| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Goosic 
Senior Member
Joined: September 12 2017
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 8842
|
 Topic: For the novice or anyone else for that matter...
Posted: February 19 2022 at 10:01am |
Removed due to conflicts of interest with one forum member. If anyone would like the corrected data, feel free to PM me...
|
 |
Olddust
Senior Member
Joined: April 23 2021
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 137
|
Posted: February 19 2022 at 11:24am |
|
I appreciate you posting this data. Are you using surplus brass or commercial?
|
|
Goosic
Senior Member
Joined: September 12 2017
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 8842
|
Posted: February 19 2022 at 11:36am |
I havevbeen using whatever I can get my hands on but mostly I use commercial brass. Currently I have Norma, Hornady, Winchester, Frontier, R-P, PPU, and Herters...
|
|
britrifles
Senior Member
Joined: February 03 2018
Location: Georgia, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 8404
|
Posted: February 20 2022 at 5:51am |
One thing to watch for is powder manufactures have changed their formulation of some powders over the years. Don’t use old data. In some cases, it can be unsafe to do so. In others, old data could be quite conservative and you won’t attain the advertised velocities.
I’ve experienced this myself until I learned this from some very knowledgeable handloaders and individuals who worked in military ordinance and from powder manufacturers. Go to the powder manufacturers web site to get your load data or consult up to date reloading manuals.
Hodgdon Varget for example has changed substantially, the current recommended Starting Load is 38 gr and maximum of 42 gr with 174 gr bullet. You may experience ignition problems at 32 gr using the above data, especially in cold weather, and that can cause wild pressure spikes. Hodgdon does not recommend charges below the “starting load” with most rifle powders due to this phenomenon. H4895 is one exception, it has been tested and proven to be a good powder with reduced loads. Varget is not.
If you happen to have old powder, refer to a reloading manual published at the time the powder was made. Be aware that powder does deteriorate, exponentially with temperature and releases nitric acid. Write the date you bought the powder on the container. Do not store it in a hot garage or shed. Don’t store your loaded ammo in a hot garage or shed.
All of this information is in handloading manuals, and always refer to published data before developing your loads. It’s fine to get input and suggestions off the Internet forums, but please verify the data for yourself. I’ve been saying for a number of years how great 40 grains of Varget is with the 174 gr bullet in the .303, but don’t take my word for it, look it up on the Hodgdon reloading data center for yourself.
|
|
Goosic
Senior Member
Joined: September 12 2017
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 8842
|
Posted: February 20 2022 at 6:52am |
The data supplied has been updated recently to coincide with the times and changes from the various powder manufacturers. Of this you can rest assured britrifles. While these loads do represent what you refer to as, "conservative", they also represent, "safety and prudence" for the novice/beginners. You're statement about Varget and the, "current recommendation" of a starting weight of 38 with a maximum of 42 can get the novice in a world of hurt quickly. Remember britrifles, "There's many a slip, twix the cup and the lip." I cannot give direct information as to my resources but can say that, every current recommendation for using Varget in a 303 with a 174 or 180grn bullet recommended to never exceed 40.7grns whereas for you, loading just .7grns under maximum charge weight works great, for you. The data supplied has been proven and tested and, as stated, is for the novice or anyone else for that matter. You obviously have your own recipes britrifles and will stick to what you know or, think you know about everything reloading and reloading related but as you were so quick to mention: To the novice, please do get your information from current publishing before developing your loads. My supplied data has been developed over the span of 37 years and with the help of a former employee of Dupont that had a great deal of knowledge in regards to the Improved Military Rifle brand of smokeless powders and as such, the load data herein falls well within the safety limits and will provide the user many years of enjoyable reloading.
|
|
Goosic
Senior Member
Joined: September 12 2017
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 8842
|
Posted: February 20 2022 at 8:52am |
 britrifles wrote:
Old data could be quite conservative and you won’t attain the advertised velocities. Varget for example has changed substantially, the current recommended Starting Load is 38 gr and maximum of 42 gr with 174 gr bullet. You may experience ignition problems at 32 gr using the above data, especially in cold weather, and that can cause wild pressure spikes. Hodgdon does not recommend charges below the “starting load” with most rifle powders due to this phenomenon. H4895 is one exception, it has been tested and proven to be a good powder with reduced loads. Varget is not. All of this information is in handloading manuals, and always refer to published data before developing your loads. It’s fine to get input and suggestions off the Internet forums, but please verify the data for yourself. I’ve been saying for a number of years how great 40 grains of Varget is with the 174 gr bullet in the .303, but don’t take my word for it, look it up on the Hodgdon reloading data center for yourself. |
You have cited information from one website and one website only britrifles. I just compiled a list from 4 additional reloading data websites that have different, "Current Recommendations" as of 2020, in regards to minimums and maximums when using your chosen powder with 174grn projectiles in a .303B chambering. Those 4 websites, that of which are very well know powder manufacturers will remain anonymous due to copyright infringement issues that could arise otherwise. The list is as follows
Starting charge weight and Maximum charge weight from left to right accordingly.
31.6 39.1 32.0 38.5 34.5 40.7 36.5 39.5
I found it quite amusing that the one company cited a starting weight of 31.6 and that not a single one crossed the 41.0 threshold. You on the other hand have chosen to load just under the maximum of 40.7 from the one websites listed charge weight. To cite from one source and not compile a complete list from the other resources to get a generalized idea of everything around you is both rather biased and obtuse. Conservative as my supplied data is, it is data that can and will provide safe reloading information to the novice...
|
|
britrifles
Senior Member
Joined: February 03 2018
Location: Georgia, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 8404
|
Posted: February 20 2022 at 9:59am |
There is a lot of variability in published data, for numerous reasons. Sierra for example publishes rifle load data in increments of 50 or 100 fps, they are typically the most conservative. Hornady is similar.
Where I see significant differences in minimum and maximum charges in reloading manuals, I will use the powder manufactures data, available online from the powder maker or distributor. These are typically the ones who do velocity and pressure measurement tests, they have to. Hodgdon is one example, their data for the Hodgdon line of powders made by ADI (such as Varget and H4895) is identical to the ADI published data online. They are also now the only distributor of the IMR powder line, so I will use their data in preference over bullet manufactures.
I don’t think I’m being biased or obtuse. I think it’s prudent and wise to refer to published data and where in doubt, use the current data available direct from the powder manufacture, but be cautious when using old data with new powder and vice versa.
I’ve shot well over 10,000 rounds of .303 loaded with 40.0 gr Varget with the 174 gr MatchKing and done my own velocity measurements to confirm the Hodgdon velocity data. This is a relatively mild load and given me long barrel life with no change in headspace.
But no one should take my word for it, each of us needs to be responsible for our own load development and refer to published data in the process.
|
|
britrifles
Senior Member
Joined: February 03 2018
Location: Georgia, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 8404
|
Posted: February 20 2022 at 10:12am |
I will add that the first lots of Varget that were sold in 1996/97 in the US had a fair bit of variability in burn rate and this is the reason why bullet makers and others (like Lyman) had relatively low charge weights in comparison to current data. Not all of them have updated that data either. By the early/mid 2000’s, ADI had tweaked the process to get very stable lot to lot results and updated their data. I started using Varget around 6 or 7 years ago based on the very positive reports from the competitive shooting community.
|
|
Goosic
Senior Member
Joined: September 12 2017
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 8842
|
Posted: February 20 2022 at 10:26am |
As I stated earlier. My supplied data is conservative but, stays relatively well within the guidelines of published data from both online and book resources. And, as you have stated, each one of us needs to be responsible for our own load developments. That all being said.
I am mearly using this forum's section for reloading for .303 to assist those that may not have current access to online or book resources to refer to and have provided my proven and tested loads no different than what others have done on this site, such as yourself.
To the forum moderators: If any of my supplied data does not support your thinking or beliefs and you feel that any or all of what I have listed is unsafe, please remove it. |
|
Goosic
Senior Member
Joined: September 12 2017
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 8842
|
Posted: February 20 2022 at 10:45am |
Understand this then britrifles. I have been using Norma 202, IMR4064, IMR4895, and IMR3031 since I started reloading for the .303B in1982. While some powders may have been taken over and processed by other manufacturers and published data has been updated, the loads I have chosen to work with have relatively stayed the same and as such I will continue to use the data I have researched and compiled over the years.
Taken from excerpts of two very well known powder manufacturers I discovered that their reloading data for the .303 have not been updated since 1988 which leads me to conclude that both of their respective data is sound enough to not have needed updating. Two other well known reloading resources have kept their data for the .303 using 125, 150, 174, and 180grn bullets unchanged for almost 30 years now. Everything i have shown falls directly inline with the above mentioned resources that due to the possibility of copyrighted material being infringed shall remain nameless...
|
|
Goosic
Senior Member
Joined: September 12 2017
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 8842
|
Posted: February 20 2022 at 11:02am |
britrifles wrote:
I started using Varget around 6 or 7 years ago based on the very positive reports from the competitive shooting community.
|
While I will never fall inline with the competitive shooting communities always chasing those elusive high scores with high velocities that can sometimes hinge on the excessive, I have based my chosen reloads off of positive reports as well from reputable companies and their compiled data. From that data, I have researched and worked up each of my loads submitted so that others can safely do the same.
|
|
Goosic
Senior Member
Joined: September 12 2017
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 8842
|
Posted: February 20 2022 at 11:05am |
I will add that, I am not understanding what it is about what I have submitted that has you concerned britrifles. Can you expound and explain why you have an issue with my submittal?
|
|
britrifles
Senior Member
Joined: February 03 2018
Location: Georgia, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 8404
|
Posted: February 20 2022 at 2:11pm |
You miss my point Goosic. I have no issues with anyone posting their load data here, that is what this forum is for. In fact, I didn’t even read your load data you posted, and I doubt there is any errors in it. This is not about your specific data. I merely state that the forum members should rely on published load data, we are not immune to making typo errors or mixing up data. Using load data posted by an individual on a forum such as this is not the same as referring to published data from a recognized source. I encourage everyone here to refer to published load data, either from the common handloading books available or use the online data from powder manufacturers. That’s my point to which I’m sure you agree.
