It pays to double check

[KEYBEAR]

Loading some 44 Specials today and thought I have a lot of Accurate #9 .
I go to my old Accurate Manual and found a surprise .

On page 122 the data for a 240gr. lead bullet is listed as .
Unique 240gr. bullet Starting load 19.7gr. and max at 10.8 ???

The starting load of 19.7 list Vel of 818fps and the max load of 10.8 is 930fps.
I have used Unique before and seen the problem

[buck460XVR]

On page 122 the data for a 240gr. lead bullet is listed as .
Unique 240gr. bullet Starting load 19.7gr. and max at 10.8 ???

The starting load of 19.7 list Vel of 818fps and the max load of 10.8 is 930fps.
I have used Unique before and seen the problem

.....can you even get 19.7 gr of Unique under a .44 pill in a special case?

[KEYBEAR]

Sorry I was looking for a load using AA #9 . not Unique .
Only stating I normally use Unique .

[g.willikers]

You done lost me, there.
But that's not all that hard to do, so don't sweat it.
As a reminder to always double check reloading info, I once did find a glaring error in one of the old timey printed manuals.
And, as misprints on important subjects go, it was a whopper, too.
Good thing it was something I was familiar with.
As the saying goes, "Trust no one."
Well, not completely, that is.

[AK103K]

I agree, it does pay to double check, but it can also be a little confusing sometimes.

I normally use three manuals, Sierra, Hornady, and Speer. Hornady seems to be consistently conservative, and Speer on the other end. Sierra tends to be in the middle.

On more than one occasion, Ive seen Speers "starting" load, exceed Hornadys "MAX" loading, for the same loading.

Older manuals also tend to be hotter overall than current ones. It pays to stay fairly current.

In your case, it appears to be a misprint. Stuff happens, and confirms that having more than one manual is usually a good thing, even with the confusion.

[Doyle]

Older manuals also tend to be hotter overall than current ones. It pays to stay fairly current.

I'm wondering if that is just the "lawyer" thing. Several people have commented that today's "hot" factory .38 spcl and .357 loads seem much milder than those same loads bought back in the '60s and '70s.

[AK103K]

I'm wondering if that is just the "lawyer" thing.

I think powders change and its just an update of things.

[44 AMP]

Older manuals also tend to be hotter overall than current ones.

I'm wondering if that is just the "lawyer" thing.

It is, to a degree, and its also a lot more.

Each gun and ammo component combination has its own traits. And while generally very similar, (which is why we use published data as guidelines) they can be much different.

Powders may have changed over the years, today's H110 might not be the same as it was 40 years ago, for example, and loads get adjusted for this.

Measuring pressure is different today than it was a generation ago. This is, I think one of the bigger factors.

In the old days, pressure measurements were, essentially, "by eye". It was a comparison method, comparing observed results in certain places (case expansion, primer flattening, etc.) against a "known standard" , (for many years the "crusher" system copper, or lead), and determining that X amount of change = xx,000 units of pressure.

Industry standards (SAAMI) were developed this way. Now, we have computers and other higher tech methods for measuring the pressure directly and more accurately. And there have been a few surprises.

And this is where the lawyer factor comes in...
(pressure numbers used are for illustration only)
For example,
Grandpa's .38 load was 17,500. We all knew this, for generation.
The SAAMI spec is 17,500
now, surprise, the computer shows that what we all thought was 17,500 is actually 23,800.
The lawyer steps up and says, "that's above the limit, it's not safe, we are liable!!"

DO they raise the limit to what it is now proven to be? Which we have been shooting safely for generations?

NO.

They lower the load to meet the old established (and now shown to be inaccurate) limit.

After all, it doesn't "hurt" anyone, and it covers their butts in legal matters.

Just a theory, and worth what you paid for it, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't some truth to it.

[JeepHammer]

44 AMP, like that signature line!
A real wisdom there!

--------------

I learned many years ago to get info from at LEAST three sources and double check them against each other!

MISPRINTS ABOUND!

If they are all about the same, you are off to the races.
Get a big discrepancy, and it's time to try more sources to see who agrees.

I found a misprint with Benchmark when I started throwing it, New powder for me, but the old research habits found it out right away...

It's never been easier with the internet, I can pull load data from more sources than I can filter through...

[Sevens]

Original post in thread titled IT PAYS TO DOUBLE CHECK, twice mentions Accurate, twice mentions Unique...

[KEYBEAR]

I sent Accurate Powder an e-mail and got an answer .
Was told they (AA) know about the mistake .
That was it ???

Original post in thread titled IT PAYS TO DOUBLE CHECK, twice mentions Accurate, twice mentions Unique .

And you mentioned TWICE TWICE ?
This thread is/was about DATA not powder .

[Snyper]

And you mentioned TWICE TWICE ?
This thread is/was about DATA not powder .

It's actually about both, since it would be meaningless otherwise

It's proven humans make mistakes

[Unclenick]

Originally Posted by 44 Amp

…now, surprise, the computer shows that what we all thought was 17,500 is actually 23,800.
The lawyer steps up and says, "that's above the limit, it's not safe, we are liable!!"

Actually, that's not supposed to happen (may happen anyway), but ammunition makers are not supposed to rely on absolute readings from their equipment if they are complying with the SAAMI standard. SAMMI assigns one member company to be responsible for maintaining standard rounds for each chambering and to keep the industry supplied with reference and proof loads for that chambering, as measured in their lab as the gold standard for that round. The purchaser of the reference ammo then measures it in his apparatus, and regardless of what it says, he calls that the SAAMI MAP value and adjusts all of his readings accordingly. So if the reference load is for a cartridge that is supposed to have a Maximum Average Pressure of 17,500 instead it reads 23, 800 on my equipment, I am supposed to believe the reference load and alter all my instrument's readings by a factor of 17500/23800. The only place this isn't followed is in crossing between equipment types. There the results don't track proportionally, so there is a separate standard for each.

But the reference ammo is the same.

Some years ago, when he was still SAAMI technical director, I learned in a phone conversation with Ken Green that the same lot of .357 Magnum reference ammunition that reads 45,000 CUP in a copper crusher only reads 35,000 psi in a conformal piezoelectric transducer instrument. It reads 43,500 psi in a CIP type channel transducer. It reads 46,800 psi (CUP in SAAMI terminology) in a CIP copper crusher.

.223 Rem/5.56 NATO is another good example of instrumentation disagreement. The same reference lot number reads 52,000 psi (again, CUP in SAAMI terms) in an M11 military copper crusher or in a SAAMI copper crusher, 53,700 psi in a CIP copper crusher, 55,000 psi in either a U.S. military or SAAMI conformal piezo transducer, and almost 62,400 psi in either a NATO or CIP channel type piezo transducer. But all those numbers are actually the same. It's just that nobody knows how to measure "actually" very precisely, the the CIP thinks there's is good withing 2%. I still take it with a grain of salt.

[KEYBEAR]

Snyper
It's actually about both, since it would be meaningless otherwise


No really it is not about powder but is about Loading manuals and taking the data as gospel . The kind of powder is not in question but the data is .

[buck460XVR]

No really it is not about powder but is about Loading manuals and taking the data as gospel . The kind of powder is not in question but the data is .

......and this is why most of us reference more than one manual anytime we start a new load combo. I use at least three myself. Besides the possible errors, there's always the variance between manuals that can be substantial. When I see a start load from one manual that is above the max load in two other manuals, I tend raise my eyebrows.

[kilimanjaro]

I had four manuals before I bought my reloading press!

There is another thread on here, a reloader without one printed manual. While you can get a lot of data off the internet, it's not the be-all, end-all folks claim it to be.

[billcarey]

You have to be careful about using old manuals and recent vintage powders. Years ago Accurate had AA#5 and changed it to Accurate #5 with a major difference (lower) in load specs. It was very easy to mistake the old container with the new one when buying off the shelf. They didn't have a new manual showing the change either...they had a small business card size handout that my supplier didn't have on hand when I bought it. I check with the powder mfg for loads every time I buy powder and found out at that time about the change. Accurate is very good at working loads and giving info over the phone but this one really got my attention.

bc