Pondering factory loads vs starting loads

[Bullshot]

I don’t know why this is sticking in my head today, but reloading wisdom says to start pretty low and work up slowly, that every rifle behaves differently, can’t be too safe, etc. Yet anybody with any rifle has no qualms about loading any factory round from any manufacturer literally having no idea what the powder/primer combo is. Is it accurate then to assume that factory loadings are closer to min than to max? If not, why are they seemingly viewed as so universally safe?

 

[VikingsGuy]

I don’t know why this is sticking in my head today, but reloading wisdom says to start pretty low and work up slowly, that every rifle behaves differently, can’t be too safe, etc. Yet anybody with any rifle has no qualms about loading any factory round from any manufacturer literally having no idea what the powder/primer combo is. Is it accurate then to assume that factory loadings are closer to min than to max? If not, why are they seemingly viewed as so universally safe?

Each manufacturer may have its own methodology, but all will have a process to generate universally safe pressures at SAMMI specs. SAMMI has design conservatism built in to its specs, and the rifle manufacturers build in conservatism to their products, and the ammo manufacturers build conservatism into theirs.

FWIW, I don't start at the bottom of a powder spec, I start about 2 grains down from book max. and work up from there. If I am starting with Hammers I start more like .5gn from max as they tend to allow themselves to be pushed harder in my experience.

If you really want to press the engineering there is ballistics software that will use the powder capacity of your chamber with your brass and your seating depth to calculate more accurate estimations of max powder. But last I checked it was pricey and had a terrible user experience.

 

[Sheltowee]

If I am starting with Hammers I start more like .5gn from max as they tend to allow themselves to be pushed harder in my experience.

So here is a dumb question: Hammer load data only lists starting min. loads but gives a max. attainable velocity. Are you using max. book data-.5grn for similarly weighted projectiles listed in other load manuals?



PS: Anyone got any Hybrid 100V they want to get rid of?

 

[VikingsGuy]

So here is a dumb question: Hammer load data only lists starting min. loads but gives a max. attainable velocity. Are you using max. book data-.5grn for similarly weighted projectiles listed in other load manuals?

View attachment 322607

PS: Anyone got any Hybrid 100V they want to get rid of?

In the past I have just chatted with them and gotten their common high end pressures/velocities for a given bullet with their preferred powder and drop down .5 from there. Not saying others should do this.

 

[Sheltowee]

In the past I have just chatted with them and gotten their common high end pressures/velocities for a given bullet with their preferred powder and drop down .5 from there. Not saying others should do this.

I'm planning on experimenting with the 95gr. HHTs and H4831sc in a .257 Ackley. Since Hammer doesn't publish .257AI data, I'm thinking about using Barnes 100gr. TTSX load data and backing down 2-3% from max. Any obvious red flags in doing so?

 

[VikingsGuy]

I'm planning on experimenting with the 95gr. HHTs and H4831sc in a .257 Ackley. Since Hammer doesn't publish .257AI data, I'm thinking about using Barnes 100gr. TTSX load data and backing down 2-3% from max. Any obvious red flags in doing so?

First, there are better reloading experts than me on this forum, so offer just my own experiences.

TTSX and Hammer are my two go to bullets. But they behave very differently in my experience. On the bright side it seems like TTSX run "tighter" and would hit max pressures more quickly than Hammers so .5gn below TTSX max would probably be ok but I would probably start -1gn. All things being equal, I would prefer to talk to guys at Hammer or chat with folks on their forum who have worked with those bullets/cartridge/powder. Also, our HT Hammer guru @mtmuley is close to the Hammer guys so he may have better access to load thoughts on the .257AI. You could also start with .257 non-ackley numbers if they have them and see what your velocity looks like at -.5gn of .257 max -- I wouldn't waste a bunch of bullets with a ladder as my gut expectation is it will be quite slow velocity wise, but should be a fairly safe single cartridge to get a first velocity on and see how you compare to expected velocities and work up from there being very attentive to any bolt stiffness or case text/primer flattening/ejector marks as you go. FWIW - when I start out with a new cartridge, bullet or powder I tend to stay on the safe side until I get a feel for how the parts seem to respond to the various tweaks/combinations, like charge weight, powder type, case stiffness, seating depth etc. I do it for fun, and trips to ER are not fun.

 

[perma]

I don’t know why this is sticking in my head today, but reloading wisdom says to start pretty low and work up slowly, that every rifle behaves differently, can’t be too safe, etc. Yet anybody with any rifle has no qualms about loading any factory round from any manufacturer literally having no idea what the powder/primer combo is. Is it accurate then to assume that factory loadings are closer to min than to max? If not, why are they seemingly viewed as so universally safe?

