Post by: DaveMonti on January 23, 2016, 06:04:09 PM
I'm wondering if the publishers of reloading manuals have gotten more conservative over the past few decades.
I worked up my hunting load for my 7MM about 20 years ago. I was using a Sierra manual, probably from around 1990. I no longer have that manual, but have a newer one from Speer. The load I had developed years ago has a higher powder charge than the maximum load in the Sierra manual. I know my original load was not above the maximum load in the old Sierra manual.
Have the maximum loads been reduced by the publishers due to liability concerns?
I'm not going to change my load as I've used it for years and have not had any problems, and I'm shooting a Remington 700, which is a pretty strong action. However, I will probably be working up new loads for some other calibers and am wondering if I should get an older manual and use that to determine the max loads.
Thanks!
Post by: Smokeploe on January 23, 2016, 06:13:23 PM
So it is better to have a new book and an older one to check your loads.
Especially if you may still have an older batch of good powder.
Smokeploe
Post by: 300rum on January 23, 2016, 06:22:28 PM
Just remember that published data is just a guide, I use many loads that are well outside any published load data. In fact, I haven't even opened up a book in a few years, what you need you will find for free on the internet with other's data or something like hodgdon.com.
Post by: DaveMonti on January 23, 2016, 07:02:26 PM
I don't shoot enough with this particular rifle to merit 8 lb kegs. However, I do realize there are probably differences between powder lots, and possibly powder formulations over the course of a few decades.
Thanks!
Post by: Biggerhammer on January 23, 2016, 07:07:29 PM
Post by: 300rum on January 23, 2016, 07:20:28 PM
Post by: DaveMonti on January 23, 2016, 07:24:31 PM
Post by: mountainman on January 23, 2016, 07:35:29 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 23, 2016, 07:35:34 PM
http://www.hodgdonreloading.com/data/rifle
Post by: 300rum on January 23, 2016, 07:43:48 PM
Post by: 300rum on January 23, 2016, 07:59:15 PM
For instance, last weekend I worked up a .308 load from 42gr of Varget to 43gr in .3 increments with 175gr tipped SMK's. The groups closed smaller and smaller to 42.6gr (which where all touching). At 43gr they opened up. So, 4/10ths makes a big difference, that's about 16 kernels or so of powder, lot numbers can make a difference.
IMR-4350. I'm not so worried about small variability from lot to lot, but I guess the variability might be larger than I suspect.
Post by: DaveMonti on January 23, 2016, 08:34:33 PM
Thanks for all your feedback.
Post by: JDHasty on January 23, 2016, 09:56:54 PM
I spoke with a ballistics guy I know at Hodgdon and the ability to collect reliable pressure data is much better today.
There is also liability issues and that means there is a lot of: there is a better safe than sorry thing going on.
I have an extensive vintage book collection and if you read C.S. Landis - - - having a gun blow up in your face was, if not acceptable at one point in time, it was part of being a "gun crank."
The pendulum seems to never stop in the middle and today I think that ultra-conservatism is what governs. That being said, we had my best friend's Father's Complete Guide to Hand Loading and P. O. Ackley's loading manuals available to us back in the 1970's and in Phil Sharpe's and Ackley's day when it said "work up" they meant work up from the bottom and stop when you reached the max load for your gun and then back it off. There may have been a gun that the "max load" was suitable for, but I never owned a rifle that it was appropriate for.
Today it impresses me that the "max load" is appropriate for all guns and I (in my infinite wisdom ) will take that as a challenge to go out looking for a source that will allow me the luxury of going beyond that while enjoying the privilege of pointing a finger at someone else if things go south. Full disclosure, I want every foot per second I feel entitled to when I purchase a rifle and if I am not getting it I feel swindled.
I know this is a pathology and it is nothing to be proud of, but if I bite... I want what was expected and so long as I can find a reputable source to go beyond... you do the math. This has only raised it's ugly head with the 204 Ruger cartridge and I never have got the advertised velocities and that is why it resides in my safe even though what I get is a great cartridge by any measure, I feel gypped - but that may be another sign of the times. With my old tried and true 17 Rem, 22-250, 243 and especially with my Hornet I am getting what I paid for and then some.
That being said, I stick with my tried and true 300 Wby load that has subsequently been increased since the day in 1992 that it was max. It works every time it has been tried.
Post by: mountainman on January 23, 2016, 10:07:34 PM
Post by: JDHasty on January 23, 2016, 10:19:17 PM
Too many additional variable other the powder lots, such as brand of brass, twist, throught and leade, etc...agree JD. Start loe, work up watching for pressure signs and accuracy drops and gains. Seen too many blown barrels, missing fingers, and scarred faces to comment otherwise..
Good advice! I know people who work in the field and they have infinitely more respect for what they have first hand experience with, much more than we will ever know, than any guy that shoots a thousand rounds a year, more or less, than we will ever know.
Post by: jasnt on January 23, 2016, 11:04:33 PM
Post by: Biggerhammer on January 23, 2016, 11:07:04 PM
I use the book as a starting point and let my rifle tell me when enough is enough. Work up means just that. I've had several rifles that liked a good deal over max listed load. I don't use the book listed coal either. My rifles tell me where to seat them.
There it is! Another "Been there , done that". No counter monkey on the planet can replace that.