[MikeG]

The area under the pressure curve DOES equal velocity. That's basic physics and cannot be discounted.


I have no idea if the load you quoted is over pressure, and frankly, neither do you. All you can say for sure is, the bullet and the powder gas have exited the front end of the gun, and not the back. Standard Deviation does not tell you pressure. Group size does not tell you pressure. Staring at the cases or fired primers does not tell you pressure. Only pressure measuring equipment, tells you pressure. Foolish to think otherwise.

 

[Darkker]

1) I was saying that is was his opinion that if a powder isn't listed in a reloading book then its unsafe or not recommended.
2) Also, that his logic of velocity=pressure is his opinion. If I had $900 to drop on a pressure reading devise, I would be more than happy to, but right now I just dont.

3) I have something for you all to chew on and to tell me I'm wrong or its "not recommended":
Explain this one, if you can. Same rifle, loading a 225gr Cutting Edge MTH with 66.5grs of reloader 22, COAL of 3.625" loading .020 off lands, shooting a 1/2 MOA at 100 at 2980 with a standard deviation of 3fps. Please, fire away. Caution, this is straight load data for a 220gr bullet. So please tell me I'm over pressuring and I will contact the manufacturer of the reloading book.

1) It's not an opinion, it's fact. If no one recommends it, it isn't recommended; not an obtuse concept.
2) Again, not logic; science. One of us has an accurate and reliable way to measure pressure and burning curves, one of us has a staring contest with primers. So one of us has an understanding of how things work, and one of us has an unfounded opinion about how things work.
3) I don't know what that is, or what you want with it.

I never said your loads are over-pressure by XX amount. I said in a production firearm, going 200+ fps faster than a minimum spec universal receiver and pressure barrel, which is the same length as yours; is potentially a pipe bomb. How do you know it isn't? Measuring it.


Primers, do you think the right it the left side were higher pressure?

You sure about that?

What about the 300 data for the 325. This load is taken EXACTLY from the middle of the Hornady manual, but I swapped the regular 150gr for a 150gr Deep Curl. Velocity says in not in pressure trouble, so I'm safe right?

What about magical FlatLine bullets that you can supposedly push several hundred feet faster, without any pressure "signs"? Well when you use the same charge and same jump to lands, what do you suppose the results are?

 

[Lost1Actual]

1) I was saying that is was his opinion that if a powder isn't listed in a reloading book then its unsafe or not recommended.
2) Also, that his logic of velocity=pressure is his opinion. If I had $900 to drop on a pressure reading devise, I would be more than happy to, but right now I just dont.

3) I have something for you all to chew on and to tell me I'm wrong or its "not recommended":
Explain this one, if you can. Same rifle, loading a 225gr Cutting Edge MTH with 66.5grs of reloader 22, COAL of 3.625" loading .020 off lands, shooting a 1/2 MOA at 100 at 2980 with a standard deviation of 3fps. Please, fire away. Caution, this is straight load data for a 220gr bullet. So please tell me I'm over pressuring and I will contact the manufacturer of the reloading book.

1) It's not an opinion, it's fact. If no one recommends it, it isn't recommended; not an obtuse concept.
2) Again, not logic; science. One of us has an accurate and reliable way to measure pressure and burning curves, one of us has a staring contest with primers. So one of us has an understanding of how things work, and one of us has an unfounded opinion about how things work.
3) I don't know what that is, or what you want with it.

I never said your loads are over-pressure by XX amount. I said in a production firearm, going 200+ fps faster than a minimum spec universal receiver and pressure barrel, which is the same length as yours; is potentially a pipe bomb. How do you know it isn't? Measuring it.


Primers, do you think the right it the left side were higher pressure?

You sure about that?

What about the 300 data for the 325. This load is taken EXACTLY from the middle of the Hornady manual, but I swapped the regular 150gr for a 150gr Deep Curl. Velocity says in not in pressure trouble, so I'm safe right?

What about magical FlatLine bullets that you can supposedly push several hundred feet faster, without any pressure "signs"? Well when you use the same charge and same jump to lands, what do you suppose the results are?

1) You are incorrect, it is YOUR opinion. Alliant has right on their site that if a powder/cartridge load is not listed, it's just because they have not tested it, not because they dont recommend it. So again, Sir, it is your opinion. If you want to stick to what is written exactly in a book, then be my guest, but do go preaching that there is no other option.

2) How can the same person tell me its science that velocity=pressure but burn rates are irrelevant? That contradictory. By that "science" if you have the same bullet loaded with two different powders causing the same pressure, the velocities should be the same...but they arent. Because of the burn rate of a powder, and the characteristics of how it builds pressure as burning is how you get different velocities. That's physics and math.

3) The books arent exact on velocities, just a guideline. Goes back to the old saying of dont believe everything you read. I took load data right from Barnes reloading page for the 160 TTSX. I loaded it right from the book with exception of the COAL, book claiming a velocity of 3350. Shooting an 8 shot group, I had a low of 3690 and a high of 3711. Is it something that I can explain? No. As I said, I didnt change anything from the book except the length.

Unlike you, I can admit when I'm wrong. I was wrong to say anything about pressure signs. They are very inconsistent and misleading. So now there is no reason for insults like "having a staring contest with primers".

 

[Trent12]

Basic math and physics would dictate that if your rifle is now magically outperforming velocity standards for a cartridge that you are indeed over pressure.

Many firearms can handle double pressure charges. That’s how they used to “proof” firearms way back when. They’d load a large blackpowder charge and if the firearm survived it was “proofed”. That doesn’t mean it’s safe to do that every time. You’re playing a dangerous game of “it hasn’t blown up in my face yet”.

You keep advocating that you can’t get access to and won’t buy equipment to actually check pressure and then when those who do tell you that you’re over pressure you get upset.

.325 wsm is already a high pressure cartridge I believe so “wingin it” could end very badly for you down the line eventually. The members here are just trying to look out for you. If it does end up blowing up in your face now, you can’t say that nobody warned you.

In reality, if something sounds too good to be true, it usually isn’t true.

 

[Saskshooter]

3) The books arent exact on velocities, just a guideline. Goes back to the old saying of dont believe everything you read. I took load data right from Barnes reloading page for the 160 TTSX. I loaded it right from the book with exception of the COAL, book claiming a velocity of 3350. Shooting an 8 shot group, I had a low of 3690 and a high of 3711. Is it something that I can explain? No. As I said, I didnt change anything from the book except the length.

Unlike you, I can admit when I'm wrong. .[/QUOTE]

Well, you changed the powder lot, the bullet lot, the case lot, the chamber dimensions, the barrel, and the length. You got an extreme variation in velocity. THAT should indicate that there is some factor that creates more pressure in your gun than the test device that Barnes used. Or your chronograph is a liar.

If you can't see that, in the face of all the advice and technical argument you've been presented, I would suggest that you CAN'T admit when you're wrong.

 

[Lost1Actual]

The area under the pressure curve DOES equal velocity. That's basic physics and cannot be discounted.


I have no idea if the load you quoted is over pressure, and frankly, neither do you. All you can say for sure is, the bullet and the powder gas have exited the front end of the gun, and not the back. Standard Deviation does not tell you pressure. Group size does not tell you pressure. Staring at the cases or fired primers does not tell you pressure. Only pressure measuring equipment, tells you pressure. Foolish to think otherwise.

Yes, I am very well aware that standard deviation and grouping dont tell pressure. And I already admitted that I was wrong about the primer/case. But, if you think that strictly measured chamber pressure equals velocity, then you are nieve. Pressure is responsible for velocity, but as a whole. This is where powder burn rates come in. If that isn't apparent, look at any reloading manual. Almost all book maxes measure very closely to the same pressure, but are very different in velocity. To say that powder burn rates are irrelevant tells me that person is very misinformed. It's not so simple to say that if you are getting high velocities, then you have to have high pressures.

 

[MikeG]

I encouraged you to call the powder manufacturer. If they don't have the powder in their published data, then they aren't "recommending" it. The published data is what they are "recommending." I don't see how it could be otherwise.


If they give you new, updated information for the powder in that cartridge over the phone, then you now have a "recommendation." It really is that simple. It is a "recommendation" when an industry member publishes data. So, stop digging the "recommendation" hole, please.



Granted, sometimes a powder will work just fine - even if no one went to the trouble of publishing data. I've worked up loads for wildcats, and sometimes obsolete stuff like the .250 Savage where I've never found a "recommendation" for Varget, but it works just fine. But it's on me if there are problems. My loads are cautious and DO NOT exceed velocities for similar powders, even though the .250 rifle in question is a 98 mauser, not a Savage 99, because there is a Savage 99 elsewhere in the family and I'd hate to cause problems for someone else.


Anyway.... don't put absolute faith in anything you read in a burn rate chart. It doesn't take much searching to find a different burn rate chart that puts things in a different order. That's just what someone else got, testing (likely) a different lot on a different day, with different equipment. Powders with similar burn rates should be CLOSE in actual performance - key words are "should" and "close." It doesn't always work out that way.


As far as why you got radically different velocities for the cited loads from Barnes, et al - have you tried a different chronograph? First rule of accurate measurements is to calibrate your equipment. We all expect our particular chronograph to be 100% accurate, but it doesn't always work out that way. Shoot some factory ammo over yours, and shoot some reloads over someone else's. I'd probably put more faith in one of the newer devices, like the Magnetospeed or LabRadar, but I'd want to check it against something known, in any instance.



Just some thoughts. If you'll quit arguing semantics, and admit that maybe you don't have all the answers, you might learn something. I thought I knew it all, too, when I just started reloading

 

[Lost1Actual]

Basic math and physics would dictate that if your rifle is now magically outperforming velocity standards for a cartridge that you are indeed over pressure.

Many firearms can handle double pressure charges. That’s how they used to “proof” firearms way back when. They’d load a large blackpowder charge and if the firearm survived it was “proofed”. That doesn’t mean it’s safe to do that every time. You’re playing a dangerous game of “it hasn’t blown up in my face yet”.

You keep advocating that you can’t get access to and won’t buy equipment to actually check pressure and then when those who do tell you that you’re over pressure you get upset.

.325 wsm is already a high pressure cartridge I believe so “wingin it” could end very badly for you down the line eventually. The members here are just trying to look out for you. If it does end up blowing up in your face now, you can’t say that nobody warned you.

In reality, if something sounds too good to be true, it usually isn’t true.

I plan on getting a pressure test done, and will have no problem admitting being wrong if I am so. But to attack everything I have to say is what is frustrating. My question would be that if I am right, and am within suggested pressure ranges, would the people here be willing to admit they are wrong?

And I'm not sure what you meant about that last thing, but I sure hope that is wasnt directed as to saying I'm lying about the Barnes load and data.

 

[Lost1Actual]

I encouraged you to call the powder manufacturer. If they don't have the powder in their published data, then they aren't "recommending" it. The published data is what they are "recommending." I don't see how it could be otherwise.


If they give you new, updated information for the powder in that cartridge over the phone, then you now have a "recommendation." It really is that simple. It is a "recommendation" when an industry member publishes data. So, stop digging the "recommendation" hole, please.



Granted, sometimes a powder will work just fine - even if no one went to the trouble of publishing data. I've worked up loads for wildcats, and sometimes obsolete stuff like the .250 Savage where I've never found a "recommendation" for Varget, but it works just fine. But it's on me if there are problems. My loads are cautious and DO NOT exceed velocities for similar powders, even though the .250 rifle in question is a 98 mauser, not a Savage 99, because there is a Savage 99 elsewhere in the family and I'd hate to cause problems for someone else.


Anyway.... don't put absolute faith in anything you read in a burn rate chart. It doesn't take much searching to find a different burn rate chart that puts things in a different order. That's just what someone else got, testing (likely) a different lot on a different day, with different equipment. Powders with similar burn rates should be CLOSE in actual performance - key words are "should" and "close." It doesn't always work out that way.


As far as why you got radically different velocities for the cited loads from Barnes, et al - have you tried a different chronograph? First rule of accurate measurements is to calibrate your equipment. We all expect our particular chronograph to be 100% accurate, but it doesn't always work out that way. Shoot some factory ammo over yours, and shoot some reloads over someone else's. I'd probably put more faith in one of the newer devices, like the Magnetospeed or LabRadar, but I'd want to check it against something known, in any instance.



Just some thoughts. If you'll quit arguing semantics, and admit that maybe you don't have all the answers, you might learn something. I thought I knew it all, too, when I just started reloading

I definitely dont know everything, and I do know that. I enjoy learning. And yes, I am somewhat new to the reloading side, I've only been at it for 15 years. I am taking a lot of what is said and learning from it, but I also hate being discounted because of I havent been at it as long.

On another note, I did email both Nosler and Alliant to see if they had any data or any reason not to use that particular powder in my Cartridge.

Also, with the Barnes data, I used two different chronographs, both of which I shot a standard load 45 ACP over and got very close to printed velocities on the box. That's why I had such a large spread in speed, that was the difference in the two chronos.

Like I said, I want to learn, I want good input, and I like the discussions. And I do understand concerns and that I am swimming in uncharted waters and I have to proceed with caution.

 

[MikeG]

OK well keep in mind that a .45 ACP has nowhere near the muzzle blast that a rifle cartridge does. I found this out when my chronograph setup that worked perfectly for the .257 Roberts, started telling me that my .257 Weatherby loads were running over 5,000 fps


So I would suggest your 'calibration' should be factory ammo in the same gun, on the same day, and then I'd have more faith in the setup.

 

[Lost1Actual]

3) The books arent exact on velocities, just a guideline. Goes back to the old saying of dont believe everything you read. I took load data right from Barnes reloading page for the 160 TTSX. I loaded it right from the book with exception of the COAL, book claiming a velocity of 3350. Shooting an 8 shot group, I had a low of 3690 and a high of 3711. Is it something that I can explain? No. As I said, I didnt change anything from the book except the length.

Unlike you, I can admit when I'm wrong. .

Well, you changed the powder lot, the bullet lot, the case lot, the chamber dimensions, the barrel, and the length. You got an extreme variation in velocity. THAT should indicate that there is some factor that creates more pressure in your gun than the test device that Barnes used. Or your chronograph is a liar.

If you can't see that, in the face of all the advice and technical argument you've been presented, I would suggest that you CAN'T admit when you're wrong.[/QUOTE]

So what you are saying is that you cant trust any load data because no matter what you will be changing every factor of it? And that was two different chronos both tested with standard store loads with printed velocities first.

 

[Lost1Actual]

OK well keep in mind that a .45 ACP has nowhere near the muzzle blast that a rifle cartridge does. I found this out when my chronograph setup that worked perfectly for the .257 Roberts, started telling me that my .257 Weatherby loads were running over 5,000 fps

So I would suggest your 'calibration' should be factory ammo in the same gun, on the same day, and then I'd have more faith in the setup.

I will definitely give that a try. I'll post when I get that data. Also, I'll let yall know if I hear anything about the 4000MR powder. Do yall have a suggestion on pressure reading equipment? Ones you prefer, ones to stay away from

 

[Saskshooter]

So what you are saying is that you cant trust any load data because no matter what you will be changing every factor of it? And that was two different chronos both tested with standard store loads with printed velocities first.

Actually, yes, that is what I'm saying. That is why you are always advised to "start low and work up" from published data. And that is also why I really like to chronograph my loads, and over more than one machine. A chronograph is, for me, the cheapest way to get some actual numbers to help me decide what is happening, but I don't just "trust" the numbers from any chronograph, because there are so many ways the numbers can be fudged one way or another. So I try to verify as much as possible.

But, if after as much verification as I can do, I find the velocity I am getting varies widely from what I see others get, especially if the others DO have highly verified numbers like you find in loading manuals, my immediate assumption is that my gun with my components and my loading techniques are creating something odd. If that velocity is higher than I expect, I assume something is creating higher pressures which I also assume are undesireable. If the velocity is lower, I assume I may be able to get more out of the cartridge if I want. If I ask very experienced and knowledgeable people about my findings, I listen to what they suggest is happening. I don't immediately assume the world is wrong.

 

[Darkker]

1) You are incorrect, it is YOUR opinion. Alliant has right on their site that if a powder/cartridge load is not listed, it's just because they have not tested it, not because they dont recommend it. So again, Sir, it is your opinion. If you want to stick to what is written exactly in a book, then be my guest, but do go preaching that there is no other option.

2) How can the same person tell me its science that velocity=pressure but burn rates are irrelevant? That contradictory. By that "science" if you have the same bullet loaded with two different powders causing the same pressure, the velocities should be the same...but they arent. Because of the burn rate of a powder, and the characteristics of how it builds pressure as burning is how you get different velocities. That's physics and math.

3) The books arent exact on velocities, just a guideline. Goes back to the old saying of dont believe everything you read. I took load data right from Barnes reloading page for the 160 TTSX. I loaded it right from the book with exception of the COAL, book claiming a velocity of 3350. Shooting an 8 shot group, I had a low of 3690 and a high of 3711. Is it something that I can explain? No. As I said, I didnt change anything from the book except the length.

Unlike you, I can admit when I'm wrong. I was wrong to say anything about pressure signs. They are very inconsistent and misleading. So now there is no reason for insults like "having a staring contest with primers".

1) Alliant, who doesn't make a stitch of powder, or list the nominal variations of what they resell, doesn't recommend it in any available data. At no point did I say using it would cause the decline of western civilization, I said no one recommends it. What I'm preaching is understanding of language.

2) Where I said burning rates were irrelevant? And again, before you can speak to burning curves and pressures, you need to be able to measure them.
I posted some examples of why you don't just assume or stare at things, because what you think you understand, you don't.

3) You DID change things from the book.
Were you using a universal reciever and minimum spec pressure barrel like them? No. Is the lot number on your bottle of powder the same as the one they DON'T list in the data? No. Did they tell you when the data in the book was tested? No. Did they say if it was re-printed, or calculated instead? No. Did you pay attention the the bottle of powder, or the part in the book that warns of lot variations of 10%? No.

You have a whole lot of things that aren't the same, as the data in the manual.
Your extra velocity is coming from somewhere, that is not in question. What could be possible explanations for the increased velocity? More pressure, just as increased pressure in loading data from start to max shows; of course pressure measurement verification will quickly answer this. Not more pressure, but using a progressive powder with a more efficient push could also be. However the only way to justify that belief, would be to use pressure testing equipment. Otherwise the default, for the sake of safety; is to not assume that that powder is progressive(especially given it's design age), rather to assume that you simply have more pressure.

The staring contest, wasn't used as an insult; it was used to illustrate the inaccuracy and silliness in your method for determining what is actually happening with regard to pressure.


I don't know how many systems are out there for pressure measurement. The one we use is the RSI Pressure Trace system.
If you search for the Creedmoor pressure threads I started, you can see pictures of it.
They only recently "upped" their prices, and you can find them used with some frequency. If you do buy a system of one sort or another, please. DO post your results. Sharing that data is how we learn.

 

[Don Fischer]

Amazing! My understanding is that because a powder isn't listed in a manual doesn't not mean a thing other than the people doing the manual didn't try it out. I do use powder not listed in a manual to shoot but only if I find it in another manual with the same bullet weight and I start low and work up.

The idea that you can tell pressure by looking at a case is also bogus. I do use that to tell me when things are getting ragged but then I don't push beyond that at all.

A max pressure load in one rifle may not be max in another and then may be over max in yet another. Demintion's of chamber's and bore's will vary just a bit and still be in spec!. I am also absolutely certain that all rifle's can work over max spec pressure for the cartridge. The actual red line pressure is above the pressure normally received even in a chamber that is a bit over sized. It's similar to the weight limit's on bridges. The posted limit is well below the actual limit that will drop the bridge by a good margin. I forget the formula for testing bridges but I certain pressure rifles can handle are figured in much the same way. Where the problem really come's in is suggesting that your load that is well over listed max my be believed by someone else and the try it and blow themselves up. If you do not have pressure equipment, you have no business suggesting something like this might be safe. Might work in one rifle even if it is over max and blow the next rifle up!

I have over the years, found a few different rifle's that simply could not handle over listed max loads. It happen's! For whatever reason it just won't do it. Probably one of several different thing's or a combination of them. Heavy brass case's, tight chamber, tight barrel, maybe a bit over sized bullet! Could be the change in a powder lot. I say that never having found that much difference in burning rate between them but then again I have no way to measure it either. From some of the claims I've read in this thread. I think this should have been close long ago. It is not smart to suggest some of these thing's even if they do work in your rifle!

 

[broom_jm]

Yes, I am very well aware that standard deviation and grouping dont tell pressure. And I already admitted that I was wrong about the primer/case. But, if you think that strictly measured chamber pressure equals velocity, then you are nieve. (sp) Pressure is responsible for velocity, but as a whole. This is where powder burn rates come in. If that isn't apparent, look at any reloading manual. Almost all book maxes measure very closely to the same pressure, but are very different in velocity. To say that powder burn rates are irrelevant tells me that person is very misinformed. It's not so simple to say that if you are getting high velocities, then you have to have high pressures.

Please know that I am not saying this to denigrate you or simply to "pile on", but the statement in bold, above, illustrates that you are, in fact, somewhat naive about how internal ballistics works. Darkker's images show pressure over time; QuickLoad would show you pressure over distance (if you choose). The corresponding peak in the bell curve happens within just a few inches of barrel travel. What this means, in simple terms, is that if all other factors are equal, then YES, increased velocity results from increased chamber pressure.

Considering you are running a cartridge that operates in the 65,000psi range, for normal velocities, to obtain higher velocity readings suggests you are pushing 70,000psi or more. It's your face and your fingers, but when you are handloading big-boy cartridges like the 325WSM, or many others that operate in that range, prudence is for more important than wringing another 50 or 100 feet per second out of a given bullet.

Be safe, my friend...above all else, be safe.

 

[recoil junky]

1) Alliant, who doesn't make a stitch of powder,

NAKED POWDER!!?? HOLEY UNDERWEAR Batman!!

Sadly, yes Alliant is like Hodgdon, who doesn't "make a stitch of powder" either but "lead you to believe" that they do. Even now that they "own" Winchester and IMR they still do not "make powder"

RJ

 

[recoil junky]

"Reading primers" can be a useful tool in "reading pressure" IF you use the same kind or "style" of primer as the load was "designed" with. Looking for machine marks in the face of the spent primer is a good clue you are getting close. It by no means is a replacement for expensive test equipment, but it can be a useful tool before hard bolt lift is evident if you know your rifle(s). But you have to use the same brand of primers every time as not all primers (or even lot #'s of) have the same "hardness" of cup materiel, so it really a "crap shoot".

RJ

Emphasis on "crap shoot"

 

[hbonser]

For me and my reloading, primer appearance and case head markings can be part of the picture for sure. A chronograph is a great tool I use as well. Also, do some reading on-line, what have modern gun writers or old sages come up with for loads? All these things play into being a knowledgeable, diligent and prudent reloader.

Those things have all seemed to correlate to this next thing... What is the feel of the new primer seating in the case after shooting a string and sizing the cases? If the primer goes in with the same feel it went into a new case the first time I loaded it, and it wasn’t excessive in velocity, the bolt lift was normal and no ejector slot markings on the head (M98 action with my 35 Whelen AI, 25” bbl). I deem the load to be acceptable and not over pressure. Must use the same brand of primers from the same lot (buy in boxes of 1,000). Different brands seat SO much differently that you HAVE to follow that protocol. If the primers as described above are easier to seat, I back off.

Off topic a bit but worthy of sharing. My favorite load for the 35 Whelen AI is a Barnes 200 gr TTSX at 2925 fps with 61 gr of IMR4064, RP cases and CCI 250 primers. The 200 TTSX is at the lands with an OAL of 3.475”, I seat them to 3.400 inches nominally. More than enough off the lands as per Barnes, and gives more volume in the case by a small amount. I can go up a grain or two in powder charge to push the high 2900’s and see no signs as described by my methods above. But, I am an idiot if I think a 200 TTSX pushing nearer to 3,000 fps is gonna do anything for me that the same bullet at lower 2900 fps velocities won’t. Or maybe I am foolish if I thought that. Either way, it’s not good policy.

A few years ago, while verifying zero before the season, (no chronograph for verifying zero with an existing load) the same 200 TTSX cartridges that were fine when loaded the year before, were giving a heavy bolt lift, shiny ejector slot mark AND when I got home and sized the cases, my suspicion was the primer pockets would be loose. Yep, every single one of them.

Thinking back over the years, I recalled that someone had mentioned bullets “welding” to the case at the case mouth. Pulled out the seating die, and every single one of those cartridges made an audible “crack” when I seated them just a hair deeper. Took a good pull on the press handle as well to overcome the “weld”. Went back to the range, shot the remaining cartridges, pressures were back to normal and primer pockets stayed tight.

Cheers.

 

[Lost1Actual]

Amazing! My understanding is that because a powder isn't listed in a manual doesn't not mean a thing other than the people doing the manual didn't try it out. I do use powder not listed in a manual to shoot but only if I find it in another manual with the same bullet weight and I start low and work up.

The idea that you can tell pressure by looking at a case is also bogus. I do use that to tell me when things are getting ragged but then I don't push beyond that at all.

A max pressure load in one rifle may not be max in another and then may be over max in yet another. Demintion's of chamber's and bore's will vary just a bit and still be in spec!. I am also absolutely certain that all rifle's can work over max spec pressure for the cartridge. The actual red line pressure is above the pressure normally received even in a chamber that is a bit over sized. It's similar to the weight limit's on bridges. The posted limit is well below the actual limit that will drop the bridge by a good margin. I forget the formula for testing bridges but I certain pressure rifles can handle are figured in much the same way. Where the problem really come's in is suggesting that your load that is well over listed max my be believed by someone else and the try it and blow themselves up. If you do not have pressure equipment, you have no business suggesting something like this might be safe. Might work in one rifle even if it is over max and blow the next rifle up!

I have over the years, found a few different rifle's that simply could not handle over listed max loads. It happen's! For whatever reason it just won't do it. Probably one of several different thing's or a combination of them. Heavy brass case's, tight chamber, tight barrel, maybe a bit over sized bullet! Could be the change in a powder lot. I say that never having found that much difference in burning rate between them but then again I have no way to measure it either. From some of the claims I've read in this thread. I think this should have been close long ago. It is not smart to suggest some of these thing's even if they do work in your rifle!

For one, I never suggested that this load was safe for just anyone. This is a load I worked up for MY rifle, not for any rifle. I guess I should have posted a warning not to try it. I was simply posting some data and results that I had established for myself on a forum of like minded, same caliber individuals. I am very well aware that every rifle is different. Like I said, mine is not a stock rifle. It has an aftermarket 26" Benchmark stainless #5 barrel that has been free bored. 020" further than SAMMI specs.

And yes, i will be pressure testing my rifle soon. I will post the data for all to see and discuss. Please, calm down. No reason to get worked up. I have learned a lot from folks on here, but I may have something to teach also. Just give me the time to get my results and we can go from there. DO NOT ASSUME that i am posting reloading data for anyone else to use. THIS IS FOR MY RIFLE AND MY RIFLE ONLY. This is a load tuned for my rifle and barrel ONLY. Thank you for your concerns.