Reloading Manual Inconsistensies

[fishhead1]

To start with, I'm a reloading "retread" (for want of a better word). I started reloading in the 70's, but am just recently getting back into the game after a lapse of some years. I'm stocking up to reload .38's, .357's, .41 mags, and .45 Colts. Anyway, I've started out reloading some .38 Specs with Speer 148 gn BBWC's and some HERCULES (yes, Hercules) Bullseye. I've had both on the shelf for awhile.
Now comes the problem. I have an older Speer reloading manual, circa 1976, which lists a range of 3.1-3.5 gns Bullseye with the Speer 148 gn BBWC. (I've used this in the past with seemingly good results.) I also have a recently acquired newer Speer manual (13th Edition, 2003 printing), which lists a range of 3.9-4.5 gns Bullseye with this exact same bullet. So what has changed so much over the years? I notice they used different guns to obtain their test data, and I know Bullseye is now made by Alliant; but isn't this getting a bit ridiculous? Since I'm actually using the older powder and bullets, I'm going with the older manual data. (I also have a "newer" Hornady manual, 4th Edition, circa 1993), which is actually more in line with the older Speer manual (3.0-3.7 gn Bullseye).)
Looking at different manuals, both old and new, the only consistency seems to be inconsistency. It's like "you pays your money, and you takes your chances". Sorry to be so wordy, but I would like to hear some of your thoughts on this.

[Jim243]

A lapse of some time??? My oldest powder is no more than 3 years old. I would do a burn test, just to check that your Herc still has it's timber.

Old manuals VS new powder or new manuals VS old powder, I don't know!!

You should be OK but I would only do 5 test loads to start and check eveything out first.

A pound of powder is only about $22.00 and Hodgdon's paperback manual is only about $15.00. Sounds to me it would be cheaper to buy new powder and the book than get a replacement gun. But, that's me, you have to use your own judgement.

One thing is FOR SURE, things change. I don't like it anymore than anyone else does, but it happens.

Just stay safe and keep reloading.
Jim

[Clark]

Reloading books are cook books.
Compare recipes for brownies in two cook books, and you will see a little variation.

That does not stop some internet posters from expressing the opinion that Moses brought down out published data from the mountain.

So I wrote this essay:
How to Write a Mediocre Load Book Second Revision

[Jim243]

Clark

The book that Mosses brought down, has stayed the same for 1000s of years (pretty much so), I can't say the same about reloading manuals.

While we are at it, I haven't tried to make brownies with gun powder yet but it is an interesting idea.

Find some guy who makes benchrest bullets in his garage and get drunk
with him. Fix him up with your sister. If you could start selling his
bullets by featuring them in your book, you would both benefit. You
could find some surplus "blems" to fill in the product line, and he and
your sister may spawn a gun culture dynasty.

I like your marketing idea but I don't have any sisters.

Good luck in your publishing ventures.
Jim

[Unclenick]

Fishhead,

The classic target load in .38 Special cases for 148 grain wadcutters that are seated flush with the case mouth is 2.7 grains of Bullseye. Speer has always been known for pushing load pressures in one round or another. If you loaded to 4.5 grains of Bullseye, QuickLOAD says you will be in 9 mm and .357 Magnum pressure territory. Way too warm for those soft swaged bullet. I don't know what's got into Speer on that one?

Maybe nothing. I have #14 and it says to run that bullet with 2.8 to 3.1 grains of Bullseye. That's about right. Unless #13 has a misprint, I think you looked at the wrong bullet or cartridge or powder?

There is an old rule of thumb to look at three sources of load data and start with the starting loads that are the lowest of the three. There are numerous mistakes in print out there.

As to your powder, I've still got some Hercules 2400 that is fine. Alliant has a sample of Unique that is almost a century old and still works. Half century old military ammo often works just fine. It all depends on storage conditions. If you kept the stuff in a cool, dry place, it is probably fine. If it smell acrid, like battery acid, or has red rust colored dust in it, it is breaking down and should be sprinkled around as lawn fertilizer.

[islander]

Check the load recipe COL. A change in the seating depth would require a change in the charge. I've caught several manual "errors" that upon closer examination were just that - a different COL. I'm guessing the older manual has shorter COL. Can you verify this?

[Jim243]

Unclenick

My reloading buddy has an old can of Herc 2400 powder it is MARKED "RIFLE POWDER" not pistol powder. Is this what we are talking about I thought he was talking about Bullseye???

Jim

[Uncle Buck]

I think changes in powder formulation could change the pressure of the powder. Although old powders will work (when stored correctly) sometimes manufacturers change the powder formulations.

This could affect the reason that some publishers update and change there load data. (or it could be they change the load data just to sell more manuals)

[Bart B.]

I doubt more than 1 in 100 reloading book authors use SAAMI spec'd pressure test barrels and pressure measuring equipment for load development as well as velocity tracking for each load tested. 'Tis no surprise to me that a 5% or more spread in maximum charge weights of a given powder for the same set of other components for any centerfire round goes in print.

To say nothing of the fact that two people shooting the same rifle/ammo combination can get near 100 fps difference in muzzle velocity.

SAAMI spec'd reference ammo for calibrating test gages for pressure and velocity can be had from ammo companies Winchester, Remington, Hornady and Federal. How many reloading book authors use them?

[fishhead1]

O. K. Only the newer Speer manual specifies a COL. So, that's really no help, although it could definitely be one reason for the inconsistency. And, yes, I've checked and double checked the data many times. I did notice that the old tests were done with Federal primers, while the new were done with CCI's. As an aside, I noticed that the data given for Speer 148 gn Hollow Base WC's with Bullseye powder was more consistent comparing the old and newer manuals (the newer manual specifying a slightly higher range). Also the data given for Unique powder with Speer 148 gn Bevel Base WC's was almost right on comparing the old and newer manuals.
As far as my old Hercules powder, it's been stored on a closet shelf, in the original container, under reasonably controlled conditions. If looks are any indication, it appears to be just fine. But, yeah, I'm going to go easy with it until I see how it performs in a few test rounds. By the way, I appreciate you guys comments.

[Unclenick]

Owing to having to feed in the .38 special semi-autos that used to be common in bullseye matches, commercial wadcutters are all seated flush with the case mouth. Thus, their COL is always the same as the case length unless you use them in non-standard fashion. HB or BB doesn't matter. Since the swaged lead alloy density is the same for both, the total volume under them will also be the same when they are seated that way. That deep seating depth is why the charges are small. Not a lot of room for the powder to burn in under them. It is also why charges for SWC's and other shapes the same weight, or even heavier, are often larger than wadcutter charges. More powder space under the bullet for the gas to begin expanding into.



Bullseye is what Browning used to develop the .45 ACP. I seem to remember reading it's original formulation did change sometime before WWI. I don't believe it has changed significantly for a long time. You could call Alliant or e-mail them to ask if the burn rate or total energy content per pound has been changed since Hercules days? I expect they've been pretty careful to keep those as close to the same as they can.


Jim243,

I only mentioned my old can of 2400 for the same reason the next sentence mentions Alliant's old stock of Unique: to illustrate that old powder can still work just fine. Sorry if I caused you confusion.


Bart B.,

AFAIK, H-S Precision and Kreiger and the others that supply pressure barrels are making them to SAAMI test barrel specs except by special request. Of course, there is nothing to stop some enterprising technician from making a blank into his own test barrel, I suppose. I would expect the most common problem, though, to be saving money by using test barrels past the point that throat erosion has taken them out of spec. I have no clue how common that practice might be? It would create a liability issue.

I recall that Precision Shooting ran an article sometime in the nineties showing the same crusher results could not be obtained reliably form one lab to the next. They concluded copper crusher numbers, unless they came from the same test unit (and maybe even the same technician) were not really a reliable basis for replicating any particular load pressure. Firing reference loads and seeing that nothing you assemble produces readings that exceed the reference load readings, helps. But I gotta tell you even that is problematic because the 10 shot strings they fire for averaging, per SAAMI spec, do not constitute a statistically adequate sample size.

About a year or so back, I spoke with SAAMI Technical Director, Ken Green, to get some clarification on the topics of proofing and reference loads and pressure testing in general. I asked him why that 10 shot sample size was standard rather than a larger and more statistically significant number? He said it's just that the manufacturers don't want to spend all day testing a load, so they agreed on ten rounds. A manufacturing statistician I used to work with showed me that 30 would need to be fired just to have reasonable confidence the bell curve was symmetrical enough for the resulting average to be close to representative. I expect the fact they are not using such a sample size explains why hot loads occasionally get manufactured, and why other ammo lots sometimes seem even wimpier than usual.

[flintlock.50]

Years ago I used some .357 loads from the Speer #9 manual. I started with the bottom load. I think I was using Winchester 630 powder. The loads were VERY over-pressured. I had several case head separations, and this was with the first reload for those cases!

I've discovered that the maximum load in some newer manuals is lower than that lowest load I used from the old Speer manual. I think I've seen comments on this forum that some of Speer's old loads exhibited high pressure.

Just be careful!

[Clark]

Flinklock50,
Usually the upper limit of 357 mag is stuck cases, not case head separation.

Here is some math on that topic by John Bercovitz in 1993:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...02ce69fa01e631

[Don P]

Books differ and the web site for manufactures are no better. I had a rep from Hodgdons tell me that NO one loads 155 grain round nose lead in 40S&W so he could NOT give me any weights for Titegroup.

[brickeyee]

The book that Mosses brought down, has stayed the same for 1000s of years (pretty much so) ...

Except all we have are translations of translations ... I really doubt they were written in King James English.

[dcraig]

Im new to reloading, but the man that has been helping me get started has be loading for about 40+ years. When I asked him this he said it is a liability issue. People weren't working loads up to fit their guns instead was going straight for the max then did what we are so good at today and sued.

[Clark]

brickeyee
Senior Member

Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 1,895

Quote:
The book that Mosses brought down, has stayed the same for 1000s of years (pretty much so) ...
Except all we have are translations of translations ... I really doubt they were written in King James English.

That gives me an idea.

The Hebrew verbal and written text were translated to Greek.
The Greek text was translated to several bibles in English.
Those bibles were compiled and augmented with some more translations into the King James version.
The New English Bible translated the King James into modern English.
When the Dead Sea Scrolls were compared, we realized, mistakes were made.

The reloading really got going in 1873 with the Colt Single Action Army in 45Colt using 40 gr Black Powder and 250 gr cast at ~1,000 fps.
But that kicked too hard, so the load books were dumbed down to 35 gr.
The 7.92x57mm in 1905 pushed 150 gr jacketed at 2900 fps.
100 years later, most load books have dumbed that down to 30-30 country.
When Sierra published that the CZ52 was stronger than the Tokarev, I martyred them for being contrary to my calculations and testing.
When Denton Bramwell tried to measure absolute pressure with a strain gauge on a rifle chamber, I martyred him for no error budget with quantifiable traceability to the NIST.

I realize the error of my ways. We are not scientists and engineers, but just consumers. Hand loading is not science and engineering, but a ritual, taken on faith from the good load books.

[Edward429451]

I always thought that the new books differed from the old books because of changers in the formulation of the powder. Barring formulation changes you see componant or COAL changes,

Use the old books for your old powder and don't worry. If the powder is deteriorating it will get weaker not stronger,

[WESHOOT2]

"Manuals" are "guides", as all guns are always different, and lot, load, and test conditions vary.

Assume NOTHING; start low and work up slow (and read pg 443 of Speer's #13).

[Clark]

Edward,
Can a canister powder be sold with a different speed than it used to?
I though "canister" meant blended to get the right speed.
We pay allot extra for that blending.
Bulk powders have manufacturing variation and are much cheaper.

WeShoot,
I read that page and the next.
Bogus velocities are a small part of the problems with Speer 12, 13, and 14.
If Speer was writing a lab report for a science class and I was the instructor, I would write in red ink on those load books:

F
See me.

[Snobal]

fishhead1 -

My first reloading manual was Speer #7 --- #8 was better --- and #9 is about their best. #14 shows what a team of attorneys can do to a reloading manual over fear of a "stuck bullet" from going too low, and blown up cheap guns from going too high.

I agree with Unclenick! Get at least three good manuals and start low.

Also, the 2.7 grains of Bullseye with 148 grain HBWC in .38 Special has been "the" target load for well over 60 years.

I'm still using primers and powder from the 60's/70's and have not had any problems with it at all. I also have reloads and commercial ammo from the 60's/70's and it all shoots just fine. But I have always kept my components/ammo in a dry cool place.

By the way, I finished off my last can of HERCULES Bullseye last year and it shot just fine --- and since my last can of HERCULES Unique is over half full, I try out the "new" stuff when its gone.

JMHO

[Uncle Buck]

Snobal,
I got a laugh out of your reply. You are using stuff from the 60's/70's and talk about your new stuff. How old is the new stuff?

By the time you get around to using your new 'new stuff' it may be 2020 or later.

It does make me feel good to know that if I store these components properly, they will last many many years. Now that prices seem to be getting a little better on the reloading stuff, I am slowly stocking up on things I know I will use.

[Edward429451]

You bet they can change formulations and without notice either, I have 11 manuals myself and typically have three out when doing new load work,

Weshoot2's advice is spot on and shouldn't be ignored,

[Jbotto]

Snobal said that Speer #9 was a good book. I found a good deal on this one and a few other older (90's manuals), maybe a stupid question but, can I put these older manuals to good use? Or should they be avoided. My thinking that since I'm new to reloading I could get 5-6 older manuals for a better price and have more information to go off than what I could spend and get 2-3 new manuals. Which should I do? Best of both worlds, one new two old?

Sorry for hijacking the thread, I just had to ask somewhere and I figured this was a good spot.

[gschwertley]

I've been using the Speer books (and many others) for years, but the Speer #14 was a big disappointment.

So long as powder has been properly stored (and in the case of military powders, properly made initially) it can last a long time. My cousin gave me a cardboard drum of Unique that was made in 1974 and I've been using it successfully for some time. However, it does lose a little energy over time as it "dries out" or whatever. I've clocked comparisons of my 1974 Unique with some from the early '90's and the older doesn't yield as many fps. with identical charges.

As to change, the formulation of Unique, for example, was changed a bit about, what, ten years ago? So there is "old Unique" and "new Unique."