Has Hodgdon lost their marbles?

[RonAKA]

I use the on line Hodgdon reloading data quite regularily. I really disliked that they have listed my favorite 264WM 140 grain load with H4831 at about 3100 fps using 61 grains. I have used 62 grains for years and thought,but never checked) it produced about 3200 fps.

Now in the last few days, I see they have updated many of their loads from CUP to PSI. Now they list the max 140 grain load for H4831 as 55 grains, and giving 2853 fps with a pressure of 59,400 psi. Compare that to the dimuative 6.5RM case that is said to give 2943 with 54 grains of the same powder at 51,400 CUP. Or worse still, the .308 case giving 3011 fps with a 140 gr using 4064, and 58,000 psi. This is total garbage. I shot a number of 140's with 62 grains today and the cases extracted fine, and the primers look normal...

So, what gives. Has a computer geek run amuck? A lawyer computing safe loads? Hodgdon has a bitch with barrel makers and they want to put them out of business? Or what?

Ron

 

[slapshot308]

They're just playing it safe, especially with more "new blood" to the reloading scene. IMR was, at one time, REALLY bad about that on their powders.

 

[CatShooter]

All the loading manuals are getting more and more conservative - it's the nature of life in the USA.

Loading data was never meant to be exact and their "max" is never going to be your max... there are too many variations between guns - it is just a starting place and a guide line.

Don't let it get you upset - there are more important things in life to get upset about...


.

 

[AlNyhus]

Ron, remember that loading manuals are just basic places to start from. And if you've never chronographed your favortie load, you might be surprised. For around $100, you can have your own chronograph and develop your loads accordingly. -Al

P.S. Loading manuals also need to keep up with the effective burn rates of powders as they change through the years. The 4831's of yesteryear aren't the same as the current 4831's, for example.

 

[Tommie]

I once read an informative article on this subject. The gist was that the worst-case scenario is taken into account. For example: the top listed .220 Swift load may certainly be milder than most guns can handle, but what if that load has been baking in the sun for couple hours while you're thinning out prairie dogs? And while every loading manual warns the reader to never substitute components,primers, brass, etc) people are still going to do it. Chamber dimensions differ, throat lengths differ, twist rates and bore dimensions differ, bores get filthy, and on and on and on.

If morons and their class-action lawsuits didn't exist, things would be different. If you think the manufacturers are over-reacting, I remind you of the huge lawsuit that was leveled against Remington when some dimwits adjusted their triggers too light and then,Duh) experienced accidental discharges. It's the world we live in, folks.

Tom

 

[RonAKA]

Don't let it get you upset - there are more important things in life to get upset about...

Yes, I know. How does the saying go? "If you get upset when the toast burns, what are you going to do if the house burns?"

Ron

 

[Mark Walker in TX]

If morons and their class-action lawsuits didn't exist, things would be different. Tom

Bingo

 

[wildcat284]

Conservative - I'll second that!

I've very carefully and safely loaded up to 62 grs ADI 2209,Equivalent to Hodgon H4350) behind 120gr GS Custom projectiles in my .280 Remington, taking all the necessary precautions. 62grs is around 8grs over what is maximum in the Nosler No.5 book. I also loaded up to 60grs of ADI 2213 behind 140gr Core-Lokts, once again being very careful, and probably could have gone up to 61 or 62grs.

I actually use N550 and trying W760 at the moment, as N550 gives me a huge gain in velocity at lower charges. I gave up on the ADI powders as I just wasn't getting the results I was with the Vhitavouri powders. W760 and /or H414 should also give me great results as well.

Actually I have seen so many guys using the ADI powders with less performance than they should be getting to wonder why they even bother using those powders!

Cheers,

Michael.

 

[LarryElliott]

The manuals are a guide and that's about all. They say to NEVER exceed a load in anyone's manual, but if you look at several manuals they'll have maximum charges that vary by quite a bit. They also tell you that if you experience excess pressures before you reach the manual maximum to stop and back off. My question is, if you're smart enough to recognize excessive pressures below the book maximum shouldn't you also be smart enough to recognize that you're nowhere near maximum safe pressures when your AT the book maximum? If you aren't you should be shooting factory loads or knitting.

I've got a little CZ 527 that shoots something like 1.5 gr more H4198 than anyone lists as a max load with a 50 gr bullet, and no signs of excessive pressures. One finger bolt handle lift, and the primers have well rounded edges and no cratering at all.

Get a chronograph and load what's safe in your rifle.

 

[RGRobinett]

An attribute that doesn't get enough attention: a correlation between CUP,Copper Units of Pressure) and PSI does not exist - the two are NOT directly comparable. I believe that it was in the Speer #9 Reloading Manual, that I first read Jack O'Connor's explanation of the difference: CUP devices measure the the degree of "crush" on a specifically sized copper cylinder, while PSI is determined via "strain gauge" technology,how much the steel stretches). In crude terms, a CUP load, which generates 50,000 CUP, when tested via strain gauge, would result in about 60,000 PSI - this is why some loading manuals appear to provide such contradictory "pressure" data,limits): for a given cartridge,data MAY be listed for both CUP and PSI - but they usually list which method was used. The next time you see CUP data, adding 10,000 will get you into the ballpark for comparative PSI. Still, don't count on it being either accurate or, safe.

By the way, in comparing some of the newer manuals to my original loading manuals,Hornady's initial offering, SPEER #9, 10, 11, etc.), I should have been bilnd, headless or, dead for 40 years! RG

 

[constructor]

Every time I mention working up loads and watching for sign on other forums it's like setting off an alarm and every body on the forum runs over to tell me how crazy I am for going over the max listed load. These world famous snipers,in their mind) act so arrogant about everything they post. I just gave up and do my own thing and enjoy the velocity I know how to get.

 

[RGRobinett]

Yes, constructor, Jack O'Connors's advice,probably, in the same "article" or chapter, referred to aove - SPEER #9 or, #10 Reloading Manual) regarding load development and pressure, has served me well since I was a teenager - for nearly 50 years. Each barrel is a "law unto itself". When it comes to determining pressure limits, for the "average Joe", no gauge is quite as useful as a micrometer! A little common sense combined with experience, goes a LONG way . . . but in these times, "common sense" is more aptly referred to as uncommon sense!

All these years later, one would think that Mr. O'Connor's common sense approach would be THE well established NORM for practical load development . . . we have a broader selection of useful powders, but I believe that the laws of physics are relatively unchanged. RG

 

[RonAKA]

An attribute that doesn't get enough attention: a correlation between CUP,Copper Units of Pressure) and PSI does not exist - the two are NOT directly comparable. I believe that it was in the Speer #9 Reloading Manual, that I first read Jack O'Connor's explanation of the difference: CUP devices measure the the degree of "crush" on a specifically sized copper cylinder, while PSI is determined via "strain gauge" technology,how much the steel stretches). In crude terms, a CUP load, which generates 50,000 CUP, when tested via strain gauge, would result in about 60,000 PSI - this is why some loading manuals appear to provide such contradictory "pressure" data,limits): for a given cartridge,data MAY be listed for both CUP and PSI - but they usually list which method was used. The next time you see CUP data, adding 10,000 will get you into the ballpark for comparative PSI. Still, don't count on it being either accurate or, safe.

By the way, in comparing some of the newer manuals to my original loading manuals,Hornady's initial offering, SPEER #9, 10, 11, etc.), I should have been bilnd, headless or, dead for 40 years! RG

I understand, but I don't really think that is the issue with the new Hodgdon data. My 264WM had a SAAMI CUP of 54,000, and now it is 64,000 psi. But for whatever reason Hodgdon don't list their maximum loads for 4831 which always used to be their best powder for that cartridge, at any where near 64,000. They show 55 grains with 140 grain bullet giving 2850 fps at 59,400 psi. Does not seem to make any sense that they would not approach the 64,000 mark. On their new Hybrid 100V powder they show 54.5 grains, giving 2912 fps at 61,800 psi. I'm begining to think they just put a rookie on the calculator and came up with numbers out of thin air, with the only potential motive to not make their new powder look bad. It would seem the 4831 would give more velocity if loaded up to the 64,000 than the new powder would.

On the CUP to PSI conversion there is a reasonable,but not perfect) relationship. CUP is really an average while PSI is instantaneous, so to some degree it is comparing apples and oranges, but there is a relationship. The author at the link below came up with a formula for conversion:

PSI =,1.516xCUP)-17,900

http://www.shootingsoftware.com/ftp/psicuparticle2.pdf

Ron

 

[RGRobinett]

"I understand, but I don't really think that is the issue with the new Hodgdon data. My 264WM had a SAAMI CUP of 54,000, and now it is 64,000 psi. But for whatever reason Hodgdon don't list their maximum loads for 4831 which always used to be their best powder for that cartridge, at any where near 64,000. They show 55 grains with 140 grain bullet giving 2850 fps at 59,400 psi. Does not seem to make any sense that they would not approach the 64,000 mark. . . ." RonAKA

RonAkA, I can't argure with you on this; I frequently ask the same question: "Why don't they develope ALL load data to the same maximum PSI ?" My GUESS is that, for their standard charge weight increase,for the case /capacity in question), they may have hit the point, not of "excessive" pressure, but rather of diminishing returns - that is, for said charge weight increase, either little or, NO velocity increase. Last year, while deleloping loads for my newest hot-rod 257 caliber cartridge, I experienced this with several powders: IMR-7828 proved the worst offender of the "duds" - excessive pressure at relatively anemic velocity - increasing the powder charge didn't affect the velocity, but DID create excessive pressure! Surprisingly, at safe operating pressure, H-4831 delivered the best combination of precision AND velocity - the burn-rate charts and loading manual data didn't predict THAT!

Is the data for the newly realeased H-100V and Win. Supreme 870, "hype" . . . I wonder THAT also! Based upon past experience, I'm betting they have this figured out - Hodgdon Data has usually been in the ball park. But, I've got some of each and will find out later this week - by their reckoning,Hodgdon's), I should be able to add a cool 100 FPS to the MV of my 257 IdiotMag - that would equate to 3640 FPS for a 110 Gr. bullet - the old reliable Oehler chronograph, in combination with Jack O'Connor's common sense "pressure gauging" methodology will tell me all I need to know. . . and the targets will tell me the rest . . .

There is one powder attribute for which the powder manufacturers DO deserve some slack: from [production] Lot to Lot, burn rates vary: for canister grade smokless powders, I believe +/- 10% is the norm, while non-canister or, "surplus" grades, fall outside that range. So, THEY must "cover" their posteriors because we may get the "fastest" possible Lot. Here in cyber-space, there could be people [NEW to reloading] reading what we write - there's no such thing as being too safe. I believe that Hogdon does an excellent job of keeping us both supplied and informed.
Good shootin'! RG

 

[CatShooter]

Whether it is CUP or PSI/strain...
... it makes little difference.

You guys are talking about these numbers like they actually mean something... like there were miles per hour, or the actual value of your house.

All of them are approximations that are not reproducible.

Winchester makes standardized proof loads for the industry - some years back, SAAMI took a large bunch from one lot number and sent them around to all the makers and testers and loading companies that had proof guns, and asked for them to reply with the pressures... and the answers then got back ran from the low 40ks to the mid 60 ks.

ALL THE SAME AMMO???

So what the hell is the importance that XX powder company or reloading company says that 65 grains of "RangeBuster" powder gave 55,000 CUP or PSI or any other measurement - that load in YOUR GUN won't be the same.

You CAN'T duplicate the load and get the same pressure - neither can anyone else - these manuals are just guide books to get you started.

Most long range shooters, and many bench rest shooters are running loads that are in the upper limits or the brass... 60+k CUP!

In the SAAMI reference books, they tell you right out front that there is no conversion from CUP to Strain - so you can't add 10k, or any other figure and try to "convert" the figures.

CUP gives you a single peak "reading", with a "K" factor to adjust for inertia... strain gives you the full display from ignition to the bullet leaving the muzzle - but there is no way to convert them to each other.

Don't take these numbers as religious figures cut in stone.

They are just approximations.

.

 

[SlowpokeRodriguez]

I use the on line Hodgdon reloading data quite regularily. I really disliked that they have listed my favorite 264WM 140 grain load with H4831 at about 3100 fps using 61 grains. I have used 62 grains for years and thought,but never checked) it produced about 3200 fps.

Now in the last few days, I see they have updated many of their loads from CUP to PSI. Now they list the max 140 grain load for H4831 as 55 grains, and giving 2853 fps with a pressure of 59,400 psi. Compare that to the dimuative 6.5RM case that is said to give 2943 with 54 grains of the same powder at 51,400 CUP. Or worse still, the .308 case giving 3011 fps with a 140 gr using 4064, and 58,000 psi. This is total garbage. I shot a number of 140's with 62 grains today and the cases extracted fine, and the primers look normal...

So, what gives. Has a computer geek run amuck? A lawyer computing safe loads? Hodgdon has a bitch with barrel makers and they want to put them out of business? Or what?

Ron

The powders change over the years in formulation as well as the ability to read peak pressure in the lab progresses. Also flat primers are not a very accurate way to gage pressure. There is no free lunch with respect to pressure but if in your chamber the load works well and you know the risk then run with it. One of my competition loads is a little on the high side and unless the temps are very ugly no pressure signs such as a more pressure required to open the bolt.

 

[RonAKA]

I agree with the post that pressure measurements are not that precise. However the issue is real, and at some point pressures can be too high. Memory could be failing, but I recall the thick wall formula for cylinder wall stress shows you cannot hold a pressure higher than the yield stress of the material it is made from,no matter how thick you make the wall). Not sure what the yield stress is on barrel material, but I suspect it is not real high or the barrel would be really difficult to machine. As a result I doubt that gun barrels have the typical engineering factor of safety of two with respect to inner cylinder wall yield.

In the absence of a pressure barrel what do consider is the most reliable pressure indicator? In my .264WM Remington I get a very slight pin crater that I can just feel with a fingernail. However I believe on some guns with a tight pin fit that crater never appears? I can also detect differences in primer flattening. Then I hear some primers are so tough that they do not do that predictably either. I've never had cartridges hard to extract. From time to time I do see ghosting of the extractor recess on the brass. Not sure what to make of that, as it is not consistent. It is never to the point that you can feel any indent.

Ron

 

[constructor]

Bump to keep it in the loop.

 

[doubleDarms]

A little common sense combined with experience, goes a LONG way . . . but in these times, "common sense" is more aptly referred to as uncommon sense!

General Patton or some famous General, "once remarked common sense isn't common at all".