Home Forums Reloading Big Game Rifles What do you think of this quote?

WvZ is right (not something I get to say often!). I find loads near the max a bit more accurate than lesser loads, and I'm certain there's a cushion. That doesn't mean, however, that the cushion is there for us to use - it's like a safety margin on structural steel that's there in case of accidental overstress.

Also, if you look at the pressure figures in some manuals you'll note that some loads show higher pressures than others. I expect this was because the average of a series of test shots showed less variation and this allowed them to increase the pressure without exceeding max standards.

Ken Howell said it as well as I have ever read. I will probably butcher his quote, but basically he said that handloading at max pressures are like walking around the rim of a canyon in the fog. The problem is that you won't know you've hit the edge until you've gone too far.

If there was a way to accurately and reliably KNOW what pressures your loads were generating, then I'd be all for loading up to the edge. The simple fact is that there is no way to know what pressures you are running, no way of knowing what pressures your brass can take, and no way of knowing what pressures your rifle can take.

People can temp fate all they want, I prefer to keep my eyes in working order. My face, while ugly, is fully functional. I prefer to keep it in that state.

With N-560,I have often times said "I just fill the case and there's my load" Those who use N-560 laugh,it pretty close to what we end up with and those that haven't used N-560 ,lecture.

I don't want to misquote him in case my memory pulls one of its tricks, but I think I remember a gunwriter that I respect a great deal saying that he has found that best accuracy with many of the newer powders occurs near max. He did not say near the max published load, but near max, which to me indicates the max for a particular rifle, arrived at by prudent load development.

Have you ever heard MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS JACKASS...?
You are very unimpressive...

Sorry to orphan my thread; the windstorm over here is wreaking havoc on my internet connection... it's like being on a dialup again. Sucks.

Lots of good stuff you guys typed, as usual. And I'm very impressed, also as usual, to see that the 'Fire is much less dogmatic about things than forums I have seen in the past. I too am just in the lower-intermediate stage of reloading, having loaded maybe 7000-ish rounds of centerfire and dabbling in a few extra-credit things like neck-sizing, resizing cases from .308 to .358... finding the lands on my rifles... duplex loads (just kidding!).

I wish there was some way to be a fly on the wall when the loading companies who make those manuals settle on their numbers. It would interesting to know just how much buffer they are building in there. On the other hand, rifles being what they are (individuals), ANY book max is, I believe, just a guideline anyway. Seeing different books differ by as much as 4 or 5 grains certainly proves that.

Of the rifles I've loaded for, a couple have indeed been at or near MAX when pushing the loads towards book max. I don't know enough about rifles to say exactly what's going on, but a flat primer and/or hard extraction is certainly enough info to tell me that in this case, max means max. My 7mm-08 gets real balky if I even approach max so of course I don't do that.

I also have a couple that are sort of the opposite, that seem to be just begging for more powder, and get more accurate as the charge goes up. In fact, I own that mythical beast that actually gets "book" speeds from "book" charges of powder. It's a 30-06 with a Pac-Nor barrel and will push a 150-gn bullet at 3100 fps give or take, with a Hodgon mini-book max of H4350, just as the book says it should. It's the only rifle I have that will do that.

I will admit to generally loading my hunting loads on the hot side, as long as they stay accurate. Then I also generally craft one or more plinking loads for that rifle and that's what I mostly shoot. I know, intellectually, that 100 fps this way or that won't matter to the deer- but dang it, I bought a 30-06 because I want 2800+ fps with 180's! :-) If I wanted 2700 fps I'd have bought a .308! And so on.

I do have one load that is so far above book max that it makes no sense to me, but, I have put many hundreds of rounds of it through the tube and I get round primers, phenomenal brass life, (12-16 reloads), minimal stretching, and basically no pressure signs whatsoever. This is in my .358, also a Pac-Nor tube, and uses a non-traditional powder for that caliber. I would love to have the gear to know exactly what's going on in there. I guess that load proves that I am willing to respectfully ignore the books and go with what's in my hands, in some limited circumstances. Of course, this load was worked up to rather obsessively carefully, and I actually went past the powder charge I settled on and then came back down, and have shot it on hot days, etc etc etc.

Upshot- I was surprised to actually see that quote phrased that way in a major publication... hadn't noticed one like that before, and thought SOME of ya'll might be interested in it! His implication was clear- that there's a bit of a playground out there at and above book max's, if you want to play in it.

