JHP load data

At one point we stopped using the old method of measuring pressures and data marks changed for a lot of loads. At another point we became more concerned about lawsuits and powder data points changed again. Brands were sold, and again it could have changed, and even at that, book after book provides different data than what is provided by the actual powder manufacturer, and in those cases, you really are safe to assume that both loads were tested and found to be safe as long as they are followed exactly.
Click to expand...

My Speer No 8 manual did not use pressure equipment. Some of the loads in that manual should be considered a bit "hot"! I think I read in an older Lyman manual the reasons why copper crusher data provided lower pressure numbers than piezo electric. I am absolutely certain that copper crusher data was calibrated, and calibrated against static weights. This would work, work well, and how else would you do it? Pile on a 10,000 pounds of weight and see how much the disc crushes. Pile on a 40,000 pound weight and see how much the disc crushes. However, cartridge pressure is over and done in milliseconds and I think the reason copper crusher data is lower is because of material response. In the milliseconds it was exposed to a load, the copper did not deform to the same amount if the load had been applied for seconds or minutes.

Given the firearms were designed with the assumption that 50,000 copper units was 50,000 pounds per square inch, it just makes sense that once they created more sensitive and accurate measuring devices, they would have to rethink their load data. If the piezo electric data showed that the old load that produced 50,000 CUP is actually 60,000 psia, then the load data in the books is going to have to come down, because you are over stressing the as built weapons on the market.
 
You aren't looking back far enough.
Click to expand...

I have Ackley's Vol.s 1&2....read them extensively. I know how seat of the pants some of that data was. I also gained a good understanding of working in unknown territory and finding what is max based on voodoo pressure signs. Much of that data's max is WELL beyond max and is in PROOF territory.

I also know Lee doesn't do anything original or tested by themselves; just a rehash of everyone elses data. OP could get Lee #2 and find data for BE or 231... same data from the 90's & 2k's.
 
I have an older Lyman manual from the late 70's and check other manuals online. I like the Nosler and Sierra manuals online.

Which manual would you guys suggest for a new manual ?
 
Well, I guess I'm a dinosaur. I like a published manual I can open, lay down on y bench, and read. I can put several open manuals on my bench and compare data without switching screens on my computer. I have used powder manufacture's web sites and printed a page to take to my reloading bench, but that is the one exception for load data.

This is what I've done and I have had only one squib, in 1970, and never a KABOOM! in 30+ years of reloading (I even had a case of "Magnumitis" and used some pretty hot loads in my .44 Magnums, but never an OOPS!). So, if one chooses to find charge data from Billy Bob's cousin, or an anonymous forum "expert", oh well, God bless his little heart...
 
Well, I guess I'm a dinosaur. I like a published manual I can open, lay down on my bench, and read.
Click to expand...

I could have written that. I always reach for my bullet mfg load manuals first.

And yes, I have old manuals that clearly show more potent loadings than today - especially with magnum revolver. But that suits me just fine. I generally have no need or desire to hotrod rounds these days. I do have a few load recipes that exceed the current published max, but it's only a couple and they're decades-old tried-n-true recipes. Besides, I rarely shoot that way these days, as I'm no longer a recoil junkie - "magnumitus," as mikld referred :p.
 
I believe in getting a load manual, a current one, and using internet for any other information. It wouldn't hurt at all to go from site to site and look over any information that you find in the manual and want to use.

No matter what you choose to work with, there's nothing wrong with searching out as much reliable information as possible. One of the most important reasons to have a written manual is that it is probably the most reliable and correct source of data available. There won't be any mistakes writing down internet data and carrying it to the bench.

It also provides a benchmark to compare every other source of data to. No matter what you choose to do with reloading, a written powder manual is a very good idea and a cheap purchase for the benefits.
 
We used to use "books" - reloading manuals in the 50's thru the 80's ..because that was all there was.../ but now with the online manuals, like Hodgdon, its really easy - and I got rid of all my "books". I don't see any need for printed manuals anymore ...

I like Hodgdon TiteGroup for .357 mag...and per the online manual, I load with a 158gr Montana Gold JHP ...at 5.8 gr at around 1200 fps....and I shoot the same cartridge in my S&W K, L and N frame guns ( barrels from 2" - 8 3/8" )...and a Freedom Arms 4 3/4" ..and a Henry rifle../ its a good all around cartridge for range, practice.

For Defensive ammo ....I carry the Hornaday 158gr JHP factory ammo.
 
To an extent, I agree. Some of my books are old. I' generally go to the internet. I will soon have a printer near my workplace and will start printing out the records I use and making my own caliber books.
 
I out to mention. I believe that whoever you are, play to your strengths, research and keep your records and load data in the way that you will be best able to do it. Intternet, index cards, notebooks, as long as you feel confident in your system, keep your own system.
 
I have Ackley's Vol.s 1&2....read them extensively. I know how seat of the pants some of that data was. I also gained a good understanding of working in unknown territory and finding what is max based on voodoo pressure signs. Much of that data's max is WELL beyond max and is in PROOF territory.
Click to expand...

One poster said a relative used Ackley loading data for his Ackley Improved. The comment was that the fired case could be reloaded with a shotgun primer!

Ackley sold rivers of snake oil. Unfortunately, many are still floating on those rivers.
 
Given the firearms were designed with the assumption that 50,000 copper units was 50,000 pounds per square inch, it just makes sense that once they created more sensitive and accurate measuring devices, they would have to rethink their load data. If the piezo electric data showed that the old load that produced 50,000 CUP is actually 60,000 psia, then the load data in the books is going to have to come down, because you are over stressing the as built weapons on the market.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense at all.
I understand the mechanical lag time of a crusher clipping peaks that the lightspeed response of an electronic transducer will show, but it doesn't matter.
If the guns were built to shoot 50,000 CUP ammo routinely, it doesn't matter that the ammo now shows 60,000 pizeo psi, IT'S THE SAME AMMO!
By your logic, my European car must need a tuneup because it does not give as many kilometers per liter as it does miles per gallon.

Skeeter Skelton said he fired 13.5 grains 2400 with a 158 in a 38 Special case in the 357.
Click to expand...

Well, not exactly. He didn't use "a" 158 grain bullet, he used that load with a specific bullet after consultation with the mold designer, Ray Thompson. The Thompson design, Lyman 358156, has two crimp grooves. If you seat to the bottom groove in .38 brass and the top groove in .357 brass, the available case volumes are very close. He loaded it lighter in .38 than in .357 because it was then thought that the case strength mattered and because he wanted to be able to shoot the Special cases loads in large frame .38 Special revolvers like his S&W Heavy Duty.

Elmer Keith was a bit froggier, he loaded 13.5 gr No 2400 with his 173 gr 358429 for the Heavy Duty.
 
Given the firearms were designed with the assumption that 50,000 copper units was 50,000 pounds per square inch, it just makes sense that once they created more sensitive and accurate measuring devices, they would have to rethink their load data. If the piezo electric data showed that the old load that produced 50,000 CUP is actually 60,000 psia, then the load data in the books is going to have to come down, because you are over stressing the as built weapons on the market.
Click to expand...

That's what happened, but the data in the books didn't HAVE to come down, they chose to go that route.

Its a numbers game, and it doesn't matter if you use CUP, LUP, PSI, Kg/cm2 or any other units, the pressure is what the pressure is. If you have proof, (like say 40+ years of people safely using load X) and the new "accurate" pressure measuring system shows 60K with what you thought was 50K, it doesn't change the fact that the gun & load were SAFE!!!

Safe at 60k as measured by the new method. They had two choices, the one they chose, keep the old limit NUMBER and measure it under the new system (which reduces the max allowable load), or raise the allowable safe pressure limit to be in line with the new measurement methods.

Many often state how "pressure signs" on cases and primers are "unreliable", and in one way, they are, but in another way, they are the ONLY reliable thing.

If you are looking for a certain sign at a certain designated pressure level, then the built in differences between all the different factors (case, primer, powder, chamber fit, etc.) make them unreliable. Meaning different combinations will not always show the same pressure signs at a designated pressure.

However, if you don't get pressure signs, then (to me, anyway) you don't have a pressure PROBLEM, with your specific gun & load combination.

And, the reverse is also true, if you get pressure signs, at a LOWER than specified "book" pressure, then you DO have a problem with your specific gun & load.

And yes, I've seen it happen. Rare, but it does happen.

and I got rid of all my "books". I don't see any need for printed manuals anymore ...
Click to expand...

How do you check information when the internet is down??

Or load when there's no electricity??
Just curious...;)
 
I am of the opinion that when piezo came around, industry found that the old ammunition, built to 50,000 cup was actually operating at 60,000 psia, and that was too much pressure for the already built population of firearms. So the SAME AMMUNITION is, was, was always operating at too high of pressures for the as built mechanisms on the market.
Click to expand...

If so, would this not be shown by large numbers of as built rifles with CUP rated ammunition either wearing out or blowing up? Apart from the low number Springfield matter, with which you are well acquainted and very critical, I have not heard of anything like that.
 
I am of the opinion that when piezo came around, industry found that the old ammunition, built to 50,000 cup was actually operating at 60,000 psia, and that was too much pressure for the already built population of firearms.
Click to expand...

There is NO direct correlation between CUP and Piezio. It is cartridge dependant. Size, shape, and internal volume TEND to show patterns but not always. Cartridges like the 30 carbine have a CUP and Piezo that are the same. Most bottle necks TEND to run a few thousand higher in Piezo but then you have the 8x57 that runs a couple thousand LOWER. Same for 35 Rem.

In my Hercules 1992 Manual they have a chart of selected cartridges showing both systems. Find one of these charts and form your own conclusions.
 
Running out of facts and going ad hominem?
I thought this was a discussion board, not a consulting firm. I'm sure not getting paid. Are you?

Any road, consider the .30-06 which is dual specified. They did find that the 50,000 CUP maximum load was "actually operating at 60,000 psia." So SAAMI (With which I am not associated.) will let a manufacturer or component maker test either way, stopping at the number appropriate to their gear.

There is a popular theory that manuals now show lighter loads because 60000 psi is more actual pressure than 50000 CUP. Not at SAAMI.
Or because the instruments are more accurate. Probably, but always in the same direction?
Or because they have become liabilty averse. No doubt at all.
Or because the powders of the same brand and type are different. Maybe but all "hotter?"

Or maybe because they didn't. I didn't do an exhaustive search but I saw Lyman 44 and 49 to be pretty close on a couple. One load a grain down, one a grain up. Not surprising with 40 years of changes in components, barrels, and people.
 
I have examined my 1987 Hercules reloading manual, my 46th and 48th Lyman Reloading manual, the online Alliant manual, and Phillip Sharpe’s book the Complete Guide to Handloading which contains Hercules data from the 1940’s.

I examined data for the 38 Special, 158 Lead grains Bullseye, and the 357 Magnum, 158 Lead and 2400. Unfortunately the current online Alliant manual does not show all the bullet choices and powder choices as the old paper copies I have, and I am disappointed in not finding Alliant online data for the 357 Magnum with a 158 L and 2400. All of the data reviewed was in CUP. However, nothing I have seen indicates that load data provided to the public has decreased even though it is well known now, that data established in CUP units are in fact producing higher pressures when measured with piezoelectric transducers. I have found nothing to indicate that factory loads are of decreased pressures with the use of piezoelectric transducers.

My 46th Lyman Reloading manual has an especially good section comparing CUP data for the 30-06 with piezoelectric transducers. What is troubling out of all of this is I know, from review of old articles and gun books, that prior to piezoelectric transducers, that CUP was considered Psia and firearm structures were designed, for example, with the assumption that 50,000 CUP was 50,000 psia. The structural strength, the endurance life was based on the CUP standards of the era. Thusly, if industry has not adjusted the pressure limits of the load data down and the pressure of the factory rounds down, this is a conscious decision to knowingly sell ammunition that will lessen the life expectancy of older firearms which were designed to CUP standards. This includes all those pre WW2 firearms, revolvers, pistols, rifles, shotguns. Industry must have decided that the public prioritized performance, would not accept the decreases in velocity that would accompany a decrease in pressure.

I do not work for SAAMI, I have no better insight into SAAMI deliberations or decisions than anyone else, and I would be very interested in knowing why they have done the things they did, and do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top