testtest

Reloading Manual Data (Conflicts and Agreements)

R

RedGoat

Elite
I am (and have been since I got my SECOND reloading data manua as a teenage kid) fascinated by reloading data, especially as found in the manuals published by various bullet makers and powder "makers". I now have quite a collection of manuals ranging in publish date from the 50s and 60s up through the present time. One thing that has always stood out to me ever since I compared data for the same cartridges in my first ever and my second ever manuals is the apparent discrepancies and flat out differences in the data listed. Over the years as I've used manuals as a primary sources for my reloading "recipes", I've scratched my head and worked on reconciling the differences.

Now it's even "worse" since the interwebs add to the cacophony of differences. And... there is software which will calculate load data on the fly such as QuickLoad and Gordon's Reloading Tool. I use Gordon's, but have yet to spring for QuickLoad. Gordon's is free, QuickLoad is sold commercially (and currently under some sort of ITAR embargo as I understand it) The software sources also add to the confusion.

Over time, I learned to work out (to my own satisfaction) a means of reconciliation for most of the "conflicts" that I encounter. I have recently started work on a project which, thus far, has provided (to me) an immense insight into how CONSISTENT the data actually IS between various sources which are often apparently irreconcilable.

I've not gotten very far yet, but for the data which I've examined, I've been amazed at the patterns I'm seeing... I'm gonna remain a bit mysterious and leave it at this for now.

Anyone else's curiosity piqued by this topic?
 
I have noticed some discrepancies over the years but not something that is on my mind. What irks me is how they have made all load data now lawyer safe. Very few are full potential any more.
 
Not really.

Powder differs lot to lot. Like gasoline. That octane and your MPG might vary a bit from tank(bottle) to tank(bottle).

I try to buy powder in 8gal jugs if I can. Cheaper that way. Same lot too.

I tend to go off what the powder manufacturer suggests, then might cross check with a book. Second I might go to a bullet manufacturers data, just depends. Last manual I bought was Hogdon #26, then received Lyman 51 as a gift. Have an old Accurate flyer from probably 92 that I still use.

I stick with certain powders across all my handgun loading and rifle too. I’ve been at this long enough I can get tingling sensitivity when a load is … off, and I’ll check. My measure is set for clicks, and I only spot check weights it throws about once every thousand rounds or so.

Lots of other stuff to worry about in your loading. Just MO. YMMV.
 
Last edited:
Vihtavouri is the only manual, I know of, that offers full power loads. For an example, for the 454 Casull, Hornady maxed at 13.1 grains of N110. VV data started at 13.6 and maxed at 16.3.

I have Hornady, Speer, Lee, Lyman(loading manual and cast manuals), Berger and Viht manuals.
 
Jester560 said:
I have noticed some discrepancies over the years but not something that is on my mind. What irks me is how they have made all load data now lawyer safe. Very few are full potential any more.
Click to expand...
For the sake of argument (don't intend to start a flame war), I'll say that I formerly agreed with you that the published data is somewhat "lawyer proofed". However, after what I think I'm learning, I now disagree with that assessment (at least as a categorical and general statement).

What I wish that EVERY manual publisher would include their pressure measurement data alongside velocity numbers. Right now, pressure data is only available from Hodgdon, Western, and (sometimes) Lyman. I'd almost swear that, at one point in time, I've seen pressure data from VihtaVuori, but for the life of me I can't relocate it anywhere. This has always been the case. The other issue with pressure data is a lot of the older data (that hasn't been revisited in more recent editions) is expressed in CUP rather than PSI, and thus is not as useful in comparisons. I exclude Lee's manual because they only re-publish whatever is available from various primary sources.

All that said, when one places published data which includes pressure data alongside published data which does not and then order it by either charge weight or charge volume (using the powder VMD * Charge weight formula), it becomes apparent that, in general, published data appears quite consistent between sources in terms of "x grains provides y velocity" and also when compared to the output of software calculators (in particular GRT, I can't speak for QuickLoad). This is all without any adjustment for case capacity differences nor test barrel lengths, just raw data from the manuals compared as is. When one plays "what if" with these two variables, the data lines up even more consistently. Pretty interesting thus far. As I said, I've only done this in a very limited fashion, but so far the approach is holding up.

There is also one additional factor that one must "deal with" within the framework of the format of published data, and that is the range and format of the data presented.

1) Some manuals and online sources only publish a "maximum load" and advise backing off by 10% as a starting load.

2) Some publish both a suggested start load and a maximum load (and all of these but one, Nosler being the "one", back off by approximately the suggested 10%. Nosler only back off approximately 5% for their start loads). As a side note, it's within the confines of these listings that the vast majority (dare I say ALL) of the published pressure data is found.

3) And last of all, there are those data publishers who provide a range of multiple velocities ranging from a suggested start load up to a maximum load, and do so for an entire "category" of bullets with similar weights and construction characteristics. I WILL suggest that these publishers are providing VERY generalized, averaged values based upon velocity and pressure data gathered from hundreds of rounds through their own barrels. I take these most generalized listings with the most skepticism because I KNOW that they represent a lot of averaging and generalization. I don't believe that it amounts to "lawyerizing" the data, I believe it is the result of their choice on how to resolve the problem of presenting their data in the most economical manner within the constraints of a printed page, along with the problem of condensing the results of what is likely hundreds of data points in a concise, comprenhisble manner.
 
Anchorite said:
Not really.

Powder differs lot to lot. Like gasoline. That octane and your MPG might vary a bit from tank(bottle) to tank(bottle).

I try to buy powder in 8gal jugs if I can. Cheaper that way. Same lot too.

I tend to go off what the powder manufacturer suggests, then might cross check with a book. Second I might go to a bullet manufacturers data, just depends. Last manual I bought was Hogdon #26, then received Lyman 51 as a gift. Have an old Accurate flyer from probably 92 that I still use.

I stick with certain powders across all my handgun loading and rifle too. I’ve been at this long enough I can get tingling sensitivity when a load is … off, and I’ll check. My measure is set for clicks, and I only spot check weights it throws about once every thousand rounds or so.

Lots of other stuff to worry about in your loading. Just MO. YMMV.
Click to expand...
I agree regarding powder lots.

A practice which I've adopted is to calculate my own VMD values when I open a "new" canister of powder. I make a note of the result right on the canister. This isn't an original idea that "I thunk of all by myself", I stole it from somewhere... VMDs can (and do) vary, which means that a given VOLUME of powder from one lot will WEIGH differently than powder from a different lot. That means that the two different lots will have different levels of energy for a given charge if adjustments are not made.

In addition, different lots of powder can have fluctuations in burn rates due to manufacturing variances in the various factors which control the burn rate of said powder.

Also, there is moisture content to consider: How dry is the powder? That will also affect burn rate.

Then there is the age of the given canister of powder along with how many and how extreme the number of cycles of heating and cooling it has undergone. Heating / cooling cycles, particularly when extreme, contribute to the breakdown and deterioration of smokeless powders far more than time itself.

There are all kinds of variables to consider....
 
personally for me, i just reload to "near max" by under maybe 1 to 5 grains of powder...

i too buy in 8 pound jugs as @Anchorite does, saves on hazmat fee's when i order online.

i care not velocities, as i only load for pistol, and for plinking/practice only.

also, i have 2 Lyman books, 50th, and 51st editions, Lee, Speer, and Hornady.

however when it comes time to reload, i consult online the Hodgdon website...as there are or can be updated information.

my only powder is TiteGroup, as i wish to NOT have several powders to deal with..

what i found also is that TiteGroup, is NOT in all my manuals.

but yes, too, there can be a difference in max grains in my manuals as well for the TiteGroup.
 
@Anchorite - - I believe we are pretty much in agreement, except that I include powder "manufacturers' " data in both online and printed format within what I consider "published data" right along with printed manuals.

Your order of precedence pretty much follows what mine is with one possible exception: If a bullet manufacturer provides a recipe for the specific bullet and powder combo, I will give their data precedence, but I will still consult the powder maker's data. In the absence of a bullet maker's data for the specific combo, I'll look to the powder maker's data.

Last of all, if no specific recipe exists for the combo I'm loading, I will use either source as "generic" data for the given bullet weight and construction and start 10% below the LOWEST maximum listed. If I can't find data for the given bullet weight and construction, I'll find data for the next HEAVIEST bullet weight of the same construction and start with 15% below its listed maximum.

Nowadays, I will also fire up Gordon's Reloading Tool and do a double-check on the load test ladder that I come up with. If it suggests that the published data might be a little "hot", I'll go with GRTs data. If the published data is the more conservative, I go with that.

The bottom line is that there are a ton of variables (as you've noted) to worry about, and taking the most conservative approach is worthwhile, even if more work and time consuming. I don't mind. It's all a lot of fun and I get to learn new things all the time. That's what makes reloading pleasurable to me.
 
RedGoat said:
@Anchorite - - I believe we are pretty much in agreement, except that I include powder "manufacturers' " data in both online and printed format within what I consider "published data" right along with printed manuals.

Your order of precedence pretty much follows what mine is with one possible exception: If a bullet manufacturer provides a recipe for the specific bullet and powder combo, I will give their data precedence, but I will still consult the powder maker's data. In the absence of a bullet maker's data for the specific combo, I'll look to the powder maker's data.

Last of all, if no specific recipe exists for the combo I'm loading, I will use either source as "generic" data for the given bullet weight and construction and start 10% below the LOWEST maximum listed. If I can't find data for the given bullet weight and construction, I'll find data for the next HEAVIEST bullet weight of the same construction and start with 15% below its listed maximum.

Nowadays, I will also fire up Gordon's Reloading Tool and do a double-check on the load test ladder that I come up with. If it suggests that the published data might be a little "hot", I'll go with GRTs data. If the published data is the more conservative, I go with that.

The bottom line is that there are a ton of variables (as you've noted) to worry about, and taking the most conservative approach is worthwhile, even if more work and time consuming. I don't mind. It's all a lot of fun and I get to learn new things all the time. That's what makes reloading pleasurable to me.
Click to expand...
i am not (maybe) as young as you and the other fellas here..i started late, very late in the hobby/sport of shooting, then reloading.

too much to experiment with, regarding velocities, and whatnot, too little time in the world for me to even consider.

my "fun" comes when i reload up to about 1,000 rounds each of 45 ACP, and 9mm...i still have to start the 45 Colt, and .38 special, but frankly, i don't shoot those as much anyways.

takes me 3 to 4 days to get the numbers in reloads that i want for my stock, as i am in no rush.

feeling fulfilled when i cannot find room in the cabinet for my reloaded numbers.
 
Old_Me said:
personally for me, i just reload to "near max" by under maybe 1 to 5 grains of powder...

i too buy in 8 pound jugs as @Anchorite does, saves on hazmat fee's when i order online.

i care not velocities, as i only load for pistol, and for plinking/practice only.

also, i have 2 Lyman books, 50th, and 51st editions, Lee, Speer, and Hornady.

however when it comes time to reload, i consult online the Hodgdon website...as there are or can be updated information.

my only powder is TiteGroup, as i wish to NOT have several powders to deal with..

what i found also is that TiteGroup, is NOT in all my manuals.

but yes, too, there can be a difference in max grains in my manuals as well for the TiteGroup.
Click to expand...
So far, as regarding the original topic of this thread, I have been speaking about data for modern bottleneck rifle cartridges and loading them to their maximum potential.

Data for straight walled rifle cartridges, pistol cartridges, subsonic loads, reduced loads, and older bottleneck cartridges with lower SAAMI max pressures are a whole different ball game in several ways. So far in my life, for straight wall pistol cartridges, my approach has been similar to what you've stated. Pistol and revolver cartridges, in my experience, tend to behave much more in line with what the manuals depict as far as pressures / velocities for a "charge x of powder y" for a given bullet of given construction. Thus I feel a bit less "conservative" in choosing a powder charge for them and a bit more trusting of the published data. When there are discrepancies in listed max loads for these cartridges, I still tend to consider the LOWER of them as max until proven otherwise (via live fire and capture of chronograph data).

LOL. For pistol/revolver cartridges, I agree about selecting a single (maybe two) powders that will address a wide spectrum of usage. That's what many of the old-timer gun writers advocated (Skeeter Skelton comes to mind as I write that). Today, there are MANY options to choose from regarding handgun powders, but it only takes a very small number of them to cover the entire spectrum of said cartridges.
 
Old_Me said:
i am not (maybe) as young as you and the other fellas here..i started late, very late in the hobby/sport of shooting, then reloading.

too much to experiment with, regarding velocities, and whatnot, too little time in the world for me to even consider.

my "fun" comes when i reload up to about 1,000 rounds each of 45 ACP, and 9mm...i still have to start the 45 Colt, and .38 special, but frankly, i don't shoot those as much anyways.

takes me 3 to 4 days to get the numbers in reloads that i want for my stock, as i am in no rush.

feeling fulfilled when i cannot find room in the cabinet for my reloaded numbers.
Click to expand...
@Old_Me - You wanna have an "I'm older than dirt. Can you beat that?" contest? LOL. Ok. (just kidding ya. None of us are as young today as we were yesterday nor as old today than we will be tomorrow. We all "get there" at the same rate of speed, we just might've started at slightly different points in time.)

