Different Powder loads specified

[LilNewt]

So I received some real good service from the folks at Sierra.  I bought my bullets from them so I figured I would give them a call and ask what powder they would recommend.  The guy went as far as sending me some pages from their actual reloading manual.  Very Nice.  But upon examination I saw some differences in opinions on charge weights.  I understand that they are going to vary from company to company to a degree, but this was weird.  Sierra manual states that USE CAUTION
LOADS LESS THAN MINIMUM CHARGES SHOWN ARE NOT RECOMMENDED."  Their starting load for the .243 85grain with W760 is 40 grains and max is 42 grains.  Hodgdon powder states that with a 85 grain bullet the start is 42 and max is 45 grains.  That seems a little weird to me.  If you look on Nosler's, site they state that with their bullets the start is 38 and max is 42.  I understand bullets are different, the guns used are different, and the list goes on and on. So what info do you go with?  And while on the subject anyone have any luck with using the W760 powder in the .243 and 30.06?

Another powder is the H4895.  Sierra states that the starting load is 32.8 and max is 35.4.  Hodgdon's site states starting load is 35 and max is 38.

I could give multiple examples here, I dont have the load data with me, but the sheets that come with the lee loaders differ even still off of these.  But they mainly go by what the powder scoop measures out anyways.

Do you pick the middle of the road and watch for pressure signs?  I hate to do something stupid and hurt something or someone, but I have got to start somewhere.  What do you do in situations like this?  There are other powders that they tend to agree more closly too, but I would like to find a happy medium with a powder that will work "effectively" (not to be confused with best), in both of these cartridges.  W760 seems to fit the bill, along with IMR 4064. 

I am open for all comments, please help the newbie out.  Thanks.

[LilNewt]

And not to post too much, and keep people from wanting to respond...but.   I was looking at sierras book for the 30-30 and they dont list H4895 for any of their bullet selections for the 125 and 150 grain bullets.  Anyone used this powder with this cartridge?  Thanks for the help guys.

[SHOOTALL]

Some loads were worked up with psi readings and others cup . This has convinced many co's to lower recomended loads . Old Speer books list higher max loads than new guides . Most books for reloading are called GUIDES for a reason . They are guides and each time a different lot of bullets , powder ,primers or brass are subsituted things can and often do change . Add insurance and its a wonder any load listed wouldn't have a safety margin of 50% or more .
 What most do is start well below max and work up slow. When yopu do this one you are safe and two you can find the best load for your gun as max is seldom the most accurate .

[LONGTOM]

I have found that Hodgdon almost always lists the highest load for a caliber than any of the other manuals.
I use their books a lot as they list so many more loads and/or powders for a given bullet weight.


LONGTOM

[Steve P]

This is the reason why you start below max and work your way up when working up your hand loads.  Each gun is different.  If you have three different "Max" loads, take the lowest one, drop 10%, and start from there and work your way up. 

Depending on the gun, sometimes I will look at the data and extrapolate a starting point compared to factory ammo velocities.  If factory velocity is 2800, I will see which manual has bullet most like (or exactly same) as the factory ammo, and start 10% below load recipe that creates 2800fps.

Good luck in this graying world of reloading.

Steve

[LilNewt]

"graying world of reloading" almost comes close to covering it.  But it is all based on averages unless you sit down and figure it yourself.   I found a site that let you download a demo that seems pretty good at first.  And it probably is a pretty "average" program, but it is definitely not precise.  It could be, and maybe they have it accurately portrayed on the full version, I dunno, but this version is not precise.

It has an internal ballistics calculator.  Seems nice to know to figure load density and such.  But it struck me as odd that when I changed powder choices the load density did not change.  It would change when you picked different bullets and cartridges.  But they did not have the correct gr/cc of powder conversion to gr/cc of water.  They listed the water capacity in grains, which is nice so at least you could figure the correct load density if you wanted.  This is also what Noslers site does with their load density.  In effect what they do is say that an "average" cc of powder weighs the same as the average cc of water.  Which, if you look at the data, is wrong.  It is pretty close for some powders, BL-C2 is about the closest I can find. 

As an example a 30-30 cartridge with a 125 grain sierra fnhp sitting in it has a grain capacity of 40.75 in water weight.  Which is 2.64 cc of water.   H4895 has a weight of 13.736 per cc.  So if the capacity is 40.75 grains of water to fill the load 100% then it would take 36.263 grains of H4895 to fill it 100%.   Make sense?  Where as the program and other places just average all powders at the 1 cc equals 15.432 which is what water weighs per cc. Which means it tells you that it takes 40.75 or actually 40.8 (it really doesn't make sense) grains to fill the case with H4895.

This is just an example that if you want the cold hard facts you MUST do the math and experiments yourself, and not rely on data except for that which is proven to be accurate.

[stimpylu32]

Newt

Handloading is as much an ART FORM as it is a seince , Don't over think it too much or your not going to like it .

For someone just starting out = stick to the basics = find a load that shoots well , don't worry too much about is this a 90% case fill or a 87% case fill load , will this load give the exact speed in FPS as what the manual states , is this the same powder / bullet combo as the Factory ammo I have been shooting .

You get my point , use the KISS method and ENJOY shooting , NOT over thinking ! 

stimpy

[possum6]

+1 what Stimpy said. Don't over think it. When I first started hand loading I started over thinking the process, wasn't too long I burnt "pardon the pun" myself out and quit for a while. Now I just enjoy the "art" of doing it. My advice is start with the Lee starting load's I find that they are the most accurate then work up from there and pay attention to what your firearm tell's you. They do talk to you if you'll listen

[wareagleguy]

Welcome to reloading.  I agree 100% with these guys.  It's not rocket science and don't over think it.  You do need to be DETAILED in your methods.  Here is my suggestion.  Buy a good manual like Lyman.  Decide on a bullet to try and start in the middle of the charge.  I find that to be good start for me.  I like to stay toward the middle to bottom of scale for powder charges.  I have found that many rifles "like" a lighter charge.  For powder choice I find IMR 4064 to be a VERY good powder that works in many rifles!!

I buy 4064 in 8 pound cans!

[Sweetwater]

All posted +1 Good stuff here guys for the newcomer!

I would add, and this is strictly my opinion, that for what you are doing, I would stick with the Hodgdon or IMR powders, as they are a bit more "forgiving" than the Winchester powders. I truly like a bunch of the Winchester powders however, they have the caution note to NOT USE LESS THAN GIVEN DATA for a reason. I don't feel they are as flexible therefore are more difficult to figure out. I grew up in the '50's with the IMR line of powders. Pressures rose very systematically. Dad ventured into the world of Ball powders, and very quickly got into pressure spikes previously unseen. Consequently, I was educated to "stay away" from ball type powders. In the late 70's, I discovered W296 and W748, both from Winchester and both with the note of caution to NOT DEVIATE FROM THE DATA. Not a great guide!! To the point, I didn't care for the W748, but fell right in love with W296 and learned "how" to use it and "only" with high density loadings, without going into all the math. Today, I also have a warm spot for W748, having come to grips with it's temperament and finding it very useful. I think the Hodgdon ball powders are easier to "learn" and do know that some are the same as the Winchester, they certainly do meter very well. The IMR powders do not meter as a general rule, but I found them easier for me to stay out of trouble with while learning the process. Most of my friends have limited time and don't want to use a powder that won't meter accurately, so I try to guide them through the process with the ball powders and try to keep them out of trouble. ALSO, most of them lean towards factory duplication type loads taylored for accuracy to their rifle, so easier to cope with. I grew up with carbines in a world of long barrels, so the given data for the long barrels did not work well in my 18" barrels. Not only are the velocities different, but the powders work differently in the shorter barrels due to shorter burn time. I liked to experiment and "what happens when I" led me off into adventure land and gave me the foundation for a lot of my opinions. I DO KNOW that you need to learn to listen to your rifle and let it talk to you. It will tell you if it likes or dislikes what you are doing, BUT ONLY IF YOU LISTEN AND STAY OBSERVANT. And you will observe pressure signs - just watch, and listen. AND STAY SAFE!!

