Time to retire some of my old reloading manuals.

[FoghornLeghorn]

I'm working up load data for 44 mag revolver for Hornady 180 gr jhp.

Powders on hand: Win 231, Titegroup, Accurate #5, Unique and two Vihtvuori offerings.

In my 2021 Hodgdon reloading manual, the load for 231: 10 gr for 1327 fps; max 12.0 gr for 1509 fps.

In my 1978 Lyman Pistol and Revolver Handbook, for 231: 10.2 gr for 1077 fps; max 13.0 gr for 1267 fps.

I guess it's time to retire the Lyman manual?

[Unclenick]

Are the barrel lengths the same? Are both sets of data fired using universal receiver barrels? Are they using the same pressure measuring device, copper crusher, or conformal transducer?

[44 AMP]

Considering that all published data is guidelines, and not holy writ, and that while it most probably is faithful and accurate recounting of what they got with what they used, what you are using is NOT the exact same, and at best is similar, why do you think one is right and the other is not, and why would you think either is what you're going to get in your gun, with your components, and your method of reloading???

I've seen guns that showed pressure signs well before reaching anywhere near listed book "max" and I've had guns that took loads well over listed max with no pressure signs or anything else to indicate anything "wrong".

You might want to check that old Lyman book, the one I have (1970) and the 180gr listed in it is a CAST bullet....

Also, checked Hornady 3rd and 7th editions, neither of which lists a 180gr .44 Mag slug, at all!

[Marco Califo]

I double check whatever load data I am using against the powder seller's and bullet manufacturers data on-line: Hodgdon RDc, Alliant.com, Speer on-line data, etc. I save and keep old manuals and pamphlets, and occasionally look at historical data, with a grain of salt.
There is a permanent sticky above for official on-line data sources.

[zeke]

Like keeping and collecting old manuals. They can offer a lot more than just data. When looking for load data like to have multiple newer ones to cross reference.

[Unclenick]

FoghornLeghorn,

I don't have your #45 Handbook, but I have #44 (1967) and #46 (1980), and #46 has your same 180-grain JHP data listed. Comparing it to Hodgdon's data is apples-to-oranges. SAAMI has two standard universal receiver test barrel types for 44 Magnum handguns. The Lyman data is fired in one type; the Hodgdon data is fired in the other type. This easily accounts for the discrepancy you see.

Lyman fits their Universal Receiver with the 4" vented barrel (actual length 5.763" when the chamber and vent are included), while the Hodgdon data is fired in a Universal Receiver fitted with the 8.275" actual length unvented barrel. So most of the velocity difference you see is due to the 2.512" difference in total barrel length. The pressure difference is due to the shorter Lyman barrel's 0.008" vent that mimics a revolver barrel/cylinder gap. The unvented barrel used by Hodgdon mimics a single-shot pistol with no barrel/cylinder gap, so the same charge produces higher pressure in the Hodgdon barrel.

Both sets of data appear to be good if used in the appropriate type of gun. Use the Hodgdon data for single-shots, semi-autos, and carbines. Use the Lyman data for revolvers.

[zeke]

fwiw
from 3 in S&W BH, Rem 180 sjhp, Fed 150 primer, Lee factory crimp, Rem brass
9.5 gns hp-38 = 1060 fps poor accuracy
10.0 gns hp-38 = 1120 fps, decent accuracy
10.5 gns hp-38 = 1160 fps, very good accuracy

favorite load for 180 jhps is 11.0 gns unique for about 1250 fps from 4 in and ex accuracy. Gets around 1500 fps from 16 in Marlin, if memory serves

course it may depend on what you're looking for from the load

[RoyceP]

Originally Posted by FoghornLeghorn

I'm working up load data for 44 mag revolver for Hornady 180 gr jhp.

Powders on hand: Win 231, Titegroup, Accurate #5, Unique and two Vihtvuori offerings.

In my 2021 Hodgdon reloading manual, the load for 231: 10 gr for 1327 fps; max 12.0 gr for 1509 fps.

In my 1978 Lyman Pistol and Revolver Handbook, for 231: 10.2 gr for 1077 fps; max 13.0 gr for 1267 fps.

I guess it's time to retire the Lyman manual?

I think your manuals are OK. The real problem here is inappropriate powder selection. You need either Winchester 296 or Alliant 2400.

[Paul B.]

I no longer trust some of the data in Lyman Manuals. Note that Uncle Nick said he had Lyman #44 for 1964. So do I. I also have the Lyman #50. Data for the 150 gr. bullet is IIRC, start 46.0 gr. 4895 and 51.0 gr. max. pressure test C.U.P. in #44 and is exactly the same in #50, still using the C.U.P. label. This brings forth the question, has Lyman ever retested those 4895 loads and if so, why C.U.P. and not the more accurate strain gauge method giving PSI numbers?

I'll be honest, I rather like the Lyman manuals but I'm also admitting I'm a bit more cautious when using data that shows it was tested using the C.U.P. method of testing regardless of whose manual it's published in. Fingers and such can't be replaced AFAIK.
Paul B.

[Paul B.]

I thought I'd keep this separate. I still have some older manuals, the earliest an IDEAL #37. No copyright date but I'd estimate late 1940s to early or mid 50's.

Lots of data for powders that no longer exist. So what does one do when a friend shows up, asks if I know where I can find data for a 5066 powder? Ideal 37 to the rescue. My friend was freaking out because he was given a 50 pound drum of that particular powder and couldn't find data. He gave me about two pounds to play with and believe me, I wish it had been more. I worked up a load for a 1911A1 I had using a 200 gr. Lyman cast bullet and that was the most accurate load that ever went through that .45. I sure was sorry when that two pounds ran out. Older manuals do serve a purpose IMHO, especially when one runs across a supply of powder that is long gone but still good. That 5066 was made by Hercules and near as I can tell ran somewhere between Bullseye and Unique, but closer to Unique than Bullseye. IIRC, Phil Sharpe said in his book that it was dropped because it was too close to Unique and basically did the same thing. Not sure I quite agree with him as I never got the quality of accuracy from Unique that I got from 5066.
Paul B.

[Marco Califo]

I agree. I have Lyman 50th. I find the cartridge articles interesting, but dated. The load data they list is tepid at best, and is not updated for newer powders. I did not buy it for that load data.

[Mannlicher]

if you have a chronograph, it's a lot easier to work up loads. The old advise of starting low and working up is still valid.

[Mike / Tx]

Like a couple of others, I have manuals dating back to the late 40's up through some as recent as the last year or so.

I use most of the most popular older powders in 90% of my handgun loads and even some rifles. That said when you run across older powders that aren't listed anymore, also like mentioned, theae manuals are a goldmine.

With any load, cross checking data is the best practice, even if the manufacturer's data may or may not be part of it. Use the bullet weight, composition, and profile to determine a starting point. Once there, you should have several powders to begin with. I like the slower ones due to a better case fill, but some like AA-2, Bullseye, and similar fast powders also work great in some applications. Either way you go, you should end up with a couple of starting loads. They may vary by up to a grain depending on how many manuals you consult.

Once I have the starting point, I'll go through and average those to have a start load, then I'll do the same with the top ends and decide where I'm going to stop. Usually I hold around a half grain to a full grain shy of the averaged max loads. This will usually give me plenty of wiggle room to start low and work up.

In most cases I usually never get ro the top portion as I mostly am looking for accuracy over velocity.

Hope that helps,

[RoyceP]

I recently bought a Colt revolver that was 41 Colt caliber. Old manuals are the only source for load data (not trusting the internet only!) and many of the powders mentioned were obsolete - but not all.

[Paul B.]

One fair source for old data is Ken Waters PET LOADS. He does have data for some of the older cartridges no longer mentioned in load manuals that use relatively new powders. If nothing else the book is a good read for those long cold winter nights when you have nothing better to do.
Paul B.

[zeke]

Originally Posted by Paul B.

One fair source for old data is Ken Waters PET LOADS. He does have data for some of the older cartridges no longer mentioned in load manuals that use relatively new powders. If nothing else the book is a good read for those long cold winter nights when you have nothing better to do.
Paul B.

several of my favorite pistol loads came from PET LOADS. Not only loads, but practical information on firearms/reloading components not found elsewhere.

[Unkl Chuck]

I collect and keep old manuals for reference use and try to keep a couple of current manuals for actual loading data. The Hodgon website is an excellent resource.