Lawyered up load data

[Petrol & Powder]

...........

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.

I knew it !!

[Ola]

I know for a fact: Vihtavuori, Lapua and Norma make testing with pressure barrels.

AND they test shoot every ammo patch with regular rifles too.

[220]

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.

Thanks for confirming what I thought was the case.
Not much different to the reduced performance plenty of improved and wildcat cartridges suffered when chronys became available cheaply to the average reloader.

[W.R.Buchanan]

I have a friend in this business. His name is Brian Pearce and most of you who read Handloader and Rifle Mags know who he is. I talk to him several times a year and at the SHOT Show.

This year during our hour long conversation in the Hornady booth at the show, I found out that a considerable amount of the load data in the newest Hornady Load Manual was developed by Brian and his sons who shoot more ammo and different guns in one month than most of us have fired in our entire life.

All of the load data they generate is then pressure tested at the Hornady Lab.

There are two reasons for new loads being generally less than older data suggests.

1. New batches of powder by every maker are more consistent and in some cases more potent than batches made many years ago. This is due to improved processes in the manufacture of these products.

2. The use of much more sophisticated instrumentation in the test barrels of today.

With these new instruments it is possible to computer generate pressure curves based on data extracted from test firing, however all high end loads are individually tested for max pressures to make sure there are no anomalies.

In some cases all loads are tested to determine exactly what pressure range they fall into. If you look at loads they generate for articles like "Loading the .44 Special," all the loads have been pressure tested so they can verify that they fall in certain pressure ranges to be safely used in different types of Revolvers of different strengths.

None of this can predict how your gun will react to any load. That's why they publish starting loads that are deemed to be safe in any gun in good condition in a given caliber.

The rest is up to you.

I personally will never load ammunition to max pressures simply because if I want Max Performance I'll simply go buy Factory Loaded Ammo. I know others feel this way as well.

Part of loading ammunition is extracting best performance for your needs. None of my needs, include top end velocities,,, if I can hit what I aim at and with sufficient power to achieve a satisfactory result then why do I need to push the envelope? It is pointless.

A perfect example is the list of .30 Caliber Rifle Cartridges which is about a yard long. They range from say the .30-30 to the .300 Asskicker Magnomium.

The .30-30 has already killed every animal in N/A and probably nearly everything in the world, and if not the .30-06 certainly has. The .30-06 is pretty tame by todays standards, and yet it's effectiveness can not be disputed.

So why do we need more speed. Just cuz?

Lawyers can suggest courses of action, but they are in no way Ballisticians. In other words they are not saying to drop loads by 20% when 10% is considered more than safe by the ballistic guys.

Nobody wants you to hurt yourself or others. Suing a company over data that you claim resulted in you blowing yourself up is kind of pointless as any defense attorney could shoot it down in 5 seconds.

The operative point being,,, You could never prove you loaded the rounds right!

And they have reams of data proving their data is safe if used correctly.

Everyone knows that this hobby is potentially dangerous.

Any one loading ammo needs to learn all they can about how they are doing it and observe all necessary safety precautions, and actually pay attention to what they are doing..

At the end of the day only you are responsible for anything you make, and if something bad happens maybe you should take responsibility for your own actions instead of trying to pass the blame off onto someone else.

Randy

[fatelk]

Why are you all picking on lawyers? They're not all bad you know; it's just the crooked 98% that give the rest a bad name...

[garym1a2]

I never understand how the home novice with limited experience and no test equipment can claim to know more than the powder and bullet companies that have extensive labs and experience.

[Nicholas]

I really do not see the point in pushing a gun to its absolute maximum loading. If more power is wanted, opt for a bigger gun. For example, why hot rod the 45 Colt when the 454 Casull can deliver much more with no safety issues?

[dudel]

I never understand how the home novice with limited experience and no test equipment can claim to know more than the powder and bullet companies that have extensive labs and experience.

+1 Only on the internet.

[Whiterabbit]

The .30-06 is pretty tame by todays standards, and yet it's effectiveness can not be disputed.

So why do we need more speed. Just cuz?

Well, now you guys have me wondering if the old load data has the 30-06 hot rodded to 300 win mag velocities at 90ksi! Maybe that's why we need 300 ultra magnumoscopies. to get back what the 30-06 gave us back in the 50's!



(I kid)

[Whiterabbit]

I really do not see the point in pushing a gun to its absolute maximum loading. If more power is wanted, opt for a bigger gun. For example, why hot rod the 45 Colt when the 454 Casull can deliver much more with no safety issues?

Because if you follow this philosophy, you end up with a 460 S&W BFR running at 40 ksi, tame, easy, and spooky accurate, but are humping around a 5 pound gun when you could achieve the same thing in a 40 ounce Blackhawk loaded (safely) to the hilt with a boolit a smidge (40%) lighter, easily slung on he hip.

[warf73]

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...

I would have agreed with you 100% before I bought a 1960's Hornady load manual and started comparing it to my (think 2006 addtion) new Hornady load manual. Was looking at the data for the 300wby and 460wby using H414,4350 and 4895 and the data using there same bullet all the charges I compared were exactly the same.

Then I started looking at H414 in 270, 30-06 and the data was 2~3grs. lighter in the new book. Looked at the 300win using 4350 and the data was also lighter buy almost 2 grains (been awhile since I looked).

Now I know for powders there has been some updates to there make up aka Cleaner Herco, Green Dot, Red Dot (LOL said so on the can). But didn't see any change in powder charges for shotgun loads using those powders.

Am I saying they "lawyered Down" loads maybe in some cases but not in the Weatherby load data that I have on hand.

[fguffey]

I never understand how the home novice with limited experience and no test equipment can claim to know more than the powder and bullet companies that have extensive labs and experience.

"the home novice with limited experience and no test equipment"? If they only had a case in the chamber when the trigger is pulled, that goes for the " the powder and bullet companies that have extensive labs and experience".

I have fired cases that fit the shell holder when sized and bullets seated, after firing I have had to use a gasket cutting ball peen hammer to push the case into the shell holder. I also have shell holders that fit, my favorite shell holder is the RCBS, I can raise the case head off the deck of the shell RCBS shell holder .012". that comes in handy when forming cases for short chambers and increasing the presses ability to overcome the case's ability to resist sizing.

F. Guffey

[mdi]

"the home novice with limited experience and no test equipment"? If they only had a case in the chamber when the trigger is pulled, that goes for the " the powder and bullet companies that have extensive labs and experience".

I have fired cases that fit the shell holder when sized and bullets seated, after firing I have had to use a gasket cutting ball peen hammer to push the case into the shell holder. I also have shell holders that fit, my favorite shell holder is the RCBS, I can raise the case head off the deck of the shell RCBS shell holder .012". that comes in handy when forming cases for short chambers and increasing the presses ability to overcome the case's ability to resist sizing.

F. Guffey

Man, I wish I could keep up with/understand Mr. Guffy's posts...

[Tar Heel]

They give us a range for a particular combination in the manuals. Also of interest to my fellows and an obvious observation to a mathematician, is that the published data is a LINEAR (stepped) presentation of a calculus (3-dimensional) expression. It has to be stepped and fitted under a linear template to get a usable range. If you are seeking a discreet data point, you will be very disappointed. The range is for us to use to fine tune the combination for our particular firearm. I have often exceeded the range data in search of more accuracy while watching for clinical signs of high (dangerous) pressure. Ninety seven percent of the time, the sweet spot is within the range of published data.

Play within the published range and exceed it if you dare. They are not attenuating the data for liability reduction. You are free to experiment. If you blow yourself up however, the Fates were delivering retribution for doubting the data.

[W.R.Buchanan]

One tool that a lot of us have and more need is a Chronograph of some type. Anybody who is into this hobby can afford to buy a $79.95 Chrony.

If your loads yield higher velocities than published velocities for given bullet weights and charges then you might be a bit loading a little too hot for your specific gun, and by extension,,, your own good.

This is a simple way of checking your work.

Randy

[1Shirt]

I always consult the old Lyman manuals for comparisons. I find it interesting that some of the newer manuals do list ctgs loading whithout listing 2400, that manuals out of the 40's and 50 listed it as a primary powder for cast loads.
1Shirt!

[Harter66]

I have a Mildcat that used the parent data for a starting point . It was interesting that the larger bore maxed out before the maximum load for the smaller bore parent was reached. Like a spike from happy brass and round shoulders on the primers to brass spray from around the primers and wow that neck got long. I can assure you that the modern high pressure cartridges like the 6.8 Remington are walking the line at maximum loads . I have had the thrill of a start or very nearly start load being wedged tight in a 357 from a load that at the time was brand new data . Having 5 books for reference I do sometimes find a load that has a lower start point or higher max.
Let's consider that I've weighed brass and found a single lot of 06' to vary by 20 gr . This from 100 rounds of 1 lot of factory loads.
The change from CUP and LUP to PSI has changed some load data but my Speer 12 th edition for 357 reflects the older Hornady 72' I think and the 48th and 49th Lyman books .
I think we have all worked with something that wasn't in the books like 200gr boolits in a x39. I used a powder that was so slow that I couldn't blow anything up if I wanted to.

[Larry Gibson]

There are two reasons for new loads being generally less than older data suggests.

1. New batches of powder by every maker are more consistent and in some cases more potent than batches made many years ago. This is due to improved processes in the manufacture of these products.

2. The use of much more sophisticated instrumentation in the test barrels of today.

W. R. Buchanan's quote of Brian Pierce is correct. Those are the reasons as simple as that.

I do have the equipment to measure the psi and time pressure curve of numerous cartridges and have found many instances of old data with many powders to be incorrect. It can be either excessive or quite mild. The manufacturing process of powders is much more consistent than it used to be with much less lot to lot variation. Also some powder of the same burn rate with the same name (number) are bulkier than they sued to and thus we can get as much into the cases these days as they we used to; H414 is a good example of this.

Also with the use of peizo-transducer psi measuring equip,emt vs the older C.U.P. method a much more complete picture of the entire time pressure curve is easily obtainable. Additionally the use of strain gauges for measure the psi of production ammunition in production firearms give the manufacturers a much better picture and understanding of what their product is really doing. The same goes for newer reloading manuals.

Larry Gibson

[tazman]

Also with the use of peizo-transducer psi measuring equip,emt vs the older C.U.P. method a much more complete picture of the entire time pressure curve is easily obtainable. Additionally the use of strain gauges for measure the psi of production ammunition in production firearms give the manufacturers a much better picture and understanding of what their product is really doing. The same goes for newer reloading manuals.

Larry Gibson

How long has this new measuring equipment been available?
I am trying to figure out when the more accurate measuring would have started taking place. Apparently I didn't notice the changeover to psi from cup. Some of my manuals still list both measurements.

[soldierbilly1]

[QUOTE=W.R.Buchanan;3291283]One tool that a lot of us have and more need is a Chronograph of some type. Anybody who is into this hobby can afford to buy a $79.95 Chrony.

If your loads yield higher velocities than published velocities for given bullet weights and charges then you might be a bit loading a little too hot for your specific gun, and by extension,,, your own good.


WR: I completely agree.
BUT, the chrono is an indirect means of measurement. Glen Zediker went into this in one of his AR15 books. Glen reproduced some data whereby the velocities were good but the internal pressures were much worse than one would expect. It was rifle data, BTW.

Yes, I use my chrono, but with caution. I don't think there are any super reliable pressure indicators with pistol cartridge cases.
Just sayin
bill boy