So he other day my pal showed me some ancient loading manuals from as far back as 53. A lee and a Lyman, I do not recall which was which. Anyhow here's what's got me boggled. In current publications I'm seeing maximums of 76 and 79 grains of H4831 Behind a 150 gr bullet. Well this 50's publicaton is giving a max of 85, ya 85 grains at 3351 fps. So what's happened 40 years later, is h4831 faster, did our guns get weakers, cases thinner? Or has all the current publishers just had ### changes? I can't even see how I could get 85 in there. How can there be such a massive spread?
What's changed in the last 40 years regarding 4831 and the .300wm?
- Thread starter fuzzynuts54
- Start date
We keep hearing about lawyers forcing powder manufacturers to lower loads, but can anyone point to a single lawsuit?
As suggested, powder burn rates change, and pressure testing equipment improves. Guns and brass are really no different, and it just goes to show that guns are overbuilt considerably above SAAMI pressure specs.
As suggested, powder burn rates change, and pressure testing equipment improves. Guns and brass are really no different, and it just goes to show that guns are overbuilt considerably above SAAMI pressure specs.
Just an improvement in powders. I have a friend that is on his last 8 lb keg of H4831 in his 270 and he has always loaded it 4-5 grains higher than I could load IMR4831 in mine. He bought this powder in the early 60's for a buck a pound and it was surplus WWII powder that Hogdon was marketing.
Pathfinder
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Northeast Ontario
sounds right...I always though that IMR 4831 burned a little faster than H4831.
Yes IMR 4831 is faster burning then H-4831, you def. can't interchange loading data on these two.
I believe that the testing done many years ago was done on either not accurate pressure testing equip. or not done on any equip., just checking for visual signs on the fired cases or bolt lift. Some of Ackley's loads for his Improved cartridges were off the map, sales gimmick??
I believe that the testing done many years ago was done on either not accurate pressure testing equip. or not done on any equip., just checking for visual signs on the fired cases or bolt lift. Some of Ackley's loads for his Improved cartridges were off the map, sales gimmick??
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
Published load data is a best guess scenario given a set of parameters with which to plug in data. Some of it is very precise, some of it is out to lunch. Consider the data for the .375 Ultra from the last two editions of the Hornady manual, its maximum loads with 4350 and a 300 gr bullet are 5 or 6 grs too light, but better too light than too heavy.
As always, work up the load in the rifle for which it is intended. When working up with powder you are unfamiliar with, attempt to get current published data from more than one source. I like to first determine my maximum load, and work down for that point when I wish to tweak the load for accuracy or some other reason.
As always, work up the load in the rifle for which it is intended. When working up with powder you are unfamiliar with, attempt to get current published data from more than one source. I like to first determine my maximum load, and work down for that point when I wish to tweak the load for accuracy or some other reason.
The current Hodgdon sites lists 84 gr and the Nosler site lists 85 gr of H4831 with 150 gr bullets in the .300 Weatherby Mag . My 'Handbook for Shooters and Reloaders by P.O. Ackley(published 1959) lists 86 grains. Not a huge difference but to be approached with caution.
Well I tell you what, I've found 2 winter loads for 150gr matchkings, 74 and 77. So far up to 79 I have no pressure signs. I just might dive a little deeper and see if I can find the next. If it hadn't been for that book I'd be quite happy where I'm at, but if
accuracy can be found with a little more speed I'll take it.
accuracy can be found with a little more speed I'll take it.
Mauser, I'm talking Winchester magnum. I took a picture of the page from the book, if I could post it I would. 79 for 180, 77 for 200 and 75 for
220's. 10% over what books claim as max these days. In this 50's era book asvusing to
begin 10% lower... Your starting at current maximums. I'm assuming thus is due to fears of being sued. Most people won't excede book max, some go
a couple beyond, but who in thier right mind would go 5-7? They get a
huge safety margin this way, safe from being sued. If anyone goes that deep beyond what they publish as max it's a pretty good defence in court. A person couldn't even do it by accident. Your gonna need a long tube, or tap to settle powder and there's gonna be some serious crunching as you seat. It would be fully intentional to cram all that powder in.
220's. 10% over what books claim as max these days. In this 50's era book asvusing to
begin 10% lower... Your starting at current maximums. I'm assuming thus is due to fears of being sued. Most people won't excede book max, some go
a couple beyond, but who in thier right mind would go 5-7? They get a
huge safety margin this way, safe from being sued. If anyone goes that deep beyond what they publish as max it's a pretty good defence in court. A person couldn't even do it by accident. Your gonna need a long tube, or tap to settle powder and there's gonna be some serious crunching as you seat. It would be fully intentional to cram all that powder in.
On the testing I did with H4831, the new cannister powder is actually slower burning, than the original war surplus variety. I tested the classic 270 load, 60 grains with a 130 grain bullet. With the same conditions in both tests, five rounds, the old surplus H4831 drove the bullet 100 fps faster, than did their new cannister H4831.
There is no doubt the old loadings were heavier. The heaviest of the new loadings I have seen, is with Hodgdon on line. I think that is because you can't even see the loadings until you agree to every thing they can think of. That is probably the safest, liability wise, of them all.
As far as pressure testing goes, the military and the big companies had accurate pressure testing since, at least, WW1. When Hodgdon got into the business after WW2 they had state of the art pressure testing, as did P.O. Ackley.
I think we all know that modern, meaning in the last thirty years, loading books are a way off in the speeds they give for various loadings. I take the 30-06 as an example. In every American loading book the 180 grain bullet is usually going 2700 fps, with IMR4350. I have seen loading books where 54 grains does it, while others go up to about 57 grains. In my rifles 57 grains of 4350 gives me around 2600.
Norma loading charts are very accurate in the real world.
There is no doubt the old loadings were heavier. The heaviest of the new loadings I have seen, is with Hodgdon on line. I think that is because you can't even see the loadings until you agree to every thing they can think of. That is probably the safest, liability wise, of them all.
As far as pressure testing goes, the military and the big companies had accurate pressure testing since, at least, WW1. When Hodgdon got into the business after WW2 they had state of the art pressure testing, as did P.O. Ackley.
I think we all know that modern, meaning in the last thirty years, loading books are a way off in the speeds they give for various loadings. I take the 30-06 as an example. In every American loading book the 180 grain bullet is usually going 2700 fps, with IMR4350. I have seen loading books where 54 grains does it, while others go up to about 57 grains. In my rifles 57 grains of 4350 gives me around 2600.
Norma loading charts are very accurate in the real world.
My father used to thrive on the old H4831 and was incensed when the surplus ran out. He bought a 100lbs canister (yes, 100lbs) when it was running out and if I remember right it was in "short cut" style which the new production would not be.
The surplus WWII H4831 formulation can't be compared to todays production with any similar weights or results, but having said that formulations evolve over time and one change I see is the energy required is sometimes obtained with less weight.
My 60 year old Ideal book almost at times uses tight case extraction as maxinum load boundaries.
The surplus WWII H4831 formulation can't be compared to todays production with any similar weights or results, but having said that formulations evolve over time and one change I see is the energy required is sometimes obtained with less weight.
My 60 year old Ideal book almost at times uses tight case extraction as maxinum load boundaries.
In the title to this thread, you mentioned '300 WM' then in the first post you quoted loads from manuals from the 50's. The 300 Winchester Magnum wasn't introduced until 1963 so I made the assumption that we were discussing the Weatherby version.
No Mauser, one book is dated 53, I think it's lee and it does not contain the .300 win mag, the other book I cannot find a date but it does. All I know it's it's an old book too. If I remember correctly it is a Lyman 43rd or 47th edition. Positive that one if them is a 40something edition anyways.
