Speer data seems 'hotter' than others...

[bolted_down]

Hello again all.
After a recent query regarding .380 loads I decided to expand my reference material library to include a Speer #14.
After browsing the data on a few cartridge load possibles, it became apparent that Speer's data was...well, "more aggressive"... than that of other publications.
I'm sure Speer does the research and I'm sure that the published loads are safe. And, of course, I always work up to my finished load in increments while being observant as to the condition of the spent brass casings.
The question is...
Do other companies do less research?
Are their test facilities and firearms of sub-standard grade?
OR do these other companies hamstring/neuter their data for a "litigation first" society?

 

[cougar1717]

I think it is partly litigation aversion and partly the difference in Speer bullets compared to other bullet manufacturers listed in load data. Speer would undoubtedly test their components more than the testing agency that a powder manufacturer would use since a powder manufacturer would want to test a variety of bullets. Just my .02

 

[HOWARD J]

All the Mfrs. of bullets have gotten chicken.
Their lawyers have toned them down. 357 mag
Speer #11-1988---125 gr JHP-min-17.5 gr of 2400 max : 19.5 w/ mag primer
Speer #14-2007---125 gr JHP-min-16.5 gr of 2400 max : 17.5 w/ std primer

Many loads are similar................

 

[Ol` Joe]

All the Mfrs. of bullets have gotten chicken.
Their lawyers have toned them down. 357 mag
Speer #11-1988---125 gr JHP-min-17.5 gr of 2400 max : 19.5 w/ mag primer
Speer #14-2007---125 gr JHP-min-16.5 gr of 2400 max : 17.5 w/ std primer

Many loads are similar................

The Speer Gold Dot didn`t exist when the #11 was developed. There are a couple case where the Gold Dot has its` own data separate from the other jacketed bullets of the same wt in the newer manuals. The data for a given wt bullet has to be exceptable for all the styles offered of that weight listed in the book

As far as Speer loading hotter then other manuals, I found this using the 357with 158 gr bullets as a base and the latest editions I have the various manuals.

Hornady #7------ Nosler #6------ Speer#14------ Sierra#5------Lyman #48
2400
14.3gr-----------12.3gr----------14.8gr----------15.0gr--------14.9gr
H110
15.6gr-----------15.9gr----------15.5gr----------16.3gr--------17gr
W296(the same powder as H110 just a different lot)
16.0gr-----------14.8gr----------14.7gr----------17.3gr--------N/A

As you can see Speer is not the highest charge with any of the powders and in fact is usually in the middle of the pack. Bullet used, powder lot, primer, brass, test lab and the skill of the lab techs all makes a difference.
If you were see the same components tested at a lab a week or so apart by the same techs and using the same equipment I`d bet the results they arrive at will be different then the last time they tested them...Nothing is definite and manuals are just guides that only report what the lab found on that day with those components.

 

[Runningman]

The question is...
Do other companies do less research?
Are their test facilities and firearms of sub-standard grade?

bolted_down The components such as case brands (capacity) primers, powder lot variations, and bullet all have an effect on the final outcome. Change one component such as bullet brand you will change pressure.

Back in the 90s a gun writer pressure tested a bunch of different bullets in 165 Gr or 180 Gr weight in a 308 or 30-06. I was surprised to see more than 8000 psi difference with the same bullet weight between different bullet designs and manufactures.

Same thing with primes in yet another article about primers in another magazine. The author pressure tested and chronographed primes. The pressure difference between the mildest primer to the hottest pressure was shocking. A guy really should pay close attention to all the components when selecting loads.

Myself I have had some surprising results show up using a chronograph just by opening up a new can of powder. Same brand and type, only difference was the lot number.

 

[HOWARD J]

Speer manual # 11--357 --158gr bullet-2400--15.9 max
158gr bullet-H110--17.8 max
Little higher back in those days---lawyers?????????????????????

I picked up a Ruger 10-22 couple weeks ago.
They actually told you something about the gun between warnings.

 

[ranger335v]

"Do other companies do less research?"

Not the idea, they all use different guns; different guns behave differently.

Lawyers have nothing to do with it.

 

[HOWARD J]

If all guns are different--does that mean I have to use the lowest data b/cause that will keep me safe or can I work up to the hotter data including the data from the 1988 books which is much hotter ?????????????????

 

[Runningman]

Little higher back in those days---lawyers?????????????????????

More like better standards and more accurate testing equipment and methods.

More than a few of those old time loads were hard on equipment. Decades ago I had a S&W model 66 357. Used mostly those old time loads of 2400. By 2300 rounds that 66 was so loose it became unserviceable. Lesson learned the hard way.

Also know of a case years ago where a guy was loading up some old school max loads in a Remington 700 270 Win. It worked fine according to him other than slightly hard bold lift.

Problem was he loaned some of his reloads to a hunting buddy with a Remington 760 pump in 270. The guy with the pump 270 came back into camp with a blown up rifle. It came apart on the 1st shot using the other guys reloads.

 

[HOWARD J]

Shudda bot a Ruger................................

Lucky he didn't kill someone with that 700--some of the old ones had a
bad safety--gun would fire when unloading---I had one.............
Remington would not recall those guns--nice people,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[GW Staar]

There's a warning I read in one of Speer's recent manuals, that said not to use load data from their earlier manuals, for the following reasons (definitely not verbatim): 1. Powders change. Comparing say, a can of Unique, bought 40 years ago, to a new can (bottle) made this year, burn properties won't be identical. 2. Experience, showing a previous manual might have been too generous...nobody's perfect, mistakes happen.

BTW, when I first started reloading 40 years ago, Hornady had the dubious reputation for having the hottest, most generous loads. In fact I was warned not to use Hornady for that reason...if we all had listened to such warnings, Hornady wouldn't be around today.

 

[Kentucky_Rifleman]

Problem was he loaned some of his reloads to a hunting buddy with a Remington 760 pump in 270. The guy with the pump 270 came back into camp with a blown up rifle. It came apart on the 1st shot using the other guys reloads.

Lesson 1: NEVER shoot someone else's reloads in your gun.

Lesson 2: Develop specific loads for specific guns.

Lesson 3: If you use older data, use a rifle appropriate to that data.

I use several older, hotter loads from long OOP Sierra and Hornady manuals, but I only shoot the hotter loads in well-built rifles, and I keep close watch for pressure signs.

KR

 

[bullseye308]

The older manuals were fine at the time, though a little hot, but now the testing methods are more accurate then then and that is why most have backed off. They can now determine pressure much more accurately.

 

[Jeff H]

Lawyers have nothing to do with it.

hahahahahahahahaha

They always have something to do with it. It is (unfortunately) the American way.

 

[LightningMan]

A prime example of a bullet manufacturer's data for a specific bullet vs a general type of bullet. I have a die set by Lee for .380 acp and like most Lee die sets, they come with loading data. There's 2 sets of data for 90 grain jacketed bullets, one for pretty much any 90 jacketed bullet and one for the 90 grain Hornady XTP. The highest listed velocity for general jacketed bullets is 980 fps. and the highest listed velocity for the XTP is 1105 fps. A 125 fps difference! LM

 

[HOWARD J]

Sierra V manual--2003--357 Magnum
They still have very hot loads for 125gr JSP & JHC
2400 w/ mag primer-19gr max
H110 w/ mag primer-19.8 max
Have fun.........................................

 

[Ol` Joe]

Sierra V manual--2003--357 Magnum
They still have very hot loads for 125gr JSP & JHC
2400 w/ mag primer-19gr max
H110 w/ mag primer-19.8 max
Have fun.........................................

Until recently all the manuals were developed by the same methods we as handloaders use at home. They relied on case head expansion, primer condition, projected velocities, etc, few used crushers, the std a few years ago. There was a claim in Handloader magazine a couple years ago that one manual was actually written using computer projections that were then tested in factory rifles and handguns. The resulting velocities and top loads that showed no pressure signs in the test guns was then published in their book. You can do the same thing at home with a copy of "QuickLoad" and your personal rifle or pistol.
Which manual was not stated, and I can not recall the author of the article at the moment.
Lately most of them have went to Piezo or strain gages for load testing, Speer is one of them and in their #13 manual state they started with the #12 manual on handgun data, and are still retesting old data. I read somewhere the new #14 now has all the data tested on Piezo equipment and is much more accurate then the older books.
If I had the same Sierra bullets, primers, and brass used to develop Sierras 2003 data I would start at the bottom and work up as Sierra recommends and watching for problems work up to their max. If I make to the max load with no pressures showing, I`d stop and agree it is max. If primers cratered at the halfway mark or brass was sticky coming out of ONE of my chambers, I`d stop there and call that max.
If I changed one component from what Sierra used, I`d be even more watchful of trouble and expect to find a difference in what they reported and what I found.

 

[bolted_down]

Thanks all for the thoughts and information.

 

[ranger335v]

"If all guns are different--does that mean I have to use the lowest data b/cause that will keep me safe or can I work up to the hotter data including the data from the 1988 books which is much hotter"

Yes. And that's as carefully chosen answer as I can - or will - make!

 

[DWFan]

Federal, CCI, Speer, RCBS and Alliant Powder are all divisions of the same company: ATK.

 

[Jeff H]

"If all guns are different--does that mean I have to use the lowest data b/cause that will keep me safe or can I work up to the hotter data including the data from the 1988 books which is much hotter"

Yes. And that's as carefully chosen answer as I can - or will - make!

IMHO, most of the older guns didn't blow up, so maybe SAAMI is a bit too conservative with their PSI rating, but I'm sure some of the guns did get damaged, so guess it is good that we have more accurate numbers to use. I only have one caliber that I still load using data that is a few years old and above current data by a bit, but I only shoot them in Ruger Blackhawks and GP100s. Not sure I would want to abuse a Smith with these loads.

YMMV