Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Manuals reducing loads over time.

Discussion in 'Handloading and Reloading' started by SaxonPig, Jan 31, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SaxonPig

    SaxonPig Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    4,787
    I have been saying for years that ammo companies have reduced the power levels in some calibers of handgun ammo and the publishers of the re;loading manuals have also reduced their loads. Tonight I was reloading some 38 Specials and I noticed the differences in the various manuals.

    These are the top loads for the 38 using a 125 JHP bullet and Unique powder. All from various volumes of the Speer manual.

    1970 Vol. 8 - 7.5 grains

    1974 Vol. 9 - 5.9 grains

    1987 Vol. 11 - 5.8 grains

    1998 Vol. 13 - 5.6 grains

    The biggest drop occurs between Vol. 8 and Vol. 9, from 7.5 to 5.9. That's a huge reduction. Then it continues to drop until the 1998 publication which is the last one I have on hand. I don't know what the most recent Speer manual lists as a top load. Might be be down to 4 grains by now.

    I have used that 7.5 load and it barks but seems OK in the guns I tried it in. I generally load 7 grains with a 125 for my carry 38s and this is stout but within reason. This is the max load from my 1977 Sierra manual.

    That 5.6 as maximum is a joke. That's barely a gallery load. By the way, the 5.9 and 5.6 loads are designated as +P. What a hoot! The 7.5 load required no special warning but these pipsqueaks apparently should concern us.
     
  2. BHP FAN

    BHP FAN Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    5,810
    Location:
    Northern California
    Speer used to start at what Lee calls a max load, I prefer Lee's Modern Reloading anyway. It's cheaper, and reads well, too. there's sections on casting, bits of history, just a great book.
     
  3. mastiffhound

    mastiffhound Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    419
    Lyman's #49 list Unique at 6.0 grains as the max for .38 special. Firearm used is a universal receiver, is this a single shot break barrel? If it is then maybe that's how they got 16,700 c.u.p. It does seem week though.
     
  4. Dentite

    Dentite Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    755
    My neighbor loaded up close to 1000 rounds on a single stage press and then got a new reloading manual and about freaked to find out that he had loaded them over the max load of the new manual. He was about at about a medium charge in his old book.
     
  5. Ljjasper10

    Ljjasper10 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    Messages:
    3
    I have heard of this and was told it's because the powder is now manufactured to tighter tolerances, I am not positive as I am a new reloader and all my powders are new.
     
  6. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,165
    Location:
    Moses Lake WA
    The basic idea is that they used to adjust their load data for the oldest, weakest guns of a given caliber in common use. Now they adjust their loads based on the strongest, greediest lawyer they can imagine.

    Pops
     
  7. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    5,093
    Location:
    Tidewater
    Post 6 has the right answer. Nothing matters more than liability.
     
  8. cfullgraf

    cfullgraf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Messages:
    6,927
    Location:
    East TN
    Yes, lawyers probably have an input into load data but testing procedures have gotten better and less expensive so the data today is better and real.

    Also, powder is being made in different locations than before and the powder may not be the same as before.

    It probably will not be long before cost effective pressure testing will be available to the hand loader.
     
  9. Twiki357

    Twiki357 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    1,861
    Location:
    Prescott Valley, AZ
    I've noticed the same load reductions in my Lyman manuals from the 44th (1967) to the current 49th (2008) editions. Not only the lower max loads, but also a narrower range.
     
  10. CLP

    CLP Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,032
    Location:
    Alabama
    Could this possibly be due to compositional differences?
     
  11. JohnBiltz

    JohnBiltz Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,485
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    I'm far from knowledgeable on this subject, but I seem to recall something about SAAMI reducing .38 special and a few other calibers several years back.
     
  12. steveno

    steveno Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,211
    Location:
    Minden , Nebraska
    give it a rest. no matter how you feel about what the max load was and is now the loading companies ain't going back to the old max.
     
  13. buttrap

    buttrap Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,088
    Location:
    Oregon
    Lawyer loads.
     
  14. StrawHat

    StrawHat Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,623
    Location:
    NE Ohio
    If the powder is not the same, they give it a different name. Old Unique or old 2400 is the same as the new stuff. Batch to batch there is some variance but not enough to cause serious harm.
     
  15. JRWhit

    JRWhit Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    965
    Location:
    MO
    I was under the impression that we can thank the polymer and light carry guns for that. Strongest and weakest. I don't know If I'd be comfortable using 67 load data for an newer LCR. It serves it's purpose but you can't argue that it would hold up like a security six.
     
  16. marv

    marv Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Messages:
    664
    Location:
    South coast of Indiana
    The publishers recognise that as we get older we become more recoil sensitive.
     
  17. 06

    06 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    738
    Location:
    Too close to Charlotte, NC
    Was looking at a circa '60 manual last week and was amazed at how much more powder was allowable for max load. Like above--everything is liability conscious today.
     
  18. Xfire68

    Xfire68 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Messages:
    275
    Location:
    Manteno IL
    I think it's a combination of the two. Liability plays a big roll in just about all products manufactured today. The powders are not the same as they were 30-40 years ago. The powder manufacturers have stated that formulas have changed over the years. Everything from "Cleaner Burning" to "Higher Velocity" formulas have changed our powders of old and the data that was used for them.
     
  19. steveno

    steveno Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,211
    Location:
    Minden , Nebraska
    first of all if you take a load from a 1970 loading manual it probably wasn't pressure tested at all other then to look to see the primers were flattened , the cases ejected hard or the bolt didn't open very easy. so they really didn't know what pressure a load was giving. now you add the pressure they actually had with todays modern eguipment some of the loads were probably scary.

    maybe some of the loads are dictated by lawyers but do you blame them. I don't because all you have to do is look at the various reloading sections and see some of the loads mentioned. there is some scary loads being given out that just because it was safe in one gun does NOT mean it is safe in another gun. never mind the fact that what little difference you might find isn't going to make much difference in the field or anywhere else for that matter.

    you see any number of people asking for favorite loads and you get the impression they might not even own a loading manual let alone they should have a least two and more is even better. if you reload and looking for a good load it is pretty easy to do on your own.

    a few years back "Shooting Times" had a series of articles by Ken Oehler on pressure testing. they are a good read and should be read by every reloader.
     
  20. 788Ham

    788Ham Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,206
    Location:
    Hills west of Denver
    I see that question asked on this website more than one can count! Most of these folks must really be new, thats one of the first things I did when I decided to reload, in fact, I bought 3 books to get started. Endure I guess.
     
  21. Ken70

    Ken70 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2011
    Messages:
    350
    I've read in numerous places to use a manual that was current with the age of the powder you're using. I have powder from the mid 90's, so I use a mid 90's manual. They work together. Chronograph what you make, if it's a lot off the manual speed, start changing the load.
     
  22. SaxonPig

    SaxonPig Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    4,787
    I have loaded powder from the early 1970s along with recently manufactured powder and both loads perform exactly the same. I can detect no difference in older and newer powders of the same name. Liability concerns would prevent them from making changes to the powder without changing the name.
     
  23. jmr40

    jmr40 Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,898
    Powders do in fact vary from lot to lot. The differences are small, but real. The changes over time can add up to enough differnce to cause a problem, at least in theory.

    Lawyer's concerns are probably part of the issue, but I suspect another cause is at least partly involved. Newer guns are being built to closer tolerences than were possible 40-50 years ago. Closer tolerences in barrels and chambers leads to increased pressure and velocity. Meaning you need less powder to get the same speeds

    A loading manuals max load in 1970 might be perfectly safe in a 1970 gun, but you might get the same velocity, and pressure with far less of the same powder in a 2012 gun.

    Forget about the book's max loads when loading. It is the velocity you are getting that is important. If a max load of powder "X" is supposed to give you 1,000 fps, then you stop adding powder when your chronograph shows 1,000 fps. It doesn't matter if it does it at 7.5 gr of powder, 5.6 grains or anywhere in between.
     
  24. joecil

    joecil Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2012
    Messages:
    782
    Location:
    Lexington, Kentucky
    Besides one other note on Unique, it has been changed in the last couple of years to burn cleaner. The powder charge was also effected by this so if you have older Unique don't use the newer data etc.
     
  25. VA27

    VA27 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,854
    Location:
    Slovenly Manor, Dungheap-Upon-The-Hill
    Forget the 'charge' differences, look at the velocity of a given load. Pick the velocity you want and buy the powder that will allow it safely. If you reload a lot of different loads/calibers invest in a chronograph.

    Today IS the golden age of reloading. There are enough different powders out there now that if you can't find one to suit your your fancy you are just not looking. Heck, there's even a powder that cleans your gun WHILE you shoot it!

    And as a side note, pitch all those old manuals or put 'em on the shelf. A friend of mine built a custom 25/06. Carefully loaded his ammo and we went to the range. First shot kicked him pretty good and I saw a jet of smoke from the action. When he opened the bolt and ejected the round, I saw something but he fired again before I could stop him. He ejected the second round and I got him to look at the brass. The primers were FALLING out of the case!

    He stopped right there and called me when he got home and we compaired loads from my new manual with the manual he was using FROM THE 1960's!! The load he was using was max in his book and several grains OVER max in my book!

    Again, pick the VELOCITY you want and find the powder that will give it to you SAFELY!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page