is maximum in your rifle until you determine that information for yourself EXPERIMENTALLY using that gun, and no reading of any book can give you specific info about that specific gun of yours!!!!! Books are only guides, to provide you with a STARTING POINT!! Anyone who says "you can NEVER SAFELY exceed a book maximum load" is nuts! BUT, before you do so, you have to know HOW to determine IF and BY HOW MUCH, your rifle or handgun will permit you to do so (or NOT, as the case may be)!! "Bitte, trinks du nicht das Wasser. Dahin haben die Kuhen gesheissen." | |||
|
| One of Us |
Roger that, Joe! Right on!! You got it!! Couldna' ha'e sed it betterrr m'selfff! "Bitte, trinks du nicht das Wasser. Dahin haben die Kuhen gesheissen." | |||
|
| one of us |
Been reloading for over 30 years. Think have every manual published in that time period. Load for over a hundred cartridges. Concede that there is a lot more to learn and find a humble attitude always helps in learning something new. Have a decent amatuer lab. Can load, shoot, measure, and adjust my loads without leaving my shooting stool. Can have the next load done in less than a couple of minutes with press and other equipment within finger reach of my shooting stool. Always check all the manuals, including numerous editions of same, before starting. Also check a large number of magazine articles including Precision Shooting, old Handloaders, The Varmint Hunter, etc, and lots of other books. Graph all the manuals and statistically plot their various lines on superimposed graphs before starting. Then I start. Have found Bob Hagel's works my best guide for working up loads. My final loads are typically hotter than current manuals. But don't have to use a rubber mallet as often these days as I used to. Hammer | |||
|
| One of Us |
"Bitte, trinks du nicht das Wasser. Dahin haben die Kuhen gesheissen." | |||
|
| One of Us |
ricciardelli, thank you for your printing of your warning page from your loading section. They are sound and reasonable statements. My first post was an effort to shine some light on the original question that was posted for the purpose of discussion. The discussion was to be about the differences between older and newer loading guides. I believe that I did point out some valid reasons as to why the data may be different. I just do not believe that lawyers are the only reason for any changes. I do understand that every firearm is an individual and that over maximum book loads may be safe in a particular firearm. I have some of those loads myself and I'm sure that I arrived at that point by the same methods you use, and that they were approached very carefully. As for my background, I may be new to the board but I have been a reloader for over 20 years, I worked for Nosler for over 6 years as a tooling engineer. I also served some time as the ballistics supervisor, developing load data and testing products in the same manner as they use for their loading guide. I spent 1 1/2 years at Nosler as a technical service representative, answering questions about all aspects of reloading for handgun and rifle, bullet selection and use. I am also one of the top Handgun silhouette shooters in the world and I did not get there by shooting factory ammo. I respect the amount of time that you have been reloading and I just ask that you allow that maybe, just maybe it's not all about lawyers. You have the choice of ignoring SAAMI but the people making the manuals do not. El Deguello, said "To paraphrase what Bob Hagel said in his book, GAME LOADS AND PRACTICAL BALLISTICS FOR THE AMERICAN HUNTER, "Every (gun) is an individual. What proves to be maximum in one may be quite mild in another one, and vice versa." This is just as true today as in 1978, or 1900, for that matter. What does this mean? It means you never know what is maximum in your rifle until you determine that information for yourself EXPERIMENTALLY using that gun, and no reading of any book can give you specific info about that specific gun of yours!!!!!" Well said and I agree 100% Hammer, I respect your approach and you obviously take great care in your loading. Once again, my original intention was to provide a few reasons (derived from my own professional experience in a ballistics lab) for the changes in the data from the older manuals to the newer manuals. If nothing else I guess we can agree to disagree. Joe | |||
|
| One of Us |
Thanks Steve. You Da Man! | |||
|
one of us |
You will NEVER know what maximum pressure is in YOUR GUN. Chew on that for a minute. You can guess at it through standard "load development". Or by trying to read tea-leaves, which will get you about as close. Emperical studies have shown that there is a unacceptably poor relation between pressure and "pressure signs". You can try to calculate it using muzzle velocity, and get pretty close. You can try to measure it using a strain guage, and get a little closer, yet. No matter what you do, you will not KNOW the pressure. Not by using a copper crusher, not by using a Piezo, not by using a strain gauge. If you want to run the pressure up above the book some, you can get away with it, almost always. But, please, do not try to convince me that you have any clue what the real pressure is, or any clue if you are operating at a mechanically safe level pressure. JMO, Dutch. Life's too short to hunt with an ugly dog. | |||
|
One of Us |
Ricciardelli is correct on all accounts. Liability suits are the reason for many changes in the manuals.I have a few that I use but after I get comfortable with a firearm the max loads are almost always surpassed. I have found that the veloitys they list are usually correct but I have to burn more powder in my Guns to achive their listed fps,even when I have the same barrel length.They are a guide of approximations at best,but they do give a guy a starting point. If it cant be Grown it has to be Mined! Devoted member of Newmont mining company Underground Mine rescue team. Carlin East,Deep Star ,Leeville,Deep Post ,Chukar and now Exodus Where next? Pete Bajo to train newbies on long hole stoping and proper blasting techniques. Back to Exodus mine again learning teaching and operating autonomous loaders in the underground. Bringing everyday life to most individuals 8' at a time! | |||
|
| One of Us |
Gentlemen - I almost never post but this is a rare exception where I must respond. With the internet full of self proclaimed "experts" it's tough to determine who really is an expert, and who is simply pontificating personal opinions as though they were facts. NOT IN THIS CASE! Apparently, the responders on this thread don't know who Joe Cullison is. Joe has likely forgotten more about ballistics, laboratory analysis/pressure testing, and compiling reloading manual data than most of us will ever know. I've known Joe for a couple of years...worked with him, and shot with him. With typical understatement, in his post Joe mentioned among his qualifications that he worked in the Nosler ballistics lab here in Bend. Joe was actually the Chief of Ballistics testing for the entire Nosler company. He and his associates tested most of the loads and compiled the data that appears in the Nosler reloading manuals we all use! Another of his understatements was that he is a manufacturing engineer. In fact, Joe helped design, modify, improve, and test some of the equipment currently used at Nosler to manufacture the millions of bullets they produce annually. His final understatement was that he was one of the top metalic handgun silouette shooters in the world. Yes, I would say so. The last time I checked, he was #1 in the entire world. I don't follow the sport that much, but I don't think Joe has been rated less than 3rd in quite some time. Gentlemen, you have a genuine expert on ballistics and reloading, laboratory pressure testing, writing reloading manuals, and world class shooting right here on this thread. It's a golden opportunity that doesn't come along that often. I've found Joe to be quite willing to share his expertise if asked, so my suggestion to you all is ASK THIS MAN SOME QUESTIONS! If you want to know what considerations go into compiling a reloading manual, or exactly how a lab determines max loads, or what bullets/loads he uses to achieve his spectacular shooting success, I'm sure he would share some of that with you. Go for it. Cpt. Jack | |||
|
| one of us |
I am aware of Joe's shooting record, and my remark about living in Bend was a referral to Nosler. My comments were intended to do three things: 1) Confer my opinion that all reloading manuals are recipe books, not bibles; 2) Data found in all reloading manuals is governed not by absolutes, but rather by litigation, or more correctly the fear of litigation; 3) That Joe would confirm his qualifications. | |||
|
| one of us |
Hey Cpt. Jack, Thank you for the details. In fact, I'll "Go for it." right now. --- Hey Joe, What is your opinion of a non-calibrated Home Strain gauge System? | |||
|
| one of us |
mbirbm, firstly let me say that Steve is okay in my book, even if he gets a little grumpy now and then. IIRC we both got run out of Coyote Gods on a rail about the same time, so I'm in good company I think. I assure you he ain't Da Man.  Go review the Political Forum, you'll see what I'm talking about.  Next up, be cautious about how you spin load data. Your reference in the first post was comparing 240 and 235 gr loads for 2400. Likely the 240 gr bullets were jacketed, the 235 cast. In any case there is something changing the numbers besides one edition number of the manual. Over time it is common to see trends in manuals as the burn rate for a given powder, more often than not due to increased burn rate. It is more apparent as the years between editions increase, and usually supported across the board in various manuals when this is the case. The technology and equipment used in the labs these days is a lot more sophisticated than it was 20-30 years ago. I have a few manuals from that era, some of the changes are...illuminating. Anyhoo, when you see something like the data change you posted, take care to understand that there are likely other influences at hand than a simple 5 grain weight change. 235 does not equal 240, nor do cast bullet pressures equal jacketed at the same velocity. Capt. Jack, thanks for telling us a little about Joe. From all appearances he is politely modest for all of his background. Joe, welcome aboard! Hope you won't worry too much about the banter around here, there are a lot of "experts" in house, unfortunately some know more than others. Been hoping somebody with some background in interior ballistics would check in a hang around for a spell, but if it gets too annoying I hope you would consider wandering over to http://www.24hrCampfire.com to join Ken Howell, John Barsness, Steve Timm and a long list of fine gents. Thanks for your input...  If yuro'e corseseyd and dsyelixc can you siltl raed oaky? | |||
|
| One of Us |
I realize that the connection between "pressure signs" and actual pressure will remain unknown, and that I will never know what the pressures actually are in my rifles using my ammunition. (Actually, as bizarre as this may sound, I don't particularly CARE what the ACTUAL PRESSURES ARE!!) My main criterion for a "max load" is "how many reloads can I expect to get out of this lot of cases using this load?" I generally refuse to use a load that will not give me at least ten reloadings. To me, this seems like a reasonable criterion, regardless of what the actual pressures might be. I also believe that I can rely on a load at this level to NOT DISASSEMBLE my rifle. Now, this may be faulty thinking, BUT it has worked for me since 1954, when I bought my first HP rifle and started loading for it with 150-grain M2 bullets from the DCM and a $0.25 brown paper bag of Hodgdon's salvaged 4895. Now I will readily admit that I have not had the wide-ranging experience that Ricciardelli has, nor that of Joe Cullison! Who does, unless they are in the business of loading ammo and/or ballistic testing as a profession?? We are indeed fortunate to have the contributions of such folks on this board. I am sure we will all continue learning from them!! "Bitte, trinks du nicht das Wasser. Dahin haben die Kuhen gesheissen." | |||
|
| one of us |
El Deguello, fair enough. I have no issues with working up a load, using all available information. I'm not the most experienced reloader either, and certainly have not had the benefit of "learning by doing" in a ballistics lab. My argument is how "high" you work up that load. I do understand the nature of risk pretty well, have a little background in statistics, and have some grasp of the concept of "stacking tolerances. In a tight chamber, with minimum tolerances, brass lasts the 6PPC benchresters 20 reloads and more, while running sometimes well over 70,000 PSI. Brass life is an imperfect predictor. Several experimenters have also shown that in a square, well built bolt action, other pressure signs simply do not show up until well above 70,000 PSI. Now, I would agree that actual pressures are not that interesting. That is, until pressures go North of 70,000. Then, I don't want to play anymore. The risk of irreversible disassembly of the rifle becomes real. A little error by the steel mill, a little inclusion in the barrel, and all of a sudden my gun could look like a Sako..... People often state as fact when they offer their conclusion that they are operating at "safe" pressures, or even that they know what those pressures are. The "safe in my rifle" statement particularly gets my goad. How would you know, other than by testing to destruction? How many of the individuals understand where they are operating with respect to the tolerances before metal fatigue becomes a real issue? On top of that, we have variables involved with handloading: A powder measure that bridges, and under and overcharges. Seating the wrong bullet weight by error or a bullet that gets pushed out by a compressed load, pushing the bullet hard into the lands. Any of them could spike pressures. If you are already balancing on the knife's edge, any error or failure becomes critical. The end result is the same: whether the box of 165 grainers actually got packed with 180's, or if your powder measure bridged, or if you were negligent and mixed in a military case. So, backing off a little makes sense, not because the lawyers say so, but because reloading to the red line is a bit like playing Russian roulette, albeit with a very large cylinder. The costs of "missing" a pressure sign, or an assembly error are huge, while the benefits are incredibly minor. Then again, lots of people driving around without seat belts, and lots of bikers without helmets. If you are looking for risk to take, it's probably more sensible to do it with handloading than by passing on the seatbelt. JMO, Dutch. Life's too short to hunt with an ugly dog. | |||
|
| one of us |
Sooooo, some of you think these reloading companies that produce these loading books would cut a load considerably to save their ass from a lawsuit?? Surey you jest!!  Ray Atkinson Atkinson Hunting Adventures 10 Ward Lane, Filer, Idaho, 83328 208-731-4120 rayatkinsonhunting@gmail.com | |||
|
one of us |
Here is a tidbit of info: I've only been reloading for about 16 years. I've also been very "experimental." I've mostly loaded for the 270 and have been to the range many times where I've seen zero pressure signs with max loads, so for grins I'd add powder in half grain increments. In some cases, I could get up to 2 grains more powder, especially midrange burning powder, than published max loads before the first sign of pressure. Example: IMR4350 with 150 grain bullets. But what really puzzled me was when I shot some factory Rem core lokts in my brand new 30.06 to break in the bbl., There was plenty of pressure sign. I got 2 rounds off and stopped. I called the smith and told him about it and he said he had a brand new reamer that was supposedly the best on the market, and had very tight tolerances. When all was said and done with this rifle, I was getting better velocities with less powder than the manuals listed. In fact, with H4350, a midrange charge, I was pushing slugs 20-50 fps faster than published max. I don't understand all the ballistics but the barrels are the same length, 22". I'm still shooting about 53.5 grains of IMR4350 with a 150 bullet from a 270. Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns | |||
|
| One of Us |
Hot Core, the Un-calibrated home strain gauge is a good place to start. The Nosler Ballistics Lab uses strain gauges and what they do is purchase "Reference ammo" from SAAMI. This is generally a large and very consistent batch of ammunition that has been tested by most of the SAAMI members. They all report back their measured pressures and the offset used along with barrel brand/length, velocity and every other factor that they can. All of this information provides a baseline that allows a strain gauge to be "Calibrated or adjusted by offset". It is not a perfect system but it gets them close. You can get close by firing and recording at least ten shots from a box of factory ammo, comparing this to your offset, SAAMI pressure limits and by following the instructions with the strain gauge system. Probably an Oehler system. What they then do is work up a load where no single shot in a ten shot string exceeds the SAAMI maximum average pressure. If the readings are consistent and head expansion is within tolerance of the reference ammo they will establish the load as the maximum for that bullet, in that cartridge, with that powder, using that primer and that brand of brass and the stated OACL. Cpt. Jack, thank you for the kind words and for the eloquent posting. You may have laid it on a little thick. I did not shoot the data for the Nosler reloading guide but I did participate in the process and helped review the data. ricciardelli, I must disagree with your opinion that the data in all reloading books is governed by the fear of litigation. The data is governed by SAAMI specs. Period. As a member of SAAMI they are bound by the SAAMI specs. SAAMI is the authority on sporting arms and ammunition in this country and they establish the standards. I respect that you are not bound by SAAMI and that you are free to work to any pressures you wish. Please let it go that the loading Manual makers are lawyerphobic. That is your opinion and is probably shared by many. Please forgive me if I never shoot your loads even in your guns. I have no problems with you and I do not wish to have any. Digital Dan you pointed out some very important details about the 5gr difference in the mentioned loads. Great observation and assessment. One other point about quoting loads, every detail should be mentioned about a load, including but not limited to, brass mfg. primer, powder, amount of powder, seating depth, age of brass, type and relative strength of crimp, what firearm it is used in, temperature at which load was developed, and on with the details. Perhaps everyone should be asking you questions, you have an eye for detail. I allow that everyone has thier method and personal standards for working up loads. That is great and I hope that everyone can keep their sight and all of their digits. As has been mentioned here, powder can bridge, a bullet from a new box may have a different ogive that now seats into the lands, or any other combination of factors can combine to cause a catostrophic failure. If you are already at maximum for your gun, then you will have no safety margin. That is your choice. Personally I care how close I can put shots together on paper, or steel targets, or critters, and how well I can place them on those targets. I do require a minumum power level, enough to do the job. Other than that I really don't care how fast I can make them go. If the difference in drop for a few hundred fps is going to make me miss then I am shooting too far or don't know my trajectory or the yardage. If I need more power I use a bigger gun or a bigger bullet. Thank you for the warm welcomes. Joe | |||
|
one of us |
Joe, A belated welcome on my part! I thank you for your insight on how the manuals are compiled, and I`m sure others were just as interested. Hope ya stay and chat, I`ll just keep my ears open and listen. ------------------------------------ The trouble with the Internet is that it's replacing masturbation as a leisure activity. ~Patrick Murray "Why shouldn`t truth be stranger then fiction? Fiction after all has to make sense." (Samual Clemens) "Saepe errans, numquam dubitans --Frequently in error, never in doubt". | |||
|
one of us |
Joe Cullison, I would like to ask you a few questions seeing as you may be able to answer. As Per-Caliber How did you guys pick the powders that got listed in the Nosler Manuals? Were the listed powders the only ones you all tested? and Assumeing more powders than those listed in the Nosler Manuals got tested. How does one get that data? Thanks and Welcome to the site. Have a Great Day and God Bless | |||
|
| one of us |
I have a couple of problems with all this, and wish to be counselled. If I've read correctly, the experts are saying we will be safe as long as we stay at or under the listed max in some book. Well, I've tried some listed max's and backed off them real quick.(worked up.) If your a couple of grains under and have one of these little accidents with powder, well you could still blow yourself up, and complatency won't save you. Then there is the fact that "Sammy" decides the so called allowable pressure for various reasons. IE .270 allowed more pressure than 30-06. (because there MAY be some old clunkers around. So is someone with a modern 30-06 that goes over a loading manual's max being so irresponsible? Some manuals are definatly conservitive, in some loads, you only have to look at other's. We keep hearing we can't tell by looking at the brass whether we are safe or not. Some expert will then say the brass is the limiting factor. Well experts or no, I believe the dedicated carefull handloader, that works up a load watching primers, noticing any primer pocket loosening over a number of reloads, any tendency for sticky extraction, (and my favourite clincher,) easy case extraction but tight to rechamber, is smarter than someone who blindly depends on any particular manual. No matter who wrote it. John. | |||
|
| one of us |
Hey Joe, There is no way to tell you how happy I am to have another person on-board that actually understands. I've fought the battle over non-calibrated HSGSs for a long l-o-n-g time with folks who really think they are using them properly, but just don't understand. I feel sure you will see it come up again in future threads and I welcome your input. They do get a bit testy about having spent all that money only to find out it really isn't Calibrated though. Also understand what you mean about establishing a Reference with Factory Ammo and I've carried that thought to them as well. Some just don't get it though. Speaking of Case Head Expansion(CHE), I use that along with Pressure Ring Expansion(PRE) to find a SAFE MAX. Then find a good accurate Load. I've found I can teach someone to read PRE of their Reloads