I understand there are substantial differences among reloading manuals for reloading some cartridges -- at the top end of their performance parameters. I am interested in two cartridges, in two specific actions. I leap to the conclusion that no commercially available reloading manual will have printed unsafe loading data -- for firearms in good working condition.

For reloading 45-70 in Marlin M1895 lever actions, which are the least conservative reloading manuals?

For reloading 475 Linebaugh in Freedom Arms Model 83, the same question?

the least conservative manuals are those without pressure tested data.

First of all, don't assume that none of the manuals will publish data that isn't safe. ALWAYS, if possible, I compare loads in more than one manual.

In my opinion, the Hornady manual has been very realistic; neither to bold nor too conservative. The Barnes manual before the most recent one had some loads that I found a bit too hot. The Speer manual is at times a bit too conservative.

By the way, all the manuals I know of for major manufacturers have pressure tested data.

Internet reloading forums. There are loads posted that will blow your gun up.

Hodgdon has hot and safe 45-70 loads.

quote:

Originally posted by Grumulkin:
First of all, don't assume that none of the manuals will publish data that isn't safe. ALWAYS, if possible, I compare loads in more than one manual.

In my opinion, the Hornady manual has been very realistic; neither to bold nor too conservative. The Barnes manual before the most recent one had some loads that I found a bit too hot. The Speer manual is at times a bit too conservative.

By the way, all the manuals I know of for major manufacturers have pressure tested data.

Exactly what I want to know. Thanks.
***
I think I should have been clearer, that only commercially published and printed manuals are kosher. I agree that Internet data is to be ignored unless corroborated in previously identified manuals and complete with pressure information.

I have similar experience

Speer = Very Conservative

Hornady = Realistic

Nosler = A little agressive

Barness A little more agressive

Good reloading practices are important!

Good sense should be the order of the day. Remember the saying: "There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots."

it ain't the data you need. you need to load for YOUR gun. the most conservative load might be maximum in YOUR gun.
pick the one that makes you happy 45-70 with a 400 grain bullet isn't gonna shoot flat.
neither is a 300 gr bullet if you want a flat shooting cartridge buy a 270.

I never use data from 1 manual only. I always confirm in another source or two. Then, I work up from the minimum charge and watch for pressure signs as I increase the charge. I think you should be careful using just one source and always work up starting at least 10% below max charge.

quote:

Originally posted by Red C.:
I never use data from 1 manual only. I always confirm in another source or two. Then, I work up from the minimum charge and watch for pressure signs as I increase the charge. I think you should be careful using just one source and always work up starting at least 10% below max charge.

I do this too. Interesting comments though. I find the Speer manual closest to my own chrono data. Nosler for rifles seems about right. The Hornady is pretty conservative IMO, but I avg. data form all three when starting something new.

I can't comment on newer manuals, but just in case you pick up one or more of them used, here are two that have some unsafely hot loads in them.

1) Ackley's "Handbook For Shooters and Reloaders", and 2) Speer's "Reloading Manual #8". (It was after Number 8 that they began dropping their loads, and apparently have done so several times, to the point some now find them too conservative.)

Here's my two cents worth:

1. Lyman - old reliable, has pressures
2. Hodgdon - useful warmer loads
3. Hornaday - pretty reliable- my #2 behind Lyman
4. Norma - IF you use their powders, or comparable RL series you can develop some cool loads
5. Barnes is too aggressive, tossed two Barnes manuals.
6. Speer - old and useful
7. Nosler - Conservative.
8. Ackley, keep a copy of his works around.
9. NEVER USE LESS THAN TWO MANUALS WHEN DEVELOPING A NEW LOAD!!!!!!!!!!

LLS

quote:

Originally posted by Naphtali:
I understand there are substantial differences among reloading manuals for reloading some cartridges -- at the top end of their performance parameters. I am interested in two cartridges, in two specific actions. I leap to the conclusion that no commercially available reloading manual will have printed unsafe loading data -- for firearms in good working condition.

For reloading 45-70 in Marlin M1895 lever actions, which are the least conservative reloading manuals?

I agree no modern manual has data that is not safe in the minds of the authors, but more conservative then the competitions?


Here are a couple of max loads from the major bullet makers manuals for the 45-70 recommended for "strong modern actions" as all books listed loads in that specific class.

Hornady #7 with 300 gr bullet
RL7 - 52.3gr
IMR 4198 - 48.7gr
IMR 3031 - 56.9gr
With 350 gr bullet;
IMR 4198 - 45.3gr
RL-7 - 49.8gr
IMR 3031 - 56.1

Speer #14 / 300 gr bullet
RL 7 - 54gr
IMR 4198 - 48gr
IMR 3031 - 60gr
with 350 gr bullet;
IMR 4198 - 51.5gr
IMR 3031 - 61gr

Nosler #6 with 300 gr bullet;
RL 7 - 53gr
IMR 4198 - 51.5gr

Sierra #5 300gr bullet;
RL 7 - 53.3gr
IMR 4198 - 51.0gr
IMR 3031 - 60gr

Your 475 Linebaugh data is not listed in most of my manuals, or at least not in the one or two others I peeked at, but I did find this.

