|
05-17-2020, 08:08 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Near Edmonton
Posts: 15,641
|
|
Modern Loading Manuals are Lawyer Light
I found this post on another site, made by the guy that shot the test loads for Nosler and Barnes. I thought it made an interesting read, and explains that modern load manuals are done with much better tools and pressure equipment than the ones from 40 years ago. That better pressure equipment tells them that many of the old loads were seriously over pressure.Given all the recent threads discussing loading over book max velocities or powder loads I thought this might be of interest.
Quote:
Winfwt338-06
Location Washington
Quote:
cohunt said:
but we need to remember that book loads are mild today compared to 30+years ago
|
Cohunt like you I intend no disrespect. Completely agree with 99% of what you said. Amen that people should think twice about exceeding published data. Much of your statement is true, not a lot of lawsuits over load data. However, it is a very real possibility. The above mentioned section of your statement I struggle with. I personally shot 85-90% of Barnes #3 manual myself, and shot data at Nosler for their #4 manual. My pic is in both. I assure you both of those companies shoot their data as close to SAAMI max as is safe, and use reference ammo from SAAMI. I lean toward advancements in pressure measuring equipment leading to "lighter" loads. Have spoken to many early ballisticians and heard how they used to mic cases to extrapolate pressures of a load, as company could afford better equipment either purchased copper crush method for CUP, or Oehler stain gauges for Psi. Ignorance and impatience are to blame. While at Barnes answering pressure issues was the most common call I took, simply because the " experienced loader" on the other end took the same load, COAL that he shot for 30 years with his favorite lead core and blew a primer, stuck his bolt, simply because they didn't read the pages leading up to the data. They knew how to load, done it forever, even though they are trying a completely new component, a monolithic bullet. Simply backing off rifling. 050" from lands would have avoided that call. With the ability to truly customize a throat, free bore, set neck tension, lengthen magazine for longer OAL, you can reduce/ raise operating pressures significantly. I have been the experimenter and it can be scary as hell. Working up data when none is available is serious business. I have had multiple actions rendered useless working up reduced and max function loads for new cartridges while working in ballistics labs, part of the job, but having a firing pin end up 2" from your safety glasses, and sting from powder burns is a real crap your pants moment. I've loaded for 37 years a never had an issue with a load and don't exceed published data. If you can win a lawsuit burning your crotch with coffee because the cup didn't say it was hot, or sue the national weather service for failure to predict a storm and your loved ones perish in a small boat at sea, you may not lose, but the cost to do so can be staggering. I'll get off my soap box, I think and agree that if you shoot a cartridge that has published, pressure tested data, it's wise to stick to it. It may be shot to fit any standard factory chamber or magazine, but is anything but "light".
|
|
05-17-2020, 08:45 AM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,158
|
|
Quickload and a good chronograph is a better tool than any of these reloading manuals imo.
|
05-17-2020, 08:55 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 1,937
|
|
My favorite manual is a NRA one from I think the late 40s. I like the old manuals because they are using the guns that I used to find the most interesting. Although a lot of the powders and bullets you can't get anymore. I've never blown anything up. I think your title about Lawyer Light says a lot.
I've got hot rod magazines from the sixties and early seventies. Articles about getting rid of your back brakes to make the car lighter and faster,etc.
Trucking magazines with pin up girls and articles about staying two steps a head of the fuzz.
I wish I could go back in time so bad you have no idea.
|
05-17-2020, 09:06 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 21,399
|
|
I still work with 30+ year old manuals, nothing has changed .
Grizz
__________________
"Indeed, no human being has yet lived under conditions which, considering the prevailing climates of the past, can be regarded as normal."
John E. Pfeiffer The Emergence of Man
written in 1969
|
05-17-2020, 09:07 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Dreadful Valley
Posts: 14,775
|
|
C’mon Dean, now your just poking all sorts of holes in all the theories, about Lawyers, Russians, and Trump.
Everyone knows that Bob or Joe have been loading since Jesus was a Lance Corporal, and they’ve got it so together........... what ever do you say!
You’ll be branded a hieratic!
Blasphemy!
You’ll burn at the stake I say!
__________________
There are no absolutes
Last edited by Dick284; 05-17-2020 at 09:23 AM.
|
05-17-2020, 09:24 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 16,253
|
|
Like anything else, experience weeds out the nonsense. When I reload, I reference many manuals if needed and always develop loads with a chronograph. I have never blown a primer or stuck a case in a chamber (I have blanked primers, but that is a different matter entirely). I have even developed loads for wildcats that have no data or SAAMI spec quite successfully.
