Old Reloading Books - Hotter loads?

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

ToadPS

Member
Joined
May 24, 2008
Messages
68
Seems there was a thread around here about this but I can't find it now.

I have reloading manuals I bought back in the 70's, like Hornaday #2.

I was glancing through the pistol loads as I am about to get back into that and it seemed to me that there are many bullet weight/powder charge combos listed that produce velocities that would be clearly rated as +p or +p+ nowadays that are shown below max load in the old books.

What changed? Did the powders change or did the lawyers change?

I'm sure there has been discussion but can we safely load from the old books? In many cases listed components in the old books are still available, the same primers/powders/bullets.

What's the vedict?

Thanks in advance.
 
I ran into that specific problem, was using a 10 year old Hornady book, and loading 9mm according to thier AA#2 load data...found out AFTER I touched off some barn burner ammo, that Accurate had reformulated the powder, had a differant manufacturer, and the old data went from normal to +P+. Bad juju. Get current data, most manufacturers have websites with updated info.
 
I have old books that show both lower and higher load levels for various ammo and powders still in production but for the most part the powder charges have stayed relatively the same. I once talked to representative of the Hercules Co. (now Alliant) and asked them why some of the powder charges in their manuals have been lowered over the years. His remark was that there's been changes in the components and not the powder, they remarked that primers in particular where a lot warmer than some of the primes used in earlier years data development.
 
And I suppose, since the rifles the loads are fired in are 45 years older then when I bought my first manuals, that might come into play as well.
 
And then you have Hercules 2400 of the 1960s, Hercules 2400 of the late 1990s and Alliant of 2006. All three burn the same. Or at least close. I have samples of all three and loaded 50 rounds of each at the same powder weight and ran them across my chronograph. Neither showed any over pressure signs. The older 2400 ran, on average, 25 fps slower. Which really tells me that as far as 2400 is concerned...No change...

Conclusion? I amagin it would depend on the powder and the powder company and any, if any, changes they may or may not have made from yester year to today. As said before and all through these pages. Work your loads up when ever you change something in the makeup of your rounds.
 
Most of the handgun data in old load books was developed in actual handguns.
By the seat of their pants!

Rifle loads were usually tested in copper-crusher pressure barrels, but not always.

After computers became widely available and the pressure transducer invented, they found out what some of those loads were actually doing, and they very sensibly dropped them to SAAMI safe levels.

rcmodel
 
Since more manuals are prepared with some sort of pressure testing equipment these days I think they've discovered that some of the charges listed in earlier manuals were found to be too hot. That being said, there are some rounds that were chambered in older, weaker guns so they have low maximum pressure limits. Three that come to mind are the .222 Rem, .257 Roberts, and .250-3000 Savage. I've got a .222 in a CZ 527 that takes much heavier charges than listed in any manuals, but with no sign of excessive pressures (rounded edges on primers, one finger bolt lift) in that little rifle. I've also got a Rem 700 Classic in .250-3000 that readily accepts loads that would likely stick a Savage 99 tight.

On the other hand Speer used to show loads for the 9x19 that were WAY hot in the High Power I had. Not only that, it was nearly impossible to get the powder into the case. I was young and not too bright, so I tried them. Thankfully the High Power is a strong gun.
 
Thanks for all the replies.

I do start well below max and work up; it's not my first rodeo here. :) I actually am more of an accuracy reloader than a velocity reloader. Accuracy comes first and speed second. Probably because I got into reloading first with bolt rifles used for long shots on coyotes, prairie dogs and deer.

I was just curious as to pressure.

Even back in those early manuals, the signs of pressure were the same as they are today. Sticky cases, cratered primers, etc.

We have to assume that those early manuals tried those loads looking for signs of overpressure and then made the loading charts.

Yet now loads that were easily below max in the old books are max or even over max loads in the new books.

I'm aware of SAAMI pressures and I think those are good things.

But in the end, isn't it what the load does in the gun you use it in that matters? For example, if you're below SAAMI with a 'safe' recipe and 10/10 primers crater in your gun, you can't use it. (yeah, you probably need to get that gun/chamber checked out too) But you see the idea here; no matter what the recipe, it has to work without signs of overpressure in your particular gun.

Extrapolating this, and thinking particularly of .38spl, if you run one of the hotter loads from the old manual and the cases don't stick, the primers don't crater and everything looks 'normal' why not use it if accuracy is good?
 
But in the end, isn't it what the load does in the gun you use it in that matters? For example, if you're below SAAMI with a 'safe' recipe and 10/10 primers crater in your gun, you can't use it. (yeah, you probably need to get that gun/chamber checked out too) But you see the idea here; no matter what the recipe, it has to work without signs of overpressure in your particular gun.

Extrapolating this, and thinking particularly of .38spl, if you run one of the hotter loads from the old manual and the cases don't stick, the primers don't crater and everything looks 'normal' why not use it if accuracy is good?
Click to expand...

The problem with this is that looking for traditional pressure signs to estimate chamber pressure in a firearm is about as accurate as reading chicken bones tossed on the floor. It's well within the realm of possibility to have a gun that craters primers well under the max SAAMI spec for that cartridge only to have another firearm that won't sow any signs till the primer literally falls out.

Many of the velocities from older manuals were literally pie in the sky estimations and trying to attain some of these speeds is an exercise in fulitility. The best us mere mortals can do is use a modern pressure tested (in PSI) manual and use your chronograph to verify your results against their data is all you can so short of buying a pressure transducer setup. Forget the old voodoo of reading primers and cases as many times you're several thousand PSI over the limit by the time any indications of trouble show
 
Extrapolating this, and thinking particularly of .38spl, if you run one of the hotter loads from the old manual and the cases don't stick, the primers don't crater and everything looks 'normal' why not use it if accuracy is good?
Click to expand...

I use a great 38Spl load, 158 L 3.5 grains Bullseye. Have reloaded thousands of cases with that load. In older reloading manuals, it is a mid range load. Now, current data says it is 0.1 grain from a max load.

Makes me wonder about the new data, especially as my velocities are a lot less than theirs.
 
Some of my loads that i worked up years ago.using the 2nd hornady reloading book is way over max for the new hornady book.So i use the new book.I figure they had to had a reason to change,So i reload to the new book.I like to be safe,
 
It's well to keep in mind that many of the old magnum revolver loads were worked up in older S&W & Colt revolvers with very slick chambers.

Loads that would fall out of them when the cylinder opened would require a block of stovewood to beat them out on some of the revolvers being made today.

rcmodel
 
And then you have Hercules 2400 of the 1960s, Hercules 2400 of the late 1990s and Alliant of 2006. All three burn the same. Or at least close. I have samples of all three and loaded 50 rounds of each at the same powder weight and ran them across my chronograph. Neither showed any over pressure signs. The older 2400 ran, on average, 25 fps slower. Which really tells me that as far as 2400 is concerned...No change...
Click to expand...

40 year old powder with essentially the same performance as new? That is comforting to hear. I recently bought a pound of 2400 really cheap from an older shooter and I'm guessing it is 25 - 30 years old. It still smells sweet.
Just loaded a couple hundred 158 grain JHPs and look forward to testing next time the sun shines.
 
Extrapolating this, and thinking particularly of .38spl, if you run one of the hotter loads from the old manual and the cases don't stick, the primers don't crater and everything looks 'normal' why not use it if accuracy is good?
ToadPS is offline Report Post
Click to expand...

If you show ANY signs of pressure in a .38 spl load you are about 15000 psi + over what it's rated for. Sticking cases and cratered primers are above the 35000 psi range! As a previous poster mentioned, reading pressure signs (especially in handguns) is like reading chicken bones.

PS. My experience with 2400 mirrors a previous poster. I have chrono'd the same loads from 2 cans 20+ years apart with no marked difference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Load Data for 308 using Win 748
2
Replies
37
Views
21K
tkcomer
T
B
  • Locked
Are old load books valuable sources of info?
Replies
9
Views
417
Halo
H
Grandpa Shooter
  • Locked
Old load data or new load data?
Replies
2
Views
649
Clark
Clark
D
  • Locked
Old Loading Data
Replies
7
Views
580
Crashbox
C
W
  • Locked
Old reloading book just says "4895"
Replies
18
Views
2K
Jim Watson
J
Back
Top