.38 Bullseye Data Change

[Nathan Forrest]

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,

 

[cmort666]

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

 

[Skip Sackett]

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.

 

[Jellybean]

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.

 

[Reddog]

The lawyers changed, too!

 

[Old 44 Guy]

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.

 

[Herb686]

2.7 BE

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

 

[DDStraitwell]

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]

 

[ArchAngelCD]

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.

 

[MDaly]

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

 

[ArchAngelCD]

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...

 

[gregintenn]

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

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

 

[Jellybean]

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?

 

[ArchAngelCD]

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.

 

[gregintenn]

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.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

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

 

[Jellybean]

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.

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.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

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.

 

[WR Moore]

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.

 

[Jellybean]

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.