whats the cast boolit "rule of thumb" on loads?

[mozeppa]

if all you have to load is cast bullets and no copper jacketed ones.

AND...there are NO loads listed for your boolit or its weight.

i have 100 grain cone nose cast...and all i'm able to find loads for are jacketed at 90 grains...or 110 grains.

for the 100 grain cast, which load recipe do i use ? ............the 90 jacketed or the 110 jacketed recipe?

in other words ... do i go to the nearest lighter jacketed for load info...or the nearest heavier jacketed
for load info?

am i making any sense here in what i'm asking?

[Harter66]

Makes perfect sense to this ol'wrench grinder .

The guide is to start at the start load of the next heavier bullet .

Until I get a feel for/depending on the gun , boolit and cartridge I may even treat the start load of the next lighter bullet as a max load . Depending on the jacket data and range of the load data .

[Harter66]

As an example I know of a 120 gr boolit load that has a load window of 14-26 gr of Unique . In that particular platform and cartridge I'm good to go with a 14.0 start on 125 gr boolit in a 264 WM in an FN 98 . The 140 gr data is 12-22 gr I think . The 26 sticks as it is what we loaded in 1 1/8 oz 12 ga .

Don't use this with checking it out .

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

you need to be careful when extrapolating Data. There are too many "exceptions" to have a valid rule of thumb, and can quickly get into trouble. If you are unsure enough, that you feel the need to ask a vague question(as you did), I'd think it's prudent for you to ask a specific question, with specific details including caliber, powder, and source of data...ect...

[EDG]

You can extrapolate data fairly easily if you have a large amount to extrapolate from.
1. You probably need 5 to 7 reliable manuals with data for your cartridge.
2. Visually inspect the data for uniformity. Make sure it makes enough sense to pass a sanity test.
That is heavier bullets have a lighter charge or powder and the differences between bullet weights are the same among the manuals.
Then throw out any outlier data. Any data that is significantly higher or lower than the rest should be discarded.
3. Take the rest of the data and average it. Average the heavier bullet data and the lighter bullet data. Then you make an educated choice based in the averaged data.



you need to be careful when extrapolating Data. There are too many "exceptions" to have a valid rule of thumb, and can quickly get into trouble. If you are unsure enough, that you feel the need to ask a vague question(as you did), I'd think it's prudent for you to ask a specific question, with specific details including caliber, powder, and source of data...ect...

[RogerDat]

I was told that for cast lead bullets if forced to use jacketed load data then start with 60% of the jacketed max. Would be enough to not squib and lodge in the barrel and well under max for lead. Got this when I called a powder company looking into powder equivalents and load data for a heavy .303 British. Was using the ADI tables for data and then the ADI equivalents table get US brand that was same as ADI manufactured for Australian consumption under their own brand name.

Multiply max grains of jacketed by .6 to get 60% (easy way to plug into calculator).

Best is to keep looking because there is a good chance someplace the load data exists. Everything I have read indicates too little powder can make for poor burn & low power due to insufficient pressure. Just as pressure can spike rapidly past a certain point in a powder weight, so too it can drop off a cliff below a certain point. Bullet stuck in bore is an alternative way to blow up a firearm.

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

DO NOT reduce H110 or Win 296 by 60%

again, I will state, there are too many "exceptions" to have a valid rule of thumb.

[dragon813gt]

DO NOT reduce H110 or Win 296 by 60%

again, I will state, there are too many "exceptions" to have a valid rule of thumb.

You can add a bunch of other powders that shouldn't be reduced that much. In the case of W296/H110 the last info they published said not to reduce by more than 3% if only a max load is given. Published starting loads are safe and you should not go below them. Unfortunately Hodgdon took this info off their site when they switched to the current reloading data center interface. You'd think they'd have these warnings front and center like they used to.

In life in general rules of thumb are an easy way to screw things up quickly.

[mdi]

Just a couple thoughts; First, keep looking, there is load data for just about every cast bullet somewhere, just find it. And another hint, find a load in your loading manual before you acquire components. Extrapolating load data isn't for the faint of heart or the foolish...

[Harter66]

There are a pretty finite list of candidates for a 100 gr TC with 90 and 110 gr data available . The 110 let's out 380 ,but leaves it wide open for 9mm and a host of 32s and 30 Carbine . It's not even really a question in a rifle .
His other active thread is about miss measured AA5 in a 9mm with no data sources to cross check .

If we are up to cast bullets and using them in alt cartridges there a pretty good chance that we wouldn't be using a half case of H110 with a standard primer .

Does every bit of generic information have to be disassembled until it looks like the I before E except for ...... nevermind there's as many exceptions as there are applications for the rule .

[Der Gebirgsjager]

True, all true. But, in the example given by the OP, I think that it's certainly safe to "split the difference" on the powder charge when you have two published loads and one is for a bullet 10 grains under and the other is for 10 grains over using the same powder.

[DougGuy]

Not so fast.. First and very important, look at the heavier boolit, see if you can determine how far down in the case the base of the boolit is seated when the round is assembled to the published COA. Then, measure your boolit, determine if the base of the boolit is in a similar place, THEN you can begin to extrapolate data from the heavier boolit to your lighter boolit.

You want to avoid a situation where the load you intend to arrive at, has the base of the boolit seated deeper than the published load since this would reduce case volume below the boolit and when this happens all bets are off as far as "generalizing" a powder charge from a different load.

[dragon813gt]

Not so fast.. First and very important, look at the heavier boolit, see if you can determine how far down in the case the base of the boolit is seated when the round is assembled to the published COA. Then, measure your boolit, determine if the base of the boolit is in a similar place, THEN you can begin to extrapolate data from the heavier boolit to your lighter boolit.

You want to avoid a situation where the load you intend to arrive at, has the base of the boolit seated deeper than the published load since this would reduce case volume below the boolit and when this happens all bets are off as far as "generalizing" a powder charge from a different load.

This is why QL is very helpful. It will tell you exactly how much case capacity you have. Like an computer program it's GIGO. But when you feed it the right information it makes working up loads a safe experience.

[W.R.Buchanan]

OK guys Exactly what caliber are we talking about?

Is this a 6MM rifle or a 9MM pistol cartridge? or a .380 or 9x18.

Kind of makes a big difference.

H110 is not a suitable powder for any of those.

It is hard to believe that there isn't any data readily available for what you are trying to do, Whatever that is?

Goto www.loaddata.com or get a Cast Boolit Loading Manual like the Lyman one.

There will be data for every weight boolit for your particular cartridge there is.

Randy

[jonp]

Not so fast.. First and very important, look at the heavier boolit, see if you can determine how far down in the case the base of the boolit is seated when the round is assembled to the published COA. Then, measure your boolit, determine if the base of the boolit is in a similar place, THEN you can begin to extrapolate data from the heavier boolit to your lighter boolit.

You want to avoid a situation where the load you intend to arrive at, has the base of the boolit seated deeper than the published load since this would reduce case volume below the boolit and when this happens all bets are off as far as "generalizing" a powder charge from a different load.

^^ I was just going to type something similar but DougGuy beat me to it. When approaching a bullet that has no data I choose a similar profile then the lowest amount of charge of the next higher bullet weight, reduce 10% and start off paying close attention to my chrono for odd spikes or readings.

[gwpercle]

With just a little more information I would be glad to look up some cast boolit data for you, I have several manuals.
Why some think a lack of information will help get correct answers I will never understand.
Gary

[Oklahoma Rebel]

one said " keep looking, there is data for everything out there" I have looked and looked and looked, for 9.3X62 285gr cast, cant find any data for any powder ( would like to use imr4895 or varget), what now? min charge for 285 jacketed X .90??? thanks-Travis

[Rcmaveric]

I would have looked for a cast bullet of equal weight with cartridge of equal case capacity. You start dropping jacketed loads with slow powders and your gonna start a fierce debate about sudden ignition. Lee's modern Reloader manual 2016 edition gives an amazing section about how to reduce loads. I am not gonna quote what it says because I loaned that manual to a friend and never got it back. I need to buy it again. Only 16 bucks and well worth the information.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk

[rking22]

If your looking at 380 9mm type situation I'm more concerned about the case capacity difference than 10 gr of bullet wt. In 243win the different weight isn't an issue at the load levels for good cast performance and neither is the case capacity. Now, 1/10 inch deeper in a 9mm case can turn a start load into a max load right quick! I agree, keep researching , there's most likely some pressure tested data for your bullet somewhere, else quickload for a sanity check.

[mozeppa]

ALLOW ME TO CLARIFY.

100 grain cone nose for a .380 sig sauer......you pick any powder you want i have most all varieties in the pistol range.

[fredj338]

You never get into trouble using heavier bullet data for a lighter bullet. With lead, you want to use starting jacketed data & work it up. You will reach max pressures sooner with lead than jacketed, so stay away from max load levels.

[Oklahoma Rebel]

so its ok to go ahead and use lees min. loads for jacketed 285 bullets for cast 285gr 9.3X62? I might still start at 46-47grs instead of a min charge of 51grs of imr4895

[Hick]

I'm with those who use the start load of a slightly heavier bullet. I have done this on a number of occasions without difficulty

[Cherokee]

mozeppa - now that I know what you are loading, here is what I am using in several locked breach 380's. Accurate mold 35-100B which is a RF style, at 103 gr sized 357 seated at .960" OAL using 2.8 gr of 231 for regular use. I have gone from 3.1 gr down to 2.7 and found 2.8 best for my shooting. Start low and work up. For the Lee 356-95RF @ 97 gr, I settled on 3.3 gr 231 @ .927 OAL. For both bullets I use a 3/3/94 alloy.

[WRideout]

Slower powders seem to be more forgiving than fast powders. If you are trying to come up with an equivalent load based on jacketed, it is easier to do it with IMR4198 than, say, Bullseye. I had to come up with an equivalent load for my Tok 7.62x25, with the 100 gr. Lee 30 cal. I preferred Unique to Red Dot on the basis that Unique was the slower powder, and less likely to cause a pressure problem. I use 6.0 gr unique as my standard load all the time now.
Wayne

[Bzcraig]

There is plenty of data for the 102gr Lee boolit and I would be comfortable using your 100gr TC boolit with that data. But as mentioned above YOU need to be sure of all the variables and come to your own educated decision because it is you who will pull the trigger. The great folks here are an invaluable resource for helping with the aforementioned educated decision making.

[dragon813gt]

one said " keep looking, there is data for everything out there" I have looked and looked and looked, for 9.3X62 285gr cast, cant find any data for any powder ( would like to use imr4895 or varget), what now? min charge for 285 jacketed X .90??? thanks-Travis

Purchase Quickload.

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

one said " keep looking, there is data for everything out there" I have looked and looked and looked, for 9.3X62 285gr cast, cant find any data for any powder ( would like to use imr4895 or varget), what now? min charge for 285 jacketed X .90??? thanks-Travis

I would choose a powder with a slower burn rate for that heavy boolit...depending on what velocity you hope to achieve.

[JBinMN]

I found at least 2 load data sites that have powders/loads listed for 100gr cast in 380. I think there may be a few more & I have not even looked in any of my manuals yet. They are not TC boolits listed in the online links though. Mostly RN. Regardless, I am simply pointing out that there is load data that are very close to what you seek. If the boolits length in regard to case capacity are the same, then you may be able to use such load data to start to work up your loads, rather than u sing heavier or lighter boolit load data alone.

Here are the 2 sites, although, like I said there may be more resources to check...:

http://castpics.net/dpl/index.php/reloaders-reference/cast-bullet-data-lookup

http://www.handloads.com/loaddata/default.asp?Caliber=380%20ACP&Weight=100&type=Handgun&Order=Powder&Source=

G'Luck!
:)

P.S. - There is a list here of Online Load Data manuals & such. The Castboolits.gunloads member, Grmps started it. It is located here for your viewing pleasure.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?337910-CB-load-data-online-sources
;)

[mdi]

How many fellers are looking for data? One says 9x62 another says 380. ???

[guicksylver]

Quit being so cheap and buy either the Lee manual or one of Lymans Cast bullet hand books or one with both jacketed and cast...I know everyone gets lazy and cheap because of the internet..but you won't learn ANYTHING from one or two SUGGSTED loads you might get here..solving a problem is another matter ..
for what it's worth some of the most accurate loads are those below the listed starting points for a particular bullet and cartridge..you won't know what those are until you get a book or ask a couple of 100 people to read theirs to you...open your wallet and do some of the work yourself...you'll be better off for it..

[reddog81]

.380 is a very common round. I'd keep looking until I found something. Have you tried the powder manufacturers website?

[RogerDat]

DO NOT reduce H110 or Win 296 by 60%

again, I will state, there are too many "exceptions" to have a valid rule of thumb. that is not a 60% reduction that is a 40% reduction from max load of same powder for same weight bullet in jacketed load data to accommodate cast bullet. Multiply by .6 yields 60% of original or a 40% reduction not 60% reduction.

Take load data for a Hornady 140 grain XTP max is 19 grains H110 times .6 equals 11.4 Which is just a bit under the 12 grain min for FTX bullet in 140 grain. Those have the plastic tips so I guess lower velocity or pressure is desired. But both are jacketed and I would think 11.4 would be a non squib starting load for 140 grain cast lead that would have enough pressure to burn the powder.

It is true that some powders such as H110 or W296 really won't perform properly until reaching a certain pressure threshold. My guess is 11.4 grains would not be an ideal load but I think it would be a safe starting point.

No "rule of thumb" is perfect. They provide a starting point for consideration if nothing else is available. Real load data trumps rule of thumb every time. However that particular rule of thumb came from calling Hodgdon for advice so I doubt they would suggest it if it would lead to disastrous results with their powders.

[Smoke4320]

You can add a bunch of other powders that shouldn't be reduced that much. In the case of W296/H110 the last info they published said not to reduce by more than 3% if only a max load is given. Published starting loads are safe and you should not go below them. Unfortunately Hodgdon took this info off their site when they switched to the current reloading data center interface. You'd think they'd have these warnings front and center like they used to.

In life in general rules of thumb are an easy way to screw things up quickly.

or end up with no thumbs :) and it really sucks when you wake up dead

[dragon813gt]

Take load data for a Hornady 140 grain XTP max is 19 grains H110 times .6 equals 11.4 Which is just a bit under the 12 grain min for FTX bullet in 140 grain.

That is the wrong multiplier for that powder. You're reducing it way to much. See my earlier post for how much you can reduce H110 from a listed max charge, if no starting load is listed.

You also can't substitute XTP and FTX data. XTPs have their own specific load data. It's not interchangeable w/ other JHPs let alone a FTX bullet. This is exactly how rules of thumb or wrong interpolation of data can get you in trouble.

If you have a specific question call the powder or bullet manufacturers. They want to help you out. There isn't a lot of data out there for the newer powders. But there will be over time.

[runfiverun]

Travis.
60% rule with the 4895.

H-110 is a perfectly acceptable powder for reduced rifle loads.
the warnings are in near case capacity loads where a start stop start is much more likely and there is no capacity to take up the gas volume produced that fast.

[johnho]

I'm using the H&G 55s rn at 95 grains. I use 231 from 2.8 up to 3.2 at 0.955 oal. Seems to match Cherokee's loads. I'm using linotype. Why? Have no idea, just because I have a bunch and they look pretty, but also will use simple range lead. I think you have a good place to start.

