Over the years I keep hearing that the data is being watered down with weaker lawyer loads.

For you guys with several editions of reloading manuals can you verify this?

I guess I'm curious more than anything to see if this is fact or fiction. I develop my own loads starting with what's in the books so it's gotten me curious when max listed loads do not exhibit any signs of being "max".

Yes, I can verify it. Old manuals have heavier max charges.

Since the early 1980's there has not been a major reduction in maximum charges in my manuals. There are some calibers with changes in maximum data though. You have to remember that bullet companies have changed shapes and bearing surfaces of their bullets. Primers used in old manuals can change from newer manuals. However there is still examples of lawyer proof loads in the very latest manuals. Most of their data is realistic but a few examples of maximum data exist with their maximums not even close to maximum and the velocity they give is unrealistic. However there still are several examples in the latest manuals that maximum data is hot hot and should be avoided. A chronograph is a useful tool to compare load levels.

The story is that we now have more precise ways of measuring pressure. The back story to this is that with the new lower pressures we now have guns like alloy 357 mag revolvers and even J frames. Cheap cast guns are holding together longer, and S&W reintroduced the 357 mag K frame. About the time this all started, the K frame 357 mag had been discontinued by S&W for durability issues. The 619 & 620 L frame were developed for customers who wanted the looks of the classic designs. Here's a smoking gun link for you: http://www.gunblast.com/SW619-620.htm

S&W isn't the only one involved so I'm not picking on them. Many companies benefited from this situation.

YES times have changed a lot. Go on Amazon and purchase a Speer #3 loading manual and read up on the .38 special loads.
Just one small example that will polarize folks quickly.

Skeeter Skelton's old .44 special loads are now over book max.

We wont even touch the forbidden topic of Elmer Keith mixing two and three types of powders in one case.

the list goes on and on.

Will a load from an load from a reloading manual 3 generations back blow up your new Gen 4 Glock. No it will not.

If you have a question about a specific load from several of the popular loading manuals several generations back send me a pm

Old loading  manuals can be found here-        http://castpics.net/dpl/          Old Speer #8 is over pressure with many loads.  

Powders have changed over the years, but still use the same title..  4895  and 4831 are  two.   

 

Components change over time. Bullet shape, brass capacity, powder burn rate, and primer brisance. 

I have been known to push the book max quite frequently and I've paid the price with short brass life. I believe the books to be pretty close to SAAMI max pressure more often than not. I shoot a lot of Nosler bullets and that's the manual I use the most.  I can't really speak for the rest of them except the loads I have used from Alliant Powder are pretty spot on for me. When they say it's max they aren't kidding. 

I don't believe in the lawyer argument. I'm in the better pressure testing crowd.

rg1 I have to disagree. I started in 1985 with the then current Hornady 3rd edition and the Speer 1985 edition.

I actually nick named the Speer manual "the hot manual" because so many of the maximum loads were even higher than what's in the Hornady.

In general the maximum loads have been reduced but many are the same and recently I've been shocked by some that have actually gone the other direction.

They say that the testing equipment is more accurate.  That's probably true but I don't buy it 100%.

It is kinda eye opening when you pull out your old card file to load some ammo and find that your favorite load is now 3gr over maximum.

Motor

Most older manuals did not even use any testing equipment. Reading primers, case head expansion and hard bolt lift were used as indicators.  Pretty sure most loads in the Sierra manual are still not pressure tested, call em up and get specific.  Some manuals (IMR, VV, Accurate Arms) used to list actual tested pressures, think AA still does?   Plus there are differing pressure testing standards/equipment.  

Common occurrence is new powder comes out with these magical velocity increases.  2 years later they come down to earth after others pressure test em.

As another generation gets into reloading, there has been yet another resurgence of "safe in my rifle" powder charges noticeably above max.  Guess they sent them loads to pressure tested, which ain't be likely.

Has powder chemistry changed over time? Could a XXXXX12345 powder made in 1970 be the exact chemical makeup as XXXXX12345 powder made in 2017?

You can also buy online. I bought an old Lyman on Amazon. I have tried the 2400 data but I always stay clear of max.

Lyman 50 has a lot meeker data (for the same cartridges and powders) than 47th, 48th, and 49th Editions.

Disappointing.

Well, it's true to some extent; need to look at it on a case by case basis.

Here's one example - but for different reasons (I'll get to that later).  

These are HOT loads for a caliber you will never encounter (at least highly unlikely).  Don't try to copy it - you'll just get hurt.

Way down in the footnotes, you can see there where Jeff noted that the Vihta Vouri 1st edition had much hotter data, but they quickly backed down.


http://www.k8nd.com/documents/hl9x21.pdf

Well - they (the Finns) compiled the 1st edition without considering American liability lawyers.  