Although I started out at a very young age with my passion for all things that go "bang" and anything related, I took a pretty long hiatus from actively pursuing that passion whilst life threw adult things like family and "making a living" into the mix. I finally found the time to renew my pursuit once I achieved "empty nesthood." I've been making up for lost time ever since.

I agree about the fulfilled feeling one gets from being well stocked up on both reloading components and the final product, reloaded ammo.
 
Yes I have multiple reloading manuals and I consult the hodgdon website as well. I start with the start load data. Load 5 rounds and chronograph it. Go back and do the math. Why do this, 2 loading manuals showed inconsistent start loads for the same recipe. H4895, 150 grain jsp. 40grs was supposed to be under the beginning load data. However it produced 2650 fps out of the rifle it was loaded for, a sud inch group at 100.
So now every new can of powder, same powder or something different it gets chronographed and the math is done from there. But that's me, I have trust issues I know.
 
Talyn said:
I find the Nosler manual the most accurate & useful.
Click to expand...
I agree that the Nosler manual is very useful.

One of its features that I really like is its listing of case fill percentages for the loads presented. What disappoints me is that they don't provide a description of HOW they go about determining their listed "useable case capacity" value, which is given for each "grouping" of data (grouping = a set of bullets having similar / identical weights and sharing the same data). Are they adjusting their seating depth per bullet to make the capacity match up to what they list? I dunno and they don't say. For example, Nosler might say that a 120 grain boattail Ballistic Tip 6.5mm bullet seated to X depth has the same "useable case capacity" as a 120 grain flat base Spitzer partition bullet seated to depth Y, seems a bit like "forcing the numbers to match up" to me, but I could easily be wrong. It's just that they don't provide any semblance of an explanation of their methodology in that regard.

Also let me take this opportunity to correct myself: Elsewhere I stated that Nosler only backs off their START charges 5% below MAX. That is incorrect. It is the Lyman manual (#51) where I found this to regularly be the case for the data I've looked at so far.
 
42 years of reloading and most of it being with 2 cartridges (264wm & 44mag with a little bit of 270win) until the last 12 years (9mm, 357sig, 40s&w, 10mm, 45acp, 50ae, 5.7x28 for pistols)(rifles, 5.56, 243win, 6.5gren, 6.5creed, 260rem, 6.5prc, 6.8spc, 277fury, 7-08rem, 7saum, 300bo, 308win, 300wm, 338lm & 45-70).

Started with Sierra #5 as that was the only manual I used and bullets until the last 12 years. In the last 12 years I've purchased manuals from nosler, Berger, Speer, Hornady, Lyman, Lee and used online data from VV and western powders (ramshot), just joined XXL reloading.

Nearly ALL use different case trim lengths AND different brand of brass which means case capacity/volume WILL vary! Also what WILL vary is bearing surface and ALL will produce different pressures! QL NEEDS lots of KNOWN and CONFIRMED information to make it work safely! I have yet to get GRT to work.

None of the manuals are and will be 100% correct as whomever chambers the barrel AND how worn the reamer is will cause variances which WILL cause different pressures! Regardless of how you view the manuals thay ARE all safe to use IF you follow reloading rules! The pre64 264wm will let ne SAFLY go .5gr above max (61.3 instead of 60.8 of imr4831).

Do NOT take QL info at face values as most powder companies DOESN'T share or provide info about their powders for loads to be made safely! IIRC only 1 company did/does, but don't remember which?
 
Let me be more clear, I get all the data I can, from different sources both online and hard copy, for a place to start. The chrono and brass tell me the rest of what I need to know.

I reload many different rifle calibers as well as pistol calibers. Some pistol calibers are loaded for pistol and rifle. Nearly all use different brass, primers and bullets. I have a LOT of notes, dang near a library.

