How old is too old for a reloading manual?

[GeoDudeFlorida]

I have reprint and original Lymans' manuals going back to 1953 I use to cross-reference powder and bullet combinations when working up a starting load. It's a method that generally works for me but some of the data I know is based on the observations of the authors and editors, not hard data. I also know a lot of the pre-'74 data is going to be based on hard data collected by not-very-accurate testing equipment. I take these things into account and work up what looks to be the surviving combination from decades of experimentation. I'm curious to know how far back other experienced hand-loaders go when researching a new load. What's your oldest manual and how old is too old for a published load to be still worth considering?

 

[mcb]

I don't use reloading manuals very much at all, I think I own one maybe two somewhere. I use as much data off the internet as I can get. Primarily from the powder and bullet manufactures with priority on data with pressure measurements. I will also use data from other sources as long as there is at least velocity data from a known barrel length included. Depending on how much and how much I trust my sources I will often also run my final load through Quickloads as another check. I think I would avoid old reloading manuals unless that was the only source of data and then I would definitely be using Quickloads and working up slowly.

 

[TimRB]

These days I only load one cartridge and I have a solid load for that, so my researching days are limited, if not over. That said, I do have a Hornady book from 1973 that is interesting to look at once in a while to see how loads have changed over the years. If loads get smaller, I always presume that lawyers were involved, but that may be an oversimplification.

Tim

 

[edwardware]

Never.

When the manual you're looking at doesn't list the cartridge you're loading because it hadn't been invented at the time of publication, it's probably time to find some more recent data.

On the other hand, I've used data for similar cartridges to interpolate a starting point. . . so it's not useless. Old manuals are also a good source for old powder characterization, providing a starting point for powders not listed in newer manuals and cartridges.

 

[Archie]

The biggest problems with (old) loading manuals are the lack of dependable pressure and velocity measurement. Those items were the best measurements possible in light of then available devices and techniques. One presumes an under value for pressure readings and an over value for velocities.

Two other difficulties are the powders available 'back then' do not match up to the current offerings. For instance, Alliant Power Pistol (a great powder in it's niche) was not available until not all that long ago. I haven't dug through all the manual I have, but it does not appear in some older manuals. On the other hand, I have a partial can of Alcan AL-5 (or 7 or 9) and modern loading manuals do not list, as it has not been made for several years.

I have Phil Sharpe's book on reloading (1937 was the original). It has been 'updated' at times, up to around 1950 or so. That book refers to IMR #16 powder. (To the best of my knowledge, known today as IMR 3031). Obviously, IMR powders have been renamed since publication. So powders come and go and some change names.

Not all the old cartridges are shown. See if you can find a book listing 6.5x53.5mmR. (Obsolete cartridge but rifles are still around.) .22 Savage Hi-Power isn't listed a lot. Several others are marginal.

Having said all that, one does not condemn all dated manuals to the scrap heap. One finds much valuable information about what has been tried without wonderful results. I find the loading data to be beneficial when used carefully as starting loads, or suggestions of what burning rate powder to consider. Hand-loading, power tools and driving in traffic are not for the heedless.

 

[rfwobbly]

There is always useful knowledge to be gained from any reloading manual.

However, the most radical change in load testing history swept though the industry from roughly 1998 to 2001. This was the change from copper units to the use of computers and pressure transducers. This forced the rewrite of a lot of load manuals, especially with regard to the listing of Max Loads. With Copper Units, chamber pressure deformed a one-time copper disc. This device took a single reading. When you take a single reading you have no idea if it's a "spike" or the crest of a smooth rounded curve. A single data point does not tell you very much.

The switch to pressure transducers allowed test labs to take 1 million readings per second over the entire combustion cycle. That's not simply "a lot more" data, that a Tsunami wave of data ! All assumptions about the behavior of smokeless powders changed overnight.

Bottom Line: I only use the load data from manuals written after year 2000.

Note all the electronics connected to this test barrel...

 

[mdi]

I have a text that doesn't show recommended OAL, but bullet seating depths in thousandths of an inch. That one might be too old. My opinion based on what I've read is the major difference is the pressure measuring methods have vastly improved over the "copper crusher" type and much more accurate. I've read in a couple (few) different places powder manufacturers keep 3%-4% variation from the standard for any powder. Although new powders have been added and some reformulated, and labeled as "reformulated, new and improved" old data will be safe. And I don't believe any testing results/data are "Lawyered down" or purposely "milder". So, the data from my Speer #10 (1984?) will be safe to use with my 2020 Unique.

 

[Sarge7402]

Many powders over the years have changed the folks that make them and often have different burning rates than those of many years ago. So if you're using say Unique or 2400 or one of the other long in the tooth powders then it's time to get a new manual.

But if you've got a cartridge - like the .41 Long Colt - then going back to an older manual might give you a starting point for a safe load. just take a look at a similar cartridge - 38 Special - and see how normal loads for it have changed and adjust your load accordingly

 

[Average Joe]

Why not just go to the powder manufactures web sight, they all have one, with data that they comprised for their product. Who knows better than the people that make the powder.

 

[mcb]

There is always useful knowledge to be gained from any reloading manual.

However, the most radical change in load testing history swept though the industry from roughly 1998 to 2001. This was the change from copper units to the use of computers and pressure transducers. This forced the rewrite of a lot of load manuals, especially with regard to the listing of Max Loads. With Copper Units, chamber pressure deformed a one-time copper disc. This device took a single reading. When you take a single reading you have no idea if it's a "spike" or the crest of a smooth rounded curve. A single data point does not tell you very much.

The switch to pressure transducers allowed test labs to take 1 million readings per second over the entire combustion cycle. That's not simply "a lot more" data, that a Tsunami wave of data ! All assumptions about the behavior of smokeless powders changed overnight.

Bottom Line: I only use the load data from manuals written after year 2000.

Note all the electronics connected to this test barrel...
View attachment 963087

The piezo transducer used by SAAMI for pressure testing was developed in the 1960's and was officially adopted by the organization in the 1970's. It did take the smaller ammunition manufactures awhile to fully adopt the new method but the big three Remington, Federal, Winchester have been using it since the 1960's as they were some of the contributors to the development of the technology and helped drive SAAMI's adoption. The Crusher method (Copper and Lead) is still used though even by the big manufactures. Some of the older more obsolete cartridges only have a CUP/LUP spec and have not received a Piezo Transducer spec. Winchester still makes the Copper Crushers. The same crushers are also used in firing pin indent testing.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

The piezo transducer used by SAAMI for pressure testing was developed in the 1960's and was officially adopted by the organization in the 1970's. It did take the smaller ammunition manufactures awhile to fully adopt the new method but the big three Remington, Federal, Winchester have been using it since the 1960's as they were some of the contributors to the development of the technology and helped drive SAAMI's adoption. The Crusher method (Copper and Lead) is still used though even buy the big manufactures. Some of the older more obsolete cartridges only have a CUP/LUP spec and have not received a Piezo Transducer spec. Winchester still makes the Copper Crushers. The same crushers are also used in firing pin indent testing.

---
That's why I put 1974 as the year most of the testing data changed. I figure that's pretty close as an industry average turning point.

Many loads have also been dropped from powder- and bullet-maker's sites or are fairly useless. e.g. Western/Accurate and Alliant do not list .38S&W at all while Hodgdon lists two loads, both for a 145gr. RN projectile; one for a .358" "Lead" and the other for a .359" "Cast." Solid frame .38S&W revolver bores run from .357" to .361" (with the W&S/Enfield Mk.VI/No.2 included as they are as strong as most solid frame revolvers) so the Hodgdon data is pretty good but, that's a VERY limited repertoire for a cartridge that's been around for 150 years and is still in production.

 

[cfullgraf]

I generally use current data from a number of reputable sources such as the bullet and powder manufacturers. When delving into a new cartridge or new components, I like to see range of data.

I started reloading about 1980 and I have many manuals published throughout the years since. They are mostly from the various bullet manufacturers that I routinely use. It is nice to go back and look at what the data said in the past and most of the manuals have valuable reloading information in the them.

I have started using a few cartridges that have been dropped from the current data sources and the old books were the only source of information. Care must be exercised as powder formulations can be different over time. But also, many of the newer powders were not invented when the old manuals were published.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

I don't use reloading manuals very much at all, I think I own one maybe two somewhere. I use as much data off the internet as I can get. Primarily from the powder and bullet manufactures with priority on data with pressure measurements. I will also use data from other sources as long as there is at least velocity data from a known barrel length included. Depending on how much and how much I trust my sources I will often also run my final load through Quickloads as another check. I think I would avoid old reloading manuals unless that was the only source of data and then I would definitely be using Quickloads and working up slowly.

---
Have you looked at the Sierra app for smartphones/tablets? I put it on my iPhone a few months ago and like it a lot. Free, easy to use, and accurate. It updates automagically. Very slick BUT it is only for Sierra bullets and a limited number of cartridges/powders. You won't find .32-20 revolver or rifle loads, just SSP. You also won't find anything for .38-40, .44-40 or .38S&W listed in it. It is only for the currently-listed Sierra line-up.

 

[AJC1]

I use old data for old guns that are not currently listed. The 7.7 is in my lyman 45th and things like 3031 have not changed enough to worry. I use these manuals for safe start loads and the rest is testing.

 

[mshootnit]

My oldest is from about 2000 and I think that is pretty dated but usable for basic loads. I have a newer one from about 2009 that I think is still OK. So right now anything older than 2000 I would relegate to history. I guess that is 20 years. I have a pretty new Hornady book that is good for the new rounds, but alas still missing a couple now.

 

[Scooter22]

Yup. I shoot old cartridges that I leaned to load from old manuals in 70's, 80's. They still shoot great with the same loads and I haven,t blown up. But I do keep about a grain or so below max. If I need more power I don,t hot rod a round, I go to a bigger one. I do have current manuals and look at on line data. But the 20 or so cartridges I load for have been around with tons of data.

 

[Boom Vang]

I prefer the older manuals, IF the cartridge and propellant are listed. As has been noted, sometimes you want a load a older cartridge that is not in very many current manuals (eg. .32 S&W Long), but there will be lots of older data, and more relevant as well. The problem is that often you are left with only one or two powders still being produced, out of a list of a dozen. And you'll be pulling your hair out unless you like Bullseye or Unique....

The older manuals were also much more detailed in terms of learning how to reload, and many of the nuances. Today, you get a bunch of data and a sales pitch and not much more. Some have even stopped putting ballistic tables in the manual. Part of this is due to the digital information trend, but having a hard copy complete printed manual for reference while at the bench - and the range - beats the internet for convenience most of the time. Some "manuals" are nothing more than a data guide. Alliant lists one - ONE - load for each bullet/powder combination... how's that for inconvenient? But it does prevent the handloader from extrapolating as you cannot see a pressure progression. Alliant likes that - you can't experiment. Doesn't make me want to buy their powder though.

The older manuals were not proofread, edited, and re-written by lawyers. You had honest to goodness data that gave useful velocities. Yes it used copper crusher and other methods for determining pressure. Well, guns did not blow up from that older data, unless used foolishly in weak or inappropriate firearms. The manuals assumed a level of user responsibility and care that is no longer taken for granted. The experienced older reloaders here can cite example after example of the weak sauce that current manuals dish up, in comparison to older data. And if anything, modern guns are stronger than years past, not weaker. Just compare factory ammunition from 50 years ago to equivalent loads today - today's loadings of the same cartridges are all slower and weaker. And I'm referring to chronographed results, not published "nominal" velocities.

If you understand the firearms industry, ammunition and firearms go hand in hand as products to be sold for profit... one is used to sell the other. The .270 or .30-06 is just as useful now as 70 years ago - but since guns made with traditional methods last a LONG time, making modern .270 ammunition at full velocity doesn't sell new guns. Yet if the ammo guys water down that 130 grain .270 bullet from the original 3160 fps to the current barely breaking 3000 fps, the gun makers can invent a hot new cartridge that promises better ballistics, and will sell a brand new firearm, AND new ammo. It's simple as that.

How many new cartridges have been produced that the gun writing shills tout as "leaving nothing on the table" as to performance, and "loaded right up to the maximum pressure"? Every one of them. Then compare the ballistics 10 years out: lower velocities! What happened? The need to sell some new guns is what happened.

The loading manuals following along with this fraud, in addition to erring on the side of caution to a ridiculous level for liability reasons. Most of the loading manuals are produced by companies that also make firearms. If I sell ammunition at high profit margin, why should I provide the handloader with the best data? I would rather sell ammunition.

The smart reloader will lay hands on as many maunals and sets of data as possible, and contrast and compare. The older manuals can be an eye opener.

 

[markr6754]

New manuals can be frustrating, to say the least. A few months ago I discovered a new (to me) LGS with a large stock of powders. I saw Hi-Skor 700-X on the shelf in bottle, 4lb jug, and 8lb jug, which caught my attention. The price was in my sweet spot for 8lbs, and though I'd never shot it, I recall seeing it listed in the Sinterfire load manual for frangible 40S&W loads. On the counter was the store copy of Sierra 5th Edition. It had loads for every caliber I shoot...so I bought the jug and ordered a brand new Sierra load manual. I was momentarily delighted when I saw it was the 6th Edition..awesome..brand new. It contains ZERO loads for 700-X in the calibers I shoot. They are also absent from the Sierra iOS app.
So a perfect reason for maintaining, even BUYING old load manuals, though not necessarily antique manuals.
As a followup...yes, I went back to the store and took pics of every page in the 5th edition with 700-X loads.

 

[sfl_gunner]

I like using old manuals for research purposes because some powder/bullet combinations are no longer available in some of the newer manuals. Also older manuals sometimes have lower starting numbers. I typically don’t load stuff too hot so my I typically don’t approach the pressure limits.

 

[Ironicaintit]

I have Phillip B Sharpes books, and a bunch of old Speer and Lyman manuals going back to as far as the 60s, and I have referred to all of them. Old data is not necessarily bad data, and I sure do like having data that doesn’t rely on electricity and internet. Plus, I like the feel and smell of old books

 

[Walkalong]

Stuff from the 50's and 60's, and sometimes later, uses older powder which may have changed slightly, not to mention pressure testing wasn't as precise, plus some of it wasn't pressure tested.

Why would we not use more contemporary data if we have it?

 

[DRM7997]

I've got manuals from the 50's up to the most current. Reference them all when working up loads. I also get info from the manufacturers website. Also read a lot of books by the guys that have done this for many years. Elmer Keith, Ken Waters, and Ackley to name a few
I also like bouncing questions off you guys.

 

[AJC1]

My approach is to use the most current data available. I'm not looking for historic 9mm loads. Need a 2400 load for 45-70 you'll not be finding that in a current manual. Unique loads for 7.7 jap are not listed in current manuals. Use the most current data available. Some great loads for modern powders like trail boss are available and is arguably a better load than unique in a lot of bigger cases. The only major no no in.my option is duplex loads. Not doing that no matter what.

 

[EMC45]

I was given about 4lbs of WIN500HS and could not find data anywhere for it. A guy on another site provided me a pic of an old page from a decades old manual he had and I started loading with it. It is nearly identical to HS5, so I load mild loads in .38 Special and it works perfect for that.

 

[halfmoonclip]

Good grief, hadn't given this any thot' at all. None of my manuals were made in this century; most are '80s vintage. Guess the good news is that there really haven't been any new loads for me.
Trailboss is the exception, and I use their site. Need to weed that ancient collection in the shop.
Moon