Do Certain Members of the Shooting Industry Owe Fiduciary Duty?

[hogan]

After many years as a professional in the business world, the quick answer is "That's For The Lawyers To Decide...
but... as customers of businesses that produce materials that are largely consumed in process of making firearms function, isn't it implicit that their product ought work as represented?

Unless you own your own pressure disc receiver, you are unable to verify claims made by manufacturers.

Not many other products sold in the marketplace, aside from foodstuffs, that must be consumed to be used. Petroleum products, welding supplies; but not a great many. Foodstuffs are mostly easily inspected and considered before they are cooked or eaten. Not so much with fuels, oils, and other materials that we rely on to be what their maker claims that they are.

This relates here because the shooting industry is flying by the seat of their collective pants.

While many on this board and elsewhere are enthralled by all the new bullets, powders, cartridge offerings, and rifles, the fact is that when it comes to Handloading or Reloading, the bulletmakers no longer commit their budgets toward providing data for even the most popular new cartridges or powders. As recently as ten years ago, this was not the case. Most handloading supply manufacturers did supply new data as new ctgs, bullets, and powders were introduced.

 

[dkhunt14]

A lot of them are releasing new data. You just need to look it up online. Printing new books gets expensive. I think you will see more online info then books in the future. I know some you can call and find out. Matt

 

[hogan]

A particularly worrisome situation exists with the great number of new smokeless powders that have been introduced in recent years.

Incredibly, there are now so many powders available that most of the new offerings are unlikely to ever have data developed for them by the bulletmakers.
Almost wonder if this is not some Pirate-Raider effort by the powder companies to takeover the bulletmakers? With anywhere from 5-10 new powders being introduced every few years, and with lots of old faithful powders still needing verification, how can the bulletmakers develop data for the new powders?

Powder companies do provide basic data for a few bullets and weights in their catalogs, both online and in print; but as we all know, very few bullet designs of the same caliber and weight will generate the same pressures at the same powder charges. Point being, it is dangerous to presume that the same bullet weight is safe within the range of different designs from different makers.

I tried to obtain data from Barnes this week for the very popular and now 10yrs old, .375 Ruger magnum. I have a box of their 350gr xts bullets and wanted to use them for Bear Defense purposes. I live in Alaska. I called and emailed on this subject and was told that Hodgdon's had data on the .375Ruger and the Barnes 350gr and to contact them... I also contacted Sierra, to get data on their 300gr gameking. No data from Sierra on the Ruger either...

I would venture to say that more .375Ruger magnum rifles have been sold in the past 10yrs than any other chambering. Barnes #3 though offers Dakota, Scovill, and Rem Ultramag data; but very few of those rifles were ever sold, compared to the Ruger.


I resolved my situation by ordering a new 335gr mold from Lyman. This mold will deliver about 350gr as cast from my mostly wheelweight alloy. I have fired the same alloy in my .454Casull and achieved a 27" penetration in seasoned slabs of cottonwood. Most likely, the cast bullet will be superior in penetration to the Barnes. Lyman's #4 Cast Bullet Manual has plenty of data for the .375 Ruger; as does the Nosler online loading resource. Yet, the mold will cost me about what one box of 50 Barnes bullets did....

Perhaps there are other resources, but.... The Question IS: Has the handloading sector of the shooting industry stopped being concerned about enabling informed users of their products? Handloading really began to develop in potential in the late 1960s with gear and data coming together to provide loaders with the ability to make superior ammunition in terms of best accuracy and best performing bullets.

Perhaps the managerial overseers are unable to grasp that without continuation of their firms' historical development of reliable and comprehensive handloading data, their product offerings are a danger to their customers?

 

[hogan]

I find myself questioning the purpose of all the new powders. Hodgdon's has 4 new non-temp sensitive powders out that look like they mimic 3031, 4064, 4350, and 7828 or H-1000. They own IMR, and Winchester brands these days also. How many new Accurate and Alliant powders are debuting this season? How many new powders in the past 5yrs? Maybe twenty or thirty? Not like I researched it; but point is powders are not a product of uniformity. Lot #s have variable characteristics.

