Load Data

Status
Not open for further replies.
Atavar

Atavar

Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2021
Messages
1,118
Location
Bemidji, Mn
I don’t understand why people come to an Internet forum first when looking for load data.
ALL of the powder manufacturers have load data available. The bullet makers suggest COAL for their bullets.
Granted there are some specific bullets not listed in the powder mfr data, but almost always there is one of similar construction and weight.
Trusting load data from some random net geek you have not vetted personally is reckless and foolhardy. Asking another random net geek is not a good way to vet someone.
If you do not understand the mfr data this may be a good place to get someone to explain it to you but I wouldn’t go much past that.
Stay safe guys.
 
I agree, folks should research reputable load data themselves. Much of it is available on the internet so it is easy to get. But printed manuals have treasures of other reloading information in them.

But getting suggestions on powder/bullet combinations from others is useful information. It can help some to establish a component that is easy and good to use or one that is finiky.

The one requesting the information should then do his own research on loadings.
 
It is very helpful, particularly in these times of limited supplies, to get an idea of what is common. When I began reloading (30-06) a few years ago it was really helpful to get some idea where to start.

Read several times of 57 grains I or H 4350. I checked my manual, backed off a bit and quickly found the 57 worked well.

Saved me alot of time and money having to work up several powders and weights. Couldn't imagine trying now with the scarcity of primers.
 
Last edited:
I like seeing other people's load data. It tells me what my accuracy load might be. I remember the days loading at least 5 round for each test load to find my accuracy load. That was a lot components and shooting time ( I still do this with handgun test loads). Then, I discovered the ladder test and the chronograph. And last, there is the OCR method which to me seems like a hybrid between my first way of finding an accuracy load and the ladder test. I don't take anyone's load data as gospel but compare it to a published load table. If someone's accuracy load is above the chart, I might work up to and past the load tables. If the casing or primer doesn't show too much pressure and my shoulder is fine, I might go past the load table. However, I haven't. I personally am comfortable and have found an accurate load within the load chart. Quite often, I conduct test loads from a middle of a loading table to the maximum and taken a note of someone else's. Sometimes it is different. But independently conducting a ladder test for my 7RM and 7.7 Arisaka using the same powder and components as published in Ken Waters' book, Petloads, and my best load was the same as his! I'm now casting lee 9-122gr TC bullets and the Ken Waters' book claims that Red Dot will group the best. I've tried BE and AA2 with fair success and now have test loads using Red Dot to see if this will be the ideal load for me.
 
Atavar said:
I don’t understand why people come to an Internet forum first when looking for load data.
ALL of the powder manufacturers have load data available. The bullet makers suggest COAL for their bullets.
Granted there are some specific bullets not listed in the powder mfr data, but almost always there is one of similar construction and weight.
Trusting load data from some random net geek you have not vetted personally is reckless and foolhardy. Asking another random net geek is not a good way to vet someone.
If you do not understand the mfr data this may be a good place to get someone to explain it to you but I wouldn’t go much past that.
Stay safe guys.
Click to expand...

Can you point us to some manufacturer handgun data using Alliant 20/28? Nope, because there isn't any. But I use it extensively as an alternative to Unique in the 7.62x25, .38 Special, .44 Special and 45 ACP.
Alternatives to "Standard" Pistol Powders

How about some manufacturer data for cast bullet loads with Red Dot or Accurate #7? Again, there isn't any such data from the manufacturer of these powders, but they just so happen to both be great for cast bullet loads in .30 caliber cartridges.

So there are a couple of examples for you.

35W
 
There is BAD info provided on the interweb as well.

If I see ONE MORE POST with "need load for 223 with _____ bullet".........................ARGH!!!
 
35 Whelen said:
Can you point us to some manufacturer handgun data using Alliant 20/28? Nope, because there isn't any. But I use it extensively as an alternative to Unique in the 7.62x25, .38 Special, .44 Special and 45 ACP.
Alternatives to "Standard" Pistol Powders

How about some manufacturer data for cast bullet loads with Red Dot or Accurate #7? Again, there isn't any such data from the manufacturer of these powders, but they just so happen to both be great for cast bullet loads in .30 caliber cartridges.

So there are a couple of examples for you.

35W
Click to expand...
It’s out there.
2870EA34-84BC-4F86-AE5C-E1F5175B8959.png
 
I too like seeing other people’s load data. It has in the past given me something to work towards.
I would not use random load data as a starting point, or even a reduce by 10% point.
 
35 Whelen said:
Can you point us to some manufacturer handgun data using Alliant 20/28? Nope, because there isn't any. But I use it extensively as an alternative to Unique in the 7.62x25, .38 Special, .44 Special and 45 ACP.
Click to expand...

I agree, it would be nice that Alliant or some one would develop load data for handguns with 20/28.

I’ve worked up a load for 45 Colt with 20/28 based on information from a number of folks that I respect their reloading knowledge and experience. But, this type of experimentation is not recommended for a novice reloader.

As an aside, I’ve loaded a boat load of 20 and 28 gauge shot shells with Unique. I recently tried 20/28 in 20 and 28 gauge shot shells and I like the way it performs over Unique.
 
Question. Is this about specific data or general data?

Not long ago I was here looking for general load/component recommendations and immediately got lambasted like some of these already posted responses about no two guns are alike and to go work up a load... I abandoned the conversation. I even directly stated I did not want a specific load as I was looking for a general starting point. A new to me caliber and gun, which I described, and had no clue as to where to start. Which powders worked best, which were a waste of time. Same with bullets. Again as it turned out I purchased two examples of bullets for this that had I been warned I would have saved my time and money and Not bought them. Luckily I was resourceful enough to find a good general powder that got me started in a good direction.

I also do not mind telling others what I am loading and the results I am getting but I also make a point to inform that because this works for me doesn't mean it will work for you.
 
So Atavar is not very trusting, and is also unable to “separate the wheat from the chaff”. Perhaps it is better is he just stuck to a manual…

Meanwhile, I’ll use the conversations of the last ten years with shooters across the globe I have built a relationship with and talk about hand loading ammunition for our firearms, getting peak performance and saving some coin in the process.

Yeah, I might ignore members that have only been here since Oct 1st ‘21, ;), but those that have been “Firearms Friends” for years, and helped me learn handloading properly, those who helped me though problems with big bore handguns and putting together an AP correctly, these humans are not to be trusted when I want to know what they shoot because I bought a new one?:confused:
Yeah, not buying that.

But, honestly, it’s just a straw man. Perhaps for some erroneous sites or reckless humans, but who here takes somebody else’s load for gospel with no other research, and loads their maximum without work up? Not a smart human. So we’re hand wringing about dumb humans. You know there’s going to be some. Having a load that is too much for their firearm written in a book or spoken into their ear is distinction without difference.

A few members here have forgotten more information on a cartridge than is printed in the two paragraphs blurbed into a data manual…
The fun part is finding out who.:D


(And when you get a second, find me a published load for 400grain 50AE.:neener:)
 
Everyone looks at things differently. Myself, I post the loads I use. Everyone has a choice to use or ignore the data I post.

I like to see what others are doing and what they're using with their reloads. I also have the ability to do web searches/web mfg's reloading manuals along with looking the posted data up in several different sources/books/manuals.

I actually appreciate when people post their loads/data/firearm they used. I use this knowledge as a starting point or reference to research a powder/bullet combo. I also like when velocities are recorded and posted along with the firearm used.
 
yea, thats like going to a car forum for car advice.... when you can just buy a manual and use your lifetime of mechanical experience to do it right and easily?
People are often looking for someones best loads, not safe loads. Its easy enough to verify something is safe, but books have starting and max loads. If you want to shoot .500 S/W without the recoil, or silencer friendly 300bo, forums aren't a bad way to ask what people have tried. Not a lot of people have cast bullet recopies for rifles and don't want to invest in something their unsure about.
 
mjsdwash said:
yea, thats like going to a car forum for car advice.... when you can just buy a manual and use your lifetime of mechanical experience to do it right and easily?
People are often looking for someones best loads, not safe loads. Its easy enough to verify something is safe, but books have starting and max loads. If you want to shoot .500 S/W without the recoil, or silencer friendly 300bo, forums aren't a bad way to ask what people have tried. Not a lot of people have cast bullet recopies for rifles and don't want to invest in something their unsure about.
Click to expand...
Cast loads are in different manuals. I shoot almost exclusively cast and found out about the rcbs cast manual only last week. I've had and used the lyman since I started. Where the information you want seem part of the game.
 
As a relative newb.......I probably am guilty of doing what the OP mentions. Why? To cut to the chase.

Example......am loading for one caliber were MAX load listed in Lyman 50th is 39.5 grains powder. START load in Hodgdon is 38.5 grains, going to max of 42. Other data goes beyond that, leading to conflicts and confusion among several published sources of load data. So why not start at the bottom and work your way up? I have done that and still plan to do that. That said, however, last load workup I completed ended up exactly where the Internet said it would. It only took the better part of one full box of 100 bullets to get there. So with limited supply of primers, powder and bullets, getting to the endgame ASAP is a desirable goal. To the extent you can lean on other's experience, it is a big help.

Example 2: Loading for 308 win. I can probably find at least 2 dozen powders or more a guy could use to load 308 Win. Yet, we know some powders are going to work better for some applications than others. Load data doesn't give you that. Experience does. The fact that guys with that level of experience are hanging out and willing to share that type of info is a blessing.

It is also the nature of forums. Newbs find the forum and ask questions. It can get maddening when the same question gets asked twice a week, and every week for all eternity. Same old thread repeated ad nauseam. Seems it is the nature of the beast.
 
Data doesn't tell you anything beyond what a reasonable load is, even something like Nosler's 'best load tested' indication. Their 'best load' may or may not be your 'best load' in any given firearm. There is also the issue of data conflict... someone's top data is another's starting data, and so on. As was mentioned, there are other variables like brass and bullets that may not be listed.

Asking for personal experience is a reasonable thing to do... I've done it, and I've given my experiences and opinions. In reality, my data and experience with my handloads and firearms is just as valid as any data in print, minus the obvious technical components like pressure.

It is often said to take everything you read on the internet with a grain of salt... I say the same about published data. Not that either is not valid, just valid under the exact circumstances the data was developed under. Your mileage may vary, need not be present to win, restrictions apply.
 
I see it as the others that have tried the loads before I have tried it reported their findings. This will be the same as a manual reports theirs but with less precise testing (no pressure data). Your job as a reloader is to filter it all into a usable answer. All loads are a guideline that worked for the original tester in their particular setup. If a large percentage of those responding end up with the same nearly identical reported data, that will be what I would logically work up to when trying to find what I will end up with while burning up less components. One should not ever just grab anothers load and blindly assemble a bunch then go and shoot them. That is how one looses guns, fingers, eyes, or their life. You have to work up your load for safety, no exceptions!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Question on load data..
Replies
8
Views
640
gamestalker
G
Obturation
  • Locked
Questionable load data.
Replies
3
Views
230
Obturation
Obturation
W
  • Locked
Load data ??
Replies
4
Views
652
m1911joe
M
I
  • Locked
Load Data for 5.45x39
Replies
2
Views
1K
ironhead7544
I
ThomasT
  • Locked
327 Federal Load Data
Replies
13
Views
2K
Dudedog
Dudedog
Back
Top