Old vs New Reloading Handbooks

[NVMM]

THE FOLLOWING ARE NOT LOAD RECOMMENDATIONS.
THESE LOADS ARE FOR DISCUSSION ONLY.

I was looking for a somewhat warm load for my 624 for an upcoming shoot and was a little surprised to find the huge load variations found in todays books versus older handloading books.
I know the companies have lawyered up. I was looking at a new reloading manual at a store and I think the top load for a 44 special using 2400 and a 240gr bullet was 11grs.of 2400. Looking at one of my old manuals, a Lyman 43rd edition, a top load using a 235 gr bullet is 19grs of 2400.
Wow what a difference. I think Elmer Keith’s load for the 44 was 17gr 2400 with a 240gr bullet.
And that was hot. Another top load in Lyman’s 43rd edition for the 240gr bullet is 8.1gr Unique.
I’m a life long reloader and have probably used some of these loads. I’m looking at these loads now and am thinking am I crazy to put this much powder in the case?
Has anyone used any warmer 44 special loads recently? How did they shoot?

 

[Jim Watson]

They have lawyered up and everybody belongs to SAAMI now, they won't set pressure levels above black powder performance in the old cartridges.
Your 624 will stand more.
On the other hand, Elmer and his friends in The .44 Special Associates were experimenters. There were a couple of Mr Keith's SAAs shown in American Handgunner once. You could clearly see where the blown topstraps had been welded back in. Do you want to play in that league?
I think Dave Scovill did a book on stout but sensible loads for the SAA that would likely have useful information for your Smith.

 

[callgood]

I have reloaded for my Glock 20 and Sig p220 and one of my concerns is hot loads battering the frames- Glock more than the stainless Sig. I have the dies to reload 9mm for my Hi Power, and again there I have that concern and will keep to the moderate loads. I load for accuracy and notice that many times the most accurate load will be just under the max load listed. I mainly use the Sierra manual, tho I have the Speer manual for loading Gold Dots.

I have some Double Tap ammo for my Glock, and the velocities listed on their web site are a good deal faster than any in my Sierra manual, so I am assuming Sierra is fairly moderate.

High on my list of items to get is a chronograph. I am torn between an inexpensive one, which I could get sooner, or putting $ aside for one with all the bells and whistles. I might consider exceeding listed max loads, especially in my Gp100, but I would do so only if I could chrono the load to get some idea of the velocities generated. However, since I'm not into the Elmer Keith end of things, I'll probably just keep a mag of Double Taps for bump in the night purposes.

 

[Matthew748]

I reviewed an old Speer guide I have from the 1970s and the listed .44 Special loads are pretty tame. The .45 Colt loads, however, are anything but. The loads they list for use in with the Ruger Blackhawk and exceed the “rifle only” .45 Colt loads listed in the 48th edition of the Lyman Guide.

Personally, I like the old reloading guides. I am not saying that a person should use them exclusively, but they are nice to use as a point of reference for older cartridges that are going to be used in strong, modern guns.

 

[steveno]

one of the differences in old and new manuals is that the testing equipment is a lot better so there isn't any quessing. the new data may be down due to "lawyers" but the difference isn't going to be noticeable in any target or hunting situation so to me it is a non-issue. the old Lyman manuals are very good reading and still a good source for cast bullet loads

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Cheese.

My Lymans manual is th 46th.

I don't care. .44 special was around before the 46th edition.

Trail Boss? I check the most recent IMR guides.

 

[Jwar88]

The most useful piece of information that is usually left out of most reloading manuals is the chamber pressure data. With that info and a chrono, a home loader has a pretty good idea of what a load is doing in his gun. Without it it is just a guess.

TC

 

[BruceB]

When it comes to chrongraphs, I find myself looking at them in the same way I now look at cell phones and GPS units.

I don't WANT my cell phone to be a camera, an address book, a dictionary, or to do ANYTHING except make and receive calls. I don't WANT my GPS to do ANYTHING except tell me where I am and which way to camp. THAT'S IT!!!!

At work, we have two massive mine hoists, 2500 horsepower each, capable of over 2000 vertical feet per minute with twenty-ton loads. These were made back in the '50s, and were designed to operate using ONLY an oil-pressure gauge and an ammeter for instrumentation. They are now computerized, and there now are at least 800 possible faults which can shut them down. Guess what? 98% of the possible faults are COMPUTER FAULTS!

In chronographs, I want to know the velocity of a given shot, and the extreme spread in a string is useful, saving me the calculating work. Standard Deviation or Mean Average Deviation (not both) can be interesting to a handloader, but certainly not essential. That's all I need or want.

I do NOT want a chrono as a printer or "ballistic research center". I'm not a ballistician, after all, just a handloader. I keep good records of what interests me for MY ammunition, and don't need bits of printer paper cluttering-up the proceedings.

Engineers have an irresistible compulsion to load crap onto systems because they CAN, not because it's needed. K-I-S-S, don't pay for surplus features you don't need, and be happy. My PACT Model 1 chrono has served well for many years, and as simple as it is, still has a couple features I ignore.

Does this make me a Luddite? Nope....I was using chronographs 'way back when we had to change two paper screens between shots. Not a Luddite at all, but I damned-sure know when I'm being flim-flammed by the snake-oil salesmen!

 

[LAH]

My favorite load manual is the Lyman 45th. I quote this load from there but first read this:

THE FOLLOWING ARE NOT LOAD RECOMMENDATIONS.
THESE LOADS ARE FOR DISCUSSION ONLY.

They list the L-429421 at 245 grains with 17.7 grains of 2400 and Rem. 2 1/2 primer. Velocity....1155. This was fired from a 5.5 inch Colt SAA with a .427 groove diameter. I would guess this load to be hot. It is though one I've fired quite a few of but won't again unless in a 44 Mag. sixgun.

As for warmer 44 Special loads, here's mine, but first:

THE FOLLOWING ARE NOT LOAD RECOMMENDATIONS.
THESE LOADS ARE FOR DISCUSSION ONLY.

I use the L-429421 at 250 grains and 15 grains of 2400. This does 1050 fps from my sixgun, a M-28 S&W conversion by MMC from the 1970's. It shoots to point of aim with the rear sight bottomed out and will group well under 2 inches at 25 yards. Is it too warm?

The last time Brian Pearce called here we discussed this sixgun and this load. It was his thoughts and again:

THE FOLLOWING ARE NOT LOAD RECOMMENDATIONS.
THESE LOADS ARE FOR DISCUSSION ONLY.

That this load could be fired more or less forever in this sixgun. I was concerned because this conversion was fired by Mr. Skelton and I wish not to shoot it apart. With that said I will admit to firing this load for many years with no ill effects. Is the load safe? I believe it is in this sixgun.

I will edit to show picture of my prize.

 

[BigG]

I think some of the powders have been reformulated and know that the companies have changed hands. Dupont is now IMR, Hercules, Alliant, etc.

 

[Ol` Joe]

In the past the manuals were built with data that came from testing loads until they showed pressure and backing off, or by measuring case head expansion. I believe Sierra still does this. We all agree just because a load shows no sign of trouble in our gun it isn`t a guarentee it is safe in everyones. Why then should we take a book that has it`s data derived the same as we would have worked up on our own as being gospel? The different compontent, verying chambers, barrels, temp, ect all give different results.
The amount of expansion found by measuring case heads only shows the brass started to flow, it says nothing as to what the pressure acually was, the same with primers, The crusher method is only as accurate as the guy measuring them and are a "relative" figure not PSI.
The pressures given by SAAMI are also absolute max and the variation or "spread" in pressure has to be taken in acount when publishing loads. A load that averages say 34K psi in a cartridge rated at 35K that shows a spread in pressure of +/- 2500 psi likely will be dropped down to 32K or so just to be on the safe side. They have no idea how much variation will appear in your gun with a rough bore, eroded throat, and componts compared to that found in the SAAMI spec test equipment used. The load will be listed as max and should be concidered just that, even though it isn`t 35K as SAAMI lists.
The newer equipment (peizo and strain) allows the labs to test for pressures with much less error and shows these faults that didn`t show with the old methods. The laywers surely have their hands in this but the data is much truer to what you should find with your loads.
Remember too the reason for the laywers is someone, somewhere, screwed up with the old data and brought them into it to begin with. The companies aren`t paying them because they like tossing large amounts of money away.
JMHO

 

[BruceB]

Ol' Joe's mostly right, but I take issue with his idea that the "lawyer-reduced loads" are due to events that have already happened. In most cases, it's more a question of "What if x or y or z happens, and how much will our liability be?" THEN they start cutting like crazy.

Pilots of heavy aircraft are well aware of a similar phenomenon, which they call "granny speed". The transport airliner has a book too, the Flight Manual, and it gives a recommended landing-approach speed which takes into account EVERYTHING...crosswinds, temperatures, field altitude, aircraft weight, all sorts of facts. Suppose the "book" says "120 knots over the airport fence"...then the pilots start fudging the figure, adding five knots for the wife, five knots for the kids, another five for the in-laws, and ending up with an extra five knots for granny, and a speed that is so far above the recommended rate that it results in blown tires, excessive brake heating and wear, and legions of other mechanical troubles...IN AN EFFORT TO BE "SAFER"!

So, the lawyers or company bigshots look at lab-developed loading data and start cutting it BEFORE it leads to potential problems. It's unfortunate, but it truly reflects the insane lengths to which plaintiff's lawyers will stretch in search of money, and a sad fact of business these days. This wimpish approach is not the creation of the powder companies, and that's dead certain.

Forty years of intensive handloading has taught me a great deal about ammunition. My loads have served safely in hundreds of different guns, and many loads were (and are) well-above levels cited as "maximum" in current manuals. So what? While I strongly urge new handloaders to stay within the published boundaries until they gain a lot of education in the field, I also know it's perfectly safe for THOSE WHO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING to venture cautiously onto experimental ground.

Good thread, here.

 

[LAH]

Well said BruceB.

 

[Jwar88]

I don't agree that it is all about Lawyers, Guns, and Money...

I don't think the lawyers have much to do with the development of ballistic data at all. The only Laws at issue here are the Laws of Physics. The ballistic technicians I have worked with that oversee or develop this data are pretty knowledgable and dedicated folks. They also have a great concern for accuracy...accuracy in the information they provide. They care a lot about the physics, and seem totally unaware of the concept of liability, unless it relates to providing inaccurate or unsafe data. All the information they publish is well reasearched and reliable.

Personally, I don't really see that much difference between manuals from the early 60's to the most current ones from a scientific point of view. As well they should, as the Laws of Physics haven't changed that I am aware of. They did a pretty good job back then and do an even more thorough job now in providing data. In my opinion, the most recently published data is the best, most reliable, and most accurate available.

I believe that the information published by the bullet and powder manufacturers today is reliable reference data. The loads they recommend provide top performance at maximum saami chamber pressures with 100% safety. Those are standards across the industry...the international community. There is a lot of research and development that goes into their results. The most current data is on their websites, and are excellent reference material.

TC

 

[Clark]

"Speer 3" 1959 44 mag 240 gr. JSP..........23.0 gr. 2400 1564 fps
"Speer 6" 1964 44 mag 240 gr. JSP..........23.0 gr. 2400 1564 fps
"Speer 7" 1966 44 mag 240 gr. JSP..........23.0 gr. 2400 1564 fps
"Speer 8" 1970 44 mag 240 gr. JSP..........23.0 gr. 2400 1521 fps
"Speer 9" 1974 44 mag 240 gr. JSP..........19.5 gr. 2400 1344 fps
"Speer 10" 1979 44 mag 240 gr. JSP&MSP 22.2 gr. 2400 1392 fps.
"Speer 11" 1987 44 mag 240 gr. JSP&MSP 22.2 gr. 2400 1452 fps
"Speer 12" 1994 44 mag 240 gr. JSP&MSP 17.7 gr. 2400 1271 fps
"Speer 13" 1998 44 mag 240 gr. JSP&MSP 21.0 gr. 2400 1434 fps

Speer started out with excellent load books based on common sense.
What went wrong?

 

[HankB]

I started loading with the Speer #8 manual circa 1970. Some of their loads WERE, IMHO, too hot. For example they recommended loading a .357 with a 125 JHP and 14.0 grains of SR4756 . . . I RECOMMEND YOU DO NOT TRY THIS!

I later read - but haven't confirmed - that Speer used to work up their loads outdoors during the winter . . . in Idaho. Cold weather making for unusually hot loads? Maybe, but caution was indicated.

Note, also, that some cartridges - notably the .357 Mag - have been downgraded by SAAMI because of internal politics by their membership. (Manufacturers put out less durable guns, so they lobbied to have the ammo downgraded.)

 

[Clark]

Hank,
John Berkovitz has a good shpeal about the thick walled cylinders of the old 357 mag stretched less, and so the brass did not get stuck. When the cylinders got thin, the max pressure came down to facilitate extraction.

link to John's 1993 post

 

[klw]

Old Reloading Manuals

Years ago I had a friend who had been an editor on one of the more famous lines of reloading manuals. I asked him why they wanted to distince themselves from the data in older copies. I assumed that the problem was that now people would sue over just about anything. That wasn't his answer. His answer was that way back when if they didn't have any data that they just guessed. Just guessed. In one manual they got so many complaints from used that they took the remaining copies to the local dump. I'm real sure that this story is true even if it is hard to believe.

 

[bakert]

Being a rather timid soul where "hot" loads are concerned I use mostly the newer data available although I still use quite a few loads from older manuals. Strange thing to me is the comments about manufacturers lawyering up but when a lot of folk's guns kaboom with their pet load the first thing many think of is, call a lawyer.

 

[Harve Curry]

Without going into all the details, about 12 years ago I was a witness on a new pistol blow up and reloaded ammo.

The case was won using Lyman's 45th Edition.

Lawyer's tried to belittle the 45th Lyman, but the judge didn't swallow it. I said that manual had worked for years and was a standard reference to millions of people.

The new books are "lawyer'd down" , but there are alot of cheap new guns out there, and that some guns won't handle any but the lightest load.

You have to use common sence and fit the load to the gun your using.

I have P.O. Ackley, Kieth, Nonte, Speer, Hornady, all the new powder factory handload pamphlets, 47th Lyman's, but I like and keep two 45th Lyman's so they are always handy and the most used.

 

[larryw]

I think Ol' Joe nailed this one: technology changes/improves. And gun quailty declines. Also, if one considers that we widely accept canister-to-canister formulation and performance changes without a second thought, why is it so difficult to accept these changes aggregated year-to-year or decade-to-decade?

Add to that, in a highly competitive field, company management isn't going to let a lawyer unjustifiably meddle with performance and hurt sales.

 

[Rico567]

I cut my reloading teeth on the Speer #8 and the Lyman 45th, and I'm here to tell the tale. I agree that there were some hot loads in older manuals....but I doubt if any blew up a gun without some help, from whatever source.

And when it comes to chronographs, as a proud owner of a Pact Model 1, I agree with everything BruceB said on the subject. I don't own a Swiss Army Knife, and for the same reason. To the degree that a tool tries to do multiple tasks, it inevitably does them less well.

 

[CB900F]

Fella's;

Something I'd like to point out, that materially affects the published results in manuals such as Speer's. The subject of discussion that started this thread was .44 special loads. A previous poster listed loads in the various Speer manuals over the years. What he neglected to do was to list the guns the loads were tested in.

For corroboration, also compare the .357 loads in the Speer books. Pick one bullet/powder combo, like 125gr HP's & Blue Dot, then also look at the changes when the test gun went from a Ruger to a K-frame Smith.

Another thing, the energy levels in lots of powder can & WILL change with the lot numbers.

As for the Speer SR4756 loads in .357's, manual #8, there are three variations. Early printings list the loads, a very small run has loads blacked out, later #8's do not list the loads. That's not to say all SR4756 loads for .357, individual loads. Later Speer manuals list the powder/bullet combinations, but at vastly reduced charges. And quite properly so.

I was loading the Speer 146 gr bullet over 11 grains of SR4756, which was supposed to give 1400 or so fps. That was 1 full grain under listed max. I had to literally use a dowel & hammer to get the cases out of the cylinder of a Ruger Blackhawk. I was young & thought I had rough cylinder bores. Luckily, I was not only shooting a very strong firearm, I was also using the excellent Speer-DWM brass. The .357 is a straight-walled case design of a nominal .379" diameter. I've kept some of those cases, they are visibly tapered now & will not full length resize. The base diameter is roughly .004" over mouth diameter.

900F

 

[The Bushmaster]

In as much as my Roman Numeral skills are next to nil, one of the manuals that I bounce my loads against besides several other references is a Metalic Cartridge Reloading manual by DBI Books Inc. Copyright MCMLXXXII. Originally sold for $10.95. I have found little or no change in the various loads. Some are a little lower and some are a little higher, but not out of line.

I do aplaud Ol' Joe and BruceB and give CB900F honorable mention. I believe we need two manuals...One for those "cheap guns" and one for the "quality guns". The only problem with this idea is that those that buy the "cheap guns" probably can't read and will mistake the "quality gun" loading manual for the one that they are supposed to be using and blow themselves up. .

Because I am still quite young I haven't gotten up the nerve to experiment above the manuals listed max loads. Maybe when I reach, oh say, 90 I might give it a try. I do, however ballance my loadings between the various manuals and have firearms that are loaded to the manual with the highest max load and some that are loaded to the lowest manuals starting load. One example is my Colt SAA .357 Mag. I only load it to 13.5 grains of 2400 and a 140 grain SJHP. (The Colt is 40 years old and I want to keep it for my grand children)

By the Way...Anybody know what the Roman Numerals stand for?

 

[DT Guy]

I=1, V=5, X=10, L=50

A 1 before a 5 is "5-1", so 4 (shown as IV)

A 1 after a 5 is "5+1", so 6 (shown as VI)

So if I'm reading it right, your book was printed in '82.


Larry