Hello Folks -

Has anyone else noticed the following two curiosities?

1) The reloading data from 10 years ago lists starting/max powder charges that are across the board higher (sometimes by 10%) than what any of the current recommendations are? Why is that?

2) The velocity data for Alliant seems disproportionately high when compared to IMR, Accurate, and Hodgdon.

Any opinions are welcome. Good night!

Yup! I sure have. Me thinks the powders have changed over the years. I have seen it over the chronograph too! It is best to date your data and componants for saftey!
Cheezywan

I agree. I tried a few loads in my .223 and was using new powder, and one load of WW748 was 1 1/2 grains under max.( in an older manual), and was way too hot on pressure. Had trouble removing the bolt from the gun. I stick with the new data also.

Powders do change, over time..... stick to current data.

Alliant powders are double-based, if I recall... should have a bit more energy, per grain, than the single-based IMR powders.

In addition to the reasons others have listed, pressure is now being measured differently. Instead of copper units (cup), it is now measured in psi, which is supposedly more accurate, consistent, and reliable.
As others have said, use current manuals, and stay within listed data.
rt

As these guys have mentioned, powders do change a bit over time...but there ae other factors as well.
1. Powders change
2. Case volume changes...in recnt years, some have gotten a good bit thicker/less volume.
3.MOre pressure equipent being used by loading manuals...some of the early manuals were by "feel".
4. the way pressure is measured has changed...in some cases, several times.
5. Primers have changed.
6. Lawyers


Add it all up, and I tend to avoid data that is "to good to be true"...a good reason to have (1) up-to-date manuals and (2) several manulas so you can compare loadings (and be suspcious of one that stands apart from other sourses).

Thank you all very much for the comprehensive response; much appreciated. I usually triple-check my values (Loadbooks, then Lyman Handbook, then Manufacturer) and none of the values were consistant, which made me stop. I'll invest in the latest Loadbooks and also a new Lyman Handbook.

Also, thanks for the info on Alliant. They pressures values they quote are in line with the others, but the velocities seemed, as Ribbonstone said, too good to be true so I was putting Alliant to the side for the time being.

Thank you all for the reality check and have a great day.

I have an older set of Lee collet dies that came with loading info for a 6mm Rem. When Hodgdon powders are used, the older loads are less than the newest Hodgdon info, sometimes by as much as 3 or 4 grains. I have 20 year old Speer and Hornady manuals. They have some good standard info in them, but are worthless as far as creating loads is concerned. I keep them around for nostalgia. Always use the latest info available, whether higher or lower.

I use 1972 production Green Dot and Alcan/RWS primers. But, I also use DuPont SR 4756 with CCI primers that are in white boxes with diamonds on the box. How about some H414 and H4831 that are WWII surplus? Which manual should I use? :rolleyes:

I would use the one you have been using with all that old stuff. :D I would guess the older manuals would be best with older powder and primers.

I use 1972 production Green Dot and Alcan/RWS primers. But, I also use DuPont SR 4756 with CCI primers that are in white boxes with diamonds on the box. How about some H414 and H4831 that are WWII surplus? Which manual should I use? :rolleyes:

Ah.... good question. With powder that old, chances are that it won't match the burning rate of anything new.

Frankly, you will probably just have to use a chronograph and work up.

Gentlemen,

I was merely being facetious with that question.

I use the same data I have used for over 30 years, whether it's 20 year old DuPont SR 4756 or three year old IMR SR 4756. The newest powders I have are Alliant 2400 and Unique, which I never used before the last three years. I use Elmer's 2400 data and never have a problem. Maybe I got the same lot Elmer had when he died over 20 years ago?

What everyone is forgetting is the SAAMI specs have changed and I don't mean just a change from cup to psi. In 1979, Speer #10 says the .357 Mag has an industry (SAAMI) spec of 46,000 cup (page 364). In 1998, Speer #13 says the SAAMI spec is 35,000 psi (page 526). If you think the psi numbers normally go down from the cup numbers, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

How about the .38 Super that was 35,700 cup (page 352) in 1979 and in 1998 Speer #13 says the spec is 33,000 cup (page 510)?

When was the last time you saw a 158 gr .357 Mag load that broke 1500 fps, like they did in 1935? They may have leaded those pre-M27s, but they didn't blow them up! I still load to 46,000 cup, like my 1980 M66 S&W was designed for. :D

EDIT: That 158 gr .357 Mag load was a bad question, since Lee 2nd Edition, page 557 shows a couplpe of loads over 1500 fps. One of those loads is 15.3 gr of 2400!

