Ken Waters-Pet Loads

[cw308]

I hear this book is great,if you reload. Before I buy it , did anyone try his loads compaired to the ones you load.

[PawPaw]

That book is a classic. No, I haven't tried any of them because I haven't read it. This post might be the motivation I need to order a copy. I am sure that the loads listed are good ones. There are several pet loads that I've used over the years that should be included in that book.

I see that Amazon has it in stock, as does Midway USA. I might put it on my Christmas list for the kids.

[Ideal Tool]

Hello, cw308. I have both of the early editions & the newer combo. You can't go wrong with this book..a wealth of information gleaned from his writings for Handloader magazine. His pressure gaging method of "miking" case head just in front of rim or extractor groove & comparing it to factory expansion is well proven. Plus it seems with each new caliber..there are always some cool firearms pictured for load work-up.

[old roper]

My set is 3rd addition 1986, copyright 1980. Not sure I'd buy one today based on all the new powders/bullets since 1986.

[jepp2]

I have used it more for the "unusual" calibers/loading than anything else. A good information source.

[Slamfire]

I had a 2nd edition, an interesting read. But in terms of reloading today's jacketed bullets, cast bullets, and powders, the books are sadly obsolescent.

I gave away my edition and have not missed it.

I use a Lyman reloading manual for my reloading needs.

[adrians]

i haven't read the whole thing .
look at the pics if you haven't seen this edition before its huge.
picture 3 shows how many pages it contains.
great book.

[Unclenick]

Two points to continue what Slamfire said about obsolescence of the data:

First, components change over time. Brass in a given brand is made with different capacity, bullets are made with different hardness and jacket thickness, powders occasionally are changed, and, most frequently, primer formulations and sensitivity change. I would not consider the Pet Loads developed that long ago to be safe today without working back up to them carefully from a lower charge level.

Second, I have to disagree with Ideal Tool about the case measuring method being proven. Trying to get an absolute pressure from measuring brass is like trying to get copper crusher readings with uncalibrated copper slugs; it starts with a method that is already known to be inconsistent from one test setup and technician to the next, then makes it worse with uncalibrated gauge materials and chambers that aren't pressure barrel specification compliant.

Many rely on brass as a pressure indicator. The idea is that unless the brass shows stress the gun is containing it successfully. If it always shows no sign of stretching with all rounds of a given load, that is likely true enough, but that is a gun and chamber specific result. If you want to port a load over from one person's gun to another, and particularly to one that has thinner steel, then you need a repeatable pressure measurement and not just results for a particular gun.

Denton Bramwell has data (here) showing two cases from the same lot with the same load history and loaded with the same powder charge, primer, and bullet can give a particular amount of pressure ring expansion (PRE) or of case head expansion (CHE) at as little as 40,000 psi for one and as much as 70,000 psi for the other. An average over a large number of rounds gives a better idea of pressure effect for that particular lot of brass, but the estimates of pressure in psi using either PRE or CHE are pretty much wishful thinking.

Some years ago, a friend of mine loaded one of Water's 4227 loads in .45-70 for his contender, and it popped the action open on firing every time and mushroomed the primers. I can't recall what it did to the case PRE and CHE, but it was obviously too warm.

So, Pet Loads are still interesting to read about, but you would be wise to view that reading more like historical research on load development than as modern load data. Cross-check the loads with other published load data, where practical, and reduce them and work up, slowly, even when you have the same model gun.

[Hooker22]

I refer to my 8th edition regularly. While a lot of the information is dated there is plenty of good information and it is in a single reference source. I have some components that are no longer produced and the only references for their use are in books that are 'obsolete'. I just use good judgement and prudence in how I use them, typically by using reduced loads and working up.

[steveno]

maybe some of the components are obsolete or outdated but Waters also did a lot of stuff that should eliminate the trials , tribulations and mistakes so we don't have to. "Pet Loads" is still a good read with a lot of information in it that is still valid. I still use a 1958 copyright loading manual for some of the same reasons.

[old roper]

Don't get me wrong on Ken Water manuals they have a good amount of information on different calibers standard and wildcat etc.

