In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Paper box SMK's... and something else
ThirtyAughtSix
Member Posts: 27 ✭✭
I've seen a couple deals on some .308 168gr Sierra Match Kings but in the picture they are in a paper box. I haven't been reloading that long (~2 years) but when did they change over to the plastic box? Those bullets could have changed over the years and my 5th edition reloading book could have the wrong data if I'm correct, correct??[:p]
As a side note, be careful for people advertising components like those and forgetting to mention that they are molly coated, only way you can tell is if they have a picture and they usually use a stock photo of a single SMK bullet.
Shoot, I'll throw in one more question... I've only been doing rifle rounds but I want to start loading for my 9mm carbine, is there anything to gain with seating depth with relations to the lands or should I just make the OAL to the book?
Thanks!
As a side note, be careful for people advertising components like those and forgetting to mention that they are molly coated, only way you can tell is if they have a picture and they usually use a stock photo of a single SMK bullet.
Shoot, I'll throw in one more question... I've only been doing rifle rounds but I want to start loading for my 9mm carbine, is there anything to gain with seating depth with relations to the lands or should I just make the OAL to the book?
Thanks!
Comments
Just seat the 9mm at suggested OAL. If you want to work up an accurate load for your carbine, then chose the brass you are going to use, bullet, powder, primer, then start the process. Adjusting the seat depth to barely touching the lands & grooves is pointless for a pistol cartridge carbine. Seating the bullets farther out than OAL will only prevent them from fitting in the magazine.
Good luck.
Funny thing about the newer loading manuals......they seem to be listing slightly lighter loads than the older ones from days gone by, I'm pretty sure this is a liability thing on the part of the companies. If you get a chance, pick up a loading manual from way back and compare it to a current one.......it's kind of interesting.
Good luck.
Actually it WASN'T the lawyers, it was the technicians.
"Back in the day" most data was done by the "eyeball & experance" methiod (the only way to do it than, with a stock barrel), with just a few actually using a pressure barrel with copper crusher pellots (and one of those is reputed to have reused the copper pellots).
Later, peizo pressure testing came into play
Today, while Piezo is still the "gold standard" strain gauge systems can be applied to stock barrels.
Eyeball checking for pressure is no way accurate
Crusher testing has a much wider error band than peizo, and only kinda captures the pressure peak. The other thing that's happened is faster amplifier systems to record exactly what's coing on inside the chamber. Strain gauges are much less expensive than either piezo or crusher systems.
So, in conclusion, better testing methiods have shown thet the older (eyeball and crusher) data was exceeding specifications.
[/quote]
Actually it WASN'T the lawyers, it was the technicians.
"Back in the day" most data was done by the "eyeball & experance" methiod (the only way to do it than, with a stock barrel), with just a few actually using a pressure barrel with copper crusher pellots (and one of those is reputed to have reused the copper pellots).
Later, peizo pressure testing came into play
Today, while Piezo is still the "gold standard" strain gauge systems can be applied to stock barrels.
Eyeball checking for pressure is no way accurate
Crusher testing has a much wider error band than peizo, and only kinda captures the pressure peak. The other thing that's happened is faster amplifier systems to record exactly what's coing on inside the chamber. Strain gauges are much less expensive than either piezo or crusher systems.
So, in conclusion, better testing methiods have shown thet the older (eyeball and crusher) data was exceeding specifications.
[/quote]
"Those bullets could have changed over the years and my 5th edition reloading book could have the wrong data if I'm correct, correct??"
If those bullets or any others have changed that much in that period of time Sierra would have notified us or a bunch of us would have caught the problem and discussed it with Sierra. Common sense indicates that because of the testing method most of us use to develop loads, we will be safe and you can trust the load data in the books. The mantra to use for testing is 'Start with the lower suggested loads and work your way up slowly, watching for signs of pressure.'
"...and forgetting to mention that they are molly coated, only way you can tell is if they have a picture and they usually use a stock photo of a single SMK bullet."
- Easiest way to remove moly is to use some Dawn liquid detergent in some warm/hot water in bucket. Place bullets in and stir/shake for a few minutes then pour out water and rinse with hot water then place in tumbler.
- Iosso Case Cleaner Kit takes the moly off in under five minutes. If you want the shine back on them, tumble them in treated media and polish them.
- Acetone removes moly immediately but it's hard on your skin and your body.
- Household ammonia will remove moly in a few minutes. So will concentrated lemon juice but it takes longer and is way more expensive to use.
Best.
Of course bullets change from lot to lot, they also change within the lot but the discussion is directed towards there being so much change in the bullets that it makes the data incorrect not the little inconsistencies that only a benchrest shooter pays attention to.
The bigger problem is not the bullets but the powder changes that occur lot to lot. That's where most of the powder manufacturers fall down on a rare occasion. The classic example is the one batch of Re-22 which behaved like Re-19. That was problem! It's a perfect case and point for proving why we start low and work our loads up every time a component changes. That alone saved a bunch of folks from a good scare while others learned the lesson the hard way.
Best.
Anyways, before I saw this thread as being active today I was loading up some 9mm 115 JHP and thought about OAL and all, then I realized I've only been reloading for bolt guns and my pump rem 7600 .270 that have ample magazine space... I'm glad I didn't go so far as to make myself a gauge and make 1000 rounds that won't fit in my magazines. I think I would have cried.
Thanks again.