Old Time Handloaders - How - ???

[JohndeFresno]

How did they do it?

I am perusing an old 2nd Edition Sierra Bullets manual for, checking on .270 Win 110 grain loads. Comparing it with my 5th Edition (2nd Printing), I notice many similarities, although oddly IMR 3031 is dropped for the 110 grain load in the newer manual.

But how could this older manual help the handloader to achieve loads consistent with the data, when there was no COAL (Cartridge Overall Length) listed in these entries?

[Griff]

Your book doesn't have this page in it?


Mine lists 3.340" as maximum.

[Griff]

My Speer Number Ten and, Nosler Number 2 didn't list OAL for various bullets. The first book I have that does, is the Hornady # 2. Maybe we were smarter back then!

[Blaine]

I suspect that they expected you to use the cannelure in the bullet.... Any experimentation after that was based on THAT OAL.....

[JohndeFresno]

...Mine lists 3.340" as maximum.

Griff - I suppose that you have your mind on the road in "The Black Rose," because I know that YOU know that COAL's are different for each cartridge and affect the pressures and velocity.

(Again, as you know) the maximum OAL doesn't do any good for the different loads. Some short bullets put to Max wouldn't have an adequate grip on the casing.

Blaine - no cannelures on these bullets, per diagram.

[marlinman93]

Although COAL is indeed important for proper cycling through the magazine, and chambering. It's overall length is not a huge concern as regards to pressure, unless you're pushing maximum loads. What is most important is OAL of the cases, and bullet seating depth, and that they are extremely close in all of your rounds loaded.
If a book told me COAL and it wouldn't clear the rifling when I seated the cartridge, what good is it? Or if I seat the bullet out slightly and my gun shoots more accurately, with no pressure signs; shouldn't I continue with a longer OAL?
COAL is a general suggestion, and should not be considered cast in stone. If you start at a suggested length, or get there by checking the fit of the cartridge in chamber and magazine, it doesn't really matter. Just be sure it's as close to exactly the same for every round you load.

[JohndeFresno]

In essence, that is what I was getting at. COAL affects seating depth, of course.

But how can any of the velocity figures be relevant without a yardstick of how deep to set the bullet?

Then there is the issue of pressure of the high end loads, absent a known seating depth!

[Griff]

John, if you're loading all bullets to the COAL, and the longest is safe pressure-wise, then it stands to reason that shorter bullets at that same COAL will have LESS pressure. It must be true... cause I ain't blown up a gun using those old manuals.

That Sierra Manual #2 was the first reloading book I bought. I learned to reload from it and with added advice from my B-I-L. The COAL does indeed change from cartridge to cartridge. I started loading for the .30-30, and in my reading, (or my B-I-L's limited instructions), came the admonishment to initially seat bullets in an empty case so the bullet touches the rifling. Then, back that down a couple of thousandths, then load a few cartridges at or nearly the bottom of the recommended range, then increase the powder charge a couple or tenths or up to a .5 grain increments and fire for groups, watching for any signs of excessive pressure. When you noticed either accuracy start to fall off or signs of excessive pressure, back off. If accuracy still wasn't up to expectations, work up another powder... changing bullet weights, repeat the above steps.

The Speer manual also has a section in front for reloading steps... And much the same step by step instructions. If using a different gun, even if the same model, the same steps need to be followed.

Somewhere in the dim recesses of the past, I've also been told, that for non-cannelured bullets to load to a length that sets the base of the cartridge at or near the base of the neck, or at a point where the bullets "belly" is still at it's widest, but never below the base of the neck... unless you KNOW that bullet and recommended charges allow for seating in the case body, as with some boattail designs.

It's like driving a car around a curve; you can go around that curve hundreds of thousands of times slower than the recommended speed, but one time too fast and you might not make it all the way thru the curve.

[Old Savage]

In loading 110s I used 3.275" in the few I loaded. I also used it for 130s. I doubt 3.34 would work at all for 110s.

[JohndeFresno]

Thanks, OS.

I believe it's a Cool Hand Luke moment with Griff and me - "What we have is a failure to communicate."

Unless "COAL" is different from "OAL" and (as in the Hornady manual) "C.O.L.," I have always used them interchangeably to mean the overall loaded length of a particular bullet in a particular cartridge. Maximum Allowable length or whatever you want to call it is not usually the loaded length of a particular bullet.

E.g., the Hornady manual shows different lengths, which I call "COAL" for these .270 Win Hornady bullets:
100 gr SP #2710 - 3.120"
110 gr. (2 bullets) - 3.165"
130 gr. (4 bullets) - 3.210"
and so on.

Of course I won't load the short bullets to the max length; and I am not bothering with that bullet nose to leade thing since my loads for this caliber are for more than one rifle - generic loads, not minute-of-gnat accuracy for one particular barrel.

So now, during these past 14 (I think) years that I have been handloading, if COAL-OAL-COL are not synonymous and different from "Maximum C.O.L." as the Hornady book calls it, somebody please let me know!

I am just trying to figure out how and why folks would use the figures from the old Sierra book, sans any info other than the Maximum COL, since everyone posting at this time knows full well that varying the bullet seating will vary the pressure and velocity of a given charge.

Gettin' a little frustrated here...

[Old Savage]

A 110 gr. Sierra Pro Hunter is listed at .8" long. At 3.34 it would not be in a 2.54 case. So, seating depth will have to nominally be shorter by the amount you want the bullet in the case, by the numbers.

You fellows seem to be addressing different aspects of the issue.

Other manuals seem to list about .1" shorter OAL for 110 class bullets flat base. I doubt pressure will be a problem with reasonable loads as there is a large jump to the rifling.

[Old Savage]

I suppose we all have our systems for arriving at pressures, velocities and accuracy. Mine gave worked out with only a couple surprises but wr are still working with very high pressures for real life.

[Griff]

Yes, COAL = Cartridge OverAll Length. And while, lighter bullets may have a shorter shank, thusly capable of being seated deeper, that may not provide the best accuracy.

[Griff]

You fellows seem to be addressing different aspects of the issue.

Possibly. But, that was the manual I used most, because it had a COAL listed, and I tended to use a LOT of Sierra bullets.

[Old Savage]

I had the impression that the COAL was based on the magazines they would be expected to work through as it is not an issue that increases pressure.

[mark]

270 WINCHESTER

110gn Sierra Soft Point

61 gns H4831 3150 fps Remington 9½ Primer(x700)
Winchester Cases(x120 new 28/6/94)
Overall length 3.250"

55.5 gns W760 3200fps 51 on Powder Thrower

110 gn Hornady Hollow Point(modified)

61 gns H4831 Overall length 3.167"

Extract from my loading notes, 2003.

Prior to that I used Norma 110 gn triclad bullets to shoot hundreds of pigs.

The rifle, a M70 Winchester.

Cheers Mark

[marlinman93]

I had the impression that the COAL was based on the magazines they would be expected to work through as it is not an issue that increases pressure.

Yes and no. Yes COAL is indeed usually referring to a SAMMI spec for that cartridge to work in any guns with magazines. But seating depth will indeed change pressures. Just not that much, and not a concern (again) unless you're pushing maximum charges.

As for the shorter bullets being able to seat deeper, that's usually not the case. They usually end up seating less deep, as the shape and length of the lighter bullets require them to sit higher in the case to properly fit the case mouth. So most lighter bullets will reduce pressures. Heavier bullets being much longer, often require them to be seated deeper to fit the COAL of a magazine, so pressures will go up as space is taken up by the longer bullet deeper in the case.

[Old Savage]

Here is the point, with short bullets like the 110 in the .270 or 125s in the 30-06 If you seat deeper you are creating what amounts to freebore. If you seat out to the max that weight will allow you increase internal capacity. Either one will reduce pressure. Heavier bullets ate another issue and not relevant to 110s.

[JohndeFresno]

OK... I see it now.

In comparing the tables between Sierra 2nd and Sierra 5th Edition, the velocity/charge information is indeed different.

So the earlier (2nd) book reflects what Griff used - one OAL for all bullets in that caliber, e.g. 3.340" for the 270 Win.

Then, Sierra changed with the times (5th Edition) and assigned individual OAL's to their different length bullets, while still displaying the "Master" diagram showing the Maximum OAL of 3.340".

Thus, the variance in these loads for the 110 grain Spitzer using IMR-4895:
Edition / COAL / 2800fps (Start) / 3200 (Max)
2nd / (3.340") / 43.3 gr / 49.1 gr
5th / 3.275" / 40.6 gr / 48.5 gr

So, although powders change a bit, it seems that the earlier Sierra book reflected a more useful set of recipies for those who wanted to put the bullets closer to the leade.

Thank y'all for illuminating me - and I got it now, Griff.

[Griff]

I had the impression that the COAL was based on the magazines they would be expected to work through as it is not an issue that increases pressure.

No, max COAL is based off SAMMI specs. It would be expected that gun manufacturers would build guns to operate with that max COAL. And as far as pressure is concerned, yes, it surely is... especially critical as you go heavier in bullet weight... And unless you had access to a chronograph, one never knew if you were getting the velocity quoted in the manuals.

And by not seating out to be near the lands, your loads can suffer in the accuracy department from excessive bullet jump. That distance from where the bullet is supported by the case neck, to when it is fully engaged in the rifling. Seating out close to the beginning of the lands will minimize the potential to induce yaw into the projectile. Now, whether your selected bullet can do that is another matter.

As Malamute notes, shorter bullets will generally be seated to a lessor depth in the case, but... that also is where a larger powder charge is useful. If for a given powder charge a lighter bullet will be pushed faster than a heavier one, you don't need a heavier charge to increase speed, but... due to the shallower seating depth of the lighter bullet, you need a heavier charge to keep pressure to at an equivalent to the pressure developed to push that lighter bullet to speed. I hope I'm conveying that well enough. And not confusing the issue more.

[Old Savage]

The 1903 Springfield and the .30-06 cartridge preexisted SAAMI by 20+ years. That cartridge became the standard. SAAMI was created to codify the standard. But this thread revolves around 110 bullets in the .270 Win.

But my wife is chasing me out so more later I am sure. Don't make me send troops ashore.

[JohndeFresno]

As an aside, OS, you indeed show some attractive females of our particular species from time to time, but you will note that I will never comment on them. My beloved bride occasionally reads these posts!

That is called "Survival of the Species." I'm not sure if that was what Darwin was really addressing in that old book of a similar name; neither he nor his Emma are around to ask.

NOW, next logical question:
Does current factory ammo attempt to stay close to most leades, or is the ammo loaded to different overall lengths within a caliber as reflected in today's handbooks?

Who has some factory .270 Win. rounds with 110 grain Spitzers that they can measure??

[Old Savage]

John, of course it is to be recognized that you have always been the consumate gentleman with no purient interest and conducted yourself in accordance with the highest standards interested obviously in only your loving spouse. Whew!

You question is an interesting one. Just came from the gun shop. If I am there soon I will check. But, The issue will be similar to a 125 in a 30-06. My experience is that there will be a large bullet jump with no attempt to seat the bullet out. Deep seated heavy bullets will indeed of course raise pressures but since in these short bullets there is a factor that reduces pressure either way you go it is not usually a practical issue. In my experience these bullets have been accurate in either caliber. There is a large jump no matter how you seat them in normal chambers.

[JohndeFresno]

Thanks for the info, OS.

And of course, I will make sure that my wife sees your first sentence above!

[marlinman93]

There are specs for the cartridges, and OAL, just as there are specs for chamber reamers. So I would hope that all cartridges and reamers used to chamber barrels being within spec would also be pretty close in tolerances. I'm certain from personal experience with numerous guns in the same caliber that there are some differences. Probably more so on pre SAAMI guns more so than after SAAMI came into existence. But even if every gun came from the same maker, in identical calibers, you can't say each gun likes the same OAL to be most accurate. Playing with OAL is part of tuning a load, just like bullet weight, powder charge, case length, etc. Since SAAMI allows tolerances within their specs, makers can fall within those tolerances at one end or the other and still be fine.