Reloading Course from P&D Enterprises NOT RECOMMENDED!
- Thread starter one shot one kill
- Start date
The LEE manual,the Sierra manual,and the Nosler manual,also use direct comparisons,and the velocity is difference is much larger.The Lee ,Sierra,And Nosler sources are just as credible as the Hodgdons site.
Since the velocity differences vary between the four sources,averaging the difference gives equal credibility to each source.However you seem to want to ignore the other sources and only use the source that supports your opinion.
On the contrary,you seem to promote your source as the only correct one,while not giving credibility to sources such as Sierra,Nosler,and Lee,all of which are well known sources trusted by many reloaders to be as credible as any other source.
Each of my manuals,and the Lee manual list loads that were tested in the same gun with the same barrel length,using the same bullet for all powders tested.They do not use a 22" barrel to test one powder,and a 24" barrel to test another powder.
.
Again,the manuals generally list all powders loaded to very similar pressures.
The bottom line is that while I am considering all four sources including yours to be equally credible by averaging the four velocity differences,you only seem willing to consider the Hodgdons source as credible.I averaged the results to do a fair and objective comparison,but you seem totally uninterested in being fair or objective if it means admitting that your opinion about 4895 being a wise choice to load a 7mm remmag to it's true potential is not correct.
- Location
- Calgary, AB
Well, as a person with 23yrs reloading experience, one never stops learning. I applaud P&D and in particular Ede and Dennis for helping new reloaders.
Maybe people with 1 post shouldn't come on here posting a rant that is unwarranted.
A better start would have been to ask questions about the powder/cartridge, instead of blowing his top at a contributing dealer, especially when it has nothing to do with P&D...
What is to interpret?I took the maximum velocity with the 120gr bullet with 4895,and the maximum velocity with the fastest powder using the same 120gr bullet, in the same gun,in the same loading manual, just like you did.I then posted the velocity difference between the 4895 load and the fastest load in that particular manual.I did not compare results from one manual to results from another manual.I did that for each manual,then I averaged the four velocity differences to give equal credibility to each manual.It's not a matter of interpretation,but because the results don't favor your opinion,you don't accept the results.For that reason,and that reason alone,you only accept your own interpretation of your own data.I do "get it".
Last edited:
Taberrnac, this thread went well off the rails, perhaps the result the original poster wanted. Now everybody's getting anal about the perfect load, when the WHOLE ISSUE is whether a newbie was given dangerous data. It's clear that wasn't the case.
- Location
- big sky country
IMR 4895 or H4895 will both work in this application. This is not a dangerous powder for this calibre.
We are not talking about a particular caliber,we are talking about a particular cartridge,that being the 7mmremmag.Yes the 4895 powders certainly can be used safely in the 7mmremmag,but using them for this application will not result in this cartridge performing to it's potential.Why shoot a 7mmremmag,loaded to 280rem velocities?
- Location
- big sky country
The origional post said 4895 was probably dangerous for that cartridge. In fact it is not dangerous in that cartridge. I wasn't talking potential bud. Pay attention.
Last edited:
Only because the original poster specified that particular cartridge,and was using that cartridge/powder combination as the basis for his condemning the loading course.
Actually there were several people discussing the appropriateness of the powder/cartridge combination.However,I believe that almost every person that replied took exception to the original poster slandering P&D.
We have no idea in what context that powder was suggested to a newbie reloader, it may have the kid asked for a powder suitable for 7RM & a .223??
In which case it's a perfectly good suggestion! The original poster shouldn't have "Rant"d till he was sure exactly What question was asked & How or in What context it was asked!
Last edited:
While 4895 is not the preferred powder for 7mm Rem. Mag, it is not inherently unsafe in this cartridge, if used in accordance with published data.
Based on a foundation of ignorance, the original poster took it upon himself to try to damage the reputation of an established business. He made no effort to clarify the situation before posting.
This is unacceptable conduct.
Based on a foundation of ignorance, the original poster took it upon himself to try to damage the reputation of an established business. He made no effort to clarify the situation before posting.
This is unacceptable conduct.
NavyShooter
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- XMU Local .303
As an aside note, I'm running a reloading course (of similar beginner level intent) in Halifax/Dartmouth on the 18th....I know now better than to recommend loads!
LOL
NS
LOL
NS
Stepping in it!
Man, OSOK, you may have really stepped in it.
My 20+ years of doing this (I started with a Lee Loader and a nylon hammer) says that you always check the books. So, I did, when I read your post. This is the result:
Both Speer and Hornady recommends 4895 as an acceptable powder for most of their bullet line.
Sierra has it listed for EVERY bullet weight they make and it is listed as the best hunting or accuracy load for several.
Modern Reloading recommends it in at least 3 bulllet weights.
IMR lists load data for another 3 bullet weights.
Hodgdon lists H4895 as an acceptable load and by comparing that to the powder burn scale (I know it's not gospel), you can work up quite safe loads.
I think what we should take out of this is, "Did they teach him the right technique, proper focus and to avoid distractions, and to check the load data with several sources."
Heck my first wildcat was loading a 220gn roundnose behind 4 gns of Unique in my SKS. It produced a subsonic round avg'g 725fps that wasn't strong enough to work the action and silent as a cough. I don't believe you'll find that load data listed anywhere but it took two deer in one season, one just under 50yds and one just over.
Technique, cross referencing, and safety is better than guessing and making a bold statement that may get you in hot water with other reloaders.
Man, OSOK, you may have really stepped in it.
My 20+ years of doing this (I started with a Lee Loader and a nylon hammer) says that you always check the books. So, I did, when I read your post. This is the result:
Both Speer and Hornady recommends 4895 as an acceptable powder for most of their bullet line.
Sierra has it listed for EVERY bullet weight they make and it is listed as the best hunting or accuracy load for several.
Modern Reloading recommends it in at least 3 bulllet weights.
IMR lists load data for another 3 bullet weights.
Hodgdon lists H4895 as an acceptable load and by comparing that to the powder burn scale (I know it's not gospel), you can work up quite safe loads.
I think what we should take out of this is, "Did they teach him the right technique, proper focus and to avoid distractions, and to check the load data with several sources."
Heck my first wildcat was loading a 220gn roundnose behind 4 gns of Unique in my SKS. It produced a subsonic round avg'g 725fps that wasn't strong enough to work the action and silent as a cough. I don't believe you'll find that load data listed anywhere but it took two deer in one season, one just under 50yds and one just over.
Technique, cross referencing, and safety is better than guessing and making a bold statement that may get you in hot water with other reloaders.
