old reloading manual data: holy **** is this possible?

[fireguy715]

I've got an old NRA reloading manual. I thought I'd check out some old 44 mag data. The first thing I notice is how much hotter the loads are than my lyman 49th. The load that stands out the most is a 250 gr cast loaded with 24 grains H110 at 1596 FPS out of a 7.5" barrel. They list the pressure at 39,200 Is this possible and safe?

[felix]

Yes, with the slowest lots of 296/110/820, but why? About 10K cup too high for a measly 200 fps increase for case and gun longevity. Will destroy a Smith in no time flat, especially an earlier one. ... felix

[1Shirt]

Powders have changed a bit over the years. Particularly I have noticed in 2400 and Unique from a few years back. Manuals have also changed a bit over the years charge wise. AND, in our litigious awareness today, am sure all the manuals are printed with an eye to caution based on the advise of lawyers.
1Shirt!

[ddaniel1]

I have noticed it too, milder loads and many of the powders I used for years are no longer listed in the new manuals, I am pretty disappointed in the new Hornady manual, haven't been able to find the latest Speer one yet.

[reloader28]

I friend of mine has the Lyman #1 manuel. Yah, hes been around awhile.
He was still using it for his data a couple years ago till I finally convinced him to get a new book.

I forget what the powder was, but in his old book with .243 (IMR 4064 I think) his old minimum is the new maximum. That could cause serious problems.

[P.K.]

Not a hijack, just to add...
P.O. Ackley. Simply amazing stuff and with out all the great do-dads we have now adays for case development.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.O._Ackley

[bowenrd]

"Liability" is the reason for conservative load data in newer manuals.

[44man]

"Liability" is the reason for conservative load data in newer manuals.
This is true. I have shot 24 gr of 296 with 240 to 250 gr bullets for 56 years ( Not entirely true because I forget when 296 came out but it was 22 gr of 2400 before.) but a few were more accurate with 23.5 gr. But 1596 fps from a revolver is a pipe dream unless a closed breech pressure barrel is used.
Powders have not changed much and I question 2400 being different, Unique has not changed.
Loading manuals are based on a bullet, Speer used theirs, Hornady used theirs, etc. As bullets change so do loads. Manuals need to encompass all bullet makers so the reductions reflect that.

[fecmech]

Take a look at the Lyman manual from the early 70's, particularly the .357 and 358429. They listed 10 grs of Herco as max with the 358429! They now list 7 grs as max. I shot a bunch of those in my RBH with no problem but when my buddy shot them in his S&W Model 19 we had to pound out each shell individually! They really flexed that 19's cylinder.

This is true. I have shot 24 gr of 296 with 240 to 250 gr bullets for 56 years
That was my silhouette load with 429421, many 8 lb kegs of 296 burned that way.

[Maven]

Liability is a factor, but so is the development of different, more accurate & reliable means of measuring pressure. Today the copper- and lead-crusher (CUP & LUP, respectively), have been replaced by piezoelectric measurement, or even something more modern. This has resulted in a much different view of pressure and hence, recommendations to use lesser charges of say, 2400, H 110, Herco, etc.

[dragon813gt]

Powders have not changed much and I question 2400 being different, Unique has not changed.


Unique has changed. It was marketed as new cleaner burning Unique. Was it a huge change? Not really but is technically different.

And then we come across powders like W231 and HP-38. They're now the same powder. But at one point they were different powders being made by different companies. As to which formula won in the end we will never know. It could be a blend of the two, or neither one at all.

The single biggest reason for the load changes is modern pressure testing equipment. They're able to see the entire pressure curve in real time. A previously thought of safe load could very well have a dangerous spike in it. I do blame lawyers as well. But anything not measured in PSI is not acceptable in today's world. I hate seeing CUP readings as it's been outdated for a long time.

And personally I don't get hit rodding loads. I tend to use the powder that gives the most velocity with the least amount of powder. And accuracy never seems to be at max charge anyway.

[243winxb]

My data from 1979 with a 250gr cast W296-24gr average 1339 fps in Rem. brass using a CCI Mag primer. One alloy made the bullets on the heavy side, causing pressure problems. Load now used is 23 grs. At one time H110 & W296 were different powders, unlike today, they are now* the same. IMO.

[Muddydogs]

I've got an old NRA reloading manual. I thought I'd check out some old 44 mag data. The first thing I notice is how much hotter the loads are than my lyman 49th. The load that stands out the most is a 250 gr cast loaded with 24 grains H110 at 1596 FPS out of a 7.5" barrel. They list the pressure at 39,200 Is this possible and safe?

Yep I got a couple hundred for these loaded with 22 grains of H110 that I loaded back in the early 90's when I thought hard and fast was better. Have probably shot 1000 of them over the years, just shot some a couple months ago and yep there hard alright. They sure make the S&W 629 classic buck.

Makes you wonder about today’s load book and there light loads, I know guys say that weapons were better back then and not as mass produce as today, the steel was better and any other reason but I think it’s due to liability issues and the lack of common sense in general. When I work up a new load I pull out the old books and see what there max is just so I know. People state that the powder is different but I don't buy that unless there is an official warning because who’s to say that some old gray hair setting on 10 pounds of old powder isn't using a new book or the same gray hair is using his old load data with new powder. If there are significant changes to a powder then the powder isn't the same and gets a new name, naming it the same as a powder that has been made for 50 years is just going to cause major problems.

[mdi]

"Liability" is the reason for conservative load data in newer manuals.
Better testing equipment and methods are the reason for conservative load data. More consistant standards, and switching from CUP to PSI make also make pressure testing more accurate/accurate...

[357maximum]

Reloaders (I did not say handloaders) simply grabbing a free pamphlet from the powder company and immediately going for the almighty MAX load mecca + lawyers + sue happy a$$hats= companies watching their own a$$. I cannot blame them.

There have never been two EXACT lots of powder made , that is why you WORK a load and when you find it you buy a big jug of powder and rework it to verify, that way you can shoot for quite awhile before you need to buy another jug and verfiy it yet again.

[prs]

I was reading down through the thread and with Unique in mind, particularly with 16ga shot shell rounds, I was disagreeing with the lawsuit protection as a reason for different loads. Since I have been using Unique (about 1976) it had changed at least twice that I recall and the charges did NOT go down, they went UP. 18 grains under a 10z payload was my favorite grouse load back then and now its 21grains. Hercules announced one change way back and Alliant claims another change. It still smells good when shot, that's the main thing. ;-)

prs

[Larry Gibson]

I've got an old NRA reloading manual. I thought I'd check out some old 44 mag data. The first thing I notice is how much hotter the loads are than my lyman 49th. The load that stands out the most is a 250 gr cast loaded with 24 grains H110 at 1596 FPS out of a 7.5" barrel. They list the pressure at 39,200 Is this possible and safe?

I use that very load under the 429421 and the 44-250-K. I use 23 gr H110 under the 270 gr Devestator and 429244. My pressure testing shows it to be within SAAMI MAP specifications, alibiet at the top end but still within. Whether "safe" or not is up to you. I shoot those loades in my Ruger 50th BHFT, Colt Anaconda and Contender. It is what "magnum" is supposed to be in .44 Magnum.

Larry Gibson

[Harter66]

I can speak to the 357 . It has been,in at least 1 of my books, reduced from a max of 45,000 cup to 35,00 PSI. Speer ( Now how much that really is I can't say since I don't have anything that will shoot full tilt loads accurately. I also have a book that shows cast loads w/max loads more than 20% below in some cases at or below starting for the same weight in jacketed at higher pressures. 40 S&W in Lyman 49.

[gray wolf]

---OK, I'm not being funny with this question,---
But is this why a chronograph is important and useful ? It seems to me, and I am asking this.
Doesn't F P S relate to or at least give us an idea as to what place we are at in the pressure curve.

[felix]

Yes, but only when you state the reference in REVERSE. ... felix

[drklynoon]

Gray wolf, I would say no to your question/ statement. Velocity and pressure are not necessarily related. A slower burning powder with less pressure may make for top notch velocities and a faster burning high pressure may make lower velocities depending on a number of variables.

Burn pressures are not linear this is the problem with interpolations. Powders have changed over the years along with boolit hardness. This can be debated but as I understand it ww alloy was considered hard by many not that long ago. Now many use ww alloy in almost anything this has an effect on pressure and speed. This is why many recommend using multiple manuals when developing a load.

[Larry Gibson]

Gray wolf

If using the same gun and same everything in the load then the highest velocity most often (there are exceptions) results from the highest psi. However, vary one thing in that load and it's very easily different. When working up a load and varying only the powder charge one can safely assume (the exceptions are very rare) that the higher the velocity, the higher the psi.

Larry Gibson

[Rocky Raab]

As a wise man once remarked, "You can get any velocity you want from any cartridge and bullet you want. Once. It's finding combinations you can use over and over again that gets complicated."

[Johnch]

Years back
I had just started to deer hunt with my 357 mag

I had AA #9 and got great groups with it and a Remington 180 gr bullet
My loads were right between the start load and Max
Shot a lot of that load for practice and killed several deer

But had to send the DW model 15 back to be rebuilt


Later books list my load as several grains over MAX

Always wonder what pressurs I was running

John

[dverna]

Velocity is not a great indicator of chamber pressure.

Frankly, I see little value in pushing the published "safe" loads. Another few FPS is not important in the real world. But then I have almost no interest in hunting and the most dangerous critter I will ever face is a black bear or one of the two legged critters that have gone bad because their momma didn't hug them enough. For those uses, any decent load in the right gun will do the job.

I did get into a bit of trouble one time working up a max load for a .300 Mag when I did a really dumb thing and "forgot" that IMR and H powders with the same number have different burn rates. But checking primers warned me something was amiss and no harm was done. I was "saved" by working up loads from below maximum and looking at the primers for pressure.

[HangFireW8]

Some of the older magnum handgun loads... and all of the oldest magnum loads were developed with non-magnum primers. Besides CUP versus Piezo, this can explain a lot of the pressure differences. Since the ball powder loads have more consistant performance with magnum primers, especially in cold weather, plus powder reformulations, better pressure equipment, etc., the old load recommendations must be taken with more than a few grains of salt.

[Silver Eagle]

I wonder if some of the SAAMI numbers have or should be updated based on the fact that the measuring equipment is more accurate than it was in ages past. Most of these cartridges have been around for a long time and the SAAMI numbers have not changed. Granted, all of the technologies and manufacturing standards have improved over the years. This is true whether it is the powder, the brass, or the material the firearm is made of. The same can be said for the measuring and consistency of the data.
As for the load data changing over the years, again the component manufacturing and raw material purities and qualities have also improved over the years along with the measurement standards. One generally no longer makes a new arm and "proof" tests it with a XX% over pressure load. The loads are now calculated to a much higher precision and resolution than in ages past.

[Dorf]

This in regard to the question of velocity being an indication of pressure--it is and then again, it ain't. As a case in point, I ran an experiment a while back working up a load for a popular military caliber using a popular powder. I started well below the stated max and worked up in .5 gr increments chronographing each load (3 rounds/ charge), plotting each load's velocity on graph paper. Also plotted another graph showing the velocity/gr of powder for the same loads. About 3/4 of the way through the stated load range (48.8gr to max of 53.5 gr) I got a nice simple, easily plotted curve. Then I got what I call a "velocity spike" where the "curve" went nearly vertical. Since the departure from the projected curve was so dramatic, I called that load to be slightly above max in my rifle and 1.5 gr.below the max given by the loading manual. As a side note: the amoumt of vel./grain of powder showed a steady and predictable decline until the "departure" happened, at which point the vel/gr of powder leveled off.
The point of this whole dessertation being, that every rifle is a law unto itself and that while there is a relationship between velocity and pressure, they're not always predictable --at least as far as I could ascertain with the chronograph and limited knowledge that I posess. YMMV Stan.

[MtGun44]

IME, powders are entirely identical, including comparing old cans and new ones. I
am convinced this is an old wives tale.

The issue is that there were little or no actual pressure measurements made for many
older powder manuals and some "well known" loads were WAY too hot. Also, I think the
std for pressure is much lower today for .357 Mag and maybe for other cartridges.

Some old gun writers had pet loads that were very widley copied and used by many,
and later found to be too hot.

Bill

[Dorf]

Yep, I gotta agree. As a case in point, In his book "Modern Handgunning", Jeff Cooper listed some .357 Mag loads using 2400 that I never was able to get near without experiencing difficult extraction. In my case the gun in usage was a Ruger Blackhawk. But again, that may have been due to chambers that were a bit on the tight side. YMMV Stan

[mdi]

Is there a lawsuit on record (for real, not "I heard Bubba's uncle's friend at work read it on line" thing) of any one ever suing/taking to court/complaining about load data listed in any manual? Not just layman speculation of what might happen, but real life, honest-to-God, lawsuit that really took place?

[Willbird]

IME, powders are entirely identical, including comparing old cans and new ones. I
am convinced this is an old wives tale.

The issue is that there were little or no actual pressure measurements made for many
older powder manuals and some "well known" loads were WAY too hot. Also, I think the
std for pressure is much lower today for .357 Mag and maybe for other cartridges.

Some old gun writers had pet loads that were very widley copied and used by many,
and later found to be too hot.

Bill

I do recall reading an article where they dissected some OLD super vel ammo(I think it was super vel 357 magnum), loaded with "2400" and found the powder that was used then was slower than today's 2400.

I somewhere saw some crono tests of identical rifles and pistols, some of the rifles in particular would turn in 150 fps different velocity between two examples of the same make, model,caliber, and barrel length. What pressure was being generated was not measured and is anybody's guess I suppose.

Bill