StainLess Steel MediaGraf & SonsMidSouth Shooters SupplyInline Fabrication
Lee PrecisionTitan ReloadingADvertise hereRotoMetals2

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 125

Thread: [B]Load Manual Error......[/B]

  1. #61
    Boolit Master


    Larry Gibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, Arizona
    Posts
    15,861
    Quote Originally Posted by buckshotshoey View Post
    Larry.... have you been in contact with Hodgdon yet? They may try to brush you off but it is the best interest of all of us that you do so. Maybe at least they will retest.
    Not yet. Hodgdon specifically used the 180 Sierra SPBT bullet. They also used WLR primers which is a bit stronger in brisance than Federal 210s. I want to test again with WLR primers and the Sierra bullets but I have to get another box of bullets first as I've only a couple left from the box I used. With the bit stronger WLR primers I'm hoping the ignition problem will be solved If it is based on the previous tests with Federal magnum primers then the 55.3 gr charge should produce a higher psi than the 57,600 psi with the 210 primers. If so that would put the 55.3 gr load close to the SAAMI MAP meaning the 57.5 gr max load Hodgdon lists is still excessive. We shall see (hopefully not SEE).

    Speer lists several of their 180 gr bullets with their max charge of 58 gr H4350. The 180 SP I tested ran 52,700 psi with 55.3 gr. So it is possible their max of 58 gr may still be at or under the SAAMI MAP. Further testing is also needed there. However, that raises the question; does that really apply to the other Speer 180 gr bullets? As we have seen from the Hornady manuals which also list several bullets under the same max charge of 55.3 gr that the 178 gr ELD-X bullet gave a higher psi than the Hornady 180 gr SPBT. If we increased the charge of H4350 so the psi of the Hornady 180 SPBT was the same as the ELD-X then the max charge would be greater.
    Larry Gibson

    “Deficient observation is merely a form of ignorance and responsible for the many morbid notions and foolish ideas prevailing.”
    ― Nikola Tesla

  2. #62
    Boolit Master
    swheeler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,251
    Getting to see pressure data from a documented SEE would be nice! Larry wear a helmet with full face shield, some body armor and maybe some arm and hand mace, make sure your strain gauge if functioning properly!
    Hell, I was there!

  3. #63
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    317
    To me, published load data is a suggestion, a starting point. Load data is intentionally low so it would be safe in any production made gun, old or new (within reason). Factory chambers are made big to fit any commercial ammo. And production guns are, well, production guns.

    This 30/06 Goodsteel put together is no longer a production gun. I would bet he did a bit of truing, and used a minimum SAAMI reamer, which is way better than a factory chamber. So to shoot loads and not "feel" or see any pressure signs until primer pockets open up is not surprising. It's common when using custom actions.

    So yes, work up to loads, but you just may have a gun/chamber that will easily take more pressure than what a loading manual tells you.

  4. #64
    Boolit Master


    Larry Gibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, Arizona
    Posts
    15,861
    B R Shooter

    Load data these days by the reputable manual publishers who actually test the loads is not "intentionally low".....that is a myth. Tested data, especially that data tested via peizo-transducer method, for some time now is held to SAAMI specifications here in the US or to CIP specifications in Europe. There are some exceptions though where no specification for the cartridge is held by either SAAMI or CIP. There are also some cartridge data that is above SAAMI specifications such as the 8x57.

    Factory ammunition is manufactured to a velocity specification (with a surprisingly large +/- fps range) with non canister lots of powder. The factories work up a load to meet that velocity specification while maintaining the pressures at or below the SAAMI MAP, the MPLM and the MPSM. If the load meeting the velocity specification for the cartridge/bullet, as developed in their pressure guns, are within those SAAMI specifications many of the factories then test in production rifles using the commercial Oehler M83 (the M43s big brother). If all proves well then the ammunition is loaded. Keep in mind the MAP, the MPLM and the MPSM may be under the SAAMI specification.

    As an example; the SAAMI MAP for the 30-06 is 60,000 psi. It is an incorrect assumption to make that all factory loaded 30-06 ammunition generates 60,000 psi......it just isn't so but some does and some doesn't. The Federal 150 gr PS factory load I use as a "reference" is an example. It gives 2970 +/- fps out of the 24" test barrel. You can't get 2970 +/- fps out of a 30-06 with a 150 gr bullet w/o pressure. That's why the use of a chronograph is advised; if you push the expected velocity for any cartridge with any given bullet then you are pushing pressure.......it's basically that simple.

