Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Great article in the new Handloader Mag by MD!

Paul5388

Allow me to take a stab at this one.

1st. Reading old reloading manuals is risky business. In the first place, some of the older ones didn�t even use pressure equipment. Others used equipment that is not nearly as accurate as what we have now (CUP/LUP vs. PSI). Over the years as technology has advanced, the reloading manuals have become more conservative because they�ve learned that pressure variances are more common than they originally thought, and the newer equipment taught them their loads were a touch on the warm side.

2nd. You talk about your hotter loads in you K frame S&W and then make reference to the newer J frame .357�s. Although small and very abusive to the hands, the J frame S&W�s in .357 are actually quite a bit stronger than the K frame S&W�s. It�s hard to comprehend, but that�s the way it is. The K frame was not designed as a magnum revolver and was magnumized when they realized the huge market for such a gun for law enforcement. Like John said, pressures for the .357 were reduced not because of guns blowing up, but because K frame S&W�s just couldn�t take the constant pounding. Another unfortunate problem with K frame magnums is the incidence of forcing cones splitting with high pressure loads. Because of the way the K frame is built, it has a rather thin forcing cone on the bottom (the side that bears against the cylinder yoke). These have a tendency to split under high pressure, which will lock up the gun and make it quite useless. With your hot loads, your K frame will sooner or later split a forcing cone, and the means replacing the barrel.

3rd. The only area where I disagree with Mr. Barnsness� assessment is the question of cylinder gap. In my experience, cylinder gap doesn�t play a big role in revolver velocities. But, John was spot-on on the other factors of chamber dimensions, throat dimensions and bore dimensions. Of these, I tend to find that chamber dimensions play the biggest role. But you should also understand, that the �magic� of your gun equates to higher pressures, which is the only way you�re going to get higher velocities. Not necessarily dangerous pressures (with factory ammo), but certainly higher.

4th. The original 46,000 CUP was for the N frame gun, which was perfectly appropriate. The N frame .357 had thicker cylinder walls, thicker forcing cones and a heavier yoke. In short, it was built to take it and your K frame is not.

5th. Finally, there�s really no way for you to tell if the load you�re using is at 46,000 CUP or not. I take it you don�t have pressure testing equipment and I�ll bet that the loads listed in the manuals are with longer pressure barrels, which tend to be ultra tight. To further complicate the situation, your manual is decades old, meaning there could be fundamental differences in the powder you are using today. We�re admonished to watch for changes from lot to lot, but now you�re talking differences over decades.

I hope you don�t think I�m bashing your K frame Smith. Quite the contrary, I�m perhaps the biggest fan of the model 19, but I understand that it�s a gun with limitations and I respect those limitations. Are you going to blow up your gun with those 46,000 CUP loads? Not likely, but you do run the risk of ruining one of the finest revolvers that S&W every turned out.

All of this adds up to the fact that you are operating outside of prudence. Sometimes a little knowledge is a bad thing. You have gained some knowledge which is good, but I fear you�ve been drawing some wrong conclusions.

Let me now close by saying�In the grand scheme of things, the 11,000 change in the .357 didn�t fundamentally alter the capabilities of the cartridge. The .357 at 35,000 will kill everything that the .357 will kill at 46,000, and do so at the same ranges. 11,000psi of pressure nets you perhaps 100fps, which no game animal in the world would ever notice. So, with that in mind, why bother?

Paul--

Thanks for the post.

I would read Kevin Gibson's post over very closely (even though I have read much evidence that cylinder gap does play a sigtnificant role in revolver velocity). My own 66 is one of my favorite revolvers, the reason I do not subject it to ancient data.

John

MontanaMan.....I agree with nearly every word in your post. I wouldn't buy a .270 to get 7x57 performance , and I wouldn't want a 30/06 just so I could shoot bullets at .308 Winchester speeds..........

Additionally , I've found the notion that loading to well below max safe working pressure *always* delivers the most accurate loads is just so much rubbish . Many , many rifles will deliver their top accuracy with loads that are pushed up towards the max..........

