Valid reloading manual data?

[snapshotmd]

I'm just getting back into reloading after a 10 yr hiatus.
I have the Speer #11 and the Lyman 47th reloading manuals. Now I know that some powders in these manuals are no longer made, but for the ones that are still available, is this data still valid? Someone told me that it was important to keep updating the manuals because powder manufacturers change formulations from year to year without changing the name. Myth or reality???

 

[PresentArms]

I still use my Lyman 47th reloading manual from time to time

 

[GNLaFrance]

Myth or reality???

Reality often enough to heed the advice. One of my reloading books here has that warning in it.

 

[Pyramid]

Probably a good idea to pick up a new manual. Some of the loads have been slightly reduced for new powder formulations, bullet selection, etc. Some of the new bullet designs have more bearing surface, etc., thus old loads may be too hot.

 

[snapshotmd]

But is W231 in 1999 the same as W231 in 2009?

 

[tdt91]

Good to see you here K. I had a great time at the range today, wish you couldv'e went with us.
I am a beginner to reloading but if you are using powder and bullets that you used years ago, and just bringing it out of storage then I think you would want to stick with your old formula.
the 9s I shot today were my weakest loads and it caused a couple of FTE and stove pipes. It is good to experience the differences. My FIL shot his new 40 today using W wht box. What seemed strange to me was that some cases ejected really far and some did not. I guess thats why its WWB. Anyway, didn't mean to change the subject on your thread. Just get lots of those 45s loaded so you can load em again. See ya soon.
btw, I got the new Lee mnual on line for 13 bucks + shipping. I like it much more than the Speer. Lots more info about everything.

 

[snapshotmd]

Hey 2T! I wish I had the time to go with you guys. It would've been nice to stretch the shooting muscles again. Things have changed since I've been doing this last; things weren't so hard to get!
It is a good point to get load data with today's powders, although I doubt they would change the formula and give it the same name. Just seems to me too much risk involved, I mean Winchester, and others, wouldn't want to blow up their customers.hehe But I guess it's better safe than sorry.
Anyway, it’s too bad Hercules isn't around anymore; I really liked Bullseye for the 38. Oh well, back to the drawing board!

 

[Slimjim]

Hey 2T! I wish I had the time to go with you guys. It would've been nice to stretch the shooting muscles again. Things have changed since I've been doing this last; things weren't so hard to get!
It is a good point to get load data with today's powders, although I doubt they would change the formula and give it the same name. Just seems to me too much risk involved, I mean Winchester, and others, wouldn't want to blow up their customers.hehe But I guess it's better safe than sorry.
Anyway, it’s too bad Hercules isn't around anymore; I really liked Bullseye for the 38. Oh well, back to the drawing board!

Alliant bought hercules Bullseye powder is still being made.

 

[novus collectus]

But is W231 in 1999 the same as W231 in 2009?

I would not bet my fingers on it. If you must, as always they say to start with the lowest and lightest loading first and work it up to be safe. If you have a chronograph, you can see if the loading data is at least close to current.

 

[Biggfoot44]

WW231 should be the same, so much as anything allows for usual lot to lot variations. Since Hogdons has aquired didtribution rights to Win brand powders a few years ago, they went public that HP38 is actually WW231 in Hogdon container.
2400 HAS changed significantly. Current formulation needs to reduce aprox 11% to match pressure/ vels of "historic" 2400.
That being said, you can't have too many loading manuals, and Hogdon ( aka IMR aka Win) has huge amount of Data on line .

 

[E.Shell]

The problem with old data has nothing to do with powder formulations or bullet shapes, it's that pressure testing has since evolved to show that many loads shown in old manuals are a bit over the top.

A given powder formulation is still tested and adjusted to deliver the same performance it always did. Powders are blended to provide quite specific performance parameters that conform to the specification for that particular powder type.

Bullets made in earlier days that are still in production had stayed relatively uniform and those that do change slightly are still so close that the standard advice to work up loads for your own set of components still keeps one out of trouble.

Back in the 60s & 70s, publishers of some manuals were no better equipped to actually measure pressure that we (hobbyists) are. They "read" pressure signs shown on fired brass and used those signs to estimate pressure. Many of the older manuals went into a lot of detail about how they monitored pressures, with gradients based on primer appearance, extrusion into the ejector bores, case head diameter changes and effort required for primary extraction. Brass lots showed different tolerance for pressure and it was said again and again to carefully work up to those loads shown as maximum, which is STILL good advice.

Those days, the more sophisticated bullet manufacturers, the primary publishers of reloading data in those days, had "crusher system" pressure monitoring equipment. The crusher system for metallic cartridges use a copper rod which is deformed and the deformation measured, which provided a value in "copper units of pressure" ("CUP"). Shotshells operate at much lower pressures and were measured with lead crushers ("LUP").

Calculations are made to convert these mashed rods into an **estimate** of actual chamber pressure in PSI.

In the 80s and 90s, most publishers of reloading manuals procured strain gauges (one step up) and then piezoelectric measurement devices, or simply sent their loads out to HP White Laboratories for piezoelectric monitoring.

The modern pressure sensing devices can give us extremely accurate readings directly in PSI, and can also document the actual pressure curve in real time. Peak pressure is only part of the story, and being able to monitor the entire pressure curve led to the realization that many powders are rather unsuitable and these were dropped from the data.

After being able to actually measure pressures and seeing that many loads were much higher than SAAMI limits, in spite of not showing pressure signs with the brass at hand, there was general panic and almost every load listed was reduced by 5% or more.

I bought the second Sierra manual when it came out. I have the current edition and the differences are HUGE.

Another aspect of publishing reloading data that most folks don't realize is that many bullet manufacturers do not have the means to fully test every listed powder, and wherever testing leaves off, that load is shown as "Max", whether it reaches pressure limits or not.

All this means three things:

1) Get a modern manual.
2) Work up gradually from the starting loads using extreme care.
3) Do not panic if you find that your tops loads are slightly more than those published. Components and firearms DO vary, and it could be that the particular load you've selected was not tested to the pressure limit.

 

[jjboxman]

WW231 should be the same, so much as anything allows for usual lot to lot variations. Since Hogdons has aquired didtribution rights to Win brand powders a few years ago, they went public that HP38 is actually WW231 in Hogdon container.
2400 HAS changed significantly. Current formulation needs to reduce aprox 11% to match pressure/ vels of "historic" 2400.
That being said, you can't have too many loading manuals, and Hogdon ( aka IMR aka Win) has huge amount of Data on line .

+1 for getting the current data on-line, do it all the time.

 

[Fustercluck]

But is W231 in 1999 the same as W231 in 2009?

The answer to this specific powder is, yes, WW231 is the same. Have been using the same load in 9mm thru .45 since 1995. It chronos the same now as it did then.

This tidbit of reloading history shouldn't dissuade you from getting the latest data, though, for the reasons already spelled out by the other posters.
D

 

[K-Romulus]

Question for you guys:

Where should I look for a reloading manual for reloading:

.224 50gr Varmint Grenade bullets (for .223)
using
"Wolf" lead-free small rifle primers?

I've seen data for other primers, but not the "lead free" ones. Do the manuals even exist? Or is it a "load light and work it up" situation? Thanks for the help.

 

[duckslayer]

My 1970 era Speer manual starts at about the middle load for todays info and goes up in excess of any other info you will see today. That ind i dont use the top loads my father did back in the day. I can also say from experience that 2400 is not the same. Elmer Keiths loads are too hot!!!

 

[GNLaFrance]

Get this book

Modern Reloading 2nd Edition by Richard Lee

This has the most comprehensive load data available in a book. LEE also has great customer service that will answer any question about reloading, and it doesn't matter whose reloading tools you use.

 

[novus collectus]

Question for you guys:

Where should I look for a reloading manual for reloading:

.224 50gr Varmint Grenade bullets (for .223)
using
"Wolf" lead-free small rifle primers?

I've seen data for other primers, but not the "lead free" ones. Do the manuals even exist? Or is it a "load light and work it up" situation? Thanks for the help.

There are reloading books/manuals and there are reloading booklets. I don't think I still have them, but at one time Bay Country Guns had a bunch of booklets of loading data from a number of different powder manufacturers, so you can sometimes pick up one for data just for your particular brand IIRC.
Never tried it, but I assume you could ask for a booklet for free from the powder's manufacturer.

 

[rickyp]

most major manufactures have on line data now days.

go to the powder makers website and look for data.

I still have several older manuals and use them. I always check several sources before I come up with a starting load and I then work up.

Remember that a manual is not an end all source they are just stating what the person doing the testing got with what they are using. every firearm is a rule in it's self.