Why are suggested loads in Hornady reloading book wimpier than factory loads.

For years ammo companies have been putting in two or sometimes three different powers in to give different burning characteristics as the load progressed. Now I hear that rather than doing 2 powders, a size 10 granual one near the primer and a size 5 granual one near the the bullet, they load it with a continuum powder, putting size 10 at the primer, then 9.5, then 9 then 8.5, then 8 etc. You just can't replicate that kind of technology in your garage

Click to expand...

If it gets posted enough, someone is sure to try. (I'm pretty sure someone already has. Whether they surivived to report the results is the question.)

You should be reloading ammo to achieve the best accuracy, not velocity. You aren't shooting in a horse shoe match here.....chris3

JRH6856 said:

For years ammo companies have been putting in two or sometimes three different powers in to give different burning characteristics as the load progressed. Now I hear that rather than doing 2 powders, a size 10 granual one near the primer and a size 5 granual one near the the bullet, they load it with a continuum powder, putting size 10 at the primer, then 9.5, then 9 then 8.5, then 8 etc. You just can't replicate that kind of technology in your garage

Click to expand...

If it gets posted enough, someone is sure to try. (I'm pretty sure someone already has. Whether they surivived to report the results is the question.)

Click to expand...

Never heard about different size granules, but 'duplex' loads (two different powders layered in a case) used to be included in old Ideal manuals...Attributed to Paul Maxfield...

Hard for me to believe that powder companies would layer powder in commercial ammo that is shipped around the world in trucks and ships. Would think that unless heavily compressed, the vibration from such would just mix it. Add to the fact that they have no control over to how long it would bounce around in the glove-box or pockets of the end user. A proprietary blend would seem more probable or loading to exact tolerances where there is complete control.

Hard for me to believe that powder companies would layer powder in commercial ammo that is shipped around the world in trucks and ships. Would think that unless heavily compressed, the vibration from such would just mix it. Add to the fact that they have no control over to how long it would bounce around in the glove-box or pockets of the end user. A proprietary blend would seem more probable or loading to exact tolerances where there is complete control.

Click to expand...

Winchester 630 Ball was one of my favorite powders, but it was discontinued as a canister powder long ago supposedly for reasons similar to this. It has two different granule sizes which tended to separate in transport requiring the handloader to roll the canister to redistribute the mix evenly. Otherwise some loads would be mostly small granule and others large granules with sometimes dramatically differing results. It is still used in commercial loading because once in the case, the distribution makes no difference as long as the ratio is correct.

Those duplex loads used to be used by folks like some Creedmoor shooters. Usually a faster powder near the case web, slower powders toward the top, and yes, they were all compressed loads. Some of them also used to put an extra primer on top of the load before seating the bullet when using real slow powders.

A lot of weird "recipes" resulted.

For myself, I used 4198 or 4350, forget the weights, but both loads resulted in a slightly compressed charge in .30-06 with a Sierra 168 gr BTHP when I was shooting in long-range matches*. Settled on 4350 just because it seemed more available at the time. Just a recommended load from the other, older shooters --no attempt to squeak every extra inch per second out of the load.

The trouble with "developing" hot-shot "recipes" like those, was in testing any particular recipe out. The variations could be endless. Seemed to me by the time a decent load was developed, barrel wear might start to take its toll and you'd have to start all over again.

The Creedmoor range grounds, by the way, have now become a State Mental Hospital. (I used to work there in the old buildings.) And it's Creedmoor, not Creedmore, just FYI.

Also, as I mentioned before, "Velocity sells, but accuracy tells."

Terry

* Not at Creedmoor, of course, but after I moved out to Colorado. I only got interested in the history of the Creedmoor matches after I got out here and found out about them. When I worked there, back in NYC, I wasn't even aware that the site had been a rifle range.

ball3006 said:

You should be reloading ammo to achieve the best accuracy, not velocity. You aren't shooting in a horse shoe match here.....chris3

Click to expand...

The thinking that you can't have both accuracy and velocity is a falacy. I have never owned a rifle that didn't shoot accurately near the max charge.

^^^ I never said you can't have accuracy and velocity. I stated you should hand load for the "best" accuracy. My 243 is more accurate toward the upper end of the loading chart. Some others are not.....chris3

Sometime, if you want to go completely nuts, take apart a dozen or so supposedly identical factory loads and weigh the charges. If it turns out for you, like it did for me, you'll find a good bit of variation. I presume that its because the powder mix changes, but still to find any variation at all really surprised me. I would really like to try running a dozen or so rounds from that same box through a chrono. I bet the speeds would vary as much as the charges did.

