Needs disclaimer on the hotter loads thing
Clark, I agree with you that the Speer #13 book loads won't blow you up. IME, that's a *good* thing.
Here's part of why. An older Speer manual recommended 21.5 grains of 296 with a 125-grain JHP in .357 Magnum. I did it, worked great and came close to the stated velocity. Pretty accurate too. Winchester's "use this and nothing else" load was 18.5 grains--the older Speer had that as max for one of my favorite bullets, their 146-gr SWCJHP. Used that one, too, for just under 1400 FPS out of a 4-inch gun! Plenty accurate as well--2 inches at 25 yards every time.
The guns I've fired them in all contained the pressures well, there was only the hint of resistance to extraction in one gun and all that....but....comparing primer flow with the hottest Federal and Remington factory loads (which fell out of all guns without even that hint of resistance to extraction) showed that the 296 reloads were most likely excessive in the pressure department--even with "hard" and supposedly flow-resistant CCI small magnum primers.
I later tried Winchester's now-defunct WAP powder in .357 Mag and found pressures as read through primer signs suspicious at or before I was getting 1200 fps with 125-gr JHPs. Then Speer #13 came out and had max loads right below levels were my pressure signs were up but my velocities were leveling out.
And the 21.5-gr 296 load was backed off. I attibute this to better testing protocols in the Speer #13.
However, that book HAS tended to be pretty bogus on the velocities you're supposed to get. They are all reported high by 75-100 fps, at least in .357 and, IIRC, .40 S&W. So, I've loaded slightly above their "max" by powder charge but stopped at the expected velocity for that barrel length and all testing has shown nice pressure signs, just like the factory ammo.
So, I trust the velocity targets in the Speer #13.
