Did some velocity/pressure checks today with subject combo. Shot two shots each at 1.0 gr increments.

Details;

Rem 700 30-06
22.5" 1/10 Douglas bbl
Win brass
208 AMax, moly'd
3.4" oal (.05" jump)
CCI 200

Reloder 17
55 gr - 2728, 2729 fps (15' from muzzle)
56 gr - 2748, 2750 fps
57 gr - 2805, 2794 fps (slight ejector flow)

In direct comparison, my regular load of 61gr RL22 yields 2720 fps.

I loaded up to 60gr, but stopped shooting at 57gr, with visible ejector flow.


At the chrono, checking brass.


Fired brass,

Looks like it made a good jump in fps. from 56 grains to 57 grains. The velocity looks to be very consistent with each charge.

Thanks Shane

Shane- big thanks!

Do you have book data you are extrapolating from, or are you wingin' it? If there is book data, what does it say for a max charge?

Understand, I'm cool with wingin' it... Did that for my first .325 as there was almost no official data out yet... I'm just curious.

Jeff,

No book data. I had worked up to 51gr in the 308, so I took a stab at 55gr starting load for the 30-06.

I'll go with the 55gr load, and leave some room for hot summer temps (after I shoot up the rest of my RL22).

MM, How is that comparing to your 308/208 tests?

With the 308 I made 2650 fps via 51gr RL17, and 20.5" bbl. For a regular use load I'll probably settle on 50gr/2570 fps in the 308, to leave some room for summer temps.

Cool. Gonna try RL17 in my son's Kimber 308. Maybe in my 338 Fed also.

Thanks, Shane.Good stuff there!

Shane,

How does the accuracy of your RL-17 loads compare to that of RL-22?

Thats what I call one BEAUTIFUL SHOOTING RANGE!!!

FWIW-Theres a guy over at Accurate Reloading that's done some pressure testing in the '06.
This is a post and you might find some of the loads interesting.

http://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2511043/m/316101735

I know he also did work lately with re17 and some 180's but I can't find that post and he didn't add his data to the origanal stuff.
Anyhow (if I remember right) it was his findings and results that when he got to about 65k with re17 he was doing the same speed as 65k with re22.
Sounds like there are a bunch of new powders coming that promise the same things re17 promised when it came out more excuses for us to get to the range.

Thanks for the info Shane, interesting and good velocity from your '06.


FWIW, I tried 62.5 grains of R17 and a 200gr Accubond in one of my 300WSM's.
Velocity was right around 2820fps. No real pressure signs but guessing 63 grains would be close to max and I might squeeze 2850fps out of it.
Accuracy was terrible. Big whacky 8" pattern at 400 yards.

I just did the chrono checks out in the yard.

Here's a little place on public land not far away, where I set up for LR steel.


I carry my junk up the hill to a 1050 yard firing point.

Shane;

Thanks. Still sounds like RL-22 is the way to go with the '06 and 208s.

I'm getting about the same either way with my 22.5" bbl,

61gr RL22 - 2720 fps.

55gr RL17 - 2730 fps.

Would be interesting to see how they compare with a 26" bbl. My RL22 load gave 2800 fps from 26" bbl.

Good interesting info Shane.

There is data from Alliant with RL-17 and the 200-grain Speer Hot-Core: 51.0 grain maximum for a muzzle velocity of 2552. Even with the somewhat lightweight SAAMI max pressure limit for the .30-06, you might be pushing it a little even with the molyed 208 A-max.

The 2552 is the top velocity listed by Alliant for the 200 HC.

I've reviewed the RL17 data on Hodgdon's website. Crunching some of the recipes through Quickload gives the following pressure calcs:

30-06, 200gr Speer, 51gr RL17, 2552 fps - QL pressure: 46.6K lbs-psi

300 RSAUM, 180gr Speer BTSP, 63gr RL17, 3008 fps - QL pressure: 74.8K lbs-psi

300 WSM, 180gr Speer BTSP, 66gr RL17, 3082 fps - QL pressure: 70.4K lbs-psi

300 WinMag, 180gr Speer BTSP, 70.5gr RL17, 3074 fps - QL pressure: 67.2K



My loads:
30-06, Win brass, moly'd 208
RL17
55gr - 63.5K lbs-psi
56gr - 67.4K lbs-psi
57gr - 71.5K lbs-psi (first signs of pressure, slight ejector flow)

From these comparisons I conclude that the Alliant recipe for the 30-06 is watered down in deference to old guns and gas operated guns with port pressure requirements such as the Garand.

My loads seem to be in the same, or lower, pressure range as the Alliant recipes for the modern magnums.

These calcs also reinforce my opinion that Quickload is not accurately calculating pressure on RL17.

I still can't understand why you haven't thought that maybe Quickload is correct and you are OVERLOADING your RL-17 Loads for both the 308 and the 30-06! You are justifying your loads even though they are 5-6grs above the factory listed maximums and even are way over pressure with the program you refer to as a reference when it agrees with your preconcieved notions.

You load too hot. It's as simple as that. If you really need 200gr 308's to go fast there are several 300 Mags that can exceed the velocities you get without going 5 or 6 grains over the listed maximum loads.....................................DJ

DJ,

This ain't 1906, and I'm not shooting a vintage arm.

If you want to run your 30-06 at 46K, go for it.....

If you think QL is sooo accurate in RL17 pressure calcs, you better get busy scolding the folks at Alliant for their published data too.

OK a couple of points here. Where does the Alliant data say it's running at 46K?

2nd I'm not the one who has put much stock in Quickload data, YOU ARE:




It sure seems to me that you are pretty selective about QuickLoad, agreeing with it when you want too and discounting it when it disagrees with your Overloads using RL-17.

Simple fact is you have NO idea the actual pressure your loads are generating and they are 5 to 6 grains over the maximum listed loads given by the manufacturer, and NOT only with 30-06 loads you are ASSUMING WITHOUT PROOF they are at low pressures but also with 308 loads most likely AREN'T at lower pressures.

I also realize that your mind is made up and you aren't going to listen to anyone whether it's JB, Brad, me or any other experienced poster. I keep bringing up the fact that your loads are so far over maximum listed loads in the hope that someone else might think twice about using such data.......................................DJ

DJ,

If you believe QL pressure calcs are the real deal, check out these calcs. These are maximum loads I pulled from four major reloading manuals sitting within arms reach.

These are all 30-06 max reload manual loads, and corresponding Quickload pressure calcs. I used Win brass case volume of 71.0gr water. I did not add friction proofing via moly:

200gr Partition, RL22, 58gr - 46.9K (lbs-psi)
180gr Partition, RL22, 61gr - 47.8K
125gr B-Tip, RL15, 56gr - 48.5K

220gr Hdy RN, RL19, 56.2gr - 52.1K
220gr Hdy RN, RL15, 45.7gr - 45.6K

200gr Speer, RL15, 47gr - 45.7K
200gr Speer, RL19, 55gr - 45.1K
200gr Speer, RL22, 58gr - 45.1K
200gr Speer, RL25, 60gr - 43.9K

200gr SMK, RL15, 44.9gr - 41.9K
200gr SMK, RL19, 52.8gr - 41.4K
220gr SMK, RL15, 43.5gr - 43.3K
220gr SMK, RL19, 51.6gr - 44.0K

So there are your book max calcs. If that's the hill you want to die on, go for it.

DJ, My method of load development is fairly widely used. Kiss lands, find pressure, back off a bit and find accuracy. i didn't invent it.

If 65K in a Rem 700 scares you, don't have one in 22-250, 25-06, 270, or any of the WSMs, SAUMs, or RUMs.

All my using loads calc around 60-62K, with the exception of this RL17 I've just started working with.

It's not a secret that there are some new retardant technologies associated with RL17.

Based on over 30 years of handloading, finding pressure, etc, I believe QL does not account for the burn properties of RL17.

Running Alliant's published RL17 load data through QL corroborates my opinion.

As always, stay in your comfort zone. I do.

BTW, my Norma 30-06 brass (notoriously soft), has 20+ reloads on it. Many of the cases are over 40 reloads.

That is not possible with a steady diet of overpressure loads.

Thank you for proving one of my points. You use Quickload as fact when it agrees with what you want to say............................DJ

You aren't being consistent in your argument. One minute you say QL is unreliable, the next it's correct???

My opinion on QL is that it is generally pretty good at correlating velocity to pressure with powders I've used, except RL17.

I know there is a margin of error in QL. Never didn't know that. It's just another tool.

Hell, you naysayers argue the accuracy of any pressure testing equipment.

I'm not presenting QL calcs as 'fact'. That's your word you are trying to put in my mouth. I'm not falling for it.

I'm giving you a general idea of how low max book loads for the 30-06 really are. It's not a precise measure, it's an estimate that is usually reasonably close.

Anyone who actually uses QL would know that.

The figures on the Speer bullets is the same as is in the Speer reloading manual #14. All that it says about the pressure is that it doesn't exceed the industry maximum average pressure of 50,000CUP.

Here is a link to where they actually PRESSURE TESTED some of the loads you mentioned above (even used a SAAMI reference load):

http://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2511043/m/316101735

With a 180gr Partition with 61grs of RL-22 mean max pressures of 57,000psi
A 200gr partition with 58grs of RL-22 had mean pressures of 54,000psi


Quickload is WAY off actual pressure tested data with the same bullets and powder. As is your assumption that the factory tested data is at such a low pressures....................................DJ

Look, I know you disagree with my load practices. I really don't care. Stay with your book data, and prosper.

I'm simply doing things I enjoy, and sharing my findings.

Use it as you will. I can assure you I'm not bothered in the least.

I'm sure you will come running in the future, when I post results too. See ya then.