See, in Finland, any reloader with common sense would not go loading a hot 9mm round and try to fire it in a 100 year old Luger or Lahti pistol - that would be stupid.  If anyone did that and it blew up, his friends would all call him stupid and that would be the end of it!

But there's no counting on common sense anymore in America.  Sad but it's true.  That same stupid stunt would lead to a lawsuit.  Hence, VV watered down the data.  Had to.  

Best advice for you fellas is to just start at the low end of published data and carefully work up.  Be safe out there!

I don't know if it's "watered down" so much as it now is " more accurately tested".

A lot of the old reload info was "tested" with somewhat primitive equipment and techniques.  We're talking copper crushers, case head expansion, etc.  I suspect that more modern, more accurate testing means we've got a real, more accurate reflection of real pressures...

Example... Some of the old school data for a lot of loads wasn't much more than a best guess.  Modern data, especially for stuff like 280 Ackley isn't mild.  It's full pressure.  Old loads were simply overdone

I would be willing to wager that the only lawyer input made in any reloading manual is the disclaimer at the beginning, warning every user that they are on their own when using their data.

You can see why every book has the disclaimer based on the average internet post regarding problem loads. Most of the people who are having ammunition problems shopped through all of the available data sources looking for the sole source that allowed for the highest possible velocity. They then loaded their Lake City .308 brass 1.0 grains below maximum and wonder why they're popping primers.    

I try to use the latest most current manual published by the bullet manufacturer who's product I am loading. They will have the most experience with their company's product and the largest data base for those specific bullets.

I understand that certain primers are hotter than others even though they aren't listed as being a magnum. I also know that not all magnum primers are actually hotter than standard, but some of them are. I'm aware that case brand and chamber design plays a large roll in chamber pressures.

I patently reject the notion that the current data is dummied down. It is IMO the end result of more testing and better testing equipment. It is the maximum they discovered using their components in their rifles over the course of testing. Chronographs can be a huge help to a hand loader, giving real time velocity using similar components while taking barrel length into consideration. There is no reason under the sun for your load to travel 100 fps faster than Sierra's or Hornady's load when fired from identical length barrels. That should be a warning to back-off.

I use several parameters when reloading:

1. I never exceed the bullet manufacturer's powder maximum charge.

2. I never exceed the bullet manufacturer's maximum published velocity regardless of powder charge.  

By staying under both self-imposed limits I can develop accurate, safe, reliable ammo that will probably be safe in anyone's firearm. People who data shop for the hottest load deserve to have a "teaching moment".  Most people, myself included, need to learn things the hard way.

I have a friend I've known for decades that can obliterate the head stamp on their .44 Magnum loads after three firings. God has watched over him, because they still have their eyesight. I would never, and I mean never, buy a firearm from them. Just because it hasn't blown up, doesn't mean it's in good shape.

BTW - The old Speer manuals scared the crap out of me back in the 80's. I wouldn't even consider referencing them nowadays.

Been relaoding since the 70's and without a doubt this is the golden age of reloading. Data is a lot more accurate, it's a heck of a lot easier to find data and share knowledge then it was 40+ years ago.

I started reloading in the 70's with my brother teaching me how (I was 12/13?). His mentor started reloading in the late 50's. It was an interesting time to reload. Testing equipment was different, firearms mfg's didn't have the machinery they do today. If you ever saw the old crusher testing equipment and how it was used, you'd just shake your head. Back in the 70's the s&w ammunition plant that made their pistol ammo was 10 miles down the road. My brother knew people that worked there and had a lot of testing done. What I found interesting was that when s&w tested the different lots of ammo they produced the mench mark was to have the ammo stay within 100fps. If the es was under 100fps on a lot of ammo it went out to the shelves/stores.

Have the loads toned down some??? ABSOLUTELY!!!! I believe for the better. Reloading is nothing more than staying within the extremes. The old copper crusher testing equipment looked like a 4 x 4 with a 2" rod (bbl) sticking out if it. It was mounted to a table when in use. Modern testing equipment is mounted to firearms/bbl's and can actually test loads for position sensitivity for the 1st time. That's the muzzle up vs muzzle down thing. And yes not only does it affect velocity, it also affects pressure spikes. That's called reloading for the extremes.

Testing equipment is better, firearm mfg's are putting out extremely consistent products. The knowledge of reloaders and their ability to share their knowledge  is light years ahead of what reloaders in the 70's/80's had available to them. Heck I remember still sending bullets off to alliant in the early 90's and waiting 6 weeks for a reply from them with test load data I asked about.

