Would you change your load based on an update

[Slamfire]

You don't have to make up lies...

I said you "can"...and it's completely safe for the shooter and the rifle. Hornady 150gr Superformance goes 3100fps and it's port pressure is only slightly higher than some M2 ball.

You are overlooking the fact that even USGI ammo was running almost 2900fps in a test barrel.

I don't have Hornady 150 gr Superformance and I don't know if Hornady recommends its use in Garands. And, I don't care, I am not going run stuff that hot in my Garands. Have fun doing it in yours.

As for your contention that USGI ammunition was running almost 2900 fps in a test barrel, not in the data I posted. It was going 2675 fps at the vendor.

You don't have to make up lies...

You only believe what you want to believe, so how can you tell truth from fiction?

 

[Jeremy2171]

I don't have Hornady 150 gr Superformance and I don't know if Hornady recommends its use in Garands. And, I don't care, I am not going run stuff that hot in my Garands. Have fun doing it in yours.

As for your contention that USGI ammunition was running almost 2900 fps in a test barrel, not in the data I posted. It was going 2675 fps at the vendor.



You only believe what you want to believe, so how can you tell truth from fiction?

What data?

My tests were run in a ballistics lab on fully calibrated equipment.

I believe what I see and actually test and get actual results. Not others opinions.

Hornady says superformance is safe in all firearms. Its port pressure is only slightly higher than LC 74.

The fragile garand myth really needs to go away.

 

[Jim Watson]

It's the other side of the "use current data for current powder" that gets me.
The producers feel free to change manufacturing process and raw materials, the importers and distributors buy from whoever is cheapest, but the label stays the same. Lot to lot variation gets a lot of blame for what may well be the next shipment of powder coming from the opposite side of the world.

I had a little bit of H322 left from whatever I thought it was good for, a few ounces from Scotlant, a few ounces left from Australia. Same same loads, 69 fps different velocity, over two SD.

 

[Charlie98]

I've realized, over the years, that published loading data is an educated guess. Not that the results they got in testing were not valid, I'm sure they were, but as someone mentioned, those were the results that day, with their equipment, with that lot of powder, etc, etc. I have seen published data that I would not touch with a 10' pole (the recent discussion over the Alliant .45ACP CPRN bullet and load, for example,) and I've seen data that was obviously watered down... one published maximum is another's starting load, for example. It's true, testing methods and methodology has improved... so one source testing basically identical components might wind up with a different result... again, their results that day, with their equipment, etc, etc may show significant changes, or not. Add in powder lot variations, bullet variations... even something benign as a change (or different lot) of case manufacturer... and you can see where it might go.

As far as the OP... would I change an existing handload based on a change in one source of published data? The answer is no. Working up a handload, I've already gone through the process of using MY components, MY reloading techinque, in MY firearms, etc, etc, and arrived at what I believe to be a safe handload. I've recently picked up a copy of QuickLoad... going back through some of my loads, I've found the majority of them to be right on the money, or very nearly so, in regards to pressure and velocity expectation. In the process of working up a load, I have stopped short... something wasn't right, even in the presence of reliable published data telling me it was OK. I had made an... educated guess... just like the people who work up and publish data, albeit in the absence of more precise testing equipment.

 

[9x56MS]

Most of my loads have been working for me for a good number of years. I see no reason to change them just because a new method of measurement is being used. The critters I shoot with them sure don’t seem to care. If something new comes along I may try it but if it doesn’t show an improvement over what I have been using I won’t switch. Just one old duffers opinion. Kind of set in my ways.

 

[Bcwitt]

Published data dosent tell you what your gun will max out @. The rule is use start loads & work up. It is not uncommon to hit pressure signs before you reach the published maximums. Listed loads are a starting point, not to be taken too literally.

 

[Jim Watson]

I only have one rifle that I routinely overloaded for increased performance.
Was bullets deforming and disintegrating in flight a "pressure sign"?
I guess so, my response was to use a tougher bullet.

Other rifles, pistols, and shotguns get ordinary loads, seldom at anybody's maximum.

 

[AJC1]

Published data dosent tell you what your gun will max out @. The rule is use start loads & work up. It is not uncommon to hit pressure signs before you reach the published maximums. Listed loads are a starting point, not to be taken too literally.

I dont think that is a safe approach for straight walled cartridges. Maybe someone who loads a lot of 450bm or 350 legend may know otherwise but I'm not putting that to the test in my 45-70. On the contrary it seems a very effective method in bottleneck rifle cases.

 

[Bcwitt]

I dont think that is a safe approach for straight walled cartridges. Maybe someone who loads a lot of 450bm or 350 legend may know otherwise but I'm not putting that to the test in my 45-70. On the contrary it seems a very effective method in bottleneck rifle cases.

Is true. Lower pressure rounds often do not show pressure signs when they exceed the action strength. 45-70s are kind of a special example, as there are several pressure standards to accomodate more modern actions. These loads have been well establish for decades. I wouldn't change it just because a publisher says so over 100 years after the fact.

 

[Thomasss]

I would certain take their recommendations under advisement. 1) Jack O'Connor use to exceed maximum loads in his 30.06 even to the point where Sport Afield magazine forced him into making a load recipe retraction. Was he wrong? That depends of how you might look at it. His CUSTOM 30.06 ate the rounds just fine, but many people with hardware store guns had lots of problems. 2) I never load maximum. I have never found a need to. I have found excellent "sweet spots" looking at bullet run out.". 3) I was taught to always find 3 sources for my loads. 4) I always work up a load. 5) I always check out a new lot of powder. 6) Powder formulations do change. In my wisdom, I've never had a serious problem, only minor ones. I load for my family who trust in my wisdom.

 

[gonoles_1980]

If I have been using the load for a while I probably wouldn't even look up the load in a manual. I use my spreadsheets to tell me what my current loads are. I only look something up now if I get a new powder.

 

[refuse2bafool]

How about this........in the LEE Reloading manual, one can find at least two places where there are volume (cubic centimeter) measures of powder and those then correlate to weight in grains. One place you can find this is with load data for various bullets per caliber.....the other is in a table in the back.

To verify these, I have taken 2 or 3 powders and measured them out using the LEE dippers......and then weighed the results. Haven't found one right yet. So either the dippers are not accurate, or the powders have changed from what was used to develop the tables. If the latter is true, that would suggest to me the need to go back and rethink load workups. Makes me wonder if ALL load data is more or less a ball park estimate and underscores the need to start at the bottom and work up.

The charges were almost certainly lighter for a given dipper than indicated in the tables, correct?

Rest assured the dippers are accurate. LEE explains this on their website. Powder density from lot to lot can vary by almost 20%, which is why charges are listed by weight rather than volume as the mass is what determines the energy in the charge. VMD is the inverse of density and the tables are designed using the high end of the density range for that powder. That way if someone is foolish enough to load without a scale, the charge will never be greater than intended, and will usually be less.

Some make up their own charts for each lot, but LEE has a simple procedure for determining VMD for each container. Though some scoffed at the "math" involved, I found it to be a signficant efficency gain when using Auotdisks since you have to take the things apart to change the cavity size. I have replaced those with the Autodrums, so it's not as much of an advantage now.

Though I still do it because I am basically a nerd.

 

[Howa 9700]

Actually.....one was the same, three were higher.

Example:

Accurate 2495
2.8 cc dipper 37.4 gr
Book: 37.4 gr

VV - N140
2.8 cc dipper 41.5 gr
Book: 38.2 gr

IMR 4350
3.1 cc dipper 43.8 gr
Book: 42.2

IMR 4955
3.1 cc dipper 45.2 gr
Book 42.3 gr

 

[refuse2bafool]

Hmmmmm,

So the VMD you got for 4350 is 0.0708cc/gr. Book VMD is .0735cc/gr so your poweder was denser. The dippers are more prone to be effected by technique than the auto disk, but that is a 4% delta and I would not expect that unless the user heaped the powder, and did not use a straight edge to level it with the top.

On the website they ask if you run across a batch that is higher density then they list to please let them know. I did that once. At any rate, that's why I never load without a scale and check my charge everytime, even if I loaded the night before.

Thanks for the info.

 

[Howa 9700]

When I first read about the Lee dippers, I was intrigued for a couple reasons. One was I found a full set of them in my dad's old reloading stash....they were unused. Those would have been made in the 70's, and are injection molded plastic, same as today. Lee also includes an appropriate size in their die sets, and lists them in their load data tables. So on a whim, thought it would be fun to actually test one to verify the concept. So when numbers started turning up different from the book, alarms started going off. BTW, I also tried measuring same powders with both old and new dippers, and got similar but slightly different results. So something has changed with them too over past 50 years. But still, if I have to pick one or the other as a constant to trust, I have more faith that the volume of the dippers is more accurate than the listed density of the powders.

