Speer Manual Discrepencies

Doctari · June 20, 1999, 02:58 PM

Hi all,

Have been reloading some 158gr L-SWC for my 6 in. python. Was using Speer manual #12 then I picked up #13 recently. Per manual 12 I had been loading 38 special target loads with 4.0 gr of bullseye. Range given 3.8 to 4.2 gr. on page 511.

New manual page 519 shows the range for 158gr L-SWC (same bullet and test gun stats) and bullseye powder to be 3.1 to 3.5.

Any thoughts? does bullseye vary that much by lot #? I do not have a chronograph so I am a bit concerned, as according to the new book I am loading over max pressure for 38+P (page 523). I have seen no suggestion of over pressure loads on my brass. My loads do not feel particularly hot comparing recoil to factory 38special.

Should I back the load off to 3.5gr bullseye. Call Speer? Anyone run into this kinda thing yourself?

Thanks Doctari

**Mal H** · June 20, 1999, 03:55 PM

Bullseye hasn't varied much in a hundred years. Speer has changed their pressure testing methods and that is reflected in more conservative loads.

In my opinion, if you worked up to your current load and don't have any noticeable problems, why change it? You might not want to go any higher, but I wouldn't back off if it works. 4.0 gr behind that weight bullet isn't going to bust your Python. One caution, however, would be that I wouldn't loan any of those loads to anyone else to shoot in a different gun.

Doctari · June 20, 1999, 06:14 PM

Thanks Mal,

I discovered that the Speer manual states, they try to keep lead loads under 1000 fps to prevent barrel leading. However, it is still quite a wide variation in powder charges from 3.1gr to 4.2gr bullseye. Considering the velocities all start around 880 fps at the low end I doubt that they are staying under 1000 at the high end.

It's a conspiracy to force me to buy a chronograph I tell you :P

Doctari

Cheapo · June 21, 1999, 12:45 AM

Send me 10 rounds and I'll Chrono 'em in 4- aind 6-inch .357s.

No overpressure risk there!

Since the Alliant manual lists 3.6 Bullseye for reg. .38 Spl. loads, and 3.8 Bullseye for +P loads (a lousy 1,800 more psi for this particular powder!), your loads are technically over max just a little bit.

*IF* they go 945 fps at 75°F from your 6-inch gun, they *may* be within SAAMI pressure. Regular-pressure loads go only 35 fps slower with that bullet/powder combo.

It's all a conspiracy to get you to buy a strain gage pressure tester!

Paul B. · June 21, 1999, 05:07 PM

Another thing to think about. Most reloading manuals have been reducing loads to some degree because of liability concerns.
When I compare data I have been using for years with no problems, being downgraded 3 to 5 grains, (rifle loads)I wonder?????
BTW. My .38 Spl load with a 150 gr. lead bullet is a lot hotter than yours. I've been using it in a snubby for 5 years now with no problem. I was reading an article a while back on loads for strong .357's. The writer, a Paco Kelly found some origional .357 ammo at a gun show. He broke one down, determined that it was #2400 (probably non-cannister) and tried to duplicate the loads. The origional loads gave 1550 fps with a 158 gr. lead bullet. He did it, using an "N" frame Smith. I would be careful here, because the latest batches of #2400 I have tried, seem to be faster burning. This may be the case with the latest batches of Bullseye.
You can find the article at (www.sixgunner.com) It's in an archive section.
Paul B.

Futo Inu · June 23, 1999, 09:14 AM

Doctari: Speer #13? That's a new one, is it not? Does it have 357sig? 400Corbon? 440Corbon? .45Sup? .460Rowland? 30-378 Wby Mag? I don't reload these (though I may start with 400CB), but I am just interested in reading about ballistics, etc., for pleasure/curiosity.

Don Morgan · June 23, 1999, 10:23 AM

Since the Topic of discussion is Speer Manual Discrepencies I will reflect on the topic. I have the Speer Manual #12 that I primarily use for reference only due the some of the loads I felt were not correct. When loading for lead bullets I refer to two manuals, the Lyman 47th Reloading Handbook, or the Hodgedon Data Manual No. 26. When speaking to the techical people at Speer and bringing this to their attention, they assured me that this was their test results and they stand by their reloading manual. I can not disagree with them as they did do the testing, but I just did not feel comfortable with some of their loads.

------------------
Society is safer when the criminal does not know who is armed

Paul B. · June 23, 1999, 10:24 AM

Futu. No. The new Speer manual has none of he cartridges you asked about. The new Nosler #4 has data for the 30-378 Wby, but none of the others.
Paul B.

bear · June 23, 1999, 03:10 PM

I have a tendency to agree with Paul B and think liability plays a large part in the lower numbers, this is a sue crazy society we live in and I'm sure the the people who put out the manuals realize this. went though the same thing with .357 loads using 158gr. JHP and 296 powder, the numbers are far lower than quite a while ago.

Doctari · June 23, 1999, 09:21 PM

The manual does have 357 Sig loadings but none of the others in question. It is also nice that they have some newer powders and cast bullets listed in the new manual.

Hope that helps,
Doctari

Cheapo · June 23, 1999, 10:49 PM

Here's the liability concern:

Loads previously tested many moons ago with CUP equipment (a coarse science even on the best of days) were found to exceed SAAMI specs under piezoelectric measurements.

*True*, the powder companies and loading book companies *probably* test their loads from -20° F to, I hope, at least 120° F. 140°F would be even better. And they usually use min-spec barrels.

So, the load needs to be safe under a wide variety of conditions.

I, for one, believe the newer Speer manual. Specs is specs, guys and gals. If the old tried and true load exceeded .38 Sp. +P specs, it's out of spec. Surely safe in modern S&Ws, Colts & Rugers, but beyond pressure specs nonetheless.

So, I'm backing my 296 .357 load back by half a grain.

I dare you to find reasonable fault with keeping reloading data within SAAMI pressure specs.

BTW, I also believe Speer's 296 loads in .357 *are* safe because the Winchester book's one-size-fits-all loads are listed with pressures several thousand PSI below .357 SAAMI max. It truly appears that there is plenty of room for those extra 1.5 or so grains.

Rod WMG · July 11, 1999, 05:53 PM

With the Speer manuals, expecially with the lead bullets, be aware of two things: First, as another poster stated, they stop development at or before 1000 fps to prevent leading concerns; and, Second, they use different test guns from manual to manual to develop the loads. Some guns are tighter, etc. than others and the cutoff point of 1000 fps is reached with less powder.

The gunwriters say it often enough to make it trite, but, "every gun is different." What develops 1000 fps in Speer's test firearm, may give lower pressure and less velocity in yours, or it may be higher. I have some established loads based on older manuals that give no indications of excessive pressures, even in the Charter Arms snub, so I'm not changing. You will have to make up your own mind, based on comparing other manuals and your shooting results.

With basically all the powder and bullet companies on line with data, and with most having toll free numbers to reach the techs, there is really no reason not to consult multiple sources when working up a load. Good shooting.

Contender · July 11, 1999, 06:12 PM

I was under the impression that there is no direct equivalency between the CUP measurement and the Piezo (PSI) measurement of chamber pressure. So a "new" pressure spec had to be set for all metallic cartridges. They will all be tested with the Piezo system and that this "new" standard pressure for each cartridge was set with product liability concerns as one of the criteria among others.

[This message has been edited by Contender (edited July 11, 1999).]

Rod WMG · July 11, 1999, 08:05 PM

Contender,

You are correct. This, however, as far as Speer is concerned, was not the reasoning behind their lead bullet loads, at least as of the #12. Their sole concern was a mild load for their soft lead bullets and a velocity of less than 1000 fps because of leading.

For the hotter jacketed rounds many loads have been reduced from previous manuals for the exact reason you named.

June 20, 1999, 02:58 PM	#1
Doctari Member Join Date: March 27, 1999 Location: Lansing, MI Posts: 86	Hi all, Have been reloading some 158gr L-SWC for my 6 in. python. Was using Speer manual #12 then I picked up #13 recently. Per manual 12 I had been loading 38 special target loads with 4.0 gr of bullseye. Range given 3.8 to 4.2 gr. on page 511. New manual page 519 shows the range for 158gr L-SWC (same bullet and test gun stats) and bullseye powder to be 3.1 to 3.5. Any thoughts? does bullseye vary that much by lot #? I do not have a chronograph so I am a bit concerned, as according to the new book I am loading over max pressure for 38+P (page 523). I have seen no suggestion of over pressure loads on my brass. My loads do not feel particularly hot comparing recoil to factory 38special. Should I back the load off to 3.5gr bullseye. Call Speer? Anyone run into this kinda thing yourself? Thanks Doctari

June 20, 1999, 03:55 PM	#2
Mal H Staff Join Date: March 20, 1999 Location: Somewhere in the woods of Northern Virginia Posts: 16,948	Bullseye hasn't varied much in a hundred years. Speer has changed their pressure testing methods and that is reflected in more conservative loads. In my opinion, if you worked up to your current load and don't have any noticeable problems, why change it? You might not want to go any higher, but I wouldn't back off if it works. 4.0 gr behind that weight bullet isn't going to bust your Python. One caution, however, would be that I wouldn't loan any of those loads to anyone else to shoot in a different gun.

June 20, 1999, 06:14 PM	#3
Doctari Member Join Date: March 27, 1999 Location: Lansing, MI Posts: 86	Thanks Mal, I discovered that the Speer manual states, they try to keep lead loads under 1000 fps to prevent barrel leading. However, it is still quite a wide variation in powder charges from 3.1gr to 4.2gr bullseye. Considering the velocities all start around 880 fps at the low end I doubt that they are staying under 1000 at the high end. It's a conspiracy to force me to buy a chronograph I tell you :P Doctari

June 21, 1999, 12:45 AM	#4
Cheapo Senior Member Join Date: November 19, 1998 Posts: 986	Send me 10 rounds and I'll Chrono 'em in 4- aind 6-inch .357s. No overpressure risk there! Since the Alliant manual lists 3.6 Bullseye for reg. .38 Spl. loads, and 3.8 Bullseye for +P loads (a lousy 1,800 more psi for this particular powder!), your loads are technically over max just a little bit. IF they go 945 fps at 75°F from your 6-inch gun, they may be within SAAMI pressure. Regular-pressure loads go only 35 fps slower with that bullet/powder combo. It's all a conspiracy to get you to buy a strain gage pressure tester!

June 21, 1999, 05:07 PM	#5
Paul B. Senior Member Join Date: March 28, 1999 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 3,801	Another thing to think about. Most reloading manuals have been reducing loads to some degree because of liability concerns. When I compare data I have been using for years with no problems, being downgraded 3 to 5 grains, (rifle loads)I wonder????? BTW. My .38 Spl load with a 150 gr. lead bullet is a lot hotter than yours. I've been using it in a snubby for 5 years now with no problem. I was reading an article a while back on loads for strong .357's. The writer, a Paco Kelly found some origional .357 ammo at a gun show. He broke one down, determined that it was #2400 (probably non-cannister) and tried to duplicate the loads. The origional loads gave 1550 fps with a 158 gr. lead bullet. He did it, using an "N" frame Smith. I would be careful here, because the latest batches of #2400 I have tried, seem to be faster burning. This may be the case with the latest batches of Bullseye. You can find the article at (www.sixgunner.com) It's in an archive section. Paul B.

June 23, 1999, 09:14 AM	#6
Futo Inu Senior Member Join Date: February 12, 1999 Location: Oklahoma City, OK, USA Posts: 3,624	Doctari: Speer #13? That's a new one, is it not? Does it have 357sig? 400Corbon? 440Corbon? .45Sup? .460Rowland? 30-378 Wby Mag? I don't reload these (though I may start with 400CB), but I am just interested in reading about ballistics, etc., for pleasure/curiosity.

June 23, 1999, 10:23 AM	#7
Don Morgan Member Join Date: June 2, 1999 Posts: 43	Since the Topic of discussion is Speer Manual Discrepencies I will reflect on the topic. I have the Speer Manual #12 that I primarily use for reference only due the some of the loads I felt were not correct. When loading for lead bullets I refer to two manuals, the Lyman 47th Reloading Handbook, or the Hodgedon Data Manual No. 26. When speaking to the techical people at Speer and bringing this to their attention, they assured me that this was their test results and they stand by their reloading manual. I can not disagree with them as they did do the testing, but I just did not feel comfortable with some of their loads. ------------------ Society is safer when the criminal does not know who is armed

June 23, 1999, 10:24 AM	#8
Paul B. Senior Member Join Date: March 28, 1999 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 3,801	Futu. No. The new Speer manual has none of he cartridges you asked about. The new Nosler #4 has data for the 30-378 Wby, but none of the others. Paul B.

June 23, 1999, 03:10 PM	#9
bear Member Join Date: November 13, 1998 Location: Mpls, Minn Posts: 56	I have a tendency to agree with Paul B and think liability plays a large part in the lower numbers, this is a sue crazy society we live in and I'm sure the the people who put out the manuals realize this. went though the same thing with .357 loads using 158gr. JHP and 296 powder, the numbers are far lower than quite a while ago.

June 23, 1999, 09:21 PM	#10
Doctari Member Join Date: March 27, 1999 Location: Lansing, MI Posts: 86	The manual does have 357 Sig loadings but none of the others in question. It is also nice that they have some newer powders and cast bullets listed in the new manual. Hope that helps, Doctari

June 23, 1999, 10:49 PM	#11
Cheapo Senior Member Join Date: November 19, 1998 Posts: 986	Here's the liability concern: Loads previously tested many moons ago with CUP equipment (a coarse science even on the best of days) were found to exceed SAAMI specs under piezoelectric measurements. True, the powder companies and loading book companies probably test their loads from -20° F to, I hope, at least 120° F. 140°F would be even better. And they usually use min-spec barrels. So, the load needs to be safe under a wide variety of conditions. I, for one, believe the newer Speer manual. Specs is specs, guys and gals. If the old tried and true load exceeded .38 Sp. +P specs, it's out of spec. Surely safe in modern S&Ws, Colts & Rugers, but beyond pressure specs nonetheless. So, I'm backing my 296 .357 load back by half a grain. I dare you to find reasonable fault with keeping reloading data within SAAMI pressure specs. BTW, I also believe Speer's 296 loads in .357 are safe because the Winchester book's one-size-fits-all loads are listed with pressures several thousand PSI below .357 SAAMI max. It truly appears that there is plenty of room for those extra 1.5 or so grains.

July 11, 1999, 05:53 PM	#12
Rod WMG Senior Member Join Date: July 3, 1999 Posts: 167	With the Speer manuals, expecially with the lead bullets, be aware of two things: First, as another poster stated, they stop development at or before 1000 fps to prevent leading concerns; and, Second, they use different test guns from manual to manual to develop the loads. Some guns are tighter, etc. than others and the cutoff point of 1000 fps is reached with less powder. The gunwriters say it often enough to make it trite, but, "every gun is different." What develops 1000 fps in Speer's test firearm, may give lower pressure and less velocity in yours, or it may be higher. I have some established loads based on older manuals that give no indications of excessive pressures, even in the Charter Arms snub, so I'm not changing. You will have to make up your own mind, based on comparing other manuals and your shooting results. With basically all the powder and bullet companies on line with data, and with most having toll free numbers to reach the techs, there is really no reason not to consult multiple sources when working up a load. Good shooting.

July 11, 1999, 06:12 PM	#13
Contender Senior Member Join Date: December 10, 1998 Location: NY Posts: 680	I was under the impression that there is no direct equivalency between the CUP measurement and the Piezo (PSI) measurement of chamber pressure. So a "new" pressure spec had to be set for all metallic cartridges. They will all be tested with the Piezo system and that this "new" standard pressure for each cartridge was set with product liability concerns as one of the criteria among others. [This message has been edited by Contender (edited July 11, 1999).]

July 11, 1999, 08:05 PM	#14
Rod WMG Senior Member Join Date: July 3, 1999 Posts: 167	Contender, You are correct. This, however, as far as Speer is concerned, was not the reasoning behind their lead bullet loads, at least as of the #12. Their sole concern was a mild load for their soft lead bullets and a velocity of less than 1000 fps because of leading. For the hotter jacketed rounds many loads have been reduced from previous manuals for the exact reason you named.