Data requests

Status
Not open for further replies.
Charlie98 said:
See...? This is where ambiguity rears it's ugly head.

CQB says 'RN plated bullet,' not being brand specific. MCB posts data... the wrong data. The Speer CPRN bullet, specifically, has significantly different data than the Speer TMJ RN bullet... as posted in Alliant's online data. They are both 'plated' bullets? Yes? But what data set is valid for CQB's 'plated' bullet?
Click to expand...

I guess this is were my experience pays off some. Speer CPRN is a Copper Plated Round Nose bullet according to Speer. I would use Alliant's data for the Speer CPRN with a Berry's copper plated bullet of the same shape and weight or for that matter any other brand of plated RN 230 gr 45 cal bullet without much concern. Bullseye tolerates down loading just fine and a lot of experience with using Bullseye would have you fairly comfortable downloading below published max. Some powder don't like down loading Bullseye is not one of those. I have put thousands of rounds of both copper plate and polymer coated 230gr RN 45 ACP down range pushed by only 4.2 gr of Bullseye. Makes Major power factor nicely in my 625.
 
Implicitly trusting information published on the internet is perfectly normal.

Listen to the audiobook “Audacity of Hope” sometime. You'll decide written books are antiquated and digital media is the future.

Books are obsolete before they go to print. The Internet is updated constantly.
It's always fresh.

And at least four people on this thread agree with these statements.
 
Last edited:
CQB45ACP said:
BTW, just find me some published data:)
Click to expand...

From Lyman's 50th edition:

IMG_5070.JPG

I would have no problem shooting those 4.9gr loads in a modern firearm in good working condition.

But this also shows how sometimes someone that's been reloading for awhile has a problem finding data. I know it happens to me from time to time.

chris
 
Before the internet, I bought every loading manual, and replaced them each time a new version came out. Yeah, it cost a bit, but if I spent more than $100 per year on the project I'd be surprised. I rarely buy manuals any more, as the major manufacturers appear to be putting most if not all of their data online. I see no reason to distrust it more than the stuff they put in their books.

And yeah, random "Pet loads" from some guy on the internet are a lousy plan - though if you can find the same load praised by hundreds of random guys on the internet, along with an article by Brian Pearce, then it might be worth checking out even if Hodgdon has nothing to say about it.

As for the guy who pops in to say "Hey guys, what's a good load for my .30-'06?" well, I guess it doesn't bother me, though it does make me scratch my head - and "Dude, buy a loading manual" is perfect advice, for anyone who can work up the effort to post it.
 
ballman6711 said:
From Lyman's 50th edition:

View attachment 1107254

I would have no problem shooting those 4.9gr loads in a modern firearm in good working condition.

But this also shows how sometimes someone that's been reloading for awhile has a problem finding data. I know it happens to me from time to time.

chris
Click to expand...
Hey thanks & that’s amazingly low load but maximum COL. I think I loaded at 1.260”

Now I have a simple decision…which pistol to use.

I have looked at all major sources but one (Lyman). Picked the wrong one
 
CQB45ACP said:
Hey thanks & that’s amazingly low load but maximum COL. I think I loaded at 1.260”

Now I have a simple decision…which pistol to use.

I have looked at all major sources but one (Lyman). Picked the wrong one
Click to expand...

Even though your COL is shorter your still 0.4gr under the max. Which gun to use will be the hard part. Maybe shoot a few in each and see if one is more accurate or feels better. First world problems.;)

chris
 
ballman6711 said:
From Lyman's 50th edition:

View attachment 1107254

I would have no problem shooting those 4.9gr loads in a modern firearm in good working condition.

But this also shows how sometimes someone that's been reloading for awhile has a problem finding data. I know it happens to me from time to time.

chris
Click to expand...
data looks off! check if it’s a counterfeit Lymen. never know if that’s real data or not
 
Mark_Mark said:
was a joke about not trusting the internet
Click to expand...
There are no such things as scam websites that pretend to be legitimate sellers and steal people’s money? No truth at all in the claim? Everyone who posts a reloading recipe, anywhere on “the internet” is a legitimate hand loader with years of expertise just trying to be helpful. And you’re sure of that? Make fun and joke around just like the idiots on Reddit - or are you also one of those Redditers when not posting here? - and ignore the fact that digital data can be edited without a fingerprint, websites can be redirected, DNS caches can be poisoned. Make a big joke of it. Go ahead. Real funny stuff, ain’t it?
 
GeoDudeFlorida said:
Implicitly trusting information published on the internet is giving your life and faith to The Ministry of Truth.

Read “1984” sometime. THEN decide if you want to trust the Winston Smith’s of the future ... or is it the present?

Books can’t be retroedited. The Internet is retroedited constantly. RETCON’ing web content is the modern version of gas-lighting.
Click to expand...

As late as Speer 14, Blue Dot is listed as a useable propellant for .41 Rem. Mag. Now there is a warning from the manufacturer of that powder not to use it in that caliber. Someone on a budget purchasing a used manual might be in a bit of trouble. There are ups and downs to un-revisable.

https://www.alliantpowder.com/getti... be used in the,cartridge (all bullet weights).
 
I like books. I have some reeeally old books with data for cartridges and powders that don't even exist anymore, and I have new-ish books, and a bunch that fall in between. Read them all, including the archives here at THR, before I ever pulled the handle on the gear I inherited.

my problem with some of the questions asked here about load data (not all) is that the context of the question often shows that the author has done little to no research into the cartridge.

There are no stupid questions, but there are inquisitive idiots
 
I don't post load data on any forum, and I pay little attention to any I see. Not because I won't enable a cheapskate or one who can't afford a manual but I have seen some really wild advise and some even dangerous loads on a forum. I also pay very little attention to gun counter clerks, good intended friends, range rats, or gun shop gurus, regarding load data. It used to be very common on reloading forums to answer load requests with "What does your manual say?", but today forums seem to be "kinder" and hold a new reloaders hand and guide him through the process.

For over 40 years I have gotten 99% of my load data from published manuals with a few from online powder/bullet manufacturer's websites. I have never run out of options or loads and never had a Kaboom and in 1970 I had one squib.
 
GeoDudeFlorida said:
There are no such things as scam websites that pretend to be legitimate sellers and steal people’s money? No truth at all in the claim? Everyone who posts a reloading recipe, anywhere on “the internet” is a legitimate hand loader with years of expertise just trying to be helpful. And you’re sure of that? Make fun and joke around just like the idiots on Reddit - or are you also one of those Redditers when not posting here? - and ignore the fact that digital data can be edited without a fingerprint, websites can be redirected, DNS caches can be poisoned. Make a big joke of it. Go ahead. Real funny stuff, ain’t it?
Click to expand...
I don’t even trust internet cooking recipes.

Remember in the mid-90s the newly minted information security acronym—CIA—confidentiality, integrity, and availability? As the government moved to an IT world we had a heck of a time teaching Federal employees that security was more than just protecting secrecy. We now had to protect from manipulation and make sure information and systems were available when we needed them to be.

It’s so much more important now because bad guys don’t even have to be that smart to really screw us over.
 
Last edited:
ballman6711 said:
Even though your COL is shorter your still 0.4gr under the max. Which gun to use will be the hard part. Maybe shoot a few in each and see if one is more accurate or feels better. First world problems.;)

chris
Click to expand...
That’s what I’ll do, shoot ‘em in all my guns and load some more.

BTW, many folks fought and died to get and keep us a first world country and I’ve busted my tail and saved my money so I could have first world problems.
 
CQB45ACP said:
I don’t even trust internet cooking recipes.

Remember in the mid-90s the newly minted information security acronym—CIA—confidentiality, integrity, and availability? As the government moved to an IT world we had a heck of a time teaching Federal employees that security was more than just protecting secrecy. We now had to protect from manipulation and make sure information and systems were available when we needed them to be.

It’s so much more important now because bad guys don’t even have to be that smart to really screw us over.
Click to expand...
Amen to that! CIA is the rule I work by. When you write code that gets exposed to the world it gets real serious, real quick.
I don’t begrudge newbies good info. I just don’t think I’m the best source for that info. I don’t think any bunch of anonymous, nameless, faceless, strangers are a good source of information about things that go boom. But that’s just me. YMMV.
 
CQB45ACP said:
Just a conversation betwixt bros.

BTW, just find me some published data:)

it’s just - .1 difference how bad could it be? I’ll likely use it sometime but won’t tell you after all this:)
Click to expand...
that Why I like Lee’s manual, gives you a rough safe idea were to start! as a reloader, you gotta test with a chrono and know what danger looks like
 
Data is a single non contextual point of interest.
What we’re really discussing is information.
But whatever. English and such. These days words mean whatever the speaker/writer wants.
Data. Recipe. Formula. Whatevs.
 
Books are information, not evidence. Darwin's book is not evidence of evolution, that's in the Earth, found by archeologists digging into it, displayed at museums the world over. Beethoven's scores aren't music, that's in concert halls, performed by talented, trained musicians. Should one travel to those places, enlightenment and beauty will be the reward.

Johnathan Swift doesn't tell us just where to look for the island inhabited by miniature humans. Stan Lee is tight lipped as to Peter Parker's address, thwarting our discovering the truth.

Each time we assemble a round of ammunition we conduct an experiment. If we do everything correctly, we either prove or disprove.

Some books, like Gulliver's Travels, Spiderman, and others, do not allow for experiment or say where to travel so that we might see the evidence for ourselves. The reason we can trust published data is based in evidence.

If the cookie recipe calls for butter and eggs and not for ground glass and rodent droppings, it may be worth a bake. Faith is a waste, trust reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Novice reloaders intro and questions
Replies
12
Views
693
shangobango
S
Ironicaintit
  • Locked
4227 in 30 carbine data
Replies
15
Views
4K
maxxhavoc
maxxhavoc
BigBlue 94
  • Locked
Black Powder Cartridge Loading
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
Savvy Jack
Savvy Jack
K
  • Locked
Reloading 25acp
Replies
10
Views
4K
katastrof0
K
P
  • Locked
Anyone ever hear of these? Accutec bullets?
Replies
3
Views
631
KansasSasquatch
K
Back
Top