Giving out Load Advice caution!

 
The other thing that scares the *Rule 4* out of me are people that chamber another person's reload into their firearm. I don't think it's been mentioned in the past 8 pages, but the same rule still applies. In my opinion, this would be no different than copying someone's pet load...
Now I am not looking for an argument here, but if a friend is shooting the same cartridge as myself, same bullet, same powder or equivalent, same speeds, same seat depth because the same reamer was used. I would fire his ammo in my rifle long before I'd fire a box of Hornady ammo in my rifles. If I would have to apply pressure to close the bolt, because his sizing technique differs from mine, all bets are off now.
Why, because I trust him, plus he is off to one side of me running his bolt like it was stolen firing his ammo. Plus I probably had some influence in his load.
Granted, I know people I don't even care to be beside when shooting, after listening to them talk about loads.
I lost count of the times at the range I have watched guys-gals fire factory 6.5 creed ammo, first 6 shots go off without a hitch, the blow the primers out of numbers 7,8, and 9.
I by no means am telling you that it is ok to fire anyone else's loads, heck, stick to your convictions. But some common sense can be applied here. I guess I just may be different, but I most likely would shoot a friends ammo long before I sampled his wife's cooking that looked like a stool sample.
 
No offense, can you provide any documentation that the "well known store in cali" was shut down from a reloading lawsuit? Or was it just rumors? Never heard of anyone getting sued for reloading data, especially an online forum or member. People should think twice about reloading over book loads, but we need to remember that book loads are mild today compared to 30+years ago.
Ultimately the person reloading holds the responsibility of their own safety
The real problem is the "Instant gratification attitude " of the forum community in general-- when someone lists a load, you can use the load data as a suggestion and work up to it (just like all the reloading books say-- but people dont read instructions or books any more)
If you live your life in fear of possible lawsuits, youd never be able to do anything or go anywhere
I know fro. Shooing 600 yd competition that the bullets are seated touching or close to the lands and that allows more capacity and with proper pressure testing you can easily exceed the book maximums without excess pressure
 
Now I am not looking for an argument here, but if a friend is shooting the same cartridge as myself, same bullet, same powder or equivalent, same speeds, same seat depth because the same reamer was used. I would fire his ammo in my rifle long before I'd fire a box of Hornady ammo in my rifles. If I would have to apply pressure to close the bolt, because his sizing technique differs from mine, all bets are off now.
Why, because I trust him, plus he is off to one side of me running his bolt like it was stolen firing his ammo. Plus I probably had some influence in his load.
Granted, I know people I don't even care to be beside when shooting, after listening to them talk about loads.
I lost count of the times at the range I have watched guys-gals fire factory 6.5 creed ammo, first 6 shots go off without a hitch, the blow the primers out of numbers 7,8, and 9.
I by no means am telling you that it is ok to fire anyone else's loads, heck, stick to your convictions. But some common sense can be applied here. I guess I just may be different, but I most likely would shoot a friends ammo long before I sampled his wife's cooking that looked like a stool sample.
No argument here on this. If the components and dimensions were all the same and the friend is trusted, I wouldn't mind either.
That comment was intended to be aimed at the "This load works really well for my rifle. Try shooting it in yours." When the other person is shooting with different components, often factory ammo.
 
Online data from Hodgdon in the Pressure column is PSI or CUP. Some loads indicate CUP, some indicate PSI - in the same column.

I assume that the CUP numbers are from older data where the powders have remained in current production.


I see that they trimmed their cases a full .010 under nominal for an .06 cartridge. Any reason why they'd do that?

Whether 42,000 CUP or 62,000 PSI, I assume they had some way of figuring out the equivalency.

That being said loads for a .25-06, 6.5-06 and .270 Win with the same powder and bullet weight should IMO be more alike than they are different, not the disparity shown on the Hodgdon site. That's just my take.
 
Last edited:
I see that they trimmed their cases a full .010 under nominal for an .06 cartridge. Any reason why they'd do that?

No idea, but that extra trim has no effect on case capacity, so it doesn't affect velocity.

Whether 42,000 CUP or 62,000 PSI, I assume they had some way of figuring out the equivalency.

My understanding is that there is no way to accurately convert one measurement to the other. The CUP scale is not linear, the PSI scale is.
 
No idea, but that extra trim has no effect on case capacity, so it doesn't affect velocity.



My understanding is that there is no way to accurately convert one measurement to the other. The CUP scale is not linear, the PSI scale is.


Can't you simply measure the pressure of the same load BOTH ways?
 
The other thing that scares the *Rule 4* out of me are people that chamber another person's reload into their firearm. I don't think it's been mentioned in the past 8 pages, but the same rule still applies. In my opinion, this would be no different than copying someone's pet load...

Fortunately for me noboby shoots what I shoot and I don't shoot what they shoot. Solves that.
 
but we need to remember that book loads are mild today compared to 30+years ago.
Cohunt like you I intend no disrespect. Completely agree with 99% of what you said. Amen that people should think twice about exceeding published data. Much of your statement is true, not a lot of lawsuits over load data. However, it is a very real possibility. The above mentioned section of your statement I struggle with. I personally shot 85-90% of Barnes #3 manual myself, and shot data at Nosler for their #4 manual. My pic is in both. I assure you both of those companies shoot their data as close to SAAMI max as is safe, and use reference ammo from SAAMI. I lean toward advancements in pressure measuring equipment leading to "lighter" loads. Have spoken to many early ballisticians and heard how they used to mic cases to extrapolate pressures of a load, as company could afford better equipment either purchased copper crush method for CUP, or Oehler stain gauges for Psi. Ignorance and impatience are to blame. While at Barnes answering pressure issues was the most common call I took, simply because the " experienced loader" on the other end took the same load, COAL that he shot for 30 years with his favorite lead core and blew a primer, stuck his bolt, simply because they didn't read the pages leading up to the data. They knew how to load, done it forever, even though they are trying a completely new component, a monolithic bullet. Simply backing off rifling. 050" from lands would have avoided that call. With the ability to truly customize a throat, free bore, set neck tension, lengthen magazine for longer OAL, you can reduce/ raise operating pressures significantly. I have been the experimenter and it can be scary as hell. Working up data when none is available is serious business. I have had multiple actions rendered useless working up reduced and max function loads for new cartridges while working in ballistics labs, part of the job, but having a firing pin end up 2" from your safety glasses, and sting from powder burns is a real crap your pants moment. I've loaded for 37 years a never had an issue with a load and don't exceed published data. If you can win a lawsuit burning your crotch with coffee because the cup didn't say it was hot, or sue the national weather service for failure to predict a storm and your loved ones perish in a small boat at sea, you may not lose, but the cost to do so can be staggering. I'll get off my soap box, I think and agree that if you shoot a cartridge that has published, pressure tested data, it's wise to stick to it. It may be shot to fit any standard factory chamber or magazine, but is anything but "light".
 
My contribution to this thread: goodluck suing username (insert whatever) who lives in another country. Lol
 
Funny I see the same stupidity going on all over the net on reloading forums.

Appears the "need to be noticed" exceeds the common sense of not setting yourself up for "bad things".

Once again Gump is proven to be a genius.
 
I would appreciate more 6.5x47 Lapua data from reliable testing sources. Perhaps this cartridge is not going to gain enough popularity to merit their time. I also do not think it has a Sammi certification. Perhaps this has something to do with lack of book data? The article published load data is usually sourced from very accomplished Competitive shooters. Using this data has resulted in great accuracy and speed. Recently found new Hodgdon data for the 6.5x47. If it is valid, I am way the heck off of the reservation. I see absolutely no pressure signs with my loads. I would be very interested in seeing a Quickload on the 6.5x47 with Varget and the 130 Berger VLD.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 5 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top