Question on Lyman's new book

[Charlie Two Tracks]

I have a Lyman reloading handbook #43 from 1964. For a .357 using a 158 gr. boolit, it says:

Bullseye: 2.5 gr at 730 vel. min. 3.5 gr. at 850 vel. max.

In Lymans new 4th edition:

Bullseye: 6.2 gr at 1043 vel min. 6.9 gr. at 1096 vel max.

Doesn't that seem strange? I thought the old manuals had higher pressure maximums?

On Speers new manual #14
4.3 at 848 and 4.8 at 939

Laser cast reloading manual BHN 24

Bulllseye 3.3 at 751 velocity min. 3.8 at 813 vel. max.

[mpmarty]

Over the years I've noticed the same thing. Inasmuch as most of my powder was bought in the sixties and seventies I stay with published stats from that era. The new powders may have the same name but they are not equal.

[Charlie Two Tracks]

The Speer manual is a new one and has a lot lower velocity and pressure than the New Lyman. Maybe it is in the alloy. Speer ( I believe) is swaged and Lyman is Linotype. Big difference there.

[Doc Highwall]

Make sure they may have used a different gun. At one time they used a universal receiver with out a cylinder gap that is now set at .008" for more realistic revolver loads. Also a lot of the old manuals used 26" barrels with the universal receiver even though most guns at the time had shorter barrels.

[cabezaverde]

All that being said, that Lyman data seems to have high charge weights.

[littlejack]

Holly makeral, that is a LOT of difference. Do you suppose that it could be a typo?
I think I would be inclined to give them boys a call, "Lyman" that is.
Jack

[AZ-Stew]

I think the author/data developer for the Lyman Cast Bullet Manual #4 saw the .357 cartridge as a "Magnum" round and adjusted his Bullseye loads to the task. The 700-850 fps loads in the Lyman #43 and Speer #14 are certainly downloads intended for target/plinking. I use 3.5 gr Bullseye under the Lyman 358429 more than any other load in the .357. Very mild and quite accurate, along with the economy of 2,000 rounds per pound of powder. If I want hotter loads, I drag out the canister of 2400.

Regards,

Stew

[NHlever]

I think that AZ-Stew has the right idea. I have been disappointed that many of the new manuals don't have 38 Special equivalant loads for some of the cast boolits. Lyman in partcular starts right off with magnum level loads, even with the wadcutter boolits.

[MakeMineA10mm]

Somewhere in that Speer manual (at least it's in my #13), is a nice medium-length (maybe 2/3 of a page) description that was written back in the 60s explaining why there is so much variance. If you look through the Intro/beginning part of the manual, I'm sure you'll find it.

Another part of your question (I think I see implied there) is why did Lyman go from 2.5 to 3.5 as min. and max way back when, but now the start load is over the max load... Good question. I've seen in some current loading manuals there are loads that show pressures where the max load is no where near the max pressure for that cartridge. I think that old Lyman load is the same thing. I think the loading manual editors include these loads, because there may be some people who are not always looking for max pressure/max velocity (such as target shooters, or fun/plinkers). So, essentially what has happened is the Lyman editor back in the 60s included that Bullseye load for a light load (and it's a good load for that); while the current editor has put in the Bullseye loads which push up towards (or at) the pressure limits for that cartridge.

This is another factor that wasn't included in the story in the Speer manual, which focused more on why one load from one company had certain results while the exact same load in another manual had different results...

[Rocky Raab]

The article mentioned by 10mm is titled "Why Ballisticians Get Gray" and was first published in Speer #8. Here's a link to a reprint: LINKIELINKIE

[Doc Highwall]

Another thing that has happened was the availability of chronographs at a price that people could afford starting in the 70's along with better pressure testing equipment. Back in the 70's and 80's people started to see the factory specifications for ammunition come down in velocity because with their chronographs they could see that the factories were giving unrealistic velocities.

[Rocky Raab]

There's another factor. Before the early to mid-70s, many load manuals were compiled without ANY pressure testing. They merely use the "traditional" signs of excessive pressure. As we now know, none of those are foolproof - and we might even say they just flat lie at times.

When they DID pressure test, they used the copper crusher system, and reported the results as though they were actual pounds per square inch. They were not. Crushers don't respond in a linear way, different lots of copper slugs respond differently, and the results had much to do with the skill of those doing the tests.

Lots of manuals had loads that may have seemed safe then. But when tested with today's equipment, they cause lab techs to blanch in horror. (The Speer #8 is notorious for some of its loads.)

Personally, I don't use data older than the 80s unless I'm trying to find data for a discontinued powder that was made then (the Alcan powders, for example). And when I find it, I view that data with a severe squint. Yesterday's powders with today's other components do not always behave as expected, either - even if the old data was good.

[MakeMineA10mm]

The article mentioned by 10mm is titled "Why Ballisticians Get Gray" and was first published in Speer #8. Here's a link to a reprint: LINKIELINKIE

Thanks Rocky, that's it!!

Lots of manuals had loads that may have seemed safe then. But when tested with today's equipment, they cause lab techs to blanch in horror. (The Speer #8 is notorious for some of its loads.)

Hmmmm. You're not referring to a certain 38 Spl load with one of IMR's SR powders are you? Or, is it a certain load of Herco in a small-capacity auto pistol case??

I've seen people refer to these loads and certain websites have had them go through their reloading forum like wildfire, and I cringe!!

There's just no magic combination that's going to "balance" so perfect that you can safely and at reasonable pressures get hundreds of FPS more than the loads of same components (except the powder) listed on either side of it in the same table...

.

[Rocky Raab]

I don't know about those two specific loads, but on another website there's a guy who will use nothing BUT Speer #8 specifically because the loads in it are much hotter than anything before or since. That makes ME cringe!

[Doc Highwall]

I don't know about those two specific loads, but on another website there's a guy who will use nothing BUT Speer #8 specifically because the loads in it are much hotter than anything before or since. That makes ME cringe!

I can tell he is no real long range target shooter and thinks "It will never happen to me" I can just imagine how well he shoots and what he calls accurate.

[jbelder]

Over the years I've noticed the same thing. Inasmuch as most of my powder was bought in the sixties and seventies I stay with published stats from that era. The new powders may have the same name but they are not equal.

That's not what Alliant told me! I asked if there was any difference between Hercules 2400 and the new Alliant 2400 and the man told me no the formula has not changed, but we recommend you use current data. Sounds like lawyer horse poop if you ask me.

[Rocky Raab]

A powder formula is like a cake recipe. Even with the same ingredients and the same cook, they seldom come out the same twice. And the ingredients change, too, you know. Different supplier, different batch, different raw stock - any or all can change the end result even if the "formula" stays the same.

Alliant now calls a lot of their powders "New and Cleaner." That tells me that they canNOT be exactly the same.

[runfiverun]

they added nitro to many of thier new powders, it also helps in colder temps to ignite easier.
so there is no way they are the same.

[AZ-Stew]

...but on another website there's a guy who will use nothing BUT Speer #8 specifically because the loads in it are much hotter than anything before or since. That makes ME cringe!

What makes me cringe is that the first manual I got when I began handloading was the Speer #8. I'd have learned more sooner if I had started with a book containing milder loads. On the upside, the loads were "safe". I'm still here.

Regards,

Stew