Tabacco Brook
Regular
- Location
- Nova Scotia
I was wondering if anyone has Sierra load data for the 180 gr round nose for 30-06?
Thanks
Thanks
Load data for Sierra 180gr round nose 30-06?
- Thread starter Tabacco Brook
- Start date
- Location
- Western Manitoba
Head on over to http://www.hodgdonreloading.com. Pretty much has what you are looking for and then some. In this day and age, seems issue is finding a powder to buy, first, then seeing how/whether to try to use it in particular cartridge. Humungeous difference between one loading manual and the next regarding any particular cartridge and bullet weight, but you can not go far wrong with appropriate weight of IMR or H 4350 with 180's in a 30-06.
Tabacco Brook
Regular
- Location
- Nova Scotia
Right on Potashminer ,....I use Hodgdons site once in a while but they only show the 180 sierra spbt and not the rn. I know that I can use that data to get started on a 180 rn load, but I am looking for data right out of the Sierra manual for the 180 rn,....more for curiosity sake than anything.
- Location
- Western Manitoba
My apologies - I can't help you 'cause I don't own the Sierra manual. I only have Nosler 5, 6, & 7; Speer 13 & 14; Hornady 7th; Western 5.0; Hodgdon Annuals for 2012, 2013 and 2014; and I subscribe to Loadata.com.
Just to be sure, You do understand that any loading manual is based on their test barrel, their lot of cases, their lot of primers and their lot of powders? There is nothing saying that your components exactly match theirs. See, for example, the Nosler 5, 6 & 7 information for 30-06 - no one, ever, anywhere, has gotten RL22 to launch 165 grain bullets at 3,000 fps at 60,000 psi or less, except the run of Nosler's lot of RL22, in their barrel, on that day, in that Nosler lab. When loading, your chronograph is your very, very, best friend!
Just to be sure, You do understand that any loading manual is based on their test barrel, their lot of cases, their lot of primers and their lot of powders? There is nothing saying that your components exactly match theirs. See, for example, the Nosler 5, 6 & 7 information for 30-06 - no one, ever, anywhere, has gotten RL22 to launch 165 grain bullets at 3,000 fps at 60,000 psi or less, except the run of Nosler's lot of RL22, in their barrel, on that day, in that Nosler lab. When loading, your chronograph is your very, very, best friend!
Tabacco Brook
Regular
- Location
- Nova Scotia
OK shorttrac,..thanks for a civilized answer,....unlike Potashminers second reply. I'm not sure who spread the sh!t flavored icing on his cup cake, but I think he must have misunderstood my reply as something that it wasn't. I posted a simple question looking for a simple answer,..thanks again shorttrac,..I'll work up a load from the 180 spbt data.
boltonscouter
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- parts unknown
Sierra doesn't distinguish between RN, Spitzer or HPBT etc for the same weight re powder charge but they do give different suggested OAL for different bullet profiles. According to my 3rd ed (1989) they suggest 3.200" for 180gr RN
Come on now, everyone knows that if you duplicate a load in any manual, not only will that load be safe in your firearm, but it will produce the same velocity in your firearm, that is listed in the manual, and the "most accurate" load listed in a manual, will be the most accurate load in your firearm? And you don't need to waste your time experimenting with the COL, because the COL listed in the manual, will be the optimum COL for your firearm.
There are quite a few handloaders who will cling to the load books, and will look at 10, using the lowest of the 10 listed maxes, never wondering why they differ. Some have followed that approach for 25+ years.
That's ok of course, but that approach is the hallmark of a novice.
I'm sometimes torn. Do I simply answer the question, or address the "back story" and get a new one ripped? I usually do what "Potasminer" did, as there's still the chance that someone reading it (including the OP) will benefit.
That's ok of course, but that approach is the hallmark of a novice.
I'm sometimes torn. Do I simply answer the question, or address the "back story" and get a new one ripped? I usually do what "Potasminer" did, as there's still the chance that someone reading it (including the OP) will benefit.
You don't need maker specific data. Any 180 grain data will do. Who made the bullet or its shape doesn't matter. You load for the bullet weight.
Manuals differ because the data applies to the conditions on the day of the tests using the exact components and firearm/universal receiver only.
Sierra doesn't distinguish between and neither does anybody else. One 180 grain bullet used by Hodgdon on the day they tested. Not every 180 ever made. It just happens to be a Sierra SP. They may be owned by the same holding company. Saw a list of who owns who and most of 'em are owned by the same company.
Manuals differ because the data applies to the conditions on the day of the tests using the exact components and firearm/universal receiver only.
Sierra doesn't distinguish between and neither does anybody else. One 180 grain bullet used by Hodgdon on the day they tested. Not every 180 ever made. It just happens to be a Sierra SP. They may be owned by the same holding company. Saw a list of who owns who and most of 'em are owned by the same company.
Actually some manufacturers do differentiate between bullets of different construction, Barnes and Nosler being examples. Nosler advises to use no more than mid range loads with their E-Tip, and Barnes advises that the XLC and TSX/TTSX can be loaded with slightly more powder than the original X-bullet.
Tabacco Brook
Regular
- Location
- Nova Scotia
I am well aware of all the variables that affect loads and load data. No I don't load hundreds of rounds per year for 20 different calibers, but the ones I do load for I don't have any trouble developing a good accurate load. I have a couple manuals kicking around as most hand loaders do, and the internet is loaded with most any information I want/need. As I said before, I asked this question more out of curiosity than anything, and I could have developed a load with the 180 rn no problem at all. I can guarantee you that I won't be asking for any info in the future.
Perhaps this explains more:
CONFUSION
I fully realize that I have not answered all of your questions . . .
Indeed, I feel I have not answered any of them completely.
The answers I have found only serve to raise a whole new set of questions which only lead to more problems, some of which we weren't aware were problems.
To sum it all up . . . In some ways I feel we are as confused as ever, but I believe we are confused on higher level, and about more important things.
I know you believe you understand what you think I said but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
INSANITY is continuing to do the same thing but expecting to get different results.
Now to answer the question from the Sierra Manual
Accuracy Load: Viht N550/ 49.0grs. 2600fps/ 2702ft. lbs.
Hunting Load: RE-22/ 56.0grs. 2700fps/ 2914ft. lbs.
Both loads can be started 2 grains less and both will gain about 100 fps by adding an additional 2 grains.
Nosler's most accurate load is 62.0 grains of Re22 but starting at 58.0 grains.
I loaded 180 grain and 220 grain RN bullets for my Remington 700 and both responded best loaded to the nutz.
I don't blame you. This reminded me of the thousands responses that Jack O'Connor provided when he was the shooting editor of Outdoor Life magazine. It is said that he responded to every inquiry by handwritten letter in an effort to provide the best advice he could.
Yet, in the internet era where people don't have to respond, they respond anyway but in a derogatory manner. Why I do not know.
Remember this post? Hold that thought for a second.
Maybe you will stop posing questions, but deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you know you want to. That being the case I have some suggestions:
- grow a thicker skin and ignore posts that offend you, or simply don't be offended; or
- respond not like you did above, but perhaps by thanking the poster for the reply, but re-iterating what you seek.
That makes more sense to me than just leaving.
What was wrong with Potashminer's post? If the OP knew this already, then he should have known enough to know it didn't matter what data he started with. I don't understand why some people feel upset when they get background info in an attempt to better educate, not just one person, but others who may also have the same question.
Unfortunately, my follow-up to the OP's question (if I had been Potashminer) would have been something like, "If you already know all this why waste time on here asking for info? If you really want Sierra info, don't be so cheap and go buy a Sierra manual."
I am as cheap as they come, but I have a sh!tload of manuals.
Anyone who has been reloading for more than a year should know this basic information. A statement like, "I have a couple of manuals kicking around." Is not the statement of an experienced reloader. Any "experienced reloader" who doesn't have a dozen manuals AND a couple of books on interior/exterior ballistics, powder performance, techniques, instructions, collected articles on firearms, bullets, powders, etc doesn't have them "kicking around" but probably uses them every year. There's probably notes in the margins as well. I guarantee that if you had a dozen manuals, you would find that it would increase the overall spread of your load range. Some manuals go light, some go heavier. How? Because of the info Potashminer posted. I have books from the early '70s that recommend MUCH hotter loads than books bought last year.
Basically, OP, if you want the instant gratification of the internet, word your posts in a way that conveys the level of knowledge you already have, then people won't feel the need to help you out by increasing your education with some background info, heaven forbid you should learn sumpthin'. I didn't see anything pissy in Potashminer's posts, but then again, I am more of a straight shooter and you'll probably take offence to mine as well.
Andy and H4831 were right.
Bruce, I loved that, "1 year experience repeated 25 times!" That whole response should be a tag line somewhere.
Unfortunately, my follow-up to the OP's question (if I had been Potashminer) would have been something like, "If you already know all this why waste time on here asking for info? If you really want Sierra info, don't be so cheap and go buy a Sierra manual."
I am as cheap as they come, but I have a sh!tload of manuals.
Anyone who has been reloading for more than a year should know this basic information. A statement like, "I have a couple of manuals kicking around." Is not the statement of an experienced reloader. Any "experienced reloader" who doesn't have a dozen manuals AND a couple of books on interior/exterior ballistics, powder performance, techniques, instructions, collected articles on firearms, bullets, powders, etc doesn't have them "kicking around" but probably uses them every year. There's probably notes in the margins as well. I guarantee that if you had a dozen manuals, you would find that it would increase the overall spread of your load range. Some manuals go light, some go heavier. How? Because of the info Potashminer posted. I have books from the early '70s that recommend MUCH hotter loads than books bought last year.
Basically, OP, if you want the instant gratification of the internet, word your posts in a way that conveys the level of knowledge you already have, then people won't feel the need to help you out by increasing your education with some background info, heaven forbid you should learn sumpthin'. I didn't see anything pissy in Potashminer's posts, but then again, I am more of a straight shooter and you'll probably take offence to mine as well.
Andy and H4831 were right.
Bruce, I loved that, "1 year experience repeated 25 times!" That whole response should be a tag line somewhere.
Last edited:
