Hodgdon Reloading Data Center - ERROR!!

ArlenGood · Last edited by ArlenGood on Sun May 31, 2015 9:46 pm; edited 1 time in total

Folks, I have tried to inform the Hodgdon people about this problem by using their email "contact us" page. I have received no response and they haven't changed the error. So ...If you are reloading 200 gr., 357 Herrett rounds there is a dangerous error on their reloading data website.

The Hodgdon Data Center shows a C.O.L. of 2.540" for the 200 gr. Hornady SP. - THIS IS WRONG!! -
The C.O.L. for the Hornady 200 gr. SP (or any other 200 gr. bullet) should be 2.340".
If an incorrect C.O.L. of 2.540" is used, the bullet is only seated 0.290" ...barely 1/4 of an inch. I believe that the correct "3" was mistakenly entered as an incorrect "5".

The danger isn't so much a high pressure problem because with this C.O.L. you will have more volume ...but this round may be too long for your chamber and you might "jam" the bullet against the lands and then you WOULD have a pressure problem.

slimjim

Thanks, Arlen.

Elvis

good on you for getting a "heads up" out there.

MacD

Thanks for the heads up. Another good reason to use more than one reloading resource. A good habit to get into is to measure maximum OAL for your rifle's chamber for each bullet you use.

PaulS

The data may not be an error.
The over/all length could be extended to get the powder charge necessary for the cartridge to function. Three of the four listed loads are using compressed charges and all four loads are using slower powders than are typically used in this cartridge, probably due to the heavier 200 grain bullet.
I have contacted Hodgdon as well and will let you know when I get an answer.

ArlenGood

I've checked some "old" reloading data sheets and IMR (2003) used the same load data found on the present Hodgdon site ...COL = 2.540" and the same powder charges. Hornady recommends 2.340" and I have great confidence in Hornady. I ran the numbers in QuickLOAD v. 3.8 and 2.340" looked best, too. 2.540" is too long even for compressed loads.
It looks like the older information was just used in the newer data base, "as is." In any case, I stand by what I've said. I use the Hornady OAL gauge and Bullet Comparator guage to check all of my bullet/loaded case/chamber dimensions. A COL of 2.540" is too long. Seating such a long bullet. 1.080", only 0.290" doesn't even look right.

PaulS

My Hornady book (3rd edition) lists an over/all length of 2.4" with a spire grain bullet. Considering that Hodgdon uses the same bullet with 1.6 grains more powder there seems to be a good reason for the longer o/a length.

I will wait to hear from Hodgdon. They are good folks and typically answer questions quickly.

SingleShotLover

Considering the old standard has always been a minimum of the bullet diameter seating depth (in this case at least .358"), something sure doesn't sound right.

PaulS

I have had this happen in load data before.
Using 48.7 grains of IMR4064 with a Sierra 158 JHC in my 358 Winchester.
The powder would not compress far enough to allow seating the bullet deeper than about 3/16" into the case. This is the load that gave me average groups of .33" center to center.

The powder is probably on the edge of being too slow for the cartridge/bullet combination so the bullet can't be seated to the "normal" depth.

As I said, I will wait for feedback from Hodgdon before I condemn it as a mistake.

ArlenGood

PaulS ...what depth do you seat your 200 gr. bullets when loading 357 Herrett?

PaulS

I don't own a 357 Herrett.
why do you ask?

MacD

Arlen, first let me say that I accept your findings as accurate for your loading. For the benefit of readers who may be new to reloading I am going to make a few points that I am sure are old news for you and the regular contributers.

Bullet shape and construction for a given weight can be the deciding factor on OAL especially in rifles with short throats. The ogives on two bullets of the same weight and even length may be at a different locations on the bullets causing one to jam and the other to still have jump. I also use the Hornady gauge and comparitors on every new bullet.

With respect to compressed charges, the make of brass and whether it is original calibre or formed may result in an unintentional compressed load. Case capacity is the culprit and bulky powder doesn't help.

I am not familiar with the 357 Herrett. Is it still considered a wildcat calibre? Are you shooting a factory chamber (TC Contender) or a modified one? The Lyman reloading manual wisely points out that wildcat chambers can vary enough to make a load that is safe in one unsafe in another.

Hope ypu will excuse my kidnapping your post a wee bit.

ArlenGood · Last edited by ArlenGood on Wed Jun 03, 2015 1:18 pm; edited 1 time in total

PaulS ...I ask because you seem to have a strong opinion on the subject and so I am wondering if you have experience with the Herrett. It is not a well-known or popular round. Any information someone may have would be interesting. Few people reload this round and fewer have any real experience with it.

MacD ...Of course you are right about bullet shape. The length isn't as important as it's true OAL ...the length where some part of the Ogive engraves the lands. The 357 Herrett is still considered a wildcat and as such, there are no ANSI/SAAMI standards (The latest data is 2009). The traditionally accepted maximum C.O.A.L for the .357 Herrett is 2.400". That is what the ballistic experts at Hornady recommend, too ...for ANY bullet used when loading the .357 Herrett. Yes ...they say 2.540" is too long and should probably not be used (Of course, they are overly cautious).
I know Rod Herrett, Steve's son, and have spoken to him a length about his father's development of both the .30 and .357 Herrett. I've been loading and using the .357 Herrett since 1983 ...for hunting, IHMSA Centerfire Pistol Competition and I've done a lot of experimentation with the round. My logs and loading forms show that I've fired 15,743 different .357 Herrett loads over the years. I've used standard T/C barrels and a handful of modified ones (with longer leads than standard). I've fired bullets ranging in weight from 110gr to 250 gr and I've used/experimented with 27 different powders. I've killed coyotes, deer, Javelina, mountain lion, antelope and elk with this round. I'm not an expert ...but I know a couple of experts regarding this round.

My whole point in this conversation is to say, "The Hodgdon Reloading Data is wrong when it comes to 200 gr. Hornady SP bullets (#3510, OAL = 1.080")." The listed C.O.A.L. of 2.540" is too long. It exceeds recommended C.O.A.L., it seats the bullet less than one caliber diameter into the brass case and it MAY be unsafe for some standard chambers and could result in a pressure spike if the bullet is jammed against the lands.

No forgiveness necessary. I don't feel like anyone has hijacked my post. I'm just trying to point-out a potentially unsafe bit of information. Very few people reload the .357 Herrett so I didn't expect this to be of much interest to a lot of folks. For a few out there, this might have actual, hands-on relevance.

PaulS

Arlen,
I have been loading my own ammo and some for other folks for around 46 years. I have a little experience in overall length of a cartridge versus chamber size and leade length. I agree that this load information seems at first glance to be questionable. I also see that there are differences between the loads for this bullet in this case from the two other loading sources that I have.
Since you have a 357 Herrett you could tell me that it is X" off the lands in your gun or that it won't chamber in your gun but you haven't stated that. I would be very interested in the comparative dimensions and whether the round being discussed would fit in your "standard" chamber.
The length of the round from base to caliber diameter of the bullet may or may not fit in your gun but if it does, without hitting the rifling it might not be a dangerous load. If it does interfere with the rifling then it could be a dangerous round even though it is using a powder that is slower than the "common" powders for the cartridge.

It might be a misprint or it might be that in the chamber they used it was a perfectly safe load. I would be interested in the way this round as listed fits in your gun.

ArlenGood

See paragraph 3, my last comment.