after reading a batch of posts about the 7 x 57 loads; I will pass on something I do.

Look for old reload manuals. A lot of gun shops and antique stores have old loading manuals often brought in after someone's grandpa passed away.

Most were published before lawyers got involved screwing up our sport ( they had better things to do). One can find some very good loads for rifles that have loads today akin to a BB gun.

Remember they had common sense in those days.

Yet some loads in those days, would have some arm chair theorists claiming you are going to blow your soul to kingdom come if you use them today.

Another nice thing is, that while new manuals from Hornady etc are going at $50.00 or so, most of these older manuals I pick up for $3.00 to $5.00 at most. quite a bargain for all the info they hold.

I would be more than just a bit hesitant to follow this recommendation. The powders mentioned there were not the same as they are today, even if they might bear the same designation.

Rather, one should use many reloading manuals from many countries. Three of the best (worldwide) are probably the Norvegian Vapenjournalens Ladebok, the German RUAG/RWS/DNAG "Blue Book", and the German DEVA book.

Regards,
Carcano

Herr Carcano:

contrary to your opinion that powders listed in older manuals are different than are available today:

chronographed loads using powders listed in the 1960s that are still available today, bear out velocities listed for the same powders back then.

This board sure attracts a lot of guys who spend more time finding fault with other people's experiences, than offering any type of positive feedback.

If you are such an expert on riflery and firearms, I think you would have a much better name on here than a Carcano. That rifle is about a fine a piece of work as a Daisy BB gun!
of course that reflects much of your prospective!

Guten Tag!

Carcano:

Back to my regularly scheduled program?? I don't watch TV. too little of interest on, and only watch the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, the Wings Channel. educational stuff,
and occasionally the movie channels.

Most of my free time is spent with my son, or reloading, scouting game fields or shooting at the range.

You and I do not agree on this subject at all. However I know you are putting forth your opinion with the best intentions meant.

As fellow gun owners, we should respect the rigths of each other to have different opinions, and not let it get in the way of furthering our passions and sport.

thank you for your prospective and I request your acceptance of my apology for thinking at first your were criticizing, instead of offering
your prospective.

Seafire,
You are on your own on this one. You are going down a very slippery slope. I've tried some loads listed in older manuals. It can be an eye opening experience.
I hope you have good medical coverage.

Rem. 222

Carcano:
You are both right and wrong! Pay attention, now, there may be a test. The powders do vary from lot to lot, sometimes a little and sometimes a great deal. That is the prime reason you should never try and disassemble a round and then match the components. The powders sold to individuals by the powder company's are closely matched to a 'standard' for that powder type and only the powders that do match are released. The others with variances are sold to commercial interests that have the ability to test and adjust the powders and loads used. This info came straight from a technician of the old DuPont company before it was sold and became IMR - I doubt it has changed since.
As an aside, some of the powders we can buy today are actually very old as to powder type. For instance, the powder we know as 3031 was the first propellant type post cordite used for loading the 303 cartridge for the Brits during WW1 and it is still alive and kicking today.
Regards,

While some of todays powders may be different in performance from their old counterparts with the same designation, this is definitely NOT TRUE of all of them! For example, IMR 4350 is the same as it ever was, and so are a lot of the other IMR powders. This DOES NOT mean that H4350 is the same as IMR4350, for example. No-one should start with a maximum load from any manual, be it one published today, or in 1960! If one starts with the lowest recommended load and develops a load from that point, no trouble should be encountered, regardless of the age of the manual. I am not aware of any case in which a starting load from an old manual exceeds the maximum in a new one, but it could happen. One needs to review data in both old and new manuals, as many as one can put their hands on, and also that information contained one's own data records, before loading cartridges with old manual data. Beginners should stick to recently published data before moving on!!

[ 06-22-2003, 03:09: Message edited by: eldeguello ]

seafire wrote to Carcano:
"If you are such an expert on riflery and firearms, I think you would have a much better name on here than a Carcano. That rifle is about a fine a piece of work as a Daisy BB gun!
of course that reflects much of your prospective (sic)!"

seafire-In one of your later posts, you mention that everyone has a right to their opinion. But why, in your first response to Carcano, do you go for the jugular and even question his handle on the forum? He's been here a good while now and has conributed valuable information. Remember, you just jumped on the bandwagon last month...

No one is trying to stop you from trying whatever load you want -- and certainly no one is questioning your enthusiasm. But I'd hope to be far away when you touch off your loads, expecially that "125 grain, 3250 fps" load you are shooting in a 6.5x55..

And by the way, the word you are searching for is "perspective," NOT "prospective."

Bobby T:

thanks. and prospective vs perspective.

Just beating the early alzheimer's rush I guess.

Never would guess from my sudden lack of spelling ability that I have 9 years of post high school education.

Getting stupid in my old age.

Also thanks for pointing out Hitting back at Carcano. It has bothered me of some of the critics on here who criticize something without even testing the same powder, based on what a book might have said. Well any handloader knows that a book that is gospel this year, will always have things contradicting that gospel next addition, and that is powder charges up or down.

My second attempt was an attempt to apologize to Mr. Carcano. I felt my point was right, but my delivery of that point was unexcusable, play pure and simple. A little humility goes a long way some days!

And I appreciate those who have the good graces to point it out to me as we all should.

Thanks for your perspective!

I have both sierra and speer manuals from the 80's and have not had any problems with using new powders with listed loads.

The Speer manuals do list loads for the 7x57 (which I shoot in a Ruger 1A) at 50k psi, 4k over the SAAMI listed max pressure, with the caveat that the minimum loads are max loads for older less strong actions. Those are not '60s vintage manuals, but are a bit older.

I like the Speer manual for my 7x57...they use a Ruger 77 with the same length barrel and rifling twist as the No. 1A, and load up to 50k psi.

I did note a change in the sierra manual for the .375 H&H (I inherited one from my Dad). They have backed off on the to loads by a LOT for some of their bullets (the 300 grain BTSP, if I recall). Maybe they didn't have a pressure barrel when the manual was written.

Ben Reinhardt

Remember they had common sense in those days.

Yet some loads in those days, would have some arm chair theorists claiming you are going to blow your soul to kingdom come if you use them today.
//////////////

I'm pretty new here too, so I'll try to ease in real quietly.


This is a subject I have had a little experiance with.
Old powder, old load data from old books.

I gather old reloading manuels too.

But now just to read through, and use for a starting point, or entertainment .
I don't take thier info nearly so much as gospel, like I used to.

Sure, velocities in the old data may be the same, but the resulting pressures & acceleration curves to get there may be
rather dangerous too. The old techs. had common sense-- but they may not have had the tools
and instruments we do today to fully measure what they were doing, or how they arrived at the conclusions they did.

If they did, the books of their generation may have been written differently, especially
since the metals and tight tollerances of modern production methods were unknown to them.

One day, in the early days of my reloading efforts--

I got ahold of about 20 pounds of 4198 in one pound (yellow)metal cans, with a retail price sticker of $2.00 still on them.

It looked OK, but it didn't 'smell' like fresh powder does that hasn't evaporated out all its acetone & solvents from when it was a 'dough' and extruded out to shape its grain.

These things were old, they still even had the pop out metal seal in the lid instead of the plastic houtus like we have now.

.......

As I was looking for cases to load it in, I ran across a load in a 4th edition of Cart. of the World.
It was re-printed in 1980, but most of the info was gathered and published from even older info in 1965.

I foget exactly what it was, 40 grains I think with a 150 FMJBT GI bullet.
It said it 'duplicated factory load'.......... So, I put together a few hundred of them.

And,,,,,,, since another listing showed 4198 to be used in .223,,, I made a few hundred of them too.

For both cases, the amount of powder for the weight of the 'charge',
overfilled the brass, and had to be compressed.

.........

Shooting them;

In a new Colt AR-15, they were hot.

These things performed MUCH! better than any ammo
the Marine Corps ever gave me to shoot in their rat guns.

In fact, they blew out about half the primers.
The primers that didn't vanish, were pierced and had a noticble balck ring around them.

The load for 7.62 did better.
I'm a old M-14 guy, and these loads did much better than anything I was ever handed on active duty too.

(back then, I didn't realize what I was seeing, so I kept shooting them)

It only cratered the primer in most cases, and pierced a few.

........

After about shot # 100, my almost new Springfield M1A blew up.

The venting gas from the case blowing out tore away the '6 o'clock' area of the bolt face.
That let it down into the magazine well.

THe 1/2 full magazine (20 round) blew open like a flower from the bottom coming up.

As the top of the mag. expanded, it tore out about a 10 inch long strip of the stock next to it on the right side, and stretched out the metal cage around the mag. well.

As the chunk of stock departed the airframe and went into Lunar orbit, it whacked my arm pretty darn hard. (I shoot left handed).

...........

I learned my lesson.

One of them being that since we measure powder by weight, the old stuff may have dried out over time. I figure each speck of it still has the same energy as when it was new, but being dried out--- you measure out more of them for the same 'charge' since your data doesn't compensate for the relative humidity contained in them when they were new or fresh compared to them being old & dried out.

I'd advise starting low and working up very carefully with new components and data,

But be REAL!! slow & easy with the old stuff.

Finally;
------I like to think we have at least as much common sense as the older generations *chuckle*

Everything from generations past wasn't exactly golden ya know.

Remember:
Some of these old geezers are the ones who gave us the Edsel, the Great Depression, Nixon,
several unnessary wars, the Pinto, they tollerated child labor, incredebly dangerous working conditions,
the Vega, and thought up those waxey tasting instant potatos to name a small fraction.

Yeah,
They did a lot of great things too, and we own them a lot.

But don't think that consideration for other's safety was the absolute foremost thing on their minds either.

Not in the products they made and sold---- the way they made them----
------ or the books they printed.

Good luck,

Ed.

[ 06-28-2003, 10:26: Message edited by: Winger Ed ]

Ed: excellent and educational posting. Thanks for sharing your experiment with us. May some be warned.

C.

I wouldn't blame the lawyers so much as the improvement of pressure testing equipment. Even the old "copper crusher" method is not as reliable as modern "piezo" equipment.

The effect goes both ways. One of Ken Waters' .300 Savage articles notes that in his first "Pet Loads" article on the cartridge, he thought one of the widely listed loads was unsafe. When manufacturers retested it, they dropped the maximum charge in the manual.

On the other hand, the Speer #13 manual notes that they improved the performance of their .280 Rem. loads by retesting on the new equipment.

John

I'm shooting powder I bought in 1961 that was surplus from WW-II. In fact the only "new" powder I have is Re7 bought in 1968.

It would HURT my very soul to shoot twenty dollar a pound powder!!!

I have Speer manuals one and three as well as the infamous Number 8. I also have a late 50s Lyman, Hornadys and a couple newer Sierra manuals. I think my newest loading manual is about 1980..... that I bought used.

I DO have quite a bit of reference material. "Propellant Profiles" is a favorite.

I view loading manuals like I do cookbooks....suggestions of starting places and what ingrediants work together, not for a receipe.

I have ~50 load manuals.

Ebay is an expensive place to buy them, but the only fast way for many of them.

I incrementally overload guns to see what happens. I have done it a few thousand times now. One can calculate the risk, and it is different from the percieved risk.

With strong bolt guns, the bolt gets sticky and the primer falls out.

There are no loads in old load books that I have found that make the bolt get sticky and the primer fall out with one shot.

Old load books were made for people with judgement. New load books are made for people who follow proceedures.

There are people who need a load books permision to increase the powder charge. That's a good idea with some guns:
1) Iver Johnson top break revolvers
2) CZ52 pistols

Clark, you have hit the problem right on the head. I have tons of old manuals, but haven't taken a load from one in years. Why? Because over the years I have created my own records of what works in nearly every common cartridge one could mention. Now, if I have occasion to develop a load for a new or exotic round that I haven't loaded for previously, I will probably get a starting load from a new manual, but that's because that cartridge doesn't appear in any of the old ones.