The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Skunkworks > Handloading, Reloading, and Bullet Casting

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 27, 2006, 05:24 PM   #1
qajaq59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2005
Posts: 139
Interesting discrepancy

When I looked at the IMR 3031 powder in 3 of my manuals I noticed that in the newest one (The Lee 2nd edition) has a starting load that's higher then the Max load was in one of my other manuals.

Here's how they read for a 150 gr jacketed bullet for a 30-30 rifle.

IMR 3031 Start 29.5 Max 31.1 ........ Lee Second Edition
IMR 3031 Start 26.5 Max 28.5 ........ Lyman 47th Edition
IMR 3031 Start 26.5 Max 29.5 ........ Metallic Cartridge Reloading (old one)

I wonder how many other discrepancies are in various manuals that you guys might have?
qajaq59 is offline  
Old December 27, 2006, 06:13 PM   #2
Tom Matiska
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2000
Location: Wilkes-Barre, Pa
Posts: 1,006
Different philosophy re> compressed loads. My vintage (1st?) Lee’s 3031 loads for the 30-30/110gr has loads up to 5 grains over what other sources publish. Lee would publish compressed loads, while others sources cut the loads off at the case volume (after bullet seating). Win’s Ball Powder Pamphlet were more conservative, cutting off at 98% case volume.
Tom Matiska is offline  
Old December 27, 2006, 06:56 PM   #3
ziggy222
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 5, 2006
Posts: 184
compressed loads are'nt the only reason though.bullet types and other components also contribute.i've seen differences like that in about every caliber for other manuels.thats why your supposed to work your load up from minimum.
ziggy222 is offline  
Old December 27, 2006, 07:35 PM   #4
Trapper L
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2006
Location: South Texas
Posts: 804
I think the first thing you need to know is that every firearm is different. You can take 10 Remington 700s in 223 or any other manufacturer and cartridge, load the same exact load and run it through all of the rifles and each will chronograph differently. Then there is the bearing differences between the manufacturers bullets. Not all .308 150 gr bullets have the same bearing surface on the rifling which will make one brand/design faster than another or allow more powder to be used before peak pressures are reached. The loading manuals are a guide, not an absolute. I have several rifles that I am way over max in the printed manuals yet have zero signs of any pressure. I have a 6.5x 06 that I can't even get close to max with the printed data and pressure signs abound. That's why the manuals always state to reduce the max loads by 10% and start up if you are looking for max speed. Brass can make a difference, some brands are heavier walled than others and the interior dimensions of the case are slightly smaller but critical to the pressure curve. There is no one data manual that is going to have the same results as another. That's why reloading is so much fun- all the variables. And besides, if it was easy, anybody could do it.
Trapper L is offline  
Old December 28, 2006, 01:30 PM   #5
amamnn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 13, 2006
Location: WA, the left armpit of the USA
Posts: 1,323
Are we safe in assuming that all the manuals are of approximately the same age? Powder formulations change over the years.
__________________
"If the enemy is in range, so are you." - Infantry Journal
amamnn is offline  
Old December 28, 2006, 02:03 PM   #6
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 11,216
The Lee book reprints IMR data. You might figure they made the powder, they know what to do with it. But you ought to see what they said in 1990, woo, boy.

Lyman runs their own test lab; I dunno about Metallic Cartridge Reloading.

True, components, barrels, interpretation, and lawyer lingo change from brand to brand and year to year. But I have an old article discussing the particularly great variation in .30-30 data. Nobody could figure out why two shops could start with the same nominal cartridge and come up with such widely different loads.
Jim Watson is offline  
Old December 29, 2006, 06:28 AM   #7
qajaq59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2005
Posts: 139
Not critical. Just interesting

Quote:
Are we safe in assuming that all the manuals are of approximately the same age? Powder formulations change over the years.
No, actually the hottest load is from the newest manual and the lightest one is from the oldest. But generally over the years most loads have come down, due to the lawyers advice to the powder manufacturers, while this one has gone up. It's no big deal because I have to work my load up from the bottom to find the sweet spot anyway, but I did think the discrepancy was rather interesting. I'm just a bit surprised that I never noticed it before now.
qajaq59 is offline  
Old December 29, 2006, 08:47 AM   #8
jdmick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Posts: 130
I just worked up a load for my 30-30 using H4895 and some old 150g Hornady bullets. The Speer 13 lists 31g as max while Lee and Hodgdon both list 34g as a max compressed load. 34g didn't turn out to be compressed much at all and no pressure signs as far as I can tell either. Chronographed right at 2300fps out of my old gun so that's what I'm sticking with.
jdmick is offline  
Old December 29, 2006, 11:48 AM   #9
zeisloft
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 7, 2005
Location: Amarillo TX
Posts: 419
Are we safe in assuming that all the manuals are of approximately the same age? Powder formulations change over the years.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that if the powder manufacturers changed the recipe, they changed the name too. As all this was a safety concern to prevent KABOOMs when someone uses granddaddy’s manual from the wayback days.
~z
__________________
A scalpel can be just as effective as a broadsword

Obviously, Occam was not a reloader
zeisloft is offline  
Old December 29, 2006, 12:34 PM   #10
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 11,216
Quote:
I was under the impression that if the powder manufacturers changed the recipe, they changed the name too
Nope.
Hodgdon started out selling H4895 that was really DuPont IMR4895 military surplus. When that ran out, they went to ICI in Scotland and had powder of the same nominal burning rate made in a different plant, probably with differences in equipment and materials. Then they changed suppliers to ADI in Australia where they use still different manufacturing processes and materials. Still call it H4895, though. In the meanwhile, DuPont brought out commercial IMR4895 but then shifted production to Canada, in a different plant with different "recipe." So there have been five different "recipes" for 4895, all different enough that it is best to use the right company and vintage data for loading.

Alliant powders are the same brands and designations established by Hercules but they are not made in the same plant or with the same formulation.
Jim Watson is offline  
Old January 2, 2007, 12:14 PM   #11
castnblast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 2, 2006
Location: Corpus Christi TX
Posts: 1,148
I've noted the same variations for IMR 4064 in 22-250...Theres a 2.3 gr. spread among different manuals. I chose to use IMR's data which was the hottest. Like someone else said, it's their company, they know the powder, and I figured the data on THIER website is probably the most recent...I've recently switched to benchmark because I needed a faster burning powder to get better performance out of my 55 gr. bullets. I'm not knocking the powder or IMR...It was just something my gun likes better.
__________________
VEGETARIAN...old indian word for bad hunter
castnblast is offline  
Old January 2, 2007, 02:26 PM   #12
T-Mac
Member
 
Join Date: January 18, 2006
Location: Townsend, MT
Posts: 99
Lots.
Every "max" and "min" load for every cartridge will vary from source to source.
T-Mac is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08619 seconds with 9 queries