Regards,
Sweetwater

[charles p]

I remember starting about 30 years ago.  When I picked up my second and third manuals a few years later, I would always pick the highest load weight shown.  It's human nature to want the fastest load - but better accuracy is probably the reason you are reloading.  Do as the others have suggested and start well below the max load.  This is especially true if your rifle is a semi auto.  Be safe.  We have all discovered errors in load data.  One of the manuals I have shows a load that exceeds my case capacity.

[carbineman]

So I received some real good service from the folks at Sierra.  I bought my bullets from them so I figured I would give them a call and ask what powder they would recommend.  The guy went as far as sending me some pages from their actual reloading manual.  Very Nice.  But upon examination I saw some differences in opinions on charge weights.  I understand that they are going to vary from company to company to a degree, but this was weird.  Sierra manual states that USE CAUTION
LOADS LESS THAN MINIMUM CHARGES SHOWN ARE NOT RECOMMENDED."  Their starting load for the .243 85grain with W760 is 40 grains and max is 42 grains. I would start with Sierras starting load of 40 grains of W760 and also use their COL to avoid increasing pressure from seating the bullet too deep into the case. Hodgdon powder states that with a 85 grain bullet the start is 42 and max is 45 grains.  That seems a little weird to me.  If you look on Nosler's, site they state that with their bullets the start is 38 and max is 42.  I understand bullets are different, the guns used are different, and the list goes on and on. So what info do you go with?  And while on the subject anyone have any luck with using the W760 powder in the .243 and 30.06?Yes, I included the load data in a previous thread you started. W760 works well in both. I understand that H414 and W760 have the same load data now that Hodgdon is marketing both. They are the same propellant according to them.

Another powder is the H4895.  Sierra states that the starting load is 32.8 and max is 35.4.  Hodgdon's site states starting load is 35 and max is 38.

I could give multiple examples here, I dont have the load data with me, but the sheets that come with the lee loaders differ even still off of these.  But they mainly go by what the powder scoop measures out anyways.

Do you pick the middle of the road and watch for pressure signs?  I hate to do something stupid and hurt something or someone, but I have got to start somewhere.  What do you do in situations like this?  There are other powders that they tend to agree more closly too, but I would like to find a happy medium with a powder that will work "effectively" (not to be confused with best), in both of these cartridges.  W760 seems to fit the bill, along with IMR 4064. 

I am open for all comments, please help the newbie out.  Thanks.

Remember that for the most part each bullet maker has a different degree of hardness to their jacket material and this causes different pressures to develop from the same loading density. Along with that, your chamber and barrel in your particular rifle are different and your components lot numbers are different. But as Sweetwater stated paying attention to detail will keep you out of trouble. With ball powders and using the bullet makers (Sierra in this instance)data, if you start out at the bottom of the suggest loading data, you will be alright.

[LilNewt]

Thanks guys for the advise and words of comfort..lol.   I understand keeping it simple, but I am one that does enjoy the ability to dig deep and discover the otherwise "hidden" things about reloading.  I am really liking the fact that I can know for sure what the load density is by doing some simple math and so on.  I do not think that it will turn me away, it is not something that I am worried about.  Everyone is different and what one may find irritating and boring, another may find very interesting.  Guess I am different than most on this by reading the posts.  But thats ok, I enjoy hearing from you.

Thanks carbineman, that makes complete sense on the jacket causing the differences in pressures and so on. I must have forgot what you wrote or did not notice it on the previous thread, I will go back to look again. 

I was looking toward the ball powders because they seemed to be easier to work with, but time is not an issue with me and reloading but safe pressure work up is the main concern with me, so the ease using them because they are easier to "meeter" is definitely second on the list when compared with the greater "middle ground" of the stick powders.  If that makes any sense.

I know I have said it before, but it warrants repeating again.  I am NOT reloading to look for the biggest and baddest round available.  I have thoroughly researched this subject and have repeatedly found that lower velocities produce more accurate results.  ACCURACY is my main goal with this venture, therefore my obsession with powder density equations and the like.  Accuracy is known to be had when you can reproduce the same thing over and over.  The more variables you can throw out, the more constants you can have and then work from there.  Load density that is near full in a case underneath the projectile is proven to burn at a more consistent, repeatable, manner from round to round.  That is all.  I know that this bores some of you, but it does not me.  I don't know if there is anyone out there that has the same weird fetish with numbers and such as me, but maybe latter on as you all have helped me out I can do the same for you.  It may not be rocket science, but it can get close enough to make me feel smart....lol. 