    Keep in mind the manufacturer's test barrels are made to minimum SAAMI specifications and are also chambered to minimum SAAMI specifications. Obermeyer used to provide the most of the test barrels but I'm not sure about now. The Broughton barrel goodsteel put on my friends rifle (M700 action) was to minimal specs also. Yes goodsteel used a match chamber reamer and did his magic. The test barrel I use has a .300 bore and a .3081 groove diameter. I also used a match 30-06 reamer and chambered it to minimal headspace. Note the federal factory ammunition tested out in my test rifle within 300 psi of what that lot of ammunition tested in Federals test barrel with a peizo-transducer. That is well within test to test variation of the same lot of ammunition. Also note the velocity to pressure of that federal load; the pressure is just under the SAAMI MAP at that velocity.

    "So yes, work up to loads, but you just may have a gun/chamber that will easily take more pressure than what a loading manual tells you
    ."

    Based on my pressure testing of over 30 cartridges in numerous test barrels over the last 8 - 9 years I have to disagree 100+% with that statement. Unless you have the ability to actually measure pressures in that "gun/chamber" it is best to work up loads and then I can not emphasize more that you certainly do not exceed the data published by sources who have actually pressure test the data. Even then, as this thread discusses, there are discrepancies so one should not assume they are "underpowered" by any stretch of the imagination.
    Last edited by Larry Gibson; 10-07-2017 at 03:28 PM.
    Larry Gibson

    “Deficient observation is merely a form of ignorance and responsible for the many morbid notions and foolish ideas prevailing.”
    ― Nikola Tesla

  5. #65
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    317
    I stand by my statement for these reasons. In shooting competition, loads are routinely shot that far exceeds the "load data" for the cartridge. There is nothing magical about these guns, other than the chambers fit the brass closely, the sizing dies match the chamber dimensions such that they do not overwork the brass. The actions are true, lapped surfaces and are strong. With these parameters, loads can be safely fired that exceed load data. Brass is easily reloaded 40-50 times as long the the brass doesn't reach its yield strength.

    Published load data may fall in with SAAMI specs, but that is still a value that is set to work with production guns. And factory ammo falls within that as well. You wouldn't expect the published burn rates to be accurate would you? They are a guideline. Just looking at a number of burn rate charts will show you the same amount of differing info. The characteristics of how the powder burns doesn't follow the burn rates. Obviously there are different methods of testing burn rates.

    My whole point here is, you shot a gun that did not exhibit the "normal" pressure signs, yet by virtue of the loose primer pockets, it did exceed the brass yield strength. Everything doesnt follow the narrative it should.

  6. #66
    Boolit Master


    Larry Gibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, Arizona
    Posts
    15,861
    Perhaps you could give us an example of such competition loads that "far exceeds the "load data" for the cartridge" as published in a manual by a company that actually pressure tests?

    That the gun initially used did not exhibit "normal" pressure signs is part of point to this thread. That my own test rifle did not exhibit any "normal" pressure signs either with a load that hit 69,000+ psi is also part of the point. "Normal pressure signs" are not always indicators of excessive pressure is the point. Additionally the point also is that there are apparent discrepancies in even the best of load manuals.
    Larry Gibson

    “Deficient observation is merely a form of ignorance and responsible for the many morbid notions and foolish ideas prevailing.”
    ― Nikola Tesla

  7. #67
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    317
    I will, but I am at a match now and not at home. I will reference a 6PPC and a 6BR. In the mean time, if you would like to do a little research on your own, find a published load for a 6PPC using VV N133 and a 66 grain bullet. Or a 6BR using Varget with a 105/107 grain bullet.

    You make my own point, you didn't see any pressure signs yet you say you exceeded the maximum pressure. Hmmmm. You have a good chamber, and and action that has good lug contact. The good chamber prevents the swollen case base since it is captured with little clearance. The good lug contact means both lugs are bearing evenly and solidly, which prevents the bolt setback upon firing. Measuring the case base doesn't show the expansion, and you didn't feel a hard bolt lift pulling the case.

    I'll get back to you on the load data later Monday.

  8. #68
    Boolit Master


    Larry Gibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, Arizona
    Posts
    15,861
    Have the load data you requested for the 6 PPC with 65 and 68 gr bullets. However, this thread is about published data using the components readily available over the counter. My friends rifle will chamber and safely shoot factory ammunition. Will your 6 PPC? Are your 66 gr bullets available over the counter? Is there published data for that bullet in manuals that pressure test their data? Do you know the SAAMI MAP for the 6 PPC? If not then how do you know you are exceeding "normal" pressures? Have you measured the pressure of your loads?

    As to the 6 BR there is published data in manuals that test the pressure for 100 and 107 gr bullets using Varget. Again, what is the SAAMI MAP for the 6 BR? What is considered a "normal" max psi? how do you know you are exceeding "normal" max pressures. Have you measured the psi of your "excessive" pressure loads in your rifle?

    Let me give you a hint; neither the 6 PPC or the 6 BR have a SAAMI established MAP. So if you would please advise what is the established "maximum normal pressure" for each and who has established it? My assumption would be since both cases use a SR primer I would peg a MAP for both at 62,000 psi because the 6 PPC is larger than the 5.56 case which has that as the military MAP. The 6 BR being based on the .308W head size with a SR primer pocket should also be capable of a MAP of 62,000 psi. Do your "excessive" pressure loads exceed 62,000 psi and if so, how do you know?

    No, I do not make your point. You seem to be telling us it is okay to exceed the maximum pressure(?) for the 30-06 by 9,000 to 15,000+ psi just because the rifle "can take it".....so far. You are conveniently forgetting the swollen primer pockets which are a classic indication of excessive pressure but yet insinuate since there are no other "pressure" signs it is okay to continue shooting that load. You also are conveniently ignoring the fact I have measured the "excessive pressures" as posted in this thread and they exceeded any MAP for any cartridge in a M700 action. Yet you are telling us that's okay, just keep on shooting them....... I am saying just the opposite and am certainly am not "making your point".

    Please understand, this thread is about 178 - 180 gr bullet in the 30-06 using H4350 exceeding the SAAMI MAP for the 30-06 cartridge. It is not about the 6 PPC or the 6 BR using VV 133 or Varget. If you want to continue an esoteric discussion on your 6 PPC and your 6 BR then kindly start another thread.

    Enjoy the match, shoot well.
    Last edited by Larry Gibson; 10-08-2017 at 01:25 AM.
    Larry Gibson

    “Deficient observation is merely a form of ignorance and responsible for the many morbid notions and foolish ideas prevailing.”
    ― Nikola Tesla

  9. #69
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    317
    I have been trying to point out that certain guns can and do shoot loads that exceed published maximum loads. Some can't.

  10. #70
    Boolit Master



    M-Tecs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    4,640
    For the long range competitors accuracy is paramount but past 600 yards wind drift becomes a large component of accuracy. Very common to develop max doing based on whatever acceptable primer pocket life you wanted. In the early days of 80 grains 22 cal bullets in Service Rifles the AMU used a load termed "V-8". It started life as a primed and crimped LC unfired brass. What the load they used would generally stretched the pockets of the virgin crimped cases to the point they were not useable. For the AMU one firing was acceptable case life. I do not know if they had any rifle based issues from this load.

    With the new bullets and powders the Palma shooter don't have to push the limits has much as they used too. It used to be fairly common for cases to lose the primer pockets after 3 firings.

  11. #71
    Boolit Master


    Larry Gibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, Arizona
    Posts
    15,861
    Quote Originally Posted by B R Shooter View Post
    I have been trying to point out that certain guns can and do shoot loads that exceed published maximum loads. Some can't.
    That is correct; the 8x57 as previously mentioned is one as are the 45 Colt, 45-70 and the 223 Rem (when loaded to 5.56 pressures) are just a few to mention along with the 30-06. However, that is not to say they are, or at least they shouldn't be, loaded to excessive pressures.

    Since we're discussing the 30-06 here lets use that as an example if we are to follow your previous advice. The load of 56.5 gr H4350 under the 178 VLD yielded 69,100 psi average at 65 degrees. So let's assume we continued to shoot that load considering that average velocity as the MAP. SAAMI gives a MPSM (Maximum Probable Sample Mean) MPSM defined by SAAMI as; "the maximum expected average pressure that may be observed in the testing of product subsequent to its manufacture and is not intended for use as a loading control point." The MPSM is usually measured under extremes of temperature range, again after production. The SAAMI MAP for the 30-06 is 60,000 psi and the MPSM is 63,800 psi, some 3,800 psi higher than the MAP.

    So let's say we load up and continue to shoot that 56.5 gr load at 69,100 psi at 65 degrees, Yeah we have a few primer pockets expand every firing but no big deal, the rifle can take it..... and then my friend travels down here to Arizona to shoot and it's 100 degrees and the psi rises that additional 3,800 psi to now a MAP of 72,900 psi.........What do we think will happen if we continue shooting loads close to proof level.......probably not something good and something I do not want to find out...........

    Now, if you look at SAAMI's MAPs, MPLMs and MPSMs for magnum level cartridge that are also used in the M700 action then we see MAPs of 64 - 65,000 psi's and MPSMs of 68-69,000 psi. So how is it we can shoot those at higher pressure. The weak link in the action/barrel/cartridge is the cartridge case. The barrel and actions can take more pressure than the brass case. A magnum case will have more brass around and supporting the primer pocket than will a 30-06 size case. Thus it can take a pit more pressure before the primer pockets expand.

    As you mentioned the SAAMI 30-06 specs keep some cartridges safe for use in older actions such as the LSN M1903s and M95 Winchester lever actions. However, in quality bolt actions such as the M700 there is no reason, in my opinion, that the 30-06 can not be loaded to the same MAP level as the .308W, 62,000 psi. Now I can measure that but 99.99999999999999999999% of the reloaders out there can not. That included my friend. He was going by Hodgdon's data for the 180 gr bullet with H4350 for use with the ELD-X 178 gr bullet. Hodgdon's data for the 180 gr bullet has proven to be excessive (exceeding even the MPSM for the .308W and actually being proof level pressures) with the 178 gr ELD-x bullet. That the data for a 180 gr bullet in the 30-06, assumed by reloaders every where to be useable with a lighter weight bullet, is in error is the topic of this thread.
    Larry Gibson

    “Deficient observation is merely a form of ignorance and responsible for the many morbid notions and foolish ideas prevailing.”
    ― Nikola Tesla

  12. #72
    Boolit Master JBinMN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Goodhue County, Minnesota
    Posts
    859
    Larry Gibson,

    I am thinking that my signature line below applies here in this topic for ya.


    Some folks say.. "For every rule , there is an exception."...

    Other might say, " for every exception there is another exception".

    Lester Ackerman, ( & I) would say,
    "Here are the rules...( load manuals), Do as ya like, but don't give me any grief if you want to break those rules. You chose to make the mistakes... You suffer the consequences.... Not me..."

    Here you are, being kind in sharing your data & experiences with how those manuals may be mistaken, & giving folks a "Heads Up!" , that they should think about what they are doing... ( Your gate.)

    If others do not wish to pay attention to your data & experience(s) and heed them. (Swinging on the hinges)

    Then, they can go develop their own data & experiences & not be concerned with yours that you are being kind in sharing...


    [ Perhaps make a topic of their own where they can go into THEIR data & experiences... and THEIR "gate")

    See the signature below... It fits, IMO.

    And Thanks again for your efforts! I , for one, am paying attention.
    Last edited by JBinMN; 10-08-2017 at 07:46 PM.
    "If ya don't like my gate, ya don't have to swing on the hinges..." - L. Ackerman ( RIP)
    *------*
    "A man ought ta do what he thinks is best" - "Hondo" Lane.(John Wayne)

  13. #73
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,531
    Yours: Lester Ackerman, ( & I) would say,
    "Here are the rules...( load manuals), Do as ya like, but don't give me any grief if you want to break those rules. You chose to make the mistakes... You suffer the consequences.... Not me..."

    My Reply: Evidentally Load manuals are NOT the rules as evidenced by Mr Gibsons first post

    Yours: Here you are, being kind in sharing your data & experiences with how those manuals may be mistaken, & giving folks a "Heads Up!" , that they should think about what they are doing... ( Your gate.)

    My Reply: You said it "may be mistaken" but who is to say 100 percent that they didnt get thoes results at that time with the combinations of components and lots of components? Can anyone be CERTAIN? Do you KNOW absolutely that with the lots of components they used that Hodgdons results are in error? Has Mr Gibson tested every lot of H4350, every lot of Sierra SPBT 180 gr bullets and every lot of WLRP?

    Yours: If others do not wish to pay attention to your data & experience(s) and heed them. (Swinging on the hinges)

    Then, they can go develop their own data & experiences & not be concerned with yours that you are being kind in sharing...


    My Reply: Certainly Mr Gibson was kind in sharing his experiences I am for one glad he confirmed what I already know and what most experienced reloaders know and that is there is NO load data from anyone including Mr Gibson is 100 percent reliable across the board. Sometimes we can forget about that fact. Ask him if you dont believe it. I dont think for one minute that he thinks he is infallible.

    Yours: [ Perhaps make a topic of their own where they can go into THEIR data & experiences... and THEIR "gate")

    My Reply: Are you saying that one developing their own data is impossible? It can be done by careful experimenting watching for the CORRECT signs. Tell that to Someone like JD Jones or Gary Reeder.

    Yours: See the signature below... It fits, IMO.

    And Thanks again for your efforts! I , for one, am paying attention.
    [/QUOTE]

    My Reply: I am paying attention too as I hope everyone is and that is not to take ANYONES data as 100 percent reliable.
    All Mr Gibson has done is reminded us of that, nothing more nothing less. But his reminding us of that was important. Dont turn it into something it isnt.
    We Know Mass Cannot Be Weighed But It Has Newtonian Weight And That Is Derived From Kilograms And Kilograms Can Be Converted to Pounds. But, Still Mass Cannot Be Weighed. But How is the kilograms obtained? Can Kilograms Be Weighed? Evidentally Yes It Can. But, Still Mass Cannot Be Weighed So Kilograms Must Not Exist. Funny Isn't It.
    One good thing out of this the next time I'm at the doctors and they want to weigh me I'll tell them mass cannot be weighed.

  14. #74
    Boolit Master JBinMN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Goodhue County, Minnesota
    Posts
    859
    Quote Originally Posted by 44MAG#1 View Post

    My Reply: I am paying attention too as I hope everyone is and that is not to take ANYONES data as 100 percent reliable.
    All Mr Gibson has done is reminded us of that, nothing more nothing less. But his reminding us of that was important. Dont turn it into something it isnt.
    I am certainly not.

    I saw another member dispute Mr. Gibsons findings. With -0- proof. No pics, no data, no corroboration, etc.

    No data, just hearsay that the other member had gone over the load manuals & demonstrated no pressure issues.

    "MY" point was that "I" would not worry about the other members posts if I were Mr. Gibson, as they were just someone swinging on Mr. Gibsons gate hinges here in this topic, & not offering up some data/evidence on his own.

    If ya don't understand that... Well, I can understand someone not understanding me. Sometimes I am not as clear as I would like to be when typing. Spoken words is better sometimes, for me anyway..


    Regardless, that other poster might want to either prove his claims with some some sort of data or evidence, or, quit "swinging on Mr. Gibsons hinges"...

    That understandable?
    "If ya don't like my gate, ya don't have to swing on the hinges..." - L. Ackerman ( RIP)
    *------*
    "A man ought ta do what he thinks is best" - "Hondo" Lane.(John Wayne)

  15. #75
    Boolit Master JBinMN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Goodhue County, Minnesota
    Posts
    859
    BTW.. I am gonna try to address your post as ya wrote it. It might take me some time as I have to figure out wher to put the answers, but the post before this one sums up my thoughts pretty well.
    "If ya don't like my gate, ya don't have to swing on the hinges..." - L. Ackerman ( RIP)
    *------*
    "A man ought ta do what he thinks is best" - "Hondo" Lane.(John Wayne)

  16. #76
    Boolit Master JBinMN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Goodhue County, Minnesota
    Posts
    859
    Quote Originally Posted by 44MAG#1 View Post
    Yours: Lester Ackerman, ( & I) would say,
    "Here are the rules...( load manuals), Do as ya like, but don't give me any grief if you want to break those rules. You chose to make the mistakes... You suffer the consequences.... Not me..."

    Meaning that most everyone uses the load manuals a guidelines to load/reload. If someone wants to do other than those guidelines it is on them, not anyone else.

    My Reply: Evidentally Load manuals are NOT the rules as evidenced by Mr Gibsons first post

    Obviously, which is why I mentioned load manuals & then how Mr. Gibson is saying they are not always correct.
    See what I bolded below from my original post...


    Yours: Here you are, being kind in sharing your data & experiences with how those manuals may be mistaken, & giving folks a "Heads Up!" , that they should think about what they are doing... ( Your gate.)

    My Reply: You said it "may be mistaken" but who is to say 100 percent that they didnt get thoes results at that time with the combinations of components and lots of components? Can anyone be CERTAIN? Do you KNOW absolutely that with the lots of components they used that Hodgdons results are in error? Has Mr Gibson tested every lot of H4350, every lot of Sierra SPBT 180 gr bullets and every lot of WLRP?

    Irrelevant. I am posting in Mr. Gidsons topic about Mr Gibsons research that is IN this topic. Not other folks doings..


    Yours: If others do not wish to pay attention to your data & experience(s) and heed them. (Swinging on the hinges)

    Then, they can go develop their own data & experiences & not be concerned with yours that you are being kind in sharing...


    My Reply: Certainly Mr Gibson was kind in sharing his experiences I am for one glad he confirmed what I already know and what most experienced reloaders know and that is there is NO load data from anyone including Mr Gibson is 100 percent reliable across the board. Sometimes we can forget about that fact. Ask him if you dont believe it. I dont think for one minute that he thinks he is infallible.

    Pure inference. Even a "logical fallacy" perhaps. Definitely a different interpretation of what I was trying to say. Some call it, "putting words into my mouth.". I made no attempt to place Mr Gibson on a pedastal, but only to recognize his efforts.


    Yours: [ Perhaps make a topic of their own where they can go into THEIR data & experiences... and THEIR "gate")

    My Reply: Are you saying that one developing their own data is impossible? It can be done by careful experimenting watching for the CORRECT signs. Tell that to Someone like JD Jones or Gary Reeder.

    Once again, inferring that I am holding Mr. Gibson as higher in his research than anyone else. Not so. I was only recognisinf Mr. Gibson for his efforts & that anyone else who differs with him should do their own research to show folks that either Mr. Gibson is incorrect, verify Mr. Gibsons research or to add another "exception" to the load manuals data.

    Yours: See the signature below... It fits, IMO.

    It did & still does, IMO.

    And Thanks again for your efforts! I , for one, am paying attention.
    snip [/QUOTE]
    Last edited by JBinMN; 10-08-2017 at 09:45 PM.
    "If ya don't like my gate, ya don't have to swing on the hinges..." - L. Ackerman ( RIP)
    *------*
    "A man ought ta do what he thinks is best" - "Hondo" Lane.(John Wayne)

  17. #77
    Boolit Master
    oldblinddog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    768
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_sharing
    Data sharing is the practice of making data used for scholarly research available to other investigators. Replication has a long history in science. The motto of The Royal Society is 'Nullius in verba', translated "Take no man's word for it."[1] Many funding agencies, institutions, and publication venues have policies regarding data sharing because transparency and openness are considered by many to be part of the scientific method.[2]

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
    The scientific method also includes other components required even when all the iterations of the steps above have been completed:[41]

    Replication
    If an experiment cannot be repeated to produce the same results, this implies that the original results might have been in error. As a result, it is common for a single experiment to be performed multiple times, especially when there are uncontrolled variables or other indications of experimental error. For significant or surprising results, other scientists may also attempt to replicate the results for themselves, especially if those results would be important to their own work.[42]

    External review
    The process of peer review involves evaluation of the experiment by experts, who typically give their opinions anonymously. Some journals request that the experimenter provide lists of possible peer reviewers, especially if the field is highly specialized. Peer review does not certify correctness of the results, only that, in the opinion of the reviewer, the experiments themselves were sound (based on the description supplied by the experimenter). If the work passes peer review, which occasionally may require new experiments requested by the reviewers, it will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The specific journal that publishes the results indicates the perceived quality of the work.[43]

    Data recording and sharing
    Scientists typically are careful in recording their data, a requirement promoted by Ludwik Fleck (1896–1961) and others.[44] Though not typically required, they might be requested to supply this data to other scientists who wish to replicate their original results (or parts of their original results), extending to the sharing of any experimental samples that may be difficult to obtain.[45]

    Larry is sharing data. Anyone that wants to replicate his testing should do so before making comments. Conjecture and opinion have no place here.
    Last edited by oldblinddog; 10-08-2017 at 10:07 PM.
    USMC 6638

  18. #78
    Boolit Master


    Larry Gibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, Arizona
    Posts
    15,861
    "Certainly Mr Gibson was kind in sharing his experiences I am for one glad he confirmed what I already know and what most experienced reloaders know and that is there is NO load data from anyone including Mr Gibson is 100 percent reliable across the board. Sometimes we can forget about that fact. Ask him if you dont believe it. I dont think for one minute that he thinks he is infallible."

