A general question about loading down cartridges

paulux

Well-Known Member
Hi all,

I am new to reloading, and I understand that one of the possibilities of reloading is to diminish the quantity of powder, so as to reduce the performance of a given cartridge.
Does that mean that for a given bore diameter, the more powerful calibers can always be loaded down to produce the same performances as the less powerful ones ?

For instance, can a 22-250 Rem be loaded down to produce the same ballistics as a .223 or a 22 Hornet ?

Or can a 7 RM be loaded down to the performances of a 7x64 or a 7-08 ?

What are the limits of loading down cartridges ?
 
The most accurate handloads are usually slower than factory loads, but I think it is/might be dangerous to use too little powder in a cartridge case.
 
The general answer is, "Yes", you can download cartridges a notch. In fact, often some of the most accurate normal loads are not at top power. A really good 7mm RM load may be the same MV as a really good 7x64 load. Just look at the Nosler load pages for 150-gr loads of the .280 Rem and 7mm Rem Mag, for example.

But beware! You cannot go much below the starting loads of many powders, without danger of a secondary detonation of very high pressure.

If you want to make really mild load, you need to use one of the few powders made for that purpose. H-4895, for example can be reduced down close to 60% of the maximum load, and the velocities fall in a linear slope matching the loads. An 80% load of H-4895 is usually a good mild load.

http://www.hodgdon.com/PDF/H4895 Reduced Rifle Loads.pdf

http://www.hodgdonreloading.com/reloading-education/tips-and-tricks/low-recoil-loads
 
The general answer is, "Yes", you can download cartridges a notch. In fact, often some of the most accurate normal loads are not at top power. A really good 7mm RM load may be the same MV as a really good 7x64 load. Just look at the Nosler load pages for 150-gr loads of the .280 Rem and 7mm Rem Mag, for example.

But beware! You cannot go much below the starting loads of many powders, without danger of a secondary detonation of very high pressure.

If you want to make really mild load, you need to use one of the few powders made for that purpose. H-4895, for example can be reduced down close to 60% of the maximum load, and the velocities fall in a linear slope matching the loads. An 80% load of H-4895 is usually a good mild load.

http://www.hodgdon.com/PDF/H4895 Reduced Rifle Loads.pdf

http://www.hodgdonreloading.com/reloading-education/tips-and-tricks/low-recoil-loads
I have heard this since I was in knickers yet never saw it.
I remember some years back, the H.P.White Laboratory tried to induce "detonation" in their Lab and was unable to cause the phenomenon. They initially did their tests with light loads in a 38 Special, but later they did the tests in a 30-06 at the behest of Wm.Davis of the NRA technical staff, himself a ballistician. I believe the lab deduced that the placement of a very small charge of slow burning powder lying longitudinally in the bottom of the case caused 'plugging' of the bore as the projectile was driven into the leade by the primer ignition, followed by the fast rise in pressure from the burning of the powder. IIRC is was difficult to make happen. As a side line to the account, one or two cases were investigated by H.P. White where 'detonation' had supposedly happened in the field but were judged to be shooter error: One a double charge of fast burning powder, the other a single light charge of fast burning powder behind a cast bullet that was too large in diameter for the case/chamber combo and the rifle blew up. (a 1917 Enfield) I personally witnessed a shooter firing his 20 Tactical and getting a very low point of impact, smokey cases, and dismal accuracy. He fired 20 rounds, maybe? Returning to my house we found that he'd misread my scale and loaded 13.5 grains H335 instead of 23.5. This represents a 43% under load. When i was a kid guys shot small charges of surplus H4831 behind a tuft of Kapok for cast bullet loads. Some powders like H-110/Win296 do warn against reducing charges in some applications, but in general, I believe "detonation" is more theoretical than inevitable.

That said, just reducing a powder charge will probably cause erratic accuracy. Powders designed for the task like H4895 and Trail Boss are solidly the way to go.~Muir
 
The general answer is, "Yes", you can download cartridges a notch. In fact, often some of the most accurate normal loads are not at top power. A really good 7mm RM load may be the same MV as a really good 7x64 load. Just look at the Nosler load pages for 150-gr loads of the .280 Rem and 7mm Rem Mag, for example.

But beware! You cannot go much below the starting loads of many powders, without danger of a secondary detonation of very high pressure.

If you want to make really mild load, you need to use one of the few powders made for that purpose. H-4895, for example can be reduced down close to 60% of the maximum load, and the velocities fall in a linear slope matching the loads. An 80% load of H-4895 is usually a good mild load.

http://www.hodgdon.com/PDF/H4895 Reduced Rifle Loads.pdf

http://www.hodgdonreloading.com/reloading-education/tips-and-tricks/low-recoil-loads

Southern, Glad you flagged the H4895 for the op. I had a go with reduced loads using the 60% rule I could have gone down to 24 grn from a maximum load of 40gr ie; 7mm-08; 150grn Sierra MKBT 40.5 grn H4895.

I stopped at 30grn 2,075 fps because it was getting a bit smoky,Ok for plinking.

FYI; 35grn 2,462 fps, 38grn 2,600fps, 40grn 2,728 fps.

Your comment with regard to low loads, imho should be listened to. New reloaders and old, can't check too much.

A good way to reduce recoil is fit a decent Mod. jc
 
Thanks all for your very interesting input.

That said, just reducing a powder charge will probably cause erratic accuracy. Powders designed for the task like H4895 and Trail Boss are solidly the way to go.~Muir

Would that erratic accuracy be caused by the barrel twist rate not adapted to slower speeds ?


In theory, I was wondering if, for a hunter who reloads and needs to acquire a rifle of a given bore diameter, the logical choice would be the most powerful caliber, because it would allow also to reproduce the same performances of the less powerful ones. (to reduce recoil, muzzle blast, and preserve venaison and skin/furs)


Practically, I hunt roe deer with a .222 Rem (legal here in France), and predators and small game with both .222 and .22 Hornet rifles. I appreciate the 22 Hornet for its low report, and the preservation of venaison (hares) and furs.
I would like to know whether downloading the .222 would enable me duplicate the performances of the .22 Hornet while keeping a good accuracy ?

I hunt also big game with a 7X65R, and wonder whether it can be downloaded to the performances of a slow 7x57R with good accuracy ? (to reduce impact on venaison)
 
Erratic accuracy (more properly erratic ballistics as pressures and velocity spreads become excessive) is due to two causes. The primary cause is running the cartridge at too low pressures for the powder type to burn efficiently and consistently shot to shot; secondly reducing the charge fill-ratio too much, and its corollary increasing the amount of airspace in the case. Most cartridges perform at their best with a powder that provides full working pressures with a 90% plus fill-ratio, and it is generally regarded as undesirable to drop below 80% in larger rifle cartridges with 'normal' rifle powders especially with slow burning types.

The low charge / 'detonation' issue eventually became accepted after the many 'red herrings' of broken rifles caused by more common mistakes such as using the wrong powder or charge were weeded out and discounted. It's almost entirely confined to large case over bore capacity numbers such as the larger magnums from .300 Win Mag and upwards allied to an over-low charge of the very slow burning powders they employ. Look at most loading manuals' data for the Weatherby Magnums etc and you'll find the starting load involves a smaller % weight reduction over the maximum than applies to most other smaller cartridges with an injunction under each page of tables not to reduce the starting load any further. Even there, doing so would mostly just produce erratic loads not dangerous ones unless taken to extremes.

The normal practice in working up reduced loads with a conventional single-based rifle powder is to run them with a grade that has one, sometimes two steps faster faster burning rate than those normally employed, also to use powders which have a reputation for being easily ignited which in this bracket normally means single-base tubular types. These characteristics provide more consistent pressures. H4895 meets both criteria for larger cartridges such as .30-06 that would normally use powders whose burning rates are in the 4350 / Viht N150 or even 4831 / Viht N160 bracket. The fill-ratio drops, but the powder's burning characteristics overcome that and it'll burn happily at 40,000 psi or even less albeit sometimes very dirtily. Going back by several editions of the Speer reloading manual to the 1980s and earlier, the compilers inserted a single low-velocity jacketed bullet load for many popular cartridges. They nearly all used IMR-4198 powder in numbers like 308 Win, a powder whose burning rate normally sees it employed in the 222 Rem or low pressure large bore numbers like 45-70.

Ball powders should never be seriously downloaded as they are usually hard to ignite and need high pressures to operate efficiently. Very, very fast burning double-based powders such as pistol types operate very differently in the cartridge case from rifle powders and are designed to burn consistently despite often taking up a small amount of the available space. They can be used in rifle cartridges, but with lead bullets there being risks with jacketed types. In either event, doing research and knowing what you're about is a good idea.

Then, there are powders that have been expressly developed to provide low pressures and velocities safely in rifle cartridges with jacketed bullets. The old IMR SR4759 was developed by Dupont to a US DoD contract specification just for this purpose to simulate extreme range terminal ballistics in short-range testing with the 30-06 then the 7.62mm. The old pre Western Powders AA-5744 was likely developed for similar reasons and gained a reputation for excellent performance in large bore BPCR cartridges where it would simulate the (low) pressures and velocities of a case-full of black powder and also worked well in reduced loads in other cartridges being designed to burn consistently at a relatively low pressure. The IMR powder was withdrawn some years back and 5744 hasn't been available that I've seen since Accurate Arms changed ownership. However, 5744 was made by Explosia in the Czech republic and it is still listed as a European Lovex brand powder whose products are still imported ionto the UK in limited quantities. Its Lovex name is DO60, Here's what Explosia says about it:

RIFLE POWDERS
S040
High density, single base, tubular propellant suitable for .22 Hornet
and .30 Carbine cartridges and for other small shotguns. Also usable
in high capacity handgun cartridges.

D060
High density, double base, tubular propellant similar to Accurate
5744 designed primarily for .45-70 Government, .45-120 , and .50-90 Sharps cartridges and for reduced loads in all calibres rifles.

So, it may be possible to get hold of it. As mentioned, IMR Trail Boss is a specialised double-based 'fluffy' powder originally developed to produce low velocity low pressure loads in lead-bullet revolver cartridges that duplicated the performance of tiny charges of powders like Bullseye and Red Dot, but filled cases and made it impossible to use double or triple loads. This was for 'Cowboy Action' shooting where lead bullets and low MVs are mandatory. It has since turned out to be a great powder for reduced rifle cartridge loads especially with lead bullets but also some use with jacketed types and like 5744 for the large bore black-powder numbers. It's so bulky, it's sold in 9-ounce lots, that being all a standard Hodgdon / IMR 1lb bottle will hold. It was available in the UK, but I don't know if supplies have held up during the recent US shortages and problems in getting Hodgdon powders here. Vihtavuori also produced a Cowboy Action propellant N32C Tin Star that isn't anything like as bulky as Trail Boss and didn't catch on as well, but could also likely be used in some downloads. I'm not sure if it's still available.

For a downloaded 222 looking for Hornet MVs, Trail Boss is the obvious candidate. 7.5-8gn is a full case of this stuff and QuickLOAD predicts 8gn gives a 50gn Sierra SP 2,042 fps at 32,000 psi, but you'd look to start well down at 4 or 5gn charges and work up. 5gn takes up two-thirds of the case space and is predicted to give the 50gn 1600 fps at a mere 16,000 psi but still produce a 100% charge burn.

For 7X65R H4895 would likely work well using the previously described formulae. QuickLOAD says 43gn under a 140gn Sierra produces 2691 fps at around 43,000 psi. 33gn Lovex DO60 is predicted to produce 2628 fps at 46,000 psi and for really light work, 19gn Trail Boss (full case load) a mere 1790 fps. Both types are shown as giving 99-100% charge burns in a 24-inch barrel.

These are all QuickLOAD simulations, not field-tested loads, but give an indication of what might be possible - so treat them with extreme caution. It'd be interesting to see what people come up with. I'm sure there is a lot of experience around in downloaded 222 Rem loads as the little cartridge is simply made for this sort of experimentation in a safe manner if done sensibly.
 
I've never tried to download cases but a friend used to do it all the time in his .223 and .375.
He used very fast powders in the .223 behind cast gas checked projectiles against rabbits. Pistol powders.
I've no idea what he used in the .375 but he did load gas checked cast bullets in it at very stiff loads. Boy they hurt! I saw a roo hit by one at 300m+ and it didn't half leave a mess.
 
Erratic accuracy (more properly erratic ballistics as pressures and velocity spreads become excessive) is due to two causes. The primary cause is running the cartridge at too low pressures for the powder type to burn efficiently and consistently shot to shot; secondly reducing the charge fill-ratio too much, and its corollary increasing the amount of airspace in the case. Most cartridges perform at their best with a powder that provides full working pressures with a 90% plus fill-ratio, and it is generally regarded as undesirable to drop below 80% in larger rifle cartridges with 'normal' rifle powders especially with slow burning types.

The low charge / 'detonation' issue eventually became accepted after the many 'red herrings' of broken rifles caused by more common mistakes such as using the wrong powder or charge were weeded out and discounted. It's almost entirely confined to large case over bore capacity numbers such as the larger magnums from .300 Win Mag and upwards allied to an over-low charge of the very slow burning powders they employ. Look at most loading manuals' data for the Weatherby Magnums etc and you'll find the starting load involves a smaller % weight reduction over the maximum than applies to most other smaller cartridges with an injunction under each page of tables not to reduce the starting load any further. Even there, doing so would mostly just produce erratic loads not dangerous ones unless taken to extremes.

The normal practice in working up reduced loads with a conventional single-based rifle powder is to run them with a grade that has one, sometimes two steps faster faster burning rate than those normally employed, also to use powders which have a reputation for being easily ignited which in this bracket normally means single-base tubular types. These characteristics provide more consistent pressures. H4895 meets both criteria for larger cartridges such as .30-06 that would normally use powders whose burning rates are in the 4350 / Viht N150 or even 4831 / Viht N160 bracket. The fill-ratio drops, but the powder's burning characteristics overcome that and it'll burn happily at 40,000 psi or even less albeit sometimes very dirtily. Going back by several editions of the Speer reloading manual to the 1980s and earlier, the compilers inserted a single low-velocity jacketed bullet load for many popular cartridges. They nearly all used IMR-4198 powder in numbers like 308 Win, a powder whose burning rate normally sees it employed in the 222 Rem or low pressure large bore numbers like 45-70.

Ball powders should never be seriously downloaded as they are usually hard to ignite and need high pressures to operate efficiently. Very, very fast burning double-based powders such as pistol types operate very differently in the cartridge case from rifle powders and are designed to burn consistently despite often taking up a small amount of the available space. They can be used in rifle cartridges, but with lead bullets there being risks with jacketed types. In either event, doing research and knowing what you're about is a good idea.

Then, there are powders that have been expressly developed to provide low pressures and velocities safely in rifle cartridges with jacketed bullets. The old IMR SR4759 was developed by Dupont to a US DoD contract specification just for this purpose to simulate extreme range terminal ballistics in short-range testing with the 30-06 then the 7.62mm. The old pre Western Powders AA-5744 was likely developed for similar reasons and gained a reputation for excellent performance in large bore BPCR cartridges where it would simulate the (low) pressures and velocities of a case-full of black powder and also worked well in reduced loads in other cartridges being designed to burn consistently at a relatively low pressure. The IMR powder was withdrawn some years back and 5744 hasn't been available that I've seen since Accurate Arms changed ownership. However, 5744 was made by Explosia in the Czech republic and it is still listed as a European Lovex brand powder whose products are still imported ionto the UK in limited quantities. Its Lovex name is DO60, Here's what Explosia says about it:

RIFLE POWDERS
S040
High density, single base, tubular propellant suitable for .22 Hornet
and .30 Carbine cartridges and for other small shotguns. Also usable
in high capacity handgun cartridges.

D060
High density, double base, tubular propellant similar to Accurate
5744 designed primarily for .45-70 Government, .45-120 , and .50-90 Sharps cartridges and for reduced loads in all calibres rifles.

So, it may be possible to get hold of it. As mentioned, IMR Trail Boss is a specialised double-based 'fluffy' powder originally developed to produce low velocity low pressure loads in lead-bullet revolver cartridges that duplicated the performance of tiny charges of powders like Bullseye and Red Dot, but filled cases and made it impossible to use double or triple loads. This was for 'Cowboy Action' shooting where lead bullets and low MVs are mandatory. It has since turned out to be a great powder for reduced rifle cartridge loads especially with lead bullets but also some use with jacketed types and like 5744 for the large bore black-powder numbers. It's so bulky, it's sold in 9-ounce lots, that being all a standard Hodgdon / IMR 1lb bottle will hold. It was available in the UK, but I don't know if supplies have held up during the recent US shortages and problems in getting Hodgdon powders here. Vihtavuori also produced a Cowboy Action propellant N32C Tin Star that isn't anything like as bulky as Trail Boss and didn't catch on as well, but could also likely be used in some downloads. I'm not sure if it's still available.

For a downloaded 222 looking for Hornet MVs, Trail Boss is the obvious candidate. 7.5-8gn is a full case of this stuff and QuickLOAD predicts 8gn gives a 50gn Sierra SP 2,042 fps at 32,000 psi, but you'd look to start well down at 4 or 5gn charges and work up. 5gn takes up two-thirds of the case space and is predicted to give the 50gn 1600 fps at a mere 16,000 psi but still produce a 100% charge burn.

For 7X65R H4895 would likely work well using the previously described formulae. QuickLOAD says 43gn under a 140gn Sierra produces 2691 fps at around 43,000 psi. 33gn Lovex DO60 is predicted to produce 2628 fps at 46,000 psi and for really light work, 19gn Trail Boss (full case load) a mere 1790 fps. Both types are shown as giving 99-100% charge burns in a 24-inch barrel.

These are all QuickLOAD simulations, not field-tested loads, but give an indication of what might be possible - so treat them with extreme caution. It'd be interesting to see what people come up with. I'm sure there is a lot of experience around in downloaded 222 Rem loads as the little cartridge is simply made for this sort of experimentation in a safe manner if done sensibly.



Laurie,

I have no experience with 222 recipes but I thoroughly enjoyed your informative post.

Perhaps an inexperienced reloader should keep it simple with a good reloading book and a helper until all the boxes are ticked.

There was a very good (long) report by the NRA of an incident with a Krag-Jorgensen 6.5x55 at Bisley in 2014. Not sure of the technology to download it. I am sure it will be easy to find and although there was no definite ruling on the true cause, it is well worth the read if it has not been on here before.cheers,jc
 
Laurie,

I have no experience with 222 recipes but I thoroughly enjoyed your informative post.

Perhaps an inexperienced reloader should keep it simple with a good reloading book and a helper until all the boxes are ticked.

There was a very good (long) report by the NRA of an incident with a Krag-Jorgensen 6.5x55 at Bisley in 2014. Not sure of the technology to download it. I am sure it will be easy to find and although there was no definite ruling on the true cause, it is well worth the read if it has not been on here before.cheers,jc
Does that bring back memories!
When I was young I had a terrible time with a 6.5x55 Krag Jorgensen. No matter what I loaded I flattened primers badly. I finally called my uncle, a good gunsmith with lots of experience, and he said "Slug your bore." When I did I found that it was .2628" and the lot of bullets I had were .2643 inches. He said it wasn't the first time he'd seen this problem.~Muir
 
The link to the NRA report has been removed from its website for some reason. There is a report based on it here though:

https://ukshootingnews.wordpress.co...ech-explosion-cause-could-not-be-established/

As the name suggests, an exact cause wasn't established. A primary ingredient though is that this rifle had been rebarrelled sometime after WW2 in Norway with a so-called target barrel alongside others and there were major doubts about the quality of the work and the new component, this apparently not the first incident with this particular lot of rifles.

A lot of the handload facts were redacted, but enough remains to see that some pretty ropey practices were involved with this batch. At the time the original report was published, the suggestion that this was a low charge induced detonation puzzled me, in fact I found it very difficult to accept it given the nature of the cartridge and the powder used.

The powder was AA-2520, but this would be the old Czech stuff, now imported and sold as Lovex DO-73.6, not a slow burning powder as described in the report at all, but one used widely in 'standard' size cartridges - 223, 308, 30-30, 303, .30-06 and suchlike. In terms of burning speed, Explosia's chart shows it as equivalent to IMR-4064, faster than IMR or Hodgdon 4895 and in terms of Viht powders, lying between N133 and N135, also considerably faster burning than N140. It's a powder that I consioder too fast burning for this cartridge and wouldn't consider using it. In fact, Explosia doesn't list any loads for it in 6.5X55 in its loads data for the cartridge.

It is a ball powder, and as I said in a previous post, downloaded ball powder charges often don't work well giving variable pressures. I fact, I reckon it was a really cr+p load - in line with the other cr+ppy handloading practices seen on the surviving brass and unfired cartridges. At 34.6gn (the average of the charge in the unfired cases) it would take up less than two-thirds of the 6.5X55's case capacity. It should still be a pretty low pressure load though.
 
Last edited:
Reduced loads (squib loads in my book) are possible but are definitely not for those new to reloading. There’s too much room for error, and reliance on burning-speed rate tables is one. The order can vary with each cartridge, and be reversed in the different bullet weights you try.


Explosia’s chart differs from others, but none of these are the same from each source. There’s no saying which of them is actually right. It is definitely wrong regarding the benchmark powder IMR 4064. This is not between VN133 & VN135, and tends to be even slower burning than VN140.

I’ve never thought of doing this, but anyone who really wants to wring out all the options needs an in-depth analysis of the cartridge they intend to experiment with. One idea is the ‘Pet Loads’ handbook by Ken Waters. This covers all the common cartridges, and gives recipes for standard loads, their comparison with commercial loads, and the powders recommended for reducing velocity most of them by 1000 fps or so. It’s much more comprehensive than any reloading manual.

The ammunition industry has just started to market ‘reduced recoil’ products which are the same idea on a more modest scale.

I do have a problem with the opening question in seeing the point of loading down any calibre. If you have a 7mm Mag then cutting down the output by 10% gives you a .280, .270, or a 7x64. Performing the same stunt with any of these gives you a 6.5x55 at modern bolt-action pressures. Do the same with that and you have yourself a .243.

Turning all this around, if you want reduced power in a rifle then why not just buy another rifle? On the principle that no-one can have too many rifles, why not get yourself one of each of these and run it at optimum as it was intended? I’d have to add to the list of possibles above a.22 centre-fire in a small action, which is lovely to carry around & a pleasure to shoot.
 
Thanks Laurie, you are much better clued in to the minutiae of reloading than I.
What the fellow was doing with the atrocious samples we seen, I do not know.
It emphasised how exposed we all are to such bad practice.
At Bisley of all places, the enquiry must have cost a fortune. I recall a few folk got injured.
I shall stay with my tried and trusted. Cheers jc
 
Explosia’s chart differs from others, but none of these are the same from each source. There’s no saying which of them is actually right. It is definitely wrong regarding the benchmark powder IMR 4064. This is not between VN133 & VN135, and tends to be even slower burning than VN140. [Sinistral]

Yes, you're quite correct there - I should have looked up Ba values in QuickLOAD rather than take Explosia's burning rate chart at face value. It's not the first time it has sown confusion - its depiction of SO65 on the same line as Hogdon VarGet when the latter was completely unavailable a couple of years back fooled no end of people into thinking it might be a substitute in .308 Win etc, but it's nowhere near, needing considerably heavier charges partly through being slower burning, partly through having a much lower specific energy rating.

Even so, in practice, run DO73.6 through QuickLOAD for a 140gn jacketed bullet in 6.5X55mm and it is in effect 'faster' than those I'd consider the minimally acceptable propellants such as the 4350s its max at the CIP 55,000 psi limit being around 5gn lower and running at similar weights to IMR-4895 and suchlike. If you take the aforementioned IMR-4064, there is only a 0.3gn difference between the computed allowable maximum charges for the pair at 55,000 psi. The point I was making re a reduced load causing charge detonation is that it takes very much slower burning powders to cause the effect as reported, also usually found in very much more over bore capacity cases. Powders like the old surplus Hodgdon H870 were associated with this phenomenon, nothing in the DO73.6, 4895, 4064, N140 range ever.

In the case of the old 6.5mm Norwegian Krag series starting out with the M1894, the guy 'downloading' the ammunition had certainly got the right idea, just made a hash of it in his practice. These rifles are a notoriously weak design with a single locking lug and unlike the later American .30 Krag, don't even have the bolt handle root fitting into a receiver wall cutout to bolster their strength a bit. That's before we get into what steel quality was like 115 or maybe more years ago. Whilst the Swedish M1894 / 96 Mausers are regarded as amongst the best and strongest 6.5s of that era, even they were fed service ammunition generating MAPs barely above 40,000 psi. I wouldn't load anything expected to exceed 45,000 psi for these rifles happily, and wouldn't go near a Norwegian Krag being fired with a cartridge that produced that never mind the CIP's 55,000 psi figure. So, this isn't about squib loads or 'downloads' as such as the OP had in mind.

In the case of the latter, the first book I ever read on handloading was a great little work by the once rightly famous Major George C. Nonte Jnr, one of the most accomplished early post WW2 handloaders and ex Army Ordnance guys, much admired and often referred to by Ken Waters amongst others. Far from decrying low pressure, ultra low performance handloads, Nonte was a great fan of them and experimenter often using very basic loading tools, and with tiny quantities of pistol powders. I was fascinated by the chapter he wrote in this handloading primer on 'ultralight loads' with lead balls and bullets, real grown up boys toys stuff. One such was .303 British in a surplus Enfield Number 4 rifle loaded with a fired .22 Short case's worth of Unique, cases decapped with a dowell and a nail set into its end and an off the shelf lead buckshot ball finger pressed into the case-mouth and smeared over with Vaseline as a lubricant. No dies needed as there was no case expansion to speak of and the neck never had to be resized down to hold the next buckshot ball. This load was used to rid a relative's farm of feral pigeons, was accuarte at rooftop ranges and if he missed didn't crack any rooftiles. This sort of thing appealed to me intellectually - a No.4 being used in lieu of an air rifle - but I saw straight off that it had no place in the rule bound UK even in the 1970s with a lot fewer regulations than now. Imagine trying to explain this 'good use' for a 0.303 cal rifle to the then equivalent of an FEO!

But, for those who have a legitimate use and who know what they're about, I've no objection at all to then downloading ammunition if it's a safe load. If somebody wants to have a .22H performing load in a 222 Rem and can't afford another rifle and handloading gear, or wants a very light lead bullet load, what's wrong with it either in concept or in practice?
 
I do some mild loads because I shoot an old 1888 Commission Rifle in 8x57I, two combination guns from the 1920s ( 8x57JRS and 7x57R), and other old rifles from the 1890s. Also, I load some mild .308 Win with 125-gr in my FR-8 Mausers, and 125-gr in the .30-06 and .308 at 2,800 fps for practice and hunting ( holdover from 200 yard Service Rifle matches with M1A and M1 Garand), and 120-gr in 7mm-08 at a mild 2,700 fps as well as normal 3,000 fps. I use H-4895 for these latter loads in modern rifles ( about a 10% reduction from normal), but in the older rifles, I use the starting loads for the modern 8x57JS, 7x57mm Mauser, etc, with the best powders for the full loads, which puts me at about 38,000 to 40,000 PSI, but still only 150 fps below "normal" velocities, because the barrels are 25 to 29 inches on these old rifles.

I think some of the high pressure problems with slow powders is, like Muir said, the bullet being down the barrel and nearly stopped when the peak burning occurs, so the pressure peak is not in the first few inches of travel as it normally would be, in the thicker chamber section, but instead from chamber to some point in a thin barrel. I have several pictures of blown up barrels from what were allegedly reduced loads of slow powders in big cases like .270 Win. One of them appeared to me to fail where the rear sight screws were tapped into the barrel, too.

The rate of combustion under pressure will accelerate as the pressure and temperature increase - sort of feeding on itself. It is the same thing which occurs in Diesel engines, or a high-compression gasoline engine (12:1 or 13:1) with low-octane (8:1) fuel in it, where the gasoline will ignite before the spark, or with the spark but erratic combustion.
 
I have three 7x64s. You can load them like a mild 7x57 or 7mm-08 ( or short barreled ).
Just look at the powder and bullet maker load manuals for H-4895 loads, and there are the milder ones.

Don't know what bullet weights you are shooting in your 7x65R, but because of sights and regulating loads to the sights, I would suggest dropping down to a lighter bullet and trying to get the same velocity as your heavier hunting load. A 120-gr bullet at 2,600 to 2,800 fps is a nice load for deer, with the Hornady, Sierra or Nosler BT.

Both H-4895 and IMR-4895 work well in the M1 Garand because of the gas pressure, whereas a slower powder would put too much pressure out there on the gas port. A good, accurate mild load in the .30-06 is 46.0 gr of H-4895 with a 150-gr BT FMJ at about 2,600 fps.

Because of the smaller bore in the 7x64, .280 Rem, 7x65R, you have to use a little less powder for most loads than in the .30-06.


Below is for my Steyr 7x64 with 600mm (23.5 inch barrel )

43.0 gr works well under a 120 to 150-gr bullet, about 2,700 for the 120-gr Sierra, 2,640 for the 139-gr Hornady.
44.0 gr will step them all up about 100 fps.
46.0 gr with the 120-gr will get about 2,850 fps

44.4 gr with 150-gr Nosler will yield 2,600 fps
42.0 gr with 154-gr Hornady BTSP or SST will yield 2,600 fps because of less bearing surface
42.0 gr with 150-gr Norma RN or 154-gr Hornady will yield 2,475 fps because of more bearing surface

You really need to use a chronograph if you are going to shoot a variety of loads, or enough shooting to know the sight hold differences.
 
Thanks all for your very interesting input.



Would that erratic accuracy be caused by the barrel twist rate not adapted to slower speeds ?


In theory, I was wondering if, for a hunter who reloads and needs to acquire a rifle of a given bore diameter, the logical choice would be the most powerful caliber, because it would allow also to reproduce the same performances of the less powerful ones. (to reduce recoil, muzzle blast, and preserve venaison and skin/furs)


Practically, I hunt roe deer with a .222 Rem (legal here in France), and predators and small game with both .222 and .22 Hornet rifles. I appreciate the 22 Hornet for its low report, and the preservation of venaison (hares) and furs.
I would like to know whether downloading the .222 would enable me duplicate the performances of the .22 Hornet while keeping a good accuracy ?

I hunt also big game with a 7X65R, and wonder whether it can be downloaded to the performances of a slow 7x57R with good accuracy ? (to reduce impact on venaison)

I too use the the 7x65R - I have a load of 51.5gn of IMR4831 under a Hornady 139g soft point - accurate and low recoiling - book speed c2600 fps. You can eat up to the hole on Roe Deer and it knocks them over very effectively. And it shoots to the same impact point at 100 metres as the RWS 173n ID Classic - so I keep that for big animals.
 
Thanks to everyone for your very informative input, and to Southern and Heym SR20 for your advice and data on the 7x64/65. Much appreciated. Paulux
 
paulux, untill you have a good understanding of internal ballistics, pressure, powder burning rates and load density to name a few, stay away from reduced C/F rifle loads, things could go terribly wrong if you are not sure what youre doing.

Ian.
 
To avoid a secondary detonation risk you could try the Samerier lathe turned cases from Germany they have a smaller capacity but the correct outer case form for chambering the use air rifle pellets in .22 or 6mm or lighter pistol projectiles
http://www.samereier.de/
Martin
 
Back
Top