Reloading .30-06

[Seeker]

Reloading .30-06 for the first time.
Using 180 spitzer boat tail over 58 grains of 4831.
Once powder in case it looks pretty full - about the top of the shoulder.
Does this sound right? I double checked 'zero' and made sure set to 58 grains.

[Seeker]

Well, seems to work ok out of the 1917 Enfield.

[mehavey]

IMR4831 is a case-filler type powder, and one of the best for 30-06/med-hvy bullet.
You're not seeing anything unusual. (But are you actually starting near Max?)

[kraigwy]

4831 is a slow powder, you can't get enough in a '06 case to hurt anything.

I use to load 58 grns for hunting, if I remember right it worked pretty good, but it was a compressed charge.

Just be careful you don't swell the case with compressed loads.

And don't use 4831 ina gas gun, such as the M1, its too slow and screws up the timing.

[kraigwy]

Sorry, posted wrong spot.

[mehavey]

Here's my standard load for the `92 Winchester:

1892Win/357Mag (05/13/12)
BearTooth-185LFNGC / H110/15.0/ CCI-550/StarLine*Case / OAL:1.570" (HvyCrmp)
QL= 32,674psi/1,626fps (20") *(27.0gr-H20)

That extra 25gr of lead must make a heckofa difference, as this combo is absolutely reliable (& accurate) otherwise.

[chris in va]

58gr is a compressed charge. Normal.

Any particular reason why you're loading it at max?

[Seeker]

The Sierra book said 59.8 was max load for 2900 fps. 2800 fps calls for 58gr the Lee loading table that can with the dies said staring load is 57.5 gr for 2737 fps.

[Seeker]

btw: how much difference does case mfg. or weight make for accuracy?
I have Remington and federal brass. A rigorous sampling of one case each brand revealed a 3.6 grain difference in weight and presumably case capacity, but how much difference does it make?

[bcarver]

270 is very similar and I have crushed 4831 in it. I switched to 4831sc.

[Rifleman1776]

how much difference does case mfg. or weight make for accuracy?

Can only relate my own experience.
Winchester brass is thinner and has the largest capacity of the brass I have used.
Military is thicker and has the smallest interior capacity I have ever used.
For target work with my 30-06 I used military. All cases carefully sized and trimmed, necks in and out.
This gave me winning results. I believe because the cases were full but not maxxed out.
Other experiences may vary.

[Unclenick]

How much difference does it make? Not much. An old rule of thumb is around 1 grain of powder for every 14 grains difference in case weight. So you are looking at about a quarter of a grain worth of powder charge difference. This assumes identical external case dimensions so that the weight difference is all reflected in difference in internal capacity.

[Texas Range Ammo]

I noticed several replies asked the question "why max ?", or paraphrasing, why are you loading the maximum or near it for your first test loads.

But nobody really clarified why it's a good idea to start lower than maximum.

I endured these boring lessons from my Dad, now it's your turn.

In reloading, motorcycle riding, and flying:

their are bold practitioners, and old practitioners, but no Old Bold practitioners.

Meaning: Brass, Bullet, Powder, and Primer manufacturers do their very best to supply us with the best components. We all get the best equipment we can to assemble these components. We all reference the best published manufacturers data to estimate our starting charges.

There obviously is no way, with all this professionalism going on, no way,, no way,,, that anybody would make a mistake in the chain there.

No bad powder shipment,,, no bad lot of primers,,, no magnum primers miss-shipped in regular primer packaging, no faulty cases, no internally flawed bullets. No way the operator would inaccurately interpret a reading, or transpose something. No Way Human error could get in the way.

Ok Ok,, I'm pouring it on pretty thick here.

No matter how long you've been doing it, start back at 80 % or so of max, and move up a little at a time, looking for signs of pressure. Use consistent components. Use consistent specifications (COL, etc).

I reference 80% of max. Too little can cause problems to (like detonation, Look it up, it's bad). Reference manufacturer's data, and find a lower than max starting load. Most have a recommended starting point. Start closer to that than max.

Good luck. I apologize in advance.

[GeauxTide]

In my 30-06 based rounds, 6.5-06, 280, and 30-06, I've gained the best performance with powders that fill the case about 80%. RL-19 in 6.5 and 280, and 4064 in 30 with medium weight bullets. I used to load everything to book max and beyond, but when I put them over the chrony, the results tell the story. When I can get an extreme spread of 26fps with 5/8" groups compared to 112fps with 2.5" groups. The only difference has been in the 7mmRM. The three I've owned have all shot the best at the Ken Waters maximum.

[Unclenick]

To amplify what Texas Range Ammo said, here is Accurate's reason for always starting with the starting load from their FAQ. Interestingly, they give another reason why, unintentionally, with another FAQ entry, and that is change of powder data over time.

My own main reason comes from the SAAMI standard. In it they show that the copper crusher, which is still used for much of our powder data, really can't be trusted not to be in error by as much as 25% or so. A 10% reduction in powder charge brings about a 20%-30% reduction in peak pressure, depending on the powder and cartridge and other component choices, so that averages about right to allow for the copper crusher error. The Piezo transducer cuts the error in half, so maybe one day we will be able to use a 5% reduction to get to a start pressure, but for right now we aren't there yet.

[Bart B.]

I think I should put a few words of caution in this thread about reduced loads. The .30-06 and other cartridges based on it are norious for shoulder set back when the firing pin smacks their primers and drives them hard into the chamber shoulder hard enough to set the shoulder back and increasing head clearance. Then the round fires and the primer backs out stopping against the bolt face. If there's not enough peak pressure to expand the case fully to the chamber wall and bolt face the primer will still be protruding from the case head and fired case headsapce is shorten that had a full pressure load been fired.

Subsequent firing of that case with reduced loads may further set the shoulder back enough that the case thins too much right in front of the extractor groove. Head separation is beginning. Such cases should never be used again in full power loads unless the case shoulder can be moved forward enough by body sizing to get it back to SAAMI minimum head to shoulder specs.

This situation typically starts with about 10% less powder used that normal max safe amounts. I've done tests with both the .308 Win. and .30-06 and both had the primers well out from the case head after a 10% less powder charge.

So, I suggest starting no more than 6% to 7% less than a listed max charge weight. Check loading data for the .30-06 and see how much lower their recommended starting charge weights are compared to the max listed.

If one wants to use reduced loads with the .30-06 and normal powder types, don't use those cases for anything else.

[Unclenick]

It sounds like a good argument for starting with a normal pressure fireformed case then neck sizing-only for catsneeze loads in the '06 case family, checking the cases with a case gage before each repeat cycle.

[F. Guffey]

58 grains of Hodgdon 4831 SC is a crush fit for 180 grain bullets, reloaders in the od days claimed they “just dipped the case in the powder and scooped enough powder to fill the case then” ‘they clamed’ when seated a bullet there was no way “ You could can not get too much powder in the case etc., etc..” and I said “fantastic!”. Start at 54 grains, max at 58 grains.

“Well, seems to work ok out of the 1917 Enfield”

”I think I should put a few words of caution in this thread about reduced loads. The .30-06 and other cartridges based on it are norious for shoulder set back when the firing pin smacks their primers and drives them hard into the chamber shoulder hard enough to set the shoulder back and increasing head clearance. Then the round fires and the primer backs out stopping against the bolt face. If there's not enough peak pressure to expand the case fully to the chamber wall and bolt face the primer will still be protruding from the case head and fired case headsapce is shorten that had a full pressure load been fired”.

“The .30-06 and other cartridges based on it are norious for shoulder set back when the firing pin smacks” then there are different designs, Hatcher started to prove the case was in a race to the shoulder of the chamber before the primer ignited, had the case developed case head separation Hatcher would have appeared to be brilliant, simple brilliant, instead he became a case former, he moved the shoulder forward (in the chamber), chambered a round then pulled the trigger. Hatcher had no clue where he got such a ridiculous ideal. Back to becoming a fire former, when he ejected the case the case was ejected as a 30/06 Hatcher Modified + .080” case, his shoulder did not take off and collide with the shoulder of the chamber. Had his case took off and hit the shoulder he would have had case head separation. Instead, Hatchers case head never left, his shoulder never moved, it was erased, flattened, it became part of case body and part of the shoulder became part of the neck, the visible neck on his case when ejected was a new neck that formed when he pulled the trigger. Hatchers case got shorter when fired, if what Bart B. said was true the case would have gotten longer. Like so many reloaders he did not measure before and again after and he assumed, he assumed he had it all figured out, I was not there, I can not help Hatcher.

Again, I have fired 8mm57 ammo in an 8mm/06 chamber, .121” longer chamber, meaning the shoulder of the 8mm57 was .121 + from the shoulder of the 8mm06 chamber, cases after firing were ejected as 8mm06 cases with very short necks, the firing pin did not drive the case forwarded, the case did not remain the same length, the case got shorter.

Fact or fiction, truth or nonsense. The M1917 has an exception.

Head space? I want to know the length of the chamber, and firing pins, I want a firing pin that crushes the primer before the case, bullet and powder know their little buddy has been, the primer has been crushed. I am not the fan of primers that resist being crushed.

F. Guffey

[Bart B.]

Again, I have fired 8mm57 ammo in an 8mm/06 chamber, .121” longer chamber, meaning the shoulder of the 8mm57 was .121 + from the shoulder of the 8mm06 chamber, cases after firing were ejected as 8mm06 cases with very short necks, the firing pin did not drive the case forwarded, the case did not remain the same length, the case got shorter.

Fact or fiction, truth or nonsense. The M1917 has an exception.

Same thing happens shooting a .308 Win. round in a .30-06 chamber. And there are other mismatches that'll do the same. Such is very normal when the extractor's holding the case head near the bolt face while the primer's struck by the firing pin. Nothing new about this at all.

[F. Guffey]

“I think I should put a few words of caution in this thread about reduced loads. The .30-06 and other cartridges based on it are norious for shoulder set back when the firing pin smacks their primers and drives them hard into the chamber shoulder hard enough to set the shoulder back and increasing head clearance. Then the round fires and the primer backs out stopping against the bolt face. If there's not enough peak pressure to expand the case fully to the chamber wall and bolt face the primer will still be protruding from the case head and fired case headsapce is shorten that had a full pressure load been fired”

“I think I should put a few words of caution in this thread about reduced loads. The .30-06 and other cartridges based on it are norious for shoulder set back when the firing pin smacks.......”

Then:

“Same thing happens shooting a .308 Win. round in a .30-06 chamber. And there are other mismatches that'll do the same. Such is very normal when the extractor's holding the case head near the bolt face while the primer's struck by the firing pin. Nothing new about this at all”

Back to distinguishing fact from fiction and truth from nonsense, when applied to the 308 W fired in the 30/06, that is fiction, nonsense also applies, the case body/shoulder juncture is larger in diameter then the 30/06 chamber body at that juncture, meaning the 30/06 chamber reamer will not clean clean up the 308 W chamber, when a 308 W is chambered in the 30/06 chamber the case head spaces? on the case body/shoulder juncture. AND, when the 308 w is chambered in the 30/06 the the bolt sizes shoulder of the case.

“ I think I should put a few words of ......” You could consider adding a few words, the case, bullet and powder outrunning the firing pin defies the description of an accident. If you are using primers better described as King Kong primers there is a good reason for the case to run to the shoulder of the chamber, bracing, to bust the King Kong primers bracing is required.
In the perfect world the case body/shoulder juncture of the 308 W is .013” larger in diameter than the 30/06 case when measured the same distance from the head of the case.



“....for shoulder set back when the firing pin smacks their primers and drives them....” Then there was the protruding primer caused by low pressure, it is an assumption the case is driven by the firing pin, but as you said, “Nothing new about this at all”.

F. Guffey

[F. Guffey]

“Does this sound right? I double checked 'zero' and made sure set to 58 grains”

Seeker, before the Internet friends/reloaders were multi-task-ers, they understood the 58 grain max? was a +/- factor based on the case, they knew the military 30/06 case was heavier, it did not bother me that they were only half correct when they decided to go with the assumption the military case was thicker, the half truth? The military case head is thinner by as much as .060”, so? the case body is thicker giving the military case a long powder column that is smaller in diameter.

Make no mistake, they knew Winchester anything was lighter and thinner, and they went under the assumption if the case was lighter it was thinner, therefore, the case had more capacity. For my multi-task-ers more capacity meant more powder. They were a very talented group of reloaders.

F. Guffey