The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Skunkworks > Handloading, Reloading, and Bullet Casting

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 10, 2014, 10:00 PM   #1
Jeffm004
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 22, 2013
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 255
.357 Loads, then 1988 and now 2014

I have a 1988 Speer Book and a 2014 Lee. For WW231, they don't even overlap for a 158 grn jacketed (XTP) bullet.

in 1988 7.2-7.7 grn 1082-1156 fps
in 2014 6.2-6.9 grn 1108-1220 fps


For the 125 JHP I have 8.8 grn of WW 231 written on the powder tube. This is also out of the new 7.3-8.5 book (XTP) range but in the middle of 8.6 to 9.1 circa 1988.

The .357 appears to be none the worse for the wear.

Is there anything special about the XTP bullet to throw it that far away from a 1988 jacketed, or are the lawyers talking, or have things (XTP) really changed that much?

I still have ammo loaded from the 1990s, I'll save it and crono it someday.

tx
Jeffm004 is offline  
Old November 10, 2014, 10:19 PM   #2
Jeffm004
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 22, 2013
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 255
Well, according to the book it is because of the seating depth of the XTP is deeper than normal, but the book doesn't print the standard bullet loads. -- PITA.
Jeffm004 is offline  
Old November 10, 2014, 10:47 PM   #3
Jeffm004
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 22, 2013
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 255
I have a few XTPs, a berry 158, and a 30 year old Speer 158 JFP. I went and checked, deeper seating is BS.
Jeffm004 is offline  
Old November 11, 2014, 12:44 AM   #4
Clark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 1999
Location: WA, the ever blue state
Posts: 4,678


I made a graph of my Speer load books for 44 mag 240 gr 2400, by using Microsoft Word that came with my computer.
__________________
The word 'forum" does not mean "not criticizing books."
"Ad hominem fallacy" is not the same as point by point criticism of books. If you bought the book, and believe it all, it may FEEL like an ad hominem attack, but you might strive to accept other points of view may exist.
Are we a nation of competing ideas, or a nation of forced conformity of thought?
Clark is offline  
Old November 11, 2014, 05:58 AM   #5
Salmoneye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,076
The powder manufacturers admit to a +/- 3% variance from 'optimal' burn rates is acceptable when they test different lots of the same powder...

That means that if a bullet company happens to get a lot of +3% powder in one year, and a lot of -3% powder the next, their data will be adjusted accordingly...

Hornady used to publish different data for W296 and H110 when they were the same powder, just from differently labeled jugs/lots...

Add in the differences from lots, test equipment, other components, and there is no point in comparing data from different manufacturers, especially over time...

Reference all data sources you can, and then start low and work up...
Salmoneye is offline  
Old November 11, 2014, 11:06 AM   #6
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
You might consider the reason the loads are different over 5, 10, 30 or how ever many years you care to look is at least in part because they are being tested in different guns.

And did you consider looking at the brass they used, as well?

The ONLY thing consistent with EVERYONE's published loads is that they are the data that they got with what they tested.

The odds are very high that you will get similar results with a similar gun and components. You may get exactly what they got. You may get more, or less of any component (pressure, velocity, etc). There are no guarantees, period.

Its all about how your particular mix of components (including how the ammo is constructed, as well as what it is made up of) AND YOUR GUN.

Unless you have their combination of everything, their data is a guideline, NOT a rule. Pretty good guidelines, usually, but still only guidelines. The RULE is start low and work up, with your stuff, in your gun.

I have seen guns that showed unacceptable pressure signs at below "listed max(s)" I have even seen some that did it at beginning level loads. I have seen some that showed no adverse pressure signs at well above "listed max".

I'll tell you right now, the guns make the most difference. Work up a max (or under max for that gun, but still hot) load with a S&W N frame .357, and be perfectly fine, but stick that same load in a K-frame, and you might have to pound the cases out of the chambers with a mallet!!!
(I have personally DONE this, I know it can happen)

I think different test guns, (and components) are the main reason you find different ranges of loads from year to year, or loading manual edition to edition.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old November 11, 2014, 12:48 PM   #7
Nick_C_S
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2013
Location: Idaho
Posts: 5,512
Speer #15

A little off subject, but I'm curious when Speer is going to come out with a #15. On average (4.5 years), they're overdue.
__________________
Gun control laws benefit only criminals and politicians - but then, I repeat myself.
Life Member, National Rifle Association
Nick_C_S is offline  
Old November 11, 2014, 12:59 PM   #8
Jeffm004
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 22, 2013
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 255
Bought a new Speer book. Not much help. I'm going with lawyers and use the 1988 book, a 3% powder spread is +/-.2 grns, about what the load spread is. Not buying brass variations etc. More likely worst case stacking over the years.
Jeffm004 is offline  
Old November 12, 2014, 06:43 AM   #9
Salmoneye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,076
Speer is now part of ATK along with Alliant...

