HuntingNut
HuntingNut
   Login or Register
HomeCommunity ForumsPhoto AlbumsRegister
     
 

User Info

Welcome Anonymous


Membership:
Latest: undertaker477
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 1
Overall: 12555

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 147
BOT: 2
Total: 149
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Forums
02: Home
03: Photo Albums
04: Forums
05: Forums
06: News
07: Forums
08: Forums
09: Forums
10: Forums
11: Photo Albums
12: Forums
13: Photo Albums
14: Forums
15: Forums
16: Forums
17: Forums
18: Forums
19: Forums
20: Forums
21: Forums
22: Forums
23: Forums
24: Forums
25: Forums
26: Forums
27: Photo Albums
28: News
29: Photo Albums
30: Forums
31: Forums
32: Forums
33: Forums
34: Forums
35: Forums
36: Forums
37: Forums
38: Forums
39: Forums
40: Forums
41: Forums
42: Forums
43: Forums
44: Forums
45: Forums
46: Forums
47: Forums
48: Forums
49: Forums
50: Photo Albums
51: Forums
52: Forums
53: Forums
54: Your Account
55: Forums
56: Forums
57: Photo Albums
58: Photo Albums
59: Photo Albums
60: Photo Albums
61: Forums
62: Forums
63: Forums
64: Forums
65: Forums
66: Forums
67: Photo Albums
68: Your Account
69: Forums
70: Forums
71: Forums
72: Forums
73: Forums
74: Forums
75: Forums
76: Forums
77: Forums
78: Forums
79: Forums
80: Forums
81: Photo Albums
82: Forums
83: Forums
84: Forums
85: Forums
86: Home
87: Photo Albums
88: Forums
89: Forums
90: Forums
91: Forums
92: Forums
93: Home
94: Forums
95: Forums
96: Forums
97: Home
98: Home
99: Home
100: Forums
101: Forums
102: Forums
103: Forums
104: Forums
105: Forums
106: Your Account
107: Forums
108: Your Account
109: Forums
110: Forums
111: Forums
112: Photo Albums
113: Forums
114: Forums
115: Forums
116: Photo Albums
117: Forums
118: Forums
119: Forums
120: News
121: Forums
122: Photo Albums
123: Forums
124: Forums
125: Forums
126: Forums
127: Forums
128: Forums
129: Photo Albums
130: Photo Albums
131: Forums
132: Forums
133: Forums
134: Photo Albums
135: Forums
136: Forums
137: Forums
138: Forums
139: Forums
140: Your Account
141: Forums
142: News
143: Forums
144: Forums
145: Forums
146: Forums
147: Forums
  BOT:
01: Your Account
02: Forums

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
 

Coppermine Stats
Photo Albums
 Albums: 305
 Pictures: 2353
  · Views: 332114
  · Votes: 1305
  · Comments: 85
 

Support our Advertisers

  Is newer reloading information “wimpier” than the older stuff?

ReloadingIs newer reloading information “wimpier” than the older stuff?

Every so often when I am talking to folks about reloading I hear that the loads printed in current reloading manuals are much milder than the loads in older manuals. The most common reason given is legal liability, that the various companies have “wimped out” due to legal pressure. Since I had a variety of manuals on the shelf I decided to check some loads for myself to see if there really was that much difference. Also, if I found differences, I wanted to try to understand why there was a change.

The oldest bullet manufacturer’s manual on my shelf is a Speer #8, printed in 1970. I also have a Speer #14, printed in 2007. Obviously these would be a good place to start as they come from the same source and use the same bullets. I picked two very common cartridges to use for comparison, the .30-06 Springfield and the .45 ACP. The procedure was pretty simple. I just went through both manuals, found the loads using the same powder and bullet weight in each and wrote down the maximum recommended load. Then I determined the difference between old and new loads, both as grains of powder and as a percentage of the load. I did not list any muzzle velocities because different guns, with different barrel lengths, were used in the tests and I didn’t want to muddy the water with that variable.

I took the .30-06 first. I used three different bullet weights: 165 grain, 180 grain and 200 grain. I found five powders that were used with those bullets in both manuals. The results are in the table below.
.30-06 Springfield
Powder Bullet 1970 2007 Difference % Difference
H414 165 58.0 56.0 2.0 3%
H414 200 52.0 53.0 -1.0 -2%
IMR4064 165 51.0 50.5 0.5 1%
IMR4064 180 50.0 50.0 0.0 0%
IMR4831 180 59.0 59.0 0.0 0%
IMR4831 200 58.0 56.0 2.0 3%
IMR4350 180 56.0 56.0 0.0 0%
IMR4350 200 53.0 54.0 -1.0 -2%
IMR4895 180 50.0 47.0 3.0 6%

When you compare all the loads you see that the older ones averaged about 0.6 grains more powder, a difference of 1.1%.

Switching to the .45 ACP I picked two bullets, the 200 grain lead SWC and the 230 grain FMJ. I found five powders that were used in both manuals. The table below shows the results.
.45 ACP
Powder Bullet 1970 2007 Difference % Difference
Red Dot 200 4.5 4.5 0.0 0%
Red Dot 230 5.5 5.3 0.2 4%
Bullseye 200 4.0 4.6 -0.6 -15%
Herco 200 6.2 6.0 0.2 3%
Unique 200 6.0 5.4 0.6 10%
Unique 230 7.0 6.5 0.5 7%
700-X 200 4.3 4.2 0.1 2%
700-X 230 5.0 5.1 -0.1 -2%

Again comparing all the loads the older ones averaged 0.1 grains more powder, a difference of 1.2%.

We can see that, while there is a small difference between the older and newer data, it’s not significant. There are a couple of things that can account for the changes. Different lots of the same powder will vary a little. You’ll note that sometimes the older charge weights are higher; sometimes the new ones are higher. I think another likely reason for any changes is that we now have better ways to measure the actual peak pressures. Electronics give us more accurate pressure readings than the “crusher” systems that were used before. To quote Alan Jones, editor of the Speer manuals #12, #13 and #14, “Sooner or later the old crusher system will be obsolete. We started the transition from crusher to electronic pressure measurement with the handgun cartridges in Number 12. Now we are converting the rifle data as time permits.” All Speer loads are kept at or below the standard industry maximum pressure.

It looks to me that the recommended loads today are no “wimpier” than the old loads. They should be safer, given the better pressure measuring equipment now available. One thing I would like to say is that these reloading companies have much better equipment than we do measure the pressures for the various cartridges. Personally I think it is foolish to try to exceed the maximum loads they have printed. I won’t risk the chance of damaging a gun, or me, to try to boost my velocities by a few feet per second. Let’s enjoy our hobby of reloading but keep it safe!

Posted by Pumpkinslinger on Friday, October 05, 2007 (04:06:41) (3634 reads) [ Administration ]
Related Links
 More about Reloading

Most read story about Reloading:
OCW ( Optimal Charge Weight )
 

Article Rating
Average Score: 2.5
Votes: 2


Please take a second and vote for this article:

Excellent
Very Good
Good
Regular
Bad

 

 


Valid CSS! Valid HTML 4.01!
Click to check if this page is realy HTML 4.01 compliant for speed :)

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of HuntingNut.com.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2011 by HuntingNut.com
Interactive software released under GNU GPL, Code Credits, Privacy Policy

.: Upgraded to DragonFly 9.2 by Dizfunkshunal :.