Modern Loading Manuals are Lawyer Light

[Dean2]

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.

Winfwt338-06

Location Washington

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".

[Deer Hunter]

Quickload and a good chronograph is a better tool than any of these reloading manuals imo.

[W921]

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.

[Grizzly Adams]

I still work with 30+ year old manuals, nothing has changed .


Grizz

[Dick284]

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!

[Pathfinder76]

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.

[Deer Hunter]

I found this test interesting wrt Hodgdon extreme powder consistency claims.

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

[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.

[colroggal]

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

[32-40win]

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.

[no-regard]

Great timing for this thread. I've recently started loading Bergers for the first time, .30-06 and .243. Comparing their data with a couple other books I have I quickly noticed they are about 4-5 grains lower than the others.

I did some Googling earlier today about the topic and this seems to be well known. One poster even claimed to start his load development at Bergers recommended max. Maybe he was exaggerating a point.

[Dean2]

Originally Posted by no-regard

Great timing for this thread. I've recently started loading Bergers for the first time, .30-06 and .243. Comparing their data with a couple other books I have I quickly noticed they are about 4-5 grains lower than the others.

I did some Googling earlier today about the topic and this seems to be well known. One poster even claimed to start his load development at Bergers recommended max. Maybe he was exaggerating a point.

There is a very good reason Berger loads are lighter. Their VLD design and jacket material causes a much bigger contact patch and more friction than other bullets of the same weight. Put a 180 Berger beside a 180 horn spire point and you will easily see what I mean. You will get max velocity with less powder almost every time. They also tend to work better with slower powders.

[no-regard]

Originally Posted by Dean2

There is a very good reason Berger loads are lighter. Their VLD design and jacket material causes a much bigger contact patch and more friction than other bullets of the same weight. Put a 180 Berger beside a 180 horn spire point and you will easily see what I mean. You will get max velocity with less powder almost every time. They also tend to work better with slower powders.

Makes sense, thanks for the info.

[Dean2]

Was reading some other stuff and it occurred to me just how often I have seen wildly over pressure loads posted when someone asks for a pet load. These loads are often truly dangerous yet if you brace the poster they are very defensive and often down right rude. Best advice I can give any new reloader, never rely on loads you find on the Internet Forums. Hell, even some old time published stuff, like the loads A.O. Ackley put out in his books aren't trust worthy. He blew up a lot of guns in his career and he developed all his published loads with no pressure tools of any kind They were over pressure with components of his day, when 4831 was just that and their was no IMR or H designation, same for 4350.

The single greatest tool for a hand loader is the chronograph, as a few others have said. By the time you get ejector marks,. flattened or blown primers, head expansion etc you are already WAY over proper pressures for that round. The fastest and most accurate measure of pressure is still velocity. I know with most rifles I have worked up loads for I got to max velocity before I ever got to the max published charge weight for that bullet and powder. I have on accession pushed it by 100-150 fps if under max but I would never try for 250 fps over manual published results. We are lucky that today we have very good components and well tested load manuals to work with. Far better than what I started out with in the late 60s. That and reloading gear is actually much cheaper today than it was back then, I have a 1968 set of RCBS 308 dies that are marked $32, which would be about $240 in 2020 dollars.

[Dick284]

Originally Posted by Dean2

Was reading some other stuff and it occurred to me just how often I have seen wildly over pressure loads posted when someone asks for a pet load. These loads are often truly dangerous yet if you brace the poster they are very defensive and often down right rude. Best advice I can give any new reloader, never rely on loads you find on the Internet Forums. Hell, even some old time published stuff, like the loads A.O. Ackley put out in his books aren't trust worthy. He blew up a lot of guns in his career and he developed all his published loads with no pressure tools of any kind They were over pressure with components of his day, when 4831 was just that and their was no IMR or H designation, same for 4350.

The single greatest tool for a hand loader is the chronograph, as a few others have said. By the time you get ejector marks,. flattened or blown primers, head expansion etc you are already WAY over proper pressures for that round. The fastest and most accurate measure of pressure is still velocity. I know with most rifles I have worked up loads for I got to max velocity before I ever got to the max published charge weight for that bullet and powder. I have on accession pushed it by 100-150 fps if under max but I would never try for 250 fps over manual published results. We are lucky that today we have very good components and well tested load manuals to work with. Far better than what I started out with in the late 60s. That and reloading gear is actually much cheaper today than it was back then, I have a 1968 set of RCBS 308 dies that are marked $32, which would be about $240 in 2020 dollars.

Perfectly stated.

I get PM’s all the time for load specifics, which I seldom ever post, for good reason. I’m sure a person can use some manuals or google up a start load and do their own load development..............

[Pathfinder76]

I do not know if it can be overstated enough that you should have a chronograph if you handload. It’s nothing but a guess otherwise.

[Deer Hunter]

Chuck, Does the strap on change your poi?

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

Chuck, Does the strap on change your poi?

It didn’t at 900 yards today. At least not enough to matter.

[Ariu]

A chronograph will not tell you if a load is overpressured or not. Chamber pressure is function of primer, cartridge capacity, bullet setting depth. Bullet velocity (wich is measured by chronny) is function of Al of above plus barrel length and other barell/bullets properties. Burning efficiency and powder burning characteristics will also ply a great role. The quality and the setup of chronograph is another factor.

[Dean2]

Originally Posted by Ariu

A chronograph will not tell you if a load is overpressured or not. Chamber pressure is function of primer, cartridge capacity, bullet setting depth. Bullet velocity (wich is measured by chronny) is function of Al of above plus barrel length and other barell/bullets properties. Burning efficiency and powder burning characteristics will also ply a great role. The quality and the setup of chronograph is another factor.

You are wrong about that actually. All of the things you mention do affect velocity but the primary determinant is "Pressure", when you hold brass, projectile, primer, powder, COAL and barrel length static. If you are getting 300 FPS more speed out of a load than the book max, using the same components and other parameters mentioned then you are generating higher pressures.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Dean2

You are wrong about that actually. All of the things you mention do affect velocity but the primary determinant is "Pressure", when you hold brass, projectile, primer, powder, COAL and barrel length static. If you are getting 300 FPS more speed out of a load than the book max, using the same components and other parameters mentioned then you are generating higher pressures.

300fps yes, but 50-75fps possibly not, as barrel finish, bullet coatings, and free bore can vary the velocity by that much, with similar pressures.

[Ariu]

Not true. Consider these scenarios:
Let say Sierra guys use an 22" beat up barrel for their data. I am using the same components but in a hand lapped 24" barrel and I get higher velocities. Does it mean I have higher chamber pressure?
Or lets say I am using the same gun, barrel and other components as those in the book. Still, chamber dimensions and headspace will not be equal. Velocities might be the same but not the chamber pressures.
The list goes on with powders of different lots, different ambient temperatures, different neck tensions, chrony set up not right... Point is, measured velocities might or might not indicate overpressure.

[tranq78]

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

I found this test interesting wrt Hodgdon extreme powder consistency claims.



https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a572333.pdf

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.

[Deer Hunter]

Originally Posted by tranq78

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.

For sure.
If they spent as much time keeping their powder lots consistent as they did on marketing, their load data might be more accurate.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by tranq78

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.

You need to look at more manuals. I find they fall very mid range.