30-06 load data assumptions?

[Corn-Picker]

As I understand it, there's a difference between the pressure spec developed in 1906 and what a modern action and 30-06 brass can handle. My question is, does most published data download for the older actions or assume a modern firearm? I was looking at the following data: http://www.barnesbullets.com/files/2016/03/30-06SpringfieldV9ForWeb.pdf

If this is downloaded data, what's to be gained from max loads; 50 fps, 100 fps, more? I'm not a speed demon so I'm not trying to push any envelopes, but I have a 30-06 in a modern action and would like to start hand loading for something that has a little headroom.

 

[.308 Norma]

As I understand it, there's a difference between the pressure spec developed in 1906 and what a modern action and 30-06 brass can handle.

Possibly, but what you're reading in your Barnes manual is "modern" data - it's not "downloaded" data to accommodate early, 30-06 rifles. As a matter of fact, I've never seen "downloaded" 30-06 data for early 30-06 rifles, and I've been loading for 30-06s for 35 or 40 years. I've seen, and used some "reduced" 30-06 loads for low recoil practice, but that's different.

but I have a 30-06 in a modern action and would like to start hand loading for something that has a little headroom.

I'm not quite following you there, Corn-Picker. When you say "headroom," you don't mean headspace, do you?

 

[Corn-Picker]

I'm not quite following you there, Corn-Picker. When you say "headroom," you don't mean headspace, do you?

No, I guess I should have said margin of error. I haven't reloaded yet, so I'm not confident in my ability to spot signs of excess pressure. I'd have a little more confidence if my most accurate loads were less than the published maximums, if that makes any sense.

 

[Sunray]

"...does most published data download for the older actions..." No. Loads are to SAAMI spec pressures for smokeless powder. There are some cartridges, like .45-70, that factory ammo is usually loaded to BP pressures due to the number of TrapDoor rifles and carbines around, but load manuals will say the load is for a Trap Door, lever action or "modern rifle".
That pressure spec developed in 1906, called M1906, was the same as the 1940 vintage .30 M2 at 50,000 PSI.
Barnes' data is slightly different because solid copper bullets are not as dense as lead cored bullets. It's actually a wee bit hotter with max loads than say Hodgdon's loads. (Except for that 150 grain MPG FB / TAC-RRLP. Kind of odd that.) Still well within SAAMI spec though.
Anyway, accuracy is far more important than velocity.
"...more confidence if my most accurate loads were..." Probably will be. Typical 168 grain match bullet lead cored IMR4064(that being your friend) loads run around 47.5ish. Close to the same with a 165 grain hunting bullet and IMR4064. .30-06 loves 'em.

 

[.308 Norma]

I haven't reloaded yet, so I'm not confident in my ability to spot signs of excess pressure.

I've been reloading a long time, and I'm not confident in my ability to spot signs of excess pressure either. So I stay below published maximums. I'm not a ballistician, and I have no way of measuring ammunition pressures anyway. I just have to follow what it says in my loading manuals, and watch for things like "sticky" bolt lifts in bolt action rifles, and stuck cases in revolvers.
I've never found I could tell very much by examining primers. I'm mean sure, if I had a "blown" primer, I'd know I probably had some excessive pressures. But I've never had one of those.

I'd have a little more confidence if my most accurate loads were less than the published maximums, if that makes any sense.

Yes sir, that makes perfect sense. And in my experience the most accurate loads are quite often below published maximums.
As you go along though, you'll find the "published maximums" for the same cartridges, using the same weight bullets, vary a little. I always try to use the load manual from the company whose brand of bullet I'm using. That is, you mentioned a Barnes manual. So if I was doing the loading, I'd be using Barnes bullets. And if I was using Speer bullets, I'd be getting my load data from a Speer manual.

 

[Corn-Picker]

That pressure spec developed in 1906, called M1906, was the same as the 1940 vintage .30 M2 at 50,000 PSI.
Barnes' data is slightly different because solid copper bullets are not as dense as lead cored bullets. It's actually a wee bit hotter with max loads than say Hodgdon's loads. (Except for that 150 grain MPG FB / TAC-RRLP. Kind of odd that.) Still well within SAAMI spec though.

