So disappointed! (Speer #8)

[canoe on the yukon]

I'm reminded of the old joke about the guy who curses his typewriter because it "doesn't spell good".

I've reloaded for over 40 years,been involved with every type of discipline including case forming,wildcat calibers,paper patched bullets,etc,etc....For several years I probably loaded about 20 thousand rounds per year.....Yes,I have used data from Speer #8.....No,I have never had any catastrophic failure with any gun using my ammo....Not one.

I have always gathered as much data from different sources as I could before loading and then used some common sense.And no,I've never been squeemish about using heavy loads.

Whenever I hear about the catastrophic events,I'm always a bit suspicious....I recall the guy with the typewriter.

 

[surveyor47]

A 175 grain bullet and 3.9 grains of Clays sounds a lot like the 40S&W, which has a well known and documented propensity for KABOOM!s Some manuals, such as Accurate warn not to reload this cartridge at all. There have even been cases of factory ammo causing Kabooms. There seem to be 2 common denominators in these cases: 1) Guns without fully supported chamber and 2) repeated chambering and ejecting of a round, as in the case of a police officer unloading his gun and reloading daily, possibly causing bullet set back into the case.

I dont think that its fair to say that manuals cant be wrong. We know that this isnt the case. Look at all the warnings that Alliant has put out on Blue Dot, after loads had been published by a number of sources for 30+ years. I had the misfortune of finding out the reason for warnings about 25 years prior to the warnings and nobody believed it until Alliants recent warnings. Lets not forget that all guns are not the same. For example, the S&W19 is not in the same strength catagor as a S&W 27 or a Ruger GP100. S&W did not go out of its way to let people know this fact, but instead kept it quiet. A Glock certainly isnt in the same strength catagory as a S&W 3rd Generation, but how much of a difference in strength is there? The manufacturers certainly arent saying.

The good part is that modern guns have sufficient safety factors that detonation is actually very rare. Instead, the gun fails in a different mode, prematurely becoming junk or spare parts and the shooter keeps all fingers and eyes.

 

[Paul5388]

Back a few years, we didn't have access to many manuals. In 1972, I had one manual, a Speer #7. The Speer #8 load I have used for all of those years actually came out of Handloader's Digest, 6th Edition that I still have too.

Normally, the manuals won't give you a load that will blow anything up that isn't defective, or it's a new powder they haven't figured out all of the quirks on.

Blue Dot didn't exist when Speer #8 was published, regardless of the edition.

 

[surveyor47]

Blue Dot certainly existed in 1974 when the Speer #9 was published. That manual has lots of data on Blue Dot.

The interesting this is how much the method of load determination has changed over the last 30 years. Dont fully understand it, but the old manuals look like example guns had a sensor drilled into the chamber leading to a readout. The Lyman manuals from the same era show drawings of pressure guns.

As I understand it, when SAAMI tried to standardize 357 data, there were so many conflicting standards that they had an extremely difficult time deciding exacty what the standard pressure would be. Some load ures were said to be off the charts when subjected to new sensors. Then enter the "pocket rockets", the Ruger SP101 and S&W J-frame Magnums. If they didnt have enough pressure to reduce pressure with S&W 19/66 problems, then these little cannons came along. Its a wonder that the 357 bears any resemblance to 1960s or 1970s loads whatsoever.

 

[Jellybean]

That's what I was thinking, .40S&W. Lyman 47 lists a max of 4.2 gr with a pressure of 22,500 cup. They reduced that max to 4.0 grains at 20,900 cup in no. 48 and is still there in no 49.

I wonder if no one else has ever tried it, didn't live to tell about it, got real lucky, or like a trusted source once said:

Thirdly, there are too many variables in reloading to lay the blame on just one thing.

 

[Jellybean]

I called Hodgdons Tech Support and asked what the approximate velocity would be out of a 4 inch barrel, and I was told about 1300 fps.

I would have guessed more like a 300-400 fps slower difference. But I tend to be a little more realistic than some.

 

[Skip Sackett]

Make your words sweet, you may have to eat them!

That's what I was thinking, .40S&W. Lyman 47 lists a max of 4.2 gr with a pressure of 22,500 cup. They reduced that max to 4.0 grains at 20,900 cup in no. 48 and is still there in no 49.

I wonder if no one else has ever tried it, didn't live to tell about it, got real lucky, or like a trusted source once said:

The maximum load in the Hodgdon manual at the time was 3.5gr with that weight of bullet.

Just one thing? No, not this time and not with me. Other factors were that I "assumed" that the Browning High Power had a fully supported barrel and didn't check it out before I made this load.

It is good to be reminded of our own words!

 

[Jellybean]

Smith Crazy, which Hodgdon manual are you referring too? All I have since no. 26 are their little complimentary booklets and three of their rip-off magazines. None of them list a 175 grain lead bullet using Clays, they do list a 180 gr. XTP with a suggested max. load of 3.5 grains, is that in yours too?

 

[Skip Sackett]

I guess I am wwwrrooooonnnnnngggg!

Smith Crazy, which Hodgdon manual are you referring too? All I have since no. 26 are their little complimentary booklets and three of their rip-off magazines. None of them list a 175 grain lead bullet using Clays, they do list a 180 gr. XTP with a suggested max. load of 3.5 grains, is that in yours too?

I guess I am wrong (oh how that pains me to say that! ) about the data being in their manual. It is as you have said there for the 180gr XTP.

I do know this though, the technician said that their maximum load for the bullet I was using was 3.5gr and the Lyman manual had data for one close to the same weight, 5gr less I think, with a load of 3.9gr of Clays.

As I read their data now, which I didn't do then, it does state that it is for firearms with fully supported barrels/chambers.

This is just one example where not paying attention, which not to mention was my fault, is very easily done.

Are we done with this part of the subject? It was a bunch of years ago!

 

[38-44HD45]

As I've written elsewhere, I ruined my first Model 19 using max. loads of 2400 from Speer #8, in less than 150 rounds, maybe under 100. The frame stretched enough to more than double headspace and cause light strikes.

Therefore, I no longer use loading manuals at all. I go out into the desert, eat a couple of peyote buttons, and the load data comes to me in my visions.

 

[Charles]

Therefore, I no longer use loading manuals at all. I go out into the desert, eat a couple of peyote buttons, and the load data comes to me in my visions.

Very nice!

 

[Jellybean]

Yes Skip, we're done. But it is interesting looking at the difference in data from one manual to the other, even in one edition to another of the same manual. It's like most have said, their is no "Holy Bible" when it comes to handloading. Get as much data as you can from as many sources, carefully look at the components used and start low.

While I do think some of the powder and bullet manufacturers, (mostly powder), do fudge their results a little to increase sales, it's still worth a look. If they blow up their test equipment I doubt their attorneys would let them put the load in their manuals. However, if you do find one that shows data that blows the rest of them away, use some common sense and approach with caution. If you are really that desperate for increased performance, get a bigger gun.

 

[surveyor47]

If you are really that desperate for increased performance, get a bigger gun.

Those words should be enshrined. How often do we read posts by some guy insisting that the 44 Magnum must shoot a 330 grain bullet at 1400 fps? If that isnt stretching the performance envelope- and possibly the frame as well- I dont know what is. Talk about Maximum Performance; its more like Trapdoor 45-70 performance! Hey Guy! Ever hear of the 454 Casull? (Yeah, but Im too cheap to buy one.)