Home Forums Reloading Big Game Rifles How much does brand matter?

I understand there are quality differences, and one rifle may prefer one brand over another. But that’s not really what I’m talking about. When you look at reloading manuals, how strict must you be with regard to brass and primer brand? Of course my Nosler manual is going to call for Nosler brass, how big a deal is it to use Federal or Remington brass? Of course, sized and trimmed to spec in both cases. Same with primers... if one manual calls for a CCI 210, can I safely sub in a Federal 210? Or must I adhere to the manual to a tee? I’m trying to minimize the number of components I need to purchase. Thanks.

Not a huge deal. I dont think I ever created a load exactly per the book. That's why people tell you to work up the loads, to take into account for the differences in components.

I use what I have on hand. Most load data can be found online now, so no need to buy loading manuals. I've used recipes for the same weight bullet many times, just start low and work up.

If you have a load right at or close to max with a certain brand of brass and a certain primer
I would not think of changing brass or primers without dropping back a little on the powder , and reworking the load !
Especially primers.

Both can make a big difference.

With an '06 sized case, brass can make a 2 grain difference it what's safe and what's not.

I've seen primers make 100 fps difference. I've also seen time where it makes no statistical difference.

So, it depends. Until you know what your doing, it's best to start low, work up, and build your data set.

I'll take a swing at this, mostly because I started out a long time back with some of the same questions. I read some good reloading/handloading books, took some experienced advice, and then started trying it.

how strict must you be with regard to brass and primer brand? You don't need to be because your rifle; chamber and barrel; isn't matching theirs, anyway.

Of course my Nosler manual is going to call for Nosler brass, how big a deal is it to use Federal or Remington brass? It's not, as long as you follow the good advice given above and start lower in the scale and work up.

Same with primers... if one manual calls for a CCI 200, can I safely sub in a Federal 210? Depends on the load. If the load is near max, you'd need to back down and work back up to make sure you're safe.

Or must I adhere to the manual to a tee? No, see above.

You can minimize the number of components you purchase. Pick your brass. Pick a primer you can readily get from your shop of choice, online, whatever. Pick the powders you want to try. Pick the bullets you want to try. Start low or low mid-range in the book data and work with those components until you find a load that works and be happy.

Having said that, if you change those chosen components, then like some of the other guys said, you have to back down and work back up. Different brass can make a BIG difference in pressure and a max load can be dangerous if you switch to a case that generates more pressure than the one you worked it up in to begin with. Federal and Remington are an easy example. Using a .308 example, Federal is heavier, with less volume, and generates more velocity in every one of my .308 loads. For a specific example, 48.0 gn is at or near max of IMR 4320 and it is right up in the neck of a Federal case, but at the base of the neck in a Remington case. The difference is visible. Both are safe in my rifle, but the results on paper and velocity are different.

Speaking for my own experience and that of the couple experienced hand loaders I associate with, brand will usually matter with POI and group size results, as well. Sometimes, you might get lucky with similar POI and only a small change in group size, other times it might be drastic, but there will usually be some kind of difference. Primer changes things, too, sometimes, though not as often from my own testing. So, it will matter in that respect. I typically try a few different brass manufacturers once I settle on a good, safe load and choose the one that gives the best accuracy for that load. It's not always the same brand, or even the most expensive brand. Unnecessary, if you're looking to minimize, it's just an enjoyable excuse to shoot more.

Excellent and thoughtful response! Thanks for taking the time!

It sounds like you only have the one Nosler manual? You may want to consider getting a few more from other well known component manufacturers. That allows you to compare data from different sources.

As of now I have a Nosler and a Hornady manual.

In addition to yours, I have Speer, Sierra and Lymans 48th if you want me to photo any data for you. Should have the Barnes manual shortly....for whatever thats worth.

As a side note, I think every reloader should own a copy of the Lyman. Just good solid info all around.

You're welcome, no problem.

And, I agree about the Lyman manual. Mine is the 49th instead of 48th, but the point remains: excellent resource with good data and usefully identified array of bullets used to obtain it.

Lee Modern Reloading is another good one, with a ton of detail on the process and procedures of loading. I've also got a Hornady, a Speer, and just recently replaced an older Nosler with the latest edition. One of the more useful things about having multiple manuals is that not all list the same powders for a given bullet weight in a given cartridge. By comparing different books, you can often get a better sample of likely options, as well as having a better chance of finding the one you intend to use.

I thought I would do a lot more comparing than I do, though. I often find myself choosing a bullet, looking at the data given by that manufacturer, in one of the books or online, then comparing it to the Lyman data, then choosing a starting load and working up.

Good post AS. I've also seen a huge amount of difference in capacity, when comparing different manufactures 30-06 brass. One in particular, that I have and should get rid of, is some old UMC remington brass that is 3 grains less than even newer Remington brass. As for other manufactures: Winchester is known for being thin as well and FC known for being thick. Case volume varies greatly, especially when working with cartridges that were designed for military use. As far as primers, I started out using CCI and I have not swayed from them. They just work very reliably and I get good dependable accurate loads... When I load, I always refer to the bullet specific manufactures load manual or online data. That's always been a safe route and one can't emphasize enough, the need to start low and work up.

Thanks for the offer. I will surely take you up on that once I get rolling.

When you use up components it is wise to back off a little and work back up.As an example say you are using brand x powder and you run out and go buy another container of brand x powder it might not be exactly the same as the first brand x powder.I follow that rule with primers and brass too.I guess I could do a water capacity test on the cases but then I need to record that and actually do it.Bullets are easy to weigh a few to see if they are correct.

I like my Nosler manual but it doesn’t seem as complete as my Lee, more powders and bullet weights shown for each cartridge. But there’s differences between the powder charges listed in many cases. Like others said, you kinda have to find your own sweet spot and max load. On top of that, I would mention that even inconsistencies with yourself can be overlooked sometimes. My Model 7 308 likes 150gr Hornady Interlocks with 46gr of Varget, but it shoots the same POI with used Federal Brass, used Hornady Match Brass and brand new Hornady Brass. I can’t say that works for everyone, but it hasn’t given me any issues with that particular gun.

I flatly if not completely, disagree with most of the posts on this thread.

Additionally and not much addressed here I'd add that once upon a time cup and core bullets were very similar across brands. Today's bullets, lead free or weirdly shaped are likely enough to be quite different and so not to be considered equivalent to each other any more than powders say. To minimize the components I need to purchase I buy the components as listed in a reputable manual as published in the most recent edition with applicable data for the cartridge and components. I have all the currently produced loading manuals as easily available from folks like Midway, Brownell's, Wideners, Powder Valley and the whole gang. To that add as many foreign and exotic sources as I've run across when I could afford them. I go back a long ways on data books. I don't use old data when I can help it. For instance Phil Sharpe's Complete Guide has lots of obsolete data. DuPont used to give away data for IMR powders. Today's IMR powders are made by a different company in a different plant so I choose to use newer data. There are exceptions. I use a lot of no longer available Winchester 452 ball powders in handgun plinking loads using data mostly from Speer #ll. Loaddata from Wolfe is easily computer searchable. Hodgdon is on line. I can often find a solid listing with components I have and if I can't well that's what folks call a clue.

I strongly advocate reading everything John Barsness has written on the subject starting with the several books he sells d/b/a as Rifles and Recipes. Then again I'd suggest reading tales of old Indians and Winchester 97's too. I think there's a story in Best of Field and Steam. There are any number of additional writers with something to add.

Similarly when it comes to brass it is commonly repeated with some reason that military brass is different from commercial brass. Sadly but eternally the question is not about the lot of brass from a different time and place but the current lot of brass on hand. Weight and water capacity and headspace and other dimensions can all be gaged and should be. One extreme example is the change from 7x61 Sharpe and Hart to the Super improved (or maybe not?)

And from the same source elaborating on the extra caution reserved for wildcat cartridges Mike Thomas again from Wolfe found at Loaddata April 2015 and extensively discussed on this very board.

For another example my common shooting partner is fond of the 9.3x62 but mostly uses reformed .30-'06 cases. Without comparing it would be difficult to know what differences might or might not exist with commercial brass. Similarly there are reports of differences between what might be called inch dimension 6.5x55 brass and metric dimension 6.5x55 brass.

Notice I am not saying no substitutions ever. I'd use any primer that fits in any case that would chamber for a 3.5 grain load of Bullseye and an H&G 130 bullet for .45 ACP plinking and graduate toward a no modification magnum load.

I am saying do not substitute lightly and understand that the best way, not necessarily a good way but still the best way, to judge pressure is to compare performance of components as nearly identical as humanly possible between the book load and the hand loads in a given rifle.

So, you disagree with everyone's posts here on this subject and go completely by the book? Are you using the same test barrels on your rifles as well? Do you chronograph your loads to see if they match the books loads exactly? Do you call the bullet manufacture and have that exact lot number of powder and bullets, that they used to develop loads for the manual, delivered to your doorstep? You have no right to dispute anything anyone here has to say on this subject. You aren't using all the same test equipment or the same test barrels, so to be smart, you better at least be using a chronograph to confirm velocities. You might be smart, but I highly doubt you are smarter than everyone else here that has been loading for decades. I think a lot of guys here have a clue about what's going on. In your case, maybe not so much...until you can prove otherwise, based on your own experience and not something you read in a got damn book....

Good Advise!!

Mostly I use the Lyman 49th (haven’t bought the 50th yet) and the Nosler book. I shoot mostly Nosler bullets and I’ve found that their recommended loads for their bullets are usually quite close to what I wind up with as most accurate. If you’re going to shoot Hornady or Barnes, buy their book and follow their suggested loads, starting near min and working up.

Brass...I buy Lapua or Norma these days, and no longer spend a lot of time on brass prep. Primers...I buy CCI BR primers.

For a newbie, buy the books, read them, read them again, and ask questions on the forum. Lots of knowledge on this forum and others.

I use what the manual says to use.

Wow! Lots of blind faith here for reloading manuals here.

Reloading data is like recipes from a cookbook, they worked under the conditions they were tested. A recipe might work differently than it turned out in for the cookbook writer because of many variables that are beyond your control. You oven might heat differently, your yeast might be different, or your flour might have a different amount of gluten than that in the book. Reloading is no different. The biggest variable right off the bat is your own rifle, it's almost guaranteed to have different chamber and barrel specs than their test rig. Next is powder, it's never exactly the same from lot to lot, same with bullets. Brass, even from the same maker, is never exactly the same unless it's from the same lot they tested. Nosler has farmed out brass production in the past, do you think the stuff that comes off their line is exactly the same as what Norma produced for them and stamped with Nosler's headstamp? All these variables stack to mean that you can never exactly reproduce what the reloading manual tested, at best you can say that if you follow their recipe then it's most likely safe because modern rifles have a big safety margin built into them.

If you're to the point where you're splitting hairs over brass brands or primers making a difference then you should probably buy a chronograph so you know what your loads are actually doing instead of guessing.

Yeah but which manual? I have manuals from probably 8 different sources going back 50 or 60 years. Also have some components that go back that far too.
Point is, when reloading you need to educate yourself as much as possible and use your head. Always start low and work up anytime anything is changed and don't try to see how fast she'll go. I'm sure most everyone here has BTDT and learned the lesson that just because a certain manual gives a recipe it is safe or accurate in your rifle. That's half the fun.

Always the newest manual most relevant to the desired results and components. I'm waiting on the Sierra 6 as I type this.

When I started handloading/reloading with books like Townsend Whelen's Why Not Load Your Own I was confused because the era of domed primers had just passed. CCI was about all I could buy. I read about matching primers to cases but didn't know this was with reference to domed primers where the oem was a rounded primer. It wasn't until I bought a Hollywood Universal Turret with primer punches for flat and domed primers that I began to learn the meaning of what I had read.

FREX there are a number of older Speer manuals with data to be avoided. For components including Speer bullets that fall under the same ownership the current Speer manual is a good starting place. Cross referenced just in case with say Hodgdon for powder charge mostly as a sanity check and for a possible typo.

There is a standing joke about the reloader who believes that published data is reduced, the so called lawyer loads, and so believes that going up little bit from current published maximums is the real load. There are a number of published loads from reputable sources of long ago that we now know are over pressure, even way over pressure. I should have saved them as curiosities but I loaded Elmer Keith suggested loads for balloon head cases in balloon head cases. Ken Howell Campfire #8934226

Jeff Cooper's suggested load to give service revolver exterior ballistics in .38 snub nose revolvers is now acknowledged to be way over .38 Special pressure. I didn't know the actual pressure but my own snub nose shot loose promptly.

And just as I seldom see wind flags used for load testing I seldom see the SAAMI twist when folks are chronographing.



Mostly I do follow directions in a cookbook if I want the cookbook results - which often include season to taste - and I also have three oven thermometers for zones in the oven.

This has become an interesting and informative discussion. Glad to see differing viewpoints.

My very inexperienced take away... try to mostly adhere to manual recipes, but realizing that some experimentation will be necessary, be sensible, start low and work up. Got it.

I’ll also go one further in expressing my frustration with reloading manuals. I’ve looked through several now and man, their suggestions are all over the map! So much so that trying to glean useable info at face value is nearly impossible. You pretty much have to blend ideas from multiple recipes to find a combo that seems sensible. For example, and I’m talking about 6.5x55 Swede here, say you like Hornagy’s GMX recipe, but it may be hard to find the prescribed primers in your area, so you gotta sub. I live in CA, so you can’t just order anything you want online. Pretty much have to go with what is available locally, which is always limited. Substitutions are all but unavoidable. People obviously do this regularly with success and safety.

Don’t even get me started on the lack of data for our required non lead bullets! It’s out there, but limited and inconsistent. Frustrating!

Then there’s some data that just makes no sense... for example the Barnes 127 LRX recipe using H4350 max’s at just 37.7 gr! That’s 7-8+ grains less than other recipes for other similar weighted bullets. That makes no sense. See warpig62’s recent post about load testing this LRX bullet in his Swede. He’s using powder charges that obviously worked out fine, 43-45gr., and are accurate, but are supposedly WAY too hot according to the Barnes manual. Yet look at the Hodgdon data for a 129 gr. bullet and he’s just fine, max at 45.5 gr. Even more extreme, their max with Hodgdon’s 4350 powder data for a 140gr bullet is still way more, 44gr., than the Barnes data with the same powder for the 127 LRX. That’s illogical to me. How’s a newbie to make sense of this!

Then there’s the issue of a lot of load data being based on use in old mil surp rifles, yet mine is a modern bolt rifle. More inconsistencies.

So I counter that it’s nearly impossible, and certainly impractical, to following reloading manuals to a tee. You pretty much have to use some creative license, yet common sense must also be applied liberally.

(1) See above and read more from John Barsness and the many other fine and experienced writers as well as Brownell on Pressure Factors and other academic studies. There are primer substitutions that are about as safe as any shooting sport can be and primer substitutions that are highly risky.

You seldom or never, gotta sub. You do gotta find a book load with available components. Wartime expedients of match heads and chopped movie film excepted. Most places in this country a book load that will do the job is possible. It may not tickle the fancy but it will do the job. Say you like Hornady's GMX recipe but you can't find the prescribed primers. Then either make a safe substitution - not arbitrary but safe or put it aside until supplies change and move on to something else. I'm not listing generally safe substitutions here but anyone with average google fu or broad reading will have seen them.

(2) Might even speculate about folks on this board with similar experiences. There was a similar experience with .30-'06 bolt coming back with a SAAMI spec load in a previously abused rifle. Some choices are safe, some are unsafe, is dangerous is gun is always true.

(3) It makes perfect sense. See my mention posted above that once upon a time bullets were - mostly - of similar cup and core construction so that bullets of about of the same weight had a lot in common.

Today similar weight but different construction and shape means bullets can be and often are different enough to make a major difference in the load. data A monolithic or varied alloy lead free bullet will tend to be longer for the same weight and so have a different bearing surface and often be harder. Much like the difference between cast and jacketed pushed to an extreme. Notice this implies different engraving force and often implies different seating with respect to the throat. Similar weight with a variety of other characteristics quite different the similar weight does not thereby imply similar charges. Rather the differences all combined imply different charges.

(4) Perfect example of the above discussion. Barnes LRX are pure copper 129 GR. HDY SP per Hodgdon have a solid one piece lead core. Which leads into

(5) Data for 6.5x55 may be intended for a 19th century military surplus rifle or a recent Ruger or Remington Classic.

The SAAMI Maximum Average Pressure (MAP) for this cartridge is 51,000 psi (351.6 MPa) piezo pressure (46,000 CUP).

I would not hesitate to exceed this SAAMI maximum myself. I might even blur distinctions as between the .270 and .280 in a modern bolt rifle figuring the .280 introduced in a gas auto can handle a little more pressure in a bolt gun. I've also got some interesting almost torn rims from high port pressure but reasonable max pressure book loads in a gas gun.

Similarly there is data for .45 Colt at three different pressure levels commonly from black powder Colt Peacemakers to new downsized Rugers to loads that might best be used in a revolver chambered in .454 Casull up where the highest pressure .45 Colt load is pushing no limits in the gun. Oddly enough about the highest pressure generally accepted as safe loads in a .45-70 are for an old military surplus the Siamese Mauser. Here again there are gradations from trap door Springfield loads to Ruger #3 loads with assorted revolvers and lever actions someplace in the middle.

I wouldn't say inconsistencies but I would say incomplete or abbreviated information. And all information is incomplete. Again is gun is dangerous and a little knowledge is dangerous. When I picked up an original flat top Ruger Blackhawk back when they were new on the market I looked at the frame mounted firing pin, analogized it the Colt 1911 I had training on and assumed with all that implies that the firing pin was floating like the 1911 - unlike the Colt hammer mounted firing pin - so I comfortably but mistakenly loaded 6. Don't do that on an original.

(6)So I contend that it is perfectly possible and relatively easy to follow loading manuals to a tee - all the more with the quantity and quality of lab tested data available today. I started with a Lyman 310 tool loading 9x19 - one dipper load at a time. Today I may amuse myself showing off interesting performance as with heavy bullets for the cartridge in a 9x23 with SP2 based on shared experience more than published lab tested data but that's not a good starting place or I'd have Super Face.

1. I would never just sub any old primer out for any old primer. Of course I’d stick within same class. As in, large rifle, CCI 200, WLR, Fed 210, Rem 9.5... even then understanding that there are pressure differences so one should start low and move up with charge.

To points 3 and 4. I understand the differences in bullet construction can matter, but again, inconsistencies abound. Nosler gives the same reloading data for 120 gr e tip and 120 gr ballistic tip. Very differnent bullet, same powder charge is ok here though? Hodgdon language says not to mix lead free and lead data, as you stated too. but Nosler thinks it’s ok?

I don’t want to argue. I do understand your point. My point is that its not so simple. There is so much strange and seemingly conflicting data, inconsistencies, vintage issues, and component availability problems out there that it’s very tough to come to any confident conclusion and simply follow a recipe perfectly.

Nosler used to have particular warnings about the bullets. I *believe* now for a given bullet weight Nosler posts the charges for the bullet requiring the most conservative charge levels. So they're well into the safety zone for the other bullets. I don't have my set of Nosler manuals on hand to compare.

Nosler specifically states that mid range load are max for their E-tips, or at least did so before they introduced the Banded Etips with reduced bearing surface.

You may be right, but I don’t see any of that here: https://load-data.nosler.com/load-data/65x55-swedish-mauser/

Nuzzler is the biggest bunch of Clueless Fhuqks in the Industry.

Hint.................

In some rifles it doesn't make much difference what brand bullet is used, I get the same level of performance in .204 Ruger rifles using Barnes Varmint Grenades or Nosler BT Lead Free bullets. Same with .223 Remington. However each rifle is a custom using high end match barrels from Shilen or Pac-Nor, especially the polygonal rifled barrels from Pac-Nor.

What I did find is that the primers make a big difference in any given cartridge and load. The photo below shows the same load and rifle with the only difference is one used the Winchester Small Rifle Primer, the other used the Federal Small Rifle Match Primer. Of course the degree of inaccuracy of the larger group wouldn't matter much to a ground squirrel as it turned into biological landscape paint.