Thread: Some Thoughts on Handloading.

Greetings All,
It is a cold wet day here in HB so I thought I would tap out a few thoughts over handloading that have been running around in my head.

In The Beginning, well fifty years ago.
In the early 1970's the world was a different place and handloading was as well. Most projectiles were quite similar with reasonably soft jackets and lead cores and flat bases. Load data came from books or pamphlets put out by projectile or powder makers and not much of it was pressure tested. These also were the intrepid years of load data when some of it was extremely hot bordering on dangerous. Many handloaders just used the middle load and some only the start load. Mulwex, now ADI put out one powder, the long discontinued AR2201.
By 1980 things had started to change. Much of the data was pressure tested and some loads had shrunk closer to what is listed now. Some data still did not identify the projectile used but many manuals had sections on working up loads.

The Rise of The Trick Projectiles.
Some time along the way projectiles started to change. Some developed boat tails and others had fancy jackets. We had the Nosler Partitions back in the 1940's which used much the same data as other projectiles but development went well beyond that. By the end of the millennium some projectiles were all jackets and no core. Some manuals offered specific data for the new projectiles but some persisted with the one size fits all, just stating the weight.

The Information Super Highway. (or The Turgid Sewer of Disinformation depending on your point of view.
The internet made load data much easier to access and to find specific data for the projectile you want to use. Some data still groups quite different projectiles under the same data resulting in lighter loads for the softer projectiles. The internet unfortunately contains a lot of ill informed opinion, sometimes just parroting something heard elsewhere. So although we have some of the best data we have had in the last 50 years it takes some careful sifting to separate the good stuff from the dross. This can be a major hurdle for the novice handloader.
Regards Grandpamac.

Agree with overall GPM. I think you correctly summarize how handloading has "progressed" since inception. I've been handloading roughly since the mid 80's and have seen probably most of what you describe. For sure, some development has veered off track but I would say the vast majority of "progress" has led to one improvement over another when you consider the selection and quality of powders, bullets, brass, knowledge and knowledge communications systems available today. I, for one, would much rather be where we now are, where handloading has come to, than where I started back in the dark ages.

Originally Posted by 30.06king

Agree with overall GPM. I think you correctly summarize how handloading has "progressed" since inception. I've been handloading roughly since the mid 80's and have seen probably most of what you describe. For sure, some development has veered off track but I would say the vast majority of "progress" has led to one improvement over another when you consider the selection and quality of powders, bullets, brass, knowledge and knowledge communications systems available today. I, for one, would much rather be where we now are, where handloading has come to, than where I started back in the dark ages.

Greetings @30.06king,
Fully agree in the level of kit, components and data available today. My concern is for the novice handloader starting out, one reason I bang on so much about having a mentor. Even us old dogs get bamboozled at times. I had a rather steep learning curve when loading for my 7mm SAUM about 20 years ago. Although not new to handloading I had mostly loaded the .308 and .223 both more or less trainer cartridges. Initially I loaded the 150 grain Remington Core Lokt ahead of AR2213SC and Win primers in rem cases. I worked up to book max expecting 2,990 fps but the chronograph only read 2,850 fps. Next AR2217 was tried with the max of 68 grains giving 2,985 fps compared to book max of 2,967 fps. My barrel was 26" compared to the 24" barrel in the Hodgdons data. I thought about these results for some time and the rifle entered an extended period of safe curing that has only recently ended. With a bit more knowledge I think the Rem projectile developed a lot less pressure than the Sirocco in the Hornady data. I found this recently in the 6.5-06 where the 129 grain Hornady and AR2213SC gave 100 fps less than the 129 grain Nosler LRAB with everything else the same. Why the AR2217 load did not suffer as well I do not know. I have moved on to the 162 AMax anyway.
Regards Grandpamac.

In the 70's Nick Harvey had a powerful sway about reloading in OZ and NZ. His book had some extremely valuable lessons. I cherish my copy. His era was well before annealing and SSM etc. The modern tools and equipment are light years on. Strangely there was the overlap of the Houston boys. Couple of US websites have very very good reloading info. I have run from places where this happens ... just having a cold one whilst I run up a few cases, really enjoy watching the rugby while measuring the powder. This Forum has some really talented reloaders. There is a prefix and suffix to reloading it is called ...safety.

the hard rules still apply
#1 try to find data from at least 3 different places preferably one being a real paper manual
#2 if unknown rifle..start low and slowly/carefully work up
#3 double check anything that MIGHT be wrong...like that box of .270 projectiles that has a couple of .284 ones in it or 130grn with a 140 in it....WHY the other manufacturers didnt follow Noslers colour code for calibre is one of lifes mysteries and missed oppertunities.
#4 peer down into charged cases before seating projectiles......even my old eyes can spot something not right .

and the one that really seems to be forgotton in this memememe now now now now PC woke upsidedown world start low and work up..DO NOT go straight to maximum load or someone elses maximum load..all rifles are different,whats safe in one can be dangerously hot in another.

and reading a manual from cover to cover to find out WHY something works as well as HOW it does.....yeah nah ,now its watch a UTUBE clip and hoe into it..... the early Nosler and Nick Harvey manuals have really good info in them to explain these things... highly recommend them. my mate @amlnz has started on reloading journey...and one of my Nosler manuals was included with bits n pieces and he was good lad and did actually read the thing TWICE....

All things precision have come a long way over the last 30 years . Tolerances and consistency in machining and manufacture have improved dramatically and we can see that in our own little neck of the woods - Shooting .
When I started a 1 inch group at 100 yrds was considered the “ Holy Land “ and if your Rifle / Ammo combo produced that repeatedly ( not just a couple of fluke groups ) then you had yourself a keeper that you’d never sell .
Now Cartridge case design, Chamber dimensions, Brass , powder , projectiles , reloading equipment and the consistency of all of those things have all combined to put us in a place where that 1 inch is “ Blah “ and you have to have a sub 1/2 inch gun to feel special.
The basic principles of reloading haven’t changed in my opinion, the components have .
I’ve found myself patting myself on the back a few times about some of my results , but the reality is I’m not a better reloader , the component’s and Rifle are worlds ahead if what I used to work with .
Reloaded isn’t some kind of “ Dark Arts “ it’s basic common sense and being consistent with every stage of the process.
I recently helped a young guy get started in reloading and my first words were this isn’t “ Rocket Science “ it’s basic processes and his Tikka with his handloads is producing results that you would have sold your Grandmother for 25 years ago .
Now if you want to win a F Class or Benchrest world Championship then you better have done your 10,000 hous reloading apprenticeship
but for the majority of us we are spoiled by the basic commonplace / common sense information that is out there .
The internet has more “ Bullshitters “ than a car salesman convention, don’t try compare and duplicate someone else’s results, your Rifle is different , and chances are you tell the truth and they don’t.

When I started in 1966, although I had one can of 2201 (purchased from Dinny Collings) my brand of choice was Nobels which was abundantly available in rifle, pistol, and shotgun forms. I had their reloading charts and supplementary chart which although presenting loads that weren't pressure tested like todays data were still pretty spot on.

A couple of years into reloading I got my first 22-250 and it ran on a diet of Norma powder. Like the Nobels it was freely available and also like Nobels, Norma produced excellent reloading data. I still have mine somewhere.

I was still able to get Nobels #2 up until 1995. Belmont had a stash of it and would sell to me. I used to buy big quantities for myself and my rifle club members. Then they stopping selling, stating the cans were starting to rust.

Aside from milsurp 4895 I recall 3031 using as well. I think a lot of the IMR recipes were available back then. I don't recall powder shortages but back then there were fewer people in to reloading than today.

Early on I reloaded for a 222 and used Hirteberger brass. Long while since that was available. In my 308 I used Norma Re brass.

And Harvey's much touted book of loads? All his Nobels loads exactly matched the Nobels manuals of the day, word for word, number for number. Go figure.

Quality of firearms then to now. Mmmm, my old Forester consistantly shot sub MOA from new and still does. All I did with the bedding was remove the pressure ridge of timber along the forend and I bedded the reinforce out just in front of the chamber. No pillars, no action bedding. Used plastibond as that was all that was available. I think plastibond still exists today but would hardly be the choice for a modern day bebbing job.

Big changes for me with target shooting at any rate, is the quality of projectiles and the science gone into design for higher and higher BCs. It's become quite crazy with new lines coming out all the time. I stocked up on Berger 200.20x and now they are so old, surpassed by something else. Mind you, you could chase each new type, which in effect may not give much improvement over last year's model. Likewise hunting projectiles.

The other change is the development of less temperature sensitive powders.

Rifles being rifles, I feel that because every single rifle is different to the next even if it is the identical match as far as batches goes, not even considering custom chambers and throat length, nor brass types, it’s easy for someone to proudly tout their fast as hell load for all to see, and someone to try to copy and find over pressure results. Aside from that, just because you see no primer signs, no heavy bolt lift or ejector swipe, does not mean you are at a safe pressure. I have heard of people filling away at their ejector to avoid swipe on their cases with a hot load. It’s up to the information pursuer to exhaust as much internet material, be it online forums and manufacturers load data, cross reference it all and then apply it to their own rifle, starting safely and working upwards to find accurate loads and happy brass

And Harvey's much touted book of loads? All his Nobels loads exactly matched the Nobels manuals of the day, word for word, number for number. Go figure.


Bloody hell. Never knew that. The beauty is that starting 1 grain under his maxi and in a very short time you are into sweet lode country. Bill Nikl had a gripe about Holden that if he told him any stories or tricks they ended up in Holdens books with out any acknowledgement of copyright. LOL. They say Threads is copying the same economic model of Twitter. Nothing new under the "press". Poor analogy.

One thing that id tell new handloaders is to be careful about buying all sort of gadgets to try make better ammo and better learn to work up good loads.

As a new handloader 15odd years ago i bought many things that internet land told me, believing that me lee loader (the one you use a hammer on) was junk. But now that im wiser ��, i have a lot of tools that i dont use anymore, and steps i no longer follow after working out for myself whats usefull and what is not. And btw you can load very good ammo with a lee loader lol. Only took me several $1000s to find that out lol

While I’d made a conscious decision at the start to keep the gear level to a minimum, and have been very disciplined in this, nowhere in all the reading, research, and advice I’ve been given did anyone warn me about the mounting desire to collect calibers to feed my habit. Started with the two I’ve had for many years, then all of a sudden I’ve got six with a possible seventh coming!!!

One thing that should be mentioned about the reloading addiction is the importance of good record keeping.
Hard copy records in a proper book.
Not loose paper in a folder
On the computer is fine but hard copy as well.
As we get older we forget what we used to know.
Proper hard copy is reliable.
And do it in a format that is understandable to someone less experienced.

I have recently found reloading data credited to me that has done the rounds. From a rifle I sold years ago with ammo, dies, brass and a full data set.
I checked it was as per my original work ups and it was .

When I started keeping records I only loaded for 2 pretty ordinary cartridges.
Now I load for around 30 different cartridges ( maybe more helping friends with weird old stuff ) and am a lot older so can't rely on memory for any of it .

Greetings All and thanks for your posts,
Not raining today but cold and miserable so to continue. A large percentage of the Nick Harvey data seems to have been gathered form other sources rather than his own chronographing so I prefer to use the original sources where I can. There is one cartridge that has taught me more than any other and that is the 6.5-06. Until the late 1990's this was a wildcat cartridge and most data was pretty hot. I don't own a 6.5-06 myself but do provide handloading support for a friend with one. At the time I got involved the pressure tested Hodgdons data had come out which was way lower charges and ho hum velocities compared to early data. Chronographing some test loads showed velocities well below the Hodgdon data so the charge was worked up to the velocity of the Hodgdons loads or a little more.
More recently Nosler has offered on line data for the 129 grain projectiles with much higher charges than Hodgdon and significantly more velocity. The Nosler 129 grain LRAB projectiles are now loaded to a velocity around that of the Hodgdon loads (well short of Nosler velocities) but it takes more powder than the Hodgdon data to get there. All velocities are adjusted for barrel length.
All this would not have been possible without a chronograph. It has become common recently to bag optical chronographs and for the ones with short screen spacings this may have merit. Mine is an Oehler 35P with 3 screens which measures velocity twice and alerts you to a dud reading. I use a 4 foot screen spacing and have no problems. Oehler still use this chronograph as part of its Model 89 System.
Regards Grandpamac.

My Chronograph is just an optical Caldwell. Nowhere near as good as GPM's Oehler but still it's quite an aid in load development. I reckon typically it's inaccurate by about 50 fps either above or below true velocity. Readings vary relative to ambient light. I average a series of velocities to arrive at a typical figure. Generlly it puts me in the ballpark. Certain loads I verify out to 400 yds and find them pretty close to published data. Good enough for my field shooting needs.