Handloaded Ammunition Declaration: MoD Ranges

[Richiew]

Good post there from Laurie, thanks for the information. My n135 load sees around 2800 fps . Still using up my stock but it’s come in handy for the 223  . Heavy 308 jugs are doing 2670 with n150 . 223 n540 loads have proved to be rather hot in the summer temps we’ve been having so keeping these for winter and loading up some new at half a grain less. Cheers 

[VarmLR]

You're bang on about some Vhit powders and published data Laurie.  I loaded a ladder a few years back to try N133 with some 60 v-max being careful to keep within published maximums of 24.7gr.  I didn't get to within 1gr of that amount loaded to the stated coal before it blew the primer gas cutting my bolt face.  Chrono'd MVs were way in excess of published too, as in almost 200fps! (even accounting for my barrel length).  I don't trust any published data as being "accurate" or "safe", as it can ONLY be representative to the conditions at the time of testng, to that specific chamber and barrel, and brass & primer used.  Change any one of those, and as we know, pressures are likely to be affected.

I 've started using Gordon's Reloading Tool software to check my loads, when developing new ones and having entered all of my current load data found that it correlated remarkably closely to measured velocities, hence I trust the outputs it gives in relation to pressures.

Bad news about RS Powders...must try and get a batch in if still available.

[No i deer]

I tried a viht book load that was hot..

N540 behind a 123 grainer in my 6.5x47..

Can't remember offhand but it was doing about 3000fps and a tight bolt lift..

[Mattnall]

On 7/8/2022 at 8:31 PM, Laurie said:

So loading manuals' data-sets are guides, not non-negotiable instructions and directives on tablets delivered by some modern day Moses direct from God. Some may be underloaded for your components and rifle; some may be very hot indeed, even over-pressure. They all require good loading practices involving working loads up, use of a reliable chronograph if seeking warm to 'hot' performance, and being able to recognise over-pressure signs in their various forms. They also require a willingness to take suspect rounds home and the ownership / use of a bullet-puller, not an attitude that says 'I'll just get rid of them by shooting them off; they can't be too dangerous".

How that fits into any form of certification / written statements and declarations ................ ???

I like these posts Laurie; informative, concise and easy to understand. Thank you.

With regard to this last part The Proof House can test small batches of ammunition and encourage home loaders to send in a few test lots for evaluation. Sending in a selection of loads for a cartridge with various charges around the ones quoted in the books that you want to try will show if your recipe is in the ballpark.

I guess it won't show what would happen in your chamber with the same components but neither will anything else other than trying them. In the end nothing is guaranteed and only carefully looking for pressure signs may tell the tale to come.

[Leeman]

9 minutes ago, Mattnall said:

With regard to this last part The Proof House can test small batches of ammunition and encourage home loaders to send in a few test lots for evaluation. Sending in a selection of loads for a cartridge with various charges around the ones quoted in the books that you want to try will show if your recipe is in the ballpark.

But if it's not fired in your chamber through your barrel it's completely meaningless.   I assume that was what you meant and not sending them the complete barrelled action for them to attempt to destroy/damage as they generally like to do, at your cost.

[Popsbengo]

1 hour ago, Leeman said:

But if it's not fired in your chamber through your barrel it's completely meaningless.   I assume that was what you meant and not sending them the complete barrelled action for them to attempt to destroy/damage as they generally like to do, at your cost.

it's not completely meaningless, how would any manufacturer arrive at a safe load ?  Only loads that are outside of SAAMI or CIP standards would be a problem and specific to one firearm (which is of course why many of us reload).

[Montey]

It’s really simple start at the lowest recommended load and work up in ingraments of .2g if there’s a problem stop it’s not hard I’ve done it with many different powders and for other people 

if you change one thing start at the bottom and work up 

don’t change primers case bullet/head just don’t with out starting again it’s that simple 

I really want to know who is going to be writing and delivering the NRA course and what experience they have and what accreditation body has signed them off I don’t know if the NRA can do that them selfs I can see a time we’re all Fclass or any HME card holder have to have done a NRA reloading course  

I can see a time factory only loads are shot of course given the history with RWS and GGG that won’t be a problem,

 

[Laurie]

@Leemanis quite correct in this. Proof House and handloading manual tested data only have validity for an 'industry standard' chamber and barrel internal dimensions, ie SAAMI specs in the case of 308 Win and 223 Rem, or their CIP equivalents for our and continental European proof houses.

