Heads Up, Load data

[Four-Eyed Buck]

Today the SASS Wire is no longer allowing load data to be posted. Legal liability issues have now caught up to a SHOOTING board, this is the second board I've been on that has done this. Marlin Firearms closed their Marlin Talk board for the same reasons.
Seems our litigious society is affecting even the shooting sports now. Only thing allowed is links to powder company data listings.....Buck

[Marshal Halloway]

This issue has always been a concern for every publisher, even webmasters and forum moderators.

As of now, we are not considering a change in our policy and this disclaimer still stands:

DISCLAIMER RELOADING:  We allow members the exchange of reloading ideas, techniques and loads. However, under NO circumstances does the publication of any specific load(s) on the board indicate a recommendation of data published. The caution(s) mentioned in the reloading manuals of starting 10% below any recommended load(s) and working your way up apply in spades! Both experienced and inexperienced reloaders, PLEASE consult the available commercial reloading manuals. It is easy to make mistakes when typing, so view any data published in a post with common sense and suspicion... If it doesn't sound right, it probably isn't! CasCity.com assumes NO responsibility for any loads published.

[Micheal Fortune]

Well with the amount of us reloading, not being able to discuss it at all is just silly. 

Yes I understand but common sense people got to draw the line somewhere.....don't give anything else up and start taking back what was once ours.

Cowboys and lawyers just don't mix to well.................

[Delmonico]

One note all data used should be started 10% below listed maximum as established by a know ballistics lab, but also one should never load below any minimum published by a ballistics lab. 

I don't look at the SASS Wire much but I have seen loads posted that go below what is safe.  Every powder has a pressure range that is needed for consistant ballistics.  Just because it works most of the time, don't mean it's safe.

I very seldom look much at posted data, because if it is safe it can be found is loading manuals and on the company websites. 

I will say this and I'm sure some will not like it, but having been around reloading for over 25 years and working some in a gun store that sold mostly reloading componants, some cowboy shooters are some of the sloppyest reloaders I have ever seen.

If you have problems with your reloads it is most likey your fault in on way or another.  QC is up to you.  I used to do custom loading for my friend's shop (licensed and insured) I've have loaded at least a 1/4 million rounds, every production load but maybe 6-7 have worked as expected.  Every round in my ammo cabinet right now I would trust my life with.

[Foothills Drifter]

I will say this and I'm sure some will not like it, but having been around reloading for over 25 years and working some in a gun store that sold mostly reloading componants, some cowboy shooters are some of the sloppyest reloaders I have ever seen.

Howdy......



Good shootin......
Vern... 

[Lars]

I would go one step further than Delmonico.................that is, that the SASS trend to gross underloads is one of the stupidest things I know of in reloading with nitro powders. When one can watch the bullet arc toward the target and get blown way sideways by the wind, watch folks repeatedly have to knock stuck bullets out of barrels, etc. etc. STUPID seems appropriate.

Lars

[Marshal Will Wingam]

I agree with the pards here that loading below the recommended minimum is rediculously stupid. Not only is it potentially unsafe, but almost every gun I've ever loaded for is most accurate in the mid-ranges on the data charts. Loads at, or close to, minimum or maximum tend to go a bit wild and get much wider groups.

[Camille Eonich]

How many rounds down range, safely and accurately, does it take before a load can become a recommended load?  A published min or a published max?


Anybody got any ideas?

[Whiskey Hayes]

Camille

When you are loading below the min. or above the max. each load becomes gun specific pertaining to safety and accuracy.  The extreme at either end can work ok in one gun and not the other.  The ammo and component companies have their load mins. and max.'s to be safe in any gun.  The problem you run into is people either don't know how or are to impatient to work up a load outside the manufacturer's recommendations.

The competition load I'm shooting is below the manufacturer's min. but does meet the old 650fps standard of SASS (at least when it's warm) and is safe and accurate in the guns it was developed in, but should not become a standard listed load because it is gun specific.

[Delmonico]

With out lab. quality pressure testing equipment you are fumbling around in the dark.  If it was safe to go that low the powder companies all will tell you.  One needs a good knowledge of  ballistics, chemistry and physics to understand why.   I have talked to some of the folks who work at ballistics labs doing the testing, they just shake their heads in disbelife at times.  

The reason that the mid range and higher loads are more accurate is that the pressures and velicities are more consistant.  This means the powders are working at the pressure levels they work best at.  Over and under loads are not consistant.  

One must remember, if you have trouble with your reloads, it's nobodies fault but your own.  If you don't know why it's your fault give your loading equipment to someone who does know why and always by factory loads.

[Lars]

In my understanding, published mins and maxs are based on pressure data, ideally from a crusher or pieziometric device. The truly recommended loads are additionally based on actual shooting performance, that is, on consistant good groups, etc. This can require thousands of round fired in hundreds of diverse type of guns chambered for that cartridge.

There are a few really nicely balanced loads that give exceptionally consistant and small group sizes. Often these are the loads provided for National Matches. The 22 rimfire match ammo, premium shotshell loads for trap or skeet, etc. etc. are in this category.

Some nicely balanced loads will still provide superior performance if the shot pellets or bullets are not of premium quality. That is one measure of "ballance" in selection of case, primer, powder and amount of powder.  Still, shot pellets and bullets cannot be too crude.

With the lead or lead alloy bullets common to CAS loads, there is a whole set of additional dimensions.

OF COURSE, the design and quality of the gun itself figures heavily in this. Obviously, one should not expect a 1871 Colt replica Open Top to give the kind of small and consistant groups as a Freedom Arms revolver.

Lars

[Delmonico]

It is also done at extremes of temp and with the powder positioned in different places in the round. 

[Camille Eonich]

Camille

When you are loading below the min. or above the max. each load becomes gun specific pertaining to safety and accuracy.  The extreme at either end can work ok in one gun and not the other.  The ammo and component companies have their load mins. and max.'s to be safe in any gun.  The problem you run into is people either don't know how or are to impatient to work up a load outside the manufacturer's recommendations.

The competition load I'm shooting is below the manufacturer's min. but does meet the old 650fps standard of SASS (at least when it's warm) and is safe and accurate in the guns it was developed in, but should not become a standard listed load because it is gun specific.

I'm with you.

[Stump Water]

When reloading is discussed, it always amuses me how the words "safe" and "consistent" are tossed around as if interchangable.  I'll be the first to admit that my CAS loads are as inconsistent as any I've seen.  Or, as Del said, "sloppy".  But, at CAS ranges, I don't really care.  I'm more concerned about cranking out volumes of ammo, loaded to within an acceptable  tolerence (determined by the Dillon case powder check die) of the CAS load I worked up, tested (without lab equipment) and settled on.  And the load is below published minimums, so I'm stupid.

Now, my varmint loads are another story.  The epitome of consistency.

These two fellows are the only ones so far that have mentioned the entire equation:

... almost every gun I've ever loaded for...

... safe and accurate in the guns it was developed in, but should not become a standard listed load because it is gun specific.

[Delmonico]

When I say sloppy I mean ones that don't go bang or don't chamber.  Inconsistant means the velocity/internal pressures as in the dang thing sticks in the barrel or you can often hear a different level of bang.  But I guess as long as folks are willing to put up with it things will stay the same.   Myself if any round I loaded did not go bang and go out the end of the barrel at near the velocity expected, I'd hang my head in shame.  but that's me.   

[Camille Eonich]

What!  Now you're telling me that the 600 rounds that we crank out in an hour for CAS aren't as consistent and as accurate as the 10 that I can make 30 in minutes for my varmint rifles?  


I do have fun making up loads for high powered rifles when the objective is to put as many rounds in as small of a circle as possible from as far away as possible.   Make 5 of 3 or 4 different loads, go out and shoot those and see which works the best for the specific gun then if that ones's not quite good enough for you start from there and keep working.  Now that's working up loads.  What we do for CAS is reloading.  

[Delmonico]

As long as they chamber every time go bang every time and the bullet goes out the barrel every time thats one thing, if they don't you need some serious QC work.

[Lars]

But, at CAS ranges, I don't really care.

Some of really do care about the grouping of the loads we use at CAS shoots. I really don't want to get a miss cause my sights were on the edge of the target but, because of a poorly grouping load, the bullet missed the target. That means I require under 1,0 inch groups at 25 yards and under 2,0 inches at 50 yards.

Maybe you don't shoot at places where the targets are "small" and "far" away but many of us do and greatly enjoy it. We shoot to hit, not to see how fast we can shoot. Misses are wasted ammo. Clean stages and especially clean matches are what makes us happy. I also have to shoot revolvers one-handed with my formerly "weak" hand because of physical limitations.

I use premium BP loads that closely match the original BP loads for 44-40. Why? Simply because they give much smaller groups in my guns than the typically underloaded nitro loads so common in SASS. Nothing to do with the "mystic" (there ain't none!!) of premiium BP loads, even less to do with the "warthog" sillyness. At my most recent match I missed 5 shots out of about 240. ALL of them were my fault.

But then, some of us are from the "one shot, one kill" world, not the "spray and pray" world.

Lars

[Delmonico]

Well spoken Lars, I guess that's why I like long range shooting.  when the targets are out past a quarter of a mile, the real thrill comes in.  If they have a long range event at the GAF Muster next year you'd be welcome to borrow my Sharps pard.

[Lars]

Thanks Del!!

Unfortunately, with my eyes that Sharps might not provide many hits. I sold one last year because I could not see the sights clearly enough to hit much of anything. MAYBE with a Hadley eye cup I could sharpen them up, MAYBE, with my left eye, enough to hit something. That, of course, assumes I could even see the target that far away.

Lars