Reloading using old manuals.

[ShadeTree]

Who does it? I've never 100% figured it out. Those old bullet manufacturer's and reload manual writers were no dummy's. They taught the modern generation the ABC's of reloading. They understood pressure and the signs of it better than most. Yet they are routinely 1-1.5 and sometimes over 2 grains hotter than modern max loads in your standard calibers.

You could say that modern reloading manuals keep the max pressures down for liability reasons. Yet on the Hodgdon site for example it shows the cup pressures for the starting and max loads. Some max loads listed online are all the way to the maximum of the SAAMI pressure for that caliber, and the older manuals can at times go well past that in charge weights for that powder and bullet, even though they state that none of the loads listed exceed the industry standard for maximum pressure.

 

[DrMike]

I do consult old manuals on occasion. I do so, knowing that the burn rates were not always as accurate as today, knowing that the firms were working with different lots of powder than what is available today, knowing that pressure measurements were often not nearly as accurate as what is available today. I do so accepting that I am responsible for determining what is safe in my own firing system, and knowing that I must be aware when I am "tickling the dragon's tail." Bear in mind that bearing surfaces are sometimes changed without reference to older standards, which can make for some interesting experiences. (Don't ask how I know.)

 

[5shot]

My guess has always been that the technology of the time wasn't as accurate as we have today. Some powder formulations have changed slightly as well.

 

[Guy Miner]

Better methods of measuring pressure today.
Different powders (even with the same old name/number)

Frankly some of the handloads I see listed online, even here, seem mighty warm... I've seen stuff here that is several grains over max in any book I can find.

Some factory ammo I've used, in .40 S&W and .308 Win, has been HOT.

It's worth being a bit cautious.

Guy

 

[ShadeTree]

My guess would have to be a difference in powder. Pressure signs are pressure signs and those old guys wrote the book on what approaching dangerous pressures look like. Literally.

I also have an old book from Jack O'Connor and some of his pet loads for the 06 are well beyond modern book loads for that bullet weight and powder.

 

[MZ5]

Actual pressure test equipment, in pressure barrels, were less common in the 'old days.' Many, many manuals used so-called pressure signs to determine what was maximum. Unfortunately, so-called pressure signs are incredibly unreliable, and even more inconsistent. Even today, some published loading manuals derive their charges from computer software, test firing apparently only to verify that the test gun doesn't explode or something (I'm not sure what they're doing).

There's no grand conspiracy, it's just a matter of better tools that are less expensive being in broader use now.

Be careful, though: None of the powders that were available in the 1960s, for example, are made any more. All the formulae have changed, in many cases the entire manufacturing lines or methods are gone, and while quickness and other characteristics may be pretty close, the notion that they're _the same_ in all respects is dubious.

 

[ShadeTree]

Far as I know unless that practice has changed, every gun manufactured as long as it has a proof mark on it, was tested with a proof load. Those proof loads are never published because they don't want renegades out there thinking they can turn an 06 into a 300 mag.

 

[Dwh7271]

I refer to them. I enjoy them and collect all I can find.
If I do try something from them I chrono it. Speed pretty much tells me if I'm pushing things too much. I also start low.

 

[MZ5]

SAAMI proof pressures are listed in a table in the SAAMI standards, freely download-able by anyone on the planet who has an internet connection. They also explain the calculations by which proof pressures (there are minimum and maximum parameters for the proof pressures) are determined.
Today's current version of the ANSI Z299 centerfire rifle standard is here:
http://www.saami.org/specifications_and ... MI_CFR.pdf

The standard also specifies the bullet weight to be used in the proof cartridges, and that the weight must be the heaviest bullet weight available at the time of cartridge introduction.

As an example, the 30-06 Springfield piezo transducer MAP is 60kpsi, and the proof pressure limits are 80kpsi - 86kpsi (min & max average, respectively) with a 220-grain bullet. Proof pressures are not secret in any way, though actual proof ammunition is not supposed to be available to 'regular folks.'

 

[Alaska]

Speer manual that dates back to mid 60's.
Very useful for real data using H4831 and IMR 4350 in 300 Win and WBY.
My current load for many years in my 300 Win with 180gr from this manual with IMR 4350.

 

[billkieger]

Speer manual that dates back to mid 60's.
Very useful for real data using H4831 and IMR 4350 in 300 Win and WBY.
My current load for many years in my 300 Win with 180gr from this manual with IMR 4350.

Just out of curiosity, how do the minimum and maximum loads for these powders vary between your older manual and the manuals of today?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[TackDriver284]

I mostly use the Sierra, Hornady, and Nosler manuals plus online manuals to compare to choose a starting point to start load developments. Bullets have different bearing surfaces and pressures can be different from bullet to bullet. I never rely on just one manual.

 

[Alaska]

They were only Speer manuals back in the 60's. Nosler No.1 came out in early 70's after the libilibilty downturn in the manuals to lower pressure loads same as with Sierra. I never messed much with Lyman manuals. Their is a 5 grain difference between old and new with 300 Win Mag using IMR 4350 and 180gr at 70.0 to 75.0.
Even more with H4831 with 200gr at 76.0.

WW Brass
Flat Based Bullets
WLRM primer

I have never got the vel in current manuals using current data. I use the 75.0 grain load with 180 Part. for years which duplicates the early 60's load when the 300 Win was introduced by Win. With IMR 4350 and the 76.0 of H4831 with 200gr Nosler Part.

Note: in the older Mid 60's Speer manuals 4831 is used which is H4831.
IMR 4831 was not introduced until later 1973.

 

[ShadeTree]

They were only Speer manuals back in the 60's. Nosler No.1 came out in early 70's after the libilibilty downturn in the manuals to lower pressure loads same as with Sierra. I never messed much with Lyman manuals. Their is a 3 grain difference between old and new with 300 Win Mag using IMR 4350 and 180gr at 72.0 to 75.0.
Even more with H4831 with 200gr at 76.0.

I have never got the vel in current manuals using current data. I use the 75.0 grain load with 180 Part. for years which duplicates the early 60's load when the 300 Win was introduced by Win. With IMR 4350 and the 76.0 of H4831 with 200gr Nosler Part.

Note: in the older Mid 60's Speer manuals 4831 is used which is H4831.
IMR 4831 was not introduced until later 1973.

The Hodgdon online reloading data center shows a max load of 71 grains for IMR 4350 and 180 gr. So even less than your latest book. The current Nosler online load data site shows a max of only 70 grains IMR 4350 and 180 gr bullet. That's amazing. If you're 5 grains hotter with no pressure, you are certainly getting more out of that load than most using current data.

 

[Alaska]

Most of my newer manuals list 70.0 of IMR 4350......I stand corrected.

Suggest reading the history of the 300 Win Mag .......one of my favorite rifle for Alaska hunting along with my 338 Win Mag of course !

With the old manual using 200gr Flat based bullet with H4831 in the 300 Win Mag it list 79.0.
I use 76.0 with the 200 gr Part. For 3000 FPS.

My 180gr load which is my favorite with 180 Nosler Part and old Norma SP is 3100 with the IMR 4350 @ 75.0.

The 300 Win Mag when loaded properly comes on the hills of the 300 WBY ...........the reason Win introduced the cart.

Thanks,

 

[Nimrod84]

In short the powder has changed and the methodology of testing has changed.

Language in a lot of reloading manuals is to use manuals of about the same age as your powder. Hodgdon has switched manufacturing factories several times over the years and kept the same product name between factories. For example the original H4831 was surplus powder from WWII and I believe it was made in the USA, it has since been produced in Scotland and Australia. Current H4831 has been given "special additives" and is a part of the Extreme line of powders and its burn rate in non-20mm shells is very different to the original government specifications of WWII. So the reduced charges and velocity of many current loads, is attributed to the addition of stabilizers and other additives which have manipulated the burn rate.

As MZ5 stated there is also a difference in protocol, SAAMI moved from CUP to PSI measurements using different equipment and even where the measurements are made (typically a big change for pistol cartridges). Old reloading manuals typically state PSI when they are using the CUP methodology...

 

[Alaska]

So true H4831 was a surplus powder.
That is why I stopped at 76.0 of H4831. I had a older man stop by the house several years ago and had several pounds of the old H4831.
It was wrapped in paper.......cool.
I did not buy it I use current H4831 and just reduce the powder charge from the old data, but still above current manuals. What a great powder. I have used a lot it in 270 Win and 300 Win mag over the years.

If I had 2 powders to take to heaven it would be IMR 4350 and H4831
I think I will just tell my wife to add a few pounds into the casket.

I also believe about that time in history gun manufactures we're introducing semi auto like the Browning BAR so these loads were for bolt actions......and too hot for semi auto.

 

[MZ5]

I also believe about that time in history gun manufactures we're introducing semi auto like the Browning BAR so these loads were for bolt actions......and too hot for semi auto.

The BAR will hold any SAAMI spec. Old guns may work better or worse with different quickness powders, but that's nothing to do with max chamber pressure. Newer BARs have adjustable gas ports.

 

[Nimrod84]

I also believe about that time in history gun manufactures we're introducing semi auto like the Browning BAR so these loads were for bolt actions......and too hot for semi auto.

MZ5 I am not disagreeing with you or Alaska. Just thought I would point out that there is so much scuttlebutt about semi-auto rifles being pressure or burn rate sensitive that I can't separate fact from fiction. I do know that the M1 Garand needs a different gas cylinder plug to use slower powders or you can get bent op-rods. It is a burn rate issue, but historically and today you normally keep the pressure fairly low given the age of the rifles and lack of armory inspections. Federal and Hornady make and specifically market M1 Garand safe ammo.

A specific sporting world example that I think might be more fiction than fact is: the 280 Rem was kept at a lower pressure for Remington semi and pump rifles (models 760 and 740). Yet those guns were chambered for and worked with the 270 Winchester at a higher pressure. Wear and tear on certain actions can also be accelerated in semi-auto's when port pressure is high or general wear and tear allows the bolt to open earlier than designed. So while the Rem 760 worked with the 270 Win, the story goes that Remington designed the 280 Rem at a lower pressure to duplicated 270 Win ballistics and thus have a "proprietary" round that required less rifle maintenance.

To put out a couple other possible connections to reduced loadings that I have heard.
There were also a lot of WWII bring-backs that were re-barreled or re-chambered by smiths with varying degrees of resources and skill.

You also have a lot of older guns in circulation, for example there are a good number of 1903's in 30-06 / Mausers / British Enfields that are now reaching or over 100 years old. 40 years ago, those rifles were over 50 years old. So metal fatigue along with various degrees of care (and use with corrosive ammo) might indicate the need for anemic loadings.

Each load book may have had a different reason behind their change. New testing standards or personal or equipment, old rifles, push from rifle manufacturer's to be easier on the rifles, change from corrosive to non-corrosive primers...

 

[Darkhorse]

I have old manuals from Sierra, Speer, Hornady and Nosler but I don't use them anymore except for reference. A few years ago I loaded some .44 magnum's for my Ruger Carbine using data for 2400 from a Hornady manual. In my notes the max. load with 240 grain bullets was 23. grains of 2400, this was born out by that Hornady manual so I loaded 20 in virgin WW brass. Before I shot any I noticed the newer manuals had the max. at 21. grains. I decided to go with the new data.
I had a older Hornady manual (loaned out never returned) that had some hot loads for the 7mm Mag. with 154 SP's and IMR 4350. I must say those were some very accurate loads and I hunted with them for several years until I noticed newer data was much reduced. A Speer manual addressed this issue with the 7 mag. Years ago much testing was done with rifles with eroded throats resulting in higher charge weights.
I think a lot of the reason's for modern reduced loads is due to modern, accurate methods of measuring pressure.
New manuals aren't that expensive and I'd rather use them. I save the older ones for reading material of an age gone by.