Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Max load development

Ditto, thanks MD.

Clark, I'm curious how close do your velocities match reload manual published velocities?

Edited to add ...Sorry, I just read that your velocities seemed to match Sierra reload data


Trystan

I bet you got some pretty good velocities.

PO Ackeley used the pop a primer load method in several of his experiments and then the more manly knuckleheads thought that was how you worked up any load.

Adding sand to the fireforming load may blow the case out more fully, just imagine what it does to the bore of the rifle. Not something I'd even consider doing.

I have to say after seeing some of the reloading practices , chances are slim to none I would ever use someone else's handloads.
Pretty fun reading though. Cheers

P.O. Ackley was the knucklehead when it came to load development, saw many rifles damaged from using his loading data. His data was developed more than 50 yrs. ago and should be considered obsolete.

gunswizard,

P.O. Ackley's data was MOSTLY not his data, but developed by wildcatters, or similar "freelancers," generally not in controlled conditiosn. He just published it. You probably knew this, but I am just trying to make that plain.

Another reason it's no longer valid is powders have changed, even if they have the same name. As have brass, bulllets and primers.

Yes, but what about his velocities ?

I've got a buddy who loads his ammo to the point that the bolt sticks or blows primers every single time! I've watched him shoot over 5 in a row when it was blowing the primer and sticky bolt on every shot! Most people would NEVER fire another round after a sticky bolt or blown primer. Yes hes still alive and hes been doing it for years. He has only blown one action apart but that was a shotgun that I'm assuming he accidentally double charged.

I've been fortunate enouph to never have had a sticky bolt or blown primer



Trystan

This ^^, and I wouldn't want them using their handloads on a dangerous game hunt.

Reminds me of what Jim Borden told me when my inferior brass locked the bolt of one of his actions. He thought nothing of it & told me not to be bashful about beating it open with a 2X4.

I would never shoot another persons hand loads.

I wouldn't even shoot my dads loads. Life is too short. Another friend gave up loading after his brother gave him some 4831 turned out to be 4064 or some other faster powder. Remington gave him a new rifle and he gave me his reloading dies, so it all worked out. I don't trust internet loads either unless they are from someone like Dogzapper.

The most practical handloader I've evern known was Eddie Simons, a guy I hunted with considerably from far eastern to far western Montana in the 1970's. He never used a scope, because he believed they were unreliable--because in his early experience, they were. But he was a VERY good shot with irons, and owned two centerfire big game rifles, a Savage 99 .250-3000 and a "sporterized" Argentine Mauser in .30-06 he bought through the mail while in high school for $20.

He used IMR4320 in both rifles, with the "middle load" in the Speer manual he bought in the 1950's. and whatever 100-grain .25 or 180-grain .30 spitzer was cheapest in the local stores. With those powder charges, both rifles shot very close to the open sights, and he killed a BUNCH of deer and elk with both rifles. But I also never saw him shoot anything beyond 200 yards, and usually the range was closer--though I also never saw him miss.

I cannot speak about Ackley, but I suspect his thinking was the same as many of the time. Ackley and Canadian gunsmith and experimenter Ellwood Epps had many discussions via the phone and in letters about improved cartridges.

I can tell you what Ellwood Epps used to say about the 303 Epps improved cartridge - if you can get 12% more powder into a case, it stands to reason that the velocity will increase by at least that much, and probably more. Physicists of the day would have known that wasn't possible, but neither Ellwood nor Ackley was a physicist. They simply didn't know. It was a WAG. (wild assed guess).

There used to be a sign at Epps store comparing the 303 British and the 303 Epps. Ellwood claimed that a 180 gr bullet shot from the 303 Epps Improved was traveling at 2900 fps vs 2440 fps for the 303 British. That's about a 19% boost in velocity. Of course, that wasn't the case, but because chronographs were not common then, his estimates were based on some very liberal interpretations and common beliefs of the day. He sold a lot of rifles to guys expecting 2900 fps from their rifles. It wasn't dishonest. He thought he was right.

In his defense, he might have been using a P14 for his tests, that could handle more pressure than a Lee Enfield. If he loaded a powder like 4320 or 3031 in a 303 Epps, he could have safely managed 2800 fps and maybe a wee bit more, but again, he would have had no way of verifying that.

I believe that both men talked about having some of their loads chronoed, but I do not recall where I read that.

So, I believe that Ackley's velocities were like Ellwood's. WAGs

After reading some of the posts in this thread I think I'd be afraid to buy a used rifle from a handloader unless I knew him personally. Last used one I got was a 257 Weatherby from a good friend. I also do loading for him and I knew very well the rifles condition and what loads it likes. So tune in next week for another exciting episode of " Handloader Horror Theater".

When the lugs get beat back from too many hot loads, most wCatters just spin the original or a similar takeoff barrel back on and sell ‘er off . 🤪. Time to find another donor !

Ackley had instructions for making a momentum "chronograph" with an old tire on a pendulum. Can't imagine that would be very accurate or the math involved to convert tire swing to FPS. Good thing that chronographs weren't readily available then as all the wildcatters would try to load up to claimed velocity levels. It probably would have cut down on the number of wildcats too when everyone found out you were only gaining 100-150 fps with the wonder cases.

I read a reprint of an interesting book this past winter..... " Twenty Two Caliber Varmint Rifles " by Charles S. Landis. IIRC it's from 1946. Back when pretty much only the major ammunition producers had chronographs. It's interesting in that it shows how wildcatters did their thing in the 1940's with no chronographs and a very limited supply of powders and components compared to what we have today. Chapter 24 is a treatise on load development written by Hervey Lovell, who was another famed wildcatter of that era. An interesting tidbit from that is when he advises that "When fired cases start sticking in the chamber, cut the load half a grain of powder for a case of this size or back the bullet away from the lands, seat it deeper by 1/32 inch". So I guess that sort of load development was once considered gospel and apparently there was no other way to do it (? ). Wow.......

Chronos have been around in various forms since the 1700s, but the early ones were clumsy, large, and not very accurate. Not something that your average person would have in the barn back then.

There were other considerations for early 20th century wildcatters as well. Fewer powders were available, and that meant bigger gaps in the burn rates of powders. Depending on the cartridge, that would have limited performance. Bullets could be a problem too.

You needed someone like a gunsmith with the equipment to reshape cases, make bullets and ream chambers for new designs. Today, it would be less of a chore. Many companies offer custom dies, chambers and rifles. It was more of a DIY process back then.

I doubt there would have been fewer wildcatters. The mindset was (and still is) to tinker with various powders, case modifications and bullets, in a search for more fps, longer case life, or more accuracy. Ellwood liked taking surplus arms and making something better from them. He was constantly tinkering with cartridges and rifles. I suspect that if P14s were made in the same numbers as Lee Enfields, he would have reworked as many as he could.

Wildcatting was much of the reason we have so many factory cartridges today. Someone had to start the ball rolling.

Amended to add: The 1930s and 1940s would have been such an interesting time in which to live. More single shot rifles - Remingtons and Winchesters on which to build. They would have been cheap. The world's armies had switched to bolt actions. Of course, there would have been fewer nosy parkers wondering what you were doing. No citiots demanding that you hand over your guns.