If there are maybe 150 powders that might be available to the USA handloader, how are bulletmakers going to develop pressure data, (much less accuracy data) for each powder and the cartridges it is suitable for?

Ask yourself about why the bulletmakers aren't keeping pace? Bullets are now $25-$100 per hundred, some a lot more in heavyweight match configuration.
The materials to make the bullet are miniscule in cost, yet the makers can't budget the expense to enable customers to apply their product to new cartridges introduced with success in the past 10yrs?

It's one thing not to offer data for Wildcat Ctgs. Shooters with wildcat rifles tend to be proficient handloaders and understand the variables and risks. Yet, not to offer data for ctgs that are very popular and growing?

If the powder sellers are going to provide data, let them provide comprehensive data for their customers.

Perhaps there is a means to achieve a pressure indexing based on bulletmaker tests that handloaders could refer to when developing their loads from powder data?

I dunno what the solution is, but if the bulletmakers can't afford to keep up with the powder introductions, and the powder sellers won't provide data for all bullets within a set range of bore characteristics, then what we have is a dangerous situation for their common customers.

 

[Tommie]

Ummmm...what? Reloading data is MUCH MORE available and accessable than the 1960's (or 1950's, 1940's etc). Of course there are many more powders, bullets and chamberings than 40 years ago so the potential component combinations have increased exponentially. It's not unusual IMO if a particular combination of bullet/brass/powder/primer for a specific (and in the case of the .375 Ruger: niche) chambering is not published.

Handloaders are (or were) a little sharper group than the rest of the shooting public. We have an understanding of the physics involved in internal, external and terminal ballistics. The great cartridge designers and experimenters from decades ago did their work without the luxury of load manuals, Quickload or (gasp) the internet. Many times it's necessary to do some empirical calculations to work up a load with an unknown combination.

So yes, I disagree with your position. But I think I understand your point. Either way we're brothers and please don't take offense.

 

[hogan]

A lot of them are releasing new data. You just need to look it up online. Printing new books gets expensive. I think you will see more online info then books in the future. I know some you can call and find out. Matt

Obviously, it's expensive to print books. Yeah, you can call; but can you get through? If you get through, most likely the data they have is only what their corporate manager will allow them to dispense.

Nosler is now offering, for the same price, a printed book or an online book, or maybe for download... Does that make sense? If they cared about their modern customers, they would offer the electronic book at discount, since there was no print, shipping, or other cost to them to make the electronic version available.

Perhaps you don't realize that there are other factors as egregious as the powder/bullet situation? Think all primers are uniform and if you buy from old dependable, you can depend on them? It ain't true...

There is a lot more to safe handloading than getting a ballpark load and then looking for pressure signs before you blow up your face and your gun...

 

[hogan]

Just because a bunch of hacks can trade "recipes" for formulations they've used does not equate to more data.

Own a pressure disc universal receiver, do you? Maybe there was a new chrony with pressure disc setup introed last week that i never heard about?


If anything has changed since the days you cite above, Tommie; it is the lack of concern or awareness that reloaders exhibit for the data they trade as if they were making an apple pie.


You pay $35 for a pound of powder and $40 for 50 semi-accu something bullets. The materials used for these might cost one dollar. How is it acceptable that the bulletmakers and powder sellers are willing to sell their product without enough testing so that it may be used safely and effectively?


I

 

[DRNewcomb]

....., the bulletmakers no longer commit their budgets toward providing data for even the most popular new cartridges or powders. ......

I have an old copy of Cartridges of the World. It probably lists over 800 cartridges, current and obsolete. My old Sierra reloading manual (2nd ed) lists loads for roughly 140 cartridges, some for only one bullet. Powder manufacturers' reloading books of the same era had much less detail. I don't think there was ever a time when every possible popular new powder, case and bullet combination was covered by published books. I've always had to start with some known loadings and (preferably) interpolate between them but also extrapolating when necessary.

 

[ebb]

I know 8 or 9 people that own 300 Remington ultra mags, I own 2 and have shot 6. Ive never even heard of a 375 ruger magnum. Find something close, start low and work your way up. It isn't rocket science.

 

[jdh47]

No. Planning on suing someone Hogan?

Joe

 

[hogan]

We can argue, or have a discussion....

I have owned 2, 300rum 700 rem rifles, 2 .338rum Sendero SF rifles and a .375rum. The brass is about non-existent unless maybe Nosler is selling it. The RUM ctgs were introed in the late 90s and into 01. Are they even still chambered by Remington. Mossberg and Savage are chambering the .375 Ruger and maybe the .416Ruger. The ruger ctgs provide 150+ fps gain over the .375 H&H. Maybe Remington has clout since they make brass too? Seems like the big rum is only still alive as the 338/300rum or EDGE...

As far as Cartridges Of The World. Most of the ctgs covered are obsolete blackpowder and even some rimfire jobs. Then there are the Euro and African obsoletes. In the early Sierra, Lyman, Hornady, and Speer books; most of the then and now current cartridges were covered. The 7mm Rem Mag being one of the later introed during the 60s along with the Winchester magnums and the adaptation of the .25-06 and .22-250 from wildcat status. .35 Whelen was added back when Rem introduced it in the early 80s. If you have ever seen Phil Sharpe's Handloading book, you can recognize how the whole industry really bloomed during the 60s.

Could just about look at this historically and understand that we've had the basic Alliant handgun and shotgun powders since Elmer Keith wrote Sixguns, and there were few rifle powders until the late 40s. In the 60s we got a couple of slower powders for magnums, and by the 80s there were slower still powders for the Weatherby and large capacity magnums. The industry kept pace, bulletmakers published data and only Hodgdon of the powder sellers was doing a loading manual.

To cite Cartridges Of The World is disingenuous. I am happy to have all the data we do have and I used Barnes' stuff on the .300 & 338 Dakota and Wby magnums to develop data for my favorite wildcat. Yet, when you call the bulletmakers and they tell you to call the powder guys; they are passing the buck and abandoning the duty they have to their customers to have information on contemporary ctgs that a prudent customer might own which is of bore diameter to function with their product.

 

[Tommie]

Just because a bunch of hacks can trade "recipes" for formulations they've used does not equate to more data.

Own a pressure disc universal receiver, do you? Maybe there was a new chrony with pressure disc setup introed last week that i never heard about?


If anything has changed since the days you cite above, Tommie; it is the lack of concern or awareness that reloaders exhibit for the data they trade as if they were making an apple pie.


You pay $35 for a pound of powder and $40 for 50 semi-accu something bullets. The materials used for these might cost one dollar. How is it acceptable that the bulletmakers and powder sellers are willing to sell their product without enough testing so that it may be used safely and effectively?


I

Millennial? Just asking...

 

[DocBII]

Hogan,

Buy Quickload, develop a predictive load for what you have on hand. Then ladder test 20 rounds with four different charges. You should then have a decent load without destroying the brass, repeat for a couple different powders and bullets. Save tons of money on manuals and materials even if you have to pay $20 every couple of years for updates.

DocBII

 

[hogan]

No. Planning on suing someone Hogan?

Joe

So, you say NO? Kind of a rhetorical question. Put it in perspective.... Mr. Trump was elected because enough people wanted someone who felt a sense of DUTY towards Nation and Fellow Citizens. DJT is seemingly stepping up to do the things that elected officials who recognized their Fiduciary Duty would have done...

The cartridge component industry is just about suit proof... Think about it! Everything they sell goes up in smoke! Whether it performs as stated or not, your proof/evidence is gone! But that is not the point here.


There are a great many new shooters in this thing we do. It's not a sport or a hobby, nor is it an avocation; is it a past time? I dunno, but I have been shooting for 60yrs and handloading for almost 50 of them. I have always sought precision and accuracy, from my days shooting the only boat tail bullets for accuracy which were made by Sierra. It amazes me how few persons on this board understand, much less pursue precision loading and shooting. Anyone who will post a "can I get load data for..." identifies themselves to be a danger.

Perhaps the acceptance of the industry's abandonment of supplying load data stems from the now accepted practice of "load development" which involves much testing of primers, powders, powder charges, and bullets and bullet weights to "get the nth degree of accuracy".

From my perspective and experience, "load development" to the degree many practice it is the whole focus of the shooting experience.
Funny that many of the accuracy problems the development seeks to cure might be caused by blind faith in component uniformity. Of course, because the components go up in smoke, ya never know...

When Sierra, Hornady, Speer and Euro co's like Lapua and RWS pursue and publish load data, the customer has a standard from which to adhere or a mark to chart their deviation.

That these firms which have grown to very large sales and production facilities are no longer as committed to serving their customers. At a time when bullets were selling fo $8 a box of 100 for Nosler's pioneering plastic tipped boattail, talking the early 80s; the companies were able to fund great data gathering and develop "accuracy loads" for every ctg they did data for; and that was most modern ctgs that could chamber their product.

My conclusion is that no longer are the bulletmakers interested in new development in powder or cartridges, the powder sellers aren't stepping up to provide more bullet specific data. With what we pay to buy their product, they ought to realize that continuation of data research and enabling customers to use their product with more intelligence and safety is in their best interest.

The pity is, they don't seem to give a damn if Mr. Darwin's Principle culls the herd of their customer base more aggressively or not.

 

[johnfred1965]

Like Tommie above, I see your point. If Barnes is going to make a .375 bullet, you would think they would at least offer one load for some of the most common chamberings in their manual. However to come down on the reloading industry as a whole because you can't find one load for one chambering for one particular bullet is going overboard in my opinion. And as for a discussion on the subject, so far you have been doing most of the talking.

Sure, there were a lot of loads and chamberings covered in the 60's and 70's, but there were many less powders, bullets, and even chamberings then. To test every new powder bullet primer combo now would be exponentially more difficult today. Add to that, way back then, if you notice, many loads were much higher than they are now. Some if that may be from powder differences or testing differences, but I am sure some were too high in pressure and nobody knew it. Some reloading manuals used the crusher method back then, but I know some used micrometers on head expansion. Is that guaranteeing 100% safety? I don't know, but what if some used primer indications to set their max loads? That is a widely accepted gage of high pressure, but not necessasarily how high. And of course, some handloaders just fill the case with a "pistol" powder, or a bottleneck with a "rifle" powder and think it is safe.

As with anything and everything in our society, You have to take some personal responsibility for your actions.(as a nod to the admin, I won't go into the political angle of that statement) Even with a listed socalled safe load from a book, you must still work up to it and be aware of any indications on your own and in your own rifle without the aid of a pieso sensor or crusher. If you want the added insurance a lawyer can bring, shoot factory loads. They usually load them soft enough to avoid a corporate lawsuit.

P.S. I looked on Barnes bullets website. Starting loads for Ruger .375 350gr TSX:
H380-63.0gr
H414-70.0gr
These are Barnes starting loads. Please use at your own discression and work up from these slowly as handloaders should.

 

[hogan]

Hogan,

Buy Quickload, develop a predictive load for what you have on hand. Then ladder test 20 rounds with four different charges. You should then have a decent load without destroying the brass, repeat for a couple different powders and bullets. Save tons of money on manuals and materials even if you have to pay $20 every couple of years for updates.

DocBII

Lots of great info in those manuals you're too cheap to buy Doc... That software isn't the same thing as data from a pressure gun. The books open up a spread of data all right there which shows relationships and ratios at once; if you have the trained eye. No need to make your own charts and notebooks for reference. I use gun software, but having the books on hand is often a better starting point.

I tend to shoot offhand with a sling or from a field expedient rest, so the last .0001" is no longer a concern. It is interesting to shoot tiny groups off the bench, until you've done it routinely. Pretty rare to get decent barrel life unless you're shooting a .308win. I like Sierra bullets and tend to get great results with their accuracy loads which leaves me that much more shooting.

 

[shoot4fun]

I am always in awe when someone can employ the internet savvy to come on a forum and put out a rant but can't go to a simple website and find the data they complain isn't anywhere to be found. Or maybe a search engine to find what might be available.
I just looked on Hodgdon's website and they have IMR and Hodgdon data for the Barnes 350 grain bullet in the 375 Ruger. Maybe they don't have it for all the latest and greatest powders but then they don't make all of them. I spent the $$ on Hornady Reloading Manuals and they have 375 Ruger data for their bullets. Maybe not a perfect situation of "spoon-feeding" but most of us could work with that safely.
And, as already mentioned above, Barnes has data on their website for the 375 Ruger and 350 grain bullets.
I've been at the reloading game for 42 years and in all that time, even before Al Gore invented the internet, I have been able to either find what I need in factory pressure tested data or by using intelligence from knowledge I gathered thru various books and smart people I knew to get the job done without blowing a finger off or shooting an eye out.

 

[hogan]

The criticism I make is valid. This is not just about loads for my Ruger with Sierra or Barnes bullets.
Sierra seems to recycle the same data for many of the same old tired ctgs.

History aside, how many shooters are still hot for these:
218 Bee,
219 Zipper, Donaldson Wasp
.222 rem mag
.224 wby mag
.225 win
6mm Int'l
.244 Rem
.256 win
6.5 Arisaka, Mannlicher, Rem Mag
7mm BR (if you have one of these and need a set of new, unused dies Very Cheap, pm me.)
7mm Sharpe & Hart
7.7 Arisaka
Have not included all the Ackley Improved ctgs Sierra publishes in #5. Just about anything that can be AI'd is in there.
Have also not included the .30-40 Krag, the .300 Savage, .250/3000, or modern dogs like the .338 Federal.
Very doubtful that any custom rifles were chambered in the past year or more for any of the above ctgs Sierra includes in manual #5.
For sure, no commercial maker chambers for any of those listed above.

Add another 30 to the list for AI chamberings. I like AI chambers, but they are the posterchild for "work-up" loads. Yet, they're included.

I have the 4th edition Sierra #5, I dunno if they update later editions with new ctgs; but I'm guessing not. There is also the Ruger Compact Magnum series of ctgs, along with the 6.5 Creedmoor, 6.5 Grendel, .458 Socom, 6mm XC, 6mm Dasher and the .338 Norma Mag which is a contender to the .338 Lapua, nothing on the .375 Chey-Tac....

Evidently Barnes don't allow their Techs to divulge data over the phone, and they don't email customers a link to data on their own site. The Barnes guy did give me Hodgdon's phone # which ain't on their contact link, so there's that...


All you guys, time for you Donaldson Wasp and .256win shooters to come out of the woodwork...

 

[hogan]

Evidently, the ONLY publisher of loading data without an axe to grind is Lyman... Ooops, forgetting LEE's book #2 which I have. Lee #2 had lots of data, especially case capacity listings, which few other books include. Last time I bought a Lyman book was in 1969... Maybe they have a tech service for their loading data?

 

[shoot4fun]

News Flash! S&W no longer has parts for the original Model 19 nor can they replace the adjustable sight on any revolver that has the "squared-off" sight cut on the top strap. Times change, powders change, bullets change; everything changes! Face the fact that most of these companies provide load data as a convenience and not as a revenue stream. They don't really "owe" you or I anything except the gratitude for us spending our money on their products. I would rather, at this point, have them spend their dollars converting all the data out there to PSI so we could have data that is consistent across the board than have them coming up with new loads for the 219 Wasp with CFE223 or the like of other new powders.