Load workup methods?

[Shadow9mm]

Hey, so I got to thinking. What are the common load development methods and how well do they work? One of the things I have sort of figured out over the years is that the method or techniques in the method need to produce results every time. Based on Hornady's podcast on dispersion and not shooting enough round to get reliable data.

Currently, I test to max to ensure no pressure signs. Then work down to find a stable velocity, then tune seating depth for group size. so far it has worked every time

I know of other methods with tuning the powder charge for group size shooting groups for the smallest group. This method has seemed to work ok, but seems to sacrifice velocity if the accurate node if further down.

As well as some of the quick workup types that rely on powder changes for point of impact shifts. I just dont see how these can work reliably as there is not enough data.

What methods have you tried? and what has been consistent and reliable to produce results every time? do you take into consideration how many round you use up during load development?

[HiBC]

I think the only truly reliable method of knowing pressure is with the test equipment and labs I do not have or know how to use.

Next best is tested data from a loading manual,

I don't have the interior ballistic softwares. Unclenick seems to get useful results with them.

I have a method I use as part of a compilation of all other available data,

While it has served me well, I'm a blind man whacking things in the dark with a stick. I'm wary of my conclusions.

Long ago Sierra Bullets snail mailed me newsletters I found this there.

Use the chronograph to chart the effect of small ,incremental increases in charge vs velocity. If .2 or .5 gr of powder seems to buy you 40 fps, + or -, watch the trend. If the charge increase gets you 18fps, say "I hit the wall"

Go back a step.

Before there was data for a 69 gr SMK or Nosler Custom Comp,driven by Varget, I contacted Hodgdon, and Nosler. They snail mailed me data. Meanwhile,I ran my tests. One letter aid 25 gr,one said 25.5. I got 25.2.

I used it with good results with other wildcats.

But I'm still a blind man whacking about in the dark.

Beware trusting a driverless car in the dark. The bridge may be out.

[Unclenick]

The original point of impact test was the ladder devised by the late Creighton Audette. The basic idea is to shoot a series of loads, perhaps twenty or so, with incremental charge increases spaced about on the edge of a difference that might normally be expected to bring about a noticeable change in POI; usually about two thirds of a percent to one percent increments. The idea is that a "sweet spot" will be less sensitive to changing powder charges than average, and thus several shots in a row will, despite the powder charge difference, tend to share the same POI.

Some have trouble making the Audette ladder work, and this can be for any of several reasons.
First, unless your loads all have zero standard deviation when you fire several copies of them, you can't trust that any one of them is truly representative of the average performance of its charge level. It might be closer to one end of the extreme spread of velocity than the average. Indeed, if you fire twenty rounds, even though the charge weights are incremented, you know you have even odds that at least one of them is outside the 95% confidence limit for whatever standard deviation from the trend line there may be. On the other hand, if a true sweet spot is found, all variations for that load should have less effect on POI than if they were not loaded around the sweet spot, so, its random variation should count for less POI shift if the load is on a sweet spot. Obviously, this means the shooter should do all the things he can think of to minimize shot-to-shot variation. This includes not only loading technique, but handling loading the gun to keep powder position in the case the same, timing shots to keep temperature exposure close to the same, etc.

When in doubt, you can always refire a ladder and average the hole locations with those of the first ladder. Keep repeating until you are satisfied. Once you clearly identify a shot placement knot, you can reduce the range of your subsequent ladders to fewer shots, as the cluster is all you are trying to confirm is not a random accident.

Once you have such a load, tuning seating depth at the middle point of the sweet spot makes the most sense.

[taylorce1]

I've started with picking load data that achieved the speed I wanted, then trying to tune seating depth. I then went to OCW and tall targets to find the node. I've also tried the Saterlee method for finding nodes. I also read Berger's article "Making them shoot" on seating depth testing and pretty much do that for every bullet I try.

What I'm finding that is working the best is changing up my targets. And a modified combination of the OCW and Saterlee methods. Also to do proper load development a reliable chronograph is essential without it you're wasting a lot of components.

What has been working for me is to load up usually 10 loads at magazine length or .020 off the lands to look for pressure signs. I actually load 30, but of 10 powder charges that by book data get me close to my desired MV. I then build my target with butcher paper and a level, and it looks something like this: -+--+--+--+-

Instead of doingbmy ladder testing vertically I work on the horizontal. I shoot one round at the short vertical line looking for the charge weight node and the shots that are closest to my horizontal line. This allows me to track my vertical dispersion better than doing the ladder vertically like the original Audette Ladder test.

If I had a camera system I might still do it all with a single POA. I don't have a shot camera system, and this works better than trying read color smears from color coding bullets. Doing the target along the horizontal has greatly improved my load development speed.

If after shooting 10 rounds I don't show any signs of pressure and I'm in my velocity window, I'll shoot the remaining rounds at the same target. If I get pressure signs or the velocity isn't what I'm wanting, I mark the rounds to be broken down. I shoot round-robin style, lo-hi, hi-lo, and finally lo-hi. Letting the barrel cool between shooting sessions.

I'll then look at my target for the powder charge with the least amount of vertical dispersion. I then may do some more tweaking of powder charges, or I might jump to seating depth testing. Magazine length or .020" jump is always my baseline, so I'll load six rounds each to jump the bullet .020", .060", .100", and .140".

I shoot these round robin again in .020-.140", .140-.020", and .020-.140". This will give me three shot groups and I usually shoot the target clock wise with the .020" group at 12 o'clock. After shooting the firt 12 rounds and letting the barrel cool, I reverse the round -robin starting with the most jump to the lands first. I then will choose to tweak seating depth from the bullet jump that produces the smallest groups. I can either tweak the seating depth more by testing smaller increments in seating depth or call it good enough.

After I've finished seating depth testing, I shoot for confirmation groups and start testing at range. Almost every shot that isn't a hunting situation is usually shot over a chronograph these days, even field position practice with my hunting loads. This lets me collect data to spot trends with my rifles and keep track of rounds fired.

I'll also be transparent in stating I don't handload much of my own ammunition anymore. Life isn't giving me much time for that hobby, and I've used factory ammunition more and more for hunting. A good consistent factory load that shoots 1.5 MOA or better on average has not reduced my hunting success.

I do however still have to load for some of my rifles if I want to shoot them because of limited availability of factory ammunition such as .30-40 and when I owned a Whelen. In the case of my 6X45, 6X47, and .338-06 it's nonexistent in factory form.

[Nathan]

Look up max on Quickload….inexact science.

Load 10 increments until bolt lift becomes an issue. This is over max. Back off about 1-2%….about 1gr on a 60gr charge. That is max.

Load 20 at that charge….or less, if less still meets velocity target. Shoot until group opens up beyond acceptable accuracy or 20 rounds fired. If 20, then done, if sd is ok for that rifle. If not, try 0.5-1.0gr less. If still ng, take the better charge weight and shoot ladder of seating depths…maybe 5 groups of 5.

I’m honestly still dipping my toe into the Hornady method.

[Paul B.]

I use a chronograph when working up loads. Early on I used graph paper to plot the average point of impact against a 45 degree line. Vertical line was marked for velocity and the horizontal for charge weight. Quick and dirty was increase charge one-half grain at a time.Once I neared published max I'd watch the variation in velocity. If the mean increase was say 35 FPS per charge increase then a jump to say 60 FPS, or it could even be a drop of 60 FPS raised suspicion I was nearing the potential max for that rifle regardless of what kind of group was on target. Powder does some strange things when maximum is reached or passed in a particular cartridge. It can be a massive jump up or a drop down, it can even be no change in velocity from the previous charge. I also pay attention to bolt lift, primer appearance, case head expansion and other signs of possible higher pressure and reduce the charge by 2 to four percent depending on the rifle and powder being used. Also accuracy at the finally pressure level it taken into consideration.
Paul B.

[RoyceP]

I have Sierra's manual #10 and Lyman reloading manuals from 1957, 1977 and 2021. I consult those and decide on a load, generally around the middle between the slowest and the fastest so normally that is in the middle of the pressure curve too. Then I load fifty of them and go to the range. If it is accurate I am happy and continue to use the load.

If on the other hand it is not accurate or it is messy or defective in some other way (high primers, won't chamber etc) I shoot a couple then go home and pull all the bullets from the rest of the box.

[std7mag]

Holy slinging lead!!!

When I have a new cartridge, or component (bullet, powder), I'll look at the manuals I have for the components that I have.
Although I often run into issues with "obsolete" cartridges & components that are not listed for them.

Since most of my rifles are for hunting, I take a listed max, and load 10 rounds (0.020" off the lands for cup & core bullets, 0.005" for VLD's) dropping 0.3gr each round. (Depending upon cartridge volume)

Shooting at a target such as Taylorce1 mentioned, I'm only looking for the closest vertically.
My Chrono gets left at home, as I let the target tell me what's going on. Otherwise I tend to get hung up on searching for velocity.

I then use the middle of a node for my powder charge & the group size with seating depth.

Only after I can satisfy my load desires do I bring out the Chrono. But this is usually when I'm shooting to 600-800 yards, and can true my velocities.

[Unclenick]

Originally Posted by RoyceP

I consult those and decide on a load, generally around the middle between the slowest and the fastest

Whenever someone posts that (not infrequently), I feel obliged to warn others against this practice for several reasons. The main one is that twice in my life, a manual load that was the BOTTOM load in the book's list has proven to be already at the maximum for the gun I was shooting it in. A second reason is if you look through enough manuals, eventually, you find one whose maximum load for a powder and bullet is close to or below the starting load for that same combination in another book. This means an average of the two is at or over the maximum for the lower one.

One contributor to this situation is the aging of manuals. Most of the old manual loads were developed with production guns and not in the tight SAMMI Velocity and Pressure barrels used today, so pressure is higher in tighter chambers. The old data was mainly developed by watching for pressure signs such as primer flattening and case head or pressure ring expansion. Both have proven unreliable in reporting pressure over time as brass weight and primer cup thicknesses vary even within the same component lots. All those signs tell you is that the particular component that showed the sign couldn't handle loads beyond a certain level in the particular gun they appeared in.

The powder used in many of the old manuals came from different plants and manufacturers than they do today. For example, the original H4895 was a Government surplus IMR 4895. Today, H4895 is one of the Extreme lines of powders made by ADI in Australia and does not have the same load data as either IMR 4895 or the old surplus IMR 4895.

There are other factors, but frankly, it only takes six rounds to do an initial check. Make up one each that is 10%, 8%, 6%, 4%, 2%, and 0% below maximum. Shoot them in that order, being careful to handle the cartridge to have the powder back over the flash hole when you fire (to produce the worst case highest pressure), then look for pressure signs with your components in your chamber. Stop at the first sign of anything. Load 9 more one step below that level to be sure of no signs appearing in them. If there are none, the sign may have been an anomaly, as signs occasionally occur well below a safe pressure maximum (see the Bramwell article linked above). Decide if you want to creep back up or if you are satisfied with the velocity you have. Today, for liability reasons, at least the manual maximum loads are pressure tested in a SAAMI standard gun, and often, the whole load development process is done that way, so the odds are you will see no pressure signs anywhere in the six rounds. But never say never.

[cptjack]

gun blue 490 on you tube has GREAT SERIES on reloading

[RoyceP]

Originally Posted by Unclenick

Whenever someone posts that (not infrequently),

Most of my powder was purchased when I thought there might be a President Dukakis. While there wasn't it turned out that I made a very good decision buying all of my components then. I consult many reloading sources just to verify that there is not an issue with the data. I've been reloading since the mid 1980's and have never had an issue yet.

Go ahead, make unsubstantiated claims and wise cracks.

[Unclenick]

Not cracking wise. No idea where you got that idea. Personal attacks are not allowed on the board. I am just warning people you can get into trouble starting with middle loads. I've made the caution before and will do it again, I am sure. Overpressure from middle loads is pretty unusual, but is not something that never happens. For example, we had a fellow with a Handi Rifle in 248 Win that was popping open on firing despite careful attention to the latch, but it was producing 100 fps too much velocity by the time he'd worked up to the middle load range. Contact with Speer, whose data it was, merely got the response that they were covered by test data showing this couldn't be happening, but there it was. So, apparently, despite it being a pressure tested load, it just wasn't right in his gun, and that's not always predictable.

Old data is not pressure tested. That changed as liability concerns grew over time. It is why you find a number of old published loads are reduced in modern published data. Others are not. It's random because the variation in actual pressure when pressure signs occur is random.

The above are facts and not wise cracks. Most of the time problems do not occur starting with old data or starting with midrange loads, but it needs to be understood there is an element of luck involved in relying on that to be OK so people take an informed risk if they choose to do it.

[Nick_C_S]

Overpressure from middle loads is pretty unusual, but is not something that never happens.

I once had overpressure with a starting load, using the Speer #10 manual (it was current at the time). It was 357 Magnum, 125 JHP (a Speer JHP - the one in the manual), using W231. Primers totally flattened; extraction very difficult.

I assumed I had made a mistake (odd assumption for arrogant 25-year-old me). So I went back to the load bench and loaded a few more - using the utmost of care. Same result.

To this day, I will not use W231 in 357 Magnum. I'm forever spooked.

[Unclenick]

Same experience but with an old databook. Hornady #2. One of the 44 Special starting loads of 2400 in a light Charter Bulldog stung my palm and was hard to extract. A combination of things can happen. For one, bullet makers buy powder off the shelf for their tests. Sierra confirmed this to me, pointing out it is one of the reasons some powders that ought to be included in data for a particular cartridge and bullet weight range are left out. There just wasn't any on the shelf when the test was scheduled to be done. The fact of off-the-shelf purchases can lead to the load designer buying from a lot at the slow end of the powder's burn rate tolerance and the handloader having a lot at the high end of the range. For another, different chamber diameters or cylinder lengths in the Colt revolver they developed the load in.

[Nathan]

This reminds me about what I see in Quickload. 2 powders may be in the sweet spot for powder fill and velocity. Adding a grain to one max load may get you 2000 psi….another may get you 15000psi. Those are extremes, but a good powder is not going to spike right at max….better is 10% over max!

[RoyceP]

You are assuming a lot of things that are not true. I never load anything until I have modern data that agrees - and I have the components of course. Many of the loads I have used for decades and so I know they are safe. Then you see that I don't normally share load data - I just say where I got it.

The above is not true for certain calibers that are "obsolete" cartridges that I reload for. Specifically 41 Long Colt and 38 Long Colt. I got data that I think I can trust from Mike Venturino. If you don't think you can trust him you are mistaken.

[Unclenick]

Originally Posted by RoyceP

You are assuming a lot of things that are not true.

Just the opposite. While I hope you include further considerations, I could not assume that and reacted only to exactly what you said in post #7:

I have Sierra's manual #10 and Lyman reloading manuals from 1957, 1977 and 2021. I consult those and decide on a load, generally around the middle…

Nothing is in the post about limiting yourself to something in modern manuals. There is nothing there about limiting yourself to powders purchased when the old manuals were current (which, because of later process changes, can also mean the modern manuals do not always reflect them well). Plus, you had the middle range as your starting point, which the examples Nick_C_S and I provided show is not a universally safe practice.

In the meantime, while this thread has only 15 participants, it has garnered 598 views as of this post and may eventually have many more. If hundreds of viewers followed the practice exactly as described in post #7, the odds are that sooner or later, one or more of them would experience a pressure problem. I understand that it has worked fine for you thus far, but when you increase the size of the sample enough, you'll get some other experiences. This is just part of the statistical nature of handloading practices. Some stinkers will show up even in published data that has been pressure tested as Speer's has. The way you protect yourself from those and from experiencing severe outliers is to start with the listed starting load or to use the maximum -10% starting load rule that published data usually follows (except for certain powders whose behavior is atypical).

I think most folks who start with a middle load are trying to avoid the risk of going straight to the maximum value. The problem is, as the loads Nick and I mentioned describe, starting about 5% below maximum doesn't avoid the risk quite well enough.

[HiBC]

RoyceP : You are relatively new to the neighborhood. Welcome!

I'm an Old guy with 50 years handloading experience. That doesn't mean much.

I could do 50 years of stupid. But I've never blown up a gun or blown a case.

I don't want to talk about me.

I suggest you take a deep breath and start over with Unclenick.

First off,he is a Gentleman and deserves to be treated like one.

The Man has more knowledge of interior and exterior ballistics, components ,firearms and shooting than just about anyone else you are likely to find still alive.

When he takes the time to try to teach me something, I turn down the voices in my head, and turn up my ears, and listen with Respect.

Its never necessary or apropriate to give Unclenick atitude.

To do so scores you no points on this forum.

[tangolima]

It actually happened only a couple of weeks ago. Mid range charge on my .243 win popped primer. 3 or 4% above min I started noticing cratered primers. I should have stopped. Didn't because I was still far away from max. Something not quite right about the published data. I reckon it is about 5% too much.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[RoyceP]

Originally Posted by Unclenick

One contributor to this situation is the aging of manuals.

I am trying to imagine where you are coming from. I have the most current manual available. The powders I use are not old or superceded by anything. My typical loads are nowhere near maximum. Typically they are the most accurate loads I can find. What you are saying is beyond me - it's not accurate at all.

