|
Re: Loading over book max
[Re: Gary Benson]
#7381425
10/17/21 10:39 PM
10/17/21 10:39 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 4,949 Aliceville, Kansas 43
Yukon John
trapper
|
trapper
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 4,949
Aliceville, Kansas 43
|
Bad idea IMHO but I don't know much. I reloaded a .45 using a powder scale tin that had the finger tab broken off. That was enough to blow the magazine out the bottom, cracked the plastic on the body of a $600 S&W and stung the **** outta my hand. Lesson learned here. I'll go by the book. That was you, huh? I remember that thread, made me realize how ANY question is relevant here, great group of individuals that can catch even the slightest of inaccuracies!
Act like a blank, get treated like a blank. Insert your own blank!
|
|
|
Re: Loading over book max
[Re: Wolfdog91]
#7381533
10/18/21 05:35 AM
10/18/21 05:35 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 29,894 williamsburg ks
danny clifton
"Grumpy Old Man"
|
"Grumpy Old Man"
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 29,894
williamsburg ks
|
I have some old reloading books. In a lot of cases the starting load is about where max is in todays data. Pushing all the way as far as you can doesnt make your firearm more lethal. Bullet placement does though.
In the old books there is no data for a lot of todays powder cause it wasn't around. Another thing to remember is test barrels of the time used c.u.p. (copper units of pressure) not pounds per square inch. Not as accurate.
If your rifle is grouping good then I say your fine if no pressure signs exist. Pushing your rifle as far as it will go will wear it out faster. If you only shoot it 10-15 times a year it wont be a problem. If you like to shoot 100 rounds every weekend, or more, it wont be long you will be buying a barrel.
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
|
|
|
|
|
|