# Published ammo velocities



## Elkoholic8 (Jan 15, 2008)

How accurate are the published velocities for factory ammo? I hear all the time they are made up, and not very reliable. I understand there are differences in barrel length, test barrel vs factory barrels, and such. Are the reloading books more accurate? I don't have a chronograph to test my own loads so I'm just going off the published info for velocities.

The reason I asked, is I noticed for some or Hornady's velocities on the internet, they are a bit faster than most of the data on the Hodgdon site. 
So, who's telling the biggest fib???


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

What they publish is usually the average of that they get. But you have to remember they usually are not shooting the rounds out of a actual rifle but a test barrel on a universal receiver which will usually burn the powder more efficiently at a slightly higher pressure.
Even the published velocities for a reloaded round in the manuals are very seldom obtained by following and using the exact same components by the home reloader. 

Even a practiced reloader can get a 200 fps spread using exact measurements when he is reloading from one round to another.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I have books and data going back decades. It varies quite a bit I've noticed. Look at Hodgdon reloading data for the 7STW from 1995 vs 2005 vs 2014, you will see a marked diminishing of overall velocity over the years. I emailed hodgdon about it once, asked if it were a liability issue that they were lowering their max or changes in powder pressures over the years, or just a reason to sell more reloading books. They just said they retested and they got the results posted.

If a load were valid in 1996 using X amount of Y powder, one would think (using the same exact other components: bullet, case, primer) that if the powders remained constant the same amount of the same powder today should still be safe... but apparently not.

-DallanC


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Dallan,

I think you hit the nail on the head. IF the powders remained constant is probably the biggest variable that could be introduced to the equation.

I would assume that things have changed over the years with how these powders are manufactured and with what ingredients and with what proportions and with what manufacturers initially produced these ingredients to what concentrations.


----------



## Frisco Pete (Sep 22, 2007)

It really depends.
Some of the older cartridges have listed factory velocities a bit high and some of the newer ones are very close. Certainly the fact that handloader chronographs have become cheap enough to be popular and widespread has encourage ammo makers to get a little more realistic with their figures.

Here are just some random examples that I have chronographed, though on a different day with different temperatures and a different gun, there would be some variations most likely:

*30-06* Remington 150-gr PCL-SP from a common 700 ADL 22" barrel: 
Actual 2826 fps / claimed 2910 fps. (FWIW .308 150 is listed at 2820)

*.223* Remington/UMC 55-gr MC 20" AR barrel:
Actual 3063 fps / claimed 3240 fps.
Actual velocity from a 16" AR 2941 fps.

In contrast actual mil-spec Federal XM-193 (Lake City) 55-gr FMT-BT runs an actual 3242 fps in the same 20" AR which is spot-on claimed specs - and 3118 fps from a 16" AR.

Black Hills new Heavy Match 68-gr BTHP 20" AR barrel:
Actual 2784 fps / claimed 2850 fps.

*.270 WSM* Winchester 140-gr Fail Safe from a 24" Model 70:
Actual 3146 fps / claimed 3125 fps.

Winchester 150-gr Super-X Power Point, same gun:
Actual 3137 fps / claimed 3150 fps.
Here is some evidence that the manufacturers are a little more accurate on new cartridges - at least ones that are supposed to be fast.

*.22 LR* Marlin bolt action 22" barrel:
30-gr Aguila Super Maximum HP
Actual 1662 fps / claimed 1750 fps.
Out of curiosity what would the real velocity of this ultra hyper velocity ammo really be from a .22 rifle? 90 fps less than spec.

30-gr Aguila Super Maximum HP in a Ruger Single-Six 4.62" revolver:
Actual 1327 fps / claimed in a rifle 1750 fps.
Well duh... its a lot slower in a revolver with a 4.62" barrel. But Win Super-X 37-gr HP goes 1070 fps and with the .22 MAG cylinder in place Win Super-X 40-gr JHP WMR chronographs at 1369 fps with a 10-gr heavier bullet.

*.22 Mag* speaking of the pistol velocities reminded me that 40-gr Win Super-X JHP from a 20" Winchester 9422M went:
Actual 1864 fps / claimed 1910 fps.
That is around 500 fps faster than from the Single-Six!

*.40 S&W* Pistol: Springfield XDM 3.8"
165-gr Winchester white box FMJ-FP
Actual 1039 fps / claimed 1060 fps.

180-gr Remington/UMC JHP
Actual 984 fps / claimed 1015 fps.

180-gr Federal Champion FMJ
Actual 936 / claimed 985 fps.

*.45 Auto* CCI Blazer Brass 230-gr FMJ 1911 pistol 5.5":
Actual 793 fps / claimed 830 fps.

Winchester white box 230-gr RN-FMJ Springfield XD45 4":
Actual 793 fps. / claimed 835 fps.
Notice how both the .40 and .45 handgun ammo is reasonably close to factory claims.

*9x19mm Luger* Glock 19 4":
115-gr Federal Champion FMJ
Actual 1099 fps / claimed 1160 fps.

115-gr Sellier & Bellot FMJ
Actual 1068 fps / claimed 1280 fps.

124-gr American Eagle FMJ
Actual 1078 fps / claimed 1150 fps.

124-gr Winchester Supreme Elite PDX-1 JHP
Actual 1192 fps / claimed 1200 fps.
This premium bonded defensive ammo was extremely close to claimed specs, much more so than the practice 9mm stuff.

Anyway, those are some assorted and random observations I've made chronographing factory ammo in an assortment of guns. Take it for what you will.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Great info Pete. Velocity, BC, trajectory, fish size, outside spread, and shot distance all fall right behind one other unmentionable parameter on the list of tall tales told by sportsmen.-----SS


----------



## SLCHunter (Dec 19, 2013)

Critter said:


> Even a practiced reloader can get a 200 fps spread using exact measurements when he is reloading from one round to another.


Is that true? You can get 200fps between rounds with exact measurements? Why would one reload then? Isn't the whole point of reloading to reduce the fps spread of factory ammo, so as to gain accuracy/precision?

If I can trust the (wobbly) chrono at PMAA (which I sort of doubt a bit), Nosler AccuBond 165gr 30-06 has an extreme spread of about 100fps. I'd start reloading to actually reduce that to about 30 or 50 ....... or??


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I once read a article in a gun rag that the writer did some exact measurements for his reloads to see if you actually needed to measure everything out to the 1/100 of a grain and whether it gave you better accuracy and velocities by doing that. He came to the conclusion that it didn't. As for differences in velocities of 200 fps that can come from something as simple as case neck tension, one primer being a little hotter than another, or even a couple of grain of powder off. 

I reload to save money along with being able to make custom ammo for my rifles and handguns that are fitted to that firearm and not just a generic load that you can purchase over the counter. Accuracy comes from finding that bullet, primer, powder, and case that works the way that it should in your firearms. Something that is hard to do with over the counter ammo.


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

Most folks that shoot factory ammo don't have a chronograph, and simply trust the published figures. Also, most people don't think that the ambient temperature will have an effect on the velocities produced by their ammo. Some powders are more temperature sensitive than others. Ammo consistency has a lot less to do with accuracy than barrel harmonics. I have loads for a 300 Win. that have less than 5 fps extreme spreads that don't shoot as well as some with a 50 fps spread. It is all about where in the barrel vibrations that the bullet leaves the muzzle. If it is at the top of bottom of the oscillation, the load will be more accurate than one that leaves somewhere in the middle.


----------



## lifes short (Sep 11, 2013)

I have two .338 win mags both winchester model 70s one blued and has been shot quite a bit. The other stainless with 2" longer barrell only shot a couple hundred times so maybe a tighter throat. Same load the stainless one is consistently 200 fps faster than the older blued one. So you really have to look at individual guns with a chronograph to know ammo speeds


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

DallanC said:


> I have books and data going back decades. It varies quite a bit I've noticed. Look at Hodgdon reloading data for the 7STW from 1995 vs 2005 vs 2014, you will see a marked diminishing of overall velocity over the years. I emailed hodgdon about it once, asked if it were a liability issue that they were lowering their max or changes in powder pressures over the years, or just a reason to sell more reloading books. They just said they retested and they got the results posted.
> 
> If a load were valid in 1996 using X amount of Y powder, one would think (using the same exact other components: bullet, case, primer) that if the powders remained constant the same amount of the same powder today should still be safe... but apparently not.
> 
> -DallanC


Global warming er global cooling er climate change...


----------



## Elkoholic8 (Jan 15, 2008)

So Loke brought up temperature extremes, and that they could affect velocities. what about altitude? I imagine altitude could/would change things ? 

sounds like I need to buy a chronograph.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

And software to go with it!

http://huntingnut.com/index.php?name=PointBlank

Anywho, Altitude wont mater for muzzle velocity, but it will have an effect on your Ballistic Coefficent (bullet travels easier through thinner air than thicker air so it wont slow down as quickly over longer distances).

-DallanC


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

A chronograph was one of the best thing that I purchased for reloading over 20 years ago. It actually told me something that was useful with the load that I was creating. Since I now have 99% of the loads figured out that I shoot it has become a tool that I usually leave home when I head out to the range. About the only time I bring it out is when I change lots of powder or primers or building a new load for a friends firearm. 

But they are a very useful tool.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Absolutely a very useful tool to have. I use shish-kabob skewers over the metal rods for the sky screens. They flex without putting stress on the base (or shatter without breaking anything if you nick one).


-DallanC


----------



## Frisco Pete (Sep 22, 2007)

DallanC said:


> I have books and data going back decades. It varies quite a bit I've noticed. Look at Hodgdon reloading data for the 7STW from 1995 vs 2005 vs 2014, you will see a marked diminishing of overall velocity over the years. I emailed hodgdon about it once, asked if it were a liability issue that they were lowering their max or changes in powder pressures over the years, or just a reason to sell more reloading books. They just said they retested and they got the results posted.
> 
> If a load were valid in 1996 using X amount of Y powder, one would think (using the same exact other components: bullet, case, primer) that if the powders remained constant the same amount of the same powder today should still be safe... but apparently not.
> 
> -DallanC


I like to store pertinent info on gun subjects somewhere in some magical electronic form and occasionally, if I'm very lucky and the electrons are on my side, I run across it again when it might come in handy.

So I found a good answer for _DallanC_'s reasonable question, and the answer lies in vastly superior testing methods available today vs. When the 7mm STW or other cartridges were tested for CUP years ago.

Of course part of the answer lies in a different firearm or chamber used, different lots of powder (some even switched to a different country of manufacture) etc.

But there is more. In an article by Patrick Sweeney "*.223 vs 5.56: A History*" he outlines the reason modern piezo-electric computerized pressure testing that results in PSI gives different and more accurate pressure results than old Copper Crusher CUP testing. Besides the fact that a ballistician needed more of a knack to get accurate CUP readings, there are other factors involved. 
While .223/5.56 pressure is the focus of the the article in general, the specifics of pressure testing apply to all cartridges, including, but not limited to, the once-wildcat 7mm Shooting Times Westerner:

"*...you also have to be aware of a change that happened in our lifetimes* (well, the lifetimes of the old farts among us), *and that is the change in pressure measuring. *If you have an older reloading manual, you'll see the measuring units denoted in C.U.P., and in some older manuals "CUP" and "PSI" are used interchangeably.

The old way of measuring pressure was known as the copper crusher method. In it, a test barrel would have a hole drilled through it to a specified set of dimensions. Then, a little copper cylinder was clamped in place over the hole. When the round was fired, the copper cylinder got hit with the pressure and was compressed. By measuring the length of the cylinder before and after, ballisticians could determine the peak pressure. This was known as "copper units of pressure," or CUP, but was often expressed in pounds per square inch, or PSI. The copper (and lead cylinders, used for lower-pressure calibers) could only tell us what the peak pressure was, however, not how fast its onset was, how long it lasted, etc.

Today, transducers, or strain gauges, are used to measure pressure. Here, the gauge, which is essentially a transistor (it is more complicated than that, but we're discussing firearms, not electrical engineering) is fastened to the barrel. When the gauge is stressed, the electrical resistance of the gauge changes. The beauty-and the problem-with this method is that it is dependant on a computer or other recording device. *Depending on how much you spend, you can record the pressure of the event hundreds, thousands, or more times per second. This caused problems in published loading data.*

Let's construct our own cartridge, just so we can remain theoretical for the moment. The ".30 Zoomer Magnum" has a maximum average pressure (MAP, or the allowed peak) of 50,000 CUP. We use the newfangled transducer to measure the standard reference load (in this case, 42 grains of "XYZ" powder under a 183-grain soft-point) and come up with 57,000 PSI. The "new" MAP for the .30ZM is now 57,000 PSI, where before it had been 50,000 CUP. But the actual pressure has not changed, we are simply using a new yardstick to measure it with.

Then we run into problems. In checking loading data, we find that some of the data wasn't as "clean" as we thought. An example: using "123" powder under the same 183-grain soft-point, we had found that we could get 100 fps more and still only see 50,000 CUP pressure. With the new transducer and seeing things in thousandth of a second slices, we see that, yes, the main pressure peak is only 57,000 PSI, the allowed max by the new yardstick, but we also see a second, higher, spike from the bullet hitting and stalling in the rifling. That spike comes in at 63,500 PSI, well over the maximum allowed. So, we have to throttle back the load data, and all of a sudden "123" powder loses its 100 fps advantage.

*The problem came from the copper cylinder not being sensitive enough to register the second, over-max pressure spike, so, no, we have not "slowed down the load data to satisfy the lawyers." We didn't know we were going over-max before. We do now, and we have to adjust the data.*

(Oh, and just to add to the confusion, where you place the transducer can also have an effect on the pressure you measure.)"


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Great info Pete, I just wish when I contacted Hodgdon directly they gave a similar answer other than the vague "we retested and this is just what we got". Saying something like "we have more accurate testing methods now and adjusted our data accordingly" would have been fine.


-DallanC


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

When I was a teenager, back in the Paleolithic era, I memorized several loads from the ballistics tables from Winchester and Remington. The .30-06 was listed as 2970 feet per second for 150 grain, and 2700 fps for 180 grain. I think the 220 grain loads were listed at 2400 feet per second. I believe these are significantly faster than standard factory loads today. I believe the old loads were probably a bit hotter than current loads.

Also, my understanding is that the tests were (and maybe still are) done with long barrels. I think 26" was the usual. This will produce significantly higher velocity than the usual 22" barrel on a hunting rifle.


----------



## fishreaper (Jan 2, 2014)

In defense of hornady, their superformance is advertised as producing 100-200 fps rounds without extra recoil or pressure in result of their blend of powders. But of course, there are variables to be made, and with the market hypnotized under faster-is-better, I'd be willing to bet that if winchester says 150 grains at 2850, then Remington and federal are saying the same.


----------

