Whay changed about Bullseye. It seems the new data is much milder by about 200 f/s

148 Rainier DEWC
My old Hornady book had
2.5 - 3.7
700 - 950
The new Hornady book has
2.1 - 3.0
550 - 750
Alliants website guide says
3.1
799

I've been using 3.4 gr for thousands of rounds over the years. They never seemed more than a mild plinking load,

I use 2.7-2.8gr. in my Giles M1911 and my Model 14. Extremely accurate.

The first loads I ever loaded were 3.5gr of Bullseye under any 158gr lead bullet. Even when I started the published data said that I would get well over 800fps from a 6" barrel. It has never happened! 790fps is the best I have ever gotten from any of my 6" Smith revolvers.

That's OK by me because it is an extremely accurate load. It works, period.

You don't mention which manuals you are looking at so I'll go from the ones I have on hand.

I have Hornady nos. 2, 4 and 7. Looking at the tables and pictures there are some changes that could very well explain what happened. No. 2 listed one 148 DEWC. Looking at no. 4 they are not only using a different bullet style, but the data is supposed to be generic for any of the three wadcutter styles they list, which they don't specify which bullet they did really use for the testing. In no. 7 they still have the same three bullets pictured as no. 4, but the only bullet listed as still being in production is the HBWC.

Loading manuals are only a guide and there is no guarantee you will get the exact same results the writers did. In fact there is no guarantee they could repeat them exactly the same either. But look at the manuals that you do have and see if there are any differences between them as far as bullet styles and even firearms used to get the velocities they listed. No. 2 used a 6" model 14 while nos. 4 and 7 used a 4" model 15.

The lawyers changed, too!

Reddog is right. I've been loading 2.7 grs. Bullseye for over 50 years now for a target load. All bullet weights & shapes. All do well in my S&W's, Colts, etc.

Double ditto on the 2.7 gr. BE and HBWC - I used for years for NRA 2700 matches.

I've been using 2.7 gr Bullseye with 148 cast Hensley & Gibbs (hard alloy) since 1955. The only thing that's changed is "Greedy Lawyers". 3.0 gr Bullseye is even better for general use for you feel like you're shooting a real gun. Be glad to help anyone with questions on reloading as it is a passion with me. I have nearly every bullet mould design and cast all my bullets. I have quite a collection of reloading presses and lubricators and "play" with them nearly every day. Be glad to help out any new reloaders. [email protected]

The data changed because instead of having Ballistic Engineers write the load manuals it's now Lawyers who wright them. It's not just Bullseye load data, it's all data across the caliber and powder range.

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

The biggest change is due to the improvement in primers. Primers today are much more efficient and contribute much more energy to the load than the ones you purchased 10 or 20 years ago. The second largest change is in the ability to accurately measure pressure with modern equipment. The old crusher system often failed to accurately record both high and low pressure. Lawyers have nothing to do with it. We own or control 3 of the biggest names in powder and never have we been sued for published data. Lots of other reasons but not published data.

MDaly

Exactly... The data was lightened to prevent law suits.

There's something going on when a manual claims dropping the charge by 20% will still produce the same velocity. I could believe it's necessary to drop the charge weight because new testing methods prove the old charges were producing unsafe pressures but please don't try to tell me those lighter charges will produce the same velocities or more velocity. That's just not possible...

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

Would you be so kind as to provide a link describing the change in primers, and exactly when this change occured?

Is there certified proof that the lawyers are to blame, and when they started editing the loading manuals? Or does this fall under the "I read it on the internet so it must be true" clause?

C'mon now, you know very well I didn't mean the lawyers were literally editing the load manuals. They are however putting a lot of pressure on the management to make sure they are not open to liability, real or imagined. I know the lawyers are doing the job they were hired to do but they are going to extremes as they usually do. We are all being cheated out of the full performance of the caliber we choose to shoot. It's wrong any way you look at it.

Also, DO NOT talk down to me by accusing me of believing everything I read on the Net because that's extremely far from the truth.

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

I just want to know the facts about the change in primers, because that's the first I've heard of it. I've been reloading for nearly 30 years now, and I haven't seen a noticeable difference in them.

I haven't heard about primers changing either. I would think something like that would be widely publicized if only for safety.

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

I wasn't talking to, or about you specifically. I see the "lawyerization" statements all the time about changes in loading manuals but looking at my loading manuals from 1942 to the present I don't see any "proof" of it at all. However it seems that whenever the topic is brought up there is no shortage of wagon riders with that response. I also just want to know how folks decide which statements require documented verification and which ones qualify as internet Kool Aid.

I only say what I see. I checked the Hodgdon manual from 1997 against the manual from 2008 and the data changed but not in the way you would think. Even though the charge weights were lower they claim the velocities are the same like I discussed above. My opinion is generated from my own research.

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

We've been through similar discussions before. Depending upon your source, the data could have been done with pressure guns, with bore/groove/chamber dimensions all at dead minimum to produce an absolutely worst case scenario with respect to charge weight/pressure (usually the case with data from powder manufactuers). If the barrel were the SAAMI specific length, this would also skew results from real world conditions (no barrel/cylinder gap losses in older data). More modern test barrels for revolver loads are vented to produce some loss of gas similar to that from the barrel/cylinder gap. The results are closer to real world.

You'll get differences between different weapons also. I called Sierra once on a change in data and was told: "Different rifle".

I expect the change in primers was to remove toxic materials and replace them with more benevolent/less toxic materials.