Is that 50,000 CUP? If so, I guess I'd phrase my original question this way; since modern actions are designed to 54,000 CUP (magnum pressures), does that mean the 30-06 can be loaded to 54,000 CUP? I've often heard people say that "hot" 30-06 loads approach 300 winmag loads, and I wondered if that referred to the 30-06 running magnum pressures.

I won't exceed standard 30-06 pressures, but would feel a little more confident with an action rated to higher than 30-06 pressures, which all modern actions seem to be.

 

[.308 Norma]

Is that 50,000 CUP? If so, I guess I'd phrase my original question this way; since modern actions are designed to 54,000 CUP (magnum pressures), does that mean the 30-06 can be loaded to 54,000 CUP?

I don't know, and as much as I don't like to assume when it comes to handloading, in this case I will. Back in the '60s there was a "magnum" craze, and thousands of hunters were converting their old 30-06s to .308 Norma Magnums (my screen name) by simply having their rifle's chambers reamed out, and their rifle's bolt faces opened up a bit. I myself have a pre-64 Model 70 Winchester that was originally a .270 Winchester. But I had it converted to a .338 Win Mag by having a new barrel installed and the rifle's bolt face opened up a bit. So what I'm saying is, if 30-06 (or .270) rifle actions were strong enough to handle magnum rifle pressures back in the 1960s, I have to "assume" the gun companies are still building them that way today.
But remember, I'm a faceless person on an internet message board. Please don't "assume" that just because I told you your "modern" 30-06 rifle will handle 54,000 CUP, that it actually will. I will say this - in the 7 years I've had my beloved .308 Norma Magnum, I haven't done anything with it that I couldn't have just as easily done with my old, late '70s, 30-06, using standard loads.

 

[splattergun]

Grandpa taught me " 'Assumption' is the mother of all foul-ups."
The loading manual you are using (only one?) will tell you that the data it contains are for modern firearms in good condition.
If there exceptions, it will say so. For example, data for M1A1 is usually noted separately, or data for 6.5x55 Swede will have separate listings for old firearms and modern firearms.

 

[mdi]

The only "special" loading parameters I know are for 30-06 are Garand loads. The gas system parts require lower gas volume/pressure at the gas port in the barrel.

For a new reloader, find a tried and true load in your reloading manual(s) and start with the "starting load" data...

 

[ants]

If it really worked, we'd all be doing it.

I guess I'd phrase my original question this way; since modern actions are designed to 54,000 CUP (magnum pressures), does that mean the 30-06 can be loaded to 54,000 CUP?

Let me offer two insights.

One, CUP is an outdated and outmoded metric, even if we use it we need to recognize that 54,000 anything is almost 10% over 50,000 of it. That's quite a bit, especially when you begin to understand that you get very little performance in return for every percent over max load. 10% over max typically gets you 2 or 3 percent extra velocity, often at the expense of accuracy. Which takes us to...

Two, in my experience very few super-hot-loads in 30-06 are accurate, meaning you cannot simply take ANY load in the data and exceed it by 10% expecting it to be accurate. It will take you extensive workup to find even one accurate load well above max. The vast majority of powders and rifles get pretty accurate less than published max loads. And each rifle is it's own 'platform' as far as accuracy and service life. Eating up your rifle's life trying to find that one accurate load 10% above max average pressure isn't doing the gun any good. Or your shoulder. Or your neighbor's ears. Even the deer get annoyed by the extra noise just before terminal impact. Too often you're wasting powder and making noise, nothing else.

Two.point.five (because I didn't say 3 insights, so I don't want to exceed maximum), start reloading and experience it for yourself. Soon you will be chasing accurate loads, being totally happy to stay within published data. That's where most of our rifles work under normal circumstances. Eventually you may want to build a 30-06 rifle for 1000 yard competition using brass with plenty of capacity with heavy-for-caliber bullets loaded as far out as the chamber will handle, and fill it up with R19 or R22 to get that extra velocity, avoiding transition to subsonic. But until then, stick with what is known good, that's my advice. If 10% over max really works, everyone would be doing it around the world every single day and twice on Sundays.

 

[Slamfire]

As I understand it, there's a difference between the pressure spec developed in 1906 and what a modern action and 30-06 brass can handle.

