Why BPI shouldn't be recommended to handloading newbs

 

When I decided to try handloading, the first thing I did was a google search.  That lead me to Ballistic Products Inc. and their 16 ga manual.  I bought it, read it, picked a load, and placed an order for some components.  The shells worked great as far as I could tell.  Then I wanted to try 12 ga, so I bought their Advantages manual, read it, picked a load, and placed an order for some components.  I couldn’t get the load to fit.  I tried several others in the book with the same results.  So I bought the Lyman’s book and moved on.  As it turns out, this has been a very common experience.  I know that a lot of folks have had a positive experience with certain BPI loads, and they are a decent source for components, but I for one refuse to recommend their data to new handloaders. 

BPI is dangerous for neophytes because:

1.       Loads are designed to sell adjuncts, not make good loads. 

This isn’t readily obvious to the untrained eye, but almost all of their loads have extras.  Why would you need an overshot card in fold crimped?  Or Buffer in a steel shot load?

2.       Some loads are literally impossible to build.  Some contradict others or ladder in nonsensical ways.  It makes it hard to believe that all the loads were properly tested—or even trial loaded. 

To illustrate my point, we turn to Status of Steel 21^st Ed.  On page 122, there is a glaring example of an un-buildable load: #140205-5443.

            12 ga 2.75" Rio

            Rio 209

            40.0 g Alliant Steel

            LBC43

            492.2 g #2 steel

            1545 fps @ 10,900 psi

Sounds pretty sweet--let's try it out:

I'm even loading it down by 0.2 g

The wad seated without any pressure

The wad seated with as much force as I could get using the priming ram on the press.  Still not enough room for a proper crimp, but we'll proceed anyway.    

493.1 g of #2 steel, so 0.9 g too much

The cup will hold the shot easily.

I took my time trying to coax the hull closed before setting the final crimp ram deeper.  Sometimes that works.  This is as far as I got...

...before I crumpled the hull.

Anyone who has spent any time with Alliant Steel will tell you that 34 g is the most you can hope to cram into a 2.75" hull with that much shot--and even then only with the roomiest of hulls.  I would be highly surprised if BPI actually loaded this one up as it's written.  It's worth pointing out that none of this book's 12 ga 3" loads call for that much powder for a 1.125 oz load.  I can't imagine it is a safe load at 40 g... if you could get it to fit in the hull.  But since it's impossible, there's no fear.  

Moving on to page 126, we find three loads (#140221-5510, #140212-5466, and #140403-5586) that share the same basic components, but with different powder charges:

            12 ga 3.5” Cheddite
            Ched 209
            Alliant Steel
            BPGS + LBC50 + felt
            492.2 g steel shot + Original buffer
            The first load uses a 1/4” felt and 12 g of buffer whereas the second and third use 

            1/8” felt and 10 g of buffer.

                50 g powder = 1795 fps @ 11,700 psi
                52 g powder = 1795 fps @ 10,400 psi
                54 g powder = 1795 fps @ 11,600 psi

 Granted, the first load has an extra 2 grains of buffer, but even if the powder charges were the same, would that be enough to create 1,300 more psi over the second load?  And comparing the first and third load, an overall increase of 4 grains of powder DROPS the psi?  But questioning the pressures seems like quibbling in light of the fact that all three have the exact same speed even as the powder charges increase.  What?  How did that happen?  Either A) it’s a typo, or B) there is some component or process point not listed, or C) they never actually tested the three loads, but merely predicted the results.  Any of those is damning—how can you trust ANYTHING listed in the book?  The ship of confidence has hit the iceberg. 

3.       Logjam of data obscures problem loads.

BPI publishes a ton of different loads, which at first glance gives their books an encyclopedic appearance.  But on closer scrutiny, we find a few good loads, a few crap loads, and a bunch of meh.  I suppose it makes sense for a shotshell reloading company to adhere to a “spray and pray” methodology—you know, accuracy by volume—but the sheer volume of data makes it harder to pick out the worthwhile loads.  (I will say, at least they are far better organized now then they were 25 years ago.)

Again, page 126 of Status of Steel 21^st Ed provides us with an example.  Here we see a ladder of four loads (#111031-3494, #111031-3495R, #111031-3495, and #111102-3504). They share the exact same components, differing only in amount of powder. 

12 ga 3.5” Federal PB
            Fed 209A
            Alliant Blue Dot
            X12X + CSD114 + 14CW12
            546.9 g #2-TT steel + 10 g Original buffer
            OS12
                39 g powder = 1415 fps @ 11,500 psi
                40 g powder = 1450 fps @ 11,700 psi
                41 g powder = 1500 fps @ 11,800 psi
                43 g powder = 1515 fps @ 12,000 psi

 Why would you list all four loads when just two would do?  If they listed the first and the third, at 1415 and 1500 fps respectively, would there really be someone biting his nails trying to figure out how to get one in the middle?  For that matter, why not stick with just one of them?  The only thing listing all four accomplishes is filling up the page.  (Also note that this ladder raises some of the same questions we asked earlier about the 3.5” Cheddite load.)

4.       Renaming of wads obscures sources, making cross-referencing harder. 

Baschieri & Pellagri (B&P) and Gualandi are two Italian companies that produce a ton of wads.  Various shotshell manufacturers across the globe use these wads, as well as handloaders.  Precision Reloading imports them, and though they use an inhouse part number, they are very clear about the source of the wads on their website.  BPI imports the same wads but renames them and passes them off as an exclusive product made to BPI’s exacting specs.  They have done the same with various other wads, hulls, and primers in the past as well.  This is a problem because it makes it harder to cross-reference BPI’s loads with other data sources.     

But lest anyone call be an un-evenhanded badmouther, let me be clear that there are some nice things to say about BPI. 

Give me a minute…

1.       More engaged and engageable then other merchants and data sources.

When was the last time you heard anything from Reloading Specialties?  And given that it took Lyman about twenty years to publish an updated shotshell reloading manual, it’s hard to believe they really care that much about our niche.  BPI on the other hand is routinely posting new data on their website, emailing sales flyers, or sending out press releases about the latest renamed product.

2.       Easy to navigate website.

Although now that it’s 2026, the fact I mention this is really an indictment of the stick-in-the-mud nature of the shotshell world.

3.       Confidence building word salads.

The likelihood that you’re going to hurt yourself handloading is a lot slimmer than most think.  Until you realize that, it’s comforting to have a smart sounding instructor (they did coin the term "shot bridging" after all (see S.O.S. 21st Ed. pg. 38)).

4.       Willingness to publish unusual shot charges etc.

Some of the combinations may leave you scratching your head about what purpose they might serve, like a 12 ga 3.5” loaded with 7/8 oz of steel #BB’s (BPI #160429-8033-BB), but I think the boys at Lyman would rather die then talk about deviating from the standards developed before the advent of unleaded gas.    

5.       Once you have an eye for suspicious loads, there are some good ones to add to the cross-reference data pool. 

 I'll always look at BPI's new data.  Sometimes I'll roll my eyes, but sometimes I'll scribble it down in my notebook.  

I want to be clear, I rail against BPI, not because I hate them, but because I want them to be better.  They could do a lot of good for the hobby if they would just be willing to weed out the bad data, be up-front about components, and cut down on the smoke screen.  If their first goal was to help customers load the best shotshells, rather than merely sell us as much stuff as possible, then I would gladly direct newbies their way.  But unfortunately, that isn't the case.