Max loads

[Alan12013]

I'm wondering what general consensus is here. I have some confusion. One strange thing is that I have plenty of room left in some loads that my Lee reloading book states is a "compressed load". Then when I was comparing loads, my Lee book states a max load of 56.6 yet the powder company has a max load of 58.3 with RL-22 in my 270win cartridge. Is it basically general consensus that book listed max loads are roughly the max load so long as you're safe and cautiously watch for pressure signs as well as applying common sense to the capacity, velocity/pressure ratios, and the burn type of your powder? I want to do incremental testing for bullet and powder combos and have loaded several sets of combos within the Lee recommendations but when I see discrepancies like the ones stated above, I'm really wanting to use my own load data and work up from low to high cautiously.

Read More

 

[ma96782]

It's your life and risk to take. That being said.......please do your experiments on your own property. I would hate to hear that your experiment hurt/injured others.

Read as: intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, negligently (whatever the prosecution might decide) causing injury to another person

Aloha, Mark

 

[jordanka16]

A max load is the max load that whoever tested it found for their particular brass, bullet, powder, primer etc. combo. If you change anything that they list it will affect the max load. Your rifles chamber will also affect the max load. Even the temperature will.

The lee book is a mishmash of a bunch of different sources, it's not a great primary source because they give limited data on the tests.

Working up loads is the only safe way to know that they are for sure safe in your rifle. I wouldn't recommend going over max unless you have some experience watching for pressure signs. And at the least you should have a chronograph, it will give you a lot more insight into what your loads are doing.

It is hard for me to recommend you do anything like that without knowing anything about you or your loading practices, I wouldn't really trust anyone who did anonymously anyway. I will say that some of my standard accuracy loads are are over max, but they are only used in one rifle, and conversely I have encountered pressure signs in loads that were under max.

 

[po18guy]

Lee tends toward the very conservative in load data. Compressed loads do not necessarily indicate high pressure - only that the powder is bulky and fills the case.

 

[Caveman Jim]

Lee tends toward the very conservative in load data. Compressed loads do not necessarily indicate high pressure - only that the powder is bulky and fills the case.

Yep, IMR3031 loading .223/5.56 for instance.

 

[ConcernedCitizen]

The amount of compression can also depend greatly on how the powder is poured into the case. Using a short funnel may fill the case all the way to the mouth, and using a long drop tube may settle to the shoulder.

There's a lot more to reloading than just the recipes in a load book.

 

[BWH]

A lot of printed recipes from reputable establishments are moderate. This is someone may use the printed data and load a lesser or older firearm and tend to be OK/safe (older colt handguns perse' that used ballon formed cases comes to mind).
I have found more times that not, that Slower, not maxed out reloads gave me the more accurate results on the target as compared to the fastest. Not every time mind you, but more times than not!
When in doubt, find an experienced person to guide you.

 

[No_Regerts]

It's your life and risk to take. That being said.......please do your experiments on your own property. I would hate to hear that your experiment hurt/injured others.

Read as: intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, negligently (whatever the prosecution might decide) causing injury to another person

Aloha, Mark

If he's using a modern rifle, I'm not sure you could cram enough RL22 in a 270 case to hurt anyone or the gun. Slow burning rifle powders are pretty safe.

 

[oli700]

A max load is the max load that whoever tested it found for their particular brass, bullet, powder, primer etc. combo. If you change anything that they list it will affect the max load. Your rifles chamber will also affect the max load. Even the temperature will.

The lee book is a mishmash of a bunch of different sources, it's not a great primary source because they give limited data on the tests.

Working up loads is the only safe way to know that they are for sure safe in your rifle. I wouldn't recommend going over max unless you have some experience watching for pressure signs. And at the least you should have a chronograph, it will give you a lot more insight into what your loads are doing.

It is hard for me to recommend you do anything like that without knowing anything about you or your loading practices, I wouldn't really trust anyone who did anonymously anyway. I will say that some of my standard accuracy loads are are over max, but they are only used in one rifle, and conversely I have encountered pressure signs in loads that were under max.

excellent post

 

[Alan12013]

Lee tends toward the very conservative in load data. Compressed loads do not necessarily indicate high pressure - only that the powder is bulky and fills the case.

That's what I heard from my only source on the matter, I just wanted to see if there was a "general consensus" in the reloading community... The one response is pretty safe but in todays world where the government tries to murder people through lawsuit I can't blame that thinking. With the compressed load thing, I was just thinking that I've worked up maybe 200+ handloads for incremental testing so far according to book data and out of all the loads that say "compressed" not one is compressed. Therefore I was thinking increasing it a tiny bit in my large cases with the slow burners to accomplish a literal compressed load wouldn't hurt with some of these powders.
I've read a lot of reloading info from wildcatters who've worked up loads for various chambering's and in that endeavor have learned a lot about different burn rates and how to watch for and think about pressure jumps relative to velocity and how the 2 aren't linearly correlated at all. I also know to look for pressure created in similar chambering's for a particular powder then guesstimate the pressure for my case based on size, velocity, powder weight, etc. Also pretty interesting that I've heard from credible sources that accuracy loads people have come from below max loads and above max loads. I guess I'll just have to stop reloading for a bit and go shoot to find out.

 

[Argonaut]

I have old reloading manuals from the mid 60's. We were not a society as driven by lawyers then. They generally are much hotter than modern recommendations. I have a set of recommendations for 45 ACP +P loads specifically for revolvers that are very hot and 7mm mag loads pushing 140 grains at over 3200 FPS. I am frequently amused that we commonly rebarrel a M98 pre war Mauser to a modern magnum caliber with little thought but are worried about modern heavy loads in the original 8X57. We are obsessed with guns blowing up but it is so uncommon (without something like a mud plugged barrel) to be statiscally next to impossible. The Europeans have much heavier loading in all calibers than we do. We did make inferior Damascus barrels (even LC Smith imported Fluid steel barrels for there early non Damascus guns) longer and more commonly than the Europeans but the European proof system is extensive and well proven to illustrate safety. The proof houses tested every single weapon with 200% overloads or more. All that being said, velocity does not equal accuracy and at some point becomes counter productive. If a 1911 is capeable of being fired with a 10mm caliber, why wouldn't it be just as capeable firing a 45 ACP +P with similar breech pressure?

 

[ma96782]

If he's using a modern rifle, I'm not sure you could cram enough RL22 in a 270 case to hurt anyone or the gun. Slow burning rifle powders are pretty safe.

I didn't look up the data that he was proposing.

I was talking GENERALLY and thinking of LIABILITY.

BTW......yes......every firearm is different. Testing standards and conditions are different from one book to the next. Even the published max loads can/could/will differ from one book to the next. And, just changing one component (from the book) can change things fast.

As an example: Miscellaneous Questions 4

Yes, people do work up loads. Yes, sometimes they exceed the book's max load recommendation. Again, talking GENERALLY and thinking of LIABILITY.

What if?

+++++++

Note: This happened to me, when I was using a particular lot# of factory CCI 17Mach2 rimfire ammo. I don't/didn't mess with the ammo. I went on testing with another lot # of CCI 17Mach2 ammo and had no problems at all. I figure that CCI would say that it's my rifle. I would contend, that it's their ammo. Whatever. Luckily, in this case, I was not injured and neither was anyone else.



and a couple of days later.......



I'm just showing this, to remind folks of the possibilities. Please remember (at the very least) to always wear your eye and ear protection.

Aloha, Mark

 

[No_Regerts]

I didn't look up the data that he was proposing.

I was talking GENERALLY and thinking of LIABILITY.

BTW......yes......every firearm is different. Testing standards and conditions are different from one book to the next. Even the published max loads can/could/will differ from one book to the next. And, just changing one component (from the book) can change things fast.

As an example: Miscellaneous Questions 4

Yes, people do work up loads. Yes, sometimes they exceed the book's max load recommendation. Again, talking GENERALLY and thinking of LIABILITY.

What if?

+++++++

Note: This happened to me, when I was using a particular lot# of factory CCI 17Mach2 rimfire ammo. I don't/didn't mess with the ammo. I went on testing with another lot # of CCI 17Mach2 ammo and had no problems at all. I figure that CCI would say that it's my rifle. I would contend, that it's their ammo. Whatever. Luckily, in this case, I was not injured and neither was anyone else.

View attachment 459972

and a couple of days later.......

View attachment 459973

I'm just showing this, to remind folks of the possibilities. Please remember (at the very least) to always wear your eye and ear protection.

Aloha, Mark

Yikes! Thats fast burning powder for you. In general, you are correct, especially with fast burning powder. That's why I dont reload for anyone. I will let them use my equipment to reload their own ammo.

 

[po18guy]

The Speer #8 manual (1970), for instance, gives:
.44 Special loads that push a 240 grain JSP at about 1170 FPS (730 lb/ft)
.45 Colt loads which send a 250 grain slug at 1100 FPS (672 lb/ft out of an SAA test gun!).
.45 Auto Rim, out of an N-frame Smith 25, how about a 240 grain lead SWC at 1192 FPS (757 lb/ft) and a 200 grain SP at 1330 FPS (786 lb/ft)?
How's that for stretching (literally) the envelope? I do not want to know either the PSI or CUP of those loads!

 

[Argonaut]

I have fired that auto rim load in ACP brass with hollow points for social work in my 1911's. I mentioned the load some time ago and the 10mm guys laughed at me......silly geeks. I have loaded some 185 grain bullets to the 1400 FPS level too but had a problem with keyholing. The bullets are too short to be driven that hard.

 

[oli700]

I have fired that auto rim load in ACP brass with hollow points for social work in my 1911's. I mentioned the load some time ago and the 10mm guys laughed at me......silly geeks. I have loaded some 185 grain bullets to the 1400 FPS level too but had a problem with keyholing. The bullets are too short to be driven that hard.

185.....1400 FPS from a 1911..... I see why they laughed .

 

[Argonaut]

185.....1400 FPS from a 1911..... I see why they laughed .

Because they are stupid?

 

[oli700]

Because they are stupid?

No because it's sounds unbelievable

 

[Argonaut]

No because it's sounds unbelievable

The Speer book lists 200 grains at 1330. It isn't a stretch at all. My conversation with the earlier thread was why a 10mm when an ACP can be loaded to equal power range.

 

[HB of CJ]

Does the 1911 has a fully supported chamber? Some rifles and cartridges however do require what today is described as a near full or full load. The .30 caliber USGI M1-M2 Carbine with 15.0 grains of H110 powder using military type hard primers and the 110-115 grain round nose bullet comes to mind. Equivalent to the military load.

Necessary to smartly cycle the action plus proper bullet drop plus insuring brass is pushed out tightly against the chamber. A very slight taper. Is powder any better today? Or like already said the reduced maximum loads come straight from the legal department? Some firearms might just blow up using hot maximum loads today? Possible.

No way would I use a maximum .44 special load in my old trusty early Charter Arms Bulldog The frame and top strap just looks too light and puny. It would be fun to experiment with reduced power and increased #4 buckshot as a home defense loading for my 12 gage shotgun. Short range only. Short barrel also. Lots of fun future projects indeed.

All Oregon State Laws, US Code Laws, NFA Laws And BATFE Rules Apply. At least for now.