As to changes in published load data over time, I will cite a few examples. Data published by Lyman for example has reduced the maximum charge for IMR 3031 over the years, and removed that powder in their tables for .303 174 and 180 gr bullets sometime between the 45th Edition and 49th Ed, (I don’t have the 47th or 48th Ed). A very significant reduction in max charge for IMR 4895 for 180 gr bullets from 43.0 gr in the 45th Ed. to 40.5 gr in the 49th Ed.
Lyman seems to have kept up with the change in Varget Max loads, it agrees with Hodgdon and ADI at 42.0 gr. maximum in the 49th Ed published in 2008. So you have mischaracterized my 40.0 grain load, it is well away from maximum.
The fact is, reloading data changes for many reasons, one being changes in powder manufacturing processes and materials. They make every attempt to keep it consistent as possible, from lot to lot, but that is not always possible it can, and has, changed over time. And don’t use charge weights developed from bulk powders sold under military contract for loading military ammunition with commercial canister grade powders, their burn rates can vary significantly even though they are from the same powder maker and the same type, common examples are IMR 4064 and 4895.
Everyone on this forum has access to the manufactures website data, if you can log into this forum you can get the online data from Hodgdon, Alliant, Accurate, Vihtavuori, Norma and others. These websites are saved links in my favorites, I refer to them constantly. Most of these powder manufacturers will give pressure data, while bullet makers generally do not. I find this very useful in developing my loads.
You miss out on a lot of very good information posted by competitive shooters, they possess a wealth of knowledge.
|
|
britrifles
Senior Member
Joined: February 03 2018
Location: Georgia, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 8404
|
Posted: February 20 2022 at 2:18pm |
Goosic wrote:
I found it quite amusing that the one company cited a starting weight of 31.6 and that not a single one crossed the 41.0 threshold. You on the other hand have chosen to load just under the maximum of 40.7 from the one websites listed charge weight. To cite from one source and not compile a complete list from the other resources to get a generalized idea of everything around you is both rather biased and obtuse.
|
There are three separate published sources giving 42.0 gr Varget as maximum for the .303 with 174 gr bullet. Hodgdon, ADI and Lyman. These are all consistent. I personally will go with the powder manufactures data in preference to bullet manufactures data.
I don’t know what your point is, other than you think I’m rather biased and obtuse.
|
|
Goosic
Senior Member
Joined: September 12 2017
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 8842
|
Posted: February 20 2022 at 3:01pm |
|
The point you have missed britrifles, is that I have spent nearly 38 years compiling information from multiple resources covering multiple and different load data for the 303 British to establish safe and sound data that only now I can share with the forum members here, on this site. You felt it only necessary to reply with what can only be described as subterfuge by insisting that any and all should basically disregard my submission by looking to online or published reloading data by known suppliers or manufacturers instead. Basically trashing what me, my father, and my long passed uncle have done by way of spending countless hours researching and working up loads and then physically testing those loads until we reached a general consensus of what the safest load data possible that we had compiled should be and resulted in and we, until now, had no issues sharing our data with other reloading enthusiasts.
|
|
BJ72
Senior Member
Joined: August 24 2019
Location: Qld Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 135
|
Posted: February 20 2022 at 4:40pm |
Hi there Goosic.
I'm from Australia so most of the time I can only purchase ADI powders. Even that can be difficult these days. I'm always interested in data for ADI powders, including data under the rebranded names as used in the US. AR2208 = Varget and AR2206H = H4895 etc. While I generally stick to the ADI published data, it's always interesting to see what other people find works well in their rifles.
Your data with H4895 for 174 - 180g bullets is definitely interesting. Are you sure you haven't mixed your data up between 180g and 150g bullets.
Your maximum of 45.5g of H4895 with a 180g bullet in the 303 is way up there. ADI lists a maximum load of 38g with the 180g Sierra SP in the 303. Your starting load of 43.5g even exceeds their maximum. Your loading about the same powder charge as used in a 30-06.
Any idea what velocity you get? ADI recorded 38g of AR2206H behind the 180g Sierra SP in the 303 gave them 2400 ft/s out of a 24 inch barrel with 43500 cup pressure.
Your load of 45.5g would surely be pushing pressures very, very high for a 303.
Looking now I see you list a maximum of 38g of the same powder with 150g bullets, which makes me think you might have recorded your data back to front.
|
|
For the novice or anyone else for that matter...