PowderThrough.com, wonderful reload data website
- Thread starter jski
- Start date
AJC1
Member
There are tons of places to get data. Castboolits, and leverguns are just two places I look for abstract loads... I also collect old manuals.
Col. Harrumph
Member
GeoDudeFlorida
Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2020
- Messages
- 11,265
Be careful with anonymous sources controlled by community groups. It’s bound to be almost as accurate as Wikipedia.
That would cover most of my needs, but I also reload for 32 Long, 32 H&R, 32 ACP.
But while probably safe, I'll stick with my Rule #1; I pay little (no) attention to any load data I see on any forum or "pet loads" website, hear from any range rat, gun counter clerk, good intended friend, or Gun Shop Guru. I ger 98% of my new load data from published (trustworthy) reloading manuals and a few from powder/bullet manufacturers' websites. Since 1970 I have had one squib and no Kabooms or near Kabooms. Subsequent loads come from my reloading logs.
But while probably safe, I'll stick with my Rule #1; I pay little (no) attention to any load data I see on any forum or "pet loads" website, hear from any range rat, gun counter clerk, good intended friend, or Gun Shop Guru. I ger 98% of my new load data from published (trustworthy) reloading manuals and a few from powder/bullet manufacturers' websites. Since 1970 I have had one squib and no Kabooms or near Kabooms. Subsequent loads come from my reloading logs.
Attachments
Absolutely! What is a needed is well managed change control where I can see who has added what? Or modified what?
kalielkslayer
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2021
- Messages
- 930
I use loaddata.com.
There may be better and/or cheaper options but I bought the prescription and use it A LOT.
Plus my manuals, of course.
There may be better and/or cheaper options but I bought the prescription and use it A LOT.
Plus my manuals, of course.
mcb
Member
Look like a promising start but its pretty thin on data.
westernrover
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2018
- Messages
- 1,613
Wikipedia is great if and only if the articles cite original sources that can be checked. I would say the same for online load data. If it's not backed by the powder or bullet maker's good reputation, then I'd expect to see a cross-reference to a reputable source. If it were an original source, I'd expect to see the details of the measurements. What I see are muzzle velocities without a barrel length and minimum and maximum charges without pressure measurements. The data is worthless as well as untrustworthy.
I load off the books myself. I use Quick Load and do a lot of my own testing. I rarely use book load data except as a starting point or to quantify how far out I'm going -- I'm not often loading overpressure because it just creates extraction and other problems and the gains aren't worth the risk. But I do use powders and powder/bullet combinations for which there are no published data and so on. All that is to say that while I am far from being a stickler for "the book," a data set that is missing most of the information and has no identifiable source is just useless fluff. I will never use that.
LiveLife
Member
And that treasure chest seems to be empty.
I just queried 9mm, 115/124 gr for W231/HP-38/Red Dot (Powders I use most often for 9mm) and got nothing back "No loads available..." regardless of brand/type of bullets.
I also queried 45ACP 200/230 gr for Bullseye/Unique/W231/HP-38/Red Dot and got "No loads available ..." regardless of brand/type of bullets.
Sorry, but the website is destined to continue being "unknown" for above reasons.
I will just stick to Hodgdon/Speer online load data as my go to reference.
Last edited:
LiveLife
Member
OK, I finally got something back for 9mm and Titegroup.
Looks to me it's unverifiable load data without test firearm/barrel length/velocities and especially without any safety disclaimers.
Sorry but I will pass on this "treasure" and use published load data which it seems to be copying from without giving mention as to source reference load data.
Bullet: 115 gr. X-treme FMJ
Powder: Hodgdon - Titegroup
Min Charge: 3.9 gr.
Max Charge: 4.3 gr.
Optimal Charge: 4.1 gr.
Cartridge Overall Length: 1.100 inches
Bullet: 125 gr. Sierra FMJ
Powder: Hodgdon - Titegroup
Min Charge: 4.0 gr.
Max Charge: 4.4 gr.
Optimal Charge: 4.2 gr.
Cartridge Overall Length: 1.090 inches
Here are Hodgdon load data for comparison - https://www.hodgdonreloading.com/reloading-data-centerPowder: Hodgdon - Titegroup
Min Charge: 3.9 gr.
Max Charge: 4.3 gr.
Optimal Charge: 4.1 gr.
Cartridge Overall Length: 1.100 inches
Bullet: 125 gr. Sierra FMJ
Powder: Hodgdon - Titegroup
Min Charge: 4.0 gr.
Max Charge: 4.4 gr.
Optimal Charge: 4.2 gr.
Cartridge Overall Length: 1.090 inches
- 9mm 115 gr Lead RN Titegroup COL 1.100" Start 3.9 gr (1,075 fps) - Max 4.3 gr (1,151 fps)
- 9mm 125 gr Sierra FMJ Titegroup COL 1.090" Start 4.1 gr (1,069 fps) - Max 4.4 gr (1,136 fps)
Looks to me it's unverifiable load data without test firearm/barrel length/velocities and especially without any safety disclaimers.
Sorry but I will pass on this "treasure" and use published load data which it seems to be copying from without giving mention as to source reference load data.
Last edited:
LiveLife
Member
From "About" page - https://www.powderthrough.com/data/about/
I am sorry but the owner is publishing "personally worked up" loads on the website without any disclosures and really needs to put up some disclaimers like, "These are my own personal pet loads ... tested in blah blah pistols with blah blah length barrels ... use them at your own risk ... especially if using mixed range brass with unknown reload history ... blah blah"
I started reloading at the beginning of 2016 and realized, there isn't a great place to get load data on the internet. I could always find what I was looking for eventually, but it was annoying having to go search for data and write it down on a scrap of paper.
Furthermore, I hated going to the local sporting goods store and having to look up what kind of loads would work for the few powders that they carried. Poking around on forum after forum on your phone while standing in the reloading section at Sportsman's gets old fast.
Being a web developer by trade, I decided to change that. Then, not only would I be able to reference loads that I have worked up and be able to sort through them quickly, but anyone else who stumbled upon my pet project could too.
Since the owner of website has been reloading only for a few years, perhaps safety/guns blowing up hasn't been an issue?Furthermore, I hated going to the local sporting goods store and having to look up what kind of loads would work for the few powders that they carried. Poking around on forum after forum on your phone while standing in the reloading section at Sportsman's gets old fast.
Being a web developer by trade, I decided to change that. Then, not only would I be able to reference loads that I have worked up and be able to sort through them quickly, but anyone else who stumbled upon my pet project could too.
I am sorry but the owner is publishing "personally worked up" loads on the website without any disclosures and really needs to put up some disclaimers like, "These are my own personal pet loads ... tested in blah blah pistols with blah blah length barrels ... use them at your own risk ... especially if using mixed range brass with unknown reload history ... blah blah"
I understand your concerns BUT the problem is: What if you're dealing with a cartridge where the data is so skewed toward the anemic, it has limited use ... because it's "old" and old guns chambered for the round are weak? Case in point, the 32 H&R Magnum. This makes a wonderful snubby round but you need to push it beyond what an old H&R wheelgun was designed to handle. You want to use it in a 327 Magnum Ruger LCR. You've contacted Starline and they tell their brass is capable of much higher pressure loads. You'd like to have a site where others' experience with the round can be found and what has been their results with different loads they've tried. You don't want to go down a dead end.
Last edited:
