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

From the Sept., 2001 issue of Petersen's Hunting:

"...Generally, I try to pick powders in the middle of the burn-rate range for the cartridge. And I like to load close to the maximums levels in handloading manuals. Those maximums, I've found, are generally conservative, with a margin of safety built in."

-Wayne Van Zwoll

(bold added by me for clarity.)

Now, let me say that I agree with the man. Nonetheless, I was surprised to read that in print like that! I once was ripped a new one on Usenet, on the rec.hunting newsgroup (anyone remember that?), for saying something similar.

What say you? Margin, or no margin?

Oh- I am not aware if Wayne is one of the gunwriters that hangs out here. If he is, would someone please alert me (or him) to this post? This is NOT meant as attack on Mr. Van Zwoll.

-jeff

I believe there is a built in margin but still do not feel comfortable exceding the max in the book.

There has been a lot of inane crap posted here but this post tops them all....
Dude...

I remember r.h, I was a poster there until I got tired of the armchair experts and went elsewhere.

I wonder if WVZ has his own pressure testing equipment?

jim

I think there's definitely some margin of safety, though I wouldn't want to argue how much of one. Since every rifle is different, I would think they'd have to be at least a little conservative. The loads my dad used to roll for his 280 are about 1.5 grains over book max and work fine, not that 1.5 grains is a huge amount or anything. (55 grains of IMR4350 with 140gr. Ballistic Tips)

Bart,

Do you mean it's inane to talk about whether the max's in reloading books should be viewed as hard limits or not?

I don't think so. I think it's kind of interesting. You do as you see fit.

-jeff

I mean that your post resembles a fart....

* plonk! *

On with the discussion...

-jeff

Bart. So I see that I'm not the only one here that thinks JO's posts are stupid.

not by a long shot ...

Why don't you look up the definition of "inane"....
Apparently you don't get reloading....

I take all published data with a grain of salt. I've seen published max loads that would have likely blown up my rifle if I'd used them, and I've seen published max loads that were 350 fps slower than what the book said. I consult the manuals, start conservatively and work up, and chronograph each shot to compare it to book data. If I get pressure signs then I stop immediately, but 99% of the time the chronograph has already told me something's wrong. One look at the chrono readout is more useful than an hour of trying read the tea leaves via flattened primers and measuring brass expansion. I use the reloading manuals as a guide, but they're not sacred and I have occasionally exceeded book max loads. Most of my loads are under book max, but a couple are over by .5 grains or so. In thousands of handloaded rounds I've never so much as blown a primer and I attribute that good safety record to paying attention to what my equipment is telling me and using the thing on top of my shoulders for something other than a hat rack.

Crow hunter: Good post.

You mean they got manuals and stuff to use as a guide to reload. I've always just filled the case to the top and mashed a bullet in. Isn't that how everyone does it?????

CK

Pretty much nails it down.



While that part of the quote is very generally true, and I'd even say for the long established rounds it is true most often, it is not a rule. But if you look at the published pressures you can see that the loads were developed to produce an average max pressure anywhere from 2-5Kpsi off SAAMI's max avg pressure. But then you have to also take in to account that each bbl is different, and thats the reason for the "cushion". And I'd even go further in saying the faster the powder choice, the more difference a grain or two can make between a safe load and a hot load.

Have you ever heard the expression "If you don't have anything positive(substitute productive)to say, don't say anything at all"

Talk about inane.

Always found it interesting the 45-70 is ususlly listed in 3 loading categories depending on what rifle is being used. Load data ranges from worm burp pressures in Trapdoors to .458 FlameThrower in Ruger #1's.

On the other hand Hornady, whose bullets I'm fond of, lists only one set of data for the 6.5x55 obtained in a +/- 100 year old military rifle with a 30" barrel!! That's WAY underloaded for the Win 70, Ruger 77, Rem 700, Tikka, CZ etc. So do I stay with their 6.5x55 max data?? Not at all. I consult instead the .260 version and SWAG a max load for my Ruger because I don't have access to pressure testing equipment either. Then there's the Speer manual that's hotter than Hornady on the 6.5 but still not at the .260 level.

