Old reloading data verses new ? too consertative ?

G

georgiacatweazle

New member
I was wondering if the old reloading manuals from the 1970's had better data due to being less conservative ?
have the newer manuals narrowed the powder charge window just for liabilities sake ?

i've heard the older manuals have a lot more 'conversation' going on, i.e. more back ground information than newer watered down ones ?

was going to buy a speer number#9 from 1973
 
I have loading manuals going back to the early 1950's. The load data in these older manuals are usually, but not always, more "stout" than newer manuals. Most of the older manuals were formulated using the manual CUP pressure measurement method. Newer manuals use an electronic system of pressure measurement. The electronic measure being MUCH more accurate. I also suspect there is a good dose of "LAWYER" associated with new loading manuals.

Old manuals are a great resource for out of production powder. I have an 8 pound canister of Win 785 that has been out of production for probably 25 years. If I didn't have my old manuals all I would have is 8 pounds of lawn fertilizer.

Besides that, they are fun to read? :D
 
I was wondering if the old reloading manuals from the 1970's had better data due to being less conservative?
Click to expand...

On balance, older manuals were less conservative. But that doesn't change the fact that old manuals are just that - old.

have the newer manuals narrowed the powder charge window just for liabilities sake?
Click to expand...

Maybe. Probably. But current manuals are just that - current.

was going to buy a speer number#9 from 1973
Click to expand...

If you do, read it only for general historical knowledge purposes only.

All new manuals state that they supersede all previous editions. Things change, and it's not prudent to assume that the data in old editions is still applicable.

If you feel so inclined to load with charges that exceed current published data, do so at your own risk. If I were to do that (I don't), I would start with current data, and work up. I would not use old data as a reference - other than historical comparison.
 
attachment.php


I made a graph of how a canister powder that is blended to be the same year after year, can somehow get different published loads.

If the changes were due to data taken and not just some whim, I don't know what the out of control variables were.

I would not tolerate this in engineering, but these are recipes, and they can change the number of eggs in cookies from year to year, and I have to let it go.
 
I'm still using a lot of old manuals from the 80's, as I still use a lot of the loads I developed in the 80's for guns I bought in the 80's. (Speer 9 & 10).Their main purpose now is for loadings for which data is no longer avaialble, and even then I try to cross reference with new data. Often you cannot match the old components with new ones, but you can loo at overall information and get an idea if the old data still makes sense, and appears to be logical. New data is always best though, because sometimes certain issues are discovered, or new guns come out that don't work so great with specific components, or have long term issues with certain loads.
 
No-one has mentioned the improvements in technology & how that affects load data either.
The old lead/copper crusher pressure testing only told of maximum overall pressure, nothing else.
When transducers came in it was possible to actually document things like spikes & pressure curves & gradients.
The extra data made some changes necessary as the phenomenon wasn't documentable until the better sensors were used.
 
Besides the already mentioned changes in pressure measurement ability, don't overlook the fact that DIFFERRENT GUNS are used for testing.

I just did a quick look in the Speer #8, 10, & 11 manuals. Looking at only one load, .44Mag, 2400pwdr, 240gr bullet.

THREE different guns are used. Two of the manuals listed the same max load, the third one was significantly higher, for powder charge.

So, there is another factor. Every component in the ammo and the gun, all together, and how they react to each other matter.

I have seen ammo fine in gun A give cratered primers in gun B. Only difference, the gun/ammo relationship.

Every combination is unique, and while the overwhelming majority behave very similarly, there is always the possibility that your personal combination of factors will behave drastically differently.

This is why reloading data are guidelines, not rules.
 
I used a older edition Sierra manual and was showing pressure signs with my .300 WM . I even posted a question here about it . I backed off a little and the pressure signs stopped . I later bought a 5th edition Sierra and noticed the .300 WM data was almost what I backed off to but the fps is the same as the old data .
I also have my Uncles older edition Sierra from the 60's or early70's he used when he held the National small bore record . His data is written in the notes section .
 
going to buy a speer number#9 from 1973
Click to expand...

I have a Sierra Volume 1, that was before the Internet. There are a few reloaders still reloading from that time, some still shoot, others talk about it. One of my favorite 'old stories' is the one that goes something like: "All I did was dip a case into the can of powder, fill the case and then seat a bullet".

I have old powder that is period correct for old hand loading manuals: Do I start with maximum loads? NO!

F. Guffey
 
I am 64 and I reload with a guy who is 65 when I am hunting in his state.
He started out reloading at age 14 and did a case full of pistol powder in a 243. The rifle was not ruined, but it took some time to take apart.

I started reloading at age 48, after making my fortune by blowing things up as part of improving the designs I was selling. Before I ever reloaded, I knew where to stand when things are going to blow up.

Overloading guns has lead me to strongly suspect that the designers of guns and cartridges have already done the same thing.

If I take a hot old published 270 load, but in 3 grains extra powder and shoot that load over and over in the same case [reloading at the range]. That case will soon have a loose primer pocket.

How do you think that published load got to be 6% powder charge less than the threshold of long brass life?
Randomness or intelligent design?

That process was codified by measuring the pressure and registering it with SAAMI.

Later the pressure measuring process changed, so the later published loads were reduced.
Good idea or mistake?
 
New manuals are not 'lawyered'. They're not better or worse either. They just reflect the much better measuring technology being used in the assorted ballistics labs.
Every manual is going to be slightly different regardless of when it was published anyway. Manuals reflect the conditions, firearm/universal receiver and components used in the tests only. If you have a chronograph the velocities you see will not be the same as those in the manuals for that reason.
"...that is blended to be the same year after year..." It's blended to give the same range of pressures with a specific burn rate. Isn't necessarily the same.
 
Newer manuals favor newer powders

Newer manuals favor newer powders.
For example, Alliant (online) lists loads for BE86 and Power Pistol, but they stopped listing pistol loads for Red Dot, Green Dot, etc. The old data for those two shotgun powders still is valid, and Alliant will send it to you via email if you ask for it.
Also, when a powder is discontinued, load data is removed from their catalog. For example, to use my remaining Reloader 12, I need to consult the older manuals. You can find them here: http://www.castpics.net/LoadData/Freebies/default.html
 
Newer manuals favor newer powders.
For example, Alliant (online) lists loads for BE86 and Power Pistol, but they stopped listing pistol loads for Red Dot, Green Dot, etc. The old data for those two shotgun powders still is valid, and Alliant will send it to you via email if you ask for it.
Also, when a powder is discontinued, load data is removed from their catalog. For example, to use my remaining Reloader 12, I need to consult the older manuals.
Click to expand...

Yup...

Alliant also revamped and dropped a lot of it's older load data from it's paper and online manuals after acquiring Speer in the Blount purchase...

Other than shotshell data, it's focus moved to current/newer powders and Speer bullets...
 
Every time a new manual comes out I buy iy it. I have all the Hornady's,all but one or two of the Speer's, all the Sierra's and all the Nosler's. I even have a few scattered Lyman's from the early 50's.
I've been trying to figure out an elk load for a .280 Rem. with either the 150 or 160 gr. Nobler Partition. Nobler #3 shows a 58.5 gr./2940 FPS load for the 160 but the latest manual #7 says 2752 FPS with 54.5 gr. of the same powder as max. Yet data for several other powders remain unchanged. So has IMR 7828 change that much over the years that it now requires a full four grain decrease in powder? Nobler did not make the drop in the charge until manual #6. My point is that's in my opinion a pretty radical change. Apparently they used the same 26" barreled rifle in all the manuals.
Frankly, I don't trust Lyman's C.U.P. data at all and wonder about their P.S.I. data. Lyman has used the exact same data for IMR 4895 since #44, circa 1967. I believe they have not retested that data since then. There has to have been a change as the load I worked up back the prior to my getting a chronograph and dropped as being to destructive on eating meat was a while back loaded up to run over the chronograph, more for curiosity than anything else. The load BTW was two full grains below the listed maximum and was safe back them. The blown primers were a surprise, this from a load that was safe in that rifle for years before I went to a heavier bullet. Interesting. :confused:
Paul B.
 
Have manuals easily going back to the 50's. I have reloaded since the late 70's, and use the manuals as nothing more for historical perspective.

No with that said, can someone tell me where in the devil a half-filled one pound can of Reloder-12 came from and what I used it for? I have records for everything, but this one and with it half gone, I must have liked it for something!!!!!
 
RL12

308, and 223 heavy bullets. It is (was*) a mainstream mid-range extruded rifle powder.
If you need data see the link I posted above.

In the 1990's Hercules/Alliant had RL-7, RL-12, and RL-15 (fastest to slowest) in that general range (medium rifle).

It occurred to me that I liked RL-12, and have never heard anything bad about it, that they should reintroduce it. But, I realized I had just bought some AR-Comp and Alliant's medium rifle extruded line-up is now RL-7, RL-10, AR-Comp, and RL-15. I can't find AR-Comp in my burn-rate charts, but it seems to fit there. So, in effect, R-12 was withdrawn, and RL-10 and AR-Comp took that slot and split-it. So I can't make a case for bringing RL-12 back.
Alliant also has recently introduced a range of medium rifle ball powders.
 
Last edited:
Old manuals were written to reflect the powder, bullets, and barrels of the day. Over time stuff changes. A pound of powder manufactured in 1970 will give slightly different values than a pound of the same powder made today. You see small changes from lot to lot and over 40 years the difference can be significant. Bullet shape and construction isn't the same today either. Nor are rifle barrels.

Newer manuals are more accurate with todays components.
 
Any engineer will have a safety factor built into his calculations when designing a bridge. Some prefer a larger safety margin than others. This using the materials available at the time of construction, and their properties. In addition to safety factors being a variable, so too does the material of construction vary over time. The equipment used for testing has also improved to become more precise and better able to measure smaller units.

Same is true for firearms and hand loading.

Safety is important, although there are some who like to see guns blow up and lose fingers, I do not stand among them. As far as "Lawyer factor" built in, I really do grow weary of that nonsense. For those of you who prefer to press the margins of safety, please, I beg you, tell me who you are at the range so I can leave before you blow yourself, your rifle, and perhaps your neighbor, up.

Follow the most recent manual. Use accepted safety practices. Work up your load slowly and cautiously. Inspect your components. Be sure your charge weights. Avoid thermonuclear loads, your firearms will appreciate it, and you will be less likely to endanger others in the vicinity.

I would no sooner drive over an unsafe bridge than I would to load unsafe ammunition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top