Powder distributors test with their equipment and barrels and bullet manufactures use theirs. Some times you see diff results with 296 and H110 or hp38 and 231. Must keep an open mind and never stop reading to find companies different results.
On-Line Reloading Data?
- Thread starter BobABQ
- Start date
- Status
scott511
Member
The 2 red asterisks indicate a high pressure load. Be careful with that.
GeoDudeFlorida
Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2020
- Messages
- 11,098
I have no intention of using it. @Show Me asked if anyone could find that load in a modern, current source. I did.
Alliant says 9 max so you proved a good point to check several sources.
I noticed that the other day. I haven't cross reference yet. Curious if they recycled some of Western Powders data. Or if they did all fresh test.
I was interested in this because if you use faster powders to slow .357 for lighter revolvers then it dosent pick up enough speed out a 16 inch barrel. But if you upload 38's with 2400 to that 38 44 load I get 1100 fps out the 3 inch barrel and 1500 from a 16 inch. Any way the point off all this is to be carefull. I've been reloading and casting since Obama came along and still find more info. If your ever too old to learn you might as well be dead.
illinoisburt
Member
This is why everyone says to check multiple sources then work up from a start load. Sometimes there are typos or items erroneously in wrong places. I keep a few printed manuals on hand to compare recipes. Also a good idea to occasionally check when new editions come out if numbers change, which can indicate component variations as well.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,085
I have that on my computer...it's called "bookmarks". I update it as needed.
The reason Powder/Bullet companies are providing you with "free" data is because you have to go thru their website to access it. Subtle way of advertising and one reason most have limited data available.
Being "free" as such, I see no problem with having to go to their "bookmarked" page to retrieve it. I also will print the most common loads I use and put them in a three ring binder and update as needed. Much easier to access the info that way in the reloading room than looking at a monitor. If the software you desire did anything but just redirect you to the manufacturer's website(similar to a "bookmark"), I'd think there would be some kind of copyright infringement.
GeoDudeFlorida
Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2020
- Messages
- 11,098
This is where having old books gets interesting. The Lyman's 41st (1957) lists 13.5gr of "2400 Rifle" powder with a 158gr. Thompson-type cast bullet for 1220fps from a "heavy frame" .38Spl. That's the old .38-44 load. The line above lists the 155gr. Keith-type HB/HP #358439 bullet with 12.0gr. of "2400 Rifle" for 1228fps. That's one of the original Elmer Keith loads. Both are listed as max loads with no starting or minimum loads listed. The Ideal 40th ed. (1955) lists the same data for two separate Keith-type bullets - a #358439 hollow point and a #358431 hollow base - with illustrations and without the commentary. It's pretty clear from the 1957 included text these were never intended as everyday, regular loads you would feed any revolver as a steady diet; these are purpose-made and intended for rare use as "game" loads. The 1955 text made no such distinctions. So, what happened? Did somebody put a .38Spl Heavy load in a Military & Police or Dick Special and blow a gun up? Maybe. Or, maybe somebody at Lyman's thought, "Hey, what if..." and added the text for the next edition. What happened to the #358431 hollow base mold (w/o hollow point) and when did the #358439 become a HB/HP bullet? From the text I'd say between 1955 and 1957... 
You can follow the lineage of these loads from the Ideal and Lyman books up through the modern book and watch as they morph into slower - and assuming also lower-pressure - versions of the originals. Does that mean it's safe to load up the old Keith and Thompson loads and shoot them out of an old Smith & Wesson Heavy Duty or Colt's Official Police? I have just to see what they're like but it's not something I'd do often if I liked my guns.
Always use caution and avoid older data except as a reference point for load development.
You can follow the lineage of these loads from the Ideal and Lyman books up through the modern book and watch as they morph into slower - and assuming also lower-pressure - versions of the originals. Does that mean it's safe to load up the old Keith and Thompson loads and shoot them out of an old Smith & Wesson Heavy Duty or Colt's Official Police? I have just to see what they're like but it's not something I'd do often if I liked my guns.
Always use caution and avoid older data except as a reference point for load development.
kmw1954
Member
I too have the Western Powders .pdf bookmarked and also have an older version printed. I may have to pint this one again before Hodgdon makes it disappear.
bihj
Member
Surprised to see nobody has mentioned "loadata" from wolfeoutdoors.com
It's a yearly subscription and I don't know how complete the info is, l've never used it, but it's been around for years.
It's a yearly subscription and I don't know how complete the info is, l've never used it, but it's been around for years.
kmw1954
Member
My fear is that Hodgdon makes it all disappear. That being all the old load data from Western.
I switched to mostly Western pistol powders because they provided the most comprehensive listing for Berry's Bullets.
Blue68f100
Member
When W296/H110 was released it did have a DO NOT REDUCE label on it. Several years later they revised the data saying you could reduce by 3%. This data is found in the early load data the Win gave away with the powder in the 70's & 80's.
I rely heavily on Western Powder's and Lyman's manuals because of the variety of bullets they test for.
Also, and you'll see a lot of "conflicting data from manual to manual" posts, not all testing is done with the same equipment (some use real guns, some use universal receivers with assorted barrel lengths), and different lots of components are often used. So for a "One Stop reloading data center", it would have to include data from every source, Huge!
FWIW, I have been reloading since 1969, only found online reloading info since 2006 and I get 90%+ of my data from published reloading manuals, with just a few data from on line reloading data from component manufacturers. Only two sources I use...
thorswhisper
Member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2021
- Messages
- 29
As many reloading manuals as I can collect plus a chrono.
And a bore scope
Seems like things started to change when they started measuring pressureThis is where having old books gets interesting. The Lyman's 41st (1957) lists 13.5gr of "2400 Rifle" powder with a 158gr. Thompson-type cast bullet for 1220fps from a "heavy frame" .38Spl. That's the old .38-44 load. The line above lists the 155gr. Keith-type HB/HP #358439 bullet with 12.0gr. of "2400 Rifle" for 1228fps. That's one of the original Elmer Keith loads. Both are listed as max loads with no starting or minimum loads listed. The Ideal 40th ed. (1955) lists the same data for two separate Keith-type bullets - a #358439 hollow point and a #358431 hollow base - with illustrations and without the commentary. It's pretty clear from the 1957 included text these were never intended as everyday, regular loads you would feed any revolver as a steady diet; these are purpose-made and intended for rare use as "game" loads. The 1955 text made no such distinctions. So, what happened? Did somebody put a .38Spl Heavy load in a Military & Police or Dick Special and blow a gun up? Maybe. Or, maybe somebody at Lyman's thought, "Hey, what if..." and added the text for the next edition. What happened to the #358431 hollow base mold (w/o hollow point) and when did the #358439 become a HB/HP bullet? From the text I'd say between 1955 and 1957...
You can follow the lineage of these loads from the Ideal and Lyman books up through the modern book and watch as they morph into slower - and assuming also lower-pressure - versions of the originals. Does that mean it's safe to load up the old Keith and Thompson loads and shoot them out of an old Smith & Wesson Heavy Duty or Colt's Official Police? I have just to see what they're like but it's not something I'd do often if I liked my guns.
Always use caution and avoid older data except as a reference point for load development.
Blue68f100
Member
When they started using new state of art test equipment. They are able to collect data fast enough ( and accurately) to determine what and when peak pressure was accouring . They finally moved from the old copper crush washers, which actually measured pressure at a different point.
GeoDudeFlorida
Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2020
- Messages
- 11,098
And that’s why testing is now conducted using sophisticated lab equipment instead of over the counter common firearms - like 20” AR-15’s with 1:8 twist barrels. But if we all ignored the history and development of testing and the writing process of assembling data in manuals, instead just looking up recipes and searching for maximum loads with miscellaneous components, we wouldn’t know that.
- Status
