Home Forums Reloading Big Game Rifles Over book max loads - taboo topic?

My gunsmith freind developed a load for my 7mm RM many years ago that was unbelievably accurate and functioned with no pressure signs, 65 grains of IMR 4350 under a 150 grain NBT. When I first started reloading I just followed the exact recipe since it just worked.

When I realized it was quite a bit over maximum in a couple of books I played around and developed a slightly less over book load but still over published maximum.

Most of what I shoot at deer or elk are at or slightly above some maximum published loads. But I wouldn't normally tell someone starting reloading that was the right thing to do. Am I the only hypocrite out there??

Probably not but you can't beat the laws of physics.

I'm curious what speed you're getting with that load in your barrel.
I've got a 22-250 that I load over book max but it's a slow barrel and doesn't approach book speed till I step on it a bit. (I keep it's loads segregated)
I also had a 300WSM that was happiest with starting loads and popped primers with some factory loads.

I don't chrono every load but I do chrono each rifle so I know what to expect.
"There is no free lunch" and "every rifle is an individual" comes to mind.

For what it's worth...

I carefully worked up to about the max I have ever seen written for 7-08 and a 140 Accubond, which is 44 grains of RL-15. Now this ought to really push things, but I was getting 2760 fps, with still rounded primers and absolutely no signs of pressure.

So I kept going up in .5 grain increments, and velocity increased evenly. I finally stopped at 46 grains, which gave me 2870 fps; primers are a bit flatter but nothing extreme, and no signs of excessive pressure - normal bolt lift and such. Been shooting this load for years with no problems - in this rifle.

I suspect if I had the bore miked, it would be at the upper end for this caliber, and hence constricting the bullet less than a tighter bore.

I've had rifles that maxed out very near starting loads---based on observations of velocity and effort required for extraction and visual signs. It stands to reason that some rifles will safely digest loads that exceed published maximum charges. I think it's okay to go over book max as long as you're using your head and paying attention to what's going on, but not just in a quest for velocity for velocity's sake.

Yep BTDT and lived to tell about it. Any item that is mass produced is going to have tolerances. They can stack to yield low pressures in a rifle (top of tolerance bore size, long throat, big chamber) or the opposite. Also the manuals are published based on data that is safe for 99% of rifles (maybe 99.9%?) but that still leaves the 1 in 1000 rifle that is safe with loads in excess of what the manual says.
How about 2-3gr difference in max between manuals for the same caliber/bullet?

That always leaves you wondering, doesn't it? I think it's a perfect illustration of the fact that there are a lot of variables at work, and no assumptions should be made---BTDT myself, and it can sure get a guy in trouble.

IMO, the bottom line is that in reality a handloader is completely on his own and MUST be educated, prudent, and very observant...no matter what the book says. Ultimately, we are completely on our own and no one is there to see to our safety but our own little selves.

I have a Rem 700 chambered in 300 Savage. A large part of the body of data published for this cartridge can only be described as anemic in this rifle. So I am shooting over book max in a lot of instances.

I'm also not trying to make it into a 308, I have enough of those already.

My 1976 made Ruger model 77 is fairly slow not over 3000fps with .2 over Nosler's max these days. I'm way over everyone's max except Barnes shooting their 180 TTSX out of my 300 Weatherby with very good accuracy results but running under 3200 fps. Both using IMR 4350 my favorite accuracy powder.

I work up carefully and am aware of rifle individual variation. But when a young man asked what my load was last year he was sort of shocked - he had never considered exceeding the one very conservative book he owned. I felt like the bad influence sharing a dirty little secret even though I explained how being careful and slow was necessary.

How many reloaders use the EXACT same recipe as the book, exact bullet (vs. some bullet of the same weight), case and primer, and the exact same make and model of rifle pressure tested by the testers?

This is why books are guidelines that need to be employed with common sense.

If a load was tested with Winchester brass, but you substitute Remington brass, your pressure can be over book max, even if your powder charge isn't.

Not a gambler, I have always been able to find an accurate load within published loading data parameters. While I do not always begin with the starting load I NEVER exceed the maximum load.

In the situation I outlined I don't see it as gambling.

Me either.

Over-book loads is not a taboo topic but you need to do it with both eyes open, pun intended. I'll not sweat 1-2 grains on 60k psi loads but don't deviate much from published pressure tested data with cartridges that have a 65k psi SAAMI pressure limit. I always follow velocity. If I'm not getting 'book' velocity, that isn't ridiculous, I'll add a grain or so but always stop when velocity is where its supposed to be. The other trick is figuring where its supposed to be. I tend to look for data that is grouped and call that the target velocity. Some look for the highest velocity and call that the max with about any combination of components. My favorite optimistic data source is alot of Nosler's data - I find it pretty optimistic. Hornady data on the other hand can be a bit anemic. I tend to pay attention to what Sierra and Hodgdon say for both velocity and powder charge.

For the 7 RM, I've routinely run the 6-8 I've had over the years 1-2 grains over standard book max. In a 24" barrel, I stopped at 3200 with 140, 3100 with 150, 3000 with 160. I felt better with 50 ft/sec less than those listed but in all cases stopped when it hit those velocity numbers.

For the load mentioned, it is ~ 4 grains over Hodgdon max but Nosler says 63 with that bullet - and 3248 ft/sec with a 24" barrel. I'd not run a 150 in a 24" 7 RM at that velocity if you paid me. I'd check velocity and if it ran 3100 or less, I'd not be overly worried. If it ran faster, I'd start over, regardless of what Nosler says.

I've tried several listed 300 Savage top loads that not only didn't flatten the primer at all, but were so mild in my rifle the firing pin not only made the usual indent but also left the primer face slightly concave. They didn't even spring back under pressure.

I would point out that even if you had the very same load---even loaded by the lab who published the data---right there in your hand, it may produce more or less pressure in YOUR rifle, same model or not. There is NO guarantee of safety, even if you follow the recipes to the letter.

Every handloader needs to realize that his name is Icarus, and flying to near the sun can be disastrous.

When I got my first 7mag in 1994,I was loading 65.3grs of IMR-4350 for a 150gr Nosler Ballistic Tip for a velocity of 3050fps.I took it all the way up to 67.0grs of IMR-4350 with a velocity of 3229fps,but it grouped the best with 65.3grs.The manual I used was a 1967 Lyman.Here is a page.


These days,my go to load is 67.5grs of Reloader-22 with the 150gr NBT.It's running about 3100fps.Here is a 2011 Lee Manual page.As you can see there is a really big difference from the old manual compared to the newer one.You will also notice the newer manual is showing load pressure where the older one doesn't.Every rifle is different.You cannot expect every rifle to get the same velocities and pressures.The modern loads are loaded at a fairly moderate pressure.I feel I can safely go a little above most published loads without getting my pressures too high.

That is funny 65.3 is exactly the load my gunsmith gave me. The primers were Winchester LR and a change in primers made a big difference in accuracy. In those days the books did go higher than today. My knowledge of large company behavior leads me to believe that they will continue to get more conservative not less.

I'm comfortable that loads I use today are safe in my rifles and that there is safe room above what I'm shooting. Like most folks my guns got less accurate and backed down some amount. As many have pointed out we are responsible for our actions as reloaders. My concern is that younger reloaders may assume it is always safe to go over book. In some rifles that may be true but certainly not in all of them.

I load over book in my 7 and 8 x57's for the same reason mathman does.

There are considerable differences in barrels and throats and this alone can cause substantial differences in the velocities we see in our rifles versus what the manual show.

I had one 7 RM with a 24" Krieger barrel that took 7mm Weatherby charges of H4831 for 3080 fps with a 160 NPT.That velocity level is very much in line for a standard 7 RM.

So "yes" following velocity as an indicator of max loads can sometimes bring you over what a manual might show as "max".

BTW that same load in another 24" Douglas barreled 7 Rem Mag recorded almost 3200 fps. Just another illustration of how much variation we can see rifle to rifle.

Ohh....BTW there were no "traditional pressure signs" using that load in the second rifle; but would I trust it? No.....I abandoned it after that chronograph session.

Take a look at the barrels used in the Nosler Manuals....many are Wiseman pressure barrels, and some Lilja. The 280 is a 26" Lilja; the 280AI is a 26" Wiseman; the 7 Rem Mag is another 24" Wiseman.

These tight, uniform, well made and smooth pressure barrels with min spec throats etc could easily show more velocity than the more generous barrel, throat and chamber specs of most factory guns. No wonder we sometimes can't equal what the manuals say without goosing the max loads a little.

I think Nosler sets this up that way on purpose....if here loads will work in those tight pressure barrels they are likely to work in those looser factory rifles without blowing anything up. Even if we can't always safely hit their velocities.

Once again,you are right on Bob.I have four 7mags.I work up loads that all four can shoot accurately and safely.The slowest is a 1977 24" Ruger 1-V,followed by a 26" Remington Sendero,followed by a Remington 700 with a 24" Douglas barrel and the fastest is a 1976 26" Ruger 1-B.The velocity difference between the slowest and the fastest is 100fps or more with the same load and bullet.All four rifles shoot great.I could squeeze a little more out of the slower ones to bring their velocity up some,but the loads would be getting too hot on the faster ones.

bald hunter if we mess around enough we will bump into this stuff fairly often.

That is so true.

Yep, if you fool around long enough with enough rifles and manuals, you will run into scenarios that are only determined by the chronograph.

I ran into this with a custom barreled 7mmRemMag about 7 years back.

