Load data
 

How often should the load data books be updated that you use? I was looking at gunbroker and a guy is selling caliber specific load data books, i.e. 7mm-08 and .30-06 but publish date is 1995. Pretty much was wondering whould this info still be pretty good or has powders/primers etc changed too severely in that 12 yrs?

RE: Load data
 

There have beenquite a lot ofpowder & bulletchanges and additions since 1995, so yeah, I'd say it's a little dated.
Since 1997, a lot of new factory cartridges started hitting the market: 260 Rem, 204 Ruger,WSM's, WSSM's,RSAUM's, Ultra Mag's, and more. New powders and bulletshave been developed that are taylored to some of these new rounds. And of course they work with older cartridges also.

RE: Load data
 

Well, any loads you get anywhere are just a quick and dirty reference guide. I know alot of people like hard rules for loads, but you can't do that. Some guns I have had with custom barrels, I could not reach max hodgdon loads without pressure signs. And some guns, I have went well past max loads maybe 2 grains or so with no pressure signs. Those load books are ok butage is not the issue but validity of the data. But if it was me, I would buy several sources from bullet and powder mfg. to make my decision.

What I do when loading a new wieght, is get out all my sources, Sierra, Nosler, Lyman, HornadySpeer, IMR, Hodgdon, Alliant, etc. I write down all the max loads, and applicable powders. and make a decision from there. I give a powder a try. I won't hesitate to move slowly past max load if I see promising results. Just move slowly.

RE: Load data
 

Pretty much what I thought. There is a few manuals from last yr though so I got them bookmarked to watch. I am slowly gathering things together to get started well.
On a side note, can anyone give me a rough estimate on how many reloads I can exspect from say 1 lb. of IMR4350 using .30-06 cases? Graf's
has some but that HazMat charge will start to eat u alive if not careful shopping! [:-]

RE: Load data
 

I did a search on pounds to grains conversions using 53 grs of IMR 4350 (thats what load I use) and the math says ~327 loads @53gr out of a pound.

RE: Load data
 

More like 127 loads. Pal, I don't know what math they teach you at t-town high, but its differnet than the rest of the world.[:-][8D]

7000grains= 1lb
7000/53=132

I would be conservative, since I put alot on the floor sometime and call it 130 loads from 1lb of powder.

RE: Load data
 

RE: Load data
 

See, Mossy deserves this lashing. Every time I hang with him, I get a English lesson. He says Ten (10), like one would say tan, but differently. I pronounce it like I was tought by my grade school teacher like "tin". He says the word "our", like hour on a clock. I pronounce it the correct way, like "err".

RE: Load data
 

First off, I was just quoting what the web conversion said I dunno Ive never been through an entire pound for one specific cartridge.....second off I correct your speach because you speak like some creature in the bar from the movie Star Wars. :D I say pen andten like its supposed to sound, you say pen like its spelled pin. And our IS pronounced like hour on a clock......of course I couldnt expect someone from Kentucky to understand correct English, you speak Appalachian American :D:D

RE: Load data
 

It's a code I tell ya, it's a code!:D:D

RE: Load data
 

You guys must have a heck of a good time at the range together...

RE: Load data
 

Thanks again, guys.. really do wish Mossy's was correct tho.. well, its the stats I'm turning in to the boss lady. ;)

RE: Load data
 

I have read in some manuals as soon as they publish a new manual, the old manual should be disregarded. Good luck.

RE: Load data
 

Yeah, and sometimes some good information gets lost because it never gets published again in the new manuals. I continue to buy the new ones, but I won't throw the old ones away.

RE: Load data
 

See, I have a hard time buying that. Not saying your wrong handloader1, I could be. But most of these companies do not us pressure barrels, they use regular old firearms. And thats the reason I see data change rapidly from manual to manul. For instance, Sierra #4, lists 42.2gr Varget max with bullets 165/168gr for a 308. But they upped that since then. I shoot 45gr regularly in a 308. So I grilled them why, and they said, probably a different gun used to work the load up in.

Varget really hasn't changed much. Now, I did see an interesting article in precision rifle, about pressures and velocities with several different sets of primers dating back 20years. It had a significant impact on both.

I think the old manuals are fine. I know some of the 1950's and 60's manuals they said had some firery loads for hte 30-06, that today would have been considered dangerous.

RE: Load data
 

BigCountry:

I am just relaying what I have read in some reloading manuals. I own a "Pocket Manual for Shooters and Reloaders" by Parker O. Ackley from 1968 that I use. I just start 10% below Max. Good luck.

RE: Load data
 

Oh, I understand, I wasn't pointing that at you, but don't understand the logic behind these manuals idea that I should only go by the most recent manual. Unless its to sell manuals.

RE: Load data
 

Gosh, I have all the manuals I have bought since the 60's!:)

RE: Load data
 

They had books all the way back in the 60's??

I thought you oldern folks got load info from cave paintings.

RE: Load data
 

You have asked a very good question. Unfortunately there is no one definitive answer to it. For example, there are many powders available, some of which are essentially identical to the same powders being sold under that designation since before WWII! Severalreally good examples of such powders are in the IMR lineup, such as 3031, 4064 and 4350.

On the other hand, there are some powders that are quite different than they used to be. A couple of these I can think of are 2400 and RE7, which are stated tobe "faster" as Alliant products than they werewhen Hercules sold them. (Whether they really are or not I cannot say, as I have not made any personal tests to see if this is indeed true.)

Another factor that may be working here is that since the advent of good, reasonably priced presssure testing equipment, alot of earlier reloading data whas been revised downward even though the characteristics of the components have not changed, merely because the sources of the data got the pressure equipment, and, lo and behold, their older recommended loads turned out to be OVER SAAMI specifications! Another factor alleged to be at work here is the "litigation factor", which claims that fear of lawsuits has caused the reloading manual publishers to back down from load levels that had never really caused any trouble earlier.

Regardless, if I am starting to develop a load for a new cartridge, or to useany newcomponents, I will try to find recent data to use as a starting point. However, I still subscribe to the theory, as stated so eloquently by Bob Hagel, that "all rifles are individuals, and that what proves to be a maximum load in one rifle may in fact be quite mild in another, and vice-versa".

My load development is controlled by the objectiveof finding the load which gives the highest velocity/best accuracy combinationwithout excessive pressure signs. My desire is to be able to get at least 10 shots out of a batch of brass before it has to be scrapped due to loose primer pockets or split necks.

In view of this, I mostly discountthe ideaof published "maximum loads", and develop these myself for my individual rifles...... (you may have noticed that often, one manual's published maximum "do not exceed" load for a particular combination of bullet, powder, primer, and cartridge make can be significantly higheror lower than that published in some other manual for the same combination of components.........)