[Staestc]

Is it just me, or do suggested loads in the current published manuals keep going down more and more every time they come out with a new manual?

I managed to find some older manuals online, at Castpics.com, and compared them to "today's" published data, and it seems like the data just keeps dropping each issue.

I understand that these guys have to publish data that will be safe in any potential firearm, and I understand they have a bevy of liability lawyers making sure they do so.

I ask, because I am wondering it the loads I am using based on the current data seem really light (I am starting at the low end) and am wondering it some of the failure to feed issues might be the fact that the loads for my XDm .45 might be too light for the spring configuration, and not the fact that I have have OAL too short or too long, etc.

Just wanted y'all's thoughts on this. (wow y'all's is a cool word)

Thanks

 

[steve4102]

What loads are you using?

If you are starting at the low end and are having cycling issues, bump it up to mid range or higher and see it it clears up.

 

[Axxe55]

sometimes load data can change due to different powder composition even in the same type powder. the powders made today can be very different from those even five years ago. so as newer load data books come out they will reflect these changes. always use the most current load data books available. i have several different ones and when one book shows a powder charge different than another, i start with the lowest one first then work up slowly as needed.

 

[locutus]

Maximum loads go down every time a new class graduates from law school.

 

[rjd3282]

I've got the last 3 Lyman editions and nothing has changed much in them. Some new powders and cartridges added that's all I see different.

 

[hiwall]

the loads listed can be changed to fit your needs and your gun. many reloaders have done their "own" loads. the listed loads are just their suggested loads. Nothing is stopping you from loading hotter or milder.

 

[1hole]

"wow y'all's is a cool word"

Off topic, and not that it matters much, but true Southern "yawl" is a single word. It's not a compound word; "you all" or "y'all" is iggerant yankee spelling.

All yawl have good day now, ya hear?

 

[Staestc]

"wow y'all's is a cool word"

Off topic, and not that it matters much, but true Southern "yawl" is a single word. It's not a compound word; "you all" or "y'all" is iggerant yankee spelling.

All yawl have good day now, ya hear?

I was commenting on the fact it has two apostrophes. I'm not southern. I was born and raised in Texas! Now my mom and wife, on the other hand, are southern (Alabama, Mississippi), but my dad's a coon *** (N'awlins)!

 

[JonM]

The reason load data can change is because often the test barrel or gun used changes. Always note what length barrel and type of action used to get the results printed.

One year it may be a 28inch barrel the next a 20. Velocities change greatly with barrel length.

If a load was done with a 16inch barrel and your using a 24inch you DO NOT want to start out out with max loads.

 

[tri70]

I have Lyman, Hornady and Nosler, the Lyman loads will show a little more powder in some recipes. I like the Nosler info the best for load data and COL but the Hornady has the latest information on 6.8 spc loads and new powders. I recently bought some Varmit powder and have good luck with it from the Alliant web site recipe. I will be checking the new manuals for the latest info on powders and bullets.

Also Nosler and Hornady both have service rifle data loads for heavier bullets.

 

[steve4102]

. I like the Nosler info the best for load data and COL

What Nosler manual do you have? I have #6 and it does not list COL for their loads tested. #6 does have a diagram of each cartridge showing SAAMI dimensions, but no info on what COL they used.

Page 43 of #6 explains how to "Determine the Proper Bullet Seating Depth for YOUR Gun."

I had Nolser #4, but I gave that to a friend and I can't remember if it listed COL or not.

 

[tri70]

The edition I have talks about 223 Rem as the most accurate col was 2.26" on the page with the round history and description.

 

[tri70]

I have the 6th edition of Nosler and 7th edition of Hornady and an old 48th edition of Lyman.

 

[Staestc]

It helps a lot to know the barrel length of the test gun and the COAL that they used to develop the test pressures. I like that Nosler #6 does talk about determining the COAL that is appropriate for your gun though.

It's just that when you figure that out, you kinda need to know the length they used for their pressure data so that you can figure out what your new found length is going to do to that pressure, if I understand things correctly.

Am I understanding this? Does that makes sense?

 

[steve4102]

It's just that when you figure that out, you kinda need to know the length they used for their pressure data so that you can figure out what your new found length is going to do to that pressure, if I understand things correctly.

Am I understanding this? Does that makes sense?

The length they used will have little affect on pressure as it pertains to your rifle. All chambers are all a little bit different. For example, lets say they used 3.230 OAL and were .050 off the lands in their test 30-06 rifle, if you seated the same bullet to 3.230 you may be .010, .020, .030 or even .080 off the lands in your rifle. That difference off the lands is what affects pressure.

Remember, the closer to the lands the higher the pressure. That is, the shorter you make your rounds the less the chamber pressure. This is true for bottle necked rifle rounds, just the opposite is true in straight walled handgun rounds.

 

[1hole]

"...just the opposite is true in straight walled handgun rounds."

Well, that's true for high pressure autoloader rounds that have a very short leade. Revolver loads tend to work more like rifles due to the much longer jump before hitting the lands.

 

[billt]

Maximum loads go down every time a new class graduates from law school.

This is very true. I have over 2 dozen loading manuals, some of them dating back to the late 60's and early 70's. The published data in the manuals from 40 years ago is substantially hotter, (even with identical length barrels, firearms and powders), than the newer manuals. The legal profession, along with the way law schools have over saturated society with lawyers, is the main reason why.

This is why the whole "Don't shoot 5.56 MM in a .223 chamber", argument is unworthy of all of the discussion it receives. I can retrieve .223 data from older manuals that is hotter than today's published 5.56 MM data which is meant to be shot only in freebored 5.56 MM chambers. It much the same with a lot of the Weatherby Magnum published data. Part of the reason for this is because back then Weatherby was the only manufacturer making rifles in the Weatherby calibers, except for a few custom rifle makers. Today Remington, Howa, as well as others make rifles in the Weatherby Magnum calibers. Most of them do not have the freebore built into the chambers, like the factory produced Weatherby's do. The fact remains the data conflicts because of how badly it is downloaded in today's modern manuals.

I have no reason to load at, or even near the red line when I handload. But it is interesting to see how this has taken place across the board in today's manuals compared to decades before. A load is either safe, or it is not. Time itself isn't going to make a safe maximum load more dangerous now than it was then.

 

[locutus]

^^^^^^^ Right on Bill.

My "standard" 9MM load with 115 FMJ and 8.0 grains of a popular powder is a good, safe load that I've use for 40 years in a dozen guns.

Todays manuals list 7.4 grains of that same powder as max.