Older Reloading Manuals - Safe or not?

[PDL]

I've seen a lot of reload recipies where the data is way different from an old Speer #10 manual, as well as some other old published data I have. Is it safe to rely on that old data with the same powders, like Bullseye and Unique? I mean, I see recipies that are called 'mild' loads that exceed the max loads listed. I've also seen '+P' loads recommended that are well below the max loads in the books.
I don't load towards max on purpose with any of my reloading. But I haven't done any since the #10 was new. Am just getting back into it, and will pick up modern manuals as well. But I just wanted to check on the old stuff first.
Most of my firearms are contemporaries of the #10, except for a WWII 1911.
Thanks.

 

[steveno]

you will find that loading manuals have a catch all phrase of "start 10% (or 15%) below max and work up". I use some Lyman manuals that are 50 years old. start low and work up is a good thing.

 

[Fla_Sun]

good question!

I used to load right up to the max (but never over) using the Speer #10 many years (30) ago. The two guns I loaded for are still in good working condition with the normal tune-ups. I use the newest current load data now. The older I get the braver I was.

 

[Skip Sackett]

First off, let me answer your question: Yes and no!

Really, here is how I would approach this, and it is how I have actually done so myself.

I looked at the firearms that the older data was fired in and compared them to mine. Were mine of a later manufacturing date than theirs? What were my firearms built to take as far as ammunition? Is there anyone out there in the real world that has used this older data without incident for a significant number of years?

I ALWAYS START with current data. Of course, my components are of current production. I don't have a can of powder that has been laying around for 40 years or anything like that. Current data with current components in modern firearms and I head to the range. I use a chronograph and visual inspection of the fired cases to attempt to ascertain if the loads are safe in my firearm.

At that point if I am unsatisfied with the results, i.e. the stated velocity didn't show up in my tests, I look to the older data.

Let's take the 357Mag for instance. I wanted to use SR4756 to make a light recoil round for my wife to shoot in her M586 6" that still had enough oomph to put an animal out of it's misery while hunting. I went to the Hodgdon website and saw that a maximum load with a 158gr LSWC should develop 1250fps, which is just what I was looking for, and loaded some up and headed to the range. The velocity that I got from those rounds wasn't even what I get from some of my 160gr LSWC loads from a 38spl! Not even over 1000fps, so, I went to the older manual. I saw a load that listed the desired velocity and worked up to that load. Guess what? I got exactly what I wanted and wasn't anywhere near the old manual's maximum for that load. I also found out that their real world velocities were much more realistic when compared to powder charge.

That's how I do things. Your mileage may vary.

My suggestion to you is to use current data. After you have a few bullets under your belt again, venture out into the old data you have. If the firearms are in good working order you should have no problems. They don't understand "legalese" anyway!

 

[Andy Griffith]

+1 on what Smith Crazy said.

One other thing...never load up a bunch of rounds for a load you've never tried. Load maybe 10-15 perhaps and try them.
If the load doesn't work, you have little materials wasted and few bullets to pull. If you ever make a bad batch of something that you loaded 50 or more rounds of...you'll never forget it!

 

[Paul5388]

What I keep running into is data in the newer manuals that doesn't even approach the "new" pressure specs (psi vs the older cup).

I read recently of Paco Kelly clocking some original 1930's .357 Mag factory loads.

I have read many times that the original pressure in 1935 for the 357 magnum was anywhere from 40,000 to 50,000 psi. Several years ago we tested original 1935 manufactured 357 magnum ammo for velocity. The word was being written that the original velocity from a handgun for the 357 could never have reached the advertised 1510 fps of the times... We fired five rounds from my S&W N-Frame mod. 27/8+ inch barrel. And if I remember correctly, the average was around 1530+ fps. We couldn't test the pressure at the time because the friend that has the equipment wasn't available. But Elmer Keith writes that the pressure was 45 to 47,000 psi and I believe him, since he was involved in the development. SOURCE

Now, that doesn't mean I'm suggesting you load some of these old wild and woolly loads, I'm merely pointing out the trend toward wimpifying the loads you see in the new manuals. Always use published data, but you get to select the era of loads you use. Just be sure to ease into whatever you choose.

 

[blastfact]

I love the old manuals. They are worth far more to me than the new wuzzyfied loads found in the new lawyer written books.

I don't load up a lot of major now like I did in the past. But if I want a hottie I know where to find it. And I do have some real hot loads boxed up and in mags. for HD.

I have never loaded up a run of ammo and not shot it. The only time I ever break down ammo is if I think for one milsec I screwed something up. Other wise it goes down the pipe.

Yard Sales are great places to find old manuals and consumables.

 

[PDL]

Thanks guys,
I appreciate all the responses so far. I do have loads using the old data that work just fine. However I have acquired a couple of new calibers since then. I didn't want to throw the old book out if it was still potentially useful for the newer loads.
I guess one of the questions I had was do/did the powder companys reformulate powders so as to make old good loads no longer safe.

 

[Paul5388]

There are certain specifications for each powder. As long as it is called by the same name (that doesn't include the clones, like H4350/AA4350, which aren't the same as IMR 4350) it is the same powder.

Of course, it has to be realized there is such a thing as lot to lot variation and that's what causes us to work a load up again with a new can of powder, or other component.

You also have to be aware of powder company recommendations of loads being hazardous, after 30+ years of use, like Blue Dot with a 125 gr .357 and etc.

 

[n4zov]

First off, let me answer your question: Yes and no!

Really, here is how I would approach this, and it is how I have actually done so myself.

I looked at the firearms that the older data was fired in and compared them to mine. Were mine of a later manufacturing date than theirs? What were my firearms built to take as far as ammunition? Is there anyone out there in the real world that has used this older data without incident for a significant number of years?

I ALWAYS START with current data. Of course, my components are of current production. I don't have a can of powder that has been laying around for 40 years or anything like that. Current data with current components in modern firearms and I head to the range. I use a chronograph and visual inspection of the fired cases to attempt to ascertain if the loads are safe in my firearm.

At that point if I am unsatisfied with the results, i.e. the stated velocity didn't show up in my tests, I look to the older data.

Let's take the 357Mag for instance. I wanted to use SR4756 to make a light recoil round for my wife to shoot in her M586 6" that still had enough oomph to put an animal out of it's misery while hunting. I went to the Hodgdon website and saw that a maximum load with a 158gr LSWC should develop 1250fps, which is just what I was looking for, and loaded some up and headed to the range. The velocity that I got from those rounds wasn't even what I get from some of my 160gr LSWC loads from a 38spl! Not even over 1000fps, so, I went to the older manual. I saw a load that listed the desired velocity and worked up to that load. Guess what? I got exactly what I wanted and wasn't anywhere near the old manual's maximum for that load. I also found out that their real world velocities were much more realistic when compared to powder charge.

That's how I do things. Your mileage may vary.

My suggestion to you is to use current data. After you have a few bullets under your belt again, venture out into the old data you have. If the firearms are in good working order you should have no problems. They don't understand "legalese" anyway!

Smith Crazy sums it up very well. I sometimes use older manuals especially if I am familiar with the cartridge I am loading for, but I always compare it with a newer manual to be sure the older loads are reasonable. I always consult more than one manual just to be darn sure there isn't a problem lurking in the data of one of them. 50 years of reloading has taught me to be cautious.

 

[Peter M. Eick]

I collect and use old manual's very carefully. Start low and work up carefully, but keep in mind all of the gotchas. Like folded head cases, mild primers, mecuric and corrosive primers vs. today's stuff. Softer lead bullets etc.

What I have been doing is more culling for appropriate powders and then using measured velocities from writers or other more trusted sources (most manuals appear somewhat optimistic) and loading to the velocity. I just do it very carefully.

 

[Ignatz]

First, I love my older reloading manuals and get alot of enjoyment from them. But while looking through Speer 7, they say that you can load as low as 2.2 grs. of Bullseye for the 148 gr. HBWC. Sounds way too low of a charge to me. Maybe its OK? I just never went under 2.7 grs.
So, I'd also say be carefull at both ends of the velocity/charge range.

 

[ISOM]

Older Reloading Manuals

Every time a powder manufacturer changes the formulation of powder new reloading manuals must come out so the reloaders can load safely.
NO it is not safe to load from older manuals.
For reference only!

 

[Andy Griffith]

Every time a powder manufacturer changes the formulation of powder new reloading manuals must come out so the reloaders can load safely.
NO it is not safe to load from older manuals.
For reference only!

Exactly which powder(s) have had their formulations changed that translated into pressure/load data changes?

Has anyone heard of credible, tangible evidence that Bullseye, Unique, 2400 or any of the older powders have changed pressure curves over the years? Unique is now "cleaner" burning, but it didn't change loading characteristics at all.

I believe that powders have been renamed and or discontinued if or when the pressure curve was changed.

What has changed is the specifications for loads, creation of SAAMI for standardization of load specifications, and people suing loadbook companies either for mistakes in the book or their own stupid mistakes.

No matter what book you use, be careful and prudent.

 

[mtgianni]

I like old manuals. I use powder from an estate that has a price tag on it starting at $5.49 a lb. I am willing to bet it wasn't sold 2 years ago. I use a chrono for load development and to verify burning rate every time I open a new lot of powder, whether it is 2400 I bought last week or IMR4350 that was probably made in the 70's. That is what manuals tell you to do. I shoot rifle cartridges that have been around a while with stick powders. I have no interest in short mags or powders from foreign manufacturer's that I will never see on my local dealers shelves. Some of that is represented in newer reloading manuals and some is not. I turn to Lyman's #35 much more frequently to compare. If today's manual says 45 grains is max do not exceed and an older one says 44.5 gr is a safe starting load I look for manual in between or my old loading notes. Contrary to what many believe today we should learn from our past and many shooters did live through that era without damage to themselves or their firearms.

 

[38-44HD45]

My First Edition Speer #8 is perfectly safe; it has never even offered to jump off its shelf and attack me or anyone else.

Seriously, I still load from my #8, as well as other "obsolete" manuals, but I've been reloading for well over 40 years, and I've learned a thing or three. I'd never start at a maximum load of anything from one of the old manuals, but then, I'd generally not start there with a new manual, either.

 

[claybird]

My only comment on this subject is that some Powders have changed
some and "Lawyers" are probably proof reading the new manuels. Personaly I keep all my old manuels. Just not saying if I use them or not.

 

[Paul5388]

Speer #8 was originally published in 1970 and has been used by those that originally bought it without any incidents that I'm aware of. I still use that particular manual, unless I want to load with a new powder or a cartridge that isn't covered in that manual.

Besides the lack of catastrophic events from its use, I also have quite a few powders that were bought concurrent with it. The proponents of using new manuals usually cite the nonexistent powder changes as a justification. If there was a change, for me it would be after the manufacture of many powders I have, so what is the valid rationale supposed to be for using the newer manuals?

To be truthful, I also use newly manufactured powder with the old data and don't see any problems, even when I compare them side by side over a chronograph with the old powder with the same name.

To suggest the old manuals are unsafe is similar to suggesting automobiles prior to seat belts are unsafe, even though we used them that way far longer than we have with seat belts.

SAAMI has been existence since the 1920s, so pressure specifications aren't a new concept and those specifications have been adhered to longer than most of us have been alive.

 

[PDL]

As always the prevailing thoughts are to keep the loads safe by working up to any particular load.
Thanks guys.

 

[BruceM]

"Every time a powder manufacturer changes the formulation of powder new reloading manuals must come out so the reloaders can load safely."

In today's litigious society, it would be corporate suicide for manufacturers to change the burning characterisics of canister grade propellants, some of which have existed for 100+ years. The entire concept of canister grade product is to provide a propellant of known properties for use by consumers who do NOT have access to ballistic laboratories.

I find questions like that of the original poster quite interesting. It's interesting also that folks can have load data for a slew of say, 165 grain .308 bullets for the .30-06, then buy a box of Company X's new wizbang 165 grain .308" heatseekers and be absolutely stymied because there is no published data for that particular bullet. What ever happened to the basic concept of starting low and working up data for your gun. If you start low, you will not blow up your gun, even, if by some extraordinary chain of events, pressures should run substantially high for a starting load. Just assemble a couple of rounds using starting charge weights, fire them and INSPECT EACH immediately after firing. Any type of catastrophic failure is almost invariably caused by bullet setback, double charging a case or some variation of using the wrong powder and/or incorrect charge weight (a human error).

Published load data is a reflection of the test results of specific lots of components using a specific firearm or test fixture on a specific date with specific atmospheric conditions. They are safe guidelines and not theorums etched in stone. For those who are anal retentive about such things, there are interior ballistic tables, reference materials and "computers" which will give starting data for most anything. Wildcatters use them all the time. For most everybody else, starting loads for a correct bullet weight provide a completely safe jump off point.



Bruce