Old reloading manuals
Other than a hoarding/pack rat mentality why would/should one keep reloading manuals from the mid to late 1970s? I mean, many new powders have been introduced, new pressure rating techniques and methods. Powder burn rate charts are incomplete. I guess some ballistics and conversion charts are still relevant and basic reloading instructions are the same. But still, how can you trust a book that has the pictures of people who wrote the material that are dressed all funny looking. I don't know, back then I trusted and reloaded to that data (probably dressed all funny looking,too). However, I would not load to it now unless it was a load I had shot extensively (i.e. my 44 mag Blue Dot load). I would also suppose that if one were to send them to the trash he should probably first make them unreadable. As some of the loads have now been shown to be unstable and dangerous he would not want someone else to dig it out of the trash, use it and get hurt. (seems somehow like sacrilege though) What do you all think?
0
-
You would be surprised how long powder last if properly stored. You may need data that matches powder age. 0 -
BESIDES, SOME OF THEN LET YOU GO A LITTLE 'FASTER'[;)] 0 -
What Mike said, there weren't near as many lawyers in the gun and powder business back in the day.
W.D.0 -
I tossed some of my old manuals. Belatedly compared the #s between a new and an older copy ... some changes but many remained the same. Now just a greater selection of powders. And of course some of the powders from way back are not available to most folks now.
Found many of the tables had changed very little or not at all!0 -
It's because you will find loads for cartridges that aren't made anymore, or for bullets there are no weights on now.
The old data was good data then, no sense in throwing it out.[;)]0 -
Let's say you want to load 4895 or Bullseye or whatnot... those haven't changed since the 40s (4895) or since the teens (Bullseye). Often older manuals have more data for them vs. the new manuals loaded up with data for all the fancy new powders and new cartridges. As I load a lot of antique cartridges, the old manuals are invaluable. 0 -
It wasn't until the 70s that all labs actually did pressure testing. Before that, many of them used TLAR (That Looks About Right) eyeball examinations of the fired case and primer to determine "safe" maximum loads. Even those labs that did test used the copper crusher system, which is subject to a lot of subjective interpretation and depends on the measurement skills of the lab tech.
Neither method is anywhere near good enough.
So when you see loads and velocities in an old book that far exceed what is printed today, it is NOT an abundance of lawyers, but improvement in testing gear that result in lower - and safer - loads today.
Guns are designed with safety margins, but those margins are there to handle the very rare event where everything goes wrong, NOT regular use of over-pressure loads. You cannot ignore stress fatigue for long.
Old manuals are valuable for the time you stumble across a powder they don't make any more, and for general interest reading. But they shouldn't be used for loading with today's components.0 -
well one example is the .35 Whelen, I've got an older Speer book that has some very good loads for what then was a 'wildcat' cartridge. then Remington came along and made it a factory loading at much lower pressures (thank you SAAMI [xx(]). I still use the old data. 0 -
If it is Speer #8, you might want to think twice. There are some loads in that manual that are above proof-load pressure - because of an error in the calibration tables for one lot of copper slugs.
Mistakes happen, and just because it got printed doesn't magically make it safe.0 -
As rocky says:
"Old manuals are valuable for the time you stumble across a powder they don't make any more, and for general interest reading. But they shouldn't be used for loading with today's components."
Just for fun,I still load 32-40's with "Sharpshooter" or "Lightning".
Try looking those up in your Funk & Wagnals!0 -
For that matter, try looking up the .32-40 in a current manual! I should have mentioned obsolete cartridges as well as powders. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rocky Raab
For that matter, try looking up the .32-40 in a current manual! I should have mentioned obsolete cartridges as well as powders.
That's alright... it was covered[;)]0 -
Never, ever, throw away old manuals !
As others have pointed out, they have data for obsolete powders and cartridges.
My first manual was the Lyman #42 because it was current when I started reloading.
Over the years I have acquired a number of newer manuals as new cartridges, powders and bullets became available. Also a 1947 reprint of the 1941 Second edition of "Complete Guide to Handloading" by Philip B. Sharpe.
I still have supplies of some powders that I purchased new but which are no longer available. I have also from time to time acquired other "obsolete" powders.
With my collection of manuals I can almost always find a use for any powder.
If you load some of the older cartridges you will often find more data in some of the older manuals than you do in the newer ones.
