Is Hornady's Load Data Unusually Conservative?

[DMW1116]

I'm looking for a load for 308 using a 168 gr A-max and CFE 223 powder. The data from my Lee die instructions starts about a half grain below the max charge in Hornady's data and matches the data on Hodgdens site. My Lyman manual doesn't have data for 168 gr match bullets with CFE 223. Am I missing something with one set of data or another?

 

[Bacon buster]

Usually when I see differences like that I’ll source all the data I can and start low. Or in some cases I’ll just start in the middle of the whatever data is lowest. Best safe than sorry and even just a few shots you know are safe can confirm where your at and allow you to work up. If I remember correctly Hornsby data was lower than the other books I have on a couple loads I was working on.

 

[Kaldor]

Yes, Hornadys data is lawyered heavily. Look at the powder manufacturers data first. Take the manufacturers data and start about 1/3 of the way up the load chart. You will generally find a sweet spot before you hit the max load. Example for 1/3 up: Load ranges from 45-48 grains. I will start at 46.

The reason I start at 1/3 up? There are usually 2-3 nodes for a rifle, and unless you specifically want a low velocity load, why waste your time look at them?

Also dont worry about if you have an exact bullets match in the manual. A 168 Hornady isnt THAT different from a 168 Sierra that it requires an entirely new load chart to be done for it. The only exception to this when you start getting to copper solids like Barnes which are considerably longer and thus drive up chamber pressure. Here is an excellent example as long as the link works right: Link didnt work

Edit: You can see it here: https://shop.hodgdon.com/reloading-data-center?rdc=true&type=54
Just pick 308, CFE 223 and a 168 bullet

 

[gifbohane]

Is Hornady's Load Data Unusually Conservative?

Answer- Yes it is.

 

[Walkalong]

I never take for granted that tested data is "watered down", I always take it at face value.

 

[DMW1116]

I have the 50th edition of the Lyman manual, and for whatever reason it is entirely devoid of load data for CFE Pistol and there isn't a lot if info for CFE 223 either. In 308 there is some data for 150 and 155 grain bullets. As they go up in weight, the CFE 223 data drops away.

I have found good loads at about 1/3 to 40% up from the minimum charge for my 308 and 223. I'm also working on a 55 grain load for 223 and found similar data differences from Hornady to Hodgden. Hodgdens max load is 25.3 if H335. Hornadys data tops out at 23.2. It just seems the max for Hornady is about 15% above the minimum for other sources.

 

[Skeptic13]

I don't use Hornady load data because it is always extremely conservative. I tend to use the powder manufacturers data above others.

 

[Bfh_auto]

I'm looking for a load for 308 using a 168 gr A-max and CFE 223 powder. The data from my Lee die instructions starts about a half grain below the max charge in Hornady's data and matches the data on Hodgdens site. My Lyman manual doesn't have data for 168 gr match bullets with CFE 223. Am I missing something with one set of data or another?

Please start with Hornady data with cfe223.
Hogdon data was extremely over pressure in my 22-250 and 308.
On my 22-250 I went from no pressure signs to blowing primers just over Hogdon start load.
On both my accuracy load was Hornady's max charge.

 

[sfl_gunner]

Yes it’s super conservative. In fact I used it for some 90 grain 9mm loads and the mid-range data for those didn’t cycle the slide reliably.

 

[CoalCrackerAl]

One thing i like about the Hornady book. Is it gives approx FPS for loads from start to end.

 

[AJC1]

They present hornaday data with no relation to pressure so you really dont know where your at. My first was a lyman manual, and knowing pressure of the test load let me extrapolate more information. Hornaday give you no idea where you really are.

 

[Jeremy2171]

Yes..their garand data is absolute rubbish my accuracy load is way above their max load.

With their data you can't even duplicate milsurp loads.

 

[BBarn]

I believe Hornady states their data is developed using SAAMI maximum pressure standards. But since they often list the same loads and velocities for bullets of the same weight (but different bearing surface or construction), some of the loads may not develop maximum pressure (and velocity). Another possible difference is that Hornady usually publishes the velocities measured from representative firearms, as opposed to the test barrel velocities that some other data sources utilize.

 

[DMW1116]

That is true. Their 30-30 loads are published from a 20" barreled Winchester 92 instead of the 24"universal reciever used for most Lyman loads.

For safety's sake I'll shift my increments down and stop before reaching the max charge.

 

[Ironicaintit]

When I’m finding a place to start, I grab data from all my books, throw out the high and low, average the rest and build a ladder from there.

usually (but not always) it’s the hornady data that gets culled at the low end (and Speer #10 culled at the high end typically)

 

[derek45]

I like the SIERRA book a lot better

 

[FROGO207]

Usually the Hornady can be a bit uh conservative at best but they use different test data so it is probably valid for them. I often find good loads from others that use higher loads all things being equal. Once you reload for a good while you get a sense of what will work without being dangerous IMO.

 

[jmorris]

I have no idea, if they take data collected and subsequently reduce it by some percentage or not.

There are various ways to collect the data as well as environmental conditions that could explain variations from source to source, even if they all just reported the data as collected.

Not unlike say and engine and fuel being shipped across the country to different dynamometers, even if they were all the exact same model, the results wouldn’t be identical much less with the various methods used to quantify torque from the various business that manufacturer the test beds.

 

[e rex]

I've found their handgun data was on the lite side for what I shoot.

 

[DMW1116]

I don't think they arbitrarily reduce the numbers, but they are consistently lower than the other sources.

 

[Blue68f100]

It depends on what your shooting. I've blown primers on loads that are in the lower 20%. Then there are loads where I'm 5% over before pressure signs show up. You just don't know till you fire a couple and compare the velocity to what they reported. I've had some loads that were 200 fps lower at their max.

 

[DMW1116]

I tested some 223 hand loads today out of a 20” barrel. The starting load was above Hornady’s max load, but the best load was about half a grain below Hodgdon’s max load on the jar of H335.

 

[gifbohane]

I tested some 223 hand loads today out of a 20” barrel. The starting load was above Hornady’s max load, but the best load was about half a grain below Hodgdon’s max load on the jar of H335.

I would wager that you needed darn close to 25 grains.

 

[DMW1116]

Why yes, yes I did. 24.7 grains of H335 under a 55 grain Hornady FMJ rewarded me with possibly the best iron sighted group I’ve ever shot at 100 yards. Hornadys data stops below 24.0.

 

[Klaatu Barada Nikto]

I have Hornadys 9th Ed book.
I personally have found their low end load data to be very weak.
Did a recommended 200g 45 Auto load of Win 231 at a suggested 4.6gr. and COAL right where the guide suggested.
5" barrel on a Springfield Tactical.
The brass stove piped, I could feel it was weak and the Chrono indicated 647FPS.
According to Hornady that should have been good for 750.
Wound up at 5.2gr Can't remember the COAL, maybe 1.221 for 810FPS.
But... I'm all for starting low and working up, much less "excitement."