Changing Load Data Over Time

[Michael Dean]

Worth noting that the first post says he back in 1985 developed a load, I take it that means he he did not use published data.

But the velocities would be interesting to know, absolutely. If one today loads the same load as back in 1985; does it still give the same velocity? If yes, quite safe to say that the powder 8or other components has not changed).

To answer your question, I did use published loads. At the time I was relatively new into reloading and had purchased 2-3 different reloading books and pulled data from them.

 

[lwaters]

Check the brass that the manual uses. Different brass will show different max loads.

 

[7x57Joe]

Several years ago, I got an 8# jug of H-414 which constantly produced velocities well below what the manuals suggested. I got another pound of H-414 and immediately saw it coming very close to the manual's predictions. With identical loads the 1 pound was 175 fps faster than the 8#. Had I worked up a max load with the slower powder, then used the same data for the faster, I would have been surely over pressure.

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

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.

@Michael Dean
John Bersness used 59 grains of RE15 for years behind a 250gr projectiles in his 35 Whelen for 2,500fps. Alliant changed that to 52 grains for 2,200fps for some reason. He still uses the 59gn load without issue. I used the same 59gn in my Whelen until I discovered CFE223.
Bob

 

[Ray B]

Nothing against RE15, 250 gr bullets or the 35 Whelen, but John Barsness is such a P cubed that I am very skeptical of anything he types.

 

[Rare Breed]

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."

+1 Shootist43 knows what he is talking about

 

[Clodo Ferreira]

Hello,

I think there are many variables in this matter.
One is the SAAMI and/or CIP pressure standards for different cartridges.
Iconic samples are the SAAMI standards for 7mm Mauser and 8x57JS. No reason to load these cartridges, IN MODERN GUNS, using new cases, to 270 Win pressure. Even the 257 R, and 30-06 by the way, are pressure standarized lower than that 270 Win and 308 Win.
How to "estimate" those pressures are the point. But entirely doable looking at cases capacity, powders and velocity goals.
More later.

CF

 

[Clodo Ferreira]

Hi,
Sorry, I wanted to say "No reason to not load these cartridges, IN MODERN GUNS..."

 

[Vintageguy]

I have noticed the differences with my older manuals also and think a lot has to do with the wide variations of modern bullet construction. It was much simpler when everything was lead core and loads were just based on bullet weight. With the monolithic bullets everything has changed from powder charges to seating depths.
I have found with the newer manuals that when I chronograph, my numbers are always on the money which gives me trust in them. I have adopted the policy of only using the manual of the bullet manufacturer and the specific bullet data to work up a load for that bullet and it’s served me well. My old manuals are left to the older lead core bullets I loaded with them.

 

[Clodo Ferreira]

Hi Vintageguy,

I agree. Newer manuals, most of them, have been made with the latest equipment and the latest powders, both type AND lots.
The main thing I see, as I wrote, is the big difference, bigger than in the old manuals, in the data for some of the old european cartridges, between USA manuals and European ones like RWS, NORMA and BRENNEKE data.

 

[Nevada Mike]

Hi Vintageguy,

...
The main thing I see, as I wrote, is the big difference, bigger than in the old manuals, in the data for some of the old european cartridges, between USA manuals and European ones like RWS, NORMA and BRENNEKE data.

I have loading guides going back to the Sixties and have noticed this creeping de-escalation in loading specs.

In regards to 'European' cartridge data, this may be partly (or entirely) due to specification differences and methods employed by CIP as compared to SAAMI. American powder and cartridge manufacturers lean heavily on SAAMI specs and where a SAAMI spec does not exist they become very conservative. For example, the 7X57 data available from American manufacturers, when compared to data from European manufacturers, seems to be extremely conservative. With 140 grain jacketed bullets differences in velocities between max loads in American and European loading guides can be more than 300 fps. Which indicates to me that an American company could safely offer a +P load for this cartridge - which it richly deserves.

 

[Clodo Ferreira]

Hi Nevada Mike,

Agree! Some +P loads for the 7mm Mauser, and for the 8x57 as well, would be very good!

 

[F. Vaccaro]

This is interesting from 2017, I have some old loading manuals & have been loading since late 50s. I’ve read newer pressure testing methods are a large part of the reason maximum loads have reduced over the years. I don’t rule out lawyers though!

 

[Clodo Ferreira]

Hi F. Vaccaro,

Agree, I also think the new pressure testing equipments and methods are improved. Also, I must say not all newer maximum loading data for all cartridges have been reduced.

 

[Nevada Mike]

I was looking through an older Hodgdon Data Manual (no. 24) and noticed that they list 7 X 57 AND 7 X 57 Heavy Loads For Ruger Only.

Std. Load Max example - H380/42.5 gr. max/ 140 grain bullet/velocity 2597 fps (23" barrel)

Ruger Only load load Max example - H380/48 gr.max./ 140 grain bullet/ velocity 2867 fps (22" barrel)

A difference of 230 fps from a slightly shorter barrel.

 

[Clodo Ferreira]

Hi Nevada,

Good! I think this differential data was eliminated because many disregards the warning and use them in the few Remington Rolling Block ones that are still around.
MY experience with the Mausers M93/96 is they are able to use the same sane 7x57 maximum European CIP standard loads as in the M98. NORMA and RWS do not make any warning about using their ammo or loads in those Mausers pre98...but this would be another matter.


Best

CF