Old Loading Manuals vs New Loading Manuals

[345 DeSoto]

What's the story with starting loads and max loads in older loading manuals, as opposed to what the new manuals say? Were the old loads "dangerous" or were they more on the money...compared to todays Loading Manuals? I'd LIKE to use one of the older ones...

 

[steveno]

in some of the old manuals none of the loads were pressure tested so if a fired case ejected normally and no other problems then it was considered safe. with new pressure testing equipment they actually knew what the pressures were and some were kind of scary. I still have manuals that are 50 years old and wouldn't hesitate to use loads from them. if a person just uses some common sense and starts low and working up there shouldn't be any problems

 

[Vodoun da Vinci]

Having access to both is good for comparisons if you can find the same powders and bullets. I re started hand loading and shooting after a 30 year hiatus and used my old reloading manuals to develop calibers I never reloaded 30 years ago...like the .32 auto and .380 auto.

For some reason the newer manuals and data don't seem to have the variety of bullet weights like the old manuals - folks are astounded when we come up with 115 gr. .380 loads but I have manuals with data for .380 loads up to 120 gr. bullets. Use them both and compare data trying to stay with apples to apples comparisons.

VooDoo

 

[243winxb]

Speer manual number 8 - approach maximums with caution. There are some very over pressure loads listed. IMO.

 

[spitballer]

Good question, and I wonder why Hodgdon decided to drop .222 Rem Mag altogether. The 2015 reloading manual doesn't even mention it.

 

[Sam1911]

Setveno is exactly right. In 2014 we have access to much better and much cheaper (thus, widely used) scientific testing apparatus and techniques that give a better picture of what's really going on inside the gun's chamber.

Some of the old load guides leaned more heavily on the guns' safety margins than we'd want to now.

 

[LiveLife]

And some new manuals STILL post different load data for W231 and HP-38 ...'

I guess they are copy/pasting old load data?

 

[MAXM]

I've seen some recent official pistol loading data those max loads barely cycle the slide... and others very very (sometimes, even too much!) hot.
Some data are only calculated with some internal ballistic program, not tested in pressure guns as they should.
One must get old and new loading manuals always as an useful help, but I don't trust blindly in them.
Sorry, I apologize for my bad english language.

 

[MAXM]

I've found, too, some recent powder lots way off of expected burning rate and loading data.

 

[Slamfire]

I don't know what to say about Accurate Arms data, the stuff has been so unreliable that I usually have to develop my own loads with their powder.

But for older manuals, lets say 70's and earlier, most of the data was generated without pressure equipment. I found in a P. O. Ackley book that Speer had decided the data from copper crusher pressure equipment was unreliable!

Always take reloading manuals as a "guide". The pressure curve is an exponential curve and little changes in barrels, bullets, cases, chambers, mean huge changes in pressures. Due the semi conductor revolution modern measuring devices are able to measure the pressure curve in real time while the old copper crusher gave a sort of an average. Modern measuring equipment is also why certain powders are no longer recommended for cartridges even though those combinations are found in older manuals. I talked to Alliant, those loads they dropped were too darn sensitive to component change or the pressure curve is too spikey. Others they don’t print at all. One of those dangerous combinations was the use of Blue Dot in rifle cartridges, particularly the 223. I met one shooter who was got his information on the web, he claimed Blue Dot burnt clean, did not heat up the barrel, and required very little powder to get acceptable velocities. However, he did not have pressure equipment to see just how quickly the pressure curve spiked with component and barrel changes. You can find accounts of rifle blowups with Blue Dot and the owners think they must have double charged the round and never consider that the pressure curve spiked due to the powder being peaky.

 

[Jesse Heywood]

I found in a P. O. Ackley book that Speer had decided the data from copper crusher pressure equipment was unreliable!

Sounds like Speer was technically correct. The CUP method was unreliable. But, at the time, it was the best data available. I now take any data that lists the CUP with a grain of salt.

In the 70s the Speer manuals were well-known for being the hottest brand going. A fellow reloader used only the maximum Speer data. While he never blew a revolver to pieces, he certainly ruined several quality guns with stretched frames.

 

[WestKentucky]

I have intentionally acquired books of various age, and I typically try to match powder age to data age. This can be a real chore when buying up benches from people getting out of the game due to lack of interest, age, or even death of the reloader. I have had some OLD win 231 that worked really well with old data but was off on newer data...So I compare data from a few books and typically take the one closest in age as my guide but use the others as a sort of safety net. One of my books lists a load with 4335 for the .270 win that terrifies me because starting load is basically max load in all the other books I checked. Max load would certainly be an overpressure, but I'm not willing to find out how over, and what damage it may or may not do when actually fired in a real rifle.

Another pro and con of my setup and system is a wide variety of bullets. Most are still in production but some arent, and some can't be identified. In these cases I weigh them, estimate contact area with rifling, and find data for something of similar weight and friction area. Sometimes I'm on really quick, sometimes I'm way off. I always load light to prevent catastrophic failure when I'm working with total unknowns. Cast lead is much easier to figure out a load than jacketed bullets are but jacketed bullets are a lot easier to figure out what they are and find data.

Lots of goodies come out of cardboard boxes with no labels though. I have some 120 gr 7mm ballistic tips that I can't match up to anything but they shoot well in my 7-30, and I have about 1000 of them left from that box.

 

[Don McDowell]

What's the story with starting loads and max loads in older loading manuals, as opposed to what the new manuals say? Were the old loads "dangerous" or were they more on the money...compared to todays Loading Manuals? I'd LIKE to use one of the older ones...

The majority of the data from the old manuals was pressure tested , in special minimum chamber spec test guns. They used the CUP system then as it was the best they had. Today with the electronic strain gauges etc, the standards have changed over to PSI, and as such some loads have changed others not so much.
The old adage from long ago, to start at the lowest listed loads and work up , is a good today as it was then.
My Dad and my uncle had identicle 1947 built model 70's in 30-06, both rifles required different powder charges from the same batch of surplus 4895 powder.. The same holds true through out the gun world , something that works good in one might be a miserable failure in another..

 

[gamestalker]

What kind of baffles me, is why there are still so many loads that are pressure rated using the old CUP method. Personally, I would like to see everything published with more uniformity in this respect, particularly in PSI. I get kind of irritated sometimes when researching loads, cause there is no current method of comparing a PSI tested load, with a CUP tested load. When everything was published in CUP, I could at least compare apples to apples.

As to using old data, I still use it. I recently had a 22-250 load with IMR-4350 I wanted to work up, but the bullet weight was on the cusp in modern books, so no data existed. Probably not the best way to go, but I was out of Varget at the moment, and figured since I had used the Speer data years back, long before current data had deleted it, why wouldn't it be fine now.

GS

 

[brickeyee]

The ability to measure pressure has gotten better.
The powders have been 'reformulated.'

Older 'crusher' methods had a significant precision and transient response limits.
Notice no one told you the tolerance on the numbers?
Some actually had scary high tolerance values.

Do you really want to fire 50,000 CUP a few inches from your head if it is 20% tolerance?

Is the metallurgy in every firearm that repeatable?
What tolerance did they try to 'cover' in the ammunition?
Is the steel THAT uniform?

 

[Steve C]

With some powders and bullete there is little to no difference in the load data. With others there has been a more noticeable change in load data but I've not seen much more than maybe than a max difference of a few percent in anything I load.

In general I keep old manuals around to use powders that data is no longer published because they are no longer in style or production.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I've seen some recent official pistol loading data those max loads barely cycle the slide... and others very very (sometimes, even too much!) hot.
Some data are only calculated with some internal ballistic program, not tested in pressure guns as they should.
One must get old and new loading manuals always as an useful help, but I don't trust blindly in them.
Sorry, I apologize for my bad english language.

You are correct, it's best to have several different sources of load data to compare when working up a new load. I find that helpful.

Il tuo inglese è molto buono, non ti preoccupare.
(Your English is very good, do not worry.)

 

[MAXM]

You are correct, it's best to have several different sources of load data to compare when working up a new load. I find that helpful.

Il tuo inglese è molto buono, non ti preoccupare.
(Your English is very good, do not worry.)

Thanks ArchAngelCD, your Italian is very good too.

 

[joed]

I won't buy into the theory that The ability to measure pressure has gotten better and
The powders have been 'reformulated.

What has happened is SAAMI has come up with a different method to measuring pressure in revolvers. Most rifles haven't seen loads degraded unless you're using a Hornady manual.

As for powders being refomulated that's nonsense. The reason I say this is if the powder company changed the burn rate they would need to rename the powder.

There were some tests done years ago with some very old Unique compared to a new batch. They still burned the same. Wish I could remember who did this, may have been the powder company.

 

[MAXM]

joed, many times powders aren't reformulated, but simply there are wide differences from lot to lot, much more in not-canister powder lots reserved to professionals reloaders but that in some way catch up with the "retail" market.

 

[spitballer]

Always take reloading manuals as a "guide"...

Agree completely, and I still give great credit to the powder companies (especially Hodgdon) for going out on a limb to provide information as a genuine service to the reloading community. Surely consolidation has them shouldering a heavier load right now, and the last thing anyone needs is a bunch of yahoos testing the upper limits of pressure and velocity without a developed sense of self-discipline.

 

[Salmoneye]

joed, many times powders aren't reformulated, but simply there are wide differences from lot to lot,

Every powder manufacturer I have ever asked tells me there can be as much as 3% +/- lot to lot burn rate variation from the 'target rate'...

This means that one time you may get a -3% lot and the next get a +3% lot for a difference of 6% burn rate...

This is why any time we change powder (or any component) we should drop back 5%, and work the load back up...

 

[X-Rap]

Strange there is no opinion on litigation so far. Shooting, especially reloading has gone from a relative few to mainstream and it is now big business.
In the 70's and earlier we were in a different time with regards to liability and that's not just in regards to guns. Sure the testing has gotten better but there have been millions of rounds fired using the old data.
I was surprised to notice my go to load for 223 that was mild by old standards was at or over max in a new manual.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Strange there is no opinion on litigation so far. Shooting, especially reloading has gone from a relative few to mainstream and it is now big business.
In the 70's and earlier we were in a different time with regards to liability and that's not just in regards to guns. Sure the testing has gotten better but there have been millions of rounds fired using the old data.
I was surprised to notice my go to load for 223 that was mild by old standards was at or over max in a new manual.

I will use HS-6 as an example because it was very glaring to me. Hodgdon dropped the max charge by a lot and many claim they did so because the testing methods are better. What got me was they were claiming the velocities are the same with the new loads too. (or even higher) I checked the data and the barrel length was the same for both sets of data so please don't tell me a full grain difference in a 6gr load will produce the same velocity. No magic testing methods will produce those results!

 

[MAXM]

I will use HS-6 as an example because it was very glaring to me. Hodgdon dropped the max charge by a lot and many claim they did so because the testing methods are better. What got me was they were claiming the velocities are the same with the new loads too. (or even higher) I checked the data and the barrel length was the same for both sets of data so please don't tell me a full grain difference in a 6gr load will produce the same velocity. No magic testing methods will produce those results!

Absolutely, +1!