The load???

[Curly James]

Hi guys,

I have been reading on a couple of other sites about THE LOAD for the .38 Spl round using SR 4756 data from some of the older manuals. It's got my curiosity up and I wondered if anyone here has tried something similar. It seems that 6.5 to 7.0 grains behind a 158 grain semi-wadcutter is supposed to provide some impressive ballistics. I don't have any SR 4756 but would maybe try some if it produces. What experience do ya'll have? CJ.

[runfiverun]

i use 4756 in my 45 colt for hunting loads and i like it.
it is just that where i am 2400 is easier to get.

[Treeman]

I've loaded some 4756. It is a fine powder but it didn't juggle, do backflips and clean the toilets.

[MakeMineA10mm]

It works OK, but there's no free lunch. It belches fire and bucks like a mule. But, it does work. Now, to throw a little cold water on your party, I'd mention that there's probably a reason it isn't in any of the newer loading manuals........ :roll:


There is also a "THE LOAD" for 9mms and Herco powder, but that's a whole nuther story.... [smilie=1:


:drinks:

[Curly James]

I've been doing a little research now that the work week has slowed down. The max for this powder and bullet weight seems to hover around 5.5 grains. I think I'll pass on hot-rodding .38 Spl loads. That's why I own .357s. :-D CJ.

[Dale53]

>>>I think I'll pass on hot-rodding .38 Spl loads. That's why I own .357s. CJ.<<<

BINGO!

There is no free lunch! A good many of those "LOADS" passed around the internet are WAY ABOVE the normal pressure range. Not for me, that's for sure.

I LIKE my handguns and want them to be in good working condition when and if I need them (not "DONE" without warning - remember "Murphy" - he arrives at the most UNFAVORABLE time..)

Dale53

[MakeMineA10mm]

Just for clarity Dale, this isn't an "internet load". It was a load that was published in an old (superceded) reloading manual.

One of the primary reasons these loads disappear is because powders change, or enough rare-but-bad incidents happen, that the powder company removes the old load and cuts back the max charge.

Doesn't make the load bad, as long as you follow the basic tenet of reloading: Start with the starting load, work-up slowly, and back off 5-10% from the load you first notice pressure signs with.

There's NO WAY in he!! I'd just load up some cases with a load, just because it used to appear in a reloading manual. I'd work up slowly. Chances are pretty good if you're using a modern production lot of the powder, that you can't reach the old max anyway. It also has to do on the tolerence of the firearm you're loading for too. Looser bores, longer leade, generous throating all help reduce pressures.

[Dale53]

I am fully aware of the previously published loads of 4756 in the old Speer Manual. I, personally, had a "bout" with that manual and .357 loads shortly after that manual appeared. I had an S&W Model 19 with 6" barrel. I was a bit dubious of those loads but Speer was (and is) highly respected amongst the reloading industry. So, I "worked up" my load with NO pressure signs. They were noticeably faster from "shot to smack" at the fifty yard range. This was before chronographs were widely available. I recommended the load (1.0-1.5 grs less than Speer's published max) to a couple of friends. A good friend, a licensed engineer with more than a little knowledge of reloading, worked up the load and somewhat below my recommendations, he got severe sticking cases in his Model 27 Smith. I then went to a mutual friend, a commercial loader with many industry contacts. He had another, very large commercial loader, try the loads and they locked up the test TC Contender. So, my loads were sent to a ballistic lab where they were pressure tested. 67,000 lbs PSI! No wonder loads below that were giving extraction problems in the Model 27.

Keep in mind that I had absolutely NO pressure signs. Primers were flat but not excessively so. Easy extraction. Excellent accuracy with my cast bullets. No problems whatsoever EXCEPT they were bombs waiting to go off.

Later, face to face, conversations with Bruce Hodgdon elicited the comments that often excessive loads in revolvers show absolutely no pressure signs until it is too late. He suggested, very kindly, that I might want to confine my future heavy loads to ONLY pressure tested loads. Hodgdon has ALWAYS given pressure information. I believe that was good advice.

The reason you don't see those loads in a modern manual is they were found to be excessive. There were some rumors at the time that there were more than one lot of powder released (that came from Dupont) and the lots varied quite a bit.

I only use loads of 4756 that are pressure tested these days. It is interesting to note, that my revolver didn't show any signs of ANY problems then or later (I quit using those loads as soon as I realized they were excessive).

Using a bolt action center fire rifle in one of the popular calibers, it is quite safe to "work up" loads, then back off when the limit is reached. It is NOT safe to do the same thing in a modern revolver. That is the path to potential serious problems.

Remember the old saying, "There are bold pilots, there are old pilots, but there are NO old, bold pilots". You might want to apply that reasoning to reloaders...

Dale53

[Bret4207]

I used some of the Speer loads way back when. Also used older Lyman loads that were much heavier than they publish now. I never had a problem, but as Dale said, why chance it?

[Echo]

Dale53, speaking of Murphy, did you know that Murphy DID NOT originally put forth Murphy's Law? It was another guy with the same name...