Years ago I had a nice collection of older loading manuals that loaned my brother and never saw again. I have some current manuals I use but always enjoyed reading articles and when necessary referring to for starting points with powders not listed in today’s manuals.

A couple of weeks ago I bought a Speer #8 manual from 1970. What I found interesting were loads for 38 super and 38 special. I’ve never seen a reference to use H110 in 38 super and was amazed at the top velocity for a 125 jsp bullet at 1342fps. This is a pretty hot load especially If shot in a non supported chamber. In my IPSC days I shot 38 super using a 124 FMJ and 540/HS6 powder and exceeding this velocity but it certainly wasn’t safe in anything but a fully supported barrel.

I was also a bit surprised to find loads for 38 special using a 158 Lead SWC or RN and SR4756 (not familiar with this powder) at a velocity of 1250fps. This is approaching 357 velocities.

Another interesting bit of data was specific loads for 2” barrels and for 357 they had 2-1/2” data.

For 357 they gave data for the 158 lead SWC and RN at maximum velocities of 1486fps using Norma N1020. Another powder I’m not familiar with but this seems like a pretty stout load for a cast lead bullet.

I remember powders made by Alcan, DuPont, IMR and a couple other companies and know some of these makers were bought by other companies. I’d be interested to know if some of these old powders survived under a different name. For example two powders I’ve used for decades were 231 which became HP38 and 540 which became HS6.

Do you know of any of these old powders that survived but under a different name.

The earlier Speer manuals (#7 and #8 included) contained some load data that was subsequently toned down significantly.

I have at least a dozen manuals published by bullet makers, powder makers, Lyman, and others. My usual approach is to consult several and compare the data before starting on a new reloading project.

I got past the point of reloading for high performance long ago, and with minimal losses. I reload for efficiency, and sometimes for economy now, rather than trying to reach the ultimate levels. If anything, many of my usual combinations might be considered as anemic by other practitioners of the science. In semi-autos I want enough to reliably cycle the pistol; in revolvers I usually aim for mid-range ballistics. In hunting rifles I figure that when I'm chasing game that a .30-06 won't kill I probably don't have any business in those woods (and I have larger calibers, so there is no point in pushing the edges of the envelope).

I suggest caution with ANY published data from any source, and having multiple sources allows for comparison that should identify potential problems before parts are flying or body parts are perforated.

Some of those earlier Speer loads are known to push the envelope more than a little bit. Your discretion is advised.

__________________
Some collect art; I shoot it!

I have that Speer manual. Those loads with SR4756 in the 38 Special and 357 magnum data were unsafe as I suspect others were. I have first hand experience. My room mate at the time(mid 70s) was trying out hand gun silhouette shooting and all he had was a stainless 357 magnum Ruger Blackhawk with a 7"(?) barrel. He spied the loads in my manual and asked if I had ever loaded the 357 data with the SR4756. I told him I hadn't ,but they looked interesting. So he loaded up 20 rounds at the beginning load listed and took his gun to shoot some practice targets. He got home and told me how the first round went off unlike any hand gun round he had ever shot. Gun was still together, but locked up. He brought the gun home and got the cylinder out and had to pound the brass out of the chamber. Thinking he screwed up the powder charge, he took the remaining rounds apart and reweighed the charges. All were at the weight they should be. Later that week he found out from another shooter that this load had given other shooters problems.
Amazingly enough, he had his Blackhawk checked out and it was undamaged.

The early Speer manuals (and, perhaps, others_ were not compiled using data from pressure guns. They used case head expansion.

Be very cautious using data from early manuals.

Many have criticized the various manuals as being made conservative by lawyers. Actually, the advancements in pressure measurement has been the reason most data has been reduced from "the early days".

I hardly ever loaded near the top of recommended maximums. I’m a paper puncher and plinker and never hunt. I have arthritis in my hands which is making it more difficult to shoot anything beyond the lightest loads. I just found these loads interesting since they approached and even overlapped 357 loads.

I’m not a person that takes chances and also reference various sources and always work up from the bottom using a chronograph. Safety first!

Again I was curious as to whether any of these old pistol powders still exist under a different name. I know 700x, 2400, H110, HS6, Bullseye (red, green and blue dot), Unique and a few others are still around but others like gray-B, PB , Norma powders, IMR, DuPont and Alcan powders, if any exist under different brands and names? There are too many to name specifically.

I enjoy trying powders I’ve never used. A number of friends used to use Accurate powders but I haven’t until recently. I found some Nitro 100NF and Enforcer for my 357 lever gun. I finally loaded a few rounds and hit the range with my Chronograph Monday and was delighted with my results. I also tried a few rounds of 38’s with the N100 in my Blackhawk and was very happy with the mild recoil and accuracy.

You have the famous Atomic Manual. I knew it had to be good, since the usual nannies were telling people to burn it without opening the cover, as the data would make you go blind. I found a nice used copy, along with the original owners notes.

The .38 Special data especially harkens back to that pre-watery era of common sense and full power loads. Some of the powders are dated and no longer available. The Speer manual data was tested and published, and it was presumably safe. Although Speer drastically reduced the data in Number 9, and explained it as new pressure-measuring equipment, it never specifically recalled or disavowed the old manual.

Note this Atomic Number 8 data was not marked "+P" or anything else extra fancy, just plain ole .38 Special. The use of +P was not coined yet. The Speer data sort of tells you what .38 Special ammo used to be like, before The Great Watering Down. The Speer test gun was a 6" K-38, and they advised that regular use in small-frame guns would cause them to "loosen up" faster. Refreshingly frank, and an understatement!

Having said that, even the most intrepid and experienced reloaders agree that the .38 Special SR4756 data in that manual was probably an anomaly, and best avoided entirely.

Some of the other stouter loads were later tested by reloaders and found to be in the .38/44 pressure range (~24,000 CUP) - strong, but not even close to blowing up a post-war Colt, S&W or Ruger revolver. Won't blow up a current Charter Arms either, but I'd advise against using it that gun.

I've used the HS-6 data in .38 Special. These are excellent loads for the experienced reloader. Although the top charges were perfectly safe my guns, I load about 5% lower and get excellent results.

This +P/+P+/.38-44 issue has been hashed over many times in these forums. Colt advertised that it's Police Positive Special was rated for .38 Special Hi-Speed (.38/44). S&W did the same in an ad for it's Military & Police 2" snub (K frame). The idea that these loads are going to blow up a modern gun is preposterous.

I haven't tried the Super 38 data - one of my favorite calibres - because the current Accurate powders are easier to work with and easily make the old "Major Super" velocities safely.

As usual, YMMV.

I started out reloading in 1972. My first reloading manual was the "infamous Speer #8.

__________________
S&W Accumulator

Model 15-4ever I appreciate your comments. I started using minimum loads of HS6 in 38 special a couple years ago with 158 coated lead with excellent results. I used 231 and bullseye for thirty years but was looking for something cleaner. I’d used 540/HS6 to make major in a 38 super race gun with great results also But sold my race gun and found HS6 had a huge flash in a non compensated barrel. I eventually went to CFE pistol and much lighter loads.

Even if I were inclined to load some hot rounds for my Blackhawk or model 28 I know I’d suffer for days afterwards so the only hotter loads I shoot go in my Henry Brass Big Boy 357 but those are rare. I’m perfectly content pushing 158 polymer coated bullets out at 775 fps. That makes a nice hole in paper or pops a tin can in the air nicely.

Thanks again!

I use the 160gr .38spl data with 2400 in my K-frames. 15-2 and 15-3 4". the Speer 158swchp and commercial 160 swcbb machine cast bullets.........

__________________
dd884
JMHO-YMMV

A lot of us old timers that were brought up with the Speer #8 manual and the data back in those times know it as..........

The Speer #8 ATOMIC manual.........

and on page 363 with the 158 gr LSWC bullet for the 38 Special
with the SR4756 power, to top amount of powder was known as....

"The Load" !!

Most of us figured it out, learned or read, where a little less powder was a lot easier on both the weapon & shooter.

Just depends if you "Feel Lucky" or if you want your weapon to stay tight?

I heard that speer used cup measurements in their older manuals, then they got pressure transducers and the lawyers went crazy when they saw the data,

Having a collection of manuals makes for some interesting reading. Speer stated in a later manual that their # 8 did not use pressure testing equipment.

Interestingly enough, IMR used to have mini-manuals that were pressure tested, and clearly indicate Speers use of sr4756 in 158 loads were overloads.

Amen! I bounce load data from as many sources as I can use before loading any new cartridge.

I bought a new Speer #8 to succeed my first Speer manual, # 6. I tried some of the hot .38 Special loads with SR4756 and, I think, #2400. I don't recall any problems and I survived. Handloaders and shooters in general had a different attitude toward "hot" loads at that time, before +P.

Today's handloaders, except for those with nothing more than a YouTube education, have access to better technical information, though many seem unaware of the intricacies of handloading.

Much Speer data as well as data from other published sources was not pressure tested fifty or more years ago. Safety of handloads was judged in many of the same (and often unreliable) ways used by some of us today.

I started reloading about 1975 with a Speer #9. It still sits on the shelf, but mainly for the cartridge description value.

I have used loads out of the Speer 8 w/o any problems . Regards Paul

I started out with thee Speer #10 published I think in 1979. I still check on some 38 Special loads since they used powders that are not in later versions. But, I think Speer disclaimed their manuals from #10 on back. Anything I note in the #10 I do take with a grain of salt.

SR4756 is brought up in this thread. I started reloading in the late 70s'. Along with the manuals from Speer, Hornady, and Sierra, my main go-to guide was the Remington Reloading Guide (in association with Dupont) for handgun and rifle.
For the magnums of 357 and 44, IMR4227, 2400, and SR4756 seemed optimal for the heavy charges to attain the upper velocities. I also started out using a chronograph to find out the actual performances.
I'll keep this part only on the 357s'. IMR4227 needed a heavy crimp for decent velocities but always burnt 'dirty', I didn't do a lot of testing with it and stopped its' usage. 2400 seemed popular in all the data books so I tested it. Again good velocities but still burnt dirty, but not as bad as IMR4227. SR4756 gave the similar good velocities and burned clean, very clean. I stopped all testing with the 2400. Started using SR4756 for all testing in 357 and 44M (and even with 38 special). Yes, too much pressure was attainable, but that can occur with almost any powder. This was occurring in the late 70s'/early 80s' and since then published data has drastically changed to lower charges.
For target/plinking loads in 38 special and 44 special I use SR7625, for 357M and 44M I use SR4756. Added 9mm, 40S&W, and 10mm and they also get SR4756. Good semi-auto function, clean burning, and good velocities. Never had a blown primer, ruptured case, or difficult extraction.
When Hodgdon announced 5-10 years ago the dis-continuance of SR7625, SR4756, SR4759 and some other, I started buying up 7625 and 4756 to allow my future reloading and not have to start testing all over again with different powders.
In letting others try a few loads of 9mm, 38 special, and 357M, they were impressed by function, cleanliness, and consistency.
No, I won't divulge my load data(s) due to liability issues.

For the past 5 years I"ve been liquidating a sizeable handgun collection - say an average of one a week. About one year remaining for sales. Family not interested in firearms. That said, I have a large quantity of reloaded ammo, most done in the 1970-80s. With my guns that fire this ammo going or gone, I realize a sale of my reloads is not likely, and giving it to friends as "component use only" would probably end up with firing likely. So, I sorted through this inventory to review load data. GOOD GRIEF ! When compared to recent sources of reloading data, over 2/3 of the loads were well above the "new" maximum load data. I certainly don't want to just leave it on the shelf and let my estate try to figure out the hazard they have, and what to do about it.

What can I do to destroy or safely dispose of this liability. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Look for a bullet puller and dump al the powder in your garden or across your lawn. I've been told powder is a good fertilizer.

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

Yep, Bullet puller. Gunpowder as fertilizer, yep, BUT takes a long time to break down the nitrogen content to plant useability.
Pulled bullets and primed brass can be sold because of todays' shortages.

I've got Speer #7,#8, and #9 my brother loaned me many years ago.

Is that you, Jim?

Load testing back then was done by shooting and looking for pressure signs. For low pressure cartridges, like .38 Special, it is a completely bogus method. You'd have to be way over SAAMI spec to see any high pressure signs.

The other bugaboo is safety. The safety objective of the books was to keep you from blowing your gun up. But the safety of the gun wasn't.

Exactly. You wouldn't blow the gun up, but it wouldn't take long to shoot it loose.

__________________
I've still got it made.

I started reloading .38s in 1972 too. My source of information was Speer #8. Still got it with all my notes in it from “back in the day”. Looks like I restricted myself to conservative loads.

"I remember powders made by Alcan, DuPont, IMR and a couple other companies....." quote;

I had a lot of the old powders but finally used them all up by the 1980's and finally got rid of my IMR 800-X that I bought for Steel pellet loading, for ducks, that was replaced by Alliant "Steel" powder.

W540 was the last of the old powders to go, that I had on hand.

I have yet to buy any new "E" powders with the new numbers, with the old new powders still holding out.

CFE-p and BE-86 are the two newest powders that I have picked up, andso far, have worked out, fine.

Speer #7 was the manual at the time when I started reloading... passed on to me by an Uncle. I bought #8 & #9 when they came out, but having no reason to change the loads that I found in #7, those newer manuals sat on the shelf, largely unused, and then I skipped to #12.

Talk about living under a rock...LOL, until now, I had no idea about the notoriety of Speer #8.

Not only do I get a kick out of reading vintage reloading manuals ( I have Speer manuals from #1 to #12), I still need the data because I still have powder, like Alcan-AL5 and Winchester 630 that were in the earlier manuals.

__________________
Conrad
SWCA #1830 SWHF #222

I have forty, maybe fifty manuals, many of them from the 'fifties and 'sixties. I'd have to look it up to be sure, but at least one of the Speer books has some heavy duty cast .45 Auto Rim loads using #2400 powder. I can't quote the charge weights offhand, but seems like they were fairly substantial.

[QUOTE=......

I remember powders made by Alcan, DuPont, IMR and a couple other companies and know some of these makers were bought by other companies. I’d be interested to know if some of these old powders survived under a different name. For example two powders I’ve used for decades were 231 which became HP38 and 540 which became HS6.
.......

[/QUOTE]

Win 231 has a predecessor in Winchester 630, also a ball powder. It dates to the 1970's. Win 231 is still made and marketed.

Keep your older manuals and powder maker load booklets. Never can tell when a quantity of older powder may come your way. You have a starting point to enjoying it IF you have a published safe starting load from these older sources.

Win 630 is not part of the Win 231 lineage. Prior to Win 231 we had Win 230 and Win 230P.

Not that Win 630 was a bad powder, it was simply part of the pattern Winchester had of releasing many powders, and not long after discontinuing many powders.

I know of one published load using SR4756 that, when retested while preparing the companies newer manual, tested literally off the chart for pressure.

SR4756 was not included in the newer manual.

For #8, they did not use CUP. They did not pressure test. The manual is unsafe.

Of course, there are some safe loads in it. The issue is that there are some unsafe loads in it.

Please don't blow up your gun while I'm around. I suppose you could loosen it whenever you want, if you can predict the difference.

__________________
Formerly Model520Fan

Good grief , " put it to rest " ! This is an old , very old topic that has been talked to death . There are many different opinions , most from those that don't even own Speer 8 . So let's move on gentlemen . Regards Paul

I'm not much on the severely re-hashed threads either, but with this one (and it may be the only one), about one out of fifteen or twenty comments is something new not posted previously with regard to #8. I don't see how anyone unfamiliar with the book could post anything worthwhile, only what they've read and that doesn't really count for anything. I agree with you that many comments are probably from these folks.

There have been occasional misprints in data. Back when the 125 gr .357 Magnum load was the New Big Thing, Alliant, nee Hercules, put out a data sheet (available in the LGS) that included new data for these bullets.

A buddy promptly bought a box of bullets and showed up wanting me to load them. I looked at the .357 data for Unique, then consulted a Lyman manual and found it was pretty much the same as the Max load for .44 Magnum. I reduced the load, then thought about it more and reduced it again. The load produced a muzzle flash you could see in bright sunlight and produced severely cratered primers.

My next visit to the LGS I found a revised data sheet with loads that were sane.

i have not had any problems with my speer nimber 11 manual.

As a note, there are other manuals that have errors in them
that have loads that go past a safe "Standard" load for the weapon.
Many are safe in a 38 "K" frame but should not be tried in the little J frame.
I am not going to list them but they are out there and one reason for loaders
to work new loads up when using "New" data for the first time.

Next page..........

Apparently not, since it is the subject of the post? Over the years, have seen this discussion get resurrected repeatedly by those rehashing the use of #8 data for 38 special.

This post is an excellent reminder of the precautions necessary when using older manuals, especially Speer # 8 for sr-4756 in 158 gn 38 special.

I bought the then brand new 1970 Speer #8 Manual to go along with my brand new 1970 Ruger Blackhawk 357 Magnum , RCBS reloading dies and Alcan #5 powder ...
I believed Speer knew what they were doing ... it was published data !
I thank Bill Ruger for building a hell for stout S.A. revolver and the Good Lord for looking out for ambitious young reloaders !

In the midst of the recent powder shortage I found two cans of Alcan #5 on the top shelf of my closet ... pulled out Speer #9 and used the data for mid range 158 gr. LSWC 38 special loads and they shot great ... wish I had more .
Waste not , want not !

I haven't heard of any other powders being the same as any of the old Alcan Powders but that would be interesting to know ... like HP38 and W231 now being the same .
Gary

__________________
Certified Cajun
NRA Member

Compare with Hornady, 1973. I assume they used case head expansion of less than 0.0005".
38 Super (5" Colt Government Model) 125 gr jacketed, 6.5 gr Unique, 1250 fps. Kind of like 357 Sig.
38 Spc (Smith 6" Model 14) 158 gr lead, 10.9 gr 630) 1150 fps.

Must be considered that when testing is done with real guns, there are fast guns and slow guns within the same model and barrel length.

630 shows up as the top velocity load in numerous pistol loadings. IIRC, it was prone to pressure spiking (temperature sensitive?) which is why it was discontinued.

^^^agree.
For instance, a 'newbie' reloader (and there are many 'newbies' now) is given/acquires an old manual, maybe this thread will have them tread carefully.

Im not a new reloaded but got away from shooting for twenty years for various reasons and got back in five years ago. The internet and forums were pretty new at the time I got out.

I was completely unaware of the questionable data in this manual until purchasing it and posting on the forum. There are a lot of new reloaded and people like me that have loaded for many years but for one reason or another weren’t aware of manuals with published dangerous loads.

Thanks for the information!

There are quite a few loads published in older paper sources that I'm pretty sure would be at least potentially dangerous because they were right on the edge of maximum or slightly over maximum when tested without the benefit of pressure testing equipment. If a different gun was used and/or one or more components were substituted for those listed in the data, this could push the load well past safe. These might not wreck a gun, but they could easily cause a lot of premature wear, not to mention inaccuracy and poor brass life.

Many use the "lawyer" excuse today and really believe it regarding toned down loads, but more accurate testing equipment and methods has a lot more to do with current load data than any other factor. Liability and lawyers probably figure in, but in a much smaller ways than many presume.

I bought #10 new and still use time to time. Lots of target loads for 38 special.

I cut my teeth on the no.10 Speer, which is why I'm quite fond of Herco. Shoot, I still use International Clays from time to time for snappy pistol loads.

I just ordered a #14 that’s a little more up to date.

But not up to date. Why not #15?

__________________
I've still got it made.

I just got Speer #15.
I called Speer back on 29 May 2019 to inquire about page 870 & 871 having the exact same data for two different bullets a Gold dot and a lead semi wad cutter. At that time I was told corrections would be in the next printing. I ordered and just received the Speer #15 second printing and the same data errors are in this issue too.
I called Speer again the said they’ll make a note of this problem and pass it along.

Speer should issue a recall on their problematic old manuals but then manuals say to only use the most recent data in case there’s been changes so I guess there covered by that safety rule.

Chute-em...........

Or send them to me............

__________________
dd884
JMHO-YMMV

From what I have read Speer has disclaimed the information in their manuals published prior to the #11 manual. So as far as I know it is ok.

I still use their 6 grains Unique load in a .38 Special case. My gun and I both like it, of course my revolver is a 686 L frame.