16ga.com ~ View topic

Joined: 28 Aug 2014 Posts: 924 Location: Eastern Tennessee

I want to be a good boy and make sure I double check load data I 1st get from the sheets so nicely created and maintained by members of this group.

I purchased Lyman's 5th which should cover 90% of my reloading recipes I have mapped out. However, there is this 1 little recipe from IMR 7/97 that I can not verify. Is there someone, say with a room full of books, that has this data and could verify this load:

Federal Hull
1 1/8 oz
800x 22 gr
CCI 209M
SP16
1245 FPS
8800 PSI

The PSI just seems low or I misunderstand how PSI is created.

Here's that load published in the 4th Ed. of the Reloading For Shotgunners (1997 Fackler, et al).

Fed Plastic Hull
1-1/8 oz.
CCI209M
IMR 800X
22.0 gr.
Rem SP16
1245 fps
Max pressure 10,000 LUP

The next load in this series is 23.5 gr./1290fpsi which I assume is the max pressure load. The series includes loads at 20.5 and 21.3 as well as the 22.0 and 23.5.

Hope this helps.
Terry

One is LUP and 1 is psi - defer to Mark DC for a comparison although they may be both saying about the same thing in a diff language .

Joined: 28 Aug 2014 Posts: 924 Location: Eastern Tennessee

Thank you for your input. I find it interesting all the little details you have to gleem as you are learning to reload.

I almost feel like I wont blow myself up someday!

The only way to verify any of the loads listed anywhere is to get them tested yourself.
Then you are not going to get the same as listed. Different days different lots of powder, different crimps. At the time in history that is what the load tested at. If they would have tested it again in a week it more then likely would have shown different results. Shotshell reloading is not an exact science.Look at the comparable loads and then make your decision as to what to use. I don't think anybody on the forum can confirm that load as being exact.

Joined: 28 Aug 2014 Posts: 924 Location: Eastern Tennessee

OldHunter,

I understand what you are saying, but your own statement suggest that as long as the published load is not pushing the limits and you are following it correctly, testing is a waste due to the lack of an "exact science". Whether due to weather, minor adjustments due to retooling of components, crimp depth, minor difference in powder drop, among many other variables your results will always vary.

Please don't take this as critical because I do appreciate your input.

The CURRENT Hodgdon web site shows

Manufacturer,Powder,Primer,Wad,Grs,Pressure,Vel. (ft/s)

IMR,800-X,Fed. 209A,Rem. SP16,22.5,11,000 PSI,1,300
IMR,800-X,Rem. 209P,Rem. SP16,24.5,10,100 PSI,1,300
IMR,800-X,Win. 209,Rem. SP16,22.5,10,800 PSI,1,300

Are you sure what was listed was not LUP??
All my old Dupont book listed LUP and NOT PSI
See above posting

Check it out here Smile

http://www.hodgdonreloading.com/data/shotgun

Joined: 28 Aug 2014 Posts: 924 Location: Eastern Tennessee

Skeettx,

Hodgdon's information was exactly what got me thinking about this. I have been using the wonderfully created master list created by members here as a starting point for deciding what loads to use (as was the intent of the list). I am a newbie so I question every step I take since I lack a good local master to teach me (let's be honest only so much you can learn from reading books!).

What had me thinking was as I have learned about the 'hotness' of primers and the impact of powder, wads, and shot on pressure some of the data for recipes I had not verified from the list seemed off (thus this thread). Lyman's 5th answered a lot of questions since 90% of my loads I am using were referenced to that book, however, this recipe seemed off and the source data was beyond my reach. What I have learned though, is that while my belief that the load was safe has not been brought into question, the lower pressure status of the load was incorrectly stated in the master list (not to mention the reason for such an error was found!).

I am not blaming the master list, as I know the owner of the list has made it perfectly clear it should never be used as anything more than a starting point. I have found some potential mistakes in the list I would love to address at some point in the future, but as of now, feel my status as a newbie precludes my presumptions.

I'll be honest, without such a list, I would still be months away from reloading! But I also understand its limitations.

Probably the most interesting issue I have been learning about lately (off this website no less) is the use of certain primers with certain hulls. Yes, I understand the issues with European vs American models, but only yesterday discovered a discussion on the impact of weather or powders in their performance.

Take this stuff with a BOULDER of salt. I compare manufactures published data with the Lyman,BPI and other manuals and look for pronounced differences avoiding same. I have had loads tested some results were usable but those with a lot of variance I leave to experience.