:-)

-jeff

I've met Mr. Van Zwoll and he seemed to be a nice guy, but I have to disagree with him. My experience has been that there is no real margin of safety with published maximun loads.

I agree with the posters who use caution and their chronographs to develope their loads.

Exceeding a max load is like tap dancing in a mine field. If your .270 doesn't go fast enuff for you get a .270WM.

On a side note, I recently started to reload again for my 7RM. Still had part of a box loaded in 1982. Checked the load data on the box against the current Hornady manual and my old load was 4.5gr over max. Couldn't believe I'd screwed up that bad. Checked the old manual, sure enuff, it was 4.5 gr more than they recommend today.

Will I go ahead and shoot the old loads? Sure. WIll I use that data again? No way.

A chronograph should be mandatory. "It knows things..."

Outcast,

In a sense, your experience is kind of the whole point, if you don't mind me appropriating it. Here's a load that is safe in your rifle and indeed must have been safe in the vast majority or rifles, or Hornady would have been sued into the stone age, and yet a present day reloaded might regard a load 4.5 grains under your load as a no-buffer maximum load. When clearly, that's not the case.

Anyway, last thing in the world I want to do is advocate loading over max. I'm just saying... it would be very interesting to be a fly on that wall of the conferance room at Nosler or Hornady when they cast those numbers into stone!

It also casts their pressure equipment into some question. I mean, I know all rifles and even text fixtures are different... but when the Hodgon and Nosler books differ by as much as they do, what does THAT mean? If Hodgon says I can put XX amount of their powder into a case safely (as long as I follow established safe reloading procedures in working up to it), then I have to think that they would know- they are betting their financial health on it- and even if that puts me several grains over what Nosler says... I'll still do it, and have. And I have some good loads because of it.

Uh... how do the big boys test pressure anyway? Those stick-on strain gauges, or something more?

-jeff

+1

If you ASSUME that in manuals there is a "Built-in-Cushion".... well you know the rest about what happens when we ASS U ME... It could really go south

i always check atleast 2 different load manuals for the max loads before i decide where to start loading a givin caliber.

in most calibers i've found that the upper 1/4 of the load range is the most accurate,but i never load to the max.

I have no problem with the original quote from the article..tho it's abit difficult to tell what he means..:)

I'm not an accomplished reloader at all.
45 years doing the same things safely and right with few changes and very few different rifles and handguns..:)

Pretty basic tools,reliable reloading manuals for bullet, powder..

Chronograph in the last 20 years..which has been a good tool for me.

I don't think I've ever needed to load to maximum charges in any of my rifles to get good reliable MOA accuracy, good killing efficacy for game from elk size on down,decent life on brass, and little/no throat erosion in rifles..and perfect functionality and performance in handguns ( mostly revolvers and H&Ks and Browning Hi Powers)
Absolutely no close calls or near misses nor damaged firearms ever for me so far.


Usually for the rifles I hunt with, I find a good accurate load with single digit deviations done with powders , primers,brass and properly performing bullets for the tasks that are readily available and so pretty repeatable.
I'm kind of a boring reloader I suppose..:) Jim

The manual writers have a tough chore. Let's say they are working up new data for their next book. First, they have to comply with SAAMI guidelines, because they are SAAMI members. If SAAMI lowers the maximum average pressure for a cartridge, so too must the load developers. But that's not as simple as it sounds, either. Does "under SAAMI maximum average" mean that ONLY the average pressure reading has to be under that number? what if the spread is large and some readings are way under, but some are way over? Some companies may add an additional requirement: that no single reading goes over x% larger than the average, or that no more than y% of the readings do so - or that no reading PERIOD goes over the average. See how the "book" numbers could change to stay within what SEEMS to be the same simple parameter?

Then we come to component changing. In an above post, someone compared how loads might vary between Hodgdon and Nosler. Yes, they might, because perhaps the Nosler bullet tends to create more (or less) pressure than whatever bullet Hodgdon used in their testing. Using Company A's data with Company B's components isn't a valid procedure. And the same applies to data taken years ago - with outdated testing gear, possibly different test parameters (see my first paragraph), and newly designed components that even by themselves likely perform differently.

It'd be suspect if data DIDN'T change!

I am just glad I have a chronograph!
I would never go back to reloading without being able to chronograph my loads.

