Proven handloads exceed new book max

[crestoncowboy]

While shooting with a friend recently he was shooting through my chronograph working up through his trial loads. We were shooting 10mm and he got close to his book max and was still considerably slower than the loads ive used for 15 years. Long story short, his book max was 9 grains of blue dot. Under a 200 gr xtp. My load was worked up to the published max in my old Sierra book of 10.0. I looked through 5 or 6 of my reloading manuals and of course all were different but that's 10% from the lowest (his book which was hornady I believe) to the highest (a Sierra book, my first which shipped with the rcbs partner kit , from 1999ish).
Personally I will continue to load the same load that I've fired thousands of from a handfull of different guns, taking numerous game animals and think no more of it. But what do you tell a new reloader who might now view the published data as More trivial information than he should. Have you ever dropped a proven load because it all of a sudden exceeded the maximum psi limit in later published data. Obviously he was safely working up a load, we were reading primers etc. But now his question is going to be "Is cherry picking load data to suit what you want ok, so long as it's under published spec"

 

[crestoncowboy]

Stupid autocorrect must have "fixed" handloads to loadloads. Now I can't edit the title. Only the body.

Fixed it

 

[GunnyUSMC]

I've seen loads dropped in manuals over the years. But then I have some manuals that date back to the 70's.

 

[Allen One1]

I think you are teaching him correctly, read the signs you are seeing from the gun you are shooting. You should never start at a Max load just because it is in a book, but the book gives you some pretty good indicators of safe ranges either high or low. Going over max when you are checking for pressure signs is ok but it should be pointed out that there are additional risks involved. It depends a lot on the barrel of the gun in question how quickly a load will show pressure and it could be well under the book max.

 

[badkarmamib]

Just keep in mind that some max loads change due to differences in powder. The way one powder is made today may not be the same mixture that was used 10 years ago, but still carries the same name.

 

[Blue68f100]

Will add that better test equipment is being used today than 10+ years ago. Then there is this liability thing, which pushes toward lower. As long as your working up the loads and know how to read pressure signs you will be fine.

 

[Walkalong]

Use current data, always advise a newbie on the side of caution.

I think you are teaching him correctly, read the signs you are seeing from the gun you are shooting.

You cannot "read" pressure on 10MM cases until you are well over max.

Going over max when you are checking for pressure signs is ok but it should be pointed out that there are additional risks involved. It depends a lot on the barrel of the gun in question how quickly a load will show pressure and it could be well under the book max.

I would have to respectfully disagree and call this bad advise for a newbie reloader.

 

[buck460XVR]

^^^Walkalong's advice is sound. New reloaders should follow modern published data and not what works in someone else's gun. Difficult at best for even the most experienced reloaders to judge handgun pressure without the right testing equipment.

And yes, I have changed my loads when new published recipes showed them to be above what those that know better than me, consider too hot. I know folks that still load 125 grainers in .357 with Blue Dot, cause it has always worked for them, even after all the warnings not to. I wonder what the OP would tell a new reloader about that?

 

[crestoncowboy]

10mm just happens to be the round we were using. I wouldn't recommend anyone new to start out on a semi-auto either but that's what the situation was. I showed him a glock bulge from a .40 with some sorry brass just for reference. To show him a flat primer I showed him a factory 460 casing. He knows each caliber and gun is different. I have worked up to my load in every 10 I own, A g29, g20 and delta with stock barrels included, and trust it, though I wouldn't feed it daily through some guns and expect them to last. I just don't like the thought of anyone hunting through 25 manuals looking for the hottest max to validate bad loading habits. Looking at the same two books showed that my 44 mag load with win 296 Would be way over as well.

 

[Walkalong]

I just don't like the thought of anyone hunting through 25 manuals looking for the hottest max to validate bad loading habits.

I would definitely agree. We see that here sometimes.

 

[buck460XVR]

. But now his question is going to be "Is cherry picking load data to suit what you want ok, so long as it's under published spec"

As long as it's published and recent, I see no issue. I always use at least three or more sources of reference when developing new loads. This way I can "average" out the data, and throw out any excessively high or low max/min loads. There are some manuals and some calibers withing those manuals, where one manuals start load is at or above another manuals max. Still, because they were tested and published, one has to assume they would be safe in any modern firearm, if they and the components used, are recent. Just kinda the way it works. One reason I believe that many manuals have lowered their top end is because today's folks don't want to "develop" loads, but instead want to start at the top. Those of us that have reloaded for a while and have more than one gun, realize that all guns are not the same and chambers/throats will vary, thus book pressures are not always guaranteed. Still, this is different than trying to defend using an old recipe that has been downloaded in more recent manuals for safety reasons.

 

[ray15]

While shooting with a friend recently he was shooting through my chronograph working up through his trial loads. We were shooting 10mm and he got close to his book max and was still considerably slower than the loads ive used for 15 years. Long story short, his book max was 9 grains of blue dot. Under a 200 gr xtp. My load was worked up to the published max in my old Sierra book of 10.0. I looked through 5 or 6 of my reloading manuals and of course all were different but that's 10% from the lowest (his book which was hornady I believe) to the highest (a Sierra book, my first which shipped with the rcbs partner kit , from 1999ish).

Hornady would be the expert on what pressures are generated with a XTP. If they say 9.0 is max it is most likely generating SAAMI MAP at that charge and loading more (for whatever reason or by whatever rationale) is an over pressure load. Is he using the XTP? Does your Sierra book have data for it, or is its data for a different (probably Sierra) bullet? Not all JHP are created equal.

Beyond that, the accuracy of published data is higher than it has ever been. Piezoelectric pressure sensors are much more accurate than the copper crush testing that predominated in decades past. And whether or not powder manufacturers publicize them, manufacturing differences over time may invalidate older data.

It is also ironic the powder in question is Blue Dot. For years the books bore Blue Dot loads for 41 magnum and 125gr. 357 magnum, but nowdays they don't - because they published faulty data in the past.

http://www.alliantpowder.com/getting_started/safety/safety_notices.aspx

Personally I will continue to load the same load that I've fired thousands of from a handfull of different guns, taking numerous game animals and think no more of it. But what do you tell a new reloader who might now view the published data as More trivial information than he should.

I would tell him not to do that. Your loads, however proven you view them as, could well be over pressure, especially if they involve component substitutions from the published data. As reloaders we tend to look at it as 'any data is better than no data' and adapt the closest available, but in most cases if a different bullet or primer is used we are just guessing where the max charge is. Fortunately most modern guns afford the handloader a useful safety margin - the lack of a blowup may not be telling the entire story.

Obviously he was safely working up a load, we were reading primers etc. But now his question is going to be "Is cherry picking load data to suit what you want ok, so long as it's under published spec"

Reading primers is notoriously unreliable way of detecting overpressure. We definitely look as it's another source of 'any data', but it can't necessarily indicate overpressure at a useful level of accuracy.

 

[crestoncowboy]

I see both camps, that's why I asked. Not for my own loading but from a tutoring standpoint. It's kind of like when I'm teaching someone to drive a stick shift I don't tell them to turn the traction control off and set the tuner to race mode either, at least not until they have a little experience, at which point it can be amusing in an open lot
I have certain guns built up for hotter rounds. I load specifically for that gun. I don't mention that to anyone new to loading.
I usually use the redhawk/blackhawk as an example. If the only 44 magnum made for 20 years was a ruger then the book max may have crept upward. But I have smith and Taurus guns to prove that pressure signs do show earlier in some guns. I think people who have loaded for years all know it, but when your teaching someone, and they look over and see your carefully labeled bag of handloads are 10% over their book max in their book it can have dangerous effects. Regardless of what your actually telling them to do in not exceeding listed maxes, they are seeing otherwise.
I'll add that I don't volunteer to teach people to load, I don't feel any mastery on the subject, but it seems that there just aren't many people for them to learn from, and from what i overhear at gun stores from people who insinuate they load and shoot a lot i don't figure i could do worse than them so I'll relent and try to help. I figure that anything they pick up from me is better than just jumping in like I did and hoping for the best.

 

[crestoncowboy]

Not sure why my paragraphs are running on. I'm typing from a phone but I do indent and it shows correctly on my phone.

 

[crestoncowboy]

Buck 460
As far as what I'd tell someone on 357 with blue dot....I don't load for 357, But that's about the same situation as I got in to, and that's why I started this thread.
I started with no info other than that one book/ no money for different books/ no chrono (and at this point I know many handloaders and I'm the only one who uses one)/ and no internet forums back then (nor internet at all in my area) / and no one to teach me anything. Common sense and dumb luck were about all I had, I knew one reloader at the time, an uncle who loaded 222 on a Lee hand press using the scooper for measuring powder with no scale. I got the partner press kit for christmas, I read that entire book and then got started with a 257 Roberts. I just try not make people learn the way I did.
I usually just tell people the safe way. Not necessarily the way I do things. But in this case my book starting load was his books max load. I know what I tell people. I was just wondering what others would do in the same situation.

 

[mjsdwash]

I think Alliant changed some recipes in the last few decades, and the data may be a product of that. Alliant did an advisory about bluedot a while back, and I had a few bottles from before, and a few from after. The new lots produced decent deviation and ran fairly clean in light 38 spl, and 45acp. The old stuff looked like black powder fouling with the same load, and produced severe FPS deviation. The felt recoil of 12 gauge slugs using 49grains of the old was incredible, and left bruises, whereas the new stuff kicks hard, but not painful. Both give about the same FPS. Similar results with Unique. I strongly suspect some properties of the powder have changed.

 

[Allen One1]

You cannot "read" pressure on 10MM cases until you are well over max.

I would have to respectfully disagree and call this bad advise for a newbie reloader.

I will agree with Walkalong that this is bad advise, I was totally thinking rifle which is somewhat readable. I appreciate the additional clarification. Nothing we are doing here is worth dying for or even risking an injury which can be avoided.

I'm not sure I have the quote thing right.

 

[Walkalong]

I'm not sure I have the quote thing right.

Fixed it.

 

[crestoncowboy]

If your reloading , or shooting at all, or driving to the range or even getting out of bed you are risking injury that could have been avoided. One has to decide if the reward is worth any risk at any aspect.
And as far the advice being bad, I was asking the question about handloading in general. Not just the 10mm Or handguns, as that was just the situation at the time.( Btw his 9 gr load was under 1050 fps. Plenty safe) and I very rarely approach a max load I just get more gun if it's needed. but on the broader subject of handloading. I wasnt asking for advice on what to say necessarily...I know what I said, But what do others tell new people in similar situations another example is I usually recommend new people against win 296. Because of the stories ive read about never going under 3% below max because of under charging. But when asked my preferred power, its 296. Then I have to explain. Which is exactly why I don't volunteer the fact that I handload anymore.

 

[LiveLife]

I see both camps, that's why I asked. Not for my own loading but from a tutoring standpoint.

... I'll relent and try to help. I figure that anything they pick up from me is better than just jumping in like I did and hoping for the best.

Also consider these when using mixed range brass:

• Published load data are often tested using NEW brass that are more malleable and can contain pressures better than mixed range brass that have been fired/reloaded multiple times and work hardened to not contain pressure as well. I reserve known once-fired brass (brass I saw go from factory boxes to pistols) for max loads but when using mixed range brass, I tend to stop at high-to-near max load data for my powder work up, especially for higher pressure calibers and when using Max/Working OAL/COL shorter than published.

• Mixed range brass that have been work hardened and less malleable may experience more brass spring back after seating bullet and taper crimping which decreases neck tension and increases bullet setback (Also check out this myth busting thread on bullet setback). Due to this, I now check bullet setback for load development, especially for near max loads . There have been quite a few KaBoom threads where case wall failure occurred even though below max charges were used and double charges were ruled out. For peak chamber pressure, it's not the "Finished OAL" but "Chambered OAL" that matters.

• Published load data often use universal barrel receivers (and not actual pistols) with differing groove diameter of barrel, leade/freebore length, start of rifling angle, chamber support (especially chamber mouth for case base support). I have long wondered why Lyman #49 40S&W loads were higher than powder manufacturers' loads. When I read the test barrel spec used for Lyman #49, it showed groove diameter of .401" instead of more typical .400". So now I tell people to slug their barrel and if it is .401", to use Lyman load data but if it is .400", to use more conservative powder manufacturers' load data.

Page 362 of Lyman #49 showing .401" groove diameter of test barrel

 

[bersaguy]

As a new reloader, I get confused myself. I just started working up a new load for 45acp with Power Pistol. I have the Lyman, Lee, and Hornady manuals, all purchased new within the last 2 years. .1 grain below max in one book is the starting grains in another. There's a 2.5 grain spread from the 5.5 grain start load in the Lee manual to the 8.0 grain max in the Lyman manual. I'm trying to hit 850fps with 230 grain fmj's, so I figure I'll start at 6.6gn and start working my way up the ladder in .2gn incraments and use the chronograph to tell me where to stop (at or below the 8.0 grain published max)

 

[LiveLife]

I have the Lyman, Lee, and Hornady manuals, all purchased new within the last 2 years.

But doesn't mean test data used are new. Some reloading manuals still show different load data for W231 and HP-38 even though they have been the same for more than 10 years (Hodgdon online load data has been showing same for quite a few years) - http://www.hodgdonreloading.com/data/pistol

Powder manufacturers do change formulation over time and now I often use powder manufacturers' load data while referencing older published load data for my pistol load development.

.1 grain below max in one book is the starting grains in another. There's a 2.5 grain spread from the 5.5 grain start load in the Lee manual to the 8.0 grain max in the Lyman manual. I'm trying to hit 850fps with 230 grain fmj's

Differences in published load data are from differences in test barrels, bullets, primers and cases used along with difference in OAL/bullet seating depth which all effect chamber pressures.

Whenever I am in doubt or using OAL shorter than published, I will cross reference all available load data and use the most conservative for my start charge. Since our pistols/barrels are different from test barrels used (like groove diameter and leade/freebore length, etc.) and different brand bullets have different nose profile and base (bearing surface) lengths along with different brand primer which all effect chamber pressures; as you approach max charge, use of chrono is a good idea.

 

[exbrit49]

Started reloading in the very early 70s. I used the Hornady reloading manual and loaded up my .357 and 38 special loads to the median loadings listed. I worked up loads from the minimum to the median and quite at the median loading as they performed so well. They went through the Chrono very close to the Hornady data. No signs of over pressure, with accuracy that was outstanding.
A few years ago I picked up some newer manuals and was stunned to see that according to the new manuals I was way over Max load.
Soooo.... I loaded up several boxes at the new lower recommended loads. Ran them through the Chrono and velocity was way down and the rounds felt really wimpy! So back to the loading bench and worked loads up from the NEW wimpy loads in 0.2 G increments, Soon I was back to my original loading's, I chronoed and pressure checked all over again. They are great loads and I am staying with them. That 1970 Hornady book was spot on for my revolvers!!!
Heck I have shot thousands and thousands of these so called "Over Pressure Loads" over the years and they have provided wonderful accuracy and cases have lasted an average of 25 loading's, I have used them in my S&Ws and my Dan Wessons and Colts, with no problems. In short I am staying with these loading's! I wont list the loading here as I am not recommending anyone load to these levels, I choose to use them based on over 30 years experience and personal choice.
I have read many articles that state the reasons for the lowered maximums, most say its due to much more precise pressure measuring equipment, I believe that to be somewhat true but also believe that due to modern society wanting to sue over anything, it was felt more judicious to lower recommended loading's.

 

[Walkalong]

I started off with a Speer manual where some data wasn't pressure tested. Things change.

IMHO, when it comes to the "it's lawyered down" thing, that dog won't hunt.

Are they being safe? Of course they are. Does that mean you can go over max? Of course not. You don't have pressure equipment.

 

[Patocazador]

IMHO, when it comes to the "it's lawyered down" thing, that dog won't hunt.

Sorry, but I see it everyday in medications, compression ratios and everything else. Nowadays, everything published is "CYA" due to lawyers and law suits. If you think that the loads aren't "lawyered down", I believe you are mistaken.