in comparison to Factory Ammo (using the same cases) in a few minutes and have them capable of using it on their own in an hour or so. And, it seems to be more consistant in providing Pressure Indications than CHE. I know Bob Hagel and Ken Waters both used PRE in their books and writings. That plus my Elders taught me to use it back in the 1950s, so I have a lot of confidence in it. One additional benefit is in the Low Pressure cartridges like the 30-30, 35Rem, 38Spl, etc. if a person attempts to use CHE, they will exceed SAAMI MAX for the cartridge "before" they will detect any Expansion. However PRE can be used with all of them. Just wondering "why" you all never mentioned using PRE in the Manuals? Or, maybe I just missed it. Absolutely. I prefer something close to a SAFE MAX for my individual firearms, but we seem to be in agreement about all the rest. Again, Welcome Aboard! | |||
|
| one of us |
JAL, I've had similar experience with published data, ie, hotter than I was comfy with. As a result of being older, and hopefully a little more thoughtful, I have concluded that load manuals are a guide, not an absolute recipe. What goes on in my gun is as unique as what occurs in the test gun of the company making the manual, and vice versa. I have two that routinely exceed expected velocity with less powder than published in both the Hodgdon and Hornady manuals, and I have never had the courage to follow most of the Barnes loads to maximum charges they list. Like they say, your mileage may vary. I also have one that is so slow that it gets passed by small foreign automobiles, but is so accurate I cannot consider selling it.  Goi figure. I think the point of most of the discussion in regards to the idea of exceeding max loads is this: You may do so, most of us have at one point, often the justification being convenient favoritism shown to the manual with the highest listed charge. What you don't know when doing this at home is what pressures you are actually dealing with. Regardless of what opinion you hold of Rick Jamison's writings in Shooting Times he does play around with an Oehler PBL a bit, and from my reading of his articles probably does it as properly as anyone can. Some time back he began exploring the validity of conventional pressure signs with the system, and at least with HIS brass, HIS gun, and HIS loads, with HIS primers, was unable to ascertain excessive pressure with CHE or primer antics until he went past the 75kpsi level. He was not using factory ammo as a base line as I recall. It might be an abheration, but when I look at my guns, and remaining fingers  , and cast hope on a future unsullied with medical professionals, well I get sorta timid. The Darwin Award is not something you really want to win.PS: Hot Core, I ain't arguing against your philosophy, I just don't have a mic that has increments of .0001", so I never seriously tried it. Always thought that something worth doing is worth doing right, so don't start chewing on my ass or I'll break a sear over your noggin'.  If yuro'e corseseyd and dsyelixc can you siltl raed oaky? | |||
|
| One of Us |
Using the 150-grain Nosler Partition bullet, this was my favorite "large-game" load in my 20" barrelled Mann/Schoen. carbines for three years in Alaska. When I returned to the lower 48, I increased the powder charge to 55.5 grains and dropped the bullet weight to 130 grains, since I did not expect to encounter anything larger than a mule deer down here..... "Bitte, trinks du nicht das Wasser. Dahin haben die Kuhen gesheissen." | |||
|
| one of us |
Apparently you've confused me with someone else. I'm normally know as Old Amiable Hot Core and that kind of thought would never cross my mind. I got mine for $35 years ago. You can now get a set of standard Round Anvil RCBS brand 0.0001" capable Mics from Weisners.com for I believe $21 if you want to try them. Went looking through a Pawn Shop one day and found some Thin Blade 0.0001" capable Mics. I asked the guy what he thought they had been used for and he didn't have a clue. So, I told him "I knew" and if he wanted to be rid of them I'd give him $25 which he was happy with. These run around $160 the last time I checked, but I don't know how much they are today. If you ever decide you want to try PRE, let me know and I'll send you a "Word File" on how I go about doing it. And try your best not to "break" any Sears, they can be expensive and difficult to get polished just right. | |||
|
| one of us |
