Nick Harveys reloading manual

butta9999 · June 29, 2008, 03:13 AM

I own Nick Harveys 5th edition reloading manual and i just bought the 8th edition. There is massive conflicting data in the two manuals. Example .243 with 70gr bullet using IMR 4320 starting load is, 41.5gr for 3330fps, max load 43.5gr for 3520fps. Thats the old manual. New manual, imr 4320 starting load 35gr for 3100fps max load 41.5 for 3530fps that is a massive difference. Barrels are same length and same primers used. Note that the max load in the new manual is the starting load in the old manual. Also take a look at the fps. Can anyone bring logic to this. Both manuals conflict on all calibers with same powders.

SeanB · June 29, 2008, 04:30 AM

Dont know that our OS brothers ( and sisters

) would know much of Nick Harvey.

Happy to be corrected though

butta9999 · June 29, 2008, 05:33 AM

whats that meant to mean mate. Clean up my own mess, I have been reloading for 10 years and know of differnt gun gurus to come up with diff ballistics all the time but for the same bloke to print out diff ballistics is just strange. Considering he is one the most recongised ballisitcs experts in the world i should not have to clean my own mess. Anyway you were a great help! If anyone has a genuine answer please reply

gun44 · June 29, 2008, 05:57 AM

It seems like a lot of the manuals have lower loads than in the past! This is probably due to the fear of lawsuits against the companies that compile the data! However your manual seems to have some drastic differences. Wish i could be of more help.

butta9999 · June 29, 2008, 06:17 AM

i can understand that. i use that load in my own .243 i use 43gr half grain off max and have no pressure signs. I would have never dreamed of going down to a starting load of 35gr like it suggests in the new manual, using too little powder can cause excessive pressures just as too much powder. Also the fps does not correspond to the loads listed in the two manuals. Also some of the data stated in the new manual for various calibers is higher so the lawsuit thing to me is not the reason. Thx for genuine reply though

sundog · June 29, 2008, 08:21 AM

I think a look at the Hogdon web site (IMR powder) and maybe another manual or two for comparison would be prudent. Using a single source is not in one's best interest.

Jim Watson · June 29, 2008, 08:54 AM

Ectually, I HAVE a Nick Harvey right here in The Heart of Dixie, USA, so I know what you are talking about.

The 2007 IMR brochure shows a MAXIMUM of 45.0 gr 4320 for a 70 gr .243 Win; 3663 fps, 62600 psi.

I would not change a satisfactory load just because a new edition of a book said different.

Wildalaska · June 29, 2008, 08:58 AM

Nick Harveys book is more "generic" like a Lee book is it not? (I have a copy of a few of his loads)...

WildnotpowderbulletspecificAlaska TM

Stumper · June 29, 2008, 09:11 AM

I don't have an answer about the Nick Harvey manual but there is a general truth about data sources that produce multiple editions-some data changes.
In years past some data manuals did not have pressure barrel tested data-the compilers "worked up" loads and then published what they found to seem safe maximums. Other sources scavenged data from all over and published it without any development on their part. All of these sources did some changing when the loads were tested in pressure barrles or with piezoelectric transducer stran gauge systems. Many current manuals are compilations of powder manufacturers data or powder maker data and bullet maker data.... and often the specific components used give quite different readings in differing test barrels (with the same powder used but variations in case bullet, primer and seating depth or even just a different test barrel).
There has seemed to be a move toward greater caution from many data sources in recent years. I remain unsure about the reasons from some sources. One of the factors that we know exists but cannot control is lot to lot variations in powder. Canister grade powders must be pretty consistent from lot to lot for safety's sake but , naturally, no matter how carefully controlled and blended they may be, a certain deviation from lot to lot does occur. I suspect, (but do not KNOW) that some of our old standby powders that have been used for decades are considerably different than they once were. Think about it. If you have lot number 1 and all subsequent lots are made to perform within certain parameters not varying by more than X percent fine and dandy........but what happens when lot number 1 was made seventy years ago, is exhausted or degraded, the company has been sold 3 times etc.? Those of us who have a 30 year old lot of powder can probably work safely with 30 year old data, but if we run down to the store and by powder from a lot shipped 3 months ago we probably best stick with data from the last decade.
I'm not accusing powder companies of being slipshod, but it is reasonable to assume that 2007 Alliant data differing from 1956 Hercules Data is not just due to fear of lawsuits.
As for the lowcharge fear of some rifle powders causing pressure excursions.....I believe that the concern lies with powders ratyed as slower than 4320 so a low starting load with 4320 isn't something risky. The maximum charges you cite are only 5% apart. That IS significant but not terrifying.

butta9999 · June 29, 2008, 05:20 PM

thanks for reply stumpermakes sense. Just to clear up Nick harvey's is not a generic book it is done in the field off a bench just like you and me, thats why so many people here in australia follow his work. All loads are done out of hunting rifles not pressure or test barrels. Anyhow off to the local gun shop today gotta get a pad put on my .300 win mag and get the trigger lightened. Happy hunting boys

Sevens · June 29, 2008, 06:33 PM

I don't think my take will help much in your endeavor, but I'll share it anyhow.

