Differences in Handbooks

[Nube]

OK I am doing some research and came across this discrepancy in two handbooks.One is the Hornady Tenth edition and the other one is Lyman 49th edition. Here is an example of one of the differences--

Lyman--223 Remington 60 grain Jacketed V-Max: H-335 Starting load = 23.2 grains at 2728 f/sec.

Hornady --223 Remington 60 grain Jacketed V-Max H-335 Starting load = 20.1 grains at 2700 f/sec.

That is quite a difference I think as the max load is 22.9 grains in the Hornady Book at 3000 f/sec and the max load is 25.8 grains at 3121 f/sec in the Lyman Book.

So which one would a person go by, or would you just split the difference? I have looked and this is not the only difference I have found or am I just over thinking this. As a beginner and just trying to get a handle on this, just need some advice from those who are more in the know. I also realize that different conditions dictate some differences like different rifles and weather conditions etc.

Thanks for any and all replies!!

[Crapshoooter2]

Nube:

Crapshoooter2 here, I too an a newbie, so don't take anything I say to the bank. There are other that will be more knowledge.

But I have noticed in some load data interesting thing to0. For instance sometime they will list data for AR-15 and for a bolt action separately. For example a Sierra 55gr #1390 for an AR using H355 is 23.6/2700 for a bolt it is 23.0/2800. So that might be the cause. I think it was Unclenick who posted that if the data shows a PSI reading that it would be based on a bolt action.

That is far as I can go ….

Will be interested to see what the big boys say.

Crapshoooter2

[lordmorgul]

Always include the powder manufacturers max load as well and yes possibly split the difference... but
- a recipe that does not include the way it’s cooked is useless... a load without info on the barrel and action type that achieved that velocity is useless and you should consider it highly suspect



Andrew - Lancaster, CA
NRA Life Member, CRPA member, Calguns.net contributor, CGF / SAF / FPC / CCRKBA / GOA / NAGR / NRA-ILA contributor, USCCA member - Support your defenders!

[FrankenMauser]

Keep in mind that different companies are using different lots of powder, different test barrels (or firearms), and often different COAL. In addition, they may be using different cases and primers.
Because of all those variables, the end result is usually different.

In regards to Hornady data, specifically, they lump similar bullets into weight 'groups' for load data. As such, all bullets in that group have their starting loads based on the heaviest bullet, and the max loads based on the longest bullet (or the bullet that takes up the most case capacity). So, Hornady data for certain bullets can be significantly neutered, in comparison to other sources.
However, that is not the case for the 60 gr V-Max. That category is all 60 gr bullets, and the V-Max is the longest.


Find the data that most closely matches the combination of components that you're using, and go from there.


In this case, you can also check the Hodgdon data, to see what conclusion they came to with H335 and the 60 gr V-Max (and the cases and primers they used). When you do so, you'll see that their testing used the same components as Hornady, but the powder charges are higher.

Check enough sources to feel comfortable with a starting load, and start throwing charges.

Worst case: Start with the lowest starting load, and work up until you feel like stopping (at or before the highest max load).

[Unclenick]

Agree. A lot of Hornady data is light. I did some analysis at one point and found it pretty consistently ranged between 1% and 9% lower than other data suggested you could go. In addition to the factors already mentioned, another reason is they limit the load selection to those that produce fixed velocity increments (100 fps increments for the .223), so if a true maximum load was going to produce less than another 100 fps they would round it down, leaving the maximum on the light side.

In this instance, I note they do not use a 24" standard SAAMI pressure test barrel, but rather use a 26" Remington. They claim 3000 fps, which seems high, but I noticed that is the result QuickLOAD gives with its diminutive 28.8-grain default case water overload capacity. Just a coincidence? Maybe. Hornady has also gone away from the SAAMI standard test guns because of their cost and has adopted a strain gauge system, I understand. That costs a lot less to operate and maintain. But it means there is room for disagreements to arise.

Frankenmauser's advice it right. When in doubt, start with the lowest published starting load and work up toward the highest one while watching for pressure signs, stopping if you find an accuracy sweet spot along the way (unless you just want to burn ammo seeing what the gun can take). In all shooting disciplines, the accuracy of shot placement matters more than any exact velocity.

[Nube]

FrankenMauser and Unclenick Thanks for enlightening me as it is just a little confusing after reading the internet and then reading the books etc. especially since I am in the process of learning and trying not to do something wrong! (I know that you can't believe everything on the "net" Ha Ha)

[PA-Joe]

Another factor is that the bullet makes use the best data for their bullets while the powder makers use lower data so they don't get blamed when something goes wrong. They also use different test barrels and barrel lengths.

[hounddawg]

sometimes you just have to use common sense, there are very few combination you can't find multiple sources for other than new cartridges such as the .224 Valkyrie. I tend to start with the most conservative and work my way up with a pressure test series. Others may start where the load data overlaps.

[44 AMP]

This question comes up a lot, "why do the different manual /sources vary so much?"

I firmly believe all sources are accurately reporting what they did, and what they got. So why are they different?

The answer is simple, tolerances. Every factor of the gun and the ammo has tolerances. Sometimes they work together, sometimes they don't. Doesn't matter if you use the same make, model barrel length, your gun and theirs will be different in some ways. Same for the ammo, even if you can get the same exact lot# production cases, powder, bullets and primers there will be differences.

Every factor has a +/- range of allowable tolerances. Plot them out, you get the "bell curve". While the majority of results are in the middle of the curve (and that is why the data is useful as guidelines) results at either end of the curve ARE possible.

And because that is possible, and no one can know exactly what conditions apply to your gun and ammo, how tolerances will stack up, until those specific items are tested by shooting and observing the results.

This is why the advice is always start low and work up. Every gun and ammo combination is an individual, and could be at the low end, the high end, the middle of the curve, or somewhere inbetween. Only testing what is in your hands will tell you what your gun and ammo are.

There may be a reason why a given starting load is what it is. Or it may be just where the testers decided to start. Max loads may be where they reached or approached industry pressure limits, or they may just be where they decided to stop, because of a different reason.

If you get exactly what the manuals got, consider it serendipity. If you get something close to what they got, consider it normal. If you get something much different from what they got (up or down) consider it the stars lining up, and your stuff is that much different from theirs.

As a rather poor illustration, take two cars, same make, model, same engine, and test them over the same course, for gas mileage. Say one is new, and the other has 50,000 miles on it (and its tires) perhaps driven slightly differently by different people or even the same person, tiny differences in dozens (or more) factors will result in different mileage numbers.

Published handloading data is not a hard and fast law of nature, its what they got with what they tested. it is, as the pirate said "more loik goidlines, really..."

Staying within those "goidlines" is safe, its smart. Go outside and you are "off the map" and "there be dragons here!" Perhaps you find a path through the wilderness safely, or perhaps you make a misstep and the dragons eat you. One thing is certain, if you see the dragon in the distance, and ignore it, you are putting yourself at needless risk.

Meaning, no matter what the published data says, if you are getting undesired results with your loads in your gun, don't ignore them.

[RC20]

In all shooting disciplines, accuracy of shot placement matters more than any exact velocity.

That should be a large sign in every shooters mind.

[FrankenMauser]

Another factor is that the bullet makes use the best data for their bullets while the powder makers use lower data so they don't get blamed when something goes wrong.

In my opinion, which is supported by comparing component manufacturers' and powder companies' data, you have that backwards.
Most powder companies actually pressure test their loads, whereas most component manufacturers monitor for pressure signs and, at best, use strain gauges.

There are many component manufacturers out there (especially the 'boutique' and 'specialty' bullet makers - but at least one well known 'match' bullet maker) that don't even work up the data that they publish. They just run the numbers through an internal ballistics program, test one or two of the powders in their list (if any), and share the predictions of the computer program.
At this time, I would not feel it to be remiss if someone were to say that there is now more data available, based on QuickLoad predictions, specifically, than data that was actually worked up in firearms or pressure barrels.
And the companies don't really care, because almost no one goes after the component makers.

Whether or not their data is conservative, powder companies are ALWAYS at risk of being sued - whether by Johnny B. Moron, whom claims he put 56 grains of H4350 in his .30-06 load, but actually loaded it with 56 grains of H4198; or by Nancy T. Innocent, whom pulled the trigger on a gunshow .44 Mag reload with H110 that had been contaminated by someone dumping their powder measure of Titegroup into the container.

People always blame the powder company, not the bullet or case manufacturer. As such, they pressure test everything they publish, in order to show that reloaders would be safe so long as they followed the published data.

[Unclenick]

Yep. Get out your copy of QuickLOAD and compare its results to the loads on the Barnes site.

[cw308]

I never got into velocity , maybe because I'm in a small world of shooting . I shoot at one gun range where the maximum distance is 200 yards and the only distance I shoot . I look at load books as a safe range to reload , having 5 different books I list all the starting and maximum loads , giving me a larger range to work with . There are so many variables when compared to the firearm your using , rifling used , type of twist . No rifle is made exact , the information may put you in the ballpark but I wouldn't think if I didn't get the same listings , there would be something wrong . I just pay attention to group size , have no idea how fast there flying .

[T. O'Heir]

All manuals are different. Manuals reflect averages of the data results of the day of the test using the exact components(like the powder lot), atmospheric conditions and firearm, if there was a firearm(testing is usually done with a universal receiver), only. The major difference is the velocity and maybe the pressures. Said pressures being within SAAMI spec is good enough.
"...your copy of QuickLOAD..." Is not a manual. QuickLOAD is at best a WHAG by some programmer who may have never seen a real firearm.

