Anemic published loads - a tale of two 7's

[someguy2800]

One funny thing I've noticed is that there is a lot of Hodgdon data that's exactly 2 grains lighter starting and max than some published data in other books for a lot of calibers. It's like they went through all the data and anything that hadn't been retested in the last 10 years they just reduced by 2 grains automatically rather than retesting the data!

 

[someguy2800]

I was just looking at a 357 herrett load using 4227. Speer lists 30.0 grains max, Hodgdon lists 20.2 max. What the heck are you supposed to do with that??? I just went with RL7 instead.

 

[Newtosavage]

Pretty crazy. Why even bother publishing data if they are going to do that?

Freakin' attorneys have ruined this world.

 

[horsey300]

I was just looking at a 357 herrett load using 4227. Speer lists 30.0 grains max, Hodgdon lists 20.2 max. What the heck are you supposed to do with that??? I just went with RL7 instead.

So far the biggest difference in charge weights for everything I load for, can be found in the tiny details, nosler will often group bullet weights together (ie 160&165) and publish testing on the heavier of the two, leaving the lighter one anemic, the seating depths vary greatly from publisher to publisher as well, I would not try nosler Max loads at hodgdon seating depth for example.