3 Manuals = 3 different max loads: What gives?

OK, I guess I'm getting way too into this, but I've already nabbed my 3rd reloading manual and now I'm a little concerned.For the same powder and weight bullet, the three manuals give 3 pretty different max powder loads. For example, with 180 grain bullets for the .300Wby and IMR7828:Hornady: 81.9 grains Speer: 80.0 grains Nosler: 84.5 grainsI'm told to NEVER exceed max powder loads, so what gives? I'm assuming this is not bullet specific since they list only one max regardless of bullet type specified within their line. Should I consider 84.5 the "true" max provided I'm not getting indications with the case that tells me otherwise?

Welcome to reloading. Yes, they do that to you. Different rifles, different bullets, different cases, any of these can change the maximum load for your rifle. So can temperature. If you develop maximum loads in 40 degree weather, they may well give you trouble in 100 degree temperatures. I suggest you sit down and carefully read the preface of the various manuels that you have. I'll bet they will answer your questions. They should also suggest a plan to develop loads for your rifle. Then, if you still have questions, post them here. Myself, and many others, will be happy to help. E

This used to bother me more than it does now. When I make a load I like to get the maximum charge from the bullet maker and the powder maker, and then use the lowest max to work up to. If the loads are too slow, I'll just have to live with that(pun intended).You might also notice sometimes everyone lists the same max. charge, but different velocities. Some other times everyone lists a different max charge, but the same velocities. I believe this is when a chronograph would be most helpful.

M.S.-That's good that you have more than one manual. I have six or seven and like to cross-reference loads for any given cartridge. I'll note the max's and starting loads in several manuals, then pick a charge in the middle of the road or a little lower, then work up from there. A chronograph is very valuable for load development. When your velocities near the accepted velocity max for a given cartridge/bullet weight combo that's a good indication you are nearing max in a given firearm. Factors such as magnum or standard primers, barrel length, temperature, bullet choice, cannelure location if crimping, no crimp, light crimp, heavy crimp, free-bored or not, etc., etc., can all have an effect on velocity, accuracy, and consistency. Each manual will list the firearm used to determine velocity, whether it was a pressure barrel or production or custom rifle. They will also list the primers used for each powder listed and the brand of cases they used in development. Take note of all these things.Keep good records, be meticulous and consistent in your technique and your loads will amaze you. A little common sense goes a long way, you shouldn't have any problem there. And don't be afraid to ask questions about anything. There are plenty of people around here willing to help. Good luck, Troy.[This message has been edited by Troy (edited March 23, 2001).]

I once talked to a "tech" for a bullet co. about the variation in data between manuals. I was told that the data in their book was acually valiad for only one of their bullets listed in the weight given. If you notice, most manufactores list spitzers, boat tails, round nose, ect all under one weight. The data shown is for the bullet that produced the most pressure with the given powder charge, each bullet reacts differntly and the best they can do is give you a load that SHOULD be safe with all components shown. Every time you change a component from a differnt lot, to a differnt manufacture, to a differnt style from the same manufacture, to a differnt test bed (rifle) the pressure and velocity can and will change. How much or in which direction you can`t tell without testing. Always reduce and work up when changing a component - safty first.

The phrase, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.", is especially applicable to reloading. There is a wealth of valuable and critical INTRODUCTORY information in any good reloading manual, extremely worthy of close study. Also, it is a huge mistake to think of any one manual as a reliable "cook book", EVEN IF YOU USE ONLY THAT MANUFACTURER'S BRAND OF BULLETS. There are variables galore ...... and as if that weren't enough, you will eventually find TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS (!!) in the loading data. Of course, if you only had one manual to refer to, you quite likely would not catch it until after picking up whatever pieces are left of yourself and your firearm. These manuals are your most valuable reloading tools, and easily the biggest bargains, but not one of them can stand alone. I'm sure YOU will do fine, as you've shown the good sense to load up on what amounts to countless thousands of hours of ballistics testing and research in EACH of the 3 books you now own. As far as which maximum is the real maximum, remember these manuals are only guides, not bibles. Each INDIVIDUAL FIREARM is an entity unto itself, and will react at least somewhat differently than any and all others. ENJOY! [Linked Image]

LC

By the way, in choosing a powder to begin loading with, I look for one that nearly fills the case (high loading density), combined with high velocity potential, where accuracy is shown to be best with the maximum loading of that powder. ( This criteria is for hunting loads.) After cross-referencing, IMR 7828 looks like a great place to start with 180 grain Noslers in the .300 Weatherby. I would start with 76 grains, and load 5 rounds for testing. Be sure to crimp, and see that the primers are seated below the head of the case AND bottomed out in the primer pocket. Holler when you want me to shut up.[This message has been edited by Loud Cloud (edited March 24, 2001).]