Welcome, Joe. Nice to make your acquaintance. My particular area of expertise is quality systems, including the statistics of measurement systems. Just one or two comments to add to the discussion.... All measurement systems lie, at least a little bit. The lies come in the form of systematic (predictable, removable errors) and random errors (unpredictable, hard to remove). The amount of random error in the modern piezo system is fairly high. According to the data I have analyzed, a commercial lab, using the same lot of powder, the same lot of of bullets, the same techician, and the same equipment can reproduce a 10-shot average reading within about 1,000 PSI. For a 30-06 that is very roughly 1/2 grain of powder. Throw in different batches of powder, different technicians, and different equipment, and the ability to produce the same reading will be further degraded. That alone accounts for quite a lot of the book to book variation. The random variation in the strain gage system is at least as small as the variation in the piezoelectric system, probably smaller. PRE and CHE come in a distant fourth, far far behind the old CUP system, in their ability to produce the same output, given the same input. And the strain gage is calibrated. NIST has an excellent measurements handbook online explaining how to do this without direct comparison to a standard in the same units of measure. If their method did not work, we would not know the mass of an electron (awfully hard to compare with a known mass), or the distance to other galaxies (awfully hard to directly compare with a known meter stick). The same principles apply to the strain gage. If you have a standard in the same units of measure, that is very convenient, but by no means necessary. Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good. | |||
|
| one of us |
Joe/denton, Both of you have mentioned the use of 10 shot strings in your evaluations. Get real. The general consensus on this board is 2 or 3 shots at most is plenty enough to get meaningful data. Everybody knows the extra 7 or 8 shots serve no purpose than to wear out your barrel faster. Hearing that the Oehler strain gage system just might have some validity has given me a continued reason to live. I didn't want to dispute Rick Jamison's writings but he seemed all alone singing the praises of Dr. Oehler. Listening to all the 43pbl bashing on this board caused me to think it was just so much snake oil. Expensive snake oil at that. | |||
|
one of us |
Amen. If you have a 30-06, and you want the projectile to go faster than a 30-06 can "safely" push it, why don't you just buy a 300 mag? They still have plenty for sale. | |||
|
| one of us |
Of course, you can get very useful information from just a few shots. 10 shots per data set is commonly used by commercial load development labs. A 10-shot string will have about half the random error of a 3-shot string. If your question is adequately answered by a 3-shot string, by all means, use it. Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good. | |||
|
| one of us |
Denton, I read once, I believe it was Gary Sitton (?), that a seven shot group gave very close results to a ten round group, statisticly speaking. He claimed a three shot round wasn`t enough to get valid data, five was "ball park" and ten wasn`t really needed. He did say the more the better but seven rds was all the average reloader needed. Do you have any comments on this?? BTW, I use ten rds just because it`s a "even" number and I normally don`t know when to quit once I start shooting.. ------------------------------------ The trouble with the Internet is that it's replacing masturbation as a leisure activity. ~Patrick Murray "Why shouldn`t truth be stranger then fiction? Fiction after all has to make sense." (Samual Clemens) "Saepe errans, numquam dubitans --Frequently in error, never in doubt". | |||
|
| One of Us |
Tiny, the powders used in the manual are chosen for being appropriate in burn rate and case fill per cartridge. There must be a minimum case fill and they try to use powders that will get the most velocity without exceeding the SAAMI max. They also look at what everyone else has tested and see if any new powders have come out that might be appropriate. They do test other powders that do not get published, they will neither discuss nor disclose this information. If you have a question about a specific powder, bullet, cartridge combination you can call Mike Harris at Nosler technical services. He may be able to guide you. He is one of the people I go to with questions. JAL, you are correct about a modern 30-06 bieing able to handle more pressure than SAAMI allows and it is for the reason that you stated about some old rifles being around that might be up to the task. I would say that someone that blindly follows the manuals by starting