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

that is not a 60% reduction that is a 40% reduction from max load of same powder for same weight bullet in jacketed load data to accommodate cast bullet. Multiply by .6 yields 60% of original or a 40% reduction not 60% reduction.

...SNIP
please disregard my comment, I didn't notice you were talking about a rifle cartridge, I've never used H110 in rifle cartridges.

[EDG]

This is correct by my experience. H110 is position sensitive. I shot reduced loads in a .30-30.
When the powder charge was forward the rounds fired normally.
When the powder charge was back against the primer the loads locked the bolt of a 788.
So I do not use ball powders for reduced loads unless the data is in a reliable publication.


DO NOT reduce H110 or Win 296 by 60%

again, I will state, there are too many "exceptions" to have a valid rule of thumb.

[Harter66]

Purchase Quickload.

I've had some data run on Quick load . It is not dead on every time , in my case it presented 15 solutions . 3 matched outcomes that I had , 1 missed . It showed a load value of 105% for a particular powder . That data number would have put actual case fill at 163% of data generated . In that case it wasn't a big deal the powder choice was far to slow for cartridge and bullet weight , to slow to get hurt .

[RogerDat]

I'm really not an advocate of going by general rules as opposed to real honest load data. Which was why I called Hodgdon for confirmation of my load when I was going a little bit close to the margins. However if you have a known safe load and want to translate from jacketed to cast that 60% of max is a fairly decent place to start. The more you know about the powder and similar loads the less dangerous it gets. E.g Knowing H110 needs sufficient load to build pressure for good burn. Or Titegroup can spike pressure sharply on a minor load difference.

Personally if I had a load I was working on with some "rule" I would bounce what I had in mind off the members here for feed back. Good chance someone else already has known good data to apply to what you are trying to do. Or knows of a source to check for some tested and definitive load data. Some members have done a lot of testing, others have a library of manuals to draw on. Including some older or less common ones.

In my case Hodgdon said they don't load test a lot of .303 British rounds but using the ADI load data for the equivalent H powders was safe. Then I got to feel good and enjoy rather than fearing I was going to end up with a bolt sticking out of my face. Ugly enough to start with, don't need that.

[Oklahoma Rebel]

I wasn't so much looking for a load as I was defending the op, when someone said " keep looking, every boolit has load info out there" when I said that I had looked everywhere for load info and found none, sorry for the confusion. it 's just that sometimes there isn't load data to be found, I think especially now that cast boolits are becoming more popular and more and more boolit designs are available. good luck to the OP

[dbosman]

I'd start with this site.
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?261355-Need-load-data-for-250-gr-9-3x62



one said " keep looking, there is data for everything out there" I have looked and looked and looked, for 9.3X62 285gr cast, cant find any data for any powder ( would like to use imr4895 or varget), what now? min charge for 285 jacketed X .90??? thanks-Travis

[fivefang]

Randy,I have used 12.5 gr. #WC 820 under a PC'd lee 90gr. s.w.c. & sml.R.Primer in the 7.62x25 Tokarev Zastava with good results, it registered 1450fps. on my Chrony, WC # 820 in my .44 preformes quite the same as the #H110 with a minimum chg. of 21.5 Gr. under the 215gr. Thompson /Lyman GC, just my 2 cents, Fivefang

[Grmps]

Here is a list of online load data sites http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?337910-CB-load-data-online-sources

[Oklahoma Rebel]

that was good info, as I plan on getting a 250gr someday, but I am starting with a 286gr and sticking with it for a while. unfortunately I have gone through that list twice, and if there is something in there, I missed it. there were a couple sites that ddidnt load, I think they might have been hodgdon

[TXGunNut]

Lyman and Lee have quite a bit of CB data, Lyman even has a CB manual. Too many exceptions to many rules of thumb.