Are modern reloading manulas too conservative?

[Jaag]

IMO there are just so many uncontrollable and relatively unknown variables involved that reloading manuals have to be conservative. Chronographs are great tools but its easy to get caught up in numbers and speed. If everyone focused on cloverleafs instead of numbers I suspect it would be a much safer hobby.
After many years of testing and yes, overloading, I'm not near as brave as I once was. Maximum accuracy & terminal performance with maximum loads seldom go hand in hand and aren't worth the wear and tear on equipment or the personal risks.

 

[FrankB1948]

Back when Barnes first introduced their X bullet (around 1989), I was attempting to work up an elk load for my Ruger #1 in 300 Win Mag. I quickly noted that a load which was perfectly safe using 180 grain Noslers, resulted in difficult extraction with the x bullets. I surmised that this was due to increased bearing area in the all copper x bullet (significantly longer than the Nosler).
Conversely the new Barnes TTSX bullets can apparently be loaded hotter than a similar weight bullet from the other manufacturers due to the grooves cut in the shank http://www.barnesbullets.com/information/bullet-talk/faq/?PHPSESSID=fe8d984657fe367dc7cbfc78f375d40b

 

[mdi]

I really doubt if reloading manuals are "Lawyered" to the conservative side. Today's testing methods/data are much better than they were several years ago, resulting in some loads that are a bit lighter. I don't think the authors would down load data just incase somewhere out there an unsafe gun may have a "standard" load blow it up.

 

[USSR]

I wonder if Sierra's conservative load data has something to do with their using high % antimony lead for their cores.

George,

High antimony doesn't seem to bother the Lyman folks, both load data use the Sierra MatchKing bullet. When Alliant's load data website used to list a .30-06 with the 190SMK, the load was at least 60.0gr of RL22.

Don

 

[HexHead]

I don't think so. For .38 Special 148gr LHBWC, my 1999 Winchester guide shows a range of 2.9-3.3gr of 231 powder.

Hodgdon's website has it listed as 3.5-4.0.

 

[MCMXI]

High antimony doesn't seem to bother the Lyman folks, both load data use the Sierra MatchKing bullet. When Alliant's load data website used to list a .30-06 with the 190SMK, the load was at least 60.0gr of RL22.

Don, I'm definitely with you and your methods for load development as described in the thread that 243winxb posted a link to, but I was curious about Sierra's rationale. The difference in load data from manual to manual doesn't surprise me given that loads are worked up in test barrels with transducers and not all test barrels or transducers are created (or calibrated) equal. SAAMI reference ammunition is supposed to create a level playing field but that's not to say that everyone is using it to calibrate their set ups. SAAMI has no power at all in the world of firearms and ammunition. Compliance with SAAMI specs is optional and few manufacturers are paying members of SAAMI.

 

[USSR]

George,

Yeah, I'm with you regarding compliance with SAAMI specs. SAAMI merely gives an upper pressure limit that no manufacturer or reloading manual publisher will bump up to the edge of and I don't blame them for that. But listing perhaps a 53k psi or 54k psi load and calling it "Max" for a cartridge that SAAMI lists at 60k psi is just plain ridiculous.

Don

 

[Peter M. Eick]

I am not an expert on materials and strengths, but just consider the problem. At one extreme if we were a powder maker testing loads we could set the pressure limit to be say 10% of SAAMI max and our lawyers would love it. Guns would last forever, blowups would be unlikely (assuming we get the bullet out the barrel) and we would have low liability for bad things since we could show we are very conservative and the data were "safe".

No suppose we set the pressure limit to be say 200% of SAAMI max. Proof loads basically. Ok, some guns will blow, some will take a few shots and wear badly and some would take it fine. Our lawyers would hate us and we would have a lot of liabilities and problems but boy our data would be quick.

Between the two end members is a continuum of options for us to consider. One choice may be to go to the SAAMI limit and then back it off a bit more. You know, 5% for every lawyer we have on retainer. That way we get go to say 70% of SAAMI spec. Ok, our Lawyers aren't pleased, but they can live with it. Now our problem is our customers who expect a bit more velocity and dang it, Chrono's are everywhere so they know if we are bs-ing them.

Well we could get a longer proof barrel to jack the velocities up. We could get a tight proof barrel and get the velocities up or we could raise pressures.

Lawyers just jumped in and said no to more pressure. So now we have our absolute pressure but it is below the SAAMI limit. What to do, what to do? Why not lower the SAAMI pressure limit. Then we can have the lower pressures, be close to SAAMI and we can say it was done for safety. That is a good idea!

That was a fun little story but in my mind, it is about what has happened to the 357 Magnum that used to go 1550 with a 158 out of an 8 3/8" barrel. Now the same gun will only do 1265. How come ammo from the 1930s/1940s will do right in the 1500 fps with a 158 and ammo today won't? Read the story above and you might get an idea what happened as a general concept.

Someone posted that the lowered the loads because they realized that they were closer to the material limits with a piezo then they could tell with a copper crusher. There is probably some truth to this, but then again, why load the data to the weakest gun out there? Why not maintain the standards and let the gun manufactures fix the problem?

Who knows if I am right or wrong, probably I am wrong, but I keep banging away using hot loads in certain guns that I am willing to "prematurely wear".

 

[Kachok]

Anyone ever notice that the original factory load for the 270 Win was 3140fps with a 130gr bullet back in 1925! Now that is beyond the max load in most manuals? Did our advances in materials and propellents step us back instead of forward? Someone once told me that they dumbed down the 270 to sell more magnum cartrages, I don't know if that is true or not but it seems suspect.

 

[helotaxi]

Why not maintain the standards and let the gun manufactures fix the problem?

The did maintain the standards. What they found was that the loads were in some cases greatly exceeding the standards set forth. The guns, even the weakest one, was built around those standards. The problem was the loads and that is what was fixed.