Most manuals are pretty spot on. Especially with custom barrels and chambers. That said, I’m constantly amazed at the amount of people that freak out about deviation from manual loads. For example, if I’m shooting a 270 and the manual says I will get 3050 FPS with x bullet and x powder in x length of barrel with x brass and x primer and I’m seen 2900 with that combination I’m adding powder. It is also very common to see an old proven load increase or decrease in velocity when you buy a new lot of powder. Well guess what? You are not using the same lot of powder as the lab either.
If you develop loads without a chronograph you are reading tea leaves anyway. I can’t imagine doing that and finding success that is quantifiable.
__________________
“I love it when clients bring Berger bullets. It means I get to kill the bear.”
-Billy Molls
|
05-17-2020, 09:35 AM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,158
|
|
I found this test interesting wrt Hodgdon extreme powder consistency claims.
Quote:
Abstract
Small arms propellant manufacturer Hodgdon claims that rifle powders in its Extreme line have small velocity variations with both temperature changes and lot number. This paper reports on the variations in average velocity for six different lots of Hodgdon Extreme H4831 tested in .25-06 and .300 Winchester Magnum loads. Compared to the lot with the slowest average velocity, the other five lots of powder had higher average velocities ranging from 11.9 ft/s faster up to 111.9 ft/s faster in the .25-06 and from 13.6 ft/s faster to 111.1 ft/s in the .300 Win Mag. The mean velocity differences between lots are highly correlated between the two cartridges with a correlation coefficient of 0.96. This high correlation supports the idea that the experimental results reported here depend much more strongly on differences in the lots of powder rather than other details of the experiment such as the choice of primers, brass, bullets, and specifications of the rifle bore. The lot to lot variations in velocity seem higher than one might expect from Hodgdon’s marketing claims.
|
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a572333.pdf
|
05-22-2020, 08:59 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Edmonton & Hinton
Posts: 542
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deer Hunter
|
I find some of the published Hodgdon load data way too hot for my own comfort. I've seen some their starting loads begin where my other manuals' upper end loads end. Maybe I'm just a scaredy-cat but I try not to use their load info.
Last edited by tranq78; 05-22-2020 at 09:04 AM.
|
05-17-2020, 09:40 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 46,105
|
|
It doesn't matter to me if I am using a 50 year old manual or the latest data, I work up loads the same way. I start with a reduced powder charge and work up the load while watching for pressure signs. If I see promise in a load, I work the load up to a velocity that I am happy with, and see how it performs. I don't care if the powder charge is three grains under the book max, or three grains over the book max, they didn't use my rifle, or my lots of components. And I don't always see a given velocity for given components, and a given barrel lengths, sometimes I see pressure signs before reaching that velocity, and sometimes, I end up 50-100 fps more than that velocity. Different barrel finishes, and different chamber/throat dimensions result in slightly different velocity vs pressure numbers.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
|
05-17-2020, 05:34 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,747
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11
It doesn't matter to me if I am using a 50 year old manual or the latest data, I work up loads the same way. I start with a reduced powder charge and work up the load while watching for pressure signs. If I see promise in a load, I work the load up to a velocity that I am happy with, and see how it performs. I don't care if the powder charge is three grains under the book max, or three grains over the book max, they didn't use my rifle, or my lots of components. And I don't always see a given velocity for given components, and a given barrel lengths, sometimes I see pressure signs before reaching that velocity, and sometimes, I end up 50-100 fps more than that velocity. Different barrel finishes, and different chamber/throat dimensions result in slightly different velocity vs pressure numbers.
|
Agreed.
Start with a dash of sensible caution, stir in a heaping cup of common sense...
Colin
__________________
Check out my new book on Kindle - After The Flesh.
|
05-17-2020, 05:37 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,991
|
|
More manuals gives you a much better picture of what may, or may not be possible with a given combo. And getting a bad can or a fast can of powder will teach you to start low in a hurry. They happen, the odd lot gets out with a fault of some kind, it gets discovered and word gets around a lot quicker than it used to before the internet. And some of the testing in the old manuals was a bit suspect in its methodology, there are some published loads that were done with case head expansion measurements. Had guns that get pretty close to book values, some a bit better, some were low. Between the guns and the components used, the manuals are only a guide, an educated one, that is usually pretty good, but, not perfect.
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:11 PM.
|