frogfurr
Contributing Member
Do you still use the data published in the old reloading manuals? I have many manuals that are 20+ years old but haven't used them because of their age. And I certainly could be wrong.
Old Reloading Manuals
- Thread starter frogfurr
- Start date
2ndtimer
Member
Powders can slightly change their formulation over time, so at least verifying data with current manuals or online is a good practice. It seems that a lot of load data has been significantly reduced. Not sure if it is due to changes in powder or pressure measuring or more cautious legal advice.
I keep mine as I have not changed the calibers I reload for and do not buy wildcats or new calibers that are trendy now. I'm just a boring shooter. As @dartor said they still have valuable information for calibers that may be obsolete or in my case if powders have changed I like to compare the new load data with old data.
OP
OP
frogfurr
Contributing Member
... going to dig them out tomorrow.
41 Mag
Member
I have manuals going back past the 60's that have cast data in them that I refer to quite often.
That said for newer calibers that I load, and especiallyfor jacketed, I have up to date data from the major manufacturers that I download or use from newer manuals.
Most of the historical data is used with a touch of caution. There are usually only a few powders still available like Unique, Bullseye, 2400, and sometimes 4831. Even so this is always cross checked with newer manuals or online data.
It is however nice to read about some obscure mold being used in a bygone Era, then actually running across one listed on a forum or similar auction site and be able to get load data to at least begin work ups with.
That said for newer calibers that I load, and especiallyfor jacketed, I have up to date data from the major manufacturers that I download or use from newer manuals.
Most of the historical data is used with a touch of caution. There are usually only a few powders still available like Unique, Bullseye, 2400, and sometimes 4831. Even so this is always cross checked with newer manuals or online data.
It is however nice to read about some obscure mold being used in a bygone Era, then actually running across one listed on a forum or similar auction site and be able to get load data to at least begin work ups with.
A couple examples........carried around in my stash all these years is a Lyman 45th, and one of the free Hercules load manuals circa 1970.
Where there is overlap between the Lyman 45th and current 50th, it seems to me the older data ran a bit stiffer. Examples would be IMR4350 or IMR4831 in 270 Win.....or maybe IMR4064 in 308 Win. The older data might run 1 or 2 grains more as max loads to get same or at least similar velocity. That seems to hold up across the board for same powders, bullets, cases, primers, etc. Remarkable that so many of the components remain the same 50 years later.
Load data in the Hercules for shotgun loads is similar in powder charges, but very, very few of the components remain the same. Say the claybuster clones for the Win AA white and red wads, or CB clones for Federal 12S3 ir 12S0 wads. But those are very similar.
Then there is very, VERY brief load data for pistols in the same manual and those seem pretty salty to me. As much as 125% of what one would find as max loads today. In 9mm, most of those loads would be viewed as +P and then some. There may be a good reason modern era load data is less is load data has kept pace with changes in powders.
In short, I'd go easy using older data with modern powders.
Where there is overlap between the Lyman 45th and current 50th, it seems to me the older data ran a bit stiffer. Examples would be IMR4350 or IMR4831 in 270 Win.....or maybe IMR4064 in 308 Win. The older data might run 1 or 2 grains more as max loads to get same or at least similar velocity. That seems to hold up across the board for same powders, bullets, cases, primers, etc. Remarkable that so many of the components remain the same 50 years later.
Load data in the Hercules for shotgun loads is similar in powder charges, but very, very few of the components remain the same. Say the claybuster clones for the Win AA white and red wads, or CB clones for Federal 12S3 ir 12S0 wads. But those are very similar.
Then there is very, VERY brief load data for pistols in the same manual and those seem pretty salty to me. As much as 125% of what one would find as max loads today. In 9mm, most of those loads would be viewed as +P and then some. There may be a good reason modern era load data is less is load data has kept pace with changes in powders.
In short, I'd go easy using older data with modern powders.
GeoDudeFlorida
Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2020
- Messages
- 10,816
The older pre-80’s manuals that only listed velocity, not pressure, typically were the result of testing in commercial, off the shelf firearms. The velocity numbers listed are, in my experience, much closer to what my firearms produce than the more modern, universal receiver/undersized barrel loads listed with PSI numbers.
A quick search of the forum will yield many threads of loaders asking why they can’t get close to listed velocities in their guns and the answer is always the same: the modern testing labs - with very few exceptions - use universal receivers and undersized testing barrels to test load pressures, not actual firearms.
To me this makes the older manuals more valuable than the newer. But that’s just me.
A quick search of the forum will yield many threads of loaders asking why they can’t get close to listed velocities in their guns and the answer is always the same: the modern testing labs - with very few exceptions - use universal receivers and undersized testing barrels to test load pressures, not actual firearms.
To me this makes the older manuals more valuable than the newer. But that’s just me.
AJC1
Member
I use old manuals for loads I can't find. Blue dot in a 30-30 with a cast or plated 150 not listed in any current stuff I've seen recently. For current stuff use new data.
mcb
Member
I only use old manuals when I can't find newer data. And even then I will run it through QuickLoads to double check it seems reasonable. As usual start low and work up to three desired velocity.
FROGO207
Member
There is a lot of RedDot data for handgun loads in older manuals as well. I have Ideal manuals from the late 40's on up and obsolete calibers are listed within. Also paper manuals work if the power is our and I feel like reloading LOL
Kingcreek
Member
I use old manuals. But then again, sometimes I’m using powder that’s just as old.
CoalCrackerAl
Member
I like the older ones too. Lymans 3rd cast i use all the time. I done some work with Blue dot. Based on Red and Green dot loads and it's burn rate. Green dot loads have slightly higher powder loads. What i did with Blue dot. I started with 1 full grain more. No ill effects. Then later i came across some work. Buy a fellow called Seafire on an forum. His work verified what i was doing. I belive he has pressure testing equipment. You can find his work on 24hr campfire.
www.24hourcampfire.com
Blue Dot Loads - Seafire
Seafire, sent you a pm a couple days ago about Blue Dot loads. Just found some Blue Dot locally. I gave you a heads up in the pm where you might find it. I appreciate all the data you've posted on this. I've already tried loading some in the 223, and I'm hoping to make it to the range to...
AJC1
Member
I would be willing to bet that red green or blue could be used for "the load" if adjusted properly. I trend toward slower pistol powders now, seems like trouble is a few grains away instead of a few tenths.I like the older ones too. Lymans 3rd cast i use all the time. I done some work with Blue dot. Based on Red and Green dot loads and it's burn rate. Green dot loads have slightly higher powder loads. What i did with Blue dot. I started with 1 full grain more. No ill effects. Then later i came across some work. Buy a fellow called Seafire on an forum. His work verified what i was doing. I belive he has pressure testing equipment. You can find his work on 24hr campfire.
Blue Dot Loads - Seafire
Seafire, sent you a pm a couple days ago about Blue Dot loads. Just found some Blue Dot locally. I gave you a heads up in the pm where you might find it. I appreciate all the data you've posted on this. I've already tried loading some in the 223, and I'm hoping to make it to the range to...
CoalCrackerAl
Member
One load i played with for 223 55 garin FMJ in my bolt gun was. R.D 7 Grains,G.D 8 and B.D 9 grains. I have my chrono results some where. They are were pretty accurate. 30.06 120 grain plated. 13,14 and 15 grains of the above powders. Works well too.
LiveLife
Member
When I cannot find current published load data for bullet weight/nose profile I am using with particular powder, I will reference older published load data for my load development like this 2004 Alliant load data - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?resources/2004-alliant-load-data.18/
I will also reference published load data for slightly heavier bullet weight when I cannot find load data for the bullet weight I am using.
IWAC
Member
If you loaded from them then, and still use the same load, maybe a slight reduction just to be assured, but go right on loading as you have in the past. There have been some claims that newer powders...2400 and Unique, for example...are "hotter" or some such, but if you're on the ragged edge of sanity, and your reload flies back and shoots your hat off,
some adjustment may be advisable!
Loads in old manuals can be wild and woolly. One poster said, he copied a load found in PO Ackley's reloading manual, and he could reprime the brass with a shot gun primer!
These were the days. Only laboratories had chronographs and pressure gauges, and the loads in the reloading manual were developed without pressure gauges, because they did not trust the measurements.
I have noticed that the old gunwriters acted as if 3000 fps was a magical number. Maybe the number three has some resonance with humans. You can look at the American Rifleman from the 1920's to WW2, even the military writers (who had access to chronographs) were claiming 3000 fps with a 150 grain bullet in the 30-06. In this manual, I am sure the number of listed 3000 fps loads is because of this fetish. If a cartridge could not push a bullet to 3000 fps, that cartridge was old hat. I wonder what benchmarks they would have set if the US was on the metric system.
There are some smoking hot loads on these pages.
These were the days. Only laboratories had chronographs and pressure gauges, and the loads in the reloading manual were developed without pressure gauges, because they did not trust the measurements.
I have noticed that the old gunwriters acted as if 3000 fps was a magical number. Maybe the number three has some resonance with humans. You can look at the American Rifleman from the 1920's to WW2, even the military writers (who had access to chronographs) were claiming 3000 fps with a 150 grain bullet in the 30-06. In this manual, I am sure the number of listed 3000 fps loads is because of this fetish. If a cartridge could not push a bullet to 3000 fps, that cartridge was old hat. I wonder what benchmarks they would have set if the US was on the metric system.
There are some smoking hot loads on these pages.
Last edited:
Crosshair
Member
It's a useful reference point to have when used properly. I always buy old reloading books that I come across if the price is good.
Some of Slamfire's 270 win loads from the Speer manual are more or less the same today. The 4350 and 4831 look awfully familiar.
That father / son scenario also looked a bit like my dad and me. A blast from the past........found this in the stash.........
(Barker)? HOT! ? Both sound like pressure signs to me. Thinking back, I don't remember ever seeing a case trimmer.
That father / son scenario also looked a bit like my dad and me. A blast from the past........found this in the stash.........
(Barker)? HOT! ? Both sound like pressure signs to me. Thinking back, I don't remember ever seeing a case trimmer.
Last edited:
EricBu
Member
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2021
- Messages
- 1,345
Old manuals are gold for many reasons. They are a snapshot of Americana if nothing else. And they are still valid reference sources, but it's on you to do your due diligence and validate that old data against another source. Keeping old manuals is even more important today....Hodgedon now controls 75% of the us powder market, and every year they drop old or less popular calibers, and shave data for others in their publication...and the original publications from the companies they bought are dropped completely. One example is the AA manuals, which became Western manuals...and now that will never be published again. Instead, Hodgdon maintains a tiny amount of that data...the rest is lost unless you have a copy on your shelf, or depend on online archives which may or may not be there when you need it. I for one buy any old manual I come across if I can.
Riomouse911
Member
I just swapped out my 1992-era Lyman 47th for the latest Lyman 51st. I only load one round that isn’t in the 47th, the .327 Federal Mag, but I wanted some updated info so I sprung for the latest book.
Stay safe.
Stay safe.
AJC1
Member
I never see manuals in the pif or in the for sale section... I wonder why... I'd love to have a hard copy of the imr load data...
J-Bar
Member
I keep Speer #8 (1970 - "The Book of Dreams") for its cover art as much as for load information. It has a page for self defense loads in small frame revolvers that are quite bouncy even in my N frames. No, I am not gonna post a picture of that page!!
Similar threads
