|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,568
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,568 |
At least that is how I feel. Here are my reasons. I do understand that each rifle is an individual and some are faster than others. I am also aware that there are some environmental factors and variables that make some minor differences, but 200-400 fps over 4 or 5 rifles, ...c'mon........
To start with, we were having a chat on the small game forum about 223 Rem and Benchmark powder. The Nosler book claims that a max charge of 28.0 grains will yield 3860 fps with a 40 grain pill. I don't feel I can use all 28 grains in my rifle, but 27.5 grains has given me 3550 fps. In my book 310 fps is quite a bit of "grey area".
Second senario, 22-250 and 40 grain pills. As per Nosler a max charge of Varget at 38 grains should yield 4100 fps even. With my rifle, 3775 fps average. Again 325 fps difference.
243 Win. 70 BT's Book lists 40.0 varget to equal 3477 fps . My rifle equal 3216 fps.
Lastly 7 mm Mag. Nosler suggest IMR 4350 and a max charge of 63 grains should yield 3248 fps. My rifle shot and average of 2986 fps.
I could continue on with data, but you get teh point. I thought my chronograph was off. I test some loads today on a high dollar Oehler. The results were worse by 30 fps or so. Probably due to the cooler temps of shooting at 40 deg.
I am not so much interested as "why" is all of the loading data "off" for lack of better terms, but am hoping to justify the "loudenboomers".
In researching a new rifle/cartridge combo, I've used this book to weigh the ideas of various cartridges. To have the mirrors broken and myths disspelled sheds new light on bigger cartridges. Seems to me that in order to get PRINTED 300 Win Mag statistics, you need to buy a 300 Ultra and expect the load data to be off 200+ fps the arrive at the original goal.
Looks like I need a 220 Swift to get 223 velocity. I can scrap my ideas of a 243 Win in favor of a 240 Wby for the same application.
Am I the only one crying over these figures ?
Please God, give me some good tags this year....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,762
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,762 |
Velocities do in some cases seem a bit optimistic, but keep in mind Nosler uses a universal reciever and SAAMI min chambered barrels for their tests not off the shelf rifles. I don`t know how much gain one will find with a min spec chamber but I`m sure it`s higher then the average sloppy factory offering gives. Add the fact Nosler is reporting on more then one bullet style/offering (partition, BT,ect)in each caliber and weight and I`d guess listing the highest velocity found, not a average for all tested. Reaching Noslers numbers are likely hard to reach with the listed charges. They`re not the only manual I`ve seen that showed velocity higher then I normally match though.
I must confess, I was born at a very early age. --Groucho Marx
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when they deserve it. --Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 502
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 502 |
At least that is how I feel. Here are my reasons. I do understand that each rifle is an individual and some are faster than others. I am also aware that there are some environmental factors and variables that make some minor differences, but 200-400 fps over 4 or 5 rifles, ...c'mon........
To start with, we were having a chat on the small game forum about 223 Rem and Benchmark powder. The Nosler book claims that a max charge of 28.0 grains will yield 3860 fps with a 40 grain pill. I don't feel I can use all 28 grains in my rifle, but 27.5 grains has given me 3550 fps. In my book 310 fps is quite a bit of "grey area".
Second senario, 22-250 and 40 grain pills. As per Nosler a max charge of Varget at 38 grains should yield 4100 fps even. With my rifle, 3775 fps average. Again 325 fps difference.
243 Win. 70 BT's Book lists 40.0 varget to equal 3477 fps . My rifle equal 3216 fps.
Lastly 7 mm Mag. Nosler suggest IMR 4350 and a max charge of 63 grains should yield 3248 fps. My rifle shot and average of 2986 fps.
I could continue on with data, but you get teh point. I thought my chronograph was off. I test some loads today on a high dollar Oehler. The results were worse by 30 fps or so. Probably due to the cooler temps of shooting at 40 deg.
I am not so much interested as "why" is all of the loading data "off" for lack of better terms, but am hoping to justify the "loudenboomers".
In researching a new rifle/cartridge combo, I've used this book to weigh the ideas of various cartridges. To have the mirrors broken and myths disspelled sheds new light on bigger cartridges. Seems to me that in order to get PRINTED 300 Win Mag statistics, you need to buy a 300 Ultra and expect the load data to be off 200+ fps the arrive at the original goal.
Looks like I need a 220 Swift to get 223 velocity. I can scrap my ideas of a 243 Win in favor of a 240 Wby for the same application.
Am I the only one crying over these figures ? You ar probably the only one crying over those figures because the rest of us understand how data varies given the unlimited variables involved. We might lament that Nosler has chosen to use minimum spec test barrels that are fully capable of producing the results that they report. I have been to their lab and seen their setup. It is totally unreasonable to expect to be able to duplicate their results in your factory stock rifle with standard length barrel. (My only complaint is their use of overly long barrels to get their data - who the heck ever heard of a 26" barrel 7mm-08?) But I do take issue with your thread title, and feel it is unfair to accuse them of intentional deception. Haven't you ever seen any tests of side by side new factory rifles in which velocity varied by over 200 fps? I have. And how much have your rifles been shot? Depending on the intensity of your loads and how quickly they have been fired, it doesn't take much to erode a barrel's throat so that you can lose 100 fps over what your loads initially produced. Don't feel too bad. I have a Howa in 6.5x55 that came with such a long throat, I can't get within 200 fps of any listed maximum load in any manual, except the Sierra 3rd Addition. Does that mean that the Sierra is the only "honest" one? No, it just means that for whatever reason, they chose to test their loading data with an 18" barrel carbine, so my 22" barrel long throated Howa can actually match their published ballistics. So, use the manuals as guidelines, use a chronograph and carefully work your loads up to the point where you are satisfied with the accuracy and velocity you are getting. Stay safe and have fun, that is what it is all about.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,568
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,568 |
I need to go to bed, as I have to work on Thanksgiving. Here's my take on the thread so far...
The title was semi tounge-in-cheek. I am not looking to start several pissing matches, just looking for similar results or reasoning. When I post data or stats, the opposing debater always rounds down. The data listed is not off by 150-200 fps. Some more than 350 fps and most over 250 fps. I can add more.
For variables, yes I know there are many, but enough to swing and extra 350 fps ??? If a gain of 350 fps in the 223 round can be gained by increasing the atmosheric temp from 40 to 72 degrees and adding 2" of barrel, I think more of us would be missing fingers from blowing up rifles. That would make a 308 a 300 Win Mag, and a 375 HH a 378 Wby, etc.....
I will abmit to not being aware that Nosler used minimum spec test barrels in a slave reciever. But then look at that issue.
Why print a manual used to aid reloaders and use test barrels with minimum specs and blow the "real world" results so much? Defeats the original purpose doesn't it ???
Please God, give me some good tags this year....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 30,137 Likes: 107
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 30,137 Likes: 107 |
Jesse Jaymes,
If I might get more info, please. Are you lamenting the fact you can't duplicate the velocities or you can't achieve them with the powders they used?
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 37,997 Likes: 359
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 37,997 Likes: 359 |
I have to agree with you in some respects. Published data that can't be achieved in the real world can be a problem. There are many threads out there discussing pressure and pressure signs. Many feel that a chrony is a useful aid in developing a safe load. Comments like "start low and work up until you see signs of pressure, and use your chrony, when you reach Max load and or Published velocity you are at Max pressure. " As you stated, trying to achieve the velocities published in the Nosler Manual could be a problem for some. Personally I use a chrony to develop loads (safe loads). I have several manuals and data from many powder manufactures and I use them as guidelines. If and when my chrony shows velocities above published data then I know I am to high. But, you are correct following the Nosler and only the Nosler Manual could be a problem if trying to reach published velocities.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, a forty ounce malt liquor, a crack pipe, an Obama phone, free health insurance. and some Air Jordan's and he votes Democrat for a lifetime.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 148
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 148 |
Why print a manual used to aid reloaders and use test barrels with minimum specs and blow the "real world" results so much? Defeats the original purpose doesn't it ???
