- Thread starter mdmp5
- Start date
Re: H4895 w 155 Palmas
Per Hodgdon Data Center:
155 GR. SIE HPBT IMR 4895 .308" 2.775" COAL
Min 43.5 2664 FPS 45,100 PSI
Max 47.5C 2897 FPS 58,200 PSI
Looks pretty close to 2900 FPS.
155 GR. SIE HPBT Hodgdon H4895 .308" 2.775"
43.0 2735 42,000 CUP
46.0 2873 49,700 CUP
But you can go hotter than Hodgdon's Max loads IMHO, just work up carefully from below.
My data source:
Hodgdon Reloading Data Center
Bob
Per Hodgdon Data Center:
155 GR. SIE HPBT IMR 4895 .308" 2.775" COAL
Min 43.5 2664 FPS 45,100 PSI
Max 47.5C 2897 FPS 58,200 PSI
Looks pretty close to 2900 FPS.
155 GR. SIE HPBT Hodgdon H4895 .308" 2.775"
43.0 2735 42,000 CUP
46.0 2873 49,700 CUP
But you can go hotter than Hodgdon's Max loads IMHO, just work up carefully from below.
My data source:
Hodgdon Reloading Data Center
Bob
Re: H4895 w 155 Palmas
I use 45.6 grns with 155 scenar, 2850 fps 20" trg22 1-11 tw. Lapua brass
I use 45.6 grns with 155 scenar, 2850 fps 20" trg22 1-11 tw. Lapua brass
Re: H4895 w 155 Palmas
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RJ Hunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A very good example of very BAD advice!</div></div>
Why do you say that? Just curious as to why it is bad advise?
I have been using the H version of that powder for years and had damn good luck it. Although I think there is better powder for the 155 bullet seemed to do well in my experience, the 168's, 175's and 180's love that powder in every rifle I have tested with it ( aout 30 different bolt guns and many, many gas guns ). As a mater of fact, my "test" load for every rifle I build is with that powder, it has yeilded the most accurate groups, lowest ES and best consistency with 168's that I have ever loaded. It has outperformed every factory load as well as the M118LR in my experience. I know a lot of people have jumped on the Varget bandwagon and RL15 has seen an increase in popularity but the H4895 can hold its own with any of them.
Just wondering how it is bad advice?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RJ Hunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A very good example of very BAD advice!</div></div>
Why do you say that? Just curious as to why it is bad advise?
I have been using the H version of that powder for years and had damn good luck it. Although I think there is better powder for the 155 bullet seemed to do well in my experience, the 168's, 175's and 180's love that powder in every rifle I have tested with it ( aout 30 different bolt guns and many, many gas guns ). As a mater of fact, my "test" load for every rifle I build is with that powder, it has yeilded the most accurate groups, lowest ES and best consistency with 168's that I have ever loaded. It has outperformed every factory load as well as the M118LR in my experience. I know a lot of people have jumped on the Varget bandwagon and RL15 has seen an increase in popularity but the H4895 can hold its own with any of them.
Just wondering how it is bad advice?
Re: H4895 w 155 Palmas
This advice
"But you can go hotter than Hodgdon's Max loads IMHO, just work up carefully from below."
I disagree that it was bad advice if Palmik wants 2900 and he is at the listed max and still under with no signs of pressure why not.
This advice
"But you can go hotter than Hodgdon's Max loads IMHO, just work up carefully from below."
I disagree that it was bad advice if Palmik wants 2900 and he is at the listed max and still under with no signs of pressure why not.
Re: H4895 w 155 Palmas
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RJ Hunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Read his advice on going over on charge weight. STUPID! Its ok though, I'm sure that after he blows himself up, his lawyers will give him better advice and sue the respondent. Get a loading manual and learn to read. </div></div>
RJ,
I guess this was directed to me?
Let me explain some stupidity to you. A max charge is what you actually develop in your rifle. Sometimes you hit MAX before the book or manual tells you. And sometimes you hit MAX above what the book or manual tells you.
Why? Because your rifle, it's barrel and chamber, and your powder lot, case, primers, et al is completely different than what was used in the book or manual.
Loads for books or manuals were developed based on recommended SAAMI pressures, as tested in their rifles.
Let look at some of these rounds:
243 WIN 60Kpsi
260 REM 60Kpsi
7mm-08 61Kpsi
308 Win 62k PSI
Is the brass substantially different in these rounds?
How about this set:
6mm Rem 65Kpsi
25-06 63Kpsi
270 Win 65Kpsi
Is the brass in a 6mm Rem built stronger than 243 brass? Or is 270 Win and any 30-06 parent brass made out of totally different materials than say 308 brass?
Remember most of these loads also have to work safely in levers, pump actions and autoloaders, not just strong modern bolt actions and single shots (like the Ruger #1).
The MAX loads listed by Hodgdon above are at 58200 PSI for IMR4895 (actual SAAMI Max of 62Kpsi) and 49700 CUP for H4895 (actual SAAMI Max 51400 CUP). So both MAX loads are in fact BELOW SAAMI Max for a 308.
Does than mean I suggest somebody start there loads there? No, I always recommend you start low at the MIN and work up to MAX. And you rifle will not self destruct if you happen to build some loads ABOVE book max, as long as you: work up carefully from below, and measure each case, look for all pressure signs, chronograph each load (velocity will tell you more about MAX, than studying your brass case will, since most cases will not begin to show pressure signs until well north of 65 K PSI), and have sound, modern firearm, and KNOW it's pressure limitations, based on it's design.
Let me ask you a question? What does a MAX load, as listed in a book or manual mean to you?
Is it:
A) A line you never ever cross?
B) A line you approach with caution?
C) Something else?
Here's a something else for you to ponder:
Hodgdon Data Manual #26
7mm Rem Mag
H1000 160 gr Bullet Min 71.0 Grains 2983 FPS 50300 CUP
H1000 160 Gr Bullet MAX 72.5 Grains 3038 FPS 52000 CUP
Hodgdon Data Manual #27
7mm Rem Mag
H1000 160 gr Bullet MIN 63.0 grains 2729 FPS 43300 CUP
H1000 160 Gr Bullet MAX 68.0 Grains 2839 FPS 49600 CUP
Today Hodgdon lists the H1000 MAX & 160 gr Nosler as 66 grains, 2839 FPS, and 49600 CUP. The exact same velocity and pressure they got with 68 grains. Did the powder change or is there data a bit of FUBAR?
(An aside: BTW SAMMI MAX for the 7mm Rem Mag is 61Kpsi or 50400 CUP. It used to be higher, but SAMMI has lowered the standard for this cartridge over the years.
The 7mm STW on the other hand, a larger capacity, but no stronger case than the 7mm Rem Mag, has SAAMI MAX's of 65Kpsi and 54200 CUP.
The real reason for the difference between the two cartidges has more to do with the chambers, their leads, and how they are designed by the many makers who chamber them, than the relative strength of the brass or of the rifles. Now back to the discussion.)
So which load is more dangerous? The MIN in Data Manual 26 or the MAX in data manual 27?
The correct answer is both or neither: because what you develop safely in your rifle (which may be higher or lower), trumps what is written in some book, and developed in a different rifle, with different powder lots......
Did my rifle self-dissemble itself after reading that my load compared to Data manual 27 was 3.8 grains above MAX published, and was developed under the rules of data manual 26, and I was using 71.8 Grains of H1000 and 160 Nosler Partition? Was it safe in my rifle and no others? Yes. Was I over the new book MAX? Yes. Did I lower my charge? NO.
I fired over 2k rounds from that rifle and barrel, and most were the exact same load. I wore that barrel out, and re-barreled. I'm now using a load 2 grains less. Not because the old load was dangerous, but because my new barrel and chamber develops near the same velocity, and better accuracy with 2 less grains of powder. Guess what, I'm still over the new book MAX by 3.8 grains....... Ponder that......
Regards,
Bob
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RJ Hunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Read his advice on going over on charge weight. STUPID! Its ok though, I'm sure that after he blows himself up, his lawyers will give him better advice and sue the respondent. Get a loading manual and learn to read. </div></div>
RJ,
I guess this was directed to me?
Let me explain some stupidity to you. A max charge is what you actually develop in your rifle. Sometimes you hit MAX before the book or manual tells you. And sometimes you hit MAX above what the book or manual tells you.
Why? Because your rifle, it's barrel and chamber, and your powder lot, case, primers, et al is completely different than what was used in the book or manual.
Loads for books or manuals were developed based on recommended SAAMI pressures, as tested in their rifles.
Let look at some of these rounds:
243 WIN 60Kpsi
260 REM 60Kpsi
7mm-08 61Kpsi
308 Win 62k PSI
Is the brass substantially different in these rounds?
How about this set:
6mm Rem 65Kpsi
25-06 63Kpsi
270 Win 65Kpsi
Is the brass in a 6mm Rem built stronger than 243 brass? Or is 270 Win and any 30-06 parent brass made out of totally different materials than say 308 brass?
Remember most of these loads also have to work safely in levers, pump actions and autoloaders, not just strong modern bolt actions and single shots (like the Ruger #1).
The MAX loads listed by Hodgdon above are at 58200 PSI for IMR4895 (actual SAAMI Max of 62Kpsi) and 49700 CUP for H4895 (actual SAAMI Max 51400 CUP). So both MAX loads are in fact BELOW SAAMI Max for a 308.
Does than mean I suggest somebody start there loads there? No, I always recommend you start low at the MIN and work up to MAX. And you rifle will not self destruct if you happen to build some loads ABOVE book max, as long as you: work up carefully from below, and measure each case, look for all pressure signs, chronograph each load (velocity will tell you more about MAX, than studying your brass case will, since most cases will not begin to show pressure signs until well north of 65 K PSI), and have sound, modern firearm, and KNOW it's pressure limitations, based on it's design.
Let me ask you a question? What does a MAX load, as listed in a book or manual mean to you?
Is it:
A) A line you never ever cross?
B) A line you approach with caution?
C) Something else?
Here's a something else for you to ponder:
Hodgdon Data Manual #26
7mm Rem Mag
H1000 160 gr Bullet Min 71.0 Grains 2983 FPS 50300 CUP
H1000 160 Gr Bullet MAX 72.5 Grains 3038 FPS 52000 CUP
Hodgdon Data Manual #27
7mm Rem Mag
H1000 160 gr Bullet MIN 63.0 grains 2729 FPS 43300 CUP
H1000 160 Gr Bullet MAX 68.0 Grains 2839 FPS 49600 CUP
Today Hodgdon lists the H1000 MAX & 160 gr Nosler as 66 grains, 2839 FPS, and 49600 CUP. The exact same velocity and pressure they got with 68 grains. Did the powder change or is there data a bit of FUBAR?
(An aside: BTW SAMMI MAX for the 7mm Rem Mag is 61Kpsi or 50400 CUP. It used to be higher, but SAMMI has lowered the standard for this cartridge over the years.
The 7mm STW on the other hand, a larger capacity, but no stronger case than the 7mm Rem Mag, has SAAMI MAX's of 65Kpsi and 54200 CUP.
The real reason for the difference between the two cartidges has more to do with the chambers, their leads, and how they are designed by the many makers who chamber them, than the relative strength of the brass or of the rifles. Now back to the discussion.)
So which load is more dangerous? The MIN in Data Manual 26 or the MAX in data manual 27?
The correct answer is both or neither: because what you develop safely in your rifle (which may be higher or lower), trumps what is written in some book, and developed in a different rifle, with different powder lots......
Did my rifle self-dissemble itself after reading that my load compared to Data manual 27 was 3.8 grains above MAX published, and was developed under the rules of data manual 26, and I was using 71.8 Grains of H1000 and 160 Nosler Partition? Was it safe in my rifle and no others? Yes. Was I over the new book MAX? Yes. Did I lower my charge? NO.
I fired over 2k rounds from that rifle and barrel, and most were the exact same load. I wore that barrel out, and re-barreled. I'm now using a load 2 grains less. Not because the old load was dangerous, but because my new barrel and chamber develops near the same velocity, and better accuracy with 2 less grains of powder. Guess what, I'm still over the new book MAX by 3.8 grains....... Ponder that......
Regards,
Bob
Re: H4895 w 155 Palmas
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RJ Hunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I tell you what. Call Hodgdon ask them what their expert will say in a civil trial after you recommend to someone to exceed published data. I sure hope your ballistic lab and data are as up to date as theirs. If you don't think that they will bring in web based communication to prove it well -- LMAO! You must have money to burn. I'm not sure that Frank's fully covered from such irresponsible statements. That's the real shame. </div></div>
What are you an attorney now as well as a reloading expert?
I did not know that Hodgdon's published data was etched on stone tablets, and brought down from the mountain by you. Data is a guide, nothing more, and Hodgdon lawyers have made sure there data is safe for use in all functional firearms.
What do you think? If a MAX load in some book is 47.0 grains and you work up carefully to 47.2 grains, do you think your rifle is going to blow up? I'm not sure you even know the difference between a 58K PSI, and a 62K PSI load and a proof load?
I was very careful in explaining that Hodgdon's current data is BELOW SAAMI maximum. Never have I recommended going above SAMMI MAX's. And Hodgdon data is BELOW SAAMI max. In some cases well below.
Bob
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RJ Hunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I tell you what. Call Hodgdon ask them what their expert will say in a civil trial after you recommend to someone to exceed published data. I sure hope your ballistic lab and data are as up to date as theirs. If you don't think that they will bring in web based communication to prove it well -- LMAO! You must have money to burn. I'm not sure that Frank's fully covered from such irresponsible statements. That's the real shame. </div></div>
What are you an attorney now as well as a reloading expert?
I did not know that Hodgdon's published data was etched on stone tablets, and brought down from the mountain by you. Data is a guide, nothing more, and Hodgdon lawyers have made sure there data is safe for use in all functional firearms.
What do you think? If a MAX load in some book is 47.0 grains and you work up carefully to 47.2 grains, do you think your rifle is going to blow up? I'm not sure you even know the difference between a 58K PSI, and a 62K PSI load and a proof load?
I was very careful in explaining that Hodgdon's current data is BELOW SAAMI maximum. Never have I recommended going above SAMMI MAX's. And Hodgdon data is BELOW SAAMI max. In some cases well below.
Bob
Re: H4895 w 155 Palmas
To lend some clarity here, I wouldn't blindly drop a hot charge just on someone's recommendation. I am at 47 RL15 right now with no pressure signs. I was gonna start with 46 H4895 and go up to 47 after. Bob gave me a reference to work with, that's all. His advice to go over the max was taken as if the max load caused no pressure signs.
To lend some clarity here, I wouldn't blindly drop a hot charge just on someone's recommendation. I am at 47 RL15 right now with no pressure signs. I was gonna start with 46 H4895 and go up to 47 after. Bob gave me a reference to work with, that's all. His advice to go over the max was taken as if the max load caused no pressure signs.
Re: H4895 w 155 Palmas
Conservative loading will "prevent excess pressure coming out in an unprofitable direction" was recommended to me in a prior posting. I really liked that one.
It is your rifle and your body parts..and your risk, not the risk of people who recommend hot loads, whether those loads are max or not..hot is hot. Common sense should tell you when to be nervous. If not, I guess Darwin will sort the rest out.
Conservative loading will "prevent excess pressure coming out in an unprofitable direction" was recommended to me in a prior posting. I really liked that one.
It is your rifle and your body parts..and your risk, not the risk of people who recommend hot loads, whether those loads are max or not..hot is hot. Common sense should tell you when to be nervous. If not, I guess Darwin will sort the rest out.
Re: H4895 w 155 Palmas
BobinNC:
Thank you for posting that, you saved me the trouble of doing it myself. Some people just don't get the whole safe vs dangerous pressure thing and scream "idiot" whenever someone suggests something beyond what is printed in a random reloading book. I'm so tired of idiots call others idiot when they themselves don't have a clue. You're posts are right on and anyone who doesn't understand that should stick to the books because their comprehension doesn't go beyond what's spelled out for them.
BobinNC:
Thank you for posting that, you saved me the trouble of doing it myself. Some people just don't get the whole safe vs dangerous pressure thing and scream "idiot" whenever someone suggests something beyond what is printed in a random reloading book. I'm so tired of idiots call others idiot when they themselves don't have a clue. You're posts are right on and anyone who doesn't understand that should stick to the books because their comprehension doesn't go beyond what's spelled out for them.
