Can we trust Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook

[Driller640]

The reason I ask is, the load data for the 44-40 states that max load for handguns using Unique is 10.9g. In the rifle section, the max load for 44-40 using Unique is 10.5g. Test handgun is Colt S.A.A., test rifle is Marlin M94. Handgun is not as strong as rifle, load data does not seem right. My other manunals, like Hornardy, Speer, Sierra list max load as 8g to 8.5g for handgun. Is the data in Lyman dated? The reason I ask is, I am doing load work for my Pietta 1873 in 44-40. I have made loads for it with Trail Boss at 6.3g and Hodgdon 777 FFFg. The 777 shoot to point of aim and have more power, and may be as close to the real thing as one can get. I would like a load with Unique that works like 777. I have tried 7.5g of Unique and it is like the Trail Boss loads. I will continue to increase the amount of Unique at 0.2g at a time, but where is max load? Do I follow Lyman at 10.9 or the other, newer manunals at 8.5g? I like to stay at least 1g below max with out going to max and then back down. I have 8 pounds of Unique and would like to use it up.:Fire: :confused: All most forgot, am using Lee .430-200g. They drop at .431, sized to .427 and weight 210g.

[BruceB]

I recall shooting a load of REloder7 in my .45-70 Shiloh, the data for which was taken from the Lyman CB Handbook.

Fortunately, I selected a very moderate charge from the range they published. The 'book" velocity for the load and bullet I used was around 1450 fps, I believe. As soon as the hammer fell on the first round, I KNEW something was amiss, and sure enough....the chronograph was reporting well over 1700 fps.

If I had loaded the max load listed, which was MUCH heavier, I suspect I could have been in trouble. This was the first time that data from this handbook had given me difficulty, but I've been approaching further referrals from that book with more caution than previously.

[S.R.Custom]

If you cross reference your load data you'll find that anything over 9grs of Unique is considered a... warm... load.

Personally, I never trust just one source.

[Lloyd Smale]

those loads will work fine. I dont think id put a steady diet of them through a 73 but an occasional box would be fine. My go to load in the 4440 has allways been a 200 cast and 9.5 grains of unique.

[PatMarlin]

I just found another conflicting load error in that book I beleive last week. I've got to go trace that down, but they had a hotter load for a heavier boolit, then a very similar lighter one right on the same page, same powder.. :roll:

[PatMarlin]

OK found it. For the grand 45-70..

On page 233 there is a load listed for 30grs of 3031 for a 4571124 366gr boolit 1090 vel, then on the same page is 34grs of 3031 for a 457193 420gr boolit witha velocity of 1161.

Huh? am I missing something?.. :confused:

I would imagine the 34gr load is safe, but what a spread in load publishing.

[NVcurmudgeon]

One of my oldest friends is in the habit of using one source, starting with the maximum listed load and working up. Shooting at my former home range in CA, he damaged or destroyed three or four guns in one year! Surprisingly, he has never gotten hurt. I profit from his horrible example, using the recommended
lowest of half a dozen sources. I remember "Old Tip the Can" whenever I am loading for a new to me cartridge, gun, powder, or bullet.

[Wayne Smith]

Driller, the older manuals were compiled and printed prior to reliable and accurate pressure data. Now that pressure data is available a lot of old reliable loads are suddenly no longer in the manuals. It's not just the Lyman, find an old Speer and compare it to a new one, or an old Sierra and compare it to the new one. What were once guesses are now based on observed data.

[1hole]

There is always ONE CONSTANT in the loading manuals. They ALL say to start well below max and only work higher if pressure signs permit.

Those reloaders who ignore that rule, or don't even bother to read it, do so at their peril.

"... he damaged or destroyed three or four guns in one year!"
Some folks are VERY SLOW learners, most of the very foolish would try to load properly after blowing away only one rifle! That stubborn dude is a candidate for a Darwin Award.

[Bass Ackward]

I am designing a 180 grain bullet for a 357 Mag that I want to achieve certain goals. If I use a .325 nose length with 13 grains of 2400 I get 36,000 psi. If I change the nose length to .300 and seat it deeply to increase my burn rate, I get 42,000 psi with the same charge. So the charge needs reduced to 12.4 grains to maintain 36,000 psi.

Case volume is the key. You must not look for a bullet weight, but also a seating depth and cases and the same bullet design if you want to come close to what is quoted in ANY manual.

Usually in a 45-70 with 3031, you would have more flexibility than that. But assume that with really light loads that they may be not getting good ignition for what ever reason which would result in lower velocities because of lower pressure figures which would get published and be incorrect. Sometimes there are places for fillers.

[Bret4207]

Just a thought- The 44-40 was used in the '73 Winchester wasn't it? IIRC that was considered weaker than many of the Colt SAA's of the day. Might be part of the reason, or not.

[drinks]

Pat, I think those .45-70 , 3031 loads look ok.
What is the problem you see?
I shoot a '92, much stronger than a 73 Colt or Win.73.
I use 9gr Herco with a 200gr for my plinker, 1100fps and 10.5gr Herco for the factory duplication load, 1220fps.
I have shot 25gr 4227 with 200gr at 1600fps, no signs of expansion with the mic on the new case, I also shot 20gr H110, 305gr gc, 1375fps, still no measurable case expansion, but getting to be a handful in the saddle ring carbine.
My loads ,in my well maintained '92, in the family since '16, duplicate at your own risk.

[Dale53]

Most of the data from Lyman have pressure data included (#46, 47, and The Cast Bullet Handbook). However, there are many things that impact on pressure besides bullet weight. How much "space" the bullet takes up in the case, as a simple example. Reducing case capacity in rather small cases (9mm, 38 Special when using wadcutters, and .45 ACP are three examples on point).

When I give data, I try to link it to a specific source. I would hope that ANYONE would take the time to check at least two "certified" sources before blindly using data from some stranger (me, for instance).

One of the few times I got into trouble was using a single source (Speer #8 regarding 4756), The data in that handbook was WAY over specs (a .357 load recommended ran 67,000 psi when independently tested and yet gave absolutely NO outward signs of pressure. Boy, did I think that I had found the holy grail with that load - it was FAST!

I shot hundreds of those loads in my six inch S&W Model 19. I had no clue that I was over pressure and I had a good bit of experience by that time. I begin to have second thoughts when a friend, using a Model 27 Smith had VERY sticky extraction when he started TWO grains below the top recommended and that I was using without a single whimper. A local commercial loader (with a masters in mechanical engineering) sent some of my loads to a lab. That is when I learned that they were pushing 67,000. They didn't even faze my Model 19. Naturally, I immediately quit using that load - in fact, I quit using that powder. Later I was told that there was two lots that varied considerably from one another and Speer's was a slow lot. I noticed the next Speer manual had NO loads for revolvers with 4756.

So, manufacturers can be caught off guard with the best of intentions and the best "fail safe" programs in place. In my previous life, as a claims investigator I learned that most times no single mistake or error seems to cause much trouble. It is when two or three things that come together that trouble rears its head.

The best way to protect oneself is to be ever vigilant (whether reloading or digging ditches) against the unexpected. In my 4756 episode, we were all quite fortunate. No one got hurt and no equipment was damaged. Were we close, well, what do you think?(:>().

"Be careful out there"...( Hill Street Blues )

Dale53

[USARO4]

Bass Ackward and Dale53 have the answer. Seating depth and the bearing surface of the bullet have a an important impact on pressure. A friend blew up a Glock by substituting a bullet of the same weight but differant shape and then loading it to the the OAL and max listed load for the original bullet. He got all this data from the trusty old Lyman 47 Edition. Many people look at charge weight and bullet weight as the only critical factors and ignore minor details like OAL, bearing surface, primer, and case capacity.

[w30wcf]

Driller640,

SAMMI MAP (max. avg. pressure) for the .44-40 is 14,000 cup. Alliant shows 8.0 grs. with a 200 gr. bullet at 12,400 cup.

Based on that I would not exceed 8.5 grs. / Unique in a '73 or it will eventually shoot loose.

If you're looking for something giving ballistics similar to 777, switch to Blue Dot or 2400 using the charge that Alliant shows,
http://www.alliantpowder.com/reloaders/RecipeDetail.aspx?title=Pistols%20and%20Revolvers&gtypeid=1&weight=200&shellid=1026&bulletid=82

Have fun.
w30wcf

[Bob B]

Read ALL the reloading manuals have to say about loading cartridges.Bob B

[felix]

Not only reloading manuals, but also the various tables in all the rags/net-pages having loads. That is where you really catch the speeds of the various lots of a particular lot out there, like what was said in Dale's post about 4756. To boot, after some bad press is when you can get a particular powder at a truly wholesale price from retailers. Didn't Dan at Bullshop pick up a "ton" of 4756 at 3 bucks per pound several years ago? ... felix

[Dale53]

The real difficulty is not having access to a pressure gun. We only can approximate (at best) what we think we are doing. Chronograph's at popular prices have really given us a good tool that helps a LOT but is is NOT a pressure gun. However, if you have a known powder and known performance levels it will help you to get a lot closer to what you can expect than "by guess and by gosh".

A real safety help is to not always think that you have to "strain the gun" every time you pull the trigger. In my standard velocity pistols and revolvers like .38's and .45's, I typically use target loads. In cartridges where you have to "make major" like IPSC .45's or .38 Supers, etc you can chronograph and set your load just slightly over the necessary requirements and still stay out of trouble. Further, using loads that doesn't strain your "piece" you can shoot forever without serious gun wear. I have seen Model 29 Smith's "loose as a goose" in a couple of years of excessively heavy loads with fast burning powders. I had a friend who loaded full house .44 magnum loads using Red Dot. His gun was JUNK in a couple of years of heavy shooting. Conversely, I have an 8 3/8" Model 29 that has had tens of thousands of real .44 magnum loads (but just a couple of grains under maximum using slow burning powders) that is still as tight as the day I got it. Just sensible loading (and the half dozen deer that I harvested with my .44 magnums were ALL through and through - even the end on shots). How much power do you need?

Some old wag stated, "Moderation in all things, even moderation".:-D :-D That is the answer to most of our problems in loading. Be conservative, be careful and use at least two sources and we should be ok. Remember, reloading is a LOT safer than driving to the grocery store, so a discussion of safety should NOT put anyone off reloading. (As Mr. "T" stated, "Just pay attention, fool".:mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Dale53

[PatMarlin]

I'm a young student in this field compared to most of you guys, and I read and study as much as I can- here and everywhere else.

Like I said before, I beleive there was nothing wrong with the 45-70 load in the book, it was just the fact that it did not follow the typical loads of wieght vs powder charges normally found in load data, and that can be very confusing to a new reloader.

But much of that books loads are rather confusing to me.

I aways start with reduced loads, except when it comes to very slow powders. I think Richard Lee's current Modern Reloading has the best info on calculating loads and pressures for cast boolits I have been able to find anywhere.

I also use strong hi quality firemarms. If a guy wants to feel full house pressured loads, then get a big caliber gun like my 454Casull with 8 3/8" BBL, or my Ruger no 1 in 300 Win mag. I still don't push those to the max, and they are strong firearms, but even at safe hotter loads, they give you a feeling of the thump of you need it.

And I have always paid attention to OAL data that's listed, but then here we go with again cast boolits. Weez undockumented outlaws.. :mrgreen:

[klw]

The reason I ask is, the load data for the 44-40 states that max load for handguns using Unique is 10.9g. In the rifle section, the max load for 44-40 using Unique is 10.5g.


I like to get out every reloading manual I own and write down all the loads from all the manuals and then compare the powder ranges. I'm always using cast bullets and Unique. I have over the years occasionally found large variations between manuals. I try to start with a Unique powder charge that within the safe range as stated by all the manuals. I would never start with a maximum load from just one manual.

[Baron von Trollwhack]

"Trust but verify."

[KCSO]

Every reloading manual is a GUIDE and makes suggestions. The first and foremost in EVERY manual is,"start low and work up". Why, because ever gun is different and even the same make and model gun will show differences in accuarcy and pressure with identical loads. I had opportunity recently to teast fire 5 45 ACP Rock Island 45's before sending them on to owners. With Black Hills factory ammo they all chronographed diferent velocities and the max spread from low to high was over 70 fps. I try to never load a new ctg without looking at at least 3 manuals and checking one against the other. Then I start low and work up.

[Jim]

I'm with supermag. I go through 3 or 4 manuals, work up a rough min. avg. and max. avg., then average that. That's where I start. Sometimes I can see the boolit going down range, but I don't blow up no guns!

[BruceB]

This won't be much help to those without a considerable length of experience, but after several decades of doing this I can tell y'all that the loading manual I trust the most is.......MINE, the one *I* wrote, and the one in which *I* make entries for every single round I load.

THIS is the absolute best reason in creation for KEEPING RECORDS, from the time one starts his handloading hobby. Over time, the Loading Diary will expand to include every cartridge that has crossed our benches over all the years we handload. I haven't fired a .340 Weatherby in thirty years, but I HAVE MY DATA for it. Same for numerous other cartridges.

Now, I know that different lot numbers can change results, and so can different guns, bullets, brass, you name it...but the same condition applies to every loading manual out there. None of them offer data for exactly the same conditions and guns that we, personally, will be using. The same objection applies to the pressure gun. It is NOT the rifle we'll be using on our benches, and offers only an educated (and very interesting) estimate on what we might encounter. It's up to the individual handloader to take all the data from all sources he can find, assess it, and to make the first foray with a new-to-him cartridge or load a safe one.

As the personally-developed data expands and deepens, it also becomes valuable for many other cartridges of similar dimensions/capacities, and aids in finding starting points for newer applications which may not be covered in commercial handbooks. Particularly in cast-bullet work, I often find myself working with loads that NEVER appear, or have appeared, in any manual, anywhere. I'm comfortable with that, both because I can fall back on my personal records for guidance, and because the approach is very cautious. For one good example, my 7.62 Russki Shortski (7.62x39) experiments now span well-over three hundred separate and distinct loads with about a dozen cast-bullet designs. I doubt that as many as ten percent of those loads appear in any manual....but they DO appear in my own "loading manual" for future reference.

Records....the following info is what appears in my Loading Diary:

-date loaded AND date fired;

-bullet design, alloy, sizing diameter, lube;*

-powder charge, with filler or no filler noted;

-primer;

-case make and trim length;

-overall cartridge length (easier than calculating seating depth, same result);

-velocity, extreme spread and standard deviation;

-group data, including a small diagram of impacts if needed;

-number of rounds in batch;

-a "remarks" section.

----------------------------------

* Bullet hardness, in my records, is simple. No Brinnell Hardness Numbers, just whether the bullets were air-cooled, water-dropped or quenched from the oven. Except for a few rather rare exceptions, I shoot wheelweight alloy and KISS is working fine. Exceptions are dealt with in the "remarks" column.

----------------------------------

The above gives me enough data to be very useful without getting overly complicated. We all have computers, and making a standardized form for one's records is easy. I detest the idea of having my data locked-up in some electronic gizmo, so no data goes into my computer. It's all on paper, and the most-valuable book I've ever owned in my entire life is my Loading Diary.

Caution is certainly the key word in approaching new loads and cartridges, but relatively-little experience with the new round can allow us to make reasonable, careful assessment of where we want to take the next steps. Treat information from manuals as a GUIDE, not as the Holy Writ sent down from the Mount, and it can be valuable. Start low, start low, start low...and never forget to start low.

Keep them records!

[MT Gianni]

Great Post, Bruce. I have a 1" cheap 3 ring binder for every cartridge I have ever loaded for. In it go loads, how they grouped, gun shot in, articles from gun magazines on theis cartridge or gun and my notes. My load notes are backed up on a CD I keep in the fireproof documents safe as well as serial #s and guns. With current memory I could also include a picture of each on a CD if a fire or disaster happened. Gianni

[Bret4207]

One of the first information sources I had, in fact the ONLY source I had for some time, was Phil Sharpes Handloading book. Mind you this was in the late 70's/early 80's and that book was a first edition from somewhere in the mid to late 40's. I used loads as published for the powders I had. I know I used some Red Dot laods in the 38 that would be considred WAY overloaded today. Same for some of Elmers loads I used and a few from the #8 Speer manual. Thank goodness for strong guns and brass. When I got the current for then Lyman manual I noticed the big difference in loads. I changed my habits and any further issues I ahd I could trace to the fool running the powder measure.

While I don't always start real low and work up, I don't hotrod too much these days. Some of the stuff found on the web is plain scary and people seem to assume it's gospel. A big jug of common sense should be included with every tray of primers or lb. of powder sold!

I agree that the absolute best thing you can do is write things down. I would also add that you need to keep you records in a safe place. I lost some records I made on boolit performance and sure wish I had them back. All that work is wasted if you lose it.

I hate to plug Ebone, but it's a good place to pick up older manuals and those phamplets the powder maker used to issue. Although we have great manuals these days you can often pick up good info in those older publications. To tell the truth, Ken Waters "Pet Loads"is my first stop for any loads I use. If it worked for Ken, chances are it'll work for me.

[Bass Ackward]

I used to keep perfect records. Especially when I was into Improved cartridges and wildcating. Especially with ground breakers like the then, 30-378 Wby. My first one had what at that time was known as the Wby freebore. And it too wore. Then I had to re-barrel.

The new reamer was .... modified to not have the freebore section as a standard cartridge would be. I knew this. In this case, the old data developed in the other rifle with the freebore and extended throat was clearly not applicable for the new gun by several grains. My max in the new rifle was below my starting level in the old one.

Even with simple things like my custom Bisley in 44mag. Because of tight chambers and BC gap, there is a 2 grain difference between it and my standard handguns that are all pretty close to the same with powders like 2400. Now my rifles with larger bores can take another 2 grains on top of that to produce published jacketed results. Mix those up and +4 grains can cause issues. (which is why I avoid "hot" in 44s any more.)

Change to cast and there is a max difference between WDWW and say 20-1. Much lower pressure from the harder bullet as 20-1 gives sticky extraction with the WDWW loading. Think that shows a pattern? Nope, because I can reverse results simply by changing lube on both bullets. So it can apply to cast as well. Especially with cartridges where there is little advantage in using a jacketed bullets.

And my 03A3 can digest 51.5 grains of 4895 with a 150 grain jacketed and have normal cases, while my 700 Remington gives enlarged heads, extractor marks and flattened primers at 50 grains using the same components.

There are three examples and I could furnish more. All information is what it is, gun and load specific regardless of the sourse. Bottom line, start low and work up will be the best advice we can ever give OR use ourselves.

[felix]

Add +1 over the freebore example. The sharper the shoulder, the lower the start charge for a modified cartridge having the same realistic capacity. Use the books for the LOWEST start charge dealing with the standard cartridge, and then drop 10 percent from that. This is even more true as the parent length of the case drops, which shortens the total primer energy distance. The primer coverage area (case width) should be ignored as it does not enter the equation from my experience. Always keep in mind that there is more chance of a SEE condition as the case loses its taper and the charge lowered. ... felix

[Char-Gar]

You never blindly "trust" any loading book or any loading information you receive from any source other than your own experience. Only then, if you are a mature, safe and prudent handloader.

There are so many variables in firearms, testing equipment, components and parameters there will be wide swings in data.

As other say, you look at all the sources and make comparisons. If red flags pop up, then use wisdom and say away from those loads. Start low.

There is no reason to use max/ red line loads in any firearms. If you want to drive a bigger nail, get a bigger hammer. Don't push the envelope or skate on the edge.

I have been loading for 48 years now and I have never blown up or damaged a firearm in any way.

[klw]

I have been loading for 48 years now and I have never blown up or damaged a firearm in any way.

Wish I could say that. Only got in serious trouble once and that was probably because I used too low a charge. Only one serious problem in well over 100,000 reloads but sometimes one problem is one too many!

[PatMarlin]

I was doing pretty good on my own too until' I started attending the school of "BA John".. boy did that fix me up...

Lord have mercy... :groner:

[Char-Gar]

About a year into handloading, I bought Phil Sharpe's, Earl Naramore and Julian Hatcher's books. I read them "quiver to quiver" and what I learned has been valuable to me over the years.

I have keep detailed loading records of every round I have fired since 1958 when I began. I can tell you the first round I ever loaded the last round I loaded, and all in between. I would highy recommend all loaders to do the same. You can't capture what you have learned unless you write it down. Memory just won't cut it.

[Cherokee]

Keep records !! Refer to the records !!
:castmine:

[Paul5388]

One of the few times I got into trouble was using a single source (Speer #8 regarding 4756), The data in that handbook was WAY over specs (a .357 load recommended ran 67,000 psi when independently tested and yet gave absolutely NO outward signs of pressure. Boy, did I think that I had found the holy grail with that load - it was FAST!I never cease to be amazed that there are people who don't read the very books they say to read. The reason the loads have gone down for .357s with SR 4756, and some other powders, is due to the change in pressure specs from SAAMI. In the days of Speer #8-#10, the pressure spec was 46,000 cup (Speer #10, page 364). The pressure spec is now 35,000 psi (Speer #13, page 526) and don't fool yourself, that's a big decrease! There may have been a bad lot of SR 4756 that gave excessive pressures, but I've never run into one that did.

If the M19 wasn't a P&R, the cylinder has a longer usable length than a P&R M27 or M28, by at least the thickness of the rim (~.060"). I have to seat 125 gr Golden Sabers at 1.61" OAL so they will fit in my M28-2 and my DW 715, but I can use a longer length in my M66-2. It does make a difference in pressure and velocity when you seat deeper, like when a 358429 is used in the M28, that has to be seated to the top of the front driving band.

The offensive SR 4756 loads will clock at 1620 fps MV (not instrumental velocity) out of a 6" Security Six using a 125 gr Golden Saber. That's 3 fps faster than what Speer #8 got using a 6" M27. If I duplicate the load I started using in 1973, with the same bullet and 1984 vintage DuPont powder, I only get 1576 fps MV out of the same M28-2 I used in 1973, but that's with a Sierra 125 gr JHC. When I switch to 2004 vintage IMR powder, the same load will clock 1551 fps, in the same M28.

I've only shot this load out of 2 or 3 S&Ws, including M66s and M19s, a M28, a few Security Sixes, a DW 715 and a Handi rifle. I've never blown any gun up or cracked a forcing cone or flame cut the top strap or sprung the crane with this load.

Here's the top strap of the M28 I bought new in 1972.
http://www.bbhfarm.com/albums/Reloading/abn.sized.jpg

After shooting the first 5 rounds of H110 it's ever had through it recently, there is now a discernible flame cut.

[georgeld]

I just got started reloading in 1958, so am a beginner at it.
Never had a bad experience with my loading til blowing a primer while p/doggin.
Hot day 105, hot loads, hot gun and left one in the chamber while moving to another position about ten minutes. Two of us shooing one gun and feeling the barrel for heat to keep it cool enough to hold in our bare hands. Yet I blew a primer and wrecked a contact lens with unburnt powder. Tell you what, that's a spooky deal. I don't believe I'd lost an eye, but, I'm sure there would have been damage to it. SAFETY GLASSES always!

Don't keep a round in the chamber on hot days, or hot guns. Especially hot loads.

Ok, about '90 I was loading 30/30's with older powder which was safe with the charges used. BUT; reading the new books that said that powder (I think 4895) charge was 5 gr over max. In a panic I got the hammer out and pulled down 100rnds of freshly loaded ammo.

Next day I dug into the books and found my own notes in the old book. It was about center of the listings. About that time I remembered there'd been a big change in powders a few yrs before. Since then I remember one other time maybe in the early 70's where there had been a change in powder procedures too.

You older loaders recall these things?? It pays to keep track of both powder changes and new books and compare them to the older one's just to be safe.

I've been lucky as in my younger and dumber days loaded to max no matter what. Since then I've discovered max loads not only use up more powder, but, are nearly always less accurate than a medium charge. They also "use up" barrels faster and hammer the actions harder which in time will loosen even a good gun.

Wish you all well, be safe, not sorry,

[PatMarlin]

Thanks for the journey George. When you started loading I was in my mommies tummy.. :mrgreen:

[Paul5388]

Probably the most notable change in powder has been the switch in tube size for IMR powders. The older US made DuPont powders were quite a bit larger than the Canadian manufactured powder. That brings to question about whether that had any effect on the final loads.

In order to make some sort of educated guess, I loaded the standard 7mm Mag load my dad had used, beginning around 1965. When I broke down one of those old loads, I found the large tube IMR 4350, so I knew I had something to compare with. Using 68.0 gr of IMR 4350 (US and Canadian) with a Rem 9 1/2 primer (standard LR, not magnum) and a 140 gr Sierra, I commenced to clock. The old DuPont powder clocked at 3271 fps and the new IMR powder clocked at 3274 fps.

While a volumetric comparison was invalid, the Canadian powder took up less space in the case, the weighed charges were almost identical.

The powder manufacturers go to great lengths to ensure their powders are blended to perform just like they have always performed. While there is certainly the possibility of lot to lot variation, I would say they did a good job of providing consistency in this case, especially considering they were made in an entirely different facilities.

Here's an interesting copy of part of the rifle data, with pressure data, in the 1964 IMR Reloader's Guide. Compare it and see how close it is to what the loads are now, but you do have to have some degree of comparable pressures to compare properly.

http://forums.handloads.com/uploads/OldReloader/2007-09-21_215901_1964_Dupont_rifle_426_x_600.jpg

[1Shirt]

Lots of words of wisdom here. Like Paul5388, I look at old manuals and guides, and compair powders, data, etc. I know from experiance that there can often be as much as three grains of powder difference between different manuals for max loads and even more so if you go back to data from the 40's and 50's. Also know that it always pays to start on the low side and work up. Unique today burns a whole lot cleaner than the old stuff, and is a little hotter in my experiance. 2400 is most definately hotter today than the old 2400 of 20-30 years ago. A full hopper of it in Kieths pet load in 44Mag today will rattle if not worse, most handguns. As to the printing of reloading manuals and data, there are a tremendous amount of numbers, and I have seriious doubt that the people who compile them are the same as those who put them in printed form. Between the two and the element of human error, it frankly amazes me that there are not more mistakes. I would definately not want to be the individual(s) responsible for proofreading the things.
Am in mind of the old saying"to error is human, but to forgive is not company policy!"
1Shirt!

[PatMarlin]

I wonder if today's younger generation have the ability, or would be trusted in today's shielded society to participate in such a dangerous hobby as reloading.

Dangerous? Yes, but not to us who have the patience and persistence to study, analyze, and learn the reasons why reloading is safe, or dangerous.

Does the average youngster today still have the ability to take on such a task, or have our new progressive parents bred the initiative, and common sense right out of them, and fear right into them?

[Paul B]

To be perfectly honest, I no longer trust any data in the Lyman manuals that have data marked as C.U.P., nuff said?
While this relates to a condom bullet, bear with me. My first 30-06 rifle was a brand new J.C. Higgins Model 50 which I still happen to have. I worked up to 49.0 gr. of IMR-4895 in that rifle with the 150 gr. Sierra spitzer flat base. A half grain more and bolt lift got sticky. That was many years ago. The Lyman starting load in the manual at that time was 51.0 gr. IIRC, and it was suggester by a friend who was into handloading to start at 47.0 gr, which I did. In the Lyman #44 manual circa 1967 the starting load was was 46.0 gr. and the max 51.5 gr. In the current #48 manual, there is no change in charges for IMR-4895. They show even higher loads for the 150 gr. jacketed XLC bullets, but at least that is P.S.I. tagged.
It is my not very himble opinion that Lyman has not retested some data since 1967. I believe that since Du Pont sold off their powder manufacturing business to IMR in Canada, that the formula for the powders under the IMR label just may be faster burning. Maybe not much, but enough to make a difference.
I came to that conclusion when after many years of not using that load, I decided to load up a box and run them over the chronograph just to see how close my estimate of the velocity was. The load was way too hot and I had to use a plastic mallet to open the bolt. I broke down all the ammo and checked the weights which were right on the money. Then, I did what I should have done and start from the bottom. I did and at 47.0 gr. things were OK, but at 47.5 gr., pressure signs.
Now I forget where I read this, but I read that they changed from using cotton linters for making the nitrocellulose to sawdust as it was less expensive to make the powder with the sawdust. (Too bad they didn't lower the price considering that saved some money.) This just makes me wonder, does the change in the making of the nitrocellulose change the burning rate of the powder? If that's the case, should all the data for IMR powders be retested?
FWIW, lots of the loading manuals show 51.0 gr. of IMR-4895 to be the max load. Should that data also be retested?
I use a lot of 4895, both IMR and H in my cast bullet shooting in .308 and 30-06 where high pressures are not the problem, but based on the above, I would take Lyman's data with a grain of salt and really be careful in working up a load, be it for cast or jacketed bullet loads.
Paul B.

[modoc]

Well Pat, I'm a youngster who keeps looking for more info with my hobbies, of course for me the reloading and casting are just preludes to the main events[smilie=1: . My son will be learning the joys/frustrations of the reloading presses also. It will just take a few more years, since he's only two:mrgreen: . He wants to do everything that Dad does.

BTW, which part of the Golden State are you in?

[sundog]

No,

Gee, I have to add words to make is past the reqiured 5 letters.

The answer is still no. So, while I'm at it, I am not, nor have I been impressed with lyman data for a very long time.

[sundog]

btw, would I buy the new manual? No.

[PatMarlin]

Well Pat, I'm a youngster who keeps looking for more info with my hobbies, of course for me the reloading and casting are just preludes to the main events[smilie=1: . My son will be learning the joys/frustrations of the reloading presses also. It will just take a few more years, since he's only two:mrgreen: . He wants to do everything that Dad does.

BTW, which part of the Golden State are you in?

Welcome to the board Modoc... I'm just down the road from you on Hwy 36- this side of the great South Fork Mountain Ridge.

Right now I'm emailing from my little RV trailer out side of a fixer upper house we just bought north of Happy Camp, on Indian Creek.

You know Chris Cummin's over on Dodson Lane in Anderson? I see you guys are in the same field. He's a Cal Trans engineer.

[Paul5388]

Paul B,

If you look in the 1964 DuPont image I posted above, the max load of 4895 was 51.5 gr for a 150 gr bullet and it's posted as 51,000 psi for pressure.

I have several cans of DuPont powder produced in the 1980s that were made in Canada. IMR just bought existing facilities and/or contracts.

[Paul B]

Paul B,

If you look in the 1964 DuPont image I posted above, the max load of 4895 was 51.5 gr for a 150 gr bullet and it's posted as 51,000 psi for pressure.

I have several cans of DuPont powder produced in the 1980s that were made in Canada. IMR just bought existing facilities and/or contracts.


That's all well and good. Most manuals give a max load for IMR-4895 in the roughly 51.0 grain range. My rifle will not come close to 51.0 gr, let alone 51.5.
The point of my post was the load that did work had to be cut by two full grains. The lot of IMR-4895 I had must have been faster burning by quite a bit to have to cut back that much.
I'm trying to remember where I read about the change in materials for making the nitrocellulose, but I do believe the current IMR powder are somewhat faster burning than when made by Du Pont.
I don't know how to copy something and post it in a message, but the latest printed version by IMR shows 49.5 gr. of their 4895 to now be a max load at 50,000 C.U.P. That's a 1.5 gr. cut from your 51.5 gr. and suspiciously close to the 2.0 gr. cut I had to do. Methinks that dies signify that 4895 is now faster burning than before.
Maybe we'd both better tcheck out thier online load data for that powder.
As a propellant, 4895 has a mixed history. I've never been able to figure out when it was first produced other than it was for loading 30-06 ammo. After WW-2, you could buy Milsurp 4895 through the NRA and DCM. Each time you bought some, depending on the lot number, the instruction would say use data for IMR-3031, maybe IMR-4198 etc. Seems like the burning rate ranged from 4198 to 4320 depending on the lot. Good stuff, but you never knew what the next lot# would bring. Finally Hodgden bought up all there was and blended it into one big lot and Du Pont started making it for civilian use and the two batches were close enough that the data was, for all practical purposes, interchangeable with the Hodgden's version only very slightly slower. I burned up enough of all the above to have a good working knowlege of the powder. I've burned a lot of 4895s in the last 53 years, but now use it mostly for my cast bullet shooting.
Paul B.

[billt]

All loading manuals fluctuate in data. I have the Lyman 45th Edition Manual from the very early 70's and have used many of the loads in it that are in fact "overloads", by the more modern manuals, even Lymans. None of these loads have ever given me any problems. Today everything has to be "lawyer proofed". This makes a lot of data in these manuals quite conservative. When I want maximum performance from a given rifle or handgun, I will always consult an older manual for reference. The more manuals you have in that regard, the better off you are. Bill T.

[Paul5388]

At some point in time, after Speer #8 was published, IMR and H 4895 used different loading data and in fact, the 8# of Milsurp IMR 4895 I have actually uses something closer to H4895 data.

Speer #8 didn't distinguish between the two brands of powder, treating them as the same powder.

Regardless, I would suspect your rifle has the proper characteristics to produce higher pressure with less powder, rather than a gross difference in the powder.

You also said,
To be perfectly honest, I no longer trust any data in the Lyman manuals that have data marked as C.U.P., nuff said? and I was merely pointing out the 1964 data was expressed in psi, not cup. Was it actually cup and not psi? Maybe, but transducers were used in the 1960s and a major powder manufacturer would have been more apt to have transducer technology than a re-boxer/distributer like Hodgdon or even a bullet maker like Speer.

Here's some comparison data for a couple of powders I have on hand with about 30 years difference in lot numbers. I used a piece of 6mm R-P brass filled and struck off level with the case mouth and then weighed the amount in the case.
1973 vintage DuPont 4831 48.4 gr
2003 vintage IMR 4831 52.3 gr
1974 vintage DuPont 3031 47.2 gr
2003 vintage IMR 3031 49.7 gr

The new IMR 4831 is very close to being the same as H4831SC which weighed 53.5 gr in the 6mm case. As you can see, volumetrically they are vastly different, but they produce the same results, if a weighed charge is used. Hodgdon says H4831SC loads at the same weight as normal 4831, it just takes up less space.