It's true that some calibers have been downrated by SAAMI.

It's also true that some powders have changed. Witness IMR changing powder formulations in the 1970s, I believe... not a trivial thing.

Also, when Hodgdon ran out of WWII surplus 4831, the new stuff didn't end up exactly the same. Even if it had, the WWII stuff had been stored for 30+ years at that point, and powder does absorb moisture over time (making it seem like you are using more, when weighing charges).

Some stuff, you can probably get away with the older (higher) charges. Some stuff, not.... trick is knowing when you can and can't.

Mike,

I didn't noticed any change in DuPont's IMR powders. I have been loading IMR 4350 in 7mm Mag since the middle 1960s and still use the same loads that we used from Speer #7. That's over 40 years and it hasn't made any difference if it was DuPont or IMR powder. Even the double based stuff like Hercules/Alliant performs just like it always has.

I'm sure there is lot to lot variation, but I think it's blown out of proportion, or at least it has in my limited experience.

I posted some information on IMR 4350 in a 30-06 a while back. Thread was titled "Du Pont to Hodgdon" I think? It turned out to be IMR to Hodgdon. There was a very noticable difference in velocity on that day in the same rifle.
There is supose to be an update to load data in 2006. Have not seen it yet.
Cheezywan

Wow...and I thought I was the only one using old stuff! New books don't even list some of the powders I still use like Alcan AL-5.

I think a lot of what you see in load reductions is less of a chemical or production change as opposed to a LIABILITY change. Take for instance loads for the 8x57 & 7.62x54R, the current data shows down right sad performance while data from older books printed in the 50's shows full horsepower loadings well in excess of the current "maximum". Granted there needs to be personal responsibility attached to using any reloading data but then again we are changing to a society where personal accountability is no longer needed....it's all about the law suits and how much money one can make for being an idiot!

I just saw a place selling surplus mil-spec ammo from the late 1940's. The liability disclaimer specifically stated that the ammo was for "collector use only and should not be fired in any gun at any time". I called and asked the seller about this statement and he said it was the only way his lawyer would allow him to sell it and even at that he still runs the risk of being sued if someone gets hurt with it.....therein lies the majority of problems. The second part of the de-rating of loads is based on sales. If current production rounds are de-rated enough, companies can introduce a new round to that gives better performance than the current round....thus increased sales in guns, ammo, bullets, powder, dies....ect....

Part 1- liability
Part 2- profits

Good morning!

Of course you were Paul - your post made me smile.

I started reloading 10 years ago, all handgun rounds. My data at the time was all up to date. I am just now getting back into and when I compared the latest manufacturer data with my 1996 data it made me stop and ask. Better to be safe than sorry. I've reading all these other posts and I appreciate all the comments. There is no doubt that the recommended max grain load (I am using that as a comparison metric) is higher in my 96 data then in the 06 data, including IMR.

I will certainly use fresh powder with the latest information. I was just curious why the load data had changed over the last decade and you all have provided a lot of good ideas and information; thanks!

Have a blessed weekend.

Consider what you'd recommend if you were an ammo supplier. Have seen, read, and heard about enought foolishness going on...it amazes me that more people don't manage to blow themselves up.

I suppose I would recommend what was an honest load, not some watered down load that people are going to exceed because they know it was a watered down load. It's really bad when you consider they aren't lying on some loads. :rolleyes:

Mark, I really preferred Alcan 7 and 8. I used to load 10.0 gr of Alcan 8 with a 146 gr Speer half jacket HP for my Chief's Special.

One word of caution, if you ever use an old loading manual, make sure you know what the powder really is. For example, when Speer #7 was printed, IMR 4831 didn't exist and it isn't the same as H4831!

I use 1972 production Green Dot and Alcan/RWS primers. But, I also use DuPont SR 4756 with CCI primers that are in white boxes with diamonds on the box. How about some H414 and H4831 that are WWII surplus? Which manual should I use? :rolleyes:

Paul,
I have a box of CCI 200 primers with the diamonds on the box,too.I asked the Company about them and the reply was that they were made before 1980,and they would not recommend using them when shooting charging rhinos.
I have'nt opened the box. Are you having any problem with yours?
Frank

Frank,

I believe those primers date back farther than 1980. Speer #10 was published in 1979 and it has pictures of the later box (pages 68-69) with the Omark markings. There are 2 boxes with diamonds. Speer #8 (page 15) in 1970 shows one with 3 diamonds running up and down the box with a larger diamond as a background that wraps around the sides of the box. Page 29 also makes reference to "Omark-CCI" boxer primers. Speer #7 (page 28) in 1966 shows the box I have with just the 3 diamonds and no mention of Omark.

I may have had 1 FTF out of 10,000 old primers I have been using. I have 3 different designs of small CCI boxes (the new boxes are where each primer is in a seperate hole and are larger boxes) and almost 1000 Alcan/RWS primers left. Remington still uses the small box and it's easier to use with a Lee Auto Prime tray.

Some of these primers are 35-40 years old and they still work just like they are supposed to. ;)

Morning Folks -

Wow - use guys are using some pretty old stuff! I did not keep any of my old (fresh in 96) powders since I have moved a few times siunce then by professional carriers that won't transport it. I just purchased some new Re22, IMR 7828, AA 3100, AA8700, and Retumbo. This should give me ~500 rounds in total. It's for a 7mm Rem Mag that I'll be using for optimum load determination, and then for coyotes, deer, and varmints. I don't suspect it will last me the year. That is, I don't suspect I'll have the issue of ever using 30 year old powder... :)

I picked up the latest Speer Manual, the lattest Lyman Handbook, and then all the Manufacturer's brochures. So I think I am good to go now.

Doing a little research myself, I can affirm some of the comments made by others in this thread: Over the years the companies have certainly become more conservative in their recommendations (must be for legal reasons as alluded to, because with more conservative values we'll go through their powders slower), and the formulations of the powders have changed slightly over the years in an effort to make them more efficient. I did not come across anything about thinner cases, but this happens naturally of course as you re-use cases so it is a consideration. I did come across some comments that primers are over time being made more robust, apparantly primer R&D is still quite active.

Because there has been such a lengthy hiatus in my reloading activities, I am approaching this as I am novice (which, relatively speaking, I am of course).

One last comment..... an inexpensive chronograph is a 'must have' for load development, I think. With the price of powder going up, and the cost of electronics going down, it'll pay for itself soon enough.

Just a few shots will give you a pretty good idea of how accurate the data is for your lot of powder. As long as you are not exceeding the reported velocities for your powder, should be fine, even if the charges are different by a grain or two.

On the other hand, if you are getting faster-than-normal speeds, best check things out before proceeding.

Sage advice from MikeG.

Anyone truly interested in load development should avail themselves of a chronograph to help track the load progression. There are many instances where some cases/cartridges don't behave like others in giving visual pressure indicators until it's too late.

Many folks feel that today's manuals are written with lible attorneys dictating the parameters of load values. This probably enters the equation to a degree, but most of the downward trend of those values is mostly due to better and more accurate pressure equipment being available. Years ago, these parameaters were established by theory and slide rules. Today, electronic recording equipment takes the quesswork (SWAG for those who know the meaning) out and puts the fact in.

Anyone deliberately challenging the published loading values today by overloading is flirting with disaster - a ruined firearm being the least damage.

Been reloading for some 45 years now and still have all the original didgets, eyeballs and other body parts. Think I'll remain so by continuing to heed the written word and carefully working up loads incrementaly and with the use of my two chronographs.

I agree with the conservitive approach to this handloading thing we are involved in. With the internet, we have access to very current data direct from the manufacturers of the products we use.
I do not feel handicaped in any way by looseing 200fps. for a load that shoots well in my firearms. I prefer accuracy and consistancy over numbers. This allows me to shoot once rather than twice to get the job done.
As an example, I will choose the .22 short rimfire. It will harvest a squirrel very well with one good shot. A .22 long rifle will do the same(as will a .22 long).
Why do I use the long rifle version?
Why do we handload?
Chronograph is a great tool.
Cheezywan

Cheezywan -

Excellent comments - I guess reloading is a respectable way to vent obsessive/compulsive behavior and perfectionism ;)

I made a spread sheet of velocities across the Y-axis. I then made X-axcis entries for all of the load data I had for a given bullet, given barrel length, and given powder type; none of the values matched! What did line up roughly (thankfully) were the upper and lower limits. But, equating for barrel length and bullet type, the volocities were quite disparate. Consistently, the manufacturer data was the most conservative. I found the best consistency between the Nosler and Sierra Data. Getting a firm idea of what the range is, I will invest in a chronometer as other have suggested and just figure out the velocities for myself. What I want to besure I do is start from not below and not above where I should, and work myself up to not above where I should.

Peace,

One of my major suggestions for handloaders is to put your older manuals out of the way. I split several .222Rem.Mag cases by using the same amount of IMR4198 that I had used
about ten years previously. I can only concude the formula for the powder had changed. I know of other reloaders who also have experienced this. A little caution goes a long way. Best wishes.

Cal - Montreal