I also posted this down on the varmint reloading forum...
Forums are always filled with armchair ballisticians, who inform we reloaders of what we should and shouldn�t do, because they read in some book or in some article.. � Yadda Yadda Yadda..�.. and then they present themselves as an expert on the subject, using the article or book as a reference to back them up�
Well some of we reloaders have taken offense to this at times.. yet when we point out something to these folks, we are rewarded with getting flamed, name called etc..
And then told we have no proof to back up what we say and we are going to hurt someone�
I am working up a load to use in a Ruger 77 Mk2 sporter weight 22.250 with a 22 inch barrel. I have picked the bullet weight of 50 grains for the application. I have picked several powders to load and try out�.
The two I want to relate to the above is BLC 2 and Benchmark.
Hodgdon�s Annual Manual for 2004 lists a charge of 34.5 grains as a max charge with a pressure of 48,400 CUP.. and an MV of 3740 fps.
Older manuals and Steve Riccardelli�s site list a max charge of 38.5 grains with this same powder, although no pressure was listed that I can find for this charge, nor was any MV given.
Well testing the 34.5 grain Load over my chronograph, my MV came up a little short on what was listed in the manual.. 350 fps short to be exact. Several shots with my 22 inch barrel Ruger gave an MV of 3390 fps.. none were higher than that.
So next I worked up loads with 36 grains and 38.5 grains listed as max from other sources�Now according to our �on line� armchair ballisticians exceeding the 34.5 grain load would be �Idiotic�.. �Dangerous� etc�. However, the 36 grain load and the 38.5 grain loads were just fine� they would have been quick to point out that the 38.5 grain load was more than 10% over the recommended max� I would have been accused of potentially killing someone�.
Instead of killing some one this shows the importance of �working up� your loads�.. and also manuals are strictly that, a reference� Plus it shows the importance of a chronograph� 2 rifles and 8 reloads of the same charge failed me to get within 350 fps of the MV listed in the reference� even tho I used the same primer and powder charge.
Now lets take a look at the Benchmark loads�
The same reference manual recommends a charge of 36 grains as max, for an MV of 3903 fps, and a pressure of 51,400 CUP, which is still below SAAMI pressure specs for this cartridge.
Well the old chronograph was out testing the real world also with this load.
First of all, I quit testing the max 36 grain load, when the third primer out of 3 blew in the rifle�. So the load listed in the manual was too hot for that Ruger 22.250 Sporter. I also tried a couple in a Ruger VT in 22.250.. the loads were too hot for that rifle also.
So contrary to our � online� armchair ballistic experts, what is listed as max in a manual or reference material IS NOT what is always safe.. two different rifles wouldn�t take this load without blowing primers.. they extracted, but did blow the primers.. Once again another proof to �working up� a load.. Just because the �manual� says it will be safe in your rifle doesn�t mean it will�.
So I dropped down to 35.5 grains and 35 grains to test those out. Both of those loads were safe in both of my rifles.. although the chronograph had me wondering what the pressures were, if just half a grain more was eating primers�.
The chronograph also told me some more info. At 36 grains the MV was supposed to be 3903 fps or so. Well at 35.5 grains, the MV turned out to be between 3988 and 3994 fps� 100 fps faster with Half a grain of less powder.. Hmmm�
Another deviation from the theories of our armchair ballistician experts�. Looks like manuals make a good reference, not a good Bible on the subject.
Now the 35 grain loads� they had MVs ranging from 3820 fps to 3909 fps�.wide deviation spread, yet the loads were accurate in that rifle. Still some more deviation from the �gospel according to� the Hodgdon Manual�.
And finally lets look at the chronograph itself. I have had forum members tell me many times that my chronograph must be registering things faster than what they really are, because it registers faster velocities with loads, than they get with their chronograph or according to their reload manual�s listed MVs�
Well those that say �each rifle is an entity onto itself� are the only ones that are really correct.
In the case of BLC2, my chrony was listing MVs at least 350 fps slower than the book model�s results.
Yet on the same page and same manual, when using Benchmark Powder, my chronograph was registering results 100 fps faster, with � grain less powder�. And was equaling results the same as the reference manual with an entire grain of powder less�
So here is the same chrony, same day, same rifle� registering ONE load 350 fps slower than the manual stated� and registering another load 100 fps FASTER than the manual listed, and that was with a load � a grain less�..
So does that make my chrony slow or faster than actuality.. or can I just assume it is just perfectly fine and is recording what it sees??? I chose the latter analogy.
Quoting a good friends saying � So what does it all mean???��
Well, reference materials are just that, REFERENCE� Reload manuals are guides, not bibles. People, who just pass on what they read, don�t know what they are talking about in the real world of reloading, whether they flame you in the process or hoop and holler with all the �authority� they can muster�. Effort doesn�t make them any more correct.
Both these examples also show the real importance of a chronograph and the importance of the information that it can give you.
Thirdly, the old advise of �Work UP� & every rifle is an entity onto itself, holds truth.
Hodgdon is probably accurately reporting the actual results that they received in their testing. But the results their rifle got and the results my rifles got, varied dramatically.
ONE varied to be equal to a lot less ( 350 fps less), while the other load was blowing primers in two different rifles� and both of them got 100 fps more velocity, with � a grain of less powder�..
No amount of reading can replace at the reload bench and at the range experience..
Cheers
Seafire
January 1, 2008
