Here's why I set my older manuals aside.

I have been advised by many to never throw a reloading manual away. Well, the only OLD one that I have is my Hornady Vol 2. I keep my accumulation of older manuals but find that they just lay around a collect dust. I ought to throw them away, but for some reason I don't.

I have Hornady Vol 2, it was the first manual I ever had and taught me how to reload. Now, it is just a keep-sake. I never use it anymore, here's why.

In Hornady #2 (Copyright 1973) there are 6 powders shown for loading a 240 JHP - .44 mag. (There are 512 total pages in #2)

In Hornady #7 (Copyright 2007) there are 13. (There are 965 total pages in #2) - almost twice as big - time marches on.

I only use the latest manuals. I know some reloaders save and use all the manuals they have, but I only use the latest ones - Recipes are different.

For ex.

Min for Unique in #2 is 9.7 - 1050 fps (p354)
Min for Unique in #7 is 9.5 - 1100 fps (p880)
Max for Unique in #2 is 11.2 - 1200 fps (p354)
Max for Unique in #7 is 10.7 - 1200 fps (p880)

Min for 2400 in #2 is 16.9 - 1050 fps
Min for 2400 in #7 is 17.4 - 1100 fps
Max for 2400 in #2 is 19.8 - 1200 fps
Max for 2400 in #7 is 21.2 - 1350 fps

Min for IMR 4227 in #2 is 20.3 - 1050 fps
Min for IMR 4227 in #7 is 20.4 - 1100 fps
Max for IMR 4227 in #2 is 23.0 - 1200 fps
Max for IMR 4227 in #7 is 23.7 - 1350 fps

I have enough trouble finding agreement among the latest manuals as far and minimum and maximum loads. I see no reason to add more confusion by throwing data from ancient manual into the mix.

What say you?

Hack

Keep em!!

Powder formulas change...steels are better...test methods are different...

You just proved WHY you keep old manuals:
To CROSS REFERNCE.

The huge differences you seem so concerned about are no greater than you would find between different firearms or different lots of powder.

I usually use new manuals but at times the old manuals contain excellent load ideas not found in the newer ones; that's why I keep them.

in my real old manuels there is load data for rare and forgetten cartrages

Since I have never had a firearm that "matched" the results from any manual I use old and new alike. They all are a "reference".

quote:

Originally posted by ShopCartRacing:
You just proved WHY you keep old manuals:
To CROSS REFERNCE.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by MHC_TX:

quote:

Originally posted by ShopCartRacing:
You just proved WHY you keep old manuals:
To CROSS REFERNCE.

+1

+2 keep them all

quote:

Originally posted by hivelosity:
in my real old manuels there is load data for rare and forgetten cartrages

No to mention non-current powders - Hi Vel #2 ring a bell?

quote:

I see no reason to add more confusion by throwing data from ancient manual into the mix. What say you?

I say it depends. I mean, I don't accept any book data as gospel for MY guns anyway. They developed the data in THEIR guns, not mine, so I expect to have to do AS THEY SAY, start low and move up ONLY IF no high pressure signs apper. If they do, I stop, even if it's below the book's listed max.

So, I ain't confused by the various books, just informed.

quote:

Originally posted by MuskegMan:

quote:

Originally posted by hivelosity:
in my real old manuels there is load data for rare and forgetten cartrages

No to mention non-current powders - Hi Vel #2 ring a bell?

Or for that, one of the most useful smokeless powders of all for small-medium sized cartridges, Hi-Vel #3.

Can a person have to much information on cartridge reloading ?.

I think not , keep the manuals . I'm using manuals older than those . I also use Newer

manuals as some powders have changed just as testing methods have been refined .

So some loads are now reduced as opposed to what used to be listed .

Has anyone ever noticed no two manuals of different publications list exactly

the same Min. or Max. charges for given calibers of equal weight projectiles .

Funny how that works isn't it !.

Some of the older manuals' loads are considered overly hot by today's standards for some cartridges....

but I like to use that as a point of reference in working up a load...as potentially its upper limits...

I have never had a problem using older data manuals info, yet I have had a few problems with more modern ones...

the max load listed with Benchmark and the 95 grain V Max in a 260 for example...every 260 I have that load blows primers...

I like the older manuals data, made before the legal profession had better things to do that trying to sue the shooting world over anything and everything...

SAMMI has changed their max pressure on some cartridges. ie: 357 mag was 45k cup now 35k cup. with all the ridiculous light guns something had to change. K frame S&Ws were too light for a steady diet of the old rds. Supervel was reported as having some 46k loads.see the 1970 lyman manual for hot loads in 357, 11.6 of herco as compared to 10.0 ken waters. herco was the fastest load in the lyman manual. if you have powder that is no longer made it will not be listed in a new manual. herco, wsl, etc.

"Speer 3" 1959 44 mag 240 gr. JSP..........23.0 gr. 2400 1564 fps
"Speer 6" 1964 44 mag 240 gr. JSP..........23.0 gr. 2400 1564 fps
"Speer 7" 1966 44 mag 240 gr. JSP..........23.0 gr. 2400 1564 fps
"Speer 8" 1970 44 mag 240 gr. JSP..........23.0 gr. 2400 1521 fps
"Speer 9" 1974 44 mag 240 gr. JSP..........19.5 gr. 2400 1344 fps
"Speer 10" 1979 44 mag 240 gr. JSP&MSP 22.2 gr. 2400 1392 fps.
"Speer 11" 1987 44 mag 240 gr. JSP&MSP 22.2 gr. 2400 1452 fps
"Speer 12" 1994 44 mag 240 gr. JSP&MSP 17.7 gr. 2400 1271 fps
"Speer 13" 1998 44 mag 240 gr. JSP&MSP 21.0 gr. 2400 1434 fps
"Speer 14" 2007 44 mag 240 gr. JSP&MSP 21.0 gr. 2400 ???? fps

"How to write a mediocre load book" second revision


What does it all mean?
If the writers of load books were called before the grand jury, they would do hard time. They have failed to keep their lies consistent.

Most people who contribute to handloading forums have single digit IQs and practice load book fundamentalism. This allows us some Dilbertesque humor with Seafire's wit, but is this how we want to spend our lives?.....I feel some stupidity coming over me...


harry carey,
There is an alternative explanation from 1993, from my co-conspirator in exposing the CZ52 strength error in the load books, John Bercovitz.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.guns/browse_frm/thre...7aa/f002ce69fa01e631

quote:

... The model 27 has thick
chamber walls and the model 19 has thin chamber walls. Cartridge cases
which contained full-pressure loads are easily extracted from a model 27
but they have to be pounded out of a model 19. So manufacturers don't
manufacture full-pressure loads for the 357 magnums anymore. 8-(

the spec is now 35k. the SAMMI spec was 45k in the old days scandium-titanium, 11 ounce guns are awful with the old loads. having seen two S&W barrels fall off guns with overloads that were no hotter than the old ones (rental guns) S&W changed again the way they put barrels on and then dropped the K frame. both of these were stainless guns with remanufactured ammo with the wrong powder in them. seems like a 65 and a 686 which S&W replaced free of charge even though it was overloads.

I have a stack of manuals from here to breakfast and love them all. I also have old powders from here to breakfast. Am always looking for loadbooks I dont have, like right now I have a request for any book loads for 30-06 and 338 mag to use a can of Norma 205 I scored. Can never have to much info!!

NORMA 205 3006 180G-- 60.2 2756 FPS 44690 PSI FROM NORMA #65 1957 338 win 200g 80.0 n205 250 g 76.0 MAX LOADS 52-53K PSI.