Giving out Load Advice caution!

[AlphaDogs]

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

"Stupid is as stupid does."

 

[RAGGED EDGE]

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

For the same reason everyone doesn't drive a Ferrari.

 

[Timeout]

That is funny considering the most popular loading manuals are from bullet manufacturers and not powder companies. Powder companies cannot test all bullets, and bullet companies cannot test all powders.
This is why I like Quickload, and it is rare I open a manual today. Most manuals today are watered down in our litigation prone society. Berger themselves will tell you all their data based off QL profiles, and are low, no reason to use max in this situation. I am not condoning a hot load, just saying.
I understand the issues with publishing a hot load for someone to try, but the caution side of the matter rests with the person using said information.

Good Call! I am quite surprised that QuickLoad did not appear in this conversation until post #90. IMHO QuickLOad may be the greatest thing since sliced bread. Great topic too BTW. I know of a guy being banned from another forum for posting insane loads. Reloaded ammo may not be entered into the classified section on that forum either. Whether or not the forum owner would be held accountable for injuries in a court of law, it just doesn't make sense to put oneself in that predicament.

 

[Pinoniper]

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?

You can have two bullets from different manufacturers. Same diameter, same weight. But differences in materials or shape can affect pressure. For instance, a bullet with greater bearing surface may require less propellant before it reaches max pressure.

 

[villagelightsmith]

Working up a load is generally understood to be in the context of the max velocity in the manual.

It's not in the context of random numbers posted on the internet.

How do you proceed to work up to a load that is 20% beyond the max in the manual ? Do you pull the trigger, and if nothing blows up consider it safe ? How can anyone recommend such a thing ?

No reloader has the tools to measure chamber pressure. We don't need to, because the powder manufacturer has spent millions on R&D, and provided us with load data. That data incorporates the safe chamber pressure limit expressed as a maximum velocity.

Everyone is entitled to do as they wish in private.

Posting unsafe data on a public forum is irresponsible, and it should be avoided because of common sense, not because of a lawsuit.



I don't see any published load data to indicate this is true. What we do have is more recent additions to the powder line-ups that in some cases offer velocity improvements, but the pressure limits are still the same.

Rifles are not made any stronger today than they were made 120 years ago. The same steel is still being used, except the designs are simplified to save manufacturing costs.

==============
Over (many) years, I've seen well known publishers put out hardbound books with occasional load data that was ... scary. It's not common, but it happens. The odds of a bad load are slim, but the consequences are ... educational. Because of this, I like to check a couple or three sources before beginning a new series on a new caliber. Even so, I'm still looking for a certain extractor that I lost many years ago!

 

[Don Titus]

You can have two bullets from different manufacturers. Same diameter, same weight. But differences in materials or shape can affect pressure. For instance, a bullet with greater bearing surface may require less propellant before it reaches max pressure.

Yes I am aware that differences in bullet shape and composition e.g. affect pressures and therefore load data, but some of the different data I'm referring to apply to the same bullet shape and composition...

 

[22250imp]

First, the following is not intended as an attack on anyone either stated or implied. My only intention is to respectfully suggest to all posters to think about the ramifications of what they are posting.

In a recent post, there was load data that was shared to the OP that was considerably hotter than accepted/published loads. I think I put a permanent crease in the seat of my office chair. I took the time this morning and looked thru a number of both new and old manuals for a load that hot, couldn't find it listed anywhere. I shoot an improved version of that round and don't even load it that hot.

Here are my thoughts; we should all be very careful sharing loads that are not published by the manufactures for a number of reasons.

You never know the condition of the rifle that the load might find its way into.

You don't know the experience of the individual that might try it.

Individual components i.e. cases, primers and bullets all have an effect on pressure. Simple change of a bullet or primer on a hot load could be devastating.

Back in the day (I'm dating myself now), we played with a lot of crazy loads trying to find that sweet spot. I won't even hint on this open forum what we were doing because someone might decide to try it themselves without the foundation and knowledge to do it correctly. Many shooters wanted me to share what we were doing. Always told them I could not because of the liability was something that I was not willing to risk. I even got accused of being a jerk for not sharing, wasn't being a jerk, just being safe.

Thankfully, with the current wide variety of components available to us today, there is no need to do that anymore. Well, I still do it for my BR rigs

In the 70's and early 80's, I had the privilege of managing a small chain of hunting and fishing stores (3 stores) in California. It was store policy that no employee was allowed to quote load data. If a customer wanted load information, the employee was required to grab a published load manual, look it up and show the customer. This removed any and all liability to the company, and it was just plan safe. Any deviation from that were grounds for immediate dismissal.

There was a well know shop in So Cal that was put out of business after an employee gave a customer bad loading advice. The resulting law suit after the gun blew up (Super Blackhawk) and the shooter badly injured forced the store to close the doors, sad.

So again, this is NOT an attack. Only respectfully suggesting caution when giving advice or sharing load data.

First and foremost, we don't want to see anyone get hurt. Second, in today's crazy sue happy world, none of us need to expose ourselves to the possible liability. Bad advice could even drag LRH into a lawsuit. Chances of LRH losing a lawsuit because someone gave out bad advice would be pretty slim. Put the possibility of getting drug into one that would cost a lot of money to defend is there.

Everyone be well and safe.

PS. It is sad that in today's world we need to think "can I get sued for this?"

Very well said. I myself gave a hot recipe after being asked. I worked slowly to this point but as you are saying everybody's rifles are different and extreme caution should be used if even thinking about going past advertised maximums.

 

[antelopedundee]

The Hodgdon site shows for a 6.5-06 with a 129 grain bullet a max load of IMR483 of 47.0 grains. Years ago when I first started with the 6.5-06 and the AI version I was able to work up to 54 grains of IMR4831 with nothing to indicate excessive pressures. In fact I used the same loads to fire form some 6.5-06AI cases the other day with no issues.

Another point off comparison from the Hodgdon site.

.25-06 120 grain bullet a maximum load shown was 53.0C of IMR4831 with a pressure of 50,900

A 6.5-06 with a 120 grain bullet has a max listing of 48.7 grains of IMR4831 with a corresponding pressure of 62,600

Considering the similarity of the cartridges, to me that data doesn't make sense. I asked them about it and they told me it was correct.

As to the OP I remember a comment by Bob Milek writing in Guns and Ammo about tumbling loaded ammo. His comment was that I am saying that this is what I do. I'm not saying that this is what you should do.

 

[budlight]

The Hodgdon site shows for a 6.5-06 with a 129 grain bullet a max load of IMR483 of 47.0 grains. Years ago when I first started with the 6.5-06 and the AI version I was able to work up to 54 grains of IMR4831 with nothing to indicate excessive pressures. In fact I used the same loads to fire form some 6.5-06AI cases the other day with no issues.

Another point off comparison from the Hodgdon site.

.25-06 120 grain bullet a maximum load shown was 53.0C of IMR4831 with a pressure of 50,900

A 6.5-06 with a 120 grain bullet has a max listing of 48.7 grains of IMR4831 with a corresponding pressure of 62,600

Considering the similarity of the cartridges, to me that data doesn't make sense. I asked them about it and they told me it was correct.

Unless they changed to data you should look again.. CUP and psi are both in their tables. 6.5 also gets more powder. look at both maxes

 

[fiftybmg]

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..

I find that where two manuals differ on the same powder charge for a load, there is also a difference in the barrel length and / or primer listed for that load.

 

[fiftybmg]

The Hodgdon site shows for a 6.5-06 with a 129 grain bullet a max load of IMR483 of 47.0 grains.

Online data from Hodgdon in the Pressure column is PSI or CUP. Some loads indicate CUP, some indicate PSI - in the same column.

I assume that the CUP numbers are from older data where the powders have remained in current production.

 

[Mike Matteson]

I have in the near pass posted a load from a Sierra Reloading book Copyrighted in 1970, and I have older manuals than that. I have loads that aren't shown in the reloading book. I have reframed in the past and still do now giving out my load data. I will post my velocity, bullet, powder, primer, and case I am using, but showing the low side of the reloading hand book as a starting point on powder. Going up from there is on your own. So I agree in not posting loads that I am using. I do take exception to manufactures loading data that posts how there new rifle is putting out velocity faster than the a comparison rifle. Reading their info on their rifle is using a 26" barrel and the comparing other rifle is using a 24" barrel, which isn't real comparison. Any change in reloading components means reducing powder amount and starting all over again. Primers, powder, cases, and bullets all are different so care is needed all the time.

 

[perkinswp]

I have never heard of quickload Thanks I will give it a try I was not asking for someone's pet load or max load just a little advice as all the manuals I have don't have 30 nos in them I have been loading since the 70s I am very careful we had a neighbor buy reloads at a yard sale and they blew his arm off below the elbow I have a hard time sometimes with the net as I am not from the e generation didn't mean to start a controversy

 

[sw282]

Rule #1. Don't share reloads or powder charges. Rule #2. See Rule #1