Home Forums Reloading Big Game Rifles H 414

Is anyone still able to find H 414 anymore ? I know that Win 760 is basically the same powder , , however Hornady manual has one full grain more of 414 vs 760 for the top load in 7-08 . { 48.9 vs 49.9 }. If the 414 is no longer available, whats your thoughts on working up to 49.9 of 760. The reason I'm asking is that 49.9 of 414 shoots lights out in the 7-08 Begara. and the group begins to open up when dropped to 48.9 of the 760. Thoughts ?

I've gathered that it's the "same" and data differences reflect lot to lot variation.

They're not basically the same. 760 is a touch faster and that warrants a full load workup.

I used a lot of H414 in a 6mm bore basically because I was ignoring better options. There's still 4 pounds in that jug that hasn't been touched in 20 years.

In that cartridge pick a stick powder that yields at LEAST 85% load density. The less air space the better without hitting a compressed load. Start 20 thou off the lands. Find a velocity plateau at least 3/4 of a grain wide just below book max. Run the middle of it. Adjust seating depth shorter/longer 5 thou at a time to improve groups.

I just emailed Hogdons... they are the same.

Can load data be interchanged ?

Yes, these are the same powder and will use the same load data.

To the OP

Also per published data I see example .30-06 150 grain bullet, max load variation is diddly squat... 58.8 W414 and 59.1 max charge W760.

Until THAT is stated in the published load data, it's best to not just make assumptions. At best it's different lots re-labeled, which should be tested if you're a sane handloader.

Yeah yeah yeah, so what? I have H 4831 from 1987 and another new container that the rifle shoots the same. No abnormal pressure signs what so ever with near max loads, warm weather or cold. Not to say that loads shouldn’t be worked up. There’s plenty of older data available in manuals that can be bought on line.

Feral American, Would you be willing to part with that 414 that you have ? I'm down here in Texas....

No

H414 was discontinued a few years ago. Even though people say it's the same as 760, it is not. Check some load manuals, and you will see different charges stated. The best recommendation is to work up your load, if you are switching powder. That is always the best way to go.

If the owners of the company, even if they don’t manufacture it, say so, is good enough for me, and l wouldn’t say they’re “some people “, considering they work up the load data for it has to mean something. Working up loads is always a definite.

Hodgdon doesn't make Win 760, they have it made at the old St Mark's Winchester plant in FL under license. The only thing they control is dollars in and dollars out.

I don’t believe a grain difference in H414 or Win760 is going to blow up any gun made. With that said, I never load to max, I always start in the middle and if it shoots to my expectations, I have my load. I don’t put myself in the danger zone where I would have to worry about it.

Everything I’ve ever read (except for maybe here) says they are the same powder just as Win 296 and H110 are the same. To me it’s kind of like Pepsi or Coke, both made with their own recipes and both made in many plants across the country. If I buy a Pepsi in New York and Florida, I’m pretty sure I won’t notice a difference. Same with H414 or Win760, I probably wouldn’t notice a difference. I don’t have the guns or a shooter (me) that are accurate enough that could tell the difference…

[quote=anothergun]I just emailed Hogdons... they are the same.

Can load data be interchanged ?

Yes, these are the same powder and will use the same load data..../quote]

But what would they know?

[quote=5sdad][quote=anothergun]I just emailed Hogdons... they are the same.

Can load data be interchanged ?

Yes, these are the same powder and will use the same load data..../quote]

But what would they know?[/quote

Gee man they work up loads for thier data… l hope that helps!🤪🤨

I have 6 lbs left in an 8 lb jug of someone wants to travel to central MO.

AA 2700... yet another label on a powder that's not the same as H414...

I've had all three of these powders. Still have Win 760 and A2700. By brother ended up with my H414. This is a powder that works very well for the intended purpose. It is not very forgiving if it's used outside the lines. Loads should be slowly worked up and all signs of pressure closely monitored while using a chronograph. Load development should stop when desired performance and precision is reached. With this stuff anymore than necessary is not a good idea.

As for interchangeably, I'd use all three (win 760, H414, A2700) in the same load if the load is at least two grains below trusted maximum data. For me the trusted data is becoming the older data. The new stuff is ridiculously reduced.

Look at the Hodgdens Annual Manual! Any caliber that uses both H414 and W760-----The Data Is Exactly the same including pressure!!!

This tends to tell you sumpin' !

Hip

I was going to say the same thing that hipshooter said
There is a bunch of load data on Hodgen's site & both powders are listed as the same same.

There are now the same! Same charge, same pressure, same velocity. You might find some older date where it varies a grain er so.
Maybe.

I see some people are way behind. lot to lot swings of the definite deal..

at one time they were very similar but slightly different


several years ago they became exactly the same


now I guess one is discontinued and where's the trademark of the other ..
if you're buying new patterns keep up with the new data if you're using old powders by all means keep the old data

And just because there’s a grain or two difference doesn’t mean they’re not the same. If Lee was concerned about bullet manufacturers they use in thier data they would list them, and actually a few they do list. Usually it Barnes and for good reason. But standard cup and core they don’t, and whyyy is that? ANY bullet, with any load, with any rifle NEVER gave me a pressure issue when working up loads with either powder, at all. Do you believe that, do you want to believe that?

As far as I know LEE doesn't test anything, I believe they just copy and print others info/data.

Hip

Ok so you read the back cover of their manual, like i just did.



that doesn't change the fact that specific brand bullets are not listed save a few. Does that mean their data is unreliable ?? That there are thousands of loaders who swear by that one component, the bullet effects the load if you switch it out from what's listed? Obviously that is incorrect ! Isn't it. Not saying it changes the outcome of internal, external ballistics, but not the way some people try and make you believe.

Not only lot to lot but also differene in action's/chamber's! I use W760 data with H414, i simplystart low and work up. Know what? When I use H414 data with H414 I also start low and work up!

I found some accurate loads using H414/WW760. Then I found that these powders were temperature sensitive and I stopped using them.
The 4350’s are in the same ballpark as far as burn rate goes. I have several rifles that the best powder for accuracy and velocity is with IMR4350. I’m trying H4350 and IMR4451 and have found that H4350 is great in a rifle or two.

The temperature variation in South Dakota can be significant. I’ve hunted at nearly 100 degrees and also at -40 degrees. Usually it’s not that extreme. But where I annually I hunt whitetails it has been a little more than 70 and sometimes close to 0. Temperature sensitive powders are not something I’ll use.

Bugger, unless you have a big stash of 4451 I wouldn't get too carried away with it. It and the rest of that enduron line has been discontinued. Once the current stock is depleted it's gone. I switched to it a few years ago when H4350 was unobtainium, and worked up a really good load in 3 rifles. I have 4 or 5 pounds left, but when I run out I'll hafta switch back to H4350 or something else. Kinda disappointed with Hodgdon over that decision.

It seems that powder companies have the same commitment to their customers as Remington had to those who bought firearms that used the cartridges they introduced and abandoned.

like anything else if it doesn't sell they need to market something that does.

I wouldn’t condem H414 or any ball powder based on the POSSIBILITY of some velocity spread from high temps. Unless you are truly pushing the load envelope with max charges and seating your bullets into the landes or within a few thousandths I doubt you will notice any significant difference. If you’re a benchrest shooter or extreme accuracy minded varmint hunter a little velocity spread will change point of impact with some cartridges and tweaky rifles but otherwise you just might print a tad higher but that is about all. Of course you should be able read pressure signs. Most rifles perform better below max charges anyway so all told don’t walk away from ball powders they have too many advantages in some cases to ignore.

Ball or flattened ball powders all have a flame deterent coating that regulates their burning rates. Ball powders are known as ‘ progressive burn ‘ as they burn gradually creating a more even pressure down the barrel. Barrel strain gauges have confirmed how ball powders act during the pressure curve so it’s not just BS. I’ve been loading a number of ball powders for years a few of which no stick powder can duplicate. The old W680 in the Hornet and Bee, AA 2015 in my 222’s, H335 in my 444 and 45-7O’s and the discontinued H450 in most of my Ackley improved from 243, 257 and 30-06. They usually need a hotter primer in bigger cases but otherwise nothing loads easier and in some case and loads gives you max density.

Rick

It's hard to beat Ball/Spherical to extruded, yes. I get some great accuracy but temp changes destroy it. If I could walk off my porch three weeks before opening day, that's all I would load. However the powder is hard on throats.

Why do ball powders erode throats more than stick ? With all due respects I think you got this wrong. Ball powders burn cooler than almost all stick powders and because they burn progressively the initial temperature up front is less. They do foul a bit more but apparently Hodgdon has been working this out. As I mentioned before extreme temps will affect velocity to some degree but unless you’re shooting near the edge I never saw real accuracy problems. However if I was hunting Alaska or real cold country or parts of hottest Africa I’d ask the locals what to expect

Rick

That one statement right there tells us ALL we need to know about what you DON'T know about load development and component choices. If an ambient temp change trashes your "accuracy", you need to get back to the drawing board. Your load is NOT operating efficiently, and you are NOT sitting in the middle of a velocity plateau. What you have is a load that gave you an acceptable group one time under one set of conditions, and you called it "good". But when those conditions change, by your own admission above, it goes in the toilet.
When things are dialed in, a slight shift in point of impact (elevation) is all you should ever experience with a large temp swing. If you need to argue about that, it can very easily be proven via logic and common sense, and IIRC you've already been given the bullet points to THAT knowledge. Check your notes schoolboy.

