thinking of subscribing to load data.com, reviews?

O

oldscot3

New member
Are there folks here that subscribe to load data.com?

I'm curious about how well it covers some of the older cartridges like 7.65 Argentine and 8 x 57 mausers.

As you know published data for these two is always limited to pressures safe for the weakest action they might be fired in or running .323" bullets through a .318" bore. Modern rifles like a Remington 700 "Classic" could safely take more pressure but recipes for them don't exist to my knowledge.

I wonder if Quick Load might be better for me since, it's my understanding that, its software allows it to predict pressure based on components and powder a loader selects.?
 
Reloading data does not change much. So why pay periodically?
I like all the load data (links) posted at the top here. Free.
Also, the new data and powders that do come out are free from the manufactures.
I am against recurring expenses for anthing other than physical things I need to live (car, electric, mortgage: Yes. Subscription load data: NAY.
Now if you just want to send me money every month for this advice, I will strive to accomodate
 
Not all load data, free or otherwise, includes pressure data. While it doesn't excuse a shooter for taking short cuts in load development, it's a nice bit of info to have especially when loading for cartridges that aren't currently super popular like the 7.65 Argentine.

I just wondered what kind of features and info (like pressure listing) the two computer based programs I mentioned have.
 
Not going to "pay" to see other peoples pet loads. I'm all about my barrel, my loads, my observed velocities. So many handloaders are obsessed with hot loads and ignore lower velocities and precision.
 
Been subscribing to Loaddata since it's inception. It has all manufacturers, all manual data, Pet Loads, and all magazine data from Reloader Magazine. One stop shop. Love it.
 
There's lots of 7.65 Argentine and 8x57 Mauser data online for free. Hodgdon's site has 8mm data for bullet weights from 120 to 220 grains. Only 2 bullet weights for the 7.65 x 53 Mauser. I have a bunch out of my old Lyman book, if you want it. 150, 180 and 215 jacketed and 155, 205 and 214 grain cast with gas checks. It uses a .311" to .313" bullet just like the .303 Brit.
You can download the 10th edition of the Hornady manual from ITunes of all places. Supposedly issues with wee machine compatibility though.
"...published data for these two is always..." Nope. Running .323" bullets through a .318" bore will damage or even destroy the rifle. It falls under using the right bullet.
Quick Load is not a loading manual.
"...recipes for them don't exist..." Load data is not developed for a specific brand of rifle. It's done according to SAAMI specs.
 
As you know published data for these two is always limited to pressures safe for the weakest action they might be fired in or running .323" bullets through a .318" bore. Modern rifles like a Remington 700 "Classic" could safely take more pressure but recipes for them don't exist to my knowledge.
Click to expand...

I ran into the same thing with a 7.5 Swiss I built on a modern action.

Fortunately there is some common powders I can refer to as a basis of start as well as actual listings in Sierra and Hornady

One surprise was it could not be pushed up as high as I though, a mis load (not major) and I got bolt lift issues.

You should be able to work from low safe loads for the old guns and carefully work your way on up.
 
Load data is not developed for a specific brand of rifle. It's done according to SAAMI specs.
Click to expand...

You are not 100% correct. For example, look up 45 70 in Lyman's 49th ed. and you'll find three separate sections based on the firearms the loads are intended for. The first is for 1873 Springfields, the second '86 Winchesters and '95 Marlins, and the third for Ruger #1s.

This seems a very sensible approach for an old time cartridge that is still useful and chambered in a variety of firearms of varying strength.

I wish it were done for 7.65 and 8mm mausers but since it doesn't appear to be, I'm shooting no more than max published loads that I've worked up to.

Here's the rub, if you've ever run some OLD Norma 7.65 factory loads over a chronograph, you'll know they weren't running the modest pressure attained by current published load recipes.

IMO both these cartridges have the potential to nearly reach 30 06 capabilities.
 
I looked at the loads for 7mm-08AI right after i reamed my chamber to that. If you go by their loads would end up with catastraphic failure sooner rather than later!

I stick with the manuals.
 
Why pay for something you can find on the Internet for free, or just ask some very knowledgeable people here. That being said I still purchase a couple manufacturer manuals every now and then.
 
Ok, I have a plan based on input here and a few of my own ideas.

1. I'm going to treat myself to both Load Data and Quick Load and also try to organize as much other data that I can gather into a format that makes comparisons as easy as possible.

2. I'm going to take some of my precious stash of old Norma factory loads out to the range and chrono them through my rifle. Norma claimed 2920 fps for their 150 grain load and 2592 fps for their 180 grain load. We'll see what they actually do in my rifle.

3. I'll analyze my findings and select a few powders that seem most suitable for achieving best results.
 
I like your approach.


Load data is not developed for a specific brand of rifle. It's done according to SAAMI specs.
Click to expand...

7.5 Swiss loads are also done in Military rifles and specifically they use the 1911 version which is the older and while not weaker, did not have the more modern metallurgy process that the K-31 did.
 
Ok. I've taken one of the first steps and suscribed to Load Data. My first impressions are favorable, however like almost anything, there are pros and cons.

Pros... pretty easy to use, anything you want to print is easy and there is way more data than any other single source I can think of, much of it from sources I don't have like Swift and Berger.

Cons... not as easy to use as a printed paper manual, you have log on then use search or browse features etc., not particularly difficult, but not as fast and easy as me thumbing through my printed manuals. The data, though vast, is not all useful (at least not for me) some of it is decades old from sources like very, very early Handloader magazine articles. I certainly don't object to it being there (interesting reading) but I would by no means try to actually duplicate one of those recipes for obvious reasons. Also the vastness of the data actually slows me down a bit as I have to sort through files with titles that don't necessarily indicate how relevant they will be for my intended purpose. Lastly, when you subscribe, it's for a year, unlike a print manual which you buy one time, forever. Even though printing is allowed and easy, there's no way I'll get everything printed I want in a years time.

Conclusion... no regrets, but I'm not sure yet if I'll re-up in a year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top