question about oal

[bill_k_lopez]

I've now shot through my first 1000 rounds of reload. One thing i noticed was the book oal sizing doesn't cycle really well in my .44 lever guns I just finished reloading another 400 rounds today but i shortened the oal to one that cycled through my gun smoother. These are plinker rounds, so they are light loads -just wondering if i were to load hotter loads if a shorter oal would be a concern.

[chim-chim7]

Please offer up more info. We got nothing but speculation. Current OAL, powder, bullet, primer, etc.

[Bill Steele]

Book OAL (that is the OAL that comes with the load data you are using not the SAAMI maximum OAL) is the minimum length that was tested with that particular load. Sometimes the load is a measured pressure, sometimes a calculated pressure, sometimes just a "it doesn't blow the gun up with that much powder and that as a minimum length."'

In general, if you are loading well below max for a given powder (as you say, plinking rounds), loading to an OAL that is shorter is not a big deal. In my .44RM, I load mainly EK style 240gr LSWC's with a cannelure and crimp at the cannelure, hence that is my OAL (off the top of my head I think that turns out to be 1.6"). I don't even look at the OAL spec as I am loading to like 1000fps.

Make sense?

[bill_k_lopez]

Sorry - here are the details:

I'm loading 44 magnum - using the OAL published in my Lyman book which shows 1.610 I reduced that OAL to about 1.57

I'm loading with 240 grail hard cast RNFP using 9.5 grains of W231 & CCI 300 primers. As I said these are just my plinking rounds.

---

I wanted to load some XTP hollow points I have over W296 with CCI 350 primers. I did a test round (no powder & spent primer) and at the 1.610 length they just bind up in my lever action rifle. With the 296 there is only 1 grain of difference from min to max load, but I wasn't sure if that smaller OAL would produce a significant difference in pressure etc.

[chim-chim7]

Ok 296 is a very common powder for 44 Mag and the SAAMI spec for COAL is 1.610

Yes, the 1gr. spread is only for their tested OAL. The HP's your using might just have a tough time feeding and that is not uncommon.

BTW, what's the weight on the XTP's?

[Whiterabbit]

no additional details needed. If you aren't going crazy with the load, and not shortening it by a huge amount, it's no big deal. if you want to light the fire under it, great. The danger would be developing to max, THEN loading to max and shortening the seat depth.

But if your shorter OAL feeds better and no pressure, great! you can develop again from there.

-----------

if you are that worried about increasing pressure, just back off the charge a little when you seat deeper and work back up. I never worry about that when my loads are way off max.


If you had to sweat over OAL so much, wadcutters would be a non-starter. I pay attention to internal volume more than anything else.

[bill_k_lopez]

BTW, what's the weight on the XTP's?

240 grain on the XTPs as well. Im still new to reloading so I figured Id just work with the same weight bullets. Eventually I'd like to try some other weight projectiles but for now I've kept everything 240.

[ivanimal]

I have used the spec from Lyman for OAL on 223 loads and had cycle issues. Mini 14, I shortened them and it went away. Depends on the rifle I guess.

[tonelar]

Im interested to know which lever gun you're using. My Marlin doesn't cycle as smoothly when oal is shorter. My Winchester cycles 44 spl smoother than 44 mag.

[chim-chim7]

240 grain on the XTPs as well. Im still new to reloading so I figured Id just work with the same weight bullets. Eventually I'd like to try some other weight projectiles but for now I've kept everything 240.

Ok, let me know what OAL works to cycle the XTP's and then we can figure out a starting load for the W296.

[rsrocket1]

For that particular load, you probably went from about 30 kpsi to 33 kpsi and gained about 8 fps in muzzle velocity. You're still safe and have nearly a half grain or 0.04" (but obviously not both) of safety margin before you hit the 35 kpsi limit.

From a feeding standpoint, COL is important, but from a pressure standpoint, seating depth or how much bullet is inside the case is important.
The XTP's need to be loaded to a shorter COL because it is a hollow point bullet and not a round nose bullet.

Comparisons are approximations only. XTP HP on left and Lee 429-240-2R on right.

[Bill Steele]

Sorry I didn't read the last sentence about wanting to load 240gr XTP's with W296 to a shorter OAL than your load data indicates.

Not sure W296/H110 would be my first choice for a beginner starting to learn how to work up a load. If you are not going from a reliable published source (ideally a couple), you are working up your own load.

FWIW, 240gr XTP's are .030" shorter OAL compared to an EK style 240gr LSWC. Sorry I didn't have anything to compare against that Hodgdon has comparable load data for, like a NOS 240 JHP, etc.

Good luck, stay safe.

[socal44]

Not sure W296/H110 would be my first choice for a beginner starting to learn how to work up a load

I'm curious, why?

[Whiterabbit]

not much margin for downloading. I don't know if it can be compressed, but when the load data at best is written 10% from start to max and typically far closer, and the mfg specifically states stay within 3% if you are in uncharted territory, they admit that there's no margin.

My understanding is the danger is not pressure spike but rather squibbing out then the person not paying attention firing the next round into the last.

That being said, I've used it a whole bunch, but I can count the number of times I used std primers, and never pushed that 10% limit, and only when load data suggested I could. Off in my own land, I stayed within that 3% suggestion. Never compressed, and never left much empty space in the cartridge regardless of what the OAL says.

Then there's the possibility he also means for recoil purposes which is typically stout, not pleasant.

------------------

On the other hand, I personally would suggest that if you have specific load data for your specific bullet in published material with 296, experience or no, knock yourself out.

I just suggest extreme caution if you want to stray with it.

[Whiterabbit]

FYI, when I'm working with new powders, the first research I do after trying to find load data (ANY load data), is powder limitations. Can it be compressed? Can it be downloaded? Is it friendly to lots of empty space in the cartridge? Does it demand as little free-space as possible? When there are handloader failures, are they detonations, squibbs, or what? Do they demand mag primers? demand std primers? Is there any data to suggest what the pressure is like for a given velocity? how does that compare to powders I've used before? high pressure compared to the velocity? low? Is it bulky powder or compact?

Not all this info is out there for a given powder I want to play with, but usually I can find at least half. And it's WAY more useful for ensuring my own safety when handloading than the typical calguns mentality of "read your load manual twice and if it is not in there then you will kill yourself."

NOT looking up this info even for load data you have is IMO hazardous! What if you are playing with OAL, want to shorten it, and discover your powder DOESN'T want to be compressed, and shortening OAL would compress your powder? Hazardous! What if you choose a powder where handloaders recommend mag primers? or std primers for max loads? swapping might lead to high pressure or squibbs.

Most important what I have learned, is that the first thing people ask you is for details of what you are loading, and it's the last thing they reference when giving you advice. They don't need to know to give you good advice (on safety), and it just obfuscates learning loading limits or experimental avenues.

And listen to Bill, he's helped me more than he knows.