Author Topic: Hodgdon's New Reloading Page!! (Read 2102 times)

quickdtoo · « **on:** January 21, 2007, 05:15:21 PM »

Check it out!!

Tim

http://data.hodgdon.com/main_menu.asp

Smokin Joe · « **Reply #1 on:** January 21, 2007, 05:36:51 PM »

That's a great page! They even have my .356 Winchester.

GregP42 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 21, 2007, 05:54:46 PM »

Tim,

Thanks, that is just what the doctor ordered!

Greg

EVOC ONE · « **Reply #3 on:** January 22, 2007, 01:26:26 AM »

Very good.

Thanks for the info, Tim

bigjeepman · « **Reply #4 on:** January 22, 2007, 01:44:07 AM »

Tim,

There's no way one man can keep up with all that you do ... moderate, get the scoop on all the new info, reload, hunt, gunsmith, etc, etc. Living in the state that you do, I am going to assume you have some of Bill Gates' people on your staff.

Thanks for the heads' up.

Datil · « **Reply #5 on:** January 22, 2007, 01:49:18 AM »

Thanks Tim still doing a good job for all of us!
Marv.

bigjeepman · « **Reply #6 on:** January 22, 2007, 01:59:51 AM »

What is hard to understand at times is the minimum/maximum load difference between manuals and powder companies. For example:

.223 cal ... 50gr bullet ... Varget powder

Nosler 5th edition Reloading Guide - minimum 24.0gr maximum 26.0gr
Hodgdon's online (new page) - minimum 26.5gr maximum 27.5gr

That's a lot of difference in my mind. I shoot Nosler 50gr BT in one of my Handi's using 26.0gr of Varget as a max load out of Nosler's manual. I am not quite sure I could get 27.5gr of Varget in my .223 cases. I know it shows this to be a compressed load .. but ...

tuxdad · « **Reply #7 on:** January 22, 2007, 03:06:03 AM »

I'm pretty sure folks have said thanks before to you Tim, but thanks agains for ALL your help!!!

MSP Ret · « **Reply #8 on:** January 22, 2007, 03:20:34 AM »

I don't care if it's been said before Tim, THANKS from me also....<><....

quickdtoo · « **Reply #9 on:** January 22, 2007, 04:49:31 AM »

Y'all are very welcome, but I just shared what I found in my wandering the net, just like y'all would have!!

BJM, the Lee 2nd and the 2006 Hodgdon Annual has the same data, 26.5gr start and 27.5gr max, if that's any consolation.

Tim

Buckskin · « **Reply #10 on:** January 22, 2007, 05:38:01 AM »

Good stuff!!! Much improved.

Fred M · « **Reply #11 on:** January 22, 2007, 05:39:27 AM »

Tim
I found that URL too. To me it is almost useless being quoted in the archaic CUP pressures. As you all know there is no accurate conversion to psi.

So why is Hodgedon doing this? Publishing archaic measures? It seams that they think hand loaders are only interested how many grains and the velocity and don't know nothing about pressures so lets confuse them.

It has gone so far that handloaders have asumed CUP and PSI are the same.
This is a complete shame for a modern publication. Hodgedon is still living in the 19th century.

quickdtoo · « **Reply #12 on:** January 22, 2007, 05:45:56 AM »

Fred, they don't use CUP for everything, apparently for all the older cartridges tho. For instance, 223 Rem they have both, for 338-06 all PSI.

Tim

safetysheriff · « **Reply #13 on:** January 22, 2007, 02:40:47 PM »

Fred'

because the loads are safe in the tested equipment, i think it is good data to work with. besides, i can find a 'cup' level in an older manual that states 57,000 cup is good/acceptable in the .270 Win. they don't go anywhere near that. i think they give us a good starting point. anybody who handloads has to accept some responsibility for their own knowledge and their own performance of this craft. for a comparison, look at H-4831 and IMR-4831 loaded with the 130 gr' Hornady bullet. i wish i'd know that IMR is more economical by 4 gr's per cartridge!

Tim'

i already saved the .270 Win' date.......because i really like those Hornady's in 130 gr' in that caliber.
thanks.

take care, all,

ss'

Fred M · « **Reply #14 on:** January 22, 2007, 03:43:25 PM »

SS.
The point is not that the loads are unsafe otherwise they would not publish them.
CUP is an outdated way of calling the shots. It is neither convertible to the established SAAMI mode nor to the metric BAR convention.

All SAAMI Pmax pressures for any given cartridge manufactured are in PSI. This rating is the first thing you should look at when loading a cartridge like the 270 is Pmax MAP 62366 (4300bar) so you can start with 15% less at 53kpsi. Go and look it up on the new Hodgdon data. A metric shooter using BAR can easy convert to Pmax PSI.

We are talking about convention. We are not driving model T-Fords anymore neither. Or are we still using hands and stones for measurements.

I know for a fact right here on this forum people don't know the difference between PSI and CUP, like you mentioned the 57000 CUP in some manual, this is nuts, to say the least. No it is not a safe load.

And ah, who accepts responsibility when somebody blows up his gun because he does not know the difference between CUP and PSI. I really think Hodgdon should be very ashamed for the printing of this data.

Fortunately I am not dependant with this data, and have no need to use it. As a matter fact I never use loading books data thanks to QL.

tanoose · « **Reply #15 on:** January 22, 2007, 03:47:36 PM »

Note they also bought the rights to winchester powder data, a winchester tech told me to find loading data for the 358 winchester there.

ihuntbucks · « **Reply #16 on:** January 22, 2007, 09:43:12 PM »

Thanks Tim......Rick

Buckskin · « **Reply #17 on:** January 23, 2007, 03:44:09 AM »

How many people actually check pressures when loading anyway. They just look at the min - max (powder) load that they can make. Some may foolishly look at the pressure data and think that it coorilates with recoil. But pressures printed are acceptable in all modern rifles whether stated in psi or cup.

Mac11700 · « **Reply #18 on:** January 23, 2007, 06:41:39 AM »

Quote from: Fred M on January 22, 2007, 03:43:25 PM

SS.
The point is not that the loads are unsafe otherwise they would not publish them.
CUP is an outdated way of calling the shots. It is neither convertible to the established SAAMI mode nor to the metric BAR convention.

All SAAMI Pmax pressures for any given cartridge manufactured are in PSI. This rating is the first thing you should look at when loading a cartridge like the 270 is Pmax MAP 62366 (4300bar) so you can start with 15% less at 53kpsi. Go and look it up on the new Hodgdon data. A metric shooter using BAR can easy convert to Pmax PSI.

We are talking about convention. We are not driving model T-Fords anymore neither. Or are we still using hands and stones for measurements.

I know for a fact right here on this forum people don't know the difference between PSI and CUP, like you mentioned the 57000 CUP in some manual, this is nuts, to say the least. No it is not a safe load.

And ah, who accepts responsibility when somebody blows up his gun because he does not know the difference between CUP and PSI. I really think Hodgdon should be very ashamed for the printing of this data.

Fortunately I am not dependant with this data, and have no need to use it. As a matter fact I never use loading books data thanks to QL.

I hate to break this to ya Fred...But...All of the SAMMI loads aren't shown in PSI...and many of them are in CUP as they were tested...Hodgdons knows full well what they are doing...and have absolutely nothing to be ashamed about...People have been following reloading manuals to the letter and only on rare occasion have they had any serious problems...BTW...the SAMMI rating for the 270 Winchester is 65,000 PSI...it is one of the cartridges that have been listed in both PSI and Cup...and a 57.000 cup load for the 270 is perfectly within specs if this is what you are alluding to...so give your quick load program a rest...I figured you would have remembered what happened before with mitchell's 204 load you claimed was unsafe...Most powder manufactures list CUP as a way of showing what the pressures are..because they don't want to try to re certify them with SAMMI...They are converting them when they can...Also... if folks follow the guidelines set forth in the manuals...providing the gun is chambered within specs..they won't have a problem....BTW...just how many certified blow ups can you site here for us because someone didn't know the difference between CUP & PSI...?...You just keep on using your quick load program.....I have no need for something that gives this type of erroneous information...I much prefer talking to the techs at the powder/bullet companies if I have a question and getting the correct data.

Bigjeepman..

Quote

What is hard to understand at times is the minimum/maximum load difference between manuals and powder companies. For example:

What is difficult to understand...? They all don't swap the same pressure test equipment between themselves...so they are using different barrels..different lots of powder/primers/bullets...and the environmental conditions are different too....Read what they say...It is safe in the barrel they tested it in...The problem is people need to learn to read the instruction before starting...and stop assuming the max load is safe in their rifle.....That's what all those instructions are for that are printed in those manuals.....This is the reason we always tell folks about our reloading data..it may be safe in mine..but not yours...Everyone should reduce the powder charges..and use the same components as what is listed...and should definitely reduce the powder charge if they are changing any component...This is where many people get into trouble...This or when folks try to do a short cut..and load it up to the max listing to get the max velocity out of it...The reloading manuals are a guideline to those components used in a SAMMI spec'd chamber...nothing more...sometimes one can go above what is listed in their rifle due to all of the variables I have said...sometimes they can't get even close...It is up to the individual to use safe re loading techniques...and to check their loads...They and they alone are the ones to make sure they are doing it correctly...not the powder/bullet manufactures...

Mac

Fred M · « **Reply #19 on:** January 23, 2007, 08:28:39 AM »

Mac
The 204 load as I said was unsafe is still unsafe for the reason that at the time the 204 was made from fire forming 222Rem Mag. This fire formed cas is a full 4.0gr less Ho2 the than new Hornady case. My data reflected the fireformed case.

What ever turns your crank you like to omit the details. Mitch never said what cases he was using but I recall he had case head seperations. I know you like to knock QL, some people do because they never used it, nor do they understand it.

65kpsi for the 270 my source says different, the people that printed my quoted pressures must be stupid. Of course everybody prints, what they think is right.

bigjeepman · « **Reply #20 on:** January 23, 2007, 08:34:19 AM »

Mac11700 ...

I appreciate that detailed explanation. I do understand why there are differences in the numbers and this is why I use five reloading manuals and the internet when I start a new load development. I was stating the opinion, with my limited knowledge of such matters, that I still think the differences seem to be too great. My example was one of my loads being a max for Nosler's manual was a .5gr short of the minimum load for another manual. I know how to safely develop loads and to use multiple references but for someone new to reloading ... well ... it can be quite confusing. I know they use different barrels, etc for testing ... I read all the information available when I start a new load. Perhaps, testing loads should be more of a standardized process in the industry. Perhaps not .....

Mac11700 · « **Reply #21 on:** January 23, 2007, 08:37:04 AM »

Fred:

mitchells handloads didn't cause any case head seperations...and the SAMMI pressures for the 270 Winchester is 65,000 PSI...Like it or not......if the program your using states otherwise...I would question the makers of it.

Bigjeepman...New reloaders are advised to read all of what is given in the reloading manuals...not just assume what they are doing is correct...I have no doudt you know how to reload...and this was never my intent to say otherwise...sorry if it came off as such..

Mac

bigjeepman · « **Reply #22 on:** January 23, 2007, 08:52:22 AM »

Mac ...

It did not come off in a negative manner at all to me. My issues most difficult to deal with personally is when I do not fully understand something and this is something that I have a problem with. Perhaps, I have blown it out of of proportion in my mind. I am not saying that bullet/powder companies should have near identical load information but for something that can possibly lead to injury/death if that information is not fully comprehended and correctly applied ... well, I guess they know what they are doing.

Good shooting to you all ...

quickdtoo · « **Reply #23 on:** January 23, 2007, 10:51:23 AM »

Fred, I think you're referring to someone else as far as case separations, the only separations I know of were from Black Hills reman brass in 223s and Dave Allen's 25-06. If Mitchell had any with his .204, it was because he was using what little brass he had too many times cuz .204 Brass was hard to get in early 2005, I looked at his posts and didn't find any case separations, although he could have and I just missed it if it was buried in another topic. Here's his range report with his max load of BL-C2.

Tim

http://www.graybeardoutdoors.com/smf/index.php/topic,59248.msg355457.html#msg355457

safetysheriff · « **Reply #24 on:** January 23, 2007, 11:27:37 AM »

Quote from: Mac11700 on January 23, 2007, 08:37:04 AM

Fred:

.and the SAMMI pressures for the 270 Winchester is 65,000 PSI...

Mac

hello Fred and Mac'

my Hercules (now Alliant as some will know) 1988 Reloaders' Guide shows that 65,000 PSI with only 52,000 CUP are the "maximum average pressures" for the .270 Winchester. however, with all the gunshows in n.e. Ohio i've got two NRA "Handloading" books which show .270 Win' "maximum product average chamber pressure" (1992 edition being the latest i have) as 57,200 CUP on page 174! Hercules' attorneys may have had a part in posting the CUP chamber pressures in that booklet.....

that NRA "Handloading" book has a couple articles dealing with chamber pressures and the different kinds of equipment involved in their measures.

i see no reason to knock CUP' measurements even though on page 128 in one article they discuss why people seem to think that it is an inferior measure. it is seemingly not as precise as PSI; but it is apparently just as useful in predicting safe/unsafe stresses placed upon the cartridge brass and the firearm.

i think the NRA's book is worth looking through for a variety of reasons; but certainly this 'pressure'-related discussion is one of them. the NRA assures us that CUP' is reliable; and it has continued to be used by both the government and private industry for at least 40 years after the 'electronic pressure transducer' started supplying PSI' measurements for us.

take care, both of you,

ss'

Fred M · « **Reply #25 on:** January 29, 2007, 04:37:30 AM »

FWIW.
Hartmut used the CIP Pmax for some of the cartridges. Therer are 2 entries for .270 SAAMI and CIP. SAAMI reads 65000psi. CIP reads 62366 or 4300 Bars.

I guess there is a possibility that two people can be right and god knows what CUP or LUP is, since it is one of the most inaccurate systems from what I read.

quickdtoo · « **Reply #26 on:** January 29, 2007, 05:48:08 AM »

Fred, LUP is only good up to blackpowder pressures as I recollect from my Lyman Blackpowder Handbook that I can't find, I musta "loaned" it to someone.....forever!!

But, you're right, CUP and LUP are obsolete pressure measuring methods.

Tim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_units_of_pressure

Fred M · « **Reply #27 on:** January 29, 2007, 07:14:05 AM »

Tim
I brought up the LUP and the CUP just to confirm the archaic systems.

Your link is a good read.

It too refers to the confusion of the CUP verses the PSI. This was my initial objection of Hodgdon publishing their new Reloading page and converting all their pressures to CUP when better values are available.

All they did is add more confusion. How would you like to have instructions published using three languages interchangeably on the same sheet. Yes with the help of a dictionary you could manage.

One more food for thought. Copper is mined in different parts of the world and non is excactly the same. So the pellets used in the copper pressure unit will reflect the minute variation. CUP is the average of several application, I think 10 is the number.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/pressure_measurement.htm

quickdtoo · « **Reply #28 on:** January 29, 2007, 07:16:30 AM »

I guess we just have to work with what we are given, just a fact of life.

Tim

James B · « **Reply #29 on:** January 29, 2007, 10:32:57 AM »

Thanks here as well. Great page.