Do you load with period correct data?

[Peter M. Eick]

Interesting quandary to consider. And No, I am not promoting that you do as I do nor am I even stating what I actually do. I am just raising the question.

Say you collect a particular gun type and period, like I do. So for example, lets say you collect and shoot 38/44 Heavy Duties from the pre-numbered era which is roughly pre-1958.

Now say you collect reloading manuals also and you have a large collection going back to the 1930's. And lets suppose you open those manuals and want to load some 158 grn lead SWC's with Unique. And you then look up some max loads.

CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The High Road, nor the staff of THR assume any liability for any damage or injury resulting from use of this information.


If you pull your copy of Sharpe's Complete guide to handloading, pg 409 (1937 edition), the max load is 6.6 grns (with a balloon head case I believe) and a max speed of 1130 with a 6" barrel.

Ideal 34 (1940) says 5.4 grns with 1000 fps

You could go modern with Lyman 38 (1950) with 5.4 grns again.

Speer 3 (1959) says 5.5 grns with a 160 grn SWC for 938 out of a 6" K38

Or you could use the NRA handbook number 1 (1953) and use 5.2 grns but they say you can go up to 5.8 grns but they admit "they are very heavy and frequently inaccurate"


Or you could go modern.

Lyman 49 says 4.7 grns for a 160 (no unique data for the 158 swc)
speer 14 says 4.7 grns for 815 out of a 6"
Alliant 1998 says 4.3 grns for 920 (5.6" barrel)

By the way, Alliant 1998 has the ad where they show that Unique powder from 1899 that "still preforms to its original specs" and they state that "reloaders must be able to count on consistent performance from their powders, year after year, lot after lot, shot after shot".


So, if you compensate for balloon head cases, do you load with period correct data or with modern data?

I can argue it both ways. My 38/44's were made for heavier doses of powder then modern 38's. Just put on of my 38/44's next to a K-38 and you will see I have a lot more steel to handle the loads. I can also make the argument that maybe the older data was more powerful because we needed that power back then. Heck that new fangled 44 magnum just rolled off the line in '57.

So where do you all weigh in on this admittedly philosophical discussion.

 

[28lx]

I personally think the modern load data is made useing more accurate pressure testing data than most of the older stuff out there.

 

[Slamfire]

Never assume that the powders from the past are the same as today. Corporations are under no legal obligation to ensure that 1950’s products are the same as something made today. The can, label may be the same, but what is under the label can be different.

My 45 ACP, tested with three different Bullsye lots, shows that you will see differences in powders from different era. Nothing so significant as to cause pressure problems with my loads, but the velocity differences show that there are differences.

The pressure measuring devices used back then were copper crushers, lead crushers. I don’t know the measurement bias on these devices, whether they actually measured max pressures, or the final crush was before max pressure. Crushers do not measure the actual pressure curve in real time. Today’s measuring devices can.

My Speer number eight manual, the charges are frequently higher than today. I have no doubt that some of the starting charges would result in blown primers in my guns.

If this is merely a way to justify hot loading your 38/44's, well they are your revolvers. Hot load them to your heart's content. Just remember, when they get out of time, you are not going to the store to buy a new replacement.

I treat my antiques with kid gloves.




Kimber Custom Classic

230 gr LRN Valiant 4.5 grs Bullseye lot BE532 (80's mfgr) Mixed Brass WLP (brass) OAL 1.250" taper crimp .469"
16-May-09 high 83 °F

Ave Vel = 782.7
Std Dev = 13.41
ES = 52.05
High = 815.5
Low = 763.4
N = 28


230 gr LRN Valiant 4.5 grs Bullseye 99' & 2005 mixed lot Mixed Brass WLP (brass) OAL 1.250" taper crimp469"
16-May-09 high 83 °F .

Ave Vel = 805.2
Std Dev = 38.07
ES = 136.9
High = 912.4
Low = 775.5
N = 24





230 gr LRN Valiant 4.5 grs Bullseye lot 827 (60's/70's powder) Mixed Brass WLP (brass) OAL 1.250" taper crimp .469"
16-May-09 high 83 °F

Ave Vel = 822.9
Std Dev = 14.14
ES = 55.24
High = 853.7
Low = 798.4
N = 26

 

[LiveLife]

All the powders I have on hand are less than several years old. Powders will keep stable for some time, but will deteriorate over time. I use 10 year rule for my powders.

I also tend to stick to latest published load data from powder manufacturers as if there were any changes to powder formulations, their load data would change before anyone else.

I have reloaded the "dreaded" 40S&W cartridge and shot several hundred thousand rounds out of Glocks using mid to high range load data and jacketed/plated bullets. Not a single incidence of case failure or KaBoom.

If you load near max/max loads, I believe you should exercise more caution using older higher load data, older powders or powders of unknown age. Be safe.

 

[kelbro]

If you have 'period' components like primers and powder, go for it. Otherwise, I would use at least 21st century data.

 

[LiveLife]

If you have period components like 1930's - 1950's powder, I would check to make sure the powder was still good.

It may hold more value to collectors (even empty containers)

 

[rcmodel]

Sharpe's Complete guide to handloading, pg 409 (1937 edition),

That there book has blown up an awful lot of strong guns over the last 74 years.

It is at best anecdotal reading of the way things were, before anyone had access to actual pressure testing.

But I wouldn't trust Phil's max loads as far as I could throw that book left-handed.

The same is true of some of my old 1960's era Speer and other manuals.
Back then, even the big reloading company's did no actual pressure testing, and relied on a Ouija Board, reading of primers, case expansion, and hard extraction to figure out where to stop.

My cut-off point on old data is about 1970'ish, by which time everyone was using copper crusher pressure guns for testing about all published data.

Other sources?
As late as 1985, Jeff Cooper in Guns & Ammo was still suggesting a 160 LSWC over 5.0 grains of Red Dot as a good load for .38 Spl J-Frame S&W's.

Friends, that right there is clear off the .38 Spl +P pressure charts by any of todays standards.

Yes I loaded & shot them in J-Frames many years ago.
But I wouldn't do it again, now that I am much older & somewhat wiser to some small degree.

rc

 

[Walkalong]

I have some old AA#5 & AA #9. I check the period data for it as well as the new data.

AA #5 especially has changed over the years. Don't know about the actual burn rate, but the size has changed for sure.

 

[buck460XVR]

I see no reason to use outdated information when it comes to my safety and my guns. Others are free to do as they like.

 

[wanderinwalker]

Put in another vote with "no reason to use outdated data in my guns."

I look at it this way: We might not be smarter than they were 60-70 years ago, but we have 60-70 years of accumulated experience to look at when making our decisions. Modern pressure testing equipment is more accurate than copper crushers and a far cry from using case-head expansion, sticky extraction, cratered primers, etc.

I truly cringe when I read about "looking for pressure signs" when loading .38 Special, .357 or just about any straight-walled pistol case. You're NOT going to get rifle-like high pressure signs until you've spiked WAAAAYYY off the safety scale. Depending on your chambers, you might get some sticky extraction when exploring the upper-reaches of a Magnum cartridge, but if the final polish at the factory was good, you might not.

And I really love listening to how modern .357 Magnums are "watered down". Again, I think we have 60 years of experience saying "running these things over 40k PSI wasn't necessary." I've chrono-ed 158gr JSPs at 1250-fps from my 4" K-frame. That doesn't sound like it's been watered down a whole lot to me, when I think that original specs were around 1550-fps from an 8 3/8" barrel with lead bullets. I think I could hit 1300-fps with some modern data in my 4" gun, but don't feel the need to push it to that limit.

 

[Hangingrock]

No-No-No!!!I did not stutter.

 

[James2]

I have been loading 44 Spl for over 50 years.
Today I am using loads from Lyman's 49th.
Yes, they are lighter than the loads in the Lyman
book of the period when I bought the gun.

 

[chrisf8657]

I loaded a 38 Special 158g SWCHP using the SR4756 data from Speer #8 running IIRC somewhere around 1175, and shot it in a 3in M36 Current Manuf. J Frame.

While I did not measure case head expansion, it showed no pressure signs, had low SD, and was quite accurate.

I will say some charges seem too high for today, while others are decent.
On the other side of the scale, the Speer #8 lists 14.0g MAX for the 357 Mag, the current Speer #14 lists 14.8 for Max....

 

[Hangingrock]

SR-4756 time to leave this subject.

 

[Hardtarget]

I like reloading...for fun. If and when I want more power I reach for a heaver caliber gun. One thing I don't do is soup up my reloads. Elmer Kieth did enough of that in the pre-magnum days. He survived just fine but my luck does not run in that way...and I like my fingers! Also, most of the time when I'm shooting, my sons and grandson are there. We try to stay safe. If they thought I wasn't safe with my reloads they would not hesitate to say so...and LEAVE!

I have several older manuals and noticed, long ago, the changed data for the various cartridges in my group. I just use the newer data for new loads and stick with moderate loads in general.

For the one self defense gun I use, I carry factory ammo rated safe for my gun.

Mark

 

[Peter M. Eick]

Confessional time.

I tend to use older data as a guide and an indicator. I use modern data for real guides and then load to a velocity point or accuracy limit.

For example, I have loaded 2400 up with a 158 to get it to the velocity of 1515 out of my 8 3/8" pre-27's. I want to see how much it would take to get it there. It was suprisingly close to what the manuals say it should have been for older data.

I load my 38/44's to around 1050 to 1100 fps with 158's. That seems to be the best accuracy and the sights are right on so good to go.

I use period data, period velocities and a healthy dose of consideration on my power loads.

It is just fun to consider and contemplate the older data.

ps sr4756 is interesting stuff. Very large bottle to bottle/lot to lot changes so far but I like it in 38 Super.

 

[brickeyee]

Only if using "period correct" powder, primers, brass, and bullets.

 

[murf]

if you are using current components, use current data to load.

murf

 

[MrOldLude]

My weapons and components are all modern, so I only use modern data.

 

[joed]

For the most part I do load using current data. But I do not agree with the people on here saying the old data is no good. The statement about modern pressure testing being more accurate? No, I won't buy into that in my lifetime! Revolvers are no longer tested using vented barrels. How accurate is that, but it sure explains why revolver loads have slowed down? Looks like we've gone backwards here.

So, revolver loading to me is the exception.

The loads in the manuals are only a reference anyway, reloading is not an exact science. For these reasons I use both new and old data as yardsticks for comparison. But you have to pay attention to components used. My oldest manual is from 1970, there isn't much difference between old and new unless you're talking about revolvers.

 

[fecmech]

In the Lyman 3rd Edition cast bullet handbook they list two 158 gr bullets with 5.4 grs of Unique as +p and 18000 cup. Not very stressful in any decent .38 spl revolver and hardly dangerous. The current Alliant powder guide is showing a +P loading with Power Pistol and 158 Speer LSWC at 1050 fps that judging by their other listings (in that caliber) does not look inflated. I'm planning on getting some PP and giving that load a try.