Reloading data discrepencies from various souirces

BigDanSBigDanS Senior MemberPosts: 6,796 Senior Member
For 180 gr projectiles:

The Hodgdon site lists for a Sierra 180 gr SPBT COAL 3.300 min 52 gr max 57.5 gr of H4350

Hornady lists Min 46 gr to max 55.3 gr

Sierra lists Min 46.1 gr to max 53.6 gr COAL 3.300

The Lyman book lists no load for H4350, but for IMR 4350 Min 50 gr Max 56 gr COAL 3.280

Any thoughts?

If I were just looking at it from a business perspective I would think Hodgdon wants to sell more powder, while Sierra and Hornady wants to sell more bullets. the Lyman book seems to fall in between. The Hodgdon data puts its max charge 4.2 gr higher than the Sierra data, almost 7.8% higher at max. I shot the 57.5 grain loads accurately and showed no popped primers, shooting a Hornady 180 gr Interlock.

Thoughts?

D
"A patriot is mocked, scorned and hated; yet when his cause succeeds, all men will join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Mark Twain
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.... now who's bringing the hot wings? :jester:

Replies

  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,655 Senior Member
    I believe it has to do with what setup they use for their test barrel. I just look at various load data and find one in the middle and go with it.
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 20,564 Senior Member
    I use the Hodgdon site for my load data. That's the powder I use and they usually have higher Max loads. I have yet to have a problem with their Max or above. Hornady is usually next on my list. Since I use mostly their bullets.
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
  • RazorbackerRazorbacker Senior Member Posts: 4,646 Senior Member
    I'll let the experts chime in but in MHO, back in the day when I was loading hot and heavy. There was no interenet. I picked a manual and that was my bible. I might have pushed charge weights but that would have been about it.
    These days as I ease back into it there is just soooo much info out there. It's easy to end up down rabbit holes or get turned around in the woods.
    I'm sitting here looking at a coupla jugs of H414 I found when I went to get some black powder out of the cabinet. It's got loading data printed on the label too.
    Then we have boards like this one. People offering pet loads. It can be over whelming at times.
    Teach your children to love guns, they'll never be able to afford drugs
  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 18,727 Senior Member
    Different lots of powder, different brands and/or lots of primers and bullets, different barrels and different lot and/or brands cases, it's surprising the data is as consistent as it is.

    edited to add: My "friend" Q/L warns you that powder lots can vary by up to 10%, so your 7.8% is well within that range
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,957 Senior Member
    Different mfg. bullets of the same weight can have different bearing surface contacting rifling. More rifling contact means more pressure with the same weight bullet. And bullet construction and the type of jacket material used plays a part; all jacket material is not the same between manufacturers. The lot of powder used during the test can have a great deal to do with the pressure seen by the test equipment; ALL lots of powder of the same number designation ARE NOT EXACTLY THE SAME. Linefinder can probably give you some info on his experience with different powder lot numbers. Some powders tested are not listed because the setup during the test did not give consistent results, and erratic pressure spikes were probably noted, so that powder was not listed in their published data.

    And FWIW, my 1963 Speer reloading manual has higher min/max powder charges on lots of cartridge loadings than the 1998 edition. And pretty much the same for all my other manuals looking at the old and newer editions. And the 30-06 is in that list of reduced charges. Newer methods of pressure measurement are more accurate than the old copper crusher method.

    And if you're working up loads without a chronograph, you're shooting in the dark because you have no idea what the increased powder charges are doing regarding velocity. There comes a point where increasing the powder charge has little to no effect on maximum velocity, but can have a great deal of effect on min/max velocity of the shot string.
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 20,564 Senior Member
    I still handload without using a chronograph. Go figure.
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
  • jbohiojbohio Senior Member Posts: 5,507 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    Different mfg. bullets of the same weight can have different bearing surface contacting rifling. More rifling contact means more pressure with the same weight bullet. And bullet construction and the type of jacket material used plays a part; all jacket material is not the same between manufacturers. The lot of powder used during the test can have a great deal to do with the pressure seen by the test equipment; ALL lots of powder of the same number designation ARE NOT EXACTLY THE SAME. Linefinder can probably give you some info on his experience with different powder lot numbers. Some powders tested are not listed because the setup during the test did not give consistent results, and erratic pressure spikes were probably noted, so that powder was not listed in their published data.

