Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Loading data.

I'm a garage sale nut. I'm alway looking for lots of cheap stuff that end up taking up space in my garage instead.
<br>There are things I buy and us though, such as old reloading manuals.
<br>The one thing I've noticed is that the old reloading manuals sure were a little more generous with their powder use.
<br>Ken, or anybody for that matter, answer me this.
<br>has the powder got that much better, have the rifles got that much weaker, or are the damn lawyers to blame.
<br>Are these loads still safe to use?

Powders change enough over time to make it risky to use old data with new powders, like anytime something is changed when working on loads, one should start near the beginning again.
<br>Plus I believe the more accurate pressure measuring systems have made them realise some pressures were not what they thought they were.
<br>I know my load in the 243 with IMR4350 now appears to be about 4 grains over max, according to the books out now, and yet never had a problem with it before.
<br>So someone must have learned something, or too maybe like you say, there are liability laws and they don't dare take any chances, I am sure the good doctor when able will add more to this for you.
<br>Bill

There are some powders that have changed. 2400 has changed alot.
<br> We've also learned that good bullets make a real difference in field performance, not a few more grains of "super powder". With the coming of computer generated range tables, one can see that 100-150 fps. doesn't make much difference at extended range.
<br> You can still use "hot" loads if you want. Many of our alaskan posters use loads in their 65 degree weather that would stick cases where I often hunt.
<br> Loading manuels are guides. Their real value is to teach you what works, and what doesn't, and why. Then you are on your own. E
<br>

<br>Unfortunately, I think one of the biggest changes is due to the proliferation of product liability claims. Loading data today must be safe for ALL guns, under ALL conditions. Some powders have changed, however, most have the same burn rates as they did 20 years ago.
<br>

Earlier on most of the authors/publishers used standard rifles to develop the loads using the same pressure indicators that most handloaders use but as time went on and they switched to using pressure barrels the loads were reduced in many cases when they saw what the actual pressure was.

Skidrow's right -- which brings to mind the undeserved bad rap that "product liability" has been getting so frequently in discussions like this.
<br>
<br>THINK about it -- if the loads published in earlier manuals are NOW known to be unsafe enough to raise liability concerns, what kind of logic can justifiably consider them acceptably SAFE and imply that the company lawyers who get nervous about 'em are Chicken Littles?
<br>
<br>Only the illogical and illusory influence that I call the sanctity of print can support such "thinking," and only very flimsily. Assertions do not become unassailable, unquestionable facts merely by appearing in print. MUCH that appears in print -- NOT excluding published load data -- is dangerous.
<br>
<br>As his Editor, I used to have to delete dangerous load data from a very famous writer's articles before I published 'em.. His other Editors didn't dare do the same or didn't know to, so much of his very dangerous data continue in print, held to be Holy Writ by his many fans. They're just as dangerous as if they'd been deleted from his data tables -- just as dangerous today and tomorrow as they were when they bulged his rifles' chambers.

Ken, if there were no product liability claims, there would be no consequences to questionable data. Furthermore, many knowledgeable reloaders push beyond �published� maximums with no detrimental effects every day. Granted pressure barrels have shed a lot of light on what is happening in the chamber, but published loads must be safe for ALL barrels, in ALL conditions. This is not do to the philanthropic nature of powder manufacturers, rather, this is due to the consequences if they make a mistake.
<br>
<br>If you were to attempt to publish a reloading book rather than your most beneficial cartridge design book, you would be swimming in legal red tape to a point where you would give up. The legal consequences are just too great if someone got hurt.

I have seen the statement that powders have changed over time. I mean the burning rate and not some new maximum load.
<br>
<br>Lets be specific. Has the burning rate of imr 4227,4198,3031,4895,4064,4320,4350 etc changed or not over the last 40 years or not?
<br>
<br>If you say that it has what evidence do you have?