But it has served to reinforce the warnings to not start at the top. Start 10% below the max and work up has proven to be good advice. Has kept me out of trouble a couple times. The IMR 4955 in particular, has started showing indications of pressure at far less than max loads.

 

[unwashed]

I wouldn't change my loads unless the burn rate was changed for the powder I used. For my bottlenecks I only use the powder stated in the manual and load strictly by case capacity and as many have stated start low and work up, that for me is ~80-85% and usually settle ~92%. Handguns are a different story and I load on manual data but never exceed max but I did change powders, when I first started loading (1988) I used HP38 & HS6 for pistol rounds, many years later, I took a long time off of reloading and upon returning I went with one of the newer powders because I remember those original powder were very dirty. But that doesn't seem an issue today, did hornady change their formula? I don't know but if it wasn't so dirty I'd would of probably stayed with it.

 

[FROGO207]

When I start reloading with some different componant I always work up. I refrence multiple manuals and make what I call an "educated guess" as to a starting load. Load a ladder of rounds and send them over a crony at a target. I always stop at max pressure/velocity of highest data. There are usually two nodes and the lowest pressure one is almost always the widest with little pressure change when I fine tune the loads. That is the one I use and load to the middle. When I get another container of propellant I drop down a couple tenths load a small ladder and run them over the crony. If my velocity is the same with the same weight propellant as previously I call it a day. If not I work up again as needed. Unless the manufacturers print a notice saying a certain combo is bad ju ju I don't change an established load. I never used Blue Dot with light bullets in 38 SPL anyway as that seems to be one I recall. A crony of some type is a good insurance policy as to things are good and they don't cost alot these days for piece of mind. I did shoot for years safely without one but it is another tool to help a reloader out. Here again some common sense gained by experience is priceless it seems.

 

[Bfh_auto]

My loads are found for my rifle. Using my equipment.
The load data is a suggested starting point.

My fast twist 22-250 hits pressure about half way up the suggested data.
My 240 Wby accuracy loads are about 3 grains over max. I was getting smoky case necks until 3/4 up the chart.

The only way I reboot is if they do like Alliant and reformulate the powder.

 

[refuse2bafool]

There is no question that while there is no such thing as "exact" in the manufacturing world, the dippers are more reliable. Plastic measuring devices are manufactured with plastics that hold a tolerance well, while powder density changes significantly from lot to lot.

But you brought out the nerd in me. I retired last year and one of the great things about it is I have the time in indulge my OCD regarding any interests I have

I figured using water would be less susceptible to personal technique. I used a 4cc dipper and then weighed the water. It came up "exactly" 4.00 grams on my electronic scale, so I am pretty confident in the dippers. LEE seems to have taken down their FAQs, or at least my old links don't work. Here is a pretty good explanation of how to use VMD from Titan reloading...

https://www.titanreloading.com/faqs/vmd-explanation/

Interestingly, everyone else I have encountered always found the listed VMD to result in light charges, as LEE predicts.

I use the dippers to determine a specific VMD for each container of powder I buy. I write it on the container. It is most useful when using fixed cavity measures like an autodisk or a dipper, to avoid trial and error. I've seen people on youtube go through 3 or 4 cavities before getting what they want. Since you have to take the thing apart to change the cavity, it is a pretty inefficient process. On the other hand...

If they know the SPECIFIC VMD for that lot of powder they would probably hit it on the first try. Most people get the concept. A few scoff at it. They can argue with LEE and Titan if they wish.

I also use the dippers to set the initial setting in an autodrum, but it is a less exact process and since you don't have to take the measure apart to change the charge the efficiency gain is minimal.

And after all this it still comes down to exactly what you said: Start low, use a scale and pay attention to signs of pressure. Old advice is usually old for a reason. Bad advice tends to die young.

BTW: One thing I like about LEE's reloading manual, especially the first editiion, is that he talks about the practical aspects of reloading (including a technique for using dippers) and gives you more than Step 1, Step 2 and so on. You do have to endure a fair amount of him pattting himself on the back (RIP). Still, well worth the read and the purchase.

This is kind of off topic and the moderator will shut it down soon. So PM me if you want to discuss more.

 

[reloaded_in_pa]

If the powder manufacturer changed the data I might if I'm loading that round near max. Most of my loads are mid range and have worked well in my firearms so those I would not change without signs of trouble.

 

[Howa 9700]

One more thought on the Lee dippers, especially as relates to 4831. There are actually three.....IMR 4831, H4831 and H4831sc. My guess is ALL load data is based on old data, and in case of H4831, is based on the long sticks, not short cut. I'm weighing short cut, so is logical I can put more weight in the same volume.

As for historical data, was scrounging around in the family armory (closet in my old bedroom at my parents house) for 270 brass, and ran across some relics from my dad's reloading effort.



Ironically, that is pretty much the exact same load I have developed for the same rifle. I don't consider mine to be either HOT or a Barker. He didn't say, but my guess is he was using IMR......as all powder of that type he used came in Dupont cans. Still have 3 of them.

Not sure why he thought it OK to take his chances with a hot load on a coyote, but not on a deer.

In retrospect, I can remember him spending time on sizing cases, weighing powder (weighed each charge on a balance beam Texan scale.....very slow), seating bullets, etc. I can't remember any use of a case trimmer. If he had a set of calipers, would have been vernier calipers and I don't remember every seeing those.

His rifle loading days were short lived, and I can start to see why.

 

[refuse2bafool]

Oh well, he hasn't shut us down yet!

I assume from your tone your Dad has passed. That's really cool you have that stuff. We have an old single shot .22 Winchester Model 60A my Dad used to hunt with. As a dirt poor deppression era Kansas farm boy he used it to bring in extra food and money, not just for plinkin'. I think about him whenever I pick it up. I should try to find out more about that model. It was probably manufactured around 1930.

Are you using the same 270 as your father? Every chamber is different.

If by short cut powder you mean it's cut into smaller pieces, I agree. You would get more in. That may explain the higher density. Now that I think about it, that is probably the main reason modern powders vary. Holding particle size may be hard when you are dealing with a frangible material like nitrocellulose. As far as all data being based on old data I wouldn't know. It would be interesting to know if and how often they do new tests for each edition of their books. They'd probably answer if you emailed them.

Be careful with powders that old. I am not sure I would use them. Do they have any kind of funky ammonia smell? Maybe you should post a question about that. I have used powders that were in my collection for 10+ years, but the stuff you have was made almost half a centruy ago!

You did not say how much difference there is between the old and new dippers. Even if you use the same dipper, or a powder measure for that matter, you are going to get a little difference from charge to charge. That's why I used water for my experiment. It doesn't need to "settle". Here is an excerpt from LEE's manual. Not quite word for word but I think because I am crediting it it is ok to post.

Dean (gun writer Dean Grennell) felt no one could dip a charge quite as precisely as he. He pushed the dipper bottom first into the powder and let the powder flow into the dipper. Then strike it off with one of his business cards and conisistently get uniformity of 1/10 grain.

Getting +/- 0.1 grains is pretty good. With flake powders in smaller cavities (don't go below 0.7cc with flakes) I can live with +/- 0.2 grains. as long as those are just occasional outliers since I generally don't go near max. Some guys use baffles or tap the measure between each charge. One guy said he even hooked up a vibrating aquarium motor to his powder measure. There are some really creative people on this forum.

I think of it this way. You would have to divide a 5lb gym weight into 35,000 parts to have them each be 1 grain. For 1/10 of a grain you would have to divide it into 350,000 equal pieces. So we are asking for a lot of precision from of a manually operated consumer level tool, such as a measure, much less a dipper. And I doubt the manufacturers charges are any more precise, as they too generally load by volume, not weight.

 

[Howa 9700]

Yes, same gun. Rem 700 BDL.

I have read Mr. Lee's account of those dippers and have attempted to duplicate the effort, and have never come close. With some of the stick powders I'm using, just a couple kernels of powder will move the scale 0.1 grain. Just rearranging the furniture will allow a difference of +/- 0.5 grains no matter how carefully you scribe off the top. Luck of the draw.

Should try the dippers with some of the fine grained ball powders sometime. If that was the method a loader was using for his powder measure, I'm sure that would give far more consistent loads.

 

[refuse2bafool]

Yeah, 0.5gr is quite a bit. I don't have a lot of experience with stick powders since I shoot mainly pistol. I just started loading .308 with Reloader 15 which I think is an extruded (stick) powder. However, I used my autodrum not dippers. Ball powders should definitely yield more uniform results.There could be a number of differences that could cause your father's load to be hotter. Sound like he might not have been checking COL, which could raise the pressure significantly. No primer was listed on the label. Maybe primers were hotter then, I think they have changed over time. Or he may have used a magnum primer. Could be a number of things.