I would be cautious about old actions, not because of the pressure spec, but because of the old, inferior metals used, and for whatever fatigue life is left in the action. Metallurgy was extremely primitive in the WW1 era, the metals used were inconsistent in composition, and the process controls tended to be human eyeballs. For those reasons and more, old actions have their uncertainties and are more likely to fail, either due to extreme pressures, or just use.

If you compare shear in a M1903 bolt and a post WW2 bolt, both are oversized for the application, but just based on the more modern, and better alloy materials used, the later bolt should have a higher yield and fatigue life, all things being equal.

Something that is often ignored is the cartridge case. Cartridge brass is the same stuff now as it was then. The case is a gas seal, but, if you push pressures, it will stick to the walls of the chamber and you will require a cleaning rod, or a welding rod, to knock it out, assuming you can get it out without having to remove the barrel from the action! While most pressure discussions assume that action strength is the most important, which it is if you are trying to blow the action up. If you are deliberately trying to do a destructive test, then a more modern action will hold together better than an old one. But, nothing made by man cannot be unmade by man. For normal operation, it is highly desirable to have the cartridge feed and extract. Particularly without special tools being required to extract the case. And in this scenario, you don't want 80,000, 90,000, 100,000 psia pressures in the chamber.

So, in that way, what you find that if you don't want a magazine fed, air cooled, single shot rifle, brass characteristics still limit the amount of pressure that can be applied to the cartridge case.

 

[Walkalong]

The way your opening post is written, or at least the way I read it, you're asking for trouble.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I have never heard of a magnum pressure 30-06. There are no 30-06+P specs.

Just because an action made in 1940 was strong it doesn't mean a similar action made today is stronger. The steel used, the design of the bolt and the heat treating is probably different. Never make assumptions when it comes to something that can blow your face off.

We have SAAMI to keep us safe. We may not always agree with what they say but we should respect their work and be safe.

If a 30-06 isn't enough get a 300 Win Mag but then again, a 30-06 can reliably take any game in North America.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

I have never heard of a magnum pressure 30-06. There are no 30-06+P specs.

Some years ago, Hornady had "light magnum" loads in 30-06 that gave slightly (100-200 ft per sec) higher velocities, reached higher pressures, and were only recommended for use in modern bolt actions.

I tried them, but after the higher recoil and lower accuracy, I went back to the standard hunting loads in 30-06.

 

[Corn-Picker]

Thanks for all the replies, they were helpful. Just to put everyone at ease; I'm not planning to exceed max loads, ever, under any circumstances. I was simply curious whether commonly listed loads were based on the original spec or uploaded for modern actions, and you all have made clear they're based on the original spec (but may require downloading for specific rifles).

Slamfire you raise a great point about old actions. I'm not a milsurp shooter, in fact I don't own anything made prior to 1968, as I do not have great faith in the QA/QC methods of the early manufacturers.

What caused my confusion is that I thought "30-06+P" as ArchAngel called it was a common thing. I was looking at the 270/30-06, and even though they use the same actions and same brass, the 270 winchester is rated 5,000 psi higher. That had me confused about whether the max 30-06 load data was running the same pressure as the max 270 load, and now I understand that it's not.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Some of your confusion is possibly being caused by the CUP rating. While the 30-06 is rated for 50,000 CUP when listed in PSI it's rated at 60,000 PSI, hardly a neutered load. When looking at the pressure listing the 30-06 falls right into where the more modern cartridges are.

 

[RecoilRob]

Modern ammo will be tested with a strain guage affixed to the chamber and this system is much more accurate than the old 'CUP' measuring system which relied on a slug of copper being compressed by a piston that blew out of the side of the case. It was a way to approximate the pressures being encountered but it's been found that many of the older loadings actually are over-pressure when measured by the strain gauges. This accounts for some modern recommendations being lower than the older 'tried-n-true' loads that people used for decades.

For maximum safety....use the latest data you can find that hopefully was developed with strain gauge technology and stay within it. Of course, if something should show on YOUR rifle like sticky extraction or anything else indicating high pressures you'd need to adjust downward until this stops and it might be worth investigating just why your rifle would be showing pressure with approved modern loads.

