We always say "THE LAWYERS DID IT!"

S

Sevens

New member
We constantly discuss published loads that have (seemingly) been lowered across the board over years and the #1 knee-jerk claim is always that company liability lawyers have their hands all over every facet of every companies' life and that maximum loads have been lowered significantly over years.

I take issue with these assertions and it really makes me ask, "if the companies GENUINELY want us to load significantly more safely, shouldn't they completely remove some loads entirely in addition (or even instead of) simply lowering max loads?"

Easy one for me to use as an example is .44 Magnum.
If you build .44 Magnum loads with H110, you can make full bore, bigtime, hardcore .44 Magnum loads with all the possible performance one can get from a 240gr, .429" bullet. You will be maxing out on SAAMI allowable pressure and the case will be -FULL- of powder while doing so. And if you were to IGNORE the published max load and stuff more in there, the pressure would climb ever higher and you would begin to approach the hot PROOF LOADS that manufacturers put new gun through before shipping them.

However, if you build .44 Magnum loads with Titegroup... you will get (comparatively) lousy "performance" (if you equate velocity with performance) and you will be hitting SAAMI max pressure with less than HALF of the cartridge space being used. And if you elected to go over published max loads with Titegroup, you would see pressure spikes that come hard & fast with horrendous and dangerous results and if you were to foolishly cram as much Titegroup under the 240gr slug as you can fit H110, I don't think anyone has ever built a handgun that can contain the blast. At the very least, the gun is effectively destroyed.

If we use the argument that H110 max loads (or any max loads) have been lowered over time for our own good and our own safety...

...wouldn't it make sense that NOBODY -- powder manufacturers, bullet makers, manual authors, N O B O D Y would ever publish .44 Magnum loads for Titegroup?

For sure, you can make some quality .44 Mag loads with Titegroup! I have a 240gr LSWC Titegroup powered load that runs a consistent 870 fps that is excellent fun on steel plates without the usual beating of .44 Magnum at both ends of the gun.

But my point is that if you have a careless, ham-fisted, excitable reloader that is reckless at the load bench, he will NEVER impart the kind of damage to a .44 Magnum revolver with H110 than he could with Titegroup. Never will it happen.

Doesn't this dream team of company liability lawyers take this in to account?

Or is the liability lawyer talk just a concocted opinion for folks who -must- have a scapegoat that they never liked in the first place to blame things on?
 
Are there identifiable cases of powder manufacturers, bullet makers and load manual authors/publishers having been put through court cases and sued in to oblivion?

We have actual evidence that gun makers have been sued many times. Some successfully, many more so unsuccessfully. Some get paid out quietly to go away and keep their mouths shut, and many different radical political groups open up wild class action lawsuits, we know these exist.

Are there any liability suits we can find for the companies that feed us tools, components and scientific insight? Or are we truly just coming up with a scapegoat (them danged old LAWYERS!) and heaping blame on them because it's soooo easy to get anyone/everyone to agree?

The equipment that is used to test pressures has come a long, long way and they read things far more accurately than they ever did before. Our sources for data keep in mind that a .44 Magnum -MAX- published load doesn't only need to work in a Super Redhawk or a Freedom revolver... it needs to work in the Astra, the Taurus or the pre-IMHSA days S&W Model 29.

I believe...
...that if you are loading ammo for a Super Redhawk... your load does NOT have to stop at published max if you know what the hell you are doing at the load bench. And if you look at the powder manufacturer's published max for .44 Mag -- it most likely will -NOT- be the exact same number as a bullet manufacturer's .44 Mag, or the number from a published manual made by a 3rd company.

If you build a .44 Mag load for that Super Redhawk and it happens to go past published max (which is likely to be three different from three sources, which makes it funny to call two of them a "max" if the 3rd one is higher...) and it runs well and does everything right and does exhibit wild red flags, I believe it is a -FINE- load and safe for you and for that revolver.

If you take that same load and stuff it in to your buddy's classic 1955 Smith & Wesson without a proper load work-up... then you are a complete tool and a lousy handloader.
 
But my point is that if you have a careless, ham-fisted, excitable reloader that is reckless at the load bench, he will NEVER impart the kind of damage to a .44 Magnum revolver with H110 than he could with Titegroup. Never will it happen.
Click to expand...

If you have a careless, ham-fisted, excitable reloader that is reckless at the load bench, he probably won't pay any attention to a loading manual anyway and will still find away to destroy his pistol, hands, neighbors, etc. So, all that you would accomplish is to not inform responsible loaders of possible powders they can safely use in times of shortage. You can fool proof it all you want, but they'll just keep building better fools.
 
I won't argue with what you said...

Do you believe that all or most all load data has been dumbed down and lowered over the years because of corporate liability lawyers?

I do not believe that to be true.
I think it is a catchphrase concocted by folks who need a scapegoat.
 
I personally think a lot of it, is we have better ways of measuring pressure today...

I'll relate a story from one of the more knowledgeable workers at the old Herters factory... when Herters was developing the 401 Power Mag, absolutely no thought went into the safety of the pressure of the load... the whole corporate goal was to achieve an expected energy level... only when the soft swaged lead bullets greased up the barrel, did they start looking for reasons... at which point, they recalled the ammo & reworked it...

I seem to recall some similar stories with military ammo on new guns...

today we have a more litigious society & that thought process is foremost in corporate lawyers... coupled with better more accurate ways of measuring velocity & pressures... we now can assume that at least most companies actually test the pressure of their creation, rather than just "doing the math" or assuming the owner / engineer knows good enough
 
Most of the current load data has been reduced from what it was 40 years ago because we now have pressure transducers that will display and record actual pressures for the loads tested. Back in the early 1970s (when I started reloading), we would approach max loads cautiously and mike the brass at the head for signs of head expansion. At the time, case head expansion was considered a sign that you were in max load territory. We now know that case head expansion is actually well beyond max load territory, if you have case head expansion measurable after firing, you are approaching 70K PSI, well beyond the pressure limits of just about any cartridge out there. We thought we were safe, but we weren't, and it's only luck and the quality of the firearms in circulation that many of us were not hurt. So, if it seems like the manufacturers have "dumbed down" load recipes, it is because they are more informed now and have a better understanding of what is actually going on when you light one off. It's the reloaders that willfully exceed the load limits that are "dumb", not the powders manufacturers.
 
I don't think it has anything to do with lawsuits or lawyers, and is simply updated data based on more recent trends and information.

Bullets have changed a lot over the years. Stand to reason that loads for those new bullets would have to be re-optimized. Lots of new powders out there. Some are old powders that have been changed enough to invalidate previous data, and have been renamed with new data. Important things to remember is that published loads are typically a collection of more popular and proven loads with a wide range of acceptance and popularity that are known to perform fairly well. Not every max load is max because of pressure limitations. Many guns are capable of exceeding industry standards, but you are not likely to see those loads published with a few exceptions of very old rounds for which modern guns are still made like 45LC or 45-70.

Plated and coated bullets are causing all kinds of confusion, but the mfgs of powder will not likely address it because there are no standards between bullet makers for these, and the aftermarket bullet makers don't seem much interested in developing their own load data and simply refer you to a portion of powder MFG data for other bullets. This is where I am seeing the greatest potential for litigation.
 
There is some of all the above that goes on. For example, if look at loads from Sierra and Hornady, who develop them in production guns, they are often lower than the sources that measure pressure, like Hodgon and Alliant. I wasn't always so in old manuals, as a comparison will reveal. So some sort of added margin of safety has been put into play. I assume it's on advice of council, but don't know. It could just be what management thinks council would advice because they've been scared by the idea of lawsuits.

Speer is sort of in between in that they develop loads in production guns but since they and Alliant are both owned by ATK now, Speer sends loads to Alliant for testing after the fact, but before publishing. And they keep those test records. We had a member with a Handi Rifle in, IIRC, .243 Winchester that kept popping open every round with a load a full grain below the Speer manual maximum, and giving him much higher than expected velocities. In the end, I estimated he was solidly above 70,000 psi with it. He communicated this to Speer, whose response was that they had a document signed by a ballistic technician who had tested the loads and pronounced them safe and they were standing by it.

So there you have a case where the legal considerations maintained a potentially unsafe load's status in the load manual rather than weakening it.

We can infer that changes in measuring methods have brought about some load data changes. For example, Alliant telling everyone to stop using Blue Dot in certain magnum pistol loads involving certain bullet weights in .357 Magnum, but not others, and to stop using it in all 41 Magnum loads. The money on that has been continuous piezo transducer traces revealed some kinds of funny pressure irregularities they were previously unaware of. But it could also be they just had a lot of complaints of damage involving those particular combinations. I don't know which. Someone told me they asked about it at a SHOT show (year before last, IIRC) and the Alliant guys in the booth switched off their friendly conversation like a switch. Something went wrong that they aren't allowed to discuss, and the only reason for that would be liability concerns.

If a manufacturer recalls something or issues a statement like Alliant did, you can bet that some kind of liability concern has occurred, whether an actual attorney was consulted or not (though, given the cost of recalls, I expect corporate attorneys for the publicly owned firms have to sign off on the need to do them since the company share holders will take a hit).

As to other factors, some are truly imaginary or come from technical misunderstanding of how SAAMI or military pressure standards work. The average shooter sees that maximum published number and figures that it is absolute. That's not how it works. SAAMI is a manufacturer's standards organization and not a handloading standards organization. Their specifications are to give manufacturers a way to make compatible guns and ammunition with the least possible bother. That "maximum" number is not a hard wall. It is called the Maximum Average Pressure (MAP) and is just the average pressure maximum for one randomly selected sample of ten rounds from a newly manufactured lot. Realizing the next ten round sample may be different, they have a higher average pressure additional samples are expected to stay withing 97.5% of the time. It is called the Maximum Probably Lot Mean (MPLM). Realizing that bullets tend to cold bond to cases over time, raising pressures, there's a still higher number that a random sample of ten rounds may average if the ten are taken from the lot later in its shelf life. This is called the Maximum Probable Sample Mean (MPSM).

On top of all that, since these numbers are averages, they realize some of the individual rounds in the sample will be above the average and some below it. So they have still another number called the Maximum Extreme Variation (MEV) that says how far the individual round pressures may spread out, and in the worst case combination (not likely) an individual round can be a little over 18% above the MAP. The CIP does that differently and puts a flat limit of 15% above MAP on individual round pressure. But you get the idea. The "maximum" you see published in the manuals is not a hard limit. Even SAAMI and CIP test standards allow individual rounds to exceed it.

The fifth and sixth pressure numbers SAAMI has for a cartridge are the minimum and maximum proof load values.

Again, kep in mind that SAAMI is about manufacturing controls, not handloading controls. Handloaders just piggy-back on their standards where we find it useful to do so.

Another popular misunderstanding is the notion legal pressure caused SAAMI to change the pressures limits downward over time, with the .357 and .44 Magnums always given as the example, because the older copper crusher standard is a bigger number than the more modern conformal piezo transducer produces. Nope. The pressures are the same. The numerical disagreement is just an artifact of the measuring systems. I had a phone conversation with Ken Green about this when he was still SAAMI technical director. He said that when you fire the exact same lot of .357 Magnum reference ammunition that reads 45,000 CUP in the copper crusher, it reads 35,000 psi on a conformal piezo transducer. There's been no change in the load or the standard. It's just an artifact of the different instrumentation. Interestingly, that same load will read just over 43,500 psi on a CIP type channel piezo transducer, while it reads 46,400psi on a CIP type copper crusher. Why is the .357 transducer number smaller than its crusher number instead of being the other way around as they are for most rifle cartridges? I expect the dynamics can be analyzed to see why, but I don't have the tools at home to try. So it's simply a fact to be lived with.

All that does make you wonder how close to real any of the measured pressures are? The answer is none of them are—exactly. CIP thinks they come closest with their pressure transducer method, getting, they think, within about 2%. But we are measuring a dynamic system with dynamically responding pressure measuring gear, so the possibility of being fooled about that exists, too.

The way SAAMI handles the measuring irregularities is is by having one member company maintain the standard for each cartridge and make reference loads for everyone else. If some other manufacturer's test gear reads the reference load average to be some other number, he calibrates against it from the reference load. If Remington thinks the .357 reference loads are at 45,000 CUP and 35,000 psi, and my copper crusher reads 37,000 CUP firing them, I multiply all of my instrument's readings by 45/37 and don't try to pretend I'm right and Remington is wrong. This keeps everyone calibrated to the same measuring gear and on the same page pressure-wise, and regardless of what the different instruments say.

Here's some interesting information from the SAAMI standards on the absolute accuracy of the pressure testing instruments. In both cases, the same reference ammunition was sent to different facilities and they reported what their instruments said it read. The copper crushers (first example) had about 23% spread in measurement results, and the conformal piezo transducers had about 11% spread in the second test.

CUPvariancevpsivariance_zpse6af27f3.gif


Finally, for some guns handling more pressure than others, we've all known that's true for a long time, and the smaller makers, especially, do produce ammo that is only for guns strong enough for it. Garret and Buffalo Bore both have stuff that's only for certain gun models. These are not SAAMI compliant loads, but they don't claim to be, and that doesn't seem to have raised their attorney's alarms. They just keep it labeled clearly. Beyond that, it's caveat emptor.
 
I only use a fast powder like 700X for handgun in 45ACP, 357mag and 9mm. While a fast powder is generally limited to light loads the range of bullet weights for the 45ACP is very broad and the velocity doesn’t suffer much compared to a slower powder. 9mm is limited to about a 125-grain bullet and it’s the same for 357mag. The 357mag positively suffers in terms of velocity but I’m OK with it, being a bit hotter than 38 +P is fine for me.

The later technology transducer method reveals more detail in terms of peak pressures during the event time while the copper crush method is an average. IMO, as is in most cases with electrical, the average is good enough. The lawyers probably feel trying to explain this to a jury could be an uphill battle.
 
We always say "its the lawyer's fault", and we're not wrong. But its not JUST the lawyers fault. The gun & ammo makers play a part, and so do we, the buying public. Which is the major factor, and how much of a part each plays is up for debate.

Every gun and ammo/component combination is (at least slightly) different. Everything has tolerances. Sometimes these cancel each other out, sometimes that build on each other.

The overwhelming majority guns, ammo/components behave very similarly. This is why reloading data is useful. But they are not all exactly the same, and some combination are drastically different. This is why reloading data is not hard and fast absolutes. It is what they got, with what they tested. Your results are expected to be similar, but its known they may not be, which is why we are always advised to "work up loads in your gun".

(puts on pirate eyepatch, peg leg, and voice) ARRR, they are not laws, they are guidelines.

As to the changes in factory ammo, I'm sure the lawyer effect plays a significant role, but I'm not sure it is the dominant factor in all cases. I think in some cases, it is we, the consumer, that has driven the changes, sometimes by directly demanding them, and sometimes a result of unintended consequences.

Some rounds have been seriously beefed up since their introduction. Sticking with just pistol rounds at the moment, for all those who remark that the older manuals had hotter data, they are correct, for some manuals, and some rounds, and not for others. .357 Mag isn't what it was in 1935, it is less today. And likewise, the 9mm Luger isn't what it was then, but in the opposite direction! (+P+ anyone?)

I think it is because we (as a group) demanded it. Here are some points to consider...

There are a lot of guns made in the last 100+ years that are still around. We see this all the time. Guns last a long time. We believe this down to our toes. We EXPECT guns to last a long time. We are not happy when they don't.

It is an attitude not 100% congruent with reality, and it is very firmly entrenched. Never mind that it comes from the era before modern magnum pressures (or even smokeless powder) that doesn't matter, gun makers know this, and are expected to make guns that last, no matter what they shoot.

If we feel they aren't living up to that, we don't buy them.

So, take the .357 Magnum. A powerful high intensity round, greater in many ways than anything before it. The guns made for it were the biggest, toughest ones around, the top end models of what gunmakers could do at the time. And they worked well, and lasted pretty well.

But we wanted more. We wanted a lighter gun that shot the same ammo, and ALSO lasted. Enter the K frame class of .357 Mag. And later, even the J frame, tiny little guns, compared to the original .357s.

But here's the rub, in physics, and mechanical applications (as well as a lot of other things in life) "there's no free lunch". Meaning, in order to get something, you have to give something.

The buying public got convinced they needed light(er) .357s. Smaller lighter guns simply cannot handle the original level .357 loadings. Shoot that stuff out of a model 19, and you will need a small hammer to extract the fired cases. Been there, DONE THAT! And I wouldn't even THINK about shooting that from a smaller gun.

So what's a poor business to do? They're gonna buy these guns, we want them to buy our guns, we can't change the laws of physics, but we can change what says ".357 Magnum" on it to something that will work in our guns....(yes, the ammo makers are in on it, too! :rolleyes:

So the load levels come down just enough to make that happen, still more powerful than the older rounds, powerful enough of to keep the reputation of the .357 Mag (largely) untarnished. But not the same stuff that created the reputation to begin with.

Something similar, but in the opposite direction happened to the 9mm Luger. For various reasons we became wedded to the 9mm as a culture (ok, not totally, but enough to matter), and wanted better performance. The buying public was firm, (for long enough, anyway), it had to be 9mm, and fit in this kind (size) of gun. One "solution" led us to 9mm +p and +P+ ammo.
(when the .40S&W showed up, fitting in the "right" kind of guns, the resolve for 9mm lessened)

I KNOW lawyers (lawsuits & liabilities all lumped under that term) play a part, but I think most of the changes were more market driven. WE wanted the impossible, and gun& ammo makers simply tried to give us the closest thing they could to what we thought we wanted. The customer is always right, even when they aren't, you know.

The lawyer effect plays a part in certain specific instances (like why there is a new model Ruger Blackhawk, etc.) but I think their overall effect has been the fundamental change in attitudes and our "safety culture", from previous generations.

I see the improvements in worker /user safety in our lives overall as a good thing, but the law of unintended consequences still applies, and we can see it in many specific things in the firearms field.

Better blame the anti gun movement and all their allies and "useful idiots" in the media, too. Maybe not a root cause, but definitely a contributing factor.
 
As to the changes in factory ammo, I'm sure the lawyer effect plays a significant role, but I'm not sure it is the dominant factor in all cases. I think in some cases, it is we, the consumer, that has driven the changes, sometimes by directly demanding them, and sometimes a result of unintended consequences.
Click to expand...

38 +P, pressures reduced from 21k to 18.5k psi.
8 x 57IS...(Yes I not J, never was J) due to the 8x57 I and that some nimrod would put 323 ammo down a model 1888 318 bore.
7x57 out of defernce to older small ring Mausers. In Europe, they loade them hotter.
450 Marlin w/ wider belt becasue they figured some nimrod would try to feed one in a 7mm RM.
45/70, loaded way below SAAMI pressures of 28K cup out of deference to Trapdoor Springfields that were the basis for that pressure level in the first place.
45/70 Marlin level data @ SAAMI 28k cup levels even though the same gun in 450 Marlin is loaded much hotter.

It may not be a dominant factor in all cases, but it is certainly a dominant factor in many cases.
 
Well, I am a lawyer and have been re-loading for many rifle and handgun cartridges for well over 30 years. Never had a problem with using good judgment on powder/bullet/cartridge combinations. Thus the problem is not my fault.
 
All of my handloads, with one exception, have been by the book, the Speer reloading manual number 10. This manuals first printing was in 1979 while the version I used was probably a second printing, 1980. The manuals I have today are the Speer number 10 1987, Speer number 13 1999, Sierra second edition 1978 and a slew of online reloading data provided by links under this site TFL. Many thanks to TFL.

My deviation from the reloading manual number 10 was the 357mag for my S&W 66, six shot stainless revolver with 4” barrel. The Speer number 10 manual states for 700X powder a range of 7.3 - 7.8 gr., Speer 125 gr. soft hollow point jacketed bullet. The 38 +P of the same manual does not have a load for 700X using the same 125 gr. bullet. Nearest like powder to 700X would probably be Bullseye, a powder I have experience in using, with a range of 4.4 - 5.1 gr. for the 38 +P. I synthesized/extrapolated my own downloaded ammo by using 6.0 gr. of 700X with the above 125 gr. bullet. My downloading of the 357mag was because of my limited experience below.

The later Speer manual number 13 no longer has fast powders like 700X and Bullseye for 357mag for a 125 gr. jacketed bullet. Sierra second edition 1978 lists no fast powders for any bullet for 357mag. The fastest powder listed for 357mag is Unique, a medium powder.

At the time, about 1980, my experience with the revolver and reloading was little. Limited experience with a rental nickel Colt Python 4” using the range supplied reloaded cast lead ammo made an impression on me. The recoil was vicious, the revolver banged into my palm and vibrated. It was a chore just to get through a box of ammo. At a later point in time I wanted to use the Python again but it was no more. I was told the frame cracked. My guess is the cast lead bullet ammo furnished by the range did a good deal of leading in the barrel causing pressure to rise.

I’m glad to say my synthesized/extrapolated downloaded 357mag handload of yesteryear falls within published load data of today. :D IMR shows a max load of 6.2 gr. using 700X with a 125 gr. jacketed bullet. At the time I initially started using 700X it was by Dupont.

I’ve experienced no stuck cases within the cylinders of my 66 and it’s one of the few arms I have that is constantly kept loaded with my handloads. Recoil is stout and very shoot-able. Self-defense handloads differ by using only virgin components.

Overall I think my 357mag handload has about the same MZ (muzzle energy) as that of a 9mm. This because the revolver ammo is tested using a 6” barrel while the 9mm is 4”. I suspect a good deal of energy is expended because of the revolvers cylinder/barrel gap.
 
CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond or not covered by currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assume any liability for any damage or injury resulting from use of this information.

I would like to say that I never pay any attention to published loads, and I just make stuff up. It might seem that way with each new cartridge. But 15 years ago when I started reloading, I paid attention to published loads as I overloaded everything to see what happens. So my knowledge base grew from experiments that were overload workups based on published data.

If you have heard the joke, "First prize, a week in Cincinnati. Second prize, two weeks in Cincinnati." Then if you are connecting the dots, you already know the punchline to, "First prize, a week in Detroit, ....."

Likewise if a work up in 32 acp reaches 300% of published load then we know approximately what is going to happen in 25 acp and 380.

If we work up 270 to the threshold of long brass life, back off 2 gr safety margin, and that same load is 100% of published load data, then we know approximately what is going to happen with 6mmRem and 22-250.

Having worked up 38 specials until the cylinders split with LONGSHOT and AA#5, but not with LIL'GUN and H110, I think I know what will happen with 44 mag.
 
Generally lawyers advise clients to go in directions that limit liability when someone gets injured. Doesn't matter if the product is being used properly or not.

Ever see the warning on a cigarette lighter? "Don't use near face. Don't use near heat or flame..." The thing creates heat by flame for the sole purpose of igniting something people put into their face.

You can't save all people from themselves so the lawyers try and save the company from their lawyer.

FWIW I still don't think it's as bad as having a "hot" warning label on a cup of coffie.
 
I tend to agree; "it ain't the lawyers". A lot of good (and extensive) answers above and I can't add to that, but I don't believe a manufacturer would change data without notifying the consumer of "dangerous practices", aka previous load levels. There's a warning on everything today even plastic bags and 5 gallon buckets...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top