Being one that replaced a barrel every January on a comp rifle I'd wager VERY heavy odds this cat doesn't shoot enough to erode a throat regardless what powder he uses.

AA 2015 is a ball powder?

Not gonna get off easy by deleting your dimwit comments troll.





Very common rookie ass mistake to work up a "load" in cold weather with zero regard to hotter temps during summer. Rookies get dazzled by a small group or two, and call it, then can't know why their shi t falls apart 6 months later. Especially amongst those who ignore conventional wisdom about matching a burn rate to load density.

Done right, loads don't "go out the window" from one season to the next. OF COURSE, you can repeat when the conditions repeat. The trick is, which you're obviously oblivious to, is making it shoot ALL year with nothing but a slight change of POI, IF THAT. Check zero, rock on.

You're shi t, ain't right, and will NEVER be right, because you're too hammer headed to understand how to even begin getting right.

It's a f ucking HOOT watching a joker like you sling "insults" like "stupid" and "clown" at somebody else. Priceless.

Ball/Spherical Double base powders that deliver more velocity out the muzzle tend to produce less throat erosion, so you can say generally speaking that most like to be near the max end of a load, admit it, I do, why else do manuals tell us to find the charge that nearly fills the case for the highest velocity ?

Stick single base can do it too, if the velocity isn't kept up out the muzzle. Considering Ball/Spherical powder is more consistent than most Stick powders, not all but most. Just because Additives are mixed in doesn't mean it's set in stone. You wanna keep the throat in tact more, keep up your load out the muzzle.

It doesn't matter where the midrange charge is for the 35 REMINGTON. I'm more interested in top velocity not top accuracy all the time through out the year. But case in point temperature does effect even a supposed stable powder like IMR 4895. Maybe in your way of life you have a ball bearing balanced on a pin head, I'm not really concerned about what YOU do.

You see you are so bent on breaking some ones balls WIITHOUT asking the right question and rather jump all over thier case first. Guess that's how you were treated growin up. I correspond with a guy here via email and he knows how to ask the right questions and be respectful about it. You on the other hand don't have an ounce of kindness that would fill a thimble.

So, troll, all your word salad BS so far has been about a 200 yard effective range max chambering that throws a brick with a brick's BC, and pressures that come NOWHERE near endangering a throat.

I've two 35 Rems here. Whacha wanna know?

Rhetorical question, of course.

For a newbie you've gotten good about throwing out the troll word, especially to a poster who's been here since 2012. while you've only been here a little over a month and have over 400 posts. I'd say you're a sockpuppet who will soon be exposed.

Newbie..............you need to respect your elders.

maybe he's breating in too much manure he produces

Stick...that you?

Dude, I'm just a random irrelevant anonymous guy on the internet that wants to talk matter of fact truths about shooting and hunting.

Some "elders" here say this joker is really "Maser". He's yet to deny it. Not even in all the stupid PMs the idiot has sent me. I've dug into that enough to know it's not somebody I'd even try to respect.

How'd you get your 18.5K post count in only 8 years?

Seems you're quite a heavy poster yourself.

Um, I think JamesJr was defending you.

Idiot.

Lets see if I can clarify this for your not so pee brain, considering you seem to, seem, to be up on your game. However...... you don't have all the answers, do you ? No you don't, so like I said in the past... try and work on your people skills a bit, and make a post and move on even if you don't like what I say, right or wrong. Oh and BTW your status here, really doesn't mean diddly squat to me or just the people reading and moving on. I don't need to know anything about what you know about the 35 Remington, so to be honest out of a tree stand or in the thick, I don't need a hot rod of a load that you think I need. SO I don't need ta know.

Can’t be stick. Not enough hints

WTF?

don't seem so confused, life ain't perfect unless your loads are, like a fart in the wind !! LOL

A'ight, y'all have fun with this nitwit. I can't stoop to this level of stupid this many times in one day. He's all yours, if you can figure out what he's trying to say.

BTW, I see that "Maser" is now "following" me. So there's gotta be something to it. Fuc king pedophile. Too bad ya can't outright block people on this site, but the dumbass is now on ignore.

I missed Troll, yeah I don't call nobody that. You do, so yeah wise up and respect your elders !! LOL

Alot of competitions were won by this EXPERT, i'm sure ! He knows all the perfect combinations in one magical hat, the cat in the hat.

Well what started out as legitimate questions and concerns about reloads, powders,and ballistic characteristics has evolved into a verbal pissing contest between invisible forum egos. It’s a shame really as it just makes it impossible for reasonable and experienced shooters to share their knowledge.

Rick

I think it’s one poster on here who’s trying to impress everyone with their supposed knowledge. Happens all the time

They don't know what they don't know.

Good point

It's anal retentive thing and splitting hairs. Ok so This Feral guy says Winchester makes W760, AND? Hodgdon only owns the company and knows nothing about the powder ? This is what I mean about splitting hairs. Why wouldn't Hodgdons know about the two powders being the same ? They test them don't they ? and why would they say they are the same if they weren't ? For what reason ?

Can you expound on this statement.

Thirty years ago, I graphed velocity vs charge weight of a couple dozen loads in 30-06 and 264 Win.

Several load manuals state that a flat spot in that velocity/charge weight curve indicates an overcharge/overpressure situation. My research supports that statement. I found the curve did flatten when charges exceeded published charges, and not before. Flattened primers, cratered firing pin impact marks, and expanded primer pockets accompanied the flattrened area of the curves I plotted.

My experience agrees with Idaho Shooter. I will get POI plateaus, but not velocity plateaus at safe pressures. If more powder doesn't get more velocity, in a reasonable velocity range for the chambering and bullet weight, I think you are in unsafe territory.

Also, temp sensitive powders and high temps can alter a load. I carry rifles in a pickup cab in mid summer in eastern Montana. I quit H335 because mid range loads got a bit squirrely when the rifle and ammo sat in a pickup cab on 90+ degree summer afternoons.

What you were seeing isn't what I'm after.

Work up and track velocity from beginning to end of a set of published data, in small equal incremental increases of charge weight. I use .2 grains for 308 based cases and smaller, and .3 grains for cases larger. I don't need to test the bottom 3rd of a set of data so I don't. I'm looking for something almost at but not exceeding a published max charge.

I use a powder with a burn rate that provides at least 85% load density with a seated round, and I start COAL at .020" off kiss. I use quality brass with consistent neck thickness and .002" of neck tension, and I use a proven primer.

Across that range of charge weight increases you will see plateaus, 3/4 to one grain wide, where velocities are still increasing but very tight and in contrast to what proceeds the node and what follows it. Making finding them easy. You will normally see two, maybe three, but rarely four of these plateaus. These plateaus correspond to what you see on a ladder test, or an OCW test, only your visual is via chronograph speed rather than impacts on target. This method sidesteps environmental impacts on the testing, such as wind.

I choose the plateau that is closest to book max, but not over, and concentrate on the middle of it as my "load". I then adjust group size with very small changes in seating depth, which, if you understand barrel harmonics, changes the distance the bullet travels to the muzzle, and is the easiest way to tune out the influence the harmonics wave has on the muzzle.

So at the end, you have a charge weight that produces very predictable points of impact, i.e., "good groups", i.e.,"holding zero", with a built in resistance to small pressure changes (lot to lot differences, small temp swings, small changes in altitude, small changes in atmospheric pressure, etc); and you have the muzzle at one of its calmer states during the harmonics cycle which reduces or eliminates the unexplainable "flyer" or "split group".

You do need the patience to follow the program, and you do need a GOOD chrono that doesn't lie. I've yet to meet an optical chronograph that tells the truth two days in a row.

A premium barrel helps tremendously.

YMMV on actual group size with a factory barrel.

Does this help the benchrest shooter? I dunno. I don't care. I don't shoot benchrest. But I did shoot a disapline that required a minimum of 1MOA out to in excess of 1K for any kind of success, across the span of 11 or 12 months that included a full range of atmospheric/seasonal change.

And, I like my hunting loads as sharp and dependable as my hunting knife.

This is simply a shortcut to the same results that some shooters burn copious amounts of barrel life shooting "groups". The only difference is using a close eye on chronograph data instead of holes in paper. Holes in paper, or in my case impacts on steel, are the final confirmation everything is working.

Typically I expend around 10 or 12 rounds to find the pressure I want to work with. Another 15 or so playing with seating depth. 20 more to confirm groups at distance and truing up the BC in the ballistics calculator. So less than 50 rounds for an entire workup, beginning to end, Once you understand the mechanics of the path, you appreciate the simplicity, and I for one appreciate not burning up barrel life doing load development.

And over a discontinued powder of all things.

I have used a lot of W760, as it is my go to powder for the 243 in bullet weights from 55 to 90. I have also used it in a 17 Rem, 7-08, 6.5 Creed, 7X57, as well as a couple of others. I have used H414 data with zero issues. As far as 760 being temp sensitive, it may very well be, but I've never noticed a problem, but then again I don't shoot much in hot weather or expose my ammo to heat.

I have never been one to try only one powder when working up a load for a new rifle/cartridge I'm reloading for. I like to experiment, and use different powders and primers in my search for best load I can come up with. With all the choices in powder out there, I don't see a reason to limit yourself to just one and trying to make it work. The only exception to that has been H4350 and the 6.5 Creedmoor, as it will pretty much work for most rifles. But even then, I use 6.5 Staball in one of my rifles because it gave the best speed and accuracy.

Everyone is going to look at reloading somewhat differently, because of the differences in what we are looking for. It is a process that can be fairly simple or extremely complicated, depending on the goal. It can be a a way to relax and enjoy what you're doing, or a very tedious task that tries your patience and pocketbook. It is also a process in which you're never too old to learn something, and I do all the time. I try to be helpful to other reloaders, but ridiculing them when they don't do it like you're doing it is wrong.

Then stop making a big deal out of nothing then and over analyzing things that don't need to under a microscope. Maybe work on your sling shot techniques. Think you can nail Goliath at 15 paces ?

Can agree with much of that. But, reloading forums are rampant with misinformation and utter bull shi t. If that's not refuted along the way some unsuspecting sap who's just reading and not posting may take something for granted and have a bad experience.

This thread is case in point. You have a discontinued powder and many here saying it's the same thing as something else. It may very well be exactly the same, but it's not labeled the same, nor is the manufacturer documenting it as the same in printed material for the masses.

What would happen if that unsuspecting sap decided since some anonymous guy with a high post count on the campfire said one thing is gospel truth, so something else must be true as well, and they have something go very wrong. What do we tell newbs about reloading. Always work up, or back up, when changing a component. Has THAT common sense approach ever hurt anyone?

When I started learning this stuff I had the superb benefit of being physically SHOWN what to do. The closest thing to the internet was a George Jetson cartoon. These days everyone learns something electronically and too much is lost in translation.
The two or three that are arguing aren't the only ones reading, and hopefully enough argument can be made to keep the uninitiated from doing something stupid.

As far as how someone "does" something, I couldn't give a rat's ass. I'll tell ya what I know about things I've done and it's up to you to decide to try it or not, OR to even read me talking about it. But don't come at me because you're unwilling or flat out lack the ability to understand the concept of working smarter not dumber, of saving some time/effort/money. I've made the dumb mistakes along the way and learned a trick or two from them.

As the saying goes, you can lead a mule to water but you can't make him drink.

I'm out, y'all have fun.

H414 USED TO BE a decent powder, but who even has enough anymore to worry about it being "the same" as W760? I have 4 pounds left out of 8 only because there were better powders to use and it's been setting in the back for 20 years.

Feral nut makes a mountain out of a mole hill, and you can see that for yourselves ! Stay within the data of load manuals and no issues will be encountered period. We see maser is your friend.. take him with you.

You can't set up a 30-06 die to bump shoulders, you can't grasp the basic concept of annealing a cartridge neck, you burn throats on a 35 Remington, you ignore basic rules of reloading safety, and you flat out refuse to learn otherwise. Why are you even posting in this reloading forum?



Nice try Maser. Playing 3rd grade games dude, 3rd grade games.

Lmao get a life!

I bump shoulders fine, and have consistently dimensionally measured with no problems with acceptable annealing. And thats not ok with you obviously.

And never said l burned out a throat with my 35 rem.

Climb on down pard before you hurt yourself

The Darwin Award

You earned it fair and square.

Now own it.

I have always enjoyed working with older (discontinued) powder as well as older (discontinued) bullets when I can find them (or have them on hand), just to make comparisons with newer (similar) components.

Feral is giving readers here a lot of prudent advice on a subject that requires constant attention to details. Anybody who thinks discussions of this type where smokeless powder characteristics and handling is “ making a mountain out of a molehill “ is one man’s interpretation that infers that caution and thinking your way into reloading is SIMPLE. Well it may be to those who are easily satisfied, too busy or unconcerned with the subject of propellants. But gun powder performance has been key to shooters since the black powder era. Just look at how many books and writers cover it.

I for one enjoy reloading and was lucky to have Frank Snow, the man who founded Sierra Bullets, my neighbor, and who helped me learn in my younger days living in SoCal. I enjoy every element of the hobby and I’m always looking for improvement. But I too understand for the hunter factory ammo will almost always do or basic reloading skills and equipment. But if you are a rifle crank who still can’t accept the fact that nobody can shoot five rounds into the same hole there is always something to experiment with. I still enjoy stalking, reading the ground and woods even if I don’t score. The older and stiffer I get the more I enjoy the hunt regardless of success. So to my way of thinking the only thing I can see here that is SIMPLE is the poster who is obviously simple minded. You can easily see and walk around a mountain but you can get tripped up in a mole hill. It’s the small things that count and I’m not referring to your intellect .

Regards
RICK

take a walk rick

Sounds good I’ll take you up on that. In the meantime I’m a bit concerned with your health and hearing. I suggest wiping out your ears with a bit of gun-cotton it will clear things up for you. I’ll give you twenty minutes to go to Wikipedia and look it up. If we don’t hear from you again I’ll know you did a good job.

Rick who hates this kind of crap. Over

🤨

Well, somebody had to say it.

The few the proud the experts

Is there a "another" chihuahua running around this thread yipping & nipping at heels?

That is completely contrary to my experience. And to any published data I have found.

My thought is, what you are interpreting as "a velocity node" is simply due to insufficient data points. I am sure, if you fired ten rounds at each charge weight, you would see the graph smotoh out significantly.

Accuracy nodes are a product of bullet exit vs a (somewhat) stable point in barrel harmonics.

Also, you mention several times that you avoid compressed charges. WHY?

Many load manuals suggest compressed charges. Many of my most accurate loads in 308 based and 30-06 based cases are highly compressed.

Never had luck with compressed loads, but now l know about nodes, that might change things.

I'm not even sure we're speaking the same language here.

Why would I fire 100 rounds to confirm what 10 will tell me? Is an OCW test insufficient data? Is a ladder test insufficient data? No, they're not. There are camps loyal to each, and they will argue the merits of each, but neither are lacking in data points else they wouldn't be relied upon by most serious gun cranks.The difference is, I'm finding the same exact data with less rounds fired, and not depending on the wind behaving for me. All I need is that stable pressure point just shy of a book max. 10 initial rounds and I'll have it identified.

"Accuracy nodes" are a product of a stable pressure point in the data. Pressure dictates velocity, no? No? Lower pressure, slower velocity. Higher pressure, faster velocity. Everybody sees that every time they do a workup with a chrono. No?

If velocities are random and irregular would not the pressures driving the velocities be random and irregular, and thus impacts down range be random, irregular, and unpredictable? Surely you understand the value of low ES and low SD, with the holy grail of load development being single digit ES and SD. That's pressure, and only pressure, and nothing to do with barrel harmonics. I'll get to that in a minute.

The side benefit of operating from the middle of a stable pressure point, or "accuracy node", is having a plus/minus tolerance of pressure that doesn't affect the load's performance during less than the most extreme changes in ambient temps, altitude, atmospheric pressure, etc. Dan Newberry preaches this 8 ways to Sunday about his OCW tests. I'm just cutting to the chase with fewer rounds fired. He's not using a chrono, I am. He needs holes in paper to see it, I just need a string of velocity numbers to look at.

What I always see with this method is a load holding together just fine between seasons with ONLY just a slight shift in zero, and nothing that suggests a "loss of accuracy". It was a simple matter for me to just go fire a few rounds the day before a match to check/adjust my 100 yard zero. Once that was done I referred to my ballistics calculator to one of the 3 sets of data pertaining to the current ambient temps. 0 to 30 degrees, 30 to 60 degrees, or 60 to 90 degrees. Twist turrets, read wind calls, and rock on.

But, there are TWO seperate devils to beat down in this.

Now, harmonics. You can be "in" an "accuracy node", and the groups be sub par, or even terrible....until you adjust your seating depth to counter the effect that the harmonics have on the muzzle. As it's been explained to me decades ago barrel harmonics are vibrations that sling from chamber to muzzle and back several times between ignition and bullet exit. Where they concern us is the precise point in time when the bullet exits the crown. When the wave is at the muzzle, or anywhere near the muzzle, the muzzle moves the most. When the wave has left the muzzle and returned to the breech the muzzle is calm or calmer. No? Simple laws of physics, no? What we want is a bullet exit when the wave is not present at, or near, the muzzle. We do not have the ability to make that fine enough adjustment with pressure, else we'd be weighing charges in 100ths or 1000ths of a grain instead of mere 10ths, so we make it with changes of the physical distance that the bullet travels via seating depth changes. We are either beating the train to the crossing, or are waiting for the train to pass on by.

I'll be doing a work up for a new bullet in the next couple weeks so I'll document it. It's a crimp in the cannelure deal with a fixed for function COAL, in a less than ideal factory barrel, so harmonics won't be part of it, but I can illustrate the pressures.

Compressed loads. I never advocate for them. Mainly because I don't like crunching kernels and potentially (and unpredictably) changing the burn characteristics of the powder. There are plenty enough powder choices out there to achieve an 85% to 100% load density without compressing a load. If that's something that doesn't bother you then who am I to argue. I won't do it though, and that's all there is to it.

I have several loads that are compressed. Jack O'Connors highly published load for the 270, 60.0 grains of H4831 was a compressed load and it worked, probably in millions of rounds. I have some 223 loads that are compressed with zero pressure signs.

I tried the 60 grain deal of H4831, too hot for my Savage 111 .270 at the time, bolt really stiff, got rid of it. I have a Remington 721, and maybe it can take a little more. I don't see any loads with 60 grains. I think they are like maybe 56 57 ?

For years I loaded 60 grains of H4831 and a 130 grain bullet for my Model 700 with no signs of pressure whatsoever. That load dropped whitetails better than anything else I've ever used. The last time I reloaded for my 270, I dropped back to 59.5 grains and didn't see any difference. I like to push cartridges like the 270 to the limit, as that is what they were designed for. Each rifle is different, and every reloader is different, so results can vary.

Same here dead before they hit the ground probably ! They dropped so fast I thought I missed !

Yes, my 270 load with a Nosler 130 BT over 61 gr H4831 is a bit compressed. But it shots well in a Ruger MK II at 3100 fps.

And my 30-06 load with the Hornady 190 btsp at book COAL over 63 gr H4831 in LC brass was a whole lot compressed. It shot three inches at 300 yds from an old Win 670.

Using a vibrator to fit the powder in the case, it was still level with the mouth of the case before seating the bullet. Lots of crunches!



Proof of concept!

I am amazed that none of the gun writers have discovered such a foolproof, quick, and easy method of load development.

Dozens of rifles over the years, with dozens of combinations of bullets, powders, brass, primers, not to mention showing it to quite a few in person, including my two sons, and seeing them all succeed, is pretty solid proof of concept from where I sit.

I don't do many things by accident anymore, and my reloading methods have progressed a lot from making my own dippers, beating bullets into 7x57 cases with a plastic hammer, and believing with all my heart that chasing group size was the holy freaking grail, at age 13 back in '79.

I've stated I don't much care what anyone else does, but if you want to know what I do at my bench I'll tell you with as much detail as I can muster....maybe even sometimes when you really don't want it.

When I see something I know is bullshi t I'll call it and I'll make no apologies telling you why. But you won't see me run my mouth outside the scope of what I've seen and done myself, like a lot around here do.

I've never worshipped gun writers. Hardly have ever read any of them. Probably because for the longest time most anything they did was too far above my pay grade to even worry about. I dunno, maybe if I had I'd still be stuck shooting groups and burning off barrel life with the rest y'all.

In a nutshell it's a ladder test, without 300 yards and wind, nothing less, nothing more. New lots are retested from the bottom up to be safe and adjustments are made if necessary.

Harmonics are addressed in the second phase to close up groups. Nothing more than most serious handloaders do, except without all the unneccesarily wasted components to get there.

For example from Nosler #8, the 7-08 with a 150 and H4350 shows a max load of 44.5 gr @99 % load density and 2692 fps.

I think that meets your load parameters.

It also shows 40.5 gr as a minimum load at 2442 fps. That gives us a 4 gr spread in powder charge to produce 250 fps increase in velocity. Or 12.5 fps for each subsequent .2 gr increase in powder charge.

For a graph to be statistically relevant with one shot at each charge weight, you would have to have charges with 1 fps ES.

If your load has ES of 10 fps for instance, load number eight might be 5 fps fast, at the edge of its envelope, while load number 10 might be 5 fps slow. This would present as a "node" around load number 9.

Thus the suggestion for more data points.

It is safe to say, you are producing more "noise" than data with your stated procedure.

I don't know about you, but I am pretty happy if I can produce loads with an ES of 30. Heck you will see more than 30 fps increase in velocity through a string just due to increasing barrel temperature. A cold barrel is a heat sink which sucks heat from the combustion of powder, reduces pressure, and reduces velocity.

It is not just a theory. Denton applied the Pressure Trace sensors, froze the barrels, and ran the data a few years ago.

Idaho Shooter


I can agree with that.. I knew a guy who got frustrated over his 338 Win Mag not shooting that well, and got angry and began to fire one after another, the hotter that barrel got the better it shot to a point anyway. It depends on rifle and caliber.

BLC2=W748
H110=W296

Nope, we aren't speaking the same language. Close, but not the same.

Nope, the Nosler "load" is a max charge weight, I'm going to be a little below that.

Repeating: it's a ladder test.

Repeating: I use .2 grain increments with small capacity cases, and .3 grain with large. What I'm looking for covers a span of only 3/4 or 1 grain of increasing charge weights.

A statistical graph isn't part if it, beyond looking at how velocities increase as pressures go up, in a list.

Barrel heat is addressed, just like I would do shooting at paper, at 300 yards. I allow cooling between shots. I also don't do load development below 30 degrees, or above 60. I did mention somewhere above that patience is required. But even still, the eventual load would tolerate barrel heat produced by 10 to 12 rounds across the span of a 90 second time limit.

30 ES is just terrible.

Any calibers that 414/760 are favorites for? I have a couple pounds that need to be burned up. I saw JamesJr’s post above.

Thanks.

Frank

I have used W760 a lot. 45 grains of 760 and the 85 grain Sierra BTHP has been my favorite load in the 243, and it's worked in every rifle I've tried it in. I also use it in other bullets for the 243. It gave very good results in a 6.5 Creedmoor I tried it in, as well as a 7-08 and 7X57. It worked well in a 17 Rem, and I believe I also used in a 22-250. It'll work in a lot of different cartridges.

Great load for my 30-06 180 SST. Wish it was stable though.

But, let's look at your nosler load.

Firstly, you're assuming an equal linear increase in velocity with each .2 grains of charge increase. It never works that way in real life.

4 grains of published data between min and max is a good thing. Lots of room to work with.

My requirements are in the upper 3rd of that data, somewhere.

Listing the initial charge weights I would test. I know from previous experience max won't be part of it, so I would look to end the test around 44.3ish. No reasonable need for me to shoot above that.

44.3
44.1
43.9
43.7
43.5
43.3
43.1
42.9
42.7
42.5

That's 10 rounds, and almost 2 grains of increasing charge weights. Perfect.

These numbers are hypothetical, I've never loaded for a 7-08 that I can recall, so they're only based on patterns I've seen time and time again with other cartridges.

Velocity results:
44.3 2670
44.1 2640
43.9 2630
(43.8 2620 top)
43.7 2616
43.5 2610 middle
43.3 2605
43.1 2600 bottom
42.9 2590
42.7 2570
42.5 2560

When I look at those numbers I see a scatter node trying to end around 42.9 or 43.0. Then, the accuracy node I'm looking for begins around 43.1 with 2600 and goes probably to 43.8 with a velocity probably around 2620. Then the last scatter node that exists (before excess pressure begins somewhere above max) begins at 43.9.

So to capitalize on this I would probably retest, since I can't see it exactly in the initial test, 43.0 to 43.9 in .1 grain increments. Only to nail down the exact beginning and the exact end of the accuracy node.

But, if I was in a hurry and based on previous experiences, I could just pick 43.5 grains and go from there as my "load". That's the middle of a 3/4 grain span of pressures that produce very close velocities, and thus will produce very close points of impact down range. The upper part of a standard ladder test shot without a chrono before pressure signs.

You're talking about approx. a 20 fps ES across those charge weights. 10 above middle, and 10 below. That's the built in tolerance I've spoke of earlier. Differing pressures, similar points of impact.

Load 43.5, adjust seating depth to close groups, confirm at distance, true BC, twist turrets.

When you shoot THAT hypothetical load in THAT hypothetical rifle, there's a high probability of single digit ES and SD with a single charge weight of 43.5 gr. Good load.

As seasons change the velocities will shift a little but the pattern itself won't alter. Colder temps, expect a lower POI. Higher temps, expect a higher POI. "Accuracy" though, is normally unaffected because you're not dramatically changing the dynamics of the harmonics or changing the seating depth.

Lot # changes or a barrel change could shift that middle charge weight a tenth or three one way or the other. Retest, adjust if necessary.

People who test in half grain increments and go by group size skip right over this stuff while they burn up their barrel. Most not even knowing what's there.

If speed and the flatest trajectory possible are your measures of success this isn't for you. But if you want steady as you go predictable precision that takes the sting out of a host of variables, then this is one way to find it.

Check your zero, make good wind calls.