Which load to use

[savagelover]

My cast bullets with lube and gas check weigh about 164 grain. Should I use the 158 or the 170 load data. I was kind of leaning toward the 170 but start a grain less and go up from there. Then I thought I would ask you people thanks.

 

[dgod]

When I run into this deli a, I choose the heavier solution, I would rather be off and low as opposed to the potential issue if the higher pressure problem.

‘Good Luck
Dan

 

[Bfh_auto]

Use 170 grain data. Or split the difference.

 

[barnfrog]

If you're starting low and working up, either is probably fine, but if it were me I'd start with the 170 because the powder charge is lower. As dgod said, better to err on the low side, within reason of course. Starting TOO low has its own set of consequences.

 

[FROGO207]

The conventional wisdom is for the same type and construction to use the data for the next heavier bullet. You might be able to go slightly above the max for that bullet but do so with caution. You can always get ahold of the propellant manufacturer and ask them about your bullet and weight. They might have tested it but not bothered to publish the data.

 

[AJC1]

I would not go below minimum on the heavier 170 option. A double reduction isn't more safe... besides your going to work up most likely. I didn't see the powder listed to see if I know the character. If we're discussing 357 with a mag powder even at minimum you'll get a crappy burn.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

You didn't tell us which cartridge you are loading for?

In reality that 164gr bullet is probably a 160gr bullet. When Lyman posts bullet weights it is without the gas check or lube included. It can possible even be down near the 158gr weight. If it were me I would weigh the bullet without the gas check and lube to see what it really weighs. It's probably a 158gr mold which sometimes drops at 160gr depending on the lead alloy. Lyman has data for a 158gr, 160gr and 170gr cast bullet.

Giving us the cartridge will help, I have a feeling it's for the 38/357. The mold company and number will also help.

 

[N555]

Pistols rounds care at least as much about internal volume as they do bullet weight.

 

[RDWalker]

As stated above what cartridge your loading for and what powder are you using are 2 important pieces of info needed to make a safe suggestion

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

You didn't tell us which cartridge you are loading for?

In reality that 164gr bullet is probably a 160gr bullet. When Lyman posts bullet weights it is without the gas check or lube included. It can possible even be down near the 158gr weight. If it were me I would weigh the bullet without the gas check and lube to see what it really weighs. It's probably a 158gr mold which sometimes drops at 160gr depending on the lead alloy. Lyman has data for a 158gr, 160gr and 170gr cast bullet.

Giving us the cartridge will help, I have a feeling it's for the 38/357. The mold company and number will also help.

And I have feeling it’s for a .357Mag Henry lever action rifle.
If that’s the case then it matters less which weight bullets data you use and more that you use rifle data or at least a slow powder data set for a long barrel and a bullet made with a nearly identical alloy. It’s okay to use LRN data for either weight if your bullet is a LRN. The caveat being they’re both made of similar alloy. It’s not going to be very useful to use short-barrel revolver LSWC swaged antimonial lead data for a WW LRN even if both bullets are the same weight.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

If you're starting low and working up, either is probably fine, but if it were me I'd start with the 170 because the powder charge is lower. As dgod said, better to err on the low side, within reason of course. Starting TOO low has its own set of consequences.

When deflagration becomes detonation, defenestration may result.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

And I have feeling it’s for a .357Mag Henry lever action rifle.
If that’s the case then it matters less which weight bullets data you use and more that you use rifle data or at least a slow powder data set for a long barrel and a bullet made with a nearly identical alloy. It’s okay to use LRN data for either weight if your bullet is a LRN. The caveat being they’re both made of similar alloy. It’s not going to be very useful to use short-barrel revolver LSWC swaged antimonial lead data for a WW LRN even if both bullets are the same weight.

I'm not sure if you know but the charge weights are exactly the same for the handgun and rifle data. The only difference is the velocity they report because of the longer/shorter barrel.

Sorry if I misread tour post.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

I'm not sure if you know but the charge weights are exactly the same for the handgun and rifle data. The only difference is the velocity they report because of the longer/shorter barrel.

Sorry if I misread tour post.

That’s really strange. I just double checked my Lyman 48th and the rifle data for the 170gr cast is very different from the revolver data for the same bullet. Different powders, charges, velocities…. Which Lymans are you using?

 

[ArchAngelCD]

That’s really strange. I just double checked my Lyman 48th and the rifle data for the 170gr cast is very different from the revolver data for the same bullet. Different powders, charges, velocities…. Which Lymans are you using?

I looked on the Hodgdon site which is the most current data and the charge weights are identical. They don't list as many powders because I don't think they updated the rifle data recently. The data and powders they do list are the same.

I just checked Lyman #51 and the powders and charge weights are identical for both. I don't know why Lyman #48 is different.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

I looked on the Hodgdon site which is the most current data and the charge weights are identical. They don't list as many powders because I don't think they updated the rifle data recently. The data and powders they do list are the same.

I just checked Lyman #51 and the powders and charge weights are identical for both. I don't know why Lyman #48 is different.

That’s silly on Lymans part. Bullseye is lousy in a rifle with a bullet of any weight. I tried it in a Marlin 94 years ago once. Only once.
I’d still recommend using a fast rifle powder like 2400 or IMR 4227 - even Accurate No.11 since it’s been available lately - over Bullseye or W231; in a rifle, if I wanted enough punch for hunting.

 

[Random 8]

Find a powder that is used in both and split the difference provided the change is relatively linear.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

I looked on the Hodgdon site which is the most current data and the charge weights are identical. They don't list as many powders because I don't think they updated the rifle data recently. The data and powders they do list are the same.

I just checked Lyman #51 and the powders and charge weights are identical for both. I don't know why Lyman #48 is different.

From the 48th:


They are close in some cases but very different in total. Certainly not identical though. I wonder why the 51st was changed?

 

[AJC1]

In my rcbs manual with heavy bullets 160+ the rifle powders are much slower.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

From the 48th:
View attachment 1096801
View attachment 1096802
They are close in some cases but very different in total. Certainly not identical though. I wonder why the 51st was changed?

You disproved your posts. All the data they have in common are identical charges. Like I said above, there is more data for the handgun loads but I think it's because they didn't check the velocities with the faster powders.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

You disproved your posts. All the data they have in common are identical charges. Like I said above, there is more data for the handgun loads but I think it's because they didn't check the velocities with the faster powders.

No, some of the start weights are different but more than that the powder selections are different and that’s really my point. It worried me when I read your response, “I'm not sure if you know but the charge weights are exactly the same for the handgun and rifle data.” I knew the data was very different. The OP would be very disappointed I suspect using short barrel loads in a rifle length barrel. But if I you see them as identical okay. I’m wrong.

 

[savagelover]

My cast bullets with lube and gas check weigh about 164 grain. Should I use the 158 or the 170 load data. I was kind of leaning toward the 170 but start a grain less and go up from there. Then I thought I would ask you people thanks.

Sorry I didn't include the needed information. It is 357 in my rossi 92. Bullet is 358 156 Lyman. I'm using a red dot scope so pin point accuracy is not there like with cross hairs. Will be at 50 yards or less. Yesterday I was getting some wierd

My cast bullets with lube and gas check weigh about 164 grain. Should I use the 158 or the 170 load data. I was kind of leaning toward the 170 but start a grain less and go up from there. Then I thought I would ask you people thanks.

This is a 357 cal.from my rossi 92. Bullet is Lyman 358 156. With gas checks. I use a red dot sight so can't get pin point accuracy like with cross hairs. Yesterday I noticed some wierd reading from my Chrono,and see one of the wires was frayed. So I have to fix that now.