How old it "old" load data?

thedaddycat · February 28, 2012, 09:12 PM

I got my loading manuals back from my friends, and looked at the copyright dates just to see how old they were. Here's what I have: Sierra Bullets Reloading Manual copyright 1971; Handloader's Digest Twelfth Edition copyright 1990; Lyman's 47th Reloading Handbook copyright 1992.

I know there are plenty of data tables online, and I've read several times where anyone posting older data warns that it is "old data" and "use at your own risk" or other warnings. Now at one time the data in these references was the latest available. So what has happened to make this data unsafe? Developments in powder chemestry, testing equipment, manufacturing processes? Of course anything developed after printing, like new powders or bullets would not be listed.

It seems to me that loads that were "safe" when these manuals were printed should still be safe. Can anyone shed some light on this?

Misssissippi Dave · February 28, 2012, 11:22 PM

Some test equipment probably has been upgraded over the years and should be more accurate now then 40 years ago. Powers do tend to change a little over time. Unless you are loading near or at max those changes probably won't make a lot of difference. I do think you should work up any load that is at or near max when you change to a different lot of powder. In some high pressure loads, little changes could make enough of a difference to cause concern at the upper end. I tend to not load near the upper end so I really don't have much to worry about in my opinion.

Jimro · February 28, 2012, 11:40 PM

Always consult the powder makers data, that is usually a hard and fast "do not exceed" max load. Bullet makers are generally less generous with their max loads. Data books vary between the two, with a few notable exceptions.

And it never hurts to read up on some historical data, you'll never know when a pound of a "discontinued" powder will fall in your lap. Knob Creek still had an 8 lb canister of AA8700 on the shelf last time I checked.

Jimro

rg1 · February 29, 2012, 01:13 AM

Several companies bullets have changed since the 70's,80's, even 90's. They have either changed the shape, profile, bearing surface of the same weight bullet. A different bullet shape or bearing surface can change pressure a little or a lot. Don't believe the old standard powder has changed from today's same powder but there are a lot of new powders that were not available years back. Plus a lot of new bullets on the market today. Even a lot of new caliber rifles and pistols that have recently been marketed. That's the main reason I try to keep up with the new manuals because of new bullets and caliber rifles not even made back in the 90's or earlier. Sure, your old manuals are valuable reloading sources but if you want to try the latest new components or a new caliber then the latest manuals are needed.

thedaddycat · February 29, 2012, 04:06 PM

OK, that makes sense about new components and also older components that are no longer available. I do have some old bullets, NIB but probably at least 30-40 years old. Don't recall where I got them but it must have been at least 20 years ago.

Here are the older bullets: Sierra .308 220 grain round nose; Hornady .308 110 grain spire point; Sierra MK .264 (6.5mm) 140 grain BTHP; Speer .264 (6.5mm) 87 grain HP (flat base). The Speer bullets have what I think is a pretty large cavity. Using my drill index, a 3/32" bit fits but a 7/64" bit is just a tad too big.

Just so you guys know what I'm going to be doing as far as reloading I'll tell you what I'm loading for. I have several old military bolt actions that I have fire formed brass for. I will be collet neck sizing the brass to minimize work hardening it. I will likely look into annealing the necks after I have a few reloads on the brass. I will FL resize as needed. I may also look into neck turning.

Here are the bolt action rifles I'll be loading for:

M 1895 Chilean Mauser in 7X57, made in 1895
M 1898 Krag-Jorgensen in .30-40 Krag, made in 1898
M 1896 Swedish Mauser in 6.5X55, made in 1905
M 17 Enfield in .30-06, made in 1918
SMLE No. 1 Mk. III* in .303 British, made in 1944
SMLE No. 4 Mk. 2 in .303 British, made in 1949

I will also load .30-06 for the auto-loading M1 Garand (1953) and Remington 742 Woodsmaster from the 50's or 60's (I have not dated this one yet).

The two SMLE rifles will have segregated brass, I will use different headstamps for each of them so as not to mix them up when neck sizing and loading. This will assure me of keeping the fire formed brass with the rifle it was fired in. The M 17 Enfield will also be using one headstamp of brass, the 742 Woodsmaster another, and the M1 Garand will probably be getting whatever I have the most of. The only .30-06 brass I really need to keep track of is the Enfield as the two autoloaders will get FL sized every time.

February 28, 2012, 09:12 PM	#1
thedaddycat Senior Member Join Date: September 25, 2011 Posts: 388	How old it "old" load data? I got my loading manuals back from my friends, and looked at the copyright dates just to see how old they were. Here's what I have: Sierra Bullets Reloading Manual copyright 1971; Handloader's Digest Twelfth Edition copyright 1990; Lyman's 47th Reloading Handbook copyright 1992. I know there are plenty of data tables online, and I've read several times where anyone posting older data warns that it is "old data" and "use at your own risk" or other warnings. Now at one time the data in these references was the latest available. So what has happened to make this data unsafe? Developments in powder chemestry, testing equipment, manufacturing processes? Of course anything developed after printing, like new powders or bullets would not be listed. It seems to me that loads that were "safe" when these manuals were printed should still be safe. Can anyone shed some light on this?

February 28, 2012, 11:40 PM	#3
Jimro Senior Member Join Date: October 18, 2006 Posts: 7,097	Always consult the powder makers data, that is usually a hard and fast "do not exceed" max load. Bullet makers are generally less generous with their max loads. Data books vary between the two, with a few notable exceptions. And it never hurts to read up on some historical data, you'll never know when a pound of a "discontinued" powder will fall in your lap. Knob Creek still had an 8 lb canister of AA8700 on the shelf last time I checked. Jimro __________________ Machine guns are awesome until you have to carry one.

February 28, 2012, 11:22 PM	#2
Misssissippi Dave Senior Member Join Date: December 5, 2009 Posts: 1,411	Some test equipment probably has been upgraded over the years and should be more accurate now then 40 years ago. Powers do tend to change a little over time. Unless you are loading near or at max those changes probably won't make a lot of difference. I do think you should work up any load that is at or near max when you change to a different lot of powder. In some high pressure loads, little changes could make enough of a difference to cause concern at the upper end. I tend to not load near the upper end so I really don't have much to worry about in my opinion.

February 29, 2012, 01:13 AM	#4
rg1 Senior Member Join Date: November 6, 2001 Posts: 1,125	Several companies bullets have changed since the 70's,80's, even 90's. They have either changed the shape, profile, bearing surface of the same weight bullet. A different bullet shape or bearing surface can change pressure a little or a lot. Don't believe the old standard powder has changed from today's same powder but there are a lot of new powders that were not available years back. Plus a lot of new bullets on the market today. Even a lot of new caliber rifles and pistols that have recently been marketed. That's the main reason I try to keep up with the new manuals because of new bullets and caliber rifles not even made back in the 90's or earlier. Sure, your old manuals are valuable reloading sources but if you want to try the latest new components or a new caliber then the latest manuals are needed.

February 29, 2012, 04:06 PM	#5
thedaddycat Senior Member Join Date: September 25, 2011 Posts: 388	OK, that makes sense about new components and also older components that are no longer available. I do have some old bullets, NIB but probably at least 30-40 years old. Don't recall where I got them but it must have been at least 20 years ago. Here are the older bullets: Sierra .308 220 grain round nose; Hornady .308 110 grain spire point; Sierra MK .264 (6.5mm) 140 grain BTHP; Speer .264 (6.5mm) 87 grain HP (flat base). The Speer bullets have what I think is a pretty large cavity. Using my drill index, a 3/32" bit fits but a 7/64" bit is just a tad too big. Just so you guys know what I'm going to be doing as far as reloading I'll tell you what I'm loading for. I have several old military bolt actions that I have fire formed brass for. I will be collet neck sizing the brass to minimize work hardening it. I will likely look into annealing the necks after I have a few reloads on the brass. I will FL resize as needed. I may also look into neck turning. Here are the bolt action rifles I'll be loading for: M 1895 Chilean Mauser in 7X57, made in 1895 M 1898 Krag-Jorgensen in .30-40 Krag, made in 1898 M 1896 Swedish Mauser in 6.5X55, made in 1905 M 17 Enfield in .30-06, made in 1918 SMLE No. 1 Mk. III* in .303 British, made in 1944 SMLE No. 4 Mk. 2 in .303 British, made in 1949 I will also load .30-06 for the auto-loading M1 Garand (1953) and Remington 742 Woodsmaster from the 50's or 60's (I have not dated this one yet). The two SMLE rifles will have segregated brass, I will use different headstamps for each of them so as not to mix them up when neck sizing and loading. This will assure me of keeping the fire formed brass with the rifle it was fired in. The M 17 Enfield will also be using one headstamp of brass, the 742 Woodsmaster another, and the M1 Garand will probably be getting whatever I have the most of. The only .30-06 brass I really need to keep track of is the Enfield as the two autoloaders will get FL sized every time.