More Opinion Than Question Wanted

[robhic]

I was recently loading some .380acp rounds (my youngest granddude likes the softer recoil) and I got my info from my Lyman manual. I also looked at the Hodgdon website for more info and it was different. I was using TiteGroup at 2.4gr (the lowest Lyman value) for his likes but the website gave me 2.6gr.

It doesn't seem enough to make a big deal (max was around 3.0gr) but how do you reconcile differences like that? Does it make a difference or just a choice as long as I didn't exceed max? I'd be curious as to thoughts of the more experienced. Thanks.

 

[PA-Joe]

The bullet makers will show more powder. The powder makers will show less powder. For paper targets the lowest charge that will cycle your firearm is all that you really need.

 

[T. O'Heir]

Manuals will always be slightly different due to the components and firearm used in the tests. Hodgdon, for example, used a 3.75" barrel with a 1 in 16 twist with a .355" bullet. Lyman probably used something else. My old Lyman book says they used a 5" Husqvarna with a .362" bullet.
"...the website gave me 2.6gr..." Start load for a 90 is 2.7. 2.3 for an 80. Either data source is fine. 1/10th of a grain isn't going to matter.

 

[jwrowland77]

The bullet makers will show more powder. The powder makers will show less powder. For paper targets the lowest charge that will cycle your firearm is all that you really need.

You sure? I generally find the opposite true. Most the time the powder manufacture will show a higher charge while the bullet manufacture will show a lower charge.

I'm like you though, for paper I go lowest that will cycle my pistol and roll with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mikld]

We need a sticky on "Why Reloading Manuals Differ". This is a question very, very often asked on forums...

Reloading manuals are published reports of what the lab technicians found when they used the listed components, not hard and fast formula. Reloading manuals differ because each publisher uses a different testing lab, which may use different lots of powder, primers, bullets and yep even brass. Each lab will have different test equipment (perhaps the same manufacturer, but the same age, wear, etc.?). While all may use SAAMI suggested test parameters, all the testing is done with different personnel, different conditions, etc. With so many variables, though slight, results will be different...

 

[robhic]

Reloading manuals are published reports of what the lab technicians found when they used the listed components, not hard and fast formula. Reloading manuals differ because each publisher uses a different testing lab, which may use different lots of powder, primers, bullets and yep even brass.

Yes, I found this out! Was checking some weights "just for the heckuvit" and found differing weight. Kept dumping and re-weighing the grain loads and they were OK. Then it just hit me, look at the brass brands. Yep, different manufacturers. One was different weight than the other. So much for tare weight using different brass. But good for future use.

And thanks for your input above!

 

[RC20]

Lesson learned (and twice this week)

Use the pan, make sure its zeroed on beam or calibration and then zeroed on the electronic scale.

there are no shortcuts.

I loaded 380 Kurtz many years back, I wouldn't have the4 patience for it now!

Pretty much load with a tweezers.

 

[FITASC]

Reloading manuals are published reports of what the lab technicians found when they used the listed components, not hard and fast formula. Reloading manuals differ because each publisher uses a different testing lab, which may use different lots of powder, primers, bullets and yep even brass.

Some also only use fixed breach test barrels, not standard guns you and I might be loading for, so pay attention to that as well.

 

[Tsquared]

Some also only use fixed breach test barrels, not standard guns you and I might be loading for, so pay attention to that as well.

+1

Back in my youth, one of my buddy's father was QA at the Hercules plant in Brunswick GA. He got paid to hand load and test the batches of powder they were producing. He had some neat stuff at work ( bolt action, fixed breach test barrels) and some pretty cool guns at the house. Up until the past few years the Alliant/Hercules powders were my "goto" brand as I have more load data on it than anything else.

 

[F. Guffey]

It doesn't seem enough to make a big deal (max was around 3.0gr) but how do you reconcile differences like that? Does it make a difference or just a choice as long as I didn't exceed max? I'd be curious as to thoughts of the more experienced. Thanks.

My wife was under the impression she had a choice between slide action and cylinder pistols when qualifying for conceal carry. When she got to the range the instructor said: "WE do not have anyone qualifying with a cylinder type pistol, DO WE? My wife had no interest in tolerating the recoil necessary to cycle a slide pistol. She created another problem, I could not get her to hold the pistol tight enough meaning the only way I could get the pistol to function was load them hot.

To catch everyone up; she was going to qualify with a S&W Model 10 but the instructor did not want cylinders and slides on the same range so she opted for the slide but still refused to hold the pistol tight. The range had ammo available that was in the neighborhood of +P. She qualified but it was not a fun day for her.

