9mmPatriot
Member
Got the same email from Hodgdon. Great info.
This is why I bought a Chronograph.
This is why I bought a Chronograph.
For those who feel reloading is comparable to rocket surgery....
- Thread starter BC38
- Start date
ArchAngelCD
Moderator, SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
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.
There is a lot of good information in this thread.
Be safe and have fun.
Last edited:
You would also need the same lot# of the powder used to exactly duplicate the manual.
boatbum101
Member
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 .
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 .
Rlg#17
US Veteran
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
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
Last edited:
"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.
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.
Most guys my age never had chrony or hardness testers. We managed to get by without them.
AJ
US Veteran
I started out with the bare essentials to cast and reload. Still have all my fingers and eyes..............
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.
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.
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.
venomballistics
Member
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.
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.
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've never heard of a rocket surgeon...
John
John
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.
AJ
US Veteran
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.
Waldo
Member
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.
9mmPatriot
Member
That would be me with the paper bag!
OP
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.
Last edited:
Similar threads
