H vs A2400, Old Loading Manuals.

[flat top]

Over the holidays two threads (the "Herq 2400 vs Alliant 2400", and the "Use Old Loading Manuals data"), had some good discussion going on about the use of pressure test equipment in the older Speer manuals (#1 thru #8), and the viablilty of using the older reloading manuals for current reloading components. Because I have old loading manuals, and both of these issues seemed to be in question in those two threads, I thought I would go to the source and check to see what the "official" thought on all this was, so, I contacted Speer Technical Services....here was their statement on the subjects. "No pressure test equipment was used in the older reloading manuals (I referrenced Speer Manuals 1 thru 8) that would be pertinent to modern reloading component safety, and that any information from those manuals could create a serious safety issue if used with modern reloading components! Speer Tech put a lot of emphasis on this point!!! The ONLY manual that should be used is the CURRENT manual, in which it states: "All previous information from any past manual is replaced and superceeded by the current manual". Speer Tech also stated that the information in the Speer manual is for Speer reloading components, or components listed in the load section of the manual, and is not deemed safe for any other applications! This is the official and "last word" from Speer. I know that some of you are thinking that in our sue happy society, with legal liabilities what they are for manufacturers, that all that was told to me above is just another manufacturer legally covering themselves, but, Speer Tech seemed to be genuinely "concerned" about this issue............One thing that came to my mind, was the fact that many, many years ago the top end load for the 45ACP was something like 7.8 grains of Unique with a 230 grain bullet. I remember that load being reduced to 7.5 grains, and according to some, has now been reduced to 7.3 grains, so, what Speer Tech relayed to me might have some basis in fact. Also, I do know that not all cartridge cases are made to the same dimensions, and some brands will allow for a bit higher powder charge, while others will not. During my reloading career I have seen many new reloading component products come on the market, and many new manufacturers as well, so, I guess things in that respect have changed, which would lead me to believe that Speer Techs concerns may be justified. Of course, I will leave this up to you, but it was something that needed to be done to satisfy my curiosity............

 

[Skip Sackett]

I wish I had kept the 39 page thread about "THE LOAD". That was long before your time on this forum FT but was quite an interesting subject. If it was available, I could show my post about the same information that is in direct conflict with what you say the tech told you.

I'm not trying to validate the data, there is some of it I would NEVER use. There are folks on this forum that have used it for decades without incident. The issue about the data being good is not the pertinent one for me. It is the issue of test equipment. Did Speer have test equipment and did they use it for any of their manuals #1 - #8. It is that issue that I have to bring you back to their words as published, which aren't left up to interpretation.

Get a Speer #7, first printing and turn to page 332. On that page there is reloading data for the 38spl. It tells that the gun used was, and I quote: "PRESSURE TEST GUN". In the data itself there is a notation that says "PRESSURE X 1000" with data under that heading.

Now, I'm not trying to say that it is good data. I'm not trying to say that it is equal to an electronic pressure transducer or any modern day equipment. But I am saying that they sure must have been happy with themselves promoting a lie because this isn't the only page information like that is published on.

Asking questions is an art in my opinion. You can get answers that you want or the truth. I always try to formulate my questions so that the truth comes out.

It's like this: Say I ask you "Have you stopped beating your wife?" and you are shocked and say "NO!" What have you just done? You have confessed to previous behavior where you beat your wife. Of course, the redeeming factor remains that you have since quit such despicable behavior!

When I make connection with the technician myself, I am going to ask about this issue. My question is going to be something like this: "So when was the Speer Company lying? Now, with your answers or with the information that is published and has been in the public arena for decades? Because answers that are diametrically opposed cannot be subsequently true."

At any rate, I'm only going to have one more post in this thread. It will be after I talk to Speer.

 

[NKJ nut]

Oh yes, buy the new and chunk the old and you will be much happier. I think we hear that all the time and not just about reloading manuals.

The only thing Speer has in common with the company of 40 years ago is the name. They have different facilities, different equipment, and different people working there, not to mention that Speer is no longer owned by Vernon Speer, it's part of Blount's Sporting Equipment Group which is it's self a part of Blount International. One of the products sold is reloading manuals. You don't encourage sales by telling people to use what they have. Blount International is a for profit corporation. They want to sell reloading manuals just like they do chain saw chains.

