For those who feel reloading is comparable to rocket surgery....

[BC38]

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

 

[Rpg]

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.

 

[ReloadforFun]

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.

 

[AJ]

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

 

[Chuck24]

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

 

[ladder13]

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

 

[MStarmer]

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.

 

[AJ]

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.

 

[Buford57]

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.

 

[SMSgt]

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

 

[Sevens]

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.

 

[AJ]

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

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.

 

[Claymore33]

Elmer Keith never believe that.

 

[Pisgah]

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 ..."

 

[AJ]

Elmer Keith never believe that.

I wonder how many guns he trashed in his time?

 

[stansdds]

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.

 

[AJ]

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.

You mean I should use my chronograph?

 

[LostintheOzone]

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.

 

[minconrevo]

Load data is a guard rail to help you stay on the pavement. I've used new 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.

Necessity is the mother of invention.

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.

 

[stansdds]

You mean I should use my chronograph?

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.