Reloading using old manuals.

[George Foster]

Alaska, I am curious to what level of accuracy you get with your loads.

 

[Alaska]

Great hunting accuracy been using these loads 30 + years........they are a difference in Rem 742 and BAR.
I have both and the 742 in 30-06 get IMR 4895 or 4064 and the BAR with piston action gets IMR 4350.
Both use Small Base Dies.
The 300 Win loads seem to be at upper OCW level ......they tighten up great.
I don't use BT bullets because it takes up powder space in the case, Swift A frames work great along with Speer Grandslam and Nosler Part.

The old military powder for 30-06 has always been IMR 4895.
Around 48.0 if I remember right with the 173gr bullet depending on case used

The Ruger 44 Carbine had its own load data in the Speer from the 70's and 80's. Just a tad hotter than revolver loads. Norma 240gr SPFN had a factory load just for the Ruger Carbine and Perterson used that load to kill a record polar and grizzly in Alaska with a SW Nickle 29 in 1965.

 

[1100 Remington Man]

Yes I use old new and what Bob Hagel has in his book.
1. I always start below Max and work up
2. Max in my rifle may be above Max in yours, chamber, rifling, ect.ect.
3. Yes new data has better testing equipment,
4. Manufactures have no idea how old of rifle you have 100+ year old 30-06 or a New Rifle so yes there conservative. Sometimes not Max can be over MAX in your rifle.
5. Bob Hagel book can be found on many used books web sights.

 

[MZ5]

MZ5 I am not disagreeing with you or Alaska. Just thought I would point out that there is so much scuttlebutt about semi-auto rifles being pressure or burn rate sensitive that I can't separate fact from fiction. I do know that the M1 Garand needs a different gas cylinder plug to use slower powders or you can get bent op-rods. It is a burn rate issue, but historically and today you normally keep the pressure fairly low given the age of the rifles and lack of armory inspections. Federal and Hornady make and specifically market M1 Garand safe ammo.

A specific sporting world example that I think might be more fiction than fact is: the 280 Rem was kept at a lower pressure for Remington semi and pump rifles (models 760 and 740). Yet those guns were chambered for and worked with the 270 Winchester at a higher pressure. Wear and tear on certain actions can also be accelerated in semi-auto's when port pressure is high or general wear and tear allows the bolt to open earlier than designed. So while the Rem 760 worked with the 270 Win, the story goes that Remington designed the 280 Rem at a lower pressure to duplicated 270 Win ballistics and thus have a "proprietary" round that required less rifle maintenance.

I’ve read those things about the 280, too. On their face, they seem highly unlikely for exactly the reasons you cite. That said, there are MANY things the average handloader has no comprehension of, even when they’re completely certain that they _do_ know or understand. I have found that to be the case for myself, as well as for every handloader I’ve personally known, and I’ve discovered it to be true as I’ve acquired and used test equipment, learned more internal ballistics, and studied more well-conducted testing that others have done. It has always prompted more questions than answers, actually.

One of the things that comes to mind is that sometimes it is useful, or in any case common, to say things which are strictly false, but which serve to achieve some other goal that keeps handloaders from hurting themselves without having to get us to understand a bunch of fairy complex things. That’s probably reasonable, but often frustrating when it morphs into something it was never intended to be.

 

[30-338]

My oldest manual is Speer Wildcat manual # 4 published 1959 first printing was 1956. On inside cover there ad for Speer #3 @ $2.00 and it cover 3200 chronographed loads for 42 rifle cartridges and 7 pistol loads.


I have Nosler manual #1 and there few loads from that manual that are in # 8 using same amount powder just little difference in velocity and different test rifles. #1 manual mostly used Partition bullet.

 

[Nimrod84]

I have found that to be the case for myself, as well as for every handloader I’ve personally known, and I’ve discovered it to be true as I’ve acquired and used test equipment, learned more internal ballistics, and studied more well-conducted testing that others have done. It has always prompted more questions than answers, actually.

Agreed on the more we think we know, the less we really know.

One of the things that comes to mind is that sometimes it is useful, or in any case common, to say things which are strictly false, but which serve to achieve some other goal that keeps handloaders from hurting themselves without having to get us to understand a bunch of fairy complex things. That’s probably reasonable, but often frustrating when it morphs into something it was never intended to be.

Agreed. I also think there is a lot of miscommunication or differences in priorities between those who design, those who build, those who sell, those who manage and those who use.

So I really can't say for sure that 280 Rem story isn't true. It could just be the result of a lot of internal Remington miscommunication and CEO that felt the need to "just do something". Likewise with the reloading manuals, some companies have legitimate reasons for changing like the Speer manual with the 7mm mag rifle having an eroded throat, or a change in bullet design such as gilding material. Other companies though might have seen a manual or two download their data, and subsequently figured there were attack lawyers on the prowl...

Also +1 on Bob Hagel's book (pretty sure it is the book I am thinking of). I have not utilized his loadings but his tests and general writings such as his chapter on, round nose bullets not being brush busters, are worth reviewing from time to time in my very humble opinion.

Edited for spelling... One of many arch-nemesis.

 

[MZ5]

So I really can't say for sure that 280 Rem story isn't true. It could just be the result of a lot of internal Remington miscommunication and CEO that felt the need to "just do something". Likewise with the reloading manuals, some companies have legitimate reasons for changing like the Speer manual with the 7mm mag rifle having an eroded throat, or a change in bullet design such as gilding material. Other companies though might have seen a manual or two download their data, and subsequently figured there were attack lawyers on the prowl...

I think that's right on.