Over the years I have seen many reloaders espouse the opinion that reloading "recipes" are only valid for the exact components listed - with NO substitutions allowed.

This never made sense to me. Logically, it always seemed to me that substitutions of very similar components should be no issue and should be "close enough".

It has taken a long time, but now it would seem that Hodgdon, one of the biggest names in reloading components, is now coming around to this same school of thought - and even going so far as to officially state that this is the case.

WHICH DATA DO I USE WHEN MY SPECIFIC BULLET IS NOT LISTED? – Hodgdon

__________________
Send lawyers, guns & money...

I’ve been using similar logic in reloading since about 1970 without a problem.

Perhaps my OCD is insufficiently developed, but I’ve never thought there was a better way to reload.

The exact recipe instruction likely stems from shotshell loading.

For metallic loading, using data compiled with the bullet specified is preferable.

If the data does not specify the bullet, use the more conservative data for bullets of the weight and construction first, and work up in your gun.

Been doing just that for years. Rarely have I ever had the exact bullets that the charts call for.

__________________
USMC 69-93 Combat Pistol Inst.

Do have to admit I was a little shocked when my first ever reloads actually worked, and in fact worked quite well

Never paid attention to all that minutia. Beggars can’t be choosy.

__________________
Sure you did

In the event that a specific bullet wasn't listed I often emailed the manufacturer to see if they at least had a suggest OAL at the minimum. Often times I would set my seating die to match a factory round with a similar profile and always use starting loads. Today it's so easy to find consistent load data from numerous sources that it's far from unsafe in my mind. For an example 4.0gr of TiteGroup over a 124gr plated bullet in 9mm is almost a "standard" loading. I've never been a "developer", I just want to find a load that works and load like 10K. Even 5.56 I just used the "accuracy" load they listed for 69gr SMK's. Some people love to re-invent the wheel, that's not me.

Emailed?? Back when I started reloading it was call them on a rotatory dial phone or snail mailed them. If you went the snail mail route it could be quite a while before you got an answer.

__________________
USMC 69-93 Combat Pistol Inst.

I was especially happy to see the statement re: data for lead and plated bullets being interchangeable. When I bought my first plated bullets for a caliber I'd never loaded before I searched all of my dozen or so manuals as well as the powder companies' on-line data and the manufacturer's website and found nothing specific to plated bullets. Plenty of cast and jacketed, but no plated.

It made sense to me that a plated bullet would be more comparable to hard cast lead than jacketed in the areas of friction and deformation, but decided to ask on this forum whether anyone had "experience" with plated bullets and which data they had used.

The only response I got was the usual suspects screeching that I had no business reloading until I bought a manual and not to trust anything on the internet lest I put my eye out or lose my fingers. Evidently the saner souls here were all either reloading or shooting that day.

I went ahead and used lead bullet data, worked up the loads as I had been doing for the past 50 years and still have all my eyes and fingers. And a very nice load for .38 Super with a Berry's plated bullet.

Thanks for posting this and thanks to Hodgdon for treating their customers like adults.

__________________
I need ammo, not a ride.

Reloading manuals are not "gospel" for developing loads, merely guides in a journey.

If you look at what load data for what it is… you might come to a different conclusion.

It is neither a strict recipe, nor is it a set of instructions.

Published load data is a very specific test report.
Just like it says, it is data, they showed you what they used and then they reported the results.

Did you ever notice the barrel length, the ambient temperature, the relative humidity or the elevation above sea level?

They were not telling you to follow them, they were reporting the results of their test. And you are supposed to use their guide to help you keep strict records of your own similar experiments.

That is why I have about 10 different loading manuals. Each seems to have a different load for the same bullet weight. The manuals run from the 30's until recent.

__________________
USMC 69-93 Combat Pistol Inst.

Elmer Keith never believe that.

__________________
V/r,
Markham

Here's the problem, and the reason I rarely tell people it is OK to swap components: Even with the well-written Hornady article, some people will read it and say, "Hey, Hornady says I can switch bullets of the same weight," and never realize that in fact they have been cautioned to swap ONLY BULLETS OF THE SAME WEIGHT AND TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION.

The article is cautioning exactly as much as it is giving permission, but there are PLENTY of folks who will only read, "Go ahead, no prob ..."

__________________
Pisgah

I wonder how many guns he trashed in his time?

