- This topic is empty.
-
Topic
-
Ranch Dog
I’ve been working on a new format to cover my bullet designs and will probably work with Swede to cover all of his. In the past, my LoadData was formatted only at max pressures. With the variety of options available here at NOE, I need to offer some low pressure data for the plain based versions.
Please take a look at this sample and let me know what you think. Please also read my Pressure Notesfirst so that you will understand what the LoadData sheets offers.
-
Replies
-
Mike Bambauer
Michael,
Looks great to me and I even understand it..
I will be using your QL load data info to work up loads in my 7.62X39 and .308 this spring…
The only thing I may have to adjust for is the alloy as mine will be different than the 95% Pb / 5% Sn listed..Sounds good and thanks for the report. I’m working on the 308 Win now and then the 7.62×39. The alloy is 95% wheel weights which is different than Pb.
I use the tin for definition of the Micro Bands. I’ve read that anything over 2 to 2 1/2% is a “waste” of tin but those that write that statement must not have the experience I do casting Micro Band bullets. I shoot 12,000 of them a year and cast them all. When in the mold business, I would see warranty claims that the bands were under diameter, but in every case the customer would be casting with no Sn at all or less than 2 1/2%. Wheel weights or Pb is just “too thick” to define the bands at the diameter spec.
michaelkinslow
daveridenour
robertking
I really like the new format. Question on the 300Savage data for IMR4064, could the 24.6 gr load be a typo??? I was comparing data between 300 Savage and 308Win with IMR 4064, 24.6 in the Savage yields 1984FPS when it takes 32.2 in the 308 to get 1884. The next 3 pressure levels are what I expected, slightly lower velocity for near same charge in the larger case. Or is the IMR 4064 non linear at the lower pressure.
Again thanks for the redo of the format ,makes it easy to see what I want. Any chance for a workup of the 360 230 in 35Rem?I really like the new format. Question on the 300Savage data for IMR4064, could the 24.6 gr load be a typo??? I was comparing data between 300 Savage and 308Win with IMR 4064, 24.6 in the Savage yields 1984FPS when it takes 32.2 in the 308 to get 1884. The next 3 pressure levels are what I expected, slightly lower velocity for near same charge in the larger case. Or is the IMR 4064 non linear at the lower pressure.
Again thanks for the redo of the format ,makes it easy to see what I want. Any chance for a workup of the 360 230 in 35Rem?There is a huge possibility that there was a error in transferring the data to the spreadsheet. I’ve been spending the last several weeks formatting a way to transfer the data so it is easier to calculate and view. It will also lend itself to repeatablitiy for revisions as powders are added, changed, or removed. The LoadNotes sheet also contains quite a bit more information for the handload and will make a better reference.
I finished reformatting the worksheet and generated the data for the 300 Savage and the 310-165-RF. Most of the charges would have changed slightly because I need to generate this for the minimum OAL instead of the maximum. Minimum is just that, a case trimmed .005″ less than the SAAMI spec + the bullet nose length. Maximum is a SAAMI max spec case + the length of the crimp groove + the bullet nose length. This will give a handloader some options fitting the chamber and define the parameters for the data.
Here is revision #1 of my LoadNotes for the 300 Sav & the 310-165-RF. Please delete the previous version. I will be generating revisions of the 310-180-RF and 313-150-RF LoadNotes as well. Tough to do more than one in a day because of the time involved.
johntucker
Hey Micheal,
Just curious if you’ve transposed load data for the 311-165 in 30-30 into this new format? Makes things very easy to use.
Not yet and no time line for doing this work. It takes quite a bit of time and I can’t have any distractions while doing it which has been really tough to find at my place as lately. I owe NOE some data for his bullets so that is the area I will be working on next.
My reply sounded a bit negative and I didn’t want it to be. I will put the 311-165-RF next on the RDO list. I’m going to do about five NOE designs to one of mine as a matter of getting them done. I’ve been wanting to make some kind of survey list to see what is wanted and the designs with the most votes have priority. Will soon have the time to knock those surveys out; one for NOE and one for RDO.
My reply sounded a bit negative and I didn’t want it to be. I will put the 311-165-RF next on the RDO list. I’m going to do about five NOE designs to one of mine as a matter of getting them done. I’ve been wanting to make some kind of survey list to see what is wanted and the designs with the most votes have priority. Will soon have the time to knock those surveys out; one for NOE and one for RDO.
Didn’t come off as negative, just honest. Time is a valuable commodity. I’ve loaded and shot 1000’s of the 311-165 in all the normal 30’s but my data has always been worked around other bullets(usually 311041) and kept “safe” below max loads. Just nice to get bullet specific data to back up my own work. Thanks for your reply and the time you put in! I consider your bullet work and load data a valuable commodity as well.
Mike Bambauer
michaelkinslow
daveridenour
mikehupp
johntibbs
robertking
johntucker- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.