    No I certainly don't think I'm infallible......that's why I test and retest. I also have learned to not hesitate to change my way of thinking based on facts presented, especially when those facts are scientifically based on proper testing procedure, even when they contradict long held beliefs based on suppositions. I don't hesitate to do that even if they contradict suppositions made by popular big name writers/reloaders of today and yesteryear. The test equipment we have today is much more reliable than the test equipment they had even 20 years ago. There are many that draw conclusion based on insufficient test and beliefs in unproven theories (most of which are myths) data not only on this and other forums but also big name writers in magazines, books and on U-tube. I am not one of those.

    We all, at least those who have been reloading for a while, used the old methods of case expansion, bolt lift, primer flattening, etc. to "develop loads". Most staying with in the manuals data. Some did not. Those methods have been proven modern pressure testing to be grossly in error which is why many loads are lower in newer manuals. It's also why most all of the loads in P.O. Ackley's old books are most often grossly over pressure. With modern pressure measuring methods we have a much more complete picture of the time/pressure curve and the much more data. In the 30-06 of this topic the top listed load for the 180 gr Sierra SPBT was grossly over pressure with the 178 gr bullet. Not only over pressure by measurement but also by the fact the primer pockets expanded to no longer hold primers. We also know by pressure measurement and lack of primer pocket expansion that the max load of H4350 (55.3 gr) listed in the Hornady manual for 178 - 180 gr bullets was not over pressure. We also know by measurement and a near SEE that standard strength Federal 210 primers do not properly ignite H4350. We know by measurement that Federal 215 Magnum primers are sufficient to ignite H4350 in the 30-06 properly Those are facts.

    The key is in proper testing. As you can note in this thread the parameters of the tests change as we gained more knowledge. That is as it should be. When the tests continue to reach the same basic conclusion such as in this case; the data in Hodgdon's #27 manual may be error regarding 180 gr bullets using H4350 in the 30-06. Continual testing points to that. We know the definition of insanity; doing the same thing over and over expecting different results........

    No, I have not tested every combination. The testing continues. However, Lots of powder are made within narrow specifications of burning rate which is why the manuals do not delineate the specific lots of individual powders tested. Reloaders assume any lot of a powder should fall with in the start and maximum charges listed in the manuals. It is possible Hodgdon did find their max load listed of 57.5 gr with H4350 under the Sierra 180 SPBT to be with in SAAMI spec. It's also possible Speer found the same thing with one of their 180 gr bullets under 58 gr H4350. What I have found is that both Hodgdon and Speer data will give excessive pressures with 178 gr bullets and probably (that's where the testing is still ongoing) with some 180 gr bullets even with the same primers.

    Until the testing is conclusive I am not about to go to Hodgdon and Speer telling them the sky is falling.......I will continue to test until there is not doubt.
    Last edited by Larry Gibson; 10-08-2017 at 10:17 PM.
    Larry Gibson

    “Deficient observation is merely a form of ignorance and responsible for the many morbid notions and foolish ideas prevailing.”
    ― Nikola Tesla

  19. #79
    Boolit Master
    swheeler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,251
    Hell, I was there!

  20. #80
    Boolit Master buckshotshoey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    NW Ohio
    Posts
    475
    Larry.... I tried reading through the extensive information you have posted and didn't see the answer to this question......

    You referenced the information from the Hodgdon 27 manual. Quote from your first post.....

    "so I opened up my Hodgdon #27 manual and turned to the data for the 30-06 with 180 gr bullets. The #27 manual lists the max load for 180 gr bullets using H4350 at 57.5 gr. That is with a C.U.P. of 49,200."

    Which 180 gr bullet is this info referencing to? Have you tested that specific 180gr bullet and the Hodgdon 4350 to verify Hodgdon's findings in the #27 manual?
    Last edited by buckshotshoey; 10-09-2017 at 08:50 AM.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Abbreviations used in Reloading

BP Bronze Point IMR Improved Military Rifle PTD Pointed
BR Bench Rest M Magnum RN Round Nose
BT Boat Tail PL Power-Lokt SP Soft Point
C Compressed Charge PR Primer SPCL Soft Point "Core-Lokt"
HP Hollow Point PSPCL Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" C.O.L. Cartridge Overall Length
PSP Pointed Soft Point Spz Spitzer Point SBT Spitzer Boat Tail
LRN Lead Round Nose LWC Lead Wad Cutter LSWC Lead Semi Wad Cutter
GC Gas Check