Loads in old Sierra manual....

[Scrateshooter]

I kind of suspect that the latest methods for pressure testing loads are more accurate than they were 30 years ago and increasing liability has caused the current manuals to be more conservative,but I still use my old books [emoji1],but not # 8 [emoji33]

I read this alot. My Speer #8 has a date of 1970, less than a year after putting men on the moon and 25 years after detonating two nuclear weapons on a country and well into the jet age. I'm certain those men had effective means of testing pressures.

Unless you actually think the greatest generation was a group of idiots; I hope you don't shoot any guns designed or built by these same morons. I should limit my S&W 27-2 to 2.8 gr bullseye wadcutter loads...

The current load manuals are just a reflection of current society where males are wearing tight women's jeans and eyeliner while not knowing how to change a tire.

 

[rwsmith]

Holy Moly

Whenever I want to "shop" a load I always get out my Speer #8 manual (1st Printing, 1970). In it, for 38 Special, on page 360 they say they are using a K-38 w/6" barrel. On page 364, they show data for their 125 gr JSP. Their start load for Unique is 6.5 gr w/velocity of 1100 ft/sec. Their max load with Unique is 7.5 gr. w/velocity of 1207 ft/sec.

Like I said, 6.4 grains seemed pretty stiff and I didn't feel like going up from there Does anybody consider the 7.5 grains to be 'dangerous'?

 

[05CarbonDRZ]

I read this alot. My Speer #8 has a date of 1970, less than a year after putting men on the moon and 25 years after detonating two nuclear weapons on a country and well into the jet age. I'm certain those men had effective means of testing pressures.

Unless you actually think the greatest generation was a group of idiots; I hope you don't shoot any guns designed or built by these same morons. I should limit my S&W 27-2 to 2.8 gr bullseye wadcutter loads...

The current load manuals are just a reflection of current society where males are wearing tight women's jeans and eyeliner while not knowing how to change a tire.

Best Post I have read in a long time

 

[arjay]

I read this alot. My Speer #8 has a date of 1970, less than a year after putting men on the moon and 25 years after detonating two nuclear weapons on a country and well into the jet age. I'm certain those men had effective means of testing pressures.

Unless you actually think the greatest generation was a group of idiots; I hope you don't shoot any guns designed or built by these same morons. I should limit my S&W 27-2 to 2.8 gr bullseye wadcutter loads...

The current load manuals are just a reflection of current society where males are wearing tight women's jeans and eyeliner while not knowing how to change a tire.

The greatest generation **** kind of rankles.I grew up and worked with those guys.Some of them were pretty great and a lot of them were morons just like the current generation [emoji57]

 

[zeke]

I read this alot. My Speer #8 has a date of 1970, less than a year after putting men on the moon and 25 years after detonating two nuclear weapons on a country and well into the jet age. I'm certain those men had effective means of testing pressures.

Unless you actually think the greatest generation was a group of idiots; I hope you don't shoot any guns designed or built by these same morons. I should limit my S&W 27-2 to 2.8 gr bullseye wadcutter loads...

The current load manuals are just a reflection of current society where males are wearing tight women's jeans and eyeliner while not knowing how to change a tire.

Golly gee willikers, yet another round of new names extolling the virtues of Speer # 8. This time ya must be insulting all the astronauts and moon travel if ya don't believe in overstuffing your 38.

 

[rwsmith]

Sure there were....

The greatest generation **** kind of rankles.I grew up and worked with those guys.Some of them were pretty great and a lot of them were morons just like the current generation [emoji57]

There were morons, rednecks and big jerks and everything there is now, but COLLECTIVELY they were the heart and soul of America. Even the morons and jerks contributed something.

 

[Nevada Ed]

I have yet to put 7.5grs of Unique into a 38 special case and
shove a 125gr JHP bullet on top.........and fire it.
I have gone as far as 7.0grs, though.

6.4grs was really accurate in my old M19-5.
7.0 reached 1210 in my 6" 686 L frame, for testing only.

Since Remington has a light .357 load at around 1240 fps I
see no need to use more powder in the little 38 special case.

All my ammo meats it's spec's and I never go over, for safety reasons.

 

[muddocktor]

I'm not so sure about powder changing over the years, at least some of them. In the late 80's to mid 90's, I used to have a load out of an old Speer book I used with AA #2 in 9 MM. I'm away from the house right now at work for another week so I can't say which Speer book it is, but I want to say the max load for 9 MM with AA #2 was 5.9 grains. And with the AA #2 from back in the 90's it was a real hot load but safe. After the mid 90's I got out of shooting and reloading until a few years ago and when I got back to shooting and reloading again I bought some more #2 as I ran out of the old stuff I had. And with the same powder load with the new A #2, those loads were horribly overpressured; much more than what you would expect from lot to lot variance. That was with using the same bullets I had reloaded with before, same primers and everything but the powder. So with Accurate #2 at least, the powder did change enough that it made a significant difference. Now if I load 9 MM with A #2, I use 4.8-5.1 grains, which are hot but not seriously overpressured.

