Is Barnes load data trustworthy? 45-70 data seems suspicious

thebaron

thebaron

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
57   0   0
Location
Zegema Beach
Hey all,

I'd like to work up a load for my 45-70 using Barnes 300gn TSX but I'm getting massively conflicting results between published data and reloading tool data.

Barnes data shows 47 grains of AA1680 being their starting load and they have a description that says "*The SAAMI MAP value for this cartridge is 28,000 psi. We shot the 1895 Marlin data to 42,000
psi. "

Which would imply that the starting load would be well below 42,000PSI.

When I run the same data in:

Quickload I get 47654PSI
GRT I get 50491PSI

both grossly overpressure..


Is there possibly an error in Barnes data? Would any of you trust that starting load? I am not planning on loading much higher than the starting load anyway.
 
I did a work up with AA1680 a few months ago in my Marlin 1895. No issues up to 50 grains. Settled at 49gr for accuracy in my rifle.
 
Nice. What kind of increments did you use when working up?

I've got a 18.5 barrel so I'm trying to work up to velocities of factory loads in 20-22 inch barrels. ~2000fps so I don't imagine going much over even the starting loads
 
Last edited:
I've never used AA1680, but I'd start good and low and work up carefully. A while back I used some of their data for some 400gr Barnes Busters ( used 400gr Original SP data as they recommended). I was no where near the max load, but I'm pretty certain it was over pressure in my 1895 XLR.

Chris.
 
Not sure why you would want to try to use Accurate 1680 in a 45-70 - from Hodgdon Reloading website: "Accurate 1680 is an extremely fast burning, double-base, spherical rifle powder that is well suited for large capacity, high performance handgun cartridges such as the 454 Casull, 460 S&W and 500 S&W. 1680 is also an excellent choice for the 22 Hornet and 7.62 x 39, as well as other low capacity rifle cartridges. Made in the USA." There are many powders that work well in 45-70 - not sure why you would pick that one??
 
The Barnes manual does list loads for that powder so it's supposedly safe. I imagine he just had it on hand. It is a pretty quick powder though.

I have settled on H-4198 & IMR-3031 for almost all of my smokeless 45-70 reloading, seems to be around the ideal burn rate, although I have some nice light plinking loads with H-4227.

Chris.
 
AA1680 burns pretty fast for 45/70, even with lighter 300gr bullets. But if it's accurate it should be fine. Those pressures are safe for a Winchester or Ruger 1. They're a bit hot for Marlins, and they're absolutely not safe for trapdoors and the like.

Usually there are two sets of load data for 45/70. One is for strong actions and the other is for Marlins and weaker actions.
 
Potashminer said:
Not sure why you would want to try to use Accurate 1680 in a 45-70 - from Hodgdon Reloading website: "Accurate 1680 is an extremely fast burning, double-base, spherical rifle powder that is well suited for large capacity, high performance handgun cartridges such as the 454 Casull, 460 S&W and 500 S&W. 1680 is also an excellent choice for the 22 Hornet and 7.62 x 39, as well as other low capacity rifle cartridges. Made in the USA." There are many powders that work well in 45-70 - not sure why you would pick that one??
Click to expand...

1. Because I have lots of it on hand
And
2. It's 1 of only 2 powders listed in the Barnes data, the other one I don't have any of and it isn't available anywhere near me either. And it's also a fast burner anyways.

Any reason Barnes would list a "bad" powder choice as the only powders for these bullets?
 
Last edited:
I have been using aa1680 with 250g barnes tsx with no issues. Aa1680 and 300 and 250 barnes tsx are listed in barnes reloading manual and lists load for 1895 And ruger#1(I use this in my 1885 trapper,250g tsx 2350fps)
 
thebaron said:
1. Because I have lots of it on hand
And
2. It's 1 of only 2 powders listed in the Barnes data, the other one I don't have any of and it isn't available anywhere near me either. And it's also a fast burner anyways.

Any reason Barnes would list a "bad" powder choice as the only powders for these bullets?
Click to expand...

Ganderite is telling you how it is.

I looked at their loads and concur with his statement.

Barnes doesn't offer bullets that IMHO would be suitable for original designs or antiques.

I'm surprised they don't mention their loads are only suitable the the #3 group of 45-70 loads, which are the strongest, such as the Ruger No1 and modern built 1885 Brownings or such things as the Siamese Mauser and Enfield conversions.
 
bearhunter said:
Ganderite is telling you how it is.

I looked at their loads and concur with his statement.

Barnes doesn't offer bullets that IMHO would be suitable for original designs or antiques.

I'm surprised they don't mention their loads are only suitable the the #3 group of 45-70 loads, which are the strongest, such as the Ruger No1 and modern built 1885 Brownings or such things as the Siamese Mauser and Enfield conversions.
Click to expand...

The loads listed are under the Marlin lever section (which is what I'm shooting). The #1/#3 load section is even hotter.

If there were other published loads specific to Barnes 300 grain TSX with other, perhaps more suitable powders I'd be happy to try them. However that's all that's available from "reputable" sources for these specific bullets so I work with the info I have available and with the materials I have.

Any links for published loads for 300 grain TSX and RL7 or the other mentionned powders?

I don't mind interchaning data for cup and core like Sierra and Hornady but with the Barnes usually being longer and affecting the seating depth I'm not much for straying too far from exact published loads on them
 
Last edited:
thebaron said:
Hey all,

I'd like to work up a load for my 45-70 using Barnes 300gn TSX but I'm getting massively conflicting results between published data and reloading tool data.

Barnes data shows 47 grains of AA1680 being their starting load and they have a description that says "*The SAAMI MAP value for this cartridge is 28,000 psi. We shot the 1895 Marlin data to 42,000
psi. "

Which would imply that the starting load would be well below 42,000PSI.

When I run the same data in:

Quickload I get 47654PSI
GRT I get 50491PSI

both grossly overpressure..


Is there possibly an error in Barnes data? Would any of you trust that starting load? I am not planning on loading much higher than the starting load anyway.
Click to expand...

I would put much more faith in published loading data than I would GRT, which rarely give accurate results imo. I haven't used Quickload so I won't pass comment.
 
thebaron said:
Hey all,

I'd like to work up a load for my 45-70 using Barnes 300gn TSX but I'm getting massively conflicting results between published data and reloading tool data.

Barnes data shows 47 grains of AA1680 being their starting load and they have a description that says "*The SAAMI MAP value for this cartridge is 28,000 psi. We shot the 1895 Marlin data to 42,000
psi. "

Which would imply that the starting load would be well below 42,000PSI.

When I run the same data in:

Quickload I get 47654PSI
GRT I get 50491PSI

both grossly overpressure..


Is there possibly an error in Barnes data? Would any of you trust that starting load? I am not planning on loading much higher than the starting load anyway.
Click to expand...

I have various reloading manuals and other resources for reloadng, and all books are different from each other, even using the same components and barrel length.
Moreover, my personal load data differs greatly from each manual, however, I usually refer to Nosler and Sierra data.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom