Mr. Howell, do you know Ken Waters? I read your reply on powder measures on another forum and that reminded me of the way Ken Waters would tackle a loading problem. I find his approach to hand loading fascinating. What do you think of his methods? BM

I know Ken Waters very well, respect him very highly, and consider him one of my best friends. We don't always agree (usually do) but never fuss at each other.

What is Waters approach to handloading anyway?
<br>
<br>What proceedure do you find facinating?
<br>
<br>I find that each of his essays starts with colorfull enthusiam for some cartridge as he skillfully paints a verbal picture of it's highlights. Then the article goes down hill with random results and Waters still a happy camper.
<br>
<br>I have never learned anything from him but would read him as he is a rifleman.

If you've read a lot of Ken Waters's stuff but haven't learned anything from his work, you already know a hell of a lot more than I do and aren't likely to learn anything from me either. I've long been aware of the truth (and often quote) the Old West proverb "Never was a horse couldn't be rode; never was a cowboy couldn't be throwed." This certainly applies to me, whether I'm horse, cowboy, or simply an ass.
<br>
<br>I've also often advised my writers that no matter what they're writing about, there are readers "out there" who already know more about that subject than they (the writers) know about it. My on-going experience confirms this (as it applies to me, certainly) every day that I get anything from anyone else.
<br>
<br>I envy you your great wealth of knowledge. I'm still plugging away with the little I know, slowly increasing it. The sheer enjoyment of learning, however, more than offsets the discouraging realization that there's so MUCH to know, so LITTLE gourd-filling to learn it with. So I DON'T envy anyone's inability to learn from another despite long and frequent exposure. Blessedly and thankfully, I don't ever have to worry about knowing too much. Always too little. Too little.
<br>
<br>{How'd I get onto this subject, anyway?)

Don Martin,
<br>
<br> If you're talking to me, I'll tell you that I find his approach to reloading fascinating because of the many problems he runs into with his "just finished" rifles and die problems he always finds a way to go around that or alter something to make a way. Each caliber reads like a story to me with him making comments on the side that make it very interesting to anyone who doesn't have the newest gadgets for reloading. I respect the man very much. BM

I will be specific and I hope you will also. I have a copy of Waters tome "Pet Loads" and one of the cartridges he reviews is the .358 Winchester. Now I have reloaded for that cartridge since 1966 and I have three rifles in that caliber. I note also that the editor here Ken Howell also has authored at least one write up on the cartridge in some loading manual.
<br>
<br>Waters spends two and one half pages lamenting the lack of popularity of the .358 Winchester. This musing is old stuff and leads the reader nowhere. You learn nothing. Then at the end of the two and one half pages Waters says that the .358 Winchester is a brush cartridge, he says that bullets that the .358 shoot will be deflected less should one hit brush. In this Waters is wrong.
<br>
<br>Then Waters goes into the travails with his personal .358 Winchester rifle a Mannlicher-Schoenauer carbine. His rifle does not group well and he can't figure out why (could it be the lack of a plan in developing loads) so he sends it back to Stoeger! Now this is the first time I have heard that Stoegers does accurizing work but I am out to learn.
<br>
<br>But so is Waters as Stoegers tells him that they can't give him the rifle stock he wants instead of the full length stock that he had as Waters has overlooked the fact that the barrel is not blued under the barrel band. So the craftsmen at Stoegers leave the barrel band on but leave a space under it! After all Waters is going all out here. Now the rifle shoots 1" to 1 3/4" five shot groups at 100 yards. Clearly not a article on load develpment so far. Finally in three short paragraphs Waters cautions to trim the cases to .010" less that the max case length. To neck size or FL size, he says it does not matter! But if you FL size not to set the shoulder back too far. So far this is beginners reloading stuff that any manual has in far more detail. That's it except he says not to use flat nosed bullets but does not say why and then to use large rifle primers (as if I were about to use large pistol primers?).
<br>
<br>Then there is a table with eight suggested loads for bullet weights of 200 thru 220 grains. Nowhere does Waters give a load for 180 or 250 grain bullets!
<br>
<br>This is all that there is in this piece on Pet Loads for the .358 Winchester.
<br>
<br>Now what did you learn about reloading in this article?
<br>
<br>Nothing, just as I said.
<br>
<br>Go ahead, it's your turn now and be specific.

Ken Waters knows very well that nothing that he will ever write will provide anything new to anyone who already knows it. He also knows that every day, someone out there reads his (that reader's) first treatise on that cartridge. In the latter case, of course, that reader learns a lot from Ken.
<br>
<br>So --
<br>(a) Ken continues his many-year string of success and popularity by writing material that tells you nothing new --
<br>(b) you know much more than Ken relates -- maybe more than he knows --
<br>(c) you write very well -- very clearly --
<br>(d) you should be writing, for publication, the better material that you're capable of producing --
<br>(e) editors are waiting to get it --
<br>(f) readers are waiting to read it.
<br>
<br>Go to it!

Mr. Martin, the "Pet Loads" book I have weighs about 35-40 lbs. and dates from maybe the 60's to the late 90's. I know nothing about the .358 Win. but do have a 30/30, 30-06, 7-08, .243, .44 marlin, 7mmwsm, 38-.357, 9mm, 45acp plus a couple of .22's. He addresses all of these except the 7wsm and the main flaw I find in his data is that it is dated and they don't make some of his main powders anymore. I am not an expert reloader as I've been at it about 5 years so I can always learn something even though I may not be loading for that caliber or that length rifle barrel. Maybe I'm easily fooled but I'm amazed at how he overcomes some of his setbacks. I'm also surprised that there are not more type errors for a book that has thousands upon thousands of words and #'s. If you think his stuff is for beginners then maybe that's what I am because I sure enjoy it. BM

Ken,
<br>
<br>You must have Water's "Pet Loads". Get it out and read the chapter on the .358 Winchester and stop being so general.
<br>
<br>Tell us what Waters says that would help someone load that cartridge.

Blue Moon,
<br>
<br>The copy I have weighs four pounds! It's just over 400 pages and may be an original edition. When I came I read some of the pleasant ramblings and then put it down. I am not into musing and what if's but prefer specific information.
<br>
<br>If your copy weighs 35 to 40 lbs the pages must be all wet!
<br>
<br>

Don,
<br>Ken Waters' books are a compilation of articles over many years. You keep pulling up the fact that the 358 article doesn't inspire you. Look at the collection of articles as a whole and tell me that you learned nothing. At worst it seems like you could have learned spelling and grammar tips from Waters. The 358 article was written in 1969. Compare it with the 25-06 version from 1984. It is possible that his style improved over 15 years. I wonder how much the new member in the rifle thread learned from your post. Seems like you are beating a dead horse. Many of your contributions to the forum are thoughtful and constructive. This one didn't qualify. Waters doesn't need my defense; his work stands alone to those with half a neuron.

Pet Loads is the best source of serious loading data and notes ever. Two flaws: Waters should abbreviate and he should not spell out numbers over nine. "180 gr. bullets" is far easier to read than "one-hundred-eighty-grain bullets," and "2,554 fps" is easier than "two thousand five hundred fifty four feet per second," especially when one sentence uses several of these figures. But I'm a proofreader, so what do you expect? Maybe he got paid by the word to write those articles...
<br>
<br>Okie John.

BlueMoon,
<br>
<br>Of course there are few typos, look who was editing most of the pieces when originally written for publication!
<br>
<br>Don,
<br>
<br>I refer to my copy of "Pet Loads" (both the 1000-page plus compilation volume, and the most recent supplement) religiously. I find it very helpful in supplementing pressure-tested data from manuals.(Ken's loads are usually remarkably close, if not more conservative, despite his much-maligned method of measuring case expansion).
<br>
<br>He also often addresses important issues such as extending brass life, and it's interesting in itself to see how approaches to reloading have changed over the decades.
<br>
<br>I was born in the year you started reloading, however, so my standards for someone telling me something new are not yet as high.
<br>
<br>John
<br>

I am really looking forward to Ken Howell's review of Water's "Pet Loads" essay on the .358 Win.
<br>
<br>Howell was the editor for Rifle and Handloader mags during their heyday.
<br>
<br>Also I hope Howell answers Blue Moon's orginal question.

Friend Don, I cede the dais to you. I appreciate your kind invitation, which I must decline.
<br>
<br>Nobody tells me what to write.
<br>
<br>You obviously have a axe to grind, and I'm nobody's whetstone.
<br>
<br>I'm already 'way behind on a multitude of projects far more meaningful than any squabble on any subject.
<br>
<br>If you acquire any of the five books I'm trying to get ready for printing and binding, you'll find some new axes just waiting for your expert attention and appraisal.
<br>
<br>All the best, Amigo!

Ken,
<br>
<br>Considering the present circumstances and as a friend of Waters you have handled this with discretion and aplomb.
<br>
<br>Don't have any of your books yet. I have a huge stack of "Precision Shootings" that a buddy is lending me to go thru. So little time.

Don,
<br>
<br>I load for a number of "low interest" cartridges, like the .25 Remington, .303 Savage, and .32 Winchester Special. Where could I find loading information if not for Ken's "Pet Loads"? Although I have an extensive library, "Pet Loads" and "Rifle/Handloader" are always the first place that I look.
<br>
<br>I recall the .358 Winchester article and didn't think that it was one of Ken's best, but it was useful. As far as the obsolete powders and projectiles go, I figure that if I know where a obsolete powder's burn rate ranks relative to the common IMR and Hodgdon, I can interpolate.
<br>
<br>Sincerely,
<br>
<br>Bearrr264
<br>
<br>PS Although I've never met Ken, anybody who like Ruger 44 Internationals and Winchester Models 64/71 can't be all bad.

The only problem I have with "Pet Loads", and its only a conditional problem, is Waters continued use of case expansion as a test process. I would prefer he use an Oehler.
<br>
<br>I said conditional problem, because I probably wouldn't want to glue a transducer on some of the guns he uses in his tests either.
<br>
<br>I use "Pet Loads" like all the other manuals, websites, etc. Just another report to take into consideration.
<br>
<br>Joe.

Bearrr264,
<br>
<br>Your library is not at all "extensive"! Loads for those cartridges are in all of the Ideal and Lyman manuals thru #43 at least. Not only are they in there but they list minimum and maximum loads a concept that Waters has not invented yet.
<br>
<br>Since nobody has hit upon it yet what Waters does is list some loads that worked for him and spend the remaining 80% of the prose on telling you how nice your gun and cartridge is. This is pleasant reading and saves all that thinking.

Please do me a huge favor, Don -- grind your Ken Waters Pet Loads axe somewhere else. (Don't forget, I can delete your posts in this forum if I decide that you're too contentious for this quiet place.)
<br>
<br>You've answered yourself already anyway, in your post just above -- "Pet Loads" (the long-running series AND the book) from the beginning has been presented as reports of (a) loads that work well for Ken and (b) how he found 'em. Nowhere is there any promise of encyclopedic coverage or recipes and revelations for anybody else's load development.
<br>
<br>Is it legitimate to bitch that a man or a product is not what he or it isn't claimed to be? Not IMHO.
<br>
<br>

Ken,
<br>
<br>My point is that I see no load development theory or practice in Water's Pet Loads. In fact I see Pet Loads as the antithesis of a load development technique.
<br>
<br>Go ahead and edit as you see fit. Moderators and editing are necessary on the forums as well as elsewhere. But I point out that you did not threatend to edit when Parker Ackley was accused here in your forum of attempted murder!
<br>
<br>Water's writes a happy page and does it well and in volume. We need writers like that. It rests the mind from all that hard stuff like thinking. I do that when I sit in the forest and just look around me.

Don,
<br>
<br>Actually, being the anal sort of number crunching DBA that I am, I have the data points of my very extensive library loaded into a data base. I hired a UMO-KC student to do all that work a couple of summers ago. It took her nearly three (3) months to capture and load the historical data, but now it only takes a few hours each month to keep current.
<br>
<br>If I want to look at the .32 Winchester Special, I run the report and it will show data for all of the periodicals and reloading manual that have been captured. I didn't say that I felt that Ken was comprehensive, I said that I liked to start with Pet Loads and inferred that I would more forward from there.
<br>
<br>Sincerely,
<br>
<br>Bearrr264
<br>
<br>PS So, have you had any new thoughts about how worthless the .260 Remington is?

Don wrote:
<br>
<br>Loads for those cartridges are in all of the Ideal and Lyman manuals thru #43 at least. Not only are they in there but they list minimum and maximum loads a concept that Waters has not invented yet.
<br>
<br>Don,
<br>
<br>I don't quite get that last statement -- in each "Pet Loads" article, Waters describes the expansion criteria he will regard as showing "maximum" and indicates which loads hit that level. Whether you agree with his methodology or not, he does have the concept.
<br>
<br>As for "minimum," no, he doesn't list his starting loads. Neither do the Alliant, IMR or Winchester manuals, all of which just say to start 10% down from the maximum.
<br>
<br>John
<br>

Dr. Howell,
<br>
<br>Very good to see/read,that you are not brooking much in the way of sheeite as of late. While I'm the last jump to conclusions and HATE to assume anything,your mood seems to be chipper(and I hope my guess is accurate in that regard).
<br>
<br>With that in mind,I wish you both the best of health and a minimum of bullsheeite to sort through.
<br>
<br>Regards.................
<br>
<br>(and Don,the timing of my comments had nothing to do with your above post/s)..............Give or take(grin)....................

Bearrrrr - If you load for the .32 Win Spec, Id' sure like to hear your starting load data
<br>
<br>Thanks, sse

Friend Don, herewith (a) a mandatory clarification, (b) an invitation, and (c) a recommendation:
<br>
<br>(a) Please, by no means consider my request for a "huge favor" (above) as anything approaching or suggesting a banishing. You're always welcome here as far as I'm concerned -- I just prefer that no one continue to obsessively stroke a pet peeve against someone or grind a pejorative axe here. "Let all things be done unto edifying" or entertaining.
<br>
<br>(b) You're experienced, intelligent, articulate -- you even spell well (not a universal skill). Please give the rest of us the benefit of your recipe for what you consider an intelligent and sound technique for developing optimum loads. I think you'll find even the contrary opinions that it'll inspire more edifying and satisfying than venting ire toward Ken Waters.
<br>
<br>I have every confidence that you can do it the way I advised Ken W to answer an article that he bitterly complained to me about. I urged him to send me an article on his method of miking case expansion when he took umbrage and complained because I published Bob Hagel's article on Bob's way of miking cases. I told KW that he should write his article with no mention whatever of anyone else's method -- as if he'd never heard of BH, as if BH had never been born, had never advocated another method of miking cases. That approach hadn't occurred to KW. Embracing it, he agreed -- and sent me an excellent presentation of his method. I published Ken's article as a "Pet Loads" special and later included it in a supplement to the original "Pet Loads" book. A positive presentation is far superior to an argumentative, contentious one -- IF the presenter has the stuff of a solid presentation that doesn't have to stand on the bloodied body of a rival.
<br>
<br>(c) Wrap your gray matter around (and squeeze) one of the books that I've found both edifying and enjoyable -- Michael J Gelb's "How to Think like Leonardo da Vinci -- Seven Steps to Genius Every Day" (Delacorte Press, 1998).
<br>
<br>Sum, ergo cogito (KEH version)

Don
<br>
<br>With no small expectation, I'm looking forward to your
<br>book about Load Development Technique.
<br>
<br>I'll take a signed copy. Even pay more for it.
<br>
<br>
<br>

If you read just Ken Howells posts in this topic you will see why the Handloader and Rifle mags were so good when he was editor. Thanks Ken for the spelling comment but your just being nice.
<br>
<br>If I write a article on how I develop a load then I will try to sell it. But I do have a specific proceedure.
<br>
<br>Here is a free one for you www.windcharts.com/reality_based_load_development.htm

Friend Ken,I've been absent from the boards lately and just want to say it's good to see you haven't lost a step after the health problems.You would like the load I settled on for the 257 WBY. Around 50000 psi or less and still getting 3280 fps with the 117 gr. Hornady. Two shots today and two dead deer.It's opening day and the only thing I had shot with it was a coyote 'til now.
<br>
<br>' Stick would have felt right at home here today; Misting rain all day long and temp in the mid-forties.Take care,gene.

I am a fan of 'Pet Loads'. It must be remembered that Pet Loads is a compilation of articles going back to the '70's.
<br> Where else can you find modern, safe data for the 256 Newton?
<br> Pet Loads, IMO, is an invaluable resource to anyone who loads, or wants to, a lot of different cartridges.

Jack,
<br>
<br>Actually, probably not in Pet Loads, if you're shooting a modern rifle and not an original First Model Newton, like Ken Waters' rifle.
<br>
<br>If you're a Newton guy, I can hook you up with a Newton Nut! If you're interested, send me a PM.
<br>
<br>Sincerely,
<br>
<br>Bearrr264

The Speer Manual #4 has plenty of loads for the .256 Newton that include all of the appropiate imr powders and H4831 also.
<br>
<br>www.loadyourown.com/ubb/Forum13/HTML/000089.html

Personally I am a big Waters fan. I have been reloading for the last 25 years and the pressure ring method of Waters gave me an approach that I found very valuable over the years. As for the .358 article some of the earliest articles were a bit sketchy on detail and I think he blew it with his 6.5 Rem Mag write up but all in all Ken is my favourite writer. A gentleman with a good balanced point of view and a very credible writing style.... I think I would like to know him which is more than I can say for a lot of writers that came after him. He also doesn't jump on band wagons and remains committed to well balanced efficient cartridges over such rich boy toys as the 30-378 ect.

we as shooter's owe Ken Waters a great debt of gatitude.It would take a lifetime to shoot,load, and write about all of the guns he's reported on, AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT TOOK HIM...A WHOLE LIFTIME!POWDR

I have always appreciated Ken Waters's work. What appeals to me is the fact that he seems to be "everyman" with the time and opportunity to tinker and experiment. Put another way, his approach is one to which I can relate. If we had some sort of device which would automatically eliminate all of the things that the reader already knows from each and every article, what would be left (a huge amount of material in my case) would not be nearly as interesting to read nor would it appear in the context in which it was written. One thing that I would mention is that if we were to heed all of the admonishment to always use only the most recent available data, such (to me) valuable resources as Pet Loads would be consigned to tinder duty. Best to all, John

After 35 years of active handloading, when starting a new project Pet Loads is still my first reference after the loading manuals.

A 6 year old thread is born again!
What did P O Ackley, Jack O'Connor, Bruce Hodgdon & Ken Waters have in common?
They weren't right all the time, just most of it.
One can only speculate what each might do with the (cheap) technology & wide variety of component & cartridges available in today's market.
Taking the advice of any of those guys will most likely serve you well, very well.

I love Pet Loads as a reference. Now if I can catch the (%^^%%$$*^^^ that stole mine, I will be happy. Since I can not find another copy anywhere!!!!!!!!

The latest edition of PET LOADS (includes all of the supplements) is available from Wolfe on line for $60.00.

Ken Waters offered a methodical, precise approach to reloading. He wrote very well and explained his steps completely. He's one that I'd love to sit down with and discuss handloading. I miss his writing.

I know, but it will not have all my notes in there, that took 20 years to figure out and write down!!!!!!

I keep my complete edition in the "reading room," page through it every morning, and almost always learn something.

