Log In
December 12, 2019
Offline
Mike, I’m in agreement with you. I’ve never set out to find the ‘hottest’ or ‘fastest’ load in any firearm, but very frequently looked for the most accurate. I can recall only two cases where ‘hotter’ also became ‘more accurate’. One was a hunting rifle in a wildcat cartridge. I was happy to settle for a warm-but-not-hot load which still delivered adequate hunting accuracy.
The other was a 1000 yard rifle built specifically for the long range event in over-the-course matches. It was built on a 7mm Rem Mag, and with the Sierra 168 gr Target Master Boat tail bullet and IMR 4831, it got tighter groups as I approached and passed all the catalog loads. I finally settled on a load which allows me only 2 or 3 firings before the primers fall out of the pockets. I was OK with replacing brass frequently as a trade off for match accuracy, but only because there were so few 1000 yard matches. I wouldn’t have done that with my ‘over-the-course- match rifle.
But I think we’ve strayed from the original point here. The point being made by me and I think others, is that over the years, many loading manuals have reduced their maximum loads due primarily or exclusively to liability concerns, and not necessarily because someone blew up a firearm from the previously posted loads. Think of Zeb’s quote ‘corporate house counsel have the imagination of a frightened child alone in the dark‘. Those corporate attorneys are afraid of what may happen, and not necessarily reacting to anything which has actually happened.
Paul
Nevada Paul
Life Member NRA
January 20, 2023
Online
And it’s difficult to count on fingers you no longer have. More than a few have sacrificed digits in their quest for the “real maximum load” for, e.g. the 458 Lott.
The only people seemingly free of this risk are the Weatherby addicts. I have never heard of a Mark V action being damaged or damaging its shooter, as long as you don’t count cuts and concussions caused by recoil. There are two possible reasons for this. First, the breech of the action resembles that of a 16″ gun in a main battery of New Jersey (BB 62). Second, the published velocities of Norma ammunition for the .378, .416, and .460 Weatherby cartridges, whether completely accurate or not, together with the actual horrendous recoil they produce, is so intimidating nobody is inclined to say, “That’s too slow.” After their head clears.
- Bill
WACA # 65205; life member, NRA; member, TGCA; member, TSRA; amateur preservationist
"I have seen wicked men and fools, a great many of both, and I believe they both get paid in the end, but the fools first." -- David Balfour, narrator and protagonist of the novel, Kidnapped, by Robert Louis Stevenson.
November 7, 2015
Offline
I don’t have a ballistics lab to measure chamber or bore pressures. I have a chronograph (or two). Velocity doesn’t blow up guns, pressure does. The ammunition manufacturers and many of the companies who publish reloading manuals and post online loading data generally have sophisticated equipment that has improved significantly over the last few decades. I’m inclined to think at least some of the more conservative data may be due to data gathered by these modern instruments. Primer deformation has been proven to be an unreliable indicator of chamber pressure, case expansion is maybe a little better. Bolt lift is influenced by too many variables to be a reliable indicator. All my opinions, of course. Haven’t stayed in a Holiday Inn Express in years. It’s easy to blame corporate attorneys but we need to realize the millions spent on today’s ballistic lab equipment were probably not wasted. Ironically one of my “max” loads involves Unique but I find it especially useful for reduced cast bullet loads. Yes, I have had some loads over the years that are over today’s max. Not a chance I’ll discuss them on a public forum!
Like many of you I love shooting old guns. One possibility we need to always consider is that with rare exceptions none of our guns came to us unfired. Some have undoubtedly endured some rather stout loads over the years. We’ll never know until we fire the load that crosses a threshold we can’t see. Max loads are for guns in good condition and even then they could have a cumulative adverse effect. I’m no attorney but I suspect a shooter injured while shooting a 120-year-old rifle will need the Devil himself as counsel to win against the publisher of a reloading manual. Gotta cut these old guns some slack!
Mike
January 20, 2023
Online
Nevada Paul said
“The point being made by me and I think others, is that over the years, many loading manuals have reduced their maximum loads due primarily or exclusively to liability concerns, and not necessarily because someone blew up a firearm from the previously posted loads. Think of Zeb’s quote ‘corporate house counsel have the imagination of a frightened child alone in the dark’. Those corporate attorneys are afraid of what may happen, and not necessarily reacting to anything which has actually happened”
Paul, my point was not that corporate counsel for our powder manufacturers suffer from paranoia or cowardice, but rather that their fear of a large tort verdict is because they are peculiarly exposed personally to its consequences, unlike most other senior management.
A major cause of the reduction in maximum loads and the attendant lowering of predicted velocities, was a change by the industry from Copper crusher estimates of breech pressure to the precise measurement by piezzo crystal technology of the rise and fall of breech pressure over time, producing a much more useful profile, not just a single number.
In many cases when this newer technology was put in practice, it became apparent that the maximum published charge of a certain powder that produced the velocities published did so at at breech pressures that were actually imprudent, which is a matter of engineering science, not a legal issue for lawyers to debate.
Modern American firearms can withstand proof loads that exceed commercial ammunition by several orders of magnitude, but not continuously without consequence. One function of S.A.A.M.I. is to publish a set of breech pressure numbers to which commercial ammunition should conform, or at least not exceed.
The American tobacco cases and the resulting massive settlements inspired generations of tort lawyers to replicate the phenomenon in other Industries. For a variety of reasons, some people do get hurt handloading and shooting their handloads.
Not every handloader is smart or reasonable. If one gets hurt, he may convince himself the powder mysteriously became an overload. He lost an eye. He hires Jim Striver, an ambitious tort lawyer. What Jim really wants is not one hurt client but enough of them to prosecute a class action. Class actions are peculiarly lawyer made lawsuits that primarily benefit the lawyers who prosecute and settle them. Manufacturers are usually inclined to settle them on terms that grease the plaintiffs’ lawyers but don’t cost the company so much the shareholders want blood. At worst, replacing corporation counsel and some sacrificial vice president is usually an acceptable amount of blood.
The powder manufacturers do not like to publish a load that is going to exceed the S.A.A.M.I. breech pressure profile. Even the most unimaginative CEO can see himself in a depositiom room trying to justify publishing a load that produced breech pressures in excess of the S.A.A.M.I. profile. Not a good look. The plaintiff still has to prove excessive breech pressure was a producing cause of the injury but not necessarily by direct evidence.
- Bill
WACA # 65205; life member, NRA; member, TGCA; member, TSRA; amateur preservationist
"I have seen wicked men and fools, a great many of both, and I believe they both get paid in the end, but the fools first." -- David Balfour, narrator and protagonist of the novel, Kidnapped, by Robert Louis Stevenson.
1 Guest(s)
