Loading Manual Maximums?

Does anybody here ever compare loading manual Maximum listed loads?I frequently bounce through Sierra,Hodgdons and now Hornady`s manuals while comparing what they list as a maximum.Sierra and Hodgdon seem to run pretty close.Hornady lists many well below Hodgdons book...but a few loads Hornady lists are well over what Hodgdon says.One is the 7x57mm,7mm Mauser.Hornady pretty much pours the juice to it with VARGET compared to Hodgdons load.Hornady is kind of sheepish with the 223 Rem.Hodgdon recommends  a bit more coal.

Interested to see what you all deduce from looking at the difference in manuals.I understand barrel length,twist, rifle maker and the variables that go into a powder/bullet manufacturers  suggested guidelines.If one looks at my load for a 300 Win Mag according to Hornady it is super Hot...but sheepish according to Sierra or Hodgdon to push 165 grains of weight..I watch my primers and case head expansion along with any sign of stiff exctraction to determine where I must stop or where the best accuracy/velocity combination says that is enough...One of the best things I ever heard from a very smart man."A 223 Rem is always gonna be just a 223 Rem".NO MATTER what you do,loading hot or being stupid you`re never gonna make it a 220 Swift so there is no reason to push it beyond its limitations.

Thoughts?comments? appreciated..

Gene

I've found lots of errors over the years and they change in the same manual as time goes on (legal considerations???)

I stared reloading 308 about 44 years ago.  Strictly a $$$$ consideration for competition shooting.  Found that the max loads for many manuals and powders DIDN'T FIT THE CASE.  No compressed loads but actually had 5-6 grains that didn't even fit, compressed or not.  I talked to a rep one day and he said they were extrapolating loads for the '06 to get 308 loads.  He said no one had the time to check all those loads so they worked around "good estimates".

I think that isn't the case today.  I suspect the good lawyers have made sure that the companies document any load they publish and that it is on the correct side.

In the 'olde days" when I bought a reloading manual I got an error sheet.  This sheet had corrections since publication, and you were asked to update your manual for the typos.  Today with computers, I don't get that error sheet.  But I know the key-in errors are great, but everyone believes computer data...haha.

BEAR

Keep in mind, every lot number of powder can have different burn charecteristics. Sometimes several grains worth. The current lot of 2400 comes to mind, as it is considerably hotter than old lot. So, always start low, and work up.

Hey Waksupi.Good point I didn`t mention the burn rate of exact powders being different in different lots.Very good example of why to start low and workup versus what books say is top end loads.

Hey CB..Good post..also left out were variables such as different brands of brass and thickness causing pressures to rise and substituting primers which can cause pressures to fluctuate and Mag primers substituted in a high end load.

I have never used Vihtavouri powder.Some of my manuals list Viht in a variety of cartridges.Hodgdon gives its riflemaker,barrel length,twist,primer,brass maker,trim and COL in its loads.Along with it ,it lists IMR ,Alliant, and Winchester powders and loads with each cartridge.Very much do I agree with you as not taking a manual as GOSPEL.When I first started handloading the fella that taught me and got me started made it a point for me to understand this.His exact words were,"The manual is just a guide". Good post`s fellas..look forward to hearing thoughts from all...

Gene

For me personally, reloading manuals do two things     ...   1.)  they offer a pretty reliable list of the most appropriate powders for a particular cartridge and bullet weight and 2.) they offer a good base of data to compare and contrast, in order to establish a reasonable "starting" load using the powder decided upon.

After that, really, the manuals can be put away.  Everything, from that starting point on up to MAX, is decided by the rifle, accuracy on target and pressure sign indications as they appear throughout development.  Ya got fellas out there that read reloading manuals as scripture and scourns anyone who'd surpass those published MAX loads by so much as a tenth grain.  This is certainly one way to do things, but I don't subscribe to it.  MAX is not found in the pages of reloading manuals     ...     particularly a MAX load, as it related to a specific rifle.

On the other topic of do we load for velocity or accuracy, I am very much motivated by velocity and its positive effects on ballistic performance of a particular cartridge (i.e. gun nut by BEAR's definition) but no more so then I am with attaining the highest level of accuracy a cartridge can achieve, with me pulling the trigger (i.e. hunter by BEAR's definition).  I've never been one to believe that you have to sacrifice one to get the other.  It's been proven time and time again that a cartridge can indeed be pushed to its full velocity potential and still be deadly accurate.  In the end, I require both.  Every high velocity cartridge that I own only improved on the things I desire as powder charges grew     ...     velocities increased and their extreme spreads shrunk while at the same time, groups got smaller.  I like that and that's what I strive for with any reloading project that I begin.  >>  klallen  

This is another dang good post Gene. I've learned a lot from it.

A few personal experiences.

On the Hodgdon's powder, on the actual label, I've too have noticed that they tend to list max loads a few grains higher than bullet mfr's load manuals.  Of course they always say start 10% less and work up but still the max charge is different pretty consistently higher than the competition.

I know that the Sierra manual actually uses rifles as they list the make and model of the "test" rifle they used.  To me that's more comforting than use in a rail gun or some other "gun" clone.

I admit I probably give the manuals too much credit when it comes to choosing the "most accurate" powder.  The Nosler and Sierra manuals I have both list "accuracy loads" with Sierra giving a listed "hunting load".  Admittedly I usually give into buying their recommended "accuracy" powder and work with it. 

I've almost come to a conclusion that there's "accuracy" and there's "hunting accuracy"  For all of my rifles, (all of which are straight factory models with no more tinkering than a good trigger job, glass bedding and a free-floated barrel) I consider 1 MOA or better to be acceptable "hunting accuracy" and if say I can squeeze out another 50 FPS with a higher and albeit slightly less accurate (say up to 0.25 inches or so wider group) I'll use it for the extra umphh.  These rifles are typically limited to 300 yards and under.  Now there are two rifles which I'm sorta an accuracy freak about - my 7 RUM Sendero and my 22-250 VLS.  Those are specialized rigs for shooting longer ranges (7 RUM) and small targets (22-250).  These I do get fanatical about, well at least fanatical for me (5+ shot groups instead of the usual 3, smaller charge increments of 0.3 grains vs. 0.5 grains and so on).  I honestly believe that a factory stocked rifle shooting 1 inch or better groups is something we should be content with.  Now one of these days I'll probably have Kingpin build me that 300 Win. Mag and I'll be looking for great things (0.5 MOA groups if I do my part) but for now the guns and ranges I use are plenty acceptable.

I think the manuals are a great "guide" as has been said and the variances from one manual to the next remind me that this is the case.  I'm also reminded that the published findings are not always reality, especially when it comes to velocities.  In nearly every case I've seen velocities below the standard listing, sometimes as much as 100 FPS.  I should probably someday compare my findings and put them up.  Next time I'm out at the range, I'll do this if I don't forget.  Of course I realize they are shooting longer barrels than I in most cases which does account for some of the variances.

I guess the lessons I've learned from manuals are these:

#1  They are only a guide
#2  If the suggested powdered charge isn't as fast as you'd like then that's probably to be expected with typically shorter barrels I shoot.
#3  Might as well start with their "accurate" load and go from there.  If they're not hot enough or accurate enough then look for another powder similar in burn rate.  (Of course all sorts of components can affect accuracy, but I'm usually dead set with my bullets and brass and unwilling to change based on my own findings.  Powder is an "easier" component to vary).
#4  In addition to the cookbook stuff there's also a lot of good info on techniques, history and other topics that can come in handy too.

I'm sure I'm leaving something out but that's my take on it.

 

 

Lots of good stuff on this one.I know a person who constantly buys different powders(I think he reads too damned much and doesnt shoot enough..but).I myself do not unless the powders I use will not perform in a new rifle after I have exhausted the powder options that I use religously.I think it is a waste of money to constantly keep looking for a new "better" powder when you already have one that yields accuracy.Bullets,yes I am guilty of this.I will test new bullets.If I dont like what I see,I dont buy em anymore.

Thinking about what others have said about max loads and accuracy.  I use to think the same.  Then after years I figured it out; it wasn't the max load per se.  It was that best accuracy usually comes when the case is full, more even burning less extra volume to fill.  Thinking I was pretty damn smart, figuring this out over decades of reloading; I was surprised about 10 years ago reading it in some 1955 reloading articles.

IMO best accuracy usually comes with a full case charge of powder.  This CAN be a max load.  It can also be a load less than max of another powder that is more accurate than the max load of the other powder.  Isn't reloading fun.

BEAR

Timber,

I've got a big gun library.  P.O. Ackley's books are good.  But the info in them is really old.   I have two of the original editions, they now have new reprints.

Some great reading, check out the article on blowing up a lever gun with over pressure loads.  The article on how long a barrel it takes to stop the bullet from friction alone???? it good too.  You will have lots of interesting reading in both volumes.  But his load data is NOT good today.  He didn't have a digital chronograph in his days, and many (include me) question his velocity figures.  He even has a way to build your own chrongraph (crude to say the least).  Don't get me wrong I like P.O. and read all his stuff when he was alive and writting.  But his books are best for his thoughs on different cartridges.  You shoould not use his books as a reloading manual. 

Another book you might like is "Cartridges of The World".  If you want to compare cartridges and look a t some opinions of different cartridges including hundreds of wildcat, it is a good book. (maybe better than P.O.'s book.  COLT is a large fomat paperback that is updated every 3 years of so.  It includes everything, lists for about $28, and is usually sold at gunshows for about $15.

BEAR

PS I built my own design chrongraph in 1964.  If I thought there would have been a market I might have gone comerical and made a lot of money. 

Yea, ranch, my COTW doesn't have the new WSSM and even the WSMs are missing.  So many change in the last 4 years.  tough to keep up.

BEAR