Online Reloading Information [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Online Reloading Information


Jaybo510
01-03-2010, 13:48
I was wondering if any of you know of a online source for reloading info. I am looking for load stats for 45 ACP specifically. I know you are going to say buy a book, and I assure you I am going to. But right now I am in the process of making that initial investment into the press, heads, primers, powder, tools, etc. So my press will be here this week, and I just want to give it a try with a few rounds until I get my bulk heads. So any of you sources would be appreciated. Thanks

Colorado4Wheel
01-03-2010, 13:56
Pick a powder and go to the manufactures website.

PBKing
01-03-2010, 14:03
I was wondering if any of you know of a online source for reloading info. I am looking for load stats for 45 ACP specifically. I know you are going to say buy a book, and I assure you I am going to. But right now I am in the process of making that initial investment into the press, heads, primers, powder, tools, etc. So my press will be here this week, and I just want to give it a try with a few rounds until I get my bulk heads. So any of you sources would be appreciated. Thanks

Get a Manual. Didnt want to disappoint you.

Sounds like you are getting into this just like I did, axe backwards.

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

http://www.handloads.com/loaddata/

dudel
01-03-2010, 14:34
I was wondering if any of you know of a online source for reloading info. I am looking for load stats for 45 ACP specifically. I know you are going to say buy a book, and I assure you I am going to. But right now I am in the process of making that initial investment into the press, heads, primers, powder, tools, etc. So my press will be here this week, and I just want to give it a try with a few rounds until I get my bulk heads. So any of you sources would be appreciated. Thanks

There are very few online sources I'd trust. One typo, one idiot and KB. Very few of the sites that list loads verify them (how could they). Not worth it.

Loadbooks are cheap and full of information on a specific load. Highly recommended.

http://loadbooks.com/

Best advice is to slow down. Get the books and read them before you attempt to load your first round. Strange things happen when you push off without proper information.

Colorado4Wheel
01-03-2010, 16:00
You guys make it sound like you can't find good load data online. Thats just crazy. Nearly every manufacture of pistol powder post it all on their websites. Most will even send you a free manual if you like. The issue is not finding load data you can trust. Not even close. The real question is do you have the knowledge to use that data and know how to put it together safely. I could throw all my reloading manuals away and never NEED any load data other then what I can get from from the manufactures websites. It may not be ideal as far as looking thing up but it's easily done. Even the less common stuff is found easily in trusted sites like Brian Enos and others. Go to the library and inter library loan a good reloading manual. Buy a used "Abc's Of Reloading: The Definitive Guide For Novice To Expert" from Amazon for under $20. Then check the manufactures site for burn rate charts (Hodgon has a complete one) and other powder specific info. Buy a set of Lee Dies and it has tons of reloading data on the back page.

Jon_R
01-03-2010, 16:11
I worry about print books to. At least a web site from a manufacturuer if they see an error they can fix it. Once that book is printed and shipped it is out there.

For myself I check at least two sources. One being a printed manual and the other a good website for my powder. I make sure they are very close to each other or I get nervous and get more sources.

All the powders I use are on this site.

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

You can also use Gun Forums (like Brian Enos) for suggestions on good loads for a specific firearm but I still don't load outside the range on an offical source. I don't want to be out there on the edge risking my hands, eyes, and $500+ gun. Plus it hurts your stage time / score when you gun blows up. :cool:


There are very few online sources I'd trust. One typo, one idiot and KB. Very few of the sites that list loads verify them (how could they). Not worth it.

Loadbooks are cheap and full of information on a specific load. Highly recommended.

http://loadbooks.com/

Best advice is to slow down. Get the books and read them before you attempt to load your first round. Strange things happen when you push off without proper information.

deerhunter34
01-03-2010, 16:12
I like and use Hodgdon's web site all the time. Data I trust, like CW4 was saying its knowing what to do with the data. Good luck and have fun.

fredj338
01-03-2010, 16:26
There are very few online sources I'd trust. One typo, one idiot and KB. Very few of the sites that list loads verify them (how could they). Not worth it.

Loadbooks are cheap and full of information on a specific load. Highly recommended.

http://loadbooks.com/

Best advice is to slow down. Get the books and read them before you attempt to load your first round. Strange things happen when you push off without proper information.
There are NO online sources I trust but the powder manuf sites. Published data has lawyers behind it, means it has been tested. There may be a few here & there that are running pressure tests but w/o that, just because it works in your gun doesn't mean it works in mine. For now, trust the powder manuf data & just go buy a reloading manual. You need at least two IMO anyway.:dunno:

D. Manley
01-03-2010, 17:20
I was wondering if any of you know of a online source for reloading info. I am looking for load stats for 45 ACP specifically. I know you are going to say buy a book, and I assure you I am going to. But right now I am in the process of making that initial investment into the press, heads, primers, powder, tools, etc. So my press will be here this week, and I just want to give it a try with a few rounds until I get my bulk heads. So any of you sources would be appreciated. Thanks

Might consider LOADDATA.COM (http://loaddata.com/home/index.cfm?CFID=5452865&CFTOKEN=52714782) if you are only looking for a variety of information from different sources. The price of admission gets you access to virtually all published data from all sources as well as others such as, from their sibling publication, Handloader Magazine. I use it frequently to cross-check data and/or, to find consensus information. IMO, well worth the price for the volume of data and convenience.

frankmako
01-03-2010, 17:38
Pick a powder and go to the manufactures website.

plus one. also a book will help.

Uncle Don
01-03-2010, 18:15
A good rule of thumb that I follow (especially with handgun loads) is a listed powder where the start and max grains are close together. If this is the case, pressure-wise, it's not the best powder for that particular bullet.

shotgunred
01-03-2010, 18:20
http://stevespages.com/page8a.htm

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showforum=4

Never use just one source of information.

ron59
01-03-2010, 18:45
I bought ONE reloading manual (Nosler), and was so disappointed I'll NEVER buy another.

Online resources work fine for me. As was said, check the powder manufacturer's site. Then google, google, google. If you decide you want to run TiteGroup with 9mm, check the manufacturer's site, then google and compare that against other recipes (here, Enos' site, etc). Once you've seen 10-15 totally unrelated references to the same figures, you can be just as confident (if not more so) than what you find in a book.

A chrono is an invaluable tool as well. I shot 6000 rounds with a Solo recipe, which while it shot nice and soft turned out to not be as accurate as it could be as it was SO underpowered. Without a chrono, I wouldn't have been able to tell "where" I was in the load.

Do NOT find ONE "recipe" on the web for your desired powder, and run with that without having done much more additional research. And maybe then start a few tenths lower and work up. What works for one gun doesn't work the same for others. The recipe I was originally using was that by guys shooting the G34 (longer barrel) than my G17. It's NOT going to work the same.

fredj338
01-03-2010, 20:01
I bought ONE reloading manual (Nosler), and was so disappointed I'll NEVER buy another.

Online resources work fine for me. As was said, check the powder manufacturer's site. Then google, google, google. If you decide you want to run TiteGroup with 9mm, check the manufacturer's site, then google and compare that against other recipes (here, Enos' site, etc). Once you've seen 10-15 totally unrelated references to the same figures, you can be just as confident (if not more so) than what you find in a book.

A chrono is an invaluable tool as well. I shot 6000 rounds with a Solo recipe, which while it shot nice and soft turned out to not be as accurate as it could be as it was SO underpowered. Without a chrono, I wouldn't have been able to tell "where" I was in the load.

Do NOT find ONE "recipe" on the web for your desired powder, and run with that without having done much more additional research. And maybe then start a few tenths lower and work up. What works for one gun doesn't work the same for others. The recipe I was originally using was that by guys shooting the G34 (longer barrel) than my G17. It's NOT going to work the same.
Ron you just bought the wrong book. I like the Nosler for rifle data, but their hangun info is pathetic, same w/ SIerra. The Lyman & Speer are the most complete for the handgun reloader. The other valuable point of reloading manuals is you laways have them handy. My computer isn't on my loading bench & running back & forth upstairs to recheck load data is just a bit tedious, but good excersize. Books are NOT out of fashion just because we have computers.:upeyes:

meleors
01-04-2010, 02:48
Alliant powder: http://www.alliantpowder.com/reloaders/default.aspx

Accurate Arms: http://www.accuratepowder.com/reloading.htm

Hodgdon, IMR, Winchester: http://data.hodgdon.com/main_menu.asp

Norma: http://www.norma.cc/sortimentladd.asp?doc=Sort&Lang=2

Ramshot: http://www.ramshot.com/powders/load.php

Rex Powder (Graf and Sons): http://www.rexpowder.com/

Vihtavuori: http://www.lapua.com/index.php?id=1180

ron59
01-04-2010, 06:24
My computer isn't on my loading bench & running back & forth upstairs to recheck load data is just a bit tedious, but good excersize.

Not sure how much "load checking" you have to do, but I only load for 9mm right now. I have used 3 different powders, and have had to research all of them... but it's certainly not a "running back and forth thing". I do my research, determine my starting load, maybe work up 2-3 loads, and go to the chrono. Having "a book on my table" helps me in no way, and saves me the $25 per book cost.

Even if I loaded for multiple calibers... still don't think a book would help. When I google, I am able to specify "9mm MONTANA GOLD 147gr bullet Solo 1000", and find specific responses from people with experience with that EXACT COMBINATION. You won't find that type of specificity in the books.

Now, you could point out the issues I ultimately had with that combination:
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1165565

but that goes more towards my not realizing that a load on the LOW side, while fully capable of cycling the gun (for 6000+ rounds), might not be as accurate as a fully powered (ie 130PF or so) round. It has nothing to do with me not having a book. In fact, for Solo 1000, the suggested load data is laughable. For all the published data, 3.3gr is the MAX for a 147grain bullet. Heck, the 3.4gr I was using was underpowered, I am now using 3.8grains!

Yes... you were totally right about books and the PUBLISHED DATA "having lawyers behind it". For as I've been finding out, all the books have LOWERED their suggestions over the last 10 years, largely due to liability concerns, more than correctness in load data.

I'd rather get information from people using SPECIFIC COMBINATIONS, than the "blah genericness" of the load data that I've seen.

Books are NOT out of fashion just because we have computers.:upeyes:

I'm ALL ABOUT books. I love books, and am a voracious reader. But buying books just to have a book? Nahhhhh... I'm good.

PBKing
01-04-2010, 06:54
Ron you just bought the wrong book. I like the Nosler for rifle data, but their hangun info is pathetic, same w/ SIerra. The Lyman & Speer are the most complete for the handgun reloader. The other valuable point of reloading manuals is you laways have them handy. My computer isn't on my loading bench & running back & forth upstairs to recheck load data is just a bit tedious, but good excersize. Books are NOT out of fashion just because we have computers.:upeyes:

Right On.

I think an important point missed here is the tutorial value of the Manuals. Load data is not the answer all. The OP is a typical example of a newbie...no offense. IMO the best advice we can give someone waiting for there heads to come in is reference to a good manual OR 4. We are swamped with data online, some good some bad. What is scary is for every nut offering data for a 2k fps .45acp load there is someone out there gonna try it. As Fred noted, the convenience of a manual on the bench for quick reference is really a no brainer. If your content with your case full of TB and a wac a mole kit...nevermind.


Originaly posted by Uncle Don: A good rule of thumb that I follow (especially with handgun loads) is a listed powder where the start and max grains are close together. If this is the case, pressure-wise, it's not the best powder for that particular bullet.Worth repeating

Colorado4Wheel
01-04-2010, 07:58
Most books are about giving the user recipes for their brand of bullets. To me that is useless. Montana Gold, Precision Delta don't make a book. The best books are not made by a bullet manufacture (from a load data perspective). Lyman has a great one. Lee's book is great because it teach's you things like what Uncle Don said about how to pick a powder. Internet load data is better in many ways then a book. As much as I like Lymans book. I am not really using any recipe out of that book. Just using it to confirm the other information I have gathered.

Patrick Graham
01-04-2010, 09:10
.............. I know you are going to say buy a book, and I assure you I am going to. .............

Get a chronograph too and some kind of Lab Notebook or Spiral Notebook to log all your reloading data and activities. Put all your "Keeper" stuff in EXCEL.

ron59
01-04-2010, 11:52
Most books are about giving the user recipes for their brand of bullets. To me that is useless. Montana Gold, Precision Delta don't make a book. The best books are not made by a bullet manufacture (from a load data perspective). Lyman has a great one. Lee's book is great because it teach's you things like what Uncle Don said about how to pick a powder. Internet load data is better in many ways then a book. As much as I like Lymans book. I am not really using any recipe out of that book. Just using it to confirm the other information I have gathered.

Steve,

Glad to hear you and I are on the same page.

I **DID** buy the "ABC's of Reloading", which teaches all the fundamentals I'm going to be able to get from a book. The other books (Lyman, Speer) can only provide recipes beyond that.

I'll get my recipes here, Enos's site, etc.

fredj338
01-04-2010, 12:11
Even if I loaded for multiple calibers... still don't think a book would help. When I google, I am able to specify "9mm MONTANA GOLD 147gr bullet Solo 1000", and find specific responses from people with experience with that EXACT COMBINATION. You won't find that type of specificity in the books.
I have never used a load from an internet source, never. I may use info as a starting point, much like a manual, but to use one verbatum, never. Maybe because you only load for one cartridge w/ 1-3 powders. Me, I load for I think 22, maybe 23 right now, I have I think 16 diff powders right now. Several carts are wildcats & there is no printed data anywhere. Manuals do help & I do like having them as ref w/o running to the computor. Then again, I am a tinker, seldom relying on one powder for any one cartridge. As a general rule, prited data is reliable & the most appropriate place for the newb to start. Internet data, except form powder manuf, very, very suspect, & far too diff for newbs to analyse fact from fiction IMO.

dudel
01-04-2010, 13:40
Right On.

I think an important point missed here is the tutorial value of the Manuals. Load data is not the answer all. The OP is a typical example of a newbie...no offense. IMO the best advice we can give someone waiting for there heads to come in is reference to a good manual OR 4. We are swamped with data online, some good some bad. What is scary is for every nut offering data for a 2k fps .45acp load there is someone out there gonna try it. As Fred noted, the convenience of a manual on the bench for quick reference is really a no brainer. If your content with your case full of TB and a wac a mole kit...nevermind.


Worth repeating

+1 on all of it. I saw the OP as a newbie (also no offense). He's not going to know a good load from a bad load from many of the sources on the net. A book will get him in the range. If it's downloaded, it won't hurt (don't know how his scale techniques are, or this powder dump technique, or how he puts a crimp on). All these things can change his load.

Note that I didn't say I didn't trust ANY internet resources; just that I only trusted a few (mostly powder maker sites). But even then, it's only a starting point. As Fred pointed out, the books are also a starting point. As Freak mentioned. there is no real "recipe". The load data gets you into a safe ballpark. With experience and tools (read chonograph), you can safely develop a load that works with your gun.

There's no shortcut here. Using someone else's load with the exact same components may not work for squat in a different gun (even if it's the same type of gun). Too many variables that are unaccounted for. Many of the loads in a reloading manual are taken with test barrels. Not many of us here shooting test barrels are we? However they will keep you within safe pressure limits.

As for loads in today's book being too safe, I want to laugh. Primers and powder compositions both change. If you had a library of same loading books with prior editions, you'd be able to see that loads for the same powder and bullet go up and down. The Bullseye you bought several years ago is not the same composition as the Bullseye you buy today. As an example, take a look at a can of Unique. It's got a new, improved, cleaner banner on it. You don't think the composition, and therefore the load changed. Hodgdon was famous for that. Early on they bought surplus powders. You bought large kegs of Hodgdon (and split it with friends) so that once you worked up a load, you didn't have to change it when you went out and bought the next pound of powder.

That's why, even though we may not like to, we buy newer editions of the same manual. Powders change, primers change, and the loads change.

As Larry Potterfield says: "And that's the way it is".

Boxerglocker
01-04-2010, 14:09
You guys make it sound like you can't find good load data online. Thats just crazy. Nearly every manufacture of pistol powder post it all on their websites. Most will even send you a free manual if you like. The issue is not finding load data you can trust. Not even close. The real question is do you have the knowledge to use that data and know how to put it together safely. I could throw all my reloading manuals away and never NEED any load data other then what I can get from from the manufactures websites. It may not be ideal as far as looking thing up but it's easily done. Even the less common stuff is found easily in trusted sites like Brian Enos and others. Go to the library and inter library loan a good reloading manual. Buy a used "Abc's Of Reloading: The Definitive Guide For Novice To Expert" from Amazon for under $20. Then check the manufactures site for burn rate charts (Hodgon has a complete one) and other powder specific info. Buy a set of Lee Dies and it has tons of reloading data on the back page.

:goodpost:

Although I'll add... even using data from the trusted websites such as here and BE. You should always cross check the data with reliable published sources and work up to a load. For instance the .380 ACP HP-38 Freakshow recommended to me... I still downloaded and worked up with a couple dozen test rounds, just to be sure.

BigDog[RE]
01-04-2010, 15:37
A good compilation of online sources is Wiljen's Reloader Reference database:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/reloadersrfrnce/

D. Manley
01-04-2010, 17:59
For all the published data, 3.3gr is the MAX for a 147grain bullet. Heck, the 3.4gr I was using was underpowered, I am now using 3.8grains!
I don't know that "underpowered" is the right term, here. While the load may not have provided the performance you're looking for does'nt mean the load was not at or near the pressure maximums. Fast burning powders can be deceptive (soft shooting and low velocity) and easily still exceed safe pressure limits. I had a good deal of back and forth with Accurate's ballistician about S-1000 and 147 grain bullets in 9MM. They are confident that my favorite load of 3.4 grains is at or near +P pressures. Although I use the load with no reservations, I do consider it near top end for my comfort zone. Regardless of what the chrono or shooting results, pressure is pressure and with the quick powders, the implications can't be ignored. Speaking for myself, should I want more velocity, I'd drop to a powder with different characteristics and opt for the safety cushion.

Colorado4Wheel
01-04-2010, 20:34
I don't know that "underpowered" is the right term, here. While the load may not have provided the performance you're looking for does'nt mean the load was not at or near the pressure maximums. Fast burning powders can be deceptive (soft shooting and low velocity) and easily still exceed safe pressure limits. I had a good deal of back and forth with Accurate's ballistician about S-1000 and 147 grain bullets in 9MM. They are confident that my favorite load of 3.4 grains is at or near +P pressures. Although I use the load with no reservations, I do consider it near top end for my comfort zone. Regardless of what the chrono or shooting results, pressure is pressure and with the quick powders, the implications can't be ignored. Speaking for myself, should I want more velocity, I'd drop to a powder with different characteristics and opt for the safety cushion.

Load data like what you have recieved from AA is useless with out a OAL. The data you recently posted from AA had no OAL and the old data they provided had a very short OAL. I load my 147 gr stuff at 1.130 which IIRC is .020 longer then their old OAL for 124 gr bullets. Manufactures have a fasination with running heavy 9mm bullets very short. Did you ever get the OAL they were using for testing with the 147gr loads? It would seem that a fast powder would be even more sensitive to short OAL then a little slower powder.

D. Manley
01-04-2010, 21:08
Load data like what you have recieved from AA is useless with out a OAL. The data you recently posted from AA had no OAL and the old data they provided had a very short OAL. I load my 147 gr stuff at 1.130 which IIRC is .020 longer then their old OAL for 124 gr bullets. Manufactures have a fasination with running heavy 9mm bullets very short. Did you ever get the OAL they were using for testing with the 147gr loads? It would seem that a fast powder would be even more sensitive to short OAL then a little slower powder.

I would'nt say, "useless" since, that's all there is. To make matters worse, they did not segregate lead/jacketed data so, what you see is what I got. In some of the exchanges I did mention the bullets and OAL I was using and the OAL (also, 1.130 FWIW) and the only comment was that 3.4 grains was "likely" into +P pressures. Now, I'm comfortable with the load and perhaps even, a bit higher. That said, fast powders are more sensitive to most everything including, OAL as I'm sure you know. My intent with the post above is just to put a little caution on labeling a load as "underpowered" based solely on PF achieved with published data. It may be safe or it may not...only Accurate has pressure data and AFAIK, have never released any for Solo. I've not found Solo quirky but any powder that quick can go from mild to wild in a heartbeat and without warning. My personal opinion (and we know what that's worth) is, they treat the Scot Powder acquisitions as sort of the step-childrem of their lineup and lacking verified pressure data, the smart thing is prudence.

I like and use faster powders quite a bit. Matter of fact, one of my favorite .40 loads is using N-310. There is no published data and all I had to go on was a little information from a trusted acquaintence and Quickload data which indicates a huge cushion. While I'm comfortable with the load I would'nt feel comfortable posting it publically due to the risks such fast powders carry for anyone with a cavalier attitude. We constantly see posts about someone pushing this powder or that trying to make PF...seems to me, just going another way is the obvious alternative. I like Solo a lot but if I had to push it to hit minor I'd drop it in a heartbeat in favor of others that can do it effortlessly with zero risk.

One other side note about S-1000. I've seen numerous posts from competent loaders/shooters who have compared various lots of Solo and found substantial differences. It's very common to have to tweak the load to match the lot #'s of the batch on hand. If you get into that bleeding edge with a slow batch and the next batch is hotter the "if's" get bigger.

Colorado4Wheel
01-04-2010, 21:23
Yeah, I like Solo1000 for what I do with it. I am like you, comfortable with my load. I have shot about 6 pounds or so of it all at above the stated recommended load by Accurate Arms. I am not sure what if anything that means as I load pretty long (like you) compared to them. To me I look at the FPS they have published. My 124 gr load is at the upper end of the "range" they list on the pathetic load data they provide. I mean seriously, they list a 50fps range with a 4 inch "barrel" (of some sort), using a unknown primer and a unknown OAL and a unknown type of brass and a unknown pressure at starting and ending loads. The 124 gr data is listed as 124/125gr on top of it all. And he wants to say "your likely into +P". Seriously now, give use the real data for crying out loud. Thats about as useless as it gets. I do think it's important to retest this load with a chrono whenever you make a change. Especially a new batch of powder. Maybe we can get Freakshow to send it is as a Manufacture and they will test it for pressure for us. I hear they do that. Don't get me wrong. I appreciate your info and your effort in talking to them. I just for some reason don't trust what I am being told. I think they want us to buy more AA#2 and don't want anyone using Solo for pistol.

D. Manley
01-04-2010, 22:24
Yeah, I like Solo1000 for what I do with it. I am like you, comfortable with my load. I have shot about 6 pounds or so of it all at above the stated recommended load by Accurate Arms. I am not sure what if anything that means as I load pretty long (like you) compared to them. To me I look at the FPS they have published. My 124 gr load is at the upper end of the "range" they list on the pathetic load data they provide. I mean seriously, they list a 50fps range with a 4 inch "barrel" (of some sort), using a unknown primer and a unknown OAL and a unknown type of brass and a unknown pressure at starting and ending loads. The 124 gr data is listed as 124/125gr on top of it all. And he wants to say "your likely into +P". Seriously now, give use the real data for crying out loud. Thats about as useless as it gets. I do think it's important to retest this load with a chrono whenever you make a change. Especially a new batch of powder. Maybe we can get Freakshow to send it is as a Manufacture and they will test it for pressure for us. I hear they do that. Don't get me wrong. I appreciate your info and your effort in talking to them. I just for some reason don't trust what I am being told. I think they want us to buy more AA#2 and don't want anyone using Solo for pistol.

Solo is a bit of an oddity to me. I've shot it in 9MM, .40 and .45. In 9MM, it's a powderpuff with any bullet weight but in .40 and .45, it takes on the characteristics common to other powders. Full loads in .45 actually feel pretty stiff to me and in .40, not nearly as soft as TG or a few others. I have about a hundred or so loaded in .38 Special I'll wring out one of these days. Another odd thing is, 3.4 grains S-1000 under a Remington FMC FP @ 1.130 shoots benched groups about as good as my G-34 gets. However, I cannot get my other favorite 147 (Zero JHP) to match the Remmie groups with it yet, they shoot very well with other powders. To be honest though, the Zeros seem to me to group best with medium rate powders...WSF, N-330, N-340, Silhouette and similar...none of the faster powders do quite a well. The Remington Match is an expensive bullet but I've not seen anything that groups as well with such a variety of powders. DannyR ("Coach") put me onto that bullet and it's good as it gets in my guns. He loads it over 5 grains AA#5 and it's a tack-driver too but naturally, not as soft as the Solo.

ron59
01-05-2010, 05:13
:popcorn:

Interesting conversation, guys. I'm learning SO MUCH here!

Downzero
01-05-2010, 11:10
I've not found any fast powder that runs like Solo 1000, either.

I think AA is full of crap with their load data (I have it, too, straight from them via email).

They even tried telling me it's not recommended with a 147 grain bullet at all.

It makes major in .40 and .45, and minor in 9mm with 125s and 147s just nicely.

Colorado4Wheel
01-07-2010, 11:27
I don't know that "underpowered" is the right term, here. While the load may not have provided the performance you're looking for does'nt mean the load was not at or near the pressure maximums. Fast burning powders can be deceptive (soft shooting and low velocity) and easily still exceed safe pressure limits. I had a good deal of back and forth with Accurate's ballistician about S-1000 and 147 grain bullets in 9MM. They are confident that my favorite load of 3.4 grains is at or near +P pressures. Although I use the load with no reservations, I do consider it near top end for my comfort zone. Regardless of what the chrono or shooting results, pressure is pressure and with the quick powders, the implications can't be ignored. Speaking for myself, should I want more velocity, I'd drop to a powder with different characteristics and opt for the safety cushion.

Alright just for giggles lets play this out some more. This post in another thread got me thinking. I have too much time to think lately so this is more fun.

Chris, the Lyman load was safe in THEIR equipment at the COL stated. As a general rule, when you reduce volume in a case by 10%, you increase pressure by 20%. Sames holds true in reverse. I would be very leary of running Lyman's published load data at that short COL, as your pressure will be greatly increased.


First the facts I am working with based on info I have. It's not perfect but it's all I got.

1) Lee list the useable case volume of the 9mm @ .74cc. I know it varies with bullet length and COAL but he doesn't talk about that.
2) I used to load 3.4grs with a 147 gr bullet. It was NOT a compressed load. That is about .47CC's of volume using Lee's conversion factor. I loaded @ 1.130.
3) Using the OLD Solo Data we can see that they are running compressed loads. The 124gr load max data is 4.1 grs @ 1.114 and it's 103% full @ 31600CUP. 4.1 grs or Solo is about .55cc's. Lets take a little liberty with this data as it's exactly what I load but a different OAL. That amount of powder is .213 below the rim of the case. My bullet is .587 Long, the case is .747 long. If I seat the bullet at 1.130 it looks like this. 1.130" - .587" = .543" is the amount left in the case. Take a case that is .747 subtract the room above the powder and I have .534. So my amount of spare room above the powder with my load of 4.1 grs is .543-.534= .009". So if I lower the bullet to thier 1.114 thats a extra .016" I have taken away. Sure it's a compressed load. My figures are a little off as this stuff is hard to measure. But you can see I am at least close. Now lets try something else.
4 Using their
124gr load max data is 4.1 grs @ 1.114 and it's 103% full @ 31600CUP
Lets round it out for easy math. Lets say it's actually 100% full and that 100% is .55cc's. http://www.handymath.com/cgi-bin/cylinder.cgi

A .356 cylinder that is .366 long has a volume of .597 cubic centimeters. Run the same numbers at .350 (the shorter length of their data) and I have .570. Thats a .054% difference. So by lengthening my case I have reduced the pressure by almost 11%. Their pressure is 31600Cup. I am at about 28,000 cup.

Using the same thinking. Thier 147 gr data is comperessed load I increase the lenght of the case by the same amount. I would actually get more then a 11% change because I am starting with a much smaller volume with the 147 gr bullet then the 124gr bullet I ran my numbers with. If their 147 gr load is max at 32000cup and you get a extra 15% from the longer length you are now at about 27000 cup with their max load of 3.3 grs. I would "guess" it's closer to 20% but they don't list the OAL in thier data. But thier old data was very short @ 1.110. Thats shorter then the 124gr data from the same era. 20% would be 25,600CUP

I know the numbers are hard to follow. But the point is the minor increase in length makes a HUGE change when you started with such a small volume in the case like they have shown they do.

fredj338
01-07-2010, 11:33
Alright just for giggles lets play this out some more. This post in another thread got me thinking. I have too much time to think lately so this is more fun.



First the facts I am working with based on info I have. It's not perfect but it's all I got.

1) Lee list the useable case volume of the 9mm @ .74cc. I know it varies with bullet length and COAL but he doesn't talk about that.
2) I used to load 3.4grs with a 147 gr bullet. It was NOT a compressed load. That is about .47CC's of volume using Lee's conversion factor. I loaded @ 1.130.
3) Using the OLD Solo Data we can see that they are running compressed loads. The 124gr load max data is 4.1 grs @ 1.114 and it's 103% full @ 31600CUP. 4.1 grs or Solo is about .55cc's. Lets take a little liberty with this data as it's exactly what I load but a different OAL. That amount of powder is .213 below the rim of the case. My bullet is .587 Long, the case is .747 long. If I seat the bullet at 1.130 it looks like this. 1.130" - .587" = .543" is the amount left in the case. Take a case that is .747 subtract the room above the powder and I have .534. So my amount of spare room above the powder with my load of 4.1 grs is .543-.534= .009". So if I lower the bullet to thier 1.114 thats a extra .016" I have taken away. Sure it's a compressed load. My figures are a little off as this stuff is hard to measure. But you can see I am at least close. Now lets try something else.
4 Using their
124gr load max data is 4.1 grs @ 1.114 and it's 103% full @ 31600CUP
Lets round it out for easy math. Lets say it's actually 100% full and that 100% is .55cc's. http://www.handymath.com/cgi-bin/cylinder.cgi

A .356 cylinder that is .366 long has a volume of .597 cubic centimeters. Run the same numbers at .350 (the shorter length of their data) and I have .570. Thats a .054% difference. So by lengthening my case I have reduced the pressure by almost 11%. Their pressure is 31600Cup. I am at about 28,000 cup.

Using the same thinking. Thier 147 gr data is comperessed load I increase the lenght of the case by the same amount. I would actually get more then a 11% change because I am starting with a much smaller volume with the 147 gr bullet then the 124gr bullet I ran my numbers with. If their 147 gr load is max at 32000cup and you get a extra 15% from the longer lenght you are now at about 27000 cup with their max load of 3.3 grs. I would "guess" it's closer to 20% but they don't list the OAL in thier data. But thier old data was very short @ 1.110. Thats shorter then the 124gr data from the same era.

I know the numbers are hard to follow. But the point is the minor increase in length makes a HUGE change when you started with such a small volume in the case like they have shown they do.
Pressures are rarely linear though. You are only guessing at the pressure. Some powders have near vert. pressure spikes once you reach their max (Clays for one). So ya gotta be careful w/ ideas of fixed formulas like 10%=20%. It can be much less or much more depending on the specific powders burn characteristics, not just burn rate.

Colorado4Wheel
01-07-2010, 11:37
Yep, but it's all I got. They are the ones e-mailing a bunch of reloading data with no OAL and no Pressure #'s. Even if the change is only 10% thats a big difference. By the same token if pressure increases dramaticlly at the end then it "could" also decrease pretty quickly with a change in OAL. Depends were you are on the curve. Change OAL would change that curve. Not saying you should load anything based on the above. Just saying that pretty much all the info they publish for Solo1000 is useless. Collective Knowledge (another dangerous thing) says my load is safe.

Colorado4Wheel
01-07-2010, 12:02
Pressures are rarely linear though. You are only guessing at the pressure. Some powders have near vert. pressure spikes once you reach their max (Clays for one). So ya gotta be careful w/ ideas of fixed formulas like 10%=20%. It can be much less or much more depending on the specific powders burn characteristics, not just burn rate.


Wait a minute. I am not going towards a more agressive part of the curve. I am going backwards. My load of 4.1 grs is MAX at a much shorter OAL. My guess of 28000 while a guess is not going to get thrown off by some aggressive final peak. Exactly the oppisite. If the powder does that then my math would only be helped by that not hurt. I am NOT adding more powder. I am using the existing MAX load Pressure with the MAX load of Powder and Subtracting due to a increased OAL.

fredj338
01-07-2010, 13:18
Wait a minute. I am not going towards a more agressive part of the curve. I am going backwards. My load of 4.1 grs is MAX at a much shorter OAL. My guess of 28000 while a guess is not going to get thrown off by some aggressive final peak. Exactly the oppisite. If the powder does that then my math would only be helped by that not hurt. I am NOT adding more powder. I am using the existing MAX load Pressure with the MAX load of Powder and Subtracting due to a increased OAL.
No, I understand. My point though is there is no linear pressure relevance. You are guessing is my only point.:supergrin:

Colorado4Wheel
01-07-2010, 15:01
Yep, I said that from the start I think, "It's not perfect but it's all I got"

Jaybo510
01-07-2010, 17:40
Thank you all very much for all of the useful info. I already have so many more questions, and I haven't even loaded a single round.

PCJim
01-07-2010, 20:23
Steve, you have the general idea and the volume:pressure relationship is nothing more than a "general" reloading guideline. As Bob stated, much depends upon the particular powder and it's characteristic pressure curve.

Granted, you could be at the 98 percentile of a published reloading data's pressure curve that spiked at 97%, and a 5% increase in case volume could provide substantially lower pressure. By the same token, if you were at the 94 percentile of that same curve, a 10% reduction in case volume could easily provide more than 20% greater pressure.

Colorado4Wheel
01-08-2010, 08:14
Edit: wrong thread

dnuggett
01-12-2010, 10:52
Thanks for all the good data!