Too light of bullet for 4831 SC?

[Grizzlypeg]

For years I have hunted using my 300 WSM using 165 grain Hornady IB bullets and 69 grains of 4831 SC. I recently went to Hogden's reloading page, and see there is no data for using it with such a light bullet, and that the lightest bullet they start using it is 168 grains. The 69 grains would be max load for a 168 grain bullet. There are numerous reloaders who report great results with a 168 grain bullet. So, does 3 grains less cross some threshold?

I am getting great accuracy, never missed a shot out hunting in November under varying temperatures. No crazy muzzle flash, or signs of unburned powder.

What is the risk when using marginally too light of a bullet for a given powder?

 

[Janeau]

Do not worry between a 165 and 168. 69 grains with a 168 is safe..that charge will do with a lighter bullet.
Bullet weight is relative to gun barrel twist..not powder charge. Contact Hornady for data for their bullet if you prefer hard data.

A light bullet ( not your case here ) might not stabilise and provide good accuracy. Speeding up bullet too fast may make them to blow up without good penetration.all bullet are made to perform at a specific speed range.

 

[Grizzlypeg]

Here is a hit on a deer at approx 150 yards. The core really held together. Hardly any lost weight from the bullet. I shot him right straight on, him looking at me. Bullet entered the lower part of his neck and wound up in his chest. It was snowing like crazy and I was losing visibility. I packed up all my things and unloaded the rifle, was about to decend the ladder from a stand, and saw him out in the field. Quickly put a cartridge back in my gun and shot. He died upright, standing right where I shot him, in the deep snow.

 

[mareshow]

Reloading data from manufacturers is merely guidelines and not hard limits. That said always be cautious and increase powder load with caution.

There is lots of factors that can increase pressure in cases.

Seating depth is often the most overlooked. Seat longer less pressure.

in your case if you haven't had any pressure signs (heavy bolt lift, cratered or blown primers, strong ejector marks)

then you are fine.

 

[nowarningshot]

Many books will group bullets of similar weights. Have literally seen some tables for 165-168. Many times I have wanted to shoot a specific weight, bore, manufacturer and been unable to find info. Search other sources, come up with similar starting and max ranges. Then just start low and work up to velocity/accuracy/max. Basic stuff.

Most old reloading manuals, and I have some with company founders, long gone.....have much higher max charges. Recent books are liability lawyer approved. Your rifle and brass will tell you were to stop.

 

[209jones]

Was just using 139gr Scenar data with 136gr Scenar. But I double checked it with 129/130/135 data as well, to make sure there weren't any misprints and the charge zone looked right to start with.

 

[Andy]

....A light bullet ( not your case here ) might not stabilise and provide good accuracy....

In a given twist, a light bullet (i.e. a short bullet) is more inclined to stabilize than a heavy bullet at any MV.

Concerning loading a lighter bullet than listed. Just because a load is not listed doesn't mean it's unsafe or won't produce results that are satisfactory.

For cost reasons and simple practicality, powder manufacturers only pressure test select loads that produce desirable MV results and fall well within a powder's pressure operating zone. You can still load a bullet lighter than listed and produce consistent results, but there's a point below which your MV's will become erratic because the pressure is too low.

On the other hand, you can also load with powders not listed following a well established procedure - see the second sentence.

 

[Meroh]

For years I have hunted using my 300 WSM using 165 grain Hornady IB bullets and 69 grains of 4831 SC. I recently went to Hogden's reloading page, and see there is no data for using it with such a light bullet, and that the lightest bullet they start using it is 168 grains. The 69 grains would be max load for a 168 grain bullet. There are numerous reloaders who report great results with a 168 grain bullet. So, does 3 grains less cross some threshold?

I am getting great accuracy, never missed a shot out hunting in November under varying temperatures. No crazy muzzle flash, or signs of unburned powder.

What is the risk when using marginally too light of a bullet for a given powder?

Different caliber I know, but I have used it behind 120 gr. 6.5 x 55 loads with fantastic results for both accuracy and performance, at the high end of the recommendations. Shoots so well I have not ventured further. It should be a good powder for your loads, and your results seem good as well.

 

[Janeau]

Reloading data from manufacturers is merely guidelines and not hard limits. That said always be cautious and increase powder load with caution.

There is lots of factors that can increase pressure in cases.

Seating depth is often the most overlooked. Seat longer less pressure.

in your case if you haven't had any pressure signs (heavy bolt lift, cratered or blown primers, strong ejector marks)

then you are fine.

Reloading data is pressure based. They are hard limit. They say to start low and proceed to max with caution. When you have mechanical pressure signs..you are already overpressure. There is reasons some powder are not listed for a specific components selection. Pressure spike, erratic velocities are just a few reason.

Loading long is a Benchrest - competition step in load development. Sticking with published OAL for hunting is the way to go. While hunting, you will load and unload many time and last thing you want is a round stuck in the mag while loading to make kill, or worse, a bullet stuck in the throat - spilling powder out of the case while pulling the bolt to unload.

Trying to outsmart manufacturer balisticians that use lasted measuring equipment to produce load data is not smart.

 

[mareshow]

Reloading data is pressure based. They are hard limit. They say to start low and proceed to max with caution. When you have mechanical pressure signs..you are already overpressure. There is reasons some powder are not listed for a specific components selection. Pressure spike, erratic velocities are just a few reason.

Loading long is a Benchrest - competition step in load development. Sticking with published OAL for hunting is the way to go. While hunting, you will load and unload many time and last thing you want is a round stuck in the mag while loading to make kill, or worse, a bullet stuck in the throat - spilling powder out of the case while pulling the bolt to unload.

Trying to outsmart manufacturer balisticians that use lasted measuring equipment to produce load data is not smart.

I don't think I've ever seated to published COAL, I seat based on the chamber in every single gun. Depending on the cartridge and bullet, you may very well be able to seat much longer than COAL and still fit in the mag. 300 win mag is a great example of this. the COAL for 300 WM hasn't changed in a long time, but the bullet types and weights available have.

Simply "trusting the book" is incredibly ignorant of the opportunities and variables of your specific rifle.

A great example of this is my 6.5 creedmoor vs a buddies. Fired casings from his gun are 10 thousandths of an inch longer to the shoulder than mine. If he simply followed "the book" he would be over resizing his brass. If I followed the book, I would be over pressure.

Not to mention those pressure limits are for their specific rifle and chamber. If you have a tight chambered gun (like I do) the max listed load in a book may be way over pressure.

You're not "outsmarting" the book, you're using it as a reference as was intended. For any application, I hunt with all my rifles and never had a problem.

Telling people to follow the book without looking at their individual variables is incredibly dangerous.