The nosler 7 Manual

Discussion in 'Reloading' started by Bishop, Mar 9, 2014.

  1. Bishop

    Bishop Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    177
    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2010
    Bought one this weekend, looked nice, and had some color to it very good looking manual.

    Then I checked the loads........what-the-hhhhhhhhhhhhhh


    Every load I compared to the number 6 book was like 100 fps plus slower on max velocities. SHEESH

    Have the powder lots changed THAT much?

    This is kinda freakin me out, max charges on the calibers i looked at for a given powder were a full grain or more lower in the new book. Is this just even MORE lawyered up? Or has something fundamental changed massively with the burn rates of some of these powders?

    Or am i concerned over nothing, and should just sit back and enjoy the pretty new nosler number 7?
     
  2. ilscungilli

    ilscungilli Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    341
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    I ditched that manual after looking at a few loads for various rifles. For the 7mm, .204, and .223 the max loads all seemed anemic. Also, I think the amount of data listed for each load is pretty lame, with many of the great powders missing. I've found the Hornady manual to be much better.
     
  3. Bishop

    Bishop Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    177
    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2010
    Yep i about vomited when i read some data, according to that manual we should just shoot 30-06's cause nothing else is any faster. I exaggerate....a little....
     
  4. Duane Waterson

    Duane Waterson Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    130
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2013
    Seems like lawyers have scared everyone conservative! No longer are disclaimers good enough or overall common sense good enough anymore. Just trying to avoid any liability for stupidity! For instance I have manuals from my father from back in the day. (Speer) it has scarey fast loads achieved with lesser actions and barrels from back in the day!
     
  5. LONGSHOOTER

    LONGSHOOTER Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    178
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    Give me some examples of the slow loads you fellas are seeing. I want to compare to my #4.
     
  6. TJAY

    TJAY Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    208
    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2007
    It is online so you can look up any load you want.
    Load Data
     
  7. LONGSHOOTER

    LONGSHOOTER Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    178
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    I'm calling BS on this thread.
     
  8. Bishop

    Bishop Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    177
    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2010
    Compare the .308 win loads between the #6 and #7 books for one.

    I believe the 270 wby data was much slower as well.

    Interestingly enough the 30 t/c is a nice but faster than a 308 win according to their data.

    Unless i totally looked at the wrong calibers the 7 book has lower data on alot of loads i looked up.
     
  9. Timber338

    Timber338 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,704
    Joined:
    May 10, 2011
    I think it might just be certain loads? I'm not trying to discredit this thread. One thing I am disappointed with is some of the loads I looked at have not been updated since the #3 manual... the 338 win mag 200/210 grain load with RL19 for example. I find more loads unchanged from earlier manuals than anything else, but I think it just happens to be the loads I'm looking at. The only thing that nosler changed with the 338 wm load I mentioned, is the case capacity... #3 manual has the same loads with RL19 all in the mid to high 90% range, while the new manual has them all compressed... My guess is they are updating for new bullet length/construction, but then velocity/pressure should change with with it.
     
  10. Bishop

    Bishop Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    177
    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2010
    Sry dbl post

    But yea feel free to disagree its no problem, love a discussion, but random replies like calling BS dont provide much content.
    Bs thing isnt directed at you timber.

    If i read the wrong bullet weights or something ill change my opinion but it sure looked like a bunch of them were lower.
    I was mainly posting to see if others noticed the same thing.
     
  11. Timber338

    Timber338 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,704
    Joined:
    May 10, 2011
    I'll flip through my manuals again tonight, I'm kind of curious to pay attention to the overall changes or non-changes from previous manuals for all loads, not just the ones I focus on.

    One thing that I have noticed with all of their manuals, is they really try and make certain cartridges shine compared to the others. A great example are the WSM cartridges. With the 300wsm, they do all of their testing out of a 26" tube, while the full 300wm (and 338wm) are tested with 24" barrels. And then data for cartridges like the 330 Dakota are much lower than the cartridges potential. Almost like Nosler is getting kickbacks from certain manufacturers to make their cartridges look better so more people buy them... My overall impression with Nosler as a company is they are more interested in marketing and making a ton of money than they are in manufacturing great products.
     
  12. Bishop

    Bishop Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    177
    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2010
    Yea i wondered that too, take that 30 TC for example. How is it possible it outperforms a .308 win yet has similar dimensions but for being shorter. Is that data correct?
     
  13. Bishop

    Bishop Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    177
    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2010
    Yea they for sure backed off the .308 win data.

    Specifically for the 150 g bullets and varget. There is a 2 grain difference between the 2 manuals.

    Also in number 6 they list 44g imr4064 at 2718 fps with 180g bullets.

    In number 7 they list w760 as the highest velocity powder at 2617 fps, maybe its just the .308 win data that is lowered.

    But a 2 grain diff and 100 fps on another...why?
     
  14. pmh-usa

    pmh-usa Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    196
    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Yeah, I found some 'inequities' from book to book - such as changing the seating depth on bullets which changes the load density but low and behold the velocities remain exact same to the foot per second. There's no way that two loads with same amount of powder, same bullet, but one with a load density of 92% and the other with a load density of 100% will have the exact same velocity. But there's more, every load on the page was different from its identical load in the previous manual as noted above but miraculously got the same velocities also. Now I call BULLSHOOT on that. For a company that is so liability conscious, they play loose with their own written 'facts'.