quote:

smith crazy;As to your engineering skills have there been any failures in systems you have designed? Any say in W. Virginia or Utah?

I’ve been out of the mining sector for approximately fourteen years now. When I was involved we had experienced no safety problems with our equipment in West Virginia or Utah that the end-users informed us of or MSHA received citations except for one. The problem stemmed from a field service man demonstrating an improper and unsafe operating procedure which resulted in an injury. Other then that episode that’s the only one I’m aware of.

Mining be it underground or surface is not for the faint of heart.

quote:

that the end-users informed us of

Invalid point. Not being notified doesn't in and of itself mean there weren't failures.

quote:

MSHA received citations except for one.

The fact of citations being issued is another invalid point. Bribes, ignorance of inspectors and other mitigating circumstances are being ignored totally in your sumation.

quote:

Mining be it underground or surface is not for the faint of heart.

That would be the same comment I would make about loading and shooting this ammo!

I have set personal standards of validating which data to use when reloading. The bottom line is I try to stay within the powder manufacturer's data. With the information given in these 3 reports on this load I have strayed far outside my normal limits. What I have done though is located a DuPont manual from the time period of the Speer #8. It will be interesting to see what light that will shed on this discussion.

quote:

smith crazy quote:
that the end-users informed us of


Invalid point. Not being notified doesn't in and of itself mean there weren't failures.


quote:
MSHA received citations except for one.


The fact of citations being issued is another invalid point. Bribes, ignorance of inspectors and other mitigating circumstances are being ignored totally in your sumation.


quote:
Mining be it underground or surface is not for the faint of heart.

There is ignorance and there is ignorance.

In the mining environment there are federal and state regulations. Approvals are issued by MSHA after a complete examination of bills of materials, schematics, diagrams, and related drawings. There is also a factory inspection process by MSHA personnel from the Approval and Certification Center if required. There are state inspectors also. Example in PA there is the office of deep mine safety with inspectors. Each mining district has its own inspectors.

Now in order to bribe one would have to bribe both federal and state agencies & agents of those agencies not to mention if it’s a union mine the union representatives. The mines are inspected on a regular basis by federal inspectors and dependent on the state by state inspectors.

At the financial expenditure equipment problems are reported to the manufactures that’s why the manufactures have field reperseanatives.

Crazy is a real fit!!!!

quote:

Crazy is a real fit!!!!

I guess this is where if follow my own advice. I had a byline for a while that a friend of mine used as his motto. It goes like this: "Never argue with an idiot (no matter how educated they are) because someone standing nearby (reading both posts) can't tell which one is which!

Phraseology in part borrowed from Dilbert.

Engineering involves explaining things to idiots. Then the idiots make decisions based on misinterpreting what the engineer said. Then it’s the engineers’ job to try to fix the massive problems caused by bad decisions. Eventually rumors overwhelm facts. In this case just let the idiot’s win because you can’t reason with an ignorant individual.

Smith crazy you win!

Finally something we can agree on!

I think you have been idiotic in your summations and you feel the same about me!


I love it!

Huh. From 4756 to mining to name-calling. Interesting thread. I saw the Dilbert strip quoted above by Dennis, in yesterday's paper. He skipped the very amusing last portion, substituting his own ending. Dilbert was speaking to a (grade school?) class on career day. After "rumors overwhelm facts," it goes something like this: "The next phase involves blaming an unpopular co-worker. Therefore, you should never be unpopular." The class's teacher then says, "Don't listen to him!" Whereupon, Dilbert follows with, "Said the unpopular teacher."

Anyway, I was glad to see that someone inquired about the brand of primer in the second photo. I've seen Federal primers flow at lower pressures than other brands, also. (In my old "living on the edge" IPSC days with .38 Super loads, I always used WW Small Rifle primers, as did most folks running those overpressure loads.) Nonetheless, that primer shows at least the likelihood of some serious pressure, and should be a clue not to use that load in aluminum-framed guns, at a minimum.

Skip I am glad to see your report on this load. I appreciate your willingness to step into the discussion concerning THE LOAD. The primer with the cratering is especially interesting. In my use of this load I didn't see anything that looked like this with win. and cci primers.


FWIW and to those who are interested: I am the member who contacted Speer about this load from their #8 manual and received an answer basically telling me to buy their newest manual they have out. Without really answering any questions about THE LOAD. So I guess they don't care which data I/we use as long as the latest manual sells.

In looking at Speer #9 there is no attempt to disown any of the data in #8 even though it is mentioned. #9 stated that the methods used to determine excess pressure in #8 are still valid methods.

Glad to hear so much information about mining and hope to be able to eventually make the connection.

Don't want to alarm anyone, so I'm taking down my post about how I used a starting .38 Special load from the second printing of the # 8 manual of the reputable Speer bullet company. I've never recommended that anyone follow suit in trying this starting load, and I'm tired of reading histrionics of those who are alarmed by my mere report.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Erich,

As previously mentioned I called IMR to ask about their data from the same time frame. They have no data to share as they said it was lost in the buy out.

I spent some time on the INTERNET looking for the DuPont Handloading Guide from the same time frame. With so much stuff available on the web I thought surely something that old would be there. No luck.

Then I went to ebay and found one for sale with some other manuals. Now, the reason I am doing this is because it is my premise when reloading to never go above the powder manufacturer's data UNLESS it is "dumbed down" because of junk firearms. I don't own any junk firearms as they are all supposed to be reliable enough to save my life or the life of a loved one. That being said I will post their data for this load when I get the manual. Also as stated earlier, I have no real use for this load as the only true 38 I have is a Model 14 target. No reason to beat up a gun when it won't be a primary firearm for self defense. I am quite sure that the loads I use in it can achieve a cessation of hostilities if the need arises.

This should no way be interpreted as a condemnation of those that use the load. I may use it still, only in 357 revolvers.

NKJ nut, 38-44HD45 thank you for the kind words about the report. And for the information about the primers. I have WW and maybe some CCI. I will try them in the future and let you know how they work.

Since this thread is as much about the Speer manuals as the 4756 loads, I thought I would add my experiences.

I shoot a lot of IDPA and we use a lot of ammo in practice and matches.

I was looking for a .38 special load that would make a 125 plus power factor. I also wanted to use Bullseye powder because it leaves no residue under the ejector star. I found my load in the Speer #10. It is over what is listed in newer manuals. It is listed as below PlusP in the #10.

I have fired 20 or 30 thousand rounds of this load. No signs of pressure with Federal primers and always easy extraction.

Just my experiences.

Bill N.

Bill, we are discussing a 38 spl ++++P load with a 197 PF (160 gr LSW @ 1230 fps out of a 4" barrel)!! ...it was only cited in the #8 (1970) Speer manual, and subsequent loads are MUCH lower. Not quite the same

You can get a 130 PF with a number of loads and normal SAAMI pressure.

Just wondering how many of those reporting easy extraction have had the chambers polished?

Have shot multiple factory 357 mag loads through 357 revolvers and in clean revolvers they all had easy extraction. For 38 special loads loaded to mid 357 mag pressures (bout 50% over 38 special plus p), how does the ease of extraction relate to determining a 38 special pressure level safe to use in a M15? Might the ease of extraction be more related to the smoothness/cleaness/dia of the chamber?

Federal pistol primers will flatten out well before CCIs. Rem and Win are about in between. So which primer is useful for determining safe pressure or overloads?

Am still trying to follow the reasoning that just because Speer #9 didn't specifically disown the load in Speer #8, it is some how alright?

Don't want to alarm anyone, so I'm taking down my post about how I used a starting .38 Special load from the second printing of the # 8 manual of the reputable Speer bullet company. I've never recommended that anyone follow suit in trying this starting load, and I'm tired of reading histrionics of those who are alarmed by my mere report.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Erich,