To take the two cartridges, GB 'Target Rifle' shooters generally don't use SAAMI barrel specs as they prefer 'tight' barrels. ie whilst SAAMI specifies 0.300" bore (land) diameter and 0.3080" groove diameter, they run something like 0.298/0.3075" which increases pressures - hence the NRA specced RWS ammo ballsup which conformed to CIP pressures in a standard barrel when retested, but nevertheless produced blown primers and other serious pressure issues in competitors' rifles.

However, when we get to chambers throats and leades, this is where things become seriously con-compliant. I don't know what the latest GB norm is for 308 Win 'TR' use, but do know it was lengthened for US competitors and a few here who chose the later 155gn Sierra MK model #2156, the current Sierra 'Palma'. But then ........ what 'Match Rifle' and F/TR competitors' 308 chambers have is in a different league entirely. They have heavily extended throats, increased 'freebore' to suit 200-230gn bullets seated shallow. Present the proof house with such a cartridge and they'll reject it as being so 'out of spec' that it (literally) won't chamber in an industry compliant chamber on the pressure barrel.

223 is the same, if not more so. SAAMI 223-Rem 'freebore' is a mere 0.025" and the leade has a 3-deg angle. The commonly used Wylde Service Rifle match chamber version is 60 odd thou' length and the commonly used PT&G 'ISSF' match chamber for F/TR etc with 80-90gn bullets is 0.169" nominal, seven times that of SAAMI. Other custom chambers run to 200 thou', or even more, for 90-95gn bullets. (Not that many if any factory rifles come anywhere near conforming to SAAMI in this respect either!) All match 223 chambers employ a 1.5-deg angle leade that both lengthens it and makes the bullet transition into the full rifling much easier. These changes drop pressures substantially, and see higher charges used safely. Even the manuals incorporate some of these modifications. Lyman, Vihtavuori (online), and Sierra to name three sources quote a COAL of 2.550" for the 80gn Sierra MK as opposed to the standard 2.26" maximum. You try chambering that in a tight chambered standard 223, even a Wylde or 5.56 Nato chambered rifle and into it, it will not go!

I go into this in [painful] depth for 223 here:

http://www.targetshooter.co.uk/?p=3741

As soon as you have a custom built rifle made for most types of competition in whatever cartridge, you're very likely to be outside of industry 'spec', and any cartridge handloaded to suit that chamber is in practice, strictly speaking, a 'wildcat'.

[Popsbengo]

Going back to my original post - declaration of hand loaded ammunition.

IMO the purpose of a declaration is to prompt the shooter to confirm their load is safe in their rifle.  But in no way can it ensure this - this is obvious.

The consequence of a failure to make rifle-specific safe rounds is potentially very severe.  Most of us (if not all) know this.

Failures are thankfully quite rare.  This supports the view that most people are sensible, but some are just lucky.

Training and experience underpinned by an understanding of potential consequences should result in a reasonable person making every effort to make 'safe' ammunition.  Most people in my experience try to do the right thing, however there's always a risk from people pushing the limits of their knowledge and skill at making ammunition. There's a tiny minority who are just a-holes and no amount of training will alter that. A less than reasonable person is a potential danger to themselves and others.

The best we can expect for those new to the game is to be able to access decent training from whomever can give sound advice and underpinning knowledge.  Credentials to train the subject would be good but not the be-all and end-all.  Advancing one's knowledge is a personal endeavour - some do, some don't.

By introducing a category endorsement on a SCC at least someone has to make a judgement beyond the individual holding the card.  It's not perfect by any means but it does advance safety in asking the question of the club  "is this person sufficiently knowledgable to make safe ammo ?"   And if not how do we help ?   I expect our club will be able to work within the guidance and put some pressure on to members to really think through what they are doing.  I also expect one or two to be advised to steer clear of reloading as they're likely to endanger themselves and others - I would not issue them a card unless I could be totally convinced they were safe and diligent in manufacturing ammunition.

I doubt that we are at risk from offering basic safety related training without some certificate to back it up,  I suggest any training is documented and recorded with some sort of test paper to back up a minimum acquisition of learning the subject.  Stick to basics and safe practice and let 'advanced practices' come as personal experience is gained.

After all, don't clubs train and endorse the skill-at-arms of probationers?  We don't just hand out full-memberships on time-served, we ensure a minimum level of safe behaviour and practice and documented proof of sufficient knowledge to be allowed un-supervised control of firearms.  Should reloading be treated any differently to handling a loaded firearm ?

[nCognitos]

4 hours ago, Montey said:

I really want to know who is going to be writing and delivering the NRA course and what experience they have and what accreditation body has signed them off I don’t know if the NRA can do that them selfs I can see a time we’re all Fclass or any HME card holder have to have done a NRA reloading course  

The rumour at Bisley last week was that all handloaders would have to have an SCC endorsement.  They would need to have done an accredited course with the accreditation body being the NRA itself.  This is all due to a person whom, it is rumoured, mixed up rifle and pistol powders in a load.  For those clubs that have been running reloading courses these will be assessed and, if satisfactory, a path may be put in place to get the qualification.  Of course this was rumour and should all be filed under the category of gossip.  The rumoured implementation date would be the end of this year.

Personally, I hope it is just all rumour and gossip but if true it would be better than the alternative of factory ammo only.

[Popsbengo]

7 hours ago, nCognitos said:

The rumour at Bisley last week was that all handloaders would have to have an SCC endorsement.  They would need to have done an accredited course with the accreditation body being the NRA itself.  This is all due to a person whom, it is rumoured, mixed up rifle and pistol powders in a load.  For those clubs that have been running reloading courses these will be assessed and, if satisfactory, a path may be put in place to get the qualification.  Of course this was rumour and should all be filed under the category of gossip.  The rumoured implementation date would be the end of this year.

Personally, I hope it is just all rumour and gossip but if true it would be better than the alternative of factory ammo only.

The prospect of an SCC endorsement is reality - it's in the latest NRA Journal.  The content of the required training is as yet unpublished.

[Mattnall]

On 7/13/2022 at 7:51 PM, Leeman said:

But if it's not fired in your chamber through your barrel it's completely meaningless.   I assume that was what you meant and not sending them the complete barrelled action for them to attempt to destroy/damage as they generally like to do, at your cost.

See the last paragraph of the post you quoted.

None of the figures you see quoted in manuals will have been fired in your chamber, As Laurie mentioned they will have been fired in as close to an Industry Standard chamber as they can get. Now with variations in loading/case-sizing and in chamber go/nogo sizes and non-standard reamers it makes all this a try-it-and-see exercise but having some relevant data to start with is a good thing - the rounds tested will be fired in a close approximation to a standard chamber as are the loads tested in the manuals so it will help you plan accordingly with your loading process and then safely test them in your chamber if you think they are safe to do so.

[Leeman]

2 hours ago, Mattnall said:

See the last paragraph of the post you quoted.

None of the figures you see quoted in manuals will have been fired in your chamber, As Laurie mentioned they will have been fired in as close to an Industry Standard chamber as they can get. Now with variations in loading/case-sizing and in chamber go/nogo sizes and non-standard reamers it makes all this a try-it-and-see exercise but having some relevant data to start with is a good thing - the rounds tested will be fired in a close approximation to a standard chamber as are the loads tested in the manuals so it will help you plan accordingly with your loading process and then safely test them in your chamber if you think they are safe to do so.

So way not just use the starting loads in the manuals or websites and learn to read pressure signs, why even involve the proof house?  Their chambers and barrels have no relevance to yours other than the stamp on the cartridge case.  I've honestly never heard of anyone suggesting involving using the proof house to test your loads, most people have the confidence to read what the fired case is telling them or if not, involve a mentor or someone experienced in handloading.   Surely if you wanted to involve the proof house you would supply them with the rifle to test the loads in?    You can't post ammo so you would have to hand deliver it and then you may as well drop off the rifle so they can check your chamber/throat/barrel and give you a complete print out of the pressure?  Maybe I'm incorrect and that people are driving up and down the country delivering ammunition to the proof house to test?    

[Popsbengo]

28 minutes ago, Leeman said:

So way not just use the starting loads in the manuals or websites and learn to read pressure signs, why even involve the proof house?  Their chambers and barrels have no relevance to yours other than the stamp on the cartridge case.  I've honestly never heard of anyone suggesting involving using the proof house to test your loads, most people have the confidence to read what the fired case is telling them or if not, involve a mentor or someone experienced in handloading.   Surely if you wanted to involve the proof house you would supply them with the rifle to test the loads in?    You can't post ammo so you would have to hand deliver it and then you may as well drop off the rifle so they can check your chamber/throat/barrel and give you a complete print out of the pressure?  Maybe I'm incorrect and that people are driving up and down the country delivering ammunition to the proof house to test?    

We seem to be down the rabbit burrow here.  I'm not sure proof house testing is a serious suggestion

[VarmLR]

I agree.   I think any suggestion for proof house testing will fall flat on its face.  The whole point is that the SHOOTER evidences how their load was arrived at, wildcat or SAAMI spec chamber and together with some form of assessment on experience and knowledge, certification is granted or it isn't.  There are ways and means of establishing this including the use of internal ballistic software to arrive at min and max pressures, that those pressures arrived at are within permissible max pressures as far as can be reasonably established and that the shooter has clearly used a safe system or procedure to arrive at those conclusions.  Tools such as QL and GRT are one way to match tested velocities hence approximations for internal pressures, along with close control and examination of brass.  Keep good records and evidence these things, and we'll see how far that the NRA go with what constitutes training and evidence.  Any reloader worth their salt should be up to this and it is perfectly reasonable to weed out those that are not for the safety of those shooting with them as well as for themselves.

[Mattnall]

On 7/16/2022 at 8:58 PM, Leeman said:

So way not just use the starting loads in the manuals or websites and learn to read pressure signs, why even involve the proof house?  Their chambers and barrels have no relevance to yours other than the stamp on the cartridge case.  I've honestly never heard of anyone suggesting involving using the proof house to test your loads, most people have the confidence to read what the fired case is telling them or if not, involve a mentor or someone experienced in handloading.   Surely if you wanted to involve the proof house you would supply them with the rifle to test the loads in?    You can't post ammo so you would have to hand deliver it and then you may as well drop off the rifle so they can check your chamber/throat/barrel and give you a complete print out of the pressure?  Maybe I'm incorrect and that people are driving up and down the country delivering ammunition to the proof house to test?    

Please read all the posts, it might help. I have never advocated ignoring the manuals or ignoring any abnormal pressure signs on the fired cases or disregarding any other information available out there. I offered the Proof House testing of ammunition as a way to check your loads if you want it, not as a way to work up those loads.

I'm not arguing with you, the manufacturers' loading manuals, other published data, pressure signs and any other data you can get will all help you in not only creating a really accurate and consistent round but a safe one too. 
Any information, however obtained will help even if it is just what not to do.

Lyman (and others) offer a manual, use it or not. The web will have more info than required, use it or disregard it.  Your fired cases will offer information upon inspection. The proof house offer a service, use it or not. There are many other places to find information. Your choice to use all or only some of the information available to you.

As an aside: Not really possible to test the chamber pressure in your barrel at B'Ham as it needs to be pre-drilled to insert pressure transducers. A change in measuring techniques might make this an option but not at the moment.

[RobinC]

The NRA's SCC route is stated in the journal as it will be the club chairman's job to state the person is safe to reload, as the Chairman currently signs off the person as safe to shoot with the SCC,  but with no comment on how on earth they can know in relation to reloading!!

Do they seriously expect club Chairman  to set up an assessment process!!! Could well soon be a position no one wants!

That said, there is no detail of how it will be implemented, although they say there is a code of practice imminent. 

Many of us get our SCC through the NRA, how can they know we are safe to load and will comply with safe loads? Will there now be an assessment process? Even for people who have been loading safely longer than those teaching reloading, soa grandfathers rights process!!

Its a well meaning idea, but totally impractical! And, it misses the point of the problem, not that we don't know how to do it, or what best practice actually is, the problem is those that what ever good practice is will get the SCC and then do what they wish! Bit like the UK average driver, has a licence but drives like a nutter with no respect for the law!

We all know there are shooters with massively over charged loads, I was asked to help a Match rifle shooter on reloading, I was shown his existing load, on a 7.62, it was 5 grains over the max safe load!!!! I walked away! He is not alone, and to many, that is the norm! The problem is not the guy who does not know, its the guy who wants that last iota of wind bucking, and velocity, and simply does not care about safety.

Nothing will change, the SCC system if carried through, will be a box ticking exercise.

The answer like driving , is enforcement of offenders, It needs regular spot checks on shooters ammo, muzzle velocity, and samples taken of the load and dismantled, and checks done, and it made clear that dangerous offenders will be shown the door!

Have Fun

Robin

[Popsbengo]

1 hour ago, RobinC said:

The NRA's SCC route is stated in the journal as it will be the club chairman's job to state the person is safe to reload, as the Chairman currently signs off the person as safe to shoot with the SCC,  but with no comment on how on earth they can know in relation to reloading!!

Do they seriously expect club Chairman  to set up an assessment process!!! Could well soon be a position no one wants!

............

 

While I generally agree with where you're coming from I think we get hung up on signing off.  Signing a form doesn't suddenly impart extra responsibilities or indeed not signing a form doesn't protect us from a duty of care.  

It's important for clubs to have a process written down with some documentation to show the process was followed, it's the same with probation training and issuing SCC.

I'm waiting to see what the NRA propose (impose?) and then write up a procedure for compliance to principles etc.

[Dellboy]

24 minutes ago, Popsbengo said:

While I generally agree with where you're coming from I think we get hung up on signing off.  Signing a form doesn't suddenly impart extra responsibilities or indeed not signing a form doesn't protect us from a duty of care.  

It's important for clubs to have a process written down with some documentation to show the process was followed, it's the same with probation training and issuing SCC.

 

So the individual and the range officer of the club would be held resposible  or the chairman of the club ?  We introduced a written record of amunition being used  with home lods checked prior to firing and after firing two home loads through a chronograph  ,more to prove a point to the amatuer reloaders , unfortunately the club secetary deams it a waste of time ...

[Popsbengo]

9 minutes ago, Dellboy said:

So the individual and the range officer of the club would be held resposible  or the chairman of the club ?  We introduced a written record of amunition being used  with home lods checked prior to firing and after firing two home loads through a chronograph  ,more to prove a point to the amatuer reloaders , unfortunately the club secetary deams it a waste of time ...

"Held responsible"  what does that imply ?  Club officers are insured if they're affiliated to the NRA, they have "professional indemnity".  If clubs have processes and follow them, and officers make considered and sensible decisions, then they are covered.  Clubs failing to have and follow processes do lay themselves open to third party claims but I believe as long as they have not been negligent they may be reassured by having insurance.  As in all things, there is risk.  Having processes, training and keeping records goes a long way to both manage risk down and to underpin any defence should things go wrong.

[Dellboy]

22 minutes ago, Popsbengo said:

"Held responsible"  what does that imply ?  Club officers are insured if they're affiliated to the NRA, they have "professional indemnity".  If clubs have processes and follow them, and officers make considered and sensible decisions, then they are covered.  Clubs failing to have and follow processes do lay themselves open to third party claims but I believe as long as they have not been negligent they may be reassured by having insurance.  As in all things, there is risk.  Having processes, training and keeping records goes a long way to both manage risk down and to underpin any defence should things go wrong.

so would the processes included certified range officers  as speaking to an insurance provider linked to the NSRA  no qualified range officer no cover  ..

[Popsbengo]

3 hours ago, Dellboy said:

so would the processes included certified range officers  as speaking to an insurance provider linked to the NSRA  no qualified range officer no cover  ..

That's not correct.  The obvious example is shooting at Bisley as an NRA member with an SCC.  Book the lane and crack on - you act as your own RCO.

It's perfectly acceptable to allow competent persons to shoot without an RCO provided that the club has organised to do that.  We have our own club competence card for unsupervised ranges, it requires a test of competence and sufficient observation to be comfortable with issuing the card and we have documentary evidence of the assessment.  We could use the NRA SCC to do the same but we choose to do our process to keep it in-house.  We do issue SCC for members that visit other ranges or shoot in competitions etc - again we have records and proof of assessment (as required by NRA).

 

[nCognitos]

11 hours ago, Dellboy said:

so would the processes included certified range officers  as speaking to an insurance provider linked to the NSRA  no qualified range officer no cover  ..

Just had this same issue come up at Sywell, where there is an expectation that an RCO is present, fortunately the NSRA RCO course is a one day affair and it looks like all the members who shoot solo at Sywell will need to do it.  At the same time it was also said that if anyone was using a magazine with their rifle, they would need to be RCO qualified or supervised but this got stomped on pretty quickly.

7 hours ago, Popsbengo said:

That's not correct.  The obvious example is shooting at Bisley as an NRA member with an SCC.  Book the lane and crack on - you act as your own RCO.

It's perfectly acceptable to allow competent persons to shoot without an RCO provided that the club has organised to do that.  We have our own club competence card for unsupervised ranges, it requires a test of competence and sufficient observation to be comfortable with issuing the card and we have documentary evidence of the assessment.  We could use the NRA SCC to do the same but we choose to do our process to keep it in-house.  We do issue SCC for members that visit other ranges or shoot in competitions etc - again we have records and proof of assessment (as required by NRA).

 

This is Bisley, where the nice gentleman in the red shirt marked Range Safety, drives around the site all session in his white pick-up truck.  It's also pretty rare that you would be the only shooter on a range, though it has happened, I've had the whole of Century to myself on a rare occasion.

I think its more of an issue somewhere like Sywell, where you could be completely alone on site.  I think the logic would be someone who has got the RCO badge would be less likely to do something dumb.

I have mixed feelings, while I am competent to shoot on my own, I prefer there to be someone else on site.  Also, I believe my NRA insurance would cover me, even at a NSRA range however there are the range regulations to consider.

[Popsbengo]

9 hours ago, nCognitos said:

Just had this same issue come up at Sywell, where there is an expectation that an RCO is present, fortunately the NSRA RCO course is a one day affair and it looks like all the members who shoot solo at Sywell will need to do it.  At the same time it was also said that if anyone was using a magazine with their rifle, they would need to be RCO qualified or supervised but this got stomped on pretty quickly.

This is Bisley, where the nice gentleman in the red shirt marked Range Safety, drives around the site all session in his white pick-up truck.  It's also pretty rare that you would be the only shooter on a range, though it has happened, I've had the whole of Century to myself on a rare occasion.

I think its more of an issue somewhere like Sywell, where you could be completely alone on site.  I think the logic would be someone who has got the RCO badge would be less likely to do something dumb.

I have mixed feelings, while I am competent to shoot on my own, I prefer there to be someone else on site.  Also, I believe my NRA insurance would cover me, even at a NSRA range however there are the range regulations to consider.

It's very sensible for there to be a second person with a shooter for safety sake, it doesn't need to be an RCO or even another shooter.

With regard to training "everyone" to be an RCO - well that's a unique response!  

[Dellboy]

21 hours ago, Popsbengo said:

That's not correct.  The obvious example is shooting at Bisley as an NRA member with an SCC.  Book the lane and crack on - you act as your own RCO.

I

 

if  you think its correct or not the insurance cover seems to require it