Lyman Cast load data

[5 iron]

Hello everyone! New to the forum here.
I’ve been reloading for a few years but new to cast bullet loading. I purchased the Lyman Cast Bullet Manual, 4th ed., and am puzzled by some of the data. Looking at the 32 H&R magnum data, the maximum loads for heavier bullets are WAY under the maximum pressure while the lighter bullet max loads are much closer to the maximum SAAMI pressure. Is there any reason for this?

[Markopolo]

that is a very good question Sir. i too have noticed that, and attributed it to layer influence... but it should be universally the same, not way under for heavier loads and closer for lighter..

not much help from me, but am interested.

[SSGOldfart]

Humm that's a good question 5 iron. I'm not going to try guessing why,I do know using pressure (Saami) is a more up to date gauge in reloading. Older manuals didn't list pressure reading and the one's that did used CUP in place of PSI. This is part of our ever changing world of reloading and bullet casting.
Btw Welcome to our community,Pull up a stump and stay awhile. As you know from reading it can get a little loud sometimes,but you'll not find a better group of shooters then right here.

[Gus Youmans]

5 iron,

Another oddity in that manual is that if you compare loads for the SAECO #326 in the .32 S&W Long and the .32 H&R Magnum you will find little difference in the starting and max loads for the two cartridges and, in some cases, the starting loads for the .32 H&R are the same as or lower than the starting loads for the .32 S&W Long.

Gus Youmans

[Thumbcocker]

H & R .32 mag pistols?

[Larry Gibson]

H & R .32 mag pistols?

Probably.

Additionally SAAMI has not established a MAP (Maximum Average Pressure) yet for the 32 H&R Magnum. Thus what you see in manuals is their interpretation of what they think they should call a "maximum" load. As there are revolvers, SSs and rifles with much stronger actions than the old H&Rs load data, especially with heavier bullets than the original 85 and 95 gr bullets loaded, is why there are, among knowledgeable reloaders with such firearms, much heavier loads used. All of the newer steel framed revolvers are chambered in the 327 and 357 Magnum cartridges also. Thus they are capable of use with the 32 H&R Magnum loaded to higher pressures than is currently reflected in loading manuals.

Ed Harris did extensive load development of the 32 H&R Magnum for use in smaller framed Ruger Single Six's and the SP101. His information was published in one of the magazines and I have posted it on this forum before. His loads were tested in a SAAMI test barrel with psi measured via an Oehler M82 (similar to the Oehler M43 PBL but more sophisticated computer software and much more expensive). Harris deems loads producing 27,000 to almost 33,000 psi as safe fore use in the Rugers. Ross Seyfried also wrote several times of much heavier loads with the 32 H&R Magnum.

I have done considerable pressure testing of various 32 H&R loads using The Oehler M43 PBL and a Contender test barrel. I have published those loads several times in various threads. Over the last 35 years I also have shot a lot of the higher psi loads in my Ruger Single Six (original run) and a couple S&W K frame 32 H&Rs with excellent performance and no problems. My standard plinking load (Lee's 90 gr SWC over Bullseye) runs 1000+ fps at 16,500 psi which is 1800 psi under what the Federal factory 95 gr LFN load runs. My preferred "magnum load" using the 313631 (Lyman GC'd 105 gr SWC made for the 32 H&R) over 2400 runs 1350 fps at 28,000 psi but truthfully I seldom use that load as the BE/90 gr SWC load suffices most often. However for use in my Ruger Single Six and the S&W K framed 32 H&R Magnums I find loads upwards of 28,000 - 30,000 psi pose no problems.

I also have pressure tested and used magnum level loads in the Contender (10" barrel) giving pressures equal to the 357 Magnum. Those loads using H110 and Blue Dot under the 105 gr SWC push 1600 - 1700+ fps at 27,000 to 35,000 psi. Given there are now many 32 H&Rs chambered in revolvers also chambered for the 327 Magnum (which has a much higher MAP of 40,000 psi than the 357 Magnum's 35,000 psi MAP) and the 357 Magnum those loads should be safe in those also but that has not been determined by me in my experience.

I'm not recommending anything to anyone here, just stating what I've done and used for sake of the discussion.

246939

[5 iron]

I am working up a 32 H&R magnum load for my Charter Arms snub. I had been using 3.0 grn of Bullseye under a Ranier 100 grn copper plated bullet for the last few years. Now that Ranier is out of business, I ordered some Acme 100 grn polymer coated bullets and was looking for load data for Red Dot. My limited understanding of cast bullet loads is that loading them too hard or too soft can cause problems. When the Lyman Cast manual showed a max load at 2.0 grains of Red Dot at a little over 14K CUP, my concern is that this might not be enough pressure to properly expand the base of the bullet. My Acme bullets have a BHN of 16.
Any advice?

[Larry Gibson]

This is the data I started using back when I got the 313631 mould. It is from Lyman's CBH #3, 1st edition. I have pressure tested several of these loads and they are correct and within Federal Factory psi's.

246948

[5 iron]

This is the data I started using back when I got the 313631 mould. It is from Lyman's CBH #3, 1st edition. I have pressure tested several of these loads and they are correct and within Federal Factory psi's.

246948

Thank you Larry! This data looks more like what I would expect.
The data in my Lyman is for a Saeco #326 Cast from #2 alloy. The light load data given looks more like a wadcutter load.

[MT Gianni]

I think it is a poor reflection on that manual. They are loaded way under SAAMI specs and the 327 Fed which is factory loaded to 42K CUP is loaded in that manual to 24K CUP. The only reason I can come up with is alloy stripping in the barrel. Always use two sources and in this case three sources discounts the use of the Lyman manual.

[Larry Gibson]

5 iron

Got to recalling that I used a couple data references back then when I initially started loading the 313631 and Lee 90 gr SWC in the 32 H&R. Looked around and found the other. It's from the RCBS cast bullet manual #1. It has data developed for the H&R M504 revolver. You might also fins it useful.

247015

[5 iron]

I tested a number of different powder weights. I am getting a lot of leading inside the forcing cone. The forcing cone might be stripping the coating off the bullet although I did not see any red colored residue anywhere, but it has leading. Would chamfering the forcing cone be a proper course of action?

[mr surveyor]

I tested a number of different powder weights. I am getting a lot of leading inside the forcing cone. The forcing cone might be stripping the coating off the bullet although I did not see any red colored residue anywhere, but it has leading. Would chamfering the forcing cone be a proper course of action?

First, I'm not an expert, so take my observations with a grain of salt ....

1. Are you properly expanding the case mouths before loading the coated bullets?
2. Are the powder loads themselves sufficient to properly obturate the bullets?

The reason I'm asking, I remember several years ago my son had loaded some .357 mag Bayou Bullets (Hi-Tec coated) and really had a leading issue with a GP-100. If I remember, it turned out to be a combination of the above two issues. The bearing surface coating was being severely damaged when forced into under expanded casings, and the HP-38 charges he used were on the low side.

jd

[5 iron]

First, I'm not an expert, so take my observations with a grain of salt ....

1. Are you properly expanding the case mouths before loading the coated bullets?
2. Are the powder loads themselves sufficient to properly obturate the bullets?

The reason I'm asking, I remember several years ago my son had loaded some .357 mag Bayou Bullets (Hi-Tec coated) and really had a leading issue with a GP-100. If I remember, it turned out to be a combination of the above two issues. The bearing surface coating was being severely damaged when forced into under expanded casings, and the HP-38 charges he used were on the low side.

jd

I am expanding the case mouth well enough. Load data shows I should be getting over 850 fps with my powder charge. I’ll pull a couple of the bullets to see if the coating is getting damaged. I have not seen any red shavings when I seat the bullet though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[5 iron]

21K CUP sounds correct to me.
I ran charges of Red Dot from 1.7 gr to 3.0 grn. Accuracy was good with all of them. 2.8 grn had about the same recoil as a Hornady Critical Defense round.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Larry Gibson]

I am probably wrong as I normally am. But SAAMI says 21,000 CUP MAP for the 32 H&R Magnum. Am I not reading it right? Am I misinterpreting what I am reading? What have I done wrong.........

Nothing wrong. Just don't confuse CUP measurement with psi measurement. SAAMI has not yet evaluated the 32 H&R with the transducer measurement (psi) yet. I have pressure tested the max Unique load as listed by Lyman which is 4.2 gr under the 313631 cast bullet. Lyman lists it as giving 20,900 CUP. My pressure measurement was 23,800 psi. That is in line with the differences between the other 32 handgun cartridge CUP and psi measurements.

Additionally the SAAMI MAP is based on factory ammunition as used in the alloy framed H&R handguns. In stronger steel framed handguns the psi can be upped over the SAAMI MAP just as it is with several other cartridges we use.

[Larry Gibson]

Considering SAAMI is a volunteer membership organization that caters strictly to major Arms and Ammunition manufacturers I would imagine that given the almost total lack of any factory produced 32 H&R ammunition that updating their transducer 32 H&R evaluation is not very high on SAAMI's priority list....if even on it's radar at all.

Also consider that the SAAMI MAP for many cartridges is held to the lowest common firearm denominator strength wise that the ammunition might be used in. We often see loads recommended in manuals, magazines and other places as safe in stronger actions that are chambered in those cartridges. Exceeding SAAMI (industry) MAPs for some cartridges in those weaker actions many times will only result in damage to the firearm and not catastrophic failure as many visualize.

For example with handgun cartridges we see loads exceeding SAAMI MAPs not only for the 32 H&R but also the 44-40 and the 45 Colt. In the past we've seen published, in manuals, such "+P" type loads for other handgun cartridges as well. I can greatly exceed the SAAMI MAP in the 45 ACP if such is used in my Contender and M98 bolt action 45 ACPs but I do not (except for experimental purposes) because such loads are not what I want and would damage other firearms if used in them such as my M1911s, M1917/25 and SAA revolver.

In rifle cartridges numerous examples of them are loaded over the SAAMI MAP can be found in old and new manuals. Let's say you have a 30-06 M700 Remington. The SAAMI MAP for the 30-06 is 60,000 psi. That rifle/action/barrel is also chambered in the .308W with a SAAMI MAP of 62,000 psi and in 300 magnums with MAPs of 65,000 psi. Are we to believe that loading the 30-06 to the same higher MAP levels in that M700 is going to be "dangerous"? Numerous other rifle cartridge are loaded to higher levels od pressure than the SAAMI MAP by commercial factories; the 8x57 being an example.

Thus given I don't have, nor plan to get, an H&R revolver in 32 H&R I choose to load that cartridge (sometimes) to a higher level of psi which is entirely safe in my Ruger revolver and Contender pistol. It's simply my choice. However, 99% + of my loads shot with the 32 H&R cartridge are with the Lee 90 gr SWC loaded over 3.2 gr Bullseye in Starline cases. That load runs 16,500 psi. The Federal factory 95 gr LSWC runs 18,200 psi. Both are well under the SAAMI MAP. The "magnum" level load I use occasionally with the 313631 cast bullet (designed expressly for the 32 H&R) in the Ruger runs 27,300 psi. Again, that is simply my choice and not recommending nothing to nobody......

In many cartridges the SAAMI MAPs are excellent guidelines and should be adhered to. However, in some instances with some cartridges used modern stronger actions than they were originally chambered in the SAAMI MAPs are low and can be improved upon safely. In the current Lyman Manuals we do see example of this as we do in other current and older manuals of others also.