Montana Man--

I am quite familiar with the way Bob Hagel worked up his loads. Yet some of the loads he listed in GAME LOADS AND PRACTICAL BALLISTICS I simply would not fire in my rifles.

The reason is that I have tested all of the "home handloader" indicators for safe handloading against electronic pressure machines and found them wanting. This includes bolt lift, primer pocket expansion, miking case heads, etc.

Sometimes they are spot on, but sometimes they allow pressures that are way too high. One classic example I often cite is the loads Layne Simpson developed for the 7mm STW. When Remington decided to make the STW a commercial round, they pressure-tested Layne's loads, and found them generally in the range of 70,000 psi, and some pushing 75,000. Yet Layne never experienced a "pressure sign" in any traditional way.

I might also point out the case separations and neck splits have nothing to do with high pressures, so the fact that you haven't had any proves nothing--and the fact that you cite their lack shows you might lack a little knowledge.

Aside from primer pockets leaking or primers blowing, there is not much to be found from relatively primer pocket tightness. This has far more to do with brass hardness than anything else. Some brass will develop loose pockets with one shot, others never with quite high pressures.

Measuring case heads, despite all that has been written about it over the years, is highly variable. I have fired the same load in the same rifle with two different brands of brass, both of which weighed within 10 grains of each other (belted magnum brass). One brand expanded .0004 inch, about what many sources tell us is "correct" for approaching max with belted brass. The other branded expanded .002 inch (yes, the decimal is correct), FIVE times as much.

Also, please consider how Bob Hagel knew that working up loads to a certain case-head expansion, then backing off one grain, resulted in safe loads. He never does.

In my experiments, I have found the ONLY way that case-head expansion can result in even approximately accurate pressure results is if you first fire some listed loads froma recent manual (down to the powder, brass, primer and bullet) or some factory loads and measure their expansion.

Then, using the same make and lot of brass, compare the expansion of your handloads against the expansion of the "test load" or handload. Otherwise you are not comparing apples with apples.

JB

Mule Deer:

Thank you for your comments and insights; not having access to pressure testing equipment, I'm sure your comments are probably directionally correct.

Couple of comments though:

1. I DO NOT use any of Hagel's loads for obvious reasons, just his methodology.

2. Yes, I do use factory loads for baselines but some are already too hot (Fed. 3006 HE ?? See remarks on 3000+P thread) I also DO use a chronograph to coordinate and reference velocities to both factory rounds and manuals.

3. What I said was that I went to what I felt was too much pressure and then backed back off to what I thought was a safe level. My loads usually end up with velocities that are around the top end of the various manual......I am not getting 300 Mag velocities out of my '06's

4. Yes, I absolutely agree with your statement about different amounts of brass expansion due to brands, sometimes even different lots of the same brand. That's why the procedure has to be immaculate and one must be conscious of changes to components, ie, when you change something, start over again.

5. Yes, I do think I have plenty of knowledge, although I do not have the direct experience and exposure to some types of equipment that you do, and I DO respect highly both your experience and knowledge. If I didn't think I had enough knowledge, I be doing things a different way. Not saying it's best for the masses. Have had the same system for 25 years.

I am an engineer by education and experience and cited the neck splitting and case head separations as general comments which can, and do, afflict some reloaders and under some conditions, can happen with high pressure, tho I agree that the root cause for them may have been elsewhere, ie, bad brass, necks / chamber mismatches, excess headspace, etc. I am implying that excessively high pressure can weaken the case ahead of the web area over multiple firings ( an maybe separate) and sizings sooner than at lower (normal) pressures.

5. As I stated, I have NEVER had any kind of case failure, blown primer, sticky bolt, etc., and none of my loads are limited to less than at least 3 loading; most get 5 or more, (I am meticulous in my methods).......compared to some FACTORY hot stuff that only yields 1 or maybe 2 loadings because of loose primer pockets, IME.

