So disappointed! (Speer #8)

[Charles]

I found a copy of Speer #8 on Ebay for cheap, not knowing it was a second printing from 1971.

ALL the SR4756 data is gone, from all the cartridges. All that's left is blank spots in the charts where they used to be (sniff).

If anyone is looking for one of these and wants the SR4756 data, be sure to check that's it's a first printing you're buying.

On the other hand, if it was removed that quickly, I probably shouldn't be using it. If it weren't for bad luck I wouldn't have ANY luck.

And the rest of the book is more than worth the 8 bucks.

[Paul5388]

I think you can find the missing information here.

BTW, the 1971 edition I have only contains changes in .38 Special and .357 Mag and even there, it only reduces the loads by 1.0 gr of SR 4756.

[Skip Sackett]

Glad that both of mine are 1st printings!

[dennis40x]

Don’t bother yourself with the Speer-8. Look for the Speer-7.9 edition it makes the Speer -8 1st edition look tame.

[FrankD45]

I heard that #7 and SR4756 were the start of global warming. Not that I believe it, but I heard it.

[Skip Sackett]

Originally Posted by dennis40x

Don’t bother yourself with the Speer-8. Look for the Speer-7.9 edition it makes the Speer -8 1st edition look tame.

Some folks just don't know quality when they see it!
I have a candidate to send yours to!

[Rule3]

Originally Posted by Paul5388

I think you can find the missing information here.

BTW, the 1971 edition I have only contains changes in .38 Special and .357 Mag and even there, it only reduces the loads by 1.0 gr of SR 4756.

Paul, thanks for the link to that site. That is pretty neat to be able to look through the old manuals online!

[surveyor47]

Beware those old Speer manuals! A starting 357 load of Blue Dot and a Speer 125 grain JHP destroyed my S&W 19. Hodgdon later put out a warning not to use Blue Dot with any 125 grain bullet in 357, but it was much too late for my gun.

In general, with both the S&W19 and Ruger Security Six, I found that starting loads were maximum with data from that manual. The data is interesting, but I dont trust it.

My go to manual is the Lyman Pistol & Revolver Handbook 2nd & 3rd editions.

[Skip Sackett]

Originally Posted by surveyor47

Beware those old Speer manuals! A starting 357 load of Blue Dot and a Speer 125 grain JHP destroyed my S&W 19. Hodgdon later put out a warning not to use Blue Dot with any 125 grain bullet in 357, but it was much too late for my gun.

In general, with both the S&W19 and Ruger Security Six, I found that starting loads were maximum with data from that manual. The data is interesting, but I dont trust it.

My go to manual is the Lyman Pistol & Revolver Handbook 2nd & 3rd editions.

First off, it ain't the manual that gets folks into trouble, they get themselves into it.

Second off Hodgdon doesn't have anything to do with Blue Dot. Alliant does, they make it.

Thirdly, there are too many variables in reloading to lay the blame on just one thing. Blue Dot is a very temperature sensitive powder. You make no mention of what ambient temperature was when those destructive bullets were fired. Neither do you mention what took place in that M19 before firing that dreadful round that blew the gun up.

Fourthly, trust it or not, in my opinion you haven't learned your lesson. Why trust a manual from someone that doesn't make powder? Use the powder manufacturer's manual/data first, always. See what the results are and THEN go to the folks that sell bullets/moulds.

The logic you provide is like someone saying "The devil made me do it."

My answer to that always is "No, you listened to him and made the decision to do it yourself. You are responsible for what you do, period."

[ISOM]

I got a #8 back in 1970 when I first startd reloading.
It has excellent reloading in it on HOT TO RELOAD. The loads are out of date and dangerous to use today.

I have picked up 2 Speer # 8 manuals at Gun Shows for about $8.00.

[Paul5388]

The loads are out of date and dangerous to use today.

Out of date for 1956 or 1968 vintage powder? Since I have both vintages, I think I'll continue to use those Speer #8 loads just like I have since 1972.

I was curious about what the chronograph would say about powders of vastly differing ages, so I used some extremely differing aged powders for this little experiment.



I suppose you'll notice there isn't any great difference in the results that lot to lot variation wouldn't account for.

Here's what the cans of powder look like, if you care to see if you've ever seen any that age (the can of Unique has a metal pour spout similar to what a 1# salt container has).



I need to see how DuPont #6 and HiVel#2 works sometime, since I have some of that too.

[surveyor47]

I never said my gun was blown up by Blue Dot, but then there are other modes of failure, such as excessive frame stretching that you did not mention. My gun locked up after 12 rounds of a Blue Dot starting load with the Speer 125 grain JHP and was ultimately pounded open by a local gunsmith, who sent it off to S&W, who pronounced it DOA. Temp 30 F. Yes my fault; given the extreme report and blast, I should have known that something was wrong. Back then, if you werent loading a Keith load, you were a wimp and I listened to that garbage. My fault for believing gun rag writers, particularly Skeeter. Yes, you are right, it is Alliant- no wonder I havent seen that warning lately and I have been looking for it at Hodgdon. And I did disassemble rounds and check the load- which was as per spec.

Blue Dot is a fantastic 12 gauge 2 3/4" magnum powder and I took many geese with Blue Dot and #2 lead, back when that was legal.Havent loaded it in years, and would never consider using it in any handgun.

Now, if you want to try a really fantastic new generation powder in 357, give Lil Gun a try. According to Hodgdon, you can achieve something on the order of 1300 fps with a 158 grain jacketed bullet with the starting load out of a 4 inch barrel. That is hotter than the old 125 grain JHP loads that made such an impression on police. In fact, I dont use these loads in any K-frame, because the velocity is so high that I fear cracking the forcing cone. I reserve Lil Gun loads for L-frame guns.

[Skip Sackett]

Glad you cleared some of that up. Too many folks take what is written on a forum like this as "gospel" when there is a bunch more unwritten that lays between the lines.

When we make "ultimate" statements we need to make them exceptionally clear so as not to be misunderstood.

My contention goes back to the firearm you shot them from for one thing. A "K" frame 357Mag has been notorious for being just a tad on the light side for a continuous diet of true magnum rounds. That is why most law enforcement departments used to use 38spl to practice with when they carried them as their side arm. "L" and "N" frames are a completely different story, in my opinion. They are built to take a licking and keep on ticking.

My ammo storage shelving just had a catastrophe and I came across some rounds I loaded long ago. They are 158gr Blue Dot loads. There are about 100 of them and that is probably where they will stay.

I don't load shotgun shells at this time so I wouldn't have any use for it anyway. I would much prefer SR4756 for those loads anyway!

I still use the SR4756 38spl and 357Mag loads from the Speer #8. My powder isn't the vintage that Paul's is but I have gotten very similar results to his and almost exactly what the manual says I would.

I also use some of the 2400 loads out of it in the 45AutoRim and get the same results.

I didn't start off at the top of the data either. I did what I always do when working up a new load. I go to the powder manufacturer's data and start from there. Then I go to the manuals, whatever they be.

FWIW

[surveyor47]

SR4756 was my 20 gauge powder of choice. Shot 10s of thousands of rounds in skeet with SR4756. Havent shot skeet in 15 years, so I havent reloaded any shotgun rounds in a while.

Green Dot was my preferred 12 gauge powder for 1 1/8 ounce skeet loads. Unique did not impress me and I had better uses for it- revolvers.

473AA was the wierdest powder I ever dealt with. One load would be powder puff light and the next like a cannon. I think it was entirely due to wad pressure. I found Green Dot far more forgiving.

I never tried Green Dot in revolvers although I occasionally saw data. I was more than satisfied by Unique.

For handguns, I finally standardized on Unique, Bullseye, IMR4227 and H110. I am only now getting around to experimenting with 2400, which that deceased M19 didnt like. I avoided that powder for 30 years afterward. Had gun rag writers explained that the S&W19 that the pitched so much was essentially a 38 Special with a limited ability to fire 357 Magnum ammo, they would have done a great service. I would have been so much better off had I purchased a S&W 28 Highway Patrolman as my first handgun. Now thats a real sportsmans revolver.

[Jellybean]

I need to see how DuPont #6 and HiVel#2 works sometime, since I have some of that too.

Paul, if you are looking for data for those two powders, try the lyman/Ideal handbook #39. It even has a table to easily set your No. 55 powder measure for these powders.

[Jellybean]

Now, if you want to try a really fantastic new generation powder in 357, give Lil Gun a try. According to Hodgdon, you can achieve something on the order of 1300 fps with a 158 grain jacketed bullet with the starting load out of a 4 inch barrel.

I'm not sure where you got that data from, especially the part about the 4" barrel. Hodgdon doesn't tell you on their website, but they use a 10" barrel for .357 magnum velocities.

And while I have all the respect in the world for smith crazy, I don't go to Hodgdons data first, especially after talking to them about their data manuals. I use Lymans first. Then I go to Sierra's, Speers, Hornadys, Accurates, VVs, and etc, to compare notes. I do occaisionally use Hodgdons but I know how much B.S. they try to add in.

[surveyor47]

Go to the Hodgdon website Hodgdon - The Gun Powder People and look it up.

"158 GR. HDY XTP Hodgdon Lil'Gun .357" 1.580" 16.0 1504 24,100 CUP 18.0 1577 25,800 CUP"

I called Hodgdons Tech Support and asked what the approximate velocity would be out of a 4 inch barrel, and I was told about 1300 fps. That is an approximate 200 fps velocity loss from test barrel to revolver. In my book, that is outstanding performance. From what Hodgdon told me, Lil Gun is similar to H110 in several respects, particularly that it doesnt like reduced loads. You have to stay within the specification and DO NOT reduce the load. Fired cases just fall out of chambers. And in my guns, it is extremely accurate.

There isnt a lot of published data out there on this powder, so I went straight to Hodgdon.

[surveyor47]

My go to manual is Lyman. Never had a bad load from them. My #2 is Hornady. I trust Hodgdon.

[Skip Sackett]

Originally Posted by Jellybean

I'm not sure where you got that data from, especially the part about the 4" barrel. Hodgdon doesn't tell you on their website, but they use a 10" barrel for .357 magnum velocities.

And while I have all the respect in the world for smith crazy, I don't go to Hodgdons data first, especially after talking to them about their data manuals. I use Lymans first. Then I go to Sierra's, Speers, Hornadys, Accurates, VVs, and etc, to compare notes. I do occaisionally use Hodgdons but I know how much B.S. they try to add in.

Here is the reason I go to powder manufacturer's data first. I had a KB with data from a manual. What manual? One that is a "standard" for most folks. I even called Hodgdon about the problem with my Browning High Power that I encountered with Clays and told them where I got the data from. It was a 175gr lead bullet with 3.9gr of Clays. Right from this other manual. He said: "Our data shows a maximum of 3.5gr and Clays is a finicky powder. Just a little over and the pressure spike is super steep. I have recommended that manual for loads for years, I guess I am going to have to change that!"

When he said that, I made my decision to start with manufacturer's data. Now, I have been known to use manuals, and some of those others scoff at as being "reloading heresy".

Guess what manual it was that I used the data from, Lyman #47!

Take a word of caution, use Hodgdon's data first.

[dennis40x]

I believe that the Seer #8 manual is better understood if one reads the Speer #7.9. The copy I have was given to me by Jack O’Connor before he took the cruise of no return to Hawaii. RIP, Jack. He told me that the one he gave me was Vernon Speer’s personal copy. I don’t believe Jack would have lied to me. If made the right offer I’d part with it. This manual is a must have to completely understand the significance of Speer #8.

Reloading data is what it is a guide. You don’t start at the top and work down. Just because some one else used a combination of components to formulate a load it doesn’t make it safe for you. I’m not trying to create shock and awe with my loads. I’ve been in exchanges of ideas by fire power. I used the ammunition I was issued and the opponents used the ammunition they were issued also. To the best of my knowledge no one was using hand loads. I use reloads to punch holes in paper, splatter lead on steel plates, and I quit hunting a long – long time ago. For self-defense I’ll buy mine from one the major suppliers of ammunition such as Winchester etcetera, etcetera.

[canoe on the yukon]

I'm reminded of the old joke about the guy who curses his typewriter because it "doesn't spell good".

I've reloaded for over 40 years,been involved with every type of discipline including case forming,wildcat calibers,paper patched bullets,etc,etc....For several years I probably loaded about 20 thousand rounds per year.....Yes,I have used data from Speer #8.....No,I have never had any catastrophic failure with any gun using my ammo....Not one.

I have always gathered as much data from different sources as I could before loading and then used some common sense.And no,I've never been squeemish about using heavy loads.

Whenever I hear about the catastrophic events,I'm always a bit suspicious....I recall the guy with the typewriter.

[surveyor47]

A 175 grain bullet and 3.9 grains of Clays sounds a lot like the 40S&W, which has a well known and documented propensity for KABOOM!s Some manuals, such as Accurate warn not to reload this cartridge at all. There have even been cases of factory ammo causing Kabooms. There seem to be 2 common denominators in these cases: 1) Guns without fully supported chamber and 2) repeated chambering and ejecting of a round, as in the case of a police officer unloading his gun and reloading daily, possibly causing bullet set back into the case.

I dont think that its fair to say that manuals cant be wrong. We know that this isnt the case. Look at all the warnings that Alliant has put out on Blue Dot, after loads had been published by a number of sources for 30+ years. I had the misfortune of finding out the reason for warnings about 25 years prior to the warnings and nobody believed it until Alliants recent warnings. Lets not forget that all guns are not the same. For example, the S&W19 is not in the same strength catagor as a S&W 27 or a Ruger GP100. S&W did not go out of its way to let people know this fact, but instead kept it quiet. A Glock certainly isnt in the same strength catagory as a S&W 3rd Generation, but how much of a difference in strength is there? The manufacturers certainly arent saying.

The good part is that modern guns have sufficient safety factors that detonation is actually very rare. Instead, the gun fails in a different mode, prematurely becoming junk or spare parts and the shooter keeps all fingers and eyes.

[Paul5388]

Back a few years, we didn't have access to many manuals. In 1972, I had one manual, a Speer #7. The Speer #8 load I have used for all of those years actually came out of Handloader's Digest, 6th Edition that I still have too.

Normally, the manuals won't give you a load that will blow anything up that isn't defective, or it's a new powder they haven't figured out all of the quirks on.

Blue Dot didn't exist when Speer #8 was published, regardless of the edition.

[surveyor47]

Blue Dot certainly existed in 1974 when the Speer #9 was published. That manual has lots of data on Blue Dot.

The interesting this is how much the method of load determination has changed over the last 30 years. Dont fully understand it, but the old manuals look like example guns had a sensor drilled into the chamber leading to a readout. The Lyman manuals from the same era show drawings of pressure guns.

As I understand it, when SAAMI tried to standardize 357 data, there were so many conflicting standards that they had an extremely difficult time deciding exacty what the standard pressure would be. Some load ures were said to be off the charts when subjected to new sensors. Then enter the "pocket rockets", the Ruger SP101 and S&W J-frame Magnums. If they didnt have enough pressure to reduce pressure with S&W 19/66 problems, then these little cannons came along. Its a wonder that the 357 bears any resemblance to 1960s or 1970s loads whatsoever.

[Jellybean]

That's what I was thinking, .40S&W. Lyman 47 lists a max of 4.2 gr with a pressure of 22,500 cup. They reduced that max to 4.0 grains at 20,900 cup in no. 48 and is still there in no 49.

