300 Win. Strange reloading Data

[Idaho Shooter]

Hello all,

So here's the problem, I purchased a new Tikka and went to my Speer number 12 loading manual for data. Being interested in shooting Berger 190s or 210s I start looking through the heavier bullets. As I reviewed the data for the 190 gr bullets, the numbers seemed high so I searched the internet for corroborating numbers and found that the loads still look high.

I sent an email to Speer and got: (Greg: the bullet has not been in the line-up for 10+ years so the data verification from a follow on manual or a prior. Difficult to judge the load now.)

Hu? This makes one wonder why we would ever ask the experts a question? The manual shows loads for the 190 gr. bullets like: (IMR7828 starting at 75grs and Maxing at 79grs). Thus far, I am finding max-loads listed on the internet are lower than Speer's minimum load.

Does anyone have a number 11/13 Speer manual that would be willing to look at the data under the 300 win. for 190 gr bullet?

Thanks in advance
Greg

 

[backwoods83]

Book shows 74.5 as max for 190grn with 7828. 71.5 with a 210grn
Also 73grns of imr4831 will give you more speed and consistency or 70grns under the 210.

 

[streetglideok]

I have #11 here, and for the 190gr match BT, it says for IMR4350 66gr min, and 70gr max, for IMR4831, 70gr min, and 74gr max. For IMR7828, 75gr min, and 79gr max. That is data from their book, for their particular bullet at the time. What some have seen, is a trend towards lighter loads for some of the older magnums. Ive seen differences between Noslers data, and Hodgdons data even. I usually start at the lower of the two, if they are using the same primers, and follow the normal common sense measures.

 

[Kevin Thomas]

Greg,

The data in the original manual was almost certainly correct, however, you're using a different load. The data for the Berger 190 will most certainly be different than that of the old Speer 190. You've changed a component, and that means it's a different load from the ground up.

You discount the guys in the lab, but I can pretty well assure you that they got the info correct. The thing you need to understand is that it was correct, for THEIR rifle, with THEIR bullet, with the particular lot of powder THEY used, the particular lot of primers THEY used, etc.. When you change anything, you change the equation. Bottom line is, every reloading manual needs to be read as merely a report that they tried this particular combination and got these results. In so much as you'll be using different components (even if they are of the same make and type, they're almost certainly different lots), it needs to be worked up with your particular set of components and in your particular rifle. This is why that little bit of advice is virtually identical between all of the various manufacturers. It's good advice, and you need to heed it.

 

[Idaho Shooter]

Actually, the data may not be correct that is why I asked the original question. In their manual as bullet weight increased so did powder charge, I found that to be a little out of the norm and possibly a typo. If a typo, my question would have drawn attention to a flawed data point thus helping them mitigate liability.
As for the advice, they are the originators of the data surely, they have the capability to compare/check their data and answer the question.
Nevertheless, I was told to find a manual ,that is no longer published, and compare for myself hence the question posted on this sight. I guess that means I am following their advice.
Finally, it has never been my intent to start at the max load and damage either the gun or myself yet I am using their manual as a general guide so it only makes sense to review the numbers in detail. As mentioned above their min-load is higher than any max load I have seen...possibly a typo?
No worries it wasn't my intent do anything to haphazard.
Thanks again to each of you for responding to my question.
Greg