Jesse I agree with you. Yes it does defeat the purpose of putting out the book for reloaders. However, I use the books to mainly get an idea for powders to use with bullet weights and my start and max loads and then I go from there to get to where my rifle wants to be rather than a rifle they tested or someone else acheived results with. With you, I agree again on the fact that I do often also use the books to compare different powders and bullet weights and charges against one another or against those listed in other manuals, and with your results being shared I now can see that any comparisons that I have made have been all discounted because of Noslers misrepresentations in their manual.
" The Greatest Reflection of the Kind of Person You Are, can be Given and Answered best by the People who Work for You rather than those You Work For. " --- Brian White
"You are not defined by the way others treat you, but by the way you treat others." --Brian White
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,745
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,745 |
the title of the thread needs work, but i understand your rant. i get some of the same type of results you list, but instead of 300plus fps difference, i normally have velocitys of about 50 to 150fps lower than the book lists. i find this perfectly acceptable for my rifles, just disapointing at times. on another note in my 22-250 on some 55grain loads i'm getting 150fps higher numbers, on a couple of loads under the max load, listed in the book. but the bullet is a fmj bt, instead of a ballistic tip like listed in 55gr in the #5 book
The anti American Constitutional party (Democrat). Wants to dismantle your rights, limiting every aspect of your constitutional rights. Death by 1000 cuts is the tactic. Each cut bleeds constitutional rights to control you. Control is the goal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,610 Likes: 249
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,610 Likes: 249 |
I suspect some of the reason for test barrels with minimum dimensions, both chamber and bore, goes something like this: 1. Test lab gets test barrel with loosey goosey style factory dimensions. (For clarity, I know they don't do this.) 2. Test lab works up data to max. allowable pressures in loose barrel. 3. Joe Reloader, "knowing" that max. charges in published data are determined more by liability attorneys than anything else, starts at the max. listed charge. I mean, it ain't the real maximum. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> 4. Due to a quirk of fate, Joe's barrel was rifled and chambered with tooling near the end of its life cycle. Hence he has the one in a million mass produced rifle with minimum internal dimensions, and maybe not the smoothest bore to go along for the ride. 5. Joe fires his ammo. 6. Joe hammers bolt open after thanking God for his shooting glasses. 7. Joe writes nasty letter to brass manufacturer bitching about expanded primer pockets on the first firing despite using data straight out of a printed manual. mathman
Last edited by mathman; 11/24/05.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 61,564 Likes: 601
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 61,564 Likes: 601 |
Nah, they do not get loosey-goosey test barrels. Test barrels typically have as near to exact bore and groove dimensions as possible, along with minimum chambers. Both factorts do tend to give higher velocities than loosey-goosey factory barrels with the same powder charge.
On the other hand, I have gotten spot-on velocity results from Nosler loads in many rifles, especially those with custom barrels or really good factory barrels. All of which indicates that Nosler is not making up their loads in some sort of ballistic fantasy-land. Most recently I tested a Merkel K-1 single-shot in .308 with Varget and 150-grain AccuBonds. It gets within 10 fps of what Nosler lists in their manual.
Would it be better to do it like Speer and some other folks do, work up loads in tight test barrels then chronograph them in sporters, often old, worn-out pre-64 Model 70's? This leads to real anomalies such as the .308 getting higher velocities than the .30-06 (see explanation in Speer #13).
Plus, are you duplicating the Nosler loads exactly, or using a different case, primer and similar-weight bullet?
All Nosler reports is what they got in their barrels. Your results may vary. With their manual, because of the tight test barrels, I tend to load more toward the velocity than the max listed load. This is more realistic in a factory .300 magnum that may have .309 grooves and a throat as long as Florida.