Likewise 7x57 data is generally loaded low without regard to firearm type, but there's always 7mm-08 data to be "adjusted". Both the 6.5 and 7x57 have slightly greater case capacity than their modern counterparts. In the Hornady manual I've also noticed the .270 Wby Mag is now loaded lower than the .270 WSM even though the Wby has greater case capacity and generally comes in the Mark V action you'd have a hard time blowing up with C4. And THEN there's the Barnes manual that apparently loads just about EVERYTHING to the gills.

But when it comes to ctdgs like the .270 Win, .25-06, .308, .243 and such, data generally seems to be about as high as I would want to go. So go figure, Max loads seems to depend on which Max is doing the pressures. FWIW

Precisely. The so-called "cushion" in the manuals exists because prudent men take into account the undeniable fact that no two guns are the same - and also that older guns don't get progressively stronger.

One might argue that "cushion" is a safety margin designed to protect asinine reloaders against themselves. The fact that a few reloaders choose to disregard prudence and plunge blindly past the safety margin is proof that the cushion is probably a good thing.

+1000

I'm a relative newbie handloader compared to some, only having been at it for twenty years. The older I get, the more "stuff" I've seen, the more conservative a handloader I've become.

+1001

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!!!

Great point. Good post.

-jeff

Nope.

Ah, f'k it....

Gettin' to where it ain't worth it much anymore.

That's why I prefer load data that has pressure data included.

Granted, the pressure in my rifle will be somewhat different, but at least I have a clue.

I have to admit I'm guilty of going beyond book maximums on occasion. My .30-30, for example, is really no different than my .45-70. Why should I observe 40,000 CUP limits for the .45-70 and only 35,000 for the .30-30? Same thing with my .257 Roberts - even at +P pressures its only 50,000 CUP, yet the same Ruger action is used for cartridges that run 54,000 CUP.

That said, I generally don't exceed published powder charges unless measured velocities are below book value.

Idiot....

Double Idiot...

My lever guns scare the bejesus out of me as far as loading hot. At least the Marlins and Winchesters, not the BLR's I've had, which are essentially bolt guns with levers. Anyway the action on say my Marlin 45/70 was so stretchy (I think- maybe CAS or another knowledgeable smith can tell me what was really happening?) that I gave up on trying for a "hot" 45/70 load. I couldn't make sense of the pressure signs, and the books are WAY confusing when it comes to loading hot 45/70, so screw it. 30-30 was never one I tried to push anyway. It is what it is, was the thinking...

Then there's the PSI vs. CUP thing. If I'm understanding right it's not simple to correlate between them, but I could be wrong on that. Probably am.

Coyote Hunter- I am fundamentally in agreement with you, but I do think the strength (hoop strength?) of the brass CARTRIDGE itself plays into it. The rifle's action is the pressure vessel, but the brass has to contain the gasses and seal 'em up. So anyway, I think you do have to be careful comparing UNlike cartridges in like actions. 45/70 brass is way thinner than .325 WSM brass, for instance. I don't know about .257 vs. say 300 WSM which runs 62,000+ PSI. But what you are saying is readily apparant with .270 vs. 30-06, where the '06 is loaded to lower pressures even though it's the same brass and action.

But I'm way over my head here. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.

-jeff

Martin....
If you will just stop replying to my posts,everything will be better...Put me on IGNORE...You hate me for some reason and I don't care why...You are an arrogant a-hole that don't contribute much here...Are you and Brad related?

WELL DUH, levers just aren't strong enough for hot load, jeez, all ya need is a chrony some common sense and maybe a book or too to teach you WTF pressure signs look like. Works even better if you got someone like JO pulling the trigger on real hot loads!

Violater22,

Lever actions are a different beast to read pressure signs on, though. For instance, my (now departed) Marlin 30-30 craters primers with pretty much any load, factory included.

And, in reality, a Marlin 45/70 is actually plenty strong for hot loads... so they say anyway. All I'm saying is that it was outside my comfort zone, or ablilities as a reloader, to attempt to go there, and in the interest of being prudent, I didn't. Plenty of other guys do push the Marlin 45/70 rifle to some pretty high pressures though.

-jeff

For the record, I don't hate you.
I just think you are a small minded internet bully. I didn't tolerate bullies when I was a kid on the playground...when you have an original thought feel free to post something of value to all of us.

About 3 or 4 months ago Reloader Mag had an excellent article on loading specifically for the Marlin 1895's Data included powders, charges, bullets, pressures and velocities. Factory fodder literally creeps out of the barrel.

There were about 4 or 5 pages of tables and some data was a little confusing... like a given charge pushing a heavier bullet faster than a lighter pill. Nevertheless, I decided to beef my loads up a bit. Not to max, but I like 1,700 fps a lot more than 1,200.

I was able to get to 2000 fps with a 300-gn Partition in my 45/70. "They" say a guy should be able to get considerably more than that, but... not for me. Plus the recoil from that straight-stocked Guide Gun was killing the side of my face.

My next 45/70 will be a longer barrel, pistol-grip stock one.

-jeff

Anyway....I wonder how Lee24 did on his 4 elk hunts he had this year? anybody know......will he post pics?

Martin....
You are a small minded socialist...
You jumped in here for no other reason than to jab at me...
You suck....I hope that you treat your family and friends better than I think that you do...

I guess you are right, I'm may be a socialist but I take a 2xl hat.

I actually jumped in here to make the point you were being rude and condescending to the guy who started the thread, but then it just got to be too much fun making you look stupid.

Also pretty mature of you to restart the argument in the main forum where everyone can see how much of an idiot you are. In the first four posts you managed to insult me, supercub and Old Toot.

Once again, YOU DA MAN!!!!!!

Seems that the thread went sideways for a bit by a short, but strongly stated opinion and then only worsened when others felt the need to get involved, obviously for their own reasons. Anyone with a smidge of common sense would know it could only help to inflame the other. Such antics done so by design would make one question one's motives......

Seems just as impolite and discourteous, if not more so, to continue on with the same behavior under the guise of takin' the "high road", at least, initially.

Bart, I thought "Inane" was the county in Texas you live in...

But then, I'm not the smartest guy in the room...

Magnumb,

+1

mag....+2 Personal mail is available here for personal insults. EOM.

Mr. Jeff Olsen:
This is for me an interesting thread, by that I mean to say the pressure question.

Not having the luxury of examining your .30-30, I�d hazard a guess that perhaps it could have been a small headspace issue causing the cratered primers. Those of us who like to play with the grand old .303 British run into cratered primers as well as case stretching frequently. They often had extremely generous chambers.

One particular specimen I played with would wreck a case after 3 firings, but was a really accurate cuss so I felt it merited some time spent. After some research, I found that if I opened up the case mouth to .32 and then to .35, and then necked it back down to .312, leaving a small shoulder at the front of the case for it to headspace on, the craters and the case stretching vanished. The case required neck sizing only after that or minimum full length sizing that ensured the shoulder did not move.

Subsequently, I was able to successfully use the 2nd shoulder method on a 1901 vintage 94 in .30WCF that had a bit too much headspace, but was otherwise mechanically safe to fire. As well, I�ve since learned the 2nd shoulder works on fire-forming some wildcat cases.

Straight wall cases such as .444 Marlin and 45-70 Govt are another matter, and I have little experience thus far with straight wall cases in rifles, so I can�t comment.

Lastly, I now believe that individual barrel characteristics vary the pressures a great deal more than I used to. Some barrels are faster, some seem to build pressure faster and of course some are more accurate. Currently I have more questions than answers on that topic, but I believe it is a factor.

There has been good advice all around to use one�s head and one�s chronograph. As a warm country dweller (100�F+), I�ll add watch the ambient temperature as well!

Safe reloading and the best in the Christmas season to all.
Dwayne

Dwayne,

I don't know what was up with that 30-30. I mean, it was a good rifle (I recently traded it off, hence the past tense) but it would crater primers and the brass would only last 3 or maybe 4 rreloads tops. Major stretching, or a lot of headspace, or both. As I say, I don't really know and probably shouldn't even guess. At any rate it was hard enough for me to see what was going on that I had zero interesting in pushing things with that rifle!

That's very interesting, what you describe with that .303. How did you come up with that solution?

My "fast" rifle, the 30-06 with the pac-nor barrel, has a nice tight chamber. I effectively cannot neck size with my RCBS dies, because by the time I screw the die down to where it's just touching the case shoulder it's all the way down! Cool. Also, there's so little leade that I can barely load to SAAMI OAL specs for 30-06. Also fine with me. Finally, Pac-Nor hand laps their Supermatch barrels so that probably has something to do with it.

I have found .325 WSM to kind of maddening to load for. It's the first "new" cartridge I've messed with, and when I bought my first .325 especially there wasn't much loading data released for it yet. There was a little more wingin' it than I was comfortable with. It's better now but still the data is sketchy compared to old favorites.

-jeff

Jeff:
Regarding the question as to where I came up with the solution to the .303 cases stretching, I know I read it somewhere. While it might have been some PO Ackley articles, it could have just as easily been an Edward Matunas or even a Rick Jamison article. I can�t exactly remember, sorry. Firearms of all sorts have been a lifelong passion of mine, so I try to read as much literature on the subject as I can lay hands on.

We�ve actually used the 2nd shoulder in a Parker Hale .300WM that had a too-long shoulder and was splitting cases on the 2nd reload. I believe it should work with any case which headspaces on the rim or in the case of the .300WM, the belt.

So far I have reloaded for about 2 dozen or so different cartridges, a path I started down in 1981. At the time, I wanted to shoot a rifle for which ammunition was not available, another 94 in .38-55. I traded the .38-55 for a .22 revolver before I got dies, but I�d already begun loading for the .308 and .30-06. The rest is, well you know�..

It�s been surely an education for me, although I have more questions now than I did when I started out. I believe that if my wife had not given me that Chrony long ago I could have continued on in my unknowing bliss���.

All the best to you and yours in the Christmas season Jeff.
Dwayne

From Jaywalker
�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. �
I have to agree with Jaywalker� While I am not certain there is ALWAYS a cushion, I do believe that if one exist it is there to cover variables.
Variables like differences between powder and primer lots, chamber and ambient temperature and the like.

If you are too close to the edge it only takes one problem to have a real bad day� and convence others that we handloaders are idiots.

As Outcast said �If your .270 doesn't go fast enuff for you get a .270WM�.

I would think that cushion is more like the 'bell curve' method. The vast majority of rifles made to SAAMI specs and even custom chambers should fall within the bell curve. Of course when you look at the bell curve there are flares on both ends which should be the rare exception of rifles that will be overpressure on minimal loads and those that will be underpressure with maximum loads. Those that are underpressure with max loads can safely exceed the charges that are listed in the manuals. How do you know you have one of those rifles? That is where a healthy dose of moxy helps and good reloading practices. I think the ancient loads like the 30-06 has the bell curve intentionally shifted left to fit many more rifles for safety. New wiz bang loads like the WSM has a rightward shift as they are designed to fit in a tight bell curve and all rifles chambered for it will be able to handle the "modern" pressures.

The problem comes when there is no margin in your rifle.

