Using Older Data, Consensus

[kenhwind]

What is the consensus on using some of the older data?
Like most of you I have my older reloading manuals, especially Lyman's.

It seems to me that there is quite a bit of disparity between manuals using the same weight and type of bullet. In my case I am referring to the .38 Super 130 grain FMJ. The only difference being primer of bullet brand.

One of my Lyman manuals mention improvements in pressure testing equipment, okay I go that. I also know that Speer published a chart that showed considerable deviation using the same .357 loads in different revolvers, same model and barrel length.

I am not looking for top ends loads; Lyman has published some loads I wouldn't even consider using again.

What I was looking for was a .38 Auto load for the Colt Pocket Hammer and the loads listed in Lyman's 46th Ed has loads listed that fit into the specification s for the .38 Auto/1040 FPS, with a CUP listed below the rating for the .38 Auto.

I know they like to state that the new data supersede all previous data, but does it?

 

[Dimner]

Yes it does. Because the burn rates and case capacities of components from 20-40 years ago are different than today.

However, that doesn't mean you need to ignore or toss old reloading data. It just means be very conservative with your starting loads when using old data. Also, I wouldn't trust their max loads, just use common sense and don't hot rod your loads based on old data.

Using these techniques, I've done this many times with obsolete cartridges and reloading data back to the late 1930s and never had a problem.

 

[Bronsin]

The only SPEER data I look at is their reduced rifle loads with AA5744 and SR4759. I find most of their max loads are out of the He Man Handloading manual.

 

[dellet]

Sadly I’ve seen new data, with new equipment, be as un safe as some old data and worse. You just never know.

With something like your 1903, it’s worth comparing old and new data. If the powder still exists. Hornady 9th has 38 auto loads, not sure about the later versions. The current Sierra manual has about a dozen powders.

Comparing the Sierra 6th edition to Phil Sharpe 1941 2nd edition mi/max loads for 125 grain bullet

Sierra
Bullseye 4.0 1050 fps, 4.3 1100 fps.
Unique 5.1 1100 fps, 5.6 1150 fps.

Sharpe
Bullseye 2.5 755 fps, 4.0 1100 fps, 4.7 1145 fps
Unique 4.0 830 fps, 4.6 915 fps, 7.0 1270 fps.

130 grain bullet loads
Sharpe
Bullseye 2.5 760 fps, 3.0 805 fps, 5.3 1225 fps.
Unique. 4.0 770 fps. 4.7 890 fps. 7.7 1310 fps.

Max loads as per Sharpe “breech pressure 35,000 psi”
Sierra does not list their max pressure.

Hope that helps a bit.

 

[Doom]

Not all previous data was actually pressure tested. Some vendors simply used the same methods we employ by looking at primers, case head indications and belt lift to determine a maximum safe load. Remember that maximum safe load may or may not be a maximum pressure load.

 

[kenhwind]

I will be using Unique, which has been pretty consistent, as well as Sierra 125 grain FMJ which essentially creates a reduced load over the 130 grain, and is comparable to the Hornady data. So, yes, I looked and checked and cross-referenced my information.
Lyman lists CUP for the loads I was referencing, as they use to borrow Winchester's test barrels on the weekend.

Oh, I fully understand that everything is a variable.

 

[mike mccormick]

Even in modern reloading manuals, you will find great disparity in data. Keep in mind, this data is just a guide, so start a little low and work up using smart reloading practices.