I have always found Pet Loads to be very helpful. I always reference it when loading for a new cartridge. I've spent many enjoyable hours just reading about all the different cartridges and different rifles that were used in the testing.

As a college student I first encountered Pet Loads, helping Dad load for the many odd calibers he had collected. The .44-40 Hercules 2400 loads I brewed for a Colt SAA clone were a triffle too hot for a revolver, even if they were well under Mr. Waters' maximums. Dad still talks about them 28 years later.

That said, I found much of his writing about vintage calibers to be fascinating. They were thoughtful and scientific, yet not dry. He got into the quirks of his firearms, just as an everyday handloader sometimes encounters. I still have one letter Mr. Waters answered on the .32-40, and it was typed, well after the advent of word processors.

Reading some of the old posts in this thread, I can tell you the load development method I use:

1. Buy factory ammo for a new caliber and new gun.
2. Shoot it over the chrono to make sure it is up to snuff on velocity. I have learned this check the hard way, after discovering a batch of .25-06 that was 300 fps under spec.
3. Take the case pressure ring readings for reference, ala Waters.
4. Handload, with appropriate bullets and powders.
5. If the factory ammo is near max for the caliber and firearm, do not exceed that pressure ring reading by more than .0005, again ala Waters.
6. For old guns (Great-Grandad's Krag) special applications (.45 Colt in a Ruger Blackhawk) use judgement and multiple references.

The next gun to get this treatment will be a new to me Ruger #1 in .222. Yes I know there are now transducer systems available, but like a lot of folks I am no hurry to glue things to rifles. I have also seen enough bogus data out of transducers over the years in engineering to take them with a grain of salt.

And speaking of great-Grandad's Krag, I think it's appropriate to show what a student of Waters can do. 100 Yard group....

I do have a question about Pet Loads, and Mr. Waters. I know that he said that for the 7mm-08 Remington used/uses 48-48.5 gr. of non cannister W760 powder with a 140 gr. bullet.

All the manuals EXCEPT speer says that max is 46 gr. Who is right???

Huntbear - the standard answer, which helps you not at all, is all of them.

A safe maximum load doesn't just depend on bullet weight, but the specific bullet used--plus the lot of powder.

which means, work up your own max loads (using manuals and load data as a guide). There are just too many variables to accept someone else's work.

It's unusual for the various manuals to agree on a particular cartridge. I just take them all into consideration, and start low, gradually going up a grain at a time. No two rifles are identical, and even two of the same make and caliber can show different velocities and accuracies.having said that, Ken Waters has always been an informative source.

I have the entire collection and love it. Being a reloading newbie its the first book I pick up. Besides that... its just good reading.

Ken Waters' Pet Loads is to reloading what Hatcher's Book of the Garand is to shooting M1 Garand's and Roger Rule's Rifleman's Rifle is to collecting WIN M70's - essential information. I wouldn't want to be without any of those books, and cherish my reading time with all of them.

I have learned more about reloading from Ken Waters than just about anyone else, or anything else except experience gained from trying what he talked about. I only wish I had come across him and in particular his article on the Pet loads for the 300 Savage sooner than I did. I have never had a 300 Savage. But his rifle was a model 99. If I had had the good fortune to have read that when it was published, I would have saved myself from selling a rifle I will always regret selling, a Savage 99F in 308. Ken's discussion on setting up sizing dies for the Savage chamber would have told me that there was nothing wrong with that rifle, but there was everything wrong with the way I was approaching sizing for it. Well, I can use the excuse that I was a young dumb guy not very far away from my teen age years.

Over many decades of reloading for more-than-a-few hunting cartridges, I've found that my maximum loads will almost always fall exactly halfway between Waters' and Bob Hagel's top loads. Check your own range notes and see if you don't agree....

Well, this thread inspired me to pull out Pet Loads, and thumbing through it, lo and behold a piece on the .303 British in a Smelly Enfield. I had totally forgotten that he'd written the article in 1976 - and then bought a SMLE four or so years ago. Guess I'll have to see what I can make of this old Brit, now...

Can someone look in there book and see if he goes over the 7mmSTW before I purchase this. Thanks Rick

My eighth edition does not have the 7mm STW.

Still well worth buying though.

� still pondering that puzzling comparison with continuous carping about a difference of opinion in the thrust of a single magazine article or book chapter �

� still unable to see beyond the yawning abyss between (a) the single mention of a felony and (b) repeated bitching about a writer's report of his experience (and opinion) with a specific cartridge

Ok thanks. Rick

I must say, it is quite refreshing to read a disagreement with a civilized tone to it. Thanks gentlemen!

Maybe the disagreements here were generally more civil back in 2002!

It is nice though.

2002, 2010 Oh well maybe something can be learned........we see.

Don Martin, the 358 is my favorite caliber, I have a Savage 99 in 358 the first year they made one, I also had MRC make my first custom rifle in that caliber.
So far my favorite load for both rifles is 50.6gr. of Win 748, Hornady 200SP and CCI primer. 2.65OAL in original Win. Brass.
May I ask what's your favorite load?

Since his last post was in 2003, you may be waiting awhile for an answer.

It was mentioned Ken Waters wrote the Pet Loads article on the 358 Winchester for the July 1969 issue of Handloader. If you will look at other Pet Loads articles from this era and competing reloading articles from the same era you will find them quite similar.
I remember the high regard riflemen of the 1960�s had for the Mannlicher rifles. I was a senior in High School when I read the 358 Winchester Pet Loads article and I remember my disappointment at Ken�s troubles with this rifle.

If you read the Pet Loads series chronologically, starting with Shooting Times magazine from the 1960�s you will see Ken Waters hand loading tools, accessibility to a chronograph, testing and data reporting methods mature. Ken Walters�s ability to communicate his thoughts and results matured as well.
To put my thoughts in perspective read the original Pets loads article on the 30-30WCF from the July 1966 issue of Hand loader (Issue No. 2) and compare it with the Pet Loads Update on the 30-30 from the March 1977 issue. The Update is a far more in-depth article reporting on the use of more component bullets, powders and several different rifles.
The December 1996 update to the 30-30 Pet Loads series is an excellent article with new thoughts on loading the cartridge for modern rifles. This is pone of the better articles written on hand loading the 30-30 cartridge for lever-action rifles.

I can think of other cartridges which benefited from time and �updating,� the 7-30 Waters is another cartridge which expanded our knowledge of the cartridge and its hand loading possibilities with each update.

Your specific complaint is with the original 358 Winchester article but you do not mention the 358 Winchester Update from the September 1992 issue of Handloader. The 358 Update article covers more appropriate bullets of modern design and devotes more attention to the cartridge and its loading possibilities.

For the astute reader there is a great deal of information presented in each installment of the Pet Loads articles, even if you don�t have an interest in the specific cartridge.

Please be careful to keep 'em separate � Ken Waters, Ken Howell, Ken Walters, and Ken Warner.

Count all the Pet Loads articles, divide the total by six, and you'll see how many years it took Ken to write 'em all. Long time! Lotsa rounds! Ken wore-out a husky old loading press along the way (I gave him a new one).

Man I should look at the date, here I thought this was all done over the past couple of days. My Bad.

I had not looked at Pet Loads in terms of How Many but rather Too Few. I count 204 articles for Handloader over 34 years. My understanding is Ken was a �free-lancer� the whole time.
Was Ken a free lancer when he wrote for Shooting Times? His last year with ST featured regular articles under the banner, Pet Loads.

Someone mentioned his continued use of PRE when others argued the system was of little more use than guessing. Most - but not all - who take this point have not studied Ken Waters two articles on the subject;
�How To Develop Good Handloads� Shooting Times August 1967.
�Developing Pet Loads� Handloader September 1982
Handloaders who grew up reading J.R. Mattern, Phil Sharpe and Earl Naramore understand PRE is not about �Pressure Guessing� or �Pressure Comparisons� but rather a �judgment of pressure indications.�
It was well known there were difficulties duplicating CUP measurements between different technicians working in the same laboratory using the same equipment. These differences were highlighted in the 1968 Gun Digest article �Breech Pressure breakthrough� by Dan Cantrell and Michael York. This article was an eye opener to me and I have read and re-read it many times.

I thought Ken Howell was an alias for Ken Warner?



Greetings from Montana, Mr. Howell!

Jim

Ken Howell is none other than Ken Bowel.

After 3 years of trying different loads for my Ruger No.1 .405 and not being completly happy I bought "Pet Loads" and used Ken Water favorite load with RL-7 powder.Now it's my favorite load.My .405 shoots like a varmint rifle.

Don't blame him.

Blame me.

I consider Pet Loads to be one of the most valuable and informative handloading books I own. I have quite a few.

I don`t read Pet loads for the info,although it is sometimes useful.

Ken Howell - Bravo!

rosco1, you say Mr. Martin's last post was in 2003? Aw, shucks.

Have you tried Win. 760?

A couple of years ago, I bought my first 38-55. Guess where I went to find some loading info? My 2 1/2" thick Pet Loads had loads for several pressure levels.

The thing I liked was that KW didn't go through the tedium of "Yesterday, I tried primer X and this morning I tried primer Y; then this afternoon I tried primer Z", etc. KW generally boiled it down the basics of what worked best in his rifle ((I guess that's where he (or KH?) came up with the name "Pet Loads")) and in later articles gave examples of those that didn't and some idea of WHY those loads weren't acceptable so the reader didn't waste time trying them.

Ken's "Pet Loads" series began as articles about his pet loads and somehow got changed into nearly encyclopedic coverage of his experience with each specific cartridge in each specified gun. His earlier "Pet Loads" articles and his later "Pet Loads" articles are therefore hard to compare fairly.

Ken, how long since KW wrote an article? Your book (Custom Cartridges), Pet Loads and Wildcats (something....a Wolfe Pub. book) are my three favorites.

Oddly enough, I was looking at Hornet data today, in my copy of Pet Loads.

The powders Ken Waters used aren't always available today, like Winchester 680, from that issue, anyway, but it was still useful in many ways, comparing .223" vs. .224" bullets, etc.

I still find a lot of that stuff useful, just like JB's very practical and useful tips we still get. I am always hoping to learn something new, or relearn something old.
I often refer to the book when answering questions from others about rifles/cartridges I have no experience with, too. Some stuff you can't get easily from other sources, where in hell am I going to find a Speer #4 nowadays?

Ken used his own guns, not a test barrel. I have always liked Ken Waters pet loads

Pet Loads is my favorite reloading reference too and I have several as well. I enjoy his writing with anecdotal information, personal experience, and the travails of getting a rifle to shoot properly. I guess some of the newer whizbangs aren't covered but for the most part I am not interested in them anyway. PH

Haven't seen Ken in years and haven't talked with him in almost as long. Probably won't, ever again, considering his age and condition in Connecticut and mine 'way out here.

I'm pleased to see that he's still held in the high regard that he's earned and not subjected to any of the same kind of cheap calumnies that small, spiteful minds love to level at prominent old writers.

When I lived in Alaska I had a 375 H&H with a 24" barrel that I could not get up to speed with 3 different powders. IMR-4350 I couldn't even get enough in the case to make a 270 grain run as fasts as a 300 grainers advertised speed.
I bought a copy of Ken Waters Pet Loads and the Powder that he used that got the highest velocity was W-760. I tried 760 and low and behold I was able to get this rifle to run at advertised velocity

Ken was no dummy that is for sure and for certain

Pet Loads was always a great pleasure to read, and I still refer to it every now & then.

I've read everything I could by Ken Waters and I did learn. I occasionally differed with some of his conclusions, but I admired his painstaking methodology. He lacked modern pressure equipment (it was a lot more expensive then), but he methodically worked up loads and his description and history of cartridges was superb. I always wished someone could have put a USB cable into his mind and download his knowledge.

USB cable?

My ol' friend Ken would never think of owning or using a computer and wouldn't understand your reference.

It's something of a puzzle and a miracle that he uses smokeless powders.

He might fly if airliners ran on coal-fired steam.

(You think I'm kidding? I speak known specifics.)

Well said.......

A couple years ago, I had a friend who was having a hard time finding a certain powder on the shelves. I had a few extra pounds, so I met him at a halfway point to give them to him. He wouldn't hear of not paying me, and then pulled out a copy of "Pet Loads" to give me, said he had an extra copy!!

I haven't read all of it, but I'm working my way through. What's that quote about standing on someone's shoulders?

I always find myself reading Pet Loads, even about cartridges I don't own nor probably ever will. Every loader should own this book, it's a great source of knowledge and information.

I kind of think that a large number of these writers really have only average ability. There are magazines like Shooting Times, Guns and Ammo and such that are basically good enough to line the bird cage. Handloader is better, Presicion Shooter better than that.

Then I think that if some of these guys wrote an article with what they know and put it in front of an editor, that editor might just say "Too long, will fly over the head of our readers, dumb it down."


I think the internet has rendered these magazines obsolete. Much can be learned from sights, and reloading forums. One simply has to be careful in validating anything they read.

+1 on the reference and +1 on the boring new whizbangs.

I have been reloading since 1968 and have the entire archive of Handloader Magazine. It is uncanny, but in nearly all my rifles, I've found MY maximum loads to be almost exactly midway between those of Waters and Hagel.

Whenever I consider getting a new rifle in a cartidge I don't have, I read and see what Ken Waters did with the round in his load work up. Got expensive a time or two but I have some nice rifles in calibers I never would have gotten otherwise.
Mr. Waters once wrote about something and was unable to find the reference. I came across it, the reference from my library and made him a copy. The very nice thank you letter i received proved exactly one thing to me. Mr. Waters is a gentleman of the highest order. Oh yeah, if Don Martin is lurking, his article on the .358 got my curiosity up. Now I have 5 rifles for that cartridge. HIs article on the .280 Remington convinced me I should have one Like I say, he cost me money and I'm not complaining one darn bit.
Paul B.

I've spent quite a bit of time reading through Pet Loads and it's a good source of information, although I find his loadings to be a bit on the conservative side. (understandable)

My main complaint is that he uses lever action 30-30's with 24" barrels and even bolt action 30-30's for much of his data.

The vast majority of 30-30 ammo is fired through lever action carbines with 20" barrels and the velocity data for the bolt rifles and 24" lever actions doesn't translate to the 20" barrels very well.

Yes, indeed. "Much can be learned from sights" on any number of Internet sites.

And some of it may be right. ("rite?" "write?" "wright?")

Yep. I got a letter from him discussing the .32-40 about 10-12 years ago, and from the paper impressions it was clearly a typed letter.

Darn I always figured he was paid by the word, and spelled out stuff for that reason

No, he was paid a flat rate per article � never as much as he should've been paid � no matter how many words it took to tell the whole story. $125 or $150, IIRC � on publication, although it was customary at the time to pay writers on acceptance.

Article-writers don't get paid by the word, anyway. I don't recall ever having had to trim any of Ken's manuscripts for any reason.

I pled hard for several years to get that rate raised to fair and equitable, but the boss preferred to exploit our writers' loyalty. I was finally able to persuade him to raise it a little, from criminal to merely insulting, and even that (I think) slipped back a notch or two when I left. At any rate, Ken would never have made a lot of money, even if he'd been paid by the word.

Well, that's the point, you can't just take someones word. That is the way we all learn. I mean, I'm sure they don't teach ballistics in journalism schools.

To say, "I'm a journalist and therefore and expert" does not qualify the expert status. After all, Katie Couric and Babara Walters are also journalists

Watch yo' filthy mouf!

'No, he was paid a flat rate per article � never as much as he should've been paid � no matter how many words it took to tell the whole story. $125 or $150, IIRC � on publication, although it was customary at the time to pay writers on acceptance.'

That was pretty much criminal considering the time and effort it took to load, shoot, and write those pieces with such meticulous detail and thoroughness. Did he have to purchase the brass, bullets, powder and other supplies and accessories? Looks like he was losing money doing those Pet Loads columns. Oh I am sure it was pretty much a labor of love but jeez he ought to have made something for all that effort. Hopefully he gets a bit from sales of Pet Loads. PH

He got some complimentary components, but he bought or borrowed the guns (He used my old Iver Henriksen custom Mauser for his first "Pet Loads" piece on the .35 Whelen, for example) and may've had to buy some of his components, especially in the early days before I became involved.

No expense account.

Boss refused to sponsor him at a SHOT Show or any NRA convention, so he and I had a secret arrangement � I'd house and feed him on my expense account if he'd somehow get himself there and back. Even arranged a mouflon hunt just before the NRA convention in San Antonio. (When he got the ram that you may've seen a picture of, on the wall in his den.)

Ken,
What do writers like Ken Waters do for a day job?
I own the Second edition and the Eighth.
I consider them to be both entertaining and educational.
We have long winters in Minnesota and I have the Second edition committed to memory. (almost)
whelennut

Ken Waters � former merchant sea officer � retired as City Engineer for a city in Connecticut.

Bob Brackney was an investment banker.

Homer Powley was an industrial chemist and Army (civilian) ballistician.

Bob Hagel was a Forest Service packer and hunting outfitter and guide.

Les Bowman retired from a kaleidoscopic career in aviation and was an outfitter and guide.

Jack O'Connor, Warren Page, and Archibald Rutledge were college professors. (Rutledge almost won a Nobel Prize for literature � lost to Faulkner. Shoulda won.)

Ed McGivern was a sign-painter.

Phil Sharpe was an Army officer, IIRC.

Bill Brophy was an Army officer.

Hal Swiggett and Bob Brister were newspapermen.

One whose name I can't dredge-up at the moment was a telephone lineman.

Mike Venturino was a truck-driver who later owned and operated a movie theater.

George Nonte was an Army officer.

Elmer Keith was a rancher, outfitter, and once known as "The Dean of American Guides," with a WWII stint as a civilian Army armorer.

"Townie" Whelen was an Army colonel.

Bill Jordan (Marine) and Charlie Askins (Army) were retired military and Border Patrol.

"Skeeter" Skelton wore a lawman badge or two.

Hal MacFarland, Parker Ackley, and Roy Dunlap were gunsmiths.

Les Wallach worked for the Park Service.



(All whom I can think-of right now.)

I finally bought a copy a few months ago and consider it a great investment.

From my limited experience with more recent Park Service employees, I doubt we'll see too many become hunting/gun writers...

Nothing personal Ken, but I subscribed to Handloader SPECIFICALLY to read Ken Waters articles! The other stuff was just icing on the cake, but Ken's words were golden. I suspect that I am not alone.

I've got the complete set of Handloader and all but about 5-6 issue of Rifle; I look forward to cold, winter nights to re-read them.

Thanks Ken,
Wow, you are a wealth of information!
whelennut

I worked summers (1960-64) in Montana (Glacier National Park trail crew) and Idaho (smokejumper) and many of the folks I worked with had off-season outdoor jobs involving making nature films for Disney, hunting cougar for bounty, etc. - OK, a lot were school teachers or university professors). They had a wealth of outdoor and hunting experiences that would translate easily to writing.

You are right though, not many of today's Park or Forest Service personnel (even seasonal ones) would grow up to be hunting or gun writers.

The thought of taking a laptop in the head to read something just don't sound right.
With a paper magazine you can save the issues that have info that you like or can use,then file the rest in the round file cabinet.
His articles are a source that would take a lot of money today to reproduce.

� leading me to wonder whether you've read and grasped my esteem for Ken Waters.

Yep, its a whole different culture now in those two agencies than what it once was.