Manuals reducing loads over time.

[tactikel]

I too have noticed the move to reduce loads (liability) over the years. It is better to have 10,000 loaders shoot under max, than to have one old gun go kaboom.
IIRC Unique was reformulated in the early '70s (single based to double based?). Loads that shot fine for years started flattening primers, and were hard to eject. I stopped using Unique for 5 years. This could explain the sharp drop in max loads for '70 to '74.

 

[rcmodel]

Unique has never change in the last 100 years.

It was changed a few years ago to make it burn cleaner, but it was not changed from single-base to double base.

And the load data for it didn't change.
If it had of changed, thay would have had to re-name the powder something else.
Like Power Pistol for instance.

The changes you see in todays data has more to do with the more precise pressure transducer PSI measuring from the old Copper Crusher CUP method.

They are able to measure and see pressure spikes today that were never measurable before with copper crusher test guns.

When I started reloading, Speer for one shot tests using actual off the shelf guns.

Loads that empty cases fell out of in an old world crafted S&W Magnum from 1960 stuck cases in todays CNC miracle revolvers.

rc

 

[joed]

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.

Thank you StrawHat! I have a friend that is a retired chemist, he told me that years ago. The burn rate can only vary by a small percentage.

I also tried researching why the reduction. None of the revolvers have been safe, even the .357 has been reduced.

There is also a theory that the loads have been reduced because of older, weaker guns being out in the world. That argument loses creedence when you look at the 9mm that has been around longer then most. If anything the 9mm has been loaded hotter.

The argument that testing procedures have gotten better bothers me. Proceedures have changed. The one thing that has changed in testing is vented barrels are no longer used where they were originally for revolver testing. And this is why I think the revolver loads have decreased. We can thank SAAMI for this.

 

[RandyP]

I suspect much of the change came about with the invention of digital pressure transducers now used by modern testing labs...a change from the old copper crush disks that were the norm.

While I share the dismay at 'legalese affecting all our lives, I keep in mind that it isn't the lawyer's fault that a gomer reloader got themselves 'blowed up' and then decided to sue the component manufacturers, the manual publishers and the stores that sold the idjit his reloading supplies.

Our society is full of folks looking for the winning 'lottery ticket' law suit to retire on their half-moons for their own stupidity.

 

[buck460XVR]

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.

As cfullgraf stated it is more complicated than just "lawyer loads". Better testing equipment, the inclusion of more firearms with inconsistent chambers and other manufacturing differences relating to pressure differences, and just the acknowledgement that there's a certain percentage of folks that cannot follow directions or still think they know better than the experts. You see it all the time here on the reloading forum with statements like this made by folks......"I load just over max cause I know what my guns can take, and the book loads are watered down anyway". What if the loads weren't watered down? I also believe that many bullet manufacturers no longer are giving recipes for highest velocities, but for best accuracy.....and isn't that why the majority of us reload?


Funny, while many here whine about powder companies and other load manuals watering down their recipes for legal reasons, they are also the first to scream not to use your own handloads for SD/HD due to the liability. :banghead:

 

[joed]

Let me ask those that keep bringing up the better testing equipment theory a question. If as you say the equipment and methods are better why haven't the 9mm rounds been downgraded? How about .45acp, those loads haven't changed. Only revolver loads have changed.

 

[SHR970]

9mm SAAMI= 35000 psi
9mm CIP= 34080 PSI Their measurement location is different than SAAMI

9mm NATO= 36,500 PSI .... CIP measurement. Solidly in the +P territory.

9mm has been downgraded in the US for a long time.

For a better example, look at the lawyer loads for the 7.92 X 57 Mauser. Assumed for a long time that some Barney will put them into an 1888 commission rifle.

 

[sage5907]

A problem that bothers me is that Speer took IMR 4064 out of their list of powders for the 150 grain bullet in the 30-06. It's like some "educated" college grad is getting too much caffine! Anybody got any ideas?