Old manuals

[Cleveland48]

Today I picked up some old reloading manuals. I like collecting old books, and was comparing them to some of my newer ones. They are a speer and Sierra manuals. I was comparing them to the newest Lyman and bowler book, and boy is there quite a difference in charge weights between them and the newer. The old manuals max charge weights are quite a bit higher than the newer manuals especially the 38 special. I wonder how safe they are? I do like that the older manuals use actual guns not pressure barrels. The 38 specials were tested with 4" and 6" barrels in the older ones where one new one Had a 7" or 8" pressure barrel for testing. So do any of you still use the older manuals or keep it with the most updated ones ?

 

[arjay]

I'm still using manuals from the 80s,but none of my loads are max except one and Ive backed it down to current data.

 

[Rule3]

Speer #8 is known as the Nuclear Manual!

Testing methods have changed over the years, perhaps they are more accurate? Even manuals today rarely give the same data or results.
Some like to think the manuals are Lawyer controlled but I do not think that is the case.

I find the new manuals and online data to work just fine, I see no reason to push the envelope more than necessary.

 

[Cleveland48]

Speer #8 is known as the Nuclear Manual!

Testing methods have changed over the years, perhaps they are more accurate? Even manuals today rarely give the same data or results.
Some like to think the manuals are Lawyer controlled but I do not think that is the case.

I find the new manuals and online data to work just fine, I see no reason to push the envelope more than necessary.

Lol the speer manual I have in 38 special looks like it could be a nuclear manual.

 

[Alk8944]

Cleveland48,

While current data is frequently lower than in the older manuals, due to changes in pressure measurement methods, for the most part any previously published data will still be safe. Some .38 Special loads that were commonly used for decades, by thousands of re-loaders, and for millions of rounds, may fall into current +P pressures, but that doesn't make the loads dangerous. 158 gr. LSWC/5.5 gr. Unique comes to mind for an example. Back in the 1930s-1970s this was the load for .38 Spl. standard loads. Didn't hurt guns (including J-frames) back "in the day", it won't hurt them now!

Since you specifically mention .38 Special I will take a chance and say the Speer manual you have is the #8. Yes, there is a bit of data in that particular manual that is absolutely dangerous! Particularly loads for S.R. 4756! There are loads in this manual that exceed later data in the follow-up Speer manuals for .357 Magnum, with the same powder and bullet combination! This is the only manual I have ever seen where I would seriously caution against using it, especially for .38 Special!

NOTE: I type slow, this was begun before Rule3 posted his response.

 

[Rule3]

Cleveland48,


NOTE: I type slow, this was begun before Rule3 posted his response.

You must be really slow then, as I hunt and peck. No prize for you

 

[Cleveland48]

Here are some examples of a jacketed 158gr in 38 special with unique.

*Min: 4.8 Max: 5.5 (+p) speer #10th manual.
*Min: 5.0 Max: 6.4 Seirra 2nd edition.
* Min: 4.7 Max: 5.2 (+p) Lyman #49th
The Sierra book seems astronomical.

 

[rwsmith]

A Sierra manual called for....

An old Sierra manual called for plus P .38 special to start at 6.4 gr. of Unique with a 125 gr JHP. The top was 7 point something grains. I tried the starting load and it impressed (scared) me enough to back down to 6.2 grain Unique. Nearly all manuals now give 6 gr max for the same bullet. I don't feel like it was dangerous with a strong modern gun, but they were definitely serious rounds for a hunting or defense load.

 

[Nemo288]

Before the advent of the electronic pressure gauges no one really knew the absolute instantaneous peak pressure when a cartridge went off.
Especially in revolvers.
It just happens too fast.
There was a fair amount of guesswork and feedback from the field involved.
Now that most loads have been measured with pressure barrels and modern instrumentation they have found out that, guess what, some loads WERE hot.
Some were WAY hot.
Most guns were (and are) so well built they didn't blow up anyway.
They will last a lot longer and everyone will be safer using the new data.

I shudder to think what we were doing with some silhouette loads in the 80's and 90's.
Modelling some of Taffin's early Dan Wesson 445 loads in QuickLOAD yields pressures up to and beyond modern rifle pressures.
Sticky extraction is not a good way to determine when to quit raising a load.
As an example, I once put a supposedly sane load in a different brass that had a less capacity (thicker converted rifle brass).
The velocity went up 200 fps! From an 8" barrel!
Still extracted fine too but I really woke up when I plotted all the load velocities.
I still keep that plot right in the front of my home made loading manual.

I think we got lucky before we got wise.

 

[SMSgt]

I will still go to my Speer #9 on occasion but rely more on powder manufacturers' data now. I haven't used max loads since my .41 Magnum days.

 

[silentflyer]

Lawyers strike again...I still use Skeeter loads from 40+ years ago, works just fine.

 

[Decker]

Then there's the other side to generally lower loads listed in the new manuals.

One such for-instance is an online Hodgdon load for 9mm.
The load is:
124gr Burberry RN-Plated, and calling for a range of between 3.9gr and 4.4gr HP-38 @1.150.

One of the reasons I reload is because I LIKE lighter loads that you can shoot all day and are generally less harsh on the safe queens.