with the starting loads and carefully working up to where they are comfortable or to the book max, is being cautious. This is the correct method or procedure for the less experienced reloader and in no way makes them any less smart. Not everyone wants to be, or needs to be, a race car driver, some are watch makers(precision and repeatability) some just want to get the job done. There is path for everyone Please allow the non-hot rods their path and they should allow you to have yours. Mutual respect Hot Core, you are correct about the Pressure Ring Expansion, that is what I should have mentioned earlier. That is the measurement that Nosler uses and compares it to the Reference ammo. The only time that PRE might break down is on a combination of maximum brass size and minimum chamber where the amount of possible expansion is limited. The manual makers generally do not mention PRE in thier books since the books are for everyone and not just for the advanced experimenter. DigitalDan, once again an excellent point about book max being too much for a particular rifle. I have a 7mm rem mag that has short case life due to loose primer pockets (3 to 4 firings) using the medium load from the Nosler manual. It works and shoots just fine with the starting load. I'm sure glad I didn't start at max and work up from there. My fingers and face are happy about it too. The manuals are a guide. If the forward part is read closely many of them discuss the same things we are covering here. The ten shot strings are mandated by SAAMI when pressure testing. A three shot string is useful. I use them all the time for accuracy testing...then I let the barrel cool and shoot another...then I let the barrel cool and shoot another. Then I can see what the average group size is for three (three shot) groups. Hmmmm that adds up to 9 well almost ten shots. I certainly trust that over one group, so wouldn't that apply back to any other variable being tested. I'm sure our statasticians would agree that it does. ricciardelli and everyone else, please forgive my earlier (2nd in this string) posting, I was sarcastic, and it was inappropriate. Thank you all for the warm welcome and the excellent discussion. I think we are getting some where now. Joe | |||
|
| one of us |
Ol Joe... There is a lot of discussion about how many groups, of how many shots, it takes to establish accuracy. The average of three five-shot groups will establish group size to within plus or minus 25%, which is probably good enough for most people. Individual five-shot groups will vary plus or minus 50%, with no change whatever in the gun, load, or shooter. So, if you have a true 1" machine, expect groups as small as 1/2" and as large as 1.5" as a matter of course. I have not run the math for three-shot groups. How many shots you need depends on how precise an answer you are willing to pay for. I chronographed a load yesterday with an MV of 2951 and a standard deviation of 8.5. With five shots, I had all the info I needed about MV...had an answer plus or minus 10 fps. IIRC, SAAMI assumes a 4% standard deviation for pressure. In that case, if you want to reliably be within 1,000 PSI, you need the 10 shots SAAMI recommends. 2,000 PSI sounds like a lot, but really isn't that much on a 60,000 PSI scale. If that is an adequate answer, then three or four shots is enough for pressure testing. Actual SAAMI specs are a little higher than what we see. The numbers we see include a two standard error safety margin, to account for the fact that we are looking at a 10 shot sample, rather than measuring all the cartridges the rifle might ever fire. Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good. | |||
|
| one of us |
Hey Joe, Well, you probably don't know it, but you sure "Stomped" on some toes with that statement. Actually some individuals around this Board who "claim" that CHE and PRE......uuuuh, don't work. No need to say who, cause you will pick up on it quickly enough "if" we can just keep you around here. And of course, old Amiable Hot Core sure wouldn't want to upset anyone. I would encourage you as strongly as I can to have someone "re-consider" including PRE in the Nosler Manual. As you know, it sure is less expensive than the HSGS devices, and when done properly, is as SAFE as it gets for Reloading. I like to recommend a person use ALL the Pressure Indicators available to them. Some can lead a person wrong, but when they are all used together, it is a relatively SAFE hobby. I look forward to your posts. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Reloading Old vs New Reloading Handbooks
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia