Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters why reduced/downloaded rifle cartridges frown upon?

This question is for everyone since it gets the most attention as well as gun writers since they can often see the bigger picture/trends being in the gun industry.

I remember reading that "conventional" wisdom was to start new & inexperienced shooter with down load or reduced loads from a "deer" rifles.

This wisdom also transferred to handgun cartridges, ie download 44mag loads, etc..


However, while this philosophy/point of view seems to hold true regarding handgun cartridge, it seems most disagree when it comes to rifle cartridges.

The current wisdom or advice given seem to recommend started with a smaller rifle cartridge. In my particular example, instead of downloading 308win to lower recoil levels the advice seems to gravitate toward either getting 243win or better yet get a 223rem and shoot the crap of it.

The conventional wisdom was that it's better to use full velocity potential of smaller rifle cartridge than use reduced/download of larger cartridge such as the 308win.

I don't understand why that it?

Is it because it's easier to get better bullet performance from the smaller rifle cartridge at it's standard/normal operating parameters vs. trying to find the right combination with downloaded larger rifle cartridge?

Or perhaps it's because that today we have more disposable income that our past generations thus can afford to get another rifle?

Appreciate any enlightenment from you more experience shooters and hand loaders. Thank you!


Leo

I don't get it either. To me, working with reduced loads as well as full strength ones simply increases the versatility of any given rifle, and is economical top boot. Heck, even when I get a small cartridge firing rifle, the first thing I do is work up reduced plinking/target loads for it too. I suspect machismo may be a factor with some folks.

Not a gun writer, but I do "download" quite a bit for a lot of my rifles, mainly for practice reasons. More time behind the trigger is always a good thing.

I also use reduced loads for new shooters. As both my daughters were getting ready for their first deer hunts, we stepped up from a .22 to their bigger rifles (257R & 6.5x55), but with reduced loads. That gave them a chance to familiarize themselves with the trigger, the safety, and the overall feel of the gun. They didn't hunt with the reduced loads (I sighted them in with full power loads), and when the time came, they didn't even feel the extra recoil, they just put the bullet where it's supposed to go!

Using reduced loads can also be cheaper. I use cast bullets and Trail Boss for most of my loads, and a bottle of TB will go a long way when you're only using 15-20gr at a time!

Personally, I simply dont see the point. Each rifle has its job, and if I need a lighter load, smaller bullet, less recoil, etc...I simply change rifles.

In general, aside from cast lead slugs from muzzleloaders, bullet performance these days is oft dependent on velocity, and most of those velocities are not in the mild range, hence the need for max velocities from smaller calibers.

Just a thought.

I reduce a 30-06 with round nose bullets for social events.

Yep.
At my 'maturity' (age) I don't see the need to waste powder & primers.

YMMV

Jerry

Leo,

You answered your own question, at least in part.

Despite the popularity of handloading, the majority of shooters still shoot factory ammo, so can't "download." Plus, avid shooters tend to own a lot more rifles, partly because lower-priced rifles have gotten so much more accurate, and have improved triggers.

The "versatility" of a certain cartridge was heavily emphasized by marketers both before and immediately after World War II. But as Americans became more affluent, more and more of us started owning multiple rifles for different purposes. Plus, considering inflation the price of centerfire rifles has actually dropped since the 1950's. In 1955 the suggested retail price of a Remington 721 or 722 (tat era's "affordable" centerfire was $88.35, according to GUN DIGEST.
This may seem like a steal, but the average household income in the U.S. back then was around $4000. Today it's over $50,000.

Adjusted for inflation, the price of a brand-new Ruger American Rifle in 2016 is about about half the price of a Remington 721/722 in 1955. Why spend time making reduced handloads for, say, a .308, when you can pick up a .223 and buy cheap ammo for it? Or handload .223's for considerably less than handloading .308's?

To further my case for shooting reduced loads in rifles, there is the cumulative effect of extended use of full charge loads in heavy kicking rifles. That being the very real physiological effect on one's nervous system and shoulder and neck. A lifetime of high power shooting along with multitudinous trap/skeet/sporting clays shots has left me with arthritis in my shoulder and neck- the cause diagnosed as such by two different docs. Snicker if you may, but it is a real concern, and can happen to the best of us. I refuse to let machismo override intelligence to exacerbate the situation.

I can't tell you how many of my pals who boastfully shoot nothing but 3" shells in their hunting guns, and .300-and-bigger Magdumb rifles have noticeably awkward flinches that they refuse to acknowledge for fear of being called wusses. All the regulars in my goose hunting group are like that, as well as the macho guys who haunt the local ranges.

Isnt that more of an issue of picking the right gun / load, as opposed to handicapping the one you have?

The frowning I mostly have seen in print regarding reduce loads was the issue of safety. Reduce loads often times involves powders that can be double loaded. If not caught upon visual inspection, it poses a danger. With the advent of fluffy Trail Boss, risk of a 2X load goes away.

Another reduced load risk I have seen in print is the possibility of lodging a bullet in the bore. A dangerous situation if the shooter is not paying attention and fires a follow-up round with the bore now obstructed.

Just another way to have fun with guns.

Recently, I find squirrel hunting with a .358W Savage 99 loaded with .38 cal pistol bullets at 1000 FPS more fun than with a .22LR.

I download 257 Roberts, .223, and 25-20, just to give me something else to try, and another application for the rifle. Townsend Whelen used to do it too, and it is just another way to use the rifle and reloading equipment.

For me it comes down to time. And I have not seen a deer killed with a .223 die any less deader.




Dave

Time can definitely be a factor. I've noticed that many if not most of the shooters who really like to dink around with reduced loads are retired.

There was a time that the hot topic of discussion was reduced rifle loads that, on rare occasions, destroyed rifles.

Dr. Brownell did a series ~1965-ish, and his work clearly showed that as rifle powder loads in his 30-06 were decreased below 30KPSI, the variation in chamber pressure became erratic. Using equipment with a much faster response time than we use today, he could see pressure spikes riding on the typical pressure vs. time curve. Today's equipment would simply filter out those spikes.

One of Brownell's students had a bullet lodged halfway down the barrel, and elected to push it out by putting a primed case with a little powder in it in the chamber, and pulling the trigger. The barrel was destroyed.

Hence, some disfavor for reduced loads in rifles.

As far as I know, the effect is limited to slow burning powders in rifles.

Why pull spark plug wires?

I shoot a lot of downloaded pistol ammo. Using (inexpensive) Berry plated bullets and light loads of fast burning powder, I can shoot gobs or 38 Special, 357 Magnum, 44 Magnum and 45 ACP for a relatively small cost.

I've never understood why some look down on light loads.

Apparently it's not entirely frowned upon, as demonstrated by the "light" loads sold by a number of makers. They won't make them if they don't sell. I suspect a number of people want to buy hunting rifles for their wives and children, but don't want to buy them again when they are able to handle more recoil. Light loads work very well there.

Light loads should work very well to reduce meat damage for those of us that like high-intensity (archaic term, I suppose) rifles, but get mostly close-in shots that can juice up the steaks pretty good unless shot placement is just so. I don't do that myself, but probably should. I do tend to stop adding powder to my loads when accuracy is acceptable in order to take it easy on brass and barrels.

I think it comes down to those who have reached sufficient rifle looney status to fiddle with reduced loads, can more easily convince themselves they need another gun. I did quite a bit with reduced loads when my 35 whelen was my only rifle, but somehow found myself replacing those loads with a .223 rifle.

This explains that why, to a degree, I don't mind reducing loads, but when the efficiency of a load falls off or it becomes erratic, I tend to look for a smaller case that will allow pressure more in the intended working range.

Conversely, I'm not a huge fan of real high pressure, either.

It all boils down to the range of performance that a case will perform with consistency with the available powder/bullet combinations, otherwise it's time to upsize/downsize until the performance is suitable.