“Insurance Edited” Loading Manuals

Status
Not open for further replies.
25-20 WCF

25-20 WCF

Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
599
Location
Superstition Mountains
I’m not calling out anyone in particular, but for many years I’ve read posts which claim that current major loading manual data are somehow castrated by “lawyers” or “insurance companies” and that the maximum load data in decades-old manuals is perfectly safe to use today. I have to assume that those who claim this are simple conspiracy theorists since thinking folks know that the actual reason for any reductions is science, not politics.

Beginning in the mid-1970s more loading companies started using actual pressure measuring equipment, while before that they used primitive methods like primer appearance and bolt lift. By adhering to SAAMI engineering standards - rather the just guessing - the major manuals have made reloading safer for everyone. To insist that “lawyers” rather than engineers dictated the reduction in maximum loads is, well, insulting. There will always be those few deniers who insist that what they want to be true is indeed fact, the reality is apparently very threatening to them. I hope that newer reloaders will follow modern published data, not the emotional hand-wringing of a few.

Thoughts?




.
 
So whilst I don't think lawyers have anything to do with it, I do see something else. Lyman 50th and the 4th edit cast book, both have pressure recording for min and max loads. Some of those max loads are over 1,000 PSI (or sometimes CUP) shy of SAAMI maximums. Occasionally it's a couple thousand.
 
If Keith and Cooper were developing loads today and tried to post them on THR, they would have been ridiculed, hounded, and blocked. While science and modernized pressure testing certainly have much to do with it, don't discount the impact of the reduced appetite for risk prevalent throughout society today.
 
What’s really remarkable is how close the data for nearly identical loads are from the ‘50’s to the 2000’s. I have old manuals so I can make those comparisons. The data that has changed probably needed to. Back in the day a lot of powder company data was based on whether or not the gun blew up.
Some things need to change.
 
The answers can be found by studying the SAAMI pressure testing procedures along with the methodology used by the various reloading component companies to establish their published data. Little to nothing to do with lawyers or insurance.
 
One of the first things you learn in engineering is safety factor. This is the difference between the pressure calculated which will cause a failure and the allowable pressure. It is always built in, because materials aren't perfect. I've never seen a safety factor less than 1.5. For lifting equipment as an example, the safety factor must be 5, meaning it is calculated to lift 5x the weight it's rated for.
I don't know what safety factors the firearm design engineer used but he based it on a set pressure as an input. Since that pressure was difficult to measure, I'll be he used a healthy factor. Of course you can exceed published loads, just like you can use a 1/2 ton shackle to lift 1 ton, you're just using up that design margin. Hope your material doesn't have a microscopic flaw..
It's not lawering it's engineering. It's why bridges (mostly) don't fall down.
 
25-20 WCF said:
To insist that “lawyers” rather than engineers dictated the reduction in maximum loads is, well, insulting.
Click to expand...

0591E067-EA09-4926-B385-FF6E51F774D4.jpeg

Wouldn’t be surprised.

There’re Bureaucrats that have their bony little fingers up everybody’s darkest, moistest recesses.

Would wager that the prior statement has a good bit of truth to it.

After all, there are far bigger, critical issues that have long before already fallen prey to their meddling...
 
Last edited:
TransAmConvert said:
One of the first things you learn in engineering is safety factor. This is the difference between the pressure calculated which will cause a failure and the allowable pressure. It is always built in, because materials aren't perfect. I've never seen a safety factor less than 1.5. For lifting equipment as an example, the safety factor must be 5, meaning it is calculated to lift 5x the weight it's rated for.
I don't know what safety factors the firearm design engineer used but he based it on a set pressure as an input. Since that pressure was difficult to measure, I'll be he used a healthy factor. Of course you can exceed published loads, just like you can use a 1/2 ton shackle to lift 1 ton, you're just using up that design margin. Hope your material doesn't have a microscopic flaw..
It's not lawering it's engineering. It's why bridges (mostly) don't fall down.
Click to expand...
Absolutely! And it’s lawyers who ensure the laws & regs require the use of licensed engineers to design bridges and such.
 
CQB45ACP said:
In defense of some lawyers and some bureaucrats (and those that are/were both), laws and the administration of them keep society from chaos. It’s simply true, sorry.
Click to expand...

Laws are useless when there isn't proper punishment for breaking them. I believe this is where we are today.
Bring back the road gangs for clean up of public roads, stocks in a public area and a few VERY public executions would be a good start.
 
I had a discussion shut down because I failed to post the disclaimer a few days ago...... my bad guys

I 100% believe load data and factory ammo has been litigated into an anemic state.

I DO NOT BELIEVE IN BOLSTERING A CARTRIDGE PAST ITS LIMITS.

my topic in the mentioned post was Jeff Cooper and his load data for 38 special and 45 acp. If you examine the load data NOTHING in the current data banks support this. If you pressure test these loads you quickly find them to be within 1000psi of the Sammi psi parameters.

How is this data dangerous if I am with in the confines of industry standards?
 
I would contend that most of us do this for fun, and having a problem whilst shooting is no fun.... the reason for a change or load reduction are many fold but I would choose new testing methods, and powder formulation changes as my reason if I was teaching a mentee. Using loads with listed pressure at least gives insight and why my least favorite manual is Hornaday....
 
Do you think some lawyers just sit around and wonder what people can do stupid with products or is it because people do stupid stuff and then blame the company. For crying out loud, why would you need a warning label saying NOT to use a toaster inside of a microwave oven or heated oven? Why would you need to tell people not to insert their fingers inside of a toaster?
https://lawhaha.com/warning-toasters-are-dangerous/

Don't blame the lawyers for the stupidity of people. I know we tire of them, but their warnings are often to protect the companies for which they work by keeping us from doing stupid stuff. For example, cautionary warnings are not just the result of lawyers wringing their hands and being concerned what people might do, it is because people did them and apparently have tried suing companies as a result.
https://www.foxnews.com/story/warni...ls-may-cause-you-to-double-over-with-laughter

Quite a few reloaders seem to have this belief that MAX LOAD is the bottom level starting point. Why? I have seen them on YouTube, Rumble, and met them at the gun range. "Well, I am starting at MAX LOAD and will continue upward until I start seeing pressure signs or case damage." This is usually followed by "I am started to see a little bit of primer flattening, but think we can still go higher and get a bit more velocity..."

The lawyers are involved in many of these types of cases because people keep suing for stupid stuff they did and they want to blame somebody else, particularly when they get injured.
 
AJC1 said:
I would contend that most of us do this for fun, and having a problem whilst shooting is no fun.... the reason for a change or load reduction are many fold but I would choose new testing methods, and powder formulation changes as my reason if I was teaching a mentee. Using loads with listed pressure at least gives insight and why my least favorite manual is Hornaday....
Click to expand...

Speer does not list pressure. Sierra does not list pressure. Vihtavouri does not list pressure. Does Nosler?
 
WrongHanded said:
So whilst I don't think lawyers have anything to do with it, I do see something else. Lyman 50th and the 4th edit cast book, both have pressure recording for min and max loads. Some of those max loads are over 1,000 PSI (or sometimes CUP) shy of SAAMI maximums. Occasionally it's a couple thousand.
Click to expand...

What's your point?
 
25-20 WCF said:
I have to assume that those who claim this are simple conspiracy theorists since thinking folks know that the actual reason for any reductions is science, not politics.

Beginning in the mid-1970s more loading companies started using actual pressure measuring equipment,
Click to expand...

I have always had interests in quantification and the number of variables that cause difficulties in doing so. So, in the interest of conversation, I present this page from Hornady’s 4th edition printed in the ‘90’s.

AB2C1E0F-6D66-4E50-91C8-B14AF8326F01.jpeg

With all of the sophisticated equipment and techniques how did they reach such different conclusions? We know Win 296 and H110 are the same powders with different stickers on the can, how did they get a 7.8% boost from one of them?

Tells me that there is either a lack of consistency in components, application of them or data collection and environmental issues. Probably a little bit of “all of the above”.

If there were no variables that effect outcome it would make life much simpler though and I would only need one reloading manual vs the library I have to mull over to extract a starting load to work up from…

In any case, if one manual can have an almost 8% difference in “max” on the same page, with the same bullet, handgun, primer, powder, I think it’s telling of the difficulties in consistently gathering the data or a very inconsistent product.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
What load manual should beginner reloader get
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
cbnoble
C
S
  • Locked
Manuals reducing loads over time.
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
sage5907
sage5907
P
  • Locked
Filled in my Load manual collection
Replies
4
Views
527
MMCSRET
MMCSRET
9
  • Locked
Alliant load data vs. manual for 55 gr. .22-250
Replies
5
Views
2K
OrangePwrx9
O
M
  • Locked
Marlin 1895 45-70 Maximum Loads
Replies
7
Views
7K
calaverasslim
C
Back
Top