The factory has lots of data on burn rates. Using those rates, I suspect that the factory just calculates what a specific charge should produce under ideal conditions. Those calculations lead to a prediction of speed. I really doubt the claims are based on actual chrono results.

Anybody out there know for sure?

The factory has lots of data on burn rates. Using those rates, I suspect that the factory just calculates what a specific charge should produce under ideal conditions. Those calculations lead to a prediction of speed. I really doubt the claims are based on actual chrono results.

Anybody out there know for sure?

Click to expand...

I know that if you have an accurate powder profile, you can do the same thing with QuickLOAD. I read somewhere (I don't remember who many places or which manuals) that powders are profiled and loaded to produce consistent results from lot to lot so that the customer can depend on the performance from each box. I suspect that a chrono is involved in the profiling process. And each manufacturer probably has a different procedure.

^

In other words, what does velocity tell me about pressure?... and is velocity a fool proof way to indicate pressure?

Click to expand...

Not really. You can load a low-velocity load with a fast burning powder and wreck the gun. Just think of loading 20gr of Bullseye in a .308 case. You won't get much velocity, maybe around 1500 f/s (just guessing), but the pressure will be enormous, probably blowing the primer, if not separating the case and possibly cracking locking lugs. An extreme example, of course.

Just remember that pressure goes up exponentially with loading density, but velocity does not. There are too many variables including burning rates of different powders at different pressures, quality of barrels, etc.

While the only proper way to measure pressure is with a pressure barrel, there are some field indicators for you and me to tell when pressures are getting higher, including degree of flattening of the primer, piercing of the primer, and, back home, measurements of case head expansion, bright shiny rings around the base of the fired cartridge, stretching of the case, etc.

And all these things are subject to component variations, like hardness of the primer metal, case volume, whether the bullet can get pushed back into the case on feeding in certain guns, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Mere velocity won't cut it hardly ay-tall.

While modern rifles are pretty strong (the M1 Garand will take 125,000 "pound" blue pill test loads), there's no sense possibly making every round a proof load for the sake of a couple hundred f/s.

Stick to published loads with published components*, and remember that some loading data is less aggressive for reasons which have been arrived at not only by lawyers, but also by experienced ballisticians with expensive actual honest-to-G-d pressure measuring equipment and instruments.

And probably degrees in physics.

Terry, 230RN

*Sometimes this is impossible because of component availability... which is another reason for "conservative" loading data published by the Big Boys like Hornady.

It's all about the bore

Not sure about now, but Hornady used to use 'real' guns for their data...

Some of the Hornaday manuals use rifles like we buy on the street while nosler manuals use Lilja and Wiseman barrels. If you have a bore with more imperfections it can translate to greater pressure. If you have a .264 barrel that measures .2645 it will create less pressure than a barrel that measures
.2639 and so forth.

I also think the lawyers are on the job. The Nosler data is pretty good but I have rifles that go beyond there data.

Good luck and shoot straight.

Bob

A chrony will not tell you anything about pressure. What it will tell you besides the velocity of the round, is at what point adding more powder does not increase velocity anymore and may actually decrease it. For the majority of us, this should still be within the realms of published loads. For a few wishing to push the envelope, it tells them they really do not need to push it any farther. Handloaders went many years producing safe and accurate ammo using nuttin' but published and tested load recipes. The majority of us still can. I have a Chrono, but other than finding how fast my accurate loads are going, it gets used very little. I've found those loads that are inconsistent in accuracy are also inconsistent in velocity, but the inconsistency in accuracy, was always enough already to make me change something.

My hand are old & tired so I use a lot of wimpy load for myself----not so much for the kids & grandkids.
About 30 years & longer--most load books were a lot hotter than today----funny thing--I used those loads for years & had no problems with guns blowing up or cases & primers squashed.
Some of todays loads worry me that the bullet will get stuck in the barrel.
Many of Hornadys loads are way too low.