__________________
USMC 69-93 Combat Pistol Inst.

I don't think I have every had all the exact components to match a load in any given manual. Even if I did, manufacturing tolerances can change slightly from one production batch of components to another. I did invest in a chronograph and it proved to be a real eye opener.

__________________
VCDL, GOA, NRA

You mean I should use my chronograph?

__________________
USMC 69-93 Combat Pistol Inst.

Load data is a guard rail to help you stay on the pavement. I've used new-to-me powder in certain applications when there was no published load data. That came about around 2009 when most powders were not available. I found a few posts online that people had tried this load or that load with certain weights and bullet type. That was truly living on the ragged edge but I'm here to tell you that I still have all of my fingers. A few years after that the powder company started publishing the same loads I and many others discovered that worked exceptionally well.

I'm not going to try that these days because I don't have to. I've found powder that works and stocked up years ago. besides, I've lived a long and prosperous life and there really isn't a good reason to start betting against the odds this late in the game.

Necessity is the mother of invention.

__________________
That's just somebody talkin.

I have decades of experience with metallic cartridge reloading. Like the poster, I start with the published data when it is available. In a few cases I've had to develop my own loads, due to nothing published for a certain bullet. Proceeding carefully and in baby steps has worked. In others, I've wanted to try powders for which no data for my application was out there. After carefully checking relative burn rate and other characteristics I've proceeded, again in baby steps. If I find a pressure wall or other problems before I get to where I want to go, I stop. Chronograph data tells me a bunch. For obsolete powders I go to my library of old reloading manuals, still starting at the bottom and working up in baby steps. Some older manuals were on the "hot" side.

I do NOT suggest that beginning reloaders or those without considerable patience/resources follow my lead. You should stick to officially published data only.

I would recommend it, but be prepared to have your bubble burst when you see the actual velocity of your ammo and even some factory ammo. Or, you might find your reloads tobe on the warm side. You just never know until you start testing.

__________________
VCDL, GOA, NRA

Got the same email from Hodgdon. Great info.


This is why I bought a Chronograph.

Like said near the top of this thread, shotshell loading is the only time it's important to use the components as listed in the data.

There is a lot of good information in this thread.

Be safe and have fun.

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

You would also need the same lot# of the powder used to exactly duplicate the manual.

__________________
Common sense isn't so common.

Pressure measuring has become more exact , SAAMI limits have been lowered & we've become a litigious society . Loads that many of us old farts have used for years are now beyond the pale .
A case in point . My brother belongs to a range that only allows rimfire & non-magnum handgun rounds . He knows that I have a pre Model 23 ODM & load " 38/44" loads for it . He wanted some for his 686 , reasoning if it's in a 38 case he technically won't be in violation . Yeahhh right . Little brothers what can I say . I sent him a couple of loads with the Keith 173gr 358429 that shoot well & are no problem in my ODM . However in his 686 they're sticky extracting . Had him scrub chambers & asked what size the throats were , he had no idea . Bullets in my loads were .358 . Needless to say his 686 has tight throats , sent him pin guages from .356 - .360 7 sized slugs from same range . Funny how a 1953 vintage gun will devour a load without a hiccup & newer one chokes on same loading . This is why one starts low & works up . In the old days one mic'd case heads to determine pressure limits . To be precise cases had to be measured the same way every time.........a royal & painstaking process .
Just like the prudent mariner when navigating , the more data the more precise ones results . If an individual chooses to push the envelope they should recognise if it goes south it's on them .

It’s not rocket science for sure. BUT, those wishing to push the limits can have serious issues. Looking at my manuals from a long time ago, maximum loads with various powders available then and now, charge weights are different. Sometimes a lot different. Powders are different of course, but I’m certain that lawyers got into the mix here somehow with the liability factors.

I have all the manuals and have used them as a guide. Substitute some components at times, and even developed loads that were above published loads in terms of “maximum loads!”

Never blew a gun up, but have seen more then several destroyed by sloppy, unsafe reloading practices.

Just use common sense, learn from someone with the knowledge to teach you how to reload and you are all good. If I can do it and be safe, anyone can…

Regards from the Commonwealth,
Rick Gibbs

"In conclusion, bullets with similar shapes and construction materials will utilize the same data. And, above all else, work up your loads by starting with the beginning load and increase charges in small increments, at all times watching for case head pressure signs and stiff extraction."