Curious as to how many loadings you get out of the brass from the Fed. HE 30-06 brass. Not a smart ass question, just would like to know. I used the HE in 270 & 280 as well as Hornady LM and the primer pockets at too loose to suit me, sometime after initial firing, sometimes after 2.

In spite of any difference here, your work is the best.

MM

Guess I will re-read the article word-for-word for the third time tonight, and see what I come up with.

MontanaMan--

Okay, we are now getting somewhere. Glad you are not using Hagel's loads!

Don't know why Federal discontinued High Energy loads. They list them in the last catalog I have. I do know they showed evidence of high pressures in two rifles that I know if, an old FN Mauser that I had for a while, with a VERY short throat (much shorter than SAAMI). This one resulted in muzzlve velocities over 3000 fps with the 180 Trophy Bonded load, and blown primers. Federal wanted to see the rest of that box, so I sent it in and they claimed the rounds tested right around 58,000 in their test barrel.

The other was a custom rifle, with a minimum chamber and (I assume) bore. The loads only exhibited hard bolt lift in this rifle.

But in every other rifle I've tried them in they have worked fine, basically just as advertised. I can't recall having any problems with brass from fired HE loads.

The fact that the loads you settle on are around the top velocity listed in most manuals is good. I have been saying for a long time that this is the best way to arrive at safe loads for the average handloader--as long as we compare apples to apples.

Using the same primer and bullet as a listed load are the two most important factors. Have seen vast overloads created because the shooter assumed all 130-grain .270 bullets are the same!

I made a mistake in my statement about case separations. They generally have nothing to with high pressure in modern bolt-action rifles, but CAN occur in other actions, especially break-actions, and in levers and others with long bolts that lock at the rear.

But in modern bolt rifles, case separations are due to headspace problems, either in the rifle or through faulty handloading, not excessive pressure. In fact, even in the instances where I've seen cases blown so badly that the primer pocket was vastly enlarged (and the primer totally disappeared), there was no evidence of case separation.

Split necks are due to over-working of brass, common after several firings, not high pressure.

The fact that you have never had any problems with your loads indicates you are doing things right!

We are pretty much on the same page after all, and I'm very glad you like the articles.

John

Folks, Mr. Barsness absolutely nails down the common sense approach to modern ballistic theory. It boils down to a properly constructed bullet for the animal, good placement of the bullet at a reasonable speed. The hype of magnumitis has efffected us all and the CDC has no cure in the back room.
What cures this unrelenting desire is finally to reach the "age of ballistic reasoning" which is long after your adolescence. That comes when you are tired of getting your neck snapped and your shoulder punched. This is when you finally realize its not worth the effort to squeeze out that last 150fps. Now, Mr. Barsness said it succintly and eloquently by writing: "big whoop"! It's the best phrase I have read in a long time. Well done, John! If I could only fit it on my lincense plate.

Mule Deer:

Check Federal's online catalog.......I've got LOTS of 270 & 280 HE stuff still on hand. (grin)

So if you don't use the head measurement system anymore(saw in one of your articles that you once did) for guesstimating pressure, other than buying pressure transducer hardware, what do you suggest the average Joe use to assess when pressure is too high?

Just measurement against book velocities & charges? I can buy that and this is always my own reality check on my loads anyway, but I really prefer something I can physically evaluate (engineer in me I guess).

I also recognize that due to your profession and place in the industry, perhaps you have to be a bit conservative in what is published for public consumption.

Thanks,

MM

Kevin,

I appreciate your input.

I haven't just started in this business of reloading, so it should be understandable that I have powder that is current for old manuals. Some of the SR 4756 I have is from 1983 and while it isn't the oldest powder I have, it is marked "DuPont" instead of "IMR". Oddly enough, I also have a pretty good quantity of 2003 IMR SR 4756.

I suppose you missed the part where I quoted the pressure numbers in Speer #7 for .38 Special and .357 Magnum. SAAMI and the ammunition business have been checking pressure since the 1920s. Phil Sharpe gives pressure numbers in his 1939 book on handloading. Pressure readings were conducted for Elmer Keith, by H.P. White laboratories, back in the 1950s. Pressure testing isn't black magic or vodoo, it just isn't readily available to the average person.

