Changing Load Data Over Time

[Michael Dean]

Cleaning out the reloading room and adding organization to the big picture. Trying to organize everything and streamline documents. While going through the ugly process of finding a new home for everything and make better use of space, I came across some older reloading data. I decided to compare some of my older loads with current loading data.

In 1985 I developed a custom load for my 375 H&H. The load was using 240 grain bear claws over 73 grains of 4064. I was more than surprised when I checked with my Current reloading manuals; the long and short of it was my load developed by in 1985 was three grains over what current reloading specifications qualify as a maximum load.

Has powder changed that much in the past thirty years or are current reloading data just become far more conservative? I know the load I developed by in 85 was not by any means a maximum load.

 

[sheephunterab]

I suspect our litigious society has made manufacturers more conservative with loads. When the .375 GMX first came out there was no load data for the H&H so we winged it. Turns out we are two grains over max in the book with zero pressure signs. We continue to shoot it.

 

[GA Hunter]

Current manuals are almost laughably conservative. Over the years I have worked with several cartridges that were wildcats. A few of them eventually went into mainstream production. More often than not the load data that eventually made it to the manuals showed maximum loads well below what I, and most of the target shooting community, had settled on as perfectly acceptable and accurate loads.

I won't name names but a very popular bullet maker best known for their target bullets recently published their very first manual. It's really conservative.

Disclaimer: The statements above in no way advocate or recommend the practice of exceeding published standards for the loading of metallic cartridges.

 

[BRICKBURN]

I suspect our litigious society ......

That was the first thought that came to my mind.

Then I decided to be charitable and think they have a much better product now.

 

[Shootist43]

When I find a load that works well, I tend to stick with it, regardless of changes in current loading data. I will however take a real long look at the brass, primers, whether or not the bolt was difficult to open etc. So far it seems as though some manufacturers are getting more "conservative."

 

[Michael Dean]

It's sad that in this litigious society we have arrived at a point and time where basic data becomes so skewed that powder manufactures provide data that is so conservative that optimal loads are ignored or qualified as excessive. I'm going to research 30-40 year old load data and compare it with what today's optimal data is published.

What's frustrating is the simple fact that today's current rifle actions are materially stronger than what our fathers and grandfathers had. I'll continue to use common sense practices and be ever vigilant to observe any potential pressure signs, that being said, I'm going to explore loads that will clearly overstep today's published guidelines. If a published load was considered optimal 30 years ago, I can't imagine that the same rifle and powder will be excessive or dangerous today.

 

[BRICKBURN]

I would actually ask if the recipe has changed any.
Just a precaution instead of totally assuming it's the lawyers fault.

 

[Ray B]

The pressure generated by a specific load will vary. When they are tabulated, they will generally show the common "bell-shaped" curve. In addition to developers having more precise equipment to measure the amount of pressure, the risk management departments of the various manuals appear to have moved away from the normal decision of listing the maximum load as the one that appeared at the top of the curve, with an advisory that some situations(firearms/brass,etc, combinations) would show pressures at the upper end of the curve, thus being over-pressure, and to be avoided by starting low and working up. The developers take away that risk and list loads well to the left of the curves peak, because "they know" that a significant number of reloaders will ignore the starting load, pick out a max load and load/fire accordingly. So what the developers have actually done is list loads only slightly more than starting loads as maximum- don't like it? Find an attorney to blame, or the injured reloader that considers his error the fault of the powder company, or the jury that gives mega-million $ awards.

 

[Mr. 16 gauge]

I'm still using load data from the 1970's/80's......problem is, not they are discontinuing bullets, powders, etc., and bringing out "NEW" and "IMPROVED" components (new and improved my arse......it's just a marketing strategy")......so when I find components for sale on line or at gun stores/shows that I like, but have been "discontinued" for a "better" product, I tend to snap them up.

.....and I do think that the whole "litegioius society" thing is to blame.

 

[lwaters]

I have an old Hornady reloading book that has a lot higher max loads then the new one. Some has to do with the brass that is used. I find Winchester brass usually holds more powder. I think it is also product liability.

 

[GA Hunter]

At the end of the day the manuals are only a guideline. I know this is contrary to my earlier point but I learned a long time ago that they can be wrong towards both ends of the spectrum. (Recently to the conservative end) I've had my share of blown primer pockets while loading within their specs. All those that reload should approach the practice with caution, move slowly, and be able to recognize the signs of excessive pressure.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

Cleaning out the reloading room and adding organization to the big picture. Trying to organize everything and streamline documents. While going through the ugly process of finding a new home for everything and make better use of space, I came across some older reloading data. I decided to compare some of my older loads with current loading data.

