Old Manuals

Utahar15 · March 20, 2011, 11:16 AM

I remember reading old manuals should not be used because of the outdated date.

Well I have the following.

Lee 2nd 2003-2007
Lyman 49th 2008-2009
Lyman 45 1970
Nosler 6 2007
Hornady 7 2007
Barnes 4 2008
Speer 13 1998-2005

So Other than the Lyman 45 are any of theses out of date? When they reprint I'm assuming they don't carnage anything.

Robb

Woody3 · March 20, 2011, 12:01 PM

Those are all bad. You can send them to me for proper disposal. Pm for address.

Woody

**Mike Irwin** · March 20, 2011, 12:23 PM

You're on track with everything except the Lyman 45.

The great thing, though, is that once you pick a powder, bullet, and load from one of your manuals, in this age of the internet you can go online and verify what the powder manufacturer has to say about the load you've selected.

FrankenMauser · March 20, 2011, 12:56 PM

The Hornady 8th (2011) is out now, but won't provide any new data, unless:
A: You have one of the cartridges new to this edition.
B: You want to use LeveRevolution or SuperPerformance powder.

I have found no other changes (besides incorporation of the 7th edition errata).

Tom Matiska · March 20, 2011, 01:10 PM

I have a 1970ish Lee book that came with their hand loader that shows some 30-30 data 5 grains above what is published today(heavily compressed). Also a 1987 Hodgdon pub that lists light H110 loads for the 44Spec(squib territory) that aren't published today.

Biggest problem I'm finding with old books is really with new bullets. Bullets like Hornady's FTX have much more "below the waterline'' than the conventional bullets used in all but the most recent pubs.

Paul B. · March 20, 2011, 01:35 PM

I have quite a few of the older manuals as far back as the Lyman #37. They're sometimes a very handy reference should someone get hold of a long discontinued powder. A prime example was when a friend of mine got a keg of 5066 powder. No data anywhere and this was way before the internet. I dunno how big his keg of powder was other than he said it was big but I had data and he was grateful enough to give 10 pounds of the stuff. I finally used it all up in a .45 ACP about 6 or 7 years ago. One of my favorites of my older manuals is the first edition of Lyman's cast bullet manuals. While Lyman had data, most of the manual was information sent in by real live bullet casters, what they used and what worked for them. A very interesting red. My copy is rather worn and tattered now and I still go to it as much as one or two times a week either looking up something for myself or to answer somebody's question. Data for some obsolete cartridges can be found in those old books as well. I consider them well worth keeping and well worth buying.
Sometimes, they leave me a bit sad. When you look at all those bullet molds Lyman used to make that the bean counters dropped. Try and find a Lyman #3589 bullet mold sometime. Unless you're very lucky, you'll part wwith a "C" note to get one in fair shape. I found mine for $25 at a gun shop's junk box. No, it's not for sale.
Paul B.

wncchester · March 20, 2011, 02:20 PM

Most - ALL? - statements about 'changes' in old loading data and new are bloated blarney.

1. Cannister powders have been unchanged from their beginnings. There is no reason for the makers to "change" an established powder more than the standard lot-to-lot tolerance and huge legal liability reasons not to. If the makers want to bring out a new burn rate powder they give it a new name and market it as such, not slip in a new powder burn rate under an old label.

2. No matter the methods of recording pressure changes between CUP and PSI, what was safe in 1951 is safe in 2011. Any book changes in loading data between manuals of any source or age simply reflects a difference in the test weapons, not any "lawyering" effect.

3. What makes any authoritative data as relivant as any other is the constant instruction to "Start low, work up to book max slowly and stop if you see any over pressure signs." Do that and the source or age of the data won't matter, ignore that and it still won't matter!

Tom Matiska · March 20, 2011, 05:39 PM

My take is that data of a few decades ago just wasn't as well tested.

The gold standard of old data to me is Winchester Ball data. It was tested not to exceed 95% SAAMI at 70F, not to exceed 110% at -40F or 140F, 89% to 98% load density, etc.....

wncchester · March 20, 2011, 06:44 PM

"My take is that data of a few decades ago just wasn't as well tested."