So it is not frustrating me like it may seem.  I am just trying to gather every last bit of information I can, and along with published data from different manufacturers, I also realize that there are a million other people out there that have worked with the different powders, bullets, and calibers, and therefore can offer observations, warnings, and facts that they have known to be true with particular loads.  Please don't take my questions as a frantic search for the ultimate load, but rather just a friendly engagement into a topic that we all have some sort of passion about.  I will enjoy the process of working up a load as much as if not more than the actual shooting of it.

[Sweetwater]

If you had access to our manuals, you would find a lot of us have numbers scratched along the tables indicating such stuff as fps/grain of powder (efficiency) and so on, so a lot of us are into the numbers game, or were at one time. Over time you will develop a feel for what you are doing and the stuff like load density becomes another valuable tool no longer needed, not boring, just not as much a variable as it used to be. (or maybe not as important as we thought it might be)

I think you would do well with some of the Hodgdon spherical powders; they do not carry the DO NOT DEVIATE caution that the Winchester ball powders have. As previously posted, IMR 4064, though a pain to meter, is hard to beat in a lot of calibers, for accuracy. Hodgdon's H380 had some consistency issues early on (excessive burning rate variance from lot to lot). H4895 covers a lot of ground as a flexible performer. It gives good high end performance and can be reduced, safely, probably more than any other rifle powder, and endorsed by Hodgdon for reduced loads. I use the H4895 extreme version and it is less sensitive to temperature change.

Regards,
Sweetwater

[LilNewt]

If you had access to our manuals, you would find a lot of us have numbers scratched along the tables indicating such stuff as fps/grain of powder (efficiency) and so on, so a lot of us are into the numbers game, or were at one time. Over time you will develop a feel for what you are doing and the stuff like load density becomes another valuable tool no longer needed, not boring, just not as much a variable as it used to be. (or maybe not as important as we thought it might be)

I think you would do well with some of the Hodgdon spherical powders; they do not carry the DO NOT DEVIATE caution that the Winchester ball powders have. As previously posted, IMR 4064, though a pain to meter, is hard to beat in a lot of calibers, for accuracy. Hodgdon's H380 had some consistency issues early on (excessive burning rate variance from lot to lot). H4895 covers a lot of ground as a flexible performer. It gives good high end performance and can be reduced, safely, probably more than any other rifle powder, and endorsed by Hodgdon for reduced loads. I use the H4895 extreme version and it is less sensitive to temperature change.

Regards,
Sweetwater

Now this I can believe might happen, and makes sense.  But for now it interests me pretty good.  I've got a pound of H4895 and plan on getting a pound of 4064 to go along with it.  It seems like those will be good to cut my teeth on and I'll play around from their.

[SHOOTALL]

Check out a Nosler guide they list max. and most accurate powder . I have found their choice for most accurate is right most of the time no matter the brand bullet.
 Also the remark about max loads and accuracy is often true except with Wty mag's they like powder alot .

[damascus-doug]

I also shoot alot of Sierra's bullets and there guys are very, very helpful.  I even go to Sedelia, MO twice a year to buy seconds from their store at the factory.  I agree with what most everyone has been saying.  Start low and work up always checking accuracy.  But I also look at the fact that Sierra makes the bullets, test the bullets and publishes what they find.  I would not use a Sierra manual to work up a Hornady load.  That is just my opinion but I always have looked at it that way.  Be safe and as stated before faster is not always better.

[Sweetwater]

"I would not use a Sierra manual to work up a Hornady load.  That is just my opinion but I always have looked at it that way."

Probably not a bad way to approach this, however, neither of them used your rifle to work the load up with so, it's simply a guide and as such, either is viable for the purpose. You still have to go through the load testing to find "the load" or be satisfied with whatever. I'm finding this more fun than shooting as time marches on.

Regards,
Sweetwater

[SHOOTALL]

I would not start with max for either bullet but lets look at the two , 3006 150 gr bullet . nosler load data start for imr 4831 55.0 gr max 59.0 gr most accurate 59.0 gr.
hornady same bullet weight list 56,9 gr to start and 60.3 for max. with a fed 210 primer where nosler uses a wlr primer .
With the 2506 100 gr bullet both Hornady and nosler list imr 4831 and wlr primers . nosler list 49.5 gr starting load and 53.5 gr max Hornady list 47.8 starting and 53.6 max . In this bullet weight the nosler book list imr 4831 as most accurate powder tested . If you start in the middle even and work up your load with either where would looking and using the most accurate powder tested be a problem ?  My load for the 2506 is 53 gr of IMR 4831 wilh BR-2 primers and 100 gr BT bullets an exact load is not listed in the book . But i reduced my load 10% when i switched to Br primers and worked up .
The book is a guide and if you read several books you will learn how to safely adjust your load and try different powder and primers not to mention brass . Who only uses listed brass 100% of the time ?

The keep to being safe is reading and starting low and working up . Don't let it be a shock but some reloading guides have mistakes printed in them . Hornady had a recall i belive a while back. I like to compare loads in more than one book and brand bullet.

With the shortages of today we do subsitute componets but it can be done in a sfae way

[Sweetwater]

Shootall-

Very well stated!!

Regards,
Sweetwater

[LilNewt]

Safety is definitely first on my list when it comes to this new venture of mine.  Accuracy is next, then performance on animals being last.  I plan on using the Sierra manual as the main guide seeing how I will be using their bullets.  I know that their guns differ than mine, but at least I can keep on thing in common.  I understand that most cases differ in one way or another, but like a gun, most are made to certain specs to meet safety requirements.  Bullets are where things really can change without except for the diameter.  The only thing that is making me ask questions to myself now is the primmer issue.  There are several different primers and each one performs differently from what I can tell.  I wish that there were a list, like that for powders, that showed the pressure each "flash" generated.  That way you could kind of understand that if one primer is used in the test, then if you pick one that is "stronger" then you know your pressure is going to be greater, where as if you pick one "weaker" then you know that the pressure is going to be under that which is listed.  Make sense?  Anyone know of a chart that shows such a thing?  I understand that they are going to differ from lot to lot, but is there not some sort of info regarding the subject?   But all in all, I plan on starting at minimum listings, comparing amongst different resources, and then watching for pressure signs from there until an accurate load is determined.   After I have been doing this for several years, then I might try for the best performing load, no need in it now though.

[SHOOTALL]

If you reload much you will see the powder from batch to batch can give the most varance . Bullets from one source to another can vary from one dia to another also for the same cart.. Cases from the same manufactures can vary as will cases from the same lot after fireing .
 I agree with your safety . You can go online or find in some guides the primers listed as to stronger and weaker burn . Some test labs use one brand ( THE ONE THEY SELL ) others mix them up from cart. to cart. . Then some only say large rifle with no indication as to brand . You can also find imformation on when to use magnum primers with certian powder types . For free imformation check out the Winchester powder site , you will get loads for H , win and IMR powders . Some will list the bullets you wish to load maybe.

[Sweetwater]

Somewhere I have read a chart of relativeness for primers, not sure where right now. Might have been in an old Lyman or Speer manual - probably outdated, but you can bet the Powder companies know where all the primers rate, so that might be a good modern source. What you want is the powder/primer combination that gives the most even performance. Using the components that the lab used will aid you finding your combination - the one that works in your gun. Other combinations will go bang and even be inside the pressure limits, but not as uniform. One that didn't work in the lab just might be the one yours requires for that last bit of accuracy. Only you can find it.

I have always read about lot to lot variance in powder, but have really experienced very little of it. H380 I saw a real variance and H335 years ago, but not so much anymore. None of the others have varied enough for me to change any of my loads. Just lucky, I guess.

IF you start with the published starting loads or if only a max load is given, start 10% less than max and you should have no pressure problem created by a primer, either standard or magnum. IF you change from standard to magnum primers after a load has been established, then you will have to start over load testing. All part of the fun.

Cases from different companies will vary by volume as some have thicker brass. They will have the same outside dimensions, but will weigh differently. Thinner brass is lighter, has higher volume, is weaker.

Regards,
Sweetwater

[SHOOTALL]

The most consistant primers are benchrest primers . The hotest and hardest to ignite are arsenal primers like CCI #34 for 7.62 military ammo . It is said Federal makes speical primers that are used to test for guns that might shoot auto when they should not ( saw it in a magazine article) . BUT that is the reason for CCI #34 primers , to keep M14's and M1-A's from slam fireing , CCI also makes them for the 5.56 for the same reason and the crimp them in .
Temp.  alone can cause ignition problems . Some powders ignite better with mag. primers others don't and require standard primers . Standard primers can be replaced with Benchrest primers . Wimchester WLP  primers are used for both mag. and standard . So if the temp in your neck of the woods is say 50 degrees different than the lab you could get different results .
Guess it should be note about lot numbers , bullets , primers , powder etc. has a lot number . It denoted the batch your componetd came out of . SOOOOO if you don't have the same batch as the guys doing the testing for each componet what do you really have ? I have seen powder from different lots that was different colors over the years . Some powders have been made by different companies around the world and sold under the same name and number. Its all about burn rate .
Back to primers , a human runs the machine , they Operate it not just turn it on and watch . The guys that "throw" the most consistant primers make benchrest primers , the rest are standard or mag. 

Stay safe !

[Dand]

I feel your pain Lil.  Was just looking for a good starting loads in 357 mag, 158 and 180gr jacketed bullets using H110 or Alliant 2400.  I have been loading cast bullets and lighter jacketed for years but was surprised to see I have never settled on a 158 jacketed load - guess I depended on factory loads too long. Just want to experiment with the 180s. Anyway I have over 14 loading manuals. For both of these powders, the max load in some manuals (usually newer) is below the starting loads listed in other manuals!  And I expected some broad variation. Heck the author of "Why Ballisticians Get Gray" based his whole discussion on 38/357 loads.

So I picked a couple reasonably new manuals I trust that weren't too far apart in their recipes and started with a low/middle charge weight. Fired a couple rounds today in my revolver and they seem pretty mild so I'll work up.

One thing I have noted with the handgun rounds, especially 357: Some manuals use std and magnum primers depending on the powder.  Other manuals may have used mostly standard primers in one issue then switched to all or mostly magnum in another issue ( I have a couple versions each of  Lee, Nosler, Lyman, Hornady, Hodgdon, and Speer manuals).  I think Lyman especially switched primer choice between volume 46 and 47 for 357 and 41 magnum loading.  Took me some time really studying the details to spot that change. It helped me understand why the recommended wts of some powders changed so much between the issues.

HTH

[SHOOTALL]

Some of the reason for old vs. new data being lower today was the change from cpu to psi in the testing . Some was powder burn rates change .

[roper]

I load alot from Hodgdon/Nosler manual but I always buy the lastest manuals from others just to keep up with newer Bullets/Powders etc.  I always like to work up acouple different loads for my rifles never know when there be a change in bullets/powder  discontinued or even shortage been thru acouple of them before.

Most all my rifles are fairly modern I'm not shooting a 90yr 7x57 or weak action rifle so for me I've never seen the need to reinvent a reloading manual.  Most of my standard calibers if looking at a Nolser manual the start load to max load is appr 200fps depending on caliber you will see start to max 2grs up to 4gr different in powder used.  The loads with 2gr/4gr spread is normally 10% below max load till you get above 50gr of powders.  If you look at some of Speer data some calibers has 10% spread from start to max but they will use 6 loads per powder plus velocity spread may be 500fps they just added more lower velocity loads but the max is pretty close to the other manuals.  Same with Barnes you may see 10% to 5% different in loads on powder used and my loads using Barnes bullets just happen to be 5% range and thats the powder that rifle likes.

I think at some point every reloader developes their own style of reloading and what is important to them .

[Sweetwater]

I load alot from Hodgdon/Nosler manual but I always buy the lastest manuals from others just to keep up with newer Bullets/Powders etc.  I always like to work up acouple different loads for my rifles never know when there be a change in bullets/powder  discontinued or even shortage been thru acouple of them before.

Most all my rifles are fairly modern I'm not shooting a 90yr 7x57 or weak action rifle so for me I've never seen the need to reinvent a reloading manual.  Most of my standard calibers if looking at a Nolser manual the start load to max load is appr 200fps depending on caliber you will see start to max 2grs up to 4gr different in powder used.  The loads with 2gr/4gr spread is normally 10% below max load till you get above 50gr of powders.  If you look at some of Speer data some calibers has 10% spread from start to max but they will use 6 loads per powder plus velocity spread may be 500fps they just added more lower velocity loads but the max is pretty close to the other manuals.  Same with Barnes you may see 10% to 5% different in loads on powder used and my loads using Barnes bullets just happen to be 5% range and thats the powder that rifle likes.

I think at some point every reloader developes their own style of reloading and what is important to them .

Well stated. Also, the manuals are put together by "people" with "judgement" and "labratory apparatus" to help them pass judgement and, sometimes, limited paper space or funds in a particular year to test new stuff. Alan Jones put this in an article not too long ago. He did a bunch of manuals for Speer. Powders have a range of pressures that they are stable in. Each powder is relatively different in that respect. Some powders display similarities, and have their own peculiarities. They will burn "outside of their stable pressures" but within their own peculiarities. Some powders, like H4895 can be started a long ways below the "max". Others, like W296, we are advised to stay at or near "max". The manuals help us ascertain a plausible pathway to accurate velocity success safely. Our "lab" is generally different than that used in the manual, and some of our components may be different, at least in Lot#, so it is still up to us to use proper judgement, letting the manual guide us, but not dictate to us. Our guns will dictate.

Regards,
Sweetwater

[roper]

I load alot from Hodgdon/Nosler manual but I always buy the lastest manuals from others just to keep up with newer Bullets/Powders etc.  I always like to work up acouple different loads for my rifles never know when there be a change in bullets/powder  discontinued or even shortage been thru acouple of them before.

Most all my rifles are fairly modern I'm not shooting a 90yr 7x57 or weak action rifle so for me I've never seen the need to reinvent a reloading manual.  Most of my standard calibers if looking at a Nolser manual the start load to max load is appr 200fps depending on caliber you will see start to max 2grs up to 4gr different in powder used.  The loads with 2gr/4gr spread is normally 10% below max load till you get above 50gr of powders.  If you look at some of Speer data some calibers has 10% spread from start to max but they will use 6 loads per powder plus velocity spread may be 500fps they just added more lower velocity loads but the max is pretty close to the other manuals.  Same with Barnes you may see 10% to 5% different in loads on powder used and my loads using Barnes bullets just happen to be 5% range and thats the powder that rifle likes.

I think at some point every reloader developes their own style of reloading and what is important to them .

Well stated. Also, the manuals are put together by "people" with "judgement" and "labratory apparatus" to help them pass judgement and, sometimes, limited paper space or funds in a particular year to test new stuff. Alan Jones put this in an article not too long ago. He did a bunch of manuals for Speer. Powders have a range of pressures that they are stable in. Each powder is relatively different in that respect. Some powders display similarities, and have their own peculiarities. They will burn "outside of their stable pressures" but within their own peculiarities. Some powders, like H4895 can be started a long ways below the "max". Others, like W296, we are advised to stay at or near "max". The manuals help us ascertain a plausible pathway to accurate velocity success safely. Our "lab" is generally different than that used in the manual, and some of our components may be different, at least in Lot#, so it is still up to us to use proper judgement, letting the manual guide us, but not dictate to us. Our guns will dictate.

Regards,
Sweetwater

I was at Sierra this past spring wanted a tour maybe just hit it right but was only me and the wife our guide was Paul Box was later in the afternoon and was a break in the shooting tunnel so got a good look at that place they were just loading up some ammo to test for the 6.5x47 Laupa.  All they do is shoot of accuracy but they won't tell you what group size that is and if they want to pressure test I was told it was send out to the lab every load they shot was over a chrongrap in the tunnel.  The test rifle was Hart barrrel on rem action I did manage to ask him how many rds he shoot per day and all he said was shot 300lbs of powder testing for the last manual and that didn't count the other guys who
test.  I've been to Berger when he was making bullets in Az and I may get over to Grand Island go to Horandy for a tour.