Handloading PART V, The Best Powder Charges ~ GunBlue's Complete Guide 

@Joe Chance thank you very much, I appreciate it

We need an annual memorial service for IMR 4320.

@@jasonweishaupt1828 I saw some before 2020 then PFFFT it was gone.

Instead, use your balance beam to set up a powder measure, and you'll dispense with greater accuracy. Please watch my latest video posted today, where I cover all details of measures and scales. But you are correct!

Sorry that I just found your question as I was going through old mail. 2/10ths is not a large amount in a 50 grain case, but it can be a significant amount in a 20 grain case, proportionately. Please watch my latest two videos regarding accurate rifles and ammo, where I describe the correct use of a scale in conjunction with a powder measure, in relation to cartridges of varying proportion and powder types. An accurate powder scale should always be used when developing loads, but can be set aside for general loading, where a dispensing measure is more appropriate to the task. As with so many things in reloading, the issue of weighing charges has become very over-blown with hype, marketing of extraordinarily priced weighing systems, and is entirely unnecessary for the best accuracy. In fact, I would rank the weighing of individual charges at the bottom of my list of accuracy requirements, and is an element of least concern. But at least watch the second of the two videos, where I explain the entire issue in detail.

First and foremost, I recommend that you get a loading manual, so you can see what powders are represented across the cartridges that you load. That is a MUST for any intelligent safe reloading. Because powders are made for specific uses, covering a wide range of cartridges and bullet weights, one must absolutely know what cartridges each powder can be used for. One cannot expect to have an all-purpose powder, because no powder covers all uses and bullet weights, and simply does not exist. Even if a powder can be used for different loads, it may not provide the best accuracy or desired velocity with every one. With a manual, you can cross reference the different guns that you load for and determine which ones have the broadest suitability for the bullets you load for. I'd recommend the Lee Modern Reloading, 2nd Edition to be a very good reference that covers virtually all powders across the board. I'm sorry that I could not boil things down better, but I'd be deceptive if I attempted to do so. If you ask about particular cartridges, perhaps I can assist.

You definitely need to be using the loads published by the powder manufacturers. Most of them have data on their websites but I would buy a manual or two.

Some loads are intended to be compressed, others will need a drop tube to help the powder settle and take up less room in the case.

@@redrock425 the loads I'm talking about I've tried with my drop tube and compression, still will not fit at all or damages the case when seating the bullet.

Hodgdon publishes an Annual reloading manual with loads for IMR, Winchester and Hodgdon powders, both rifle and pistol data, for around 10 dollars available at Barnes & Noble, but I also back that up with A bullet manufacturer manual on occasion.

Yes, you certainly can! It will do exactly the same thing that a bench mounted press will do, using the same dies, requiring only a bit more physical effort on your part. Getting bullets started is a bit tricky until you get the hang of it, but it's a very high quality tool.

+Panos Lolos In the context of all powders, N110 is quite fast. It is only slow in the context of pistol cartridge powders. As to your question, Bullseye is far too fast to generate the pressures associated with full power 44 Magnum loads, which are immensely more than even the hottest 45 ACP loads. Bullseye would blow a .44 Magnum to pieces if any attempt were made to generate magnum velocities with it. .45 ACP bullets don't compare to .427 diameter bullets used in typical .44 Magnum loads. A 45 measures .45, but a 44 measures .42, so weight comparisons are meaningless. The heaviest .45 ACP have a much shorter bearing surface in relation to their diameter across equivalent bullet weights, (much less sectional density) which further decreases resistance. Manuals don't generally list low power target loads for the .44 Magnum for the simple reason that they are among the .44 Special loads, which is a far more efficient, accurate, and suitable case size for reduced loads in a .44 Magnum revolver.

Tea Es Lyman has been publishing data that they work up in their own test facility, for generations of shooters. It's specific data, generated from actual components they used. Because they don't make bullets or other components, other than cast bullet dies, they test samples of components, with no favorites. Bullet manufacturers list their bullets. Powder manufacturers list their powders, sometimes listing the bullet brands and other components by name. Lee obtained all his data directly from the powder manufacturers, and compiled it according to velocity, in order of highest first within bullet weights and other secondary categories, such as lead bullets, copper, etc. Their compiliation is a mixed bag of all the powder brands that cooperated with his data collection, and makes no further distinction, which would have really made a frustrating mess to compile and digest. As to your question, the brand or type of bullet even of the same weight can significantly affect pressures and velocities, which the standard rules of loading take into account. Any of the starting loads listed in any manual, whether Lee, Sierra, Hornady, Lyman, Nosler, or whomever, can be safely used. Maximum loads, regardless of their origin, can be assumed to be dangerous unless approached from the starting load, or 10 percent less than maximum, unless otherwise stated. Loads should never be reduced below an amount listed as minimum, as with certain slow burning powders. Some cannot be reduced by 10 percent without incurring dangerous pressures from a phenomenon called detonation, or such low pressure that hangfires can result. You should take time to test some incremental loads with whatever bullets you can obtain, and develop a baseline. After establishing a good load, you can safely try loads with your hunting bullet that are 2 grains below your maximum. The relevant video on this subject is my recent one on developing accurate ammunition, where I go into the process in detail. It's a very rewarding process that will teach you much about your rifle.

Thank you for that write up, I really appreciate you answering my questions on here (and your videos, they're very informative). I'm hoping that my Sierra bullets will arrive on time. Being new to this, I would really rather load using published data that is specific to my bullet/powder combination. Though if I need to go with the Speer bullets, I'll be sure to start low (I'll do that even if I go with the Sierra / specific published data as well too though). I did notice something with the Lee manual. I've got a PDF of the first edition and a physical copy of the second edition. In the 2ed edition, the powder I was planning on using (H380) isn't even listed, though it is in the 1st edition. Would they have a specific (safety) reason for omitting it from the 2ed edition? I would think that if it was published in the first and loads were safely worked up, that it would be fine to use. Though this is not a hobby I want to make assumptions in, which is why I'm doing this pre loading / hunting research on my planned combination. Edit: I just had someone send me a photo of the Speer reloading data I was looking for. There's somewhat of a discrepancy between the Lee and Speer data, though where the Speer is specific to what I may be using and Lee is generalized, I would be inclined to go with the Speer data. Lee says that with H380 I should seat a 180gr bullet to 2.530"OAL, whilst Speer data with H380 says 2.800"OAL and that at max load it will be a compressed load. I'll avoid listing any charge weights here, but but the listed max loads were within 1 grain of each other (Speer data having the higher one). That difference of 0.27" seems quite large... Hopefully my fretting will be a moot point and the Sierra bullets will arrive on time... Edit 2: I have loaded some 22-250, so i'm not entering this entirely green, though it is still a new hobby, and these will be my first .308 loads

Tea Es The overall length of a cartridge has only one safety limitation, being the minimum. Too deeply seated, a bullet intrudes on chamber size, reducing powder combustion room, and effectively making a smaller cartridge that is overloaded. As to the maximum, it is where the bolt of a given rifle will close on a loaded round, or the length of the magazine, whichever of the two are smaller. Hunting loads should be seated at least 010" short of the rifling, to prevent bullet jam and potential outpulling of the bullet in the field. It also slightly reduces internal pressure. Otherwise, the seating depth is a factor that individual rifles and bullet shapes correspond with regard to a sweet spot for accuracy, whuch can vary from one bullet and rifle combination to another. However, the difference will have no meaningful relationship to field accuracy. When I find the sweet spot in my 257 Roberts, it shoots 3/8ths of an inch. If I just take a stab at it and load just shy of the rifling, without fussing about OAL with my calipers, I will get 3/4ths of an inch. It's an important factor from a bench, but has no bearing on its field performance. Don't assume that the differences found in various literature signify eroneous reporting by one or another laboratory. The folks who do the testing use standards that the have developed, apart from the ways another lab has established. Both are valid, within the context of their procedures and equipment. You should also be aware that these humans even have disagreement with regard to loading procedures, which has no small influence on the data they publish. One lab may stop at even the slightest flattening of a primer, while the other may regard flattening as an entirely appropriate pressure signature, only capping their data at the mushrooming of a primer, or just below case head growth. As to the omission of H380 powder in the second manual, I cannot say. Lee simply transcibes powder data supplied by the powder manufacturers, and does not develop the data. Hodgdon has a phone number that you can call, and they will certainly and most happily give you any information you desire. That brings to mind the most important thing of all. Bullet manufacturers and all the folks in this loading business, are very, very nerdy about reloading. They love to engage loaders about their products and will extend an amazing amount of time and energy to assisting those who need help with their products. It's not infrequently that an owner of the company will pick up the phone, just as the late John Nosler used to do when I occasioned to call for assistance or advice. He never stopped loving the bullets that he invented out of the love of hunting and reloading, and had a sincere interest in talking to anyone who would care to listen to him. Call these people and ask them anything. Their resources, knowledge, and expertise go WAY beyond the pages of their loading data.

BCNUBYNBY Much depends on how your trash is handled. From an environmental perspective, disposal of the oil is more hazardous than the rather low potential of individual primers detonating, and oil depositories don't want solids in it. It's actually safer and simpler to simply bury them among your shrubs or along your foundation where it's not likely they will be a nuisance. The primers will degrade very quickly.

I know of no such powder as H385 of modern manufacture. I suspect you are speaking of Hodgdon H335 for which loading data is available for free from the Hodgdon website, or Modern Reloading manual by Richard Lee. H335 powder was developed as a military propellant for the .223 Remington/5.56 NATO, and is not particularly efficient in larger calibers such as the .308 Winchester. In the .308 it can only provide modest, less than standard velocities, except with the lightest bullets. If you do in fact have powder labeled as H385, I strongly recommend that you safely dispose of it, because powders are discontinued when they are found to be unreliable and potentially unsafe.

TheFarmdawg Only to a certain degree in extreme cases, but there is nothing unusual or short about a 22 inch 270, which works well with slower powders in that caliber. I have cataloged many tests with 270s over chronographs with barrels ranging from 22 to 24 inches, in Sako, Remington, Husquavarna, and Winchester rifles using such powders as H4831, and IMR4350, and the velocity variation was within the expected range of 75 to 120 fps, at most. I would expect such powders to be adversely affected with carbine length barrels, but that would be a rather silly contradiction to the use of a cartridge traditionally considered a plains specialty.

not quite, its closer than you think, powder type is closer to fuel type, bore is bore, stroke is barrel length, the bullet is the piston