Mohawk
Full Member
Houston, Texas
Posts: 63
|
Post by Mohawk on Dec 10, 2003 22:38:22 GMT -5
Gentlemen,
Those of you who have been assembling your own ammunition for awhile know that for most rifle cartridges, especially the larger capacity ones, published maximum recommended loads are often not the actual maximum safe loads. This is to say that they may be less than or greater than the what they actually are. For example, Patria Lapua Oy of Finland (manufacturers of what I believe to be the very finest small arms cartridge components and propellants in the world) publish a reloading manual for their Vihta Vuori powders that significantly understates/underestimates the potentiality of just about all the cartridges for which it has listings (e.g. max. listed loads for the .300 Win.Mag. and .338 Lapua are in excess of 200 fps slower than the actual max. SAFE loads with which my shooting acquaintances I have experimented). On the the other hand, Barnes Bullets publishes a reloading manual that I wouldn't recommend to anyone, as my shooting acquaintances and I have discovered that pressures generated by many of the max. listed recipes therein are dangerously high (e.g. many of the max. loads listed for the .300 WSM are at the threshhold of being disastrous).
Keeping in mind, of course, that the idiosyncrasies of individual rifles are also a significant contributor in determining what load recipes remain safe while others become dangerous, what have been your experiences with the various handloading 'cookbooks' in wide circulation?
Regards,
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by littletoes on Dec 17, 2003 20:46:59 GMT -5
I would say that if anyone was to venture into this "area," I would reccomend that they pay heavy attention to the "signs." There are a lot of older weapons out there. But, I have found that loading beyond reccomended max loads can be done. I think the trick is finding the most accurate load possible. Who cares how fast its going, IF IT MISSES? Thats a young mans deal-building them as fast as can be had, without paying any attention to accuracy. But, saying that, I will load up till handloads show the tiniest signs of pressure, in search of the most accurate loading.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlleninAlaska on Dec 17, 2003 22:45:27 GMT -5
Manuals are written using their test barrels and not your off the shelf barrel. The test barrels have very tight tolerances. The max load you get in your barrel may not be the max load I get in my barrel. Each firearm is it's own entity. Hell, my shorter may even be faster than your longer barrel.
|
|
|
|
Post by littletoes on Dec 18, 2003 19:29:31 GMT -5
Sure, faster at shorter ranges! Come 500 yards I'm blowing you out of the water! LOL But Allen, you are fully correct , test barrels/tight tollerances. I have heard that H.S. Precision manufactures the largest percentage of test barrels for the industry.
|
|
Mohawk
Full Member
Houston, Texas
Posts: 63
|
Post by Mohawk on Dec 18, 2003 23:44:55 GMT -5
Gentlemen,
As I said, I'm well aware that the idiosyncrasies of individual rifles contribute in no small measure to determining what they will handle and/or what they won't in the way of custom handloads. And as for making comparisons between the tubes being used to develop published data versus those found on 'off the shelf' rifles, the point is moot for me since I don't own any rifles that aren't serious custom affairs with barrels by manufacturers like Krieger, Hart, and Lilja. So withstanding the facts that my barrels have tighter and shorter chambers, closer tolerances, and more uniform bore walls, can I expect to run higher velocities than those published in the following reloading manuals: Nosler, Speer, Hornady? As for the Barnes, Sierra, and Vihta Vuori manuals, I am already familiar enough to know that I can or cannot go over their published max. loads. And advice about any other manual not mentioned here would be much appreciated.
And please, don't advise me to go out and creep up a 1/4 grain at a time until I see pressure signs. These d**n rifles of mine are high maintenance rigs and the barrels are too quickly shot out to mess around shooting experimental loads if one doesn't absolutely have to. I'm just trying to figure out whose manuals are generally conservative (e.g. Vihta Vuori) and whose are generally liberal (e.g. Barnes).
Regards,
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by 1st cav sgt ret on Dec 19, 2003 7:14:09 GMT -5
Mohawk I dont mean to sound condesending but with the money you have invested in your rifles,you will never know what your actual veloctiies are without a chronograph...reloading guides(or manuals)are simply that "guides"granted these companies spend an extrodanary amount to make and publish them however(much like a bible)they are only for guidance...as to which one is best(I dont think there is one single one that is the best or most accurate)I have and use hornady,speer,sierra,hodgdon,accurate and several online sources but still without a chronograph I dont know what my rifles are actually doing.IMO
|
|
Mohawk
Full Member
Houston, Texas
Posts: 63
|
Post by Mohawk on Dec 19, 2003 21:15:07 GMT -5
Sarge,
You're one of my favorite guys at this board, so nothing you might say would offend me. It would simply be taken as the result of my failure to communicate what I'm actually driving at. This instance is perfectly illustrative seein' as how I do have a chronograph. In fact, I have two chronographs (an Oehler and a Pact) and I never leave home for the range without one or both. But velocity is actually not my most immediate concern here. Chamber pressures are. Nonetheless, I still look to drive a given projectile as fast as reasonably possible since none of the rifles I own have ever failed to yield better and better accuracy the faster I push bullets out of them. (And for those who are suprised by this, just try taking your fastest handload and your most accurate handload -- withstanding that they are not the same -- and try shooting groups with the two at 600, 800, or even 1000 yards and see what you get. A sub-1/2 MOA group at 100 yards will often fall apart at much greater distance. And a less accurate, but much faster load will often 'go to sleep' in a big way once it flys out past 300 or 400 yards.) By the way, Littletoes made a great point in mentioning that increasing barrel length does not always mean that a rifle will hold elevation at greater distances. I think twist has more to do with this than anything. The point is that we can not extrapolate accuracy at 100 yards to the effective limit of a given loads range.
Also, I'm well aware that the mean MVs published along with various handload data are just about completely erroneous . . . even in those instances where the person subscribing to whatever data has a rifle built wherein his smith matches the test barrel maker, length, twist, chamber length and tightness of the chamber (I've seen people go to great lengths to do this!).
So all I really want to know is whether or not any you handloaders use the current Nosler, Speer, or Hornady manuals and if you've found yourself able to load over their max. load recipes?
Sorry for all the trouble, gents! And really, I'm obliged to ya for your comments and advice.
Best,
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by 1st cav sgt ret on Dec 19, 2003 22:26:56 GMT -5
yes, most of my loads for my 6.5x55 excede the books,the 6.5 is one of those cartridges that you dont realize the true nature of without reloading for,most if not all manuals list loads under 46000 cup however Norma loads to 50k,therefore I load to this level(with a chronograph and looking for signs of excess pressure)and your right my most accurate load at 100 falls apart after 400,I dont follow the benchrest(read ultra accurate)group, my loading is for hunting therefore it isnt ethical for me to attempt a shot at an animal past what I feel is my selfemposed limits(which for me is about 400yds anything further and I need to sneak closer)I do however applaud those that are able to shoot those ittybitty groups at extended ranges I just havent been able to with anything less than a 120mm maingun
|
|
|
|
Post by littletoes on Dec 20, 2003 0:02:14 GMT -5
To your one question; YES, I have always been able to load beyond listed maximum loads before signs of pressure show up. And of cource, the most accurate load at 100 yards may most definatly not be the most accurate at 1000 yards. Most VLD bullets perform better at extended ranges than they do at closer ranges. That is exactly what they were designed for. And of cource, the hottest, fastest load is not always the most accurate at any range. There are too many variebles in rifle's/handloads/or anything else for that matter in the entire line of events that must take place when a trigger is pulled. Yes you can make the statement that hotter loads are always the most accurate, but you are wrong. Plain and simple. Each weapon, each handload, is an individual. There are too many variebles to list. It may be as simple as the calibers that you are talking about in the rifles that you own. And yes, most definatly, there are those cartiges that like "hotter" loadings. For example, all of the Weatherby line seems to perform better with hotter loads. But, can this be said of all existing cartriges? Absolutly not. Just try loading for the ever present 30'06.
Sierra manuals have always been the most accurate load informatin as far as listed velocitys with bullet weights used, at least for me. They seem to strive to give handloaders the most accurate information.
|
|
|
|
Post by GonHuntin on Dec 20, 2003 11:37:20 GMT -5
Folks, I have to tell you, this thread really bothers me......we have people who are novice reloaders that may read this thread and assume that it is safe to exceed the published max loads without concern!
It has been proven repeatedly that the only reliable method for judging max loads is through the use of pressure testing equipment.......I have seen test reports showing loads fired on pressure test equipment that nearly doubled the accepted maximum pressures for a cartridge and showed NONE of the common pressure signs like sticky bolt lift, flat primers, case expansion, etc......in other words, those types of "pressure signs" are not reliable indicators of pressure and relying on them will sometimes get a reloader into serious trouble!
Pushing the pressure limit is like walking along the edge of a cliff in the dark.....you don't know where the edge is until you fall off! I have been through Sierra's testing facility and I can assure you, they don't rely on sticky bolt lift or flat primers to develop their recommended max loads!
Is there a "fudge factor" built into most recommended data?....I can't say and neither can you because every firearm is different.......I have a few that published max loads are excessive in......forget about exceeding the max!
The problem is, when you step over that invisible threshold, you can easily damage yourself or your firearm..... nothing like hot gasses in your eye from a blown primer or case rupture to ruin your whole day!
What appears safe in your rifle today, may blow primers tomorrow simply due to a change in temp!
If you need more velocity than the max listed in the major reloading manuals.......well, then you need to step up to a cartridge with more case capacity......
Please carefully consider what you post....we don't want anyone hurt because of something posted here!
|
|
|
|
Post by 1st cav sgt ret on Dec 20, 2003 12:03:28 GMT -5
GonHunting I agree whole hartedly,which is why I have been very careful with what I have posted,and I do not recomend the pratice of overloading
|
|
|
|
Post by littletoes on Dec 20, 2003 12:18:52 GMT -5
GonHuntin, I fully agree! The advice you give about stepping up a caliber IS the best answer! If someone wants 300 mag velocities, buy a 300 mag. '06's were not designed to go this fast! I would also say that if you go so far as to have a stickey bolt, you have gone way too far. The A. O. Ackley cartriges are famous for not showing any sighns of pressure untill it is too late. Most because of the least amount of body taper that exits on those cartriges.
|
|
Mohawk
Full Member
Houston, Texas
Posts: 63
|
Post by Mohawk on Dec 21, 2003 11:20:27 GMT -5
Allen,
I have to admit, I think I cut my teeth with the reading of your objections. Of course, I've always known that the relationship between the size (i.e. mass/weight) of the powder charge and chamber pressure is not constant. That is to say, its not linear. Although the relationship varies from cartridge to cartridge and propellant to propellant -- with some cartridges being more or less tolerant/forgiving of charges that begin to exceed recommended maximum charges -- there are inevitably going to be chamber pressure spikes as the charge in the case is increased. A young man at Barnes recently told me how they saw a pressure spike of over 7,500 psi with the addition of only 1/2 a grain of powder during the recent development of load data for a newer cartridge with a comparatively large case capacity. What he didn't tell me, however, is whether that increase actually showed up in the way the spent case extracted/ejected or looked after the fact.
Thanks, pal. You're an effective moderator. And I'm sorry for the trouble here.
Best,
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by GonHuntin on Dec 21, 2003 13:50:47 GMT -5
Hey Dave
No problems here......I'm just trying to protect the ignorant! ;D
As reloaders become more knowledgable and experienced, they learn what they can and can't do.....for instance, for those who don't know, if you have a rifle with a throat and mag box that allow longer overall cartridge length than what is listed in the reloading data, many times it is perfectly safe to increase the charge over what is listed in the data *because* (newbies, pay very close attention here) you now have a situation where the bullet doesn't intrude as far into the case which results in more internal capacity!
Again, for the newbies: As a general rule, more case capacity + same powder charge = lower pressure
This is very evident in cartridges such as the 350 Remington mag.....which was designed for, and is commonly loaded to a maximum overall length of 2.8" because of the magazine box length limitations of the remington short action (2.8").
Chamber this cartridge in a different action with a magazine box that allows it to be loaded out to over 3" in overall length and it becomes a completely different animal! The same can be said of the 284 Winchester and the wildcats based on it.......but ONLY because seating the bullet out farther increases case capacity!
Now, for example, if someone posted that they routinely load a 350 mag with charges 4 or 5 grains over listed max......and they don't mention the fact that they seat the bullet out 1/4" over book OAL because their 350 mag is built around a Mexican Mauser action with a properly throated barrel and long magazine box.....well, old Joe Newbie reloader might just blow up his 350 mag chambered Remington 700 Classic when he tries the same thing!
This kind of discussion is both informative and productive if the proper warnings are given and everybody is on the same page....however, with the type of forum we have here, where anyone can read what is posted, we can't be sure everybody has the same basic level of understanding, so, we have to be very careful what we post .
By the way, who is Allen? ;D
Good shooting,
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by littletoes on Dec 21, 2003 23:40:05 GMT -5
LOL! Hey Mark! Yea, I call it factory "Throat-Erosion." It's the factorys way of getting more out of the same cartriges. Of cource they are less accurate. Weatherby does this, and am now told that Remingtion rifles are now comming out with a lot more Factory throat-erosion. Just another way to keep the Lawyers happy....."Hey, if we can promise that there is no way that they can overload this rifle with factory ammo....." Most rifles are more accurate when bullets are seated just off the lands, or even into the lands. But then, here I go getting off topic again!
|
|
