Last 2 reloading questions for awhile-I promise

[Eric M]

I'm not a chemist or a physicist, and I'll take your guys' word on the 4831 and 4831 SC.  I just can't see how a powder with different surface areas can have the exact same burn rate.

As long as the length is longer than the diameter, the surface area isn't really changing that much and burn rate is determined by looking solely at the diameter of the grain.  If it did change any, they could just add a coating or additive to slow it back down.

My original concern was the different minimum starting loads for the 2 different powders. I'm starting to see the manuals don't even agree on some of that data.

You'll find variation from manual to manual.  I load a lot of Barnes bullets, and I've found that their load data varies a LOT from other manuals.  I'd recommend you try to match the manual to the bullet type you are using and go from there.

I'm a pretty conservative reloaded, and I've found that most of my guns have their sweet spot in the middle range of the load data. 

Also, don't be afraid to really fine tune loads.  I did some load development with my .243 last year, and found that a change in 0.3 grains of powder cut the group size in half (1.5 MOA to 0.75).  Don't get frustrated if things don't work out right away either.  I couldn't get the gun to shoot below MOA with 4350 powders to save my life.  Went to Superperformance powder, and am very happy with it.

I was thinking about laddering up a grain at a time. Then I was reading (maybe the Berger manual I can't remember my head is getting full!) somewhere about laddering .1 at a time. Thanks for the information.

[Eric M]

You'll find variation from manual to manual.  I load a lot of Barnes bullets, and I've found that their load data varies a LOT from other manuals. 

The reason for that is that their all copper bullet generates higher pressures than a given lead core bullet of the same weight. The Nosler E-tip and Hornady GMX aren't as bad about it but the alloys they use are essentially the copper jackets to their bonded core counter parts. The Barnes are a copper alloy unto themselves.

Do you prefer the Barnes bullets? I saw a load in the newest Hodgdon annual for the Barnes TSX I was thinking of trying with the H4831.

[Eric M]

Yup, is why always get a few manuals and compare then set your start point.

Good to see you asking questions though, reloading can be dangerous if people do not take the time to research before starting.  Good on you!

Thanks. The help on here has been great.

[JLS]

You'll find variation from manual to manual.  I load a lot of Barnes bullets, and I've found that their load data varies a LOT from other manuals. 

The reason for that is that their all copper bullet generates higher pressures than a given lead core bullet of the same weight. The Nosler E-tip and Hornady GMX aren't as bad about it but the alloys they use are essentially the copper jackets to their bonded core counter parts. The Barnes are a copper alloy unto themselves.

Actually it's just the opposite.  The TSX bullets have cannelures in them that decreases the bearing surface, and hence the pressure.  Typically Barnes loads will be a fair bit higher than other manufacturer's data.

[JLS]

You'll find variation from manual to manual.  I load a lot of Barnes bullets, and I've found that their load data varies a LOT from other manuals. 

The reason for that is that their all copper bullet generates higher pressures than a given lead core bullet of the same weight. The Nosler E-tip and Hornady GMX aren't as bad about it but the alloys they use are essentially the copper jackets to their bonded core counter parts. The Barnes are a copper alloy unto themselves.

Do you prefer the Barnes bullets? I saw a load in the newest Hodgdon annual for the Barnes TSX I was thinking of trying with the H4831.

I've been using the Barnes for 17 years now with no plans to switch any time soon.  Are they better than Nosler or Berger?  I don't know.  I have had very good luck with them both in terms of accuracy and terminal performance.

I usually go down in bullet weight with the Barnes because they don't tend to shed any of their mass upon impact.  I load 85 grain bullets in my .243, 130 or 150 in my wife's 30-06, and 185 grain bullets in my 338-06.

There are different methods for developing loads, but I would never go up in .1 grain increments to start.  That would get really expensive!  You certainly can to fine tune once you are getting near the sweet spot, but I usually stop short of that.  I am not a long range hunter, and anything below 1 MOA is perfectly acceptable.

[Eric M]

Thanks. I finally was able to contact a friend of mine who has been reloading a long time and he said the same thing. His suggestion was to start with the minimum load and check for pressure signs then go up half or even a full grain and check for pressure signs again and so on. As to groupings, I was able to shoot (with an occasional flyer) 4 round groups at 100 yards at 1 inch with 4 different factory loads, 2 were 130 grain and 2 were 150 grain. I'm hoping reloading will tighten these up.

[h20hunter]

Still pretty good for factory. Take your time, enjoy the process, and keep at it.

[Eric M]

Still pretty good for factory. Take your time, enjoy the process, and keep at it.

This was with a bipod as I wanted to know how accurate it would be using one. I was pretty happy but I need to invest in a bench at some point, for this and for shooting sage rats in the spring in Oregon.

[DaveMonti]

Once you get to about 1 inch at 100 yards, it's tough to get much tighter groups.  Reloading is fun, but with a standard field grade rifle you may not get much tighter groups than those even with reloading.  I always shoot over sand bags with the fore end and butt of the stock supported and I try not to put much pressure on the rifle.  I shoot a few heavier barreled varmint grade rifles and can get down to about .5 inch if everything goes right, but without a big heavy target grade rifle, it may be tough to get much tighter than 1 MOA. 
Good luck with the reloading! 

[Eric M]

Once you get to about 1 inch at 100 yards, it's tough to get much tighter groups.  Reloading is fun, but with a standard field grade rifle you may not get much tighter groups than those even with reloading.  I always shoot over sand bags with the fore end and butt of the stock supported and I try not to put much pressure on the rifle.  I shoot a few heavier barreled varmint grade rifles and can get down to about .5 inch if everything goes right, but without a big heavy target grade rifle, it may be tough to get much tighter than 1 MOA. 
Good luck with the reloading!

I hear you but I have to try. My goal is to cut it in half. After I try 30 or so powders, different bullets, and seating depths, and none of it works I'll move on to my 22-250. If I can't cut that down to half an inch I'll set my reloading bench on fire and look for a new hobby. haha

[theleo]

JLS:
Hadn't looked at Barnes in a number of years. My warning seems a bit out dated.

I'm not a big fan of Barnes (mono bullets in general). They do great when you want to reduce recoil but keep penetration and effectiveness high. The down side to them is that they require more velocity than other bullets for reliable expansion and they're expensive. For non magnums I start with Hornady Interlocks. Cheap, effective,  and abundant.

[Bill W]

I think you are getting adequate accuracy for deer hunting.  Any more testing is just wasting components unless that's what your goal is. 

Personally my deer rifle is not accurate by most cyber-shooters standards.  It groups about 1.5MOA or slightly smaller with a full throttle load.   It rarely missed killing what it was shot at and a couple of deer shot past 1/4 mile.   One thing to consider is getting a good blood trail to follow as only about a quarter of the animals fall within sight.  Brush or what ever hides the rest.  That's when complete penetration (and a good blood trail) is valuable.

[JLS]

JLS:
Hadn't looked at Barnes in a number of years. My warning seems a bit out dated.

I'm not a big fan of Barnes (mono bullets in general). They do great when you want to reduce recoil but keep penetration and effectiveness high. The down side to them is that they require more velocity than other bullets for reliable expansion and they're expensive. For non magnums I start with Hornady Interlocks. Cheap, effective,  and abundant.

I can't say for certain, but I think that in the mid 90's you would have been correct.  That was when Barnes was widely known for excessive fouling and being temperamental to find accurate loads with.

They redesigned them with the introduction of the TSX in the late 90's/early 2000's, adding the multiple cannelures and changing the alloy.  The result was lower pressures, less fouling, and improved accuracy.

As for expansion, I've found (similar to Barnes published recommendations) that 1900-2000 fps is where expansion becomes questionable.  I certainly would not recommend them for heavily reduced loads, or extreme long range shooting. 

They are expensive, but I use them for several reasons:

1)  Very accurate
2)  Excellent terminal performance (think .243 bullets penetrating elk shoulders)
3)  Drastic reduction in blood shot meat
4)  No risk of lead ingestion

All that said, Hornady Interlocks are an excellent choice.

[theleo]

 

They are expensive, but I use them for several reasons:

1)  Very accurate
2)  Excellent terminal performance (think .243 bullets penetrating elk shoulders)
3)  Drastic reduction in blood shot meat
4)  No risk of lead ingestion

And in those areas they can't be touched. You hit the nail on the head for the time frame I've ever been around dealing with them. My dad's 338-06 was giving him fits about what it would shoot accurately, either 200gr BT's or 180gr XLC's (the blue coated bullets before the TSX bullets appeared) would shoot in that gun. After shooting a spike with the BT's the decision to go with the Barnes was an easy one. I've just never had a niche they would fill with any of my rifles. The closest thing to a magnum that I have is a 280ai and it's just never been abusive enough on bullets than to go any tougher than Accubonds. I'm still a skeptic on the lead issue though. The studies and x-rays I've seen have been comparing Barnes to softer bullets like BT's. When I see studies comparing mono bullets to bonded at reasonable velocities (no 300 RUM shooting 150gr bullets) then I'll be all ears.