Actually Hodgen is talking about interchanging bullets specifically, not a generalized concept of all components. And then they add the standard disclaimer to start at beginning loads. Imo, they are basing this on the significant increase of all copper bullets in most calibers. Not so long ago, not many manufacturers had all copper bullets.

Every handloader i ever communicated with had to interchange components based on what they had. Usually with the standard caveat to start low and work up. The same caveat used even if you are using the exact same components. Am very doubtful any of the loads i am using are an exact replica of any manual. Either the case, primer brand, primer strength, bullet, seating depth or firearm used is different.

And will add to the chorus to use a chronograph, especially if going for full power loads in rifle or pistol.

Being doing such since I started loading close to 60 yrs. So has everyone else I know, it’s just what you call common sense. Some people even use a little ciphering, like algebra. They use to teach stuff like that in school.
Most guys my age never had chrony or hardness testers. We managed to get by without them.

I started out with the bare essentials to cast and reload. Still have all my fingers and eyes..............

__________________
USMC 69-93 Combat Pistol Inst.

I would only add to all of the great comments above this post is that COMMON SENSE is paramount and then proceed with caution!
IT is not, in fact, rocket science but it can be without common sense.

As expected the article ended with.....................

start with the lowest load data and work up !!

However I do agree that loading Shotgun, does need the actual wads, powder, primers etc. for the hull that is being used.
A Hull base makeup, material and volume and fit, can cause problems, if loaded with the wrong data or wad.

Shotshell loading, the gospel approach is appropriate.
Though I'd always comb the data for shot loads using all the same components across a range of dram equivalents to establish an acceptable min to max powder charge range.
This helped avoid powder bushing drama.

Metallic loading, you have a large playground. and you need it.
The manuals usually use a single primer across a variety of powders.
It's not necessarily an optimum arrangement across the range of powders.

__________________
it just needs more voltage

That school of thought has been around before Hodgdon existed, and was explained in most loading manuals and books. Reloading is "rocket science" and that science is available for those who wish to learn it, but for the rest of us there are simple guides for us to follow, which it seems more and more reloaders choose to pay little, or no, attention at all to.

There have been numerous "experts" that had no idea of what Elmer Keith was talking about and it has resulted in a large negative impact on the arts of handloading and reloading.

I guess email was a later point in my loading. I started in 1989 I think, I'm a ripe old man of 54 at this point. But I feel like I'm 80 if that counts.

I've never heard of a rocket surgeon...

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

The truth is that unless you are loading ammunition for the Gyro-Jet pistol, we actually aren’t taking part in rocket science (or surgery.) Our projectiles are not set forth using the combustion of fuels onboard the projectile itself.

I started keeping record in '74 and was reloading a few years before that. I am sure there are others here that have me beat considerably.

__________________
USMC 69-93 Combat Pistol Inst.

I am curious what Hornady article are you referring to? I was only able to see a Hodgdon article? You are correct about people misinterpreting what they read.

I can't help myself.....

Attached Images

Scientists.jpg (130.1 KB, 35 views)

That would be me with the paper bag!

__________________
VCDL, GOA, NRA

Reloading is NOT "rocket science". And for anyone not already familiar with the phrase "rocket surgery" is a tongue in cheek, intentionally mixed-metaphor combining rocket science and brain surgery in a joking way.
No rockets are involved and it is more like cooking or baking than "science", IMO. You follow a recipe created by someone else's trial and error and their measured results.
No deep postulation of theories or trying to prove/disprove them.
And it doesn't have to be all that "precise" either. Every component has some variance. Case volumes, powder quantities, bullet weights, primer brisance, cartridge overall length, crimp. All these factors and more have a range of tolerances that make exactly duplicating the same result from one round to the next virtually impossible.
That isn't science. Engineering, maybe. But not science.
Now developing a new cartridge from scratch and doing it with computer modeling, that might be science, but none of us are doing that - or anything like that.
But some people seem to think that they are doing something so precisely scientific that you CANNOT make ANY substitutions without risking life and limb. Some of these folks even go so far as to claim loading 357 magnum brass with a 38 special recipe (or 44 mag brass with 44 special recipes) is dangerous and verboten!
The article by Hodgdon that I linked in the first post in this thread is the first time I have seen a major component manufacturer publish a suggestion that ANY substitution is OK.

__________________
Send lawyers, guns & money...

I think we need to stop calling loads "recipes." The term "recipe" implies no substitutions are allowed. About the time I saw people referring to recipes, I also started seeing evidence of The Chicken Little School of Handloading. Experimenters were supplanted with direction followers.

