Why the data changes in Lyman handbooks?

[Bazoo]

So, as some might know, I recently acquired a 30-06 and have been gathering the needed things to load for it. I've been researching powders and data as well. I use a Lyman 49th as my standard go to book, but I have several others, including a Lyman 47th.

I was comparing the data for 30-06 between the 49th and the 47th and I notice a pretty decent amount of difference in the data. Not a difference in the max charge of a given powder but in the listed powders. I'm wondering why they omitted lots of the data. The 47th was published in 1992 so I wouldn't think things have changed that much in regards to pressure testing and shot to shot uniformity standards.

For example, in the 47th, the data for the 168 grain jacketed bullets lists 3031, 748, H335, BL-C2 but of those powders the only one still listed in the 49th is 3031. The 3031 data listed is the same however. 3031 is listed for every weight bullet across the board in the 47th, but is only listed up to the 168 grain bullets in the 49th.

The data for cast bullets are similar.

My common sense tells me that it's safe but is there any reason I shouldn't use this older data?

[Hickory]

I'm glad you have common sense, use it to work up loads from the data you have on hand and do not jump to maximum loads right off the bat.
Have fun and enjoy your 30-06.

[bmortell]

I was wondering the same, I guess with 150+ powders out there theres only so many they can list. like my lyman manual don't have any 30-06 loadings for 4895. which was made for 30-06 in the first place and obviously would work, and its listed in the cartridges before and after it but they skipped it for the 06 because they felt like it I guess.

[Bazoo]

Bmortell , both the 47th and 49th list IMR4895 in all jacketed bullet weights, except for the 220 grain in the 49th. Is it another powder you're thinking of, or another manual?

[JBinMN]

Bmortell , both the 47th and 49th list IMR4895 in all jacketed bullet weights, except for the 220 grain in the 49th. Is it another powder you're thinking of, or another manual?

Can't answer for him, but H4895 is what I am betting bmortell is referring to for that numbered powder.

It is what pwder I use instead of the IMR4895, anyway.

[bmortell]

talking about the cast book I don't have their jacketed book, in cast book 30-06 usually ends in 3031 or varget as the slowest powder then the next slowest powder above it is reloader 7. so not much options listed for "Rifle" powders.

[JBinMN]

Well, I would have lost the bet it seems. LOL


When I go down to the reloading area later I will have alook at my manuals & see just what you folks are talking about. I have not really done any comparisons in regard to jacketed vs cast, or even old vs new in regard to some loads. I just know what I want & what I have to use & go from there.

I think the post that mentioned that there are a lot of powders & they can't cover them all, is likely the best answer, & they likely reckon if someone has the older manual for load data, then they don't need to see the same old powders in the new manuals, unless they have changed something. So they put in some new ones instead.

Just guessing anyway. As ya can see, sometimes right & sometimes wrong.

[EDG]

Those companies do not reshoot all data for ever cartridge every time they update a manual.
The data in 47th handbook might have dated back 20 years.

Granted the .30-06 is one of the most popular rounds an may get updated periodically but many of the old timers and obscure rounds probably have not been updated in 60 years.

[Bazoo]

Thanks for all the replies.

Bmortell, In the Lyman 47th, 30-06 cast data lists H-4895, 4064, and 4350 for slow powders for bullet 311284, but has nothing similar in the 49th edition. Likewise, with bullet 31141 w748 is listed in the older manual but omitted in the new manual.

I realize 3031 for example, isn't the ideal powder for 30-06 with heavier bullets. I also realize they don't retest data. What I don't understand is why they omitted some of the data that's "less than ideal" instead of listing that also with any new powders they test, making a more comprehensive list of powders that are safely usable.

[Walks]

The Manufactures are constantly changing their specs for their products. The Powder changes with each lot. The Bullets change with each different Manufacture. Same with brass & primers.

The Reloading Manuals change due to all the above reasons. For those you remember some years ago, Alliant(Hercules) "improved" their formulations for Bullseye, Unique & 2400. Resulting in a lower charge weight for the same pressure.

Plus we have to remember that the Lawyers are involved now.

The advances in bullet technologies have created whole new systems of pressure problems. New powders are constantly being introduced and old powders discontinued.

The Speer Manual #9, I think had a paragraph about "Why Ballistictians go gray". All the Manual Publishers constantly get questions every day as to why the formulas in Manual #A not match the formulas in Manual #B.

FIND WHAT WORKS FOR YOU. YOU'LL HAVE TO EXPERIMENT WITH EVERY NEW GUN AND CARTRIDGE COMBINATION.

Just like the rest of US.

[nvbirdman]

Would you want to see the same powders and loads in every manual, or drop some powders that you have data for in older manuals and add new powders?

[Winger Ed.]

The old and new Hornady manual has done the same thing.

The new one has powders listed I never heard of, which is to be expected as new things come along.
The old manual from the 1980's has powders they recommended so highly, and were 'best' that aren't even listed anymore.

[Land Owner]

I have powders from estates that date from the 70's (each was marked with its date of purchase). All cans are sealed tightly and that powder is still good today. I use the published data that was "right" for the period in which my powder was made. Walks gave a very good response in #10 above.

[trapper9260]

For all that is posted is why it is good idea to have more then one manual on hand. I do .Also some of the new ones will drop some cartridges and come out with what is new. I see what the OP has stated in the data. I just use what been working for me and not change anything unless I am not able to get the powder I been usen . I use what will work for what I use it in and stay with it . I do work up the load from the min. on up to if I ever get close to the max that I normal do not come close to. Like see some data for Varget but not for IMR 4064 .I just work up the load with the min with IMR 4064 from the Varget .That is when looking at the burn rate chart helps alot . Just some ideas.

[nueces5]

In Argentina, the military powder factory, took the recharge tables from the internet, some of us save the data in the computer.
And the dustbin changes, albeit slightly, batch by batch.
That's why the ideal is to buy a lot from a single batch

[Yodogsandman]

The changes are because of lawyers. The powders I have didn't change.

[BigAlofPa.]

I learned a lesson when i started loading cast for my 30.06. Lymans 3rd showed starting load 18 grains unique for 150 grain bullet i think that was the bullet weight. I could not get a grouping. Here i was pushing the bullet to fast. I looked at the data of the other weights they were 11 grains 12 13 ect. So i backed off the load. And i was getting bulls eyes. After i got the lead out of the barrel. So even the publishers make errors. Lymans 4th has the starting at 17 grains now. So no real fix.

[Bazoo]

I noticed that between the two books I mentioned red dot was dropped off the data for cast bullets, can't recall if it was 30-30 or 30-06 though. Kinda surprised me.

[BigAlofPa.]

Im hooked on red dot for light rifle loads. And titegroup for light handgun loads. But learned titegroup is not so great for my pistol caliber carbines.

[Larry Gibson]

Maybe they change the data and/or use different powders because we complained before that new manuals always had the same old regurgitated data with the old same powders...........