308 155gr A Max load data wanted
- Thread starter lapadat
- Start date
- Location
- Sudbury, On
Pardon my newbie-arse-roll-your-own skills here, but isn't COAL set by maximum SAAMI specs?
Yes, but many people load to either maximum mag lenght or ±15 thou off the lands.
minimal load 37,7gr??? that's 6 grains under hodgdon's minimum
Lots of 155 grain H4895 and Varget data on Hodgdon's site. Who made it doesn't matter.
OAL is 2.775". http://data.hodgdon.com/main_menu.asp
"...isn't COAL set by maximum SAAMI specs..." For factory ammo, yes. Reloaders get to tweak it to their rifle's chamber.
OAL is 2.775". http://data.hodgdon.com/main_menu.asp
"...isn't COAL set by maximum SAAMI specs..." For factory ammo, yes. Reloaders get to tweak it to their rifle's chamber.
Original poster asked for a load for his bullet and powder in the 308.
Maynard, probably the most experienced reloader and shooter on here for accurate 308 loadings, gave him a precise answer.
Sadly, it looks like his answer was ignored.
Maynard, probably the most experienced reloader and shooter on here for accurate 308 loadings, gave him a precise answer.
Sadly, it looks like his answer was ignored.
I was at the range today, working on my Amax .308 155 load. So far, it looks like (for my rifle) 47.0gr Varget. I started at 44.0gr, and worked my way up. I'm pretty much at max now, although I haven't seen any pressure signs, I'm not willing to go any further.
I use Lapua brass, and CCI BR2 primers. I haven't yet started experimenting with different seating depths. That comes next.
I use Lapua brass, and CCI BR2 primers. I haven't yet started experimenting with different seating depths. That comes next.
My load for an LTR with the 155 Palma SMK and 4895 was 44.5gr. Super accurate. I don't remember the COL, but it was LOOOOOONG... the throat in that rifle was so long if I loaded to the lands the rounds wouldn't feed in the mag.
The number 2.975 comes to mind, but don't quote me on it.
The number 2.975 comes to mind, but don't quote me on it.
- Location
- Sudbury, On
Why do you guys pay so much attention to what a loading book gives as a starting load?
A starting load is just a load you start out with, when everything is new to you, that will not give you too much pressure. Common sense tells you that if you dropped down 5% from a given max load, you should be safe. Want to be super safe on your first try? Drop down 10% from their max load.
A starting load is just a load you start out with, when everything is new to you, that will not give you too much pressure. Common sense tells you that if you dropped down 5% from a given max load, you should be safe. Want to be super safe on your first try? Drop down 10% from their max load.
yes, I always susbtract 10% of max load to determine my starting load. the problem is, if you do the math correctly sir, shown here:
max load 46,4 gr
90%x46,4gr = 41,76gr
or if you'd rather see it this way:
46,4gr- (10% X 46,4gr)= 41,76gr
that starting load is still 4 grains over Hornady's starting load (37,7)gr.
maybe I don't understand your post too, enlighten me
OK, Charles, what you say just adds to the confusion of getting all hung up on starting loads.
Who gives a crooked toadstool about what some book gives as a starting load? The important figure is that given as maximum.
Every loading book out there has determined that their load shown as maximum, should be safe in a modern rifle in good condition and that load will fall within the SAAMI standards. However, in case there is something different about our rifle, we will, the first time we use that combination of powder and bullet, drop the charge down a bit, just to be safe.
It was much less confusing when starting loads were never given. Here is a copy of a page from the Norma Gunbug's Guide. This little booklet, all 24 pages of it, was the sole reloading book I had to start out with and the only loading book I had for some time. I notice that I copied here, the loading data for US powders, while the book was primarily for Norma powder. Note that every weight of bullet has the same powder charge, even if the style of the bullet is different. Also notice that H4831 is not given. That is because Hodgdon had not yet put it on the market.!
Here is a Winchester chart, from as late as the 1970s, which does still not give staarting loads.
And here is a Hodgdon lading chart. No starting loads, just telling us what we all knew, start down a bit.
Who gives a crooked toadstool about what some book gives as a starting load? The important figure is that given as maximum.
Every loading book out there has determined that their load shown as maximum, should be safe in a modern rifle in good condition and that load will fall within the SAAMI standards. However, in case there is something different about our rifle, we will, the first time we use that combination of powder and bullet, drop the charge down a bit, just to be safe.
It was much less confusing when starting loads were never given. Here is a copy of a page from the Norma Gunbug's Guide. This little booklet, all 24 pages of it, was the sole reloading book I had to start out with and the only loading book I had for some time. I notice that I copied here, the loading data for US powders, while the book was primarily for Norma powder. Note that every weight of bullet has the same powder charge, even if the style of the bullet is different. Also notice that H4831 is not given. That is because Hodgdon had not yet put it on the market.!
Here is a Winchester chart, from as late as the 1970s, which does still not give staarting loads.
And here is a Hodgdon lading chart. No starting loads, just telling us what we all knew, start down a bit.
OK, Charles, what you say just adds to the confusion of getting all hung up on starting loads.
Who gives a crooked toadstool about what some book gives as a starting load? The important figure is that given as maximum.
Every loading book out there has determined that their load shown as maximum, should be safe in a modern rifle in good condition and that load will fall within the SAAMI standards. However, in case there is something different about our rifle, we will, the first time we use that combination of powder and bullet, drop the charge down a bit, just to be safe.
It was much less confusing when starting loads were never given. Here is a copy of a page from the Norma Gunbug's Guide. This little booklet, all 24 pages of it, was the sole reloading book I had to start out with and the only loading book I had for some time. I notice that I copied here, the loading data for US powders, while the book was primarily for Norma powder. Note that every weight of bullet has the same powder charge, even if the style of the bullet is different. Also notice that H4831 is not given. That is because Hodgdon had not yet put it on the market.!
Here is a Winchester chart, from as late as the 1970s, which does still not give staarting loads.
And here is a Hodgdon lading chart. No starting loads, just telling us what we all knew, start down a bit.
Yes, all of this I agreed with you!
What I was simply saying was that the 37,7gr starting load represents 80% of maximum load, unlike 90% I'm used to start up with.
and in the following statement
didn't you mean:
Note that for the same bullet weight, for any bullet type powder charge is the same. (exemple with 270win: 110gr SPP powder charge= 52,0gr, while 270win 130gr SPPBT powder charge= 56,2gr, but for the same 130gr bullet in a HPBT type, powder charge is still 56,2gr)
edit: oh and by the way I have one of these hodgdon's little guide (My go to data!) and that's where I got the habit of starting my load at 90% of max load (as stated in that very booklet)
Charles, by looking at the loading chart, you can plainly see that "same bullet weight", meant same bullet weight for that cartridge, obviously.
As I said, who gives a crooked toadstool what the starting load is given as? In other words, what the hell does it matter what some loading book gives as a starting load???? Start anywhere you want, some place under the maximum.
If you start REALLY low, it will go "woof," instead of "bang," and there will be unburned powder. It is highly unlikely anyone would start that low, unless they wanted a really light load, but in that case they would use a small amount of a fast powder and it would still go bang and burn all the powder.
I think I have now said this in every way I know how. Don't get hung up on starating loads. Drop a bit from maximum and load.
As I said, who gives a crooked toadstool what the starting load is given as? In other words, what the hell does it matter what some loading book gives as a starting load???? Start anywhere you want, some place under the maximum.
If you start REALLY low, it will go "woof," instead of "bang," and there will be unburned powder. It is highly unlikely anyone would start that low, unless they wanted a really light load, but in that case they would use a small amount of a fast powder and it would still go bang and burn all the powder.
I think I have now said this in every way I know how. Don't get hung up on starating loads. Drop a bit from maximum and load.
I started shooting 155 gr bullets out of a .308 with Varget before the loading data even came out. I played around with 44 up to 47 gr and found 46 gr worked the best. I have heard internet chatter about some lots of Varget having slightly faster burn rates, however I have not seen or noticed this myself.
When 155 Amax bullets first came onto the market I tried them and didn't like them at all, so I went back to SMK's. Since then I have used 155 gr SMK's, Nosler's, Berger's, Lapua's and the new 155 Sierra Palma with some success all using 46 gr of Varget. This year I decided to try another box of Amax bullets just for schits and giggles. After playing around with seating depths, I found .020" off the lands worked best in my rifle and proceeded to shoot 40 shots with only one shot leaving the bull (my fault) at 300m.
This was with a target rifle off my elbows with a jacket and sling on a 300m DCRA target. Needless to say now am looking for some 155 Amax to shoot 300m.
Book "starting load data" is kind of a CYA starting point. The powder manufacturer has not control over what rifle or the condition of the firearm you will be shooting these loads in.
When 155 Amax bullets first came onto the market I tried them and didn't like them at all, so I went back to SMK's. Since then I have used 155 gr SMK's, Nosler's, Berger's, Lapua's and the new 155 Sierra Palma with some success all using 46 gr of Varget. This year I decided to try another box of Amax bullets just for schits and giggles. After playing around with seating depths, I found .020" off the lands worked best in my rifle and proceeded to shoot 40 shots with only one shot leaving the bull (my fault) at 300m.
This was with a target rifle off my elbows with a jacket and sling on a 300m DCRA target. Needless to say now am looking for some 155 Amax to shoot 300m.
Book "starting load data" is kind of a CYA starting point. The powder manufacturer has not control over what rifle or the condition of the firearm you will be shooting these loads in.
Any time a fellow is looking for a 308 load I assume he must be a new loader and doesn't have any of his own manuals, there fore I offer exactly what the manual says, like my dad sometimes says common sense ain't that common. FS
I gave three examples of loading charts from a few years back, Norma, Winchester and Hodgdon's. Examinatin of them shows up the great differences in reloading instructions at that time as compared to the present reloading manuals. I pointed out that the Norma manual had a total of 24 pages. That was the sole manual I had for some time. I started out using that manual and I never felt the need for more instructions. It gave the important information required to safely load ammunition.
Looking at those three charts you will note there was no starting load given, just the maximum load.
You will note there was nothing given about primers, other than use a primed case.
The bullet weight was the only loading criteria, for any given cartridge.
There was no such thing given as cartridge overall length.
So, how did we overcome all this lack of information? It's called common sense, and the loading books of the time, the same as many other facets of life, encouraged us to just use that common sense, on all of those rather insignificant items.
We put in what primer we had, then most of us soon discovered we could determine no difference in our loaded cartridge, regardless of what type primer we put in.
The information in the loading books, or charts, said to start with less than maximum loads, so we cut them down a bit.
If we had worked up a safe load in our 30-06 for say, a 180 grain Dominion Kling Kore, then had some 180 grain Winchester Silver Tips, we simply used them with our safe load for 180 grain bullets.
We made the cartridge length so it would feed through the magazine and not so long but what the bolt would close on it. Accuracy types, would of course, vary bullet seating and many other variables, for improvement.
I am really glad I learned to reload under the conditions described, and not by the present method, of being told what to do for every minor, or super minor, variation.
Heavens, if I had learned by the present method, I may have forgotten why I was given a thing sitting on my shoulders to think with! Wouldn't have to think, just turn the pages.
Looking at those three charts you will note there was no starting load given, just the maximum load.
You will note there was nothing given about primers, other than use a primed case.
The bullet weight was the only loading criteria, for any given cartridge.
There was no such thing given as cartridge overall length.
So, how did we overcome all this lack of information? It's called common sense, and the loading books of the time, the same as many other facets of life, encouraged us to just use that common sense, on all of those rather insignificant items.
We put in what primer we had, then most of us soon discovered we could determine no difference in our loaded cartridge, regardless of what type primer we put in.
The information in the loading books, or charts, said to start with less than maximum loads, so we cut them down a bit.
If we had worked up a safe load in our 30-06 for say, a 180 grain Dominion Kling Kore, then had some 180 grain Winchester Silver Tips, we simply used them with our safe load for 180 grain bullets.
We made the cartridge length so it would feed through the magazine and not so long but what the bolt would close on it. Accuracy types, would of course, vary bullet seating and many other variables, for improvement.
I am really glad I learned to reload under the conditions described, and not by the present method, of being told what to do for every minor, or super minor, variation.
Heavens, if I had learned by the present method, I may have forgotten why I was given a thing sitting on my shoulders to think with! Wouldn't have to think, just turn the pages.
