I made up some reduced speed 165gr .308 Win cartridges for when my young son started hunting, so the recoil would be reduced, it was successful for him. I also did the same for a small lady Hunter who has a 30-06, she kills deer fine and much prefers these shells. WK
do you download cartrdges
- Thread starter WhelanLad
- Start date
I have an old western colt copy in 44mag revolver.
I love the gun and love shooting it, but I hate putting full charge rounds through it all the time.
I shoot it a lot and dont want to hammer the crap out of it AND my wrists.
I reload to a nice accurate & fun round.
I have even loaded Black powder for it. Now thats fun. easy recoil and a WOOOSH of smoke.
Having a death grip with a full power load isnt fun.
Old guy shooter.
I love the gun and love shooting it, but I hate putting full charge rounds through it all the time.
I shoot it a lot and dont want to hammer the crap out of it AND my wrists.
I reload to a nice accurate & fun round.
I have even loaded Black powder for it. Now thats fun. easy recoil and a WOOOSH of smoke.
Having a death grip with a full power load isnt fun.
Old guy shooter.
saskgunowner101
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- near Prince Albert
That was the same for me when I owned a Ruger Blackhawk in 45 Colt. Sure, winding her out with max loads had that "wow" factor, but 90 percent of the loads were moderate loads that you could shoot all day long.
I end up downloading most of my cartridges when im playing with blackpowder. I like filling cases like 375hh and 460 weatherby with blackpowder for the fun of it when heading into the woods or the range.
I got a good deal on a few pounds and it makes for a fun time shooting.
I got a good deal on a few pounds and it makes for a fun time shooting.
Although I've never done this, it does make complete sense in some situations. If a hunt is planned in which the game hunted doesn't require full-power loads in large cartridges, loading down is sensible. For example, if you have a 7 Rem. Mag. that you got as a general-purpose rifle and want to be able to use it on really big game at long ranges, but also on smaller game at closer ranges, you don't need the full-house 7 Rem. Mag. loads that generate about 25 ft-lbs. of recoil in an 8-lb. rifle for the latter application. That level of recoil, while not really excessive, is uncomfortable and may be a distraction. So for that coastal blacktail hunt where ranges are likely to be well under 300 yards, you could load some 120-grain bullets in your 7 Mag. at about 2900 fps, which, with the right powders, will generate only about 14.5 ft.-lbs. of recoil in your 8-lb. rifle--so a little over half of what you experience with full-power loads. In other words, your rifle is now recoiling at about the same 15 ft.-lb. level as a 7mm-08 with most bullet weights and this may be conducive to better shooting. So less recoil and blast and longer barrel life. Easy enough to do and lets you get by with just the one rifle instead of buying a second one in 7mm-08.
If loading down a large-capacity cartridge using jacketed bullets, it's important not to reduce loads with the usual slow-burning powders for the cartridge below the starting level indicated for the powder in loading manuals. (Some sources recommend not going below 10% of a maximum charge.) Doing so could lead to the secondary explosion effect, which, although rare, has happened and has wrecked rifles. The best way to load these cartridges down is to (a) go with a light bullet for the caliber and (b) use a relatively fast-burning powder--but operating within the range given in the manuals between starting and maximum loads for that powder and bullet weight. In the example I gave above, any good 120-grain bullet would make sense in your 7 Mag., and a powder like the 4895s or 4064 would work well.
If loading down a large-capacity cartridge using jacketed bullets, it's important not to reduce loads with the usual slow-burning powders for the cartridge below the starting level indicated for the powder in loading manuals. (Some sources recommend not going below 10% of a maximum charge.) Doing so could lead to the secondary explosion effect, which, although rare, has happened and has wrecked rifles. The best way to load these cartridges down is to (a) go with a light bullet for the caliber and (b) use a relatively fast-burning powder--but operating within the range given in the manuals between starting and maximum loads for that powder and bullet weight. In the example I gave above, any good 120-grain bullet would make sense in your 7 Mag., and a powder like the 4895s or 4064 would work well.
Last edited:
I agree with South Pender. Loading down is very reasonable in some situation. Loading down does not mean reduced loads. I understand loading down as using components that give low or lowest velocity for a cartridge/bullet combination, while still being within the normal capacity of the cartridge. I load down a 130 grain bullet in my 270 Win to 2800 fps for use in the woods. I load another 130 bullet at 3060 fps for my long range. The 3060 fps is too destructive at close range. The 2800 fps laod takes 55 grains of H4831sc while the 3060 takes 59.5. The recoil is different for sure.
migrant hunter
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Southern Alberta
I load a bunch of rifle cartridges with unique and cast bullets. It makes for cheap, fun plinking. I just bought a thousand large pistol primers to shoot light cast loads without wasting large rifle primers.
I've used h4895 for reduced cast bullet loads and even hunted deer with them.
I've used h4895 for reduced cast bullet loads and even hunted deer with them.
The only chambering I have ever shot reduced loads in was my first 308 Norma Magnum.
I discovered that 50 grains of IMR 3031 behind a Sierra 180 grain Game King shot very
well at just shy of 2700 fps. It allowed me to get familiar with this rifle, which, with full
power loads, generated recoil considerably greater than a maiden's caress.
I have since left the reduced load fraternity, and, as bearhunter explained, if I want a
less powerful loading, I will choose a less powerful chambering, and load it to it's potential.
I keep hearing the postulation that most rifles shoot their best at somewhat less than Max
loads. I must have unique rifles if that is the case. With possibly two exceptions, mine shoot
best at or flirting with maximum safe loads. I had one 30-06 that actually shot best when it
was obviously loaded too warm to safely use, with primer pockets loosening in 2 firings.
The next lower accuracy node was below 308 velocities, so I sold that rifle.
Even my reproduction M94 in 38-55 with cast GC bullets, gets full power loads. A 270 grain
cast GC at 1750 is very persuasive on game, lol. Dave.
I discovered that 50 grains of IMR 3031 behind a Sierra 180 grain Game King shot very
well at just shy of 2700 fps. It allowed me to get familiar with this rifle, which, with full
power loads, generated recoil considerably greater than a maiden's caress.
I have since left the reduced load fraternity, and, as bearhunter explained, if I want a
less powerful loading, I will choose a less powerful chambering, and load it to it's potential.
I keep hearing the postulation that most rifles shoot their best at somewhat less than Max
loads. I must have unique rifles if that is the case. With possibly two exceptions, mine shoot
best at or flirting with maximum safe loads. I had one 30-06 that actually shot best when it
was obviously loaded too warm to safely use, with primer pockets loosening in 2 firings.
The next lower accuracy node was below 308 velocities, so I sold that rifle.
Even my reproduction M94 in 38-55 with cast GC bullets, gets full power loads. A 270 grain
cast GC at 1750 is very persuasive on game, lol. Dave.
john-brennan
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Vancouver Island B.C.
I used reduced loads in a 243 when my son started shooting deer rifles (8 years old)and worked up the better he shot, I made sure he never got the flinch by 12-13 he was hunting with a 7-08 full loads no problem.
Plenty of good reasons to download a bigger cartridge, price, who is shooting it, where you normally shoot and how far you shoot.
Also had a 450-400NE 3", ammo was 90.00/20 at the time, 150.00/20 now. 400gr factory load was not all that pleasant to shoot in a Ruger #1. It's a 200yd cartridge with a 10" trajectory @ 2000fps. I put 320gr cast in it, used 50gr powder instead of 80, bullets cost me next to nothing, and I could comfortably shoot 30-40 rds in it. Had 210gr Hornady pistol bullets for it, and 300gr Hornady bullets for it, and a 400gr cast load at 18000fps, factory was 2050, much nicer to shoot.
Also had a 450-400NE 3", ammo was 90.00/20 at the time, 150.00/20 now. 400gr factory load was not all that pleasant to shoot in a Ruger #1. It's a 200yd cartridge with a 10" trajectory @ 2000fps. I put 320gr cast in it, used 50gr powder instead of 80, bullets cost me next to nothing, and I could comfortably shoot 30-40 rds in it. Had 210gr Hornady pistol bullets for it, and 300gr Hornady bullets for it, and a 400gr cast load at 18000fps, factory was 2050, much nicer to shoot.
MY wife and now my young kids started hunting. I would load a light bullet with starting loads for them to practice with. My 90 lb son will be shooting a youth 308 with 110 grain bullets loaded over 40 grains of H4895 (2800 fps) as practice and work his way up to 125 gr bullets for hunting this fall. To be honest I don't worry about accuracy at first. Get them shooting and hope they get comfortable.
saskgunowner101
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- near Prince Albert
The fact is, you can never convince someone who thinks downloading is pointless, that it's not pointless. If it makes sense for you, or works for you, go with it. I personally find it fascinating to develop non standard loads, and can't understand why some people have such horrible luck. Not every load is going to be a winner, but you can get some pretty good results with low effort if you keep your thinking cap on.
I find myself tweaking loads down for SBR's.
Ever shoot off the shelf fodder through a Martini Enfield...so noisy and such a waste.
Mare's Legs are the same...off the shelf 44 Mag ammo is meant for rifle's in Canada ( extrapolating here). Shooting it through a Mare's Leg is a not a good time...at all.
Better to mess with it til it's getting a good clean burn.
Ever shoot off the shelf fodder through a Martini Enfield...so noisy and such a waste.
Mare's Legs are the same...off the shelf 44 Mag ammo is meant for rifle's in Canada ( extrapolating here). Shooting it through a Mare's Leg is a not a good time...at all.
Better to mess with it til it's getting a good clean burn.
I apologize if I gave the opinion that I think reduced loads are pointless.
Those who use them obviously enjoy shooting them, and experimenting.
It's just not my thing.
Dave.- Location
- Western Manitoba
Is a thing that I read some time ago - might be relevant? - was attributed to Speedy Gonzales, or perhaps that Virgil King guy from the Houston Warehouse Experiments, I think - so about bench rest shooting on targets - not about hunting, "I do not care how fast a bullet is going, when it passes through the same hole, as the one that I fired before that one ..." I think that was from the days when shooting 5 shot groups at 100 yards into the "two's" and "teen's" was considered to be an impressive thing to accomplish.
Last edited:
I think one of the best things about handloading is the ability to throttle your loads. If someone has say a 30-06 and buys factory loads, they're most likely going to be medium (lawyer safe) loads with bullets selected to kill the average species that round is typically employed for (granted factory offerings have certainly expanded in the last 10 years...). If he wants to hunt a different class of species, he needs a different cartridge.
If this same fellow handloads, he can load down some cast/trailboss rounds for the grandkids to shoot off the deck with, some fast 110gr varmint medicine, a moderate, 30-30 velocity, load for his 14yo niece's first deer, and a 210gr moose thumper for that trip to the Yukon... Same gun, very different experiences.
I started butchering my own game ~5years ago and discovered just how much meat damage my bullet was doing (simply skinning out an animal and seeing the entry/exit didn't reveal 90% of what a bullet had actually done compared with separating the muscle groups when butchering). I did some research on meat damage/bullet selection and was struck by something the flint lock crowd kept saying about "near zero meat loss".
My growing theory is that, with the advent of smokeless powder came the need to toughen up projectiles to handle the increased velocity. In doing so, rainbow trajectories flattened out over night and bullets suddenly needed to be engineered to expand upon impact, and yet penetrate with out breaking up. The faster we went, the flatter we got, and the tougher our projectiles became(necessitating velocity to expand effectively).
IF one didn't need the range, thereby not requiring the flat trajectory, and IF he was to choose an appropriately 'soft' projectile, they could go significantly slower, producing less muzzle blast, less recoil, using less components and damaging less meat.
To this end, I tried backing my load down a couple hundred fps for the next season and found it MASSIVELY reduced meat damage while killing just as effectively.
Bear in mind, I'm hunting in deep bush. I think the farthest shot I've taken was about 120yds, with 90% of my shots being 50-70yds. Trajectory isn't an issue in this scenario.
For someone hunting across a coulee, I'm talking utter nonsense but again, handloading allows me to tailor a load to a situation.
If this same fellow handloads, he can load down some cast/trailboss rounds for the grandkids to shoot off the deck with, some fast 110gr varmint medicine, a moderate, 30-30 velocity, load for his 14yo niece's first deer, and a 210gr moose thumper for that trip to the Yukon... Same gun, very different experiences.
I started butchering my own game ~5years ago and discovered just how much meat damage my bullet was doing (simply skinning out an animal and seeing the entry/exit didn't reveal 90% of what a bullet had actually done compared with separating the muscle groups when butchering). I did some research on meat damage/bullet selection and was struck by something the flint lock crowd kept saying about "near zero meat loss".
My growing theory is that, with the advent of smokeless powder came the need to toughen up projectiles to handle the increased velocity. In doing so, rainbow trajectories flattened out over night and bullets suddenly needed to be engineered to expand upon impact, and yet penetrate with out breaking up. The faster we went, the flatter we got, and the tougher our projectiles became(necessitating velocity to expand effectively).
IF one didn't need the range, thereby not requiring the flat trajectory, and IF he was to choose an appropriately 'soft' projectile, they could go significantly slower, producing less muzzle blast, less recoil, using less components and damaging less meat.
To this end, I tried backing my load down a couple hundred fps for the next season and found it MASSIVELY reduced meat damage while killing just as effectively.
Bear in mind, I'm hunting in deep bush. I think the farthest shot I've taken was about 120yds, with 90% of my shots being 50-70yds. Trajectory isn't an issue in this scenario.
For someone hunting across a coulee, I'm talking utter nonsense but again, handloading allows me to tailor a load to a situation.
saskgunowner101
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- near Prince Albert
I apologize if I gave the opinion that I think reduced loads are pointless.
Those who use them obviously enjoy shooting them, and experimenting.
It's just not my thing.
No worries at all Eagleye, we're all just spitballing our thoughts here and I wasn't pointed at anyone in particular. I do find it tiring when I read "I tried this, it doesn't work, therefore it's stupid and won't work for you" mentality. Some guys can't look in the mirror and understand it's all them. Nobody needs to like reduced loads but an objective view is much better than a subjective one.
- Location
- Van. Is. B.C.
When I lived in Ontario I would load my 270 Win with 110 gr bullets loaded to the same speed as my 150 gr. The bullet drop and windage were close enough that the practice shooting the 110s was directly relatable to my big game load while being easier on me, the brass and my wallet.
