Can you substitute same weight bullets in load data?
- Thread starter Scout21
- Start date
- Status
westernrover
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2018
- Messages
- 1,613
How do you propose the chronograph be used?
kmw1954
Member
Chronograph in many cases proves nothing. I have had loads with different bullets and powders that when shot over a chronograph have show an ES of up to 60/70/80fps. So if you have 5 loaded rounds and the same rounds have an extreme spread form 2800fps to 2880 the chrono speeds are useless. I have seen loads of .1gr increases with say 23.0, 23.1, 23.2 and 23.4 all produce the same speeds from low to high. So then what are you going to do?
Chronographs combined with internal ballistics programs are a treasure trove of information of what's really going on inside the firearms upon ignition.
Even when merely used to simply look for inexplicable/gross differences between published and actual results,* chronographs can keep the shooter from compounding dangerous situations -- or completely benign load combinations.
The suggestion given in post #11 is derived from such information -- to be confirmed/calibrated via chronograph. Without it, you're fling blind.**
postscript: When increased powder load no longer produces increased velocities -- or actual decreases -- beware. (and start doing some Google searches)
* barrel lengths notwithstanding
** Chronographs alone don't automatically make you smart. But they can keep you from being really dumb.
.
Last edited:
kmw1954
Member
I understand the concept but here is an actual load firing from a workup using a 62gr bullet and the 23.7 and 23.8/ of TAC in a 223.
The 23.7 had a low of 2720 and a high of 2783 for one round and then for a second round a Low of 2756 and a high of 2829, ES 63/73
The 23.8 had a low of 2715 and a high of 2762 for the first group and then the second was low of 2711 and high of 2766, ES 47/55
To me those numbers prove nothing of the pressures being developed. Especially when the lower charge is shooting faster than the heavier charge and there is only .1gr of powder difference.
The 23.7 had a low of 2720 and a high of 2783 for one round and then for a second round a Low of 2756 and a high of 2829, ES 63/73
The 23.8 had a low of 2715 and a high of 2762 for the first group and then the second was low of 2711 and high of 2766, ES 47/55
To me those numbers prove nothing of the pressures being developed. Especially when the lower charge is shooting faster than the heavier charge and there is only .1gr of powder difference.
AJC1
Member
Yes same material same weight
P Flados
Member
First off: Be very careful.
With solids, the AOL and the actual chamber throat matter a lot. Due to the extra force required to engrave the bullet, solids are generally loaded with more "jump" so that they are moving at a good speed when they contact the rifling.
The above means that a longer AOL can cause an increase in chamber pressure in some cases. The same thing can happen if your chamber has a shorter distance to the rifling than the test rifle.
The next point is that seating depth matters a lot. For a given charge and case capacity, this determines fill percentage.
I feel that Quickload is probably as good as it gets for evaluating fill percentages. I am pretty sure it does not fully address the tricky issue with solids discussed at the top of this post.
I ran both bullets from the Barnes data and extracted data for select powders. The runs were set to give either 60,000 psi or 105% fill. The 3031 is closest to 322 in burn rate, but is a very long grain extruded where 322 is a fine grain extruded. Note that the Barnes data is presented as having the same velocity for both bullets at the same charge levels, but Quickload says the seating depths are very different with the AOLs listed in the Barnes data. To me, this drastically reduces my confidence in both the Barnes data and in the ability of Quickload to predict accurately. You will note that Quickload got to 60000 psi with the TTSX at close to 2 grs less than it did with the TSX.
Given all of the "goofy" stuff, I would stay right at the Barnes data for AOL. I would also try to figure out exactly how much of your powder it takes to get 100% fill in your cases with your bullets. I would either stop at 100% fill, or work up from 100% fill in very small increments. I would start at least 10% below what ever you think you maximum is. My guess for a maximum would be to use 1 gr less than the Benchmark max. I would use the Barnes data for the TSX max and would use Quickload for the TTSX max.
With solids, the AOL and the actual chamber throat matter a lot. Due to the extra force required to engrave the bullet, solids are generally loaded with more "jump" so that they are moving at a good speed when they contact the rifling.
