Reloading data...

Rick Courtright said:

Hi,

Another observation about the bullet: what are YOUR 429421s weighing out at? That picture of Jim's book shows a 245 gr weight. I don't use that bullet, but a buddy says his 429421s come in about 10+ grains over that figure, using straight wheelweights IIRC. That could make a difference in the powder charge quite understandable...

Rick C

Click to expand...

Possibly, but I cast my 429421s out of pure linotype, and every one that doesn't weigh 250grs (+ or - .5 grs) goes back in the scrap bullet pile to be melted down and recast. I've found that casting temperatures, both of the mold and the alloy, makes a difference how much the cooled bullets from a particular mold are going to weigh.

You guys get too hung up on Grains of powder...........how about look at what matters, which is the C.U.P. That load is not near the highest on the chart.

I have about 20 manuals, dating from the 50s to current. I have a couple old Hornady manuals that list 13.2 as a max load for that bullet...............so I guess that's REALLY out of the ordinary.

Some guys are the book, the book, the book and don't DARE stray from the BOOK......except in some cases, the BOOK has GOT to be wrong, because that can't be right. Well make up your minds. And unless you HAVE pressure testing equipment in your basement, how could you possibly proclaim something is wrong?.......answer, you cant

gtxmonte said:

You guys get too hung up on Grains of powder...........how about look at what matters, which is the C.U.P. That load is not near the highest on the chart.

I have about 20 manuals, dating from the 50s to current. I have a couple old Hornady manuals that list 13.2 as a max load for that bullet...............so I guess that's REALLY out of the ordinary.

Some guys are the book, the book, the book and don't DARE stray from the BOOK......except in some cases, the BOOK has GOT to be wrong, because that can't be right. Well make up your minds. And unless you HAVE pressure testing equipment in your basement, how could you possibly proclaim something is wrong?.......answer, you cant

Click to expand...

Gotta agree with you gtxmonte - in reality, it's the C.U.P. that matters, not the grains of powder. Besides, it's just conversation on an internet message board. Nothing for anyone to get their panties in a wad about. :lol:

Oh I know that. I have been handloading for 40+ years. I have MANY loads that are not "book" loads and well above published data. Why?......because I have been doing it a LONG time and KNOW what I am doing and so do MANY others. As with any published data, the manuals are "guidelines" and not the law. But when it comes up that somebody is at a max or above max loads........the "newbies" come out in force and tell us how stupid we are, should ALWAYS go by the "book" and are going to blow ourselves or guns up. When frankly, they have no idea what they are talking about. Many "new" manuals are "lawyered up" for lack of a better term and are not near what was published years ago. I know how to read pressure signs and have not blown up or damaged a gun EVER and doubt I will start now. Also not going to alter a "proven" load, because some new book now tells me it's not safe.

Also, different companies test different ways and have different equipment, so I certainly put no stock in their chronograph numbers. One says 1200 and another says 1160........so what. I would bet MY chrono doesn't agree with either of those numbers. So does that mean any of the 3 are wrong? No, it just means that's what those chronos read on those days, using those test pieces. I have rebarreled rifles with the same exact barrel it had and shot the same load it always has and chrono numbers be off by 100. What does that mean........not a thing because it's a different barrel and chamber

Mtneer said:

gtxmonte said:

You guys get too hung up on Grains of powder...........how about look at what matters, which is the C.U.P. That load is not near the highest on the chart.

I have about 20 manuals, dating from the 50s to current. I have a couple old Hornady manuals that list 13.2 as a max load for that bullet...............so I guess that's REALLY out of the ordinary.

Some guys are the book, the book, the book and don't DARE stray from the BOOK......except in some cases, the BOOK has GOT to be wrong, because that can't be right. Well make up your minds. And unless you HAVE pressure testing equipment in your basement, how could you possibly proclaim something is wrong?.......answer, you cant

Click to expand...

Gotta agree with you gtxmonte - in reality, it's the C.U.P. that matters, not the grains of powder. Besides, it's just conversation on an internet message board. Nothing for anyone to get their panties in a wad about. :lol:

Click to expand...

The reason people get caught up with the "grains" is because there is a direct correlation between grains and pressure. And, generally, it is widely assumed that pressure is the reason that manuals list a MAX load for a particular bullet/powder combination. So, when a max load is higher in one manual than is found in the vast majority of other manuals...there is absolutely nothing wrong with strongly considering the validity of that data. Also, it is widely known that with the vastly improved test equipment available today, testing has proven that many published loads of yesteryear produced excessive pressure and that data has been changed to reduce these levels of pressure...to a safer level. SO,just because it is listed in an "OLD" manual, that does not mean that it is safe.

gtxmonte, if you choose to follow data that is largely out of line with what is considered to be the mainstream of reputable reloading guidance...go right ahead. But, caveat emptor...

You contradict yourself.............if its all about C.U.P. why is it that you never mentioned it, only the grains. Go back and look at what you posted. The load you are questioning, is only about the 4 or 5th highest C.U.P. listed. And if the load in question had not been tested with modern equipment, how could they have C.U.P. numbers on it?

And just because it is listed in an old manual and not a new one, does not automatically make it "unsafe" either.

Like I said, been doing this a LONG time.............I also cut the tags of my mattresses. So I guess I am just a non conformist and choose to form my own conclusions instead of taking everyones word for it.

Let me ask you there Jim. If you had been shooting the same load, in the same gun, for 30 years, thousands and thousands of rounds and then a "new" manual comes out and your load is now over max. Are you all of a sudden going to think wow, I am way overpressure, I better lower my load before I blow myself up...........probably not

gtxmonte said:

I have rebarreled rifles with the same exact barrel it had and shot the same load it always has and chrono numbers be off by 100. What does that mean........not a thing because it's a different barrel and chamber

Click to expand...

This statement makes NO sense...how do you rebarrel a rifle with the SAME EXACT barrel? And, then say that it is a different barrel.

Some of us pay no attention to clowns that think they have the market cornered on all of the knowledge about reloading... just because they have been doing it all of their lives. Hell, a lot of us have been doing this most of our lives...you are not the only one.

You do your thing the way you want, I will do mine the way I want.

You take a Shillen barrel off that is shot out and replace it with the same length and same twist Shillen barrel, shoot the same load and the chrono is different. It happens all the time. That means ALL test barrels will not produce the same numbers either. Who is to say that EVERY lab uses the same crimp. Does this not change the pressure? What about the throats, what about the cone, what about the chamber. Does not all this effect pressure? Yet you question how numbers can differ from tester to tester. Been doing this most of your life....how do you not know these things?

You didn't answer my question either.

Clown?............that's a little personal. There may be some clowns here, but it's not me. You follow the leader, you will always be behind. You think innovators like Elmer Keith, PO Ackley and any of the number of wildcatters got their information from a book. It's called "load development". You trust your knowledge and abilities and try and make something better. They didn't have the technology available to them we have today and they seemed to do just fine. You don't trust YOUR ability and totally rely on what some book tells you do, that's fine, but don't assume everybody else feels the same. So take your own advice and let people do what they want. YOU have no position to tell anyone they are wrong. lowegan just pointed out in a thread about the 7x57 that he felt the "published" loads were way too soft and he loaded stuff that was well over book data. Did you also call him a clown?

Let me make it PERFECTLY clear. I am NOT advocating that someone new to reloading stray from published data and strike out on their own...............but I also wouldn't tell somebody else what NOT to do either if I didn't have any FACTS to back it up

gtxmonte said:

Clown?............that's a little personal. There may be some clowns here, but it's not me. You follow the leader, you will always be behind. You think innovators like Elmer Keith, PO Ackley and any of the number of wildcatters got their information from a book. It's called "load development". You trust your knowledge and abilities and try and make something better. They didn't have the technology available to them we have today and they seemed to do just fine. You don't trust YOUR ability and totally rely on what some book tells you do, that's fine, but don't assume everybody else feels the same. So take your own advice and let people do what they want. YOU have no position to tell anyone they are wrong. lowegan just pointed out in a thread about the 7x57 that he felt the "published" loads were way too soft and he loaded stuff that was well over book data. Did you also call him a clown?

