If you can only get say 3,025 or so sight in 1/2" high at your 200yd zero and it should be near perfect to say 700. Plug it into a ballistic calc for the actual #. I've done it for two different rifles even if I want to use my one custom turret instead of MOA. Two rifles with similar ballistics that is. Just a thought.
Stupid reloading question
- Thread starter nidahunter
- Start date
If you can only get say 3,025 or so sight in 1/2" high at your 200yd zero and it should be near perfect to say 700. Plug it into a ballistic calc for the actual #. I've done it for two different rifles even if I want to use my one custom turret instead of MOA. Two rifles with similar ballistics that is. Just a thought.
"There is really no reason to ever go beyond the safe listed max on a cartridge." Bull. All rifles are different, and going beyond the "lawyer loads" can be both beneficial and safe if you know what you are doing. mtmuley
I noticed that virtually all the loads in my hodgdon and lyman manuals for barnes copper bullets were loaded to higher pressures than for lead bullets, which of course translated to more powder and higher velocities. I have not tracked down the reason for this yet, but it appears to be consistent. The other manuals I have are published by manufacturers of lead bullets.
You might also see if the Hodgdon superformance powders list a load for your caliber. As far as I can tell, the advertised extra velocity with this powder is for real.
You might also see if the Hodgdon superformance powders list a load for your caliber. As far as I can tell, the advertised extra velocity with this powder is for real.
jryoung
Well-known member
Perhaps because Barnes bullets have at least 2 cannelures (LRX) and most likely 3 or 4 (TSX, TTSX) and a boat tail which typically generate lower pressure when compared to a bullet of equivalent weight?
sbhooper
Well-known member
If that is your decision, then go for it, but don't consider that as common propaganda to put out to someone that may not have a complete understanding of what is going on. Staying under the listed max is not "BULL"!
BuzzH
Well-known member
I agree with mtmuley...listed max loads are a joke.
I've seen variances between manuals of 2+ grains. How can they not be "bull" when there isnt any kind of consistent data?
I strongly suggest that new handloaders have a full understanding of what pressure signs are, how to recognize it, etc. Blindly following a manual is for fools. Lots of things change pressure, powder charge being the largest, but not the only thing.
Use the loading manuals as a starting point...and for the record, I've had loads that were listed in manuals as 1-2 grains under max that were showing very apparent and real signs of excessive pressure. Tough bolt lift, loose primer pockets, yada yada...
I've also seen loads 2+ grains over listed max that are showing absolutely no pressure signs.
Using a manual for anything more than a very rough starting point isnt going to get anyone much beyond the starting gate of reloading...
I've seen variances between manuals of 2+ grains. How can they not be "bull" when there isnt any kind of consistent data?
I strongly suggest that new handloaders have a full understanding of what pressure signs are, how to recognize it, etc. Blindly following a manual is for fools. Lots of things change pressure, powder charge being the largest, but not the only thing.
Use the loading manuals as a starting point...and for the record, I've had loads that were listed in manuals as 1-2 grains under max that were showing very apparent and real signs of excessive pressure. Tough bolt lift, loose primer pockets, yada yada...
I've also seen loads 2+ grains over listed max that are showing absolutely no pressure signs.
Using a manual for anything more than a very rough starting point isnt going to get anyone much beyond the starting gate of reloading...
sbhooper
Well-known member
And if I was to guess, that 2 grains over max never killed one animal any deader than the book loads.
Reloading and stretching the envelope is fine if that is what you want to do. For people that do not have extensive experience with reloading, it is not bull to stay within loading recommendations. It is irresponsible to recommend otherwise. You are getting into the realm of experienced reloaders making a conscious decision to stretch the limits-not the realistic approach that the casual reloader takes when reloading. You might consider data as bull and maybe it is, but it is still the accepted standard.
The only thing that I ever got by stretching the limits was a 7 mag barrel that was prematurely burned out. If you like to re-barrel rifles, that is great, but I don't. I will stay with my max and under loads and kill stuff just as well as the rifles that are pushed over the limit for the sake of a few feet per second in velocity.
Reloading and stretching the envelope is fine if that is what you want to do. For people that do not have extensive experience with reloading, it is not bull to stay within loading recommendations. It is irresponsible to recommend otherwise. You are getting into the realm of experienced reloaders making a conscious decision to stretch the limits-not the realistic approach that the casual reloader takes when reloading. You might consider data as bull and maybe it is, but it is still the accepted standard.
The only thing that I ever got by stretching the limits was a 7 mag barrel that was prematurely burned out. If you like to re-barrel rifles, that is great, but I don't. I will stay with my max and under loads and kill stuff just as well as the rifles that are pushed over the limit for the sake of a few feet per second in velocity.
Manuals are a guideline. It's up to the individual loader to determine what is safe and what is not. Data varies from source to source. Just because it is a published "standard" doesn't make it safe in every firearm. And just because it is a published "maximum" doesn't mean it is the limit for every firearm either. As a loaders experience grows, so does not having to relying on the "norm". mtmuley
I'm not neccessarily disagreeing or agreeing that one cannot make safe loads going above what is listed as max in a loading manual. From what I understand, this is best done with a chronograph and using the exact same components as listed in a loading manual. If you are using the same components and getting the same velocities as listed, then pressures listed in the manuals will be quite close.
Further to complicate matters, some cartridges have a lower max pressure standardized that comparable rounds. IIRC the SAAMI max pressure for the 280 Rem is lower than the 270 Win. Therefore one has a bit of wiggle room at the top end for going over listed max loads. However, without either some expensive pressure testing equipment or a chronograph and some math it's hard to approximate pressures.
Likewise, there have been some studies done measuring pressures and comparing them to 'traditional' signs of pressure. Often times the traditional signs don't show up until well over max excepted pressures.
YMMV...
Further to complicate matters, some cartridges have a lower max pressure standardized that comparable rounds. IIRC the SAAMI max pressure for the 280 Rem is lower than the 270 Win. Therefore one has a bit of wiggle room at the top end for going over listed max loads. However, without either some expensive pressure testing equipment or a chronograph and some math it's hard to approximate pressures.
Likewise, there have been some studies done measuring pressures and comparing them to 'traditional' signs of pressure. Often times the traditional signs don't show up until well over max excepted pressures.
YMMV...
sbhooper
Well-known member
Well-said, 1-pointer. There are a lot of variables and that is why we have accepted standards. Anybody that has the equipment, experience and desire to go above the standard limits, then that is their choice and perfectly acceptable. It is just not wise to promote going above published standards on an open forum where inexperienced people may decide that is the thing to do.
Agree with 1 pointer & Hooper.
It's also important to understand the context to why pressures were assigned like they were. With the 280, it was because of the Remington 760 pump rifle. That action can't handle the same pressures that a bolt can, so it was reduced to ensure that the Remington's wouldn't blow up.
It's also important to understand the context to why pressures were assigned like they were. With the 280, it was because of the Remington 760 pump rifle. That action can't handle the same pressures that a bolt can, so it was reduced to ensure that the Remington's wouldn't blow up.
jryoung
Well-known member
Ditto for a 7x57. All published loads are anemic, but a modern bolt action can handle pressures much higher than the early relics can.
Same with most older European cartridges. The 8mm is loaded way down due to older .318 diameter barrels.
Amount of powder in a case is a verible depending on a lot of things. Most people that get themselves in trouble look only at the amount of grains and stop looking. What was the lenght of the test barrel, reg or mag primer etc., etc., compared to what they are using.
I can take 4 identical rounds and load them with the exact same components including exact same powder charge, shoot them out of the same rifle and get 4 different pressures and velocities. How? Seat one bullet just off the lands, one off the lands .040", one off .080", and one off .120". Anyone want to guess which one creates the most pressure/velocity?
Another verible created by the lawyers: Take a current reloading manual, then find a reloading manual by the exact same company from say 20 years ago - compare max. powder charges from same caliber, bullet, powder etc. and you tell me why max recommended charges continue to decrease.
I can take 4 identical rounds and load them with the exact same components including exact same powder charge, shoot them out of the same rifle and get 4 different pressures and velocities. How? Seat one bullet just off the lands, one off the lands .040", one off .080", and one off .120". Anyone want to guess which one creates the most pressure/velocity?
Another verible created by the lawyers: Take a current reloading manual, then find a reloading manual by the exact same company from say 20 years ago - compare max. powder charges from same caliber, bullet, powder etc. and you tell me why max recommended charges continue to decrease.
The one closest to the lands will have the greatest pressure. Farther away just works like a Weatherby-esque freebore.
I'm not convinced that the last 'verible' was created by lawyers. I'm more of the opinion that pressure testing/measuring equipment has gotten both cheaper and better. Many early manuals used traditional signs of pressure, which modern testing equipment has proven often don't show up until over SAAMI pressure limits. The other 'verible' that complicates this is that the same powders aren't the same anymore. I've read in more than one place that 4831 (both I and H) today is faster than the surplus 4831 of yesteryear. That alone would cause a reduction in powder charge.
Either way, it's not all that hard and definitely not magic to work up a good, safe and effective load.
Unfortunately - it is just the opposite. The farther the bullet is lengthened the less pressure/velocity.
If you have a chrony you can prove it to yourself. Take your current ammo, seat the bullets deeper by .080" and shoot over a chrony. I say this assuming your current ammo is not close to a max load in your rifle already.
I have used this method numerous times to get a load to match an existing turret/ballistic reticle/CDS type scope where the velocity is close but not dead on.
Bottom of the page...
http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/internal
I pirated this graph from this thread.
http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/3792524/Seating_depth_and_pressure
http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/internal
I pirated this graph from this thread.
http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/3792524/Seating_depth_and_pressure
halfbreed6265
New member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2012
- Messages
- 17
I use imr 4064 powder for loading my wifes' 7mm08, and right now with 38.7 grains powder behind
a 154 grain hornady interlock......her savage axis is doing nickel sized groups at 100 yds. The 4064 seems to build less chamber pressure across the board, and recoil is about the same as a .243 with light loads......muzzle vel is around 2860, so this might be a lil food for thought for you......
a 154 grain hornady interlock......her savage axis is doing nickel sized groups at 100 yds. The 4064 seems to build less chamber pressure across the board, and recoil is about the same as a .243 with light loads......muzzle vel is around 2860, so this might be a lil food for thought for you......
