Disappointed in total lack of load data


PDA






KegCommando
November 23, 2008, 03:20 AM
As some of you may recall from another thread, I was looking for a newer more up to date load book since my original 15 year old one.

I was prompted to do this when I recently started loading .380 and accidently purchased some 88gr bullets and my book had no data for it, and neither did Hodgen's website.

I was going to order one blind online, but decided against it and finally had the time to another bookstore (second time this week).

The store had 3 choices:

Hornady 7th ed
Some Sierra binder I think was 5th ed Rifle and handgun
Lyman Pistol & Rifle 3rd ed.

When I leafed thru the books, I am just totally amazed that after all these years, the amount of published loads is miniscule.

Since I was mostly interested in finding something to fill my .380 gap, I started looking there first. One of the books was so pathetic It only listed 90gr and 95gr FMJ's, and only a couple powders at that. The other two only faired a little better.

I then took a look at the 9mm sections and figured those would be pages. Indeed those were better, but still seemed pretty lacking to me.

Granted these books have tons of loads for calibers I'll ever use, let alone heard of, I am still pretty surprised that with all the different manufacturers and bullets, there isn't more load data available. It's kinda annoying to go shopping, "Let's see I have these bullets, oh I gotta use one of these powders" or "I have these powders, I can only use these bullets"

Just for the record, I got the Lyman book since it had the most .380 data, and the 9mm section looked at least as good as the other two, if not better. I reckon when I start .45's I'll have to go look for the best book for that too.

If you enjoyed reading about "Disappointed in total lack of load data" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
joneb
November 23, 2008, 03:54 AM
Tell us more about this 88gr bullet, do you have min/max load data for the 90gr bullet, its possible you could work up from the min. load data for the 90gr ?

Remo-99
November 23, 2008, 04:22 AM
its possible you could work up from the min. load data for the 90gr

+1
If you have load data for the 90gr bullet, that will work for the 88gr as well. Work up from minimum and stay a little lighter than max charge for 90gr.

It's an overwhelming task to test every possible bullet weight and style for every calibre.
2gr of bullet weight is not gonna make that much difference, if it's worked, as new loads should be.

qajaq59
November 23, 2008, 07:13 AM
If you have load data for the 90gr bullet, that will work for the 88gr as well. Work up from minimum and stay a little lighter than max charge for 90gr. I agree. There are times when you just aren't going to find a load for a specific weight in the books.

dagger dog
November 23, 2008, 09:07 AM
Check out Lee's 2nd. edition for .380 auto - 9mm Kurtz. They have data for 88 gr bullet with Blue Dot, Herco, Amer Select, Bullseye, Red Dot, Green Dot Unique.

Let me know what you have on hand and I'll post the data.

Walkalong
November 23, 2008, 10:29 AM
Speer # 11 Manual

.380 Caliber - 88 Gr JHP - CCI 500 Primer except where noted *

AA #7 7.3 to 7.5 for 1051 to 1089 FPS

HS 5 4.7 to 4.9 for 1021 to 1060 FPS - CCI 550 Primer *

Herco 4.1 to 4.3 for 997 to 1044 FPS

Unique 3.8 to 4.0 for 985 to 1030 FPS

W 231 3.4 to 3.6 for 975 to 1027 FPS

HP 38 3.3 to 3.5 for 966 to 1023 FPS

Green Dot 3.3 to 3.5 for 976 to 1030 FPS

SR 7625 3.2 to 3.4 for 997 to 1053 FPS

Bullseye 3.0 to 3.2 for 892 to 956 FPS

Red Dot 2.9 to 3.1 for 978 to 1040 FPS

I was very careful transferring this data, and I double checked it, but it still could have an error. Start low and work up. Try to find corroborating data.

Also, those who suggested using 90 Gr data are right. It will work fine. Even 95 Gr data will give you something to go by and safe loads as well.

evan price
November 23, 2008, 10:43 AM
The load books can't check every possible combination of powder and bullet. That's why they give you basic stuff like the 90-gr loads, which are 100% OK for 88-gr loads.

Handloading isn't THAT exact of a science unless you're talking bench-rest accuracy shooting. A 90-grain mold, for example, is a nominal measurement, and changes in lead alloy used will increase or decrease the density and give a different weight for the same volume of material.
A mold is a volumetric measurement of a material that can have a wide variance of densities and give you radically different weights for the "same" bullet.

10 Spot Terminator
November 23, 2008, 12:44 PM
THIS TENDS TO BE THE RULE ,,,,

Rather than the exception when you are dealing with those bullets that weigh a little off of the norm in ANY given calibre be it handgun or rifle . Examples would be 6mm in 87gr vs. the more popular 85gr bullets or .22cal 63gr wt bullets verses the 60gr wt etc., etc., etc.... the list goes on and on . As stated by others just go to the nearest heavier bullet load data within a couple of grains you can find and use that as your guide and of course check for pressure signs when approaching max load data . If a lower grain wt. bullet is closer use that data and reduce the maximum charge weight accordingly . I myself have have done this on nearly a dozen off the wall load workups with great results . Those books with fewer powder choices listed tend to list the powders that optmally have proven to be the best performers overall for a particular load . There does tend to be a new powder that shows up every few years that fits the bill you are looking for but as a rule it takes a few more years for it to find its way into loading manuals . Nothing good just happens overnight . Dont let it get you down and welcome to the never ending reloading learning curve .........

KegCommando
November 23, 2008, 01:45 PM
Lol, thanks guys for all the 88gr load info. I actually got the helpful advise in another thread I posted about a month ago.

I was just using that as my example.

I'm just mostly surprised that all the years people have been reloading that the experts that publish these books that people (especially someone like me that is too timid about using something non-published) depend on.

Since I just got the Lyman book, I haven't had a chance to read it, but I at least know that my first book never said anything about using the next size higher, in fact it pretty much stressed sticking with the published info. Maybe that is why I'm paranoid.

Yeah I realize it is a ton of data, but figured since the data doesn't change that much except for getting more conservative, that with each passing year, the data would increase as you try out new combo's. If they have good relationships with the manufacturers, and only retested if they made a change.

Anyways, it was more of a rant/observation than a request for specific load information.

Thanks, you guys are great!

rcmodel
November 23, 2008, 02:23 PM
You need to understand that with the exception of the Lyman & Hodgdon manual, all other manuals are published by bullet manufactures.

As such, they can only provide tested load data for the bullet weights & styles they make themselves.

I'd guess your 88 grain bullet is made by Remington, and they don't even publish any load data.

The Lee manual is just a collection of data gleaned from all the powder manufactures who often don't even specify what brand of bullet they used.

One book, with every bullet & powder combination in it, would be bigger then you could lift, and cost way more then you would be willing to pay for it.

rcmodel

Walkalong
November 23, 2008, 02:57 PM
I actually got the helpful advise in another thread I posted about a month ago.That's why it sounded familiar.

If you enjoyed reading about "Disappointed in total lack of load data" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!