The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Reloading Old vs. New ManualsGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Old vs. New Manuals | Login/Join |
| One of Us |
I've been researching loads for a friend's M77 25-06. The max load of IMR 4831 found in any of eight recent manuals is 54.0 gr. My 1966 Speer No. 7 manual lists 57.0 gr. When I turned to loads for 100 gr bullets, it listed 60.0 gr of IMR 4831, and my marginal note from 25 years ago is: "This is a VERY hot load." No shit, Sherlock. Primers fell out. I don't rely on this manual anymore, but I wouldn't part with it. Any other interesting experiences out there? | ||
|
One of Us |
Yes, manuals vary from maker to maker and year to year due to powder lot changes, test bed rifle variations, moon cycle, and other factors. That is why they all say to start low. | |||
|
One of Us |
It is called Litigation. As our society has evolved into one of finding a way to file a lawsuit against someone, the companies putting out the manuals have kept backing off on their listed loads. My Lyman #45 manual lists starting loads in some cases that modern manuals list as maximum loads. Even the rocks don't last forever. | |||
|
| One of Us |
It occurred to me that a more conservative approach might be due to improved statistical analysis. Remember the tale of the fellow who drowned in a lake that had an average depth of six inches? The bell-shaped curve has a little tail on each end. It isn't the average pressure that gets you, but that one-in-a-million load. Computers have vastly improved our ability to analyze data. When I studied statistics we had computers, but had to put the data on IBM cards. Anyone remember those? | |||
|
| One of Us |
When we, as a people, decided we had no responsibility for our own phuck-ups; That it was always someone else's fault and we should be able to make some money from it, The world changed. Not just reloading. All industries had to alter their way of doing business to protect themselves from the voracious ambulance chasers and their greedy clients. Not too many years ago, one of the major bullet companies did not have any testing equipment. Their logic was that Joe reloader didn't have all of the high dollar testing equipment and so they used the same methods that Joe Reloader used: case expansion, primer apearance, ease of extraction, etc. We now have technology that wasn't available just a few years ago. The guys in the white coats can better understand the dynamics of what happens in the combustion chamber of a rifle when you pull the trigger. Given these two points, it would be strange if load books didn't change. I've often read posters say with authority that you could exceed the published max by xx percent since they were lawyer driven. I pack that away with a lot of the information posted in cyberspace. The companies that publish books have a legal liability; the self-styled, cyberspace egspurts don't. Aim for the exit hole | |||
|
One of Us |
There are basically two reasons why the load manuals have changed their data: 1. In some cases popular firearms were experiencing premature wear with the maximum loads - S&W revolvers in 357 Magnum as an example - so SAAMI was petitioned by several gun makers to reduce the pressure. The pressure was originally 40,000 CUP for the 357 magnum it was reduced to 35,000 and finally to 30,000 CPU. 2. The other loads that have been reduced were many overbore and underbore cartridges that were reduced because when they switched from CUP to the piezo-electric pressure testing it was found that some cartridge loading far exceeded the standard SAAMI specs but it never showed up because of the peculiarities of the copper crusher system. There has never been successful litigation against the manufacturers or published manuals because their data is recorded and meets all the criteria of the SAAMI standards which leaves the responsibility on the reloader. Speer, Sierra, Lyman, Hornady, Hodgdon have reliable reloading data. You won't find it on so and so's web page. | |||
|
one of us |
Couldn't have said it any better Wasbeeman "300 Win mag loaded with a 250 gr Barnes made a good deer load". Elmer Keith | |||
|
One of Us |
I got the impression that over the years powder formulas have changed. I've read this about Unique and 4831 to name just 2. Any others? Rich | |||
|
| One of Us |
In Handloader Magazine #43 pg 57 Speer verified they used a rifle with a long throat set up to seat the 120 grain bullets even with the base of the neck. The Speer #8 manual also has the hot loads. The velocity they got with Norma 205 is almost unbelieveable- 3569 fps with a 100 grn bullet and 3285 with the 120 grn.
| |||
|
| One of Us |
Much data in the old manuals (80's even) was apparently not pressure tested. I read somewhere about someone talking to a gentleman who had compiled a manual or two for a major company some years ago. He explained the process and pressure testing equipement didn't feature. Many of the older manuals will say something like "no pressure signs were apparent with these loads". I believe much of then new data is pressure tested. Certainly I like to think so. Many manuals are shot in actual rifles as recorded in the data (not pressure barrels) and we will all know that rifles and components are not alike, so I think that this affects data. Whether they say it like it is (this is the maximum in this Rem 700 used for the test for example), or build in a safety margin I'm not sure. I do know that the data here in SA changed for some powders as the lots changed over the years. It didn't appear that the data was re-compiled. The velocities were exactly the same, but the charge was reduced, if I recall correctly, by two grains. It was confirmed that the powder was a bit quicker. When I started out at age 16 I didn't have a chronograph and I started somewhere around the middle. Reality is that you need to work up and that you need to measure as you go. I've been too afraid to shoot some of that old ammo that I still had, although I never had any problems. If you don't measure you are "shooting in the dark". You learn little. Many guys at the range will come and ask if they can use my chronograph. This I always agree to, but I shoot over the screens so that I cause the damage if I hit them. It's amazing to see the surprise on the guys' faces when they see the velocity. I always ask up front what the load is doing and they always have a figure. They may say 2750fps for their 30-06 and it'll test at 2550fps. After shooting a 338 Win Mag that far exceeded a 340 Weatherby in performance I'm less keen to shoot other guy's rifles as I worry more about my health than the screens, but I've not refused yet. In that case I declined to fire another. Borrow a chronograph, or buy one with some buddies, but use one. | |||
|
| one of us |
Come on guys! Am I the only guy with hair gray enough to know that in 1966 there was no such thing as IMR 4831? The powder which was listed in the 1966 Speer manual was surplus 4831 packaged and sold by Hodgdon, and it was significantly slower than the Johnny-come-lately (early 1970's) powder introduced by DuPont as IMR-4831. Although not at all the same powder as the original 4831, today's Hodgdon H-4831 (made in Australia) is approximately the same burning rate as original 4831 and several percent slower than IMR-4831. And although older manuals frequently listed loads which generated unsustainably high pressures, in this particular case the manual is referencing a completely different powder. It ain't the manual that's different, it's the powder. | |||
|
One of Us |
One of the clubs I was a member of back in Jhb used to have Chrono for use of members - somehow it always ended up at a certain committee member's house and he'd scowl and frown when asked to bring it in .... tosser. -- Promise me, when I die, don't let my wife sell my guns for what I told I her I paid for them. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Stonecreek may well be correct about the 4831 in 1966 still being surplus. The manual lists "4831", "4350", etc. because only IMR made 4350 then. I assumed the 4831 was IMR, also. I stand corrected. Nevertheless, near-max loads were excessive in this rifle. (Ruger M77) Here's a question: Just how uniform was that surplus 4831 sold by Hogdon? | |||
|
| one of us |
I started with the old Lyman book, still have it and still use it on occasion. It gives most accurate load, factory duplication load and everything else in between. For the bigger bores that came into my hands the A-Square book became useful. As I reloaded more and for different rifles I learned to start with the book that listed loads for their particular bullets. As new powders came out I learned to refer to the book that particular powder published. Now I refer to all of them and always start lower than max and work up, paying attention to the test barrel, and components used by that book. I then let my Oehler 35-P and my targets tell the story to finish loads. I have also found that when someone published a new book I cannot wait to get it and see new stuff. Good shooting. phurley | |||
|
| One of Us |
All loads from that test rifle were pretty much over loads.
| |||
|
| One of Us |
Each rifle is a device of it's own. Two rifles taken off the production line one after the other won't necessarily have the exact same pressures nor accuracy. Those loads may have been "ok" in the test rifle. I good while back a friend and I had duplicate models of the Puma 357 Mag rifle. They are a copy of the 92 Winchester. I was loading a 150 grain RCBS cast bullet over a stiff load of IMR 4227. Using my bullets he loaded the same load. Where as might shot very well and exhibited no high pressure his were blowing the primers. When he backed down some on the load they shot fine. Apparently his rifle was "different" in some way in the bore and chamber then mine. I know Speer has done retesting on many old loads particularly those that were done with the CUP pressure testing and found many of them to be dangerously high pressured. One they noted on was the 10mm pistol round. I believe that runs in the neighborhood of 39K PSI. They found testing them that they were substantially beyond that. I don't care what anyone says but today's 4831 is no ways like the old stuff. | |||
|
| One of Us |
For whatever it's worth, I spend considerable time researching and planning every new load. I begin with a simple table where I enter a few likely powders for the cartridge. I then enter the max load listed from each of several manuals and the published velocity. I also note the barrel length. I THEN EXAMINE THE LIST SEEKING ANOMALIES. | |||
|
| one of us |
"Here's a question: Just how uniform was that surplus 4831 sold by Hogdon?" It seemed pretty uniform, but perhaps that is because of the way that Hodgdon handled it. He stored it initially in rail cars, then in a grain elevator. I'm sure that many lots were mixed together in the process. At any rate, I never found any significant differences in the kegs I used through the years. I'm down to just a couple of hoarded pounds left, which is distressing to me since it is the very best powder for my primary loads in a .243, .270, and .338. All of the cartridges that both my son and I shot on a trip to Africa in 2007 were loaded with Surplus 4831. The 60+ year-old powder accounted for some 18 head of game. In my tests in looking for a replacement for Surplus 4831 I've not been very impressed with the apparent accuracy of the current H-4831 (which is Australian -- there was a Scottish version earlier). I have found that IMR-7828 burns about 2% to 4% slower than Surplus 4831, meaning that 2-4% more IMR 7828 will closely duplicate the velocities of Surplus 4831, depending in part on the caliber and weight of bullet. Where a case is already at near-capacity with Surplus 4831, the space-saving IMR-7828 SSC is usually a good fit. IMR-4831 is much closer to IMR-4350 than to H-4831. It would be very easy to run significantly excessive pressures with IMR-4831 if depending on data for the original Surplus 4831. By the way, the original 4831 was not a small arms rifle powder -- it was used in the 20mm gun. | |||
|
| one of us |
Of course! When we were children, my father had boxes full of them in his garage with programs "punched" into paper. I also remember how we amazed at these paper stripes coming out of these incredibly expensive machines. And then the arrival of the first TI programmable pocket calculators while we still used logarithmic tables and slide rules... | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia