Skip Sackett
US Veteran
ROFL!
This is good advice, thanks for posting it Bruce!
Older Reloading Manuals - Safe or not?
- Thread starter PDL
- Start date
ROFL!
This is good advice, thanks for posting it Bruce!
SWBigBang
Member
When ever a reloading session involves a new powder I will tend to search the manufacturers web site for updated information.
Freischütz
Member
Like everyone, I have lots of old manuals. I find them particularly useful when loading cast bullets that aren't listed in the new manuals.
I see Speer Nr 8 mentioned several times. I was very pleased when it came out because it gave both cast and jacketed data by someone other than Lyman. I was also pleased to see its very heavy pistol loads. I decided that they were the absolute upper limit. My guns might not reach that limit, but if they did, I knew where to quit.
I see Speer Nr 8 mentioned several times. I was very pleased when it came out because it gave both cast and jacketed data by someone other than Lyman. I was also pleased to see its very heavy pistol loads. I decided that they were the absolute upper limit. My guns might not reach that limit, but if they did, I knew where to quit.
My first loading manual was the Speer #10. Along the way I picked up many manuals of various vintages. I loaded from those old data sources and, like everyone else who did so, my guns all blew up and I died. Despite my early death I have run comparisons on various lots of powder from the old days and more recent production and found very small differences in performance (Just like the concept of canister powders is supposed to work). Are there loads in some of the older manuals that I think are excessive? Yes-a few. Are there some more recent data sources so divorced from reality that I consider them useless? Yes.
The neat thing is .....if you have a dozen+ manuals spanning 60 years you can find some loadings from different data sources that report remarkably similar performance .......and actually get comparable performance in your own guns.......which for me tends to inspire confidence.
The neat thing is .....if you have a dozen+ manuals spanning 60 years you can find some loadings from different data sources that report remarkably similar performance .......and actually get comparable performance in your own guns.......which for me tends to inspire confidence.
I agree with Paul on the use of older manuals. I have a few from the 70's. The only loads that became lower are .38 spl, .357 mag and .44 spl. The newer loads in my opinion are ridiculous in a lot of cases.
The powder has not changed, and I have a hard time believeing cases, primers and bullets changed.
The powder has not changed, and I have a hard time believeing cases, primers and bullets changed.
grendelbane
Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 81
- Reaction score
- 8
Powder hasn't changed, other than lot to lot variations, and since the 70s, primers probably haven't changed. Cases do vary quite a bit, from one mfr to another. They have changed a LOT since the days of balloon head cases, not so much in the last few decades.
Still, these things can stack up and work against you. Always start low and work your way up. I have found several instances where I couldn't reach max levels, in one case I couldn't even come close.
Also, they thought the old M1917 revolvers could be hot rodded back in the day. I would avoid this, those old wheel guns deserve an honorable semi-retirement. They didn't heat treat those cylinders back then, and metallurgy has come a long way since the War to end All Wars.
There is logic in not hotrodding an older gun. However, if you look at load books over the last 20 years the only guns that have been seriously downgraded are the .38 Spl and .44 Spl. Why not the 9mm? that has been around longer then those 2 rounds.
Looking through my older Sierra manual the data shows the .38 Spl on par with the 9mm. In the newer manuals that Spl doesn't even come close to the 9mm. In fact my recent Lyman manual shows the .38 Spl to be barely above the older .38 S&W.
A while back I commented on someone's .38 Spl load being way to hot a 6.0 gr of Unique with a 158 gr bullet. He sent me the page out of his older manual that he scanned and it showed a max of 6.3 gr for that bullet. His book was from the mid 70's. I wouldn't shoot that out of any of mine. In fact I'm shooting that same load out of a .357 mag.
My advice is always work up to the max load. Better to load 10 rounds that are to hot then 500 that are to hot. You'll realize this pretty fast when you start pulling 500 bullets to recharge them.
Paul5388
US Veteran
OK, how many manuals have been recalled due to erroneous/dangerous data? The 2nd edition of Speer #8 was released in 1971 and only had changes on a few loads, i.e. reduced the SR 4756 loads in .38 Special by 1 gr.
It's very hard to convince those of us who have used the old manuals since they were new that they had/have a problem.
Speer #9 had a 125 gr .357 load of 14.5 gr of Blue Dot that Alliant has now, 35 years later, said is on the verboten list, but there have been very few instances happening like that.
It's very hard to convince those of us who have used the old manuals since they were new that they had/have a problem.
Speer #9 had a 125 gr .357 load of 14.5 gr of Blue Dot that Alliant has now, 35 years later, said is on the verboten list, but there have been very few instances happening like that.
dennis40x
US Veteran
I see the masochist society is having the annual flogging session concerning the over and then over again subject of old manuals. On Flea-Bay there is an extremely rear edition of the Speer 7.9 edition manual. This manual makes the much revered Speer #8 look like the manual for the old ladies tea society.
No one is going to change their opinion on the subject but none the less it goes on and on. This subject is the equivalent of trying to reinvent the wheel. It's safe to say that this subject reappears every so often with the usual participants.