May I ask if you are perhaps in your 20s or 30s? If you were older you might have a different opinion of those who built the foundations of reloading as you know it today.

Peter M. Eick · March 20, 2011, 06:57 PM

I was disappointed. I was looking for another nice discussion of the older manuals.

When I think older I think of say Ideal (lyman) pre-34. Speer 1, Seirra 1 etc. I would have racked up your list as all modern.

Looking at my loading bookshelf, I now have over 20 linear feet of manuals and my favorites are the old ones. I am especially pleased with my autographed Keith "sixgun Cartridges" and Sharpe "Complete handloading". First editions of course.

Old data is fascinating to compare and study relative to modern data and to look at how things change.

I will say my 1930's Heavy Duties like Sharpe's and Keiths load data from the same vintage.

SL1 · March 20, 2011, 09:52 PM

I have Lyman's #44, published 1967.

It has a Herco load for the .357 Magnum cartridge that is grains more than modern loads. QuickLOAD gives 83,671 psi for that load with default parameters, but the exact Lyman bullet.

I don't think the Lyman loads were actually pressure tested in those days.

I don't know if the #45 Lyman manual lists pressures like the #49 does, but if it does not, I would research any loads from it VERY carefully before I used them.

SL1

Clark · March 20, 2011, 10:34 PM

I know someone who make a living debating pro gun positions.

When he sees me, he always asks to see all my fingers.

He refuses to overload anything, but uses hot loads in his old load books.

There is something of a fundamentalist line to cross for him.

There is no doubt he is very smart, but not in a engineering way.

I was at an event at a law school where he debated, and I would have just beat up the anti gun guy, but he stayed cool and collected. There are different types of intelligence.

FrankenMauser · March 21, 2011, 12:07 AM

Quote:

1. Cannister powders have been unchanged from their beginnings. There is no reason for the makers to "change" an established powder more than the standard lot-to-lot tolerance and huge legal liability reasons not to. If the makers want to bring out a new burn rate powder they give it a new name and market it as such, not slip in a new powder burn rate under an old label.

From some one that often makes "old versus new" and "reloading origins" arguments, I wouldn't have expected that statement.

ALL Hodgdon extruded powders have changed. Hodgdon changed granule shape and size on ALL of their extruded powders, and had to change chemical composition to compensate (to keep those powders at the same relative burn rate as the 'classic' or surplus powders). Their own literature explains this! Changing chemical composition, shape, and size is definitely the same as a brand new powder under an old name!

Unique has changed brands, manufacturers, and formulation. Using old data with the simple powder name "Unique", instead of the now-common "Alliant Unique" will get a reloader into over-pressure territory very quickly (often with a starting load).

And the list goes on...

Many of the changed powders might be somewhat usable with old data, but they are NOT the same powder the data was developed with.

Even into the 1960s, many reloading manuals developed data with true surplus powders. To keep themselves in business when surplus supplies ran out, powder companies had to develop canister powders of roughly equivalent performance. Again... the powders changed (only the first of several changes, for some of them).

Powders change. Manufacturers change. Bullets change. Primers change.
Assuming old data is perfectly safe for new components is absolutely ignorant.
You may get lucky, and work up 50 different loads with the old data - without a problem. But, then again... a new-fangled Hornady GMX stuck on top of a 1950s recommended charge of new H4895 might be enough to turn you into a lefty - since the use of your right eye and right hand will be limited.

Assuming old data is safe with modern components, without testing thoroughly; is like using a repair manual for a 1968 Volvo P1800 1.8L engine to rebuild the 1.8L engine in your 2012 S40. Just because they're both called a "1.8L", does not mean they're the same.

Peter M. Eick · April 3, 2011, 02:36 PM

I hear your arguement but my counter is always the same.

Why is it that my 1937 load data for say the 38 special with unique gives me roughly the same velocities with modern components in my 1930's 38/44 Outdoorsman's?

Must be some fluke that I routinely come in within 50 fps of the 1937 data when I chron it today. It always amazes me that with all of those variations it equals right back out.

Same thing for my 357 Magnum. Put the right loads in my 8 3/8" pre-27's and they come in right at the velocites Sharpe quotes in 1937.

Weird how things could be so consistent over decades.

wncchester · April 3, 2011, 08:50 PM

"ALL Hodgdon extruded powders have changed. Hodgdon changed granule shape and size on ALL of their extruded powders, and had to change chemical composition to compensate (to keep those powders at the same relative burn rate as the 'classic' or surplus powders). Their own literature explains this! Changing chemical composition, shape, and size is definitely the same as a brand new powder under an old name!"

All true but meaningless; you carefully make a distinction that makes no difference. It isn't the granule shape, etc, that matters to us, it's the burn rate. Anything that has the same burn rate is the same powder in any practical sense. Hodgdon, per se, doesn't make powders, after the WWII surplus stuff ran out they first contracted for some and then bought established plants but the burn rates are indeed the same as always.

"THEY", the powder makers, don't/can't make production lots for a given burn rate; organic chemistry just doesn't work that precisely. They make a production run of a general type that may cover several burn rates and test it to see what the burn rate is; if it's a cannister rate they sell it that way. If it's close to cannister they may mix it with other lots to make it cannister. More often they just sell those lots that aren't cannister to the big ammo makers and let them deal with it; that's why/how the factories use powders we can't get.

Cannister powders - the kind we use - were defined before WWII and, while many have been dropped and new ones introduced, the ones that remain haven't changed a bit; a can of IMR 4895 will still perform the same today as it did for reloaders (and the manual makers) in 1947, aside from the normal lot to lot variations stipulated in the original specifications.

The ONLY rule that provides safety is the old one, 'Start low and slowly work up.....etc." Old data, new data, specific bullet-case-primer or not. Fact is, the biggest change we can possibly make to what any book makers used is our firearms are not the same as their's so none of it's scripture writ in stone by the hand of God.

Ike666 · April 3, 2011, 09:08 PM

@wncchester

A while back I had some questions about AA #9 and differences from an older manual and current load ranges. I contacted the new manufacturer (importer? ) of AA powders and was told that when the company was acquired from Israeli Military Industries that indeed the formula had been changed increasing the nitro portion in the load.

I actually have some cans of AA #9 purchased circa 1989 made from the old formula. I will confess that I haven't run either the older versions or the newer ones through a GCMS so I don't know personally whether the alleged change is true or not. But then I'm inclined to go with what the company rep told me and back off the charge weights when using the newer powder.

March 20, 2011, 11:16 AM	#1
Utahar15 Member Join Date: March 1, 2011 Posts: 57	Old Manuals I remember reading old manuals should not be used because of the outdated date. Well I have the following. Lee 2nd 2003-2007 Lyman 49th 2008-2009 Lyman 45 1970 Nosler 6 2007 Hornady 7 2007 Barnes 4 2008 Speer 13 1998-2005 So Other than the Lyman 45 are any of theses out of date? When they reprint I'm assuming they don't carnage anything. Robb

March 20, 2011, 12:01 PM	#2
Woody3 Member Join Date: February 7, 2011 Posts: 37	Those are all bad. You can send them to me for proper disposal. Pm for address. Woody __________________ Keep your head low and your powder dry

March 20, 2011, 01:35 PM	#6
Paul B. Senior Member Join Date: March 28, 1999 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 3,802	I have quite a few of the older manuals as far back as the Lyman #37. They're sometimes a very handy reference should someone get hold of a long discontinued powder. A prime example was when a friend of mine got a keg of 5066 powder. No data anywhere and this was way before the internet. I dunno how big his keg of powder was other than he said it was big but I had data and he was grateful enough to give 10 pounds of the stuff. I finally used it all up in a .45 ACP about 6 or 7 years ago. One of my favorites of my older manuals is the first edition of Lyman's cast bullet manuals. While Lyman had data, most of the manual was information sent in by real live bullet casters, what they used and what worked for them. A very interesting red. My copy is rather worn and tattered now and I still go to it as much as one or two times a week either looking up something for myself or to answer somebody's question. Data for some obsolete cartridges can be found in those old books as well. I consider them well worth keeping and well worth buying. Sometimes, they leave me a bit sad. When you look at all those bullet molds Lyman used to make that the bean counters dropped. Try and find a Lyman #3589 bullet mold sometime. Unless you're very lucky, you'll part wwith a "C" note to get one in fair shape. I found mine for $25 at a gun shop's junk box. No, it's not for sale. Paul B. __________________ COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!

March 20, 2011, 06:57 PM	#10
Peter M. Eick Senior Member Join Date: August 3, 1999 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 2,991	I was disappointed. I was looking for another nice discussion of the older manuals. When I think older I think of say Ideal (lyman) pre-34. Speer 1, Seirra 1 etc. I would have racked up your list as all modern. Looking at my loading bookshelf, I now have over 20 linear feet of manuals and my favorites are the old ones. I am especially pleased with my autographed Keith "sixgun Cartridges" and Sharpe "Complete handloading". First editions of course. Old data is fascinating to compare and study relative to modern data and to look at how things change. I will say my 1930's Heavy Duties like Sharpe's and Keiths load data from the same vintage. __________________ 10mm and 357sig, the best things to come along since the 38 super!

March 20, 2011, 09:52 PM	#11
SL1 Senior Member Join Date: November 8, 2007 Posts: 2,001	Beware old Lyman manuals I have Lyman's #44, published 1967. It has a Herco load for the .357 Magnum cartridge that is grains more than modern loads. QuickLOAD gives 83,671 psi for that load with default parameters, but the exact Lyman bullet. I don't think the Lyman loads were actually pressure tested in those days. I don't know if the #45 Lyman manual lists pressures like the #49 does, but if it does not, I would research any loads from it VERY carefully before I used them. SL1

March 20, 2011, 12:23 PM	#3
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,390	You're on track with everything except the Lyman 45. The great thing, though, is that once you pick a powder, bullet, and load from one of your manuals, in this age of the internet you can go online and verify what the powder manufacturer has to say about the load you've selected. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

March 20, 2011, 12:56 PM	#4
FrankenMauser Senior Member Join Date: August 25, 2008 Location: In the valley above the plain Posts: 13,424	The Hornady 8th (2011) is out now, but won't provide any new data, unless: A: You have one of the cartridges new to this edition. B: You want to use LeveRevolution or SuperPerformance powder. I have found no other changes (besides incorporation of the 7th edition errata). __________________ Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe.

March 20, 2011, 01:10 PM	#5
Tom Matiska Senior Member Join Date: April 12, 2000 Location: Wilkes-Barre, Pa Posts: 1,029	I have a 1970ish Lee book that came with their hand loader that shows some 30-30 data 5 grains above what is published today(heavily compressed). Also a 1987 Hodgdon pub that lists light H110 loads for the 44Spec(squib territory) that aren't published today. Biggest problem I'm finding with old books is really with new bullets. Bullets like Hornady's FTX have much more "below the waterline'' than the conventional bullets used in all but the most recent pubs.

March 20, 2011, 02:20 PM	#7
wncchester Senior Member Join Date: December 1, 2002 Posts: 2,832	Most - ALL? - statements about 'changes' in old loading data and new are bloated blarney. 1. Cannister powders have been unchanged from their beginnings. There is no reason for the makers to "change" an established powder more than the standard lot-to-lot tolerance and huge legal liability reasons not to. If the makers want to bring out a new burn rate powder they give it a new name and market it as such, not slip in a new powder burn rate under an old label. 2. No matter the methods of recording pressure changes between CUP and PSI, what was safe in 1951 is safe in 2011. Any book changes in loading data between manuals of any source or age simply reflects a difference in the test weapons, not any "lawyering" effect. 3. What makes any authoritative data as relivant as any other is the constant instruction to "Start low, work up to book max slowly and stop if you see any over pressure signs." Do that and the source or age of the data won't matter, ignore that and it still won't matter!

March 20, 2011, 05:39 PM	#8
Tom Matiska Senior Member Join Date: April 12, 2000 Location: Wilkes-Barre, Pa Posts: 1,029	My take is that data of a few decades ago just wasn't as well tested. The gold standard of old data to me is Winchester Ball data. It was tested not to exceed 95% SAAMI at 70F, not to exceed 110% at -40F or 140F, 89% to 98% load density, etc.....

March 20, 2011, 06:44 PM	#9
wncchester Senior Member Join Date: December 1, 2002 Posts: 2,832	"My take is that data of a few decades ago just wasn't as well tested." May I ask if you are perhaps in your 20s or 30s? If you were older you might have a different opinion of those who built the foundations of reloading as you know it today.

March 20, 2011, 10:34 PM	#12
Clark Senior Member Join Date: December 4, 1999 Location: WA, the ever blue state Posts: 4,678	I know someone who make a living debating pro gun positions. When he sees me, he always asks to see all my fingers. He refuses to overload anything, but uses hot loads in his old load books. There is something of a fundamentalist line to cross for him. There is no doubt he is very smart, but not in a engineering way. I was at an event at a law school where he debated, and I would have just beat up the anti gun guy, but he stayed cool and collected. There are different types of intelligence.

April 3, 2011, 02:36 PM	#14
Peter M. Eick Senior Member Join Date: August 3, 1999 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 2,991	I hear your arguement but my counter is always the same. Why is it that my 1937 load data for say the 38 special with unique gives me roughly the same velocities with modern components in my 1930's 38/44 Outdoorsman's? Must be some fluke that I routinely come in within 50 fps of the 1937 data when I chron it today. It always amazes me that with all of those variations it equals right back out. Same thing for my 357 Magnum. Put the right loads in my 8 3/8" pre-27's and they come in right at the velocites Sharpe quotes in 1937. Weird how things could be so consistent over decades. __________________ 10mm and 357sig, the best things to come along since the 38 super!

April 3, 2011, 08:50 PM	#15
wncchester Senior Member Join Date: December 1, 2002 Posts: 2,832	"ALL Hodgdon extruded powders have changed. Hodgdon changed granule shape and size on ALL of their extruded powders, and had to change chemical composition to compensate (to keep those powders at the same relative burn rate as the 'classic' or surplus powders). Their own literature explains this! Changing chemical composition, shape, and size is definitely the same as a brand new powder under an old name!" All true but meaningless; you carefully make a distinction that makes no difference. It isn't the granule shape, etc, that matters to us, it's the burn rate. Anything that has the same burn rate is the same powder in any practical sense. Hodgdon, per se, doesn't make powders, after the WWII surplus stuff ran out they first contracted for some and then bought established plants but the burn rates are indeed the same as always. "THEY", the powder makers, don't/can't make production lots for a given burn rate; organic chemistry just doesn't work that precisely. They make a production run of a general type that may cover several burn rates and test it to see what the burn rate is; if it's a cannister rate they sell it that way. If it's close to cannister they may mix it with other lots to make it cannister. More often they just sell those lots that aren't cannister to the big ammo makers and let them deal with it; that's why/how the factories use powders we can't get. Cannister powders - the kind we use - were defined before WWII and, while many have been dropped and new ones introduced, the ones that remain haven't changed a bit; a can of IMR 4895 will still perform the same today as it did for reloaders (and the manual makers) in 1947, aside from the normal lot to lot variations stipulated in the original specifications. The ONLY rule that provides safety is the old one, 'Start low and slowly work up.....etc." Old data, new data, specific bullet-case-primer or not. Fact is, the biggest change we can possibly make to what any book makers used is our firearms are not the same as their's so none of it's scripture writ in stone by the hand of God. Last edited by wncchester; April 3, 2011 at 08:58 PM.

April 3, 2011, 09:08 PM	#16
Ike666 Senior Member Join Date: October 10, 2009 Location: SW VA Posts: 491	@wncchester A while back I had some questions about AA #9 and differences from an older manual and current load ranges. I contacted the new manufacturer (importer? ) of AA powders and was told that when the company was acquired from Israeli Military Industries that indeed the formula had been changed increasing the nitro portion in the load. I actually have some cans of AA #9 purchased circa 1989 made from the old formula. I will confess that I haven't run either the older versions or the newer ones through a GCMS so I don't know personally whether the alleged change is true or not. But then I'm inclined to go with what the company rep told me and back off the charge weights when using the newer powder. __________________ ___________________ "I'm your huckleberry."