In 1985 I developed a custom load for my 375 H&H. The load was using 240 grain bear claws over 73 grains of 4064. I was more than surprised when I checked with my Current reloading manuals; the long and short of it was my load developed by in 1985 was three grains over what current reloading specifications qualify as a maximum load.

Has powder changed that much in the past thirty years or are current reloading data just become far more conservative? I know the load I developed by in 85 was not by any means a maximum load.

3 grains seems a bit more than I'd expect, but perhaps not. Over the course of 30 plus years, the exact recipes for the making of the powder change a bit. Heck I've seen lot to lot variation in RL15 cause the most accurate load to change, and that was with powder lots made no more than a year apart.

That said, I don't doubt those who publish load recipes do so with a conservative slant, I know I would.

 

[BobT]

A good chronograph helps a lot, I consider it essential part of my reloading gear. When I'm working on a hunting load I generally have a target velocity in mind, when I get there I stop. It has been my experience that the two most reliable pressure indicators are velocity and case head expansion. I have a wildcat I've been working with off and on for the last 5 years or so, most of the data is 50-60 years old and I have had a couple of surprises with it, apparently there have been some changes in components over the last few years.

 

[Michael Dean]

Three grains is a substantial deviation in any load Lyman has some explaining to do.

 

[GuttormG]

This is not an exact science..

Was your custom load made up with the exact same components as the manual (same case (new or well-used), same primer, same case length, same COAL)? What about your gun; how does that match the one used for developing the loads in the manual? Barrel length, chamber dimensions, dimensions and design of the bore?

The published loads are what the publisher is reasonably sure is safe in any gun in reasonably good condition chambered for the round. It is not an absolute value; in some guns it will be slightly over max, in others below. Using knowledge and a bit of common sense we (that is reloaders) can tweak our loads to match our conditions.

Powders change, some from lot to lot, others over time (found a 2% change in one powder recently, production lots just weeks apart); same with primers, cases, bullets.

 

[JimP]

And this is one of the reasons that I purchase powder in 5 or 8 lb jugs and primers by the 1000. Then all I have to deal with are the bullets and cases for a while. Then when I have to purchase a new jug of powder and more primers I'll back my loads off a little and head out to the range and finally get back to my shooting load.

I have found where powders have changed enough to give me a different velocity of 200 fps+_ when changing lots which usually means that the pressures have changed. Not so much on primers.

 

[GuttormG]

I have stopped chasing maximum loads/speed; neither the papertarget nor the game feels that last 20fps; and I have a higher safety margin.
Probably getting old

 

[Michael Dean]

This is not an exact science..

Was your custom load made up with the exact same components as the manual (same case (new or well-used), same primer, same case length, same COAL)? What about your gun; how does that match the one used for developing the loads in the manual? Barrel length, chamber dimensions, dimensions and design of the bore?

The published loads are what the publisher is reasonably sure is safe in any gun in reasonably good condition chambered for the round. It is not an absolute value; in some guns it will be slightly over max, in others below. Using knowledge and a bit of common sense we (that is reloaders) can tweak our loads to match our conditions.

Powders change, some from lot to lot, others over time (found a 2% change in one powder recently, production lots just weeks apart); same with primers, cases, bullets.

Same rifle, same powder, primer and brass; in short nothing has changed except the reloading manuals data now stating that my previous recommended load is now three grains over its maximum. Sorry, you can't cloud the facts with possible variances.

 

[GuttormG]

You need to read what I wrote one more time.

 

[gizmo]

I have stopped chasing maximum loads/speed; neither the papertarget nor the game feels that last 20fps; and I have a higher safety margin.
Probably getting old

+1. My loads aren't close to max loads and kill very well. When I hit a velocity that I'm happy with and most importantly very accurate I'm good and no need to push it further. If I can't get there with what I'm trying I change powders and that usually does the trick.
On this same note what really jerks my frog is when two manuals contradict each other. I have a Lee manual that for 8mm Mauser shows the min load about mid way through the load data on Lyman's manual and the max load way freaking higher. (Keep in mind I may have it switched around and stated this backward. It's been a while since I looked at them) That also puts Lyman's min load well under Lee's. So idk. I haven't loaded for them as all my 8mm's are vintage rifles and all original. Normally I'd find a happy medium and go from there. With these I'd Sh$t live chickens if I damaged one of these rifles not to mention my face or hand. I've meant to pick up a Hornady manual and see what it says but haven't gotten around to it.