Been at the reloading bench a lot of years and I can truly say the best thing I have ever bought to aid in reloading was a chronograph. Owned a chronograph since the 90's & will probably own one till the day I die. You want to kind out if the powder you're using has a diminished return, where it settles in at, is position sensitive or how temps affect a load. Other things like to crimp or not to crimp, simple changes in bullet diameter, expander plug size, harder or softer alloy are all picked up on with a chronograph. A lot of firearm related issues can be recognized with a chronograph. Things like inconsistent ignition, bbl wear, bullet/bore fit can be picked up on.

Quick loads is an excellent example of how far reloading manuals have come. We live in exciting times for reloaders.

speer @10 1982 vs current .357magnum

speer #10 __________________vs_____________http://www.hodgdonreloading.com/data/pistol

357 125 win296 21.6gr_________________22gr


357 158 win296 17.8gr_________________16.7gr

45ACP 230win231 5.6gr________________5.3gr

44mag 240 296 24.7gr_________________24gr

44mag 240 231 11.6gr_________________11gr

I wish I would have kept my 1970s Lyman reloading manual, they has some magnum handgun loads in there that were absolutely scary.

Other manuals, not so much, maybe a couple tenths difference over the years.

One difference that I did notice over the years was that several newer manuals now use real firearms to create the data, most of the older manuals were done with some kind of test barrel.

There's also the matter of powder changing over the years, Unique in particular, from old formula to new formula. I preferred the smokey old formula.

I'm not really sure about this question.

If I want to load 45ACP ball ammo, I go get the military specs for 45ACP.  I develop a load that gives me their velocity.  It's my primers and powder, my cases, my bullets, and my load.

I never got their speeds using their loads, anyway.  I gave up on that very early in my reloading career.  I use their data as a guideline, not as fact.

I have old loading manuals, Lyman #48, Speer and hornady , they were hotter loads, but just rifle bullets alone changed, look how long a bearing surface you got on these today compared to yrs ago, fine just so some yo-yo don't just lump the older bullets in the same batch as today's plastic tipped wonder bullet, sleek as a bullet can be, compared to the stumps we used to shoot. Ever look at any hornady v-max, or A max compared to the sp's of any caliber Hornady sells. Bearing surface much longer, bullet much longer, takes up more room in the case also.

A lot of new and old reloaders don't practice safe reloading protocols.
Sure equipment has evolved over time.
The biggest thing I think is people see an arbitrary # and that becomes their fantasy #.  They compare apples to oranges all the time!  
A factory data may have been made up with not vented 10" barrel vs the real world 5" barrel?
And, so and so forth.  People do not have quality test bbls that the big boys do use. Barrels can and do make a difference, and then does the chambering to..  Hence the long leade of factory barrels.

The vast majority do not own chronographs.  So some are just throwing out numbers to impress others!
They load to and expected velocity rather than having the facts from a chronograph and their equipment.  
Their components may not exactly match the components used to generate the data....brass case volume varies greatly in cases especially those bigger than say a 223.
Institutional (reloader error) with respect to accurate recording of their load specifics.  Failing to calibrate their scales etc. can lead to incorrect data.
Oh so many places for errors to occur!

And, those that do have chronographs are disappointed with their "real world" numbers.

This is pure, unadulterated truth.  

This reality is why I'm not so sure I understand what the OP was getting at with his question.  Was he expecting us to validate his misplaced desire to use a super hot load because someone got high velocities from a 10" 357 barrel and he wants to replicate that velocity from his 2" snubbie?  The question seems to imply potentially misguided thinking.

Back in the old days, all pressure was measured by having a hole in the chamber that a copper plug went into. When the gun was fired, the pressure compressed the copper plug. Measure the plug thickness and you have pressure. Then, pressure transducers came out and, what do you know, there were things going on that the copper plug didn't pick up. Suddenly there were pressure spikes, reflected pressure effects, and other things.
Now, the companies generate a real-time trace of pressure from ignition to bullet leaving the barrel.
Based on these numbers, it was found that a lot of loads were actually in the "unsafe" region for pressure and had to be lowered. Some of the more famous rifle "pet loads" were found to be producing over 70ksi.
Thus, as they learned more, charges were reduced.
Currently, each load has to meet requirements for:
 Maximum Average Pressure/Standard Deviation/Standard Error
 Maximum Probable Lot Mean
 Maximum Probably Sample Mean
 Maximum Extreme Variation
So, you should blame increased knowledge and ensuring that all ammunition is safe for all guns in good condition. Many manuals include the pressures they measured for each load, so you can see that they are near the current MAP, and not watered down.
Cartridges that were "watered down" because even the original guns they were chambered in couldn't handle the pressures without excessive wear are .357 Magnum and 10mm Auto.

Yep, the good part of that was that it taught me you had work up and often stop before book max.

I started hand loading in 1975.  To tell the truth it scared hell out of me and I used to be paid to play with high explosives like C-4 and the like.  Back then there were few manuals and most got their loads from the pamphlets the powder manufactures gave away.  From then to now loads have gone down.  This is due to various things.  Testing methods, Lawyers, and even mixtures of both powders and primers.  Even going from one lot of powder to a new lot of the same powder is cause to use a reduced starting load with it.

The one safety thing that stayed constant is the need to DOCUMENT EVERY load you use!  Then to break out the documentation instead of memory every time you load.

Second safety recommendation I have it to re-check your powder measure settings every 100 rounds you load.  It only takes a couple of minutes and will save you hours in the long run.  Most do not realize a light load can cause an explosion just as fast as a heavy one.  Saw that happen with a light load that launched the entire top end of a nice S&W Model 19 one day of a friend of mine with HIS loads.  That made me tear down a bunch of my loads just for peace of mind for me.  None of mine were short, but I attribute it to my paranoid re-checking habits.  Yes I am anal retentive also.  LOL

Is my way best?  For me yes, for you, that is up to you.  The only thing I would add is I still have all my fingers and eyes.  What are yours worth to you?

Most service rifle shooters are loading ammo well above book max and doing so safely.  That said, they know what they are doing, and the safe loads in general are well known within the sport.  They also expect to trash out their barrels every 3000 rounds.  Unless you really know what you are doing, know the signs to look for in your brass, and are confident in your QC practices, and have a real beneficial reason to do it - going beyond book-max is strongly ill-advised.

So yes, in general today's book loads are liability reduced below what they realistically could call "Max".  Just beware, because some of those reductions are liability based, and some of those reductions are better-data based.  And you don't know which is which.  I have some 1980's Speer books and they list some loads I just won't do.  I got something like 1/16" of extruded brass  into the ejector from one load in that manual - scared the bejesus out of me.  (1/16" may not sound like a lot, but when you pick up a casing and see that - that's a LOT).

One thing to keep in mind that when it comes to pushing past book-Max, there better be a reason you really want to do that.  For Home Defense ammo, I guess.  Just beware that the higher the pressure, the higher the chance of popping a primer and locking up your gun (done it).  That isn't going to help your home-defense situation.  My advice for HD ammo is to just buy commercial.  

For distance competition there is some advantage to speed, for wind drift and 1000 yard shooting for example.  For the most part, wind doesn't really show up that much even out to 200 yards.

Manufacturers also have to make ammunition that will operate in ANY correct chamber reliably and safely.

Pressure barrels are purposely made at the smaller end of bore, chamber, etc. to make sure tested ammunition will be safe in that 'minimum' dimension gun.

Performance in a larger chamber and larger bore then suffers.

I have strain gauge equipment to use when I need to.

It still runs into the 'calibration' issue that plagues every testing regimen.

There is simply no perfect way to calibrate for the very brief pulses of pressure produced in weapons.

Even the full up Piezo systems have problems.

While it IS possible to put a static load on a Piezo sensor for calibration that does not 'tell the tale' for measuring fast pulses.

The pulse shape itself (especially fast rise times) can be altered by the electronics that follow.

Circuits with larger bandwidth to deal with fast pulses always have more noise present in them.

Noise voltage is SQRT(kTBR)

k is Boltzmann's constant from physics.
T is absolute temperature of the equivalent source resistance.  Usually Kelvins but it has to match B.
B is the bandwidth of the circuit in Hz
R is its equivalent source resistance (very high for Piezo crystals) in ohms.


A similar equation applies if the output signal is current instead of voltage so no relief there.

There are any number of 'rules of thumb' for converting rise time to bandwidth requirements depending on how much error is tolerable.  0.35 divided by the rise time from 10% to 90% is a good first order but DOES alter very fast pulses.
While signal analysis can be performed mathematically to estimate effects of BW limiting it is still a touchy PITA process.

We used sets of amplifiers with increasing bandwidth in the lab to test with actual signals from sensors.
You can plot the changes in an important parameter (like rise time) and even compare them to the original signal.

This type of methodology lets you account for all those real world secondary effects and the 'unknown unknowns.'

Even the capacitance per foot,  cable impedance, and length of the sensor cable connecting it to the equipment matters. And theses cable parameters all have tolerances associated with them.

And based on the measured rise time things like cable length affect changes.

I started out with the SPEER #10, and still have all my fingers and no KABOOMS yet

...work up your loads and life is good.



Attached File