I do agree with you here. QL is simply a tool, and one that is often quite demonstrably wrong for that matter. And I'm also sure that a lot of people will also argure against the pressure tested data I gave the link for.

I think you have to look at as many different sources of data as possible and look for as much agreement as possible - harder to do of course with a new powder. For some rounds you can find data that goes beyond most other data but not 5 or 6 grains in a 50-60gr powder charge!...............................DJ

In the meantime, I'm going to be loading/shooting these:

308, 208AMax, 50gr RL17 (2570 fps, 20.5" bbl)

30-06, 208AMax, 55gr RL17 (2730 fps, 22.5" bbl)

I'll post any pressure situations or early brass failure. Not expecting it at this point though.

Oh I stand corrected, you second load is only 4 grains over the listed max. Your first is only 1.3grs over the max load for a bullet 28grs lighter.

Benchrested typically firewall thier loads. They typically use a set of 40-50 rounds of brass to last an entire season, some the entire life of a barrel. The point being long brass life does NOT necessarily mean you are running pressures at or below maximum...............................DJ

So far you've referenced others research, load manuals, other posters here, and now benchresters in general.

It would add some credibility if you related something insightful and quantitative that you actually did yourself.

I hope that in over 4600posts I might have contibuted at least somethimg worthwhile! But maybe not .

Last time I posted one of my 308 loads I also got several posters questioning whether or not I was loading mine too hot.

................Since it was a load printed on the powder can I figured it shouldn't be too far off! (46.0grs of Varget with 165gr bullets) .................................DJ

Every rifle is a bit of an entity unto itself regarding pressure.

Published data is generally calculated at the lowest common denominator of pressure factors. I'm talking about temperature, case volume, seating depth, friction proofing, throat length, barrel wear, and I'm sure there are more. It makes sense for liability reasons.

The beauty of QL is that you can adjust many of these factors to equal your specific conditions. The more accurate the inputs, the more accurate the outputs.

The difference in calc'd pressure between default inputs, and my specific inputs (corrected OAL, friction-proofing, case volume), change the pressure calc by over 10,000 lbs-psi in the 30-06/208/RL17 combo.

[

Here's a little place on public land not far away, where I set up for LR steel.


I carry my junk up the hill to a 1050 yard firing point.




I won't critique your loading, but I might suggest you move the truck.

Do you really think I left the truck that close to the target?

Who here missed the point, several times, that Shane is running moly, please stand up........

I was wondering about that.....(laughin'!)

That target and swingset weigh over 100 lbs. I don't carry it too far to set it up.

I pulled the truck away about 75 yards or so before going up the hill. Common sense.

Well yeah, I don't 'spose you want holes in the F250.

Shane,

Don't fret the lecturing folks...

Carry on pard...

So what? Moly does NOT magically give you the ability to shoot 250-300fps faster without also using excessive pressures, nor does it make loads 4-6 grains over max safe. It can either slightly lower pressure or maybe give you 50-75fps extra velocity when loaded to the same pressures, and yes I have shot well over 10,000 Moly coated bullets in a dozen different calibers. Moly can be a useful but it's not magic.........................DJ

It's not just the moly.

There are a few factors in play that all reduce pressure.

- moly

- long oal

- longer throat

- roomy brass

- worn-in throat (nearly 5000 rounds)

All of these combined give a significant reduction in pressure. QL estimates a reduction of over 10K psi, over default values. The worn throat is not an editable input.

QL pressure calcs are not definitive, but they beat the hell out of whatever pressure calcs you can discern from any manual.

Agreed that all of these tend to lower pressures. The SAAMI limits have a level of safety built into them. So if you push things to the edge of the safety limits with a rifle that has all the tolerances to one end of the spectrum you might be OK in your rifle but when someone tries the same loads in a rifle that isn't to the same edge of tolerances you can start breaking things. Just not safe reloading practice...............................DJ

Starting low and working up is a fairly safe practice. Idiots who don't know that will hurt themselves, regardless of what they read on the internet.

I loaded incrementally from 55-60 grains, and stopped at the first signs of pressure (57gr).

There's a reason I didn't start shooting at 60gr and work down.

I've seen broken rifles that resulted from just such reloading practices. It's the old P.O. Ackley reloading method of increasing powder 1/2gr at a time until you get sticky bolt lift, then back off a grain. Trouble is when they went around to testing some of the loads developed this way pressures were way up into the 70K psi range. The early glowing reports of the 7 STW were another example of this. Guys were developing loads until they got "pressure signs" and marketed a new super caliber. Again the trouble was when they started pressure testing the loads they were waaay over safe pressure limits and later loads and reloading data were signifigantly reduced.

Lots of "Advanced" reloaders whine about how the new manuals are "lawyer proofed" and the loads are a lot milder than they used to be. It doesn't have anything to do with lawyers, it's that more and more people have access to pressure testing equipment and the old loads developed by using your "pressure signs" were simply over max pressure limits.

You aren't the first and won't be the last and there will always be reloaders who think it's safe to go over the limits........................DJ

Yeah, I'm a reckless risk taker. The nerve to load my 30-06 over 46K pressure in my rifle. And to write of it publicly......Oh the humanity!

You don't know how much you don't know.

Here's something for you to chew on,

I know, I know,.........QL calcs with corrected inputs are useless. Manuals are the cat's whiskers......

I do know that your loads are well over printing maximum loads - fact.

YOU don't know what pressures you are shooting at, until you measure them you are merely GUESSING.

So who doesn't know what?........................DJ

OK, you tell me my pressures, and how you calc'd them.

And, you don't know what pressures his loads are running, either. Which means that you're guessing.

Given that neither of you has pressure-tested his loads in his rifles, neither of you know for sure what the pressure is, exactly.

Given that Shane's the only one shooting it, that he has PLENTY of experience reloading, and his load methods are standard (notice: methods, not loads), I'd say the only person with a problem with it is the person who is not shooting it, loading for it, or having anything else to do with it.

DJ, I don't know what you're trying to prove, but I don't think it's working.

I rate a calc, higher than a guess.

Especially when backed up by physical indicators from actually shooting them.

Always someone complaining about reloading practices.

Shane and Seafire catch alot of schitt for this.

I doubted RL17 when it first came out but have since acquired some and dropped it in my 22" 300SAUM and got 2950fps easily. This is below max load.

Carry on you risk takers;)

Seafire has already had one gun blown up by someone using his loads. I sincerely hope that the same doesn't happen to Shane.........................DJ

True enough, but what is known is that some of his loads have been as much as 6 grains! over published maximums. Are you trying to tell me you think that this is safe?.......................DJ

Could be. Much longer COAL, much more capacious brass, moly, maybe a bit larger bore.

Fact is, you don't know, and neither does he. But, he's the one shooting it, the factors that can be checked without specifically pressure testing it all fall within accepted parameters, and he's done everything he can to calculate and accommodate the variables for his specific load.

You're going by intentionally conservative loads, with much different variables than his loads, and again, you're discounting the generally accepted factors that he's citing that are within standard practice.

Again, I don't know what you're trying to prove, but I do think you're failing at it, regardless.

Actually, if that's the case, then someone else blew up their own rifle, by MISUSING the loads and data provided by Seafire.

Dude, The 6 gr over that you are all giddy about was a ladder test load where I found pressure.

I'm settling on 55gr (only 4gr over your redline 46K pressure limit load). Pressure is calc'd at 60K for that charge, but velocity would indicate pressure somewhere between 60-66K. At any rate it's an easy load in my rifle.



Stay in your box if it comforts you. From here it looks awfully uncomfortable.

If I was as skittish about reloading as djpaintless obviously is I would just stick to using factory ammo and quit pestering people on the Internet.

Wow, now we've ramped-up to red print. Is that for effect?

200 fps over is no biggie when the published only calcs 46K (not a guess, a calc).

Not assuming anything is low, I'm running calcs that indicate so.

It is not fallacious reasoning, given the number of very old rifles out there with suspect histories, and factory manuals are SPECIFICALLY designed with those in mind.

200 fps, may or may not be a sign of excess pressure. Again, you're guessing, as you have not pressure tested his rifle, nor checked any parameters generally accepted as pressure indicators.

Again, whatever you're trying to prove is lost on anyone other than you, and you're failing, miserably, in your attempt to prove anything at all.

Thanks for the post Shane.
Good info as I have just started using RE17 in the 06 as well.
I always enjoy your info.

The one manual that does list actual pressures with 30-06 with 200gr bullets is the Hornady annual manual. The highest velocity they list is 2586fps at 49,300CUP. Highest velocity with a PSI measurement in 2550 at 57,200 PSI. Hornady at least certainly isn't loading to anywhere near as low of pressure as you are falsely assuming Alliant is.........DJ

Adjust for COAL, brass, and moly. Adjust for longer throated rifle. Adjust for potentially looser bore.

I.e., adjust for the rifle in question.

Whatever your point might be, you still aren't making it.

BTW: I use red when responding inside a quote to differentiate my comments from the original........................DJ

Gee somehow I've managed to reload for 36 years and over 55 calibers, there's a big difference between smart reloading and being Skittish.

I don't usually underload my rounds I typically load at or near published limits or where I have pressure tested data available for older rounds that have lower pressure limits.

I just think that exceeding published max's by nearly 10% is a very bad idea, I have seen a couple rifles ruined or blown up by freinds that thought they could do the same thing MM is doing here. It took me a while to talk them out of hot loads too but at least one of them calmed down and hasn't had any rifles blow up lately.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just don't want to see people getting hurt participating in my favorite hobby........................DJ

Methinks you are failing miserably on this score.

Did the guy that blew up his rifle use a reduced load? If so he got what he deserved for not paying attention.

1)Drop powder

2)Seat bullet immediately.

3) When in doubt dump it out.

Funny you need a license to get married but not to reproduce. Should be the other way around. Eliminates the shallow end of the gene pool.

Absolutely. If I thought QL was perfect, why waste time with a ladder test???

Calcs, plus actual chrono/pressure evaluations via ladder test and chrono. I do it all the time. Works pretty good too.

You on the other hand have no pressure estimates to offer at all, which makes your position on the whole matter a bit odd, if not amusing.

He's got books with loads in them, though, with completely different brass, COAL, no moly, and not shot in your rifle.

Does that count?

I do sub-loads with Unique too. Never double-charged one though.

The last time I blew a primer was in the late 1970s. Loading a 243 with a Lee Classic kit with the dipper. I was going through my learning curve.

No I haven't offered any pressure estimates, but I have given references to PRESSURE TESTED FACTS. Go back and look at the links I posted or pick up a copy of the Hogden Annual Manual.

We just don't know the actual pressure that Alliant got when they list 51grs of RL-17 with a 200gr bullet and get 2552fps as thier maximum load.
We DO know that when Hogden got 2532fps with 51.5grs of Hybrid 100V is was at 58,600psi etc.........................DJ

There is certainly variations from rifle to rifle but over 200fps in a barrel 1.5" shorter is far from the norm.............................DJ

58.6K in a particular rifle, with particular components, chamber, throat, etc. do you know the particulars of throat, chamber, brass volume, oal, friction proofing, and so on?

With your experience you should understand that each rifle is different despite having the same chambering.

Each rifle is certainly different. But they aren't so much different that one will somehow allow you to exceed max loads by 4 grains and acheive 200-250fps more than another with the same components without exceeding max pressures........................DJ

I know 55gr/2730 fps is a safe load in my rifle, with my components (I tested it).

That's really all I need to know.

I'm not the only one who seems to disagree......................DJ

Bullet shape? a little different

Just a thought

That, and brass capacity, and COAL, and chamber/throat geometry, and likely bore.................

2700 FPS is not an out-of-bounds load for a 200 or 208-gr .30-06 bullet. Below are some powder manufacturer loads

59.0 gr H-4831 for 2,690 at 49,000 CUP
57.0 gr I-4831 for 2,640 at 48,400 CUP
56.0 gr H-4350 for 2,640 at 50,000 CUP
58.0 gr RL-22 for 2,625 at 48,200 CUP

A .300 Win Mag or .300 WSM operates at higher pressures
If you load a .30-06 to the lower, factory pressure of a .300 Win Mag, not its higher orginal load, you would have something like:

61.4 gr RL-22 for 2,815 at 53,000 CUP

That is my hand calculation. Don't own Quick Load.

Of course, when you get up near the top with any high pressure combustion, peak pressure starts to run up sharply without a corresponding average pressure, so you are courting danger with dimishing returns in velocity. When you see those diminishing returns, it is a sign to back off.

That is hot, but not as hot as the current factory loadings for the WSM cartridges. Current Steyrs and Mausers are proofed at 90,000 PSI for the .30-06. The Remington 700 is a strong rifle, too.

If I want to go faster than 2,700 with a .30-06 and 200-gr bullets, I would use a longer barrel. I own a Model 70 single shot target rifle with a 29.5 inch barrel. I would buy an 1885 Winchester for hunting.

But if you have to buy another rifle, just buy a .300 H&H.
That's another topic. This is about the .30-06.

Shane, did you record your actual drops at long ranges to calculate the actual BC of your load? Hornady says the 208-gr A-Max has a BC for .684, so I was just wondering.

Not that I am by any means an expert but bearing surface plays a role with pressure. Found that out immediately with 140s in a 6.5

Ah, schit.

Enter Liar24, and anything useful in this thread is doomed.

An extra 100 FPS is not meaningful, anyway.
Smallest groups is the place I am going to stop adding powder.

Really?

This is from the guy who has hunting loads and "more powerful" stopping loads for his 30/06 for hogs in Alaska.

I recall the "stopping" rounds used the same weight bullet, so........

Ingwe

But you are the only one carrying on like a pissy little woman, who just wants to pick at something. Hiding behind JB....jeeezus, that's weak.

JB has the good sense to offer his opinion, a reference, and leave it at that.

AFTER you guys actually try it, come back and tell us about your experience with 200-gr bullets or the 208-gr A-Max in the .30-06.

Meanwhile, I will be reading Shane's posts.

Sure. 61.5 grains RL-22, 208 A-Max, Lapua brass, WLRs, shoots into the .3"s, at 2775 from a 24" tube.

Meanwhile, Liar24 can and will ruin any thread the lying little rat turd visits upon.

Hide and watch, for verification.

Everyone needs a chillpill! Standard pressure barrels are MINIMUM
bore and chamber, something that explains why manual loads seem conservative. Anyone who reloads must accept personal responsibility, and not blame someone for suggesting a load. You have to work up for your own conditions. Dj you do what you must and you are right to promote cautious approach, but if someone goes beyond and it works for them, GIVE IT A REST! You tried, but some of us want to hear about how RL17 is working. It is NOT identical to I4350 in energy release, though peak pressure may be similar. Total energy release is MORE due to deterent effect of being in the powder, not on it. It will work as advertised, sometimes better than others. Please let people work with it and learn, it is not something to throw a wet blanket on.

Yea, I guess now that Lee24 is on MontanaMarines side I must be wrong ...................................DJ

That'd be Fed 210's, and .3 MOA at 450 to 500 yards from a 24" sporter weight Douglas tube, which has always been a "fast" barrel from the git go...just for clarification.

Actual velocity was a few fps faster, but 2775 was used per JBM just to hedge the bet regarding an initial drop chart reference.

Regarding velocity of said load, ES for the first 10 rounds was 5 fps over my chrono, and the second string of ten over a second chrono combined with the results of the first string of ten produced a whopping 15 fps ES across 20 rounds.

No pressure signs whatsoever in this rifle, with that load........

It's not a matter or right or wrong. You have your comfort zone (the books), and I have mine(laddering up to pressure and backing off a bit). They are different.

I'm not recommending anything. I'm simply relating the results of my test. Which I pushed up to visible pressure signs on Win brass, which is relatively thin in the web as compared to Rem and milsurp I have on hand.

I now know the reasonable limit in this particular rifle and component combination. Backing off two grains from first pressure signs is fairly prudent practice in a 30-06 size case, and that's what I'm doing.

Max safe load data is not a one-size-fits-all, type of thing. You know that.

In the end, I actually hope that you are right. I'd love to be able to safely shoot 200gr bullets out of a 308 at 2750. Maybe you can access a strain guage and get real pressure data that can be trusted instead of interpolated guesses out of Quick Load.

But I don't beleive in miracles. I've gotten about the same velocity with 175gr Moly'd SMK's out of 3 different 308's with 26" barrels - 5 1/2" longer than yours. If your RL-17 data is legitimate it would be a true miracle powder getting the same velocities with a 20.5" barrel and a bullet 25grs heavier. But truly I would love to be proven wrong, 200gr bullets at those velocities would make for a lot more 308!.....................DJ

I'm not the only one working with RL17, in the 308 Win, with the 200+ gr bullets. Results are similar accross the board.

If interested, you might want to read through some of this:

http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1299481&page=1

So my quick hand calculation was right on the nose.
Thanks for confirming it with your (or someone's) experience.

I did look through that thread earlier. Unfortunately I didn't see where anyone had done any pressure testing. Did not that one guy was flattening primers at 51grs in a 308, you did of course say you were backing off to 50grs.
Still sounds too hot IMO but again opinions don't matter as much as facts, maybe someone can pressure test some of these loads.

I called the Sierra Ballistics hotline to see if they had any data on RL-17 and they said that they haven't shot anything new for over a year because they were just too busy making bullets. I need to quit buying new guns and buy a strain guage setup myself but of course there are still tricks to those too........................DJ

You know what's funny? I'm looking at my Lyman 49th manual (did you know that Lyman manuals list pressure for nearly every load they publish?), and it's showing a fastest-speed load using Viht N-160 that gives 2655 fps @ 58,000 psi (24" tube, and this is the highest velocity load for a 200-grain bullet in the '06). R-17 wasn't out in time for this Lyman manual, I don't believe, so it'll be the 50th before we see what they see/saw.

One of the interesting things about this is that Lyman used a COAL of 3.280". OBTW, the bullet is a Sierra 200-gr. HPBT-MK. I'd have personally expected a COAL of the SAAMI-max 3.340", but they tested shorter, meaning higher pressure for a given charge weight.

Another interesting thing here is that Lyman's loads using Reloader powders (both 19 and 22) are running higher velocities than Alliant's data shows with the Speer SP they used. Reloader 19 is pushing the Sierra almost exactly 200 fps faster for Lyman than it did for Alliant (2526 vs. 2335), and Lyman tested the load at 45,800 CUP (Lyman has a mix of CUP and psi data). Reloader 22 is pushing the Sierra ~150 fps faster than it pushed Alliant's Speer (2650 vs. 2499), and did so at 56,600 psi.

I don't claim that anyone's pulling anything funny, but these are interesting measurements to note, especially since they come with actual pressure data from a very reputable lab. As an aside, my copy of QL (using Win brass, just as Lyman used) predicts the results Lyman obtained almost precisely in terms of both pressure and velocity.

The difference here, dickhead, is that I saw the early range results, can range verify the same with WW any time, and he'll chime in to confirm the same. That, and once the season is over this year, there's a box of 208s on the shelf, awaiting range time in my rifle.

All of which, I can prove. Proof, again, is the thing that escapes your lying azz.

So I can calculate in 60 seconds how a load would perform, you tried that load and it matched right up to my prediction, so... I am an idiot.

Even us blind hogs can find more acorns than some people.

You're right about the Lyman manual. I wish that every reloading manual would print the actual pressures that they get like the Hogden annual manual and the Lyman manual do.

I notice that in the Lyman manual the fastest 200gr in the 308 was 2521 fps at 60,400psi in a 24" barrel.................................DJ

I haven't read the latest round.

However, two things come to mind.

1.Don't park next to the steel.

2.Don't list over book loads on the internet.

Peaceout.

The old NRA handloading books from the 1960s listed all the pressures, and gave the bore diameters of the test barrels to 0.0001 inch, and the diameters of the bullets. That's pretty useful information that is omitted these days.

DJ, this is your day for miracles!

http://www.nosler.com/index.php?p=15&b=30cal&s=307

200 gr Accubonds at 2571 fps on a manufacturer's public website..... and not even using Re17!

Ted

Just a liar.

You realize that your reputation 'round here, would require an independent confirmation to a claim you made of the sky being blue, grass being green, or the sun being warm. If not, someone oughta mail you a fuggin' clue, since you're obviously missing the boat on the obvious.

Your inability to understand my explanation, even when you confirm the results for yourself, is not a shortcoming on my part.

You are a consumer of the knowledge and technology developed by others. Accept your role and just enjoy the benefits.

Ummm, you might want to recheck the quote. Big difference between 2571 and 2750..............................DJ

Not if you're dyslexic!

What would you do for load data?

Might have to venture beyond the manuals. You aren't likely to find lab-tested, NASA approved recipes just anywhere.

If you've got 26" bbl'd 308s, you probably can. Especially if they happen to be Remington factory chamber/throats.

I'm not interested in acquiring a strain gauge to satisfy your curiosity. In the first place, each rifle is different, often very different, per pressure. I know my loads would never fly in a match chambered, short throated, rifle, using Lapua brass, nekkid bullets, and mag-length OAL.

If you are really interested, get yourself the strain gauge, and get busy with those 26" 308s, moly, 208s, and some RL17. If nothing else it would add some meat to your argument. If/when you ever do those WSM wildcats, you'll probably want it anyway, since load data is not in the manuals.


"interpolated guesses". That's funny.

Got it!

Montana............You keep doing your `06 and 308 experimentations with the RL17 and let the skeptics fall by the wayside.

I happen to put little creedence in "Quick Load!" I work up my reloads to the point where my "INDIVIDUAL" rifles can handle them, all the while checking carefully (with a magnifyer) for any slight pressure signs with primers, sticky bolt lifts, shiny case heads, case expansions and so forth. At the first small signs of pressure, I back off 1/2 grain and consider that as max for my rifles and live with the velocity results.

Wished you owned a 300 WSM and were loading some 208 grainers using the RL17. You`d be my guinea pig so to speak!! LOL!

That's often what happens when a powder charge hits max pressure or beyond--the increase in velocity is larger than previous increases.

It can be even more pronounced in monolithic bullets (at least in X and TSX bullets, I haven't done much with the other new monolithics)


Casey

After that point of a sudden jump in velocity, you usually see rapidly increasing peak pressures with little increase in velocity. Back out of there.

I had a 325 WSM before there was any load data out for it. I used factory ammo as a guide and loaded the same bullets with powders in what I thought should be the right burn rate. I used the factory ammo's chronographed velocities as my upper limit knowing if I exceeded those I would be also exceeding pressure. Ended up that my max loads ended up being the same as was printed in some of the new Manuals.

With the rounds that don't have factory ammunition I would compare say the 6.5 WSM to the 270 WSM with same weight bullets. I'd know that a smaller bore size like a 6.5 wouldn't be able to acheive quite the same velocities as the larger bore version so say if you could get 3250 with 140gr bullets in the 270 WSM, I would probably set 3200 or so as a maximum velocity target for the 6.5 version with 140gr bullets. That should at least get pretty close. With a 257 WSM I'd look at the new data out for the 110gr bullets in the 270 WSM and use those velocities as a ceiling.

I certainly wouldn't expect to get 200fps faster than listed loads with a 3.5" shorter barrel with either new round .......................DJ

The WSM cartridges are loaded hot, to jack up their MV and sell rifles, just like the .300 Win Mag was when it first came out. Load it to the original pressures and it will walk off from the WSM.

Got it. You don't mind being a Test Pilot either, when it suits your needs.

There's a name for your behavior. You know what it is.

Shane, I think it's entirely valid to challenge what you post on a public forum. Not saying DJ needs to go to the extent he has with a challenge. He's not going to change your mind and it's no skin off my nose what you do. I think you're a good guy and have the right to post/do whatever you want. However, I think DJ is thinking more about others copying your results with possibly BAD results.

I'd be willing to bet you a case of FatTire Amber your loads are somewhere around the 70K PSI mark!

If you're comfortable with that, I say let her rip. But I also think it's fair on a public forum to let other, less experienced loaders, realize there are plenty of experienced handloaders who wouldn't tread the water you're in.

...........Loaded hot or not doesn`t matter as long as the bolt isn`t sticking, there are no shiny case heads, no primer issues, or any other related pressure issues.

The WSM cartridges operate at higher pressures. That is what they do and what they are designed to do.

Well Lee24, it looks like you may have a big gripe with Lyman because here is their quote from their 49th edition concerning one of the WSMs, the 300 WSM.

Quote........"Ballistics of the 300 WSM averaged 30 to 50 feet per second below the full sized 300 Winchester Magnum while consuming around 8% to 10% less powder in our lab tests.".......unquote

The barrel lengths listed are 24" for both, while listing max velocities for both.

The 300 Win (which I owned and reloaded for 30+ years), is not exactly a walk away or walk off from the 300 WSM.

MM stated his parameters and results. Misuse of the data by the general public isn't his problem. I'm thinking his load data aired out here doesn't cause him any lost sleep.

Can't imagine handing out any 400 Whelen loads for perusal here now.......

The loads in question aren't some esoteric wildcat with no pressure data available...

Yes there is a name for my behavior, it's prudent intelligent reloading. I know that if I'm getting 200fps over factory loads I'm doing it at higher pressures, regardless of what new miracle powder I'm using. HUGE difference between matching factory velocities in the same length barrel than getting 200fps faster in a 3.5" shorter one.

Look at the Hogden annual manual that lists the pressures they get with the other new progressive super powders H-100V and IMR-4007. They get about 2550 in the 308 with 200gr bullets at apx 59k psi. Do you think RL-17 is 200fps faster at the same pressures as they are?????.....................................dj

Not meaning to drift off the topic of the .30-06, but..

the working pressure of the .300 WSM is 65,000 PSI.

the original pressure of the .300 Win Mag was 64,400 PSI.

current factory loads for the .300 Win Mag are under 62,000 PSI.

Load them both to 64,000 PSI and run them over a chronograph to see the real difference.

If you naysayers think book max 30-06 loads are at redline pressure, fine. Keep believing it. It's all about old boltguns, and Garands. They have requirements that drive all published 30-06 data.

I know better and load accordingly for my rifle, because I know how. QL calcs my 55gr load at 60,440 lbs-psi. Brad believes it's in the 70K range??? based on what? dj's incessant ranting?

If Brad or dj think they know how much pressure my load is giving in my rifle, please give the pressure level, and the method you used to determine it. Bring your strain gauge if you want, and that case of Flat Tire beer.

Running a 30-06, at 308 velocities (200s at 2500-ish fps) and thinking there is no room for added velocity says a lot about your understanding of internal ballistics.

There are numerous 308 book loads of 200gr bullets over 2500 fps. 2700 fps from a 30-06, with it's 25% increase in case volume, is not a miracle.

You guys don't get it, because you don't want to.

The Rem 700 houses RUMs at 65K with aplomb, but somehow it's a hazard with 30-06 loads at around 60-62K pressure? Think about what you are trying to sell me. It's absolutely ridiculous.

For anyone interested in RL17 results by those with more name recognition than this ol' shadetree hack, there's a pretty good read, and some more real world results with RL17here:

http://www.6mmbr.com/reloder17.html

This read was the primer that got me interested in giving '17 a go.

My findings pretty much equal theirs, regarding unexpected increases in velocity, minus excess pressure.

The whole basis for the arguement here is that you believe in what quickload is telling you. This makes no sense to me logically since on the same thread you think that it is inaccurate with rl-17 powder.
You also are basing your conclusions that the factory 30-06 loads are loaded at 49k pressure, they are not. Look at the Lyman or Hogden annual manual where they print the actual pressures they get to shoot the 200gr bullets at 2500fps in a 24" barrel, mind you not a 20'5" barrel. They are loading them right up to the SAMMI limit of 50,000CUP or 59,500PSI. And some of these are with the latest powders that perform similarly to RL-17 - like H-100V and IMR-4007.

Shane, You really seem to be a pretty good guy and have been a relatively good sport during this debate. I really think when you step back and really think about some of the info I've given here you'll see what I've been saying and reconsider some of your loads here, I think you are too smart to not eventually get it..............................DJ

Good site and I can see why it got you excited about RL-17. Hopefully they will do some pressure testing with the heavier bullets and we can see if RL-17 is the miracle powder or not.

Do note however that they loaded bullets 23grains lighter and used 4 grains less powder and got slightly lower velocities - though they were at less than max pressure 54.4k psi..................................DJ

I didn't get excited. I got interested. I also don't believe in miracles, but results can be interesting.

If I told you what their loads calc through QL, you would be very disapproving.....

You cherry-pick one component of what I presented and went nutso with it.


For clarification, I believe what QL, my rifle, my chrono, my brass, and my experience, are telling me.

Weighed against the results of others exploring the limits of RL17, it all adds up.

You have to watch peak pressure for safety, but peak pressure is not the whole story of velocity. I would like to see the pressure curve for RL-17 with various bullets. Keeping the pressure curve elevated throughout the interior travel of the bullet is what does the extra work to impart extra velocity.

It does not require a PEAK 65,000 psi to push a 208-gr bullet at 2,700 fps or more. It just requires a higher SUSTAINED pressure. That is what slower powders like H-4831 and RL-22 do, and a retarded powder like RL-17 does - flatter pressure curve, more area under the curve, more work performed.

dj,

Just an FYI because you are mixing up some facts between my 308 and 30-06s regarding velocities, barrels, etc.

I don't know where you came up with a 308 tossing 200s at 2750. I never said that because I've never done it. Closest I got was 2730 with 200SGKs, over 52gr RL17.

My 30-06s have 22.5", and 24" bbl's. They both make 2700+ with 200s.

It's my 308 that has a 20.5" bbl.

Oh yeah....debate. Debating, is just talking. That's what you are doing. I'm actually doing something, and sharing the results. Big difference.

Again, the results at 6.5br were interesting. Hopefully they will soon post their pressure data on the 210's and maybe they'll show that RL-17 really is the miracle in 308 that they seem to think it is in other calibers. But again, before everyone gets too exited the loads they were using were 5grains lighter powder charges than you didwith bullets 15grains lighter and were also Moly'd to get the apx the same velocities you were. They didn't exceed the manufacturers maximum loads either.

And contrary to what you might think. Within certain limits I do think it's OK to exceed some max loads. For example 270 win loads are usually higher with the same powder with the same bullet weights as they are for a 280 Remington. The 280 with it's larger bore diameter should be able to drive the same weight bullets to slightly higher velocities than the .007 smaller 270. So with the same bullet weights 270 win data should be safe for the 280. The 280 has a lower SAAMI pressure limit since it was originally designed for an autoloader. By the same token If I was getting 200fps faster with a 280 140grain bullet than any load for the 270 win for a 140gr bullet I'd be sure I was at overload pressures!................................................DJ

dj,

You're convinced MM's loads are over pressure, and perhaps dangerous -Check

You would not shoot these loads from your rifles -Check

You don't think others should either -Check

MM is going to keep using them despite what you think and write -Check

Most any reader can understand this much -Check

What is your point in continuing the discussion?

I've responded to continued reply's. If there are no more this can be the last post. If someone wants to continue we can do that too..................DJ

It's 6mmbr...anyways, yes I get the 270/280 thing.

The 270 has a SAAMI std of 65K too, vs SAAMI 58.7K for the 280.

So the 280 is fairly watered down already.


Here's something you may find interesting, and it would support my 30-06 ballistics very well.

Case volume comparison:
300 RSAUM: 74 gr water
30-06: 68.2 gr water (default, about what I get measuring milsurp brass))
My Win 30-06 brass fireformed/necksized: 72.0gr water (I measured it long ago)

So there is only a 2.0gr case volume difference between my 30-06 brass, and 300 RSAUM.

Now, useable case volume, with a 180 Speer BTSP seated:

300 RSAUM, 2.825": 65.71 gr

30-06 (my brass), 3.34": 64.17 gr

A difference of about 1.6 gr in useable volume.

What does it mean? I think you can connect the dots. The 30-06 loaded warm can be right on the heels of the 300 RSAUM, and pressure will not be nuclear, or anywhere close.


(remember your WSM wildcat load development plan, similar case size/bore)

Wow Shane, you're pretty hard to be nice too...

Why's that?

Brad, If you think I'm running pressure in the 70K range, I'm interested in how you arrived at that number.

My "somewhere around the 70K PSI mark" (which means upper 60's to me) is conjecture based on manuals that give actual pressure data for real barrels with real bullets... just like your numbers are conjecture based on the non-real quickload program that can only "PREDICT" what pressure MIGHT be in an imaginary gun and imaginary bullets, and a program which absolutely can't predict what RL17 is doing...

Like I said, have at it. But my opinion is if you want a 300 Mag, build a real one.

I don't want or need a 300 Mag. Per case volume, I'm already nearly running a RSAUM, with a different shape.

65K in a 30-06, is no different than the SAAMI 65K in a 338-06, 270, or 25-06. It's really that simple.

As you say, actual pressure is hard to pin down, but I don't believe I'm actually at 65K, more like 60-62K on my using loads. Yes I laddered up higher to see where pressure was, out of curiosity/research. I know I'm running two grains under pressure signs (ejector flow).

The 30-06/300 SAUM comparison is very interesting. I weighed a sized primed 300 SAUM case and got 75.6grs of Water and with a fired 30-06 case (not sized it held 71.0grs of Water, so reasonably close to your comparison.

Also interesting is that the 300 Saum case Weighed 30grs more overall than the 30-06 case. This is probably because the SAUM case is made to stand 64k loads and the 30-06 is SAAMI'd at 50,000CUP (around 59.5-60Kpsi). I'd still think the -06 should be fine at 62K or so.

But really I'd rather just go with a 300 SAUM or even better a 300 WSM and have a short Action, more case capacity to boot. I;ve got a HS Precision HTR in 300WSM I might have to try RL-17 in.

Still pushing it a bit, but this does make sense to me and you are thinking about it.........................DJ

The short mags are a nice proposition. Haven't seen any Remingtons in LH yet. i've mulled having my 308 reworked down the road.

The nicest thing(subjective) about the long action/30-06 combo is the almost endless magazine length.

My 30-06 started life about almost 5000 rounds ago kissing lands with 190 SMKs at 3.25". (I loaded 60gr RL22 for 2910 fps via 26" bbl.....grin). today it kisses lands with 208s at 3.45", with about .34" bearing surface still in the neck, and another .15" of mag length to grow with.

I've shot and measured a few types of 30-06 brass after fireforming in my 30-06. Here's the rundown,

Milsurp: 68.0 gr
IMI: 70.0 gr
Rem: 71.0 gr
Win: 72.0 gr
Norma: 72.5 gr

I believe most book loads are factored towards the lower volume brass, for safety.

I'm sure they factor somewhat to the lower end to have a margin of safety. But what happens if someone runs into a lot of brass with lower capacity? If you are firewalled to the edge of powder charges you have the potential for problems.

I load a 300 RUM load for my Sako that's about a grain and a half back of max. and my velocity is 100fps slower than normal maximum but shoots into bugholes. A buddy shot 1 round of it in his 300 RUM and it had a popped primer, velocity 200fps faster and we nearly had to break out a hammer to get the bolt up! Something as simple as seating depth made a huge pressure difference. Closer to the edge small differences can make even worse things happen.

If one of your rounds somehow someway found it's way into another rifle maybe bad things could happen. Or more likely someone will use your powder charges and not understand the case capacity variances in different brass brands etc. and go over the wall instead of up too it.

Also don't miss the signifigance of the WSM and SAUM brass weighing SIGnifigantly more than 30-06 brass. It's made to withstand the higher pressures, a lot of 30-06 brass ISN'T. Section a SUAM case and one of your Winchester 30-06 cases and you'll see the construction differences.............................DJ

FWIW both the Lyman and Hogden annual manuals (the ones that list actual pressures) used Winchester brass in 30-06, the Lyman used Remington in 308 and the Hogden Winchester in 308.................DJ

Yes ther WSM/SAUM brass is heavier to accomodate the pressure.

That is why commercial 30-06 brass is not going to be way up there in pressure without signs. Win brass is fairly thin inthe web, only my Norma is thinner. That is why pressure shows early in the form of brass flow in the ejector.

If I was anywhere near 70K with Win 30-06 brass, I'd be popping primers like a dirty bastard, and have serious stiff bolt lift.

Regarding brass weight, just put a couple of extremes on the scale,

Empty weight:

30-06, LC Match 65 - 200.5 gr (very thick in the web)
30-06, Norma, - 184.4 gr

Thinner brass at the web also means that you are more likely to get case head separations when you are operating that the edge of pressure limits/tolerances. Case head separations can cause more nasty things to happen than popped primers usually do.

The RSAUM case weighed 225grs.....................DJ

True.

I've always just neck sized my brass with a collet die. So I'm not bending it back and forth at the web juncture.

I've literally put 4000+ shots through 100 pieces of Norma brass. It just won't die.

Never had to push back shoulders either. I hear tell of that being necesarry after a few neck sizings, but never needed it myself.

Well, we went to the range this afternoon, and burned up some Re 17 in a 308 Stevens and its 22 inch factory barrel. All loads were in W-W brass and used WLRM primers in anticipation of cold-weather hunting for woods bison. No wind, -14C, loads shot into less than 1 1/4 inch.

Fastest 200 gr Speer Hot Core loads got 2660 fps. Noticeable bolt lift, no ejector marks, was the most accurate load as well. Will go back two grains and call it good at 2590 fps.

Going to work up some 200 gr Grand Slams next.

This brass has been fired five times now. Just sized them for the sixth time, and primer pockets are still tight.

Also tried some Re17 in the 9.3X62 Mauser. 270 gr Matrix bullets going 2500 fps, but that is another thread.

Ted

Been following this thread and have a few thoughts to add���

Issues that I see:

1. Lack of pressure tested data from both proponents and critiquers. This is the basis for any experimental load development � when it exists. For the 30-06, reams of pressure tested load data exist. To establish boundaries, the 30-06 is capable of 2800 or a bit more with a 180 at 62-65,000 psi using the slowest available powders for the 30-06, 2700 with a 200. Load data can be all over the board but a couple of points: A. pressure testing with minimum spec chambers will show �anomalous� velocity with seemingly smaller charges. Why? Ideal Gas Law � PV=nRT or a smaller containment area (V, volume) for the reaction, smaller volume equal higher pressure and associated velocity everything else identical. B. loads developed in min spec chambers, then shot in �average� sporting arms � and associated chamber specs � is the opposite. Larger powder chamber (volume) equals less pressure, equals less velocity. The best data is derived from a strain gage on an actual �average� chamber and throat dimension � you get the best of both worlds � closer to average chamber dimensions (volume) and charge/pressure/velocity relationships. Enter the data previously listed from AccurateReloading. I�ve had this data for quite a while and have played with it. I believe it more accurate than Quickload, SWAG�s, and the �my rifle� argument � it is real data produced in an �average� rifle. A few things to note about the data � 2800 or so is the max velocity for this rifle/bullet/powder/primer combo with 180�s, 2700 with 200�s at 62-65k psi. Looking over the reams of data for the 30-06, I believe these to be spot on.

Lets go one step further � lets use basic, simple linear extrapolation. Admittedly, powder burn rate is likely not linear but without performing the equivalent of doing surgery with a chainsaw, its close enough. Sparing all the detail, the average gain in velocity per grain of powder burned is ~ 38 ft/sec, the average pressure gain per grain of powder is ~ 2500 psi. This means that for every grain of powder charge increased we can expect to gain 38 ft/sec and add 2500 psi to our equipment. Simple math indicates that to gain 100 ft/sec over a current powder charge, I need to burn 3 grains of powder � but I add 7500 psi to the mix. If I start adding powder to a load that produces 60,000 psi to get my extra 100 ft/sec, I�m approaching 70,000 psi � a nice place to avoid. Lets call it �California� <g>.

2. Use of uncalibrated model and empirical pressure signs. I teach groundwater modeling using mathematical models. Models are great tools � if they are calibrated to the system being modeled. Calibration means the calculated data (modeled) matches the observed/measured data (load data and associated velocity/pressure relationship in our case). If the model is not calibrated to the empirical data, the model will produce nice cartoons or theories but may or may not match reality. I don�t know Quickload but hope the model allows chamber/throat/leade dimensions to be tweaked to match the rifle/load/bullet combo being tested. This is the essence of model calibration � tweaking parameters to get the modeled results to match the empirical data. If Quickload allows such tweaks, I�d do a cast of my chamber and add the dimensions to the model input parameters. Empirical pressure signs has been disporved with pressure testing equipment and have proved to be unreliable.

3. �Loads safe in my rifle� � the whole throat geometry, chamber, leade, mysticism properties � a euphemism for I�m comfortable with these loads regardless of what pressure tested data and past experience says. At the risk of offending folks, I find this line of reasoning dangerous � unless someone has pressure tested data in that particular rifle or one damn similar in chamber/throat/leade dimensions.

In the end, I have no vested interest in someone else�s loads � I�m not the one with my face behind the bolt. I do however care what uninformed folks attempt. Strongly suggest if a person doesn�t understand basic physics, they stay within the realms of the load manuals and live a safe and prosperous life. The extra 100 ft/sec ain�t worth it. I've seen a rifle blow up � it ain�t pretty.

All very true, bwinters.

But...

... Hornady and Federal offer 180-gr .30-06 loads at 2,900 FPS or more, without extremely high pressures, so it is possible to do.

For a really good shot, in a hunting situation, small groups and consistent first round accuracy is more important than an extra 100 FPS or 200 FPS on top of 2,650 FPS. It is fun to experiment, and nice if you can get your hunting rifle to shoot tight groups at really high velocities.

For a not-so-good shot, the extra velocity, whether from a .30-06 or .300 magnum, is not going to do them much good as far as hitting where they want to hit.

No, they aren't. But different reamers make different chambers and throats. Moly can change things slightly.

I didn't just guess for loads with it, and Shane isn't either.

We are assuming everything is static, which it isn't, and regardless of what the manuals tell you, they still tell you to work up, which he did.

He wasn't stopping at std. pressure, which is below the 308 and all belted/non-belted mags.

The only thing is, when working up loads for YOUR rifle they might not be safe....

I find quite the contrary to be true. He has backed up his results with field verified information and has made a very strong case against his naysayers on this thread. He has more than kept his cool amidst all the hand-holders calling him out.

Regardless, his work and findings are quite a resource and at worst a good read. I think most of us on the outside looking in have no issue with what he is doing or how he got there except for a chosen few.

Someone disagreeing with you does not make them hard to be nice too. You're speculating, he is not.

Regards...

bwinters, your boundaries are flawed. They are your unquantified opinion.

There exists a relationship between, case volume, bore size, bullet weight, distance to lands, powder burn rate, bore friction, and other factors.

This relationship is not constant. It changes with many variables. QL allows calcs with many of these variables factored in. Reloading manuals do not.

Reloading manuals factor for safety, and rightfully so.

More food for thought regarding action strength.

Compare the pressure containing capability of any front-lug action chambered in a RUM/WSM/SAUM versus the same action chambered in 308/30-06. I don't have a sectioned action in front of me, so some of this is speculating, but it should be close. Two failure paths are: shearing/failure of the lug-action interface (failure of either the lugs themselves or the action area against which the lugs bear) and failure of the chamber wall. My understanding is that comparing the RUM actions versus the '06 actions, there is no difference in action external dimensions or materials. The RUM action will have a substantially thinner chamber wall. The RUM action will subject the chamber wall to (0.550" / 0.470") about 17% more hoop load than the '06 action. And yet, SAAMI for the RUM is 65ksi. For the other failure path, the thrust area for axial load is (0.550"^2/0.470"^2) 37% greater with the RUM versus the '06. This tells me that a model 700 in 308 or 30-06 is a freaking bank vault compared to a 700 in SAUM/WSM/RUM.

As for brass, it's a gasket, and its metallurgy is subject to work-hardening. The chamber walls and the bolt face do the heavy lifting. The case head has to resist being deformed into the bolt face voids and recesses, and has to resist loosening at the primer pocket. Tough to draw an engineering correlation in required head thickness versus case head diameter, assuming equal pressure. Larger diameter case head will better resist opening the primer pocket, but will be subject to greater load resulting from the greater internal diameter of the case. I'd expect to see proportionally similar case head thickness between the head of a 308 and WSM. As for the rest of the case including the web and areas forward, don't work it too much in your reloading practices, and it will last.

One comment from earlier in the thread caught my eye regarding SAAMI maximum pressures of 25-06 and 270 brass versus 30-06 and 280 brass. Knowing what we know about manufacturing, is there a good reason for Lapua or WW to tool up to stamp out '06-family brass having differing case head thicknesses? Would you hesitate to neck down a 30-06 case to 270 and run full bore 270 loads through it?

I've done the math on relative boltface pressure long ago,


.473" case head diameter = .176 sq-in, 11,440 lbs P, at 65K psi

.532" case head diameter = .222 sq in, 14,430 lbs P, at 65K psi

Shane - my post was not aimed at you directly and was not intended to throw rocks. I too have wrestled with load data for the 30-06 - and 280 and 7RM. I offered my observations as food for thought.

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of my boundaries but we could discuss that point. I agree a relationship exists between the variables you cite. What I am saying is that the model (QL) needs to match the acutal (your rifle's chamber dimensions) closely for modeled results to be valid. I'd think a good comparison would be modeling existing, known pressure tested data against QL. This will give some insight into the sensitivity of the variables in question.

As such, linear interpolation is similarly flawed but the use of several methods helps lessne the sideboards of the variables involved - in essence help converge to a solution in the absence of real pressure tested data.

To me, the difference in our answers is not which one is more verifiable, no singualr answer exists w/o pressure data, but what is prudent - and where do you and I draw the line. My sole point is that in my estimation, reliance on QL as the only source of information makes me uncomfortable. I'd greatly prefer my approach - linear extrapolation in combination with QL and known boundaries for specific bullet/powder combos. I find your results interesting and would like to see more results but I also reserve the right to comment w/o throwing stones. In the end you are the guy behind the gun, not me.

Good luck and keep posting.

Ok, wow, lot to digest here. But simplified in my terms for someone who might give RL 17 a try with Shane's 130 TTSX loads in the .30-06 (and I'll work it up slowly):
We are concerned about excessive pressure
Excessive pressure blows up guns
Shane's guns have not blown up
Load is not excessive in HIS gun

bwinters,

I'm not sure what your familiarity with QL is, but the thing that makes it most useful is that you can edit some of the basic inputs to match your specific rifle/components.


Some of the variables you can edit include:

seating depth
shank seating depth
bullet length
bullet diameter
cartridge length (oal)
case length
groove diameter
barrel length
bullet travel
bullet weight
cross-sectinal bore area
max case capacity


It allows you to make calcs closely tailored to your specific rifle, and ammo.

It's far from calcs for an "imaginary rifle" and "imaginary ammunition", as implied by some here who have most likely never even looked at the program.

exbiologist,

That's about sums it up.

I might add, that it has not even flattened a primer, or caused stiff bolt lift, in my rifle.

Shane, are your interpolations of pressue based on the assumption that the Alliant loads are at 48,900 psi and/or use that as a baseline for QL?................DJ

ex - feel free to load whatever you like in whatever fashion suits you. Good luck with your method, hope the results work for you in YOUR rifle.

MM - have no familiarity with QL, just the conceptual basis of using mathematical models to quantify empirical phenomenon. Looks like alot of variables can be tweaked to get the modeled results to match the empirical. Glad to see that.

I still don't see ways of adjusting the powder chamber dimensions - chamber size, leade, throating, etc. I'd bet case volume is the proxy for all of those specific variables. Curious question - does QL ask for case fired water capacity or re-sized capacity? Case fired capacity seems most logical as it more accurately represents powder chamber dimensions.

I find this type of discourse much more meaningful than throwing rocks..........Thanks.

Am also thinking that bullet travel is the proxy for everything in front of the case dimension (leade, throat, etc). Case capacity is the proxy for chamber dimension. Without actually playing with it, looks like it should be in the ballpark.

I'd still cross reference to my linear method and known data to further refine the boundaries of loads. Thanks again.

The point was Shane's response to Dj last page. Uncalled for.

As far as speculation, Shanes in shallower water than me or DJ.

But as I've said from the beginning, he can do what he wants.

dj, No. My assesment of pressure with QL is by chronographing the load, then looking at that velocity on a QL ladder chart, for a pressure estimate of that velocity with the powder/bullet in use.

I tend to agree with JB's assessment that QL does a reasonably accurate coorrelation between velocity/pressure, than it does correlating powder/pressure. That said, QL powder/velocity calcs have run pretty darn close with the 223, 308, and 30-06 stuff I've worked up over the seven years or so that I've been using QL.

RL17 is the only powder I've used where the calcs for velocity/pressure do not seem to correlate well.

QL calcs useable case volume based on editable inputs for empty case volume, and bullet seating depth (or OAL).

I've found that calcs are most accurate when the oal is entered per the length where the bullet touches the lands, even if the bullet is seated deeper. Basically the 'freebore' has the effect of extra combustion chamber because the bullet is preety much moving up to that point without any resistance other than it's own inertia. Neck tension yes, but that is reduced too since i'm using moly.




QL provides a default case volume. in the case of the 30-06 it gives 68.2 gr water. That is about what milsurp brass holds. The commercial brass I've measured holds 70-72.5 gr water, after fireforming (I only neck size).

Let's take a look at something, JFSAG..........

Sierra 168 BTHP MatchKing loads.
Sierra 5th Edition lists this as the maximum load with RL-15:
51.2 grains, and 2900ish fps
That figures a 3.285" COAL, 1-10" twist, 26" tube, Savage 110, Federal cases, and Federal primers. No moly.

Hmmm...........

Federal cases generally run about 68.0 grains of water capacity, so that's the spec I'll punch into QuickLoad.

QL calcs that load at 53,811 PSI. Having shot that load, it's mild, and the pressure spec'd is likely about right, as you can generally go a good bit above that before you see pressure signs.

Even so, let's see what changing a few parameters nets.

Use R-P brass (71.0 grains, average, water capacity), run moly, and seat to 3.385" COAL.

The exact same load runs only 44,990 PSI. That's a HUGE difference.

Pardon me for getting the slightest bit defensive after the guy [bleep] all over my thread, page after page......sheeeeesh.

It's one thing to make your point, even reinforce it. It's another thing to just carry on and on, not introducing anything of substance, just determined to have the last word.



Who knows, we may get a little bit of useful discussion out of this thread before it's all said and done.

My "go to" load with the 168 TTSXs (.2" groups at 100) is thus:
R-P brass, WLRs, RL-15 (54.0 grains), moly'd 168 TTSX, 3.495" COAL, and a 92.7% capacity load density.

QL gives the PSI numbers on that load at just a RCH over 58k PSI. The velocity estimate through QL is very, very close.

Now, run the same load through the "standard" Federal brass, no moly, at the spec'd 3.340" COAL, and you have a 102.0% capacity load, and you get 73,200 PSI.

So, WTF does this mean? Basically, what Shane's been saying. The variables that he brings into play (much longer COAL, more capacious brass, moly, generous throat geometry) all play a part in very likely making the loads he's running quite safe in his rifle.

What I'm curious is if you have tweaked the parameters to where the pressure tested load from 6.5br matches it's 54,400psi at 47.0grs with a 185gr bullet at 2701fps and then moved the powder charge up to the 50+grs to see what it says the pressure would have been.

And then with the parameters matched see what pressure 47-50+grs would make with a bullet 15grains heavier.

It doesn't mention the barrel length but if 46.0grs of Varget and a 155gr bullet is 3036fps it isn't a short one......................................DJ

A few subtle adjustments can easily make a 10K difference in pressure calc.

A lot of the guys on the 'hide running Lapua brass in match chambers with nekkid bullets are charging with 2-3 grains less powder, and getting the same velocities. The differences are real.

You don't mention the other possibility of what your test might mean, and that is that Quickload isn't very accurate in calculating pressure between different brands of brass! I've shot a couple of the same loads in Lapua, WW, RP and Federal brass and shot them in several different rifles. Velocities have been pretty close between the different makes of brass. I Certainly haven't seen any of the changes that you'd think you would see in the difference between 58K and over 70K pressure. The velocity should be a good bit higher with the same powder and bullets between 58K and 70K pressures.

I've seen Quickload estimate pressures at over 100K psi in loads that were spot on for burning rates and chronographed velocities. I've also seen primers popped in loads it said should be mild. I think it's a FAR less accurate tool than a Chronograph!.................................DJ

dj, the thing is, the 6mmbr guys are likely using heavy brass, and match chambers. I'm running a loosey-goosey chamber, with moly, and light brass. The calcs cant be transferred over and make the same pressures.

It goes back to the fact that every rifle, and it's load components, are subtly different, but enough to easily cause a 10K difference in pressure.

I believe the folks publishing manuals understand this very well. That's why most of the book loads only calc to around 40K pressure range when I apply them into QL with my rifle/brass personal inputs.

DJ;

I figure likely a 27-28" barrel. Figure that the PMC brass is just about 56.0 grains of water capacity, and seat the bullet to 2.940" COAL. Moly the bullet. 47.0 grains of RL-17 then gives you about 99.5% capacity (matching what they were saying in the article), and estimated velocities of about 2705 fps.

Or again it might just be that QuickLoad is wildly off in it's pressure calculations!

I've seen it be further off than this in other rounds (run some RL-15 loads in a 458 Lott and see what it says, maybe they've fixed it by now, maybe not).........................DJ

If you don't change calculations for the change in brass capacity, you're fuggin' up, huge.

No way in hell I'd even think about running a top end R-P brass or W-W brass load in Lapua or Federal. Likewise, a top end load in that brass is basically a starting load in the R-P or W-W stuff, due simply to the capacity on deck.

I've always used QL in conjunction with the chrono, and indicators from the rifle and brass. Never relied on it as a stand-alone source of analysis.

Given that their calculations are pretty damned close given velocity, capacity, burn rate, burn percentage, and several other factors, I highly doubt that.

I'd suspect that, and do suspect that, the difference in the variables (as Shane's pointing out) make more of a difference that you want to allow for, and that the manuals err on the side of less capacious brass and tighter margins due entirely to liability rationale.

DJ;

Explain, then, how I'm supposed to find a top-end load for a rifle that has a COAL of 3.495" vs. the book COAL of 3.340", brass that has 4.5% more capacity, moly'd vs. naked bullets, and rather generous chamber/throat geometry. Obviously, the tighter specs on the book maximum aren't going to be maximum in that rifle.

So, how do I find "max"?

Again, this is only a problem if QuickLoad is always accurate. It isn't................................DJ

In my years of experience with it, It's not wildly off in calcs with medium powders, in medium cases, and using medium bullets (that's about all I load). In my experiences It's typically within 25 fps on velocity calcs with the 308, and 30-06, when inputs are adjusted per the rifle/components.

When you get on the extremes of cases, bullets, powders, probably more room for error.

So, what is accurate? A book with different brass, load COAL, friction proofing, and chamber geometry?

I think not.

I discussed this on a thread here a few months back with Ken Oehler. Basically what I do when developing a max load is I make a chart for that caliber in a specific bullet weight and several powders. I make a chart of the max load listed from all available manuals and sources and look for a solid trend in the max load listed, discounting any low or high values. I also record the velocities with the listed max loads.
I'll load up 4 or 5 powders and see which one seems to give good accuracy and velocity, I'll stop whenever I either reach the max powder charge or the max listed velocity.
You won't always be able to reach the max listed velocity but usually I've been able to get close.
For me the max listed velocities, max listed loads or pressure signs all three were limits I don't usually cross because if you exceed any of them you probably are also exceeded max pressures. Ken Oehler pretty much agreed with this. IIRC the thread was one about using the chronograph to determine pressure or something like that if you want to search it up....................................DJ

So, what you're saying is that you guess.

If your brass is more capacious than the listed brass, then you have less fill density, and less pressure.

If you have a longer COAL, then you have more capacity and less fill density, and less pressure.

If you run moly, then you have less friction, and less pressure.

Yet, you're convinced that if you have all three of those variables in your favor to reduce pressure, you need to stop at or near the maximum load for something that's no longer equivalent?

That's completely illogical.

You go through all those machinations, guessing against the facts, and then think that a program designed to compensate for all those variables is less accurate?

Damn.............................

What were the details of this load?

You might want to go back do a search and read some of JB's posts on how little long seating bullets and the small increase in capacity makes on velocity potential.

Moly doesn't increase velocity potential without increasing pressure nearly as much as some people assume.

I think you might be exaggerating the effects of small differences in case capacity and seating depth, but don't take my word for it read what JB has put in print about it, he's a better writer than I and has hung around some ballistic labs. Maybe he might comment on this for himself which would be better yet.

The thing is that I'm not guessing about anything. I usually have data that has been actually pressure tested and shot not just calculated. I have velocities that I actually measure in my gun. If you don't exceed the books maximum listed loads and don't exceed their max listed velocities at their COAL with the same components you can be pretty sure you aren't exceeding max listed pressures (this per Ken Oehler on the earlier thread).