I've had to stop below book maximum many times, so generally, I believe them. That's not to say that it works out that way all the time. I have at least two well used favorite loads that are above book max for the components (about .5-.75 gr over) and two favorite loads that are well under book max (1-2 grs), but are max in my guns. Without pressure testing equipment this is all pretty tricky. I use the chronograph and watch the case life, stretch, and primers, and, like most people, do the best I can. Even when I do go over book max, I don't go far over.

Hey... speaking of this stuff, I have a load I'm working on right now and data is pretty thin. Or at least I haven't found any. So I'm extrapolating from other close loads and working up. Anyway, it's using a 8mm 180-gn TSX in a .325 WSM (in case anyone has anything) but my question is, is it possible to call Barnes for info about their stuff? The old Barnes book is pretty useless with the grooved TSX. And Nosler and Speer don't mention them of course. Hodgon does mention Barnes bullets, but, only the old X Bullet. Anyway, any thoughts are appreciated.

I'll call Barnes but I'm wondering what kind of reception to expect!


-jeff

Jeff, Google is a good thing.

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/reloads/0607/

http://www.barnesbullets.com/information/load-data/tsx-guidelines/

That's the spirit!


Casey

That is pretty close to my thinking too, Supercrewd........



Casey

Thanks for the links, Supercrewd. I'd read that stuff on the Barnes site before; problem is they've pulled all their X-bullet load data, I *think*, so it's not that helpful. I don't have a Barnes book. The Handloader article is something I've printed out but I don't use those powders... I know, I know... but H4350 gives me good speed and accuracy, dang it!

Barnes listed 67 grains as a max for the 200-X bullet and that does great for me with the TSX. It would seem that, with a lighter bullet, I should be able to use a little more with the TSX. We'll see... very sloooowly.

-jeff

martinbns:
I reckon that, too much to drink, is never enough.
Smitty of the North

Striving for the last iota of velocity from a cartridge when you are literally shooting in the dark with pressures is a horrible cost to benefit model.

As has already been said, the problem with reloading is that you don't really know what pressures your loads are generating. You can have a "good idea" what they are. Cross referencing several sources of pressure tested data and measuring velocities with a good chronograph can give us a fair estimate if you use the exact same components as the sources, but unless you have pressure testing equipment for your individual rifle, you cannot know exactly. Even pressure testing equipment readings will vary with the installer and reader.

And just what do you really get with "max" loads (having no idea exactly when you've hit or exceeded a maximum lifetime usable pressure in your individual firearm)? An inch flatter trajectory at 400 yards? Another 100 ft/lbs of energy?

What do you risk? Your rifle and scope, your eyes, your hands, your life? I don't think Wind in His Hair would call that a "good trade".

A neat axiom of the energy/velocity relationship is that at the top end a 50 fps mv gain might increase your pressure by 10,000 psi. The converse is that you can lose perhaps 10,000 psi of pressure and only lose 50-75 fps, a very beneficial ratio in my mind. Obviously 50 fps and 10,000 psi are not exact numbers and vary with rifle to rifle but the important thing is that a minor velocity gain will cost you more pressure increase than you might think.

Again, just what does it cost you to strive for that last 50 fps vs. what you actually gain (little) when you have no real idea of just how close to that "last 50 fps" you are, or were?

Jim, is that not what they refer to as cartridge efficiency? (I am stating the obvious, not critiquing).

To take this discussion to a different plane, if you take the speed past the best accuracy (I usually find my most accurate load less than the published max), what do you gain from the additional speed? Say your best load shoots 0.5 inches at 100 yards. Extrapolating that group to 400 yards should theoretically yeild you a 2 inch group. Pretty respectable if you can shoot that well. Now crank up the velocity to the published max and the bullet now flies xxx inches flatter at 400 yards. This new faster load shoots 1 inch at 100 yards, yeilding you a 4 inch group at 400 yards. Still pretty good shooting if you can do it. The question is: Have you improved the ballistics enough to overcome the inherent 2 inch group size difference? Most likely not. The joy I get out of handloading is not building the fastest cartridge that I can muster, it is the most accurate. In my mind that accuracy builds confidence in my platform and allows me the best opportunity to make a shot.