I tend to go with powder manufacturers load data over the bullet makers. The powder companies know how their product is formulated. As for old manuals, powder formulations have chaged for some powders. Hodgden, Winchester IMR, Alliant and Hercules used to be completely separate companies. Then Alliant bought Hercules and the load data changed. IMR used to be made by DuPont, now it is made by Hodgden, and Hodgden makes Winchester powders as well. After this rearrangement, a lot of data changed but not everyone changed their data. Old manuals show different data for W296 and H110. In modern manuals from Hodgdon the data is identical (they are now the same powder) but other sources may still show different data for these now identical powders. Same with P38 and W231.

One word: LITIGATION. I have a copy of the Speer #8. Compare it to the Speer #10. Same deal. If you are the publisher of a reloading manual, then "maximum load" is whatever you define it to be, SAAMI maximums notwithstanding.

I'm probably in the minority in wanting conservative loading data. Yes, I do find that the bullet companies (Hornady in particular) are very conservative with max loads. I tend to error on the lighter side as I'm more interested in case life than that extra 50 to 100 fps for a given caliber. I do find that in 308 Winchester for instance if I stay about 7% below maximum my case life increases a good 60% - rough estimates by the way. That brass gets expensive if only used 4 or 5 times.

From my experience, outta my guns, while some Powder Companies load data(Hodgdon) may give me more velocity, that the loads given in the "wimpier" bullet manufacturer books are just as accurate. I have yet, in any of my handguns at least, had to go outside those "wimpy" loads to find the most accurate load for any particular gun. While Hodgdon's loads may be hotter and give me more velocity, those upper end loads are not the most accurate. This makes me tend to think Powder companies direct their loads to achieve the highest velocity, thus to sell their powder. Bullet manufacturers tend to publish the loads giving the best accuracy when using their bullets...thus selling more bullets.

Buck460, I concur. I use the powder data as a guide for max loads and the bullet data as a guideline for accuracy. I usually find my best accuracy around 10-12% below the max load which, coincidentally is usually within the bullet data range.

Unfortunately, my exposure to the inside of ammo plants came before I started reloading, so all the best questions I could have asked....

But I did learn a lot. I do know one that does some powder blending, but that was to maintain consistency from one lot of ammo to the next. So I really don't think they were using drastically different powders. More like this lot runs a little slow, so mix it with one that runs a bit fast. And they use standard test rigs to measure pressure and velocity and lot consistency.

The new premium ammo might have a bit more going on with the powder, but I have a buddy (chemical Engineer) who has done work in pharmaceuticals for many years who stated that thoroughly and consistently mixing different types of dry powders is notoriously difficult. There are ways to do it, but it's expensive. His point had to do with never cut meds into smaller bits. You break a Motrin in half (for example), and it's possible most or all the medication is in one half and almost none in the other. So I wouldn't make broad assumptions without definitive knowledge.

GaryL said:

. His point had to do with never cut meds into smaller bits. You break a Motrin in half (for example), and it's possible most or all the medication is in one half and almost none in the other.

Click to expand...

If there is not enough consistency thru the whole tablet so that there is not a equal amount in each half, would mean that individual tablets would be just as prone to having such great differences. They do not mix one Motrin tablet at a time, they mix them in large lots and make individual tablets from this, thus the mix must be consistent. The thing with cutting medications in halves is that most of the time it's hard to cut/break them exactly in half, thus the dosage in each piece is different. If smokeless propellant was a solid instead of a powder, it certainly could be safely loaded with one powder ahead/behind the other as they would not mix during manufacture and shipment prior to being shot.

hey do not mix one Motrin tablet at a time, they mix them in large lots and make individual tablets from this, thus the mix must be consistent.

Click to expand...

That may be true of Motrin, I don't know. But I know there are a lot of meds in which the volume of the dose is so small that it must be mixed with fillers to make a tablet large enough to handle. To insure the correct dose in each tablet, these have the dosage inserted into the filler just before the tablet is pressed. And there are others that have almost no filler at all that can be bulk mixed as you describe.

JRH6856 said:

That may be true of Motrin, I don't know. But I know there are a lot of meds in which the volume of the dose is so small that it must be mixed with fillers to make a tablet large enough to handle. To insure the correct dose in each tablet, these have the dosage inserted into the filler just before the tablet is pressed. And there are others that have almost no filler at all that can be bulk mixed as you describe.

Click to expand...

Yup - that's what my buddy said. Motrin probably isn't a good example, it was just meant to be an example.

In some cases, most of the tablet is buffers and other things to control the PH and/or concentration of the drug in the stomach.