Long-throat 7RM

I now shoot 69gr of RL22 under a moly 160AB in this rifle for about 3,000fps. That's 6-8gr above book max, depending on the manual. The moly maybe eats up a grain or so of that, due to the loss of friction, but it is still not a load I'd drop in any other rifle. This one has a lot of freebore, and as a result, requires powder charges close to 7mm Weatherby levels. It shoots so well, I don't want to mess with getting a new chamber cut, so I live with the jump and the larger appetite for powder. Live and learn.

This is why it's tough to say there's a "standard load" for any chambering that is up near top-end levels. Two rifles in that chambering may be able to tolerate that load, or they may not. It's best to work up over a chronograph if you think they are warm loads.

I saw an interesting one just this last week when looking for data. I'm tinkering with a deer/hog load in 338WM, something that might kick a bit less than my standard 200gr/65grRL15 load. I have heard about 57-60gr of H4895 being good with 200gr bullets and making 2700-2,800fps. As I have some 185TTSX bullets coming, I wanted to see how the lighter weight bullet factored in on that front when it comes to recommended powder charges, so I went to Hogdon's online data. Max load shown for the 200gr Speer with H4895 is 62gr, with the 210gr PT at 60gr. That makes sense, with the PT being a bit heavier and having the differing internal structure. But the 185TSX has a listed max of only 59.5gr. That's a half-grain lower than the 210PT load with a bullet weighing a full 25gr less. Likely has to do with case capacity and the length of that copper 185, but still, it shows that not all bullets behave the same way. Some powder charge/bullet weight combos are obviously not just plug-and-play with any bullet of your choice.

That pretty much sums it up.

Is that just the maximum load listed in that manual, or does it take into account the "lowest maximum" in all sources?

I only consider info from the bullet manufacturer's manual, other sources data may or may not concur. I like to keep my reloading endeavors simple, if a load gives me the accuracy I'm looking for and gives good performance on game I call it good.

Sounds awfully sensible.

If you're relying at least partly on chronograph-watching, there's one problem with using only data for that bullet: More than one bullet company works up loads in a pressure barrel, then chronographs them in a factory rifle, which often results in lower velocities. A few years ago this technique resulted in one manual listing higher velocities for the .308 Winchester than the .30-06.

Speer 13? comes to mind.

I hear you - but can't get past the apparent anomaly in their own data. Look at the 7 WSM data for a 150. IIRC the WSM hull holds 82 gr water, the RM 84. The RM hull MAP pressure is 61 kpsi, the WSM 65. Nosler data denotes 4.5 gr difference in case capacity likely due to deeper seating of bullets in the WSM hull. But the MAP is also 4k higher for the WSM hull. They should be ~ same-same. I've had 2, 7 WSM and they actually ran a bit faster on average than my 7RM using like barrel lengths again likely due to the MAP differences and trying to stay on the safe side of pressure. Using Noslers own data, the WSM only runs to 3136 which is in line with other data sources on both the WSM and RM. They also had the same Wiseman barrels.

I also note their data on the fastest 7WSM load is 73 gr Magpro for 3136. Note the corresponding data for 7RM Magpro 72.5 gr for 3129. This makes sense to me because it is consistent and in line with other data sources. I first noticed this in their 30-06 data running a 165 at 3000 ft/sec with Re 22. Despite trying several lots of Re22, I could never come close to those vels in several 06s.

For IMR 4350 and 4831, they run 2.5 gr less in the WSM but seem to lose 200 ft/sec compared to the 7RM. That doesn't seem to mesh with other data and my experience.

At the end of the day, I don't find comfort in chasing their velocity, or anybody else's, that is significantly out of line for known components. New powders and technologies with pressure testing, I'm in. Same components I've been shooting for 35+ years not so much.

Just because the barrels are from the same manufacturer does not mean they are the "same".

Most of these discrepancies will be barrel or pressure related.

There are SO many variables accounting for relatively minor differences in pressure and velocity.

The BIG difference of course is that we are "guessing" our pressures when we look at a chronograph screen.........Nosler isn't.

Which cracks me up when you look at their ballistic coefficient numbers.

Specneeds: I load for many dozens of Rifles (both big game Rifles and varmint Rifles) and a few pistols that shoot Rifle cartridges.
To my knowledge I only load for and shoot 1 (one!) Rifle/cartridge that is OVER book maximum.
That Rifle is a Remington 700 in caliber 7mm Remington Magnum.
AND... the loading I decided on was just at "book maximum" back in 1985 when I started load testing for that Rifle!
That loading is NOW over book maximum (Nosler Reloading Guide (Manual) #6.
Not much good can come from habitually loading over book maximums and I firmly stay away from "pushing" pressure limits or "hot-rodding" my loadings.
Safety and accuracy are my prime objectives in handloading for my Rifles.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy