Reloading for revolvers, load data and testing proposals

[Onty]

While going through reloading data and manuals for revolver cartridges, I had noticed some loads and testing procedures, including testing equipment, that are not representing reality in reloading.

Here are following areas that should be scrutinized:

- Bullet selection, majority of handloads listed are for jacketed bullets
- Fairly narrow velocity and pressure range of listed loads
- Some manuals do not list pressures
- Inadequate testing equipment (barrels)
- Muzzle blast level data are non-existent

1. I would like to see in reloading manuals and load data on internet much more loads for lead cast bullets. When looking at reloading manuals from powder manufacturers and distributors, the majority of listed loads are those using jacketed bullets. In all those (almost) 30 years as a shooter and reloader, I and all revolver shooters in my former clubs, never assembled revolver ammunition containing jacketed bullets, just cast bullets only. I have heard about few that loaded some ammo using jacketed bullets, but even that was on very, very limited basis.

I am aware that Lyman, RCBS and Lee have a decent data for their cast bullets, but they are not listing a number of powders from some manufacturers. In addition, some list lead alloy that very few of us use. As far as I know, almost all cast bullets are made using wheel weight, or alloy that is very similar to it.

In that respect, I would suggest loading data for following revolver calibers and lead bullets for them. Weights are in grains

- 357 Remington Magnum; 148 WC, 158 SWC or LBT, 175-180 LBT
- 41 Remington Magnum; 210-220 SWC, 250-265 LBT
- 44 Remington Magnum; 250-265 SWC, 300-320 LBT
- 45 Colt; 255-265 SWC, 280-300, 320 (high pressure loads)

As for other calibers, I am not familiar with them, so I did not list. Please feel free to add caliber and bullets you think should be on the list.

2. Pressure levels should be always listed for all loads loads. Since many shooters some time prefer lower pressure loads, even in magnum cartridges, starting loads should be in 18 000 to 23 000 CUP range.

3. Along standard SAAMI load level for 45 Colt, my suggestion is to also list more powerful loads up to 30 000 CUP, known as "for Ruger and Freedom Arms revolvers only". Those should include starting loads in 18 000 to 23 000 CUP range.

4. I would suggest listing also mid level loads with all bullets. My suggestion is 1100 fps. Please see in this thread the reasons for that muzzle velocity https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...un-hunting-another-view.903836/#post-12255542, . Also, quote: "The Extreme Meplat designs at not as accurate at super-sonic to sub-sonic velocity as our Truncated Cone designs.", https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?48098-Gates-Extreme-Meplat-Bullets , post #14. James Gates indicates that when common bullets go from supersonic to subsonic velocity, there is a problem with its stability and consequently with accuracy.

5. Also, I suggest measuring and listing muzzle blast level for each load, as the shooter will experience. Please see the thread I started regarding muzzle blast, there are some interesting data https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-from-revolvers-what-we-know-about-it.915692/ . This is important for many of those who are hiking or carrying revolvers while hunting. If they suddenly encounter an aggressive wild animal or threatened by criminals, three is no time to put on ear protection. Firing without ear protection one of those full power magnum revolvers will make ears ringing for days, and certainly make some permanent hearing damage. While lower muzzle blast would not eliminate problem completely, will definitely be easier on ears. Listing for each load a muzzle blast, shooters could choose the loads they think will work the best for them.

6. Regarding testing equipment, I think that testing barrels listed in the SAAMI specification are not reflecting reality. First, revolver cartridges are revolver cartridges, and using for their testing non vented barrels, is in my opinion, misleading and has nothing to do with revolvers. Until recently, I didn't realize that use of non-vented testing barrels to test loads for revolvers is widespread. I bet most reloaders still incorrectly assume the same.

As for vented barrels as specified in SAAMI Z299.3 – 2022 for "Centerfire Pistol and Revolver Ammunition" https://saami.org/wp-content/upload...rfire-Pistol-Revolver-Approved-12-13-2022.pdf , I disagree with the noted specification with barrel lengths and gaps shown there. In it, the gap shown is .008". This is too much in my opinion. If I find that any modern revolver I want to purchase has gap 008", I will pass it. And I am very confident that 99% shooters will do the same. Almost all Ruger and Smith & Wesson revolvers I had or handled, have factory set gap .004"-.006". Few revolvers had gap smaller than .004", but none I had seen had more than .006". I am not saying that revolvers with gaps larger than .006" do not show on the market from time to time, but that must be rare. In my opinion, manufacturers are aware of this issue, and to their credit, they have a gap issue well under control.

Here are proposals for testing barrels for cartridges 357, 41, 44 Remington Magnum and 45 Colt, since I believe that those calibers are the most used. Considering conditions as specified in line 6. in order to have realistic data, I think that testing barrels for mentioned cartridges should have following characteristics:

- Testing equipment using vented barrels
- Barrel to cylinder gap .005"
- 357 Remington Magnum, barrel length 5”, rifling twist 1 turn in 18-3/4"
- 41 and 44 Remington Magnum, and 45 Colt, barrel length 6.5", rifling twist 1 turn in 16"

Cylinder lengths (including cartridge rim):

- 357 Remington Magnum, 1.685”
- 41 Remington Magnum, 1.730"
- 44 Remington Magnum, 1.760"
- 45 Colt, 1.760"

Please see https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/revolver-cylinder-lengths-needed.916303/

As for testing barrel length for 357 Remington Magnum, I think optimum is 5”, since the most of revolvers in this caliber are 4” (lately 4.2”) and 6”.

Regarding testing barrel length for 41 and 44 Remington Magnum. I suggest 6.5" as a “happy center”, since majority of revolvers in those calibers are made by Ruger and Smith & Wesson, and the most common barrel lengths are 5.5", 6", 6.5" and 7.5". In that respect. barrel length 6.5" for those calibers is, in my opinion, optimum for testing purposes.

Regarding other calibers than those I listed, again, feel free do add to the list caliber and testing barrel length you suggest.

7. Here is suggestion how loading chart should look:



8. Last but not the least; although, I didn't list as "must do" .455" caliber, there are many of us who would like to see loads for .455 Webley Mk I (.886" long case), using .265HB bullet, and .455 Eley/Colt using Lyman 454424 or something similar. Testing barrel length for both cartridges should be 6".

Please let me know what do you think, and correct me and/or include some other cartridges and suggested loads for them.

P.S. Later on, when we have more posts, I would pass the link of this thread to a gentleman who might help us.

 

[thirty-eight]

https://saami.org/wp-content/upload...rfire-Pistol-Revolver-Approved-12-13-2022.pdf ,

Thanks for the link. Page two, listing the 47 "Voting, Associate, and Supporting & Affiliate Members" of SAAMI, was enlightening. Perhaps you could contact them regarding your observations?

 

[buck460XVR]

Here are following areas that should be scrutinized:

1- Bullet selection, majority of handloads listed are for jacketed bullets
2- Fairly narrow velocity and pressure range of listed loads
3- Some manuals do not list pressures
4- Inadequate testing equipment (barrels)
5- Muzzle blast level data are non-existent

1. You need to look at more manuals. Most printed manuals list jacketed bullets because that's what most use. Many produce "cast" manuals along with their general manuals, that give lead projectile data. Most of the powder company online manuals give plenty of lead data.

2. Many powders used for jacketed bullets only perform well within narrow velocity and pressure levels.

3. Most do, but many only list those pressures for start and max loads.

4. This is because whatever they use for a test barrel, odds are it will not match the performance of your barrel. They are giving a relative performance.

5. Not really applicable for safe and accurate ammo and is very subjective. Kinda like asking for recoil.

Yes, one could produce a manual with all the info you desire. Problem is, IMHO, the cost of the manual, due to the amount of testing and the amount of info it would have to contain, along with the limited demand for such, would make it not very feasible. But if your friend wants to do it, I wish him luck.

 

[CoalCrackerAl]

Im fine with my manuals. I have many to use for cross reference. Lymans 3rd and 4th are my fave for cast loads.

 

[N555]

Be helpful for loading silencer ammo for pistols too.

 

[eddiememphis]

Testing every possible bullet/ powder/ barrel combination is prohibitively expensive.

How many people are searching for Webley loads? Obviously not enough for the large companies to go to that time and expense.

 

[Onty]

Testing every possible bullet/ powder/ barrel combination is prohibitively expensive.

Nothing more than what we see in manuals and load data. I just suggest more loads using cast bullets, and different testing procedure.

How many people are searching for Webley loads? Obviously not enough for the large companies to go to that time and expense.

Enough to prompt Starline to start making .455 Webley brass, although shorter MkII:

455 Webley MKII - Large Pistol - Brass Cases (starlinebrass.com)

As a matter of fact, I even started thread in hope to convince them to make longer MkI brass Brass Webley .455 Mk. I, anybody interested? (gunloads.com) , almost identical to .455 Eley/Colt. This happened 10 years ago, before they started making shorter MkII. Why they didn't go with MkI, is beyond me. The point is that all Webley .455 revolvers are capable of shooting longer MkI, plus this brass could be used for .455 Eley/Colt.

 

[Onty]

Im fine with my manuals. I have many to use for cross reference. Lymans 3rd and 4th are my fave for cast loads.

I do not have late Lyman Cast Bullet handbook, just their standard Reloading Handbook, like #48th Edition. In it, they list as lead for casting #2 Alloy and Linotype. Of all shooters I met last 30+ years, they use nothing but standard wheel weight. If they make their own alloy using pure lead, they adjust "ingredients" to get wheel weight. For target and general shooting, they use as cast, for peppier loads, they quenched bullets. Worked decades before, will work decades in future.

As for me, nah, just a "freeloader" with fellow caster. Well, my duty was to quench their thirst, and they preferred it that way .

 

[mkl]

I believe that CUP has been replaced with PSI measured via strain gauges in the modern loading books. There is no formula that allows conversion from one to the other. CUP was not as accurate because of alloy variances in the crusher element. It was also "relative" as opposed to absolute.

 

[CoalCrackerAl]

Yeah the Lyman books that cover both cast and jacketed do not have as much cast loads. VS the cast only. I don't have the 48th. But i do have # 49,50 and the newest one the 51st.

 

[AJC1]

What you seek is supported in modeling software in GRT and Quickloads. The data that is provided in manuals is expensive and the old data is not updated. The Lyman manual is one of the few to list pressure is left wanting with 45c. I'm not saying the modeling software is gospel nor am I saying the output gives adequate saftey.

 

[Slamfire]

Lyman sells cast bullet molds, so to support reloaders who cast using Lyman molds, Lyman provides data. Speer, Hornady, etc, if they sell swaged bullets they will provide data, but as a rule, they only create reloading manuals to help them sell their jacketed bullets. They are absolutely uninterested in anything that does not make them profit.

 

[P Flados]

I use Quickload a lot. Both for my own stuff and "for the fun of it" in response to postings on gun forums. I do lots of runs "as requested".

Proper use of Quickload does deserve a little better understanding of what is going than typical load data. However when you have some good baseline test data, it is great for "adjusting results" for things like reducing powder charges, different barrel lengths, etc.

As far a cylinder gap, I can typically make a decent "adjustment" using http://ballisticsbytheinch.com/gaptests.html

I really just wish that the load data was mandated to always give psi for every load and give "seating depth" along with COAL. Seating depth is needed as most people do not have a database of bullet lengths and seating depth is actually much more important than COAL with respect to assuring safe loads.

 

[35 Whelen]

While going through reloading data and manuals for revolver cartridges, I had noticed some loads and testing procedures, including testing equipment, that are not representing reality in reloading.

Here are following areas that should be scrutinized:

- Bullet selection, majority of handloads listed are for jacketed bullets
- Fairly narrow velocity and pressure range of listed loads
- Some manuals do not list pressures
- Inadequate testing equipment (barrels)
- Muzzle blast level data are non-existent

1. I would like to see in reloading manuals and load data on internet much more loads for lead cast bullets. When looking at reloading manuals from powder manufacturers and distributors, the majority of listed loads are those using jacketed bullets. In all those (almost) 30 years as a shooter and reloader, I and all revolver shooters in my former clubs, never assembled revolver ammunition containing jacketed bullets, just cast bullets only. I have heard about few that loaded some ammo using jacketed bullets, but even that was on very, very limited basis.

I am aware that Lyman, RCBS and Lee have a decent data for their cast bullets, but they are not listing a number of powders from some manufacturers. In addition, some list lead alloy that very few of us use. As far as I know, almost all cast bullets are made using wheel weight, or alloy that is very similar to it.

In that respect, I would suggest loading data for following revolver calibers and lead bullets for them. Weights are in grains

- 357 Remington Magnum; 148 WC, 158 SWC or LBT, 175-180 LBT
- 41 Remington Magnum; 210-220 SWC, 250-265 LBT
- 44 Remington Magnum; 250-265 SWC, 300-320 LBT
- 45 Colt; 255-265 SWC, 280-300, 320 (high pressure loads)

As for other calibers, I am not familiar with them, so I did not list. Please feel free to add caliber and bullets you think should be on the list.

2. Pressure levels should be always listed for all loads loads. Since many shooters some time prefer lower pressure loads, even in magnum cartridges, starting loads should be in 18 000 to 23 000 CUP range.

3. Along standard SAAMI load level for 45 Colt, my suggestion is to also list more powerful loads up to 30 000 CUP, known as "for Ruger and Freedom Arms revolvers only". Those should include starting loads in 18 000 to 23 000 CUP range.

4. I would suggest listing also mid level loads with all bullets. My suggestion is 1100 fps. Please see in this thread the reasons for that muzzle velocity https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...un-hunting-another-view.903836/#post-12255542, . Also, quote: "The Extreme Meplat designs at not as accurate at super-sonic to sub-sonic velocity as our Truncated Cone designs.", https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?48098-Gates-Extreme-Meplat-Bullets , post #14. James Gates indicates that when common bullets go from supersonic to subsonic velocity, there is a problem with its stability and consequently with accuracy.

5. Also, I suggest measuring and listing muzzle blast level for each load, as the shooter will experience. Please see the thread I started regarding muzzle blast, there are some interesting data https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-from-revolvers-what-we-know-about-it.915692/ . This is important for many of those who are hiking or carrying revolvers while hunting. If they suddenly encounter an aggressive wild animal or threatened by criminals, three is no time to put on ear protection. Firing without ear protection one of those full power magnum revolvers will make ears ringing for days, and certainly make some permanent hearing damage. While lower muzzle blast would not eliminate problem completely, will definitely be easier on ears. Listing for each load a muzzle blast, shooters could choose the loads they think will work the best for them.

6. Regarding testing equipment, I think that testing barrels listed in the SAAMI specification are not reflecting reality. First, revolver cartridges are revolver cartridges, and using for their testing non vented barrels, is in my opinion, misleading and has nothing to do with revolvers. Until recently, I didn't realize that use of non-vented testing barrels to test loads for revolvers is widespread. I bet most reloaders still incorrectly assume the same.

As for vented barrels as specified in SAAMI Z299.3 – 2022 for "Centerfire Pistol and Revolver Ammunition" https://saami.org/wp-content/upload...rfire-Pistol-Revolver-Approved-12-13-2022.pdf , I disagree with the noted specification with barrel lengths and gaps shown there. In it, the gap shown is .008". This is too much in my opinion. If I find that any modern revolver I want to purchase has gap 008", I will pass it. And I am very confident that 99% shooters will do the same. Almost all Ruger and Smith & Wesson revolvers I had or handled, have factory set gap .004"-.006". Few revolvers had gap smaller than .004", but none I had seen had more than .006". I am not saying that revolvers with gaps larger than .006" do not show on the market from time to time, but that must be rare. In my opinion, manufacturers are aware of this issue, and to their credit, they have a gap issue well under control.

Here are proposals for testing barrels for cartridges 357, 41, 44 Remington Magnum and 45 Colt, since I believe that those calibers are the most used. Considering conditions as specified in line 6. in order to have realistic data, I think that testing barrels for mentioned cartridges should have following characteristics:

- Testing equipment using vented barrels
- Barrel to cylinder gap .005"
- 357 Remington Magnum, barrel length 5”, rifling twist 1 turn in 18-3/4"
- 41 and 44 Remington Magnum, and 45 Colt, barrel length 6.5", rifling twist 1 turn in 16"

Cylinder lengths (including cartridge rim):

- 357 Remington Magnum, 1.685”
- 41 Remington Magnum, 1.730"
- 44 Remington Magnum, 1.760"
- 45 Colt, 1.760"

Please see https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/revolver-cylinder-lengths-needed.916303/

As for testing barrel length for 357 Remington Magnum, I think optimum is 5”, since the most of revolvers in this caliber are 4” (lately 4.2”) and 6”.

Regarding testing barrel length for 41 and 44 Remington Magnum. I suggest 6.5" as a “happy center”, since majority of revolvers in those calibers are made by Ruger and Smith & Wesson, and the most common barrel lengths are 5.5", 6", 6.5" and 7.5". In that respect. barrel length 6.5" for those calibers is, in my opinion, optimum for testing purposes.

Regarding other calibers than those I listed, again, feel free do add to the list caliber and testing barrel length you suggest.

7. Here is suggestion how loading chart should look:

View attachment 1139767

8. Last but not the least; although, I didn't list as "must do" .455" caliber, there are many of us who would like to see loads for .455 Webley Mk I (.886" long case), using .265HB bullet, and .455 Eley/Colt using Lyman 454424 or something similar. Testing barrel length for both cartridges should be 6".

Please let me know what do you think, and correct me and/or include some other cartridges and suggested loads for them.

P.S. Later on, when we have more posts, I would pass the link of this thread to a gentleman who might help us.

Have you not ever looked at www.loaddata.com?

 

[Onty]

mkl, you are correct regarding switching from CUP to PSI, and the future is definitely measuring in PSI. However, one of the best load data on internet, HODGDON, is still in CUP. What I put is just a sample, will correct that, thanks for reminding me.

As for QUICKLOAD, well, it's bit pricey, and reloader has to be familiar with computers. Good thing is it could provide data for very specific bullet. The only issue is dummy round has to be assembled, and powder space accurately measured, I guess injecting water. Also, I found that some folks stated that QUICKLOAD load is fine for rifle cartridges, but it is bit less accurate/reliable for revolver cartridges. Regardless, IMO "solid" data, using appropriate testing equipment, is the ultimate source I would like to have. And will trust!

Yeah, I've heard about www.loaddata.com, but never had a chance to see full version.

The bottom line is that I suggest lower starting loads for heavier revolver cartridges, loads making 1100 fps (see here why Revolver for handgun hunting, another view | The High Road ) for cartridges commonly used in handgun hunting. And something nobody does at this moment, muzzle blast level for a shooter.

 

[Onty]

Regarding .455 loads in longer case, here is a comment from Starline website 455 Webley MKII - Large Pistol - Brass Cases (starlinebrass.com) , Richard Coxall nailed it squarely:

"Such a shame you made the Mk 2 case instead of the Mk 1, it's easy to trim a case to Mk2, but damn hard to lengthen to a Mk 1 !! and Mk 1 cases shoot so much better in the new Service target models and will chamber in the Webley's."

For those who want longer MkI brass, the easiest way is to get 45 Cowboy Special brass 45 Cowboy Special Brass - Large Pistol - Brass Cases (starlinebrass.com), length is OK as is. As for thinning rim, I prefer making a die and squeezing rim in a strong vise or small hydraulic press:

 

[Jim Watson]

A manual with that much information would cost like one of those grad school textbooks.

Here are following areas that should be scrutinized:

1- Bullet selection, majority of handloads listed are for jacketed bullets
True, as discussed above. I only know of Lyman to both make molds and have a PV testbed.

2- Fairly narrow velocity and pressure range of listed loads
That narrow range is due to a common approach of publishing a maximum load and a starting load at 90% of the maximum. Again, Lyman is the exception; they show a lot of very low starting loads. Unfortunately nothing in between. The extinct Midway LoadMAP showed a sliding scale of loads for a few handguns. Sorry, mine were lost in the Incident or I would share with you.

3- Some manuals do not list pressures
True. We must assume that their maximum loads are at the SAAMI maximum and go from there.
What is the handloader to do with a pressure number? You are at or near the maximum or you are not. You may be seeing "pressure signs" at less than maximum loads. You may think you can get away with an overload if you are not seeing "pressure signs." CUP and pizeo psi are not the same, so what? All that is typically shown is the maximum in one unit or the other.

4- Inadequate testing equipment (barrels)
SAAMI specifies P/V barrel dimensions. Rifles are not too bad, just bear in mind that they are held to close tolerances near the minimum specification. "Tight" barrels generally give higher velocity so you may be disappointed in a production line gun.
Handguns are bad. I have seen data published from 6, 7.7, 8.375, and 10" barrels, plus the "vented" 4" meant to simulate a revolver.
Shoot in a real revolver? Speer has a table of velocities for the same factory loads in different make, model, and barrel length .357 revolvers. Ten 6" guns had a velocity spread of 282 fps, low to high.

5- Muzzle blast level data are non-existent
Add a good bit to the price of that monster manual, sound level testing is a whole new regime.

 

[Charlie98]

Regarding testing barrel length for 41 and 44 Remington Magnum. I suggest 6.5" as a “happy center”, since majority of revolvers in those calibers are made by Ruger and Smith & Wesson, and the most common barrel lengths are 5.5", 6", 6.5" and 7.5". In that respect. barrel length 6.5" for those calibers is, in my opinion, optimum for testing purposes.

The 6.5" barrel length is a ghost... S&W standardized to the 6" barrel (vs the 6.5") years and years ago. Yes, they have made special runs, like the original 657 Hunter Classic, etc, but those are not the bread and butter guns. I think 6" would be a reasonable choice. I do have to laugh when you look down and the 'barrel' is a 10" test barrel... but if it provides a platform for easy pressure testing, then it's worth the offset.

Be helpful for loading silencer ammo for pistols too.

I would tend to agree... suppressed and subsonic ammo is a thing, for sure. Much like Cowboy loads, and Service Rifle data became the norm in data books.

However, one of the best load data on internet, HODGDON, is still in CUP.

Not only is much of Hodgdon's data older (hence CUP,) but much of it is collected from the powder lines they took over... most recently Ramshot/Accurate. They are just listing that data as-is in lieu of nothing. If you really think about it... given the amount of powder Hodgdon now handles... imagine being given the task of developing NEW data for a book full of bullets and cartridges using ALL of the appropriate powders available in the Hodgdon catalogue? Good heavens...


Given the requirements of the OP's request, including needless things like muzzle blast (DB readings...) it would almost make sense if the bullet and powder manufacturers would create a separate entity to produce load data independently... including reasonable bullet and powder choices. That would certainly standardize the testing methodology and remove that burden from the manufacturers.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

A manual with that much information would cost like one of those grad school textbooks.

Here are following areas that should be scrutinized:

1- Bullet selection, majority of handloads listed are for jacketed bullets
True, as discussed above. I only know of Lyman to both make molds and have a PV testbed.

2- Fairly narrow velocity and pressure range of listed loads
That narrow range is due to a common approach of publishing a maximum load and a starting load at 90% of the maximum. Again, Lyman is the exception; they show a lot of very low starting loads. Unfortunately nothing in between. The extinct Midway LoadMAP showed a sliding scale of loads for a few handguns. Sorry, mine were lost in the Incident or I would share with you.

3- Some manuals do not list pressures
True. We must assume that their maximum loads are at the SAAMI maximum and go from there.
What is the handloader to do with a pressure number? You are at or near the maximum or you are not. You may be seeing "pressure signs" at less than maximum loads. You may think you can get away with an overload if you are not seeing "pressure signs." CUP and pizeo psi are not the same, so what? All that is typically shown is the maximum in one unit or the other.

4- Inadequate testing equipment (barrels)
SAAMI specifies P/V barrel dimensions. Rifles are not too bad, just bear in mind that they are held to close tolerances near the minimum specification. "Tight" barrels generally give higher velocity so you may be disappointed in a production line gun.
Handguns are bad. I have seen data published from 6, 7.7, 8.375, and 10" barrels, plus the "vented" 4" meant to simulate a revolver.
Shoot in a real revolver? Speer has a table of velocities for the same factory loads in different make, model, and barrel length .357 revolvers. Ten 6" guns had a velocity spread of 282 fps, low to high.

5- Muzzle blast level data are non-existent
Add a good bit to the price of that monster manual, sound level testing is a whole new regime.

I think you’ve nailed it. Add to your post: Anybody with a smart phone or iPod/iPad can test “muzzle blast” by downloading a decibel monitor. That capability is built into most smart watches on the market so a download isn’t even necessary. They are incredibly accurate.
I see no reason for data so easily gathered by the end-user to be included in the manual.
I am one of the few people who genuinely miss two aspects of the older Ideal/Lyman manuals: First, testing with off-the-shelf firearms. Second, testing for accuracy and use-case over “pressure.” But I’m also a stubborn stick in the mud so, there you go.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Not only is much of Hodgdon's data older (hence CUP,) but much of it is collected from the powder lines they took over... most recently Ramshot/Accurate.

Which also means it is based on powder lots which have changed hands several times and has even changed manufacturing facilities - possibly more than once since the testing was conducted.

 

[Charlie98]

Second, testing for accuracy and use-case over “pressure.”

Observation: I have never looked at a loading manual and said 'there is their choice for 'Most Accurate Load Tested' so that's my load!' More often than not, it's with a powder or bullet I don't have or use. I look at a load book for windows of acceptable pressure and performance, which I always compare against other sourced data. It's very likely their Most Accurate Load will differ from yours and mine. I do agree with 'use case,' however... it wouldn't make sense to test a swaged lead bullet up to max velocity, for example.

Which also means it is based on powder lots which have changed hands several times and has even changed manufacturing facilities - possibly more than once since the testing was conducted.

The most recently published load data includes 'obsolete' data by virtue of powder lots and other components... it's the nature of the beast.

 

[CoalCrackerAl]

I have learned to over think the data. Just stay with in the data. I rarely load at the max.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Observation: I have never looked at a loading manual and said 'there is their choice for 'Most Accurate Load Tested' so that's my load!' More often than not, it's with a powder or bullet I don't have or use. I look at a load book for windows of acceptable pressure and performance, which I always compare against other sourced data. It's very likely their Most Accurate Load will differ from yours and mine. I do agree with 'use case,' however... it wouldn't make sense to test a swaged lead bullet up to max velocity, for example.




The most recently published load data includes 'obsolete' data by virtue of powder lots and other components... it's the nature of the beast.

That’s not what I was referring to (WRT: accuracy) but, okay. If that’s how you choose to interpret it, good enough. I was actually referring to the testing criteria the old Ideal manuals had: their max load is where accuracy started to fall off in their testing gun, not where they started to see dangerous pressure signs. Their recommended loads were where they saw the best overall performance in their testing, not the minimum load where a bullet made it out of the barrel. I like that. If you don’t, that’s fine.

 

[Jim Watson]

I think there is an industry standard for muzzle blast measurement and while a phone app will give you a number it won't give you the official number or even the same number as the next guy with an app.

I repeat, what does the difference in CUP and psi matter to the reloader? Maximum is maximum either way.

A dedicated reloader could buy a Pressure Trace and a Contender to put its strain gauges on. But that is a number different from CUP or psi.
A chronograph is pretty basic equipment these days, not expensive, and it will let you fudge Quickload inputs so it "predicts" what you are already getting.

Hey, maybe the Guy Who Can Help has all that equipment.

 

[Charlie98]

FWIW... any load book is not the Bible, it's a guide book for handloading... it is not absolute. Working with factors outside the tested data in any book... think different bullet, military case vs commercial case, Magnum primer vs standard primer, temperature extremes... the burden of that is on the handloader. I see printed data from reliable sources that I wouldn't touch with a 10' pole, and yet, I've gone over published data in some instances.

Manufacturers can provide all the data they can, and more, but at the end of the day, there is always going to be someone working with different components that will have to shoulder the burden of handloader responsibility. I would agree with the idea of the most up-to-date data available, and would support efforts to validate current data and generate new data (using new components, etc...) with the understanding that there is a cost associated with that.