Reduced Load Question
Can anybody tell me whether, as a general rule, if reduced loads tend to not be quite as accurate as normal, or non-reduced loads? The reason I ask is that I loaded some 375 Ruger loads this morning, using H4895 powder, and reduced charge to 72% of the maximum charge listed on the Hodgdon website. Hodgdon says you can safely go to about 60%, but I wanted to hit a target velocity of 2100 fps. I was using CCI 250 magnum primers and Hornady 225 gr. spire points. My grouping at 100 yards varied from 2.25"---2.50". Considering that I believe this is about a 250 yard max range load, this is still accurate enough for deer hunting, yet recoil wise, it's about equivalent to my 50 cal. muzzleloader.
My other question is whether anybody has heard of an old reloader's trick where, when loading reduced loads where the case is only about half full or so, using a certain number of toilet paper squares to buffer the powder and keep the powder column together at the bottom of the case as opposed to spreading out over the bottom of the case? I did this morning whith the reloads I was shooting. Could that have anything to do with my accuracy I'm getting.
These were the first rounds I've shot out of this rifle, so I'm new with it. Even with a reduced load, the 375 still has a pretty stiff kick to it, however, not so severe that it cannot be tolerated. Before shooting the rifle, I floated the barrel, pillar bedded the stock, glass bedded the action, and finally, replaced the trigger spring and polished the trigger surfaces, reducing the trigger pull to a very nice 3 lbs.
My other question is whether anybody has heard of an old reloader's trick where, when loading reduced loads where the case is only about half full or so, using a certain number of toilet paper squares to buffer the powder and keep the powder column together at the bottom of the case as opposed to spreading out over the bottom of the case? I did this morning whith the reloads I was shooting. Could that have anything to do with my accuracy I'm getting.
These were the first rounds I've shot out of this rifle, so I'm new with it. Even with a reduced load, the 375 still has a pretty stiff kick to it, however, not so severe that it cannot be tolerated. Before shooting the rifle, I floated the barrel, pillar bedded the stock, glass bedded the action, and finally, replaced the trigger spring and polished the trigger surfaces, reducing the trigger pull to a very nice 3 lbs.
0
-
""Before shooting the rifle, I floated the barrel, pillar bedded the stock, glass bedded the action, and finally, replaced the trigger spring and polished the trigger surfaces, reducing the trigger pull to a very nice 3 lbs.""
Are you sure you didn't turn a MOA rifle into a 3 MOA rifle by your modifications???
A base line group would have been nice before you changed so much.
It might not be your reduced loads.0 -
This is the 4th Ruger that I have done the same procedures on. They are all .5 moa shooters. I really doubt that is the problem with this rifle. This is the first time I have ever reloaded reduced loads, so my concentration is there. However, there's always a first time for everything, so I guess everything is on the table at this point. I may load up a few rounds in the mid to upper velocity range and see what happens. Thanks for the input though. 0 -
Sounds like you need to try some cast bullets; let me know if you need some in 375 cal to try. 0 -
bpost, I know absolutely nothing about shooting cast bullets, but if it isn't terribly dificult, it would sure be something that I would try. Thank You
Bpost,
I sent you an e-mail. Thank You for your assistance. I think this might turn into a fun adventure, and I have you to blame. LOL0 -
Hadjii, email me your mailing address, don't forget your name!
I will send you some 375 cal cast bullets with gas checks I have here plus some book loads to try for your 375 Ruger. I absolutely loved shooting cast bullets out of my Encore 375 H&H barrel. It was snappy enough to let you know you were shooting a big bore but not as brutal as the 375 can be with jacketed bullets. I was driving them about 1900 FPS and they hit steel plates like Thor's hammer.0 -
Reduced loads can be every bit as accurate as full-power. A lot depends on barrel harmonics, and slightly tweaking the charge can make a big difference in hitting a barrel vibration sweet spot.
Do NOT use any kind of filler in those loads. Fillers can be dangerous in bottleneck cases, and H4895 is designed to ignite without them in reduced loads. If you used toilet paper in your test loads, that could have been the problem.0 -
Well, I went out this morning and retried the same loads, except that the brass was now 1X fired. At 100 yards, 2 shots were intersecting, the 3rd shot was 1 inch to the 6 o'clock. The 3rd shot, I believe I anticipated the shot and may have flinched. I also tested the same bullet with 70.0 grains of the same H4895. I shot these from the rifle straight out of the gun cabinet, so the barrel was cold. 3 shots were 1 5/8" apart. The brass was new, unfired, so I wonder if that made any difference. The one thing I found out though, is that I need a different scope with more eye relief. I bumped my nose twice this morning, and that hasn't happened in years. My scope is an old, but new, japan made bushnell banner in fixed 6 power. Nice scope, however, I definitely need something different when shooting from the bench. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rocky Raab
Reduced loads can be every bit as accurate as full-power. A lot depends on barrel harmonics, and slightly tweaking the charge can make a big difference in hitting a barrel vibration sweet spot.
Do NOT use any kind of filler in those loads. Fillers can be dangerous in bottleneck cases, and H4895 is designed to ignite without them in reduced loads. If you used toilet paper in your test loads, that could have been the problem.
Agree with the first part about accuracy and the conditions that impact it. Partial agreement with the latter point. Indeed, fillers CAN be dangerous but are not absolutely so, it depends on the filler and how it is used. Do agree though it isn't needed with 4895 in the charges being used here.0 -
Try to use tested & recommended light loads in large cases.
This is kaboom territory so be careful.0 -
Reduced loads are often more accurate. Sometimes less. One variable is the barrel harmonics.
Also, as you drop down in velocity, you need to drop down to faster powders.
Many people swear by fillers. I have seen too many barrels with a ring after shooting loads with fillers. Switching to a faster powder eliminates the perceived need for fillers.
Also, do you have enough faith in your reloading abilities to work up your own load with fillers, since you are outside the limits of posted loadings and MAY have increased pressure from the filler (even if the filler weighs very little)?
Simply tilt the muzzle up a little before firing.0 -
IMR 4759....problem solved. (.02) 0 -
Just some general info about reduced loads using jacketed bullets in rifles!
I've reload tested several guns for accurate reduced loads from 223 cal for squirrel hunting at 22 mag vel's to 300 winchester mag's, Weatherby mags, for deer hunting using jacketed bullets in all and trying to achieve 30/30 velocities at reduced recoil for plicking and use of large caliber bolt action rifles by grandkids.
I finally settled on Accurate 5744 powder (by Western powders)
Unique came close but was more critical of the powder measured load than the 5744 and I could slightly vary the powder load up and down using the 5744 load data and sometimes make the low velocity loads shoot close enough to same point of impact at 100 yards that scope did not require adjustment on the larger calibers. Unique powder also left the bores very dirty, some calibers the bore would look like burned dirt when using unique powder.
And yes several of the reduced load powders were very erratic in accuracy. I also tried fillers to hold the powder against the primer and no good accuracy was achieved. Some powders you could point the barrel down before firing and then up next shot and see shot to shot difference in vel and accuracy.
In the small calibers, like 223's, I had to switch to WSP primers (small pistol primers) to get consistent accuracy.
I first looked in reloading manuals (usually caliber specific reloading manuals for the cast bullet load data as a reference and if no loads suggested using the 5744 I would call or e-mail the factory tech for recommendations.
Caution: Some of the fast burning pistol powders have erratic high pressures at reduced loads, so don't test a reduced load powder in a rifle unless you see the powder listed as such in a reloading manual or have load data from a powder tech!0 -
The place to go for cast bullets.
http://www.castboolits.gunloads.com/0 -
Like with any other gun out there today; this load might be a toad, but a grain or two more or less might be a gem. One of the fun things about handloading up and down, it takes a while at the loading bench and at the range to find out which combo works well in that particular gun. 0 -
Well, I finally got the rifle dialed in pretty good. I replaced the scope I had on it with a Bushnell Banner that has 6" of eye relief. boy, that made a difference. May not be the cream of the crop scope, but it's clear, bright and so far I like it. I worked up a load using 48.0 grains of Reloader 7 with the Hornady 225 grain bullets. out of 4 shots fired, 3 were intersecting, and the 4th sot was about a half inch to the 12 o'clock. I have shot this loading on at least 3 occassions, and all 3 times were at an inch, give or take about an eighth. Way acceptable as far as I'm concerned. I'll have to wait until the January antlerless season to see how it performs on deer, but I have no doubt as to the lethality. Thanks for all the good advice and hints. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
15 comments