Giving out Load Advice caution!

[JTB]

Sorry. Same cartridge. See, already at risk.

If you follow this theme to a final conclusion you might as well state that no information should be posted at all. All posts can be taken out of context or misstated put the reader at risk for some reason. I have one two rifles of the same caliber and one will handle 2 grains more powder than the other. Every load can be impose risk in some way and we can't describe every possible circumstance in which that risk can be avoided. I like to see what others are doing even if it sounds a little crazy and might give me reason to ask for further information. Why don't we just have an option to attach a disclaimer to each post if this is a concern, ie, any statement made in this post can be dangerous and may result in permanent harm or death. Read at your own risk.
Honestly, this is sad and could negatively impact the amount of useful information member are willing to post.

 

[John Polk]

Those who deal in Wildcats would be smart to follow published tested data. Absent that you need a chronograph and pressure testing transducer equipment.

You can buy a chronograph for less than a $100, why doesn't everybody have one?

 

[AntiPattern]

Remember folks.... This *IS* Rocket Science! Just be smart and all will be well in the verse.

 

[mwkelso]

Randy if you read all the above comments you will note that virtually everybody who has something they say knows what they're talking about. The real danger is a neophyte gets ahold of a discussion like this or some other discussion in which loads are being mentioned and doesn't understand what's going on. As an example we commonly use the amount of grains for each individual powder. Some of these new people do not understand the difference in burning rate of powders and therefore 46 grains of one powder is equivalent to 46 grains of another. I know this sounds, but it something that happens and a mistake with a high explosives that we use can be catastrophic. If we constantly refer people back to loads that are listed in published manuals then they have to look that up. If they go beyond that and accept a unsafe load that's their problem, but we have not contributed to their injury.

People don't know what they don't know, unfortunately. We are working with explosives (not technically), but with powders that have the potential to create a violent explosion if mishandled. So many variables that can make a reloading/shooting experience go wrong.

The other thing that scares the *Rule 4* out of me are people that chamber another person's reload into their firearm. I don't think it's been mentioned in the past 8 pages, but the same rule still applies. In my opinion, this would be no different than copying someone's pet load...

 

[CTK]

I am currently working up loads for a 270 Win. I bought the gun half price at a Beretta flagship store and have given it to a friend. I am having fun working up the best load. I think I have landed on book max from Barnes Bullets data for their 130 TTSX. Amazed that it shot best .130" off of the lands, but that is for a different post. I was slightly hesitant to load book max loads for someone else. I have since found Hogdon lists the same powder and bullet at .8grs higher max. This is irrelevant as I am sticking with the Barnes max load that gave me .5" groups and 3005 fps. Should I have my friend verify each powder load for handloads provided by me? I have done this before and wondered if is common practice? Fear of suit is not the issue. Just seems like a good practice.

 

[GCarlton53]

People ask for "your" load on "your" rifle, not to run out and load it but to identify trends. This is how i developed alot of my loads. Ask the question, take the answers and assemble an average, start below and work till you achieve desired results with no pressure signs. I did a wildcat off a 375 ruger case to 7mm, there was no book data, but there were a couple guys willing to speak up and give their info, which was above my starting point. The main fellow was from australia, would have never found him without a forum reply. We reload because we have specific needs, sometimes those needs arent in books. My advice to new reloaders is to research what pressure signs are and become familiar with them and do diligent case inspections.

 

[Randy Tidwell]

If you follow this theme to a final conclusion you might as well state that no information should be posted at all. All posts can be taken out of context or misstated put the reader at risk for some reason. I have one two rifles of the same caliber and one will handle 2 grains more powder than the other. Every load can be impose risk in some way and we can't describe every possible circumstance in which that risk can be avoided. I like to see what others are doing even if it sounds a little crazy and might give me reason to ask for further information. Why don't we just have an option to attach a disclaimer to each post if this is a concern, ie, any statement made in this post can be dangerous and may result in permanent harm or death. Read at your own risk.
Honestly, this is sad and could negatively impact the amount of useful information member are willing to post.

JTB, I am not saying we should not give out advice, I learn allot from this site.

What I am trying to point out is sharing load data that is not published is dangerous, especially loads that are above published maximums. Or posting load data from memory.

 

[aushunter1]

In reality the only time anyone should ask for load data suggestions is where the load data doesn't exist, maybe for some sort of wildcat maybe?
But I certainly wouldn't be asking for suggestions on a public forum anyway, Id be talking to a professional.

I have never asked for load data on a forum, never will, I have however written to powder manufacturers

I hate it when I see people asking of others PET loads, for 3 reasons, one its pure just lazy, two its dangerous, three ITS NOT GOING TO WORK IN YOUR GUN

I get where someone might ask for a cartridges preferred powder in a certain projectile weight as this is a definite performance accuracy factor in reloading, on a few occasions I have had to load test 3 powders to get a load right for a projectile that I wanted to use because I have a hell of a lot of them.

I just try to ignor it now but I cannot believe how many people keep asking for it, then they start saying things like "I'm going to start at X amount of grains which is say mid to high range in the spread from min to max.
Straight away I know these people don't know what the hell they are doing.

I know there are some very experienced handloaders here but imo as soon as someone starts asking for load data I take the stance that they have almost no experience, otherwise why would they be asking!!

Whoever says there is no stupid questions asked in forums should think again!!

 

[Johnslam]

Anyone using GUN POWDER should realize the vitality of what they are doing. If not, here's your Darwin Award.

I agree. If you post your load data on this forum, or any forum, it's on the individual reloader to work up their own Loads. This mindset of blaming other for your own mistakes needs to stop.

 

[GCarlton53]

Why would starting mid range and working up constitute not knowing what one is doing? Please Explain for clarity

 

[Rich Coyle]

Stated above :
"But reloading is not about superior logic, it's about safety first. "

I totally disagree with this. It is about fun first with safety. If it is about safety first then the loader would not go shooting. They would watch others go shooting.

 

[dok7mm]

It worries me that new or casual reloaders never seem to have load manuals & jump to ask what load everyone else is shooting. Many do not have the tools to accurately measure touch length, chamber dimensions or chronographs to keep an eye on velocities.

I've heard and seen lots of stories over the years about pierced or blown primers and locked up bolts on 3-5 consecutive shots, they just shake their head and ask WTH, then try to go to their next higher charge weight.

"Some" shooting factory rifles & "some" shooting chamber and freebore unknown custom chambers, will try running up velocity by increasing charge weight posted by someone shooting a long freebore + 4 extra inches of barrel, and still not back off enough to be safe.

I am not tramping on factory shooters, new reloaders or guys that reload like we did 20+ years ago. We all learn over time and all start at the bottom.

Very luckily, this forum has lots of precision cartridge builders, that try to teach and improve to the benefit of any member that wants to build good ammo safely.

I would bet most all of the longtime reloaders would confess they are building better loads now, than say 10-15 years ago, and are more safety oriented as they want to save their dominant eye.

I am guilty of having been plenty dumb in my early years of reloading. I shudder to think of my many mistakes. I later had a mentor who guided me into a whole new world of precision reloading.

Now there is the internet and forums, very conducive to taking shortcuts and believing that everything posted has merit for your load.

I have asked some savy folks here for what powder ranges they had tested with certain bullets, but mostly on wildcats with little available data (or shared with another). I still started low and worked up, with every shot chronographed and each case observed for pressure. It's truly the way we should be doing it when we slide that rocket into our chambers.

It would be nice if, when sharing load data, all sides would specify barrel length, brass, bullet brand & weight, powder, type of chamber reamer, amount of jump and so on. It may be a PITA, but would make for a clearer exchange of information.

 

[Dirtrax]

You can buy a chronograph for less than a $100, why doesn't everybody have one?

As the poster you quoted was replying to my post where I specifically wrote as my closing statement "a chronograph is a handloaders best friend". Apparently that was disregarded. And yes Mr. Polk I agree with you. Cheap chronographs are readily available. Pressure transducers are another story. Published data would have ended badly for me but experience led me down the right path. I guess that circles back around to the OP's premise that you can't believe everything you read.

 

[Don Titus]

Returning to the original subject of the dangers related to providing one's "personal" load data to others, I have found it interesting to note the differences in certain
load data provided in manuals from Nosler, Hornady, Lyman and Richard Lee. I have noticed that Lyman and, to a lesser extent Lee, publish max loads that are 1,2, even 3 grains heavier than Nosler and Hornady. Not sure why this is the case...but probably the folks at Nosler and Hornady are a bit more concerned about potential liabilities than Lyman and Lee. Your thoughts?