 

[rwsmith]

Really

^^^^ That is really scary and shouldn't happen, but I guess it does.

 

[4barrel]

Is that the Sierra?? What vintage? You won't see anything like that anymore.

Yes--SIERRA--The pages used to come in notebook style. 1981-85 or earlier. Who needs a mag with that info? Maybe the style & shape of their bullet was different from someone else. I don't use it on the high side for pistol loads. The pages still look new. Lyman is my favorite. I am old & don't need it any more. To much recoil. I just doubled checked & said Tested with a SMITH & WESSON K38 6"

 

[Nevada Ed]

You may have this old Lyman.
Mine is wore out and I try not to use it any more but it has so
much good info that some times I still have to open it up, very carefully.

 

[Warren Sear]

I dug out my old Lyman #43, printed in 1964, and was expecting to see some real screamers. I photo'ed the 125 grain data for the Unique load and was surprised to see the sensible load shown. Granted, it is for a cast lead bullet, but still, nothing out of the ordinary by today's standards.

The 2400 load seems a little "puffy", though.

 

[BLUEDOT37]

A LONG time ago a friend had a Sierra manual that seemed to lean towards 'hunting loads'. This manual he had said a plus p load could be 6.4 to 7.0 grains of Unique.

Well, the current Edition Sierra manual, "V", goes up to 6.8grs. Keep in mind it originally came out in 2003. They just keep printing a new one with the old data. They said they don't have any plans for a new manual, last time I asked them.
.

I've heard people say that new Sierra manuals are wimpy but apparently at one time that wasn't true.

Each manual has it's good & bad points. (I guess that's why we have to collect so many. )
I was impressed with their 45ACP Revolver section & it's bold numbers though.

.

 

[125JHP]

I have a lot of old manuals and the loads seemed to be reduced around 1999-2001 as they changed from CUP to PSI measurements. Speer #8 wasn't the hottest for all loads, Speer #7 & #9 had their share too.

A lot of them shot their workups in guns of the day and obviously they didn't blow up, nor did a lot of them on the street either.
I think it was a product of the era, akin to the cars of the day... who had the biggest, fastest model. That is what sold product.

That said, I usually look at the entire collection of load ranges from the 60's to current, start on the lower side and find a happy load in the middle.

 

[mtgianni]

In general if you want to use a manual from 1968 you need to make sure your powder dates from then also.

 

[Warren Sear]

I think you will find that powders (with the same name, of course) made today will have identical burn characteristics, allowing for the usual lot-to-lot variations, as when they first came out.

 

[Warren Sear]

I have a lot of old manuals and the loads seemed to be reduced around 1999-2001 as they changed from CUP to PSI measurements. Speer #8 wasn't the hottest for all loads, Speer #7 & #9 had their share too.

A lot of them shot their workups in guns of the day and obviously they didn't blow up, nor did a lot of them on the street either.
I think it was a product of the era, akin to the cars of the day... who had the biggest, fastest model. That is what sold product.

That said, I usually look at the entire collection of load ranges from the 60's to current, start on the lower side and find a happy load in the middle.

I agree, the guns would not blow up (usually), but those overloads definitely did put undue stress on the gun. If that is acceptable to today's shooter, than by all means, have at it with your vintage K-38 or Model 19. I know I bulged the cylinder and split the forcing cone on a brand new M19-3 using data from the Speer manual. There were no signs of pressure until that. Hand loaders would do well to keep that in mind when "working up" loads in a handgun.

Most shooters back then did not understand the long term detrimental effects of shooting without hearing protection, or bother wearing eye protection when shooting, or even fastening their seat belts on the way to the gun range, even though (as noted earlier in this thread) they did put a man on the moon. We have more and better information available to us now than they did then, or even just last week, and I suggest we to use that information to our advantage.

 

[Warren Sear]

Like I said, 6.4 grains seemed pretty stiff and I didn't feel like going up from there Does anybody consider the 7.5 grains to be 'dangerous'?

Instead of "dangerous", I would use the word "foolish", since we know better today.

 

[Warren Sear]

I read this alot. My Speer #8 has a date of 1970, less than a year after putting men on the moon and 25 years after detonating two nuclear weapons on a country and well into the jet age. I'm certain those men had effective means of testing pressures...

Speer did NOT pressure test those loads back then. The loads were "developed" by subjective means (aka "flying by the seat of your pants" or "lookin' fer signs o'pressure").

Looking in my old Speer manual #10, published in 1979, on page 361, they list a 125 grain jacketed bullet maximum load as 5.9 grains of Unique at 997 fps, and they do list this as a +P load. By that point in time they were indeed using pressure testing equipment (the now obsolete CUP method).

 

[.41 cal]

CUP/LUP and Pizo pressure testing all require specialized test barrels.
So when a reloading manual lists a S&W 19, Colt Python or gun X as the test gun one would assume that no pressure testing is involved for the published data other than watching for normal over pressure signs.

My take on it for all that is worth.

.41 cal