My next comment will ruffle some feathers.....
Commercial data is near abouts useless for anything other than a place to start. Since the change from cup to psi, it is even more useless as that is when the lawyers took over. That is my opinion and it is useless to anyone but me. Cheers
 
Ethan Sackett said:
Yes I have multiple reloading manuals and I consult the hodgdon website as well. I start with the start load data. Load 5 rounds and chronograph it. Go back and do the math. Why do this, 2 loading manuals showed inconsistent start loads for the same recipe. H4895, 150 grain jsp. 40grs was supposed to be under the beginning load data. However it produced 2650 fps out of the rifle it was loaded for, a sud inch group at 100.
So now every new can of powder, same powder or something different it gets chronographed and the math is done from there. But that's me, I have trust issues I know.
Click to expand...
I think you are on the right track. Verify the heck out of that data BEFORE you trust it.

One thing that I do a bit differently than what I used to do (and I see still being done on a huge number of YouTube videos) is that I no longer pretend that I'm shooting to determine accuracy while doing my initial load workups. My first objective is to find the RANGE of safe charge weights (or to be more precise, what the real MAX is in MY rifle). I do this in rather coarse increments, simply loading a ladder test from my selected start charge up to my selected max charge. I often load only two or three rounds of each charge weight. I shoot those to gather velocity data and looking for pressure signs.

THEN, only after this initial test, will I select where I want to be in the charge weight range and start looking for accuracy. I do this in much finer charge weight increments, keeping in mind that my scale is only certified to be accurate to within +/- one tenth of a grain. Therefore, trying to use increments of less than two tenths of a grain is a vain exercise. Once I find a suitable charge weight (or better yet, range of charge weights), I MIGHT experiment with bullet seating depth.

I've also "drank the koolaid" from the Hornady podcasts regarding accuracy, as well as the information put out by the guy over on the Little Crow Gunworks channel. In an effort to reconcile their seemingly opposing viewpoints, when testing for accuracy, I keep a running conglomerate record of groups over the series of test groups as a means of gaining statistically valid information about what group size the rifle will actually produce with the given bullet and powder. Notice that I didn't say charge weight, singular. I look for a satisfactory conglomerate group size that includes a RANGE of charges. I'll take a bullet / powder combo that consistently groups 1" or slightly less with a range of charge weights over a load that will group 1/2" with only a specific charge at a certain temperature under specific conditions any day! This is done in lieu of simply looking at the stand-alone size of indiviual groups containing a very limited number of shots. I can hit stuff at quite a distance with a consistent load like that!
TEXASforLIFE said:
42 years of reloading and most of it being with 2 cartridges (264wm & 44mag with a little bit of 270win) until the last 12 years (9mm, 357sig, 40s&w, 10mm, 45acp, 50ae, 5.7x28 for pistols)(rifles, 5.56, 243win, 6.5gren, 6.5creed, 260rem, 6.5prc, 6.8spc, 277fury, 7-08rem, 7saum, 300bo, 308win, 300wm, 338lm & 45-70).

Started with Sierra #5 as that was the only manual I used and bullets until the last 12 years. In the last 12 years I've purchased manuals from nosler, Berger, Speer, Hornady, Lyman, Lee and used online data from VV and western powders (ramshot), just joined XXL reloading.

Nearly ALL use different case trim lengths AND different brand of brass which means case capacity/volume WILL vary! Also what WILL vary is bearing surface and ALL will produce different pressures! QL NEEDS lots of KNOWN and CONFIRMED information to make it work safely! I have yet to get GRT to work.

None of the manuals are and will be 100% correct as whomever chambers the barrel AND how worn the reamer is will cause variances which WILL cause different pressures! Regardless of how you view the manuals thay ARE all safe to use IF you follow reloading rules! The pre64 264wm will let ne SAFLY go .5gr above max (61.3 instead of 60.8 of imr4831).

Do NOT take QL info at face values as most powder companies DOESN'T share or provide info about their powders for loads to be made safely! IIRC only 1 company did/does, but don't remember which?
Click to expand...
I don't find anything that I can disagree with here!

I've seen it pointed out several places that any published reloading data is like a photograph: a moment in time when all of the visual elements composing the given photo were together in their exact arrangement with the exact lighting, etc. It is almost impossible to reproduce the exact same photo after any significant passage of time. Anyone who's worked in the movie industry as a specialist in maintaining continuity from scene to scene can attest to the difficulty of that task. Published reloading data is simply a report of the results from a given combination of components (and by components, I include cases, powders, bullets and primers having the same SKU but different lot numbers) and conditions in a given moment of time.

