Old reloading data verses new ? too consertative ?

I did a little test a few years back, Ran a series of Winchester 180 gr. Power Point ammo over the Chronograph. Barrel lengths were 22", Rem. M700, 24" custom Mauser and 26" Ruger #1B. The only rifle that came anywhere near advertised velocity was the Ruger #1. The M700 struggles to hold at 2600 FPS with the average 2580. The custom Mauser with tight specs ran about 260 to 2670 FPS.
I then ran a few 180 gr. Power Point factory ammo for the .308 and it was faster that the 22" gun and was pushing at the heel of the 24" gun. What kind of message does that send? The average hunter who buys a box for shells and goes hunting hasn't got a clue he's not getting "full value" from his ammo. :mad: He just plods along fat, dumb and happy in his ignorance.
Some cartridges will never be loaded to their full potential by the factories dude to weak guns that they originally came in. The 7x57 is a prime example. The 8x57 might be a lot more popular if factory ammo was not loaded to just about 30-30 levels. The .280 Remington and 30-06 are two more rounds not loaded to their full potential thanks to one first used in semi-autos only until later (.280 Rem.) and early weak 1903 Springfields.
We get no help from the factories due to liablity issues and those that publish the reloading manuals are absolutely no help.
I have been playing with the 7x57 off and on looking for an load for elk that would be good to 300 Yards later this year. Mentioned one in passing a while back that showed some promise and while I gave no load data did mention the velocity. Got piled on by a few holier than thou know it alls. None were there. None saw the results or examined the brass, just a free for all pile on flame job. There's a very good chance I was already loading ammo while they were still kicking at the slats in their cradle. First off, the7x57 is an excellent cartridge as is. My problem is it can do lots better. If I get no help from the factories or the load manuals then I'll just have to do it on my own.
Paul B.
 
The 30-06 is in the same boat as the 7X57. Few factory loads are up to potential because of the possibility of them being used in older rifles. Most newer chamberings such as the 308 are loaded up to their potential. I'm not surprised that with factory loads they are virtually the same. The 30-06, with proper and perfectly safe handloads can easily reach 2800 fps from a 22" barrel and 180 gr bullets. And that is with modern published loads. There are guys more adventurous than myself that will push 30-06 to 2900 fps with 180's.
 
I have been playing with the 7x57 off and on looking for an load for elk that would be good to 300 Yards later this year. Mentioned one in passing a while back that showed some promise and while I gave no load data did mention the velocity. Got piled on by a few holier than thou know it alls. None were there. None saw the results or examined the brass, just a free for all pile on flame job. There's a very good chance I was already loading ammo while they were still kicking at the slats in their cradle. First off, the7x57 is an excellent cartridge as is. My problem is it can do lots better. If I get no help from the factories or the load manuals then I'll just have to do it on my own.
Click to expand...

I built a 7mm57 for my son and grandsons. They called and complained they were down to 26 deer, meaning they only had 26 rounds left. I built a 270 and then loaded 12 different loads of 10 rounds each, I wanted to know what the rifle liked, easy bunch to load for, the rifle liked everything.

F. Guffey
 
Thanks Marco for the RL-12 post (for some reason, I can't quote other posts-maybe something with my MacBook Pro). For the cartridges you mentioned, I don't have any .223, heavy or light bullets. I also don't have a .308! Looking through the older manuals that list it, there really doesn't seem to be anything I reload for, the stands out on RL-12!

May have been something I read in some magazine or saw in "Pet Loads", but as I said, whatever I used it for, I did use up a half pound +/-, though it is odd that it doesn't show in my records. My reloading friends are not the type that would leave anything and to the contrary, they would be more apt to take something. Out of curiosity, off the top of anyone's heads, what other powders have similar burn rates?
 
Back to old reloading books: I've got some dating to the 40's (Why Not Load Your Own by Whelen) as well as several of the Lyman, Speer and Hornady books. And yes, the loads in some cases have been reduced over the years. We can speculate as to why, lawyers, powder changes, measuring devices and standards and such, but it's an exercise in futility.

When using data from the older manuals, I always cross check with modern sources...makes sense to me, and I'm never in search of the maximum, barn-burner loads anyway.

Best regards, Rod
 
Marco,

Not looking to interchange, but rather see if I used any of those powders as a hint as to why I have the RL-12!

Thanks,
 
My suggestion: If you have old powder, use an old manual. If you have new powder, us a new manual. Try to use the manual that matches the date of the manufacture of the powder.

U.L.
 
UncleLoodis
My suggestion: If you have old powder, use an old manual. If you have new powder, us a new manual. Try to use the manual that matches the date of the manufacture of the powder.
Click to expand...

From Alliant:
We send samples of every batch to our ballistics lab, testing for burning speed, among other things. Then, after blending batches together for exactly the right ballistic characterisitics, we use our advanced computerized equipment to test again.

I hope they know what they are doing, even though they misspelled a word.

If I overload work up to the threshold of plastic deformation of the brass, that shot to shot variation is a little less than 1%.
Likewise the difference of a canister powder that is new and one 20 years old is a little less than 1%.
But with an unblended bulk powder, like the military uses, I see in 4895 the exact correct grain size and shape, but the powder may be 10% faster than canister 4895.

So while the load books have been changing, the canister powder seems to be staying the same.

The oldest canister powder i have to test is 50 years old, but I have read of testing 2400 that is much older, and it gives the same chrono results as new 2400.
 
I'm not incline to use another manufacturer's data for something they didn't make!

My original question was to find similar powders to give me a hint as at why I have some RL-12!
 
Clark,
made a graph of how a canister powder that is blended to be the same year after year, can somehow get different published loads.
Click to expand...

Have you seen any change in the velocities a certain charge will give, in other words, do the powders change? Because if they did I would assume the tendency would be to go conservative with loading data.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top