ARS

[Blkram]

Was reading the new Shooting Times magazine this morning and found in Lane Pearce's article on 6mm ARC Handloads, the reference to ARS (Aggressive Reloading Syndrome). This is a new term for me.
This is the condition exhibited by those who purposefully load "hot" to achieve greater velocities.
Therefore, the existence of this practice is not new to me. It just now has a label.

I have known many people that practice this, and hear from, and read about many more, that perform this potentially unsafe reloading practice. Knowing that all experienced, responsible reloaders, and technicians from the various manufacturers that produce and supply reloading components and manuals, advise against this practice for obvious reasons. It is still surprising how many do this anyways. And it is generally recognized and communicated, that when you start seeing signs of over pressure (sticky bolt lift, extraction issues, flattened primers, ejector marks on your brass, etc.) in your handloads, you are WAY PAST safe pressures!

As with all items engineered and produced, such as firearms, actions, and barrels, there is a factor of safety built into these items, in order to protect users from unsafe equipment. And SAAMI, as a regulating body, ensures that this practice is adhered to from a manufacturing standpoint.

Unfortunately, there is no such regulating body ensuring the end user complies with reloading practices and maintaining cartridges are kept within pressure limits. And there are few, if any, available products that the handloader can acquire, at a reasonable price, or ease of use, to ensure that pressures are not exceeded in the various firearms, that the handloads are being used in.

This all lead me down the thought path to the following (and my sense of humour and liking plays on words):

The other consideration is the handloader themselves, and their desire to achieve greater velocities. One factor here is not a "need" for more velocity, (as there is always another cartridge of sufficient design and capacity as to realize more velocity, than that of the one they are currently loading for)...so would lead one to think that this is driven by "want", or "ego", so they can brag about how fast their chosen bullet is shooting out of their firearm.

Now add the "E" (from ego) to the ARS...and you end up w/ ARSE!
Don't be a reloading ARSE!

 

[RL338]

For the most part I tend to use slow powders per given caliber. This helps keeping you honest with full case loads that can’t reach over pressured loads.

 

[Blkram]

I try to pick either from the "most accurate" powder listed, or from those that provide good case fill percentages when choosing from powders I have on hand, or can easily acquire, to develop loads with my chosen projectile. The bullet of choice is quite often chosen from proven performers in my rifles used in the rifle's preferred factory ammunition, or research on new bullets that I want to try.

In choosing bullet weights for the cartridge being loaded at the moment, I like to try to find a balance between light and fast vs heavy and momentum (energy).
For example, in the 270 Win, the 130 gr has better velocity for flat trajectories, whereas the 150 gr provides better energy for larger game such as elk. I chose the 140 gr for a balance of both characteristics.

The other consideration is the bullets balance of BC and SD, for both downrange retained velocity and energy, and the capacity for more reliable penetration (SD min. of 0.250 for big game...with .300 or better for large, heavy and potentially dangerous game in larger calibers).
While I like the 270 Win for deer, mtn sheep and goat, and even caribou, I will move up to the 270 WSM for the extra velocity and energy for elk. (Moose aren't overly tenacious of life, and with our local bulls averaging in the 700-800 lb class, the 270 Win w/ 140 gr bullets has proven effective.)
I will say that I do prefer to carry my 7mm's for elk over the 270s as I have experienced better on-game performance with the heavier bullets (160 vs 140). And moving up to 180 gr in 30 call or 210 gr in 338 cal just provides another level of performance on big, adrenaline filled bulls in the rut. This is based on my experience on over 2 dozen bulls I have taken, or helped friends take, over the past 28 years since I took my first elk (w/ a 130 gr Partition in a 270 Wby). (But, I have several rifles and cartridge combinations to choose from, as may be compared to the shooter/hunter that may have just a one or a couple of rifles to choose from.)

I have a friend that has an old 270 that will print 130 and 150 gr bullets to the same point of impact, and he switches bullet weights from heavier for moose and elk in the earlier part of hunting season, to lighter for deer hunting in the latter part of the fall. And this works for him. (he doesn't push his loads.) And you cannot argue with that!

While I like velocity in my loads, I will sacrifice velocity for accuracy every time. This provides that extra level of confidence in my ammunition being used when hunting, and being able to place it accurately in the target animal's vital for quick, clean kills.
Of course, if I can obtain both velocity and accuracy, I am even happier!

 

[Wolfshead]

“Unfortunately, there is no such regulating body ensuring the end user complies with reloading practices and maintaining cartridges are kept within pressure limits. “

Now add the "E" (from ego) to the ARS...and you end up w/ ARSE!
Don't be a reloading ARSE!

Please stop making posts like this and giving NewYrokistan more ideas to regulate us!
We have enough ARSE checkers here already!

 

[salmonchaser]

Well said. If you need a 180 gr. (.308) to go over 3k go buy a 300. But you better do it soon.

 

[Blkram]

Please stop making posts like this and giving NewYrokistan more ideas to regulate us!
We have enough ARSE checkers here already!

Yes...my sincere apologies
In retrospect, I should have worded that better... Don't want to give the wrong people any more bad ideas!
Not looking for a governing body to regulate this!...just that people do a better job of regulating themselves in their handloading practices...
But alas, common sense in no longer common, it seems...and if some people amongst the masses actually demonstrate a level of sense, it is becoming rather uncommon...as sad reality in this day and age. I have taken to calling it "uncommon sense" today.

 

[300WSM]

Unfortunately, there is no such regulating body ensuring the end user complies with reloading practices and maintaining cartridges are kept within pressure limits. .

There certainly isn't a reloading sheriff in town...

But...

as long as the loader is using a modern quality firearm and they don't go over a maximum printed publication from any one of the half dozen guides ..
They will be safe.
I fully believe that.
They might get high pressure signs but I believe their weapon will hold together if they aren't charging over max.
I'm not suggesting people go straight to the top of the data as a starting point but if they do, and there are those that, indeed do, I at the very least feel confident they will avoid a catastrophic incident provided the above is true. Modern quality firearm in good working order.

There are however many other things I worry about for the handloader much more than just going to the max listing.
Case condition. A case that's bad doesn't need too much pressure to come apart. That can happen with a starting load level.

Double charging a pistol case. Very easy to happen and there are far too many loaders who do not double and triple check before proceeding.

Using powder from a yard sale that is not sealed and full.

I could go on but those things bother me more than
Joey BagO'donies starting at a published max charge.

 

[PJGunner]

as long as the loader is using a modern quality firearm and they don't go over a maximum printed publication from any one of the half dozen guides ..
They will be safe.
I fully believe that.
They might get high pressure signs but I believe their weapon will hold together if they aren't charging over max.
I'm not suggesting people go straight to the top of the data as a starting point but if they do, and there are those that, indeed do, I at the very least feel confident they will avoid a catastrophic incident provided the above is true. Modern quality firearm in good working order.

I beg to differ. One manual shows 51.0 gr. of 4895 as being a max load with the 150 gr. 30 caliber bullet in the 30-06. Ay one time that manual said 51.0 gr. was the starting load. Both loads are genuine published load just a relatively few years apart. Same manual just different copyright dates.

I still own a 30-06 rifle bought in late 1955, a JC Higgins M50 based on a commercial FN Mauser with High Standard barrel and stock probably by Bishop or maybe Fajen. I think both did stocks for the M50s

Back then I used H4895 a lot in the 06 and 49.0 gr. was the load that worked with the 150 gr. Sierra Pro-Hunter although I don't remember if they called them that back then. By that time 51.0 gr. was considered max. As years went by i ent to other bullet weights and powders for the 06 with good result so one day while thinking back on the original load f 49.0 gr./150 Sierra it loaded up a box just to chronograph then and see just what they really did. Components were the same as I used back then, milsurp 30-06 brass and CCI standard primers. Back then I used WW2 milsurp brass that I'd pulled the bullets and deprimed and removed crimps and that was my go to brass. Still have a couple hundred that I've never used. Also have a couple hundred LC that I pulled the bullets but haven't done anything else.

The big surprise was I blew a primer, After a couple more with signs of high pressure I scrapped the rest nd did a double work up one with the WW2 brass and one with some once fired WW brass. The WW2 gave pressure signs at 47.5 gr. and the WW at 48.0 gr. These were all fired in the same rifle that the original load was used in.

The published max load of 51.0 gr. first showed up in a circa 1964 manual and the latest manual still shows it as the max load. Pressure is shown as C.U.P. which leads me to believe they haven't retested that load since at least 1964. I've becme extra watchfull of manual data that still shows C.U.P. as the method of pressure testing.
Paul B.

 

[300WSM]

I beg to differ. One manual shows 51.0 gr. of 4895 as being a max load with the 150 gr. 30 caliber bullet in the 30-06. Ay one time that manual said 51.0 gr. was the starting load. Both loads are genuine published load just a relatively few years apart. Same manual just different copyright dates.

I still own a 30-06 rifle bought in late 1955, a JC Higgins M50 based on a commercial FN Mauser with High Standard barrel and stock probably by Bishop or maybe Fajen. I think both did stocks for the M50s

Back then I used H4895 a lot in the 06 and 49.0 gr. was the load that worked with the 150 gr. Sierra Pro-Hunter although I don't remember if they called them that back then. By that time 51.0 gr. was considered max. As years went by i ent to other bullet weights and powders for the 06 with good result so one day while thinking back on the original load f 49.0 gr./150 Sierra it loaded up a box just to chronograph then and see just what they really did. Components were the same as I used back then, milsurp 30-06 brass and CCI standard primers. Back then I used WW2 milsurp brass that I'd pulled the bullets and deprimed and removed crimps and that was my go to brass. Still have a couple hundred that I've never used. Also have a couple hundred LC that I pulled the bullets but haven't done anything else.

The big surprise was I blew a primer, After a couple more with signs of high pressure I scrapped the rest nd did a double work up one with the WW2 brass and one with some once fired WW brass. The WW2 gave pressure signs at 47.5 gr. and the WW at 48.0 gr. These were all fired in the same rifle that the original load was used in.

The published max load of 51.0 gr. first showed up in a circa 1964 manual and the latest manual still shows it as the max load. Pressure is shown as C.U.P. which leads me to believe they haven't retested that load since at least 1964. I've becme extra watchfull of manual data that still shows C.U.P. as the method of pressure testing.
Paul B.

I don't doubt your experience and you've got an god given inTRAnet right to disagree with me.
That said, you got pressure signs which I said can still show up at any time even under "max"

But...

I fully believe as long as the firearm is "newer", made by a reputable mfg, and in good working order.. Published max isn't going to give you catastrophic failure/injury, etc.

if that was the case reloading would be illegal