MD
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 502
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 502 |
I suspect some of the reason for test barrels with minimum dimensions, both chamber and bore, goes something like this: 1. Test lab gets test barrel with loosey goosey style factory dimensions. 2. Test lab works up data to max. allowable pressures in loose barrel. 3. Joe Reloader, "knowing" that max. charges in published data are determined more by liability attorneys than anything else, starts at the max. listed charge. I mean, it ain't the real maximum. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> 4. Due to a quirk of fate, Joe's barrel was rifled and chambered with tooling near the end of its life cycle. Hence he has the one in a million mass produced rifle with minimum internal dimensions, and maybe not the smoothest bore to go along for the ride. 5. Joe fires his ammo. 6. Joe hammers bolt open after thanking God for his shooting glasses. 7. Joe writes nasty letter to brass manufacturer bitching about expanded primer pockets on the first firing despite using data straight out of a printed manual. mathman Nice job, Mathman! I think you hit the nail on the head. And, have you ever seen posts chiding some manuals for having way too mild loads? Kind of a no-win situation, but clearly the trend would appear to be toward conservatism of data due to potential liability concerns. In today's "sue happy" society, I am just grateful that handloading is still practiced, and that components and manuals are available. One more thing for us all to be thankful for on this Thanksgiving Day. (for those of us in the USA)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 17,527
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 17,527 |
I seem to get close to what is published, and have even gotten better.
One thing i have noticed, it seems that a lot of their loads are hot compared to others. I have seen their minimums be close to maximums for other books like Sierra for a similar bullet of the same weight. But, that is why i start out low and work up. I know i hit a stiff bolt and primer leakage on one of their 243 loads before i hit THEIR max.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 14,104 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 14,104 Likes: 1 |
IMO, it's about a wash. I have a .338 Win Mag that I can't get anywhere close to book velocities before primers start to crater, and a .257 AI that exceeds the maximum velocities in both the Nosler and Horndady manuals by over 100 fps with 115 and 117 grain bullets with the minimum powder weights shown in both manuals. I have no trouble exceeding the published velocities with my .22 center fires, 7mm-08s, 7mm Rem Mag, .270s. .280s, .30-06 and .300 Wby without exceeding the book maximums, but cannot get within a couple of hundred fps with my .338-06 and .243s. As many have already said, the book figures provide information about what happened with a specific bullet, powder and other components in someone else's rifle, and the results probably will not be replicable with your own.
I find that the information about the most accurate powders and most accurate loads in the Nosler manual hold true for most of my rifles.
Ben
Some days it takes most of the day for me to do practically nothing...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,746 Likes: 1
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,746 Likes: 1 |
When I owned a few rifles, I used to think the manuals were very conservative. Currently I have several factory rifles that produce spot on or even exceed velocities reported in manuals (including Nosler manual) when using identical components.
-Lou
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,216 Likes: 25
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,216 Likes: 25 |
I used to get very frustrated, just like JJ, because published muzzle velocities were unobtainable in my rifles, with the loads shown.
It's hard to make a general statement about the difference between a normal rifle, and the minimum cut test barrels that the labs use, but a rough statement is that in a 30-06, the difference will be about 2,000 to 2,500 PSI, and about 50-70 fps.
Using a 26" barrel for most calibers is just a way of promising unobtainable higher numbers, and is a little bit intellectually dishonest. So you have to watch that.
Yet another factor is temperature. This is NOT air temperature, as is commonly supposed. Both the temperature of the rifle, and the temperature of the ammunition matter, with the temperature of the rifle being about 3X as important as temperature of the ammunition. SAAMI procedures do not control barrel temperature, so as the test barrel heats during testing, pressure and velocity have a tendency to creep up, inflating MV estimates.
If you are shooting a rifle at 50 degrees F, and ammunition at 50 degrees F, VERY ROUGHLY speaking, plan on a loss of about 65 fps because the rifle is cooler, and another 20-25 fps because the ammunition is cooler.