After the merger, Alliant has gone to data with only Speer bullets...

Perhaps the current 'free' Alliant manual may be the only 'Speer' manual from now on?
Salmoneye is offline  
Old November 12, 2014, 10:43 AM   #10
chiefr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: AR
Posts: 1,401
I am fortunate enough to have some old reloading manuals. One of the issues is many of the powders from post WWII are no longer around. Bullseye, Unique, have been around a considerable time. 2400 was introduced in the 30s.
From the info I have I can see a definite trend downward. Especially with 2400.
chiefr is offline  
Old November 12, 2014, 10:34 PM   #11
mmb713
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2011
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 421
The reason the newer Speer data is generally lower than their older data has nothing to do with lawyers and everything to do with switching to newer, and more accurate, pressure testing methods. SAAMI switched from the copper crusher testing method to a piezoelectric method using psi and so did Speer. What they found was that a lot of loads developed using the copper crusher method were actually overpressure. They observed pressure spikes which cannot be measured with the copper crusher method. It was more pronounced in some cartridges than others, 357 Magnum being one of them. Nearly all of their 357 loads came down to safe levels. It was also more pronounced with the faster powders, like 231. Myself, I will stick with the most current data I can find.
mmb713 is offline  
Old November 13, 2014, 12:22 AM   #12
Clark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 1999
Location: WA, the ever blue state
Posts: 4,678
The 357 mag load were originally developed by increasing 38 special loads until the brass was hard to extract and then back off a safety margin so cases do not stick.

Later pressure was measured and eventually a maximum average pressure was registered at SAAMI.

Later thinner wall 357 mags were sold. The thin steel was more stretchy and caused cases to stick at lower pressures. [brass elastic deformation range is smaller than that of steel].
So the SAAMI pressures were reduced for the new small frame thin cylinder wall revolvers.

Then if they find a more accurate way of measuring pressure, and it reads lower, should they have raised the SAAMI max average pressure or reduced the loads in the load books?

It doesn't matter what they SHOULD have done, they reduced the published loads.
__________________
The word 'forum" does not mean "not criticizing books."
"Ad hominem fallacy" is not the same as point by point criticism of books. If you bought the book, and believe it all, it may FEEL like an ad hominem attack, but you might strive to accept other points of view may exist.
Are we a nation of competing ideas, or a nation of forced conformity of thought?
Clark is offline  
Old November 13, 2014, 10:47 AM   #13
reloader28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2009
Location: nw wyoming
Posts: 1,061
Its not just because the books have been lawerized and testing has changed, most reloaders refuse to believe it, but that the powders have actually changed some too.

I have cans of old 4227, 4198 and 2400 and there is DEFINITE and very noticable differences in the performance of these powders.
reloader28 is offline  
Old November 13, 2014, 11:49 AM   #14
Clark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 1999
Location: WA, the ever blue state
Posts: 4,678
Doesn't canister powder cost extra because it was blended to be the speed of the specification associated with the powder name e.g. 2400 or 231?
__________________
The word 'forum" does not mean "not criticizing books."
"Ad hominem fallacy" is not the same as point by point criticism of books. If you bought the book, and believe it all, it may FEEL like an ad hominem attack, but you might strive to accept other points of view may exist.
Are we a nation of competing ideas, or a nation of forced conformity of thought?
Clark is offline  
Old November 13, 2014, 05:15 PM   #15
Salmoneye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,076
I have Red Dot from the early 60's that is statistically the same as the Red Dot I have from the mid 70's and the Red Dot I bought two years ago...
Salmoneye is offline  
Old November 15, 2014, 12:07 PM   #16
Peter M. Eick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 3, 1999
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,991
Clark,

Looking at your graph, it seems like you could fit a regression line to your data.

I wonder how many years until the correct load will be zero grains?

__________________
10mm and 357sig, the best things to come along since the 38 super!
Peter M. Eick is offline  
Old November 15, 2014, 09:14 PM   #17
Nick_C_S
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2013
Location: Idaho
Posts: 5,512
Quote:
I wonder how many years until the correct load will be zero grains?
Probably not in our lifetimes.

But it looks like we'll be shooting 38's in a couple decades
__________________
Gun control laws benefit only criminals and politicians - but then, I repeat myself.
Life Member, National Rifle Association
Nick_C_S is offline  
Old November 15, 2014, 11:53 PM   #18
625cnd
Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2011
Posts: 33
The Lee manual is copied data from other sources.......
There is a plethora of data on various vendors web sites.
Prudent reloading habits and chronograph go a long way in validation of the reloading data in your firearms. Busting the OEM's chops is just bitching pure and simple. Do the work ups for safe, reliable , and accurate reloads....
Those three concepts seem to fail some people!
625cnd is offline  
Old November 16, 2014, 08:04 AM   #19
Jeffm004
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 22, 2013
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 255
Thank you all for the insight, I'll conclude with some further research:

From the 2014 Speer book, the original 1902 .38 Special was a step up from the .38 long colt, it shot a 158 grn LRN bullet.

Souped to +P meant over 1000 fps. That caused problems in some guns, leading to the +P designator.

It says lead is best for .38, Jacketed create more resistance and may lodge in the bore….

It goes on: This condition is aggravated by revolvers with large chamber throats or excessive barrel to cylinder gaps. To avoid this problem we are showing jacketed bullet data for only 110 and 125 grain bullets. Heavier bullets may not attain sufficient velocity to reliably overcome both friction and the gap. Note that these loads are DNR (do not reduce). AND these jacketed bullet loads must never be used in rifles.

My 1988 .357 data is much higher than today’s data. I think the reason is crap guns made in the interim. .357 is now a 1200 fps gun instead of a 1400 fps gun.

In my day, there was no such thing as “working up” past what the book said. Looking for “signs” was an act of stupid, you stayed in the stated range and searched for precision, not speed. That attitude has clearly changed. (making buying used guns a bit harder)

I’m leaning today toward learning, but sticking with the old books and the old rules where signs of over pressure were signs of a mistake. On the .357 side where I started researching, the powder ranges no longer even overlap, today's being much lower.

I’ll be loading some 125 Berry bullets to mid jacketed loads for the .38. Those ranges still overlap some. I loaded for many years without a chronograph sticking to mid ranges. Given all the variations of guns, bullet, books and maybe powder (I doubt it) out there today, I would advise against it.

I would not load ANY modern .38 loads for the new Henry .38/.357 rifle. Stick to .357 IMHO.

The final kicker to all this. Speer lists NO data for any 158 grn bullet today, lead or otherwise for the firearm that started with a 158 grn bullet.

My 2 cents. Worth what you paid for it.
Jeffm004 is offline  
Old November 16, 2014, 10:44 AM   #20
GP100man
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 1, 2007
Location: Tabor City , NC.
Posts: 1,969
SAAMI specs used to be 41,000 cup for 357 , we now have better pressure measuring equipment & SAAMI is now 35,000 psi. The pressure transducers /piezo sensors are showing exactly what`s happening as far as pressure curves in chambers.

When this info came to lite the lawyers "advised" the manufactures of ammo/arms to lower the working pressures of cartridges.
__________________
GP100man
GP100man is offline  
Old November 17, 2014, 12:21 PM   #21
happie2shoot
Junior Member
 
Join Date: September 27, 2012
Posts: 10
I think the old Speer #10 had the pressure at 46,500psi.
happie2shoot is offline  
Old November 17, 2014, 09:49 PM   #22
mattL46
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2013
Posts: 656
lets take a trip to 1970

Lyman 45th edition. No 125 grainers and no 231. Pretty interesting.


{Edit to remove copyrighted material. See board policy on posting same. You can report the data, as data itself is not copyrightable, but a photo of a page, with its particular layout, typeface, color scheme, etcetera, is copying a graphic, which is copyrightable.}

Last edited by Unclenick; November 17, 2014 at 10:00 PM.
mattL46 is offline  
Old November 17, 2014, 09:51 PM   #23
mattL46
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2013
Posts: 656
{Edit to remove copyrighted material. See board policy on posting same. You can report the data, as data itself is not copyrightable, but a photo of a page, with its particular layout, typeface, color scheme, etcetera, is copying a graphic, which is copyrightable.}

Last edited by Unclenick; November 17, 2014 at 10:01 PM.
mattL46 is offline  
Old November 17, 2014, 10:02 PM   #24
mattL46
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2013
Posts: 656
Oops. Completely forgot about that. I was lost in the moment. Apologies. If anyone would like for me to post any of the data for comparison reasons feel free to ask. Just state a bullet weight and particular powder.
mattL46 is offline  
Old November 18, 2014, 12:57 AM   #25
mmb713
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2011
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 421
Quote:
I think the old Speer #10 had the pressure at 46,500psi.
I think that when the Speer #10 was published piezoelectric transducers hadn't been invented yet and it was probably 46,500 CUP.
mmb713 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.06510 seconds with 8 queries