Simply put I agree with Brad. If I want 200gr bullets going faster than the listed velocities of the 308 or 30-06 I'll buy a 300 Mag (well, I have several). I don't beleive that it's smart to push a caliber beyond it's limits. I also hope that RL-17 turns out to be a great powder for the 308, I have a bunch of them. I just don't think it's smart to go so far beyond published limits to squeeze the last Nth out of a round................................................DJ

It's been a few years ago and I'm on my 3rd laptop since I had that Quickload installed. If memory serves it was with a 500gr bullet seater to the cannelure and RL-15. I need to try and find it and see if I can reinstall it on my new laptop and duplicate it. I quit using it because it was so far off on the 458 Lott and a couple other rounds I used it for didn't seem that accurate either (not as bad as it was on the Lott though). It used to have a reputation for not working well with straight walled cases - but again to be fair it was a few years ago and they may very well have fixed the problem by now...................................DJ

Looks like a full case only calcs around 58-60K.

It looks like they've probably fixed the problem. The load I've been shooting was 80.0grs, I'll have to find the chrono data on it but I think the velocity is still 100fps or so off. I remember that it said that 80.0grs was way up in the red range before, at least now it shows it well down in safe territory. The lower the pressure the better on the big African Calibers........................DJ

I started out with V2.8 back in 2002. It was right on the money with RL15, 308 Win, and moly'd 190 SMK.

I found my chrono data on the Lott and my velocities are about 110fps off the track you've printed. That much could be explained by my rifles. At least it's a lot closer than it was! I'll have to check and see which version it was that I ran.................DJ

VA - this is exactly the kind of info and quasi-calibration I was refering to in my earlier posts. I tend to trust math models IF they are calibrated in some fashion and verified with other known end points. An uncalibrated math model is nice cartoon.

I've routinely run 3-4 grains over book max in the 30-06, 280 , and 7RM to account for the lower SAAMI (usually 57-58K) but i always establsh boundaries using "normal" chamber/throat dimensions. For me 2800 with 180's in an 06 using a "normal" throating chambering geometry and COAL. I agree that more capricious brass, longer throat, significantly longer COAL - anything that makes the powder room bigger lowers pressure and resultant velocity. I have no issue with going over book max as long as there is some type of method involved other than my gun didn't blow up, or I have no sticky bolt lift, etc. Guessing ain't cool - too many folks decide on a desired velocity and try to justify their data because of the factors cited above. Apparently you guys are not - a very good thing BUT folks need to understand the differences in what MM is doing vs what they have/plan to do.

I think the last 2 pages or so has helped me understand better. Thanks.

What was the ambient temp when these loads were used?
Bill

It was about 40F.

The ammo was warmer though, I just stepped out of a 70F house, and kept the rounds in my pocket to keep them from cooling off much.

Sorry dj How do you know they are safe?

DJ, "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

Just wondering how he safely subs Mag primers for std. with no listed loads or pressures with same.

Chrony? Extrapolation?

In a handgun...

I'll load them 150-200fps or maybe a little bit more less than normal velocity. Without actual pressure testing them you won't really know for sure but I feel comfortable with loads at very moderate velocity being within pressure limits if both the velocities and powder charges are well below those acheived with std primers...........dj

Sounds awfully risky.... I'd stick only to using components with tested data, right? I didn't think subbing anything even entered into the equation

Ya know, a lot of what you just said Shane has said before regarding his own loads.

And you haven't even tried yours yet.

Oh, and beware of sticking jacketed bullets if you go too far back the other way in finding safety.

Enough of me being snooty.


Just saying....

Hawk1, I realize that you are trying to defend you freind Shane, which is fine but he's perfectly capable of doing it himself. I have to say mostly in a pretty nice way. He seems like a pretty good guy even though I think he's making some mistakes in his reloading assumptions. I guess you can try petty insults if you want but it's really more interesting if you bring something more useful to the discussion, your freind has.

You might want to reread some of the things I've posted and you should see that I'm not totally tied to manual specifics but think that you need to deviate from them carefully, such as the 270 Winchester - 280 Remington comparisons.

If you want to discuss you might try bringing facts and logic to the discussion and join in. For me this discussion has been interesting though I hope nobody's toes have gotten stepped on too hard..........................DJ

Book loads for the 30-06 are watered down for reasons that make sense.

When you look at case volume comparisons between the 30-06 and 300 SAUM it becomes objectively apparent that the 30-06 can be loaded, by a savvy handloader, to darn near the same performance.

My 30-06 brass holds 72 gr water, measured. (72.5 for the Norma)
Your 300 SAUM holds 75 gr water, measured.


I'm loading a 208 AMax to 3.45" OAL. This kisses lands in my heavy 30-06. My useable case volume is 61.72 gr.
A 300 SAUM (75gr wetcap) with a 208 loaded to 2.825" (mag limit on the 700), results in a useable capacity of 62.18 gr.


The difference in usable volume is a whopping 0.46 gr, in favor of the SAUM. Less that 1/2 grain.


This is where the naysayers raise the fact that the SAUM runs at 65K lbs-psi. So can the 30-06. Just like the 25-06, 270, and 338-06 do. No difference whatsoever in a Rem 700, or similar modern arm.

Considering my loads are below SAUM performance, it becomes obvious that my loads are actually below 65K somewhere.

I've always held that my loads are in the 60-62K range, and this analysis supports that.

Then why are the SAUM and WSM cases made so much heavier and stronger?...................DJ

Nothing petty at all, besides a difference of opinion and Shane can argue his points fine.

Let's say I have a revolver chambered for a certain cartridge, lets make it a popular one, since obscure wildcats are verboten; (since I have never ran RL-17 in a 30/06 and I'd be guessing, though I could sit back and pick on loads of someone who has).

My bullets and my gun are designed to seat bullets flush with the cylinder face (large throat), the chambers are large, much larger than cut in a pressure barrel.

Magically my powder capacity, OAL and published data is now going to allow me to never get close to a book MAX speed, pressure, and I'm certain to get the maximum powder charge in the case, despite finding a fuel on the slower end.

What you were saying in the thread was that should I work up my loads and go beyond MAX data I have now subjugated all to heresay and guessing and my data for my gun is not safe, correct?

Oh yeah, there is only two companies who list pressure tested data and their COL are much shorter, chambers tighter as well as throats....useless? No.
What if I have QL or something like it on top of that? That's not useless either, if I'm working up carefully. What if this load was fired 100 times; a thousand with no signs or issues? If I just punched the numbers and poured in the Max, well, I'd reap what I sowed.

Could my max speed and powder charge be more than anything listed, or is it confined to manual data? For you it may be where you would not tread. Fine.


I guess the best comparison for flawed manual data comes in Speer #13 where the 222 Rem. meets or beats the 223 once crusher loads were fired in actual guns, despite a supposed 6,000 CUP pressure difference; I recall the 308 and 30/06 being too close for comfort as well. You know the flaw in the testing, yet there it is.

I appreciate the fact you want no one to get hurt; I don't think you like the posters face more than he does.

Not necessarily.

Peak pressure is just an indicator of muzzle velocity and vice versa. There is not a direct correlation, especially at high pressures. MV is the result of the average pressure exerted on the bullet over the period of time it was in the bore.

Don't just take my word on things. Here are a few quotes from earlier posts by someone who knows a bit about pressure and velocity:












At least now you can know I'm not just making up my opinions out of thin air. When Dr. Oehler talks about pressure and ballistics I try and listen. If someone with his level of experience can't guage maximum pressures by looking at fired cases it makes me wonder how I possibly could...........................................DJ

That is irrelevant. A guess would be that the web diameter is larger and thus has a larger area exposed to the pressure.

25-06, 270Win, 338-06 are 65K rounds too. If the 30-06 brass was not up to it, it would be failing. It isn't.

Other interesting quotes:



..................DJ

I can't speak for Dr. Oehler or Shane, but a 38 loaded with the OAL of a 357 (There are 38's you can do this with) is going to have more velocity potential with more powder than a std 38 load fired in a 38, at the same pressure.

When housed in 357s they can be worked up to similar levels as, well, a 357.....and exceed book velocities of a 38, with more powder and pressure and be totally safe. Your basically using speed and pressure data for essentially the same volume of space.

Capacity allows increases in speed.

Wadcutter loads are lighter than SWC loads at the same pressure, for a reason, a 222 Mag will shoot faster than a 223, for a reason.

Get a strain gauge or quit reloading? Fine. I won't beat you over the head with it.

OK, I assumed (incorrectly) that if you were seating to 357 length you were shooting 38's in a 357 chamber - my bad.

But if I was wanting to shoot 357 velocities I'd probably just buy a 357 instead of a 38. Do most of the manuals list +P data for 38spl? It's not that close to 357 data is it? (I'm away from home at the moment so can't check).....................DJ

I don't have a dog in this fight, but, all them stripes mean Master Gunnery Sergeant, I think (we don't have them in the Air Force).

One does not get there in the Marines being the type of person who throws caution to the wind. The few I've known take calculated risks, and mitigate whatever is working against them.

I'm with Shane on this one, again, since I took exactly the same position on the similar 308 post for just exactly the same reasons.

Your missing the point. Its an example, but it works if you try it.

I never said loads would equal a 357 in the 38 gun. They would require more powder and get more velocity if loaded to the pressures of a standard load (its not magic) especially over a wadcutter load, because of capacity. Period. And you won't find the gun's max listed in a manual

In a gun strong enough, they can go to pressure levels of the 357 loads safely, without magic. Its just an example, no riddle. The max for that load isn't in the manual for a 38, yet it can be safe, ya know? The max load for that gun ain't in the freaking manual! .

No more, no less. If you are inclined to do it, its there. If not, don't. Simple.

Montana,
On the subject of pressures, I had posted this on the 7.62x51mm working pressures in another thread on US Sniper Ammunition:

The 172-gr FMJ BT ammunition for the M-60 machine gun is larger diameter than the standard 145 to 148-gr M80 ball bullets. It was loaded with 41 grains of IMR-4475 behind a 172-gr match bullet and produced 67,500 psi in a bolt action M-24 or M-40 rifle.