So, you have about 60 fps because of chamber cut, maybe another 60 fps because some yahoo used a 26" barrel at the lab, and maybe another 85 fps if you're shooting at 50 F, and letting the barrel cool well between shots. That explains over 200 fps of difference between what you and I get, and what the book says.
Be not weary in well doing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 10
New Member
|
|
New Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 10 |
This "discussion" is at least 40 years old that I know of.....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,017
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,017 |
Nosler is not always optimistic with their velocities.Checkout their velocities for the weatherby mags,the stws and the ultramags.The nosler data seems to run 100fps to over 200fps(30-378) lower than several other sources.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,856
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,856 |
I suspect some of the reason for test barrels with minimum dimensions, both chamber and bore, goes something like this: 1. Test lab gets test barrel with loosey goosey style factory dimensions. (For clarity, I know they don't do this.) 2. Test lab works up data to max. allowable pressures in loose barrel. 3. Joe Reloader, "knowing" that max. charges in published data are determined more by liability attorneys than anything else, starts at the max. listed charge. I mean, it ain't the real maximum. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> 4. Due to a quirk of fate, Joe's barrel was rifled and chambered with tooling near the end of its life cycle. Hence he has the one in a million mass produced rifle with minimum internal dimensions, and maybe not the smoothest bore to go along for the ride. 5. Joe fires his ammo. 6. Joe hammers bolt open after thanking God for his shooting glasses. 7. Joe writes nasty letter to brass manufacturer bitching about expanded primer pockets on the first firing despite using data straight out of a printed manual. You're exactly 100% right. Sierra recently put out some 300 RUM data and they used a "loosey goosey" Savage for their test rifle. Since this round is quite popular with the LR crowd, there are many custom rifles built on it with tight chambers/necks, eliminated freebore, etc in which their listed powdercharges could be a little "stiff." Quite a few "Joes" did exactly as you described above. Instead taking responsibility for their own carelessness--loading up the Max charge and heading to the range instead of starting at the starting loads (wow, what a concept!)--they blamed and took it out on Sierra. So, Sierra gave in and recalled the data. They replaced it with "Joe safe" data. Data that really is "dumbed down" for the vast majority who do have "loosey goosey" chambers. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the original data, but they had to recall it as being unsafe and replace it with vastly reduced data to save the "Joes of the world" from themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,279
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,279 |
Loading guides are just that..guides. I have had rifles that were spot on maual velocities and others that exceded with less than max loads. Chamber, throat, and barrel dimensions all vary. A long throat or sloppy chamber will often take more powder to reach max. If you proceed carefully and add more powder until your each the manuals max velocity, you are likley safe. On the other hand if you are getting more velocity at less than max loads and you blindly add more to the max load you are probably going to be over pressure and may have some problems. If you are increasing powder and velocity increeses slow down you are probably at or near max. If you have been loading for a while and paying attention you almost get a feel for it. Again the manuals are a guide. well that's my two cents worth.
Lefty
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 204
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 204 |
Go the official Nosler Reloading Forums and tell Nosler yourself. There are at least three Reps from Nosler that show up and post. http://www.noslerreloading.com/phpbb2/index.phpPersonally I found Nosler #4 a little wimpy for 270 loads. I use Speer #13 and cross reference with the Lee Manual and my own chrono data. I like Speer because they use real live rifles not spendy custom guns or pressure barrels. I have several issues of Handloader specifically #209 for 300 Savage and another issue for 300 Weatherby that are pretty helpful. Data is where you find it. One source isn't good enough. This is my opinion. Your opinion may vary. ZM
|
|
|
|
596 members (1234, 219DW, 1badf350, 10Glocks, 19352012, 1lessdog, 81 invisible),
3,532
guests, and
452
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums82
Topics1,239,128
Posts19,445,713
Members75,311
| |
Most Online28,956
Jan 26th, 2025
|
|
|
|
