Changing Load Data Over Time

[sestoppelman]

I often have a certain velocity in mind to achieve a certain energy level, and as long as it is accurate and not on the ragged edge, that's where I want to be. Take my .30-06 load to be used next month on eland and other critters. I had in mind 2600 fps for the 200 gr Nosler Partition, quite doable. I had stellar accuracy with R-19 and 22, but the charts all show 19 to be somewhat faster than 22 so when I had great accuracy with a top charge of 19, (so I thought), I called it good. Then having also had a very similar accuracy result with a top charge of 22, I ran them both over a clock and to my surprise, the 19 load was well below where I expected to see it, and the 22 load right where I wanted to be, 2600 fps. The 19 load is only 2 grains below the 22 load so for all intents and purposes, in THIS application the two powders are 2 peas in a pod, regardless what burn charts or loading manuals state, because 2 more grains of 19 would likely have it right with the 22 load. In this instance I am still treating the 19 as if it were in fact a faster powder than 22 so am going with the 22 load since I have the speed and accuracy but perhaps a tad less pressure.

 

[CTDolan]

The companies publishing load data know what they're doing. They have equipment and knowledge and experience well beyond you or I. My recommendation is to stick with what's in the manuals. The few fps to be gained by wandering off into uncharted waters just ain't worth it.

As for published load data changing over time, there's numerous possible reasons as to why.

 

[CTDolan]

As for following signs of high pressure (flattened primers, sticky bolt, etc), that's bullshit. By the time any show up you've gone well beyond maximum (or are doing something horribly wrong). Forget what some of the "experts" in print may tell you. They're wrong (and are likely only parroting what they've heard before).

 

[GuttormG]

We should start referring to them as pressure warning signs.

 

[CTDolan]

Agreed.

The reason for my statement is that I know of two cases wherein rifles were destroyed (thankfully not their owners) because, after reaching the maximum load listed in the manual (one Hornady, the other Nosler), the shooter, seeing no signs of high pressure, decided to go a little further with their charge. In each instance the increase was small but in each instance it was enough to ruin the rifle (each a bolt action of modern manufacture not some tired, old relic).

I know another guy who is currently doing the same with his 22-250 and is not bothered in the least by the fact that he has to habitually apply some added persuasion in order to open the bolt. He shoots paper and prairie dogs and is therefore not worried about cycling the bolt to put another bullet into a departing, potentially malicious beast. So if the bolt sticks, what of it? All he cares about is velocity and is basically shooting proof-class loads to get it. One of these days, it's going to bite him, hard.

 

[Royal27]

As for published load data changing over time, there's numerous possible reasons as to why.

I'm a newbie to reloading, so don't have much to add to this conversation, but isn't one possibility that powder with the same name has changed and gotten hotter over the years at least in some cases? I've at least read of this happening.

Now if @Michael Dean comes and tells me that the velocities haven't changed in the cases he was referring to and only the max loads, then that certainly wouldn't hold out.

I do know that the use of multiple manuals has been drilled into me by many to cross check as has the use of a chrono. Heck, for the Lott there is relatively so little load data out there that I don't know I'd even try and undertake without a chrono.

 

[GuttormG]

Worth noting that the first post says he back in 1985 developed a load, I take it that means he he did not use published data.

But the velocities would be interesting to know, absolutely. If one today loads the same load as back in 1985; does it still give the same velocity? If yes, quite safe to say that the powder 8or other components has not changed).

 

[sheephunterab]

Something to bear in mind regarding pressure signs is that each rifle is unique and one rifle may show signs while another may not. I've seen some rifles show pressure signs with factory ammo. Pay attention to the signs! All chambers are not the same!

 

[CTDolan]

@sheephunterab , you are correct. The variables are many and therefore we're making blanket statements. When it comes to the subject matter, though, safe rather than sorry is the rule.

@GuttormG , published load data existed back in 1985.

 

[sheephunterab]

From 1960

 

[JimP]

Something to bear in mind regarding pressure signs is that each rifle is unique and one rifle may show signs while another may not. I've seen some rifles show pressure signs with factory ammo. Pay attention to the signs! All chambers are not the same!

That is one reason that I'll never let out the loading data that I am using for my rifles to others on forums or even people that I know. I'll work with them to build a load that works in their rifle and if it matches what I am using in mine then fine.

I have a couple of loads for a Ruger #1 rifle that would not be safe in a bolt action rifle but they are perfectly safe in my #1.

 

[GuttormG]

@GuttormG , published load data existed back in 1985.

Did I in any way say it didn't?

 

[CTDolan]

"Worth noting that the first post says he back in 1985 developed a load, I take it that means he he did not use published data."

That's how I read the above.

 

[CTDolan]

From 1960

By the way, @sheephunterab seems to have had the same interpretation.

 

[GuttormG]

OK,....
He does not anywhere state that he in 1985 used a published load, he writes he developed a load. Big difference..

 

[sheephunterab]

Load are typically developed from published data but not always for sure.

 

[GuttormG]

Since so many seems to think load-data is absolute; why not just jump straight on the max.load? Why do they even bother to publish the reduced loads?

 

[sheephunterab]

Accuracy, recoil reduction, different styles of bullets, individual rifles all play into where we go from maximum loads. Published loads are basically a benchmark from which to develop that load that best matches your desired results. Load data is anything but absolute but it's a great shortcut to your desired results.

 

[JimP]

Since so many seems to think load-data is absolute; why not just jump straight on the max.load? Why do they even bother to publish the reduced loads?

Because a max load in the manual may blow up in your rifle.

If you read any manual they will tell you not to start with the max loading for the bullet that you plan on shooting. Plus that is half the fun of reloading, starting low and working your way up to a safe and good load for your rifle.

If you also do some reading you will find that a lot of the loads in the manuals use pressure barrels to check the pressure of the round being shot to compare it with the SAAMI industry standards for pressure that has been deemed safe.

 

[CTDolan]

As mentioned, the variables are legion.

Max loads should be treated as max loads, not a jumping off point for more. They're pressure tested under highly controlled conditions. There is very little to be gained by going beyond and potentially much to be lost.