    Yep. I've noticed certain trends, bullet brand X will usually produce lower velocities, and show pressure signs sooner than brand Y. Boat tails usually run faster than flat base.

    Above and beyond all that, all barrels are not created equal, either. Twist rates, land/groove diameter, etc.
    Even primer substitutions can change a safe load into an unsafe one in a hurry.
  • 5280 shooter II5280 shooter II Senior Member Posts: 3,923 Senior Member
    My beef with loading data is "from a 24" barrel" I don't have that, I'm average with 20-23" and some 16s. I extrapolate from the burn rate chart in the back and the bullet weight. Hogde and IMR are pretty much the same stuff, but I'm an IMR guy.
    God show's mercy on drunks and dumb animals.........two outa three ain't a bad score!
  • DurwoodDurwood Senior Member Posts: 970 Senior Member
    The longer you study published data, the more discrepancies you'll find. I have an old Hodgdon Data Powder Manual that lists 48gr of H414 as max for a 100gr bullet in the .257 Robts--with a velocity of 3098 fps. I used this data and, while it was a tad hot, it produced 3110 FPS from my 20" BLR and it was accurate too. A year or two later they backed the max load down to 45 grs, yet the published velocity remained as 3098??? AFIK, no correction or warning was ever made for the first publication...

    Also published data for IMR-4064 and 140gr bullets in the 7mm-08 is all over the map.

    These are just a couple of examples of cartridges I load frequently.

    If you are going to push your loads to the max, a chronograph is almost a necessity in my opinion. Thus the reason I bought my first one in 1987...
    You have the right to your own opinion, but you don't have the right to your own facts:guns:
  • LinefinderLinefinder Moderator Posts: 4,469 Senior Member
    They're not really "discrepancies". The data is simply a collection of observations that the writer (whomever it may be) encountered when loading XX grains of XX powder into XX chamber.

    IOW, loading manuals are subjective, not predictive.

    Heck, I can load up ten rounds of one recipe, fire it from my rifle, and chrono it. Five days later, I can load the same thing, same rifle, etc, and wind up with a 30 fps difference average. I'd be highly surprised if published data from two different sources was even that close together.

    Pick the one (or ones) you like the best and go with it. Personally, I've had good luck with Hodgden and Hornaday data, but even with the best of loads I've found them to be merely suggestive. I don't recall any load I've done that the actual velocity matched book. Some were pretty darn close, but for the most part, 100-200 fps variance from published velocities has seemed to be the norm in my experience.

    Mike
    Decisions have consequences, not everything in life gets an automatic mulligan.
    KSU Firefighter
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,626 Senior Member
    There are subtle variations in everything to do with reloading. No two brand cases are exactly the same, etc., and so forth. As far as COAL is concerned, that was determined by the individual rifle for which I was reloading. I always seated bullets to the point of contact with the rifling - no freebore. If that could be achieved and still retain an easy bolt close and fit in the magazine, I was good to go. As far as maximum loads go, damaged cases and blown primer pockets would let me know if I was going too far. Live fast, die young. Enjoy.
  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 20,564 Senior Member
    Linefinder wrote: »
    Personally, I've had good luck with Hodgden and Hornaday data, but even with the best of loads I've found them to be merely suggestive. I don't recall any load I've done that the actual velocity matched book. Some were pretty darn close, but for the most part, 100-200 fps variance from published velocities has seemed to be the norm in my experience.

    Mike

    :that:

    PirateCode.jpg
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
  • DurwoodDurwood Senior Member Posts: 970 Senior Member
    Linefinder, I'd say that 48 grs of a given powder producing the exact same velocity as 45 grs of the same powder and bullet combo is a discrepancy, but otherwise I agree with your assessment of load data.
    You have the right to your own opinion, but you don't have the right to your own facts:guns:
  • RazorbackerRazorbacker Senior Member Posts: 4,646 Senior Member
    Zee wrote: »
    :that:

    PirateCode.jpg

    Bwahahahaha..... hahahaha...... hahaha... haha...ooooo, oh quit it, you're killing me. I'm starting to like you, I don't care what everybody else says.
    Arrrrrgh
    Teach your children to love guns, they'll never be able to afford drugs
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 6,995 Senior Member
    On thinking about this, I would like to see the following:

    The publishers of these loading manuals should add the following data:

    1. Average amount of water the cases used for their load workups hold in a brand new, full-length sized state.

    2. Average amount of water these same cases hold after firing and neck sizing only.

    I think these simple tidbits would go a long way toward defining some of these discrepancies between manuals. They're usually pretty good about giving us barrel length and twist rate. This would give us some insight into what chamber volume is doing to the pressure buildup.