I think 1/3 to 1/2 the bullets he used are no longer made same with alot of his powders and most of the powders that are still around you can get that data from Hodgdon manuals. There is alot of "obsolete" calibers in the manuals some may find intersting but he was one the first, Supplement #2 to the Third edition (#14 to the First and Second Edition) 1988 to published rifle loads for the 221 Fireball.

I started reloading 1965 still have some old manual's and when Ken's manual's came out just about everyone had to have one. Remember back then we didn't have computers and the computer experts on reloading.

If you look at all the new bullets the last 10yrs no reason to use old data from the 80's.

[Doodlebugger45]

It's pretty interesting and entertaining to read it. It's not always real useful when it comes to the actual recipes he comes up with, but it's a good insight to his thought process, methodology, and philosophy. Plus, it's just a well written piece for every cartridge and his adventures in finding something that worked reasonably well at the time.

[parttime]

I enjoy reading from the book greatly.

It's the coffee table book for reloaders.

[USMC Vet]

As has been mentioned by others, Water's work is a classic. There is a lot of good information, and some great reading. However, and not to seem negative, we must remember that those were pet loads out of Waters' guns, not ours. Results from our guns may be quite different. I have tried many of Ken's loads over the years. Some were decent, some not. Each gun seems to have its own personality, or so it seems to this old Marine.
USMC Vet

[GeauxTide]

Got it when it first came out and got the updates. I agree with the others about it's Classic status as a cartridge reference. I enjoyed Ken's approach in developing loads and determining maximum loads. Regardless of the time, it was and is educational.

[zeke]

Ken Waters pet loads was/is a huge help when learning and researching reloading. Got some of the most accurate pistol loads am still using from his books (some adjusted for different bullets/brass). Granted alot of the powders and bullets have changed, and don't like some of his choices, but consider the information extremely valuable. Well worth the price of admission, imo.

It is easy enjoyable reading.

[Mike / Tx]

I personally got them for the data included. Not so much to use it as is, but to reference it for new loads in new rifles.

Yes the data is outdated as UncleNick pointed out, but one can still reference the powders used, then cross reference them with new load data from todays manuals, and at least have a starting point for something that MIGHT be a very good load, with out having to try a half dozen powders.

It also has a lot of just interesting stories about how and why he did this that or the other.

While I freely admit that I would be pretty hesitant to simply grab up a bottle of powder and load it up based solely on his data, I have found several loads which were darn close to what he said was "the" load on a couple of rifles working up to them slowly and within up to date data.

[Unclenick]

Mike,

I think you'll find the higher number IMR rifle powders are pretty consistent since Water's day. The exceptions are that ADI 2215 (not sold to the public) was substituted for IMR4198 at one point (it's still in the MSDS) and ADI 2205 was a second source for IMR 4227 at one point. Canada has been making the 4198 again for awhile, if the origin label is true. I haven't looked at 4227 for a time. Hodgdon dropped H4227 recently as being a pointless duplication of IMR 4227, so perhaps ADI 2205 has taken that number over completely? Canada is where the original versions are made.

Hartmut Broemel says the IMR 700X and 800X and SR powders have all changed suppliers frequently enough that he doesn't try to include them in QuickLOAD's database for fear the model may be way off at some point in the future.

Hodgdon made changes when they went over to the Extreme line supplied by Thales (ADI brand), so figure that by the mid 1990's, all the Hodgdon stick powders should be treated as different and those loads should be worked back up.

St. Marks continues to supply both Hodgdon and Winchester sphericals, but I've noticed that data has changed some over time. They seem to have wider lot-to-lot burn rate tolerance, at least, as compared to thirty year old lots. 10% anyway, for WC296 (sold as 296 and H110). You can tell because, even though their the same OEM powder, a lot of old load manual data has different minimums and maximums for the two names.

