Home Forums Reloading Big Game Rifles Old load data

I'm sitting here this morning thumbing through the Speer #6 Reloading Manual. It's a neat old book from 1964 with pictures of guy's from that era. I don't suppose there is any reason not to use the data in this book. I'm wondering if the powders have changed over the last 47 years. For example is H380 the same today as back then? Probably would be my guess. Ken

I would certainly work up to the top loads, carefully!! Especially when it comes to powders that have changed ownership. Some of the powders that come to mind, are Dupont, IMR, Hercules (now Alliant). There are others, but these stand out in my mind.

Respects,

Richard

Ken, I have, and use, several generations of manuals from most of the major players. I haven't noticed any major changes in any given powders (that I use) beyond what you might expect in lot to lot variation.
Cross checking a variety of reliable sources, experience, and common sense still work pretty well in avoiding trouble.
Some older recipes are classic & always will be. Some of newer data can be a little timid, and provide less that optimal results. Sixty+ grains of H4831 in a 270, under a 130 gr bullet being one example that you don't see in newer guides.
On the other hand, some newer data, and changes, do not build my confidence. An example of this is RL 15 under a 250 gr bullet in the 35 Whelen. Alliant suddenly, and with little explanation dropped their max recommendation by over 10%. That is a significant and spooky change.
I am wondering if we are experiencing some differences in chamber pressures due to the wide variety of new bullet designs & metals.?. Believe this had something to do with the Whelen problem.

Thanks, I think I might just read it for the entertainment value. Ken

Modern pressure testing equipment and methods have demonstrated that a lot of the loads published in earlier times was a bit, ah....optimistic.

Obviously powder even of the same label is not necessarily the same back then as it is today--things change over time.

Of course, anytime I think my loads may be a wee bit warmish, I just break out my old Speer manuals from the 50's and and early 60's, and rationalize everything is just fine.......



Casey

Speaking of Speer manuals...compare 45-70 loadings for the 400gr FP using H322 from a 1970's manual to a current one - my standard loading was 56gr of H322 which was a max load in the old manual. In new manuals the max is 49gr. That's a pretty significant difference - and troubling because the 56gr load is accurate in my Marlin 1895SS - the 56gr load does FEEL like a max load!!!

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the conventional wisdom that the older Speer manuals, which were developed with the "case looks OK to me" method, are to be retired to the bookshelf and used for interesting reading rather than recipes?

When I first started reloading in 1978 for my .270 WIN I was using the then current #9 Speer manual, a 130 grain Speer Hot Cor bullet, CCI 250 primers, and 50.0 grains of H-380 (MAX load in that manual was 52.0 grains). By the time the Speer #11 manual came out they had dropped the max on that same load to 47.0 grains, today H-380 isn't even listed as a recommended powder in the Speer #14 manual. Something changed, could have been the powder or could have been the pressure testing equipment, but I if I was using an old manual I would cross check it against some current data too.

"I'm wondering if the powders have changed over the last 47 years."

Inspite of numerous claims otherwise, NO.

What would be the point of changing a powder? It would open the makers up to costly legal problems for absolutely no good purpose. If/when they want to change or add a new cannister powder to their product line they do it with a new name.

Old books and how they measured pressures makes no difference about how we "work up" towards max, anyone with marginal intelligence will read and follow clearly written book directions to do that anyway.

one of my favorite manuals to refer to is an old Speer Manual, circa 1966.

on some cartridges, I have noted no difference in load data from then to now.

on others I have noted substantial differences using the same powders, but in different cartridges.. eg: 4350 in a 270 then and now.. vs 4350 in a 6.5 x 55, then and now.

I really think the changes are influenced by our sue happy society's mentality nowadays.

another thing I have noted from those periods vs now ( and I think this is also lawyer influenced a lot) is back then, it was acceptable and promoted to use powders that were economically efficient.. something our current society is almost oblivious to..

what I am referring to, is the use of say 3031 in a 270.. by todays standards, folks will claim it is too fast for a 270 case and doesn't 'fill the case' enough to be accurate or safe...
lawyer talk...

at the same time, everyone has to be 'cool' and use the latest greatest in shooting.. slower powder, full to the gills cases, and some spendy trendy new bullet design with either a plastic tip and/or a description of 'premium' along with it.

on the other hand, even tho component prices were pretty cheap and abundant in those days... many people still had what I call the 'depression mentality'... they scrimped and saved, despite having abundance.. and they 'stretched those dollars out' mentality.

my folks are an example.. they are multi millionares, yet at the same time, their favorite stores to shop in are Shopko and Target. Being retired military officer, they will still drive past 10 million supermarkets to go buy groceries at the base commissary. I suggested Costco to them, since there is one 2 miles up the street from them, and the closest military base is Camp Pendleton, and that is 40 plus miles.

Then typical from that generation, after 12 or so years, they finally got a Costco membership....but they still go to Camp Pendleton for groceries.. they joined Costco, because they noticed booze prices for wine etc, was cheaper than the PX was.

makes no sense to me, but then they are no different than a million other Military Retirees.

we are all a product of a certain space in time. and for many of us, those ideals and concepts never change.

I had an uncle who became a millionaire in real estate investments. Go back to early 1950s, he used 30 wt NON detergent motor oil in his car. HIs dad had told him to keep away from that Detergent junk, as it messed up an engine.. ( him with his Model A and old Ford Tractor for reference)..

My uncle also use to pick up along the way, that an engine lasted longer if you never changed the oil, just change the filter...

so even as his wealth shot thru the roof, he'd still go to a place that offered cheap oil changes, have them change his filter, and throw in a quart of 30 wt non detergent oil that he always carried in the trunk... even tho the vehicle he was having it poured into was the most expensive version of a Cadillac available.

He traded in about every 3 years... just like in the 50s... that is about how long an engine lasted him with no oil changes and using non detergent oil... and even in the late 90s, they still lasted only 3 years doing it that way...but that was perfectly normal to him.

He even delighted in "getting so much in trade in" for a 3 year old car, and laughed that the dealer was 'too dumb to know the engine was going to blow up in the next 90 days'

we are all products of our environments and creatures of habit.

back on topic.. work up your loads, and 1960s data vs current data, as long as one maintains the " work up" to the safe level concept still, lawyer approved data is just that.. they are still REFERENCE manuals.. not bibles.

My man, even the manufacturers say their powders change over time--heck, they can change from lot to lot......and never repeat the exact same burning characteristics as the previous lot.

Many, if not the majority of powder manufacturers have changed hands, changed employees, changed equipment, changed facilities, even changed countries where the manufacturing takes place.


Casey

Powders change.
Take a look at the current manufactured H4831 (ADI) vs. the original surplus H4831. Is there no wonder the original O'Conner load is no longer listed!

Couple stuff like this along with new and better pressure testing equiptment, and of course possible legal consequences.

This all adds up to one thing.

Use current data, and cross refrence with some older data, tempered with prudent load development in your rifle.

Given that those old manuals were so unsafe with all the non pressure tested data in them why is it that there wasn't an epidemic of reloaders back in the day putting bolts through their heads?
Apparently rifles were stronger back then huh?

I use and enjoy the old reloading manuals and often use recipes from them. If some of them are pushing 66Kpsi I ain't too concerned.

Another piece of this equation is your choice of rifle action. My mentors, back in the day, impressed the importance of understanding action strength into my little brain, and then, factoring that into your reloading recipe.
For example, the Win Hi-Wall or Stevens 44 1/2 action might be a lot more forgiving than a Lo-Wall. A Rem 700 action is a better choice than a Krag, for a high pressure caliber. A Savage 99 vs a Win 94 is another example.

45 years ago I loaded my .264WM for 140 grain bullets using war surplus 4831 to 62 grains. It was kind of near the limit, with a slight crater on the primer. I load today the same gun with the ADI H4831 to the same 62 grains. Probably slightly less cratering. The war surplus probably had a little more punch to it.

The recommended loads are just that. You have to work your own up, not starting too high or too low.

I remember reading somewhere that it was found that Jack's scale was off by a grain or so. Does anyone else remember that?

I have 1964 Lyman manual and a 1963 Hodgon manual.Still use them, butI have never been one to push for the highest velocity. Accuracy trumps velocity any day

Keep in mind that not every load in a manual is re-tested from scratch for a new edition. Many are simply carried over. When they ARE re-tested, any number of things may have changed, and so does the resulting data.

The Speer #8 book is an example of "oh chit". As usual, not all loads were re-worked from scratch. Of those cartridges and loads that were re-worked, a small number of them were tested using a different lot of copper crushers. The problem was that the new lot of crushers came with an incorrect tarrage (correction) sheet. As a result, the pressure data was low. The lab techs worked up to what they THOUGHT were safe loads - and published loads several grains higher than before. Eventually, the mistake was discovered and all those loads were re-re-tested for later editions.

However, to this day, there are people using those HOT Speer #8 loads on the reasoning that "they were in a load book so they must be safe."

The fact that guns don't blow up using such loads is a testament not to the intelligence of the reloader, but to the wisdom of gun designers who build in substantial safety margins. Those margins are not there to allow us to push loads as far as we can, but to account for the rare - but almost inevitable - perfect storm of adverse conditions: A wrong primer, a thick case, a fast lot of powder, a slightly fat bullet, a fouled barrel, a hot chamber and a reloader who pushes his loads beyond book levels. Singly, none of them may mean a great problem; all together for a single shot, and ...

RR, that is the best answer to the question I have heard.

Yea verily.

You have provided wise counsel again, as always.