You've touched on reasons why rifles differ and why different rifles will produce different results given identical ammo. Heck! The SAME rifle can (and will) produce different results over time as the rifling wears, the throat erodes, etc. As far as QuickLoad (and Gordons Reloading Tool), they are simply ballistic models built as software. Thus their results can only be as good as a) the model and b) the accuracy of the inputs. A good software model with good input data is useful as a sanity check on published data and / or to get a starting point for some cartridge for which no data exists or is easily available (think wildcats).

You also state, "None of the manuals are and will be 100% . . . . they ARE all safe to use IF you follow reloading rules!" And, as far as I'm concerned with regard to published data, the number one rule is to "start low and work up carefully."
 
Jester560 said:
Let me be more clear, I get all the data I can, from different sources both online and hard copy, for a place to start. The chrono and brass tell me the rest of what I need to know.

I reload many different rifle calibers as well as pistol calibers. Some pistol calibers are loaded for pistol and rifle. Nearly all use different brass, primers and bullets. I have a LOT of notes, dang near a library.

My next comment will ruffle some feathers.....
Commercial data is near abouts useless for anything other than a place to start. Since the change from cup to psi, it is even more useless as that is when the lawyers took over. That is my opinion and it is useless to anyone but me. Cheers
Click to expand...
I don't think there's any controversy within most of your statements! And your opinion is certainly as valid as any that I hold. I gave one of mine to a friend. He took it to Starbucks and they still charged him full price! LOL

As you state, published data is useful as a starting point (and hopefully, some clue as to where the safe stopping point lies). The very moment that a reloader
1) picks up a random cartridge case,
2) puts in a random primer (even of the SKU as the data lists, it still isn't from the same lot #),
3) puts in a charge of powder X (even of the SKU as the data lists, it still isn't from the same lot #),
4) seats bullet Y to the same exact depth as the data says (even if the bullet is of the same SKU, again the lot # will differ),
5) and places that finished round into the chamber of THEIR rifle (which will differ in any number of ways from the test rifle utilized by the data publisher),
there exists the possibility of a significant variation from pressure produced by the exact components use in the data publisher's recipe. "It is almost impossible to reproduce the exact same photograph..."

In modern rifles chambered for bottleneck rifle cartridges, when one "starts low" (and by low, I mean a full 10% under what the data publisher states as maximum), there exists a VERY significant safety margin with regard to pressure. The closer that the reloader approaches to published maximum, the thinner this margin becomes. To compound the safety issue, the burn rate and pressure curve behaviors of powders change in adverse ways not revealed to us mere mortals as pressure increases. In other words, from the get-go (starting charge) to the finish (maximum charge) we, as reloaders are sort of flying blind. We do not generally have access to pressure instrumentation.

We do have relatively inexpensive and reliable chronographs available. Velocity correlates to pressure until pressures rise to near or exceeding maximum levels. Then all bets are off. TANSTAFL. See velocities on your chrono that are 100 FPS faster than published data or even on factory ammo boxes? Beware. You didn't get those velocities for "free". The only way you can possibly get "free" velocity is with a barrel length which exceeds that of the data publisher's test rifle.

We also have the "traditional pressure" signs of primer appearance and altered case dimensions (in particular, the case head diameter) to use as a sort of touchy-feely gauge of pressure levels, but "reading" them is more of an art form than an exact science. One particular rule of thumb that I adhere to religiously is that if I find that a case head has expanded by more that .0005" (measured with a micrometer, not calipers) upon any firing once it's been fireformed in MY RIFLE, I will back WAYYYYY off on the powder charge, because the pressure required for that to happen is ALREADY considerably higher than anything a sane person should run on a routine basis. Note that I qualified my statement with "once it's been fireformed in MY RIFLE." That is because any NEW cartridge case (virgin brass or factory ammo) will expand measurably upon its first firing, so any measurement of case head expansion is meaningless.

The preceding statement about case head expansion leads to another thought: Use fireformed brass from YOUR RIFLE when running a ladder test to seek your maximum charge weight.

Another helpful tool in to guide you in "reading the primer" is to keep an expended factory round handy that has been fired in your rifle. This will give you a reference as to how your reloads compare with regard to primer appearance. It's not 100% because of differences in primer cup material and thickness, but it should give you a baseline as to how an "at or near maximum pressure" round should look when fired from YOUR RIFLE.

Wow! That was a bunch for what I thought would be a short response.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top