Reloading Manual Questions

[rodnocker1]

I am new to reloading and have picked up several different manuals. I have the latest Speer, Hodgdon, and Lyman along with load data from several powder companies. It seems that most, if not all come up with different data for the same round, such as a 115 gr. JHP 9mm load. Even when using the same bullet like a Speer Gold Dot JHP they give different OAL, Min/Max load, max pressure, etc. How do you know which one is the right set of data or does it matter, just as long as you use what is shown (meaning don't use one charts OAL with another charts powder charge, etc)?

 

[The Bushmaster]

Yup...Lawyers cause that. Start with the lowest one or start where you feel comfortable, but not at the top powder charge. Work up to it looking for pressure signs and accuracy. Stop at which ever comes first...

 

[trueblue1776]

Different data pisses me off to no end, what I do is make a graph, X axis bullet weight, Y axis powder charge. That way if a load really is above/below normal it is obvious. If you can't find more than 4 loads for that powder it becomes fairly useless, but it is a great way to compare loads. If you want to see one I could scan one in.

 

[Slamfire]

Which one is right?, Well they are all right. And all wrong. Actually what you are seeing is that maximum charges are tricky. A few small changes and things go over maximum quite quickly. Therefore, don't load maximum charges. Load mid range charges.

What I do, I use a chronograph in developing my loads. I shoot factory loads and compare the velocities between my reloads and the factory ammunition. It does not bother me one bit if my reloads are 100 fps or less slower than the factory ammunition. And I like to keep my velocities below the published velocities for maximum loads in the reloading manuals.


Some gunwriters advocate only using factory ammunition for self defense, and I think that is just a great idea. So, you can load cheap practice ammunition with lead bullets or cheap Jacketed. So, you don't have to load max, all you want is something that functions the pistol and is accurate. A medium powered load will be easier on you, easier on the gun.

 

[Ol` Joe]

They all are right. The difference you see is caused by the loads being developed in different labs useing different chambers, barrels, pressure test equipment, powder and bullet, lots. They also probably used different primers and cases but if not the lots used are sure to vary also.
The manuals are simply guides. They are not cut in stone with their data and you will find at times the loads you load don`t follow the results the lab found in the book.
Pick the load useing the components you have on hand or as close as possible and start low working up watching for possible problems. The suggestion to avoid max loads isn`t a bad one although alot of reloaders use them. If all you need are target loads, mid range loads work as well as any and most of the time I`ve found sub max loads are the most accurate.

 

[rodnocker1]

Thanks Guys, that was what I was looking for.

I have no desire to max out my loads and had planned to start at the minimum load and work my way up to around the mid range. The problem is that with all of the different values, especially the different OAL's (listed OAL's from 3 different manuals for 9mm 115 gr GD JHP were-1.090",1.125",1.169"), I was unsure of exactly what the round is "supposed" to be.

The Lyman manual diagram shows the design spec OAL for 115 gr 9mm FMJ to be 1.169" while Speer states a tested OAL of 1.135" for the same round. Lyman even states that you shouldn't seat bullets any shorter than the design as deep seating could dramatically raise pressures. This being true, I had to wonder why then would Speer data say to seat deeper and is it safe to use that data?

It had been my understanding that Speer was pretty much on top of the game when it comes to reloading and while 0.034" isn't very much in other places (pants inseam, car length, etc), it might make a huge difference with ammo. I didn't want to make a mistake and use data that could turn a "frisky little round" into an "Oh, Crap!" moment the first time I pulled the trigger to test the load.

 

[trueblue1776]

It takes a decent sized mistake to explode a gun...

 

[SASS#23149]

my experience..
dont load too many 'starting load' rounds,you'll be very disappointed with them..very anemic. I usually start..and stay with a mid range load,seldom go top range.just 'cause I'm cheap and want to save the powder,lol.

load some low,then midrange loads for your first range trip,and I think you'll agree with me.

 

[Hunter0924]

Keep in mind not all bullets are the same (230gr FMJ in .451 or 168gr HPBT in .308 are not always the same bullet.)
Data can also vary due to jacket thickness, hardness, sectional density, ballistic coefficient, and so on.
That is why starting at the initial charge and working up is a must.
Like was already said data can also vary depending on the methods and tolerances of the testing equipment.

