Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > Ammunition-Gunsmithing > Reloading
o

Notices

Reloading All Reloading Topics Go Here


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-04-2015, 10:38 PM
Cleveland48's Avatar
Cleveland48 Cleveland48 is offline
Member
Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals  
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 230
Likes: 194
Liked 207 Times in 104 Posts
Default Old manuals

Today I picked up some old reloading manuals. I like collecting old books, and was comparing them to some of my newer ones. They are a speer and Sierra manuals. I was comparing them to the newest Lyman and bowler book, and boy is there quite a difference in charge weights between them and the newer. The old manuals max charge weights are quite a bit higher than the newer manuals especially the 38 special. I wonder how safe they are? I do like that the older manuals use actual guns not pressure barrels. The 38 specials were tested with 4" and 6" barrels in the older ones where one new one Had a 7" or 8" pressure barrel for testing. So do any of you still use the older manuals or keep it with the most updated ones ?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-04-2015, 11:46 PM
arjay's Avatar
arjay arjay is online now
Member
Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals  
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Colorado
Posts: 15,082
Likes: 91,553
Liked 26,243 Times in 8,376 Posts
Default

I'm still using manuals from the 80s,but none of my loads are max except one and Ive backed it down to current data.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-04-2015, 11:59 PM
Rule3's Avatar
Rule3 Rule3 is offline
Member
Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals  
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 22,065
Likes: 10,777
Liked 15,465 Times in 6,787 Posts
Default

Speer #8 is known as the Nuclear Manual!

Testing methods have changed over the years, perhaps they are more accurate? Even manuals today rarely give the same data or results.
Some like to think the manuals are Lawyer controlled but I do not think that is the case.

I find the new manuals and online data to work just fine, I see no reason to push the envelope more than necessary.
__________________
Still Running Against the Wind
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-05-2015, 12:00 AM
Cleveland48's Avatar
Cleveland48 Cleveland48 is offline
Member
Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals  
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 230
Likes: 194
Liked 207 Times in 104 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rule3 View Post
Speer #8 is known as the Nuclear Manual!

Testing methods have changed over the years, perhaps they are more accurate? Even manuals today rarely give the same data or results.
Some like to think the manuals are Lawyer controlled but I do not think that is the case.

I find the new manuals and online data to work just fine, I see no reason to push the envelope more than necessary.
Lol the speer manual I have in 38 special looks like it could be a nuclear manual.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-05-2015, 12:06 AM
Alk8944's Avatar
Alk8944 Alk8944 is offline
Member
Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals  
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sandy Utah
Posts: 8,616
Likes: 1,554
Liked 8,611 Times in 3,452 Posts
Default

Cleveland48,

While current data is frequently lower than in the older manuals, due to changes in pressure measurement methods, for the most part any previously published data will still be safe. Some .38 Special loads that were commonly used for decades, by thousands of re-loaders, and for millions of rounds, may fall into current +P pressures, but that doesn't make the loads dangerous. 158 gr. LSWC/5.5 gr. Unique comes to mind for an example. Back in the 1930s-1970s this was the load for .38 Spl. standard loads. Didn't hurt guns (including J-frames) back "in the day", it won't hurt them now!

Since you specifically mention .38 Special I will take a chance and say the Speer manual you have is the #8. Yes, there is a bit of data in that particular manual that is absolutely dangerous! Particularly loads for S.R. 4756! There are loads in this manual that exceed later data in the follow-up Speer manuals for .357 Magnum, with the same powder and bullet combination! This is the only manual I have ever seen where I would seriously caution against using it, especially for .38 Special!

NOTE: I type slow, this was begun before Rule3 posted his response.
__________________
Gunsmithing since 1961

Last edited by Alk8944; 07-05-2015 at 12:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-05-2015, 12:14 AM
Rule3's Avatar
Rule3 Rule3 is offline
Member
Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals  
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 22,065
Likes: 10,777
Liked 15,465 Times in 6,787 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alk8944 View Post
Cleveland48,


NOTE: I type slow, this was begun before Rule3 posted his response.
You must be really slow then, as I hunt and peck. No prize for you
__________________
Still Running Against the Wind
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #7  
Old 07-05-2015, 12:16 AM
Cleveland48's Avatar
Cleveland48 Cleveland48 is offline
Member
Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals  
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 230
Likes: 194
Liked 207 Times in 104 Posts
Default

Here are some examples of a jacketed 158gr in 38 special with unique.

*Min: 4.8 Max: 5.5 (+p) speer #10th manual.
*Min: 5.0 Max: 6.4 Seirra 2nd edition.
* Min: 4.7 Max: 5.2 (+p) Lyman #49th
The Sierra book seems astronomical.

Last edited by Cleveland48; 07-05-2015 at 12:37 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #8  
Old 07-05-2015, 02:16 AM
rwsmith's Avatar
rwsmith rwsmith is offline
Member
Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals  
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: (outside) Charleston, SC
Posts: 30,907
Likes: 41,495
Liked 29,150 Times in 13,779 Posts
Default A Sierra manual called for....

An old Sierra manual called for plus P .38 special to start at 6.4 gr. of Unique with a 125 gr JHP. The top was 7 point something grains. I tried the starting load and it impressed (scared) me enough to back down to 6.2 grain Unique. Nearly all manuals now give 6 gr max for the same bullet. I don't feel like it was dangerous with a strong modern gun, but they were definitely serious rounds for a hunting or defense load.
__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-05-2015, 02:59 AM
Nemo288's Avatar
Nemo288 Nemo288 is offline
Member
Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals  
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Badgerland
Posts: 2,371
Likes: 557
Liked 1,496 Times in 786 Posts
Default

Before the advent of the electronic pressure gauges no one really knew the absolute instantaneous peak pressure when a cartridge went off.
Especially in revolvers.
It just happens too fast.
There was a fair amount of guesswork and feedback from the field involved.
Now that most loads have been measured with pressure barrels and modern instrumentation they have found out that, guess what, some loads WERE hot.
Some were WAY hot.
Most guns were (and are) so well built they didn't blow up anyway.
They will last a lot longer and everyone will be safer using the new data.

I shudder to think what we were doing with some silhouette loads in the 80's and 90's.
Modelling some of Taffin's early Dan Wesson 445 loads in QuickLOAD yields pressures up to and beyond modern rifle pressures.
Sticky extraction is not a good way to determine when to quit raising a load.
As an example, I once put a supposedly sane load in a different brass that had a less capacity (thicker converted rifle brass).
The velocity went up 200 fps! From an 8" barrel!
Still extracted fine too but I really woke up when I plotted all the load velocities.
I still keep that plot right in the front of my home made loading manual.

I think we got lucky before we got wise.
__________________
NEMO
"Everything 44"

Last edited by Nemo288; 07-05-2015 at 03:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-05-2015, 09:01 AM
SMSgt's Avatar
SMSgt SMSgt is offline
Member
Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 6,555
Likes: 3,343
Liked 9,152 Times in 3,432 Posts
Default

I will still go to my Speer #9 on occasion but rely more on powder manufacturers' data now. I haven't used max loads since my .41 Magnum days.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-05-2015, 09:05 AM
silentflyer silentflyer is offline
Member
Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals  
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Roanoke, Va
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 1,697
Liked 1,284 Times in 640 Posts
Default

Lawyers strike again...I still use Skeeter loads from 40+ years ago, works just fine.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-05-2015, 09:18 AM
Decker Decker is offline
Member
Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals  
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 336
Likes: 9
Liked 312 Times in 125 Posts
Default

Then there's the other side to generally lower loads listed in the new manuals.

One such for-instance is an online Hodgdon load for 9mm.
The load is:
124gr Burberry RN-Plated, and calling for a range of between 3.9gr and 4.4gr HP-38 @1.150.

One of the reasons I reload is because I LIKE lighter loads that you can shoot all day and are generally less harsh on the safe queens.

So I loaded up the above at 4.0gr of HP-38, and it was terrible.
I shot that batch from 3 different pistols, and the results were:

1. Colt Defender/9mm - would not cycle even one round (not even a stovepipe because it wouldn't push the slide far enough back to even do that.
2. Kahr CM9 - stovepipe or not cycle at all. There was not one successful second round chambered.
3. S&W 6906 - out of a full magazine, it would stovepipe at least once every other magazine. Note that this is a pistol I've had for a couple of decades or more, has been fired often, and has NEVER had a replacement recoil spring. I suspect that the sort of successful firing with the 6906 can be attributed to a weak load working with a weak spring.

A subsequent loading with the same bullet using 4.4gr of HP-38 (the "hot" max of the recipe) yielded reliable operation in pistols #1&2 (I've decided to replace the spring in the 6906 before firing it again).
While not scientific, I can say that I compared the felt recoil between the 4.4gr load to some factory WWB I had, and my "hot" loads "felt" just a little less in recoil than the factory WWB.

If lawyers are not involved in making recipe decisions, then I would think that the lightest load by any powder manufacturer would be tested to at least cycle in the least of the pistols that load might be fired from.

Don't take all this a some kind of complaint. Not at all. It's just an inconvenience that errors on the safe side, but an inconvenience for people like me who have to travel a bit and pay range fees in order to just test a load as opposed to some people who can step out in their (large) back yard and fire away, or those who live in the country near a sand pit or some convenient place to experiment with their (sometimes many) different loadings.
That's why I'm afraid to change powders due to availability limits. Sure, I can use a good handful of different brands and types, but on each one, I have to start all over again to find my sweet spot.
That is a LOT of miles and range fees just to find a reliable load I can live with.

Last edited by Decker; 07-05-2015 at 09:22 AM. Reason: Spelling to avoid embarrassing myself
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-05-2015, 09:58 AM
Cleveland48's Avatar
Cleveland48 Cleveland48 is offline
Member
Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals  
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 230
Likes: 194
Liked 207 Times in 104 Posts
Default

I'm thinking about trying 5gr. Of unique behind a 158 grain xtp prolly start around the 4.8 gr. But it will be shot mainly out of a 442 airweight sometimes my python. Does 5gr. seem pretty safe to y'all? It seems like it's the upper end of a standard load but not quite +p.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-05-2015, 11:28 PM
Rule3's Avatar
Rule3 Rule3 is offline
Member
Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals  
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 22,065
Likes: 10,777
Liked 15,465 Times in 6,787 Posts
Default

Hornady (MANUAL)#8 lists a start of 3.9 with that bullet and Unique and a Max which is +P of 5.1 grs.

Why would you start with 5.0 gr??

It would be stout with the 442 and not so much in a Python.

Manuals are your friend, Start low and work up.
__________________
Still Running Against the Wind
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-06-2015, 03:22 AM
Steve C Steve C is offline
Member
Old manuals  
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 727
Likes: 1
Liked 133 Times in 93 Posts
Default

If you read the description in the older manuals they often said that "start loads" should only be exceeded if the ammo was to be shot from heavy frame handguns. Guns like the S&W N frame .38 spl and .38-44 as well as Colts heavy framed Official Police revolvers. There's no universal conclusion that can be drawn that the older manuals where always heavier in load level for all powders still in use. For every example of heavier charges one can usually fine one where the maximum charge level is either the same or less in the older manual.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-06-2015, 02:59 PM
zeke zeke is offline
Member
Old manuals  
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NW Wi
Posts: 2,470
Likes: 3,315
Liked 3,020 Times in 1,279 Posts
Default

Just picked up several older Speer manuals (#9, & #10).

Quotes from # 9.
"The number 8 manual explained how primer appearance, ease of case extraction, and case head expansion were used to develop loading data", from page 103.

Course after that they explained although they were now using copper crushers for common calibers, the old ways were all that hand loaders commonly had available. Talk about your basic lawyerly butt covering, after they dropped some loading tables like hot rocks.

Not to mention comparing primer flattening, case extraction and head expansion are of little to no value for pistols.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #17  
Old 07-06-2015, 04:06 PM
MN2944 MN2944 is offline
Member
Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals  
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 350
Likes: 5
Liked 256 Times in 126 Posts
Default

In reality, I suspect most of those loads in the old books are perfectly safe IF done correctly. It's when a scale is misread by a full grain or a double charge is thrown that the new recommendations give you a bit more breathing room.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-06-2015, 07:19 PM
Cleveland48's Avatar
Cleveland48 Cleveland48 is offline
Member
Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals  
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 230
Likes: 194
Liked 207 Times in 104 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rule3 View Post
Hornady (MANUAL)#8 lists a start of 3.9 with that bullet and Unique and a Max which is +P of 5.1 grs.