The normal method for determining the pressure, for standardization purposes, isn't through piezo devices, but is actually a variant of the copper crusher method. The piezo is then calibrated to that standard, not the other way around.

The supposition of a piezo being more accurate than a copper crusher is merely a supposition. Neither is any more accurate than the standardization process. I have to admit the piezo is more expedient, but not necessarily more accurate.

My first "N" frame was purchased new in 1972, a 6" M28 that cost $107. It consumed a steady diet of SR 4756 loads until I sold it around 1984. Then I used M19s, Security Sixes, Blackhawks and etc with the same load. I have never shot a "K" frame loose in the crane, nor have I ever cracked a forcing cone.

Lee Jurras popularized "Light and Fast" with copious quantities of H110 with light bullets. I think H110 may have been one of the biggest factors in the demise of any K frames (DOA K frames are talked about a lot, but seen seldomly). That isn't a slam on Mr. Jurras, just my opinion. Bangor Punta production may have been a contributor too.

The original 46,000 cup had from 1955 (the introduction of the M19) until whenever SAAMI changed the specs to work on K frame .357s. It seems there wasn't a problem until the 125 gr bullet began to be used with much frequency and normally with a ball powder of some sort. SR 4756 is a medium burning rate, flaked, single based powder. It's actually sort of an oddity, but to be expected from DuPont. They were the ones who kept the single based powders, unlike Hercules, who kept the double based powders.

How do I know it's 46,000 cup or less loads. Simple, the SAAMI spec was 46,000 cup at the time the load was introduced and Speer loaded to industry standards. Does anyone in the industry not load to their own standards?

Now let's talk about your suggestion of the J frame being stronger than the K frame. Even though Elmer said he used 13.5 gr of 2400 with his Keith bullet in a Chief's Special (a J frame), would you? That load clocks at about 1370 fps MV and produces 696 ft lbs of ME out of my 4" M66, with pretty fair recoil (12.0 ft lbs). I don't remember when the Chief's Special was designed, but I assure you, it was originally a .38 Special, not a .357 Magnum. I will also assure you, I don't shoot that load in my M14-2, even though Speer #8 might have! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> The J frame is exactly the same situation as a K frame, as far as original design goes.

Edit: The J frame (M36) was introduced in 1950 with the JA (airweight M37) coming out in 1952. The K frame was introduced in 1899 and the N frame was introduced in 1908.

Paul,

You seem quite set in your ways and it was not my intention to get into a "who knows more about what" with you. We are in disagreement on most every point, and I really don't enjoy picking apart someone's post bit by bit just to prove I'm right on some issue. Once it devolves to that, you're never going to change minds and further arguement is fruitless. If you're 100% confident that you're right, nothing I say is going to change your mind, so I'm going to just let the subject drop and agree to disagree.

It's obvious you're comfortable with what you're doing and I wish you the very best.

Regards,

Kevin Gibson

MontanaMan--

I am conservative in my loading not because of writing for the public, but because of several decades of handloading. Have seen little to gain from trying for another 100 fps over "normal" velocity in any cartridge, and sometimes the consequences are very negative!

Like many young handloaders, I used to believe that that 100 fps would make a big difference. Then I hunted a lot and eventually found that a plain old 180-grain .30-06 factory load would do just fine out to 400+ yards. (Also discovered that they make cartridges specifically for people who want to push the .30-06 beyond its design. These are called .300 magnums! Sort of a 1-step program for velocity addicts....)

Yes, my basic handloading procedure is to work up to normal muzzle velocities for that powder/bullet combination (unless, of course, I am not looking for the highest safe velocity, but something less). This is a lot less complicated than measuring case heads, and also I think more accurate.

At least when I have run loads worked up this way through pressure tests they always come out under the red-line--while loads worked up with a micrometer sometimes are over the line.

Thus is it my firm belief that a chronograph is the best pressure-measurement tool a home handloader can own. It only works within certain limits, however. As noted earlier, you have to use the same primer and the same (or very similar) bullet to what is listed in manuals. Using a different primer or bullet can make pressures rise considerably.

The surest way to determine safe pressures in your handloads is to buy one of Dr. Oehler's strain gauge systems, or a Pressure Trace system. The only problem with these is that they are uncalibrated. They do, however, tend to give close to "real" pressures, and can be compared to pressures created by factory ammo.

But I have had a lot of my own handloads tested on both strain-gauge and piezo equipment, and when worked up with the help of a chronograph they have always tested out 60,000 psi or less.

JB

MD,

Thanks for taking the time to respond.........really appreciate it.

For the most part, I think we are on the same page and I don't think I'm out in never, never land with my loads. As I said before they are all pretty much in line with the higher end of the manuals but rarely have I been able to exceed them.

I'll probably eventually acquire the strain gage too. I always try to do things right and what is technically sound. Besides, I like data I can touch.

MM

John,

If a load with verified pressure can be found, it can be used much like the standardization loads that are used with piezo pressure calibrations. This, of course, still has the limitations of using it in a chamber that is still unknown as to influence on pressure. For home use, it is about as good as it gets.

Part of the fallacy of the method utilized, according to my understanding, is that influence of the pressure barrels utilized in pressure testing. Since the copper crusher is calibrated independent from the pressure barrel, the potential for error is less.

I don't know if I'm being clear here, so let me state it another way. Just because a cartridge has a known pressure value in a particular barrel, it does not necessarily have that same pressure in another barrel. Just because the value is known from one source, doesn't make the value the same in a different chamber.

Pressure isn't like using a set of check weights, that can be certified for a certain weight and is traced back to the NIST, unless a certified pressure generator is used. A certified pressure generator isn't a one time use proposition, like a cartridge.

This is one of the generators used in the UK's NPL.


I probably should have emphasized "distortion effects" too. Distortion effects is the common element to copper crusher, which is a a permanent distortion of the pellet. Regardless of the chamber, the pellet will distort at a known rate for a known pressure.

Kevin,

I do tend to get set in my ways, but I'm not completely adverse to changing those things that need to be changed.

For example, I have chosen to emulate Lee Jurras' philosophy of "light and fast" in times past, to the exclusion of Elmer's philosophy. I even disdained the purchase of 2400 for close to 40 years! I think it was 2004 when I bought my first pound of 2400 and liked it so much, I've started using Elmer's loads for many applications. That is evidence of teaching an old dog new tricks!

While I'm on the subject of 2400, Joe Miller, at http://www.handloads.com, has acquired a can of Hercules 2400 and undertaken the project of loading 50 rounds of .45 Colts with the Hercules variety and 50 rounds with the Alliant variety. We are waiting for Joe to match up with a chronograph to check these loads and see if there really is anything more than lot to lot variation in the two specimens. Alliant says they haven't changed the formula. We'll see, on a limited sampling. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

MontanaMan it appears that you and I have been students of the same text book and author Bob Hagel. About 15 years ago I toured the Nosler factory in Bend and I asked Bob what was the best source he knew of at the time for handloading and safely working up loads. He graciously took me to the Pro shop and had Mike sell me "Guns, Loads and Hunting tips" and I have practically memorized the chapter on page 291 on "How to Detect and Control Pressure". What shocks me is how few handloaders even understand the concept of miking their cases and closely observing for case head expansion with a Micrometer. My old friend and neighbor Bill Steigers who owned Bitterroot bullet company and prior to that headed the ballistic lab at Speer here in Lewiston shared with me an article he wrote back in the late 60's called "Micrometer Load Development", that never was published. He did pressure tests with the 30-06 with all the identical componants except he used 3 different brands of brass. As an example of the differences in pressure the WW case could stand over 10,000 PSI more than the Norma case. The point Bob Hagel and Steigers were trying to make that certain brands of case have such stronger web sections and can tolerate more pressure and that the case has and always will be the weakest link in the loaded cartridge. I know Hagels techniques are considered very aggressive by todays standards and his concepts were classified as "He man Reloading". Here is a quote from Hagel: " I don't give two hoots in hell what the listed crusher pressure is for a certain load". "It can be 25,000 or 75,000 psi, if there is no head expansion and the action opens easily, it is a safe load in that rifle with those components". "If you do get head expansion, you had better back off if you intend to use the case more than a time or two, and it doesn't matter if it develops only 5,000 psi!
Obviously Hagel always declared these techniques need to be done with a modern bolt action in good working order.

Recently in more modern times Rick Jamison did a comparable test with a 25-06 and found changing components alone caused a velocity variation of almost 400 FPS!

I have toned down my loads in later years since Dr. Oehler has developed such wonderful tools for novices like me and I couldn't agree more with MD's article and what a good chronograph has done for us. I still think we need to understand internal ballistics and case head expansion better as handloaders.

I'd say with the modern large dia magnums, ie .550" casehead rounds that such a statement is at best irresponsible. Without performing the engineering to verify such, a statement as that, and blind following of it, could get someone killed.

I know your just stating what someone else said, but most folks have no clue what the effects of repeated overloads are on an action in reguards to fatique failure, nor the ultimate strength of actions.

458 Lott I couldn't agree with you more. Internal ballistics is always a "sensitive" subject! I have never read where Hagel did any case head expansion tests with the big bores and in his writing I've never read anything about metal fatique from his maximum loads. He always claimed the modern bolt actions could handle about 175,000 PSI which was over twice what the strongest case could handle. Like I said it was "He Man loading", all the way!

Well, as I've tried to convey in my correspondence with Mule Deer, I think this needs to be kept in perspective.

I would NEVER go so far as to make a statement such as you quote and attribute to Hagel.

While my goal is to get the most out of all my own guns, I NEVER try to make a 300 mag out of a 30-06.

For example, there is another thread on here re: "30-06 +P" and Montana Marine has listed the following loads:


Quote from MontanaMarine on that thread re: his loads for a 30-06, 24" barrel"

Results:

110gr Vmax, 3750 fps, via 63gr RL15
190gr Matchking, 2920 fps, via 62gr RL22
210gr Berger VLD, 2850 fps, via 62gr RL22
240gr Matchking, 2610 fps, via 55.5gr RL22 (Rem brass)


These loads are WAY above anything I have been able to get to and be comfortable with. for example, I load 180 gr. bullets with around 58-59 grains of RL22 vs his 62 grains w/ 190 grain bullets. My load yields around 2850 FPS from a 24" barrel and I would NOT GO ANY HIGHER. I use 62 grains with a 165 grain bullet.

As I also have said, my system works for me, but I would not suggest that many people use it.......it simplly requires too much adherence to constants that most reloaders are not willing to live with.

In addition to keeping rigid and consistent practices, I baseline my case measurements and resultant velocities to factory loads and I regularly measure for any changes in headspace in guns that I shoot regularly.

There is also no doubt that continued use of loads with excessive pressure, but below the level of catastrophic failure, will have some fatigue effect on the barrel and action although I've never seen any documented reports on this and how long it takes to have any real effect.

I also agree with MD and others that with cartridges in the nominal 3000 FPS range, a change of +/- 150 FPS in actual hunting situations is really meaningless. Things such as ballistic coefficient of the bullet and ability to hold on a target at long range, can easily change performance by amounts great than that.

I just simple enjoy the challenge and the exercise of load development.

I will probably end up getting around to buying some pressure measurement hardware and then I;ll really know where I am at on loads.

MM

There are still caveats on that statement that an action can handle 175 kpsi. There is a difference between ultimate strength, yield strength and fatique failure. Also the 175kpsi needs to be stated with what chambering it is associated with. An action that can take a .223 loaded to 175kpsi most certainly will blow far shy of that in a WSM <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />