NRA And Handloading
- Thread starter Harry mac
- Start date
Had not thought of that.
I am glad though that I use antiquated mechanical means to measure my powder so avoiding such issues. Benefits of cheapo powder scoops and hand trickling.
Like HMR stuff?
Just brushing-up on my RCO knowledge ahead of the on-line renewal test and am reminded of this as may be found in the latest (2020) NRA Manual:
K
K
The self certification of handloaded ammunition is far from new. The MoD instituted it for civilian users of its ranges sometime in the late 1980s / early '90s, and I doubt if it ever went away. However, on the MoD range is used to shoot on, nobody ever asked to see one of the forms you were required to make out with your data sources and projected results, and after a couple of years, I for one stopped carrying the things to the range.
That was then, before QuickLOAD, GRT and similar, but also before the vast changes that have taken place in the rifles and cartridges that people use. For example, 223 Rem reloading manual data are for the very restrictive 1962 SAAMI 223 chamber with 25 thou' freebore. Anybody with a Wylde chamber (and there will be a fair few on this forum), never mind very long freebore jobs like the PT&G ISSF are in actual terms not shooting 223 Rem, but 223 Rem based wildcats and their safe loads are considerably higher than those for a standard factory rifle whose chamber matches the SAAMI specification. (In reality, few if any factory chambers are anything like as restrictive as that anyway for very good reasons.) 308 Win usage varies widely too according to rifle type and shooting purpose. Just to complicate the 223 situation, Europe's CIP (and Nato's) maximum 223/5.56 allowed peak pressure is 7,000 psi higher than the US SAAMI's 55,000. Nearly all reloading manuals are American though so comply with SAAMI and where dual standards and markets apply (as to Norma and Vihtavuori), they use the lower pressure standards. In fact, should the MoD go down this certification route, civilian shooters could theoretically challenge service users with their 'over-pressure' ammunition that falls outside of (as too high) data in loading manuals. Nonsense, of course, as the MoD's suppliers comply with NATO standards and have full ISO or whatever QC regimes in place.
Cartridges like 284 Win even more so. It was designed to use the then new-concept US short actions and was limited to 2.800" COAL - and it failed commercially because of that restriction. Just nobody (other than collectors / owners of the few original American 284 Win rifles) has a 284 rifle built with this chamber in what is a very popular competition cartridge, yet that's what loading manual data are restricted to. COALs for 180gn class bullets start at 3.1", and are usually longer than that. An extra 300-450 thou' freebore changes the internal ballistics dramatically and the data in manuals are in practical terms useless. Same applies to the SAUMs and WSMs, modern but still geared to short-action factory rifles, and see 'wildcat' variations in much use.
None of this is to say that there is no role for manuals anymore - far from it even when radically altered chambers are in use as they give excellent pointers to suitable powders and the relative max load charge weight differences/relationships between them. However, even with manuals, there are issues, one often raised on this forum. What do you do when you encounter very different charges weights for the same bullets between manuals as often applies? Take 223 Rem, a high-capacity American case (R-P or Winchester), the 77gn Sierra MK bullet seated to 2.26" COAL in the 223 Rem SAAMI chamber and Hodgdon VarGet. Lyman and Sierra max charges are 2.9gn apart - a VAST difference in this little cartridge equivalent to many thousands of psi pressure. Other sources fall between this pair. Most manuals (quite properly) say that the loads quoted apply only to those exact components listed on the cartridge information introduction and/or the bullet related page or table. Sometimes this is made explicit as in Speer's 243 Win data because of large variations in case capacity. Speer in older manual editions also based all 223 Rem charges on the use of Israeli IMI brass because that was the thickest/lowest capacity make available to most Americans and therefore the most restrictive in charge weights. It's very common to see tyros on forums such as SD ask for advice for a particular bullet because while there are plenty of data around for similar form/same weight bullets, just not that particular one. Very occasionally, two same weight bullets give radically different pressures, but most people are worrying needlessly here. However, changing case make is a very different matter indeed and can change pressures and maximum safe loads significantly, and I rarely if ever see a question about this or mention. Small to mid-size cartridges based on the 308 case see very large weight and internal capacity differences between makes of brass. Take 260 Rem which I can quote from direct experience - R-P brass is higher capacity (therefore generates lower pressures) than Lapua, which in turn is higher capacity than Peterson (and probably Federal too). Take a 'hot' load worked up in R-P and transfer it willy-nilly to Peterson and you'll likely be in trouble, if to the much 'softer' / weaker Federal, primer blowing levels of trouble or maybe even worse. Going back to the NRA / MoD (and it's the MoD driving this as they make the Range Orders) are we going to see self-certification regimes that require manual being quoted plus a signed assurance that only the exact components and COALs as quoted in that manual apply, and that there is no alternative manual giving lower maximum loads around either?
That was then, before QuickLOAD, GRT and similar, but also before the vast changes that have taken place in the rifles and cartridges that people use. For example, 223 Rem reloading manual data are for the very restrictive 1962 SAAMI 223 chamber with 25 thou' freebore. Anybody with a Wylde chamber (and there will be a fair few on this forum), never mind very long freebore jobs like the PT&G ISSF are in actual terms not shooting 223 Rem, but 223 Rem based wildcats and their safe loads are considerably higher than those for a standard factory rifle whose chamber matches the SAAMI specification. (In reality, few if any factory chambers are anything like as restrictive as that anyway for very good reasons.) 308 Win usage varies widely too according to rifle type and shooting purpose. Just to complicate the 223 situation, Europe's CIP (and Nato's) maximum 223/5.56 allowed peak pressure is 7,000 psi higher than the US SAAMI's 55,000. Nearly all reloading manuals are American though so comply with SAAMI and where dual standards and markets apply (as to Norma and Vihtavuori), they use the lower pressure standards. In fact, should the MoD go down this certification route, civilian shooters could theoretically challenge service users with their 'over-pressure' ammunition that falls outside of (as too high) data in loading manuals. Nonsense, of course, as the MoD's suppliers comply with NATO standards and have full ISO or whatever QC regimes in place.
Cartridges like 284 Win even more so. It was designed to use the then new-concept US short actions and was limited to 2.800" COAL - and it failed commercially because of that restriction. Just nobody (other than collectors / owners of the few original American 284 Win rifles) has a 284 rifle built with this chamber in what is a very popular competition cartridge, yet that's what loading manual data are restricted to. COALs for 180gn class bullets start at 3.1", and are usually longer than that. An extra 300-450 thou' freebore changes the internal ballistics dramatically and the data in manuals are in practical terms useless. Same applies to the SAUMs and WSMs, modern but still geared to short-action factory rifles, and see 'wildcat' variations in much use.
None of this is to say that there is no role for manuals anymore - far from it even when radically altered chambers are in use as they give excellent pointers to suitable powders and the relative max load charge weight differences/relationships between them. However, even with manuals, there are issues, one often raised on this forum. What do you do when you encounter very different charges weights for the same bullets between manuals as often applies? Take 223 Rem, a high-capacity American case (R-P or Winchester), the 77gn Sierra MK bullet seated to 2.26" COAL in the 223 Rem SAAMI chamber and Hodgdon VarGet. Lyman and Sierra max charges are 2.9gn apart - a VAST difference in this little cartridge equivalent to many thousands of psi pressure. Other sources fall between this pair. Most manuals (quite properly) say that the loads quoted apply only to those exact components listed on the cartridge information introduction and/or the bullet related page or table. Sometimes this is made explicit as in Speer's 243 Win data because of large variations in case capacity. Speer in older manual editions also based all 223 Rem charges on the use of Israeli IMI brass because that was the thickest/lowest capacity make available to most Americans and therefore the most restrictive in charge weights. It's very common to see tyros on forums such as SD ask for advice for a particular bullet because while there are plenty of data around for similar form/same weight bullets, just not that particular one. Very occasionally, two same weight bullets give radically different pressures, but most people are worrying needlessly here. However, changing case make is a very different matter indeed and can change pressures and maximum safe loads significantly, and I rarely if ever see a question about this or mention. Small to mid-size cartridges based on the 308 case see very large weight and internal capacity differences between makes of brass. Take 260 Rem which I can quote from direct experience - R-P brass is higher capacity (therefore generates lower pressures) than Lapua, which in turn is higher capacity than Peterson (and probably Federal too). Take a 'hot' load worked up in R-P and transfer it willy-nilly to Peterson and you'll likely be in trouble, if to the much 'softer' / weaker Federal, primer blowing levels of trouble or maybe even worse. Going back to the NRA / MoD (and it's the MoD driving this as they make the Range Orders) are we going to see self-certification regimes that require manual being quoted plus a signed assurance that only the exact components and COALs as quoted in that manual apply, and that there is no alternative manual giving lower maximum loads around either?
Agreed. I also use a felt pen and write the powder name on the caps (where light enough colour wise) or one could use a sticky label. Anything to avoid confusion. The simplest being the only one powder on the bench at a time rule.
I have no concerns regarding competency and ensuring things are done safely and if that requires certification then fine, but much like the MOT on vehicles valid only on the day given.
What i find more concerning is how little is known about these incidents in the shooting press, shooting ORGs, these Youtube channels.
If the H&S is so much of a concern to the NRA or the MOD why has very little been done to raise awareness ?
What i find more concerning is how little is known about these incidents in the shooting press, shooting ORGs, these Youtube channels.
If the H&S is so much of a concern to the NRA or the MOD why has very little been done to raise awareness ?
Yes, same here (re marking container tops), as well as only one powder on the bench. It is SO fundamental. Every other 'rule', good handloading practice and degree of care counts for nothing if a faster burning than intended grade of powder is selected.
Steff
Well-Known Member
Whenever someone asks me about reloading and his consideration to get into this himself I always tell them that they should better have some sort of bookkeeper mentality and natural orderliness. Otherwise they should better abandon the idea very quickly.
I keep full records of how I treat my brass by batches, of what I load with which bullet, primmer, brass and even lot no. of powder. There‘s not a single cartridge in my house that I cannot account for by 100%.
I keep full records of how I treat my brass by batches, of what I load with which bullet, primmer, brass and even lot no. of powder. There‘s not a single cartridge in my house that I cannot account for by 100%.
Last edited:
For a start, I don't think there is a single objective here, and there is therefore a risk of confusion. In any MoD procedure on the subject, MV/ME and HME requirements crops up. Likewise, the final sentence on @Klenchblaize 's post re MoD requirements is about making cartridges available for chronographing and that can only apply yet again to the 'HME business'. Chronographing ammunition may have little effect on range / user safety to people who know range restrictions and requirements well but not handloading / cartridge characteristics. Why do I say that? It's easy to think of cartridges that can be loaded to dangerous pressures for their firearms whilst remaining inside of the MoD MV/ME requirements. I doubt if you could load 303 British to HME levels for instance, but can easily imagine doing it to levels that destroy an elderly Lee action rifle in poor condition.
The NRA no doubt wishes to have shooters comply with MoD range requirements too (especially as Bisley is subject to them as part of the Pirbright ranges safety regime), but is also it appears concerned about basic pressure-related safety as related to firearm strength. ie It's becoming worried by a small but steadily upwards trend for serious / dangerous over-pressure 'incidents'.
The risk in all this is that if things are seen to be 'getting out of hand', the MoD ultimately says - British / Nato service ammunition only to be fired on its ranges even if handloaded by people who have demonstrated competency. That would not only reduce the numbers of cartridges available by 90 odd %, but if carried through to its conclusion says that you can only use bullet weights used in service ball loads such as 155gn for 308 and 62gn for 223. To avoid such drastic restrictions, it is in effect asking the NRA to cope with today's vast range of civilian cartridges and ammunition specs and putting the burden of meeting safety requirements onto that body.
Correct-disclaimer was on the wall of range office. We had to send one old boy back to the office as the 308 he was shooting was very loud and inconsistent
It could be placed on the end of the bolt shroud.
Kevgun
Well-Known Member
I saw that as well, I'm sure it was PPU stuff and it came with the proviso that it could overpressure, I mean it should have just been sent back to the factory for them to sort out
Back in the days when people had a sense of humour, there was a commonly seen driving safety suggestion. To improve driving standards, and therefore real safety, seat belts and airbags should be banned by law and replaced by a pointed spike on the steering wheel boss aimed at the driver.
Unfortunately, you can't legislate for common sense. I've only ever (thankfully) seen the immediate aftermath of two rifle blow-ups. One was in a 308 Win F/TR rifle where the receiver body failed and was subsequently diagnosed as a materials flaw by the NRA. The shooter's unfired ammunition was taken away by the NRA and subsequently judged to be within safe pressure limits.
The other was a very different case involving handloaded 223 Rem ammunition and an unaltered factory Savage 110 'Competition Rifle', this being 20 odd years ago using the Savage 'long' action and 9-inch twist barrel. The shooter was working up charges in handloads - I can't say what the components were or what weight increments he was using, for reasons that will become apparent. The important point is that a couple of increments short of his heaviest test load, he started to get serious over-pressure indications including that classic, hard bolt-lift. Despite this, he decided to fire the final batch of five rounds with the highest charge rather than take them home and pull them. Despite yet harder bolt-lift with the first round or two in that lot, he carried on - complete common-sense failure - and shot number three or four of the five produced a case failure. The Savage action which is a very good one for coping with escaping gas protected him completely, but the extractor was blown off the bolt-face and gave him a nasty cut on his right eyebrow. If it had struck half an inch lower, he'd have lost an eye!.
To say he was initially understandably shaken is an understatement, and before he gathered his wits, he told his mates what I recount above. Then he took stock and clammed up, refused to answer any more questions, quickly gathered his gear and went home. As no serious injury occurred, no first aid was requested, the incident was never reported and I doubt if the MoD range wardens knew about it. The rifle was (apparently) undamaged once the case was removed apart from the loss of the extractor, was still within headspace specs, and after extractor replacement was bought by a friend who shot it a lot very happily for many years. In my opinion it never shot as well as it should have though and I suspect the chamber was left slightly bulged.
I've also seen rather more incidents that involved unsafe factory ammunition including a complete .22LR case-head failure in an old rifle that gave the user and eyeful of hot gas and carbon particles - painful but fortunately no damage once it was washed out in the nearest A&E. Others involving poor surplus ammo, or in one case Iraqi 7.62 MG ammo that I suspect was recovered off Gulf War 1 battlefields. In every case, the cartridges were either old and/or in very poor condition and were 'bargain buys' where price trumped both quality and safety. the .22LR cartridge was so old it had one of the long gone soft copper cases and failed around half of the rim.
The other factor in this debate is one that nobody has mentioned and is very much within club officials' and the NRA purview - the RO looking out for the signs of people with dangerous ammunition and if necessary telling them to stop shooting and leave the firing point. Both my clubs train and test ROs and part of this 'local accreditation' is the requirement to immediately speak to any shooter exhibiting rifle functioning problems to see if over-pressure is a feature - primarily extraction difficulties and / or the guy who turns his rifle upside down after each shot because the primer is now rolling about the receiver floor instead of residing in the case. The PSSA (Diggle Ranges) rule is two extraction difficulties in a match the RO stops the shooter continuing unless there is a proven extractor problem with the rifle and there are no pressure issues.
Last edited:
No, it was RUAG manufactured and RWS branded, one of the highest quality manufacturers around. AND ....... the ammunition was within CIP pressure specs, but GB 'TR' rifle barrels aren't SAAMI/CIP compliant which is how the problem arose. I explained this issue several posts ago on Page 1. This situation could arise with any heavily loaded factory 308 Winchester ammunition fired in these rifles, but rarely does because most commercial loadings produce peak pressures a few thousand psi below maximum in a correctly specced barrel and TR rifles 'get away with it'.
Similar threads
