Has anyone else noticed the difference between the old manuals and the new

[Texas Gun]

If this does not belong here please move
Has anybody noticed the difference between the old manuals in the new manuals in looking at data all the new manuals seem to be a lot lower than the old manuals and they don’t carry over a lot of the powders to the new manuals

And these both are Lyman manuals
43rd and 50th
I just pick up a new Lyman and I have older ones look at this 44 mag 255g data
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=269922&d=1603389467
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=269921&d=1603389441

And look at 38 s&w the old one covers 5 whites new one only covers 3
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=269923&d=1603389491

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=269924&d=1603389507

[Winger Ed.]

Also, I've found where the super great, most accurate powders in a old manual aren't even listed in the new ones-
even though they are still commonly available.

[jdfoxinc]

SAAMI is heavily influenced by lawyers.

[nicholst55]

Years ago, some of the companies publishing load data were NOT actually measuring things like muzzle velocity or chamber pressure. Some loads listed in those manuals are rather optimistic with regards to muzzle velocity; some are downright dangerous. The Speer Handbook #8 comes readily to mind when recalling that. As things like chronographs have become much more affordable and prevalent, the data provided by these manuals has become much more realistic. And then there are the lawyers, and their clients. I read within a couple of years about a guy who loaded his (unconverted) old model Ruger Super Blackhawk with six rounds, and then proceeded to drop it and shoot himself when the gun fell onto the hammer spur. Of course, he sued Ruger and they settled out of court. How many years has Ruger been telling the world that their unconverted old model Blackhawks are potentially unsafe when loaded with six rounds, and offering a free conversion? The same situation applies to reloading. I'm sure that we've all met, or at least heard of, people that regard published maximum loads as merely the publisher's recommendation. I know that I have encountered such people.

[monadnock#5]

There's a whole lot of companies that appear to be stand alone and independent. Scratch the surface though and you find a holding company in control. I expect that has a lot to do with changing alliances.

[dtknowles]

You have to wonder about the old Lyman data, it exceeds factory MV with lighter bullets. 240 gr. loads seem to be factory loaded to less than 1300 fps. It good to have old manuals for less popular ammo since new manuals and the internet short obsolete calibers.

Tim

[Texas Gun]

Yeah and the powders home website like Hodgens they used to give you a Lotta data now they only give you two or three loads

[Texas Gun]

Oh and of course it’s never in the powder you’re looking for

[rintinglen]

When was the last time you saw 5066, H240, or No. 6 on the shelf? How about 540, 680, Al-5,
As has been properly pointed out, some of that old data is/was down right dangerous. Herco in particular sticks in my mind as a powder whose advocates where given to extreme overloads.
Now there in the case of the Magnums, 357, 41, and 44, back in the 90's the fine folks at SAAMI did reduce the allowable MAP, which is how Keith's load went from being comfortably under the Max to nearly 10% over Max, so we could buy L-frame 44 mags and J frame 357"s.

[444ttd]

i wonder what they say when i using the 444 marlin(tc encore with 23" MGM barrel) and a 300gr fn gc under 24.0gr of 2400/tuft of dacron. or my win m94 in 35/30-30 with 200gr fn gc and 20.0gr of 2400/tuft of dacron.

i don't have a psi/cup/cip indicator. i have a chrony, calipers, calculator and my eyes(trust them somewhat;-)).