Powder manufacturers dropping loads

[LiveLife]

From time to time, we come across loads that's been dropped by powder manufacturers that were listed in older reloading manuals.

I realize that just because a powder load is listed for a particular bullet weight does not mean it's the best/accurate load to use.

So why do powder manufacturers drop a particular load? If you have an otherwise accurate load, should you follow and use another powder recipe?

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Well...its not a simple question to answer.

It depends...if the powder itself has changed (and they do change the mixture from time to time)


OK...I guess it was a simple answer...its the explanation of that answer that would get complicated.

 

[cheygriz]

Did a new class just graduate from law school??

Seriously, many are dropped because the powder manufacturer is "pushing" a newer powder in their advertising. Others are dropped because of changes in manufactruring of established powders.


But the OVERWHELMING majority are dropped entirely, or "nuetered" by corporate lawyers to lower pressures so the masnufacturers won't get sued by other lawyers representing idiots that can't/won't read instructions and/or use common sense.

Most of my "pet" loads are slightly below maximum in older manuals, and FAR above maximum in newer manuals.

But guess what?? They still produce the same velocities, and the cases are still good for 10 or more reloads.

 

[45-70 Ranger]

I agree with both. Selling new powder, you need to dump some old loading data so the new stuff can be on the next manual. Profit is profit I guess. The liability issues from the industry is mind-boggling to be sure. The legal end of making ammo or publishing the data for it can be costly!

Some years ago I was an armouror and street cop in my P.D. Also a licensed dealer/gunsmith and class 6 ammo mfg. These licenses were mine and not the city's to be sure. I loaded all our practice ammo at the armoury and the city paid for the insurance on the activity. Even after 7 years of loading and no ammo related incident ever happening, the city advised that the insurance was now too costly to continue. Thus they dropped the insurance on the loading for the city ammo and bought factory stuff. I got out of the ammo mfg business as I saw the handwritting on the wall. Two years later I quit being a dealer as well. Wasn't worth it.

Wade

 

[cheygriz]

Wade, if it makes you feel any better, MANY of us gave up our licenses for the same reason.

 

[oneounceload]

So why do powder manufacturers drop a particular load

This:

f the powder itself has changed (and they do change the mixture from time to time)

With a little bit of that:

But the OVERWHELMING majority are dropped entirely, or "nuetered" by corporate lawyers to lower pressures so the masnufacturers won't get sued by other lawyers representing idiots that can't/won't read instructions and/or use common sense

 

[Clark]

"How to write a mediocre load book" second revision


If you were going to let your 5 year old kids reload, and you were going to make a load book for them, with pictures to color with crayons, here is what to do.

Work up a load to the primer falls out. Work down a load until the bullet gets stuck. Pick a powder charge half way in between. Measure the velocity of that median powder charge. Now find a slow powder that with the case completely full of powder, will deliver that velocity. Call that load the max for the kids. Reduce that load by 10% and call that the starting load for the kids.

How can the 5 year old screw that up?

 

[FROGO207]

Haven't been around many five year olds lately have you.

 

[cheygriz]

I agree with Clark.

The corporate lawyers force the manufacturers to treat us all like 5 year olds.

I carried 115 grain +P+ Federal 9BPLE on duty before I retired. Great ammo.

But do you think you'll find a recipe for a similar load in a "new" manual?? :banghead::banghead:

It's hard to find even SAAMI max in the manuals.

And don't even bother looking for 10MM loads that approach the original Norma loads.

 

[mbruce]

I agree with Clark.

The corporate lawyers force the manufacturers to treat us all like 5 year olds.

The sue happy society that we live in force lawyers to treat us like 5 year olds.

Not all humans have evolved in regards to intelligence and/or awareness. Some people sit in a classroom confused and some sit in a classroom bored and others sit in the middle -- the books must be written for everyone as writing seperate books for individualized intelligence would be discrimination....LOL

My wife is an OB -- and a cracked out pregnant mom can birth a child with many disabilities and sue the OB...and 99% of the time the hospital will settle in a semi-large amount of sum to make the problem go away -- now tell me that doesn't make you sick. And then it goes on the OBs record.....

 

[noylj]

If you look at just Alliant, they suddenly only had 3 pistol powders. A few months later, they have 4 pistol powders.
Word I got from them was that it cost too much to test every powder with every bullet in every caliber, so they simply selected their tradional pistol powders (Bullseye, Unique, and 2400) and their relatively new pistol powder (Power Pistol).
Accurate appears to be phasing out Solo and anything but AA2, 5, 7, and 9 for pistol loads.
Hodgdon, I am sure, will be eliminating duplicate powders and powders that aren't selling as well from any load development.
I see the future of factory load development to consist of only those powders specifically designated for that purpose (i.e., there will be loads using a powder for only a couple of shotgun gauges or cartridges) just as "Steel" is only for loading steel shot.

 

[mbruce]

so if powders change formulation over a certain period of time.... does anyone ever reload with older powder and new load data? that isn't a "can you" question -- more of "do you" question...

 

[rcmodel]

How bout this.
.38 Spl. 158 LSWC

1976 Hercules data.
Bullseye 3.3
Red Dot 3.6
Unique 4.8

1992 Hercules data:
Standard pressure:
Bullseye 3.6
Red Dot 3.1
Unique 4.3

+P Pressure:
Bullseye 3.8
Red Dot 3.2
Unique 4.5

2010 Alliant data:
Standard pressure:
Bullseye 3.5
Red Dot 3.4
Unique 4.7

+P pressure:
Bullseye 3.9
Red Dot 3.8
Unique 5.2

rc

 

[oneounceload]

I carried 115 grain +P+ Federal 9BPLE on duty before I retired. Great ammo.

But do you think you'll find a recipe for a similar load in a "new" manual??

You won't, because there is no standard for 9mm +P+

 

[rcmodel]

+P+ Federal 9BPLE. But do you think you'll find a recipe for a similar load in a "new" manual??

Yep. several loads in several new manuals will beat that load.

The Federal 9BPLE cronographs right at 1,195 FPS out of a Glock 19.

Alliant lists a 115 Speer Gold Dot giving 1,244 FPS with 6.3 grains Unique.
And 1,258 FPS with 8.5 Blue Dot.

Lyman #49 shows 1,200 - 1,250+ with a 115 XTP using W-231, Unique, Power Pistol, and True Blue powders.

Hodgdon shows a 115 Speer Gold Dot:
1,234 FPS with HS-6.
1,203 FPS with Longshot.

And the funny thing is, none of them are +P+, or even +P loads!

rc

 

[Peter M. Eick]

You want hotter data?

Buy older reloading manuals. I have a large collection of older data.

 

[RhinoDefense]

But the OVERWHELMING majority are dropped entirely, or "nuetered" by corporate lawyers to lower pressures so the masnufacturers won't get sued by other lawyers representing idiots that can't/won't read instructions and/or use common sense.

Sorry, this is pure Internet rumor. Lawyers do not weigh in on SAAMI chamber pressure for publishing.

Methods of obtaining maximum loads within SAAMI MAP spec differ from lab to lab. I know of one company that runs data to SAAMI MAP full on and you might be able to get away with a .2 grain tolerance in your particular firearm but their max is generally THE max. I know of another company where they publish the maximum load plus 2 SD that stays under SAAMI MAP. I know of another company that publishes data to what they think the handloader will want to shoot. Will I name these companies? No, so don't ask. I'm privileged to things not public and I've agree not to name certain things or certain processes. Each company has their own method and neither is influenced by lawyers.

 

[Peter M. Eick]

So let me ask the leading question.

Why has the SAAMI then lowered the MAP for various rounds like for example the 357 Magnum among others?

 

[Jesse Heywood]

So let me ask the leading question.

Is that with a short e or a long e?

This is one of those depends on who you ask questions, and is usually guaranteed to start a fight.

One position is because of the superior measuring system using meters that show the pressure curve over time, rather than the copper displacement measurement.

Another position is that some of the older pressure levels were too high for the strength of the guns. Use the 357 mag and 44 mag as examples, where the manufacturers strengthened the guns before SAAMI reduced the pressures. Both Colt and Smith began strengthening the 357, Smith had also strengthened the frame of the model 29 due to top strap stretching.

And the most commented position is due to the changing product liability issue.

My feeling is that all three positions contributed to the pressure changes.

 

[cheygriz]

We must have an awful lot of lawyers on this forum!

They sure jump in real quick when there's a question about the actions of their colleagues.

 

[Peter M. Eick]

Glad someone caught my pun.

I thought it was punny.


Seriously though. I tend to agree all three happened. The question today would we establish 3 pressure levels for the 357 magnum like we have for say 45 colts?

 

[Jesse Heywood]

We must have an awful lot of lawyers on this forum!

They sure jump in real quick when there's a question about the actions of their colleagues.

I have two friends who are honest lawyers, which are becoming rare. The rest of them can hold a meeting in the Marianas Trench.

 

[cheygriz]

RCMODEL,

You list chronograph results for 9BPLE with a compact Glock 19. Then you list"published" data from manuals for the other loads.

While I respect your opinions and experience more so than most others here, I question this. The 9BPLE clocks 1225 to 1275 from my beretta 92, Glock 17, and SIG P226.

It has also been my experience that listed data in a manual is always 50 to 100 FPS higher than the actual results chronographed from my weapons.

Is it possible you're comparing spples to oranges????