338-06 blowing primers

[fla9-40]

How easy was the primer to seat in the one that blew? Maybe the pocket is worn out?? :confused:

Also H335 is a spherical powder so it will be more sensitive to temperature...

Maybe you have a couple of issue's here.

[Dewey7271]

Hodgdon will NOT give nominal lot variances.
So book data won't list lot numbers.

So, assume the worst, which is what you have already been told on the powder bottle.--- lot swings are on the 10% order.

Book data is pressure tested.

ANYTIME you exceed book data, you have exceeded SAAMI pressures. Amount of powder doesn't matter, remember a sentence ago that told us 10% variances.

That should be pasted above reloading benches, IMO.

Maybe you have a couple of issue's here.

Another good point.
This is just my opinion but the two above are spot on.
First, you're obviously right against max or over based on what happened when you lit it off. The old adage of start low and work up applies there I think. Although on that point, Darkker has a valid point that danger signs may not or probably won't show until you're already tugging the dragon's tail.
Your throating or chamber could be substantially different than the test barrel used by the book.
It could be something very simple, such as leaving too much oil from cleaning in the chamber. That'll blow a primer in a New York minute if you're up near max.
Could be a loose primer pocket or a hot batch of powder. Scales could be off a hair.
Could be some substandard brass slipped through.
Point is not to denigrate you or find fault in what you are trying but to try to help you figure out what causal factor or factors made it happen.
Unfortunately, we seem to have reached the point of diminishing returns here though.
Without more data, we are all guessing.

In reference to Dean's powder listing above, with RL15 and maybe 17 added, that's a good list. The reason I mention those two is those are what I load in my 2 338-06s. RL15 for one, 17 in the other (an AI)

Lastly, I wouldn't/couldn't do load development without a chronograph. It helps me verify if I am possibly approaching a danger zone. If speed is higher than anticipated after 8-10 rounds to establish a baseline, I then input the data into Quickload (which I agree leaves much to be desired but is better than guessing) and adjust the burn rate to match what I am seeing. It will then give me a rough guess on pressure which lets me know I am at least near or approaching a danger zone. It will also let me at least know if I have slower than expected results and so on.

[olddav]

Dewey7271
All good points and Quickload is on order. As you said its better than guessing and may be better than published data is this instance.
I started at min because going below min can be just as disastrous as going over the max and as stated in earlier post (I think) all loads showed pressure signs. You may also ask why did I keep shooting, and the answer is I need new glasses (didn't see it untill the primer issues).

[Robinhood]

In reference to Dean's powder listing above, with RL15 and maybe 17 added, that's a good list. The reason I mention those two is those are what I load in my 2 338-06s. RL15 for one, 17 in the other (an AI)


Thanks Dewey

[darkker]

Also H335 is a spherical powder so it will be more sensitive to temperature...
.
This is flat wrong. The last several ball powders from General Dynamics, tested at the Navy warfare testing center shows then much more stable than ANY extreme powder could hope to be. Powder temp stability is so far over-blown and miss understood. Extreme powders, first and foremost, are ONLY that; when used in the cartridge/conditions designed for. They are NOT universal properties. Most of the temp "problems" are people cooking rounds in the chamber. Denton has already shown how important application is. See his test showing H335 as more stable than Varget in the 223.


Dewey7271
All good points and Quickload is on order. As you said its better than guessing
I started at min because going below min can be just as disastrous as going over the max and as stated in earlier post.

Quickload unfortunately is not better than guessing, you just ask someone else to guess. Hartmut gets anything he wants from the Frenchies, so the Eurenco powders he's fine on. General Dynamics doesn't tell him poop, and it really shows. The program doesn't describe any of their ball powders burning characteristics worth squat.

Assuming you aren't cutting loads in half, going below start loads is no worse than going over Max.
Again, and you seem to refuse to understand this concept, there is not one single burning rate on any powder. I suggest toy pick-up a copy of Richard Lee's Modern Reloading. The 1-Grain calc factor is very informative for those of is who do load below start loads.

[olddav]

Just got a copy of Quick Load and started crunching some numbers. So far looks like a very good tool, it is helping me to understand a little better what I have been seeing. Perhaps there is hope yet.

[Robinhood]

Perhaps there is hope yet.

Don't count them chickens just yet....

[olddav]

Perhaps there's hope yet. Not with H335 as the powder but hope never the less.

[Dewey7271]

Just some advice on QuickLoad (you can take it or leave it).
The best way I have found to get accurate numbers is to take a measurement of 8-10 cases water capacity (cases from your rifle). Average the number you get and enter that into the proper place in Quickload.
Next, load a load from Quickload, NOT a max load, and copy down the QL info, speed etc. Chrono 8-10 loads from your rifle using the powder you plan to use and compare that to what QuickLoad said it would be.
A simple way at this point is to go to the Charge Box (upper right in the QL screens),click on the edit box (looks like a pencil writing on something) which is just to the left of the particular powder you have chosen.
At the bottom in the charge box, put in your grain weight of powder.
Go to the Burning Rate Factor box (Ba) and change the factor either up or down and click the "Apply and Calc" box. (this does not permanently change the burning rate)
Look at the box directly below the charge box, it says QuickLoad v....Results. Look at the entry under muzzle velocity. If it is higher than what you recorded on your chrono, take the Ba (Burning Rate) down a little. If lower, go up. It's also why I don't think you can really do load development without a chrono, to qualify that, I don't believe you can go toward the upper end on loads without a chrono.
After you have an idea of the burn rate on your particular powder doing it this way, the Quickload runs you do will spit out numbers much closer to what is actually going to happen when you fire them.
Sounds complicated but is really fairly simple.
It is one of the only ways I know that is simple to have QuickLoad spit out results that will fairly predict what is going on with your load, rifle and powder.
QuickLoad is fun and pretty great for checking out possibilities for the future and I really enjoy the program, BUT, without some calibration the results are still a guess. An educated guess, but still a guess.

[olddav]

Dewey7271,
Sounds like good advice, others have given the same advice and I intend to give it a try.

[Robinhood]

looks like we are moving in the right direction.

[olddav]

Moving away from Barnes recommendation was my first step in the right direction or was it just recoiling in fear.

[earl39]

Moving away from Barnes recommendation was my first step in the right direction or was it just recoiling in fear.

Would you belive both?

[sixonetonoffun]

Makes ya wonder what goes through the mind of the guys working up tri-plex loads as they pull the trigger :-)