Loud Cloud, please DON'T shut up! I'm not crimping now. So far, none of the bullets that I've bought have the cannelure and as I understand it, you shouldn't crimp if you don't have it. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough, but I haven't found the option for a cannelured bullet in any of the catelogs I have.

Hi, Muley Stalker. I crimp only those rifle rounds that really require it. That means tubular magazine rds., etc. I've never bother with magnum rifle rds., but I don't load the really heavy recoiling African rds. either. I suspect you won't need to for your .300 Whby. Crimping tends to be detremental to accuracy. What I do to obtain maximum for a rifle is load until I get any pressure signs at all, then back off a full 5%. I develop/test loads in warm, not cold, weather. Since adopting this method, over 20 years ago, I've had no problems. Just make sure you use exactly the same components for future reloads. For hunting ammo, I use fully resized cases, that have not been fully resized more than twice, and run all hunting ammo through the rifle before going hunting with it. I don't get excited about getting the last 100 fps out of my loads, or top accuracy. I insist on the best bullet for the job, and the best possible reliability. E.

Sorry about that little brain fart, Muley Stalker....I was picturing a Hornady with cannelure. Actually, the crimp is not considered necessary anyway, just an overly conservative habit I've slipped into with magnum hunting ammo. But if absolute top accuracy is less important than absolute reliability in a hunting load, and the bullet happens to have a cannelure, I like 'em. Btw, it's true that crimping is USUALLY slightly detrimental to accuracy, but there are exceptions to this rule, too.[This message has been edited by Loud Cloud (edited March 24, 2001).]

I have found that any crimp not in the cannelure of the bullet or if the bullet does not have a cannelure, the crimp really puts my accuracy over a barrel, or I mean you could cover the group with a 55 galon brl. BUT, I have found a small, slight crimp in the cannelure of a bullet does not affect accuracy very much. Once again that is a small, slight crimp.As far as using more powder than a manual say is MAX, I have done it, but it is MAX in some manuals and NOT in others.I Personally, would start atleast 5 grains below the LOWEST suggested MAX charge with the given wt bullet I am using. HELPFUL HINT: (or atleast what I do.) On the VERY first shot of testing ANY loads, (even the one with the least powder in it) I check and double check that case for pressure signs. As you so eleoquently pointed out, the MAX in one manual is not the MAX load in another. Unfortunately I have had to disassemble a few rounds because my first shot, at what I thought was a good low safe pressure, was not.[This message has been edited by blammer (edited March 24, 2001).]

Okay, so do any of you worry about going under the minimum starting load. In the Lyman #47 they list a minimum of 45.0 grains with a 130 Hornaday in a 30-06. In my LoadBook from Midway Hornaday lists 48.0 as minimum. I went with 45.0 because I will be teaching a new shooter as soon as we can cet to the range (snow is butt deep). Sean

Nope, never worried about the minimum, heck I have had some really good groups using the MIN or sometimes a few grains lower. BUT I needed the velocity not the accuracy so...Even a few grains below the MIN you don't have to worry about the "detonation" problem for underloaded cartridges, that is farther down the chart still.

The main thing to note and remember about ALL the manuals is what they DO tell you, as directly and pointedly distinct from what they DON'T tell you (because they CAN'T).� They DO tell you a few (not enough) details about the velocities that the listed loads DID safely (allegedly) produce in certain specified rifles.� They DON'T (can't) tell you (or claim to tell you) what velocities ANY listed load WILL safely produce in your rifle.Only the former is even possible. The latter doesn't even come close to being possible.No one can test a cartridge, loaded a certain specific way and fired in one specific rifle, and closely predict what a nominally similar but probably somehow different load will safely produce in a nominally similar but certainly different anonymous rifle.Consider, for example, how many jillions of .30-06 rifles are still out there, that almost as many shooters are 'loading for � what are the odds that any one of them is precisely the same in all respects as the manual publisher's lab '06? Never mind trying to calculate the odds against ALL of 'em being exactly the same in all respects.All you need to notice is the one thing that you've already noticed � that three different specimen rifles loaded with three or more same-weight but different bullets do not safely produce the same velocities with the same charges of different lots of the nominally same powder.There's no mystery or anomaly here � just a very simple, logical explanation that not everyone happens to think of, and very few people have ever bothered to explain (although it's a well established set of widely familiar facts).

MS, One reason that every loading manual is different in loading data is that the jacket material of every bullet maker is different.A 150 .308 dia.Hornady "seems" to have a softer jacket than a 150 Sierra. This will cause more pressure I have found with identical loadings of the same lot of powder. The Sierra will also give higher velocities in the testing I have done, possibly because of less drag going thru the rifling of the barrel.In my 30-30 loading for a single shot, I have noticed that Federal brass weigh around 140-143 grains, my older WW Super cases weigh 133 grains, and the Remington weigh 129-130 grains. The outside dimension is the same so the interior capacity must be different. That has led me to use the Remington case for higher velocity paper punching loads with less pressure. Again as Ken has mentioned, each firearm is different, even if they are the same make, model, and only 1 serial # apart they will shoot and develop pressure differently.-------Chainsaw

The best method I've found is to back yourself up with a chronograph. You'll find that a lot of the loads published in the manuals are bunk for your rifle, but when you get within the range of the maximum velocity that the manuals show, you'd better quit. Whatever you do, don't buy into the "case head expansion" method of measuring pressure that is so often touted by many misinformed folks here. It'll only get you hurt.

Crow hunter/ Perhaps you could clarify how the ones that tout the case head expansion measuring are misinformed, or one could get hurt.I just got off the phone with both RCBS and the Speer tecnical support, to confirm if they still use this method. They use it for nonstandard calibers still. Naturally ,some common sense has to apply when using this method, in example you should only use new or once fired brass that you have fired, so you know it is only once fired. There are variables in brass from lot to lot just like anything else. Are we to presume a company such as Speer, who publishes load data is misinforming the public? Or PO Ackley, who spent a life time developing and testing firearms and loads is misinforming the public by offering this info in his books? If the info about case head expansion is inaccurate, then how are we to believe the published maximums in the load manuals? What alternatives do you suggest? Judging pressure by visual signs is much less accurate, and IMO ,simply guessing. Is it coincidence, that since I started measuring case head expansion, I've never had a sticky bolt, ejector mark, or exsessively flattened primers? Granted ,I use a chronograph in conjunction, along with a little fear of an accident to help keep loads modest and safe. Speaking of accidents, Mr Howell related an unfortunate mishap, that I wouldn't wish on anyone, but could quite easily happen to anyone if distracted while reloading. This accident however,had nothing to do with loads developed by measuring case head expansion.This would have happened using the most sophisticated pressure test equipment The accident happened by using the right amount of the wrong powder. The question was then asked about what the alternative's were, but this question was unanswered. I was taught this method by an old friend, who has been reloading, shooting benchrest, developing and building wildcat rifles , and hunting for over fifty years. He has a gun lathe on the main floor of his home. In other words he's an enthusiast. Has he misinformed me, by teaching me these methods? I do read these pages to become more informed, so any real examples of accidents caused by these loading practices, would be more than welcome. Maybe you could include a safer alternative to this method which does not include eyeballing the cases, and guessing to decide when you have reached a safe load? This of course does not include rushing out and purchsing pressure testing equipment ,which I'm sure is out of reach to the average handloader. If this cannot be done, than I would suggest sir, that it is you who are misinformed.

Canon,I'll refer you to Ken Howell's post on this forum under the thread "measuring case head expansion" of April 8, 2001, 9:27 A.M. Mr. Howell explains the dangers of this method far better than I ever could and certainly you would agree that he is an acknowledged expert in ballistics. In particular I'd like to quote his closing statement "no micrometer is a reliable pressure gauge". In his post he summarizes all the reasons that relying upon this method is a really bad idea. One thing that I can agree with in your reply is the need to apply common sense to the equation. There are many different indicators we can use to tell us that a load may be producing more pressure than we expect. I've tried the case head expansion method and have not seen any indication that it gives any sort of useful data. In fact, Mr. Howell and OKShooter, both of which have access to pressure testing equipment, have both essentially stated on this and other boards that the case expansion method is useless in determining pressure. I'm sure your friend that has been reloading for fifty years and taught you his methods was a gifted man full of useful information but that doesn't justify stubbornly refusing to admit that you're wrong in the face of evidence. If I offended your sacred cow then I apologize, but I feel no remorse in speaking out against what I feel is a meaningless indicator of pressure which if relied upon could result in disaster to a handloader.[This message has been edited by Crow hunter (edited April 16, 2001).]

Crow hunter/I've read Mr.Howells post, but because there are so many variables to this practise of reloading, different proceedures of testing, and components will obviuosly yield different results. This method has been used by companies such as Speer since the fifties, and is still used todate. With all the legal filings happening, you would think that if Speer was lacking in confidence in this method, they would retract their information . As per conversation with the Speer rep., he added that they have run into problems with the use of pressure testing equipment as well, and that no method is entirely safe. I'm not trying to force my Holy Cow as you put it , on anyone, I am only offering the fact that I have used it sucsessfully. That is by going slow, and trying to think things through in advance ,before doing things half baked and blowing something up. I also try to use as many manuals and a ballistics program to get an understanding of the cartridge before any test rounds are fired. If someone follows these proceedures, and has some indicator of expansion (pressure),than it should be safer than winging it. As to the part of Mr. Howells post ,where he stated that a load tested at 80,000#'s psi with no measurable expansion, I have to think this was an extremely hard lot of brass. Again ,it's only my opinion, but it's hard to imagine pressures stong enough to stretch bolt lugs, yet the brass is unyielding? What am I missing here? No hard feelings Crow hunter or anyone else I hope. Just a few people exchanging idea's and opinions, I hope. Good Luck and safe shooting in whatever methods you deem safe.

Since I'm the individual " who might get blown up " by following Canon's instructions,I'm going to list a few points which seem relevent:1. I specifically asked for advice on how to measure for expansion.2.Canon,and others,have been generous enough to offer their comments.3.On this public forum,one is free to choose which comments to give credence to and which to disregard using whatever criteria one chooses.4.My criteria is to give more weight to the idea itself rather than the credentials of the one expressing the idea.I've seen way too many folks educated beyond the level of their intelligence to be impressed by titles.5.I view this forum as a bastion of democrocy where ideas are exchanged.Even our big brother federal government hasn't invaded it yet to post warnings that I might run across some B.S. here.6.I suppose I should be grateful to some of you for making up for the government's omission.Old Canon might have got me blowed up and here I was thinking he was just answering my questions.I am very much obliged.GRIN.

Gene/ Nice touch Gene. You asked for the proceedures, that could have been taken from the pages of the Speer Load manual. I relayed the proceedures that have worked for me, and others, including other posters here. You shouldn't get "blown up", taking readings off of factory ammo ,just to see that there is in fact,measurable expansion .Eq. When testing a box of factory .270, 150 grn.ammo, three rounds out of the box, clocked 3050 fps.,with case expansion of .0013". The others were at the usual 2850fps.and .00025" exp. Had I not measured these cases, I wouldn't have known how hot they were. So by saying not to use this method ,is the same as saying ,what you don't know won't hurt you. The info is there to ignore,or utilize at your option, but it is not my info, it is the info of a company who produces loading manuals for the public, so it is obiously tested in conjunction with pressure test equipment. It is my suggestion ,before anyone try these methods, you give a rep. at the Speer support dept.@ 1-800-627-3640 PST.I'm not to sure about the comment in line #5I assume that people worldwide, have read Old Canon's info to get yourself "blown up" Why hasn't someone come forward with a case or incident, that can be verified? I'm talking about an incident, using the proceedure's as outlined, starting at safe starting loads, utilizing new brass not fired more than one time(in a safe load) and working up in reasonable increments of the correct powder. Including backing off the recommended amount after the max. expansion has been reached. Are there any such incidents, or have the ones who utilized this DANGEROUS practice left no survivors to comment? Find one incident ,following the proceedures to a tee, and I will request to Rick Binn, the administrator to remove all of my posts, to prevent any one from getting themselves hurt. It's been a slice, and you readers do not have to worry about my comments appearing in the loading room again. Have a safe life. [This message has been edited by Canon (edited April 18, 2001).]

Canon,the B.S.- by the way that's a legitimate oil patch term for basic sediment,the unsalable stuff that settles to the bottom of of a tank of crude- I spoke of was not in your posts.Any open-minded person in reading your posts on this subject can't help but see that you are not using this method,case head measuring in order to push the envelope,but rather as an extra precaution.There used to be a guy on here named BIGSTICK that had a lot of experience to offer.He got tired of the same treatment you recieved.Whether you continue to visit here or not,I want you to know I'm much obliged for your assistance and I'm going to follow thru on the program outlined on the other thread.I will post what I find out.Can you imagine a real campfire setting with know-it-all ego freaks challenging every statement made by someone not in their little circle? Such behaviour would earn them a swift trip into the horse trough in my camp.I never seen a doctoral tassle on a hunting cap yet!Good hunting,GENE.

This is the third and last thread I have to apologize to KEN HOWELL on; KEN, I'm sorry for all remarks I made that were disparaging toward you.GENE.

Thanks, Gene II!Check your e-mail.