So I loaded up the above at 4.0gr of HP-38, and it was terrible.
I shot that batch from 3 different pistols, and the results were:

1. Colt Defender/9mm - would not cycle even one round (not even a stovepipe because it wouldn't push the slide far enough back to even do that.
2. Kahr CM9 - stovepipe or not cycle at all. There was not one successful second round chambered.
3. S&W 6906 - out of a full magazine, it would stovepipe at least once every other magazine. Note that this is a pistol I've had for a couple of decades or more, has been fired often, and has NEVER had a replacement recoil spring. I suspect that the sort of successful firing with the 6906 can be attributed to a weak load working with a weak spring.

A subsequent loading with the same bullet using 4.4gr of HP-38 (the "hot" max of the recipe) yielded reliable operation in pistols #1&2 (I've decided to replace the spring in the 6906 before firing it again).
While not scientific, I can say that I compared the felt recoil between the 4.4gr load to some factory WWB I had, and my "hot" loads "felt" just a little less in recoil than the factory WWB.

If lawyers are not involved in making recipe decisions, then I would think that the lightest load by any powder manufacturer would be tested to at least cycle in the least of the pistols that load might be fired from.

Don't take all this a some kind of complaint. Not at all. It's just an inconvenience that errors on the safe side, but an inconvenience for people like me who have to travel a bit and pay range fees in order to just test a load as opposed to some people who can step out in their (large) back yard and fire away, or those who live in the country near a sand pit or some convenient place to experiment with their (sometimes many) different loadings.
That's why I'm afraid to change powders due to availability limits. Sure, I can use a good handful of different brands and types, but on each one, I have to start all over again to find my sweet spot.
That is a LOT of miles and range fees just to find a reliable load I can live with.

 

[Cleveland48]

I'm thinking about trying 5gr. Of unique behind a 158 grain xtp prolly start around the 4.8 gr. But it will be shot mainly out of a 442 airweight sometimes my python. Does 5gr. seem pretty safe to y'all? It seems like it's the upper end of a standard load but not quite +p.

 

[Rule3]

Hornady (MANUAL)#8 lists a start of 3.9 with that bullet and Unique and a Max which is +P of 5.1 grs.

Why would you start with 5.0 gr??

It would be stout with the 442 and not so much in a Python.

Manuals are your friend, Start low and work up.

 

[Steve C]

If you read the description in the older manuals they often said that "start loads" should only be exceeded if the ammo was to be shot from heavy frame handguns. Guns like the S&W N frame .38 spl and .38-44 as well as Colts heavy framed Official Police revolvers. There's no universal conclusion that can be drawn that the older manuals where always heavier in load level for all powders still in use. For every example of heavier charges one can usually fine one where the maximum charge level is either the same or less in the older manual.

 

[zeke]

Just picked up several older Speer manuals (#9, & #10).

Quotes from # 9.
"The number 8 manual explained how primer appearance, ease of case extraction, and case head expansion were used to develop loading data", from page 103.

Course after that they explained although they were now using copper crushers for common calibers, the old ways were all that hand loaders commonly had available. Talk about your basic lawyerly butt covering, after they dropped some loading tables like hot rocks.

Not to mention comparing primer flattening, case extraction and head expansion are of little to no value for pistols.

 

[MN2944]

In reality, I suspect most of those loads in the old books are perfectly safe IF done correctly. It's when a scale is misread by a full grain or a double charge is thrown that the new recommendations give you a bit more breathing room.

 

[Cleveland48]

Hornady (MANUAL)#8 lists a start of 3.9 with that bullet and Unique and a Max which is +P of 5.1 grs.

Why would you start with 5.0 gr??

It would be stout with the 442 and not so much in a Python.

Manuals are your friend, Start low and work up.

My 49th edition Lyman states 5.3gr. As max. I said I would prolly start about 4.8 and work up to 5gr. Being my end goal. I didn't mean to word it as that 5gr would be my starting load. I have no intention of shooting an aluminum hand grenade lol.

 

[jimbo728]

Here are some examples of a jacketed 158gr in 38 special with unique.

*Min: 4.8 Max: 5.5 (+p) speer #10th manual.
*Min: 5.0 Max: 6.4 Seirra 2nd edition.
* Min: 4.7 Max: 5.2 (+p) Lyman #49th
The Sierra book seems astronomical.

I have been using 4.8 of 231 with 158 lead for many many years "and loving it". Now it`s +P but still averages 840 fps in a 4". Mainly for pins, plates and IDPA.
Jim
"Sorry About that Chief"

 

[Rule3]

My 49th edition Lyman states 5.3gr. As max. I said I would prolly start about 4.8 and work up to 5gr. Being my end goal. I didn't mean to word it as that 5gr would be my starting load. I have no intention of shooting an aluminum hand grenade lol.

It's not going to blow your gun up. The M 442 is +P rated.

Hornadys Manual data is very conservative. A load of around 4.5 would probably be just fine as a start load,

You will find all kinds of different data between manuals and online. Lymans has not been updated for who knows how long?? Hornady makes the bullet and tests in real guns, They have been around for a long time. If you have the exact bullet, default to the companies data