When working up my 30-378, I did a ton of reading before selecting a powder. I found some data that listed powders, bullets, velocities, and pressures. Therein were some great velocities and surprisingly lower max pressures with H870. Remember velocity is not a function of max pressure, it's an interation of pressure and time. Less, but more consistent pressure over a given period of time may actually give one a higher velocity than a higher max pressure that only lasted for 25% of the trip down the barrel. In my case, I promptly bought about 8 lbs, worked up some extremely accurate loads very close to the velocity I wanted, and within 6 months, they quit selling H870. I still have enough that it will be some time before I redo things, and I'll likely start with some really slow Reloader fodder.

Realistically, I would not base any load simply on published burn rates. There are too many combinations of bore dimensions, twist, barrel length, bullet weights and bearing surfaces, cartridge characteristics, primers, powders, and temperature to ever say one component will be optimum in all instances. As to MAX, I have no idea, as I've never been there. All of my rifles are still intact.

We all have to start with a given setup though, so that's as good a rule as any. We'll wear out the rifle before ever trying all possible combinations, so I quit development when I'm happy with the results. I tend to start with slow powders with long barrels (36"), and quicker powders with short barrels (18.5").

If I was a competition bench rester, then yes, I'd have to keep looking for that next combination yielding a 0.001" reduction in group size. I have other hobbies though, also enjoy sleeping, and seem to be happy, so I have to cut things off somewhere.

As to margins. Yes anyone with a brain will build in a margin. Anyone with a brain will not tell us what that margin is either.

____________________________________________________________
Rocky has give all of a few things to consider.

The rifles and test barrels used for the published data need to be considered.

IF you have a four year old cannister of Rel22 or VV , they are using the current BATCH..which may be a bit different than your older batch same number powder...wotk up the load like new.

Alot of variables to consider before one just jumps to close to max loads even on a caliber or rifle and brass he has reloaded successfully for the past three years.

Bottom line is:

Work up your loads.Take your time.Know the signs of a good load..or one that is borderline..

Assume nothing.

Small changes in powder batches, primer, bullet or brass can change alot of the results.Every component change should be accompanied by a square one rework up of that load.

If good consistent metallic cartridge reloading and shooting was simple, there'd be no failures, no injuries, nor problems..no unexpected results on game shooting.

Just take the time..do the homework..

A chrono is a great tool..as is patience and planning..:) Jim

"I've been getting letters of late from readers who have been terrified by the publication of pressure data obtained with various handloads.Not a few earnest rifle enthusiasts have discovered that the pet loads they've been shooting for years have put them in danger as grave as if they had been going around with bombs in their pockets or they were infested with fleas carrying the germs of the bubonic plague.

They have, they have suddenly found out, been taking their lives in their hands. They have realized that eventually the law of averages will catch up with them, and old Betsy, the .270 they have been shooting since 1939, will suddenly disintegrate in their hands with a blinding flash into pieces of smoking wood and red-hot chunks of twisted steel."

"Some years ago I wrote a piece on this mysterious business of pressure.In it I stated that to say that a bullet of a certain weight and caliber when fired in front of a certain amount of powder gave a certain pressure was very naive.I went on to say that pressure varied with case capacity, size of flash hole, neck length and thickness, lot of powder, amount of bearning surface of bullet, primer composition and what not. There is nothing new to that. It has been known by all citizens who play with chronographs and pressure guns and to handloaders with I.Q.'s of over 62.

Recently, though, much hay has been made with these elementary facts. Timorous souls have been rushing about the country sounding alarms, causing old ladies to loose their teeth, frightening horses into running away, and in general scaring innocent citizens half out of their wits. As a result many an earnest handloader has sworn he'll never again use a home cooked cartridge."

"The handloader who is careful doesn't need to brood unduly over published pressure figures. But the careful handloader doesn't go charging in like the fabled bull in the china shop. He approaches all loads from below listed maximums. Every time he changes primers, he cuts his loads of powder and slowly and carefully works up. He does the same thing when he starts using a new bullet, another brand of case, a new lot of powder. When he sees pressure signs he reduces his load. If he finds the primer pockets are opening up in two or three loadings he likewise reduces his load.

Handloading can be dangerous. Careless people do blow up rifles and revolvers and injure themselves. Anyone taking up loading necessarily plays with unknown factors and takes chances.

But so does anyone who drives a car, goes to a cocktail party, eats in a restaurant, or gets married."

--Jack O'Connor

Speaking of which ..... you on the other hand are very impressive.

Well said...

Bart, I wish there was a separate post count for irrelevent condescending quote posts, you would be the man!!!