"BEST" Reloading manual?

Rule3 said:
Isn't that just another way of saying Minimum OAL??
Click to expand...

Nope, the two are not the same thing, not even close UNLESS you are talking about the same, exact bullet.

Same weight bullets can be VERY different in length.

These two bullets are the same weight and have the same "type" of nose. With the same OAL, which is going to have the deeper seating depth?


RainierBerry230grbullets.jpg


Okay, say you build your load with the shorter bullet, the one that gives you less in the case and your load is a "real" maximum (not one from a book). Say you seat to the same OAL but use the longer bullet AND your thought process is "Aren't they the same".

You are flirting with a problem friend and someone that is loading ammunition, needs to understand the difference. :eek:

FWIW
 
smith crazy said:
Nope, the two are not the same thing, not even close UNLESS you are talking about the same, exact bullet.

Same weight bullets can be VERY different in length.

These two bullets are the same weight and have the same "type" of nose. With the same OAL, which is going to have the deeper seating depth?


RainierBerry230grbullets.jpg


Okay, say you build your load with the shorter bullet, the one that gives you less in the case and your load is a "real" maximum (not one from a book). Say you seat to the same OAL but use the longer bullet AND your thought process is "Aren't they the same".

You are flirting with a problem friend and someone that is loading ammunition, needs to understand the difference. :eek:

FWIW
Click to expand...

Well since the "Maximum seating" depth is not published anywhere that I know of (this is all for naught) and we are talking about the Lee published loads which do not list a specific bullet in many cases, then you do not want to go shorter than their published min OAL.

In the Lee data only the bullet weight is listed other than a few XTP's. The Min OAL is shown to change based on the powder.

In your two bullets shown, not knowing or even knowing what bullet it is (say one is Berry and one is Rainer) show me where the data for those exact bullet is???

As I mentioned, look at Hodgdons 45 ACP 230 gr. It just says 230gr bullet either FMJ FP or Lead RN and they are ALL 1.200, regardless of powder.

Now, are all those bullets the same length??????????
 
Rule3 said:
In your two bullets shown, not knowing or even knowing what bullet it is (say one is Berry and one is Rainer) show me where the data for those exact bullet is???

As I mentioned, look at Hodgdons 45 ACP 230 gr. It just says 230gr bullet either FMJ FP or Lead RN and they are ALL 1.200, regardless of powder.

Now, are all those bullets the same length??????????
Click to expand...

The "EXACT" data is known for very FEW bullets, unless you want to go down the "Speer Manual" trail again! ;)

Those are a Ranier and a Berry as you have well guessed and what does each site say to use for their bullets? Right, lead bullet data, the EXACT data for that EXACT bullet! (Don't go OCD on me here!)

This is where the loader has to be smarter than the published data! If you loaded one bullet and then switched, YOU aren't going to find that information in ANY manual! YOU have to know what you are doing and how x affects y. Otherwise, you are always going to be held captive by book loads that keep getting weaker and weaker.

Just my rant.................done now...................:D
 
I was told by a tech at Sierra bullets that their manual was not a recipe book but rather a report on how different loads performed on a particular day. Sounded good to me, and made me look at loading manuals in a different light.
 
snake charmer said:
I was told by a tech at Sierra bullets that their manual was not a recipe book but rather a report on how different loads performed on a particular day. Sounded good to me, and made me look at loading manuals in a different light.
Click to expand...

Semantics. What did they use on that day? The recipe they printed for us to look at! :rolleyes:
 
Rule3 said:
Well since the "Maximum seating" depth is not published anywhere that I know of
Click to expand...

Well, I used to have limited knowledge in this area too! ;)

Just because WE don't know something, doesn't mean that it CAN'T be known or SHOULDN'T be known.

Check out Phil Sharpe's book on reloading and remember what I told you: "We used to know things but now, since we didn't pass them on, we think we are smarter and don't NEED to know them."

With that in mind, history will always be repeating itself! ;)


Seriously, in Phil's data, one portion of it, "SEATING DEPTH"!

FWIW
 
Show me the DATA.:D

Lets take lead SWC bullets with a cannelure. There are lots and lots of them out there. All kinds of different molds and different folks making them.

Now unless it is some odd ball, how many re-loaders actually measure the OAL or seating depth of those Boolits??

Or, do they just seat them to the cannelure, crimp and if they fit the cylinder all is well?? Now are all those in what ever caliber the exact length boolit?? No they aren't.

In the Berrys, Rainer example, IMHO the slight difference in total bullet length would not make a dangerous difference, even up to a max listed load for lead or 1/2 the fmj depending on what you believe. I have shot thousands of Berrys at FNJ loads and had no problems. I do not have either so can not measure the few mil variance

No, I do believe that is why so many think that the load manuals and powder companies have anemic load data.

I believe in their wisdom they have developed the loads and used certain OAL (like 1.200) for all 230 gr 45 ACP so their fine customers do not blow themselves up.;)
 
Master, it is most interesting but has Diddly Do Da on what we originally had been discussing.

In another vernacular "What Ever":D
 
Last edited:
Cop out. Folks do that as a defensive measure when their argument has been proven wrong! Not a psychologist, just an observer over time! ;)
 
GCF said:
At the risk of butting in, here is a good example. A couple of 41 cal / 250 grainers from CP.

If no COL is given - & all a guy considers is listed data for a 250 grain cast... ;=]

41/250gr. WFNGC .410 dia 100 Count

41/250gr. WFNPB .410 dia 100 Count
Click to expand...

This is a good point, but just a little different than what I am saying. This does show why folks like Elmer Keith developed his famous bullets. Get more out of the case than in the case.

I am speaking more about when you aren't loading to a crimp groove. The big "what if" is what happens when you seat the same bullet deeper.

Thanks for the input and you are not butting in........ ;)
 
smith crazy said:
Cop out. Folks do that as a defensive measure when their argument has been proven wrong! Not a psychologist, just an observer over time! ;)
Click to expand...

It's not a cop out. I never disagreed that seating a bullet deeper will increase pressure. I agree with that.

But you yourself have copped out by not giving an answer to my questions, instead have redirected the conversation to some data from 1937 (not that it's wrong because it's old) showing a extreme difference in seating depth and exceeding 35,000 psi which would just be dumb.;)

I do like your little graphics and hope you did not spend all night on them.:D

So, time to move on. Good Day.
 
I hope I'm not to blame for all this discontent. I think it should be a given that if you seat the bullet deeper then it will decrease the case volume which will increase the pressure. The fact that seating depth isn't widely published data kind of eludes me. However, the fact that people aren't blowing themselves up seems to indicate that it isn't quite the big deal that I think it may be. Either way, this is part of the reason (IMHO) that we are routinely told to back off ten percent and not all load data is safe or intended for all guns.

Personally, I have found this whole conversation interesting. I love the old manual in the pic.
 
Bob,
I guess I need to make this clear, there is NO discontent here. Grasshopper will have to speak for himself! ;)

The ONLY point I am trying to make, and you can throw the data in the trash, is that we need to UNDERSTAND, not that pressure increases with seating depth but that seating depth is more important than OAL!


The reason that we have watered down data is because people need to be protected from their ignorance!

Can I run a load under minimum? Yep, if I have a deeper seating depth! Cartridge OAL be hanged!

Can I run a load over maximum? Hang on, YES, and Elmer based his whole loading of the 44spl on this, if I have a shallower seating depth, OAL be hanged.

Now, I am done. :D
 
Last edited:
I have some old 7mm Mag we loaded in Norma brass before DuPont sold out to IMR. They have been chambered many times and maybe were in the magazine when another round was shot. The OAL isn't what it used to be, even though nothing has changed except the nose of the bullet.

So, OAL really doesn't have much meaning in the real world, but as Skip said, seating depth is very much meaningful in the real world!

Seating depth is pretty easy to determine. Just make a mark (Marks-a-Lot or scribe) close to the nose of the bullet and measure from the mark to the base. Seat the bullet and measure from the mark to the case mouth. The difference is the seating depth.
 
Master:
This rice paper is the test, clean as the cocoon of the silk worm, fragile as the wings of the dragon fly. When you can walk its length and leave no trace, you will have learned."

Grasshopper bows

:)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Hodgdon Reloading Data Center VS Hornady Reloading Handbook
2
Replies
48
Views
42K
jag22
J
T
357 Magnum / Win 231 / 158gr LSWC
Replies
11
Views
16K
rbswede
rbswede
C
New to reloading
Replies
18
Views
3K
dmar
D
HAWKEYE10
Rifle reloading, where do I start?
Replies
11
Views
2K
trulyapostolic
trulyapostolic
J
Need to fine tune 38 load with HP-38
Replies
26
Views
6K
jim8115
J

Latest posts

Back
Top