Berger Loading Manual

[Nick Caprinolo]

Does anyone follow the Berger Loading Manual recommendations?

I am loading for a .223 benchrest rifle with Berger's .80 match bullets. Seems Berger always recommends a lighter load than all other manuals.

Berger Max load for Varget is 22.2 grs, while Hodgdon recommends Max at .25 grs. Hodgdon does not have a load for the Berger bullet.

I usually run a ladder test at one hole grain below max and work on up. If results are not satisfactory, I will then work loads down.

Berger always has a lighter for their bullet weights than other manual for comparable weights.

 

[IdahoSharpshooter]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Can you spell L-I-T-I-G-A-T-I-O-N L-A-W-Y-E-R?

 

[Ranger007]

I am waiting for a Berger Loading Manual 2nd addition.. I think its time.

 

[ShootDots]

"Back in the day", circa 1960s and 1970s, some of the loads in the loading manuals, especially the old Speer manual, had loads so high that some, spell that many, of the "max" loads would result in very stiff bolt openings! If you would see them loads today, an "ambulance chasing lawyer" would do back flips for joy! Now I have seen the Berger load manual and it makes you wonder who wrote it! The "bottom line" is that in today's time, the loads in the loading manuals are all listed with both eyes on the legal community! I don't like to say this, but I rarely use loading manuals. I have shot so many cartridges with so many powders over so many years, I can fly by the seat of my pants and always be safe! The "best" loading manuals are shooters who know what they are talking about and know what they are doing! Those shooters, you can ask them with confidence!

 

[rsmithsr50]

i think your approach is not valid
a ladder should be about 10 steps
223 steps should be .3 gr (1/100 of case vol)
1 gr below max is only 3 or 4 steps. not a valid ladder.
a ladder is looking for tuning points, NOT MAX load only.

 

[Nick Caprinolo]

i think your approach is not valid
a ladder should be about 10 steps
223 steps should be .3 gr (1/100 of case vol)
1 gr below max is only 3 or 4 steps. not a valid ladder.
a ladder is looking for tuning points, NOT MAX load only.

I just finished loading 48 bullets. Six bullet each load in .02 increments. I think I am doing this the right way. This is not my first Rodeo. I am no where near max load yet.

 

[std7mag]

Hodgdon is also using a Sierra MatchKing in a 1:12 twist barrel.
Berger is showing a 1:8 twist. Also they are using 2 different bullets. The VLD, and the Fullbore Match.
Is the bearing surface of a different area than the MatchKing?
Different alloys in the jacket?

Who knows?

You posted, while i was posting.

 

[Sieg]

Per Berger's website......

We can help you out! Get the latest load data by emailing us at support@capstonepg.com with the bullet and cartridge you are looking to load. You can also call us at 660-460-2802.

Thanks to too many attorneys coming out of college over the past few decades I can't blame any company for being overly conservative.

A caliber/equipment specific personal inquiry via phone may provide more usable data than the printed format.

 

[Nick Caprinolo]

Per Berger's website......


Thanks to too many attorneys coming out of college over the past few decades I can't blame any company for being overly conservative.

A caliber/equipment specific personal inquiry via phone may provide more usable data than the printed format.

I've called them in the past, and all they will say is follow the book and you will get good results. When I built this rifle, I had a 1/8 twist barrel for bullets in the 75 to 80 gr range. As I said before it is to be used as a bench rest gun. I was using other bullets and following their manufactures guidelines. I will find out tomorrow if they are right for this rifle.

 

[Sieg]

I've called them in the past, and all they will say is follow the book and you will get good results. When I built this rifle, I had a 1/8 twist barrel for bullets in the 75 to 80 gr range. As I said before it is to be used as a bench rest gun. I was using other bullets and following their manufactures guidelines. I will find out tomorrow if they are right for this rifle.

Figures, staying with the legal speak toeing the liability line.

I'm currently in the reloading research and development phase after a long hiatus from reloading and my newly acquired knowledge and instincts are leaning heavily towards the powder manufacturers data vs the bullet manufacturers. AND paying close attention to what my rifle, cases, and targets tell me.

 

[riflewoman]

Per Berger's website......


Thanks to too many attorneys coming out of college over the past few decades I can't blame any company for being overly conservative.

A caliber/equipment specific personal inquiry via phone may provide more usable data than the printed format.

there are more and more attorneys leaving the profession or being replaced. There’s expected to be 10% less of them in 10 years...

 

[Sieg]

there are more and more attorneys leaving the profession or being replaced. There’s expected to be 10% less of them in 10 years...

That's a start, not decent, but a start.

 

[fyrewall]

With so many variables beyond their control the manual writers exercise restraint. I kind of like data/manuals that publish chamber pressures with bullet weights and manufacturers. Case fill volumes in % are also noted. I have copies of the Berger manual and always buy the Hodgdon yearly pub and look at on-line data for Western powders & Nosler. Then looking at every thing I can get some idea of what works. The Berger manual provides some unique recipes like Ram Shot Hunter powder in the .22-.250 with 75's. When my LGS runs out of my favorite powder and other stuff, I have or can make up alterative loads. There are zillions of combinations. I store lots of data on-line (MS-One Drive).

What's the term -- trolling? - the lawyers will always have their gear down looking for a hook up. Product warnings on bags, jugs, boxes never seem to stop claims. In addition to kabooms we now have lead warnings. With 10% less lawyers more gear will be down.

Edit: from Hodgdon 2019 annual manual, pg. 73 "…. expressly disclaim any and all warranties with respect to any and all products or distributed by them (Hodgdon) , the safety or suitability thereof..." Then, "Buyers and users assume all risk, responsibility and liability whatsoever for any and all injuries (including death), losses or damages …."