Why would you start with 5.0 gr??

It would be stout with the 442 and not so much in a Python.

Manuals are your friend, Start low and work up.
My 49th edition Lyman states 5.3gr. As max. I said I would prolly start about 4.8 and work up to 5gr. Being my end goal. I didn't mean to word it as that 5gr would be my starting load. I have no intention of shooting an aluminum hand grenade lol.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-06-2015, 07:35 PM
jimbo728's Avatar
jimbo728 jimbo728 is offline
Member
Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals  
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 8,671
Liked 3,497 Times in 1,342 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleveland48 View Post
Here are some examples of a jacketed 158gr in 38 special with unique.

*Min: 4.8 Max: 5.5 (+p) speer #10th manual.
*Min: 5.0 Max: 6.4 Seirra 2nd edition.
* Min: 4.7 Max: 5.2 (+p) Lyman #49th
The Sierra book seems astronomical.
I have been using 4.8 of 231 with 158 lead for many many years "and loving it". Now it`s +P but still averages 840 fps in a 4". Mainly for pins, plates and IDPA.
Jim
"Sorry About that Chief"
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-06-2015, 08:39 PM
Rule3's Avatar
Rule3 Rule3 is offline
Member
Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals  
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 22,065
Likes: 10,777
Liked 15,465 Times in 6,787 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleveland48 View Post
My 49th edition Lyman states 5.3gr. As max. I said I would prolly start about 4.8 and work up to 5gr. Being my end goal. I didn't mean to word it as that 5gr would be my starting load. I have no intention of shooting an aluminum hand grenade lol.
It's not going to blow your gun up. The M 442 is +P rated.

Hornadys Manual data is very conservative. A load of around 4.5 would probably be just fine as a start load,

You will find all kinds of different data between manuals and online. Lymans has not been updated for who knows how long?? Hornady makes the bullet and tests in real guns, They have been around for a long time. If you have the exact bullet, default to the companies data
__________________
Still Running Against the Wind
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-06-2015, 08:51 PM
alwslate alwslate is offline
Member
Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals  
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Indiana
Posts: 6,606
Likes: 3,693
Liked 7,172 Times in 2,997 Posts
Default

Regarding the Speer #8 the only data that I personally found to truely
be excessive was with 4756 as mentioned above. With the current
manuals unfortunately there is much confusion regarding one of the
most popular and most reloaded handgun rounds, the old 38 spl.
A mild old round with a 17,000 psi limit but also a +P version with a
20,000 psi limit. And it seems much confusion on the part of
handloaders about that scary word MAXIMUM! As pointed out by some
well known gunwriters most data in manuals stays at least 10%
below pressure limits but some handloaders seem to nearly panic at
the idea of approaching the highest charge weight listed which may
in fact barely excede 15,000 psi. And plus P? In manuals that list
pressure in is common to see top charges for +P at 17,100 psi. It's
no wonder the poor handloader seeking advise ends up fearful after
he is trounced throughly for daring to approach MAXIMUM in his
38 spl loads.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-06-2015, 08:52 PM
Cleveland48's Avatar
Cleveland48 Cleveland48 is offline
Member
Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals  
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 230
Likes: 194
Liked 207 Times in 104 Posts
Default

I had the hornady 7th edition I believe and it was my go to for reloading rifles because I mainly use hornady bullets in my rifles, but I let my brother have it. Been using the Lyman for 44 mag a couple years now but I keep in pretty well downloaded with hardcast mostly unique around 1000 fps. This will be my first venture into reloading 38 special. Wanting some +p defensive loads for it but the majority will be plinking loads. Just want to get a load that shoots to the sights all the light bullet factory loads shoot low but not enough to worry me for a center mass self defense distance. Windage is pretty spot on regardless of bullet weight just need to find a sweet spot for the up/down.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-06-2015, 09:34 PM
WR Moore WR Moore is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,580
Likes: 1,787
Liked 5,342 Times in 2,685 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MN2944 View Post
In reality, I suspect most of those loads in the old books are perfectly safe IF done correctly. It's when a scale is misread by a full grain or a double charge is thrown that the new recommendations give you a bit more breathing room.
Not necessarily. Back when the 125 gr JHP bullet for .38/.357 was the big new thing, I picked up a Hercules Data Book fresh off the presses. When I sat down at the bench, I was boggled to see that the max load with a certain powder was at the same level as one of my pet .44 Magnum loads. After a few minutes with a calculator, I knocked that load down at least 10% and loaded up 5-10 of them.

They produced excellent accuracy and expansion from a 6 inch Model 28. They also had a muzzle flash you could see in bright sun light and cratered primers, possibly also pierced a few-memory isn't what it used to be.

I was back in the LGS within 2 weeks and, lo and behold, there was a revised HDB out with a direction to discard the previous edition and much lower max loads for that powder. I still have both-somewhere.

There was also a note in one of the Hornaday manuals noting the reduction in maximum charge for 200 gr bullets in .45 ACP. They stated it was NOT a misprint. They noted that with the new piezo-electric pressure gauges, they discovered excessive pressures that didn't show up with the copper crusher.

Last edited by WR Moore; 07-06-2015 at 09:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-06-2015, 10:23 PM
Alk8944's Avatar
Alk8944 Alk8944 is offline
Member
Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals  
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sandy Utah
Posts: 8,616
Likes: 1,554
Liked 8,611 Times in 3,452 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WR Moore View Post
......I picked up a Hercules Data Book fresh off the presses. When I sat down at the bench, I was boggled to see that the max load with a certain powder was at the same level as one of my pet .44 Magnum loads. After a few minutes with a calculator,......
Not questioning you at all, but I have never seen what was an obviously anomalous load listing in the Hercules/Alliant handout. It may be that I just have never looked at the right powder/bullet/cartridge combination! What year was that handout? I have these going back quite a while and am curious if I have it and just missed something! A PM would be just fine if you don't want to post for general consumption, and I can see why you may not want to.

You are absolutely correct in the part of your post I cropped out however. Speer #8 and the 125 gr/4756 loads are an exellent example! There is simply no way that 12.0/4756 can be "Done right" to make it safe in a .38 Spl. revolver. FWIW the IMR handout placed maximum at something like 4.5 grains for 15,000 PSI or so. Close enough for the example, I will gladly post exact numbers from IMR if anyone wants to question this!
__________________
Gunsmithing since 1961

Last edited by Alk8944; 07-06-2015 at 10:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-07-2015, 03:42 AM
WR Moore WR Moore is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,580
Likes: 1,787
Liked 5,342 Times in 2,685 Posts
Default

ALK8944-PM enroute.

About the concept that there's room at the top in load data.................

There's absolute maximum pressure. Then there's the maximum average pressure (MAP) that lots of loaded ammo should not exceed. You'll find factory ammo loaded to MAP, which is lower than the absolute maximum pressure. It's rather unclear in documents I could access which pressure level is published.

In either case, exploring above the published data is hazardous to your health.

Last edited by WR Moore; 07-07-2015 at 04:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-07-2015, 01:12 PM
Nemo288's Avatar
Nemo288 Nemo288 is offline
Member
Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals Old manuals  
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Badgerland
Posts: 2,371
Likes: 557
Liked 1,496 Times in 786 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WR Moore View Post
They noted that with the new piezo-electric pressure gauges, they discovered excessive pressures that didn't show up with the copper crusher.
Bingo!
You made the point I was so laboring to establish in my long-winded (some would say blowhard) style.

Makes one wonder what the ACTUAL peak pressures were in all those cordite rounds being assembled in
England and shot in Africa and India; a subject I like to read about.
I know they had trouble with some and backed off those loads.
Sound familiar?
This business has been going on since the first guy blew himself up with a "gonne".
Early ballistic feedback was brutal.
__________________
NEMO
"Everything 44"
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anybody Need Any Manuals? Eminence The Lounge 17 08-18-2018 11:51 PM
WTB S&W manuals lockandload WANTED to Buy 2 01-11-2015 08:39 AM
WTB S&W manuals lockandload WANTED to Buy 13 02-27-2014 10:45 AM
Never can have enough manuals. Peter M. Eick Reloading 28 06-13-2011 01:10 PM
WTS S&W manuals KEN L Accessories/Misc - For Sale or Trade 5 03-23-2011 02:07 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:27 PM.


Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)