Reloading for the P14 rifle

[2fit661ca]

Myself and two of my good friends have developed a decent collection of P14 and SMLE rifles and they have become quite fun to shoot, whether it be a competition between each other, each of the rifles, or between those and other models of rifles. We greatly prefer to shoot mil-surp ammo as it would be the same ammo used my the infantry men in times of war, thus giving a greater feel for the weapon and the history it has to tell. The one problem we have run into with this is that the .303 surplus market is drying up and we are having to switch to commercial ammo. We have found most commercial ammo to be quite weak compared to the Kynoch, HXP, and several other denominations. We have a decent reloading set-up as well, so we tried making our own loads by following several reloading manuals: Hornady, Lyman, Speer, etc... and we found those to be rather weak and pathetic as well. One of my friends has a Lyman manual from 1967? and for nearly every caliber in that book, the old manual's weakest load nearly matches the new manual's maximum loads. For the hell of it, we took a gamble on loading a Sierra 174gr BTHP with IMR4350 at 2 grains more than the maximum suggested load and it felt a lot closer, but still came up short. So now, we are looking for someone who has found a good, "accurate" military quality load that we could try.

Now I know I'm going to have a bunch of guys jumping on here telling me that we're going to kill ourselves, and more importantly, destroy a classic rifle, but I don't want to hear that. If we kill ourselves, then Darwinism will have taken it's course and all of your rifles will have gone up in value due to scarcity, so you guys shall have nothing to worry about. And if it makes you feel better, we test fire everything from a sporterized rifle so as to not risk damage to a classic.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[jmoore]

Have you a chronograph? If not, then further discussion is unlikely to be fruitful.

[Bruce McAskill]

A lot has changed since 1967 and it's the powders that have changed the most. While many powders are still labeled the same they have changed as to the burning rate of them. Most powders now have been changed in how they also make them and the result is fewer grains per load. Not all have changed this dramatically but quite a number of them have. The other thing is the people who should not be in the gene pool and have been doing their best to remove themselves also have taken to hiring lawyers because they destroyed their firearm by not following recommended loads. So the manuals are now lawyer proofed too. But as JMoore said you should use a chronograph to find out how well your loads are performing.

[emmagee1917]

Bruce , think about what you said and you'll see the logic error.
No powder company is going to change thier mix without changing the name on the mix. Thier legal department would have the CEO fired in a second.
Nope , the difference is that the lawers now write the reloading manuals , not the lab staff.
My old books do not show a 174gr BTHP but only flat based bullets with round noses.
For your info , Speer #9 , 150gr , start 46gr , max 50 gr.
Hornady number 3 , 150 gr , start 41.6 , max 50.1 ..... 174 gr , start 39.8 , max 46.5
HTH , Chris

[2fit661ca]

Thanks for the input, guys! My friends and I will probably be buying a chronograph on our next payday, so that will help greatly.

As far as the lawyers go, I'm surprised that they cannot write a simple disclaimer at the beginning stating that they are not responsible for any mishaps. What a shameful world we live in.... If I were to blow my self up, it would be my own damned fault. A responsible firearm owner has the firearm checked by a certified gunsmith, then starts at the bottom of the reloading manual and works their way up. Nothing should go wrong providing good judgement is used. I mean, I don't do any of that stuff, but at least I'll swallow my pride long enough to hold myself accountable for my actions.

I do remember the old Lyman not mentioning the 174 gr. bullet, but comparing the info that it did share with new manuals, it was still a much "hotter" book.

[mk23]

Try these:
41.7 grs N140 174 grs SMK
41.7 grs N150 174 grs SMK

41,7 grs N140 180 grs S&B FMJBT COL 77,28mm V0 728m/s

I use the 180 gts load in my No4mk2

Hth
Dick

Verstuurd van mijn ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T met Tapatalk

[Bruce McAskill]

Chris I stand by what I said. I can think of a number of powders that have changed and some of them have changed in material that they make the powder with and some in the burn rate have changed. I will used 2400 for example. Not only has the max charges changed to a lower amount but the powder itself has changed. Used to be that with 2400 you could count on have quite a bit of unburned powder in the chamber of the firearm your using. Now it also burns cleaner then it used to and there is no residue of unburned kernels of powder. Yet the name is still the same and their are others too including rifle powders and these are not lot to lot variations I'm talking about. These are changes in the composition of the powders. The powder companies only have to put out load info in their free manuals and they are covered. IMR powders have been made in at least three different places in the past 10 to 15 years and I think three different countries now too.

[emmagee1917]

I can except some minor changes over time . Improving the burn performance , the change in manufacturing plants , an actual change in the ratio mix , even. But not to the extent of making your old loading data unsafe. The drop in max charge is due to the lawers imput , plain and simple. Used to be , if you went with a max charge right out of the book , you'd stand a good risk of flat primers or sticky bolts. A little more , and you'd blow primers , lock actions , etc. I now use several loads for the last 30 + years that have always been good performers and no preasure signs and were "safe " 30 yrs ago. Nowdays thier " unsafe" , some being a good bit over max now , but the new batches chug along as did the batches 30 years ago. Loads...same . Guns ...same. Performance ....same. Books...different.
They have dropped the charges because people will go to max no matter how many times they say don't. I'm sure they just got tired of the crazzy lawsuits and dropped the data on that alone. It is up to each of us to be safe .
Chris

[kruffe]

Have you tried the Prvi Partizan .303British 174gr ammo? I have been told that it is the closest you can get to the real deal since it is made to match the old specs (except the bullet is boat tail). Another benefit is that the brass is of excellent quality thus good to reload. I use the Prvi Partizan for both my P14 and SMLE. ;-)

[noelekal]

For a rough duplicate of the British service load, try the Sierra 180 grain, .311 flat-base spitzer over 42 grains of IMR 4895 for a muzzle velocity of 2444 fps. This load groups well in three British service rifles kept around here, actually giving the best performance in the old World War I SMLE. Out to 300 yards it seems to agree with the sights pretty well. The bullet is easily obtained and relatively inexpensive, or was before the current "crisis."

A dandy load was worked up using a Mountain and Sowden 174 grain boat tail spitzer over 41.8 grains of H380, yielding 2370 fps. This gave a few sub 2-inch 5-shot groups at 100 yards from the bench rest on a "best effort" with the No. 1 Mark III. This was a pleasing performance from a rifle which isn't generally considered to shoot quite as well as the later No. 4 Mark 1 and No. 4 Mark 2 rifles. The one kept here seems to out-shoot the two later rifles also kept here though I've had other World War I vintage Enfields that didn't shoot so hot. Unfortunately, the company that produced the bullets has apparently closed and an English friend can't obtain them any longer. The good news is that Sierra produces what probably is a better 174 grain bullet anyway. I'd like to get around to trying a box. Sierra Bullets - The Bulletsmiths


Regarding powders that are still labeled the same but have changed. This makes for interesting debate. This assertion is something that seems to have risen only over the past decade or so.

Other than minor lot-to-lot differences, I don't view propellents as having materially changed. Using 2400 as an example, we have a familiar powder product with known and trusted burning rate characteristics. It would be both foolhardy and irresponsible for a manufacturer to spring a surprise on the consumer and materially change the performance characteristics of a powder, all while still labeling it with the same recognized name. Now if 2400 is replaced with "2401" in the marketplace with appropriate new data provided, recognizing performance differences, such an obvious change is understood. Manufacturers have test methods to insure specific performance of canister grade powders and they test for a reason; consistency of product. This business of burning rates of specific propellant products wandering around all over the place through the years, being deliberately changed by manufacturers isn't reasonable, isn't in their best interests, and would be a deplorable mischief.

I've been reloading since the mid-1970s and have had a chronograph almost as long. I still have 2400 from the early/mid-1970s on hand and also currently produced 2400. A year or so back I tested some handloaded revolver ammunition I made up over 30 years ago against newly handloaded ammunition using current 2400 with the same component bullets used in the old loads. These were all shot over the same chronograph and in the same revolvers used in some 1979 chronograph tests. There was no appreciable difference in either velocity or pressure signs and the old loads showed no deterioration in performance. The new-lot 2400 still gives the characteristic "crumblies" of half-burned powder residue too. Other minimal "tests" with several straight-walled magnum revolver cartridges seem to indicate the same thing. Old reloading manual maximums still may be approached with due caution with new-lot propellants. Same care in working up loads applies today just as it did years ago. The older manuals all have the same cautions about lot-to-lot differences in components and these differences are what must be respected rather than just reflexively assuming significantly dissimilar performance traits with current lots of recognized propellant products.

Along with 2400, old-lot Unique, Bulls-Eye, and several different IMR rifle powders from the Du Pont era are on hand. I've satisfied myself that no important differences may be attributed to new lots of the same powders, even though ownership, origin, and and even composition of the powder may have changed.

The internet is a fantastic place for obtaining a lot of good information easily but it is also the place for finding excessive dithering and rumors that gain currency. Witness the rise of the caution against shooting low-number '03 Springfields, the caution that M1s are delicate and weak, requiring special ammo and adjustable gas plugs, and caution that our old faithful propellant powders are greatly changed to our possible harm. This dithering seems to always be delivered in a negative, cautionary, "sky is falling," wet-blanket sort of way. No personal experience is offered. No additional blown '03s are produced, or examples of M1s positively coming to grief when used with conventional ammunition, or firearms failures traceable to significant changes in powder products rather than to daft or careless handloading practices. Tangible harmful results are never shown but only the perpetration of the hearsay. Perhaps tangible results are out there somewhere.

This is only one opinion on the subject and must be taken with a large dose of salt.