Help! Who do I believe?

pathdoc

New member
Am just about to charge my .303 British cases with Varget, my powder of choice, and I am torn between two lots of load data. (NB: BEST EFFORT FOR ACCURACY MADE, BUT NO GUARANTEE ON TYPOS; CHECK ALL THE LOADS FOR YOURSELVES BEFORE USING.)

If I believe Hornady (9th edition manual), their 174 grain bullets (both the .3105" FMJBT and the .312" RN SP) are good for a minimum charge of 31.6gn of Varget and a maximum of 39.1 grains (Hornady/Frontier case, Winchester LR primer).

If I believe Lyman, the Hornady 174gn RN is good for 38gn of Varget as a minimum and 42gn as the maximum but data are not given for the FMJBT. These are also the high and low points given in the Lee Loader data sheet IIRC. In addition, ADI powders report their AR2208 (basically Varget in a different bottle or as near thereto as makes no difference) with the same minimum and maximum loads (38-42gn).

Lyman specifies Remington cases and Federal LR primers, and the same COAL as Hornady. Neither Lee nor ADI make any specification as to primer or case, and ADI doesn't even care which type or make of bullet you use as long as it's jacketed and assumes milspec COAL wherever there isn't a cannelure. The only other generic loading books I have predate Varget - in fact one of them was written when IMR was still Dupont, Nobel's powders were still in use, and reduced loads were listed as using shotgun Ballistite.

Turning to Hodgdon's site, the Hornady heavies don't even get a look-in, but they do offer loads for the Sierra MatchKing in that weight (38 to 42 grains; sounds familiar, doesn't it?) and for the 150gn Hornady SP, which I have a box of. That load runs 39 to 43 grains (ADI's loads for AR2208 are exactly the same), while Hornady says 33.0 to 40.8; Hodgdon, like Lee and ADI, does not specify case or primer type. Hornady and Hodgdon give COAL within 0.003 of each other, which might easily be within the margin of error of some reloading presses.

We have a problem here. I know that switching cases and primers can cause pressure variations, and the proper thing to do is to drop back down to minimum and work up again. But surely the variations aren't that steep? And whose minimum do I use, especially if I can't match the primer and case combinations found in the specific manuals? Hornady's load range is way, way down on everyone else's and the manuals warn you not to underload by too much, while everyone else's minimum is so close to Hornady's max loads it's almost scary (especially in an SMLE).

I suspect that Hornady are making allowances for the fact that the base of the 174gn FMJBT protrudes much further down into the case than does the base of the RN of the same weight when both bullets are seated to their cannelures. But it doesn't explain the marked differences in the 150gn data (unfortunately Lyman didn't shoot the 150gn SP with Varget, but other powders that the two books have in commmon show similar underloadings on Hornady's part).

*sigh* Life was easy when I lived in Australia and all I had was ADI powders, which didn't seem to give a damn about whose bullets, primers and cases you used so long as you worked up from minimum every time you changed something.

(EDIT: I have Winchester large rifle primers and a combination of Privi and Remington brass.)
 

Jimro

New member
Hornady makes bullets, generally bullet makers list lighter charges than powder makers. I've noticed this with Sierra as well.

I generally stick with the powder makers data.

As long as you are getting more than 60% case fill I don't think you are in the danger zone for a detonation. That way the powder covers the flash hole even when the cartridge is horizontal.

Jimro
 

steve4102

New member
You have enough sources listing 38gr as a Min charge to rule out the Hornady Min. of 31.6gr.

BTW, Lee data will always mirror another source, usually the powder manufacturer's data because that is where Lee gets their data from. They do not test loads, they borrow other's data.
 

Real Gun

New member
BTW, Lee data will always mirror another source, usually the powder manufacturer's data because that is where Lee gets their data from. They do not test loads, they borrow other's data.

I would like to understand this, because the Lee book generally shows more loads than any powder maker's site.
 

Salmoneye

New member
I would like to understand this, because the Lee book generally shows more loads than any powder maker's site.

Because they 'borrow' from more than one source, and publish all of them together...
 

mehavey

New member
This is where QuickLoad -- and a chronograph -- are absolutely indispensable.

Postscript. I just happened to be trying the following this evening:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
303Brit/P14 by weight 05/28/13
174SMK/ VARGET/ 40.0gr /CCI-200/PrvPrtCase**(1st)/OAL3.075"
QL=40,005psi/2,420fps(25.5")**56.0grH2O/ 90.6%Vol/95.6%burn

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Film at Eleven.....
 

Real Gun

New member
This is where QuickLoad -- and a chronograph -- are absolutely indispensable.

Do we really want to say that once given a starting load, credible only by a leap of faith, all other reload recipe data is worthless?
 

Real Gun

New member
Because they 'borrow' from more than one source, and publish all of them together...

Is there something wrong with that? Maybe I misunderstand, but there seems to be a resolve to put down Lee (or anything bearing that name).
 

steve4102

New member
I'm not putting down Lee, I like Lee products. All my handgun dies are Lee, I have several Lee Collet dies and all my molds are Lee. I'm just saying Lee data is not their own.

I quote from the first page of "Modern Reloading" 2nd Ed.

" Comprehensive load data, compiled from all the major powder suppliers published information, sorted in logical cartridge, bullet weight, and velocity order"
 

mehavey

New member
This is where QuickLoad -- and a chronograph -- are absolutely indispensable.
Do we really want to say that once given a starting load, credible only by a leap of faith, all other reload recipe data is worthless?
I'm not sure how those two sentences are related, But...

I'll usually pick a load in the middle range as predicted by (many, several, and whole bunch of) loading manuals; check that against tailored predictions by QuickLoad as to probable pressures associated with eventual velocities; and Mr Oehler then tells me where I probably am on that pressure curve for that gun under those conditions.

After that, my initial Leap of Faith is replaced by Chemical Engineering projections. :D
 

steve4102

New member
I would like to understand this, because the Lee book generally shows more loads than any powder maker's site.

Have you checked out the New data from Ramshot and Accurate?

I don't there is any published data out there more complete and extensive than Ramshot's and Accurate's 223/5.56 data.
 

Jim Watson

New member
I bet Ramshot doesn't have any data for Varget.

Just to add to the general hilarity, Sierra stops at 38.4 gr Varget for either their 174 gr .303 boattail spitzer or their 180 gr roundnose.

Speer goes to 40 gr.

Ken Waters didn't have Varget but loaded up to 43 gr of 4064 and a 180 gr bullet in a Lee Speed. Varget and 4064 are within a half grain of each other in other sources of data I have.

I think I would try a few at 36 grains and see how they shot.
 

Real Gun

New member
steve4102 wrote in part:

I quote from the first page of "Modern Reloading" 2nd Ed.

" Comprehensive load data, compiled from all the major powder suppliers published information, sorted in logical cartridge, bullet weight, and velocity order"

That would make the Lee book one of the best collections.
 

steve4102

New member
That would make the Lee book one of the best collections.

Collections of data already available for Free both online and in printed form. Also a collection of old and often times obsolete data.

What is the copy write data on Lee's second addition?
 

Salmoneye

New member
Because they 'borrow' from more than one source, and publish all of them together...

Is there something wrong with that? Maybe I misunderstand, but there seems to be a resolve to put down Lee (or anything bearing that name).

Nowhere have I ever 'put down' Lee, and am unlikely to in the future...

The question (to me) seemed to ask if Lee 'borrowed' data from one place and published it, how could they have more data than the one place they borrowed from...

I was simply pointing out that they published more data than any one place, as they borrow from many places in order to get a larger list...
 

Real Gun

New member
steve4102: Collections of data already available for Free both online and in printed form. Also a collection of old and often times obsolete data.

Do we need to cover what makes load data "obsolete"?
 
Top