Load Data?

[fishnbob]

Where can you go on the 'net to download load data from the powder companies? I have never been able to get info from Hodgdon but got info from IMR. Now that Hodgdon owns IMR, I get stonewalled when I go into the IMR Handloading Guide.

Any advice?

[versifier]

http://www.hodgdon.com/basic-manual-inquiry.html

The most inexpensive life insurance any reloader can own is at least three current loading manuals. Any data off the net is suspect, no matter what the source. (Some sources may be more suspect than others, though.) To evaluate a potential load, I ALWAYS compare it with what is listed in three or four different printed manuals, and if at least two of them don't agree, I don't use it. I have found that bullet makers usually put out the most reliable data, but they don't give it away like the powder companies do.

I do keep downloaded data from powder companies for reference, but I do not rely on it without checking. Sometimes there are errors in manuals, too, as all data is compiled by human beings. Sometimes I want to use an uncommon powder or bullet weight for a specific cartridge, and the more data I have on hand, the more likely I'm going to find more than one reference to it that I can compare before I load anything.

Some folks whine about spending a couple hundred bucks ever five years or so to update manuals, but I look at it the opposite way: How can I NOT when I know what the consequences of error are? That is why my first question when someone is looking for data for a comon cartridge is always: What manuals do you have? Aside from a source of good data, in evey good manual there is a good overview of the loading process, setting up dies, choosing appropriate components, that everyone could stand to review regularly, regardless of how many rounds they load. A newby that goes out and buys tools and components without several good manuals to start off with is an accident waiting to happen. I can understand the enthusiasm of a new hobby and wanting to make your own ammo for the first time, I still remember my very first .38's and firing them out back into the old stump, but I also remember several weeks before reading and learning pertinant material before I did it. Nowadays decent instruction is a lot more easy to come by, but still every bit as necessary.

[fishnbob]

I was looking for another source to try & solve why there is such a large difference between my Hornady & Lyman manuals for the loading of my 6.5 Swedish Mauser. Lyman's suggested starting load of IMR 4320 with a 100 gr. bullet is 42.0 grs. Hornady's MAXIMUM load is 41.0 grs of IMR 4320 with the same 100 gr. bullet. That's a helluva difference. My discretionary judgement tells me to use the lowest suggested starting load in the Hornady manual which is 36.7 grs. of 4320 and work up. That's 5.3 grs. difference in starting loads between the two manuals.
Any thoughts?

[versifier]

It's NOT the same bullet, not the same lot of powder, not the same brass, not the same primers, not the same gun, and not the same lawyers. Plus there is no indication of when each set of data was generated, and some components can change a lot over time. If the numbers were the same, that would be suspicious. But you're right - something does appear to be confusing there.

Like I said above: You need at least three current manuals to evaluate loads. Four or five is better as all manuals don't list all powders or all cartridges. Two are not enough, and you just found out why.

When two are close to agreement, start there and watch for pressure signs and group sizes as you increase the charge slowly.

6.5Swede, 100gr bullet, IMR 4320
Sierra: 37.7 START to 44.7MAX
Lee: IMR4320 not listed
My bet is that the Lyman data needs to be updated from copper crusher pressure data to modern pizeo strain gauge PSI data. Or Hornady's legal department has been proofreading. Or there is an error in transcription.
What do you think?

BTW, try some IMR4895 , IMR4064, and Varget in your Swede. If it's a M96 Mauser, try some heavier bullets, too.

[fishnbob]

When two are close to agreement, start there and watch for pressure signs and group sizes as you increase the charge slowly.

6.5Swede, 100gr bullet, IMR 4320
Sierra: 37.7 START to 44.7MAX

The Sierra manual is close to the Hornady info which is 1.0 gr. below, so there's a starting point. I have a Hodgdon manual which only lists Hodgdon powder and the Varget load looks interesting, around 2800 fps & low pressure(less than 40,000). I am trying lighter bullets on the assumption that a larger bullet means more pressure, which I am trying to avoid on an older rifle.
It's NOT the same bullet, not the same lot of powder, not the same brass, not the same primers, not the same gun, and not the same lawyers. Plus there is no indication of when each set of data was generated, and some components can change a lot over time. If the numbers were the same, that would be suspicious
IMHO I think if you are working at STARTING loads, the above differences would be like picking fly s--t out of pepper. And you are right, the manuals don't give the test method for determining pressure and I guess with Lawyers like they are, we are damn lucky to get any info at all. It would be tough to sell a product without info, though. And I'm not sure what to think.
I really appreciate your input, thanks.

[fryboy]

u also have to remember that in defference to older and unknown actions ( think krag) if a round is or has been factory produced in a weaker action often the data will be much lighter , tho some manufacturer's list data or the stronger actions (this is usually posted in the detail section)most hold to the lower listings( it produces less lawsuits) the american loading of many cartridges and data is thus , quite a few have much stouter loading in european loads/loadings

[miestro_jerry]

I have counted on the Lyman Handbooks, back to the 45th edition, currently I use the 49th Edition. I make a lot of notes in a composition notebook of my loads and their results.

Recently I bought a Lee Modern Reloading 2nd edition manual. It seems good.

The stuff I get online, I am suspect of, when the data may be way off from similar data in the Lyman handbook. The Lyman Hand book isn't perfect, but it is better than many others I have looked at. Sometimes I get data from the bullet manufactures that gives some idea on where to start a load.



Jerry

[tackstrp]

Lyman. i dont use lyman data, IMO they do not have interest in the reloader. Disappointed with their new molds. last one i purchased 1972 or so.

[versifier]

Lyman. i dont use lyman data, IMO they do not have interest in the reloader. Disappointed with their new molds. last one i purchased 1972 or so.

No interest in the reloader? They publish manuals for every kind of loading you could want to do and make the oldest line of quality loading tools in the USA. All of their moulds I have bought in recent years both new and used have been top quality, and I own dozens of them that get regular use. On the rare occasions I have needed parts, while they have not been as quick about it as RCBS, I have always gotten them within a reasonable amount of time (except for muzzle loader parts, which they do not make themselves and have to order from overseas). Their manuals are more comprehensive than any others on the market, the data is regularly updated for newly introduced cartridges, and they are the only company I know of that publishes reliable data for cast bullet rifle loads. They are not as quick to retest older and less popular cartridges as I would like, but they are often the only data source there is for many older and obsolete or obsolescent cartridges. How is it you figure they have no interest in us?