Here's a table I've compiled to show alternate names where there are any:

                   | St. Marks  |                        |          |
     Hodgdon       |  Military  |      Winchester        | Thales   |  IMR
                   |  & OEM     |                        | (ADI)    |
___________________|____________|________________________|__________|_______________________
HP-38              |   OBP231   |  231                   |          |
H110 --------------|--- WC296 --|- 296 ------------------|----------|-----------------------
H414               |    WC760   |  760                   |          |
H380               |    WC852   |                        |          |
Lil' Gun ----------|-- OBP516 --|------------------------|----------|-----------------------
Hybrid 100V        |   SHP771   |                        |          |
HS-6               |    WC540   |                        |          |
H335 --------------|--- WC844 --|------------------------|----------|-----------------------
BL-C(2)            |    WC846   |                        |          |
Titewad            |   OBP132   |                        |          |
Tightgroup --------|-- OBP242 --|------------------------|----------|-----------------------
Longshot           |   OBP473   |                        |          |
US869              |    WC869   |                        |          |
-------------------|--- WAA90 --|- WST ------------------|----------|-----------------------
                   |   WXC170   |  WSF                   |          |
                   |   OBP124   |  AALite (WFL)          |          |
-------------------|-- OBP465 --|- Super-Handicap (WSH) -|----------|-----------------------
                   |    WC760   |  760                   |          |
                   |    WC748   |  748                   |          |
-------------------|-- WMR780 --|- Supreme 780 ----------|----------|-----------------------
                   |   SMP224   |  AutoComp              |          |
Clays              |            |                        |  AS30N   |
International Clays|------------|------------------------|- AS50N --|-----------------------
Universal Clays    |            |                        |  AS70N   |
H4227              |            |                        |  AR2205  |  IMR 4227 second source
H4198 -------------|------------|------------------------|- AR2207 -|-----------------------
Benchmark          |            |                        |   BM2    |
H322               |            |                        |  AR2219  |
-------------------|------------|------------------------|- AR2210 -|- IMR 8208 XBR --------
H4895              |            |                        |  AR2206H |
Varget             |            |                        |  AR2208  |
H4350 -------------|------------|------------------------|- AR2209 -|-----------------------
H4831              |            |                        |  AR2213  |
H4831SC            |            |                        | AR2213SC |
H1000 -------------|------------|------------------------|- AR2217 -|-----------------------
Retumbo            |            |                        |  AR2225  |
H50BMG             |            |                        |  AR2218  |
-------------------|------------|------------------------|- AR2215 -|- IMR 4198 second source
                   |            |                        |  AS25BP  |- IMR Trail Boss

[Peter M. Eick]

While I have all of the Pet loads, I would suggest you buy the 40 years of Handloader on DVD instead. Pet loads is just the start of the data that is on the DVD's and it allows you to search and cross check the recommendations in Pet loads in seconds.

I view it that pet loads is a great place to start the hunt for a new load, but the key is to cross check, cross reference and contemplate the situation before you start hitting the press.

I have the full DVD set of Handload and Rifle and use them often along with my Quickload data and all of my manuals.

[Paul B.]

I'm going to have to disagree a bit with Uncle Nick. Mr. waters use of case head measurements and pressure ring measurement was not a method of determining ABSOLUTE pressure. He used it to measure factory ammunition to get an average set of expansion figures, then used them in working up his handloads. He felt that as long as the hand expansion was equal too or less than the factory figures, then the load should be safe. One could take it a step farther and use factory velocity along with the case measurements to determine that one has not gone too far.
I use his method along with my chronograph to determine my top loads, adding one more step. I graph the velocity change along with the other measurements. Pressure and velocity gain are linear as long as one stays within the working pressure rage of a powder. Any abnormal change in velocity gain says something ain't right. If, when nearing the maximum load for powder X, velocity takes a massive jump, stays the same or is lower, sometimes noticably loawer, then you've gone past the powder's working pressure range and it's time ro drop the charge by as much as 2 or 3 grains, depending on what the case measurements say. Winchester brass is usally the toughest so measuerments will be less while Federal is fairly soft and will show pressure signs much faster. Remington brass rides somewhere in the middle.
I think everybody should read PET LOADS. I hate that book. If I hadn't read it, I would have a lot more money in my jeans. I'd read one of the articles and tell myself, "I gotta get me one of those." There is at least 6 rifles in my collection that i probably never would have bought if I hadn't read Mr. Waters' write ups on the cartridges involved. The .280 Rem. and .358 Win. immediately come to mind. Yes the data is obsolte but the artilces are still well worth reading. JMHO.
Paul B.

[Unclenick]

Paul,

A couple of things:

First, it needs to be clarified for others reading that bullet velocity goes up in proportion to the average pressure in a barrel, from case mouth to muzzle, and not with the peak pressure. Peak pressure is just about safety concerns, which is why it is the one you see published. Typically, peak pressure goes up very roughly as the cube of the change in velocity. This happens partly because higher pressure and temperature increases the powder burn rate, so a higher portion of the gas is made before the bullet has gone as far down the tube (less expansion has occurred, so you have a greater gas quantity in a smaller space), and partly because the higher temperature and pressure make a more complete burn of the powder at the peak, leaving less for the digressive burning phase that succeeds the peak.

There are two ways to get the same average pressure and velocity: High peak with low muzzle pressure, and low peak with high muzzle pressure. This is what fast and slow powders provide, respectively. It is why you can find, in powder tables, a lower peak pressure yet a higher velocity for some slower powders firing in the same test barrel.

I agree that absolute pressure was not (and usually is not) the point of the case measurement. What is interesting in Bramwell's article I linked to is that, because he does take a pressure reading corresponding to his PRE and CHE measurements, he can show that any particular case can expand in response to pressure much lower than the next one responds the same amount to. His data were all taken with the same lot of brass with the same load history, yet it shows that, within 95% confidence (two standard deviations), that one case may get expansion of the pressure ring by 0.003" at just 44,000 psi, while the next only gets 0.003" expansion at 73,000 psi.

That very wide variation means you'd have to fire quite a number with both the commercial load and your handload to get a useful average for comparison, and that still assumes the same brass and load history, so you'd have to be working with unfired new brass of the same brand for your handloads to get a comparable response. Lots of folks just work their loads up looking to find "the one" that first shows expansion to some limit, then assume that tells them they've hit their gun's maximum load when it may well have told them nothing of the kind. Any single example can be high or low by a significant amount.

Bramwell quotes Waters in the article as saying:

“It must be understood that this is only a means of determining comparative pressures, with nothing more to be expected of it. With the data provided, the pressures of my handloads can be classified as moderate, normal, near maximum, maximum, or excessive—which is all that is necessary to ensure the safety of the shooter.”

Bramwell then goes on to say:

"That’s a fairly modest claim, which many have embellished over the years. Unfortunately, even the original modest claim of being able to put cartridges into five categories turns out to be optimistic."

He then goes on to show how the actual measured pressures compare to the measured expansion with the irregularity I already described, pretty much proving that more than a couple of categories would take a lot of averaging to discern reliably.

[zeke]

yea, but who else was inspired to get a 307 win set up just like the July 1984 article? That article was and still is, right on the money. Along with 748 and the speer bullets.

[Ideal Tool]

Hello, Peter M. Eick. Very impressive library you have there. I see you have Principles and Practice Of Handloading, and Complete Guide To Handloading.
In my opinion..98% of the questions asked on this forum would be answered if these two "obsolete" books were required reading for the budding handloaders.

[Peter M. Eick]

Agreed. They are great books and both copies are signed by the author. That is why I have to complete reloading's. One from 37 is signed by sharpe and the 49 version is my "working" copy.

Too bad Naramore did not write more books. I like his style over Sharpe.

[pcxxxx42]

I din't realize how out of date the load data in here was (or how much propellant formulations have changed over the years) until I started using it yesterday (had the book for years).

When a load for the 30-06 called for 57 grains of 4350 (assumed IMR) QuickLOAD shows case loading density with a seated, typical 165 grain bullet on the cannelure of about 112% (or ~106% with H4350 adjusted for measured bulk density) I knew this reference book was not going to be very useful for THIS LOAD.

Quite an outlay for something that isn't likely to get me in the ball park, no matter how interesting the book otherwise is.