The above means that a longer AOL can cause an increase in chamber pressure in some cases. The same thing can happen if your chamber has a shorter distance to the rifling than the test rifle.
The next point is that seating depth matters a lot. For a given charge and case capacity, this determines fill percentage.
I feel that Quickload is probably as good as it gets for evaluating fill percentages. I am pretty sure it does not fully address the tricky issue with solids discussed at the top of this post.
I ran both bullets from the Barnes data and extracted data for select powders. The runs were set to give either 60,000 psi or 105% fill. The 3031 is closest to 322 in burn rate, but is a very long grain extruded where 322 is a fine grain extruded. Note that the Barnes data is presented as having the same velocity for both bullets at the same charge levels, but Quickload says the seating depths are very different with the AOLs listed in the Barnes data. To me, this drastically reduces my confidence in both the Barnes data and in the ability of Quickload to predict accurately. You will note that Quickload got to 60000 psi with the TTSX at close to 2 grs less than it did with the TSX.
Given all of the "goofy" stuff, I would stay right at the Barnes data for AOL. I would also try to figure out exactly how much of your powder it takes to get 100% fill in your cases with your bullets. I would either stop at 100% fill, or work up from 100% fill in very small increments. I would start at least 10% below what ever you think you maximum is. My guess for a maximum would be to use 1 gr less than the Benchmark max. I would use the Barnes data for the TSX max and would use Quickload for the TTSX max.
Code:
Cartridge : .308 Win. (SAAMI)
Bullet : .308, 130, Barnes 'TSX'BT 30345
Seating depth : .287 inch
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 2.810 inch = 71.37 mm
Barrel Length : 22.0 inch = 558.8 mm
C A U T I O N : any load listed can result in a powder charge that falls below minimum suggested
loads or exceeds maximum suggested loads as presented in current handloading manuals. Understand
that all of the listed powders can be unsuitable for the given combination of cartridge, bullet
and gun. Actual load order can vary, depending upon lot-to-lot powder and component variations.
USE ONLY FOR COMPARISON !
Powder type Filling/Loading Ratio Charge Charge Vel. Prop.Burnt P max P muzz B_Time
% Grains Gramm fps % psi psi ms
--------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------
Hodgdon H322 100.2 45.6 2.96 3071 100.0 60000 8236 0.957
IMR 3031 105.0 46.0 2.98 3040 100.0 53693 8456 0.998
Hodgdon Benchmark 100.6 46.5 3.01 3008 98.7 60000 8098 0.968
Hodgdon H335 94.5 48.4 3.13 3072 99.7 60000 8461 0.961
Code:
Cartridge : .308 Win. (SAAMI)
Bullet : .308, 130, Barnes 'TTSX'BT 30364
Seating depth : .452 inch
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 2.735 inch = 69.47 mm
Barrel Length : 22.0 inch = 558.8 mm
C A U T I O N : any load listed can result in a powder charge that falls below minimum suggested
loads or exceeds maximum suggested loads as presented in current handloading manuals. Understand
that all of the listed powders can be unsuitable for the given combination of cartridge, bullet
and gun. Actual load order can vary, depending upon lot-to-lot powder and component variations.
USE ONLY FOR COMPARISON !
Powder type Filling/Loading Ratio Charge Charge Vel. Prop.Burnt P max P muzz B_Time
% Grains Gramm fps % psi psi ms
--------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Hodgdon H322 102.4 43.7 2.83 3039 99.9 60000 7841 0.960
IMR 3031 105.0 43.2 2.80 2946 99.6 49673 7971 1.034
Hodgdon Benchmark 102.6 44.5 2.88 2972 98.2 60000 7670 0.973
Hodgdon H335 96.5 46.4 3.00 3040 99.5 60000 8047 0.963
Last edited:
Charlie98
Member
H322 would not be my first choice. You mention you have Varget… if there is published data for your bullet and Varget, I’d go that direction, even if it’s using your Unobtanium powder.
243winxb
Member
130 grain Barnes TTSX
Vs
130 grain Speer Hollow Point.
Using H322 in 308 Win.
How do they compare, Using Quickload? Ty.
If you're using bullets of similar construction and weight it is USUALLY OK to use the same load data as long as you start low and work up. You won't have problems with low end and mid-level loads. But as you approach a max load one bullet may reach max pressure at a lower powder charge than another.
But copper bullets use completely different data. Copper is lighter and a 130 gr copper bullet is roughly the same overall length as a 180 gr conventional lead bullet. It takes up more space in the case than a 130 gr lead bullet and the longer bullet length means more resistance, and pressure, moving down the barrel. The same powder charge simply won't work, may not even fit in the case. If you look at load data for copper bullets they often show completely different powders than you'd use with conventional bullets.
Think of a chronograph like the speedometer in your car. If you don't have a working speedometer, you might think everything is fine, but you may be 10-15 mph over the speed limit without realizing it. Same with handloading. If the load manual says 45 gr of powder is a max load and should give you 2800 fps, it is 2800 fps that is the hard line you don't cross. Not 45 gr of powder.
When you are working up a load you stop adding powder when you get close to 2800 fps. With some powder/ bullet combo's you might reach 2800 fps with only 42 or 43 gr of powder. If you are handloading without a chronograph and if you load 45 gr of powder, you may be exceeding 2900 fps and be overloaded without knowing it.
With other powder/bullet combos 45 gr of powder may only give you 2700 fps. Technically it would be safe to go slightly over 45 gr of powder until you get to 2800 fps. But I don't advise that. That combo might be safe in YOUR rifle. But if loaded in another rifle could be dangerous.
But copper bullets use completely different data. Copper is lighter and a 130 gr copper bullet is roughly the same overall length as a 180 gr conventional lead bullet. It takes up more space in the case than a 130 gr lead bullet and the longer bullet length means more resistance, and pressure, moving down the barrel. The same powder charge simply won't work, may not even fit in the case. If you look at load data for copper bullets they often show completely different powders than you'd use with conventional bullets.
Think of a chronograph like the speedometer in your car. If you don't have a working speedometer, you might think everything is fine, but you may be 10-15 mph over the speed limit without realizing it. Same with handloading. If the load manual says 45 gr of powder is a max load and should give you 2800 fps, it is 2800 fps that is the hard line you don't cross. Not 45 gr of powder.
When you are working up a load you stop adding powder when you get close to 2800 fps. With some powder/ bullet combo's you might reach 2800 fps with only 42 or 43 gr of powder. If you are handloading without a chronograph and if you load 45 gr of powder, you may be exceeding 2900 fps and be overloaded without knowing it.
With other powder/bullet combos 45 gr of powder may only give you 2700 fps. Technically it would be safe to go slightly over 45 gr of powder until you get to 2800 fps. But I don't advise that. That combo might be safe in YOUR rifle. But if loaded in another rifle could be dangerous.
"Confessions of first time copper solid loader"
I thought it was time to try solids in my 260 so I bought some Nosler 120 gr E-tips. I usually don't pay too much attention to published COL because I often can't find the exact bullet I'm loading-just the same weight. I just measure in my gun and load off the lands (usaully -.020" to start). Nosler says 36-40 gr of Varget so I went to the range with 37 - 39 gr loads with the bullets .015 off the lands (not sure why not my usual .020-probably rushing to find accuracy).
Groups were quite large. Back to the range with 36 and 36.5 gr load and .010" off the lands. 36 ok and first shot at 36.5 = blown primer. No damage to me or gun.
I have reconstructed the crime many times and the only thing I did wrong was the COL. Nowhere does Nosler speak directly to distance from lands that I can find. I later discovered Barnes recommends .050" off the lands. The Nosler published COL would have ironically put me at .050".
So it might be the case that the wrong seating depth is more dangerous than the wrong powder load. I was at the bottom of the powder load range. Interestingly Nosler has same powder data for E-Tip and Ballistic tip (lead bullet).
Good luck.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Scout21
Member
Alright, friends. Barnes sent me an email. I've pasted my original email and their response.
