Question: Reloading Manuals

[DaveMonti]

Hello Reloaders,
I'm wondering if the publishers of reloading manuals have gotten more conservative over the past few decades.
I worked up my hunting load for my 7MM about 20 years ago.  I was using a Sierra manual, probably from around 1990.  I no longer have that manual, but have a newer one from Speer.  The load I had developed years ago has a higher powder charge than the maximum load in the Sierra manual.  I know my original load was not above the maximum load in the old Sierra manual. 
Have the maximum loads been reduced by the publishers due to liability concerns? 
I'm not going to change my load as I've used it for years and have not had any problems, and I'm shooting a Remington 700, which is a pretty strong action.  However, I will probably be working up new loads for some other calibers and am wondering if I should get an older manual and use that to determine the max loads.

Thanks!

[Smokeploe]

One of the things that does happen is that the batch number changes between the years of powder making.  What you used 20 years ago is still the same powder number but made with purer and better quality controlled materials so the charge may be reduced to get the same results.
So it is better to have a new book and an older one to check your loads.
Especially if you may still have an older batch of good powder.
Smokeploe

[300rum]

Powders have most definitely changed.  Many powders change lot to lot and have to be worked up whenever you change lots if you where on the bitter edge to begin with, especially rifle cartridges.  The best thing to do is to always buy powder in 8lb kegs and buy multiple same lot kegs when you do.  It surprises me just how many one pounders you see on the shelf.

Just remember that published data is just a guide, I use many loads that are well outside any published load data.  In fact, I haven't even opened up a book in a few years, what you need you will find for free on the internet with other's data or something like hodgdon.com.     

[DaveMonti]

I do realize that published data is just a guide, but the load I developed years ago is 5 grains more than the published maximum in the new manual. 
I don't shoot enough with this particular rifle to merit 8 lb kegs.  However, I do realize there are probably differences between powder lots, and possibly powder formulations over the course of a few decades.

Thanks!

[Biggerhammer]

Manuals are just a base, every rifle is different. If you like to play with max loads. Start at a mid point in the manual and toss it. Watch for pressure signs as you work the load up and stop where your comfortable. Reload enough and you can cross reference cartridges that are similar in case capacity from past expirience and reloading manuals gather dust. I go with what my cases, primers and chrony tell me.

[300rum]

You may want to search the internet with the particular powder you are using, you will probably find something on it if it varies lot to lot.  What powder are you using anyway?
 

[DaveMonti]

IMR-4350.  I'm not so worried about small variability from lot to lot, but I guess the variability might be larger than I suspect. 

[mountainman]

Some good advice and some some not. Always use a manual. Published and tested. Go up from there...

[bobcat]

Have you tried Hodgdon's online reloading data? They have data for IMR and Hodgdon powders.

 http://www.hodgdonreloading.com/data/rifle

[300rum]

Quick search showed some lot to lot inconsistency.  It also looks like it can be pretty temp. sensitive, that may be the very reason right there.  It wouldn't surprise me at all if they dropped the published max just because it is temp. sensitive.

[300rum]

It probably won't unless you are on the edge to begin with.  Most rifles I shoot like a certain powder charge, if I go much above or below that it I can see the difference.  This is where lot to lot it can make a difference.

For instance, last weekend I worked up a .308 load from 42gr of Varget to 43gr in .3 increments with 175gr tipped SMK's.  The groups closed smaller and smaller to 42.6gr (which where all touching).  At 43gr they opened up.  So, 4/10ths makes a big difference, that's about 16 kernels or so of powder, lot numbers can make a difference.     

IMR-4350.  I'm not so worried about small variability from lot to lot, but I guess the variability might be larger than I suspect.

[DaveMonti]

In doing some more researching, there is a lot of variability in published "maximum loads".  The variability I've seen in what is published as "maximum load" for the particular caliber and bullet weight is 5+ grains.  I suspect the "maximum load" published is what a particular publishers feel won't cause them any liability. 

Thanks for all your feedback.

[JDHasty]

Dave,

I spoke with a ballistics guy I know at Hodgdon and the ability to collect reliable pressure data is much better today. 

There is also liability issues and that means there is a lot of:  there is a better safe than sorry thing going on. 

I have an extensive vintage book collection and if you read C.S. Landis - - - having a gun blow up in your face was, if not acceptable at one point in time, it was part of being a "gun crank."

The pendulum seems to never stop in the middle and today I think that ultra-conservatism is what governs.  That being said, we had my best friend's Father's Complete Guide to Hand Loading and P. O. Ackley's loading manuals available to us back in the 1970's and in Phil Sharpe's and Ackley's day when it said "work up" they meant work up from the bottom and stop when you reached the max load for your gun and then back it off.  There may have been a gun that the "max load" was suitable for, but I never owned a rifle that it was appropriate for.

Today it impresses me that the "max load" is appropriate for all guns and I (in my infinite wisdom ) will take that as a challenge to go out looking for a source that will allow me the luxury of going beyond that while enjoying the privilege of pointing a finger at someone else if things go south.  Full disclosure, I want every foot per second I feel entitled to when I purchase a rifle and if I am not getting it I feel swindled. 

I know this is a pathology and it is nothing to be proud of, but if I bite...  I want what was expected and so long as I can find a reputable source to go beyond... you do the math.  This has only raised it's ugly head with the 204 Ruger cartridge and I never have got the advertised velocities and that is why it resides in my safe even though what I get is a great cartridge by any measure, I feel gypped - but that may be another sign of the times.  With my old tried and true 17 Rem, 22-250, 243 and especially with my Hornet I am getting what I paid for and then some. 

That being said, I stick with my tried and true 300 Wby load that has subsequently been increased since the day in 1992 that it was max.  It works every time it has been tried. 

[mountainman]

Too many additional variable other the powder lots, such as brand of brass, twist, throught and leade, etc...agree JD. Start low, work up watching for pressure signs and accuracy drops and gains. Seen too many blown barrels, missing fingers, and scarred faces to comment otherwise..

[JDHasty]

Too many additional variable other the powder lots, such as brand of brass, twist, throught and leade, etc...agree JD. Start loe, work up watching for pressure signs and accuracy drops and gains. Seen too many blown barrels, missing fingers, and scarred faces to comment otherwise..

Good advice!  I know people who work in the field and they have infinitely more respect for what they have first hand experience with, much more than we will ever know, than any guy that shoots a thousand rounds a year, more or less, than we will ever know.