I doubt very much if the "tech you talked to or the one I talked to three years ago who told me the same things; really knows the exact procedure that was used for developing those loads. But maybe they do. Any any case I'm not buying the line that; "The old is no good now even though it has our name on it. Buy the new from us. It's fantastic, until we disown it too of course"

Sorry for interfering in the discussion. I knew better.

 

[flat top]

SC; What I said is what they told me. If I can "read" something into their answer...and this is "me" not them, they may have used pressure test equipment that was available at the time, and that equipment was likely state of the art...then. But I would surmise that they have modernized over time to give "us" a better idea of what is going on with our loads, and, I am sure that as equipment was updated and the technology changed, in some cases there may have been some surprises for them along the way, which indicated a change in some load data............I asked two simple questions, and got two answers, that were pertinent to my concerns. I did not "interrogate" the Tech guy. He was very upfront and precise with his answers...very professional... and I accepted them at face value. In other words, just because he told me what "I really didnt want to hear", because I thought that the old loading data "would" still be good, I am going to accept what he told me, and, I am thinking that it may be best to have updated loading data on hand for referrence purposes. Over the years I have downloaded much of the modern data for the cartridges I load from the web, and it seems that the manufacturers are good about supplying that data there, so, there is always a backup for those that are interested..............As far as asking questions being an "art"...I do not think in my honest opinion that accusing the Speer Company of lieing right off the bat is going to gain you much ground in getting an answer. Just me personally, I would really try to be a bit more diplomatic..........and, I have never beat my wife.....we are still in love after all these years!

 

[PDL]

Interesting to see that you persued this. One of those other threads was mine. You know it's like a 'will' - all previous versions are null and void. But for the most part those older recipies for loads are the same, except at the top and bottom of the load data. That's really where the controversy starts. I

 

[flat top]

PDL; Reason I did, was because a buddy of mine was in my reloading room a couple of years ago, and was paging through my most current reloading manual. He brought up the point that I should really keep more modern reference material on hand, and I asked him "what do you mean?" He then informed me that the "newest" data I had was from 1979. He told me that most data is now available on the web, on the manufacturers websites, and that I should really get some updates in case anything had changed over the years, so, I followed his advice and did that. Then I see these two threads on the forum here, and it arroused my curiosity, so I took the two things that interested me the most, and asked. The answer wasnt what I wanted to hear, but I accept the answer. I went and checked some of my current data (which by the way I use now for all my standard cartridges), and you are correct...the tops and bottoms with some powders have changed. I am not going to ask why, and I am not going to try to challenge the manufacturers. I will just stick with the modern guidelines and leave it at that. If I need more power than the current guidelines give for a cartridge/ load, I will just buy a more powerful gun.

 

[RedHawk357Mag]

To all, not trying to be argumentative but, page 83 of the Speer 8th ED would kind of dispute the Tech. I would hope the typical message of "use more than one reference" would be more than abundantly clear when ever one refers to data from "The Book of Spells". Ah yes and forgot the other common theme about load development, reduce max loads and work up safely in your gun, being vigilant in your observation of signs of pressure. My two cents; I believe the Tech was telling the truth as they know it. Can't fault a person for that

 

[Old 44 Guy]

I have reloading manuals going back to Lyman #39 [1954]. Good then but outdated now. I use the newer ones but keep the old ones for reference on the old calibers. I keep my record book, handwritten, for reference. I tried Elmer Keith's .44 Special loads in my S.A. Couldn't get 18 gr. 2400 into the cases. Then I found out he was using old folded head cases. So I loaded down to 15.5 Gr. & it worked out great with solid head cases.

 

[PDL]

FT,
Exactly the reason i started the other thread. It doesn't have to be said, but I will, all loads should be worked up to. That's the something we all keep in mind.
But even when I tried to follow that, it was, --- OK so where do you start.
I feel comfortable with my old loads - well within reason no matter what manual you look at. But I was starting to do a couple of new calibers so I figured it was better to ask.

 

[Paul5388]

I suppose a pertinent question would have been, "should I use new data with 1956 or 1968 vintage powder?" Or even, "What data should I use with DuPont #6?"

