Bad Data on Hodgdon Reloading?

Sasquatch

Sasquatch

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
1,140
Location
RDU
Rating - 100%
33   0   0
From another thread about using trailboss and pistol bullets I was looking at some Hodgdon reloading data.

I was picking 300BLK and Trailboss. To be fair, they are different bullet types, but I would not expect the 115gr to be so out of line with the 110 and 125.


upload_2017-10-27_19-14-45.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-10-27_19-11-55.png
    upload_2017-10-27_19-11-55.png
    31.4 KB · Views: 12
Typo, see if you get a prize for telling them.
 
AR10ShooterinNC said:
It's trail boss, I don't think you get enough in a case to over pressure it.
Click to expand...
That's true- but that's not the point either- bad data is bad data whether it will blow up your gun or not. This is why people say to use more than one reloading manual to confirm loads.

You're right, for trailboss, they say you can't over-load it. The max load is whatever you can fit into the case: https://www.hodgdon.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/trail-boss-reduced-loads-r_p.pdf
 
Theres tons of bad or inaccurate data in loading manuals and tables. The most repeated error i see is on AOL/COL. Following some of that bad data will get you to try and seat bullets past the ogive. Most bad data is due to typos.
 
It seems that most loading data is just a repeat of old tested data. The only current data is for new rounds.

Most of the data in the manuals were shot in universal receivers, using test barrels, cut to min SAAMI specs.
 
I don't see that as an error.

The max pressure for 300blk is 55,000 PSI. You will fill up a 300blk case with Trailboss long before you will reach max pressure (as shown by the pressures listed). The max charges listed are probably the most that would fit in the case without being compressed, and the differences in pressure are probably due to different things, like bullet profiles, bearing surface area of each bullet, etc. The pressures listed are NOT the max pressure limit, but rather the average pressures that were measured during actual testing.
 
Toprudder said:
The pressures listed are NOT the max pressure limit, but rather the average pressures that were measured during actual testing.
Click to expand...

Obviously, except that they did not measure 13,500.
 
Toprudder said:
How do you know? There is no way we can come to that conclusion.
Click to expand...
I think the obvious part as someone else pointed out was that the max pressure was lower than starting pressure, and it was lower than the lower grain round and the higher grain round?

And I did fill up the 300blk case (minus minimal seating for my round) and only could fit 5.8 grains in it.
 
Toprudder said:
There is no way we can come to that conclusion.
Click to expand...

There may be no way that you can come to that conclusion, but there is no way that you can come to the conclusion that there is no way that I can come to that conclusion.
 
JimB said:
There may be no way that you can come to that conclusion, but there is no way that you can come to the conclusion that there is no way that I can come to that conclusion.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
JimB said:
There may be no way that you can come to that conclusion, but there is no way that you can come to the conclusion that there is no way that I can come to that conclusion.
Click to expand...
LOL. Fair enough. :)
 
My point is that, unless you have the equipment to measure the pressure yourself, you have no way of disputing Hodgdon's data.
 
Toprudder said:
My point is that, unless you have the equipment to measure the pressure yourself, you have no way of disputing Hodgdon's data.
Click to expand...
But anyone can look at the data and recognize that it does not follow the pattern of data for essentially every other load in the book. Specifically, if the only variable you change is the powder charge, and if you increase the powder charge the pressure increases. For this load when you increase the powder charge the pressure decreases.

It is remotely possible that the data is correct as published.
It is remotely possible that the charge data is incorrect as published.
It is highly likely that the pressure data is incorrect as published as a result of a typo.

As pointed out above, issue is unlikely to be unsafe, but in any event it is at best curious and unusual so confirmation seems prudent.
 
JimB said:
But anyone can look at the data and recognize that it does not follow the pattern of data for essentially every other load in the book. Specifically, if the only variable you change is the powder charge, and if you increase the powder charge the pressure increases. For this load when you increase the powder charge the pressure decreases.

It is remotely possible that the data is correct as published.
Click to expand...
My point.

It is highly likely that the pressure data is incorrect as published as a result of a typo.
Click to expand...

I would agree, except for the variables of completely different bullets. For example:

9mm_example.jpg
 
I apologize, I switched gears and did not make it clear. When I said "different Bullets" I was referring to the different bullets used in the OP data, the 110, 115, and 125gn Bullets were not only different weights, they were completely different manufacturers and profiles. That is why I am saying that it is not possible to say with 100% certainty that the data is in error. You even admitted it was "remotely possible" the data was correct.

In the data that I posted, you will notice a full 2 grains INCREASE in the charge data, going from a 80 to a 90 grain bullet. Normal wisdom would say the max charge should go down, but instead it goes up by a full 50%. I know it was not the caliber of the OP, but given the title of the thread, I think it is relative.

If I were a betting man, I would not bet one way or the other on Hodgdon (or anyone's) data. I always start low and work up.
 
Toprudder said:
I apologize, I switched gears and did not make it clear. When I said "different Bullets" I was referring to the different bullets used in the OP data, the 110, 115, and 125gn Bullets were not only different weights, they were completely different manufacturers and profiles. That is why I am saying that it is not possible to say with 100% certainty that the data is in error. You even admitted it was "remotely possible" the data was correct.

In the data that I posted, you will notice a full 2 grains INCREASE in the charge data, going from a 80 to a 90 grain bullet. Normal wisdom would say the max charge should go down, but instead it goes up by a full 50%. I know it was not the caliber of the OP, but given the title of the thread, I think it is relative.

If I were a betting man, I would not bet one way or the other on Hodgdon (or anyone's) data. I always start low and work up.
Click to expand...
I see where the confusion is. Ignore all of the data except that about the 115gr bullet in the original post. Now look at the starting charge and pressure and the max charge and pressure. Does it seem likely that the max charge would have a lower pressure than the starting charge? It’d be cool to get more energy from less powder, but that’s not how it usually works.

I said remotely possible because I don’t know enough to say impossible, but I’m way more than 99% certain that it’s wrong.
 
Now I feel really stupid. I was only looking at the circled items in the OP and comparing them to one another. Yeah, I don't see how that can be right, but I have seen stranger things.
 
Last edited:
Toprudder said:
iJfxWY

Now I feel really stupid. I was only looking at the circled items in the OP and comparing them to one another. Yeah, I don't see how that can be right, but I have seen stranger things.
Click to expand...
Just two guys talking past each other on the Internet, nothing new.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom