Reloading 30-30

H4831 said:
OK, here it is.
For years we used to say for a 30-30 and 170 grain bullets, all you had to remember was, "Thirty-three grains of 3031."
I used it, then got away from the 30-30, still remembered the numbers, but I knew I must have at one time saw it in print, but couldn't find it. The modern loading manuals are al showing considerably less of a load with 3031.
Then, I was going through P.O.Ackley's Volume 1, and on page 410, there it was.
Note that Ackley got a bit under the 2200 fps that is the normal velocity for the 30-30.
As has been pointed out, LVR powder is far and away the best powder for the 30-30.
Click to expand...

Wow! 33-35 grs of 3031 with 170 gr bullets?

That's over the top for any listing I have for 150 gr bullets. The highest loads I found were 150/30 grs in an older Speer manual and 32/150 grs in a 'Rifle' magazine article by Mike Venturino.
I've got several lbs of 3031 to use up, but I'll keep my loads at 30 grs with 150's in the 30-30.

I may try using some of it in .308 with 150's as well.
 
Sharps '63 said:
Wow! 33-35 grs of 3031 with 170 gr bullets?

That's over the top for any listing I have for 150 gr bullets. The highest loads I found were 150/30 grs in an older Speer manual and 32/150 grs in a 'Rifle' magazine article by Mike Venturino.
I've got several lbs of 3031 to use up, but I'll keep my loads at 30 grs with 150's in the 30-30.

I may try using some of it in .308 with 150's as well.
Click to expand...

I am not advising anyone on how much powder to put in their cartridges.
I was asked the question of what was the little rhyme that went with it and I told it.
I have used 33 grains of 3031 with 170 grain bullets and they chronographed at about the same as Parker Ackley shows in his chart, just under 2200 fps.
The 30-30 was designed to shoot a 170 grain bullet at 2200 fps and at one time I believe the factory loads actually pretty well did that. I found one old CIL Imperial, 30-30 with 170 grain bullet, among my stuff. I shot it over a chronograph and it actually did make just about 2200 fps.
But, as some of us have pointed out, LVR powder seems to be the way to get a 30-30 up to speed, with loads of just about what the modern loading charts show.
Bruce
 
H4831 said:
I am not advising anyone on how much powder to put in their cartridges.
I was asked the question of what was the little rhyme that went with it and I told it.
I have used 33 grains of 3031 with 170 grain bullets and they chronographed at about the same as Parker Ackley shows in his chart, just under 2200 fps.
The 30-30 was designed to shoot a 170 grain bullet at 2200 fps and at one time I believe the factory loads actually pretty well did that. I found one old CIL Imperial, 30-30 with 170 grain bullet, among my stuff. I shot it over a chronograph and it actually did make just about 2200 fps.
But, as some of us have pointed out, LVR powder seems to be the way to get a 30-30 up to speed, with loads of just about what the modern loading charts show.
Bruce
Click to expand...

And I didn't say you were 'advising' anyone, did I? When someone posts a load source, it is often presumed that the loads are recommended.

I have several Speer manuals, one going back to the 60's, and loads for several calibres that were once standard are now regarded as excessive in more up to date editions.
 
Sharps '63 said:
I have several Speer manuals, one going back to the 60's, and loads for several calibres that were once standard are now regarded as excessive in more up to date editions.
Click to expand...

So you've fallen for the lawyer's take on reloading.
 
Careful ..........there was an older version 748-BR replaced with Win 748 same goes for 760...........Harold
 
H4831 said:
So you've fallen for the lawyer's take on reloading.
Click to expand...

You really like to put words in people's mouths, don't you? Let me counter by asking if you advocate that reloaders ignore listed maximums?

Here's one for you re: H-4831 in the .270:

"Long ago , the standard load for the .270 with 130 gr bullets was 60.0 grs of H-4831. Every handloader from the 1950's and 1960's I knew used that combination.
Some of today's manuals cite a slightly lighter amount of the powder as maximum, but Hodgdon, Hornady and Swift's current reloading manuals still list 60.0 grs of H-4831 as maximum with speeds running from 3,000 to 3100 fps." Feb. 2015 "Handloader" magazine

Jack O'Connor used to load 61 grs with 4831 and caused a lot of controversy, but he stuck by it - in his rifles. And I recently read that Ken Waters was quite happy with 62 grs. Again - in his rifle.

The companies that put out these manuals spend a lot of time testing their recommended loads beyond looking at fired primers and chronograph screens. If it's all the same to you, I'll take their word on what they consider to be maximum.
 
Last edited:
hoytcanon said:
Yeah, the lawyers got hold of the Hodgdon website over the past year too... some max loads were decreased by as much as 15%...
Click to expand...

Strange that they would single out Hodgdon and ignore the load data published by other companies. Any particular reason?
 
Sharps '63 said:
"----------- The companies that put out these manuals spend a lot of time testing their recommended loads beyond looking at fired primers and chronograph screens. If it's all the same to you, I'll take their word on what they consider to be maximum.
Click to expand...
"

That would be great with me!
 
Sharps '63 said:
Strange that they would single out Hodgdon and ignore the load data published by other companies. Any particular reason?
Click to expand...

You took that too literally... what I was saying is that just like Hornady, Nosler, Lyman and others have reduced max loads to avoid potential litigation, over the past year Hodgdon has "dumbed down" their load data, due to liability pressure.
 
I don't doubt the experience of many on CGN. I do have trouble when people post data from by gone eras that exceed current maximums - without a disclaimer.

A lot of people tend to take internet data as gospel. I've been reloading since 1966 and even then I found out that max for some loads was over the top. Being a rookie and wanting the biggest bang for the buck, there was a learning curve before I realized that backing off a couple of grains was not only prudent, it often produced superior results.

For the record - when developing a load, I do a LOT of reading and surfing. Far and away, the best been there - done that info is right here on CGN.

Peace, brothers!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom