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.

Isn't part of the issue now, that average brass is a little thicker now than it was 40-50 years ago, reducing case capacity?

Dad had a .22 Varminter (a .22-250 with slightly different shoulder angle) built in the early 60's, when it was still a wildcat. He mostly used PO Ackley's data, which was from the 1950's, and used necked down .250 Savage brass.

About the time I started handloading, my brother & I stumbled across the data (maybe even some of his old cases) compared it to new data at that time, and convinced Dad if he kept using 3031, he really, really needed to drop the charges at least 10%

+1.

Very helpful knowing all that goes into this stuff, and having one less thing to dislike lawyers for leaves no shortage .

Thanks John!

John is now part of the conspiracy


Seriously this is interesting, thanks for posting it.

I have one of those metal 50 lb containers although the powder was used up years ago. When that was used up,I started buying the H4831 in 8lb jugs and have never noticed any difference in it vs the old stuff. Of course you can vary 4831 with several grains in weight and not see any significant difference in 30-06 class cases.

I have been reloading since about 1965, that is just shy of 50 years. I found out early that the most accurate loads were usually a few grains under maximum book loads, with the exception of two 7 mags that worked best with max loads. That was with an old Lyman manual 1964 era. To date, I still have all my fingers, eyes and other extremities.

Over the years I have acquired more than a few manuals and I check them all to see what is going on with any new chambering I acquire. However, that has been few and far between the last 15 years or so and I don't use a lot of different powders in my rifles, H4831, H4350, H4895, 4064, and 3031.I haven't even tried any of the new powders on the market as the ones I use work.

If there are any lawyering down loads, it never affected me. It's those guys who have to push their loads to get the last 50FPS that are the ones that get in trouble anyway.

MD, I appreciate this thread and respect your thoughts on the matter but I would like to ask you opinion on how this could pertain to old cartridges? Namely the 6.5x55 and 7x57, which I think all of us can agree, are loaded to rather anemic levels buy US manufactures as well as available handloader data which is also a little lackluster.

I understand the older military rifles that were chambered for these rounds have shown that max power loads are potentially dangerous... Could this be proof of the lawyering in effect?

If not, why are they loaded to such low levels? Why is the max load data easily and safely surpassed in modern rifles?

Does anyone know of any real-life lawsuits against publishers of load data?

I'm not sure that merely reducing suggested 'maximum' loads to lower pressures to some arbitrary lower level would, by itself, have much effect in reducing tort liability, all else remaining the same.

If for example, a publisher was developing load data in an allegedly "negligent" manner, reducing the max suggested loads to some lower pressure level, by itself, probably wouldn't shield the publisher from any possible liability if the data were still being developed in a "negligent" manner, even though at a lower pressure level. Things can still go wrong, even at reduced pressure levels.

What we're considering here is the intersection of intellectual property law, tort law, consumer product safety law. I'm not a litigator, but my gut instinct tells me that a 'tort shark' representing a plaintiff who had some claim related to a handloading accident would probably sue the manufacturer(s) of the gun, the components, or the reloading tools, maybe all three, rather than the load data publisher. Of course, a pLaintiff may include the publisher just to be safe, even though he had no real case against him.
Suing the publisher of the load data would necessarily raise questions about how the Plaintiff had used the load data in question, and a good defense lawyer would be asking hard questions of the Plaintiff handloader about his handloading practies and technique, particularly in states that follow the rule of Contributory negligence.

But I'm just speculating as I'm not familiar with any actual cases in which publishers of load data have been sued for accidents consequent to the use of their data.

Yup. It was filed by a good friend of my plumber's brother-in-law's next door neighbor's doctor. At least I think that's what he said. My wife was laughing so hard at his plumber's crack that I couldn't hear very well.

But I'm 90% sure of it.

Even a good lawyer driven conspiracy theory ain't sacred no more.

Next thing you know you will be telling us that Santa Claus doesn't really have flying reindeer and Bigfoot is just Ingwe running around outside before he shaves.

Any chance that improved measurements - as compared to CUP - have caught more high pressure spikes? CUP measurements maybe being closer to an average pressure measurement for each shot measured.

The published data using CUP would then be for an average measurement under the SAAMI ceiling. There would be little or no allowance for spikes that were never measured?.

Today's published data seems to be based on statistical process control limits. That is the process controlled data assumes - with no particular justification I've ever seen published - a standardized Gaussian distribution for pressures. So more recent data keeps not just the average but most predicted pressure spikes (using the statistical process control Gaussian assumptions for better or worse? Or using measurements?) under the SAAMI limits? As they should given the propensity of firearms that have been fired too many times with over pressure loads to eventually be dangerous with purely SAAMI loads.

haverluk,

American data for the 6.5x55 and 7x57 is all over the place, and has been for a long time, because throat length and action strength are all over the place. That was true in the 1960's when I started handloading and still true today. In fact some of today's data is right up there at 60,000+ psi ("for use in modern rifles only") and some way down there for older rifles.

Clark,

There are three SAAMI pressure "limits" for rifle cartridges: maximum average pressure (which all that's listed in most public loading info, and not on all), maximum probable lot mean, and maximum probable sample mean. There's a minimum number of shots required with any load, and all sorts of other protocols for the actual testing.

But you also have to understand that while SAAMI is a quasi-governmental organization, membership is also voluntary. It's designed to produce ammo that will function safely in every firearm produced by members--and firearms that will work with ammo from all members. When standards are set they do consider older firearms that may have been fired a LOT, with variable ammo--and they have since the organization was formed (in 1928, as I recall).

My brother's a lawyer and he don't know schitt about reloading.

I have to do it all for him.


Just saying.

It is not just the reloading companies that vary, I have chronograhed a lot of loads I have seen on here (after working up) and I can never get those either.

I seem to have a knack for buying rifles with over sized chambers as many recommended loads I see are indoor mouse loads in my rifles with 200fps less more common than not.

In the end, I believe nothing and work up my own. As long as I am staying true to the established velocity ranges per bullet and cartridge and there is absolutely no "excess" pressure signs, that's all anyone can do as a handloader.

Accuracy is more important than velocity which is rarely not enough for the job.

I ran into this recently while looking for loads for my 35 Whelen with 275gr bullets.

I looked in my Nosler #7 manual - no data for 275s, but listed 53.0 of RL-15 with a 250 gr Partition

For comparison, I looked at the 9.3x62 with 286gr Partition - 58.5 of RL-15.

So here's the question - is the 35 Whelen data "slow" (lower pressure) or is the 9.3 data "fast" (higher pressure)? Granted, these are 2 different cartridges, but they are very similar in case capacity. I usually see lower powder charges with heavier bullets, but this one puzzled me.

The two cartridges are similar but they're not the same, because of the smaller .35 bore. In fact, .35 Whelen data is higher pressure than 9.3x62 data, because the CIP ("European SAAMI") pressure for the 9.3x62 is lower.

Just looked at the SAAMI site, and the Whelen's pressure limit is 62K. No data for the 9.3, guess I'll need to look at the CIP specs....

Wish Nosler printed their pressure measurements....

MD - as a general rule, with case capacity being almost the same, will the bigger bore show less pressure with the same powder charge? I know there are lots a variables, just looking for some guidence.

Exactly. Plus the 9.3x62 also has a few grains more powder room than the .35 Whelen.

Another example would be the .280 Remington and .30-06. Case capacity is almost exactly the same, as is SAAMI maximum average pressure at 60,000 psi. But with IMR4350, Nosler lists the maximum charge with 150-gain bullets in the .280 as 51.5 grains, while in the .30-06 with IMR4350 and 150's it's 59.0 grains.

I've seen references to these two cartridges regarding pressure spikes, or whatever verbage one would like to use, many times over the years. So what is it about those two cases that make them prone to such swings in pressure?

Interesting thread, BTW.

Some of my older manuals mention using CHE to determine pressure levels. WAFJ. Now primer pocket expansion is another story.

Lay out the Lyman, Speer, Sierra, Nosler, and Hornady loading manuals, look at the minimum and max charge for any cartridge with the same weight bullet in each...madness.

Also, when temps drop at or below -25*F, pressures can spike...not what you would think.

I am Clark E Magnuson, not Clark E Meyers, just want to make that clear.
I have bought a lot of guns just to overload them.
I have overloaded a lot of guns just to see what happens.
I have bought 60 load books, just to make fun of them.

The first common error in load book load recipes is how much less than optimum is the SAAMI registration of max average pressure for a cartridge.

The second common error in load book recipes is how much less than SAAMI pressure the recipes are.

The first common error in talking about handload recipes is concern about pressure. Pressure is not a problem. The effects of pressure can become a problem. This means that, to a handloader, the absolute value or pressure does not matter. If the primer falls out of soft Norma brass handloads, it does not matter at what pressure this occurred. What matters is to find a recipe that is a safety margin less than the threshold of creating loose primer pockets.

The second common error in talking about handload recipes is thinking that the absolute [not relative] pressure can be measured and known with useful accuracy. There are too many out of control variables and measurements that cannot be traced to NIST with a method that can be verified and validated.

The third common error in talking about handload recipes is to react to someone else's recipe with, "You are crazy and dangerous. You should be banned, arrested, convicted, sentenced and censored. You have ruined everything for the entire shooting community!!" It is better to own your own emotions and state facts, "I would not do that. That scares me."

The fourth error in talking about handload recipes is that powder is getting faster. If I measure the speed of powder, I always get less than 3% variation within a canister name over many decades. In bulk powder I have measured up to 9%.

The fifth error in talking about handload recipes is to blame attorneys for newer load books sometimes being lower than older load book recipes. We do not know. The changes are small compared to the variation in chocolate chip cookie recipes. Were attorneys involved with cookie recipes? We don't know.

The 6th error is to believe anything written in a hunting ,shooting forum!!!

And that's why my thermometer on my porch is better then the NWS thermometer. One tells me about MY conditions. The other is 25 miles away reporting conditions for someone else.