I thought much the same. I’ve had two different guns I’ve loaded from minimum up. Both had groups about 1/3 way up and started to spread once I got past the half way mark. I’m not smart enough to explain why but I know enough to say that something isn’t right.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I thought much the same. I’ve had two different guns I’ve loaded from minimum up. Both had groups about 1/3 way up and started to spread once I got past the half way mark. I’m not smart enough to explain why but I know enough to say that something isn’t right.

I think the rule of thumb experience is a lot of load data has a first node just short of mid-point and a second just below or at max.

 

[perma]

I think the rule of thumb experience is a lot of load data has a first node just short of mid-point and a second just below or at max.

That annoys me. Then how do you guys get such a spicy FPS!? I can’t imagine all of you are using lower loads but if you are, then I’m lost.

 

[VikingsGuy]

That annoys me. Then how do you guys get such a spicy FPS!? I can’t imagine all of you are using lower loads but if you are, then I’m lost.

I always chase the near max node. Never start below mid point to start with. And then Hammers - they blow the doors off conventional velocities. I have a 7mm08 throwing 136gn hammer at 3100 with zero pressure signs. Same rifle shoots 139 LRX at 2850. If you want burners shoot Hammers. @mtmuley can hook you up.

 

[mtmuley]

I'm planning on experimenting with the 95gr. HHTs and H4831sc in a .257 Ackley. Since Hammer doesn't publish .257AI data, I'm thinking about using Barnes 100gr. TTSX load data and backing down 2-3% from max. Any obvious red flags in doing so?

Nosler data lines up pretty well with like weight Hammers. I could call Steve and ask him, but the fact is he will answer the phone if you call him also. mtmuley

 

[Sheltowee]

Nosler data lines up pretty well with like weight Hammers. I could call Steve and ask him, but the fact is he will answer the phone if you call him also. mtmuley

He will, in fact, answer the phone and the last time I chatted with him mentioned this guy on HT who seemed to be a member of the Hammer Pro Staff. He laughed and immediately mentioned you by name. Super nice guy.

 

[mtmuley]

I always chase the near max node. Never start below mid point to start with. And then Hammers - they blow the doors off conventional velocities. I have a 7mm08 throwing 136gn hammer at 3100 with zero pressure signs. Same rifle shoots 139 LRX at 2850. If you want burners shoot Hammers. @mtmuley can hook you up.

My son bought a couple 7-08s. Looking at the 132 HHT. mtmuley

 

[brockel]

I always just start a few grains below book max. Hasn’t burned me yet over the last 25 years and tons of different cartridges and loads.

 

[std7mag]

Some years ago (7-10), Remington had a recall on their green box 270 Win ammo.
They ended up being loaded hot.

One of the guys I work with had the chamber deform and mechanism lock up on his Remington pump action rifle.

I found the recall, and showed it to him.

He forgot about it and that year managed to blow up his Rem 700 with the same ammo.

I've seen Winchester white box 30-06 ammo that the cartridge felt heavier than the Federal ammo i was shooting also.
Shook the cartridge and you could hear it rattle.
Took them home and pulled the bullet. There was a second bullet in the casing.

So, no. I don't trust factory ammo completely.

 

[std7mag]

Also, @Bullshot , the ammo factories are supposed to keep loads safe.

Look at cartridges like the 257 Roberts, 45-70, and 45 Colt.
There are different pressure levels for those cartridges depending on the firearm being used.

Factory doesn't know what firearm you have. Or what you're likely to try. So they have to load to the lowest pressure levels.
Hence why most 45 Colt factory ammo is a powder puff compared to some 357Mag loads.

 

[Bullshot]

Also, @Bullshot , the ammo factories are supposed to keep loads safe.

Look at cartridges like the 257 Roberts, 45-70, and 45 Colt.
There are different pressure levels for those cartridges depending on the firearm being used.

Factory doesn't know what firearm you have. Or what you're likely to try. So they have to load to the lowest pressure levels.
Hence why most 45 Colt factory ammo is a powder puff compared to some 357Mag loads.

Yes, Right. 45/70 suffers from factory loads we all know. And reloaders pushing it in more modern guns is understood as typical. But 8mm mauser is also one of the reasons I started wondering, I know the history of the varying bore dimensions, and millions of old rifles, and thus why they do it, but US factory ammo are apparently mostly creampuff loads and compared to 8mm/06, reloading data for 8x57 from Hodgdon is weak. If you compare the 8x57 data to an 8mm/06, a very close comparison, it is night and day. Pressures on MAX loads on the 8x57 are maybe around and sometimes substantially below the STARTING loads for an 8mm/06. I am using Rem 700 and modern new brass so should be able to confidently start in the high end for 8x57 and push it, since I DO know what rifle I am using, unlike the manufacturers.

Now, I am not saying I would just adopt a max 8mm-06 load, as that case is still slightly higher capacity than 8x57, but as far as obtaining similar pressure, I should have few concerns, since my rifle could just as well have been chambered to 8mm/06 specs and then fire at significantly higher pressures (+10 to 15%) from what is listed as max for the mauser cartridge. I am not looking to be stupid, but I fail see a concern if I start my mauser (again, in a rem 700) around the low end of the adjacent near-twin cartridge and work up, which is the same more or less as starting with the 8x57 published max.

 

[std7mag]

Yes, Right. 45/70 suffers from factory loads we all know. And reloaders pushing it in more modern guns is understood as typical. But 8mm mauser is also one of the reasons I started wondering, I know the history of the varying bore dimensions, and millions of old rifles, and thus why they do it, but US factory ammo are apparently mostly creampuff loads and compared to 8mm/06, reloading data for 8x57 from Hodgdon is masked trash. If you compare the 8x57 data to an 8mm/06, a very close comparison, it is night and day. Pressures on MAX loads on the 8x57 are maybe around and sometimes substantially below the STARTING loads for an 8mm/06. I am using Rem 700 and modern new brass so should be able to confidently start in the high end for 8x57 and push it, since I DO know what rifle I am using, unlike the manufacturers.

Now, I am not saying I would just adopt a max 8mm-06 load, as that case is still slightly higher capacity than 8x57, but as far as obtaining similar pressure, I should have few concerns, since my rifle could just as well have been chambered to 8mm/06 specs and then fire at significantly higher pressures (+10 to 15%) from what is listed as max for the mauser cartridge. I am not looking to be stupid, but I fail see a concern if I start my mauser (again, in a rem 700) around the low end of the adjacent near-twin cartridge and work up, which is the same more or less as starting with the 8x57 published max.

Ditto 7X57 Mauser.
I've been loading to the reloading manual for my daughter's rifle.
She's recoil shy.

 

[ImBillT]

We buy what is called “canister grade” powder, and load them into all manner of cases and shoot bullets in all manner of shapes. Canister grade powder fits within a much tighter spec from lot to lot than what manufacturers use, so on the surface that seems like we would be more consistent, but that’s actually not true. When we buy two different lots of the same powder, they can vary quite a bit in both energy density and burn rate. We then might be using Winchester brass, or Norma, or two different lots of Winchester brass that have two different internal capacities. And we might be loading a bullet with more or less bearing surface than the one in the manual etc. At the end of the day, there is substantial room for variability between what got used to produce a reloading manual, and what you used to produce your handload. Another thing to consider is just how many loads in a 2024 reloading manual were actually last tested in 1950, but you might be using powder that was manufactured in 2023, from a different plant located in a different country. Ever notice how many loads are still listed in CUP instead of PSI? Thats because last time they tested that load they were still using copper crushers to measure pressure! So in spite of the fact that our powder is more consistent lot to lot, what happens when we produce a load can be quite different from what happened to the load manual writers.


The powder the manufacturers get varies much more from lot to lot, but they get single lots in the TONS. When they get 1ton of powder that is all the same batch, it’s like buying a single jug of powder. You don’t have to go back to the starting load today just because you haven’t shot your gun in two weeks. The ammo manufacturers can take 2000lbs of powder, and brass, and bullets, and develop a load in a pressure gun, and for the next 280,000 rounds of 308 Win they can be confident that nothing changed. BUT, if they published their load, you might be overpressure. Your can of powder, and brass, and primers, might be different. In fact, you can of powder is practically guaranteed to be different, even if they’re the same powder.

I would also assume that load manual producers publish a very conservative starting load so that after you accidentally pour your case full of Red Dot when you meant to grab 4831, then can have anyone, anywhere, with any gun, test their starting load and prove that it is well within safe limits.

 

[kodiakisland]

As stated before, factory loads use blended powders and pressure test all components used. Reloading manuals have no control of what lot of powder, primer, bullet, and brass case you use. What may be a safe combination of variable lots may not be with another.

I personally like to load to specific velocities with a chrono since I can't pressure test my loads. Using factory loads to tell me what velocities my particular gun should produce at SAAMI pressures.