The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 26, 2012, 05:43 PM   #1
trophyhunter147
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 26, 2012
Posts: 3
Reloading Manual Problem

I am new to the reloading world and I need a good manual thats going to tell me all the information i need to know for a 180 grain FMJ bullet. I was looking at the Lyman 49th edition and it had all the information I need except it only had data for hollow points. I dont really want to reload hollow points because i'm just going to be plinking around. Now with the Speer Reloading Manual No.14 is all that load data only compatible with speer bullets? because tht had the information i was looking for. Thanks
trophyhunter147 is offline  
Old March 26, 2012, 05:52 PM   #2
deadwolfarms
Member
 
Join Date: November 27, 2011
Posts: 22
is this for 40 sw with 180 grain rnfp fmj
i like 4.9 grains of win 231 for plinking rounds
deadwolfarms is offline  
Old March 26, 2012, 05:53 PM   #3
trophyhunter147
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 26, 2012
Posts: 3
yes sir it is with 40 s&w 180gr. fmj rnfp and i have unique powder
trophyhunter147 is offline  
Old March 26, 2012, 05:58 PM   #4
Jerry45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2000
Location: Metairie, Louisiana
Posts: 890
I use the Lyman. I also look at the powder manufacturers data on their website. You’ll find discrepancies between the two. I find the Lyman usually gives lighter loads but usually they are the better shooting loads in my firearms. Your mileage may vary.

It really doesn’t matter if the data is for hollow point, flat point or round nose. What matters is that bullet weight matches and you don’t use jacketed loads under lead and vice versa.
__________________
Guns are not dangerous! People are! RKBA!
Jerry45 is offline  
Old March 26, 2012, 06:35 PM   #5
trophyhunter147
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 26, 2012
Posts: 3
so does 6.0 grains of unique sound right for a standard load in a 180 grain FMJ rn?
trophyhunter147 is offline  
Old March 26, 2012, 07:38 PM   #6
Jerry45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2000
Location: Metairie, Louisiana
Posts: 890
6 sounds good. 6.7 is Alliant’s recommended so 6 is good start.

http://www.alliantpowder.com/reloade...29&bulletid=42
__________________
Guns are not dangerous! People are! RKBA!
Jerry45 is offline  
Old March 26, 2012, 10:46 PM   #7
bossman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 996
I refer to the Speer's manual often. Their loads seem to be fine and come very close to chrono velocity results I get using their data. They tell what guns are used for their test data and I fine when I shoot a gun with the same barrel lenght I usually get close to the data.
__________________
NRA life member

When the going gets tough, I just open another beer.
bossman is offline  
Old March 26, 2012, 11:02 PM   #8
dacaur
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2010
Posts: 733
As with anything in reloading, if you dont use EXACTLY what they used in the manual, go down 10% from max and go up slow... Its a recipe, you have to use the same ingredients, but the brand can be different.... You just have to go down to the starting load any time you use something different....

Short answer, yes you will be fine using the load data for the hollow points, as long as you start at the minimum and work up, watching for pressure sign's... Its best to check several sources, and if you cant find your exact bullets, use the most conservative data you do find.....
dacaur is offline  
Old March 27, 2012, 03:42 AM   #9
BruceM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 12, 2006
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 285
Quote:
It really doesn’t matter if the data is for hollow point, flat point or round nose. What matters is that bullet weight matches and you don’t use jacketed loads under lead and vice versa.
I hate to say this but that isn't really correct. What matters, assuming the same weight and construction is how deeply the bullet sits in the case after seating to the correct over all length. This is because it changes the usable volume of the case. Regardless, if you use data for the same weight bullet of the same general shape and follow Handloading Rule #1 (start low and work up), you won't have any problem. You run into issues when you try to take shortcuts like trying to copy somebody else's load.



Bruce
BruceM is offline  
Old March 27, 2012, 08:55 AM   #10
wncchester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2002
Posts: 2,832
duplicate post, deleted

Last edited by wncchester; March 27, 2012 at 08:30 PM.
wncchester is offline  
Old March 27, 2012, 08:58 AM   #11
wncchester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2002
Posts: 2,832
Jerry45: "It really doesn’t matter if the data is for hollow point, flat point or round nose. What matters is that bullet weight matches and you don’t use jacketed loads under lead and vice versa. >>>>

I hate to say this but that isn't really correct. What matters, assuming the same weight and construction is how deeply the bullet sits in the case after seating to the correct over all length. This is because it changes the usable volume of the case."


Hate it or not, Jerry45's answer is quite true; the cartridge will never care what shape the meplat comes in. Seating depth wasn't the question and, as you do point out, that sort of stuff is compensated for in proper load development, not from blindly following some figure found in a loading manual even if we do happen to be able to duplicate what's listed in the manual.

Reloading is more of an art than a science, cartridges are not a bunch of cakes we can precisely duplicate simply by following a written recipe. If that were not true there are a LOT of bullets, cases and primers we couldn't use because no 'expert' has pasted specific info about them into book form. ??
wncchester is offline  
Old March 27, 2012, 12:51 PM   #12
Dondor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 23, 2006
Posts: 223
It might not care the shape of the meplat, but if in a .40 the shape of the meplat might have an effect on seating depth, which in turn changes your case volume, WHICH will GREATLY affect your pressures.
Dondor is offline  
Old March 27, 2012, 07:38 PM   #13
BruceM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 12, 2006
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 285
Quote:
It might not care the shape of the meplat, but if in a .40 the shape of the meplat might have an effect on seating depth, which in turn changes your case volume, WHICH will GREATLY affect your pressures.
Roger that!

.40 S&W is a more extreme example of that but bullet setback can cause serious issues in Autoloader ammo. Why? Because the case volume is reduced and THAT causes higher and sometimes dangerous pressure. Now, starting low and working up with different bullets of the same weight will remove that problem except with powders like H110 but that does not change the fact that lesser case volume with the same powder charges equal higher pressure associated with that charge weight.

These type of questions usually revolve around questioning varying charge data for same round in different reference sources, trying to replicate a load without identical components or a combination of the same.

It is never a good idea to just duplicate somebody else's load. Back in the day, a common maximum load for .357 magnum with 158 gr SWC bullets was 15.0 grains of 2400. I shot hundreds and hundreds of these thru my 6 inch Python without issue and they were very accurate. One day at the range, a friend of mine with a new to him 5 inch M27 asked if he could try a few. The six shot string he fired produced an equally accurate result. However, he could not extract the empties using the ejector rod. They had to be tapped out with a wood dowel and rubber mallet at home. No permanent damage was done to his gun but they were obviously too stiff for that particular gun.

We obviously are not dealing with maximum loads here but the point remains that it is wise and safe handloading practice that all loads be developed in the gun you want to shoot them in, Rule #1 must be followed and no shortcuts taken.



Bruce

Last edited by BruceM; March 27, 2012 at 07:45 PM.
BruceM is offline  
Old March 27, 2012, 08:32 PM   #14
wncchester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2002
Posts: 2,832
Anyone wanting to argue about internal case volume vs. the base of the bullet should discuss that, not the configuriation of the nose.

Bruce, your paragraph mentioning we should not presume anyone else's load is safe, on the firing line or in a manual, without proper work up is EXACTLY the point I was making and the bullet's point does not change that truth.
wncchester is offline  
Old March 28, 2012, 02:21 AM   #15
BruceM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 12, 2006
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 285
Quote:
Anyone wanting to argue about internal case volume vs. the base of the bullet should discuss that, not the configuriation of the nose.
Well, with most 240 grain hollow point .44 magnum bullets, a safe maximum charge is 24.0 grains of H110/W296 in a magnum case. I, however, wouldn't recommend that charge weight using a 240 grain Sierra JHC because those bullets sit deep in the case for their weight.

So, while what you're saying is generally true, it's not universally true. Further, that propellant is an superior performer in full magnum loads but it must be used pretty much exactly as noted. A minimum 90% load density is required and that does not allow for a lot of tinkering with charge weights. There is a little room in the larger cases but not so much when you get down to .357 magnum cases.

Bruce
BruceM is offline  
Old March 28, 2012, 03:45 AM   #16
Sport45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 1999
Location: Too close to Houston
Posts: 4,074
The things that really matter are:
  • Seating Depth
  • Bullet Area in Contact with Barrel
  • Jacketed, Plated, or Lead

Change any one of those items and the pressure will change too. Always start at the published "starting" load for the weight and type bullet you are using. If no starting load is published reduce the max by 10%.

Unless you are useing H-110/W296. In that case don't reduce max by more than 3% and do some research in order to match your bullet at close as possible.
__________________
Proud member of the NRA and Texas State Rifle Association. Registered and active voter.
Sport45 is offline  
Old March 28, 2012, 07:21 AM   #17
bitttorrrent
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 670
Ok, so I went through an old Lymans and a bunch of other manuals and could not find my new 9mm load.

147g lead with bullseye powder.

I looked online and found a few posts of around 3.9 grains of powder.

I would like to find it written - should I get a new Lymans and will it have all the powders or try the manufacturer.


I'll try a small batch first and than go from there, but don't want to go over on my first bullets.

I'll try the manufacturers website.

(see for bullseye they do not have 147g)???

Notes
9mm Luger 115 gr Speer GDHP Speer 1.125 4 CCI 500 Bullseye 4.7 1,144 -
9mm Luger 124 gr Speer GDHP Speer 1.12 4 CCI 500 Bullseye 4.4 1,059 -
bitttorrrent is offline  
Old March 28, 2012, 07:30 AM   #18
jaguarxk120
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,960
Use the Hodgdon web site for reloading data, it's up to date and the pulished data is from the powder manufactures.

Any load information from Joe down the web or Bubba with his super web site is very questionable as the publishers have nothing to back up their claims.

Hodgdon has the testing labs and ranges to back up what the recomend in the loading data they publish on the web, even that there are disclaimers.
jaguarxk120 is offline  
Old March 28, 2012, 08:01 PM   #19
bitttorrrent
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 670
Oh, that site is awesome!

That is what I was looking for.

No offense with the old manuals and all, but I wanted all this information in a database.

Thank you very much. That site is awesome. You can narrow down to say 9mm, 147g and then match to fmj etc. and man. of powder.

I would have not seen that myself.
bitttorrrent is offline  
Old March 28, 2012, 08:12 PM   #20
dacaur
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2010
Posts: 733
Quote:
Well, with most 240 grain hollow point .44 magnum bullets, a safe maximum charge is 24.0 grains of H110/W296 in a magnum case. I, however, wouldn't recommend that charge weight using a 240 grain Sierra JHC because those bullets sit deep in the case for their weight.

So, while what you're saying is generally true, it's not universally true.
No one is saying you can take a maximum load and swap bullets and be fine. Read closer, we are saying you can take load data for any bullet in the same weight and use that data for a different type by reducing the max load 10% or starting at the starting load (excluding swapping lead for jacketed of course, lets not be silly). You have to go down 10% with any changes. (even with w296.) My hornady manal has charges from 20.7 to 24.5gr for win 296 with 240gr bullets....


Quote:
Ok, so I went through an old Lymans and a bunch of other manuals and could not find my new 9mm load.

147g lead with bullseye powder.

I looked online and found a few posts of around 3.9 grains of powder.

I would like to find it written - should I get a new Lymans and will it have all the powders or try the manufacturer.
In the current "one book/one caliber" book the lyman section has 2.8-3.5gr listed for 147gr lead..... no one else has info for bullseye in anything over 130 gr, and most top out at 115.... its generaly considerd too fast for heavy bullets.
dacaur is offline  
Old March 28, 2012, 08:37 PM   #21
Sport45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 1999
Location: Too close to Houston
Posts: 4,074
Quote:
You have to go down 10% with any changes. (even with w296.)
I've tried 10% load reduction with W296 and had some that didn't light off with mag primers. With some the powder was found in a big clump behind the bullet about 1" into the barrel.

Now I follow Hodgdon's recommendation and never reduce more than 3%.
__________________
Proud member of the NRA and Texas State Rifle Association. Registered and active voter.
Sport45 is offline  
Old March 28, 2012, 09:06 PM   #22
dacaur
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2010
Posts: 733
10% from what? what was the load you tried?
dacaur is offline  
Old March 28, 2012, 09:07 PM   #23
primerman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2011
Posts: 129
Did he ever say what powder he was going to use?
primerman is offline  
Old March 28, 2012, 09:28 PM   #24
dacaur
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2010
Posts: 733
no, but for the original question it doesnt matter. The answer would be the same regardless.
dacaur is offline  
Old March 29, 2012, 02:13 AM   #25
Sport45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 1999
Location: Too close to Houston
Posts: 4,074
Quote:
10% from what? what was the load you tried?
45 Colt with 19.9 and 20.7gr H110 under a 300gr XTP failed to ignite with WLP primers.

45 Colt with 20.6 to 22gr Ramshot Enforcer under 260gr SWC didn't ignite with Wolf LP primers.

357 Mag with 16.9 to 17.8gr Enforcer under 125gr SJHP did not ignite with Winchester SP primers.

In some of the cases above the powder all burnt in the case without developing any pressure. All that remained was soot and ash as you would find if you lit it in an open pan.

Enforcer wasn't supposed to require magnum primers, but I've found that not to be the case.
__________________
Proud member of the NRA and Texas State Rifle Association. Registered and active voter.
Sport45 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 09:04 AM.


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 0.13008 seconds with 7 queries