Lawyered up load data

[salpal48]

I recently abandoned most If not all my current Load data books. and stopped using the online data as well.. Went back to all my older books from late 40's , 50 60's. . I only shoot classic calibers with classic Rifles Using classic Powders I found that most of Todays data is somewhat drastically different from previous
previous starting Loads have just about become Max Loads. . and Velocities are all over the place
I drafted a generic letter and emailed to several powder Co. as well as the Major Bullet Man. Or the on's who write the books.
The answer was almost similar. They really only advocate the New published data.
Lyman who make no Bullets Or powder and Traditionally is very conservative said the same. I honest believe all the data that is produced is all Computer driven . with No test guns.
When they started with all the Thank you for our support and The legal disclaimer . I realized Lawyered up for Insurance .
I know after posting This Thread . The Host of The armChair Handloaders will be Going to the Books . Coping and pasting . Unimportant Info That Justifies there Position

Good Handloading Is experimenting @ it's Best

[Whiterabbit]

I honest believe all the data that is produced is all Computer driven . with No test guns.

I came to this conclusion a long time ago. The key is if you want to do something that deviates from the published data which is not hard: want to use your own bullet (say, very heavy cast in 300 whisper), or your own powder (say, can't find published load data powders anywhere) etc. The easiest way to do this is research through existing data and start extrapolating from one bullet type to the next, etc.

If you put enough of those loads from start to max into excel, you find the R^2 fit for a linear curve for the data is really, really close to 1.00. I've never seen that in real life data. My only conclusion is that the data is generated via computer, the models are probably not that complicated and will end up generating nearly linear data as seen in the books.

Could I be wrong? Almost definitely. But it sure does look awfully suspicious.

[KenH]

Years ago when I first got into cast (AND Jacketed) bullet loading, I always looked at the min loads in books, then slowly worked up my own loads without really worrying about what the max load was published. Since 90% of my shooting was cast, I never approached max loads anyway because I was interested in accurate loads to punch paper 'n crows. Just watch the primer and see what is max load in that rifle/brass combo.

Lawyered up is a way of life these days.

Ken H>

[TheDoctor]

Take into account that the tech used in pressure testing is much more accurate now than back when copper crush was the only option. IIRC, copper crush method only tells peak pressure, it doesn't give pressure curves.

[RogerDat]

Also have to figure formulation or manufacturing process may have changed a bit in the last several decades.

According to this pretty decent Wikipedia article some of the difference may well be due to more accurate pressure readings as suggested by TheDoctor. Modern equipment can measure the pressure both peak and curve, enabling an accurate estimation of long term wear characteristics of a given load. Nothing wrong with going your own way based on your own research but exactly what problem is being solved by using older load data that called for more powder?

[EDG]

With the old data you really didn't know what pressure you were getting in your rifle.

Nothing has changed -
You still don't know what pressure you are getting with the new data in your rifle.

[texassako]

I don't consider modern pressure tested data to be lawyered up at all. SAAMI sets a maximum pressure for the cartridge and they made sure it did not go over. If they don't show a pressure then it could be the lawyers adding their two cents. If SAAMI lowers the max pressure on a favorite cartridge(.357 Magnum for example), then I could see possibly using older data over new if you have a gun designed for the old pressure. However, if you blindly use that old data you might miss something, like the new Blue Dot doing weird things in 125 gr .357 and all .41 Magnum loads. How many of those old powders are even made by the original makers anymore with the same formulation? I would get my own pressure testing setup before settling on just using old data instead of new.

[bhn22]

357 mag has been knocked down twice now I believe. The first time appeared to be to make S&W K frames live longer, and the second time seemingly shortly predated the 357 mag J frames some time back. The original 357 mag was of course developed in an N frame. Then the L frame was designed to allow the use of unlimited 357 mag ammo, which didn't work out either. I was lucky enough to locate a copy of Speers #8 reloading manual. I guess I'm going back in time with some of the rest of you.

[dragon813gt]

Take into account that the tech used in pressure testing is much more accurate now than back when copper crush was the only option. IIRC, copper crush method only tells peak pressure, it doesn't give pressure curves.

Hit the nail on the head. No need to go any further because this is the answer. They're able to see the pressure curves in real time. This is what's caused the loads to change over more recent years.

[John Boy]

With the old data you really didn't know what pressure you were getting in your rifle.

Nice loading data is Phil Sharpe's Handloading book - including psi. US & Metrics. My go to reference

[str8wal]

I don't think it really makes a difference, does it? Your gun will tell you when to stop. I would hope nobody would start at max regardless. I do agree the numbers have been reduced from yesteryear, but it is but a guidline anyway IMHO

[jsizemore]

If you shoot "classic" caliber's and fear you are being shortchanged by the component company's, buy a copy of "Any Shot You Want" from A-Square. Pressure data right there with the load data. Even got data for the M-60 A1 tank 105x608mm cartridge.

[ReloaderFred]

The statement that no testing is actually done is totally false. I've been in the ballistics labs of both Nosler and Sierra Bullets, and they test, test and retest their data before it's ever published. The testing equipment used now is much more sophisticated than the equipment they used back in the 1940's, 50's, 60's, 70's and even into the 80's. They found that some of the loads published back in the early days were just guesses as to what the actual pressure was, and when they were finally tested on modern equipment, some of those loads approached proof load pressures.

I discussed this with one of the ballisticians in the Nosler lab, and he said some of the old data was scary when they tested them in their equipment. I only wish I had access to their labs and underground ranges to test some of my own loads. Their equipment is impressive, and the care they take in developing their data is top notch.

Hope this helps.

Fred

PS: I didn't see any lawyers at either of the facilities, either, just people who loved firearms and loved making components for them.

[EDG]

No matter what results they get in the lab they are still not the results you will get in YOUR rifle.

With modern pressure measurement you may also find out that they use statistics to keep the maximum pressure of a load combination from exceeding the pressure limit on a firearm.

When you get data from testing that is not very uniform the standard deviation of the pressure can be calculated for a large population of those loads.

The pressure that would result at plus 3 sigma is probably going to be considered the max pressure developed by the load.
If plus 3 sigma exceeds the pressure limit for that round then the data will be adjusted down until the peak pressure at plus 3 sigma does not exceed the pressure limit for the cartridge. That is not lawyer proofing. That is statistical process control- part of engineering of the loads.

To get the very best ballistics means the loads have to be very uniform so the standard deviation for the pressure is low. Then plus 3 sigma does not add so much pressure since the pressures are so uniform.

If you have had a basic statistics class you will be able to check out six sigma and see why it is used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma

[Duckiller]

What Reloader Fred said. For the first time reloading companies can have a complete pressure/time curve of a load. enough of them and you can determine maximum loads for a specific caliber and powder. I have had a load from an older Speer reloading manual that was REALLY hot in my gun. Evidently I wasn't the only one with this experience since it was significantly reduced in the next manual. The loads we get from current manuals are probably the safest, most accurate information we can get. Using old manuals by themselves is not a good idea. If you want to use them as a guide they may be very helpful. I buy old manuals for general interest and general guides, but don't use them as your main or only guide or sooner or later you will get into serious trouble. One of my manuals, forget which one had an entire page of velocities from all of the 357 Mag pistol they could round up for one specific load. velocities varied all over the place. Different guns have ever so slightly dimensions and produce different results. Current loads in current manuals are determined by balisticans to keep you from blowing up your gun and hurting yourself not lawyers. Lawyers are called in when you do something stupid and sue the company. The lawyers will explain to EVERYONE just how stupid you were to do what you did.

[Petrol & Powder]

I'm sort of with the OP in theory but with a twist. I think what we are currently seeing with published load data is the pendulum swinging too far in the conservative direction after starting a bit too far in the radical direction. I also agree that fear of civil liability may be driving that reduction in max pressures. NOW, that doesn't mean the old data was always better; in fact some of it was probably too hot.

I'm not real big on pushing loads to the maximum and prefer not to abuse guns but some of the current data is excessively cautious. My guess is the lawyers scared the corporate leaders into building some buffer into the data to protect stupid people from themselves.

[dudel]

What makes you so certain that the load data is lawyered down?

A visit to Hornady, will show you that at least their load data is tested. I suspect what you are seeing is better load data coming from better instrumentation. In the end though, the load data is a recommendation or guideline, you still need to work up your loads to your gun or rifle.

[mdi]

I agree with Reloaderfred. While I haven't had the opportunity to visit a ballistic lab, I believe the difference in load data, from 40-50 years ago to today, is more sophisticated equipment (like I used to set the points in my old Chevy with a matchbook cover, I now would use a sophisticated computerized device called a Scan Tool to adjust the timing, where it can be done). I would think that powder and bullet manufacturers just publishing computer simulations for load data is just silly, IMO...

I think the "Lawyered Down" theory/conspiracy came to light when reloading manuals were published with new, more accurate data, which happened to be generally lower pressure loads...

[BAGTIC]

There are medicines that treat paranoid delusions.

[Char-Gar]

The claim that newer loading data is inspired by lawyers has been around for several decades now and has been thoroughly debunked. loading data has changed due to newer and better ways of measuring pressure the loads generate.

But don't get upset by this fact, I have it on good information that the big asteroid strike in the next few million years will be caused by lawyers. They really are the villains we think them to be.