I posted a comment about fire forming in the garage. I thought of my now deceased good buddy who had a 1950’s era technique for finding a max load. Increase powder until a primer blows or falls out then decrease by 1/2 grain.

He was one of the guys who added sand to cream of wheat to more fully form cases.

He got a chronograph and developed a new technique. He loved numbers and decided a 22” barreled 270W should move a 130 partition along at a minimum of 3200 so he added powder until he got that velocity. Then he shot 3 or 4 rounds and if the primers didn’t fall out he was good to go.

Really great guy who was loads of fun. But one day he asked my why I always stood behind him slightly to his left, he was right handed. I explained that I wanted his thick skull between me and his rifle’s receiver. He said I was a pussy.

You're braver than I am.

Have a suspicion about who he was, but have personally known a couple of Idaho guys who preferred that technique.

Apparently Bob Hagel also used it, and one of the magazine editors who ran his articles told me Bob's load sometimes expanded chambers in "modern" rifles to the point where the fired cases couldn't be extracted.

All the real men are dead and gone! LOL

Are they the ones that own the Remingtons with the bolt handles that "fall" off?

I work up until there is a change anywhere around the extractor groove diameter as measured with dial calipers. Then I back off 4% powder charge for temp stable powders, 6% for regular powders for my hunting load.
Vernon Speer suggested 6% in 1956, but he did not have temp compensated powders.
I have done this with 223, 243, 250 savage, 257 Roberts, 25-06, 260, 6.5-06, 280AI, 7mmRM, 308, 30-06, 300WM, 8x57mm, 338WM, and others.

This does not work in 6mmBR as the primer pocket is not the weak link. The primer pocket is too strong. The primer is the weak link. The best I can do is CCI 450 small magnum rifle primers. To get them to go higher, some guys have GreTan bush the firing pin, and some more performance can be had.

The good case heads:
A) 6mmBR and 30-30
B) 223
C) Belted magnum
D) Mauser case head large Boxer primer pocket.

The bad case heads:
X) 30 carbine
Y) 10 mm
Z ) 25acp

There was a guy on AR, A**CLOWN, 15 years ago that could calculate Von Mises stresses in a case head.
His threshold of case head yield pressure predictions matched my emperical threshold data fed into Quickload pressure predictions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Mises_yield_criterion

Clark,

Vernon Speer also didn't have any pressure data. He did buy a copper/lead crusher outfit, but apparently nobody at Speer could figure out how to use it and get consistent results (possibly because they used it in widely varying temperatures, not unknown in Lewiston, whether in winter or summer). So he used case-head expansion.

I have tested CHE in a piezo lab, and it did not work very consistently.

I no longer do that.

After seeing “Shrapnel’s” shrapnel, I STOPPED loading till problems exhibited themselves.

I now compare several respected sources for normal
max velocity THEN I try to achieve that neighborhood.

eg. in my T3X 7 RM with 160/162 using RL 26 I’m getting 2950 FPS instead of 3000 FPS.
GOOD ENUFF !!!

Jerry

I do pretty much the same, Mule Deer's articles on using the chronograph to load probably had a bigger impact on how it do it than anything.

Interesting way to do it.

I used to work with/for a guy that loaded 25-06 ammo by pouring an equal amount of IMR4350 and IMR4831 into a bowl and scooping into the cases up to the neck then seating a bullet. His comment was that the 700 actions were 'too strong to fail with his mixture'. I'd do like RinB and stand behind and to his left when he shot. Flame would shoot out of the muzzle a good 6-8' when he shot.
He gave me some shells once, I took them home and used the powder for fertilizer. The bullets had been pushed out a bit so that maybe a 10th of an inch was all that was holding them in. Some could be pulled with your fingers.

The advent of inexpensive chronographs has thankfully precluded the old "load em up til the primers fall out" method. Most of us still have 2 eyes and all of our original digits!

I get a bowl of powder and just scoop the case in it until it’s level with the case mouth. Then I seat a bullet.

Then I give it to my brother and say load development is done.




P

Would a max load like that kill an animal any deader than a safe one?

Of course it will!

Or at least it did before "personal" chronographs....

A former high volume poster here used a similar method. I watched him shoot at a coyote with his 257 Wby, then clamp it between his legs so he could use both hands to pry the bolt open. He beat the ball of his hand black and blue driving the bolt back once he got it turned. Once the seized case was extracted he proudly exclaimed, "I guess I need to back that load off a quarter grain."

Knocks them off their feet and tosses them across the room. Just like in the movies.

I started reloading ~1999, and within a year had worked up hundreds of loads to the point brass destruction or gun destruction in rifles and handguns. I had earlier made my money by designing power supplies and overloading them to destruction in an effort to find the weak spots in my design. My reloading kit came with "Speer 12" 1994, which I soon realized listed as max loads, loads that had wildly different safety margins. Within 2 years I had over 60 load books, mostly old ones from Ebay. The loads I worked up to brass failure in strong rifles and backed off a calculated safety margin had a kinship with the Sierra load books. My loads were not exactly their loads, but they were proportional. Sierra must at least be doing something based on reality to get consistent safety margins.

My belief in "Reloader Pressure Sign" measurements declined about the time I began Piezo pressure testing.

Most telling was after watching some rifles get "proofed" by the firing of two "proof" loads. The "Reloader" in me looked at the brass and thought the load was "approaching max".

The actual Piezo measurement on those "proof" cartridges was 80,000 psi.

I went home and pulled some of my handloads.

If you get more velocity, you get more pressure. TANSTAAFL applies

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!

Back in the early 50's, when the Win model 88 was new, as was the 308, the NRA did some their routine review, but with an in depth comparison of the 308 to the 300 Savage. They then decided to fire 300 Savage rounds in the Win 88.
Three interesting results.
1. the Savage ammo produced better accuracy than the 308 the rifle was chambered for,
2. the Savages fed flawlessly, and
3. no problems were encountered due to headspace differential.
Elmer Keith got involved and characterized the 88 as "super accurate." He also hoped Winchester would offer a bigger version, at least 33 cal, no surprise there.
They did end the article stating that you should not try this at home.
The article can be found in the June 1955 Am Rifleman.

Ditto, thanks MD.

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

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


Trystan

I bet you got some pretty good velocities.

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

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

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

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

gunswizard,

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

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

Yes, but what about his velocities ?

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

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



Trystan

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

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

I would never shoot another persons hand loads.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That book is a good read well worth the time. There are 2 that I highly recommend. First is “The Bullets Flight. From Powder to Target” by Dr. Mann. Excellent read..
Next would be “The Complete Guide to Handloading” by Phillip B. Sharpe.

That's funny, I just downloaded the kindle version of Twenty Two Caliber Varmint Rifles.

It is the old skills that are disappearing. The so
is common sense and practicle solutions .
Our heads are full of useless information not practicle, I would of like to meet Ed but had my Uncle Gabe

Trying for max loads is just silly. If you want more speed from a 30-06, trade it in for a .300 WM. If you want still more, get a .300 Weatherby.

The primer popping method is, IMHO, really stupid because it depends on the primer hardness. I used to shoot .223 in matches using Winchester cases only. I could get about 10 reloads with the old WSR plated primers but after 4 or 5 with Remington unplated primers, they would fall out. Maximum loads in neither case.

I want everyone to put on their thinking caps. This is about chronographs.

While doing some research about an Ontario gunsmith, I came across a letter written by Jack O'Connor about some cartridge tests using Vernon Speer's chronograph. I presume it was the company chrono. It was called the "Potter Counter Chronograph". This was probably made by the Potter Instrument Company.

Does anyone have any information about this chronograph and the company? It appears to be something that would have been used in the late 1940s into the 1950s. References to Potter Chronographs were made in various military documents of the time.

Can’t find that, but in his 1942 book Phil Sharpe had a chapter on chronographs. The most notable being the Le Boulenge’ drop rod and the Chronoscope used by Remington in 1940. But I have found some interesting reading dating to early 1840’s chronograph.

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Chronograph

In the Le Boulengé chronograph (“Chronograph le Boulengé,” par M. Bréger, Commission de Gâvre, Sept. 1880) two screens are used. The wire of the first forms part of the circuit of an electromagnet which, so long as it is energized, supports Le Boulengé.a vertical rod called the “chronometer.” Hence when the circuit is broken by the passage of a shot through the screen this rod drops. The wire of the second screen conveys a current through another electromagnet which supports a much shorter rod. This “registrar,” as it is called, when released by the shot severing the wire of the second screen, falls on a disk which sets free a spring, and causes a horizontal knife to fly forward and nick a zinc tube with which the chronometer rod is sheathed. Hence the long rod will be falling for a certain time, while the shot is travelling between the two screens, before the short rod is released; and the longer the shot takes to travel this distance, the farther the long rod falls, and the higher up on it will be the nick made by the knife. A simple calculation connects the distance through which the rod falls with the time occupied by the shot in travelling over the distance between the screens, and thus its velocity ascertained. The nick made by the knife, if released while the chronometer rod is still suspended, is the zero point. If both rods are released simultaneously, as is done by breaking both circuits at once by means of a “disjunctor,” a certain time is consumed by the short rod in reaching the disk, setting free the spring and cutting a nick in the zinc; and during this time the long rod is falling into a recess in the stand deep enough to receive its full length. The instrument is so adjusted that the nick thus made is 4.435 in. above the zero point, corresponding to 0.15 sec. This is the disjunctor reading, and requires to be frequently corrected during experiments. The instrument was modified and improved by Colonel H. C. Holden, F.R.S. For further information respecting formulae relating to it see Text Book of Gunnery (1857)

https://eugeneleeslover.com/USNAVY/CHAPTER-XV-PAGE-1.html

Aberdeen Proving Grounds 1937

1518. Boulengé chronograph. (See Fig. 1502.)-This instrument, invented many years ago by an officer of Belgian Artillery and developed abroad, is still in common use at proving grounds in all countries. It measures the time interval by recording the difference in time of fall of two rods, suspended by electromagnets. The longer (chronometer) rod, being released when the projectile breaks the first screen, is nicked in its fall by a knife released by the shorter (registrar) rod whose electromagnet is in series with the second screen.


Anyways between those 2 it seems they had some various ways to chronograph artillery and bullets back to 1840. Interesting reads.

I like to maximize the chamberings I have with my handloads. I use a chronograph at home for this purpose but the single greatest pressure indicator are my Wilson case gauges. If the case doesn't easily slip in and out seamlessly, I review it closely and if the head expanded at all it is discarded. I no longer neck size( or partial neck size)
A chrono is fun, but not essential to this shooter.
My way

I believe the Potter chronograph worked just like more recent models--measuring the time of flight between breaking two screens placed a precise distance apart--except it used vacuum tubes before transistors (solid state) were invented. It cost around $5,000 in the '50s, which meant that individual shooters simply could not afford one. Back then a lot of wildcatters had exaggerated opiniions of he velocities they were getting and even some manufacturers of factory ammo "lied" (to put it delicately) about the velocity of their products.

Modern chronographs use a crystal oscillator as the time base. The Potter probably used a circuit called an "astable flip flop," consisting of two vacuum tubes and some other components, which would have meant that it was not as accurate due to temperature changes. Needless to say, the Potter was very large and cumbersome.

The first electronic ballistic chronograph was invented by Kiryako ("Jerry") Arvanetakis in the 1950s. As consulting engineer under contract by NACA (later NASA), he was asked to find a way to accurately measure the velocity of various projectiles fired at hyper-velocities into a variety of engineered materials in anticipation of manned space flight. His first design was an open rectangular frame of square aluminum tubing with a screen of fine copper wire at both ends. Breaking the first wire started charging a capacitor, breaking the second wire stopped it. Measuring the accumulated voltage and knowing the rate of charge the elapsed time could be accurately calculated.

I never heard of that one. I would be surprised if it were more accurate than 2% or so because charging a capacitor is just not a very good method. The astable flip flop using vacuum tubes as a time base is much better and was available in the 1950s. All chronographs since 1960 used a crystal oscillator as the time base. Worked better and cost less.