"Tested in a 10.875" barreled Universal Receiver"

Poodleshooter · November 21, 2001, 12:39 PM

Why do certain reloading manuals do this nowadays? I can see where this allows them to perhaps use one setup to test many cartridges, and possibly allows better pressure data, but it helps the reloaders very little. However, many other companies still use actual firearms that people own
Data such as Noslers and the Midway load maps use ridiculous testbeds to give velocity and pressure data. For example, the .357 data from the Midway LoadMap. It uses a 10.875" unvented barrel! This is great if you are one of the 1% of reloaders who shoot .357 in a T/C Contender with a 10" barrel, but sorta useless to the 75% who shoot it in a vented revolver barrel between 2.5 and 8", and even to the 20% who probably shoot it in a 16-20" barreled lever action. Why even bother showing velocity data if it is going to be useless to a majority of reloaders?
It's very simple: Revolver cartridges get shot in a 6" vented barrel to split the difference (and in a carbine for rifle data), Auto pistol cartridges in a 3.5-6" barrel, Magnum rifle cartridges in a 24-26" barrel and "regular" cartridges in a 20-24" barrel.
Rant over. Just venting after wasting a great deal of 296 while trying to guess at a velocity specific load for a .357....

Keith J · November 21, 2001, 03:08 PM

The Universal Receiver allows for actual pressure tested data, something almost necessary with WW 296. The barrel length is a big variable but I partially agree, testing should be with a set standard barrel. Who shoots a 26" .224" caliber barrel? Especially in a .222 or .223.

Neverless, UR data is good data as the pressure is actual and tricky powders like 296 that have a narrow window benefit.

My biggest gripe is the pressure data is only listed for the maximum loads.

WESHOOT2 · November 21, 2001, 10:29 PM

Regardless of length, different guns of the EXACT SAME TYPE can (and do) shoot the EXACT SAME LOT of ammo at terribly disparate velocities.

So who cares what velocity SOME OTHER GUN gives; what should be of more concern is what happens from YOUR gun.

That's why I have pairs.............

C.R.Sam · November 21, 2001, 10:44 PM

WS2 beat me to it. Your gun has a unique bore size and finish. Published test data will give only an approximation of performance in your gun. When reaching out for maximum performance, start low and work up using the gun the ammo is to be used in.

Your chamber, your throat, your bore, your load .......probably no one else can match your combination.

Sam.....if goin for hot, walk slowly and chronograph.

Poodleshooter · November 26, 2001, 07:47 PM

True, guns are like snowflakes when it comes to velocity, but I defy anyone to find as much variance between 2 different 4" barreled .357's as there is between one of those revolvers and a 11" test barrel!
As for 296, I vastly exceeded Midway's LoadMap safe powder claims for the 125gr RemJHP, using identical components and less than .010 difference in OAL. I saw pressure signs only when I actually passed off of their powder/pressure scale! Of course, there was also the 4-500 fps velocity difference between their UR test barrel and my 4" GP100 running at 1450fps.
I definitely care what speed my gun is running at, but I like to avoid wasting too much powder getting it to the speed I want. Even data accurate to 100-200fps would greatly reduce the amount of powder that I need to burn in pressure/velocity tests.
(Geez, I need some cheese with my wine)

saands · November 26, 2001, 08:45 PM

I think the real misleading deal here is that the slower powders seem to favor the longer barrels ... 2400 works GREAT in my 6" 586, but I imagine that it would just be a flame throwing slouch in a 2 or 3 inch bbl ... Seems to me that the powder companies could at least run the loads through a couple of different length bbls ... especially in the pistol realm where there are quite large (percentage) variations in length that commonly used.

C.R.Sam · November 26, 2001, 10:41 PM

The only way you are going to know what a load will do in your gun is to chrono your own loads.

Caution, sometimes velocity will drop off as you increase powder charge if you are close to the upper limit. Giving perhaps a false sense of security in going even heavier.

A while back I slugged a few hundred barrels of LE guns. Two calibers. 9X19 and .357mag. Smallest of both was .3535 and largest on both calibers was .359. Talk about variations in performance.!! And that leaves out so many other factors that vary from gun to gun.

Test barrels allow for comparison between load variables. The gun variables are out of the control of the ammo people.

Start low, work up, and live long.

Sam

November 21, 2001, 12:39 PM	#1
Poodleshooter Senior Member Join Date: August 7, 2000 Location: Floating down the James River in VA Posts: 2,599	"Tested in a 10.875" barreled Universal Receiver" Why do certain reloading manuals do this nowadays? I can see where this allows them to perhaps use one setup to test many cartridges, and possibly allows better pressure data, but it helps the reloaders very little. However, many other companies still use actual firearms that people own Data such as Noslers and the Midway load maps use ridiculous testbeds to give velocity and pressure data. For example, the .357 data from the Midway LoadMap. It uses a 10.875" unvented barrel! This is great if you are one of the 1% of reloaders who shoot .357 in a T/C Contender with a 10" barrel, but sorta useless to the 75% who shoot it in a vented revolver barrel between 2.5 and 8", and even to the 20% who probably shoot it in a 16-20" barreled lever action. Why even bother showing velocity data if it is going to be useless to a majority of reloaders? It's very simple: Revolver cartridges get shot in a 6" vented barrel to split the difference (and in a carbine for rifle data), Auto pistol cartridges in a 3.5-6" barrel, Magnum rifle cartridges in a 24-26" barrel and "regular" cartridges in a 20-24" barrel. Rant over. Just venting after wasting a great deal of 296 while trying to guess at a velocity specific load for a .357....

November 21, 2001, 10:29 PM	#3
WESHOOT2 Senior Member Join Date: February 20, 1999 Location: home on the range; Vermont (Caspian country) Posts: 14,324	PARADE RAIN Regardless of length, different guns of the EXACT SAME TYPE can (and do) shoot the EXACT SAME LOT of ammo at terribly disparate velocities. So who cares what velocity SOME OTHER GUN gives; what should be of more concern is what happens from YOUR gun. That's why I have pairs............. __________________ . "all my ammo is mostly retired factory ammo"

November 21, 2001, 03:08 PM	#2
Keith J Senior Member Join Date: December 15, 2000 Posts: 469	The Universal Receiver allows for actual pressure tested data, something almost necessary with WW 296. The barrel length is a big variable but I partially agree, testing should be with a set standard barrel. Who shoots a 26" .224" caliber barrel? Especially in a .222 or .223. Neverless, UR data is good data as the pressure is actual and tricky powders like 296 that have a narrow window benefit. My biggest gripe is the pressure data is only listed for the maximum loads.

November 21, 2001, 10:44 PM	#4
C.R.Sam Senior Member Join Date: October 29, 1999 Location: Dewey, AZ Posts: 12,858	WS2 beat me to it. Your gun has a unique bore size and finish. Published test data will give only an approximation of performance in your gun. When reaching out for maximum performance, start low and work up using the gun the ammo is to be used in. Your chamber, your throat, your bore, your load .......probably no one else can match your combination. Sam.....if goin for hot, walk slowly and chronograph.

November 26, 2001, 07:47 PM	#5
Poodleshooter Senior Member Join Date: August 7, 2000 Location: Floating down the James River in VA Posts: 2,599	True, guns are like snowflakes when it comes to velocity, but I defy anyone to find as much variance between 2 different 4" barreled .357's as there is between one of those revolvers and a 11" test barrel! As for 296, I vastly exceeded Midway's LoadMap safe powder claims for the 125gr RemJHP, using identical components and less than .010 difference in OAL. I saw pressure signs only when I actually passed off of their powder/pressure scale! Of course, there was also the 4-500 fps velocity difference between their UR test barrel and my 4" GP100 running at 1450fps. I definitely care what speed my gun is running at, but I like to avoid wasting too much powder getting it to the speed I want. Even data accurate to 100-200fps would greatly reduce the amount of powder that I need to burn in pressure/velocity tests. (Geez, I need some cheese with my wine)

November 26, 2001, 08:45 PM	#6
saands Senior Member Join Date: November 14, 1999 Posts: 1,573	I think the real misleading deal here is that the slower powders seem to favor the longer barrels ... 2400 works GREAT in my 6" 586, but I imagine that it would just be a flame throwing slouch in a 2 or 3 inch bbl ... Seems to me that the powder companies could at least run the loads through a couple of different length bbls ... especially in the pistol realm where there are quite large (percentage) variations in length that commonly used.

November 26, 2001, 10:41 PM	#7
C.R.Sam Senior Member Join Date: October 29, 1999 Location: Dewey, AZ Posts: 12,858	The only way you are going to know what a load will do in your gun is to chrono your own loads. Caution, sometimes velocity will drop off as you increase powder charge if you are close to the upper limit. Giving perhaps a false sense of security in going even heavier. A while back I slugged a few hundred barrels of LE guns. Two calibers. 9X19 and .357mag. Smallest of both was .3535 and largest on both calibers was .359. Talk about variations in performance.!! And that leaves out so many other factors that vary from gun to gun. Test barrels allow for comparison between load variables. The gun variables are out of the control of the ammo people. Start low, work up, and live long. Sam