I wonder if no one else has ever tried it, didn't live to tell about it, got real lucky, or like a trusted source once said:

Thirdly, there are too many variables in reloading to lay the blame on just one thing.

[Jellybean]

I called Hodgdons Tech Support and asked what the approximate velocity would be out of a 4 inch barrel, and I was told about 1300 fps.

I would have guessed more like a 300-400 fps slower difference. But I tend to be a little more realistic than some.

[Skip Sackett]

Originally Posted by Jellybean

That's what I was thinking, .40S&W. Lyman 47 lists a max of 4.2 gr with a pressure of 22,500 cup. They reduced that max to 4.0 grains at 20,900 cup in no. 48 and is still there in no 49.

I wonder if no one else has ever tried it, didn't live to tell about it, got real lucky, or like a trusted source once said:

The maximum load in the Hodgdon manual at the time was 3.5gr with that weight of bullet.

Just one thing? No, not this time and not with me. Other factors were that I "assumed" that the Browning High Power had a fully supported barrel and didn't check it out before I made this load.

It is good to be reminded of our own words!

[Jellybean]

Smith Crazy, which Hodgdon manual are you referring too? All I have since no. 26 are their little complimentary booklets and three of their rip-off magazines. None of them list a 175 grain lead bullet using Clays, they do list a 180 gr. XTP with a suggested max. load of 3.5 grains, is that in yours too?

[Skip Sackett]

Originally Posted by Jellybean

Smith Crazy, which Hodgdon manual are you referring too? All I have since no. 26 are their little complimentary booklets and three of their rip-off magazines. None of them list a 175 grain lead bullet using Clays, they do list a 180 gr. XTP with a suggested max. load of 3.5 grains, is that in yours too?

I guess I am wrong (oh how that pains me to say that! ) about the data being in their manual. It is as you have said there for the 180gr XTP.

I do know this though, the technician said that their maximum load for the bullet I was using was 3.5gr and the Lyman manual had data for one close to the same weight, 5gr less I think, with a load of 3.9gr of Clays.

As I read their data now, which I didn't do then, it does state that it is for firearms with fully supported barrels/chambers.

This is just one example where not paying attention, which not to mention was my fault, is very easily done.

Are we done with this part of the subject? It was a bunch of years ago!

[38-44HD45]

As I've written elsewhere, I ruined my first Model 19 using max. loads of 2400 from Speer #8, in less than 150 rounds, maybe under 100. The frame stretched enough to more than double headspace and cause light strikes.

Therefore, I no longer use loading manuals at all. I go out into the desert, eat a couple of peyote buttons, and the load data comes to me in my visions.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by 38-44HD45

Therefore, I no longer use loading manuals at all. I go out into the desert, eat a couple of peyote buttons, and the load data comes to me in my visions.

Very nice!

[Jellybean]

Yes Skip, we're done. But it is interesting looking at the difference in data from one manual to the other, even in one edition to another of the same manual. It's like most have said, their is no "Holy Bible" when it comes to handloading. Get as much data as you can from as many sources, carefully look at the components used and start low.

While I do think some of the powder and bullet manufacturers, (mostly powder), do fudge their results a little to increase sales, it's still worth a look. If they blow up their test equipment I doubt their attorneys would let them put the load in their manuals. However, if you do find one that shows data that blows the rest of them away, use some common sense and approach with caution. If you are really that desperate for increased performance, get a bigger gun.

[surveyor47]

Originally Posted by Jellybean

If you are really that desperate for increased performance, get a bigger gun.

Those words should be enshrined. How often do we read posts by some guy insisting that the 44 Magnum must shoot a 330 grain bullet at 1400 fps? If that isnt stretching the performance envelope- and possibly the frame as well- I dont know what is. Talk about Maximum Performance; its more like Trapdoor 45-70 performance! Hey Guy! Ever hear of the 454 Casull? (Yeah, but Im too cheap to buy one.)