Load Data difference, Old Manual vs New Manual

[roknHS]

Loads from a 70's Hornady manual use quite a bit more powder than the new manual for the same caliber, same powder and same weight bullets. Same is true for the old and new Speer manuals. My assumption is all the newer loading manuals use lighter loads to ensure a greater degree of safety and less chance of liability issues and law suits. Am I correct? Or, has the burn rate of powder changed over the years enough to warrant changing the load data to stay within safe pressure ranges?

Read More

 

[JackThompson]

You have it right. It's fear if lawsuits.

I was talking to an old timer buddy of mine last week about the same thing. He collects old load data books just so he can have the actual information.

I think some of it is due to a lot of people setting their weight and not checking it again every 10 charges, or leaving their setup out for a month and going back to loading a month later without re-calibrating their scale etc.

 

[Certaindeaf]

They use different and more accurate pressure measuring devices/equipment these days.

 

[metrotps]

Another reason powder formulas vary slightly and load data changes because the raw ingredients vary and change somewhat, but when lawyers get involved, things change a lot.

 

[JackThompson]

They use different and more accurate pressure measuring devices/equipment these days.

I was curious on this same thing, so I went to the SAAMI web site (The group that sets the standards for acceptable pressures for Firearms)
<broken link removed>

Their listing for <broken link removed> (The top link) is circa 1993, so I'm guessing they haven't really done a lot to refine their methods since then or a new standard would have been released.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Yea, I don't know that SAAMI has ever changed specs. They probably have here and there though. With new and much more common transducers (essentially universal since around '90) tweaks would understandably be made to satisfy SAAMI specifications.

 

[SinisterSouthpaw]

I choose E: All of the above. BUT Let's remember when we are bashing the ever bashable and never bashful legal fraternity, that the sharks swarm when there is blood in the water. There is blood in the water when some stupid cheapskate SOB uses a 40 year old loading manual to drop a max load of whatever powder in a cartridge and blows his fingers off or puts his eye out.


Since the 1970s powder makers have DEFINITELY changed some of the chemistry of their powders and some have sold out to other companies which in this country, can never seem to leave well enough alone and the new guys fool with the old powder formulas they bought because --what?--hubris I guess. Like the hollyweird producer who loves your script baby, and buys it, then changes it out of all recognition so that by the time it becomes a movie, it bears no resemblance to the original successful novel...........


And finally--why is the powder industry expected to stand still? Would you seroiusly expect to use a 1970 Chilton manual to work on your 2010 Ford? Man up and buy a new manual if only for the info on all the new (and better) powders we hope will soon be available again once the panic is over, which is another infuriating subject we will not address here.

 

[roknHS]

Not positive who you are addressing with all those words of "wisdom" but, I have to assume it's me, "The stupid cheapskate SOB with the 40 year old manual"?............I have the new manuals on the shelf in the shop next to the old ones.
So, I guess I did "Man Up" as you suggested, although I had already purchased the new manuals long before you told me I should. Who would have guessed................?
There is a lot in your post I don't appreciate but, I do appreciate your concern for my fingers and eyes. Lord knows what would have happened if you hadn't taken time out of your busy day to warn me. Thanks so much.

I do have a suggestion for you.............have a Maalox on the rocks, calm down and try to play nicer tomorrow.

 

[roknHS]

To all the rest of you. Thanks for the comments on the difference in the new and old manuals. Lots of performance is left on the table if you don't have some old load data to compare the new manuals with.
Here's hoping you all have functioning finger and eyes...............
Thanks for your input.

 

[Otter]

I've noticed the same thing. I use both manuals. I start with the most conservative manual, and work my way carefully up to the highest suggested load, watching for pressure signs. Hard bolt lift and flattend primers are a clear indicator you have gone just a little too far.

I've found conflicting current information as well. Was developing a load for 50 grain Zmax bullets and N133, which there doesn't seem to be info for. So I used the Vmax load...which made sense. However for the same bullet weight and type from Sierra and Nosler listed a much higher max load. No way the alloy used for these three bullets could be so different there could be that much difference. Typically, the hottest load isn't the most accurate anyway, so really no big deal. In this case the mid Hornady load was most accurate, which would have been the minimum for Sierra and Nosler.

 

[Sstrand]

RoknHS
Be especially careful with your B-B gun . . . You might shoot your eye out . . .

Sheldon

 

[roknHS]

......Check........

 

[orygun]

In some cases it's the company publishing the load manual "playing it safe". Craig Boddington mentioned this exact thing in a recent article. His favorite 30-06 load is now listed as over maximum and the editors wouldn't let him print it. But he did say it was one grain over maximum so one could read between the lines and figure it out.
However, sometimes the powder companies change the powder slightly. Blue Dot is one of those. It was one of my favorite powders for .41 Mag and now they state it shouldn't be used in that case at all. I've also noticed that the Blue Dot loads for 357 Mag need to be backed down slightly when using data that's a few years old.
I, too, have some old manuals that I reference from time to time. Things change. Some for the better, some not.
No matter what you use for a reference, if you don't start below maximum and work up, you could be asking for trouble. Take some time and you'll be happy.
If you want max velocity (or nearly) right from the start, you probably should just buy ammo.

 

[stavros4570]

No one has mentioned this, so I guess I will. Don't run with scissors!

 

[2ndtimer]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't SAAMI amended some of their maximum pressure levels as well? It seems I recall the old SAAMI maximum for the .357 Magnum was 46,000 cup, and it is now 37,500 psi. Something about how it was originally developed for N frame Smith & Wesson and Ruger Blackhawk revolvers and with the smaller frame .357 Magnums produced since the 70's they felt a need to back it off some. Bottom line is still you need to start low and gradually work up, watching for pressure signs. A chronograph also is quite helpful, since if you are getting consistent velocities far in excess of what the manuals state you should be getting, it is reasonable to assume you are also exceeding recommended pressure for your particular firearm. And while we are discussing it, can anyone tell me why SAAMI lists the .280 Remington and 30-06 at a maximum average pressure of 60K, while the .270 Win (and others) get 65K? It's not like there is any difference in the inherent strength of a Model 70 or 700 action chambered between one or the other.

 

[Darkker]

This is an eternal reoccurring question...
First part is measuring equipment. For those of us who didn't just "get into" reloading recently, you can remember the copper crusher debacle. The widely published article about how a carefully calibrated set of crusher slugs was sent out to the big 3-4 ammo companies at the time. Everyone was to test their "known reference" load. The results varied by something on the order of 10-15,000 psi. That was with very carefully calibrated crushers; so you still think your UN-calibrated primers are an accurate judge of pressure? Strain gauges and piezoelectric equipment is MUCH more consistent, and cheaper. But if you think most reloaders honestly want to know what pressures they run, ask yourself why you don't personally know anyone with a pressure trace unit.... They cost the same as your last rifle purchase.

Second part is powder. STILL, moist think that factories use canister grade powder, and actually think they load by weight.... All wrong. BTW, NONE of who you think makes powder, actually does. Powder is ONLY made by defense contractors/govt agencies. Canister grade powder is a blend of rejected lots, or for very old powder, contact production runs. With a very precious single exception, the resellers will not tell you what that canister spec is. But that universal "drop 10%when switching lots" is a very real thing, for very good reason. To this "who made who" point. Hodgdon would have you believe that in the past couple of years they brought you new military tech powder, called CFE223.
The reality is that is made by Defense contacting giant, General Dynamics; in Florida. That "new" powder is canister grade SMP842, which is approaching 15 years old. They also don't advertise that the Tin/Bismuth compounds that clean copper; have been in some other powders they(GD) make. Perhaps you've heard of Win 748, Win 760/H414/Accurate 2700?? According to the MSDS I have, it's been in them for at least 40 years. And the real kicker, is those compounds cleaning ability were discovered by the French; around 1900. Pretty new magic technology huh?

Typically those who "know" the lawyers are keeping them down, didn't know any of that. They will throw out terms like "SAAMI max", fine, which max are you talking about? Did you know there are several for every cartridge? MAP, MPLM, MPSM?
Ancient hokey religions, and the belief that the world is flat; comes from lack of understanding.

 

[Grunwald]

You mean you don't just fill it to the rim and then pound the bullet in?

 

[fry]

You mean you don't just fill it to the rim and then pound the bullet in?

don't give up my favorite 30.06 load to everyone on the interweb.