This to me indicates a certain appreciation of the potential for bad stuff and is included as a defense against claims - this would not be totally adequate but better than nothing.

 

[Lone Hunter]

You guys are spelling lawyers wrong. It's spelled "LIARS". I follow manufactures (Berger)etc.. recommendations . Find a starting point then go up to find my pressure points. Sometimes it's below,not often, sometimes above published max loads. That way I'm not getting the horse before the cart. Looking for accuracy not how fast I can get it.

 

[cem]

I do.

I flat don't believe nor give any credence to the tales of litigation shyness. I further believe the manuals do list the best performance within SAAMI limits. In fact I rather suspect that like some once commonly cited ballistic coefficients the makers would be happy to claim better performance if they could do so with any claim to honesty. I also believe that published loads are such that the occasional high side of the distribution is still not outrageous.

I am inclined to believe that there was a time when the bullet selection was more limited and the cup and core bullets from different manufacturers were enough alike that the data was reasonably interchangeable. That is the differences were no more than the differences between lot numbers of the same cannister powders or the difference in charge weights with powders of different storage histories. I believe today's bullets and rifles are different enough that the data cannot safely be used mix and match.

There are many manuals that for good reasons do list loads that might be exceeded in an appropriate firearm. Classic examples such as the .45-70 which might be loaded to a lower limit for the trap-door and up to matching a .450 Hornady in another rifle. Similarly a .45 Colt is properly loaded to lower pressures in a Single action army than in an X-frame Smith & Wesson or one of today's super strong single actions.

Jeff Cooper used to tout a .38 Special load for snubbies to match external ballistics of a duty revolver that was also made in .357 Magnum. I didn't know any better and promptly shot my own snubby loose. I now know the tested pressure of that amount of Red Dot was much more than I understood it was then. One of the majors did once list what many called The Load with .357 Magnum performance and called it a .38 Special load. Not good. My always carry pistol today - in reach as I type this -is a snubby in .327 and my normal carry for many years was a 9x23. Each of them is the highest pressure in its class for its size of pistol. From mid range gallery loads to full power I can't sort a pressure series in 9mm any more than I can from a #130 with 3.5 bullseye to full power .460 Rowland.

Going back as far as Hatcher's Notebook debunking primer appearance as a pressure sign claims that reloading could be done by going up to pressure signs and backing off some indeterminate amount are either honest mistakes or self delusional. The classic modern refutation is the many overpressure loads touted as good when the 7mm STW was new and loaded with wildcat techniques. With more time and lab testing loads that showed no pressure signs in the field showed excess pressure in a pressure gun.

I further believe that a rifle fired with enough over pressure loads will if it lasts long enough otherwise fail with a SAAMI pressure load that is well within limits amply safe in a rifle that hasn't been proofed with too many over pressure loads.

Among my own cute little toys is a jig and tooling to measure case head expansion to half a tenth. I don't use it. I use the manuals and a 35P Chronograph.​

 

[Retired Grunt]

That's a start, not decent, but a start.

Yeah, but then they tend to turn into politicians.

 

[KMart]

"Back in the day", circa 1960s and 1970s, some of the loads in the loading manuals, especially the old Speer manual, had loads so high that some, spell that many, of the "max" loads would result in very stiff bolt openings! If you would see them loads today, an "ambulance chasing lawyer" would do back flips for joy! Now I have seen the Berger load manual and it makes you wonder who wrote it! The "bottom line" is that in today's time, the loads in the loading manuals are all listed with both eyes on the legal community! I don't like to say this, but I rarely use loading manuals. I have shot so many cartridges with so many powders over so many years, I can fly by the seat of my pants and always be safe! The "best" loading manuals are shooters who know what they are talking about and know what they are doing! Those shooters, you can ask them with confidence!

The Speer data is now available on line and has been updated with a lot of the newer powders listed. I "tested" some and they are really hot.

 

[Nick Caprinolo]

if you know what you are doing why load 6 x 8 ?
that is not a ladder, more like wasting time and ammo.
glad you can AFFORD YOUR"METHOD"

Wasting time is relevant to whose time it is. A ladder test is anything you want it to be.

When running a ladder test, I like to shoot two 3 shot strings of each load. That way if one goes errant, I still have something to use for comparison. If both targets are good, then you can assume you are heading in the right direction. If I have two or three sets that are tight, I can be sure that I am at that point where I probably can't improve. I will then go to the range loading another 48 rounds split between the three powder loads that gave me the best groups. Anytime I spend at the range is enjoyable so nothing is wasted.

It's not what is right for you, it's what works for me, that matters.

As for being able to afford to shoot that much ammo, obviously I can, because I shoot a lot and never worry about the money I spend.

Men and boys, the only difference, is the price of their toys.

 

[dgeesaman]

"Back in the day", circa 1960s and 1970s, some of the loads in the loading manuals, especially the old Speer manual, had loads so high that some, spell that many, of the "max" loads would result in very stiff bolt openings! If you would see them loads today, an "ambulance chasing lawyer" would do back flips for joy! Now I have seen the Berger load manual and it makes you wonder who wrote it! The "bottom line" is that in today's time, the loads in the loading manuals are all listed with both eyes on the legal community! I don't like to say this, but I rarely use loading manuals. I have shot so many cartridges with so many powders over so many years, I can fly by the seat of my pants and always be safe! The "best" loading manuals are shooters who know what they are talking about and know what they are doing! Those shooters, you can ask them with confidence!

I can confirm one thing, their factory loaded ammo is plenty stiff.

David

 

[Nick Caprinolo]

Went to the range yesterday and ran my ladder test. I used the recommendations in the Berger manual and found that the best loads ranged in the middle of their suggestions. I have three loads that I will now try to narrow down on Tuesday. I will again load 48 bullets in three powder charges and see what develops.