ArchAngelCD
Moderator, SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
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
.38 Bullseye Data Change
- Thread starter Nathan Forrest
- Start date
robctwo
Member
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
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?
Skip Sackett
US Veteran
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.
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.
chingachkook
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 102
- Reaction score
- 0
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.
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.
Last edited:
ArchAngelCD
Moderator, SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
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)
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".
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".
