SAAMI Pressure Chart - Page 3 - Shooters Forum
» Advanced

Go Back   Shooters Forum > Handloading > Handloading Procedures/Practices
Register FAQ Members List Donate Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Like Tree7Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #41  
Old 09-16-2014, 11:08 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: BF Egypt
Posts: 5,135

Registered Users do not see the above ad.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
That's pretty handy, Jack.... do you know of a similar source for chamber drawings?

Think this is deserving of a 'sticky' as this comes up a lot on the forum....
I have a number of chambers drawings, but I'd have to dig through them. Most of the ones I have on hand are .308 because of my project. The NM M14 has more than one drawing.. and in military firearms or LMGs it gets bad (the M-60). I have scanned a large part of the STANAG agreement (7.62)

Some of the others I'd have to scan. But I do have permission to use the SAAMI .308 chamber drawing for that project.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04-20-2017, 07:21 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 868
How valid are SAAMI data? Does it have real world utility? Do laboratory results apply outside of controlled environments? Would data become invalid were a hunter to fire a round at 10000'?

I don't have instrument rating license. I load what I've always loaded; e.g., 60 grains of H-4831 in W-W cases with a Fed 210 primer, and a 130 grain bullet. We know we're talking .270 Win. This load causes immediate deer death. I have no clue of its SAAMI valuation, nor do I care. I've used this load for over 43 years. It works.

in the 70's, 70 grains of H-4831 with 160 grain bullets was max for the 7MM Rem Mag. Some 25+ years ago, I've loaded a hundred 160 grain Partitions for elk hunting. I used 67 grains of H-4831 & a Fed 215 primer in W-W cases. I've chrono'd that load out of a 24" barreled 7MM Rem Mag at just above 23100 FPS. This load shoots like strawberry shortcake in my 7MM Rem Mag. It'll one-shot-kill the biggest of big bulls. Now that load is SAAMI'd at 7 grains over max??? What kind of stuff are they smoking over at SAAMI?

I use the sans souci method of reloading. I ballpark where max oughta be. I work up slowly until either I approach max load or accuracy is beyond excellent. I'll trade velocity for accuracy every time...within reason. A bullet doing mach 9 is worthless if it can't hit a mountain at a hundred yards. A quarter-inch at a hundred load is money.

My 43+ year-old Model 700 using my Sans Zap 'em load will shoot .25" My 7MM Rem Mag will shoot .25" with 150 grain Ballistic Tips & a max load of IMR-4350. I've chrono'd that load at better than 3200 FPS out of a 24" barrel. I ain't screwing with that load because it shoots microscopic groups. My 7MM Rem Mag elk load goes just under an inch.

Here's what I've found to be true: big game doesn't know .270 Win velocity from .30-30 Win velocity. They know only that their topside oxygenated blood flow ain't flowing. For big game hunting, there ain't much gained once velocity hits the ~3000 FPS mark. Admittedly, that's an arbitrary velocity, but it keeps me from spending too much time experimenting when I ougha be spending time shooting ragged one-hole groups.

I use data manuals for reference only. They are not definitive. How loads shoot outta my rifles is definitive.

I've switched to Norma brass. I did manage to pick up 250 pieces of .270 Win Fed Premium brass. I ain't yet tried it, but it does look to be of very good quality.

There are a zillion new powders on the market and new mouse traps in hardware stores. I've tried some. I've not yet run across anything that'll outdo H-4831. I do like RL-22 (It's identical to Norma MRP), RL-19 (Identical to Norma 204), & IMR-4350. They are temperature and big game feelings insensitive. When a primer flare ignites it, it'll cause a bullet to fly out of the muzzle end at hot velocity resulting in hurt big game feelings.

One last point: we could spend decades working up loads with every new powder that comes down big game alley. Screw that baloney. Now this is Sans opinion and only Sans opinion, but it has kept Sans very sans souci. If you have a load that shoots well in your rifle sans high pressure indicators, stick with it if has given you excellent results. If SAAMI LABORATORY results show your load to be in violations of SAAMI Rule 1.1.1.7.(a), close your SAAMI book and continue killing big game. We hunt in the real world, not in laboratories where replication is easy but data transfer is inferential.

We need to keep lawyers away from loading. They don't care about liability. They care only for taking money from people who've earned it. Maybe we'd be better off were we to enact strict lawyer control and repeal all gun related laws.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04-20-2017, 07:36 AM
MikeG's Avatar
The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 32,920
You are making an assumption that what Hodgdon sold as "4831" in the 1970s was the same as what is manufactured today. That assumption is faulty.

At least some of the 4831 sold in the 70s was surplus; I had a can and in fact have some ammo loaded with it, that I shot a few weeks ago. When used with modern data, velocities are quite low which strongly suggests it is a fair amount slower burning than current powder.

It would be foolish to use old data for surplus powders with current powders. Extremely foolish.

If you want to load what is known to be overpressure, that is up to you. It is your health that is at stake. Absent pressure measuring devices, you don't have a clue what is going on. Either your loads are stupidly overpressure, or your chronograph is inaccurate. Maybe both. But I wouldn't want to be sitting next to you at the range when the pieces fly.....

Your advice is quite poor and I hope no one follows it and gets hurt.
MZ5 likes this.
__________________
MikeG

Quote:
Originally Posted by faucettb
Welcome to the forum. Rules are simple, be nice and join in.

Last edited by MikeG; 04-20-2017 at 07:51 AM.
Reply With Quote
 
  #44  
Old 04-20-2017, 07:42 AM
MikeG's Avatar
The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 32,920
From another thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SansSouci View Post
Humpy,

Ain't nobody up and changed questions related to killing big game. In fact, all of my questions were answered years ago. What worked 5 decades ago still works. And I don't need no mega magnum to kill big game. A .30-30 Win that destroys any big game animal's oxygenated blood pumping equipment will kill it just as dead as were it shot with a mega magnum. Biology always wins.
So.... why the insistence on loading well above listed loads if it isn't necessary????

MZ5 likes this.
__________________
MikeG

Quote:
Originally Posted by faucettb
Welcome to the forum. Rules are simple, be nice and join in.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 04-20-2017, 05:20 PM
unclenick's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hilliard, Ohio
Posts: 12,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by SansSouci View Post
How valid are SAAMI data? Does it have real world utility? Do laboratory results apply outside of controlled environments? Would data become invalid were a hunter to fire a round at 10000'?
Well, 10,000 feet (3,333 yards (3,048 m)) is almost as far as flat base .30-06 bullets will fly when the muzzle of a 24" barrel is elevated to achieve maximum extreme range. There's no practical aimed shooting occurring at that range.

As to SAAMI, certainly it has utility. That's why it was created in the first place. But people forget the SAAMI standard is for commercial ammunition manufacturers to enable to them to make ammunition that will fit and fire safely in any gun chambered for that ammunition that is not in compromised condition. Unlike a handloader, the commercial ammunition maker never sees most of the guns their ammunition is used in. It's a different problem than handloaders have.

The SAAMI standard assumes you have pressure testing equipment. It assumes you will not rely on a book of recipes to develop loads from. This is why it works with bulk powders like the old surplus 4831, whereas handloaders today are sold what are called canister grade powders, which are more expensive, but have more tightly controlled burn rates so that modern manual data will be valid with different lots of it. Surplus bulk grade powders used to be more common than they are now, so some of the old manual data is just bad now. Also, manufacturers of some powder numbers have changed over time. H4895 and H4831 used to be surplus powder made by Dupont or by R.A. Today what comes in the bottle is made in Australia to mimic the nominal burn rates and characteristice of those powders, but with modern temperature control additives. It not the exact same stuff and recipes for it had to be reworked.

The most extreme example of that I am aware of was when Accurate had to change suppliers of their Nitro 100 powder. They actually had a published warning not to use the new powder in pistol loads until they had time to develop new data for it. One wonders why they would not just come up with a new powder name at that point, to avoid confusion, but they didn't.

Authors of load manuals don't use the SAAMI numbers the same way manufacturers do. It might be useful to understand how it works, and I'll undertake a write up of that at some point. The main thing to understand in the short term is that the maximum pressure number mentioned by SAAMI and by the load manuals is called the Maximum Average Pressure, or MAP. That means it is the largest average peak pressure a single ten round sample from a freshly loaded lot of ammunition kept at close to 70°F and loaded in the tightest spec chamber with the ammunition handled so the powder stays over the primer. They fully expect that for this number to be average, some rounds will be above that number and some below it.

The load manual authors don't treat the MAP as an average. They treat it as an upper limit. If they load a round that shows ±5% swing in pressure for 10 rounds, they adjust the load so the highest pressure does not exceed the MAP. This is a lower average pressure than a manufacturer might load to. It is also the reason you see maximum loads of some powders listed as having lower pressures than others. Those listed pressures are the averages, and if they are lower than another powder's averages, it means they had more pressure variation and some of their round's pressures had more extreme spread in pressure than the ones that had the highest listed maximum loads did. If you want the powders that produce the most consistent pressures, pick those with the highest measured pressures at the maximums.

The bottom line is the SAAMI standard is just a sort of hint as to where pressures can go without messing up unknown guns. How much it applies to your particular weapon depends on a number of variables, leaving you to work that out for yourself. If you do stick with the SAAMI numbers, though, you usually get maximum throat and bore life. Hotter loads burn barrels out faster.
Ralph McLaney, MZ5 and rojkoh like this.
__________________
Nick
__________________________
Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member
"First contemplation of the problems of Interior Ballistics gives the impression that they should yield rather easily to relatively simple methods of analysis. Further study shows the subject to be of almost unbelievable complexity." Homer Powley
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 04-20-2017, 06:52 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: BF Egypt
Posts: 5,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by SansSouci View Post
How valid are SAAMI data? Does it have real world utility? Do laboratory results apply outside of controlled environments? Would data become invalid were a hunter to fire a round at 10000'?
SAAMI is an industry reference, not an enforced standard
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 04-21-2017, 06:59 PM
unclenick's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hilliard, Ohio
Posts: 12,151
That's a good point to make. Enforcement is of regulations. Usually, regulations are separate from standards, though some of them cross over so that there is both an industrial standard and a regulation that say the same thing. But to just be an industry standard, absent a regulation, all you have to do is be in a position to define a standard practice that members of the industry agree to through their voting representatives in the standards organization. SAAMI is an ANSI standards organization of that type.

Incidentally, SAAMI drops things from its standard definitions if they aren't popular enough any longer. In the most recent 2015 standard for handgun cartridges the .357 Maximum has vanished. It was in the previous 1992 standard. That doesn't mean nobody loads or shoots it any longer. There are still big companies making brass for it, and smaller ones rolling loads for it. That does not mean nobody remembers the old pressure limits SAAMI had for it. It does mean that no member company is any longer producing proof and reference cartridges for it, so you are looking at the pressures being determined by the less reliable individual calibration method rather than the reference load method of correcting such calibrations that is available for cartridges for which the SAAMI standard is still active.
__________________
Nick
__________________________
Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member
"First contemplation of the problems of Interior Ballistics gives the impression that they should yield rather easily to relatively simple methods of analysis. Further study shows the subject to be of almost unbelievable complexity." Homer Powley
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 04-22-2017, 08:16 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Southern California
Posts: 2,834
Are CIP Standards any Better at keeping Cartridge and Chamber Dimensions and Pressures over time?
I do Know that the EU has Laws that state CIP Compliance is REQUIRED.
Chev. William
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 04-22-2017, 10:53 AM
MikeG's Avatar
The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 32,920
And guns have to be proofed. So yeah they have a much more consistent, enforceable standard.

There may be a few intrepid handloaders over there that consider the max published data as a good starting point, too .....
__________________
MikeG

Quote:
Originally Posted by faucettb
Welcome to the forum. Rules are simple, be nice and join in.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 04-22-2017, 12:02 PM
unclenick's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hilliard, Ohio
Posts: 12,151
As far as dimensions go, the CIP doesn't seem to end up with a half dozen different chamber designs for a popular cartridge, as happens here. So it is more consistent, but less flexible. I believe an experimenter altering a chamber design beyond CIP tolerances needs to give it a new designation over there, but I'm not positive and people buying it just have to know what the parent cartridge is and that they can use it.

As far as pressure consistency, the CIP magnitudes are more consistent because their obsolete copper crusher and modern piezoelectric transducer systems are more similar to one another than ours are. As a result, you can convert their old copper crusher numbers to their transducer numbers with more consistency. But they are dimensionally different systems, so their crusher and transducer numbers do not match ours exactly.
__________________
Nick
__________________________
Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member
"First contemplation of the problems of Interior Ballistics gives the impression that they should yield rather easily to relatively simple methods of analysis. Further study shows the subject to be of almost unbelievable complexity." Homer Powley

Last edited by unclenick; 04-22-2017 at 12:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 04-22-2017, 04:47 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: BF Egypt
Posts: 5,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
You are making an assumption that what Hodgdon sold as "4831" in the 1970s was the same as what is manufactured today. That assumption is faulty.

At least some of the 4831 sold in the 70s was surplus; I had a can and in fact have some ammo loaded with it, that I shot a few weeks ago. When used with modern data, velocities are quite low which strongly suggests it is a fair amount slower burning than current powder.
Absolutely right. I try to explain to people the differences in the generations of IMR 4895. They don't want to hear it. Since I have 3 gens from military (DuPont), pre 76 and post 76, I intend to do a comparison this summer if I can get the time.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 04-22-2017, 04:49 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: BF Egypt
Posts: 5,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
From another thread:



So.... why the insistence on loading well above listed loads if it isn't necessary????

I don't understand it, but some people HAVE to load for velocity without any regard to safety, accuracy and a lot of other issues including barrel life. A lot people say "try 41.5 grains of 4064 with the 175 SMK. I've tried to get close to it in 5 308 chambers, not going to happen here.

Last edited by rojkoh; 04-22-2017 at 04:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 04-22-2017, 04:53 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: BF Egypt
Posts: 5,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by unclenick View Post
That's a good point to make. Enforcement is of regulations. Usually, regulations are separate from standards, though some of them cross over so that there is both an industrial standard and a regulation that say the same thing. But to just be an industry standard, absent a regulation, all you have to do is be in a position to define a standard practice that members of the industry agree to through their voting representatives in the standards organization. SAAMI is an ANSI standards organization of that type.

Incidentally, SAAMI drops things from its standard definitions if they aren't popular enough any longer. In the most recent 2015 standard for handgun cartridges the .357 Maximum has vanished. It was in the previous 1992 standard. That doesn't mean nobody loads or shoots it any longer. There are still big companies making brass for it, and smaller ones rolling loads for it. That does not mean nobody remembers the old pressure limits SAAMI had for it. It does mean that no member company is any longer producing proof and reference cartridges for it, so you are looking at the pressures being determined by the less reliable individual calibration method rather than the reference load method of correcting such calibrations that is available for cartridges for which the SAAMI standard is still active.
ANSI is actually more enforced to some degree as I'm sure you're aware.

Simple thing is, with all the revenue and profits from the Obama days and the threat of Clinton, I don't see why SAAMI shouldn't be built up so 1) They can keep the older data on hand and 2) find a way to "enforce" the standard without being "disruptive" to the industry. There are ways.

Since I moved to BF Egypt, I really have seen some crazy things and out of spec chambers.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 04-23-2017, 09:52 AM
unclenick's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hilliard, Ohio
Posts: 12,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by rojkoh View Post
ANSI is actually more enforced to some degree as I'm sure you're aware.
Actually that impression is created by a couple of misleading factors. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards are only voluntary in and of themselves, as ANSI's own description says:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ANSI
The use of American National Standards is completely voluntary; their existence does not in any respect preclude anyone, whether he has approved the standards or not, from manufacturing, marketing, purchasing, or using products, processes, or procedures not conforming to the standards.
The most simple reason for confusion of standards with regulations is well explained by the ISO in this short page: the Difference between Standards and Regulations.

But that is only part of the picture in the U.S. We have an additional factor. The U.S., the government used to develop test methods and specifications for rules and regulations entirely at taxpayer expense. It was finally realized that this frequently duplicated the often faster and better work of the voluntary standards organizations who were already doing this at the expense of the manufacturers who used the standards. So, in an uncharacteristic move to save taxpayer money, in 1995 the government passed the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASTM
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-113), signed into law on March 7, 1996, requires that all federal agencies use standards developed by voluntary consensus standards bodies instead of government-unique standards wherever possible.
So, voluntary standards are now often incorporated into rules and regulations, but only after they were voluntary standards first. The government still develops its own methods for rules and regulations not covered by a voluntary industry standard.

The organization of the voluntary standards "bodies" is also confusing. Pretty much top tier is ISO. It is a collection of international central standards organizations, one from each country. In the U.S., ANSI is the ISO member and representative. ANSI itself is the top tier U.S. voluntary standards organization, with many members, called sponsors, who do the actual standards development and authoring using ANSI guidelines and requirements. SAAMI is one of these ANSI sponsors and develops its standards by methods that meet ANSI requirements. Again from ANSI (and reproduced in SAAMI standard introductions):

Quote:
Originally Posted by ANSI/SAAMI
Approval of an American National Standard requires verification by ANSI that the requirements for due process, consensus, and other criteria for approval have been met by the standards developer.

Consensus is established when, in the judgment of the ANSI Board of Standards Review, substantial agreement has been reached by directly and materially affected interests. Substantial agreement means much more than a simple majority, but not necessarily unanimity. Consensus requires that all views and objections be considered, and that a concerted effort be made toward their resolution.
The bottom line is that if you go to ANSI's site, you see standards published there that are ISO standards, often originating in other countries, ASTM standards, IEEE standards, SAE standards, SAAMI standards, and the output of other standards organizations who sponsor and follow the ANSI approach to creating standards. The individual organizations also publish their standards, of course, so members don't also have to join ANSI unless they want to.


The reason SAAMI drops standards for less popular chamberings is the cost of maintaining them. SAAMI assigns one member company to be responsible for making and maintaining both proof and reference load¹ lots for each cartridge. Samples from these lots are sent around to and are tested by other members every two years until the lot is exhausted. The average results for each round of testing, after segregating outliers beyond certain limits, are used as the current peak pressure rating for proof load and peak pressure and velocity ratings for reference load lots. The reference load tests also require tighter ambient temperature tolerances and conditioning than usual testing. All that work has cost in terms of equipment, ballistic technician time, and time during which neither is available to do other work, so it isn't free. When a cartridge just isn't selling enough any longer, a decision is made to terminate that ongoing expense.

SAAMI does have files on all past supported chamberings. If you call them they can dig out old drawings and pressure numbers. They just don't have the proof and reference loads available any longer.


¹ For those unfamiliar with SAAMI test procedures, reference loads are loads whose peak pressure and velocity are known to the best of the industry's ability to determine what they are. Individual test guns can disagree, perhaps due to tolerances from wear or difference in exact ambient temperature, and occasionally that disagreement is significant. By comparing the raw result for samples from a reference load lot with that lot's established pressure rating, an error correction factor is arrived at to use with the individual test gun and test conditions to bring its readings in line with the industry average for that same lot of reference loads. It's a cross calibration system.
kdub and MZ5 like this.
__________________
Nick
__________________________
Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member
"First contemplation of the problems of Interior Ballistics gives the impression that they should yield rather easily to relatively simple methods of analysis. Further study shows the subject to be of almost unbelievable complexity." Homer Powley

Last edited by unclenick; 04-23-2017 at 10:01 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 04-23-2017, 02:08 PM
The Troll Whisperer (Moderator)
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 21,866
Well done, Nick - well done.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
NRA Certified Police Firearms Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer


"Firearms only have two enemies - rust and politicans" author unknown
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 04-23-2017, 03:16 PM
unclenick's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hilliard, Ohio
Posts: 12,151
Thank you , sir!
__________________
Nick
__________________________
Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member
"First contemplation of the problems of Interior Ballistics gives the impression that they should yield rather easily to relatively simple methods of analysis. Further study shows the subject to be of almost unbelievable complexity." Homer Powley
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 04-23-2017, 06:40 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: BF Egypt
Posts: 5,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by unclenick View Post
Thank you , sir!
Ditto, well written. sharp to the point and well covered.

Good one Nick

Last edited by rojkoh; 04-23-2017 at 10:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 04-29-2017, 08:11 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Western States
Posts: 142
ranch dog,
Thanks for the info. I was always lectured that the two measurements weren't/couldn't be
related and not convertible.

Nice to finally enter the 20th Century with some of these folks. Now if they can only make the
leap to the 21st Century, ****, they might figure out the right rate of twist for their large bore
rifles not using black powder!
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 06-08-2017, 01:20 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: 2 miles So. of Filer, Idaho
Posts: 842
PSI is dependent on the rifle in question, guided by bore tightness, chamber deminsions, and a dozen or more IF'S charts are only starting points. A firearm is a inity unto itself, and creates a pressure of its own. Makes good reading but very repetted... Most handloading books show pressure for their loads, usually from a pressure barrels that will give a different PSI than your deer rifle or whatever.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 06-08-2017, 08:58 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: BF Egypt
Posts: 5,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big 5 View Post
PSI is dependent on the rifle in question, guided by bore tightness, chamber deminsions, and a dozen or more IF'S charts are only starting points. A firearm is a inity unto itself, and creates a pressure of its own. Makes good reading but very repetted... Most handloading books show pressure for their loads, usually from a pressure barrels that will give a different PSI than your deer rifle or whatever.
Most reloading manuals note the rifle used for testing or in Norma's case they use test fixtures.

You are rifle about each rifle being an entity, SAAMI is a reference and not an enforced standard so chamber vary wisely.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
25-35 loads Dr. A Handloading Procedures/Practices 179 06-13-2017 09:54 AM
CUP vs. PSI Ranch Dog Handloading Procedures/Practices 55 09-04-2012 09:25 AM
4831 - Hodgdon, IMR ? flashhole Handloading Procedures/Practices 15 04-26-2005 08:44 AM
Developing loads & pressure signs Taylor Handloading Procedures/Practices 8 10-14-2004 12:28 AM
Powder Burn Rate Chart William Iorg Handloading Procedures/Practices 0 03-27-2003 05:02 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:53 AM.

< Contact Us - Shooters Forum - Archive - Privacy Statement >

 
 

All Content & Design Copyright © 1999-2002 Beartooth Bullets, All Rights Reserved
Privacy Statement | Contact Webmaster
Website Design & Development By Exbabylon Internet Solutions
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1