The new rifles are made to the same pressure standards as the older ones and hopefully are made of steel equal or better with out modern manufacturing techniques, so anything OK with new rifles should also be OK with old ones if they're still up to snuff. BUT....and it's a BIG BUT....if a chamber has been exposed to repeated over-pressures it could show accumulated damage that eventually will let it fail with a normal load. This is the danger of the old 'tried-n-true' data that has proven to be over-pressure with modern measuring techniques....eventually it can cause a problem...or not. Consider all of this when loading for your rifle and remember that max pressure is almost never needed or wanted to do whatever job you have at hand.

 

[old heeler]

Thanks for all the replies, they were helpful. Just to put everyone at ease; I'm not planning to exceed max loads, ever, under any circumstances. I was simply curious whether commonly listed loads were based on the original spec or uploaded for modern actions, and you all have made clear they're based on the original spec (but may require downloading for specific rifles).

Slamfire you raise a great point about old actions. I'm not a milsurp shooter, in fact I don't own anything made prior to 1968, as I do not have great faith in the QA/QC methods of the early manufacturers.

What caused my confusion is that I thought "30-06+P" as ArchAngel called it was a common thing. I was looking at the 270/30-06, and even though they use the same actions and same brass, the 270 winchester is rated 5,000 psi higher. That had me confused about whether the max 30-06 load data was running the same pressure as the max 270 load, and now I understand that it's not.

The 280 Rem and 280AI have same max pressure 60K but if you look at Hodgdon data for 280AI you will see max pressure up to 62K.

You going to see different result reloading based on who's data your using and test rifle used vs what your shooting.

 

[jmr40]

The original 150 gr 30-06 load was 2700 fps. By WW-2 it was 2800 fps and most common factory loads today are around 2900 fps. You can find published load data near 3100 fps. 3000 fps from a 22" barrel is certainly possible and well within max load limits. And those loads aren't close to turning a 30-06 into a 300 magnum. You'd be looking at 3300-3500 fps for 150's from various 300's.

I don't know if those loads are safe to fire in 100 year old rifles or not. If I had one I'd probably shoot more middle of the road loads just to be safe.

I have no interest in hot rodding any cartridge that I load for, but at the same time don't want to be getting 300 Savage speeds from my 30-06. If I did I'd have bought a 300 Savage. If I needed more than 3000 fps from a 30 caliber rifle I'd buy a magnum. But I'm not going to leave performance on the table if the cartridge and rifle are designed for it either.

 

[RPRNY]

Any reloading manual published in the last 10 years listing loads for 30-06 may be used safely to guide your reloading. Once you are very comfortable reloading, buy the full published volume of Ken Waters "Pet Loads". Some of his load data is for earlier iterations of currently available powders so not to be used, but some of his loads (almost always with indications where pressure excess was evident) will be above currently published max levels. Hornady, for example, are extremely conservative and publish lower max charges than other sources for the same components.

In any event, max charges are rarely the most accurate. Starting 2 grs below published maxima and working up in .25 and .10 increments towards the published maximum, stopping at the point below that where vertical stringing commences is a tried and tested approach to getting the best velocity/accuracy trade off.

 

[PaFrank]

I started handloading in 1971 and with the 30-06. Since that time, I have owned 16 or 17 rifles in 30-06. I still have 5 and have handloaded for all of them so here is what I have learned.

What was considered a normal load in one rifle, blew primers in another. Same brass, same powder, etc. In some cases, what was very accurate in a few of them, was horrible in others... just about every variable condition and result was experienced over the last 40+ years.

So here is my take and advice on the stuff posted so far.. Do you have a pressure gauge? Didn't think so. Does any of the other posters have a pressure gauge? probably not. A chronograph is the closest thing to a quasi pressure measuring tool most of us will ever have. And speaking of that, I did have access to one and found that a particular velocity achieved with one load in a particular rifle, could not be matched in another.

The bottom line is that there are so may variables between the rifles, even of same manufacture, the brass, the primers, powder lots, bullets, barrels, etc that tolerance stacking can really mess with the results and it can often be near impossible to determine the differences.

So my advice is to forget about the "CUP", "PSI", stuff and just focus on accuracy. A chrono can help, but isn't necessary... Shot placement and accuracy is what ultimately counts anyway.