Old Loading Manuals vs New Loading Manuals

[X-Rap]

I would encourage all new reloaders to hunt down and purchase some of the old manuals if for nothing else but a reference.
As always use caution in building up a load but the old data might give you a more reasonable starting point and with your own collection of specific physical information you might be able to push things to the point they did back in the old days.
That old data would be disclaimed to a much greater degree by those who used it if they had guns being ruined by its use.

 

[LiveLife]

Castpics has scanned pdfs of older load data from powder manufacturers - http://www.castpics.net/LoadData/Freebies/default.html

I often reference older load data like 2004 Alliant load data as it has loads for FMJ and lead bullets that are missing from current published load data - http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=182147&d=1364769070

 

[LiveLife]

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.

... last thing anyone needs is a bunch of yahoos testing the upper limits of pressure and velocity without a developed sense of self-discipline.

Whatever the reason why powder manufacturers reduce powder charges, I take it that there were good reasons.

Us reloaders often forget that chamber pressure testing is done with NEW brass. I, like most reloaders will keep reloading the brass until it shows signs that will prompt me to toss the brass or until the case fails. Powder charges/chamber pressures that may be OK with new brass may not do well with brass that's been reloaded several times, especially if chamber/case base support was not ideal with max or over-max charges (can you say max charge with bullet set back?).

When I introduce shooters to reloading, I discuss this aspect of reloading and advise them to consider reducing their max powder charges when using mixed range brass with unknown reload history and condition of brass.

As always, YMMV.

Be safe.

 

[joed]

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.

In 37 years of handloading I've never seen more than 1% variation of a lot. I cut back when changing lots but have never had to adjust the charge by more than .5 gr. Maybe I'm just lucky in buying powder.

 

[RugerOldArmy]

I think we should all want as much data as we can get. Older data needs to be considered in terms of how solid the data is, and if a powder has changed, with caution, and insight.

I've got some older sources, that I value. It is amazing, for example, how the 2400 loads in .357 Magnum have changed over the years.

They're much more conservative now. Compare Speer 8, which has maximums, that should really be considered MAXIMUMS.

Then again, in a strong revolver, some of those hotter loads still shoot well... and are likely well within what a large-framed Ruger BlackHawk can handle. The assumption of personal risk reloading, is a decision each of us must make individually. But should you flirt with the upper levels of published data when you see things tighten-up, it can be reassuring that a load you may be considering, was still a grain under max a decade ago.

That said, I encourage an abundance of caution be used, when viewing older data.

What ever happened to the internet reloading legend 'Clark' of 10-15 years ago? I wonder if he is still experimenting, uninjured. He frequently left some old manuals in the dust, and survived longer than most would have imagined. While his experiments often seemed irresponsible, they were often interesting from an engineering perspective, and they documented observations up until failure, which you don't see a lot of data on.

 

[joed]

I think we should all want as much data as we can get. Older data needs to be considered in terms of how solid the data is, and if a powder has changed, with caution, and insight.

I've got some older sources, that I value. It is amazing, for example, how the 2400 loads in .357 Magnum have changed over the years.

They're much more conservative now. Compare Speer 8, which has maximums, that should really be considered MAXIMUMS.

Then again, in a strong revolver, some of those hotter loads still shoot well... and are likely well within what a large-framed Ruger BlackHawk can handle. The assumption of personal risk reloading, is a decision each of us must make individually. But should you flirt with the upper levels of published data when you see things tighten-up, it can be reassuring that a load you may be considering, was still a grain under max a decade ago.

That said, I encourage an abundance of caution be used, when viewing older data.

What ever happened to the internet reloading legend 'Clark' of 10-15 years ago? I wonder if he is still experimenting, uninjured.

The .357 Mag is one of the cartridges that took a beating with the way SAAMI measures pressure now. They do not use an actual revolver which has a barrel/cylinder gap to measure pressure any more. Because of this revolver cartridges have taken a beating in newer manuals.

 

[savanahsdad]

I use both and the web. there are no 32Rem loads in new books and there are no 7mm-08 loads in old books and old books seem to have more cast stuff than the new books do. and when I see things like H-414 having different data than W760 in the same book, it is most likely that they are form different lots and in most cases the start loads are at about the same place or with in 6%