Post by: Eric M on October 15, 2016, 11:49:47 AM
So my second question (finally) is about my dies. I am using new brass for my first loads, but I wanted to practice using my sizing die. According to the flyer that comes with the RCBS dies, I have the steel version not carbide. When I put my old brass in the press it expends the primer no problem but seems to catch when withdrawing the case. It did this 4 times in a row so I stopped because I was worried about damaging the die somehow. Is this normal or did I set the die incorrectly?
Thanks. I appreciate all the responses and pm's from this thread.
Post by: bobcat on October 15, 2016, 11:59:11 AM
Post by: Eric M on October 15, 2016, 12:02:56 PM
Sounds like it's accurate enough. Those bullets aren't necessarily going to be exactly 130.0 grains anyway. And even if the scale was off by 1 to 3 tenths of a grain, that's not enough to prevent you from loading safe and reliable ammo.Thanks. That's kind of what I thought but I wanted to hear it from someone else before continuing. Plan to start with minimum loads anyway but I'm trying to keep accurate records.
Post by: bobcat on October 15, 2016, 12:10:35 PM
Post by: h20hunter on October 15, 2016, 12:16:36 PM
Post by: Smokeploe on October 15, 2016, 12:28:36 PM
I use a nickel, they weight 77.1618 grains. So set your scale to 77.1 and it should be very close 77.1-77.2 grains.
Smokeploe
Post by: Eric M on October 15, 2016, 04:44:31 PM
Post by: Bofire on October 15, 2016, 05:52:33 PM
Carl
Post by: Eric M on October 15, 2016, 11:52:51 PM
Eric MThe scale is telling me the nickel weighs 76.3 grains.
I use a nickel, they weight 77.1618 grains. So set your scale to 77.1 and it should be very close 77.1-77.2 grains.
Smokeploe
Post by: JLS on October 16, 2016, 06:57:53 AM
Post by: nwwanderer on October 16, 2016, 07:17:05 AM
Post by: Eric M on October 16, 2016, 09:54:31 AM
I wouldn't sweat it. You should be starting at or near minimum loads and workin cup anyway. I've even reloading for over 20 years and I have never checked my beam scale. If your scale is indeed off, you are looking at less than 0.1% error.Gotcha thanks. I guess as long as it's the same each time, it's the correct weight for me. And I am starting with minimum loads.
Post by: Bofire on October 16, 2016, 10:18:17 AM
Carl
Post by: Bill W on October 16, 2016, 10:27:32 AM
also H4831 does not flow very well due to the shape, if you ever load a spherical powder they flow much better.
Carl
What Carl said is true. Also your powder measure is "bridging" on you and not dumping a full load as some powder is getting stuck in the drop tube. One thing to watch for is when it dumps a full load AND also what is stuck in the drop tube. When I used a measure with 4831 I would set it a bit light and then use a trickler to bring it up to the proper weight. All charges would be measured on the scale. Also, rap the measure a couple of times each throw to sort of break up the bridging if it is occurring
Ball powder and short cut stick measure so much better. Ball usually throws the same every throw. Short cut stick minimizes bridging.
Post by: JLS on October 16, 2016, 10:28:21 AM
Like Carl said, part of what you are experiencing is simply due to the powder.
Post by: Eric M on October 16, 2016, 10:35:12 AM
also H4831 does not flow very well due to the shape, if you ever load a spherical powder they flow much better.That's what I figured after 3 hours and then a couple more hours of research. The only other powders I have right now is IMR 7828 which looks very similiar or the H4895 which is finer but the same shape. I really didn't want to start with the 4895 either since it's more for my 22-250 (although the Hodgdon site does have a load for it). So is that the shape of all Hodgdon powders or is it just what I'm seeing now. I'm loading for my 270 first so I was going to eventually pick up some H4350 and a few others. I guess I can do each round manually with this powder for now. I'm trying to take this slow anyway. Thanks for the response.
Carl
Post by: Eric M on October 16, 2016, 10:37:46 AM
When I use my powder dispenser I always give the handle a little "tap-tap" on each stroke. I set it lower than the desired charge weight and trickle the remaining amount in.I was trying to do it as you suggest. The handle was actually getting hung up partway through, like it was getting stuck in the powder. As inconsistent as it is right now I have it set to give me charges like you suggest. It's just not working with any consistency. Thanks
Like Carl said, part of what you are experiencing is simply due to the powder.
Post by: Eric M on October 16, 2016, 10:38:40 AM
also H4831 does not flow very well due to the shape, if you ever load a spherical powder they flow much better.
Carl
That's what I figured after 3 hours and then a couple more hours of research. The only other powders I have right now is IMR 7828 which looks very similiar or the H4895 which is finer but the same shape. I really didn't want to start with the 4895 either since it's more for my 22-250 (although the Hodgdon site does have a load for it). So is that the shape of all Hodgdon powders or is it just what I'm seeing now? I'm loading for my 270 first so I was going to eventually pick up some H4350 and a few others. I guess I can do each round manually with this powder for now. I'm trying to take this slow anyway. Thanks for the response.
Post by: Eric M on October 16, 2016, 10:46:07 AM
Thank you for the tips. And yes I did see what you are talking about with it dumping heavier loads. I think I will turn it down another turn or so and do as you suggest. Planned on taking it really slowly anyway. Thanks againalso H4831 does not flow very well due to the shape, if you ever load a spherical powder they flow much better.
Carl
What Carl said is true. Also your powder measure is "bridging" on you and not dumping a full load as some powder is getting stuck in the drop tube. One thing to watch for is when it dumps a full load AND also what is stuck in the drop tube. When I used a measure with 4831 I would set it a bit light and then use a trickler to bring it up to the proper weight. All charges would be measured on the scale. Also, rap the measure a couple of times each throw to sort of break up the bridging if it is occurring
Ball powder and short cut stick measure so much better. Ball usually throws the same every throw. Short cut stick minimizes bridging.
Post by: Eric M on October 17, 2016, 01:22:37 AM
So my second question (finally) is about my dies. I am using new brass for my first loads, but I wanted to practice using my sizing die. According to the flyer that comes with the RCBS dies, I have the steel version not carbide. When I put my old brass in the press it expends the primer no problem but seems to catch when withdrawing the case. It did this 4 times in a row so I stopped because I was worried about damaging the die somehow. Is this normal or did I set the die incorrectly?
Thanks. I appreciate all the responses and pm's from this thread.
Post by: jaymark6655 on October 17, 2016, 05:20:00 AM
So my second question (finally) is about my dies. I am using new brass for my first loads, but I wanted to practice using my sizing die. According to the flyer that comes with the RCBS dies, I have the steel version not carbide. When I put my old brass in the press it expends the primer no problem but seems to catch when withdrawing the case. It did this 4 times in a row so I stopped because I was worried about damaging the die somehow. Is this normal or did I set the die incorrectly?
Are you putting any case lube on, they could be sticking a little or it could just be the mandrel inside the case being pulled back through the mouth of the case to size it.
Post by: JLS on October 17, 2016, 05:26:33 AM
The catch you are feeling is the expander ball going through the neck. Put a little case lube on the nylon brush and run that in the case neck prior to sizing. It doesn't take much lube.
Post by: Jason on October 17, 2016, 05:53:16 AM
Don't mix up h4831/h4831sc with IMR4831 as these are two different powders with completely different burn rates.
Make sure you use case lube on all brass when using steel dies, and yes most all rifle dies are steel.
Post by: hogslayer on October 17, 2016, 06:17:59 AM
Post by: copasj on October 17, 2016, 08:11:05 AM
If you want to throw charges instead of measure them on a scale, I would recommend you get a ball powder instead of extruded.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
Post by: Bill W on October 17, 2016, 08:15:04 AM
Post by: Eric M on October 17, 2016, 11:03:41 AM
Post by: Eric M on October 17, 2016, 11:08:39 AM
I have H-4895 and H-4831sc at home. If I remember correctly they are about the same size and shape. H-4831sc and H-4831 are supposed to be the same burn rate and interchangeable per the manufacturer.I probably will go to ball powder at some point when I figure out what powders are ball. A friend recommended 4831 was a good powder for accuracy so I thought I'd try it. Thanks!
If you want to throw charges instead of measure them on a scale, I would recommend you get a ball powder instead of extruded.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
Post by: Curly on October 17, 2016, 11:47:32 AM
Post by: theleo on October 17, 2016, 11:48:49 AM
Thanks for all the responses. Someday I'll do a youtube video of all these things I'm going through now. I tried to lube the case necks but I was worried about sticking too much in the casing so it makes sense that's what it was. Good information on the powders. It still seems odd to me though the burn rate is the same but starting loads would be different. I have more to read though.Run them through a case tumbler after you've resized them or just use some Hornady One shot lube sprayed up into the die every so often. My brass gets put into a bread bag, get's a few shot of case lube, shaken up, and then ran through the sizing die. The only cartridge that causes issues for me is 280ai.
The burn rates are the same but that's a relative idea. Small variations in powders from lot to lot changes companies data because it changes pressures in there equipment. It's the reason target shooters buy every thing in large quantities. The benefits of the SC powders is they meter and condense in the case better. A condensed load with H4831 will normally leave you with extra room if you do the same load with H4831SC.
Ball powders are usually described as "Spherical" powders by the manufacturers. Hodgdon actually separates them out for easy reference. They can pose other issues to obtaining accuracy but they're generally not insurmountable. What youre rifle likes is first and foremost. For hunting loads, having to use your powder trickler for a few rounds a year isn't that big of a deal.
Post by: Eric M on October 17, 2016, 12:40:23 PM
H4831 is considered the go-to powder to the 270 Win. I wouldn't switch to ball powder just because of metering thru your powder thrower. The short cut version will meter better. You should try that. :twocents:I hear you. I have several other calibers I plan to reload for eventually. I'd really like to get the load dialed in for my 270 first. Not in a super hurry to use the powder thrower for that. I would like to see it working properly is all. But I'm working at a pretty slow pace. I'd like to see a couple of different loads from the 4831 before I use anything else. Thanks.
Post by: Eric M on October 17, 2016, 12:50:11 PM
I appreciate your detailed response. I don't have a tumbler yet. I'll try the one shot. Thanks for taking the time to explain. Sometimes I'm reading and I'm looking for the rest of the explanation haha.I just bought a trickler and made my first 10 last night, using new brass. Thanks for al the help.Thanks for all the responses. Someday I'll do a youtube video of all these things I'm going through now. I tried to lube the case necks but I was worried about sticking too much in the casing so it makes sense that's what it was. Good information on the powders. It still seems odd to me though the burn rate is the same but starting loads would be different. I have more to read though.Run them through a case tumbler after you've resized them or just use some Hornady One shot lube sprayed up into the die every so often. My brass gets put into a bread bag, get's a few shot of case lube, shaken up, and then ran through the sizing die. The only cartridge that causes issues for me is 280ai.
The burn rates are the same but that's a relative idea. Small variations in powders from lot to lot changes companies data because it changes pressures in there equipment. It's the reason target shooters buy every thing in large quantities. The benefits of the SC powders is they meter and condense in the case better. A condensed load with H4831 will normally leave you with extra room if you do the same load with H4831SC.
Ball powders are usually described as "Spherical" powders by the manufacturers. Hodgdon actually separates them out for easy reference. They can pose other issues to obtaining accuracy but they're generally not insurmountable. What youre rifle likes is first and foremost. For hunting loads, having to use your powder trickler for a few rounds a year isn't that big of a deal.
Post by: iusmc2002 on October 17, 2016, 01:04:24 PM
Post by: DaveMonti on October 17, 2016, 01:10:36 PM
My press does the same thing when re-sizing bullets. It is the neck sticking in the expander on the way out. Just catches on the way out.
Exactly, the expander opens the neck up to the correct diameter so that the bullet will be a pressure fit in it. Don't forget to lube INSIDE the neck! Do this by using a nylon cleaning brush with a little bit of lube on it. The lube on the outside is important, but so is a very little bit of lube inside the neck.
Post by: Eric M on October 17, 2016, 01:22:52 PM
I'll use a little more than I was. I think I was being overly cautious with the lube that came with the kit I have. ThanksMy press does the same thing when re-sizing bullets. It is the neck sticking in the expander on the way out. Just catches on the way out.
Exactly, the expander opens the neck up to the correct diameter so that the bullet will be a pressure fit in it. Don't forget to lube INSIDE the neck! Do this by using a nylon cleaning brush with a little bit of lube on it. The lube on the outside is important, but so is a very little bit of lube inside the neck.
Post by: Bofire on October 17, 2016, 04:23:34 PM
Carl
Post by: Eric M on October 17, 2016, 05:21:05 PM
4831 is a great powder do not give up on it just because of measure problems!! That is why you have a scale, you can weigh all loads!! LOLI hear you. haha. I'm working it.
Carl
Post by: JLS on October 17, 2016, 05:23:05 PM
Post by: theleo on October 17, 2016, 05:51:23 PM
Post by: Eric M on October 17, 2016, 09:24:36 PM
I'm not loyal to powders, I just go with what performance I want with a given bullet and make sure it feed/functions from the magazine well. Old standbys like 4831, 4895, 4350... have long and proven track records but disappear fast when people start hoarding. Newer powders have the benefit of technology and shorter history as must haves for guys. Don't get to stuck on making one powder work for you.
Never thought of that. Thanks.
Post by: jaymark6655 on October 18, 2016, 05:05:21 AM
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.
Post by: Eric M on October 18, 2016, 11:22:43 AM
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.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.
Post by: lamrith on October 18, 2016, 11:28:47 AM
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!
Post by: JLS on October 18, 2016, 11:29:32 AM
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.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.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.
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.
Post by: theleo on October 18, 2016, 04:00:37 PM
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.
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.
Post by: Eric M on October 18, 2016, 04:06:56 PM
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.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.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.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.
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.
Post by: Eric M on October 18, 2016, 04:11:23 PM
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.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.
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.
Post by: Eric M on October 18, 2016, 04:14:39 PM
Yup, is why always get a few manuals and compare then set your start point.Thanks. The help on here has been great.
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!
Post by: JLS on October 18, 2016, 07:10:45 PM
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.
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.
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.
Post by: JLS on October 18, 2016, 07:15:06 PM
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.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.
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'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.
Post by: Eric M on October 18, 2016, 09:07:55 PM
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.
Post by: h20hunter on October 18, 2016, 09:10:25 PM
Post by: Eric M on October 18, 2016, 09:16:03 PM
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.
Post by: DaveMonti on October 18, 2016, 09:23:19 PM
Good luck with the reloading!
Post by: Eric M on October 18, 2016, 09:26:41 PM
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.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
Good luck with the reloading!
Post by: theleo on October 19, 2016, 06:30:30 AM
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.
Post by: Bill W on October 19, 2016, 08:51:59 AM
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.
Post by: JLS on October 19, 2016, 10:26:02 AM
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.
Post by: theleo on October 19, 2016, 11:14:52 AM
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.
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