Speer Number 8?

I have to confess my ignorance, I am a fairly new shooter and am not familiar with this edition of the Speer manual but I take it there are some questionable loads shown?

It appears to be a continual source of debate among the more educated around here.

Can you folks share how this came to be and why people still discuss it?

Speer #8 was published in 1970. I think a slightly updated version was published in 1971, which removed loads using SR4756 in .38 special.

One camp says that it contains data that was never pressure tested, is too hot, has been superseded by newer data, and is therefor unsafe.

The other camp says that Speer has indeed been pressure testing data since #5, powder still available now has not changed beyond the normal lot to lot variations, and the lighter loads now published are due to liability concerns.

Since Speer did update #8, I suspect that the original SR 4756 loads may be a bit warm.

Not quite...

I pulled my 2 copies of Speer 8.

The 1970 first edition lists 8.0 grns of 4756 as the starting load for a 158 on pg 363
The 1971 2nd printing lists 8.0 grns of 4756 as the starting load for a 158 on pg 363 also

There may be a 3rd printing (also in 71?) that updates it but the first 2 printings are identical.

Now in Handloader 58 (Nov/dec 75) the list 158 loads up to XX.x (so high I won't even quote it!) grains and are labeled as excessive. There starting load is 8.5 grns with a 158 JHP in the 38 Special.

If you go to Handloader 64, (Nov/dec 76) under propellant profiles they basically state that a false conclusion was drawn in Handloader 62 that Speer 8 was done with a "a wide burning-rate variance between lots...." He then tests different lots to show are minimal. In this same article the author states that Dupont, Lyman and others offer data that is loaded to industry specs of about 15,000 CUP but below the 18,000 CUP pressure limits. Speer 8 was developed with a K and N (357 magnum data) framed gun and it is believe that the data was pressure tested.

Later in that same article he states that "There is considerable room for error in the methods used by Speer in compiling the No. 8 Manual." Below that statement he says "Had the No. 9 manual listed 4756, it seems reasonable to assume that the charge would have been reduced from 11.0 to around 9.5 grns." (158 in the 357 magnum).

So where does that leave all of us today?

My experience is 4756 DOES vary a bit from lot to lot. I work my loads up over a chrono to a specific velocity level that I desire. I have found that my personal comfort level is hit about the level of the starting loads from most of the Speer 8 data in my 38/44's. I will carefully work up beyond the start load to the max load in some cases but mostly I am just aiming for the velocities as quoted in the manual. So basically if I want to go hotter, I start with their starting load, then work up to the velocities listed in their manual which can be reached usually with a few tenths either way of adjustment. Remember though this is ONLY for 38/44's and not a lighter framed 38.

My recommendation to you, as a new reloader is to buy Speer 14 and use that data for a few years. Once you develop some expertise and spend some time behind the press and a chrono then consider using Speer 8 carefully and draw your own conclusions.

I have about 20 loading manuals dating back to Lyman #45 Plus several "specialized" manuals, like Elgin Gates "loading for Silhouettes", and other gems. I am suspect of all published data, but do use it as a guideline for my loads. In the end, we are responsible for the ammo we make. It is only me or my firearms that will get blown up if I load it wrong. I will help others but I won't load for them, as I don't have a manufacturing license or the required $1,000,000 liability insurance. Some of the forum members can tell you about Elmer Kieth and his hot 44 Special loads. With modern testing we know some of the loads were weaker or slower than believed and we've learned the N-frames were stronger than believed. Yet even he damaged some of them. I happen to like guns and don't do things like find out how much Blue Dot it takes to blow up a 03A3 (someone did that here in Central Ohio in the late 60's or early 70's) then display the action at a gun shop with pride. When working out of some of the older manuals do be careful. Ivan

Very true Ivan, you must be careful when using older data. The amount of care and research I use before I used an older load is directly proportionally to how old it is. Before I shot my 1930's Sharpe 357 Magnum data I spent weeks researching his loads from his 1937 book. I ended up buying a Ruger Redhawk 357 Magnum just to do it in so I had a tank of a gun in case something went south on me.

My attitude is that any data must be treated with suspicion and it needs to be cross checked at least twice from independent sources and then worked up carefully.

Simply put mistakes happen!

When you look at the Lyman manual many of the loads shown were done in a universal receiver and test barrel using a copper crusher or tranducer for pressure readings. These test barrels chambers and bores will be at SAAMI minimum dimensions to obtain the highest possible pressure in that caliber.

In other manuals where a specific firearm is listed a strain gauge will be glued to the barrel. Then a cartridge of known pressure must be fired to calibrate the strain gauge.

Using these various test methods and testing many different type firearms the pressure and velocity readings can vary greatly.

Even today when looking at the Speer #14 manual they have powder charges much higher than many other manuals.

There is a reason why they tell you to start low and work up.

All it would take was for a piece of test equipment to be off, out of calibration, or incorrectly set up to give bad or false readings.

No concrete information was ever given by Speer for the #8 manual or the later changes. All we do know is changes were made.

42,00 CUP was NOT the maximum pressure back then.

45-46,000 CUP was............. for the 6" "K" frame............
and yes, they did reduce the load and rework the powder since each "Lot" was not the same back in those days.

I have used SR4756 in 38 and 357 and yes it does get high velocity in many of my loads but there are many other powders that do group better in a lot of my test. If it works for you, use it.............
I just did not have good results with it in my 38 snub nose but in the 357 it was just fine.

IMR Handloaders guide lists loads, with corresponding pressures.

In 38 special, rem 158 lswc, rem 38 special case, rem 1 1/2 primer, 1.550 col, 6 in revolver bbl

5.4 grains = 840 fps @ 15900 cup,
not a picture of pressure measurement devise, not sticky extraction, or flattened primers

4756 is not some magic velocity powder in 38 special or 357 magnum. All manuals (especially old out of date manuals) should be scrutinized carefully. Even newer manuals can have mistakes, and sometimes just repeated loads from decades before.

copper crushers

I'll bet that for #8 more data was generated through the use of copper crushers rather than transducers. The crushers only give a cumulative effect of the pressure through the spike instead of instantaneous readings from an oscilloscope.

Interesting to note that CUP has no correlation to PSI.

One great thing about the Speer #8 manual is that they included a page of "defense loads in 2" barrel 38 special revolvers". Kind of nice for those of us without chronographs to see what they actually clock at, instead of having to extrapolate from 4' or 6" test results.

blujax01 said:

Can you folks share how this came to be and why people still discuss it?

Click to expand...

Because too many people refuse to read anything but the data tables. The manual itself tells a lot about why it's different, but they don't disclose what went wrong, which usually means there was some form of legal action involved. The second printing dropped some of the hotter loads by about 1 grain from the max load. I recall seeing some later printings that shaded the SR4756 loads out, before they were removed all together.

A few years back we had "The Load" thread here that was based on the Speer #8 38 Special load using 8.0 grains of SR4756 and a 158 grain LSWC, which was the minimum load. I started 10% below that and started seeing high pressure signs with 7.6 grains and pierced primers with 7.8 grains. Never did shoot the 8.0 grain loads.

Here is chrono data for 3 different barrel length 38/44's so you can see what 8 grns will do.

8.0 grns of sr4756 with a 158 lasercast and cci 500 primers.

6.5” 1312+ 1257- 55e 1285m 16s
5.0” 1265+ 1219- 46e 1246m 14s
4.0” 1247+ 1198- 49e 1217m 12s

barrel length, high speed, low spead, spread, average (20 shots), SD

Note that Speer says a 6" K frame should do 1140 FPS with 8 grns. I am getting about 1270 (roughly approximated for a 6" barrel) so my lot of 4756 is faster than theirs assuming similar brass volumes.

This is why I tend to shoot around 7.0 to 7.5 grns of 4756 and adjust over the chrono for each lot. My goal is 1150 fps for a 5" 38/44HD and 1175 FPS for a 6.5" 38/44OD.

hotrod150 said:

One great thing about the Speer #8 manual is that they included a page of "defense loads in 2" barrel 38 special revolvers". Kind of nice for those of us without chronographs to see what they actually clock at, instead of having to extrapolate from 4' or 6" test results.

Click to expand...

Those loads don't necessarily "actually" clock at the speeds printed therein, in your gun. Even replicating components won't necessarily get you there. Components can change, e.g., powder and cases. The velocities printed in #8 are likely a better guide than extrapolation, but still can be uncertain. Take care.

Here's an interesting paper from the U of Michigan in 1965. http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/3866/bac6873.0001.001.pdf?sequence=5 It tells who was using transducers in the early 1960s to include DuPont and others.

I don't own a copy of Speer #14 and really don't intend to get one in the future. The main purpose for new manuals is data on new powders, not to correct older data.