All I really want from load data is an idea of what is safe, so that I can build a load and fine-tune it for accuracy. For the most part, I seek "power" from a given caliber, I don't seek it from a load within a caliber. What I want from my load data is that it's safe, and then accurate, in that order.

I can get that from the powder manufacturer. If the powder maker doesn't provide it, then I chase down the bullet maker. That works for me in rifle calibers.

In handgun calibers, I'm typically loading cast lead, so it's a little more looking around to find safe data.

Wildalaska · June 29, 2008, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Just to clear up Nick harvey's is not a generic book it is done in the field off a bench just like you and me, thats why so many people here in australia follow his work.

By Generic I mean not put out by a powder or Bullet company

WildlikeleeAlaska TM

butta9999 · June 30, 2008, 01:20 AM

my apologies wild alaska.

Jim Watson · June 30, 2008, 08:03 AM

Quote:

All loads are done out of hunting rifles not pressure or test barrels.

Which is why his loads varied from edition to edition. He shot in a different .243 with tighter chamber and bore and came up with lighter loads by whatever critiera he uses.

aerod1 · June 30, 2008, 02:55 PM

I have seven reloading manuals and one is "Nick Harvey's Practical Reloading Manual" 1st edition published in 1993. Here is what it says about the 243 using a 70 grain bullet.

Starting Load:__________________ Maximum Load:
IMR 4320....41 gr.....3330 fps._____IMR 4320....43.5 gr.....3520 fps

Personally, I like Nick's manual because of his actual field trials. It gives another perspective.
I have been reading (studying) several manuals and have come to realize there are differences in all of them.

butta9999 · July 3, 2008, 04:34 AM

Nick Harvey is not going to Re shoot every load and every powder out of every diff calibre if previous data has been recorded. If so then all data will contradict its self. And it would take years to publish a new manual.

butta9999 · July 3, 2008, 04:37 AM

They are the same figures i have in my 5th editon manual. i Have crossed checked many loads with the eighth edition and many are the same but many are different. The answer could be solved, i have his home phone number. when i contact him ill post the answer from the horses mouth......

Jim Watson · July 3, 2008, 07:44 AM

butta,

Sounds like that is just what he did. Reshoot a standard caliber and get different results.

butta9999 · July 4, 2008, 01:30 AM

i agree but there are all calibres from .22 hornet to a .460 weatherby magnum. There are probably 100 calibres in between probably more with at least 10 to 12 powders for each bullet weight in each calibre. So thats a lot of re shooting, just seems a little far fetched to me. I am calling him though so ill have the answer in a few days.

aerod1 · July 6, 2008, 07:20 PM

Yep, I'll have to agree it is a little "out there" that he would shoot every load in every caliber.
Let us know what he says.
Thanks,

Jim Watson · July 6, 2008, 07:49 PM

So a reputable source just made up new loads?

butta9999 · July 7, 2008, 12:45 AM

thats what i am going to find out jim. Like i said thats what i find so strange he is the most recognized gun (ballistics) guru in Australia. All gun makes, powder makes, projectiles, binos, range finders, everything goes through him. He is the technical editor in most reognized shooter magazines. I just dont think he would re shoot every caliber in that manual with all those diff powders and bullet weights. It would take years to configure new ballistics. There are so many combinations. Fact is he has shot all calibers known to man and has all field data drawn up, thats why so many people follow him in australia.

June 29, 2008, 03:13 AM	#1
butta9999 Senior Member Join Date: June 29, 2008 Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Posts: 692	Nick Harveys reloading manual I own Nick Harveys 5th edition reloading manual and i just bought the 8th edition. There is massive conflicting data in the two manuals. Example .243 with 70gr bullet using IMR 4320 starting load is, 41.5gr for 3330fps, max load 43.5gr for 3520fps. Thats the old manual. New manual, imr 4320 starting load 35gr for 3100fps max load 41.5 for 3530fps that is a massive difference. Barrels are same length and same primers used. Note that the max load in the new manual is the starting load in the old manual. Also take a look at the fps. Can anyone bring logic to this. Both manuals conflict on all calibers with same powders.

June 29, 2008, 04:30 AM	#2
SeanB Member Join Date: May 28, 2004 Location: Australia Posts: 50	Nick who?? Dont know that our OS brothers ( and sisters ) would know much of Nick Harvey. Happy to be corrected though __________________ Clean up your own mess

June 29, 2008, 05:57 AM	#4
gun44 Senior Member Join Date: August 17, 2007 Location: Georgia Posts: 125	Conflicts It seems like a lot of the manuals have lower loads than in the past! This is probably due to the fear of lawsuits against the companies that compile the data! However your manual seems to have some drastic differences. Wish i could be of more help.

June 29, 2008, 08:21 AM	#6
sundog Senior Member Join Date: November 22, 1999 Location: Green Country, OK Posts: 782	I think a look at the Hogdon web site (IMR powder) and maybe another manual or two for comparison would be prudent. Using a single source is not in one's best interest. __________________ safety first

June 29, 2008, 09:11 AM	#9
Stumper Senior Member Join Date: June 15, 2008 Location: Colorado Posts: 438	I don't have an answer about the Nick Harvey manual but there is a general truth about data sources that produce multiple editions-some data changes. In years past some data manuals did not have pressure barrel tested data-the compilers "worked up" loads and then published what they found to seem safe maximums. Other sources scavenged data from all over and published it without any development on their part. All of these sources did some changing when the loads were tested in pressure barrles or with piezoelectric transducer stran gauge systems. Many current manuals are compilations of powder manufacturers data or powder maker data and bullet maker data.... and often the specific components used give quite different readings in differing test barrels (with the same powder used but variations in case bullet, primer and seating depth or even just a different test barrel). There has seemed to be a move toward greater caution from many data sources in recent years. I remain unsure about the reasons from some sources. One of the factors that we know exists but cannot control is lot to lot variations in powder. Canister grade powders must be pretty consistent from lot to lot for safety's sake but , naturally, no matter how carefully controlled and blended they may be, a certain deviation from lot to lot does occur. I suspect, (but do not KNOW) that some of our old standby powders that have been used for decades are considerably different than they once were. Think about it. If you have lot number 1 and all subsequent lots are made to perform within certain parameters not varying by more than X percent fine and dandy........but what happens when lot number 1 was made seventy years ago, is exhausted or degraded, the company has been sold 3 times etc.? Those of us who have a 30 year old lot of powder can probably work safely with 30 year old data, but if we run down to the store and by powder from a lot shipped 3 months ago we probably best stick with data from the last decade. I'm not accusing powder companies of being slipshod, but it is reasonable to assume that 2007 Alliant data differing from 1956 Hercules Data is not just due to fear of lawsuits. As for the lowcharge fear of some rifle powders causing pressure excursions.....I believe that the concern lies with powders ratyed as slower than 4320 so a low starting load with 4320 isn't something risky. The maximum charges you cite are only 5% apart. That IS significant but not terrifying. __________________ "Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready." Theodore Roosevelt "If only God has magic, how does Santa get down the chimney?" Natalie Peters age 4

June 29, 2008, 05:33 AM	#3
butta9999 Senior Member Join Date: June 29, 2008 Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Posts: 692	whats that meant to mean mate. Clean up my own mess, I have been reloading for 10 years and know of differnt gun gurus to come up with diff ballistics all the time but for the same bloke to print out diff ballistics is just strange. Considering he is one the most recongised ballisitcs experts in the world i should not have to clean my own mess. Anyway you were a great help! If anyone has a genuine answer please reply

June 29, 2008, 06:17 AM	#5
butta9999 Senior Member Join Date: June 29, 2008 Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Posts: 692	i can understand that. i use that load in my own .243 i use 43gr half grain off max and have no pressure signs. I would have never dreamed of going down to a starting load of 35gr like it suggests in the new manual, using too little powder can cause excessive pressures just as too much powder. Also the fps does not correspond to the loads listed in the two manuals. Also some of the data stated in the new manual for various calibers is higher so the lawsuit thing to me is not the reason. Thx for genuine reply though

June 29, 2008, 08:54 AM	#7
Jim Watson Senior Member Join Date: October 25, 2001 Location: Alabama Posts: 18,543	Ectually, I HAVE a Nick Harvey right here in The Heart of Dixie, USA, so I know what you are talking about. The 2007 IMR brochure shows a MAXIMUM of 45.0 gr 4320 for a 70 gr .243 Win; 3663 fps, 62600 psi. I would not change a satisfactory load just because a new edition of a book said different.

June 29, 2008, 08:58 AM	#8
Wildalaska Junior member Join Date: November 25, 2002 Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska Posts: 14,172	Nick Harveys book is more "generic" like a Lee book is it not? (I have a copy of a few of his loads)... WildnotpowderbulletspecificAlaska TM

June 29, 2008, 05:20 PM	#10
butta9999 Senior Member Join Date: June 29, 2008 Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Posts: 692	thanks for reply stumpermakes sense. Just to clear up Nick harvey's is not a generic book it is done in the field off a bench just like you and me, thats why so many people here in australia follow his work. All loads are done out of hunting rifles not pressure or test barrels. Anyhow off to the local gun shop today gotta get a pad put on my .300 win mag and get the trigger lightened. Happy hunting boys

June 29, 2008, 06:33 PM	#11
Sevens Senior Member Join Date: July 28, 2007 Location: Ohio Posts: 11,756	I don't think my take will help much in your endeavor, but I'll share it anyhow. All I really want from load data is an idea of what is safe, so that I can build a load and fine-tune it for accuracy. For the most part, I seek "power" from a given caliber, I don't seek it from a load within a caliber. What I want from my load data is that it's safe, and then accurate, in that order. I can get that from the powder manufacturer. If the powder maker doesn't provide it, then I chase down the bullet maker. That works for me in rifle calibers. In handgun calibers, I'm typically loading cast lead, so it's a little more looking around to find safe data. __________________ *Attention Brass rats and other reloaders:* I really need .327 Federal Magnum brass, no lot size too small. Tell me what caliber you need and I'll see what I have to swap. PM me and we'll discuss.

June 30, 2008, 01:20 AM	#13
butta9999 Senior Member Join Date: June 29, 2008 Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Posts: 692	my apologies wild alaska.

June 30, 2008, 02:55 PM	#15
aerod1 Senior Member Join Date: April 12, 2000 Location: Garland Texas U.S.A. Posts: 734	I have seven reloading manuals and one is "Nick Harvey's Practical Reloading Manual" 1st edition published in 1993. Here is what it says about the 243 using a 70 grain bullet. Starting Load:__________________ Maximum Load: IMR 4320....41 gr.....3330 fps._____IMR 4320....43.5 gr.....3520 fps Personally, I like Nick's manual because of his actual field trials. It gives another perspective. I have been reading (studying) several manuals and have come to realize there are differences in all of them. __________________ NRA Life Member, TSRA Life Member, C&R 03 FFL, Texas LTC Recreational Reloader U.S. Navy Veteran (USS Midway V-1 Division) Last edited by aerod1; June 30, 2008 at 02:59 PM. Reason: Because I am a dummy with the keyboard

July 3, 2008, 04:34 AM	#16
butta9999 Senior Member Join Date: June 29, 2008 Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Posts: 692	Jim watson Nick Harvey is not going to Re shoot every load and every powder out of every diff calibre if previous data has been recorded. If so then all data will contradict its self. And it would take years to publish a new manual.

July 3, 2008, 04:37 AM	#17
butta9999 Senior Member Join Date: June 29, 2008 Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Posts: 692	aerod1 They are the same figures i have in my 5th editon manual. i Have crossed checked many loads with the eighth edition and many are the same but many are different. The answer could be solved, i have his home phone number. when i contact him ill post the answer from the horses mouth......

July 3, 2008, 07:44 AM	#18
Jim Watson Senior Member Join Date: October 25, 2001 Location: Alabama Posts: 18,543	butta, Sounds like that is just what he did. Reshoot a standard caliber and get different results.

July 4, 2008, 01:30 AM	#19
butta9999 Senior Member Join Date: June 29, 2008 Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Posts: 692	Jim waston i agree but there are all calibres from .22 hornet to a .460 weatherby magnum. There are probably 100 calibres in between probably more with at least 10 to 12 powders for each bullet weight in each calibre. So thats a lot of re shooting, just seems a little far fetched to me. I am calling him though so ill have the answer in a few days.

July 6, 2008, 07:20 PM	#20
aerod1 Senior Member Join Date: April 12, 2000 Location: Garland Texas U.S.A. Posts: 734	Yep, I'll have to agree it is a little "out there" that he would shoot every load in every caliber. Let us know what he says. Thanks, __________________ NRA Life Member, TSRA Life Member, C&R 03 FFL, Texas LTC Recreational Reloader U.S. Navy Veteran (USS Midway V-1 Division)

July 6, 2008, 07:49 PM	#21
Jim Watson Senior Member Join Date: October 25, 2001 Location: Alabama Posts: 18,543	So a reputable source just made up new loads?

July 7, 2008, 12:45 AM	#22
butta9999 Senior Member Join Date: June 29, 2008 Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Posts: 692	thats what i am going to find out jim. Like i said thats what i find so strange he is the most recognized gun (ballistics) guru in Australia. All gun makes, powder makes, projectiles, binos, range finders, everything goes through him. He is the technical editor in most reognized shooter magazines. I just dont think he would re shoot every caliber in that manual with all those diff powders and bullet weights. It would take years to configure new ballistics. There are so many combinations. Fact is he has shot all calibers known to man and has all field data drawn up, thats why so many people follow him in australia.