Let me make it PERFECTLY clear. I am NOT advocating that someone new to reloading stray from published data and strike out on their own...............but I also wouldn't tell somebody else what NOT to do either if I didn't have any FACTS to back it up

Click to expand...

Hi,

One of the most important things I've learned in a hair over 50 years of reloading:

"Reloading ain't no (whizz)in' contest!"

With thanks to one of my first bosses, who'd spent decades working for a major arms and ammunition company.

Rick C

I will say this much; every loading manual that I have ever used, stressed the doctrine of starting with the starting loads and then slowly work one's way up to the maximum.
I have found cases where a maximum load was too hot for my particular gun, and settled for a lighter powder charge.

There are too many variables to do otherwise. Burn rates vary a little from lot to lot, primers vary from lot to lot, cases vary from lot to lot and guns vary from gun to gun.

The result is that a load that might br too hot in one gun is fine and dandy in another gun of the same make and model.

That is just basic handloader 101 information. 8)

gtxmonte said:

You contradict yourself.............if its all about C.U.P. why is it that you never mentioned it, only the grains. Go back and look at what you posted. The load you are questioning, is only about the 4 or 5th highest C.U.P. listed. And if the load in question had not been tested with modern equipment, how could they have C.U.P. numbers on it?

And just because it is listed in an old manual and not a new one, does not automatically make it "unsafe" either.

Like I said, been doing this a LONG time.............I also cut the tags of my mattresses. So I guess I am just a non conformist and choose to form my own conclusions instead of taking everyones word for it.

Let me ask you there Jim. If you had been shooting the same load, in the same gun, for 30 years, thousands and thousands of rounds and then a "new" manual comes out and your load is now over max. Are you all of a sudden going to think wow, I am way overpressure, I better lower my load before I blow myself up...........probably not

Click to expand...

I did not contradict myself...IF I question the grains listed...I question the CUP listed, also.

And, like I said...EVERYONE...but you, know, that grains = CUP...up or down...that is the reason that people talk about grains and that is the reason manuals list the grains...it is the only way that we have to guard against over pressure...we don't have testing equipment to use on our loads...WE HAVE TO GO BY GRAINS.

And, I will just go ahead say this...I have NEVER owned a 44 caliber gun, that could handle 13grs of Unique...it would have been over pressure for the gun...based on normal indicators...in every one of them.

TitanX said:

If all that is true (and I'm not doubting it), how do manufacturers come up with ammo that is nearly universal for a given caliber?

I've never seen Winchester white box (one example) or Speer Gold Dot (another) not work as intended.

I can see the issue more clearly, when it comes down to extreme match precision.

Click to expand...

Manufacturers buy components in large enough quantities that they can test powders for burn rates and primers for performance before loading a lot of cartridges. The same thing goes for the brass, so they can load ammunition that will be pretty consistent pressure wise in their test equipment.

Then they load it to a pressure level that will be safe in any firearm that meets manufacturers specifications, ie it will be safe in a "worst case scenario" situation.

Occasionally they still have a problem and have to issue a recall of certain lots of ammo just to be on the safe side.

This is why a handloader, using a chronograph, can sometimes marginally improve on factory ballistics. Think "Ruger only loads." 8)

Whatever you think Jim, question and think whatever you want, but don't presume to tell me what I KNOW or don't. I am sure YOU are right and Lyman and others are wrong............I am leaving this discussion with this thought. Being able to follow directions and put some powder and bullets in a case, so they safely go bang, makes you about as much of a "TRUE handloader" as following the directions and assembling your Ikea furniture, makes you a furniture maker.

Loading shells is easy with instruction and attention to detail. I started when I was 10, with my fathers(who was a gunsmith) tutelage. I was rolling my own from HIS notes with no supervision a couple months later. Years later I learned "load development". I have wildcatted my own creations. I can true my own actions, chamber my own barrels, etc. Without elaborate test equipment, chamber pressures can be calculated by math, based on burn rates and other factors. How do you think ANYTHING was developed back in the 1800s when this stuff started. It sure wasn't "lets just try this and see what happens". Some people KNOW how to do things and figure stuff out. I think they call them Engineers. Things have to be figured out first, or what is there to test? Then testing confirms your calculations and designs. "How to" books aren't handed down from the heavens

Jim Luke said: "Well, this "out of the ordinary" data must not be due to reformulation...as I searched through every loading manual that I have from all companies, dating back to the mid 70's, to try to find ANY max load for Unique in 44mag that duplicated this Lyman data. I did not find any max loads, from any other manual, that had a 13gr max load...they were 1gr to 1.4grs under this 13gr max...EXCEPT...in ONE other manual... the Lyman Reloader Handbook 46th Edition from 1982...it had the exact same data. And, it appears that Lyman is not even consistent with the data published in their own manuals.

So, despite opinions to the contrary, this data is indeed, out of the ordinary, by any standard of measure."

One problem I have with this conversation it the data is from the Lyman manual. (#49) I sometimes wonder if Lyman has retested any of it data recently. I ran into a problem with some 30-06 data, mid level load from the latest Lyman manual. I'd double checked it as it was a pet load years ago. I originally worked up the using data from the Lyman #44 manual circa 1964. Powder was 4895. Brass was from the same batch of GI LC52 milsurp as originally used and fired in the exact same rifle, a J.C. Higgins M50. Load was no problem and caused the demise of quite a few deer.
I started comparing loads for other cartridges at random between the two manuals and found most have never been updated.
I still use the Lyman manuals for cast bullet shooting but serious load work is now done using other manuals.
When #46 was prints, 4895 was made by DuPont using cotton linters for the nitrocellulose. These days 4895 is made by IMR using sawdust to make the nitrocellulose. Does make me wonder if that had an effect on burning rate? It also make the statement to start low and work up good advice.
Paul B.

Paul B said:

One problem I have with this conversation it the data is from the Lyman manual. (#49) I sometimes wonder if Lyman has retested any of it data recently.

Click to expand...

If the data is still in CUP instead of PSI it probably has not been re-tested since it was gathered way back when.

Jimbo357mag said:

If the data is still in CUP instead of PSI it probably has not been re-tested since it was gathered way back when.

Click to expand...

Hi,

Hodgdon's still has a lot of data listed with CUP pressures instead of PSI. Since the technology to read pressures in PSI is probably a half century old by now,
I double check any of their loads against other sources just as I check one book against another. I've had reason to question Hodgdon's in the past, so I figure to err on the side of caution won't hurt me. Much?

Rick C

I have found some mistakes in manuals, that doesn't mean I completely ignore that manual but I do varify by either doing comparison or trial and error.

I only know of one manual that has been dismissed as total rubbish and that was Speer #8, I believe.

With reasonable loads, through an eight inch Anaconda, there is a certain limit to the recoil that I find or feel comfortable shooting for practice. With Unique, my personal comfortable maximun for that bullet is 12.0 grains which is very accurate with a 250 WNFP LBT. With sharper recoil comes the requirement to grip the gun more consistently to produce a good group off the bench, or to not flinch at the shot in the field. Heavier guns are easier to shoot offhand without a rest when it is blowing and snowing.

I use Unique in ten degree weather because I know it will burn. Bullet drop is much greater at low teperatures so you have to know your trajectory and how far to the target, so I use a range finder when I take my stand. I would also trust 2400 which is consistently accurate over a wide range for the magnum and the special.

I will likely try ten grains of Unique for my four inch Anaconda which all my reading says is a fine load. It might be all I would ever need for either barrel length.

"I only know of one manual that has been dismissed as total rubbish and that was Speer #8, I believe."
Yes there is bad data in that one. When Speer worked up their loads using the copper crusher system, they were given the wrong set of garage tables for one lot of copper slugs. Wouldn't be so bad but we don't know which loads ended up being wrong data. Guess I was lucky when I used data from that one. FWIW, I have all but two of the Speer manuals. Number one and three or four IIRC. Just too tired and lazy to get up and look.
Paul B.

The #8 Speer manual is indeed a "hot" manual.
It even has data for J frame handguns that they themselves warn that using those loads on a regular basis will ultimately damage or destroy the gun.

However, Speer #8 also tells us to start with the lowest charges and then s l o w l y work up from there, being mindful of any pressure signs.

Now gentlemen, those of us who can't observe those basic facts of handloading, really ought to be in some other hobby. 8)