-------------------
Hi,
I'd like to load the 130 grain TTSX in my .308 Winchester. The online data from Barnes doesn't list H322. Are you able to tell me if H322 is compatible with the 130 grain TTSX in the .308 Winchester? If so, can you provide me with the relevant load data?
Thank you
---------------------
Thank you for choosing to shoot Barnes Bullets. Absolutely! Hornady and Hodgdon both have load data for a 130 gr bullet in the 308 Win. If wanting to use a powder/bullet we do not have load data listed, you can use "other" (jacketed lead core or monolithic) bullet load data when loading a Barnes Bullet of equal (or close to) weight. Using data from HodgdonReloading.com or other sources/powder/bullet manufacturers. JUST BE SURE TO START AT THE MINIMUM STARTING LOAD and work up from there in half grain increments watching for signs of high pressure such as, a sticky (hard) bolt lift when ejecting the fired case, ejector mark on the case head stamp or flattened/leaky primers. Once you notice any of the high pressure signs then you will want to lower the charge about half a grain or so to where no high pressure signs are present, and that would technically be "YOUR" rifle's max load. The load data published by all of the companies is just a reference point/guideline to safely start out at the minimum charges. The MAX charge solely depends on your rifle's chamber, barrel length, powder lot #, brass case capacity/manufacturer and your environmental conditions.
Thank You
Alan Griffith | Consumer Service
Barnes Bullets
---------------
If I'm reading this correctly, and I believe I am, it appears that Barnes sees no issue with substituting identical or even similar weight bullets, regardless of construction. I'm a bit surprised considering that the majority here have recommended against it.
Unfortunately I now face the conundrum of following the advice of many knowledgeable members recommending against substituting or taking instructions straight from the horse's mouth and doing it anyway.
AJC1
Member
It's not really contradictory. The product manufacturer gave guidance on their product. Would I apply that to Hornaday or hammer mono bullets, absolutely not. Stay safe and have a great holiday season.
redcon1
member
If your published data tells you that 45 gr of a given powder drives a specified 130 gr jacketed bullet 2,800 fps from a 24" barrel at or near saami max pressure and your chronograph tells you that the same 45 gr of powder is driving your substitute 130 gr bullet 2,800 fps from your 20" barrel, you have to consider that you're over saami max pressure because you probably should be slower with the shorter barrel. The faster bullet about has to equal higher pressure in such a case. If you happen to have a 24" barrel as well and you're at 2,900 fps, it's pretty obvious that you're exceeding max pressure. Maybe you started out with 42 gr instead and got 2,800 fps from a 24" barrel. You now have to consider that 42 gr of this specified powder is max for your rifle. As you change more things in the known to be safe recipe, it becomes less obvious and perhaps less useful. It's one tool that is readily available to most of us and which provides valuable data. Without that data, it's much less clear how near or far away you are from a given pressure when you start deviating from the known to be safe recipe and increasing your powder charges. That's one way that I use the chronograph to guide my reloading but I try real hard not to deviate from known to be safe recipes.
westernrover
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2018
- Messages
- 1,613
A load could be far overpressure while still being under the advertised velocity for numerous reasons, and the chronograph will not give the slightest hint of that. What's more, the advertised velocities very often come from longer test barrels rather than common firearms or barrel lengths. Data for some rifle cartridges are often closer to real-world results because the barrel lengths are unlikely to vary, but for some of the most common rifle cartridges and for just about any handgun cartridge, we have a wide variety of barrel lengths.
I realize that there was no proposal to try to interpret low velocities as sufficiently safe pressure, but only that higher-than-expected velocities would be a sign of high pressure. The problem with this is two-fold: First, it almost never happens. Handloaders are far, far more likely to see lower-than-expected (or hoped-for) velocities and they very, very rarely are surprised to see velocities higher than they ever expected. If they do see high velocities, they're more likely to be delighted than cautious or concerned. Second, if the loader is seeing unreasonably high velocities, they've already put themselves at risk with the shot. I already mentioned it, but it bears repeating that if they do not see unreasonably high velocities, it has most definitely not indicated that they are at a safe pressure.
I realize that there was no proposal to try to interpret low velocities as sufficiently safe pressure, but only that higher-than-expected velocities would be a sign of high pressure. The problem with this is two-fold: First, it almost never happens. Handloaders are far, far more likely to see lower-than-expected (or hoped-for) velocities and they very, very rarely are surprised to see velocities higher than they ever expected. If they do see high velocities, they're more likely to be delighted than cautious or concerned. Second, if the loader is seeing unreasonably high velocities, they've already put themselves at risk with the shot. I already mentioned it, but it bears repeating that if they do not see unreasonably high velocities, it has most definitely not indicated that they are at a safe pressure.
westernrover
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2018
- Messages
- 1,613
What seems reasonable to me and what I practice and what others have already mentioned in this thread is to make substitutions of bullets that have similar construction such that the mass, the seating depth of the bullet base, and the start pressure are similar. As discussed, copper monolithic bullets are much longer than bullets containing lead cores when the caliber and mass are equivalent because lead is denser than copper. This means that if the bullets are seated to a similar cartridge overall length, the base of the monolithic bullet will be deeper into the case and the initial combustion chamber volume will be significantly less, resulting in higher pressure for a given charge of propellant -- it's like a higher compression piston. Additionally, the solid copper shank of a monolithic will have greater resistance to giving or deforming when compressed by the lands of the rifling when compared to a copper jacket over a soft lead core. This results in higher start pressure.
If we deviate from relevant published data without being able to measure the pressure we will need an intelligent way to estimate the resulting pressure. Even if we could measure the pressure, we would still want a predictive model to help determine our starting point. For some deviations, "guesstimates" x% below published data might be sufficient to give us a starting point from which we can work up while looking for signs. This would almost certainly suffice for something like plated versus cast-lead or a 38 load in a 357 case. For more substantial deviations, we would want to examine data from similar analogs -- I might look at the differences in data from jacketed to monos for 270 Weatherby and try to extrapolate that for 7mm Weatherby. The more constants of proportionality I calculate for various differences between variations, the better and more useful my computational model becomes. I go from guesstimating to a well-calculated estimate.
Quick Load offers a more sophisticated modeling capability than I would be willing to develop myself, so I bought it. It's been indispensable for predicting the results of reasonable deviations from published data. While I primarily use the chronograph to measure the quality of my results, it is also useful for building models in Quick Load from which I can calculate/predict the results of changes. When my chronograph results don't match the Quick Load model, I tweak the model until it becomes an accurate reflection of my results and demonstrates accurate predictions for changes.
So I highly recommend a chronograph and Quick Load.
If we deviate from relevant published data without being able to measure the pressure we will need an intelligent way to estimate the resulting pressure. Even if we could measure the pressure, we would still want a predictive model to help determine our starting point. For some deviations, "guesstimates" x% below published data might be sufficient to give us a starting point from which we can work up while looking for signs. This would almost certainly suffice for something like plated versus cast-lead or a 38 load in a 357 case. For more substantial deviations, we would want to examine data from similar analogs -- I might look at the differences in data from jacketed to monos for 270 Weatherby and try to extrapolate that for 7mm Weatherby. The more constants of proportionality I calculate for various differences between variations, the better and more useful my computational model becomes. I go from guesstimating to a well-calculated estimate.
Quick Load offers a more sophisticated modeling capability than I would be willing to develop myself, so I bought it. It's been indispensable for predicting the results of reasonable deviations from published data. While I primarily use the chronograph to measure the quality of my results, it is also useful for building models in Quick Load from which I can calculate/predict the results of changes. When my chronograph results don't match the Quick Load model, I tweak the model until it becomes an accurate reflection of my results and demonstrates accurate predictions for changes.
So I highly recommend a chronograph and Quick Load.
GeoDudeFlorida
Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2020
- Messages
- 11,217
The Barnes guy, Alan, gave some really good advice. I suggest following it rather than the advice of people who won’t sign their names or take personal responsibility when/if something goes wrong. You’ll get lots of pontification from a forum; the public relations person at Barnes Bullets is going to lay it out pretty simply and accurately. I’d go with simple and accurate over wordy and anonymous.
But that’s me.
Charlie98
Member
Odd statement. I don't think Alan or Hodgdon is going to assume ANY responsibility if/when something goes wrong either.
redcon1
member
It's just one tool that gives one piece of information-muzzle velocity and it's an imperfect tool but I think knowledge of your muzzle velocity is useful for many reasons including comparing your results to published data and decreasing the likelihood of developing an unsafe load. I'd certainly rather have the data than not since I don't have a strain gauge and don't plan on getting one. And while it isn't perfect, relying on "reading the signs" is pretty imperfect as well. But using both of these tools together seems pretty reasonable to me. Throw in a computer program and your golden but is that even really necessary? I think most of us were probably reloading before home computers were a thing.
OP
OP
Scout21
Member
Bear with me as I'm still pretty new to the reloading game. As long as I'm not compressing a charge when using lead bullet load data shouldn't I be fine seating to the COAL that Barnes recommends in their TTSX load data, which in this case would be 2.735"? How should I determine optimal seating depth when loading a copper bullet using lead bullet load data?
I may be sending Barnes another email.
COAL is where the tip of the bullet is.
Weights being similar, it's the base of the bullet above the powder that drives the pressure. And that's for similar materials.
Solid copper vs relatively soft lead can (will) also drive pressure.... dramatically.
Do not try to translate between the two -- bullet weight for weight, shape for shape, OAL for OAL, or powder load for load
Weights being similar, it's the base of the bullet above the powder that drives the pressure. And that's for similar materials.
Solid copper vs relatively soft lead can (will) also drive pressure.... dramatically.
Do not try to translate between the two -- bullet weight for weight, shape for shape, OAL for OAL, or powder load for load
AJC1
Member
Oh contraire, using a powder that is slow enough to allow compressed loadings is additional safety from over pressure.
GeoDudeFlorida
Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2020
- Messages
- 11,217
Barnes. Hodgdon wasn’t asked by the OP, just Barnes.
“Absolutely! Hornady and Hodgdon both have load data for a 130 gr bullet in the 308 Win. If wanting to use a powder/bullet we do not have load data listed, you can use "other" (jacketed lead core or monolithic) bullet load data when loading a Barnes Bullet of equal (or close to) weight. Using data from HodgdonReloading.com or other sources/powder/bullet manufacturers. JUST BE SURE TO START AT THE MINIMUM STARTING LOAD and work up from there in half grain increments watching for signs of high pressure such as, a sticky (hard) bolt lift when ejecting the fired case, ejector mark on the case head stamp or flattened/leaky primers.”
There is nothing ambiguous in that statement. It’s very clear. The advice is coming from an official representative of Barnes Bullets. They make the bullet. I’m not sure why anybody is disagreeing with that advice. Don’t we all typically say, “If you are unsure, ask the manufacturer,”? Well???
Charlie98
Member
My bad on that... I misread the statement, but the same still applies. You criticize our advise here at THR, yet Alan and BARNES isn't going to assume any responsibility, either, 'official representative' or not.
n2omike
Member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2021
- Messages
- 469
Also... the right bullet for the job.
The faster cartridges need solid copper bullets a lot more than the slower ones.
Anything 2800 ft/s and below usually does just fine with a standard bullet. Loads that are faster than that will often shred standard bullets in medium to large game... and benefit greatly from copper.
Does a 30-30 up through a 30-06 really NEED a solid copper bullet for deer sized game? Not at all. Plus, they are often harder to expand, which can be a detriment. Does a .233, 22-250 or 7mm mag benefit? Definitely! Standard bullets have a hard time holding together at 3000+ fps.
The faster cartridges need solid copper bullets a lot more than the slower ones.
Anything 2800 ft/s and below usually does just fine with a standard bullet. Loads that are faster than that will often shred standard bullets in medium to large game... and benefit greatly from copper.
Does a 30-30 up through a 30-06 really NEED a solid copper bullet for deer sized game? Not at all. Plus, they are often harder to expand, which can be a detriment. Does a .233, 22-250 or 7mm mag benefit? Definitely! Standard bullets have a hard time holding together at 3000+ fps.
- Status
