Over maximum loads for F Class
- Thread starter 1340
- Start date
Published data is lawyer based, and typically on a shorter COAL, as you seat the bullet longer in a chamber designed to have the boattail junction at the bottom of the neck, pressure drops, from there it's up to the experienced reloader to chase the pressure slowly in a safe manner, then adjust for their rifle. You'll also notice that published speed is usually from a 24 inch barrel and most F-class guys are running 30-32 inch barrel. In the case of the 284 with the 180 grain hybrids, we're all loading to roughly 2820 FPS at the muzzle
BECAUSE we run a much longer COAL . Bullet is not seated deep on top of the powder . I run 54.5 H4831SC with a 180 gr for near 2850 fps (32”) and still not any where near a compressed load and I know guys go as high as 57 grs . RJ
I would never be able to use a load like this in my 284 Win hunting rifle .
Last edited:
I know of a few shooters ( VERY High scoring Master class shooters) that shoot loads that are extremely high pressure.
A few things have to be remembered however.
These guns are not " off the shelf SAAMI spec'd" rifles, neither are the dies they are loading with.
However, annealing after each shot is mandatory, and the brass life is a bit shorter.
You would likely not be able to get one of my .223 rounds into a standard .223 action, but we single feed in Fclass and TR, so it is a non issue.
Cat
- Location
- Western Manitoba
Perhaps you are assuming that the various book max are some sort of guarantee - maybe better to think of them as a report of what they got, on their pressure test machines, with their stuff - their chamber, their components - unless in very unlikely chance that they used your stuff - which Western Powder lab (and maybe others) used to offer as a service. So, is long ago advice on CGN to do pressure series an increment or two past the listed maximum - I have some rifles that easy do full grain past max with absolutely no pressure signs that I can see, but I do not own an actual pressure test machine to know, for sure, what pressure those are at. Another rifle here was a full two grains less than the listed maximum and that bolt was VERY tight to open - I do not care what those actual pressures were - that load was too hot, for me, for that rifle.
Error on my part - was not two full grains - was two increments of pressure series, which were 0.5 grains - so that "tight to open" bolt was with 1.0 grains less than Maximum in the book. As I had previously posted on CGN, when we started with hand loading - a neighbour froze his bolt shut with his very first re-load - he was not "strong" on reading and following written stuff - so I never did find out precisely how he did that - but was no series work-up, at all - that was his first re-loaded shot with it - a Remington 788 in 22-250 - and he broke the bolt handle off the bolt by tapping on it with wood block in attempt to get it open - so, left him with frozen shut bolt, bolt handle broke off - and life-long hatred for "hand loads".
SAAMI in USA and C.I.P. in Europe set sort of "arbitrary" pressure levels for various cartridges - what rifles, cartridges, etc. have to be able to contain and hold without harming the shooter - you can see if you look them up that one or the other is often a higher "limit" than set by the other. And no doubt some shooters run way higher than either SAAMI or CIP. All are sure that their next shot will not take their head off. Most all of the reloading manuals here (8 or 9 of them) report what they took to get to the SAAMI or CIP pressure limit - using their components.
Go here: http://kwk.us/pressures.html Is NOT produced by any "authority" - the website maker guy was compiling C.I.P. and SAAMI pressure standards from many sources over the years - can see both SAAMI and C.I.P. both use TWO different methods to test pressure that are in different units - CUP and PSI - that are different to each other - so need to compare CUP to CUP or PSI to PSI numbers. I am aware of a third method used in Britain - reported in "tons per square inch". I found several interesting observations of his, in his various footnotes and write-up down below that pressure table.
Last edited:
As I had previously posted on CGN, when we started with hand loading - a neighbour froze his bolt shut with his very first re-load - he was not "strong" on reading and following written stuff - so I never did find out precisely how he did that - but was no series work-up, at all - that was his first re-loaded shot with it - a Remington 788 in 22-250 - and he broke the bolt handle off the bolt by tapping on it with wood block in attempt to get it open - so, left him with frozen shut bolt, bolt handle broke off - and life-long hatred for "hand loads".
And there is why a LOT ! Of people should not handload ! Reading and “ THINKING SKILL’s “ Not so Good !
JMO RJ
And there is why a LOT ! Of people should not handload ! Reading and “ THINKING SKILL’s “ Not so Good !
JMO RJ- Location
- Western Manitoba
What I guessed at what happened, but I do not know for sure - he and I had each bought the Lee Loader kits - mine was for 308 Win and his was for 22-250- they came with a chart and a scoop - chart told you what powder to get and use that scoop full for what bullet weight. I think someone told him of a "better" powder to use in his 22-250, or perhaps is what he found to buy in local store "that was good for 22-250". And he used that scoop full of it, I think. Or maybe he substituted bullet weights - I do not think that powder was listed on his chart for that bullet weight. Was all a long time ago, so I might not be remembering details accurately - circa 1980 or so. But his experience gave me a life-long aversion to just "jump in" at a load recipe - I do the pressure series - always - with new-to-me rifle / powder / bullet / case / primer / etc. Mostly was my motivation, then, to get away from "scoops" and get a scale and trickler to be able to "work up" loads. I have since bought the Lee Scoop set - so like 15 sizes of them - I think I could do a "work up" with them, if I wanted to.
Last edited:
The loads that came with the LEE Loaders were starting loads. If someone substituted powders with that scoop because they assumed ot was ok, then the issue isn't the starting point, the issue is lack of understanding.
You are very wrong. Published load are pressure based..but many think they are smarter and know better than the lab doing the testing.
F class guy run custom action with custom bolt, custom barrel, best brass for their caliber and do not care if their brass last two firing or 3. For the average guy who do not compete, staying within published data will provide good Performance and longevity of their system, and more important safeguard their safety.
Last edited:
Published data means SFA. Using a published load will not necessarily be safe.
- Location
- Western Manitoba
I presume that the published data in the various manuals is a report of what they used, in their gear, on their pressure test machines, to get to the prescribed pressure limit. It does mean SFA for your components, in your rifle, using your loading techniques - most manuals will have a disclaimer saying that or similar. And for sure, I have experienced "tight to open" bolt well below "published maximum load" - but I have never had a rifle "blow up" or come apart - yet, I have seen pictures of the aftermath of those that did - I no longer recall what loads they were using. Until I get an actual pressure test machine of my own, or the use of one, I simply DO NOT KNOW what the pressures are, in my reloads.
A thing I have noticed - many CGN posters will share an amount of powder used with a particular bullet weight. Yet every manual that I refer to lists the case headstamp used, the primer used, the brand and weight of bullet used, the COAL, and so on - manuals give a LOT more detail than commonly seen that is shared. And many will "poo-poo" that extra information as not of any consequence - I tend to disagree, but to each their own.
For sure, as per a John Barsness article, he says that early days reloading manuals did NOT use pressure tested data - those loads were claimed to be developed with "home grown" indications about pressure. I am slowly accumulating older manuals - one thing that will allow me to do, is to compare what was the recommended loads in, say, 1965, to what is recommended now - and I am fully aware that the same label of powder today, might not be the same as what had the same label, back then. I do not think there is much assurance that the IMR 4350 powder that you have been loading in your 30-06, is identical today, to what you were getting 40 years ago - for better or worse. There is credible-to-me evidence of bench rest shooters having to adjust their powder loading by TWO FULL GRAINS when changing lots of the "same" labelled powder, to maintain the same muzzle velocity. The stuff they are using is not the same as the stuff they were using, even though it had the same label (but different lot numbers).
Last edited:
Mystic Precision
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Summerland, BC
I remember having long chats with the Australian National F class team in 2013 and the 'fun' they had trying to build ammo in the US.
What was discussed was the powders that were shipped from Aus over and then repackaged to the various Hodgdon powders we use. Forget about lot number, there is entirely different fuels. At that time, Varget had 3 different formulations sent over to the US and labled VARGET.
The shooters were pulling their hair out because the varget they used at home was most certainly not the same varget they got in the US. Not a different lot... a completely different powder.
So, is it possible to get significant differences in powder weights from lot to lot that do the same thing and are safe in that rifle? You bet
Just as it can be way too hot and blow out your primer, locking up your bolt while using the same charge but different lot (that was way too exciting for me).
The only way to know what pressure your rifle is generating is by using a pressure/strain gauge. All the 'signs' we use are really just an educated guess.. and there are so many ways that modern rifles and components can lie to you.
Velocity tends to be a good indicator of pressure as there is no free lunch. So as a new reloader, using a chronograph is very helpful. I wouldn't use it for all the ES/SD stuff but just to look at the absolute speed. If the load manuals all agree a case, bullet and barrel length go so fast at max pressures, if your speeds are higher, your loads are hot.
Best to start low, work up and ensure the ammo you use works in your rifle safely.... and DON'T SHARE DATA.
Jerry
What was discussed was the powders that were shipped from Aus over and then repackaged to the various Hodgdon powders we use. Forget about lot number, there is entirely different fuels. At that time, Varget had 3 different formulations sent over to the US and labled VARGET.
The shooters were pulling their hair out because the varget they used at home was most certainly not the same varget they got in the US. Not a different lot... a completely different powder.
So, is it possible to get significant differences in powder weights from lot to lot that do the same thing and are safe in that rifle? You bet
Just as it can be way too hot and blow out your primer, locking up your bolt while using the same charge but different lot (that was way too exciting for me).
The only way to know what pressure your rifle is generating is by using a pressure/strain gauge. All the 'signs' we use are really just an educated guess.. and there are so many ways that modern rifles and components can lie to you.
Velocity tends to be a good indicator of pressure as there is no free lunch. So as a new reloader, using a chronograph is very helpful. I wouldn't use it for all the ES/SD stuff but just to look at the absolute speed. If the load manuals all agree a case, bullet and barrel length go so fast at max pressures, if your speeds are higher, your loads are hot.
Best to start low, work up and ensure the ammo you use works in your rifle safely.... and DON'T SHARE DATA.
Jerry
