my source for H 1000 data is evidently in an older reload manual I have... the amount was 80 grains I believe...
Checking Steve Riccardelli's site, the load for a 200 grain bullet in the 300 Win Mag is 80 grains...with a large rifle primer you are looking at less pressure than with a mag primer..
so I used that and worked up to 80 grains with a 220 grain bullet, and had no pressure signs.. from there I worked up to the 83 grains.. this is a compressed load in this case..this is 5 grains over what is listed for the 220 grain bullet max.. which is 78 grains..
It is fairly commonly admitted that the 300 Win is not loaded to its full potential and even reload manuals are light on the full pressure the round is rated for..
Someone ran quickload for me on this quite a while ago, like 4 years ago, but came back that the pressure was below the SAAMI max for the cartridge.. I forget what the exact numbers were..
however, I also do my own personal test for high pressure, that is pretty simple if not very scientific...
if I can load a case 5 times, and the 6th time the primer still goes in nice and tight, I call it good..
well this load allows me to reload those cases over 5 times..
alot of guys I know who load 300 Win Mags, tell me they get about 3 reloads out of a case...
so therefore, for my own personal use, I call it good.. anyone else, work up.. it is a compressed load...but I was using the 300 Weatherby as a upper end point of reference, as I frequently do for this..
H 1000 is also slower than 7828....
funny, I get flamed by one crowd for using fast powders in cartridges for reduced velocity and reduced recoil loads.. then I get flamed at time by others by complaining my loads exceed what they found in some manual...
goes to show, some of us work with our rifles and find out what we feel is safe.. those that disagree with it, criticize it... so don't use it if you are from that school..
but each rifle is an entity onto itself.. and I have worked up loads, and then when I find it safe in my rifle, I compare it to what I find in manuals.. sometimes it is lower than their listed max, and other times it can be faster, and use more powder..
some people experiment with handloading, and some are afraid to deviate 1/2 of a grain of slow powder even, in a large case, from what is listed in some manual...
I don't criticize them, and think they should consider the same in return..
this wasn't aimed at Albertan above.. he posted his response with respect... but as soon as one person questions a load compared to a manual.. half a dozen come out of the woodwork...and I am heading the usual critique off at the pass..