In the Speer #14 with a 325gr bullet;
2400 max`ed at 27 gr

Hornadies #7 with a 325gr;
2400 max = 26.8

Hornadies #7 400gr bullet;
VV n110 = 22.5gr
AA#9 = 23.7gr
WW296 = 26gr

Speers #14 400gr bullet;
VV n110 = 23gr
AA#9 = 23gr
WW 296 = 25.5gr

Hornady 45-70 loads look a bit light until you look at the data they list for "strong #1 Rugers, ect and they then list heavier charges then the others. The lever loads are specificly for levers while some of the others are for "modern actions".

If you look over all the data though, all loads appear to be within 3gr max variation. This isn`t much when you consider each brand of bullet has a different jacket thickness, core hardness, bearing surface, and the test platforms where different in each case. Tests were done by different labs and techs, with different primers and cases, and probably different powder lots.

I think it is amazing myself they all found the max loads in each case to be so similar to each others.
I`d buy a book, the one you like the pictures in best is as good as any. Then understanding the max load in the book is for a specific gun, specific components, temp, humidity, lab tech, bla-bla-bla.... And likely isn`t the max for your firearm, work up your max load.

Nothing in the books is gospel, any of them. The data is only an educated guess at a starting and stopping point for you to explore.

BTW; I`ve more then once seen a rifle or pistol refuse to except book max loads.
Example: I`ve a 270 Win with a min spec chamber in a after market barrel that gives pressure signs and clocks over book max listed velocities from 2-4 gr below what the various books say I should be able to stuff in the case. My dads 270 takes these loads with no problems.....go figure

quote:

For reloading 45-70 in Marlin M1895 lever actions

The Hornady 5th edition starts as such:

We intend the following data only for use in the Marlin Model 1895......

Hornady has a close relationship with Marlin as they do with Ruger....I'd use data from this source for my 1895 Marlin.

After my first hot reloading years I find now that it really doesn't make sense.

Just compare the difference in trajectory at 300 meters between a hot and a regular load. Usually less than an inch, so who cares? If you hit your game animal well, you get complete perforation in most cases, meaning that you waste kinetic energy anyway.

It is rather the precision that counts, not the maximum obtainable velocity.

I think sierra is quite hot as compared to hornady and nosler on 7 rem mag for 160 grn bullets. Especialy the listings for H4831

I've found that the Lyman Manual has "some" recommended loads that are too hot for my rifles. So, I use it for comparison purposes.
I think the Hornady, Hodgdon, the new Speer, and Nosler Manuals are very close to my rifles' pressure limits at the max end.
I did have some problems with older Speer manuals' loads that were way hot for the max suggested loads.

Don

Everyone has covered just about all that needs covering .

I will simply add Conservative reasonable realistic hot are in NONE of my manuals .

Be aware some OLDER Manuals have powder listings which are a might more pressure

sensitive now days because of powder changes . Powder marketed under same name but slightly

different from say mid 60's and 2000 lots .

Published data will or " Should Never " exceed SAAMI pressure specs .

BTW Chambers do vary as does head space .


Originally posted by Red C.:
I never use data from 1 manual only. I always confirm in another source or two. Then, I work up from the minimum charge and watch for pressure signs as I increase the charge. I think you should be careful using just one source and always work up starting at least 10% below max charge.

Is SOUND ADVICE

My Speer manual #13 is on the hot side compared to all my other stuff

I may have missed it in this thread but I found no mention of the Lee manual. For the most part it is a composite of everyone else's data. Of all the manuals I have I refere to the Lee more than any other.

AC is dead right about the Speer #8! Some of the hotest loads ever put in a manual. Haven't gone to mine in years.Probably won't ever again! roger

Thank you all for useful information.

barnes, without a doubt, is the most aggresive of the current loading data... PO Ackley's handbooks are probably the most aggresive i've seen, for big bores at least

I don't recall ever using a listed load that I thought was too hot. I have backed off a few beacuse I could get better acuracy and almost as much speed.
My favorite loads for the .257 Roberts is 46 grains of H-414 under a 100 grain txx Barnes.
I think the max was 48 grains, (in the old manual) But I only picked up about 48 FPS I think it was and with 46 I was driving tacks.
FYI, my 1895 marlin loves IMR-4198 and the Hornady 350 grain flat nose. Nearly moa, and right at about 2000.
Like stated elswhere in this thread the 45/70
will never be a flatt shooter.
But when shooting bullets of 350 grains , 100 feet of velocity equals alot of energy.
...tj3006

I think the old, first edition of the "Hornady Handbook of Cartridge Reloading," (1973 copyright) is the least conservative I've seen, for many cartridges anyway.

But some of the powders it lists are now no longer available -- its 4831, for example, is the older surplus Hodgdon one, not the present day H4831.

Using that older Hodgdon 4831 powder or IMR 4350 it claims, for example, that getting 3200 f.p.s. is possible with 130 gr. bullets in the 270 Winchester, and 3000 f.p.s. with 150 gr. ones.

I've found the loads in Nosler's #6 to be pretty fair dinkum.

Hornady is also good and reliable. The latest Barnes manual, is very, very conservative.

The other thing to remember is that brass has gotten a lot softer than when I first started reloading 25 years ago............

quote:

9. NEVER USE LESS THAN TWO MANUALS WHEN DEVELOPING A NEW LOAD!!!!!!!!!!

LLS

I agree 110% on this one.... For any caliber.




Cal30

I have been known to refer to the Barnes #3 manual as
"Handloading for suicidal dummies"

AD

A Square's Any Shot You Want has some dandies in it as well.