Lawyered up load data

[salpal48]

I recently abandoned most If not all my current Load data books. and stopped using the online data as well.. Went back to all my older books from late 40's , 50 60's. . I only shoot classic calibers with classic Rifles Using classic Powders I found that most of Todays data is somewhat drastically different from previous
previous starting Loads have just about become Max Loads. . and Velocities are all over the place
I drafted a generic letter and emailed to several powder Co. as well as the Major Bullet Man. Or the on's who write the books.
The answer was almost similar. They really only advocate the New published data.
Lyman who make no Bullets Or powder and Traditionally is very conservative said the same. I honest believe all the data that is produced is all Computer driven . with No test guns.
When they started with all the Thank you for our support and The legal disclaimer . I realized Lawyered up for Insurance .
I know after posting This Thread . The Host of The armChair Handloaders will be Going to the Books . Coping and pasting . Unimportant Info That Justifies there Position

Good Handloading Is experimenting @ it's Best

[Whiterabbit]

I honest believe all the data that is produced is all Computer driven . with No test guns.

I came to this conclusion a long time ago. The key is if you want to do something that deviates from the published data which is not hard: want to use your own bullet (say, very heavy cast in 300 whisper), or your own powder (say, can't find published load data powders anywhere) etc. The easiest way to do this is research through existing data and start extrapolating from one bullet type to the next, etc.

If you put enough of those loads from start to max into excel, you find the R^2 fit for a linear curve for the data is really, really close to 1.00. I've never seen that in real life data. My only conclusion is that the data is generated via computer, the models are probably not that complicated and will end up generating nearly linear data as seen in the books.

Could I be wrong? Almost definitely. But it sure does look awfully suspicious.

[KenH]

Years ago when I first got into cast (AND Jacketed) bullet loading, I always looked at the min loads in books, then slowly worked up my own loads without really worrying about what the max load was published. Since 90% of my shooting was cast, I never approached max loads anyway because I was interested in accurate loads to punch paper 'n crows. Just watch the primer and see what is max load in that rifle/brass combo.

Lawyered up is a way of life these days.

Ken H>

[TheDoctor]

Take into account that the tech used in pressure testing is much more accurate now than back when copper crush was the only option. IIRC, copper crush method only tells peak pressure, it doesn't give pressure curves.

[RogerDat]

Also have to figure formulation or manufacturing process may have changed a bit in the last several decades.

According to this pretty decent Wikipedia article some of the difference may well be due to more accurate pressure readings as suggested by TheDoctor. Modern equipment can measure the pressure both peak and curve, enabling an accurate estimation of long term wear characteristics of a given load. Nothing wrong with going your own way based on your own research but exactly what problem is being solved by using older load data that called for more powder?

[EDG]

With the old data you really didn't know what pressure you were getting in your rifle.

Nothing has changed -
You still don't know what pressure you are getting with the new data in your rifle.

[texassako]

I don't consider modern pressure tested data to be lawyered up at all. SAAMI sets a maximum pressure for the cartridge and they made sure it did not go over. If they don't show a pressure then it could be the lawyers adding their two cents. If SAAMI lowers the max pressure on a favorite cartridge(.357 Magnum for example), then I could see possibly using older data over new if you have a gun designed for the old pressure. However, if you blindly use that old data you might miss something, like the new Blue Dot doing weird things in 125 gr .357 and all .41 Magnum loads. How many of those old powders are even made by the original makers anymore with the same formulation? I would get my own pressure testing setup before settling on just using old data instead of new.

[bhn22]

357 mag has been knocked down twice now I believe. The first time appeared to be to make S&W K frames live longer, and the second time seemingly shortly predated the 357 mag J frames some time back. The original 357 mag was of course developed in an N frame. Then the L frame was designed to allow the use of unlimited 357 mag ammo, which didn't work out either. I was lucky enough to locate a copy of Speers #8 reloading manual. I guess I'm going back in time with some of the rest of you.

[dragon813gt]

Take into account that the tech used in pressure testing is much more accurate now than back when copper crush was the only option. IIRC, copper crush method only tells peak pressure, it doesn't give pressure curves.

Hit the nail on the head. No need to go any further because this is the answer. They're able to see the pressure curves in real time. This is what's caused the loads to change over more recent years.

[John Boy]

With the old data you really didn't know what pressure you were getting in your rifle. Nice loading data is Phil Sharpe's Handloading book - including psi. US & Metrics. My go to reference

[str8wal]

I don't think it really makes a difference, does it? Your gun will tell you when to stop. I would hope nobody would start at max regardless. I do agree the numbers have been reduced from yesteryear, but it is but a guidline anyway IMHO

[jsizemore]

If you shoot "classic" caliber's and fear you are being shortchanged by the component company's, buy a copy of "Any Shot You Want" from A-Square. Pressure data right there with the load data. Even got data for the M-60 A1 tank 105x608mm cartridge.

[ReloaderFred]

The statement that no testing is actually done is totally false. I've been in the ballistics labs of both Nosler and Sierra Bullets, and they test, test and retest their data before it's ever published. 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. I only wish I had access to their labs and underground ranges to test some of my own loads. Their equipment is impressive, and the care they take in developing their data is top notch.

Hope this helps.

Fred

PS: I didn't see any lawyers at either of the facilities, either, just people who loved firearms and loved making components for them.

[EDG]

No matter what results they get in the lab they are still not the results you will get in YOUR rifle.

With modern pressure measurement you may also find out that they use statistics to keep the maximum pressure of a load combination from exceeding the pressure limit on a firearm.

When you get data from testing that is not very uniform the standard deviation of the pressure can be calculated for a large population of those loads.

The pressure that would result at plus 3 sigma is probably going to be considered the max pressure developed by the load.
If plus 3 sigma exceeds the pressure limit for that round then the data will be adjusted down until the peak pressure at plus 3 sigma does not exceed the pressure limit for the cartridge. That is not lawyer proofing. That is statistical process control- part of engineering of the loads.

To get the very best ballistics means the loads have to be very uniform so the standard deviation for the pressure is low. Then plus 3 sigma does not add so much pressure since the pressures are so uniform.

If you have had a basic statistics class you will be able to check out six sigma and see why it is used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma

[Duckiller]

What Reloader Fred said. For the first time reloading companies can have a complete pressure/time curve of a load. enough of them and you can determine maximum loads for a specific caliber and powder. I have had a load from an older Speer reloading manual that was REALLY hot in my gun. Evidently I wasn't the only one with this experience since it was significantly reduced in the next manual. The loads we get from current manuals are probably the safest, most accurate information we can get. Using old manuals by themselves is not a good idea. If you want to use them as a guide they may be very helpful. I buy old manuals for general interest and general guides, but don't use them as your main or only guide or sooner or later you will get into serious trouble. One of my manuals, forget which one had an entire page of velocities from all of the 357 Mag pistol they could round up for one specific load. velocities varied all over the place. Different guns have ever so slightly dimensions and produce different results. Current loads in current manuals are determined by balisticans to keep you from blowing up your gun and hurting yourself not lawyers. Lawyers are called in when you do something stupid and sue the company. The lawyers will explain to EVERYONE just how stupid you were to do what you did.

[Petrol & Powder]

I'm sort of with the OP in theory but with a twist. I think what we are currently seeing with published load data is the pendulum swinging too far in the conservative direction after starting a bit too far in the radical direction. I also agree that fear of civil liability may be driving that reduction in max pressures. NOW, that doesn't mean the old data was always better; in fact some of it was probably too hot.

I'm not real big on pushing loads to the maximum and prefer not to abuse guns but some of the current data is excessively cautious. My guess is the lawyers scared the corporate leaders into building some buffer into the data to protect stupid people from themselves.

[dudel]

What makes you so certain that the load data is lawyered down?

A visit to Hornady, will show you that at least their load data is tested. I suspect what you are seeing is better load data coming from better instrumentation. In the end though, the load data is a recommendation or guideline, you still need to work up your loads to your gun or rifle.

[mdi]

I agree with Reloaderfred. While I haven't had the opportunity to visit a ballistic lab, I believe the difference in load data, from 40-50 years ago to today, is more sophisticated equipment (like I used to set the points in my old Chevy with a matchbook cover, I now would use a sophisticated computerized device called a Scan Tool to adjust the timing, where it can be done). I would think that powder and bullet manufacturers just publishing computer simulations for load data is just silly, IMO...

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...

[BAGTIC]

There are medicines that treat paranoid delusions.

[Char-Gar]

The claim that newer loading data is inspired by lawyers has been around for several decades now and has been thoroughly debunked. loading data has changed due to newer and better ways of measuring pressure the loads generate.

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.

[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 !! :bigsmyl2:

[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

[Tar Heel]

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

Excellent point and a very useful tool. A chronograph saved my bacon when developing loads for the 411-JDJ which has no "published" data except a few loads from SSK (J.D. Jones).