Load manuals--how old is too old?

I use manuals from the 60, and 70s.

But then the 30-06 hasnt changed in 100 odd years either

I compare load data from several sources old and new in helping with developing a load and never jump into the "deep end" to start.

Never No More
Hasn't changed in a hunert yars huh!

Funny!!!!!!! My 60's Pacific manual doesn't list RL22 or VV N165 with 180 , 190, and 200 gr bullets. Does yours???????

Powders and cartridges come and go. While they are in production the powders remain pretty much as they started. We need to realise that powder making is organic chemistry.

Tomatoes are organic. It's not possible to grow tomatoes this year that exactly duplicate what we grew last year no matter how hard we try because the chemical composition of the soil, etc, varies. Powder is much the same so the makers aim at a target burn rate and test each lot in a "closed bomb" for its burn rate.

Those powders which fall into a narrow range, still with a little difference between high and low, is designated "cannister" powder and is sold to us. The rest is blended with other lots and used for factory ammo.

That lot-to-lot variation is part of why every manual cautions us to not take any component change for granted, especially if working near the max pressure limits. We are to drop back a little with ANY change, bullet and powder lots included, and test for safety with the new component before moving up. The need for proper load developement remains constant no matter the age of the data.

Old manuals are good, not so much for cross reference as for data on obselete cartridges.

I think -90 are ok. Nowdays lawyers are makig load manuals.

Antibubba-I think if I were starting out today and looking for data,I would want manuals showing pressure in p.s.i. this is going to be the new standard.IMHO

I have a Speer #10 and a Speer #13 and notice that the later edition is much more conservative, so I usually defer to it.

Though the older manual has data on bullets and powders that the newer one does not so it is still very useful.

Old manuals are great cross reference for loads. You will find different manuals will have different loads for the same bullet and powder combo. AND, If you have quantity of powder that is no longer sold, old manuals are the ONLY source of info. I have about 6 LBS of Winchester 785 that hasn't been made for about 20 years. I still have loading data from old manuals and I still use the powder occasionally.

What ranger335v and others say...

Pick up every manual that you can, regardless of age...

Try to match the age of the powder you're using somewhat with the age of the manual...

Keep in mind that techniques for determining pressure have gotten much better and cheaper over the years, so defer to newer manuals when there are disparities in loading data...

And pick up a chronograph. They're dirt cheap and you'll know what you're doing...



Forrest

I always use 3 sources if they are availible, one always being the manufacturers current data, which is availible either by looking up their website, or by calling them. I compare the propellant manufacturers data to the other manuals I have, and reject any data that is significantly different.

Older manuals are great for loading old or obscure cartridges as well as general reference.

My newest manual was printed by Hornady in 1973. i do have a few new brochures put out by powder makers. i use IMR powders almost exclusively and they have changed little in the 50 years i have been re-loading. i use a lot of 2400 in my .17 K-Hornet and in my .22 Hornets and K-Hornets. IMR powders work well for me and i have not found a need to try any of the newer propellants.

I use mostly Unique and 2400 so the age of the manual doesn't matter much. I have some really old Lyman manuals that work just fine

I try to keep up to date on data, at least the free literature and www information. The powders change.

IMR moved to Canada in 1976; different plant, different source of cellulose. Ed Harris said the powders were almost one full grade faster.
Alliant bought Hercules and moved production from NJ to Virginia; different plant, New Clean Formulation powders. One source says 2400 is about a grain faster in .357 magnum.
Accurate Arms (and their new parent company Western/Ramshot) is just an importer. They get powder from all over the world. Can the Communist Chinese really duplicate Israeli powder?

Standards change, .357 magnum pressure is not as high as it used to be.

Tests change, the piezoelectric transducer readings in psi do not have a whole lot to do with crusher gauge CUP. Newer piezo gauges are more sensitive. As one post said, they register shorter but higher peaks, so the load has to come down so the maximum pressure is within SAAMI specs with current equipment.

Recent literature is a big help, especially if you want to crowd the maximum. A chronograph is handy if you have an old favorite high velocity load you want to keep making up.

No load manual published has had loads that were above the original pressure maximum for the round. I can't think of one that won't allow you a safety margin of 1000-2000 PSI or CUP. I use the SPEER #11 and Lyman 46 for most of my magnum revolver and rifle loads. Not one hasn't been safe. As an example, 9mm data up until the 80s was 35,700 CUP. SAAMI reduced it to 35,000 PSI and then we saw the introduction of +P ammo that is identical except that the measurement system changed to PSI. 38500 PSI which is the limit for 9mm +P is nearly identical to the original pressure spec of 35,700 CUP. What has changed is a society obsessed with liability litigation. As far as magnum revolvers go, many loads are being published again with load data for .357,.41 and .44Magnum that go up to or slightly above 40,000 CUP. About the same data you'll find in older manuals. A lot of this was brought about by imported firearms that were less than excellent quality. And, some of it can be blamed on the S&W M-19 that was designed for continued use with .38 Special with the use of .357 Magnum limited to carry by police officers. Many did not heed the warning and used full house load data for their K-frame and they got split forcing cones for their misguided efforts.

The one factor that can change is powder. That is why EVERY load manual will tell you to start load development from a start charge when you change to a different lot number of the same powder. This is a valid caution. All you need do is go to the Alliant website and you'll see that there was a recall for Unique a while back. In this case the wrong powder got placed into Unique containers. A number of powders have had fluctuations in burn rate characteristics over the years.

And then there are different ways of measuring in the piezoelectric system. There is info worth reading in the Lyman manual. Many powder companies continue to test by copper crusher. In the CIP system the Europeans use, the resulting PSI values are very close to CUP measurements. Vihta Vouri's early load guides provided CIP pressure ratings that were close to our pressure specs in CUP. Vectan did as well.

I recently used data from the first complete edition Lyman Shotshell hand book (1969). I think like most everything else, the more information you have the better.

VihtaVuori Reloading Guide 2006 .357 Rem max 158 gr bullet N-110 20gr 1938 fps. Guide 1992 N-110 20,8 gr 1969 fps. My target load N- 110 21,1gr 2130 fps with T/C Contender 14"-barrel. My maximum load..nevermind.

I am using data from current manuals to some from the 60's most important is to work your loads up. Load data say for a 30-30 will be OK in any Winchester lever but can be substantially stronger if used in a good strong bolt action. A 45 Colt's data in a manual will be OK in a older Revolver when a Blackhawk can shoot a much more powerful load. So there is really more to it that what is in the load books but they are where to begin older or new. IMHO

I have found that as times have changed so have the load data amounts. The middle of the road load my grandfather used in the late 50 to early 70's is about 6 to 7 gr above the max loads listed now. Not sure why unless like someone said lawyers are making manuals now.

Or is it that the refining process for the ingrediants has imporved over time. Making the new powder a tad more powerfull?

The new Sierra rifle loads are the same as the old 1971 Sierra loads.
I overload in a work up to find out what will happen, but generally wind up with what Sierra said all along.


Here is an example, with a handgun load, of a roller coaster ride:
"Speer 3" 1959 44 mag 240 gr. JSP..........23.0 gr. 2400 1564 fps
"Speer 6" 1964 44 mag 240 gr. JSP..........23.0 gr. 2400 1564 fps
"Speer 7" 1966 44 mag 240 gr. JSP..........23.0 gr. 2400 1564 fps
"Speer 8" 1970 44 mag 240 gr. JSP..........23.0 gr. 2400 1521 fps
"Speer 9" 1974 44 mag 240 gr. JSP..........19.5 gr. 2400 1344 fps
"Speer 10" 1979 44 mag 240 gr. JSP&MSP 22.2 gr. 2400 1392 fps.
"Speer 11" 1987 44 mag 240 gr. JSP&MSP 22.2 gr. 2400 1452 fps
"Speer 12" 1994 44 mag 240 gr. JSP&MSP 17.7 gr. 2400 1271 fps
"Speer 13" 1998 44 mag 240 gr. JSP&MSP 21.0 gr. 2400 1434 fps

Load book fundamentalists will try to defend that kind of non sense, rather than admit that many load books are mediocre.

That is one particular case that probably has a valid explanation. If you feel otherwise, conduct a poll and see how many reloaders rate SPEER manuals as "mediocre."

From 1955 to 1974, It was a two horse race in .44 Magnum. One, a very strong single action design with the Blackhawks and Super Blackhawks. The double action contender, the S&W M29. An excellent revolver, but not quite up to the load potential of the Rugers. Maybe it's possible that to lessen wear and tear on M29s, SPEER chose to lower data a bit, since there are known issues of M29s not having the longevity, nor being as robust as the Rugers. #12 was liability concious and went too far, but it was SAAMI that lowered the pressure spec, not SPEER on their own as they are but one member in the institute. Many have rejected the unnecessarily low pressures for strongly built magnum revolvers as we see reflected by SPEER as well with the #14. Alliant/Hercules has had a fair number of issues to contend with over the years as well with lot variation, otherwise I'd say the #11 is right on at 22.2 grains, but I don't use 2400.