    If they could also give us a precisely measured bore and groove diameter of the test gun, I think the pieces would start falling into place very quickly.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • LinefinderLinefinder Moderator Posts: 4,469 Senior Member
    Durwood wrote: »
    Linefinder, I'd say that 48 grs of a given powder producing the exact same velocity as 45 grs of the same powder and bullet combo is a discrepancy, but otherwise I agree with your assessment of load data.

    No. Not discrepancy.....difference.

    Personal real life example. I have two .223 Rem pdog rigs. One is a highly customized rig.....Lilja barrel, yada, yada. The other is an almost stock Rem 700 VLS.

    When shooting 55 grain VMaxes, I like them to launch at 3250 fps. Using bullets from the same box, and powder from the same can, and primers from the same pack, the customized rig uses 26 grains of powder. The dead stock rig requires 27.5 to get the same velocity. That 26.0 vs. 27.5 is almost (based upon case capacity) the same percentage difference as the 45 vs. 48 you noted above. The only difference between the two rifles I listed aside from the chamber size and bore condition is the brass. I use Win brass in the Winchester, and Rem brass in the Rem.

    I can't even get two rifles to agree with each other when fed the same amount from the same dish. I think I'd be over-expecting to suppose Nosler and Hodgdon (for example) to do better.

    And that's just the simple stuff. I'll bet a dollar to a donut that when you empty one can of powder and open another (of the same type) that unless it's from the same exact lot, you'll have a noticeably measurable difference in velocity. Lot to lot variances in burn rates of the same powder aren't just common, they're a dead certainty. That's why for pdog rigs and benchrest rifles, I like to buy 8 or 16 lbs of one lot at a time. Not only is it cheaper per lb, but it's a whole lot cheaper (in both time and money) than having to tweak a load every time you open a new pound of powder.

    Mike
    Decisions have consequences, not everything in life gets an automatic mulligan.
    KSU Firefighter
  • shootershooter Senior Member Posts: 1,186 Senior Member
    I have been reloading since the 70's and learned very early on that the data in different manuals was close, but not exact for similar components.
    It shouldn't be, if one considers all the variables involved. So I made a "load development chart" to be used as a worksheet for working up
    loads from my loading manuals from various sources.

    This is an example from 1994 and I was looking at loads for a Remington 700, VS, in .308 Winchester with 168 grain Sierra Match King bullets.
    The two powders that seemed most popular at the time that I had on hand were IMR-4064 and IMR-4895. This is what I came up with from
    the reloading manuals that I had on hand at the time that had data for those powders and a 168 grain bullet of cup & core design.

    devchart.jpg

    It's interesting to note that if I used IMR-4895 and only had the Speer or Hodgdon manual, that I would have started with a load that was over max
    in the Hornady manual. Would it have been o.k. in my rifle? I don't know. But I have been using this method for working up loads for over 20 years and
    have seen obvious errors in manuals just by comparing the range of charges for similar style & weights of bullets with the same powder.

    Those who look at the maximum load in a manual and reduce it a grain or two are going to some day get into trouble.
    Look at my chart and imagine someone loading from only the Speer manual and starting with 43 grains of IMR-4895.
    That's a full grain below maximum in Speers manual but at maximum in Noslers and over max. in the other three!

    Just my thoughts on this and I still work up a chart for any new cartridge that I load for. (Or, If I load for a cartridge with a new powder)
    There's no such thing as having too much ammo, unless you're on fire or trying to swim!
  • jbohiojbohio Senior Member Posts: 5,507 Senior Member
    shooter wrote: »
    I have been reloading since the 70's and learned very early on that the data in different manuals was close, but not exact for similar components.
    It shouldn't be, if one considers all the variables involved. So I made a "load development chart" to be used as a worksheet for working up
    loads from my loading manuals from various sources.

    This is an example from 1994 and I was looking at loads for a Remington 700, VS, in .308 Winchester with 168 grain Sierra Match King bullets
    It's interesting to note that if I used IMR-4895 and only had the Speer or Hodgdon manual, that I would have started with a load that was over max
    in the Hornady manual. Would it have been o.k. in my rifle? I don't know. But I have been using this method for working up loads for over 20 years and
    have seen obvious errors in manuals just by comparing the range of charges for similar style & weights of bullets with the same powder.

    Those who look at the maximum load in a manual and reduce it a grain or two are going to some day get into trouble.
    Look at my chart and imagine someone loading from only the Speer manual and starting with 43 grains of IMR-4895.
    That's a full grain below maximum in Speers manual but at maximum in Noslers and over max. in the other three!

    Just my thoughts on this and I still work up a chart for any new cartridge that I load for. (Or, If I load for a cartridge with a new powder)

    Maybe it's just me, but, if I was using a Sierra bullet, and they listed the powder I wanted, I wouldn't look at the Nosler or Hornady books. They don't apply. Just Sierra, and Hodgdon.

    OTOH, if the bullet/powder combo I wish to try isn't listed anywhere, I make a little chart very similar to yours.
  • DurwoodDurwood Senior Member Posts: 970 Senior Member
    Linefinder wrote: »
    No. Not discrepancy.....difference.



    Mike

    Not arguing, Linefinder, hell I'm using one of your old .223 loads as one of my new pet loads:cool2: Hodgdon changing the max load of H-414 by 3 grs yet claiming the EXACT same velocity from that load is peculiar at the least...and then maintaining that same load data and velocity for over 20yrs is darn right incredible!!!

    But, that being said, I think we are down to a matter of semantics now:


    dis·crep·an·cy (d-skrpn-s)
    n. pl. dis·crep·an·cies
    1. Divergence or disagreement, as between facts or claims; difference.
    2. An instance of divergence or disagreement. See Synonyms at difference.

    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
    You have the right to your own opinion, but you don't have the right to your own facts:guns:
  • shootershooter Senior Member Posts: 1,186 Senior Member
    jbohio wrote: »
    Maybe it's just me, but, if I was using a Speer bullet, and they listed the powder I wanted, I wouldn't look at the Nosler or Hornady books. They don't apply. Just Speer, and Hodgdon.

    OTOH, if the bullet/powder combo I wish to try isn't listed anywhere, I make a little chart very similar to yours.

    So, if you had the Hodgdon manual that only specified a 168 grain bullet and didn't say which one....... what would you do? Punt???
    There's no such thing as having too much ammo, unless you're on fire or trying to swim!
  • jbohiojbohio Senior Member Posts: 5,507 Senior Member
    shooter wrote: »
    So, if you had the Hodgdon manual that only specified a 168 grain bullet and didn't say which one....... what would you do? Punt???

    They almost always specify. Unless it's cast.
    Anyway, I said that I do just what you do, in that case.

    I guess the point I'm making is, I try to keep it simple. If the exact bullet, and powder, are listed in a book, I don't go looking around for other data, that doesn't apply, to complicate things.
    No need to reinvent the wheel for every load.

    edit. Sorry, I just re-read my first post, I used Speer, instead of Sierra.
  • LinefinderLinefinder Moderator Posts: 4,469 Senior Member
    Durwood wrote: »

    But, that being said, I think we are down to a matter of semantics now:


    dis·crep·an·cy (d-skrpn-s)
    n. pl. dis·crep·an·cies
    1. Divergence or disagreement, as between facts or claims; difference.
    2. An instance of divergence or disagreement. See Synonyms at difference.

    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

    My bad. My understanding (wrong, as your quote shows) of the word was that it indicated "fault", not merely "difference". Obviously, there isn't simply a discrepancy in my understanding, I was just plain old wrong!:tooth:

    Mike
    Decisions have consequences, not everything in life gets an automatic mulligan.
    KSU Firefighter
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.