Accuracy(?) loads

[theperfessor]

I'd like to foster a discussion (versus provoking an argument) on "accuracy loads". Recently a member posted a desire to get feedback on an "accuracy load" for a .38 Super using an RCBS bullet so as to save time in working up a load. Since this bullet is not a Lyman product the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook did not list an "accuracy load".

Part of the discussion involved Lyman's definition of an accuracy load, which is based on a load having the most uniform internal ballistics. My manual states that the recommendations are not tested by shooting targets, but that loads with the most uniform internal ballistics have the greatest potential to be the most accurate providing all external conditions were right. The poster indicated that the "accuracy loads" for three different calibers that were taken from the Handbook were indeed the most accurate in his guns and saved him a lot of trouble in working up an accurate load. I do not question his findings.

My experience is different. I do not have any way to test for internal ballistic conditions, all I have is a chrony and a paper target. While most of the "accuracy loads" listed in the Handbook are fairly good performers, none of them that I have tried in various calibers have been the most accurate loads. And often the best loads I've worked up for a certain gun isn't necessarily the best load in a different gun of the same caliber.

I've always chalked it up to each gun being an entity unto itself and I've tried to use good sense in working up a load. None of the guns I own are the same model or have the same barrel length as what Lyman uses in their tests.

So my question is this: Have any of you found the "accuracy loads" listed in the Lyman manual to be the most accurate in your guns? If you were loading for a new caliber/gun do you try these loads first? Do you find that the loads with the most uniform external ballistics (low SD and extreme spread) to be the most accurate?

Share your experience ladies and gentlemen.

[Bullshop]

I always look to see what the Lyman accuracy load is as well as the pressure of all loads tested. I also look to Hornady as they will often in the cartridge description mention a certain powder giving the most uniform results with certain bullet weights.
So to answer,
#1 I look but seldom will my best load be exactly the same.
#2 Again I look but if thier accuracy load is not one producing one of the lower pressures I go to the lower pressure first if it gives the velocity I want.
#3 About maybe 50/50 For what ever reason at times by accident or some unexplained reason loads with fairly wide velocity spreads have been the most or equally as accurate.
Often time my powder choice is determined by what I have on hand and sometimes that powder may not even be listed in either book such as with milsurp powder.

[btroj]

Bullshop was dead on.
The powder I chose is frequently based upon what I have on hand. I rarely look at the Ltamn "accuracy" load. Ey base that upon uniform ballistics. I have some loads with larger than expected SD and extreme spread that shoot quite well for me. I don't care if the velocities are close together as long as the bullet holes are!
I load based upon what has worked for me in the past. I tend to work until I find a load that works then just keep using that load. I do use a Chrony to know for sure what the velocity is but I don't sweat the extreme spread.
Lyman can keep posting the "accurate" load info if they chose. I tend to keep in mind that they still say you need hard bullets to get even 1600 fps with cast in a micro-groove barrel. Seems some ideas just don't die?

[MtGun44]

I've tried many of their "accuracy loads", not much connection to accy in my experience.

One counter example. When I was running the chronograph for our IPSC club in the early
1980s, learned a lot. One thing was that Unique in .45 ACP with 200 H&G 68 has HUGE
velocity variations, up to 125 fps on a 5 shot string! BUT - this is typically a very accurate
load. The reason that this was of interest is that you have to make "major caliber" or a
minimum velocity if your ammo is chrono'd, and with the large variation in vel, with only
a 3 round sample normally pulled, Unique could get you classified minor if you didn't load
quite a bit hotter than actually required with a larger sample. W231 and BE were much
more consistent in vel, and also real accurate, so you could load 'closer to the edge' and
get away with it more certainly.

So - IME, a large extreme spread can still be quite accurate. It seems like the hypothesis
that a small extreme spread is related to an accurate load is pretty much disproven, in my
book.

Bill

[Le Loup Solitaire]

I don't pay any attention to Lyman's notations on accuracy loads. In loading for identical guns on several occasions, even the loads that I worked up on my own have given different results in those same guns. So after having tried Lyman's ideas as well and finding them as not being in the ballpark, I continue to subscribe to the belief that each gun is an individual entity unto itself and continue to develop accuracy loads on my own. Accuracy, it seems, has a different meaning for different for different people. As a bullseye comp shooter for a long time I have on many occasions gone through fastidious rituals to fine tune loads for a particular target pistol and wouldn't believe for a moment that a loading developed by someone/Lyman in a test barrel or a different pistol would automatically work for me. Yes its true that it might, but I'm not a believer in the lottery when trying to win in a game where one point can make the difference. I don't even have a chrony; I start with generally low MVS and watch the grouping. I use the same powders which have been standards for a long time. I'm not anti-change or married to tradition, but I have found via experience that consistency and exactitude are key factors in preparation of consistently accurate ammo. I do agree with you on the points made in your discussion. I would also not support the view that internal ballistics are paramount, as touted by Lyman and that "not shooting targets" is the way to evaluate results. I appreciate your discussion and thank you for your views on the subject. LLS

[Bass Ackward]

44 Special with 200 gr LEE RNFP.

Accuracy load is 5.4 gr of AA#5 sized .432.

No wait a minute,

Accuracy load is 6.7 gr of AA#5 sized .431.

Hold on,

Accuracy load is 9 grains of AA#5 sized .4305


What is going on here? This is all out of the same gun with the same powder and bullet. What's the difference? Hardness.

The first load is 20-1. The second is 14 BHN ACWW. The third is WDWW.

The best accuracy occurs just before leading begins. So change lube or diameter or anything else and your off on a new journey.

If you have a gun that will lead like and when the one Lyman used, their loads will be spot on.

[tomme boy]

The wide E.S. on pistols does not make that much of a differance on the short ranges that a pistol is shot at.

Now take a rifle load that has a 125fps spread and shoot it at say 1K yards and you will see a huge differance. But that same load might be really accurate at 100 yds.

I look at the accuracy loads listed in differant books, but that is it.

[1Shirt]

I usually try the Lyman Accuracy Loads, and once in awhile, have actually found the recommendation to be the most accurate in one of my rifles. That said, am fond of the old yankee saying " even a blind hog occaisionaly finds an acorn". Think it has happened maybe 3-4 times over a number of years in a couple of my long guns. However, have found that tweaking the recommendation for accuracy up or down a half a grain at a time has also produced some of the best accuracy in some of my rifles. Am interested in the powder recommendation for Lyman's recommendation. Am not much of a hand gunner, so the above applies for the most part to rifle loads. Another factor of consideration, particularly with cast, is blt. weights from other than lyman molds. Again, not necessarily a bad place to start. Have always felt that all rifles are female, and have their own personalities, wants and desires regarding boolits by size, hardness, lube, etc. Far to many variables to point a finger of exactness at and be anywhere close to an accuracy standard.
1Shirt!:coffee:

[theperfessor]

There are certain pistol calibers that I don't have a gun that chambers them, such as a .32 revolver cartridge of some type, a .38 Super, anything in .40 or 10mm, or anything over .45 caliber. But if I saw a nice deal on (for example) a .32 in a quality gun I'd buy it if I could afford it. And the way i would work up loads would be based on previous experience with similar cartridges. For example, if it was a .32 S&W and I was using a typical middle weight bullet for its caliber, say 100 to 120 grs SWC, I'd expect that the powders and procedures used for loading a .38 Special with 140 - 160 gr SWCs might be a good place to start.

I'd expect a .38 Super to be closer to a 9mm than it would be to a .38, and a .40 would be closer to a 9mm than it would to a .45 ACP. I'm basing this mostly on bullet weight for caliber, expansion ratio, and pressure.

I followed this procedure when I got my first .41 magnum. The powders that worked well for 240-250 gr bullets in a .44 magnum also worked well in the .41 with 200 to 220 gr bullets, although of course the charge weight was reduced appropriately.

I might not find the best load right away, and I'm not averse to trying new combinations of things, but I do think this procedure is better than randomly picking an "accuracy load" from a Handbook.

[Ben]

theperfessor


Many of Lyman's accuracy loads when fired in many different rifles, shoot minute of garbage can lid.

I've said for years, that the decision to label a certain load by Lyman as an " Accuracy Load" couldn't have been based on actual testing at the range.

I'm in total agreement with your statement :

I've always chalked it up to each gun being an entity unto itself and I've tried to use good sense in working up a load.

[Char-Gar]

I hold the strange notion that numbers on a itty bitty screen mean very little. Printed words on paper not much more. The size of the group on the paper means almost everything. Therefore the important stuff gets the attention.

[geargnasher]

I agree 100% with Daniel, that's my experience and methodology as well.

You'll have better luck going with Richard Lee's algorithm and detailed instructions on how to get the most accurate load for your gun with cast boolits than you will even considering Lyman's internal ballistics data. Richard Lee and I disagree on many things, and I don't exactly subscribe to most of his theories, but he does have a pretty good method of going straight to a good, accurate load of reasonable performance by doing some calculations first. However, to achieve excellent accuracy, you might have to do somethingcompletely different to make your gun happy.

I have no way to measure internal ballistics, and could care less as long as the boolit gets a nice, gentle, straight start, up to the velocity I want, and the lowest muzzle pressure possible while being accurate. The best internal ballistics on the planet mean squat on a target.

Gear

[Bill Torzsok]

theperfessor


Many of Lyman's accuracy loads when fired in many different rifles, shoot minute of garbage can lid.

I've said for years, that the decision to label a certain load by Lyman as an " Accuracy Load" couldn't have been based on actual testing at the range.

I'm in total agreement with your statement :

I've always chalked it up to each gun being an entity unto itself and I've tried to use good sense in working up a load.

I totally concur.