Personally, I use Elmer's loads with 2004+ vintage Alliant 2400 and don't have any problems doing so.

The last mention of balloon head cases I can recall was in Speer #7 (1967) and that was only in reference to .45 Auto Rim with loads for both solid head and balloon head cases given.

As late as 2005, Alliant gave 14.5 gr of Blue Dot with a 125 gr bullet at 1795 fps (I clocked it at 1497 fps average MV) and 34,000 psi as a valid load in .357 Mag that had been used for at least 30 years (Speer #9, 1974 before they were Omark or Blount). Speer #10 (Omark, 1979) listed 15.8 gr of Blue Dot as a valid load. That 14.5 gr load is the only load I have ever had sticky extraction with in .357 Mag, including 14.0 gr of SR 4756 at 1620 fps MV. Any Blue Dot load with a 125 gr bullet in .357 Mag is now (as of the Alliant 2008 edition) totally negated as being valid by Alliant.

Alliant and Speer are both divisions of ATK, so Alliant now uses Speer data and bullets in their reloading guide, but without pressures being given.

So, some tech thinks I need to use new manuals without pressures being specified instead of older loads that do have the pressure specified? I should trust someone that has kept quiet for 30 years about a problem powder with a particular problem load? I don't think that's going to happen in what I reload.

 

[flat top]

I understand what each and every one of you has stated, and for the most part I agree with those statements based on what I have experienced over the years. I am not saying the Tech is right or wrong, I am just saying that is the answer I got to my questions. My personal opinion is as PDL has stated above....follow the standard rules of reloading and there should be no problems....pretty simple....and, Redhawk and Dick brought up a good point...cross referencing load data from different sources, and keeping good records is all part of reloading safety as well. I dont see that any of us are in big trouble here because of what the Tech told me, but, for my own reloading of the "standard cartridges" that I use, I will stick with the more up to date data. By the way, I modify guns, develop wildcat cartridges, work with non-standard bullet weights, and loads etc, have for most of my life, and now have two of those types of projects in work. I have no manufacturers loading data to guide me. For those of you that dont do this type of work, you dont know how easy (and Safe) the research and development efforts of these manufacturers has made the reloading hobby, so, I think a little credit and thanks is due them regardless of how you feel about this issue. You know, I really cant blame any manufacturer for being "liability leery". It seems that rule #1 in our society today is that when anything goes wrong, its somebody elses fault. One good (winning) lawsuit can bring an entire company to its knees...and then, its all of us who suffer!

 

[Skip Sackett]

Interesting interagation, part 1!

Most likely, I will have to have another post in this thread as I am waiting for a call back from Speer for round #2!

Friday, I called Speer and left a message. It seems that both of their technical folks were off for the long weekend. Today I got a call from Coy. Very pleasant individual and MAN is he knowledgeable! One thing he was too was "no nonsense" and I detected common ground on that point. I exploited it as a matter of fact and he willingly went along with it. Several times along the way, I had to clarify my intentions to put him at ease with the reason for my call. It was a great call by the way and because of his frankness, I will be using some of their products in the future, on purpose!

At any rate, to make a long story longer( ), here is the gist of the conversation.

I asked about the Speer #7 manual. He said: "Cellophane it, put it on a shelf and point to it when folks come over to show you have one." (paraphrased)
My reply was: "I'm not looking for data verification, not at all, I don't want you to tell me that x load on page x is safe, nothing like that. I just want to ask the method that was used for pressure testing in the #7 manual."
His reply was: "There wasn't any." Of course I followed with: "Do you have access to a #7 there?" He said: "Yes." I asked him to look up the 38spl for instance and tell me what he saw for pressure data. He said: "There is none." I asked him to turn the page and read the heading there. "Wow" was his reply, "I didn't know that was there!" We jabbed and weaved verbally for several minutes, dancing all around the question as to how that data got into the books. He told me he was told that NONE of the data from the older manuals was pressure tested.

Now I had him! "Was Speer lying then with the information that they published or now with you on the phone?" It just seemed like the next logical question to ask someone that had just painted themselves into a corner! I guess I should have been a detective or something!

So, we talked for a few more minutes and I asked him if the pressure testing was done, maybe it was done by White Laboratories or something. "No, if it's in our manual, we did it in house." !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The next few questions centered around the "what ifs" that we have discussed many, many (maybe too many) times here on the forum. I asked him to clarify the "psi" nomenclature. I agreed it probably wasn't that at all but rather CUP, he agreed in principle without committing, I fully understood.

I asked if we could get the same powder, the same calibrated copper crushers, the same test barrel and all components, wouldn't the pressure testing results be the same? (Within tolerances) He agreed, again, after some verbal duck and weaves, in principle.

All during our conversation I had to reassure him I wasn't asking for validation of any data, only how that data was collected. He replied that if it had been several months ago he could call the gentleman that actually collected the data, but he has since passed away. He asked for my name again and phone number too so he could do a little digging and get back to me.

He was very cooperative when I explained that I had no intention of implying that he gave approval to any of the data in these old Speer manuals, and I'm not. He emphatically renounced ALL of it, without question. "Don't use it!" Was his constant reply.

I told him I did and would continue to but that the responsibility rested solely on my head and none on the Speer company.

His parting comments kind of gave me a kick: "I'll get back to you." and "It's obvious that this ain't your first rodeo."

I laughed and told him I appreciated the call. I think he is going to do some digging and ask the folks that told him an obvious untruth why they did that! He seemed like that kind of gentleman! Top notch!

Thanks to the Speer company!

 

[Skip Sackett]

Interesting interagation part #2.

THIS POST IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT OF ANY DATA OR TESTING PROCEDURES MENTIONED IN THIS POST. NEITHER DOES IT IMPLY ANY ENDORSEMENT BY THE SPEER COMPANY. IT IS MEANT AS INFORMATION CONCERNING HISTORY OF THE SPEER #7'S PRESSURE DATA, PERIOD.

I hope that satisfies the required "legalese"!

I just got off of the phone for the second time with Coy.

Let me interject this, he is a straight shooter and any questions concerning this post can be read back to him for verification. I will make mention of my assumptions too, he is not responsible for those, I am.

OK, it seems that Speer was not only a trailblazer in the bullet area but also in pressure gathering data. It seems that the pressures from the Speer #7 were attained via piezoelectric transducers! The readings in the Speer #7 manual are correctly noted as PSI and were read in that rating.

It was said that "with a little digging" this information was attained. The way the gathered the data may not have been in the same configuration that is prescribed today, but nonetheless, it was attained in PSI, not CUP.

Coy also mentioned that at that time there was some "jacking around" by SAAMI with pressures, especially in the 38spl. The load on page 332 for the 160gr bullet with 2400 did develop 18,000psi as they measured it. That to me is very enlightening!

Now, the way they measured it was not in a SAAMI specification chamber but rather in a "pressure gun" just like they state in their data. A cylinder was modified to accept a pressure transducer and the rounds were fired in that gun and the pressure recorded.

While the chamber can be questioned and there are no real records and few firsthand eyewitness accounts available today, the history stands as stated. Now as to questioning methods, and that would be valid to do, it was said that the "pressure gun" was "calibrated" (read: compared) using factory ammunition with a known pressure. They used piezoelectric transducers to record pressure for publication in the Speer #7 reloading manual.

Don't extrapolate this information to any other Speer manual, that question was not asked of Coy as there is no published pressure data in the other manuals from #1 to #8.

Here comes "skipology". If the Speer company were this far above other's in their field at the time and had equipment that could capture chamber pressure, don't you think they used it in subsequent manuals even though it isn't printed? At least for comparison to loads previously published? To me, and this is only me and following this information is on you not me, it is ludicrous to think they didn't use the equipment, simply ludicrous. The folks at Speer long ago had, as I am sure some still do today, have a deep down desire to be on the cutting edge of firearms technology and they would be excited to use technology when available. This summation and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks, so be careful how you use it!

Before you call me a liar or mislead, I have given you enough information to get it "straight from the horse's mouth". All you have to do is dig a little bit and get the phone number for Speer yourself. If you are too lazy to do that, please don't comment in this thread.

When you call, use my name and ask for Coy in the technical department. Read this post to him and I'll be he gets a good laugh over it!

Get ready though, he is a no nonsense kind of guy and you may get put back into your corner if you try to push him into one!

Thanks Coy.






p.s. I will bump this thread to the top each morning for the next week or so.

 

[flat top]

SC; Coy is the fella I talked to (good guy), and my question on use of pressure data concerned manuals 1 thru 8. My other question was aimed at the use of older manuals for current day reloading. Coy verified what he said to me, to you, with the exception of the use of pressure test data for manual #7 (but, read on below!). The newest Speer manual that I have is # 10...from 1979, and the only reason I have it (always used the Lyman manuals or Ackley, Powley, etc.) is because it was a gift from a friend. I was a big Vernon Speer and Jack O'Conner fan, and much of the manual was a dedication to thier lives...they both died in 1978. Anyway on page number 51, in that manual it states: "Every load has been test fired in the Speer Ballistic Laboratory using strict testing procedures. The loads for MOST STANDARD CARTRIDGES has been pressure tested by standard U.S. ammunition industry procedures." So, even in 1979, not ALL cartridges were being pressure tested by Speer. If you go to page 107 in the same manual (# 10), it states "The data in the number Eight and earlier manuals was based on primer appearance, ease of case extraction, and case head expansion." On page 108, it states that "Where pressure barrels were not available" etc, (and keep in mind this is Speer #10 so even in 1979 not all loads were pressure tested). Truthfully I dont know what to think, but, I know what to do. In that same manual and starting on page 107 is a chapter named "Instructions for the Loading Tables" That chapter gives an excellent outline for the whys and where for's of safe loading procedure, and reasons for changes in those procedures, and in loading manual data over the years. It makes a very good read, as does the rest of Speer manual #10. Like I said in a previous post, if we all follow the suggested safety precautions and procedures (10% reduction from the top end load for a load work up, re-work for a component change, etc) I dont see how even the older manuals can be a problem, but, I think it still wise to keep current data on hand. Safety First................and, by the way, whether you check with Speer or not, I will appreciate all opinions and thoughts on this matter.

 

[johngalt]

Interesting conversations with Speer!

I have a Speer #7. It appears to me that Speer only published pressure data for jacketed bullets, there isn't any for lead, at least for the calibers I load. I don't know if that means there isn't any pressure data, or they just didn't publish it. Instead of pressure data, in the 3rd column, they have velocity at 100 yards.

An interesting comparison is .357 magnum, 160 gr, lead vs jacketed.

Max load for jacketed, using 2400, standard primer: 15.0 gr, muzzle velocity 1342, 29000 psi.
Max load for lead, 2400, standard primer: 14.0 gr, muzzle velocity 1265, 100 yd velocity 1005 (no pressure data).

I've read here in the past that everything else being equal, lead bullets create less pressure than jacketed. So any guesses as to the pressure of the lead bullet?

 

[Skip Sackett]

I am going to do my best to be tactful.

FT, I hope this doesn't offend you. That for sure is not the intent of my post.

The fact remains, what they did have pressure barrels for, they used and only a cantankerous ignoramus would argue otherwise.

The cartridges that have been in question on this site have been pistol cartridges. 38spl in particular along with 357Mag and others. From what I read in the Speer #7, there is pressure data for those loads, hence, some kind of test barrel/apparatus must have existed at one point in time. Thinking they discarded it for subsequent editions of Speer manuals is again, cantankerous and in my opinion (see previous posts about the value of my opinion) ignorant.

The reason you didn't get as far as I did in revealing the truth about the testing methods is because you asked about verifying the data. I KNEW that Speer would NEVER do that, so that wasn't the focus of my questioning. What kind of data and how it was gathered was.

They used piezoelectric transducers and they used them for all of the calibers that they listed data for: 38spl, 357Mag, 44spl and the 44Mag and only for their semi-jacketed bullets.

Folks can argue all they want, you can even have your own opinion, it's a free country, even if it's inconsistent with history of evidence.

When we had the discussion about "THE LOAD" folks came out of the wood work that pointed to "the times" and "known methods" and yada, yada, to prove that Speer NEVER tested loads for pressure. For people with normal faculties, that issue has been resolved, if you choose to believe Coy.

Obviously, there are some that choose not to. That's fine. Some choose to stay away from the older data, that's probably the smartest/safest thing to do. But to argue that Speer had pressure testing equipment, that was state of the art for their time and either didn't use it after 1966 or didn't work to improve it is silly to say the least. That isn't how a company with any vision stays in business or at the forefront of their field.

Could you imagine Ford saying in 1966: "We have this terrific motor that can run on air." And then not developing on it? No, common sense, which is a rare commodity these days, would suggest that they would continue to develop it and stay at the "head of the class" so to speak.

It would defy all reason to think otherwise of Speer too.

I rest.

 

[Skip Sackett]

So any guesses as to the pressure of the lead bullet?

Yes, less! That's about as far as my "learning" will let me go!

How did you come by the understanding that a lead bullet would be less pressure, John? (and I agree with you)

There also isn't any pressure data for the "22" caliber pistol loads nor the 45 caliber ones.

The only powders that were tested were 2400, Unique, 230P, HiSkor and a few of the Alcan powders. I find that interesting too.

From the article that I post about Keith's loads, let's compare some of the Speer data. Elmer wrote that H.P. White Laboratories tested his 44Mag load of 22gr of 2400 under his 250gr LSWC. If you look in the data for the 44Mag in the Speer #7, I think you will find some interesting information. Now, you have to be reasonable. 23gr = 40,000psi, 21gr = 30,000psi while 19gr = 26,000psi. White found that Elmer's load generated a mean pressure of 34,000psi +/- >3000psi.

Seems to correlate some, doesn't it? Outside source for verification. Reasonable.

 

[flat top]

SC; I cannot be offended!..............My post was intended to satisfy my curiosity on these two subjects (which I thought important) and share that information with the forum members (because I felt, that they felt it important). With the information quoted by Speer Tech, which contradicts the text of a later edition Speer manual, I personally do not see a concrete answer to the pressure test issue. I personally feel that Speer Tech probably doesnt know for sure, but, at least they gave it an honest shot with the info they had. Do we believe Speer Tech?.....or, do we believe the printed word? What it all comes down to is, we do what we have always done...follow the procedures for safe reloading, and be done with it!

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

Well now, all this does is prove exactly what I said in the other thread on 2400 powder. I said they more than likely they did have some pressure testing equipment for the most popular calibers, but not for every round listed in those early manuals. Based on the above posts, and from what Speer told me years ago (see post # 64 in that thread-old 2400 vs. new 2400), they have been consistant in what they tell you over the phone. BTW, when I called back then, the guy who did a lot of the actual testing was still alive and well, and would talk to you over the phone, which, is who told me what I posted in the old thread.

Mmmm.............just like Coy said!

 

[johngalt]

Yes, less! That's about as far as my "learning" will let me go!

How did you come by the understanding that a lead bullet would be less pressure, John? (and I agree with you)

I read this from several people on this forum, including you and NKJ Nut I think (not intending to point fingers anywhere...) It is also logical - every manual I have warns against loading jacketed bullets too light, so they don't get stuck in the barrel. Clearly, jacketed bullets create more friction, so they will generate more pressure.

In my own experimenting with 160 gr SLWC and 2400 in my .357, I started at out 12.0 gr, worked up to 15.0. Now, 15.0 is well over the 14.0 listed in both Speer #7 and #8. But I saw that the max for jacked bullets of the same weight was 15.0.

I also have other sources:
Speer #14 (which is new) is 14.8 gr for a 158 gr Gold Dot.
Hornady 7th lists 14.3 gr max for a 158 gr XTP.
Lyman 43rd lists 15.0 gr for 158 gr LSWC.

Given the different sources of data, and lead should be lower pressure than jacketed, I figured I was ok going to 15.0. I still fired them first in my GP100 instead of my 686. All worked ok, and I didn't see any differences in the primers or extraction. I was using soft Federal primers, so I saw a little flattening, but it was the same from 12.0 through 15.0. There was no extraction problems at all. I probably disagree with most here on the value of reading primers though. I'm not convinced that primers give much useful info.

I settled on 14.0 gr as my preferred load. It was hot enough, and as a plus, it hits to the same point of aim as my target load: 148 gr HBWC loaded with 2.8 gr of bullseye. I can shoot both target loads and full power magnums without moving my sight!

The same 160 gr bullet with 5.0 gr Unique was rather disappointing. It shoots way low.