Older Reloading Manuals

[462]

About a year ago, I made the mistake of getting into a discussion, with Massive Ego, about using loads listed in older manuals. (My oldest is Lyman’s 45th edition, published in 1970.)

Massive Ego maintained that, since the older manuals used C.U.P. rather than P.S.I., their loads are unreliable, possibly dangerous, and should not be used.

I said that if that were the case, why, then, haven’t we heard or read about all the ka-booms and injuries that surely should have happened. If the loads were considered save, in 1970 say, then they should be deemed to be safe to use today.

Massive Ego said that I was wrong in my thinking and should be careful in what I told others, and ended the conversation.

Some people will say many of today’s powders have different burn rates, than in 1970, but there are others who say that they haven’t changed.

Hodgdon, in their latest manual, does not list H110/W296 for .357 Magnum -- unless I missed it. Does that mean that all the older manuals that list them are to be considered possibly dangerous and ignored?

What is your take? Do you load the old recipes, or use only the most up to date manuals?

[Big Dave]

I have favorite loads that I have been using for nearly 50 years and they still do the job today just as they did then.
It is an unfortunate fact that the newer manuals format does not allow the variety of loads commomly listed in the older Lyman manuals as they take 3 or 4 pages to display less data than the old ones did on 1 page. Hence the drop out of many powder and bullet listings, not because they are dangerous to use but simply from lack of space in the new format.
My understanding is that for a canister powder lot to be sold as say IMR 4320 requires that it precisely match the standard for this designation which has not changed over the years. If it does not match it is sold in total to one of the ammo companies who then work up data for this specific lot and load commercial ammo with it. It is NOT sold as canister powder to handloaders. A can of IMR 4320 today is as close to identical to one from 25 years ago as it is possible to be.
This does not mean that I don't have newer manuals, I do. But there is nothing wrong with the older data either, even though it is not now listed in new publications.
Also the proliferation of new powders from many manufacturers means the publishers are trying to stay current with all the new propellants which were not in existance 25 or 50 years ago. As you look at the older manuals you will see listings for powders that are no longer made today such as the HYVEL series which were already getting hard to find when I started loading and of coarse are not shown today. Dupont Pistol #6 was one of my favorits in the 38 special. It is of coarse long gone now but other equivalents are available to do the same job, Bullseye and many newer ones as well.

[ReloaderFred]

Part of what's changed is the testing procedures. Early on, they didn't have the testing equipment that is available now. They relied on visable signs of high pressure, much like some of today's handloaders do. Even chronographs were rare, with velocities estimated in some cases. When I first started loading in 1963, you just assumed the data in the manuals was good.....

Now they have sophisticated pressure testing equipment. With that newer equipment they found that some of the older loads exceeded SAAMI specs, so they reduced the loads accordingly. In this litigious age no company is going to publish data that is over the accepted maximums. Common sense and corporate lawyers are going to tell them to scale back the loads, and they did in some cases.

There is also the fact that some of the SAAMI specs were reduced, due to problems with some firearms. If a load was safe in most firearms, but was too hot for another, then they had to produce data for the lowest denominator, hence the reduced data in certain calibers.

Hope this helps.

Fred

[Artful]

I have many older manuals, I have new manual - they are all guides - not bibles - you will find conflicting information in different manuals as they each worked with different firearms - and sometimes what's safe in one is NOT safe in another - That's where common sense comes in.

- so that is why I look at what I have and then starting low work up for my individual weapon -

unless I'm making up subsonic then I start low and work down.

[Char-Gar]

I have every manual Lyman has printed since 1930. I am not reluctant to use data from any of them. I always start at the suggested and work up.

I don't buy the arguments made by Massive Ego/

[94Doug]

Buy all the old manuals you can. You will learn from the guys that did nothing but load cast boolits. Get back far enough, and there are no copper jacketed loads in the manual. There is a free PDF Copy of Ideal 38 in Castpics. Check it out.

Doug

[W.R.Buchanan]

I have Lyman 45 too and many of the loads for cartridges I shoot are the same or very similar in Lyman 49.

Since I don't load anything to the max, I use "Interpolation". IE figuring out a charge based on perceived averages of several known safe loads.

I look at similar loads from a variety of manuals for the same cartridge. These will always vary slightly, but usually have commonalities.

What happens if you can't find a load for the exact bullet you want to load? You have to interpolate. This is the same technique that is used when using a slide rule.

If you want to load for a 147 gr bullet or a 155 gr bullet for .308 and you don't have any load data for anything but a 150 gr bullet are you going to hang it up just because you can't find exact data? The differences in this case are very slight, except if that 155 bullet is from Barnes. then you need to pay attention to warnings.

Perfect current example from me is loading 147 gr boattail surplus bullets in my .308. None of the manuals I have, list that bullet but all of them list 150 gr Spitzers. So we will be using Spitzer data and expecting something close to what the book says as Lyman 45 and 49 are both pretty consistant with IMR4895, but the older manual doesn't have Varget, cuz Varget wasn't invented yet.

If you are not on the upper end or rock bottom end of a group of load data for a given cartridge then you have a significant amount of latitude to move your charge around safely.

I make judgements on starting powder charges based on what I think will get the bullet out of the gun safely, and then If I need more oomph I can up the charge judiciously.

Another point concerning pressures that is valid here, is that in certain cartridges CUP and PSI are very nearly the same values, .45-70 being a quick example.

That Common Sense thing does enter in to the equationn here too.

If you compare enough sources for a given round like .44 Spec /Mag or .45 ACP you will see patterns emerge. There are several charges of several different powders that will yeild similar results in both .44 Spec and .45ACP. The cartridges have similarities IE:240 gr bullets in .44 and 230 gr bullets in .45, similar barrel lengths and pressures yeild the same velocities.

There is an article in the current Handloader mag where Brian Pearce suggests using midrange .22-250 loads for the .225 Winchester, mainly because there is little current data for the .225 Win in newer manuals, and especially concerning newer powders that have came into vogue since 1970. These new powders have uses in this cartridge but there hasn't been much, if any, specific testing in that cartridge. So you find a similar cartridge and use that data, and start low and work up to a safe level watching for obvious pressure signs.


We have more easily available loading data today than we have ever had in the history of firearms. You just have to figure out who is credible and who is not. Usually this invlolves comparing multiple sources. Similarities between multiple sources are your key to safety.

If someone is saying 30 gr of H110 is safe in a Ruger SBH but 10 other sources are saying 24-25 gr is the max, maybe you should question the hotrod's idea of safe?

Cast Boolits give you an extra margin of safety too. :cbpour: They just go thru the tube easier!

Randy

[bydand]

One nice thing about old manuals is that they list cartridges and loads that current ones no longer bother to do. In my case, my OLD lyman manual lists .455 Webley rounds. Current ones don't bother, and yet the guns are still out there. Another, 256 Win Mag.

[Dale53]

I have had loads pressure tested after I had a problem with them. One case in point is the controversial Speer #8 reloading manual. I was using a .357 load in my 6" S&W Model 19. It was a grain or grain and a half LESS than the listed max load in the #8 Manual. It never gave one bit of trouble in my Model 19. I DID notice that it got to the 50 yard target noticeably faster than my previous standard (yeah, it WAS noticeably faster). I was so enthusiastic about this new powder for .357's (Dupont 4756) that I told all of my friends. A good friend had a nice S&W Model 28 Highway Patrolman. He carefully worked up loads, as is prudent, and two full grains below MY load had sticking cases. A conversation with a nearby commercial loader elicited the information that my load locked up a TC Contender test pistol.

The loads were sent to a lab and pressure tested at 67,000 PSI!! That is BELOW Speer's listed maximum in the #8. Their loads in that manual are also suspect for .38 Specials, for the same reason.

Dupont claimed that there were different lots of 4756 and Speer had a slow lot. They also claimed that they had warned Speer not to publish those loads. Speer stated they were ok but I notice that they toned down the loads considerably in later manuals. There was a LOT of CYA going on, that is for sure.

At any rate, I learned not to rely on ANY single manual. People are still arguing to this day that if it is published it is OK. Well, not always. I proved that to my satisfaction.

Use old manuals as a guide and pay attention to the world around you. Look at other manuals. Understand SAAMI - sometimes they way underrate a caliber in a particular firearm. A case in point is the .44 Special. In a strong platform like the S&W Model 24, 624, Rugers new Flattop .44 Specials, etc, there are perfectly safe reloads considerably above SAAMI's standards.

Just think before you jump. The best defense is "Pay Attention" whether it is when you are "out and about" or when you are reloading.

Be safe, good people!
Dale53

[SlamFire1]

My Speer No 8 and my Lyman 41st edition have loads that are scary.

I have P.O Ackley's handbooks, many of those loads will cause over pressure problems. His handbooks reflect the industry in the middle 50's to the early 60's. Really wild and woolly days.

An interesting insite is a section written by Hornady. Mr. Hornady said he ignored the pressure barrels he had, because the data was conflicting and confounding, :eek: and just looked at case head expansion.

Hatcher’s Notebook has a section on how even carefully lubricated bullets “dangerously raised” pressures. I believe this is either due to the poor instrumentation of the era, or was just a flat out lie for the Army coverup of the 1921 tin can ammo fiasco. Could have been either because we know there is no issue firing moly lube bullets and the experience of the Swiss who used greased bullets up to 1978. Giving the Army the benefit of the doubt, (and given the number of coverups the Army has performed that is giving them a lot more benefit than they have earned) if period instrumentation was so uncertain that Hornady ignored it, and the Army was fooled by it, that adds a lot of uncertainly to the pressure data in old manuals.

Today's instrumentation can measure real time fluctations with pressures during combustion. As in the book "Ballistics" by Carlucci and Jacobson, "The flow inside a gun tube is never steady or uniform". Older copper/lead crushers don't provide fidelity beyond pressure max.

I treat this older manuals as historic, useful as a guide, but always, start low and work your load up.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Reloading/SwissGP11greasedcaseneck.jpg

Picture by Parashooter.

[Char-Gar]

Ackley's handbooks did not reflect the industry. They were made up mostly of data supplied to him by shooters. Very little ,if any, of it was industry tested. Some of it is scary..very scary indeed. It can all be considered anecdotal and used as such. It has about as much reliability and trustworthiness as data pulled off the web posted there by some shooter.

[DCM]

It has about as much reliability and trustworthiness as data pulled off the web posted there by some shooter.

WHAT?? Are you saying I shouldn't rely on data from somebody I probably never met and may even be anti gun???:kidding:
Or data that may have been hacked by someone anti gun.

Yes I have given known safe pet loads to complete strangers, but you still should ALWAYS check to see if the data is reasonable and safe!

[Idaho Sharpshooter]

All of the starting load data I have gleaned from older manuals, dating back to Phil Sharpe's books is safe. I work up from there, reading my M43 for velocity and bolt lift/casehead expansion compared to factory stuff for jacketed. For CB's, the older Lymans cannot be beat.

Rich

[John Ross]

I have had loads pressure tested after I had a problem with them. One case in point is the controversial Speer #8 reloading manual. I was using a .357 load in my 6" S&W Model 19. It was a grain or grain and a half LESS than the listed max load in the #8 Manual. It never gave one bit of trouble in my Model 19. I DID notice that it got to the 50 yard target noticeably faster than my previous standard (yeah, it WAS noticeably faster). I was so enthusiastic about this new powder for .357's (Dupont 4756) that I told all of my friends. A good friend had a nice S&W Model 28 Highway Patrolman. He carefully worked up loads, as is prudent, and two full grains below MY load had sticking cases. A conversation with a nearby commercial loader elicited the information that my load locked up a TC Contender test pistol.

The loads were sent to a lab and pressure tested at 67,000 PSI!! That is BELOW Speer's listed maximum in the #8. Their loads in that manual are also suspect for .38 Specials, for the same reason.

Dupont claimed that there were different lots of 4756 and Speer had a slow lot. They also claimed that they had warned Speer not to publish those loads. Speer stated they were ok but I notice that they toned down the loads considerably in later manuals. There was a LOT of CYA going on, that is for sure.
Dale53

Interestingly enough, I am holding on my lap a Speer #8 loading manual (hardcover) that was the first manual I actually purchased with my own money, in 1971, instead of borrowing manuals from my uncle. The sticker on it says I paid $3.95 for it.

It is listed as a second printing, in May 1971.

No 4756 loads are anywhere to be seen in it.

Looking at the loads listed for cartridges with which I am intimately familiar (.357 and .44 Magnums, varmint rifles), I see nothing that scares me. Top loads in the .44 Magnum are 23 H4227, 22 2400, or 9.5 Unique with a 250 cast. 12 Unique with a 240 JSP is a little warm, but not going to damage your gun.

The scariest load I can find is 11.5 Unique with 200 grain jacketed in the .45 AUTO RIM(!), said to give 1330 FPS out of a 6 1/2" S&W revolver. I wouldn't shoot that one...

I'd always recommend checking several sources to see if one is way out of line, as others have suggested.

[Edited to add:] I just found the FIRST printing of Speer #8 online and 4756 loads ARE listed. Go to http://www.bbhfarm.com/gallery/album10/aaq to see data for the .357.

[Dale53]

I also have the #8 Speer Manual at hand. My issue is 1st Issue June 1970. It is loaded with 4756 loads. Could it be that is why there are NO 4756 loads in the 2nd issue only a year later?:veryconfu

Let me give you an example:

.38 Special with a 160- gr Speer Soft Point (actually the Speer half jacket style) showing a velocity of nearly 1200 fps.

Virtually the same velocity with the Speer 158 gr RN soft point.

.38 Special 2" barrel snub nose:
1000 fps with a 158 gr Speer SP.

.357 Magnum (this is what got me into trouble):

I won't give the load shown but it shows a velocity almost 200 fps faster than 15.0 grs of H110 with a 160 gr SP.

As the man says, be sure to compare with at least another credible source and three are even better.

FWIW
Dale53

[Shooter6br]

The Lyman 47 shows loads for the 45 acp much higher than most manuals. I realize Unique loads vary very widely depends on source. Again start at min load and work up is always good advice..[smilie=6:

[frnkeore]

W.R. has good advice. I started reloading in 1968 and have collected reloading manuals ever since. I've read EVERYONE of them, more than once. I have Ideal manuals going back to #39 and I have most of the current manuals available today.

They are not only a source of loading data but, of all things gun related. If I get a new to me caliber. I pour over them looking for data on it in the bullet weights that I want to shoot. If one seems out of line. I use that as a max to work up to. I start at a mid range average of the sources and head up, looking for the best accuracy.

Hear is wear you need to pay attention....... ALL load combinations will have a differant pressure. You change just ONE componant and the pressure will be different. OAL is VERY important, it changes the case capacity. ALL bullets from different manufactorors are a different length. The older books measured more accurately than OAL. They used seating depth a MUCH better way.

Older weaker guns are a field that you need to know what your doing but, in modern bolt action guns, the primer pocket IS the limiting factor. When the primer pocket starts opening, your done!!! No matter what the manual says. I've open LOTS of primer pockets and have even had a puff of gas felt on my cheek. Maybe it's being cheap that has saved me but, I just can't go any father because of the loss of the brass.

Manuals are guides and the cases are the limiting factor. Take a look at the loads that F-Class shoots. Many go way above the manuals there are many burnt out barrels but, the shooters and actions go on and on no matter what the PSI pressure reading says. BUT, know your stuff!!!!

In the calibers that I load for, There has been one one top load that I know I shouldn't try to go for. It's for the 38 Super and it's 7.7 Unique with a 130 gr bullet from a old Lyman #45. From my studying of manuals I know that it's got more pressue than a 1911 type should be exposed to. But, I don't believe that it will blow up a gun and I'm sure it's been tried.

If something that was published, shouldn't be used, most will tell you that in a following publication. I've seen those warning in Hodgdons manuals.

Frank

[MtGun44]

WOW! 11.5 gr Unique in a Auto Rim!!!!! Keith recommended 7.5 gr and I chickened out
at 7.0, not wanting to damage a fine old S&W 1917.

Holy Cow. I agree - not a chance I'd try that one out. 10 gr is fairly decent load in a .44 mag
with around twice the case volume.

Bill

[cajun shooter]

I remember the Speer manual #8 very well. I was working in a gun store in Baton Rouge, La. I was unpacking a Speer order and it was large as we were jobbers for them. I could not believe what I was seeing when I looked up the 158 SWC lead load. The SR4756 read 10 grains starting and 11 grains max. I thought that I was seeing things and retrieved my #7 Speer. It only showed Unique and 2400 which was no help. I had to load some up and all I can say is that it was God watching over me. I loaded the rounds in my model 28 S&W and that is what saved me. The recoil and muzzle flash was unreal and int took a mallet to remove the cases. I told every one that I could about the dangers of this book. I told my boss to call and speak with Speer right away. The books after that #8 showed a max load of SR4756 to be 7.8 grains for the max load with a 158 gr bullet. A difference of 3.2 grains of powder. I am so glad I was not shooting one of the cheap pot metal guns of the time.

[groovy mike]

start low and work up, but trust the old manuals. If a powder is changed it needs to be renamed - thus you have HS-5, HS-6, and HS-7 that are practically identical but because there was a tiny change in the formula they needed to rename it. I prefer the old manuals because they were less worried with litigation and gave a truer picture of what teh load should be rather than a decrease of 10% just to be super safe in case someone puts that load in a rusted out chamber....

[nascarkent]

I too have some older loading books. I use loads out of them.As long as you have decent modern gun, I say most of them are safe. The newer Lawyer loading books
make for whimpy loads. They all shoot . But some of them older ones let you know you shot some heavy thunder.:mrgreen:

[MtGun44]

"wimpy load" - like loads that actually comply with SAAMI pressure limits and are
accurately measured rather than guessed at?

I do not miss the "old loads".

Bill

[Junior1942]

"wimpy load" - like loads that actually comply with SAAMI pressure limits and are
accurately measured rather than guessed at?

I do not miss the "old loads".

Bill+1 on what Bill said.

[cajun shooter]

I have loaded for many years and this was a story from the 60's. The two loads listed was 10 grains and 11 grains. I used the 10 grain load. There was no other reference at this time and did the same as any other person would have done. I sure thank you for letting me know the proper way to load and have made note of it.

[1hole]

Massive Ego is an example of how a little knowledge without understanding can be a confusing thing. An object of a certain size is the same if it's meaured in inches or millimeters, ditto the effects of CUP and PSI.