No one is going to change their opinion on the subject but none the less it goes on and on. This subject is the equivalent of trying to reinvent the wheel. It's safe to say that this subject reappears every so often with the usual participants.
dennis40x
US Veteran
Dennis,
Thanks for adding so very thoughtful and educational points to the discussion. Some of us want some useful information. It might be old stuff to you. So what, stay out of the discussion if you're bothered by it. The rest of us haven't been as well educated on the subject as you.
Thanks for adding so very thoughtful and educational points to the discussion. Some of us want some useful information. It might be old stuff to you. So what, stay out of the discussion if you're bothered by it. The rest of us haven't been as well educated on the subject as you.
dennis40x
US Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,555
- Reaction score
- 6,270
Yes, but are the .38 Special +P loads in the Speer #13 safe to use in my 1953 vintage Outdoorsman? It isn't model numbered.
Whip that nag's carcass, but if somebody learns something we should all go home happy.
Whip that nag's carcass, but if somebody learns something we should all go home happy.
bmcgilvray
Member
They're bound to be safe. I'm still using them.
Treeman is a fairly intelligent fellow and makes some great observations.
"Just like the concept of canister powders is supposed to work."
"Are there loads in some of the older manuals that I think are excessive? Yes-a few. Are there some more recent data sources so divorced from reality that I consider them useless? Yes."
Treeman is a fairly intelligent fellow and makes some great observations.
"Just like the concept of canister powders is supposed to work."
"Are there loads in some of the older manuals that I think are excessive? Yes-a few. Are there some more recent data sources so divorced from reality that I consider them useless? Yes."
Paul5388
US Veteran
BI, that's "before internet", we did quite a few things that would raise eyebrows on the uber enlightened of today. Somehow, we managed to survive and still enjoy all of our faculties and extremities. Sometimes our data was lacking, so we had to make do with what we had, so we even interpolated data. That was necessary due to only having a Speer #7, but we were using Hornady bullets, i.e. 139 gr in 7mm. As luck would have it, we also didn't have CCI 250 primers, but we made do with what we had. The load we've been using for at least 43 years in 7mm Mag is 68.0 gr of IMR 4350 with a 139 gr bullet and Rem 9 1/2 primers. It clocks 3190 fps MV with new powder or old powder (and yes they're different, since around 1980*), but we used the same charge weights.
According to the Lyman 49th Edition, Speer #7 is 2.0 gr over max, but the same old 1964 M700 continues to shoot that load and will still group less than 1" at 100 yards.
There are several reasons this scenario worked. The primer is a non-magnum, so it doesn't generate as much pressure as it would using a magnum primer. Weighed charges don't change with canister powders, even if the powder has changed. I'm still using brass that was bought around 1970, which doesn't happen with over loads.
That's a new factory R-P compared to one of the $.1725 Normas.
There isn't anything wrong with old data, if you use your head for something besides a hat rack.
* IMR moved its production facilities to Canada in the early 1980s. The DuPont powders produced in the USA were larger tubes of extruded powder, whereas the Canadian produced powder is more like the short cut (SC) varieties. If volumetric charging was done, there would have been a gross overload, since the SC powder takes up less volume per weight. Regardless, the burn rate stayed the same and produced the same results.
According to the Lyman 49th Edition, Speer #7 is 2.0 gr over max, but the same old 1964 M700 continues to shoot that load and will still group less than 1" at 100 yards.
There are several reasons this scenario worked. The primer is a non-magnum, so it doesn't generate as much pressure as it would using a magnum primer. Weighed charges don't change with canister powders, even if the powder has changed. I'm still using brass that was bought around 1970, which doesn't happen with over loads.
That's a new factory R-P compared to one of the $.1725 Normas.
There isn't anything wrong with old data, if you use your head for something besides a hat rack.
* IMR moved its production facilities to Canada in the early 1980s. The DuPont powders produced in the USA were larger tubes of extruded powder, whereas the Canadian produced powder is more like the short cut (SC) varieties. If volumetric charging was done, there would have been a gross overload, since the SC powder takes up less volume per weight. Regardless, the burn rate stayed the same and produced the same results.
JakeB
Member
Question about older Speer manuals
I have a copy of the Speer #11 manual. It doesn't list C.O.L. for any of the loads.
Were they using SAAMI max cartridge length for the loads that did not have a footnote or were they loading to the cannelure/crimp?
I have a copy of the Speer #11 manual. It doesn't list C.O.L. for any of the loads.
Were they using SAAMI max cartridge length for the loads that did not have a footnote or were they loading to the cannelure/crimp?
Me thinks you're way too serious. I'm not high jacking your thread/subject. The search function should or would have provided a wealth of information on this subject. On the other hand just about every subject on the forum is the rehash of the same old same old to a certain existent.
I guess you're right, I take anything to do with firearms seriously. And if the information has been provided many times before, again so what. Search functions are only as good as the indexer or search engine developer.
It seems you were the only one that mentioned a problem with a re-hash of the subject.
38-44HD45
Absent Comrade
Hmmm. It seems I get to add to my "ignore" list.
