BL-C (2) in .308 Win - What the heck???

[AGGRO]

Winchester brass almost universally has the largest internal volume of any popular cases at least found in the US. Not by a little either going from lowest to highest volume. It could easily cover over 3 gr of powder. Now add in possible variations in trim length shoulder bump coukd increase the spread.

Looking at my notes as I has hardly used fed brass but did use win 308 quite a bit back I the 90s. On the cases I had fireformed they has a 2.5-3 gr difference in vol. Usually h2o vol was 55gr -58gr spread. I believe bl-c2 has a tiny bit more density than water so it would be slightly more. You would have to check. I have no idea what today's current fed & win brass sd/es for vol.

I honestly thought this was a well understood dimension variance between case manf. as part of reloading. Winchester high vol especially in the popular 308 has been well known for what 50 yrs now?
I get some people may not know that or just forgot but some other comments on here about Barnes bullets do not make sense. Barnes bullets are not to be trusted! Seriously? So now it's not just an issue with load data it's all their bullets now too???

As for super compressed loads have you ever pulled a bullet or tried to match one of Horndays old super performance loaded ammo not the powder by that name. They use such a compressed load they used some sort of specialized equip to fit it. If you pulled the bullet the powder literally flowed out onto the table. It was crazy. It would be like taking a traditional compressed load in a Winchester case using a short flat base bullet similar to this case and try to fit it into say a NAMMO case which is the heaviest thickest lowest case vol I personal ever measure back in early 2k. They were like 9-10 gr heavier then lapua.

There is a reason every reloading manual, every site, every document on reloading states to start with the low powder charge and go up carefully. You never are suppose to start with a max load. It is also suppose to be matching components. It's not mix and match but (starting at min usually prevents issues). But use the specific brand type case, primer, coal. Anyone that loads shot shells understands about specific materials and you can not swap hulls wads etc. Starting low is a safety check for many things and of course it has to assume unfamiliarity with one or all the components being used.

While may not be the case here, the number of yrs of reloading is not nessecarily indicative of proper loading knowledge or even experience. I have seen old hunters that litterally had loads they scooped the powder into a the case knocked it level off the top, flush with the mouth, and seated a bullet. Been doing it their whole lives taught to them by their father. Same load never changed. They too had 20-30+ yrs reloading "experience". Doesn't mean jack. "It's the way we have always done it for years and never had an problem" are famous words spoken at many of some of the worst disasters.

I think you would be hard pressed to find official current reloading data from any of the major official sources where if you follow the written directions and use their recipe (case, powder, primer brand) starting at the min load and work up using their coal and a SAAMI spec chamber unless otherwise stated that will blow a case or have something bad happen. Just think of the liability. Now if you choose to ignore the signs and keep going........ I have never seen a reloading manual that states you should expect to be able to use the max listed load even with strictly following the recipe.

Just look how rare real sharpenal flying kaboom are from a over pressure powder charge load is in ratio to rounds fired even in reloads with some serious knuckleheads out there reloading. Much more in handguns because of easy to have double loads on progressive presses. Still very rare.

****, that is some gospel here. Seriously.

 

[Short Round]

Had the same response about a load for 7.62 x 56R. They had the load bore as .308. I called and they said that's what the gun was slugged at. I was like, what? How many people have a Mosin that will slug that. Whatevers.

Finnish had some iirc. Then went back toward the Russian bore sizes when they realized that they that were shooting captured Russian ammo along with their own due to exigencies. IIRC from online reading that was in their M91s for a bit but the m27,m28 and M39 were supposed to be 0.3095+/-.

My M39 is 0.3105", which is tighter than my 1898 U.S. Krag in .30-40.

 

[Doom2]

I always thought that, "start low and load up to max pressure or nice accurate shots, whichever comes first," was the golden rule??? Besides, most accurate loads come in at something less than max pressure. Of course keeping speed up is a must for proper expansion, but using 130gr bullets shouldn't be a problem with a .308.

Yep and that is still the instructions in almost every loading manual I have seen, maybe all.

There is one misconception that is almost universally made. That is the maximum load listed in a manual is at maximum pressure. The fact is that may or may not be the actual case. As some have noted multiple bullets are often listed for one loading. In those types of load tables the maximum listed is the maximum recommend safe load that works for all the bullets. It is not necessary at maximum pressure except for possibly one bullet. This is one of the reason Hornady, Nosler, and some others do not list pressure with their load data.

Also most load data that is posted in manuals today is obtained from SAAMI spec'd testing but some data is/may have been obtained from actual rifles and not updated. Since the data is obtained from SAAMI test chambers it really only applies to rifles that have that chamber design. Some commercial rifles will have modified chambers (ie long throated Rem 308) that usually result in lower pressures. On the other hand, there are many customer reamer's that have specific modifications to the chamber dimensions that may result in higher pressures in some cases with some bullets.

This is not legal advice but a general observation of the technical facts. As for liability of the publisher/supplier, that is something that would be difficult to show and almost impossible to prove from a technical standpoint. The specific evidence that their data cased a failure would have been destroyed in the accident. While you may say a charge of xx.x was in the case there is no way to show that. You can only say your intention was to load xx.x. The supplier will have actual data to prove their defense that xx.x is safe for the conditions that they specified and the warnings issued with their data which you would have accepted when you used the data.

 

[AGGRO]

Finnish had some iirc. Then went back toward the Russian bore sizes when they realized that they that were shooting captured Russian ammo along with their own due to exigencies. IIRC from online reading that was in their M91s for a bit but the m27,m28 and M39 were supposed to be 0.3095+/-.

My M39 is 0.3105", which is tighter than my 1898 U.S. Krag in .30-40.

Talk about pressure issues