s4s4u wrote:plant_one wrote:are you suggesting that their published data is unsafe on the starting load side?
or that the max loads are lawyered down exactly for safety reasons?
Perhaps a little of both. I def think they are uber conservative on max loads. I see it with every cartridge I reference. Whether their starting load is dangerous I cannot say, but it is very low in this case.
so it begs to question then... if they're lawyering up on the side of caution for their max loads, why wouldnt they ALSO publish on the side of caution on the low side - ie: higher than the actual min safety point is?
i guess i'm suggesting that saying they're doing one and potentially ignoring the other isnt a very logical statement. if the legal team is making them moderate their published data from their test results, why would they only do so on one extreme of their info, right? thats like wearing plaids and stripes - it just doesnt match up.
i wholeheartedly agree with you that their data for minimum is way lower than i'm ever gonna shoot for this combination, but again i was just using that data as a reference point for where a
safety threshold is - being that its published data, and unchanged in several editions no less - because it was said the OP starting powder charge used was low and should be used with caution and nothing more.
our personal opinions of where to start and where to end or who's data set we prefer to use - myself and my preferences included - had nothing to do with why i referenced hornady's min/max data.
plant_one wrote:
i'm just sharing the info THEY provide. i'm also not saying that i would start there either. i dont see a reason to start that low, i'm just suggesting that if its published, repeatedly, by hornady - its at least *safe*