Load data for Hornady bullet

I get about the same results as Metal god. With a 180gr bullet I use 12.5gr of 2400 and get around 1150fps with Jacketed Bullets and around 1250fps with HyTek Coated Lead. Was not getting good results with H110 until I jacked it up to 13.5gr and it burns very clean and extremely accurate. Also get about 100fps more velocity than with the 2400. This is out of a Model 686 with 8 3/8" Barrel. Experience has taught me with H110 you don't get the best results unless you push it to the max.
 
You do not need bullet manufacturer specific data. One loads for the weight, not who made it. Or its shape or construction.
Handloads.com gives 1 jacketed, 180 grain, .357, Unique load from Alliant. Start load is 6.3. Max is 7.0.
Oddly the same as Salmoneye's 2005 manual. Means Alliant hasn't tested 180 grain bullet for eons.
 
180 XTP Using W296

A couple years ago, I loaded up some 180 XTP's just for fun:

Using 13.3 grains of W296 (Hornady book max is 13.7 grains), here's what I got using Smith 686's; 3", 4" & 8-3/8" bbl's.

3" 973 f/s
4" 1055 f/s
8" 1020 f/s

That's right, the 8-3/8" barreled gun yielded a lower velocity. Between the barrel/cylinder gap and the friction of the barrel, the propellant stopped accelerating the bullet somewhere between 4 and 8-3/8". I would guess at about the 6" mark - but it's just a guess. Also just a guess, but I suspect the 8" bbl may have been the top performer with more charge weight. The W296 was running rather weak at 13.3 grains. If I had more bullets (I only bought one box of 100) and more ambition/reason to continue, I would have worked up the charge weight more for sure. Probably quite a bit more.
 
T. O'Heir said:
You do not need bullet manufacturer specific data. One loads for the weight, not who made it. Or its shape or construction.
Click to expand...

T.O., you've written the above, or a variation of it, numerous times. While it may be true in many cases, it's certainly not universally true. The statement is just as misleading now as it was the first time you wrote it, and it won't become a good practice with repetition. There are numerous examples of pressure tested loading data that disprove your statement. You may have adopted that reckless practice yourself, but in the interest of others you really should stop repeating that negligent statement. Shame on you O'Heir.
 
ColoradoGunNut, I would encourage you to read BBarn's post #24. I agree with it 100%.

Different bullet shapes and constructions can have different seating depths into the case. All other things being equal, a bullet seated deeper into the case will almost always have a higher peak pressure. More specifically, a faster propellant burn rate; thus, delivering a higher peak pressure as a secondary effect. The amount of internal case volume remaining after the bullet is seated is a major factor on how the propellant will behave at the moment of ignition. This is not a small thing. It's an important concept to know and understand.

To tell someone - especially a new loader -
One loads for the weight, not who made it. Or its shape or construction.
Click to expand...
-is at best an oversimplified statement; and at worse, reckless.

True, you don't usually need the data for the exact bullet; but it should at least be close. For instance, I load a lot of Everglades 125gn JHP's for both 38 and 357. I use Speer's 125 JHP data as a starting point. The bullet profiles are similar enough to where this is a safe practice.

Conversely, I wouldn't use Speer's 45ACP 230gn JHP's data for a 230gn RN bullet (or visa-versa) - their profiles are too different.

Point is, bullet weight alone is not always apples to apples. And it's important that a new loader understands this early on.

Load safe.
-Nick.
 
Over 12 years ago I sent the following email to three bullet makers who publish loading data. It was an attempt to understand what effect the various components had on loads. Two of the three recipients responded and their responses follow in my next post.

*****
Based on your testing and experience, please rank the relative effect on chamber pressure caused by each of the following changes in components of a metallic cartridge.

1) Bullet brand (same weight and type but different brand)
2) Bullet style (a change between jacketed soft point and jacketed hollow point of the same weight
and brand, in other words bearing surface)
3) Bullet lot
4) Powder lot
5) Powder weight variation (a small change of +/- 1% by weight)
6) Primer type (standard verses magnum)
7) Primer brand (but same type)
8) Powder lot
9) Firmness of crimp
10) Brand of cartridge case
11) Lot of cartridge cases

This may be considered a somewhat unusual and burdensome request. However, reloading manuals usually strongly caution the reloader about changes to and variations of the components as listed above. However, they never seem to state the relative severity of such changes.

Let's look at a common scenario. Let's say I want to use bullet brand A. Bullet manufacturer A gives reloading data for the powder I want to use but the specified primer and cartridge case brands are not the ones I want to use. On the other hand, bullet manufacturer B gives similar data (same bullet weight, bullet type, and powder) which does use the primer and case brand I want to use. The problem is the starting charge for the load from bullet manufacturer B is just below the max charge specified from bullet manufacturer A.

Since the starting and maximum loads from the two bullet manufacturers are so far apart, it's not clear how to proceed. It seems it should be possible to come up with a starting load without the risk of excessive pressure or a squib load without buying a different brand of cases and primers. But it appears that without changing both case and primer there is a danger of excessive pressure or a squib load regardless of which bullet manufacturer's loading data is chosen.

However if I knew, for example, that the big difference between the two manufacturer's data is most likely due to the bullet, I could substitute the desired primers and case and use the starting charge and bullet specified by manufacturer A. Conversely, if I knew that the big difference between the two manufacturer's data is most likely the primer specified, I could use the desired primer and case with the starting charge listed by manufacturer B with the bullet from manufacturer A.
*****
Responses to the above email follow in my next post.
 
Below is the response from one of the bullet makers. In this response they addressed some of my question point by point (with their response in bold in those instances).

****
Use the data from the manufacturer of the bullet first. Next use data from the powder company testing the exact same bullet you are using. Start at a starting load and work into it watching for all pressure signs.

The major factors are bearing surface of the bullet and the specific gun used which is something you failed to list.

Other variations in manual often result from the individual person doing the testing, besides cartridge length, wall thickness of the bullet's jacket, whether the bullet is a homogeneous solid.

Beyond that, read my comments below. After that call us for specific help. These are things that cannot be weighted as you would like. They are learned from a great deal of experience period. First thing to learn are pressure signs.


>> 1) Bullet brand (same weight and type but different brand) The bearing surface could be triple.
>> 2) Bullet style (a change between jacketed soft point and jacketed hollow
>> point of the same weight and brand, in other words bearing surface) could be significant.
>> 3) Bullet lot. fairly meaningless
>> 4) Powder lot. a new lot may not even have the correct powder in the can. May be much
faster like Re-15 instead of RE-22.
>> 5) Powder weight variation (a small change of +/- 1% by weight) not a real problem
>> 6) Primer type (standard verses magnum) normally not a real problem if worked into and you
have an understanding of the primers.
>> 7) Primer brand (but same type) same as 6
>> 8) Powder lot same as 5
>> 9) Firmness of crimp normally not a concern when working a load up
>> 10) Brand of cartridge case not a major concern when working a load up
>> 11) Lot of cartridge cases same as 10

****

Next is the response I received to my email from another bullet maker.

****

This may look as a simple task, it is not. I could write a doctoral dissertation on each of the numbered items below. Throw in the caliber as a variable, I could use up the memory in my computer.

Here's the "Reader's Digest" answer. Use tested data and follow the recipe of whoever shows the data. Are there grey areas in reloading, yep, but not so grey as they would be worth gun or body parts.
Shoot Straight!
 
Alliant 1995
180 JFP 7 Grains Unique 1225 Fps, 33,800 Psi.

Velocity Looks really optimistic to me.


Its going to shoot HIGH to the sights in a 4" Gun.

Start 10% low and try. Its not the perfect powder, but sure will work.

David
 
-is at best an oversimplified statement; and at worse, reckless.
Click to expand...

Have you looked at a Sierra or Hornady Manual where they have anything from ELD to Flat base and they use the same load data.

You work from low on up, use a couple of manuals and you are fine.

Some like 9mm can be dicey, 357 is not it.
 
Have you looked at a Sierra or Hornady Manual where they have anything from ELD to Flat base and they use the same load data.
Click to expand...

I have and concluded that the data is best used for there long baring surface bullets and the VLD-BT bullets suffer because of that . You can often push the VLD-BT bullets harder then the manuals suggest because of there relatively short baring surfaces in comparison to the others . That is all just IMHO but I believe that's the very reason you hear so many claiming Hornady is on the conservative side of load data . IMO it's because that data is actually only for one of those bullets in the group and that's the longest baring surface bullet in the group or what ever other bullet the manufacture concluded was the hardest to push ( for lack of a better term ) ????
 
Last edited:
Have you looked at a Sierra or Hornady Manual where they have anything from ELD to Flat base and they use the same load data.
Click to expand...

Yes I have. And all that tells me is that their published data was all within SAAMI pressure spec. What it did not tell me is that all the different bullets yielded the same pressure with the same charge weights.
 
Just an FYI.

I have found that there is usually a good reason behind not being able to find certain load data. Many have went before us so many mistakes have already been made. No need to repeat them. ;)
 
What it did not tell me is that all the different bullets yielded the same pressure with the same charge weights.
Click to expand...

Nor will it, because they don't.

In many cases, it doesn't matter, all that matters is the load produces pressure within SAAMI specs.

In other cases, it can make a difference, because of the possibility of exceeding SAAMI specs.

And, its highly unlikely that what ever they get for pressure in their test gun will be exactly what you get in your gun. It should be close, and should be well within the safety margin, but it won't be exactly the same, as there are too many factors at work to make an identical reading anything other than serendipity.
 
I am going to disagree with pastime to a degree.

There are too many powders and the manuals builders will select what they think are the best current ones.

Unique was a go to powder back in the day and I find recipes for it up to 160 grains in my old books (bullets did not go higher in 357 back then)

Ergo, I suspect its still viable, might be quite workable, but not considered amongst the best and something has to be dropped.

That is where quick load can play a good role, run the data, see what it says.

Sometimes you are stuck with a lot of a powder or can't get the listed ones or....

In this case the OP appears to have options so I am not pushing it at all, but I would not discount it either.

It should not be forgotten, reloading goes back a long way and there is a long history. That can fade away, does not mean its not still valid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top