And if you load some of the really old or obsolete calibers you will find a book like the one by Sharpe invaluable. Of course a lot of the powders listed are no longer available but many others are (e.g. Unique, 2400, 4227, 3031, 4198, Bullseye, etc.).0 -
"If it is Speer #8, you might want to think twice. ".......actualy it is the #7. I've used the .35w loads in several rifles w/no problens & v. good case life. 0 -
If I didn't have my Lyman # 47 I couldn't use up my W-785 , which is the Cat's Pajamas in the .243 with 100Gr. Bullets ! 0 -
oneoldsap, here's an insider tip: the 243 Win is THE reason Winchester discontinued W785. With light bullets, it can produce random spikes of extreme pressure. The 243 is the reason for several discontinued Winchester slow Ball powders, in fact. It is simply a very quirky cartridge with slow powders and light bullets - doubly so with slow spherical powders.
If you like it with 100s, that's probably fine. Just don't go to any lighter bullets with it.0 -
Rocky , it's the only Powder that will give Factory claimed Velocity with 100 Gr. Bullets . Sierra Game Kings to be exact ! 0 -
OK guys....is it Speer #7 or #8 that has incorrect info? Can either of you (Rocky and Mike) give more details, e.g., specific cartridges? I have a Speer #8 that I used periodically years ago, until I bought a later version....if it's #8, I'd like to put a prominent warning notice in it for future generations.
Although maybe said warning notice should go into all my old manuals...[B)]0 -
It is Speer #8. Unfortunately, even Speer's records don't go back that far to pinpoint EXACTLY which loads are the dangerous ones. But a simple comparison to data published either before or after that ought to be indicative. They caught MOST of them in Speer #9. When in doubt, don't. 0 -
I'd be very careful using some of that old data. I've got an old Hornady reloading manuel Volume II published 1973. When I first started loading many years ago I bought the old manuel at an auction sale. I found an interesting load for 45/70 in it. 50.6 grains of IMR 4227 behind a Hornady 300 grain jacketed hp. They were recomended for Ruger#1, I shot them in my Marlin 1895, (50 grains even), it shot great too. Anyway after shooting it several years, hundreds of round and a few deer with that load my buddy finally convinced me to contact IMR about the load. I called IMR powder labs and at that time spoke with a Bill Cole. He was very concerned and said if I promised not to shoot anymore of those loads, he'd run a lot of my handloads through their pressure barrel. If they were safe or dangerous he'd let me know. I loaded up 10 rounds in brand new brass and sent them to him. About 2 weeks later I was just sitting down for dinner when he called, they ran 5 rounds through their barrel and quit. Average velocity was 2387, average pressure was 63,300CUP, the 5th load was 65,600+CUP. I still have the Ballistics Test sheet Bill Cole sent me, it hangs on my wall above the loading bench, I'm looking at it as I type this.
I NEVER had a blown primer, I NEVER had a sticky case, I NEVER had a loose primer with this load.Dave0 -
quote:Originally posted by use enough gun
I'd be very careful using some of that old data. I've got an old Hornady reloading manuel Volume II published 1973. When I first started loading many years ago I bought the old manuel at an auction sale. I found an interesting load for 45/70 in it. 50.6 grains of IMR 4227 behind a Hornady 300 grain jacketed hp. They were recomended for Ruger#1, I shot them in my Marlin 1895, (50 grains even), it shot great too. Anyway after shooting it several years, hundreds of round and a few deer with that load my buddy finally convinced me to contact IMR about the load. I called IMR powder labs and at that time spoke with a Bill Cole. He was very concerned and said if I promised not to shoot anymore of those loads, he'd run a lot of my handloads through their pressure barrel. If they were safe or dangerous he'd let me know. I loaded up 10 rounds in brand new brass and sent them to him. About 2 weeks later I was just sitting down for dinner when he called, they ran 5 rounds through their barrel and quit. Average velocity was 2387, average pressure was 63,300CUP, the 5th load was 65,600+CUP. I still have the Ballistics Test sheet Bill Cole sent me, it hangs on my wall above the loading bench, I'm looking at it as I type this.
I NEVER had a blown primer, I NEVER had a sticky case, I NEVER had a loose primer with this load.Dave
Something is goofy with that. Currently Hodgdon shows 55 gr. of H4198 behind that bullet and only getting 27,000 CUP. Accurate shows 57 gr. of AA2015 behind that bullet. Both of those powders are very close to IMR4227 in speed and all are single base powders, so no surprise pressure curves. The fact you weren't getting any pressure signs doesn't surprise me in the least. Remember there are three different loading levels for these rifles, excluding black powder. The hottest is the Ruger #1 and #3 and the Browning 1885. For those Hodgdon loads 62 gr. of H4198. If you had had the least bit of overpressure with that load it would have been really difficult to operate the lever.
So, I'll reiterate what we usually say here in CS&R, Find a SAFE starting point and work up. Looking for pressure signs. Check velocities if you can to verify loads are about what they should be. In your lever gun you would have 'felt' a very hard to work action long before you reached 60K+ pressures.
I'll stand by hanging on to your old manuals for powders, bullets and cartridges that are no longer published. It's a good place to start. And, FWIW, they did do a lot of testing back in the day with what they had. No, it isn't what it is today. If not for a couple technical mix-ups(typos misplaced/miswritten data), all the data is a good place to start in the old manuals. And the testing was not, "that looks about right". It was true to what they had at the time.0 -
A couple years after the 'high pressure loads' I bought a Winchester Hi-Wall in 45/120, the rifle was built in 1888 and still had the original barrel. The barrel had been chambered in 32/40 and the gunsmith I bought it from had it rebored and cut to 45. At the time I wasn't real interested in Black Powder and the latest Lyman reloading manuel had some smokeless loads for that chambering. I didn't really like the half full case of powder and I'd also picked up a Hock mold of 604 grains for it. I bought a Powley Computer and used that to calculate chamber pressures. I was still a bit uncomfortable with this method but it seemed to work. One day I did a bit of research and came up with Homer Powley's telephone number. I called him up and we talked for about an hour, he was a very nice old guy and was happy to answer all my questions. I told him about my little deal with the 45/70 and the pressures IMR had come up with. He told me he believed they were correct and that with the big straight wall case it probably clenched the chamber and not exibited alot of bolt thrust as seen on bottleneck cases.
Anyway, that was his opinion on the matter and I tend to believe him. Both rifles are still in use and seem no worse for wear. Dave0 -
The case may have "clenched" the chamber (much like Ackley and WSSM bottleneck cases do). But at some point there would be a melting of the case head into the bolt face and that would make the cartridge hard to work out of a lever action... EXTREMELY HARD.
I'll stand by what I said that the load you had was nowhere close to 60K+ pressure. However, if you feel you've got to knock it down to be safe, then that IS the best thing to do. I can't disagree that if something is bugging you about your load, BACK OFF! Your face, my face and the whole face of reloading is better when we do that. Bottom line is you did the right thing by stopping and checking.
I think too, there is something this thread needs to differentiate. That is the newest, latest, greatest information on our ol' favorite loads versus what we always worked up. There is a lot of truth in what a Piezo electric pressure transducer can tell us that a stack of copper rings could not. That being there is a lot less forgiveness with a load at the top end than the bottom. I found this out a bunch working with the .25 WSSM. There is a slew of good powders for it that weren't in the book. I ended up starting sometimes at a grain or two OVER max! Even for me that was a very uncomfortable feeling. What I really would have appreciated at the time was something to tell me the why's of what powder was causing too much pressure and heat.
That said, that is why I preach keeping the old manuals to give you a starting point. You need to work your loads up safely. Don't go by what the manual says for top end. Even today with the newer manuals! Your rifle may be tighter than the international pressure barrel the powder/bullet/cartridge company did the load tests with. If you are seeing pressure signs a grain and a half below what the book says, THEN STOP! You will get what you get with that powder/bullet combo. Understand powder and primer burn rates (reasons) and then work for a better combo if you want more velocity. And, understand when you are going to get all the velocity you possibly can and don't try to blow your face off getting that last little bit.
My point here is old manuals, everywhere I've found, give you a safe place to start. When you come across a cartridge no one can find anything on, old manuals can help with a place to start. It is up to you the reloader to work it up safely. And, learn to be satisfied when you get to the best load you can for that cartridge for the firearm you have.0 -
I keep copies of Phil Sharpe's, Elmer Keith, Speer #5, Ackley's & NRA Handloading , among newer manuals for perspective.
As was said, some older manuals have a lot more loads for calibers popular at the time and also loads for obsolete cartridges.
I chronographed loads from old data for the 41 Long Colt that were right on the money.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
24 comments