Excellent post, as usual WR Moore.
ArchAngelCD, The problem with researching by what you see in the manuals is that there is way too much information that is not given in the manuals. Changes in components, testing equipment and procedures and a whole host of other variables will alter the results and these changes are not explained from one manual to the next.

I can see you are going to believe what you believe and I will believe what I believe. That doesn't make either of us right or wrong, just bull-headed... lol

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

I just started reloading .38 Special this year. I had loaded about 125,000 other rounds on my LnLover the years. I've been loading 3.4 gr Bullseye under a 125 gr lrn from a local caster. Very nice light accurate load.

I've been loading 2.7 under a 158 gr lswc. Also very nice.

Have not put either to the chronograph yet out of my 4" & 6" guns.

As a lawyer I'm always glad to see so many folks agreeing that we should be in charge of everything

ArchAngelCD, which loads were you referring to in this post?

This is like terrorism. Now I'm not saying that all lawyers are terrorist BUT what I am saying is this: It doesn't take direct interaction on some issues to get folks to capitulate.

What do I mean? How many actual filibusters have happened in the Congress? Very, very few. Threaten one and the other side capitulates.

How do we get on an airplane these days? With a pat down or full body scan, right? Why? Because someone merely threatened an attack.

Why are heath care costs so high? Because just the thought of a law suit for malpractice or malfeasance and the doctor has to have expensive insurance. Why? Because he is guilty of either? Nope, just the threat of a law suit is enough to get him to capitulate.

Need I go on? The evidence, albeit circumstantial, is all around us. Maybe it is to this point you are all speaking. Still, the results are just as real. Capitulation.


Let me ask you this and I have special knowledge in electronic testing devices, how accurate are they? How are they calibrated? Are they more reliable than any other system?

No, they are only as good as those that calibrate them and they are human. Are they the standard we use now? Yep.

The other side of this coin is the data. What data AA is speaking about could be any. Take the data for SR4756, I know the thread is about Bullseye but this speaks to my point, the current data for a 158gr LSWC in the 357Mag says that 6.5gr of it will produce over 1200fps.
The Speer #8, shot from an actual firearm by the way, says to get that performance one needs to put a lot more powder in the case.

OK, I tried the current data in my firearm. Guess what? I only got 900fps and some change. Now, they do shoot it out of a 10" barrel and used magnum primers but still! At best, SR4756 will give only about 30fps per additional inch of barrel. So, 4(inches difference from mine to theirs) * 30 = 120fps. 900fps + 120fps = 1020fps. Still a good 200fps difference. The pressure is 27,600psi and the maximum for the round is 35,000PSI or 42,000CUP.


OK, I guess the question needs to be posed, why? Again, circumstantial evidence suggests that our litigious society has influenced this part of our lives as well.

Well, arm yourselves with this opinion, head out to Starbucks, give it to the Barista along with $5 and you will get a real nice cup of coffee.

Very well said Skip and believe me I agree with your logic.

Thanks for the post Skip, I know you've said before that you prefer Hodgdons data, while I tend to ignore it. And that is why, while I have some of their data on hand, I don't spend a lot of time looking at it, so I dug some out to see what AA was talking about. Then you posted your comment. First I was thinking about your comment about the seemingly low pressures in the .357, which I'd heard long ago that if a load combo doesn't give good accuracy, ignition, complete powder burn or etc. that the manuals will often not list them or will at least only give the parts that do work.

But then I noticed something very odd about their on-line data and, upon checking, found it in the printed complimentary data from 2007, 2008 2009 and 2010. In the .357 data and several others they make it look like the data was all obtained from the same test equipment, yet some of the pressures are in PSI, while others are CUP. Printed data from 2004 and 2006 have data expressed in PSI OR CUP for each caliber, but not both, and manual 26 used only CUP. This is confusing to me, although I'm not saying it was because of any attorneys, because there is no evidence of that. Especially when you look at the new data in general where changes go in every direction.

As to the question of why, I believe it's because the tests and equipment aren't that precise to give good exact figures that can be repeated at will.

There are a lot of examples, I'll only list a few I've used or noticed in particular. Not all the data changed in the manuals but a lot did...

This is for the .38 Special
1997 Hodgdon manual
158gr LRN - 6.5gr HS-6 - 966 fps - 7.0" test barrel
2010 Hodgdon manual
158gr LSWC - 6.3gr HS-6 - 1010 fps - 7.7" test barrel
(velocity went up 44 fps with a .2gr powder drop)

This is for the .45 ACP
1997 Hodgdon manual
230gr FMJ - 6.0gr Universal - 853 fps - 5" barrel
2010 Hornady manual
230gr FMJ - 5.6gr Universal - 844 fps - 5" barrel
(almost exact velocity with a .4gr powder drop)

This is for the .45 Colt
1997 Hodgdon manual
250gr JHP - 12.5gr HS-6 - 836 fps - 7.0" barrel
2010 Hodgdon manual
250gr JHP - 10.8gr HS-6 - 862 fps - 7.25" barrel
(velocity went up with a 1.7gr powder drop)

Like I said, some data remained exactly the same probably because the data was not retested and the charge weights also remained the same. I think we should drop this now so no bad feeling start to brew. (not on my side, I'm not angry or upset at all)

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

ArchAngelCD, thanks for the info. I'm not getting upset either, I'm looking at the data you have to get an idea of what you are saying.

Since the above post about the PSI/CUP issue I've been looking at the older and newer printed data sources and have become even more suspicious of their data than I was before. And I don't know for sure if an attorney is writing their manuals now, but there is one on the payroll that wrote at least one page of the new info. titled "Warnings".