F. Guffey

 

[FITASC]

Seems that instructor acted like a jerk and needs to be replaced.

 

[F. Guffey]

acted like a jerk and

I thought he was just the opposite; there were at least 15 applicants in the class. He emptied his clips and pistol for practice ammo meaning there was nothing bashful about his pistol and ammo. While he made sure she was familiar with loading and firing the slide everyone waited patiently. 6 members of the class, including me came in as a group. Long story.

And then: during the class room instruction he made a reference to a shooting that was considered 'a good shooting'. I asked him if he was there. With a no answer I ask him if he would like to speak to someone that was there, my wife. That turned into one of those "You could have heard a pin drip" moments.

F. Guffey

 

[noylj]

Puuleeeze, powder vs bullet manufacturer data, when many of them are under the same conglomerate umbrella.
First, manuals can only tell you what they got with their lot numbers of components and their test gun/barrel.
Today, we have pressure trace data in real time that shows all sorts of pressure spikes and such and has forced a lot of data to be reduced. Yes, go back to the '60s and there were a lot of loads being happily shot that exceeded the pressure limits based on new technology that was hidden by a single data point from copper crusher measurements. Thank God guns are built strong and are proof tested.
So, unless you have the same lot of powder, the same primers, the same cases, and the same lot of bullets and you fire them in the same gun at the same temperatures, you can not hope to get the same results.
The problem I see with the industry today is everyone claiming that ONLY their manual has the real data, whereas all manuals have the real data FOR WHAT THEY TESTED.
This is why I always check several sources and start at the lowest start load.

 

[44 AMP]

how do you reconcile differences like that?....... I'd be curious as to thoughts of the more experienced. Thanks.

Maybe I've been at this too long...(been reloading for about 45 years) but it continues to amaze me how many people don't realize that loading data is not handed down on stone tablets from on high, nor is it the immutable laws of the universe, but like the pirate says "more loike guidelines, really...aarrr"

Simply put each gun, and ammo component is a variable. They DIFFER slightly. THEY ARE NOT ALL EXACTLY THE SAME. Even if your gun is the same make model and barrel length as their test gun, its not their test gun, and you CAN get different results.

Often, the differences are not noticed without special investigation, but sometimes the differences are drastic. That's why we always start low, and CAUTIOUSLY work loads up.

A load that works fine in gun A might show high pressure signs in another gun. They are all different even consecutive serial number guns off the production line could show large differences in what they shoot best, worst, and what is, and isn't high pressure in them.

Most of the time, guns and ammo will behave about the same way, but sometimes things are much different (stacking tolerances is one explanation), and there's no way to tell beforehand, which is why one always starts low and works up, starting over whenever you change ANY component.

Here's an example I was involved in, three different guns, all .357 Mag, all shooting the same ammo, over a chronograph. A 6" S&W M19, a 6" S&W M28 and a Desert Eagle.
125gr JHP, load right out of the middle of the Speer manual, but worked up in a different gun.

The M19 shooter doubled the gun on his first shot (I had never heard of anyone ever doing that with a .357, but he did it) At that point we discontinued shooting the model 19, and the two fired cases had to be driven out of the cylinder with a rod and a hammer. We could not get them out by hand. (and I did the rest of the shooting )
Chrony said 1620fps

Full cylinder from the model 28. Cases ejected normally.
Chrony said: 1670fps

Full magazine from the Desert Eagle. Completely normal function.
Chrony said: 1720fps

Same load, different results in different guns. USUALLY the difference is not nearly that extreme, but extreme differences can, and do happen.

The simple answer is that everybody's data differs slightly because they are using different guns, different lot# of powder, different lots of cases, different bullets, seating depths, crimp etc.

They accurately report what THEY got, but what you or I get, even with as close to the same components as we can match, can be different.

 

[Don P]

I was recently loading some .380acp rounds (my youngest granddude likes the softer recoil) and I got my info from my Lyman manual. I also looked at the Hodgdon website for more info and it was different. I was using TiteGroup at 2.4gr (the lowest Lyman value) for his likes but the website gave me 2.6gr.

It doesn't seem enough to make a big deal (max was around 3.0gr) but how do you reconcile differences like that? Does it make a difference or just a choice as long as I didn't exceed max? I'd be curious as to thoughts of the more experienced. Thanks

Weight of bullet? I load 3.0 grains of Titegroup under a 100 grain jacketed bullet and when chrono'ed it was matching factory loads. Data per the Lee manual