Older Hornady book ?

[35 Whelen]

Was just reading a fellas post on loading 25/06 from few years back, he was shooting 59grs of 4831 SC under a 117gr bullet. He comment his manual listed 60grs as max load then, but says his new book listed 54gr, and Hodgdon says 52 gr is max??? Are we going conservative crazy? No one wants over pressure loading but 7 grs less......... :shock: :shock:

 

[DrMike]

1. Better equipment (piezo electric vs copper crusher/lead crusher) available today to give more accurate pressures.
2. Different lots of powder when tested.
3. Minor changes in bearing surfaces and/or metallurgic composition of bullets between tests.
4. Lack of standardization (different conditions) between the various tests (different case volumes, different primers, different firing system (rifle contra pressure tube)).

This generally indicates that newer is more accurate. I read the older manuals and sometimes use the data. I do so knowing that I am ultimately responsible for drawing my own conclusions.

People can push pressures as high as they want and run bullets at velocities as high as they want. However, they must accept responsibility for their actions. The supposed benefits are a few score higher velocities, which won't kill animals any quicker and under 450-500 yards won't alter the trajectory. The deficits are decreased brass life and risk of catastrophic failure of firing system after cumulative stress. I rather like conservative.

 

[truck driver]

I have a bunch of old reloading books from the old spiral ring Lyman manuals to the paper backs. When I first started I would pick up the powder manufactures free reloading guides that they printed and was given away at my LGS where I bought powder and would compare these to the bullet manufactures manuals. What worried me most was the powder manufactures manuals except Winchester and DuPont would list loads for all the different brand bullets with the same powder weights whether they were round nose or spitzer or boat tail. As I got more involved I started using just the bullet manufactures manuals and saw were Lyman would list the brand of bullet, case and primer they used for load development. That's also when I started watching my loads more carefully. I try not to chase the dragons tail but must admit that I have on occasions but backed them off to find the most accurate.

 

[PJGunner]

I kind of collect loading manuals and have all the Noshers except the #8. I have all the Hornady's and all the Speers except numbers 1 and three I think. I'd have to check. Have a few Lyman's that were paperback before they went to ring style and numbers 48 and 49. Gave #47 to a friend who is looking into hand loading. I think I have all the Sierras other than what might be updates for newer cartridges that I don't shoot anyway.
Load data has definitely changed over the years, Whether it's because better testing methods now or lawyer mandated or maybe even a combination of both is something I don't know. All I can say is we handloaders have got is good these days, unlike when I started in 1954. 8)
Paul B.

 

[Darkhorse]

The older Hornady manuals once listed some loadings that were much hotter than anybody else. Since they said it then it must be true (so we thought) so those hot loads were what we used. I personally have loaded 7 mag loads that were way over those listed today, with no problems I must add.
Hornady now seems to be super conservative compared to Nosler, for example.
But I do think today's pressure checks are more accurate than back in the day so I load a little more conservative myself these days.

 

[Anonymous]

I had a Nosler #1 manual for some time and the loads were surprisingly stout. Just reading any of O'Connor's work and you'll find some loads that are substantially over what is listed as max.

We have much more precise equipment these days but I also believe the powder we use is far different- even among the same type- 4831 especially.

I have to believe Dr. Mike is right... you can run anything a little hotter for more risk, more cost, less brass life, more barrel wear... and still not kill anything any deader or any further.

With a laser range finder and a BDC dial...I can hit a critter with my meager .308WIN much further than makes sense to try.

 

[SJB358]

I love old manuals and have all the Noslers and a bunch of others but they are just guides at this point since I have QL. I do look and see the most accurate powder and what's the quickest in reference to what I have on my shelf.

I would agree, powder has changed a bunch. I truly believe H4831 of old must have been closer to IMR7828 than what it is today since most data seems to mimic each other of old 4831 and new 7828 but that's just a guess looking and shooting a decent bunch of it.

 

[DON]

I agree with Dr Mike and Scotty,

I have always believed the powder of 20 years ago does not compare to the powder of today.
Higher pressures etc come into play.

Don

 

[30-338]

I have few manuals and I've been loading out of Nosler when they first started and some loads changed over the years and test rifles.

I keep Nosler manual #1 handy and some things never change

Nosler # 1 270 Win-130 Partition /Nosler #7 270 Win--5 different 130gr bullets

max 46gr/IMR-4895 @ 2956fps /max 46gr/IMR-4895 @ 2960fps
max 47gr/IMR-4320 @ 2932fps /max 47gr/IMR-4320 @ 29128fps
max 55gr/IMR-4350 @ 3076fps /max 55gr/IMR-4350 @ 3078fps

I'm not saying this because I'm Nosler site but their data been pretty good over the years.

 

[Kodiak]

I refer to Nosler #1 from time to time. Pretty consistent for the ones I load.

 

[PJGunner]

The major difference between H4831 and newly issued IMR 4831 way back when in IIRC, the 1970's was the milsurp H4831 was not only only old but starting to deteriorate badly. Hodgden was searching for someone to make 4831 to the specs that made their 4831 so popular. IMR started making 4831 to the original specs and it was a bit faster burning that Hodgden's. Both powders worked just fine as long as they were used using the proper data. I still have ammo loaded back then using both versions and in the .300 Win. Mag. the IMR version used two full grains less powder for the same point of impact at 100 yards. IIRC there was about a half inch difference at two hundred yards. The load used to old Nosler 200 gr. semi round nose bullet which was good for .375" groups from a Ruger #1B. I tried a couple in a recently acquired #1S and the group was just a bit over half an inch. Bullets were seated way out and the loads are way too long to fit in the magazine of my M70 .300 Mag. Velocity was pushing 2900 FPS.
Paul B.

 

[bobnob]

Sometimes lot to lot to lot inconsistency doesn't help.

I believe that the current version of H4831sc (called Ar2213sc here) is the slowest ever. Loading it in several cartridges incl 25-06, 30-06, 270 Win, 7mm RM and others, book loads are giving 2-300fps less than the book indicates in a number of manuals.

No big deal for the experienced handloader with a chrony, but for the ave Joe who's just loading up his 7mm Mag with a 4831 load halfway between min and max book loads, he's flogging those 150g BTs out there at 2600fps!

 

[BretN]

When I first started reloading in 1993 the Hornady manuals were what I started with. In my brand new Win M70 featherweight those Hornady max loads were way too much. Because I had no reloading mentor, and no internet to consult, I blindly just figured if it was in the book it must be OK. Took me several trips to the range with serious pressure problems before I realized I needed to back those loads way off for my gun. Scary to think about now along with my loading "procedures"...

Probably based on those formative bad experiences with too much pressure, I for one am glad the books are more conservative now (even Hornady's). Nosler books I think always have been more conservative. I now mainly use Nosler and Sierra bullets and feel that both of those manufacturers put out good safe data (at lease in my guns) and I don't go beyond them. To me it's just not worth it to try and eek an extra few fps out of a load.

 

[bobnob]

Quite right. Extra four thousand PSI for 50fps is a dud trade.

 

[1Shot]

I have been loading for the 25-06 for about 20 years and 52 grs H4831 or the SC version has been kind of a standard load with 115-120 gr bullets for accuracy and good velocity. The reason that 52 grs. is great is because if you want to have enough bullet base in the case to hold it there you can't get any more H4831 in the case. :mrgreen:

I have a bunch of manuals also and one is the old Speer #8 and it has a lot of loads listed that you can't get that much powder in a case even with a drop tube.
If you want to really be confused start looking at the different data for the 38 Special. I have manuals that list STARTING LOADS higher than some manuals MAX loads with powders like Bullseye and Unique. Then to add to the confusion they stop making Bullseye and come out with a powder named BE-86 that is supposed to replace Bullseye but it has totally different load data. I will have to do a work up with the BE-86 because I just used up all my stash of Bullseye yesterday finishing up 1200 round of 38 Special. Got my wife a new S&W 38 and she can shoot up ammo faster than I can load it.

 

[PJGunner]

May be a dumb question but when did Alliant drop Bullseye? I still use a lot of it in .45 ACP, duplicating the original 1911 load.
Tell you what, go with W231 for your .38 Spl. Use 3.1 gr. with a 148 gr. wadcutter and you should get good results for a target load. I'll have to add if you can find any. Seems like Winchester powders have been conspicuous by their absence for quite a while now. I've been looking for a couple of 8 pounders of W760 for some time now.
What I originally intended to comment upon is watch out for that Speer #8 manual. From what I understand some of the data which was worked up using the copper crusher system used the wrong tarage table in determining pressures for several cartridges but never let it be known which sets of data was bad. No internet back then. IIRC, the comment was in one of the gun rags back in the day.
Paul B.

 

[1Shot]

I was told at the BIG gun store I get a lot of my loading stuff from that Bullseye has been replaced by BE-86. This place has pretty knowledgeable people that deals with one of the BIG distributors.

H414 is supposed to be the same powder as W760 just like H110 is the same as W296 and HP38 is the same as W231.