 

[shu]

yeah, it's a bummer.

with 9mm and some other small fully packed high pressure cartridges bullet seating depth can make a big difference.. likely not as important with 45acp..

other factors would be bullet shape (bearing surface on the barrel, bullet composition (soft lead, hard lead, copper jacket), crimp, etc.

i found a free graph program at
http://www.padowan.dk/graph/
and for a while was plotting powder charge vs o.a.l. from various sources.. helps to get a handle on things. typically you will see lower powder weights correlate with shorter o.a.l.

chronometer is a worthwhile investment.. won't give you peak pressure, which is the limiting factor you are most interested in if you are working toward the top end.. but you will be able to see how velocity changes with each increment of powder addition.

-shu

 

[P-32]

One of the main differences in the loading manuals is some use a universal reciever while others like Speer use a real firearm and list what they used.

Does this mean Speer is always right? No. I would not use their 357 Bluedot data found in the #11 in any pistol I liked. Hopefully most figured this out while working up and had the smarts to stop when pressure showed up.

 

[jhansman]

Here's just one example for W296, taken from Loadbooks' "The Complete Reloading Manual for the .357 Magnum" (which is really just a compendium of extracted data from various manuals for one caliber):

Nosler 158 gr. HP - 13.8 to 14.8 gr.
Sierra 158 gr. HP - 15.9 to 17. 3 gr.
Hornady 158 gr XTP - 12.4 to 16 gr.

So, using what is essentially the same bullet, I can load W296 into this cartridge with a max range of 2.5 grs? How can that be right? Everything I read about this powder screams "Be Carefull !!!!!!" With a max range like that, yikes!

 

[Ol` Joe]

So, using what is essentially the same bullet, I can load W296 into this cartridge with a max range of 2.5 grs? How can that be right?

1st these bullets are NOT the same. They are the same weight but there are differences, jacket thickness, corn or jacket hardness. bearing surface. The loads also were worked up in different platforms as others have noted. The type and geometery of of these can contribute to changes in pressure. The OAL variations also play a part.

Things like throat lenght, throat roughtness, Lead angle, vented pressure barrels vs accual pistols, the temp the loads were developed in, ect, all can vary the result found in the labs. If the lab uses the crusher method instead of piezo equipment to measure pressure, the ability of the tech to measure the copper crusher properly and accurately also comes into play.

There also are 3 different cases (Federal, Starline, and Frontier) and 2 primers ( WSPM and CCI-550) used by the manufactures you name in developing their data. Add changes in powder, primer, and case lots and there are still more differences in conditions of their tests.

Keep in mind too that the allowed variation in canister powders, as I`ve been lead to believe, is 10% in burn rate. If one source has a slow lot and the other a fast one they could very well find a difference approching 10% in their max loads from this alone.

The pressure the labs stay under also vary during testing. The SAAMI max pressure is an average with a 2nd pressure, the "max allowed" that limits the average pressure of a load in some cases. There can be a pressure extreem spread of a few thousand psi with a sample load. If one companies load with their bullet has a smaller ES they can likely approch the max average closer then another company who has a larger ES with theirs. Say for example the max SAAMI psi for the 357 Mag is 35K psi (it is) and the max allowed is 38K psi (a guess, I don`t have it on hand). Sierra finds their max load produces 33K "AVG" psi with a max found pressure of 37800psi. They will call it good or maybe knock a half gr off the load and stop. This is their max book load. Nosler on the other hand finds a load 2 gr lighter with their components and bullet produces 31K "AVG" psi but there is a larger pressure swing with their bullet and the max recorded pressure is 38500psi. They must drop a bit and get the "MAX ALLOWED PSI" under 38K and then call it max. This could mean the "MAX AVG" is now only 30500, but we don`t for sure. They won`t tell and we can`t measure it as they did to find out. Neither one has a load at "Max SAAMI PSI Avgerage" but both have loads that are max with the components listed. Both are honest in thier books the loads were max in their lab findings.

We don`t have the same conditions or component lots the labs used. Our firearms will give still yet different pressures. This is the reason for starting low and working up. Your pistol may well show less pressure with the max load listed by Sierra and max out before hitting the max load listed by Nosler. If we change the components, different primer or case for example the whole load has changed and the result can vary even more one way or the other.

These books are simply guide lines. The only thing true in them is that they found, with their load, in their test equipment, this was their result. There are no promises you will get the same result with yours.

 

[DWARREN123]

Unless you use everything that was used to get the data, including the firearm, start at less than max and work on the areas you want to have (accuracy, power, cheap/easy, SD). For most people reloading is an art form and not science. Don't get mad get a good load.

 

[jfh]

act the risk of sounding persnickety, Ol' Joe,

Your analysis of 'conflicting' reload data is excellent--but does nothing to solve the problem. I'm dealing with this problem myself right now--I want to develop good reloads for use in a J-frame with a nominal 2" barrel.

(Background: the VT incident convinced me to get going with CC again--and this time I decided to carry the proverbial snubby revolver. I want to get VERY proficient in its use, so I want some reloads for practice. I actually bought two--the S&W 340 for carry, and the 640 for practice / alternate carry.)

I have found a real lack of data resources for 2" barrels, and I need to make some 'reasonable' extrapolations.' The real trick, of course, is what's 'reasonable?'

Here's a couple of related issues, besides the barrel (length) issue--nominally-similar bullets. I found a lead 105-TC to load, and bought that--still looking for a lead 110-gr. Hopefully, this bullet would allow me to replicate my chosen FC 110 gr SD load--at least so I can practice with the alloy frame gun to get proficient with it.

I think some 'reasonable' assumptions are the following:

1. 'Similar' bullets have similar loading characteristics Loads (specifically, for 231) and specs for a 110 gr. bullet in general (Lead or JHP) are considered similar, and a variable at least in the mid-load range. A corrolary here is that given a bullet weight, charges will vary by bullet type--e.g., lead and jacketed.

2. Powder, and to a lesser extent primer (brand and type) is specific and not 'exchangable,' and is a constant.

3. LOA is a another constant, selected for minimum alteration during initial development.

4. Standardized development techniques are mandatory.

5. Stay in the moderate range of loads; avoid minimum or maximum loads.​

In general, then, it seems to me that a careful analysis based on set theory ought to help us a lot. Further, 'top-down' organization (old computer programming principles) are helpful in organizing our constants and variables.


For example, on the barrel-length issue here: Given any readily-available powder, is reasonable to assume that velocities from a 2" barrel will be less than from a 6" barrel--particularly for 'older' cartridges' data.

I am constantly Googling this stuff--and just last night, while rumbling around the new Hodgson data base, I discovered there appears to be several .38+P pressure-level loads with 231 and 110 gr bullets in the .357 magnum recipes. As a result, I ordered out some .357 brass and SPM primers.

Finally, nothing beats experience, and lots of it. A careful, MINIMAL manipulation of variables is one way to grow. And all bets are off if you are working with, for example, Winchester 296 powder.

If anyone else can join in here to help refine these principles, I'd appreciate it.

Jim H.

 

[Ol` Joe]

JFH I`ve no arguement.

It is possible to extapolate data between similar bullet wgts within reason. As you state though, we have to use some caution. OAL can be varied, it doesn`t make a lot of difference in bottle neck rifle cartridges although it has more effect in straight walled cartridges. The bullet seated deeper in a straight walled case reduces a greater % of case capasity then a bullet seated the same amount deeper in a bottle neck one. The smaller cartridges, 9mm, 32acp, ect are troubled more by this. As long as we start with a shorter lenght when we work our load up and stay there we should be OK. The only cavet to this is with some semi autos the COL is important to function of the pistol. Changing the COL may cause the cartridges to fail to feed or eject properly. The geometery of the bullet nose has the most effect on this and is why some data lists various COLs with same lenght bullets depending on manufacture.

If you are interested here is a page with some test results useing the 357 in various BBL lenghts with the load listed and penitration in water jugs, expansion of various bullets ect. There are similar test on this site with other cartridges and more reloading info then one can read in a week.

http://stevespages.com/page8f357magnum.html

Good luck with your load!