Do you have some sort of issue with my Lyman manual published in 2021? It is the latest version available. It is still in print today. If you go to buy a reloading manual this is what you will find.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/22139754582...Bk9SR9Sk_eTIYg

[RoyceP]

Originally Posted by HiBC

RoyceP : You are relatively new to the neighborhood. Welcome!

I'm an Old guy with 50 years handloading experience.

Wow you have been reloading maybe 5 years longer than me. You must be really good. Truth is I joined this forum after I retired in 2019. I had been reading it occasionally prior to that but after retiring I finally had something to say.

I don't think there is any law against disagreeing when someone calls you something you are not. Uncle Nick is saying I am using unsafe loads somehow - I am not. Any load I use is researched, published, and well below maximum.

[MarkCO]

I use Satterlee 1.0 then 2.0 with a new barrel.

I'll take a known good (bottom end of the load charts) load, or even factory if I have some, and shoot enough through the barrel to settle it. It might be 20 or as much as 100. I am Chronographing through this process and working on fundamentals.

When it has settled, I do 1.0. 10 rounds, with 0.2g variation, starting at the low end. Pick the node, and then do the 2.0, again with 10 rounds. I've not had it not work yet. I'm typically getting SDs of under 5 shooting groups with the final load. Saving lots of time and effort too. The Redding Comp shell holders have also been a big help.

With semi-auto handguns, I am more picking a load based on experience and just going with it. I'll drop back a bit on charge and work it up consistent with best practices, to where I want to be. With lever guns and revolvers, it is picking a load, working up to the powder charge I'd like. With shotgun, I follow the recipe I like.

[Nathan]

Can we just back off @RoyceP and talk about load work up? I’ve started at mid range before. There are techniques that can allow that to work. There is risk. Heck, there is risk going to a movie nowadays.

Lots of us are developing off load techniques that use 1,3,5 shots with the same load to tell you the performance of a charge or seating increment. Do you find your small count groups match up when you shoot 4-7 groups for Sd or accuracy?

I guess I’m wonder if all the incremental load development I did for years was mostly a waste!

[Unclenick]

The concern I expressed is just to make it clear, especially to beginners reading the thread, not to use old manuals nor to start in the middle of a load range. I and others have had some bad surprises at the bottom load level, as described, and I don't know of any technique that would have reduced middle load pressure to the starting load level.

Originally Posted by RoyceP

I am trying to imagine where you are coming from.

It's based on your post #7. Along with newer sources, you said you included consulting 1957 and 1977 Lyman manuals. Those are aging manuals.

From Lyman #50, page 15:

”1. Reloading Manual
Remember that all data sources become obsolete. The ballistic characteristics of specific components can and do change over time. It is possible for a component to undergo a substantial change without a name change. Thus, data changes with the passage of time. Failing to keep your data up to date can bring on serious consequences.”

If you are familiar with how the old data performs in your guns with your old powder, you are in a special situation, but you didn’t specify that in post #7. I just don’t want beginners reading the thread to assume grabbing granddad’s old load manual and relying on it is a good idea, so I mentioned why it is not. This may not apply to you personally, but without any caveats in #7, the casual reader cannot tell that it is not universally OK to use old data.

Originally Posted by RoyceP

Uncle Nick is saying I am using unsafe loads somehow - I am not.

As I said at the start of my post, I am advising others not to copy the example of starting with a load chosen like this:

…decide on a load, generally around the middle…

Again, from Lyman #50. Page 23:

”CAUTION!

Always start with the exact powder charge weight shown under the starting grains column…”

The starting grains column is their bottom load. There are similar or analogous cautions to be found in load books by Hornady and Speer, among others. Again, I don’t want beginners, in particular, to think picking a load in the middle of a published load range is a good idea, for the reason of the examples I already gave.

[MarkCO]

Originally Posted by Nathan

Can we just back off @RoyceP and talk about load work up?

I guess I’m wonder if all the incremental load development I did for years was mostly a waste!

I do not think it was a waste. You learned a lot, and the information was less available then than now. I've blown up well over a dozen guns on purpose, for testing purposes and all behaved like they should. But that "like they should" is based on years of load data, knowledge, etc. from loading over 1 Million rounds. So, not a waste, but if you know what you are doing, it is a waste at this point in time. All 4 of my squibs, FWIW, were factory ammo.

Also, every single case I have worked on with a blown up gun that were handloads are from folks trying to cut corners and just going straight to a load without the background to know if it is correct or not.