Powder data: Old Vs New

[hanabi]

I have a lot of Winchester powder that I have been using since about 1990.
Over the years I have been using whatever data came from Winchester.
Today I compared the current data to manuals I have from when I bought
the powder, vastly different. Called Winchester and was told they always
recommend current data. Thoughts?

Joe O

[USSR]

Please list the cartridge, powder, and the 2 different load data.

Don

[reloader28]

Ive copared old manuals and new manuals and sometimes there is a huge difference.
I remember a 243 load that had a maximum in the new book that was under the start load of the old book. I still use the old books for powder reference but start pretty low if I use it

[Rick Hodges]

My current load for my 7mm Rem Mag was a grain under max when I developed it back in 1977 using new manufactured H-4831. Today using the same cases, same bullets, same powder my load is 8 grains OVER the max charge for that powder listed in the new Hornady manual. My load also develops 160 fps more velocity. I am still working on an 8lb keg of the same powder.

I don't know what changed but my load has worked very well for over 40 years and somewhere near 1000 rounds. I'm not about to change now.

[Winger Ed.]

Called Winchester and was told they always recommend current data. Thoughts?


The powders are the same recipe they always have been.

If they made a lot of say,,, Win748 and it didn't turn out within a percent or two of the specs., they wouldn't sell it as 748.
They'd call it something else, or load it in their factory ammo, sell it to another ammo maker and tell 'em,
"Here's what it does, can you use it"?

As far as the load data changing:
They hired product liability lawyers.

[Mal Paso]

Mostly powder has not changed But pressure measurement has. A lot of the old top end loads were and still are over max pressure.

2400 is a classic example. Larry Gibson tested the old Hercules against the new Alliant. The difference between the 2 was within lot to lot variation. 2400 lot numbers date back to Hercules. Same powder now as it always was. Elmer's load of 22g under his 429421 is now 2g over max and really beats up lighter 44s like S&W makes.

[hanabi]

.38 Special, Winchester 231

Load............................Win. #14...........Hodgdon.com

.38 Spc. 158g LSWC.......4.0 - 4.5...........3.1 - 3.7
.38 Spc. 148g HBWC.......2.9 - 3.3...........3.5 - 4.0
.38 Spc. 140g JHP +P......4.3 - 4.8...........No data

[USSR]

hanabi,

Okay, so here is how I see this. First, the Winchester load data for the 148gr HBWC is spot on, and the Hodgdon data is too fast for that particular type of bullet. As for the 158gr LSWC, I believe what is happening here is Hodgdon is assuming a soft swaged bullet, and are keeping velocities low for that reason. No comment on the JHP +P, as I don't shoot jacketed bullets. All things considered, I tend to go with the company who manufactured the powder's load data, in this case Winchester. Hope that helps.

Don

[kreuzlover]

I've been using 20 grains of Alliant 2400 in my 10.5" SuperBlackhawk, for IHMSA silhouette. It comes out of the barrel at average 1495 fps, measured over an Oehler model 33 chrono. It beats the hell out of the base pin latch groove. I'm thinking that I will drop down to 18 grains of 2400 for the 2021 season. I used that load over 40 years ago for my whitetail deer hunting. Besides being easier on my gun, it will be easier on my 75 year old arthritic hands. Oh, by the way, the bullet I'm shooting is the RCBS silhouette cast bullet, and it weighs 255 grains when cast of wheel weights.

[daloper]

I still use old data. I did see a couple of years that the data dropped on IMR PB that I use in my 9MM. I guess if it was good enough before and it is the same gun , it should be good enough now. I don't load to the max anyway.

[waksupi]

Rule of thumb, start at the lowest load, and work up.

[memtb]

There are better liability suit lawyers today! That aside, over the years the powder formula may have changed a bit! If it’s “vintage” powder......”vintage” data should work nicely. Though, as with any loading, reduce charges and work up ! memtb

[fredj338]

If what you had was working before the new data, nothing has really changed. Powder formulas get tweaked over the years, but if using older powder, I go with the older data. For 45y of reloading, more than 24 diff calibers & powders, more than 400K rds, it has worked for me.

[hanabi]

Thanks everyone.
I haven't changed the loads that I've been shooting in a long time.
Was thinking the other day, "how do you know if the .38 is over pressure".
Just struck me odd that Winchester would say use modern data with 30 year
old powder.

Joe O

[farmbif]

mal paso hit nail on the head, copper crusher is no where near as accurate as current state of the art pressure testing equipment.

[Larry Gibson]

I see this old horse is getting beat again.......

Back when those "old" manual loads were developed there was no "standard" max pressure, as such, recognized industry wide. All were free to develop, by any means, what they thought was a "maximum load". Some used the older CUP and LUP method of pressure measurement which is a very slow, tedious and expensive method but most used other means of maximum pressure indications such as velocity, the flatness of the primer, case head expansion, case web expansion, etc. SAAMI, in 1975, established a task force to develop the product standards that are what is used today in the ANSI standards used by SAAMI. Understand that SAAMI is a voluntary yet very exclusive membership organization. Not all manufacturers were members back then and even some of the smaller manufacturers aren't even today. Still with the advent of several lawsuits numerous years back and the courts acceptance of ANSI/SAAMI standards as "defacto" evidence manufacturers which produced load manuals began to voluntarily adhere to ANSI/SAAMI standards. The advent of piezo-transducer and strain gauge pressure measurement methods further hastened adherence to ANSI/SAAMI standards as measuring the pressure of ammunition and reloads became easier to do, quicker to do and gave much more pressure measurement data than does CUP or LUP.

Thus in newer load data/manuals we find many "max" loads to be of less powder than the older manuals. The reason is simply an adherence to a national "standard" and the easier means of pressure measurement. There are no lawyers approving or disapproving loads specifically.
However, I'll assume the manufacturers lawyers do advise that load data shouldn't exceed that which might exceed ANSI/SAAMI standards even though some load manuals do have some loads for older cartridges that do exceed ANSI/SAAMI standards such as 44-40, 45 Colt, 45-70 etc.

There isn't any formula changes to any powders that would adversely affect the burning rate and pressure generated with use of those powders sold in cannister lots for reloading. If there is a change that do affect the burning rate of any given powder it is given another name/number. All canister lots of powder sold for reloading by manufacturers are tested to ensure their burn rate falls within acceptable +/- for the specific powder. Powders used by the large ammunition manufacturers not cannister lots and are not sold to the public. Manufacturers develop specific loads of those non cannister powders for the cartridges they are used in that comply with ANSI/SAAMI standards.

[gnappi]

Unless I'm incorrect, NEW data is ALWAYS lower, that made possible by their attorneys NOT by formulation changes. I don't care which measurement they used in the past to determine pressures it makes absolutely no sense that powder that would not blow a gun 20 years ago is unsafe using old data.

Can you imagine the havoc that would be caused by formulation burn rate changes? Why would they call it the SAME powder if formulations were more guidelines than specifications?

Alliant and Hodgdon for two go through great lengths to assure burn rates do not change. Any maker that says old data is unusable, well, I wouldn't use their powder.

[Larry Gibson]

"that made possible by their attorneys NOT by formulation changes."

Disagree, it is made possible by individuals who do not bother to learn how to reload, do not read manuals and, mostly, do not bother to work up loads. When something with their loads goes askew they blame the manual, the component manufacturers and/or the firearm. It is never "their own" fault......lord knows we see plenty of that here on this forum alone......

"can I get a hot load for my......."

"what's a max load with......"

"I have this powder but can't find any load data and want to use it......"

"Need a load for..... but don't have a manual, got a smart phone instead......."

"saw a Utube video that......

[hanabi]

My apologies for continuing to beat that old (dead) horse.

[Mal Paso]

My apologies for continuing to beat that old (dead) horse.

No, you did good. I love it when Larry Gibson gets warmed up. Good Read!

[USSR]

There are a number of other things that come into play regarding load data. One, as I mentioned previously, is that when dealing with lead, non-jacketed bullets, some of the reloading manuals will automatically assume you are using a commercial swaged bullet, and therefore limit the Max load to what they figure that swaged bullet will take. The other, and this involves me personally when I was shooting competitively in 1,000 yard F Class, is a call made by reloading manual load testers. Finding a nearly 3 grain difference between Max load data from Sierra (whose bullets I used) and Lyman (which listed the pressure), I called Sierra and talked with them about the huge difference. Their response? Well, that's just where we decided to stop. So, there's not always science behind some of this.

Don

[Tim357]

"Shooting Times" May 2009, pp 10-12. Allan Jones penned an article called "CUP, psi & Reloading Data. He gives a very good breakdown of piezo and copper-crusher measurements.

[303Guy]

Here's a link to that article. Good read.

https://www.shootingtimes.com/editorial/ammunition_st_cuppsireloaddata_200905/100105

[gnappi]

"that made possible by their attorneys NOT by formulation changes."

Disagree, it is made possible by individuals who do not bother to learn how to reload, do not read manuals and, mostly, do not bother to work up loads. When something with their loads goes askew they blame the manual, the component manufacturers and/or the firearm. It is never "their own" fault......lord knows we see plenty of that here on this forum alone......

"can I get a hot load for my......."

"what's a max load with......"

"I have this powder but can't find any load data and want to use it......"

"Need a load for..... but don't have a manual, got a smart phone instead......."

"saw a Utube video that......

Actually you agreed :-) Attorneys make it happen exactly because the dolts you mentioned are loading :-)

I've seen hundreds of requests for "recipe" loads from tyros who will not read reload manuals.

[Larry Gibson]

Yes, attorneys do "make it happen" but they are not the reason "for" nor the reason "why" many loads have been reduced in manuals the last 20 +/- years. The reason "for" and "why" is the adherence to ANSI/SAAMI cartridge pressure standards....... even as much as I dislike what many attorneys do in general.

[1hole]

Rule of thumb, start at the lowest load, and work up.

New data or old, that's the ONLY way to go!

I have favorite loads of my own but I deplore the idea of a favorite "recipe" and absolutely refuse to answer such requests. Ignorance is bliss - at first - but it can hurt.

New or old, anyone thinking he can depend on ANY "book" or "web expert" data is blissfully looking for a loud load of disaster piled high about his happily smiling head and shoulders.

I really hate pain so I don't much care what web or book experts say nor what powder age/lot number I'm using; as a reloader, I accept responsibility for my own safety and develop my reloads accordingly. No one is as I highly motivated to take care of my loving wife's loveable ME as I am!