Hodgdon's websits recepes???

jollyroger

jollyroger

CGN Regular
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
So i checked the hodgdon web site to see about some other recepes for my .223, and it seemes they take their recepes waaay over what both my reloading books do, and even use powders that aren't listed in either one for this round.

case in point...
it shows the recepe for a 75 grain JLK VLD with 25 grains of varget pushing it 2907 fps. In (for example) my Hornady reloading manual it shows varget but goes no where near this hot of a load with it. it also shows it as pressuring up to 48400 cups.

me being automaticaly synical of anything i read on the internet (yes i realize the irony of searching for answers on the internet) i must ask, are these loads safe and reliable???

...also what does JLK VLD stand for?
...and are these loads ok to shoot from my AR 180?

thanks
 
I've used some the recipes from the site and they seem reasonable but of course with any load there is a chance of a misprint so you've always got to be careful. The JLK VLD bullets were made by J Knox in the US and was litterally a mom and pop operation. They were recently bought out and the bullets are now being produced elsewhere.
 
I can answer one question. I did some searching and JLK is a bullet maker.
They have JLK LD & JLK VLD so I will hazard a guess that LD means long distance & VLD means very long distance.

I also checked Hodgdon & 25 grains of Varget with this bullet is maximum.
The starting load is 22.5 of Varget at 2,693fps.
 
Yes, Hodgdon's site tends to have significantly higher max loads than many manuals. Nosler's info also tends to be hotter than most manuals, too. If you look at older reloading manuals you will find that max loads often were higher 25 years ago than they are today. You can thank the lawyers for much of this.

Regardless of where you get your info, always start low and work up the load in YOUR gun to be sure it is safe.

Mark
 
jollyroger said:
case in point...
it shows the recepe for a 75 grain JLK VLD with 25 grains of varget pushing it 2907 fps. In (for example) my Hornady reloading manual it shows varget but goes no where near this hot of a load with it. it also shows it as pressuring up to 48400 cups.
Click to expand...

I find Hornday loads from my manual sometimes downright anemic.....and at other times downright psychotic . Its all about working up a load in your gun....what may be ok in their test rifle may be dangerous for yours...etc. I would not worry about using data from Hodgdon and have done so on several occasions.
 
Yup, as everyone says - your gun will vary from their guns.

Consider that manufacturers worry about liability when they publish loads... my Sierra manual, for example, has max loads so anemic that Granny can outrun them in her electric wheelchair.

However, there's a good bet that if you start working up from the middle of what that manual says, you're 100% safe in almost any gun.

With Hodgdon's loads, I'll usually back off a grain or two and then do a 0.2 or 0.5gn "stepwise" approach to what they've got. Never steered me wrong yet.

-M
 
Doc M said:
With Hodgdon's loads, I'll usually back off a grain or two and then do a 0.2 or 0.5gn "stepwise" approach to what they've got. Never steered me wrong yet.

-M
Click to expand...

My approach is not much different than yours. I back off 10% from the max listed load and then work back up in 0.5gr. increments for typical rifle calibres. 0.5gr. increases will not get you in trouble with any of the mainstream cartridges.

Check out Mysticplayer's ladder test method for a quick way to zero in on what your rifle likes and where the maximum load is at:

http://www.longrangehunting.com/articles/reloading-load-tuning-1.php

Mark
 
Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturer' Institute, SAAMI, sets the standards for all of north america.
They say what the maximums can be, it does not depend on the "rifle" that some powder manufacturer uses.
What is called maximum loads in the manual is the same standard loading as SAAMI sets for a factory loaded cartridge. To clarify this, it is the speed of the bullet in a given calibre that is sets the standard. For example, the maximum velocity of a 180 grain bullet in a 30-06, is 2700 feet per second.
To arrive at that speed, SAAMI also sets the maximun pressure that any given calibre may use, to get that velocity.
They set different maximum pressures for different calibres, both for reloading and for the factory loads. The highest standard pressures are set for the newer developed cartridges, like the newer magnums, because all rifles for these will be modern.
The 30-06 is set to lower maximum pressures, because there can be some mighty old rifles out there for that ancient calibre. When the 270 Winchester came along in 1925, it was decided there were no "old" rifles in use for the new calibre, so they set the pressure standards considerably higher for the 270, than is the 30-06. The newer developed 308 also has higher maximum standards, because of there being no ancient rifles chambered for the 308.
As has been mentioned, some manuals show very anemic loads. Yet, usually according to the manual, the bullet travels just as fast as any other, heavier loading, shown in another manual. I have seen loads for a 30-06 with 180 grain bullets, as giving 2700 fps with 54 grains of 4350. Which, of course, is Bull Biscuits.
The Hodgdon charts on the web are definetly higher than most manuals. I wonder if this is because you have to agree to everything they can come up with, to protect them from a law suit, before you can even see the site. Maybe this is pretty air tight.
On any loading that I have checked on the Hodgdon site, the bullet is travelling close to what it does in the real world, but I haven't seen any that surpassed the actual chronograph reading.
The standards set by SAAMI give maximum pressures, and what speed the bullet should travel. Thus requiring a proper type powder for their full loads to do that.
 
I love CGN! haha.
ask one question and get more excellent info and good reading than u know what to do with! ..and on rare occasion a good debate too haha.

these answers just got me curious though, as to why Hornady didn't show IMR 4895 as a powder for heavy .223 loads, as it doesn't seem that uncommon any where else? manufacturers are wierd
 
I have also noticed Hodgdon data to be very hot. A case in point is the published data for S&W 460. Quickload suggests that published loads for Win296 and H110 are dangerous (significantly above Pmax).

Load data published in a product sheet provided on the Hornady web page includes data for this cartridge using 7 different powders including Win296 and H110. These two powders are the only Hodgdon powders listed.

Running all seven loads through Quickload predicts safe pressures for 5 none-Hodgdon loads provided, and dangerous pressures for the two Hodgdon powders.

That said, I have fired 400 or more 460 shots using the published data without incident.
 
"...use powders that aren't listed..." Hodgdon only lists powders they either make or market. Other manufacturers do the same thing. An Alliant manual, for example, won't have Hodgdon, IMR or Winchester powders. Bullet makers manuals only give data for their bullets too.
The Lyman manual has more loads using more powders and bullet weights than any manufacturer's book. It's far more versatile.
 
Same for me with the 223 load I use with H335, Hogdon site lists about 1 full grain higher than the Hornady site. I worked up to it and it's a great load.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom