who to believe on reloading data?

[dalewelch]

I am getting ready to reload some magnums ( .357/.44 ) and I am at a loss for reliable data. The short loads for both are easy as most data on W231/HP-38 is very consistent.

Where things get really crazy are the magnum loads that Hodgdon recommends for W296 for example:


125 GR. HDY XTP Winchester 296 .357" 1.590" 21.0 1881 38,400 CUP 22.0 1966 41,400 CUP

what? 1966 fps? This has to be rifle data, but no it's pistol. Double tap only loads theirs to 1750 and it's the hottest I have seen. Federal does 1450 and Rem does 1250 for the approximate load. My cheap spiral bound reloading manual has data by Hornady that is more realistic. I was just wondering if I should believe anything on the Hodgdon web site.

Thanks,

dale

 

[ajpelz]

reloads

hornady reloading manuals are top notch in my book. I would certainly adhere to their standards and definitely take their word over something on ANY website. If you work your way up on the hornady table with no obvious signs of over-pressure, you could kick it up a little, but i would never start there. Better safe then sorry... or hurt... or a broken gun!

P.S. 1966 FPS seems absurd.

 

[Treeman]

That velocity probably came from a 10inch non -vented pressure barrel. Multiple data sources are preferred but my favourite source is Lyman-pressure figures and barrel lengths are provided.

 

[Nygma]

My 7th edition Hornady manual lists a top load of 20.3 grains of 296 with the 125 grain XTP for 1500 ft/s out of an 8" Python barrel. No pressures are given.

 

[dalewelch]

I want to use Hodgdon powders, I hear good things about IMR 4227 for the big boy ( fotee fo ) and SR 7625 for the three-fitty-seven. They both seem like nice mild powders compared to the H110/296/N110 hyper velocity flame cut your gun in two powders. I am shooting a 686 and a 629 and from what I hear they both last a lot longer and shoot a lot better with low to med loads.

So can I expect the Hornady book to contain good loads for Hodgdon powder?

Thanks,

dale

 

[Nygma]

IMR4227 and 2400 loads are shown for both calibers, as are H4227, and H110.

 

[nitesite]

Hodgdon's data is based on abnormally long barrel lengths.

For instance, their .357 data was measured from a 10" test barrel.

 

[Paul5388]

Hmm, I've clocked a 125 gr Golden Saber at 1620 fps out of a 6" Security Six, but I wasn't using H110/W296 to do it. I also got 1575 fps using the old Sierra 125 gr JHC out of a 6" M28-2. I used the same load for both bullets, which I have been using since 1972 when the M28 was new.

 

[dalewelch]

1620 seems more than reasonable, any ideas what kind of powder doubletap is using to get 1750 from a 6" barrel? I just want to get something in the 1200-1400 range with a powder that won't cause premature aging of my 686. The 629 seems a little easier to load since the range for some reason is a lot smaller. If I stick with 240gr bullets in .44 just about any slower burning powder will get me 1250.

Is there a really huge difference between W296/H110 and IMR 4227? I hear that cutting is a lot less of a concern with the 4227 powders. Is this a ball vs extruded powder issue? The burn rate of 4227 is just about mid way between W231 and W296.

I have a lot to learn about powders and reloading, but why is W231/HP-38 just so uniformly accepted as a good target/low power load?

 

[nitesite]

Remington R357M1 factory 125s chrono 1660-fps out of my 6" Security Six but I cannot imagine anything going 300-fps faster.

 

[Beaver]

Hey Dale, I think you just picked-up the best reloading lesson you can learn. Something didn't sound right, way too much velocity, let's talk to our reloading buddies, maybe 1-800 a manufacturer, etc. The experience of your reloading friends is invaluable.

The pressure of over 40,000 definitely sounds like rifle to me, or maybe Freedom Arms Single actions, but not a Smith revolver. Most Smith's seem to be in the 10,000 to 25,000 psi range. I notice the pressure is CUP, but it still sounds way high for a Smith.

 

[Skip Sackett]

Manufacturer's data to start with.

I use one method for developing loads and only one. It hasn't always been this way, I had a KB first, then adopted it.

I use manufacturer's data to load any new load with, period.

After I have some data on my own, from my firearms, I go on to manuals, and from various suppliers.

It really doesn't matter what Hodgdon got out of their equipment, you aren't going to be using their's, you are going to be using YOUR'S!

Their pressure data is what to look for. Not only are they using longer than normal barrels but worst case scenario things as well. Tight chamber, rifling and yada yada. Their pressure may be way up there because of those things.

I doubt you will see their pressure but always start low and work your way up.

Do you have a chronograph? If not, use their minimum load and don't experiment. A simple tool like this is a must for those that hand-load and experiment. I wouldn't be without one.

 

[n4zov]

I don't pay much attention to the velocity figures listed in reloading manuals because the conditions under which they were developed varies widely. The listed velocity doesn't really matter as long as a load is accurate, powerful enough to accomplish the task at hand, and is safe to shoot.

 

[OKFC05]

Once you buy a chronograph and test a variety of loads in a variety of guns, one thing becomes obvious: the velocity given in a manual is correct only for that exact barrel.

I have two S&W revolvers tht look identical, but one is consistently 30fps faster with identical mid-range loads. And I've seldom found a gun that will match a SAAMI-minimum dimension test barrel.

The Hodgdon loading data are excellent. The starting load you quoted is what I have loaded for that bullet. However, the velocity I measured out of an 8" 686 barrel was over 150fps slower.

As an aside, 296 is a relatively slow burning powder and produces less heat and grief at the cylinder gap than several faster powders. Frankly, internal ballistics are incredibly complicated, and intuition is often wrong.

I use 296 most of the time in the 8" 686, and the gun is still tight, accurate, and undamaged after 15years of shooting many thousands of magnum rounds. However, I mostly shoot 158gr bullets because of the superior ballistics at longer range compared to a 125gr. The 125gr starts faster but slows down quickly.

While 296 produces true magnum velocities, it is not suitable for reduced loads.
2400, lilgun, etc are often used by magnum loaders who want to run their magnums at reduced throttle. You will get visible strap cutting with any magnum loads, but it goes just so far and stops, unless you are going beyond limits.

Welcome to the wonderful world of reloading!

 

[acl864]

Frankly, internal ballistics are incredibly complicated, and intuition is often wrong.

BIG +1 to that.

Hodgdon online data has always been reliable for me, but any data is liable to have mistakes. When I'm working up loads I use multiple sources, including advice from the more experienced guys that hang out here, for my load data. Then I write it all down on one sheet of paper and throw out data that doesn't seem to fit. Whatever is left- I start towards the low end and work my way up- looking at chrono data and watching for pressure signs.

 

[Opie]

Take your time and work up slowly. I have a rifle that I followed Hodgdon's data for about 15 years ago. The max load used to be 37 grains, but now they say max is 41 grains. I called them to check before using the new numbers. They said they re-shot everything and the current data is the best. I increased my load from 37 to 39 grains and got stiff bolt opening. Pressures seemed high, but velocities were below factory loads. There is no way I could add another 2 grains in my rifle.

Check several manufacturer's listings and work your way up. Max published loads should be safe in any sound firearm, but that isn't always the case.

 

[44forever]

No shortcuts...

There are NO shortcuts in reloading. Always start low and work up carefully while watching for preasure signs or annomallies. If you change any of the components on an established load, start low and work up carefully. If you change guns, start low and ... If you change OAL, start low and ...

Any time you are working with preasures measured in thousands of pounds per inch, there is no substitute for caution.

As has already been recommended, check multiple sources and be very leary of data outside the pattern. Reloading can be very interesting and fun but SAFETY FIRST. After all, we don't have so many shooters that we can afford to loose any unnecessarily.

 

[Jellybean]

According to Hodgdons latest printed data, that I have anyway, that data was obtained with a 10" barrel.

Lyman 49 lists the same load, 125 gr. XTP with 22.0 grains of H110, with a velocity of 1506 fps at 42,600 CUP. They used a universal reciever with a 4" barrel.

 

[josephthreedogs]

I have always gone by the premise that loading manuals are reports as to what a Mfg. has achived on a particular day under certain conditions. I do not use them as a recipie book. Your results will never be the same as their's. They have a different cook, and different kitchen.

 

[dalewelch]

I thought Hodgdon data was bad. Give this sheet a gander and tell me who wants to get 2006fps out of a 110gr. which you are not really supposed to use in a .357 magnum anyway. A paltry 1772fps out of a 125gr though.

http://www.lapua.com/fileadmin/user_upload/Relodata/Handgun/.357Magnum.jpg

This is from Vihtavouri and I have heard nothing but good things about N110, but why would I use a powder from a company that publishes stuff like this?