Jeff, you really need some RL15.

Have seen various definitions of efficiency - foot pounds of energy per unit of powder used is one. By that score the .22 Short is probably the most efficient cartridge around.

My point was that in most endeavors risk is weighed against potential gain. The bigger the risk, the bigger potential gain there should be. Who would bet $10,000 with a 50% chance of losing it all vs. a 50% chance of making a 1% profit? Amount of risk is up to the individual, but a smart person quantifies the risk as much as possible.

In handloading, we can't quantify that risk with a whole lot of accuracy. We can know "probably close to the edge", "probably not too close", "really likely not too close", but that's it. And even if we have a good handle on "close" we have no idea of how many cumulative "closes" the rifle can manage before it says "you went too far" (really loudly). But if we stay in the "very probably not too close" range we can be "really, really, really probably" assured we'll never exceed the cumulative firing limits at that level.

And what are we risking - our health, that's what. Even if the actual odds are really low - suppose there's a .8% chance you'll seriously exceed your rifle's max pressure limitations and lose your eye if you go over a book max load by 1.5 grains. Combine that with a .04% probability that you have already exceeded your rifle's limits if you only load to the book max. But what do you gain by even taking that chance? Nada.

But I like the opposite - you can significantly reduce the probability that you're exceeding your rifle's individual limits at or 1-2 grains below book max and the only loss you take is 50 fps of velocity.

It's just a personal philosophy. If someone wants to bet fingers, eyes or other body parts against an inch of trajectory that is completely up to them. But I didn't manage to stay as good lookin' as I am by gambling on completely unnecessary risks.

NICE post Jim.

-jeff

Jim, no arguement from me, well said.

Margin in what manner? Margin between hitting the max sammi load or margin with which you gun blows up?

I have read many times that if your showing the traditional signs of pressure such as case head expansion, stiff bolt lift etc, you are way over max, pushing the realm of 80,000cup or more.

I believe in getting the full velocity out of a case but when I reach accepted speeds I stop where I am if accuracy is acceptable. If I see pressure signs I drop at least a full grain and tweak oal from there. I get full speed out of my .308 but if I wanted a 30-06 I would have bought one.

Why does someone feel the need to post a response like this??

if you don't like the subject, or the post's author, then pass it by...

Why does one feel the need to think the rest of us need your negative opinion as part of the subject or thread???

History.

I agree with you, several of us said so, so Bart took it to the hunters campfire first in a thread called "Canada" and then in another called "Why do we feed the trolls".

Neither of these exactly worked out the way Bart planned, but I got tired of it, let the others carry the ball for a while and put him on ignore.

The same reason you posted....There are some stupid people here...
Martin....You are the reason I have a low opinion of Canyucks....

Puzzy....

+1 to what martinbns says. Smart man!

-jeff

I don't necessarily agree that the manuals are conservative. A lot of the data now has pressure listed beside the loads. Unless for some reason the manufacturers list a pressure and then arbitrarily reduce the load beside it, can't see how that is conservative. From comparing data with pressure numbers beside it to those that don't have pressure data listed, the powder charges & velocities are normally pretty close. I do see some variety for velocity listed with a given charge/pressure. For example one source may show a .270 load of 60 gr of H4831 barely giving 3000 fps at 52000 CUP (SAAMI limit) and another may show >3100 fps with same components & barrel length. My belief is just like our rifles, some pressure barrels can be slightly faster/slower than others and in effect make some load data look more conservative than others.

Lou

I'll leave Jeff and Martin to fluff each other....
I'm going to go and kill [bleep].....

Well Bart.. lets hope no one pisses in your cornflakes when you start your day tomorrow.. maybe you can show up and be less condescending to others...

And if you think other people are 'stupid'...

can I ask who set you up as the benchmark for intelligent??

or was it kind of a self appointed situation?