Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters "Lawyer" load data

All of us have been hearing about "lawyer-lowered" handloading data for years, meaning so much load data is lower than it used to be in older manuals because the legal departments of various companies told them to cool things down.

A couple of years ago I started asking the guys in the various ballistic labs I've visited if they've ever been told to lower the maximums by higher-ups in the companies they work for. The universal answer was no, and often not just no, but hell no. (Have also asked a couple of the attorneys retained by some companies, and they've said no, most their advice has always been about less hands-on stuff, like the details of contracts with suppliers and employees.)

Instead, they guys in the ballistic labs said the major reason for lower charges is more accurate methods of pressure measurement, especially piezo-electronic testing. A few decades ago it was common for bullet and powder companies to work up loads like many handloaders do, by adding more powder until the case or rifle showed signs of distress, then reducing the charge a little. Often the "test vehicle" was a factory rifle that may or may not have had an extra-large chamber or bore, and had been shot for thousands or rounds, resulting in a long, eroded throat.

Now, if anybody prefers conspiracy theories about "lawyered" loading data, why they're free to go ahead and work up loads the same way many bullet companies did in the good old days. But I haven't been able to find any evidence for lawyered-down load data.

I also heard powder is 10% 'powerful' than it used to be, so they backed off top end loads��following their lawyers advice�..

I agree completely, the pressure is measured much more accurately today.

Am I correct in noting the "new" R17 has accounted for 100-150 fps gains in some short-fats and that since piezo-electronic pressure testing preceded R17, these R17 loads are presumably at safe pressures...

Or, are these gains only at the hand loaders bench going "over the top" with the unique properties of R17 not showing the shiny ejector marks, and flattened primers that used to be the canary in the mine?

If anything, I always found the Nosler data to be a little 'hot' or optimistic.

I wonder if the availability of inexpensive and fairly reliable chrony�s have anything to do with this perception too.

"Lawyer" load data




Here.

Only thing that I have noticed is the number or disclaimers have gone up.

Elmer would have shot Lawyers!


The "closed bomb" testing has improved over the years also.

I compared a bunch of modern loads to a very old Speer manual. Some were higher and some were lower. There was not a real trend of loads being lower today.

I have load manuals galore.

When I am working up a load on a caliber that I have never loaded before, I always compare the old with the new. I have reached the same conclusion.

The new manuals do not list loads using Cordite though. Damn't!

Yeah--and not much data for Hi-Vel #2 either!

One of the powders some people complain about is H4831. But there have actually been three different H4831's since Hodgdon first started selling surplus cannon powder after WWII: The original, the replacement made in Scotland, and today's Australian-made version.

About the only way H4831SC resembles the original stuff is being slightly faster in burn-rate. The granule size and temperature sensitivity are both very different, yet some handloaders think they should be able to use 50-year-old-data with the new powder.

MD, here's a question for you. Since barrels/chambers are all at least slightly different in their ability to generate pressure using the same load, is there some safety margin that's applied to account for the variations?

The SC version has different load density of course. I like the SC, but like you said, you better go back to square one when switching to it. At least a 5% for starters.

Yeah, the maximum SAAMI limit of 65,000 psi, which is at least 5000-10,000 psi below where any trouble might start.

Also, SAAMI test chambers and barrels are on the minimum side of the specs (though they will vary slightly) while most factory sporters are somewhat larger. Custom rifles, on the other hand, tend to have tighter chambers and bores, even if they're within SAAMI specs.

Another factor is SAAMI "reference ammo," which has been fired in the SAAMI headquarters test barrel and found to produce XYZ pressure. When a SAAMI member uses their own barrel, they fire reference ammo to see how their barrel compares.

There are all sorts of ways SAAMI members make sure they're comparing apples to apples when testing ammo, including both the temperature and humidity of the indoor test range, over a professional chronograph with its own consistent light system. Which is just one of many reasons why our rifles don't get exactly the same results when we take them to and fire them over a Shooting Chrony at 43 or 87 degrees, using powder that's been drying out in our garage each time we open the container. Or with a completely different 150-grain bullet, or case and primer.

All the various test results show is what happened under very controlled conditions with a certain lot of powder, bullets, primers and cases. Yet handloaders constantly argue about load data, some even saying they don't "agree" with it--which is like saying the thermometer screwed outside their kitchen window provides better data than the National Weather Service station out at the local airport.

I am in my 60's. Been reloading since I was 14. Learned from a very knowledgeable man. If anything, I have gained more respect through the years for load data. Sure, I have had my moments when I was younger, but I am over all that. When you wear out an old model Blackhawk using original Keith loads, you start questioning yourself. Leaving a round in a hot chamber while your talking to a friend for a few minutes will open your eyes up too.

You turning in yer tinfoil hat there John?

The next thing we know you'll be saying the 270 is good for something bigger than a coyote.

Oh... Wait...

MD, thanks for the responses. Good info.

In addition to that, I read somewhere that some powder/cartridge combinations produce greater shot to shot variability. The max load for these is lower to account for the variability. One possible reason why you may see a published max load pressure well below the SAAMI limit for that cartridge.

Actually, SAAMI takes that into account--and they also consider more than just average maximum pressure.

The two cartridges I know where this is a factor are the .243 Winchester and 7mm Remington Magnum. Their pressures tend to vary more from average in both directions, both low and high, though the high is what makes a real difference, obviously. No doubt it's more of s problem with some powders than others, and many powders these days are more consistent than some older ones.

I had a couple of very interesting talks with a couple of long-time pressure techs at major labs, when I asked if they'd ever seen any extra velocity possible with sharper-shouldered rounds, particularly Ackley Improveds. The answer from both was a definite no, but one guy said he'd seen the most consistent pressures in rifle cartridges with about 30-degree shoulders. By that he meant pressures rose most consistently with the amount of powder added, instead of leveling off and then jumping more than expected.

Then old Roy showed up with his double radius design. It did have it's merits, but not a big deal for some.

I still know where there is a 50lb metal container of Hodgdon's surplus cannon powder, he was using it to reload 30.06 m2ball, and 7.62x51. Surprising how much of that old powder is still around.