[Marco Califo]

Originally Posted by T. O'Heir "...your copy of QuickLOAD..." Is not a manual. QuickLOAD is at best a WHAG by some programmer who may have never seen a real firearm.

This is one person's opinion, as always, not supported by evidence or any reference material. I have never heard this particular opinion before, but see no reason to considered it to be anything more than his usual uninformed noise.
Quickload is a computer program (Unclenick knows that, and never said it was a manual). which incorporates powder burn characteristics (pressure curve), and verifiable factual data (like SAAMI cartridge specifications, bullet data), to produce "predictions" of what a particular cartridge, powder and bullet, COAL, etc. will produce in terms of velocity and pressure. In the hands of an experienced reloader, and used correctly, it is generally considered the best estimate available, without using pressure test equipment.
The software was written by a European engineer, who knows a lot more about reloading than the quoted poster.

"QuickLOAD/QuickTARGET 3.9 is absolutely the best Interior/Exterior Ballistic Prediction Software in the world. User friendly. Accurate results for over 1500 cartridges, more than 270 powders and 2500 bullets. Accepts user defined data for user created wildcats. Scores of useful outputs. No other ballistics software has the precise data for 270 individual powders. Other programs can only place powders in general categories of burn rates and densities. QuickLOAD instantly calculates pressures and velocities based on thermodynamic modeling, NOT numbers crunched from loading manuals. The data generated can then be used by the QuickTARGET portion of the program to determine trajectories, wind deflection, sight corrections, down range velocity, down range energy and a multitude of other useful outputs. No other interior/exterior ballistics program has the capabilities of QuickLOAD/QuickTARGET. Data developed in the QuickDESIGN cartridge designing program can be imported into QuickLOAD/QuickTARGET for interior and exterior ballistic analysis.

www.neconos.com
NECO Cust. Svce.
108 Ardmore Way
Benicia, CA 94510

NECO Warehouse/Main Office
1015 W. Morgan St
Duluth, MN 55811
Phone: 1-800-451-3550
Fax: 1-707-747-0897

[email protected]"

I do not own a copy of Quickload and have no interest in the writer or seller.

[FrankenMauser]

Originally Posted by T. O'Heir

"...your copy of QuickLOAD..." Is not a manual. QuickLOAD is at best a WHAG by some programmer who may have never seen a real firearm.

Stop regurgitating that same line, based on zero real world knowledge of the product.
All it does is make you look like a fool and further diminish the value of your opinion.

We went over this in February: https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho....php?p=6695526

And last August: https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho....php?p=6642130

And at least dozen other times over the last few years...


And, in this particular case, I don't believe Unclenick was referring to the original poster or other inexperienced reloaders. That comment, I believe, was directed at people known to own a copy of QuickLoad. (Such as myself.)

[1MoreFord]

Over the years there have been Countless differences in test equipment, lots of powder, test techniques, bullet lots, and test conditions.

You can't get the same results from random variable circumstances. PLUS, loading data, and modern loaded ammo, seems to be getting more conservative all the time most likely because there are more idiots arriving in this world all the time.

Today it's accepted knowledge that several of the Hodgden and Winchester/Western powders are the same powder with different branding but Yet loading data for them varies and it's all due to the above views.

I've got an old friend who swears up and down that some powders (WW231/HP38 in particular) has been *detuned* over the years since his old time IPSC loads won't make 175PF anymore and he has to load more powder for the same results.

[44 AMP]

there is an acceptable lot to lot variation in cannister grade powders. One number I've heard is 3%. The powder today with the same name may not be exactly the same as the one with that name 30 years ago.

At one time (in the 70s) there were three different recognized burn rate lots of H110 on the market. Max charges differed by a couple grains, sometimes more, and using a "fast" lot with "slow" lot data could lead to max pressure situations in a hurry.

ALL guns are different, in some details, some stronger than others. Data can, and should reflect that, when the difference is due to design differences, but no one else's data and no computer prediction can say what you will get with your gun and your ammo, with 100% certainty.

[SHR970]

Agree. A lot of Hornady data is light. I did some analysis at one point and found it pretty consistently ranged between 1% and 9% lower than other data suggested you could go.

Not always the case but when it is it is more pronounced in the uberthumper calibers. I load for the 375 RUM; Hornady data is well below the powder distributors data even with the same componenets. It is so far below that their midrange loads I would fear for a squib or a hang fire load.

[SHR970]

At one time (in the 70s) there were three different recognized burn rate lots of H110 on the market. Max charges differed by a couple grains, sometimes more, and using a "fast" lot with "slow" lot data could lead to max pressure situations in a hurry.

That explains data for H109 & H111; H109 being more common.

[44 AMP]

I load for the 375 RUM; Hornady data is well below the powder distributors data even with the same componenets. It is so far below that their midrange loads I would fear for a squib or a hang fire load.

I don't have new data for that one, but what I have (Horn 7th) shows starting loads at 2500 for a 275gr, 2300fps for a 300gr.

using between 70 and 80gr powder. If that much powder lights at all, I doubt it will be a squib. won't say its impossible, though.

I did see the warning in the text about not going much below the listed starting loads, possible hangfires…

Now, ok, say their starting loads are well below others, might it be possible that the others simply chose higher starting load levels than Hornady did?

I would think that Hornady, publishing the data, would print starting loads far enough above the point there are issues to be safe and consistent.

And then there's always all the possible difference between the guns used in testing by different people creating different results.

[Unclenick]

Hornady's method of publishing loads is part of the problem. In addition to velocity increments that prevent reaching exact maximum charges, they lump a group of bullets together, sometimes not the exact same weight, and then state the same loads will give them all the same velocities, which I don't expect anyone thinks will really happen with much precision. On top of that, they use the same velocity increments for all different listed powder's. The problem with that is not so obvious. It has to do with how closely the statistical variations in pressure play out and that they often include marginally appropriate powder's in order to let the handloader use something he already has on hand. Such powder's tend to produce wider pressure variability, so you can't get as close to MAP with them as you can with a more uniform performer.

There are legitimate reasons why current load data is sometimes lower than old load data and why the powders seem to differ. But I 'm not going into deep detail writing on a tablet. It takes too long. For now, understand that Hodgdon reworked their QC system around 2000, cutting down some of the lot burn rate variation that used to exist. Almost all primer formulations have changed since 1989, generally improving ignition and that reduces maximum loads. A lot of case capacities have shifted as different brands shift sources. Most people don't realize how interdependent the industry is. When one of them gets a contact to run one kind of ammunition that occupies too much of their capacity to let them make their full line they pay others to pick up what they can't cover. Norma's manual describes how they make all of Weatherby's brass and loaded ammunition and have made brass with Remington and Federal headstamps for those companies at times (Remington tried to buy Norma at one point). Bullet making and types have grown immensely, so most are not quite a match to what they used to be, either.

My earlier comment on QuickLOAD that predictably brought on T.O.'s broken record repeat of his utterly uninformed and unjustified opinion of the program, was to enter Barnes loads into it so you could see they match exactly in so many instances that it is clear QuickLOAD is their source, and not actual testing. So their faith in the program exceeds even mine.

[44 AMP]

It doesn't matter to me if the guy who wrote the program ever pulled a trigger or not. As with the manuals and all other published data, its not tested in YOUR gun (or mine) until WE do it.

That's why they are all guidelines. Not immutable natural laws or carved in stone commandments. Guidelines. Something to show you what they found was a safe path, for them. probably will be for you, but not guaranteed.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by PA-Joe

Another factor is that the bullet makes use the best data for their bullets while the powder makers use lower data so they don't get blamed when something goes wrong. They also use different test barrels and barrel lengths.

The opening post mentioned Lyman, so I thought I would chime in with this. I know someone who works at Lyman, and a couple of years ago when I was in that area I was allowed to tour the factory. Lyman has their own test range at their company headquarters in Middletown, Connecticut. They are neither a bullet maker nor a powder maker. They develop all the load data they publish in their test range, and they use a pressure barrel. I didn't think to ask what length but if you contact them and ask, they just might tell you. (Or maybe it's in the data they publish -- I don't remember.)

[Unclenick]

AB,

Assuming they are SAAMI standard test barrels, the length is dictated by the standard. All SAAMI standard velocity and pressure (V&P) test barrels for rifles are 24" long except the 300 AAC Blackout's, which is 16" long, and the 30 Carbine, 7.62×39, 350 Remington Magnum, and 44 Mag rifle all have 20" V&P barrels. For pistol cartridges, there is less consistency and for many revolver cartridges more than one length: a revolver barrel with 0.008" barrel/cylinder gap and a second single-shot shot barrel length with no gap.


44 AMP,

Dr. Ken Oehler once commented that QuickLOAD's author, Hartmut Broemel had seen more real pressure data that he and Denton Bramwell combined. He is one of Europe's leading ballisticians and writes software for the CIP, too. Broemel wrote the original program for a PDP 8, IIRC, while studying 20 mm guns for the military at Germany's most prestigious technical institute way back in the late sixties. He circulated it among professional ballisticians for almost 20 years before they talked him into buying the necessary lab equipment to test enough powders to publish a commercial version for serious amateur handloaders.

T. O'Heir's basic and persistent error is in assuming the software came from someone who was a programmer first and a ballistician second and only insofar as was necessary to create the program. It is, in fact, the other way around. Broemel is a ballistician first and a programmer second, and the program he created was for military development work. So it has excellent provenance.