In my world, a prescriptive recipe isn't what metallic handloading is all about. Shotshell handloading does involve recipes. I'm sure there are folks that fiddle with shotshell components, but it's generally considered unwise.

Somebody is bound to bring up the point that cooks follow recipes and many happily fiddle with the recipe. Often it works, sometimes it doesn't. There are times where one does need to follow a cooking recipe exactly. You could wind up with Frisbees instead of pancakes. But that's cooking, not handloading.

I started and learned reloading and bullet casting way way way back in the Dark Ages ... 1967 , no computers just Elmer Keith and his book "Sixgun Cartridges and Loads " 1936 .
It wasn't Rocket Science / Surgery then and it doesn't have to be now .

Some folks like to make something so simple into something so complicated you have to be a M.I.T. graduated rocket scientist to figure out what they are even talking about .
I think they do this to give others the impression they are "smart" .

You want to reload simply ... get a copy of Elmer Keith's Book and just go back to basic's ... it ain't Rocket Science and Elmer Keith was no Rocket Scientist or Surgon /
His reprinted book is $10.00 on Amazon if you want to have it ... lots of good old common sense in there ... we need more common sense in this world .
Gary

__________________
Certified Cajun
NRA Member

That's was a joke boy , a joke ... you supposed to smile !
Foghorn Leghorn

__________________
Certified Cajun
NRA Member

I have reloaded for over 40 years and my approach is simple. When I load handgun cartridges I strive to get a load that is comfortable to shoot and that will produce the accuracy I'm looking for. I used to load a lot of .38 spec and .357 magnum rounds I never searched for a fire breathing .357 mag load. I would load to very moderate levels and go to factory offerings if I wanted something strong. The .44mag/.44spec even more so. I certainly have never been close to a max load in either one of those cartridges. I carried a S&W 4" model 629 for a short time on duty. I loaded it with Federal 185 grain JHP's that provided plenty of punch. When I shot them I saved the brass and loaded a lead SWC 200 or 240 grain bullet at about 900 fps. I felt I was safely within the pressure limits and had a round that I enjoyed shooting,

I have been forced to make numerous substitutions during my reloading adventures. Load long enough and you will be forced into it to continue shooting in environments like we have had visited upon us.
Any bullet, brass or primer substitution was done well under maximum, then ladder tested up and verified by chrono.

I have even ( gasp) substituted shotgun primers and hull brand in rough times to keep shooting trap, skeet, sporting. Again, well under maximums.
I matched wad to hull taper/design and payload size, but the rest was based solely upon availability.

I've had at least two surprises with published data that I recall. The first involved a .223 load with a heavy for caliber bullet and IMR 4198. The starting load produced a ring of soot around the primer. OK, not a wise powder selection in that particular rifle. 748 a much better choice.

The second involved changing a 175 gr SMK to a soft point bullet in the same weight range (180 gr) using the same cases & powder charge. The primers went from fine to very flat.

I’m fairly new at this having just started in 1977 at age 12, so I won’t bother arguing with many of the reloading “experts”.

That said, nothing in that Hodgdon link is particularly “new”, and the last paragraph says it all - start low and work up.

——

One of the mistakes I most often see are hand loaders taking a nominal charge weight for a powder and assuming it’s an exact charge weight. When it comes to a max load, it’s only exact for that exact lot of powder and those precise components. Even then chamber, throat, leade and bore dimensional differences can move pressure one way or the other.

Now…that’s not to say I don’t make substitutions of primers and cases, and bullets of similar weight and construction, I do that all the time. But I work up to the intended velocity and or max load.

I also use a chronograph as both quality assurance, but also to verify that the velocity achieved is in line with the velocity expected, using experience to factor in the effects of barrel length, primer substitution, etc.

However, I also work up to a max load or desired velocity when switching powder lots. Remember that “nominal charge weight”comment? Take a look at a manual that has data in the same chart for powder pairs like Win 296 / H-110, or Win 231 / HP-38, powders that Hodgdon has stated are the exact same powders just with different labels. You’ll see different max loads in the data, sometimes as much as a half grain apart because the powders used to develop the data came from two different powder lots.

That’s why every load manual publisher will include a disclaimer to either start 10% below maximum, or to start with the lowest load and work up.

It gets even worse when some military cartridge expert stumbles on nominal load data for a military cartridge, like US military M80 Ball. Here’s an example I found in about 30 seconds of googling:

“46gr WC846
As per TM43-0001-27”

It’s an official US army tech manual so it must be right? Only if you’re a moron and don’t understand the concept of a nominal charge weight.

The actual acceptance specifications are instead based on measured velocity and other criteria:

- a 146gr bullet (also a nominal weight as 146, 147 149 and 150 grain projectiles have been used by different manufacturers);

- a nominal velocity of 2750 fps in the 22” test barrel, measured at 78 feet from the muzzle;

- the average velocity can not vary more than +/-30 fps from the 2750 fps nominal velocity;

- the standard deviation shall not exceed 32 fps; and

- a mean radius accuracy standard that must be achieved for at least two of three 30 shot groups fired per lot of ammo that equates to 1.59 MOA out of the test barrel.

More importantLy WC846 is a very wide powder specification that encompasses not only WC846 but the narrow end of the specification designated WC844 for M193 ball ammo, where tighter specs were needed to get the minimum velocity without exceeding the already increased pressure limits.

What manufacturers do when using a bulk powder like WC846 where the variation is much greater than the canister grade powders used in hand loading is to work up a load for that specific lot of powder (usually 10,000 pounds).

Yet some internet expert will buy himself an 8 pound keg of surplus WC846 (or worse a keg of “pull down” surplus powder that is inevitably a mix of all sorts of different WC846 lots with Lord only knows what burn characteristics) and proceeds to load exactly 46 grains of it under his 146-150 gr FMJ bullet.

And the best part is you can’t explain the potential issues to him, because he’s an authoritarian who read it in an official tech manual. More often than not he will absolutely reject any information that doesn’t conform to his preferred view of things.

When he eventually bends an op rod or has similar problems with the load, he’ll rationalize it or project the fault onto something or someone other than himself.

There’s way to much of that going around these days, and not nearly enough commence sense, critical thinking, logic, or observation and scientific method.

Many years ago I owned a Ruger Super Blackhawk in .44 Mag. and I cooked up some "fire breathing" round for it. Same as I had for my .357 Colt Trooper. I lusted after a S&W Model 29, and finally found one. Shot some of the fire breathers through it. A friend admonished me about using full house .44 loads in the 29 all the time. He likened the 29 to a Cadillac and the Super Blackhawk to a Chevy. He said you don't beat up a Cadillac like you do a Chevy, so shoot .44 Special loads in the 29 and reserve the hotter stuff for the Super Blackhawk. Found myself shooting the 29 more and more.........

__________________
USMC 69-93 Combat Pistol Inst.

My use of the term "rocket science" wasn't about rockets either, although the science behind rockets and artillery are somewhat similar. And engineering is a science.

The engineers that determine the load data we use are not a group of morons that go by trial and error and are fully aware of variances that are involved in reloading and that some reloaders don't feel the need to follow their data because some internet expert told them a better way to do it. Trying to explain the science involved in reloading would be a waste of time for most reloaders so the engineers generate the data and explain how to use it so that it's simple to understand, and include information about safety, accuracy and how different components can affect the end result, and it's been like that for over a century. Component manufacturers also often include information about their specific products in their reloading manuals.

BTW, Hodgdon isn't a major reloading component manufacturer, so their data would come from the companies that actually make their products.

Started reloading 40+ years ago. About 10 years after I started reloading my large jug of IMR 4227 was about to run out and I bought a new 8lb jug. I used it mostly for 44 and 41 magnum. I loaded up some 44 mags with 240 gr soft point using my 4227 load with the new powder. I will never make that mistake again for the rest of my life. The only difference in the load was a new lot of the same primer, which had been used with the old 4227 without any issue at all, and the new powder lot. The bullet was exactly the same, I had 1,000's of them from 10 years earlier, the cases were the same ones I had been reloading for several years. I touched off one round and it scared the you know what out of me. My load with the older 4227 was mild, that one round I fired with the new lot of 4227 was so hot it was unbelievable. BTW, I have always weighed each and every charge individually, I don't use powder measures. Had to pull the bullets on all the ones I had reloaded. If I had a hot load with the old powder, and used that load with the new lot, I'm sure the revolver would have blown up.

So, not only with new loads I develop, but with my old tried and true loads, if I get a new powder lot/new primer lot/new brass/new lot of bullets I load one round low and test it. Work back up. The odds may be tremendously low you will ever have a problem, but that is a lottery you don't want to win.