Gain increment for load work up. 223R

308BAR

308BAR

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
100   0   0
Location
MetVan where damn hippys live
I'm working with Berger 82BT & Varget powder. Hodgdon data seems light and l Iike to work up safely to a new Max powder for my rifle. I got some very kind Quickload help so I have a guide to how high I like to go hopefully without a kaboom. Very little data on the internet on the 82bt & Varget combo.

What your thought on a safe grain increment to go with to test Max powder load? I'll be working well past Hodgdon Max data. Is 0.3gn to much? Is one round for each load good enough to determine pressure signs? Which pressure data should I trust more Hodgdon or Quickload?

Sorry if my question seems minor just wanted to be sure on my approach. Thx in advance.
 
I have not tried the 82 gr bullets but I do shoot 80 gr SMK and Noslers. My load is 1 gr over max published data on the Hogdon webite with Varget powder. I worked up .2 gr at a time. Primers are not flattened and these extract without a problem in both a 788 Remington and Sportco actions. Both these rifles have .223 Wylde chambers. From what I have seen, I don't think you can get enough Varget into a .223 case and seat a bullet to cause pressure problems.
 
"...Is 0.3gn too(to, too, two. There's a difference.) much..." Go up by half a grain to the max load given in your manual. Not some daft computer program.
"...new Max powder..." No such thing. The manuals are complied by professional ballistics engineers, not computer programmers. Said programmers will not be there to sue or visit you in the ER, if and when your rifle blows up.
"...one round for each load good enough..." Nope. Hodgdon's data is the average of all the loads they tested. Quickload didn't test any loads.
 
I usually go up in 0.2 gr increments until I get close then maybe 0.1 gr, do the same for most new loads.
 
sunray said:
"...Is 0.3gn too(to, too, two. There's a difference.) much..." Go up by half a grain to the max load given in your manual. Not some daft computer program.
"...new Max powder..." No such thing. The manuals are complied by professional ballistics engineers, not computer programmers. Said programmers will not be there to sue or visit you in the ER, if and when your rifle blows up.
"...one round for each load good enough..." Nope. Hodgdon's data is the average of all the loads they tested. Quickload didn't test any loads.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be ideal if all powders are tested. All loads started as theory a mathematical number. I do appreciate the input, but these load manual don't cover enough. Love to find Vit powder loads but the don't exist for the bullet weight in question.
 
I'll be working well past Hodgdon Max data.
Click to expand...

Now there is a great way to get yourself in trouble.

As for Quickload, I have seen Quickload calculate loads that were supposedly quite safe, yet pressure signs appeared well before the maximum load suggested by Quickload was reached.

All loads started as theory a mathematical number
Click to expand...

And most were tested by people that had the proper equipment to actually measure the chamber pressure, before those loads were listed in manuals, or in commercial online loading data.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom