P Flados
Member
GeoDude, you made a good point to check out the powder vendor info.
However the results shown puzzled me. Even though I consider H110 a less than optimal choice for most application (too finicky for my liking) it is widely used based on the availability of Hodgdon loads for just about all applications.
Just for kicks, I went in and tried the 275 gr and 325 gr bullets and found them both to have H110 loads. Also interesting is that both of these bullets have almost identical charge recommendations.
At first glance this just looks weird. Then I looked at the AOL. The heavier bullet is seated way out. This brings us back to the same critical piece of info that so many people choose to ignore. Seating depth is a key element of load performance.
Bottom line, if you are substituting a different brand bullet with H110, do not expect the load data to keep you safe unless you figure out how to keep the seating depth the same. For using the Hornady data it might be helpful to know that Quickload lists the length of that bullet as 0.946".
However the results shown puzzled me. Even though I consider H110 a less than optimal choice for most application (too finicky for my liking) it is widely used based on the availability of Hodgdon loads for just about all applications.
Just for kicks, I went in and tried the 275 gr and 325 gr bullets and found them both to have H110 loads. Also interesting is that both of these bullets have almost identical charge recommendations.
At first glance this just looks weird. Then I looked at the AOL. The heavier bullet is seated way out. This brings us back to the same critical piece of info that so many people choose to ignore. Seating depth is a key element of load performance.
Bottom line, if you are substituting a different brand bullet with H110, do not expect the load data to keep you safe unless you figure out how to keep the seating depth the same. For using the Hornady data it might be helpful to know that Quickload lists the length of that bullet as 0.946".
Last edited: