fredj338
Member
Well final vel will vary w/ each gun, but max loads are diff in every book. I prefer AA#9, a bit easier to hit that 1200fps/200 mark.
Hodgdon Data
- Thread starter franzas
- Start date
Well final vel will vary w/ each gun, but max loads are diff in every book. I prefer AA#9, a bit easier to hit that 1200fps/200 mark.
noylj
Member
Going to the OPs post:
1) there are several pressure measurements and they are each analyzed by various statistical methods.
2) many times, going just a bit hotter will produce pressure spikes that far exceed SAAMI limits. Thus, you can have a load listed as max that is 33,000 for a cartridge that has a 35000 psi max, but what you don't know is that the next load up gave spikes of 45000-65000 psi. They do the testing. You have nothing to go by.
3) never forget--their data is for their gun firing their lots of powders, primers, cases, and bullets at their COL. You most likely don't have the same lot of powder, lot of cases, lot of primers, lot of bullets, COL, or the same gun.
If you look at four manuals, you'll find four different start and max loads--each absolutely correct for the components they used. Your mix of components can reach max well below the lowest max load or well above the highest max load. This is why you START at the START load and work up watch for ANY pressure sign.
4) regarding pressure spikes: fast powders tend to be very spiky as they approach max loads, while slow powders can get spiky at low charge weights. So, if you want max loads, use the slowest powder for the cartridge and if you want light loads use the fastest powders for the cartridge. All a manual shows is what was safe in their tests, not what will work well in your loading.
1) there are several pressure measurements and they are each analyzed by various statistical methods.
2) many times, going just a bit hotter will produce pressure spikes that far exceed SAAMI limits. Thus, you can have a load listed as max that is 33,000 for a cartridge that has a 35000 psi max, but what you don't know is that the next load up gave spikes of 45000-65000 psi. They do the testing. You have nothing to go by.
3) never forget--their data is for their gun firing their lots of powders, primers, cases, and bullets at their COL. You most likely don't have the same lot of powder, lot of cases, lot of primers, lot of bullets, COL, or the same gun.
If you look at four manuals, you'll find four different start and max loads--each absolutely correct for the components they used. Your mix of components can reach max well below the lowest max load or well above the highest max load. This is why you START at the START load and work up watch for ANY pressure sign.
4) regarding pressure spikes: fast powders tend to be very spiky as they approach max loads, while slow powders can get spiky at low charge weights. So, if you want max loads, use the slowest powder for the cartridge and if you want light loads use the fastest powders for the cartridge. All a manual shows is what was safe in their tests, not what will work well in your loading.
Last edited:
Yes. Not crimping will cause problems. I can't imagine why Rainier would recommend such a thing. However, you typically run into insufficient crimp problems with slower powders.
For that reason, I still would not rule out a light charge.
Realize that I'm not suggesting you missed charging a case. I'm suggesting the powder 'bridged'. When that happens, it either doesn't fill the powder measure's cavity, or it doesn't completely drop out of the cavity and into the case. So while it appears you charged the case--and you can even look into it and see powder--there isn't enough.
The only way to guard against it is to weigh your first 50 or 100 consecutive charges. If it doesn't happen once in 100 charges, it's not particularly likely to happen.
Running an on-die measure designed for use with a turret or progressive press (like the Lee Auto-Disk) one a single-stage or on a turret in single-stage operation can exacerbate this problem. Or if you use, say, the Lee Micro-Adjustable Charge Bar, which at low charge volumes has a very bridge-friendly cavity.
Does that mean that Clays is a bad powder? No, it just means that you can't dispense it at such low charges with your particular measure.
Incidentally, the Auto-Disk and Auto-Disk Pro are both excellent products (the Pro is 100% worth it over the standard model). The Adjustable Charge Bar is very good at large charge volumes (think 9 or 10 grains of a midrange powder), not so much for light charges. I really wish they'd make a small-charge version.
I personally don't think any load data is "lawyered" down to "overly safe" levels. I would think though that manuals list what they consider maximum safe loads for use in every firearm that would use that particular load, whether or not that load is truly at SAAMI maximum pressures......
It really isn't. Loads sometimes go down with better testing standards. The problem is that you don't know whether maximum data is limited so it works fine in every gun made in that caliber, or if it's because the powder starts going non-linear. There is, of course, a slight margin built in (it's not like going .1 grain over max is going to immediately lead to shrapnel), but the fact of the matter is that you just don't know.
And when you just don't know, it probably ain't worth the risk.
Besides, a well-selected powder and a bullet of appropriate size and hardness usually delivers good (or even best) accuracy at starting loads or just slightly above.
Anytime I hear someone talking about "lawyered" ammunition or "lawyered" load data, I make sure I'm wearing eye protection and stand well away from them. Usually, they're set in their position and thus not worth talking to about it.
And when you just don't know, it probably ain't worth the risk.
Besides, a well-selected powder and a bullet of appropriate size and hardness usually delivers good (or even best) accuracy at starting loads or just slightly above.
Anytime I hear someone talking about "lawyered" ammunition or "lawyered" load data, I make sure I'm wearing eye protection and stand well away from them. Usually, they're set in their position and thus not worth talking to about it.
AveragEd
Member
Agreed. I see - or should say hear - those types at gun clubs now and then. I think that anyone deviating from published load data should have to wear a sign announcing, "Warning - ballistics experiment in progress!"
Ed
Ed
OP
franzas
Member
IMO firearms should be designed to withstand SAAMI pressures. What's the point of having standards then?
I looked at some old Alliant loads (back when they used to publish pressures) and they do the same thing...maxes way under SAAMI spec.
All modern firearms are designed to meet SAAMI specs. A receipe that creates 35K PSI in one gun may make >35K PSI in another. They often build a safety margin into the data, as a worse case scenario.
.
.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2006
- Messages
- 7,775
- Reaction score
- 7,189
OK, I was looking for something else today and found the SAAMI spec for 10mm. Maximum Average Pressure (what ammo is loaded to with a 97.5% chance that the higher pressure limits noted below won't be surpassed) is 37,500 psi as measured by the piezo-electric system. The spec also notes that the nominal velocity for a 200 grain FMJ bullet at 15 feet at that pressure should be 1150 f/s +/- 90 f/s.
Now, the pressure specs also get into the levels for 1 and 2 standard deviations above the MAP. However, AMMUNITION IS NOT TO BE LOADED TO THOSE PRESSURES! They are what can happen depending upon variations in loading ammunition and manufacturing the firearms that use that ammunition.
That said it would appear that 1200 f/s with a hard cast lead bullet just might be possible at acceptable pressures.
Now, the pressure specs also get into the levels for 1 and 2 standard deviations above the MAP. However, AMMUNITION IS NOT TO BE LOADED TO THOSE PRESSURES! They are what can happen depending upon variations in loading ammunition and manufacturing the firearms that use that ammunition.
That said it would appear that 1200 f/s with a hard cast lead bullet just might be possible at acceptable pressures.
Last edited:
When did strong, modern guns blow up???
I'm somewhat in agreement here. If new testing exposed flaws in old testing, when did a good gun blow up or sustain damage when there was not some other problem present or a gross error in load? Proof loads are like 1/3 above standard ammo in pressure. I've said before that unless data is known to be flawed, like Speer #8, I'll use it no matter when it was published. I don't have to push the max, but I like to know the performance is available should I want it. That's like buying a high performance motorcycle with a governor on it to limit it to 55 mph.
There is also the thing that they have to publish loads that any old clunker can handle.
Now SOME older data stated that as they added powder the groups started to get bigger and there wasn't any use in publishing a powerful load that didn't shoot worth a durn. I'd rather try it with my own gun.
I'm somewhat in agreement here. If new testing exposed flaws in old testing, when did a good gun blow up or sustain damage when there was not some other problem present or a gross error in load? Proof loads are like 1/3 above standard ammo in pressure. I've said before that unless data is known to be flawed, like Speer #8, I'll use it no matter when it was published. I don't have to push the max, but I like to know the performance is available should I want it. That's like buying a high performance motorcycle with a governor on it to limit it to 55 mph.
There is also the thing that they have to publish loads that any old clunker can handle.
Now SOME older data stated that as they added powder the groups started to get bigger and there wasn't any use in publishing a powerful load that didn't shoot worth a durn. I'd rather try it with my own gun.
Last edited:
fredj338
Member
Except unless you use EXACT components, you ARE deviating from the precious book. Its a guide. It infers one will use common sense in approaching the load data & extrapolating as needed. Never exceed max loads is a good plan, but whos max loads, Speer, Hornady, Hogdon, they are all diff.
There are a lot of firearms floating around that were manufactured a loooong time ago (I don't know when SAAMI recommendations started being used) and should not be used with "modern" loads. Mebbe an old Smith in 38-40? or perhaps a 38 S&W? I'm sure factory ammo, if available, and reloading data take into consideration the guns that maybe used...
Reloading manuals are reports of data obtained by test labs owned/run by component manufacturers; bullet manufacturers, powder suppliers, and occasionally an independent corporation (Lyman). These reports are from testing on each lab's equipment, which may be of differing vintage and wear, and the particular components on hand will be different lots of powder, primers, bullets and brass. Each lab will report different results due to these differences. Kinda silly to think they all produce the identical, hard and fast formula...
Common sense is indeed the sane way to reload near published maximum charges/pressures.
daniel lawecki
Member
Your best bet read the manuals. I don't ever get my reloading data from any gun store employee. I have used Clays in .38spl and .45 acp both with cast bullets. The .38 with cast 158 SWC and the .45 200 SWC. Both my loads work and shoot excellent. As stated above different powder companies use different testing measures and barrels and different lawyers so they era on the safe side. Some of my loads are near max some are not.
twodog max
Member
I have a newer Model 70 Winchester in 7X57. I really like this rifle. Anyone that looks at most load data knows it is done to specs for older rifles of lesser quality steels and supposedly weaker actions. I do load above the specs in most data books and online sources. Not much above but some. My loads give long case life , extract easily, and do not give the appearance of high pressures. I know the Model 70 is a strong modern action well capable of routinely handling pressures far above the pressure level recommended in the data. I do not worry one bit about creating shrapnel. Most important to me is that the loads group very well and kill deer and antelope with ease and seem to shoot very flat. I own a chronograph but it is ancient and a PIA to set up and use so I don't.
All this is to say that not all data is carved in stone but I think that most is done to keep users within specs. There is so much variability from gun to gun and even within component lots they can not do otherwise. Without access to a ballistics lab most of us will do well to stay with data provided by those that do use ballistics labs. IMO
All this is to say that not all data is carved in stone but I think that most is done to keep users within specs. There is so much variability from gun to gun and even within component lots they can not do otherwise. Without access to a ballistics lab most of us will do well to stay with data provided by those that do use ballistics labs. IMO
AveragEd
Member
Max, I think if you do some nosing around you will find load data for both older and newer rifles in your caliber. I tend to use online data from the powder manufacturers most because it stands a better chance of being updated than books but I also own five printed data manuals from powder and bullet manufacturers. One of them, and I wish I could recall which one (might be Berger), lists data for older and newer actions.
I'm recovering from knee surgery, my books are in my basement gun room and steps are a no-no right now.
Ed
I'm recovering from knee surgery, my books are in my basement gun room and steps are a no-no right now.
Ed
fredj338
Member
The Hornady xtp ammo is very close. I chrono norma ammo back then in my 5" Delta, pretty close to adv vel; 200gr @ 1190fps & 170gr @ 1210s. The old Hornady 170gr made 1285fps. Anything much over that is bending the pressure bar for most guns, imo. So shoot UW at your own risk, imo it is over pressure in stock Glock bbls, based on fired cases i have measured.
Last edited:
fredj338
Member
Correct, why i said whos max data? Every gun is diff, so those poking fingers at serious reloaders going off book just fail to understand that manuals are guides, not bibles.
fredj338
Member
Quick recovery Ed. The more you use that repaired knee the faster you will get there. Having three surgeries on one knee, i am familiar & empathize.
noylj
Member
Is anyone else in their 60s or older?
It all came out back around the '80s or '90s. Started doing testing with transducers and found that CUP was a VERY ROUGH gage of pressure. Many pet loads that were used by many folks were actually producing 75000-80,000 psi. All we learned was that historically, quality guns have been made to take quite high pressures, but most folks did not want to keep exposing themselves or their guns to those pressures.
So, if you want to whine about "lawyered" loads, realize that SAAMI might be to blame in an attempt to keep you and your heirloom guns in one piece. Remember, before the 90s, it was common and recommended reloading procedure to work up loads in your bolt action until the bolt was hard to lift or the case was hard to extract, and to back off 0.5-1.0gn. Now, consider where we are today and what we know from seeing real-time pressure traces of what is actually going on in a barrel (rather than how much a copper pellet was crushed) and why, just maybe, that loading technique is NOT recommended any more.
Also, those that USED that technique very quickly gave it up what they saw REAL-TIME pressure traces of their loads in their rifles and they did NOT ever complain about "lawyered" loads.
If you want to explore on your own, get a private range and PressureTrace II hardware and software.
It all came out back around the '80s or '90s. Started doing testing with transducers and found that CUP was a VERY ROUGH gage of pressure. Many pet loads that were used by many folks were actually producing 75000-80,000 psi. All we learned was that historically, quality guns have been made to take quite high pressures, but most folks did not want to keep exposing themselves or their guns to those pressures.
So, if you want to whine about "lawyered" loads, realize that SAAMI might be to blame in an attempt to keep you and your heirloom guns in one piece. Remember, before the 90s, it was common and recommended reloading procedure to work up loads in your bolt action until the bolt was hard to lift or the case was hard to extract, and to back off 0.5-1.0gn. Now, consider where we are today and what we know from seeing real-time pressure traces of what is actually going on in a barrel (rather than how much a copper pellet was crushed) and why, just maybe, that loading technique is NOT recommended any more.
Also, those that USED that technique very quickly gave it up what they saw REAL-TIME pressure traces of their loads in their rifles and they did NOT ever complain about "lawyered" loads.
If you want to explore on your own, get a private range and PressureTrace II hardware and software.
Last edited:
