Have powders changed that much......

[km101]

in the last 20 years? Or have the lawyers dampened-down the reloading manuals?

I had a rifle made in .240 Wby caliber in 1975. The load that I worked up using Hornady Handbook #3 was:
49.0 gr. of IMR 4350 with a Hornady 100 gr flat base spire point bullet, and a Remington 9 1/2 primer, using Norma brass. This load was near max but not at max for this manual.

I have shot this load since that time with no problems. I was in Cabela's the other day to pick up some IMR 4350 as I was about out of the big suppply that I had bought in '75. (it was $4.30 a lb. back then) and looked at a current copy of the Hornady Handbook #8 and the max load was 46 gr. of IMR 4350. with the same bullet. Have powders really gotten that much hotter? Or have the corporate lawyers caused the manuals to show lighter loads for liability reasons. I will be working up a new load with the new powder, but I wonder if the velocity will be the same as the old load.

What is your opinion?

[btroj]

I don't think itis lawyers or hotter powders in most cases. I think some of it is better testing facilities use by the powder companies.

I don't sweat it as I don't think the extra 100 fps or so make a difference to me.

[Artful]

Remember the reloading manuals are just the experience of the ballistic's technician with his rifle barrel and his lot of powder and primers - it's not the bible - it's just his recorded experience.

You can bet they are not using the same rifle they used back in 1975. And yes part of it is better test equipment and procedures and the legal field worrying about law suits.

[LUBEDUDE]

Sometimes they do reformulate. I almost blew a gun up by using old reloading data and did not know about the reformulation and thus, new data. I now know better.

[MtGun44]

Much old data was NOT pressure tested, just using various eyeball methods. Usually worked,
but once the powder maker started having real pressure equipment available they were
surprised to find that some loads were WAY over what SAMMI said was safe.

I suppose that means that lawyers were involved, at least indirectly, but really it is just
improvements in technology.

Bill

[runfiverun]

not only that the powder has changed.
changed where it's made,and by whom, the bases have changed.
the coatings have changed.
they are cleaner burning ,some have had nitro added, some have had thier shape changed.
the process has changed too.

[felix]

Assume every lot of powder is a brand new powder. Canister (retail powder) is branded by speed range only, such that 4350 is still 4350 for APPLICATION only. Powder formulations are getting better and better, however, so we gain as hobby folks. The professional folks are the ones who loose because of all the retesting hassle. ... felix

[Wayne Smith]

Assume every lot of powder is a brand new powder. Canister (retail powder) is branded by speed range only, such that 4350 is still 4350 for APPLICATION only. Powder formulations are getting better and better, however, so we gain as hobby folks. The professional folks are the ones who loose because of all the retesting hassle. ... felix

Yeah, Felix, but they buy in railroad size car lots. Tons of powder at a time. We are pikers in comparison!

[r1kk1]

Over the last 4 decades, I've noticed that powders are reformulated for cleaner burning, easier to meter, some not as temperature sensitive. I've lost count of the number of new powders in the last decade alone! I miss my Alcan 5, HS 7, etc.

Take care

r1kk1

[1874Sharps]

Back in the day before the advent of electronic means of measuring things like pressure and velocity they would use a copper disc and deduce the amount of pressure it took to deform it (CUP, or copper units of pressure) and determine velocity by the height a block of wood of known weight on a string would rise. By the way, I am not that old -- I have just read about this stuff. These methods, especially that of determining pressure, were not nearly as accurate as modern methods. Nowadays the entire pressure curve vs. time can be measured, which gives much more information compared to a crushed disc of copper. As others have rightly pointed out, the old data was a bit lacking and sometimes exceeded SAAMI limits. It is my opinion, though, legal considerations have played into the lower loads we see today. Naturally a ballistic lab has to consider not only the weakest gun ever made for a given cartridge buy also the components for reloading that cartridge. For example, a 223 Rem can be reloaded with thin Winchester brass or thick milsurp brass. At the upper end of a load the pressures will be different due to the difference of internal case volumes. This is why one must be careful approaching max loads even under the best conditions.

[Artful]

First Bullet Velocity device I ever saw a picture of was a big spinning wheel with paste board wrapped around it - and you shot thru the cardboard and measured the distance the holes were apart - then they had a slip stick (you know sliderule) which was used to determine the velocity.

[Clark]

No more load books for me.

[dragon813gt]

Some powders have changed. Look at Hodgdon producing Winchester powders. Who knows if the formulation is really W231 or HP-38? They're both the same exact powder now. But old data is different for the two. Simple way to avoid issues is to start low and work up. I will also agree that testing procedures and data collection has gotten a lot more precise. It's a constant evolution so you have to keep up with it.


Brought to you by TapaTalk.

[ROGER4314]

Yes, they do change powders. One of my favorite powders that I've used for years now makes more smoke and soot than ever before. The powder? Bullseye!

I have old loading data and was surprised to find that loads that specified magnum primers 20+ years ago, now specify standard primers. I suspect that changes in the powders or primers are responsible for that.

Flash

[wv109323]

I read an older book by George Nonte. In that book he used a 30-06 with a consistent powder charge of 4895 and changed just the manufacturer of the bullet. All bullets were 150 gr.
The pressure of the loads varied 20%. Pressures were measured from 40,000 to 50,000 PSI.
So I figure that reloading data has been taken down for liability reasons.

[Wal']

This was pretty much discussed back when...........

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?83580-Powder-Cross-Reference



:castmine:

[1hole]

Powders have "changed" formulations over the 45+ years I've been reloading but it hardly seems to matter. Each cannister powder has an established burn rate and so long as it's in that specification range it's the "same stuff" so far as reloading is concerned. It would not only be pointless for powder makers to change the burn rate for an established powder, legally it would be stupid and they aren't stupid. If anyone wants to market a new burn rate all they need do is give a new name - and that's what they do.

[ROGER4314]

The SAAMI specs have changed, Lawyers have ridden roughshod over reloading specs and there is a change from CUP pressure readings to PSI. It LOOKS like the powder has changed a lot but the changes are seen mostly in specifications and standards.

It doesn't matter to me if the formulas change as I never load on the razor edge of calamity, anyway. I am a "published loads only" loader and do NOT experiment with powder charges, use Internet loads or post Internet loads. In nearly 50 years of reloading, I've never had a mishap.

I have nearly 20 reloading manuals and when a new one is released, I buy it, too. When I want to cook up a new load, I start researching my manuals. Lyman is the most conservative but some of the others run up very close to MAX loads. I settle on what looks good on paper and determine a middle ground charge. That's where I start. If companies will research their data, publish it, then stand behind it liability wise, I'll trust that. Any other data source....not a chance.

Years ago, I was obsessed with ammunition accuracy and used Chronographs and Ransom Rest tests on all rounds. After all that, I finally accepted that the shooter was the most significant variable and concentrated on marksmanship skills.

I pay close attention to: matching barrel twist rates with projectile length (weight), keeping 600 yard rounds supersonic for the entire trip and keeping firearms 100% reliable in function. As to the rest, if a bullet will leave the barrel reasonably well, I'll figure out a way to shoot it accurately.

If the powder formulas or standards change, I buy a revised manual and the process repeats.

Flash

[Larry Gibson]

Powders have changed as mentioned but are still produced within a +/- of the original burning rate. If they were not within the same +/- burning rate they would have a different number or name.

Pressure testing has become far more sophisticated with piezo- transducers allowing a complete picture of internal ballistics instead of just the max peak spi as measured by CPU method. Further preassure/velocty testing of production ammunition in commercialy made guns with the use of strain gauges also refines the information available.

Consider also that the original data was probably developed in a Weatherby rifle with free bore. The new data is with a SAAMI spec test barrel and probably minimal throat.......just to be on the safe side. Perhaps that was "lawyer induced" but more than like just a precaution by ballisticians with far larger knowledge now than they had before 1975.

Larry Gibson

[rtracy2001]

Well, it looks like I need to reduce my standard load for Jacketed 30-06. :(

Just last night I used up the last of dad's IMR 4350. His load was 58 gr of 4350 with a 165 gr BTSP. While his lyman manual listed that as a max charge, all my new manuals show it as 1 gr over max. Funny, he never did adjust that load, even when using thicker milsurp brass, and we have never seen any problems. Still, the addage goes "Better safe than sorry". A fraction of a gnat's pubic hair loss in accuracy isn't worth the risk.

[Kent Fowler]

It's getting hard these days to know whose data to trust with all the discrepancies amongst the various manuals. Case in point, I have an new 221 Fire Ball rifle and the difference between what a 2010 Hornady revised manual shows for a 45 gr. bullet using H4198 and what the 2012 Hodgdon Powder data lists is pretty much a mind boggler. Hornady maxes out the charge at 17.8 grains while Hodgdon starts at 17.5 gr. with a max of 19.5C. And while Hornady does specify the gun used in its testing and Hodgdon does not, Hodgdon does specify what the pressures were in their load data. I started comparing these two different load data and pretty much had a *** moment. So, now, I got the option of taking these two manuals down the street to the Mexican voodoo lady and see what she has to say about them or I can write the max loads on little pieces of paper, throw the bunch of them up in the air and which ever one sticks to the ceiling, I guess that's the one I'm gonna go with.

[dragon813gt]

The Hornady manual is for THEIR bullets and their bullets only. Hodgdon's website is just generic bullet by weight for the most part. If you're using brand "x" jacketed bullet then use that manufacturer's manual. That bullet weight/profile was fully tested. I don't use Speer data for Hornady bullets and vice versa. A prime example is XTP bullets which have different load data from other JHPs due to bearing surface. The loads are not interchangeable.


Brought to you by TapaTalk.

[C.F.Plinker]

The 2011 Hodgdon book shows loads for 2 different 45 grain bullets using H4198. One is a Sierra SPT and the other is a Barnes X. Hodgdon maxes them out at 19.5 grains, 3178fps, 43700CUP and 19.5 grains, 3184 fps, 46500CUP. Both loads are shown as being compressed. They ere loaded in Remington brass and fired through a 24 " barrel. Does this mean that when they made the test it was difficult to get more powder in whatever brand of case they were using? These loads and the loads with H332 are the only loads that are shown as being compressed and all of them have pressures below 46500 CUP. The max pressures of 5 of the 6 other loads listed are between 48500 and 50000 CUP. Why, other than case capacity, would they have chosen to list loads as maximum that do not achieve the pressures of their other loads?

Edit to add:
Sierra shows a max of 17.9 grains giving a velocity of 3000 fps when fired through 20" barrel. Sierra also used Remington brass but used a Federal primer where Hodgdon used a Remington primer.

[ROGER4314]

I shot High power rifle matches for 7 years and competed with a lot of current and retired military shooters. One of the best was a 77 year old retired Marine Corps competition shooter. He sent me his USMC 30-06 competition load recipes by Email and I has shocked to see how much OVER max loads those rounds were!

He is a very responsible and safe shooter so I concluded that the charges they used slid into MAX levels due to changes in SAAMI specifications, moves to more conservative specifications or changes in pressure measurement (from CUP to PSI).

An interesting note......The Marine Corps teams used different powders in summer and winter matches. They used IMR 4895 in summer and went with 748 for winter. Perhaps there is something worth looking at for civilian reloaders. I use IMR 4895 in 30-06 and .308 regardless of season.

Flash

[Sonnypie]

I dunno. I reload for my 30-06. I have always been an under-loader. That is, I find my most accurate pet load and run with that. And they are well below max loads.
I don't find Max Loads all that great. They beat the gun, beat my shoulder, and never seemed as accurate in my experience.

And I'm still using some 1185 (http://s1195.photobucket.com/albums/aa382/Sonnypie/?action=view&current=P9070030.jpg) from 1934 for some loads. And IMR 4895.
Both have given me the accuracy I seek.

I have switched to Unique for my cast bullet shooting though. Many more loads per pound. (I call it the Prius of powders. :D)
I'm still playing around with finding my pet load with it. I got my pet load with Unique for my 45 Auto. But the 30-06 is a little more challenging.
But it's all fun.

I worry about the 2nd Amendment more than my powders.

[MtGun44]

+1 on Unique.

It's pretty unique.

Bill

[ROGER4314]

"Better safe than sorry". A fraction of a gnat's pubic hair loss in accuracy isn't worth the risk.

Right on the money! The component and powder companies spend millions of Dollars to make sure that what they publish in their manuals is correct and safe. That's AFTER their lawyers strain, sift and evaluate the data, too. If it is in print and I get hurt, there will be repercussions! If I compare load data from several independent manuals and it agrees, my chances of being s crewed by their carelessness is about zero. Then I pay attention to MY QC in loading and I am well assured that I'm cooking up safe ammo.

Only a fool would ignore data that cost millions of bucks to verify, then resort to tweak and fiddle with loads in his own loading room. That makes no sense and I'd be crazy to do it. If it isn't published in a book, with the responsible party putting his name on it and standing legally responsible for the data,.....I don't load it!

I don't use Internet load data and won't post my loading data on the Internet. If you drop a decimal point or transpose a number, it could change the life of another reloader.

Flash

[o6Patient]

Maybe they are more conservative now or just more, more consistent. My max load for the o6 back when was
57.5 imr 4350 and the max's in the manuals at the time went from about 54point something to almost 59.
You had to work up to mx then and probably should now considering the all variables..old but sound advise.

[o6Patient]

..."the all" variables...bit dyslexic today