How do you resolve conflicting load data?

[CSACANNONEER]

OAL should be determined by plunk testing your barrel and making sure the rounds fit in your magazine. If you pass both of these, why load any shorter?

What does that have to do with checking the published load data to see if COAL is the same for both sets of data?

[Cheep]

E-mail or call Hodgdon and ask them which one is wrong.

[trackcage]

What does that have to do with checking the published load data to see if COAL is the same for both sets of data?

Not trying to totally derail the thread, but my point was OAL is not the end all. As long as you're not loading shorter than the published OAL, you could easily go longer and be fine (assuming chamber and magazine fit). In fact, you'd probably decrease pressures.

I guess your point is the difference in charge weights published might be due to one having a shorter OAL. Fair enough.

[robert101]

I hardly ever find the published data to be the same from source to source. I always average the data and start low. This is why I keep an Excel sheet with load data from a number of sources. I typically list the source (or manufacturer), OAL, crimp width, powder, bullet weight, powder range, velocity, lb./ft of the load, and notes of the function in my gun.

I then mostly refer to my load sheets instead of the loading manuals now. I will check updated powder references as they come out each new year. I'm not the type to by a revised manual every time they come out with a new version.

[hambam105]

The OP has a good question, a real good question. I shouldn't have teased him. Sorry OP.

You may see a difference, and that is good, you are paying attention. Check the data and see if the manual specifies a different bullet configuration, bullet style and bullet manufacturer. That might be enough reason for the difference you are seeing. And don't forget the Lawyers.

I often use manuals from the 70s. And I have 1940s & 50s reloading manuals that publish or allow much higher pressures for 380s & 9mms & 38 Special & 44 Magnum. I think the lawyers are telling the companies to tame down their acceptable loadings.

[kcstott]

Ive got a bunch of Hornady 125gr HAP bullets.

The Hodgdon website says 3.3gr of W231 is the max load.

My 2017 Hodgdon Reloading Manual says 4.4gr.

What would you do?

This is how


If you don't have multiple resources at your finger tips, Besides the web, you need to buy books. and Hornady's data in their new book is very conservative.

[Spyder]

I love my early Sierra books. They've got pre-paranoid-lawyer loads. I'll often use them as a check against more current books if I don't feet right about a number.

[Kmai24]

I always go with 3 sources of data and if all 3 are different, I would add up all 3 and then divide to get the average. Then I would subtract 10% from the average and that would be my starting point.

[kcstott]

I love my early Sierra books. They've got pre-paranoid-lawyer loads. I'll often use them as a check against more current books if I don't feet right about a number.

That Sierra manual is the second edition, Thats also why I love P.O. Ackley's book. He wasn't afraid to publish real world data. some of his max loads are friggin


Worst I've seen so far is the Hornady manual. 308 standard loads are pretty anemic. But at least it better than the load posted by Hodgdon There's no way you can stuff 45.5g of IMR 4895 in a 308 case and try to seat a 175 SMK mag length. they call out a compressed load but damn that black powder compressed.

[Spyder]

I believe I have Sierra first edition rifle and pistol, I'll look when I get home. I also like Pet Loads vl I&2.

[JagerDog]

Often, mfg's will list loads designed to "target" velocities with "target" bullets. The HAP is designed as a target (action pistol) bullet TMK.

Example: Look at .357 mag with 148 gr wadcutters. Listed "max" is way below what the cartridge will handle.

It can be a conflict of goals, not data.

[LynnJr]

OP
I just went to the Hodgdon website and you must be looking at two completely different bullets.
They have many 125 grain bullets listed with W231 and they all have a different overall length and a different maximum charge weight.
The overall length effects pressure as does the bullets construction or solid ,lead ,solid copper, jacketed.
Those reloading manuals only work if you follow there recipe exactly.
If you ever load centerfire rifle and look up load data for the 25-06 from Sierra the first thing you will notice old data to new data is the newer data's low load is heavier than the old data's max load. When you look at the cartridges overall length however you will quickly see the newer chambers have way more freebore so way less pressure for the same amount of powder.

Take a screenshot of your reloading manual page and post it if you can.
The newest rage is to take an existing cartridge and give it way more freebore and to claim it's a new powerful chamberings even though Roy Weatherby did it 70 years ago.