Some More About Hand
Loads
By E. G. ROGERSFur-Fish-Game [Harding's Magazine], Vol 46, No 5 Nov 1927 pages 341-343
NOTE: Google shows 28-30, but the physical pages are 341-340.
No two guns, even if made by the same hands and on the same machines, are exactly alike. I was taught, long ago, that in all things done by human hands the personal error, the human error, must be found and allowed for. Your gun barrel is alloyed by one man, forged by another, bored by another, chambered by still another, and so on until the gun gets into your hands. Consequently nearly every gun needs a load that is adapted to its peculiarities, from primer to bullet end or top wad, in order to do its best work.
Whelen said, twenty-five years ago, that there had been no improvement in boring rifle barrels in the last seventy-five years. If there has been any improvement since I have not heard of it. But there has been improvement in chambering and in the cartridge, that is, in the loading. There is not much room for doubt that most of this improvement has been due to careful experiments by hand loaders. Dr. Mann showed us that cartridge cases must fit the chamber closely in order to give accuracy. Dr. Hudson showed us that bullets must have the proper length in proportion to bore diameter. I believe that the work of these two is largely, if not chiefly, responsible for the high quality of American rifles and ammunition today.
My own humble experiments have been mostly in the line of developing a small game load for a big game rifle. This work is of no value to the manufacturers, as they cannot produce a small game load at a price that the average shooter can afford to pay. So the average shooter must either "roll his own" or have two or more rifles. I prefer to "roll my own", because I find that if I use one rifle all the time I can do better work all the time. And also, "I like the job".
To secure the proper fit in the chamber, use only cases fired in your own rifle, and resize the necks only. Do not resize the full length unless absolutely necessary. As to the proper length of bullet, I believe that for short range one about two and one-half times the bore diameter will be as short as will give satisfaction in any quick twist rifle. This, in a 30 caliber, will weigh 120 to 125 grains. If you wish one that will do good work at 100 yards or upwards, get one long enough to weigh 150 to 180 grains.
My rifle seems to demand less powder than most reloaders advise. Eight grains of DuPont No. 80 for the 120 grain bullet and thirteen and one-half for the 170 grain bullet has given me the best results. I used to get fine results with 16 grains No. 1 rifle, but that powder has been discontinued. Have also used 7½ grains of DuPont or New Schultze Shotgun with the 120 grain bullet.
Experiment with your rifle (or shotgun). Begin with a very light load and work up slowly, half a grain at a time. Don't go beyond the limits advised by the powder makers. Probably before you reach the limit you will find the targets getting poorer. Then drop back slowly until your gun groups them to your satisfaction .
Powder scales are not necessary for loading small-game or mid-range loads. Very good work can be done with an ordinary "dipper" type charge-cup. An Ideal or Bond powder-measure is a great convenience, and can be used for all except extreme high-velocity or high-power loads. In spite of all that is said about the necessity of "checking up" your powder-measure with the scales, I can set my Ideal Powder Measure for any powder that I am used to and vary less than half a grain. Of course, in starting out with a new powder, one should weigh enough charges to learn what his measure is doing. If one wants to load extreme high-velocity stuff he had better put his powder-measure away and weigh 'em very carefully. Even then accidents may happen. They do even with factory loads.
When I find a load that suits me for its particular purpose, I make a note, not of the supposed number of grains, but of the exact setting of the powder measure for that load. Then when I want to load another batch of the same I put on my glasses, take the measure into a good light, and carefully set and fasten the slides before I fill the hopper. Then, and especially if I am opening a new canister of powder, I load five or six and try 'em before I load any more. If these are O.K., go ahead and finish the job. I have never had any of the aforementioned accidents yet, but I have never loaded any 3000 f.s. loads. Main reason for that is that I never wanted that amount of speed.
Loading revolver cartridges is "something else yet". Be careful, and remember that revolvers and pistols were designed for short range and don't need high speed loads. Read the powder-makers' recommendations as to loads and then cut 'em a little bit. My .45 Colt gives the best accuracy with a load considerably smaller than that recommended by DuPont, although it does leave some unburned residue on account of low pressure. My revolvers are single action Colt's and will stand as much as any revolver, but accuracy is the main thing and should not be sacrificed for velocity.
I have not found it necessary to make bullets as hard as some advise, either for the .30 or for revolver loads. One to ten is recommended by almost all authorities for quick twist rifles, and most of them advise to make revolver bullets very hard. I have used as soft as one to twenty in both without running into any difficulties. Of course I have not attempted to get any high velocities. If I were to try to speed 'em up I would use gas-check bullets. I believe they are a good thing anyway.
I have not been able to figure out any new experiments for my .30-30 for a long time; and what I have done to it is about as much as I would do to any .30 except as to higher power. My .45-70 still offers some possibilities for research. I know I have not reached its limit of power, and I cannot hold well enough to determine its limit of accuracy. My revolvers are giving me a lot to think about, especially since I got a can of Pistol Powder No. 5. You see, the new things in powder and bullets make it unnecessary to buy a new gun to experiment with. You can start over again with the old one. One thing about No. 5, you can "reduce" a good bit with it. No. 80 requires a full power load to work well in a revolver. You can cut down No. 5 until your .32-20 sounds like a .22. But for the full power loads I still like No. 80 better.
I do not label "standard loads". For each of my guns I have developed a load that I call "standard". These are Get the New Ideal Handbook kept in my regular ammunition box. "Experimentals" that are not used up at once are kept separate and properly tagged. Eventually some of these may become my "standard" and will take the place of something which I shall then discontinue. That is part of the game. No load is so good that there is no possibility of improvement. If I have a "standard" load today that is the same as it was a year or so ago, it is because I have not been experimenting with it or the gun that uses it.
I guess the ammunition companies can tell you the same sort of a story. I have seen several inquiries in the question department of "The Gun Rack" as to loading smokeless powder in cartridges for certain guns of the time when smokeless powder was unknown. I want to add my word of warning to that of the editor against any such attempts. To handle smokeless safely needs modern guns and modern steel. I wanted very badly a gun of certain make and caliber, but I did not get it because the makers would not furnish it with a smokeless steel barrel. Some of the old guns, notably the Marlin '95 and the Winchester '86, have barrels of that quality and will safely use quite heavy loads of smokeless powder. Such are usually stamped nickel, or special smokeless steel on the barrel, and if in good condition are worth a good price. Personally, would not buy a rifle that did not have a smokeless steel barrel.
The enclosed picture will give a fair idea of my reloading equipment. It is still incomplete and I will probably always find something lacking. I believe a bullet lubricator and sizer will be the next addition. Greasing and sizing over 1000 bullets in the old way is a messy job, several of 'em in fact. And I have some hundreds more to load in the next few weeks to complete my annual output. The scales can come later, if they ever do.
It has been said that every man ought to have a hobby and ride it occasionally. Hand-loading of rifle and revolver cartridges is mine, and I ride it a great deal. Incidentally it has helped my shooting and helped to keep my mind from some things that were less agreeable to think about. When I had only one gun I shot it more because I loaded my own cartridges. Then I got more guns, more loading tools, and did more shooting. Maybe some one else has done the same, and I wish they would tell us about it. Another time I may tell of some of my mistakes and failures. I have made plenty of them.
Meanwhile, "Here's to the Gun-Rack". It's the first part of the magazine I look at. The fur market comes next.