Would you change your load based on an update

Status
Not open for further replies.

AJC1

Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
12,283
Location
St Marys Georgia
New loading manuals are released somewhat regularly, and data seems to change. The biggest changes are new data in psi vs the old cup method. The new pizo strain guages give the bullistian significantly more information than a crushed copper cup. Would you change your load if the new data shows your over max and you have been using your load for a number of years???? Would you change your mind if it was a big change.
 
Kind of a broad question without knowing the actual powder, cartridge etc etc.??

Pretty much every manual has different load ranges along with the powder companies online data.
 
How about this........in the LEE Reloading manual, one can find at least two places where there are volume (cubic centimeter) measures of powder and those then correlate to weight in grains. One place you can find this is with load data for various bullets per caliber.....the other is in a table in the back.

To verify these, I have taken 2 or 3 powders and measured them out using the LEE dippers......and then weighed the results. Haven't found one right yet. So either the dippers are not accurate, or the powders have changed from what was used to develop the tables. If the latter is true, that would suggest to me the need to go back and rethink load workups. Makes me wonder if ALL load data is more or less a ball park estimate and underscores the need to start at the bottom and work up.
 
The new pizo strain guages give the bullistian significantly more information. . .
"bullistician". . . I love it!

But no, piezo, or the vastly more common resistance strain gauges, do not provide more information. They do, if you bother collecting it, provide higher time-resolution data, so the peaks of dynamic data will appear higher. This is well known, and surprising to no one.

A measurement effect, like the change from copper crush to increasingly higher frequency strain gauge systems, should never result in the reduction of charge data.

On the other hand, asymptotic threshold data will always ratchet downward (away from the asymptote) over subsequent measurements due to variation; you never increase closer to the asymptote because that would conflict with previous measurements, but you do reduce whenever measurement variation gives you a new high point.
 
Would you change your load if the new data shows your over max and you have been using your load for a number of years????

Some of my loads are close to max. It doesn't hurt to check a new lot# of powder with the chrony. Never had to work up a new load, though.

An updated reference may indicate that the lawyers are nervous. Could be a good reason. Maybe the mfr had to change the recipe, and the powder is more energy-dense. Whatever the reason, testing a new lot# over the chrony will catch the problem.

"If you haven't tested, it doesn't work." - a old, wise engineer once told me that.
 
Honestly, at this point all of the handgun loads I use on a regular basis have existed unchanged since the 1960s at least - and some of them, like the Skeeter load in the .44 Special, have never been approved by the manuals.

So no, unless the makers of my favorite powders come right out and say "We're changing the burn rate", then I'm not going to be changing my loads.
 
When it comes to pressures, loading manuals are more or less a guide. My barrel, and your barrel, are different. My chamber, your chamber, is different. I do however carefully regard velocity.

A gross example,my Marlin 336. The chamber must have cut with a sausage, it is huge!

keOX3rk.jpg

I was absolutely unable to reach velocities of 2100 to 2200 fps with a 170 following manual data. There simply was not enough powder in the case. So I had to bump up the loads. If you look at manual data, my loads are clearly above manual maximum.

oL64Irw.jpg

G92WbMv.jpg

4W39LOm.jpg

what I took to CMP Talladega

DMY8nhY.jpg

See where the manual stops for IMR and AA4064

nszykaO.jpg

CgUM9HF.jpg


Now, there is some hot data out there, and a maximum load is always trouble. Manuals often show 2900 fps with a 150 in the 30-06. There is one individual on this site who recommend pushing a 150 grain bullet in a Garand at 3000 fps :what:, but you know, even in a 26 inch in barrel, I can't get there without issues.

Shot well

CxAvvog.jpg

but, caused erosion around the firing pin hole.

qvG7COd.jpg

I cut that load down to 57 grains, and it rolls around 2750 fps. And shoots well.

While nit noids will point out, velocity is not pressure, what is true, the faster something is going, the higher the pressure. I use manual velocities as go and no go guidance because I can measure velocity. Time and again, if my bullets are going faster than manuals, pressure problems occur later. And, something that is true, even when my loads are below manual maximum, once I start encountering blown, leaking primers, I cut the loads.

I also have found, the more you shoot loads, the more you end up cutting them to the point, where you don't have problems.

One day, this load shoots great, no problems

XeTRPCb.jpg

and then pressure problems appear

sG84tSR.jpg

so, massive load reduction.


X6r738U.jpg
 
As long as the different data is due only to a change in testing methodology, I see no reason to change a proven load.
If there has been any change in the powder formula, I would work up a new load.
 
None of the data I am using is old enough for that to really be an issue. Most of my data either comes from online data sources found at powder manufactures or bullet manufactures (with a little home brewed loads to keep it interesting). That said if the only data I can find is based on copper or lead crusher data I am fine with using it. The copper and lead crusher pressure measurement methods still work fine and produces safe loads SAAMI still maintains the CUP and LUP data right along side the more modern piezo transducer data in the specs.
 
Maybe... but powder "manufacturers" data would get my attention.

Some of my loads for gas guns are near max pressure, so I'd keep a closer eye on them. I wouldn't rip apart any, but after emptying the current powder supply on hand and buying more, I might throw a load ladder over the chrono and all that other stuff just to make sure everything is good.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, at this point all of the handgun loads I use on a regular basis have existed unchanged since the 1960s at least - and some of them, like the Skeeter load in the .44 Special, have never been approved by the manuals.

So no, unless the makers of my favorite powders come right out and say "We're changing the burn rate", then I'm not going to be changing my loads.
That would definitely cause me to retest and evaluate
 
I have been using the same components for decades. No more experimentation.
I would not change, no matter what anyone says.
 
New loading manuals are released somewhat regularly, and data seems to change. The biggest changes are new data in psi vs the old cup method. The new pizo strain guages give the bullistian significantly more information than a crushed copper cup. Would you change your load if the new data shows your over max and you have been using your load for a number of years???? Would you change your mind if it was a big change.
Depends. Is the data change accompanied by an explanation as to WHY it changed? Did the powder manufacturer announce a change in their formulation? If the answer to both is No, then my answer is no. If either is yes, I'll consider the explanation then possibly make a change when I buy components matching the changed data. I won't change an old Unique load using old Unique because Alliant comes with a new Unique and new data for the new Unique. As an example... A randomly chosen example To be clear, I am NOT stating there has been any change in Unique, nor am I implying an announcement is forthcoming. Some folks don't seem real clued in on plain English lately so, just want to get that out there: I have no knowledge of any changes to Unique.
 
I did. I changed an old standard load of my father's. 55.5gr of IMR4350 under a 130 Nosler BT in .270. I saw his old manuals where the max load was 55.5. Any current manual I can find lists the max at 55.0. I worked up to 55.0 and found it to be very good.
I have since switched from IMR4350 to RL16 with 130's.
 
I did. I changed an old standard load of my father's. 55.5gr of IMR4350 under a 130 Nosler BT in .270. I saw his old manuals where the max load was 55.5. Any current manual I can find lists the max at 55.0. I worked up to 55.0 and found it to be very good.
I have since switched from IMR4350 to RL16 with 130's.
That's an interesting scenario as I have never used any of my dad's loads and I would have much less reluctance to adjust something I got from him by something what I worked at myself. It would seem almost appropriate to validate any load you didnt develop yourself. On the contrary I'm sure there are many people who have gotten loads from their fathers and grandfathers and haven't done any independent testing. That is an intresting twist I hadn't intended.
 
That's an interesting scenario as I have never used any of my dad's loads and I would have much less reluctance to adjust something I got from him by something what I worked at myself. It would seem almost appropriate to validate any load you didnt develop yourself. On the contrary I'm sure there are many people who have gotten loads from their fathers and grandfathers and haven't done any independent testing. That is an intresting twist I hadn't intended.

Powders sometimes change over time, so it's not a bad idea to just keep your eyes open.

In the way back, Accurate 2230 was made in Israel by IMI primarily as a NATO specific powder. The start charge was close to full and the max charge was a compressed load.
Now it's made by General Dynamics (I think) and a max charge of 26.3gr is a 94% fill. I sure wouldn't want to try a compressed load of the current.
 
Last edited:
I have one load that I worked up in the early 70's for my Rem 7mm Mag. Decades ago they changed the max charge my 1 gr with the powder I'm using. As long as I have powder from the current data for which the manual was printed, that is what I use. Once it's used up I will step down and rework the load with the new powder. I try to use manuals that were published in the same time frame as the powder.
 
Powders sometimes change over time, so it's not a bad idea to just keep your eyes open

It pays to check and cross reference all data you see regardless of the reason for the change! Hopefully, maintaining... Safety, Safety, Safety!

Change is the only constant in everything. Even if you've got a tried & true work up load. Powder distributors and manufacturers will always look to innovate and make changes to their products when they believe they can enhance the bottom line.

We are the only ones responsible for what we do. Stay Safe!!!
 
Now, there is some hot data out there, and a maximum load is always trouble. Manuals often show 2900 fps with a 150 in the 30-06. There is one individual on this site who recommend pushing a 150 grain bullet in a Garand at 3000 fps :what:, but you know, even in a 26 inch in barrel, I can't get there without issues.
You don't have to make up lies...

I said you "can"...and it's completely safe for the shooter and the rifle. Hornady 150gr Superformance goes 3100fps and it's port pressure is only slightly higher than some M2 ball.

You are overlooking the fact that even USGI ammo was running almost 2900fps in a test barrel.
 
Over the decades that I have been reloading, a couple loads for a couple cartridge/powder/bullet combinations were reduced by the manufacturer.

Primarily, 45ACP/700-X/230 RN and 9x19/True Blue/124 RN.

With the new manufactured powders, the velocity increased over the loads with the old manufacture powder. So, I reduced the loads.

In my opinion, if the load data changee, it bears investgating if load changes are necessary.
 
Last edited:
I normally find a load that is accurate (to my standards) that is no where near maximum. I have used some of the loads for over 20 years. I can't see any reason to change what works for me. YMMV
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top