Old recipe deemed Unsafe in new manuals. Suggestions?

[asd9055]

Out of curiosity, was the max load you were shooting a compressed load?

96.7 %, so not compressed.

 

[TRexF16]

You didn't miss it. I just did not want to get sidetracked with caliber and bullet choices.
Thanks.

Ok,
Makes it harder to help but it's your thread. The current Nosler data is of course, online. I don't believe Sierra's nor Hornady's is but could be wrong. Feel free to PM me if you want anything looked up.

Cheers,
Rex

 

[Jack E]

New, more accurate methods were discovered to measure pressure and some loads were found to be over pressure. That and lawyers have caused the loads to be reduced. But who knows, the reduced loads may be more accurate.

Use max loads from old reload manuals and no pressure problems and better accuracy. Always play it safe but use a little common sense. If you have used same loads on same rifle for thirty years what would common sense tell you?

 

[xsn10s]

Working in quality control for almost my entire career I will agree that powder burn rates from lot to lot may differ and also bullet dimensions from lot to lot as well as primers. HOWEVER, all of these components, including brass have tolerances that must be maintained in order to pass inspection and released for use. Manuals are written with these changes in mind and for safety lean toward the low end of the spectrum.
In this case using IMR4350 I am quite positive that the burn rate today is the same as it was when the powder originally hit the market (within its tolerance). If the powder's burn rate changes significantly it would have been given a different designation and new data developed for it.

I agree that there are certain tolerance within the manufacturer's specs. So with the new manaul's load data that may reflect either changes in the specs, changes in the testing results, or liability. That still doesn't change the well accepted safety standard of start low and work your way up. Like others have mentioned the load manuals are just guidelines. Reloader's scale calibration, rifle chambering, and bore dimensions all come into play. But it's a free country and people can do what they want.

 

[Lenny Foffa]

Wow this is a Great topic!!! I have that very same question and safety concerns !!!!Loads for my 270 Weatherby Mag , in a Weatherby Mark V , from the Hornady Book, Volume 2 . 67.2 Grns of IMR 4350 with a 130 Grn Horn Spire Point ( page 165 ) This was my load for Mule deer and antelope in 1980, and the max load was 68.9 Grns of 4350 for 3400 fps from a 26 inch BBL. I cannot see that load in any manual I have purchased in the past 3 years?? The Berger Book says that powder formulations have changed over the years???? I wish the powder companies would release a clear statement to help people who are concerned.

 

[asd9055]

Ok,
Makes it harder to help but it's your thread. The current Nosler data is of course, online. I don't believe Sierra's nor Hornady's is but could be wrong. Feel free to PM me if you want anything looked up.

Cheers,
Rex

Thanks! after going back and reading the reply from Hodgdon, really, the primers are much hotter now than then. Maybe metallurgy of bullets changed, i.e., is the Ballistic Tip, for example, the same today as it was in the late 80's? (design is, but how about metallurgy, friction, etc.)
Also, I am just curious how many others have noticed significant changes in load guidlines for old loads.

 

[bullet man]

that's why I keep the old ones around start at max with the same powder new manual if I don't get the velocity where I want I go to the old book and you get a few grains to play with

 

[xsn10s]

Maybe metallurgy of bullets changed, i.e., is the Ballistic Tip, for example, the same today as it was in the late 80's? (design is, but how about metallurgy, friction, etc.)

The BT has changed over the years. At least that's what the guys at Nosler told me. They said once the Ultra Mags became popular they beefed up the jackets on the calibers that were affected. As far as metallurgy I'm not sure and would not think that has changed since the jackets are extruded.

 

[SFMongo]

Double check other references. Bullet manufacturers show higher loads than powder manufacturers usually. Hodgdon to me is quite conservative. I use shootersreference dot com to check my loads and then double check with what I have in my load book... I'm just a rookie compared to all y'all but my limited experience is that when it comes to load data everybody disagrees. I also use the close focus research page that lets you put you bullet and barrel data in along with velocity to give you you're chamber pressure. I use that with load data before I go to the range and also with data from shooting on the range. This will give you info to compare it to the SAAMI max for your rifle.. Sorry I didn't mean for this to be so long winded and I am probably stating stuff you guys already know or have better information on than I do.

 

[436]

Back in the 80's I had a recipe with IMR4350 from Lyman's 46th edition that gave me less than 1/2", 5 shots at 100 yards. According to the book, it was at the Max, but no pressure signs. Used this until late 90's when I retired the rifle.
I like to shoot that rifle again and perhaps try the load in a few others I have. (Its a Magnum round with Remington 9 1/2 Large Rifle Primer, not the magnum primer)

Current loading manuals (and for apple to apple conparison, Lyman's 49th edition) have the Max at a full 6 grains lower. IMR (Hodgdon) claims the powder has not changed.
Should I start at the much lower load and work my way up again? I hate to burn supplies in these market conditions, but Safety is ALWAYS Rule #1.

I see load data in my reloading manuals that drop the charge after a few manual changes. I still use the old ones if they've worked for me in the same rifle(s). With said has the new information that comes out and new publications of manuals and data I think the company attorneys get involved and the CYA effect gets put into play in the manual data. With that said be safe as others have said here, if you don't feel right about a load always error on the side of "less is best" and work up slowly no matter where you get the data from. Good luck.

 

[asd9055]

Double check other references. Bullet manufacturers show higher loads than powder manufacturers usually. Hodgdon to me is quite conservative. I use shootersreference dot com to check my loads and then double check with what I have in my load book... I'm just a rookie compared to all y'all but my limited experience is that when it comes to load data everybody disagrees. I also use the close focus research page that lets you put you bullet and barrel data in along with velocity to give you you're chamber pressure. I use that with load data before I go to the range and also with data from shooting on the range. This will give you info to compare it to the SAAMI max for your rifle.. Sorry I didn't mean for this to be so long winded and I am probably stating stuff you guys already know or have better information on than I do.

Interesting website. Thanks

 

[xsn10s]

I see load data in my reloading manuals that drop the charge after a few manual changes. I still use the old ones if they've worked for me in the same rifle(s). With said has the new information that comes out and new publications of manuals and data I think the company attorneys get involved and the CYA effect gets put into play in the manual data. With that said be safe as others have said here, if you don't feel right about a load always error on the side of "less is best" and work up slowly no matter where you get the data from. Good luck.


View attachment 290984

We have a lot of the same books/ manuals. You have an excellent library Sir!

 

[jdyoung]

Lyman 46 Edition, 180 grn bullet, IMR4350 71-79 grns (at 79 grns I had 5 shots, 1/2" back in 80's through 1998 when I reitred the rifle)
Lyman 49 Edition, 180 grn bullet, IMR 4350 68.5-73 grns
Nosler Number 3 180 grn bullet, IMR 4350 73-76 grns
Nosler Current (Number 7 to now) 180 grn IMR 70.5-74.5 grns
Like I said, I am very safety minded and will work up again, but if powders have not changed, did primers change that much?

What primers do the above manuals list for each load ? You wrote that your original load used Remington 91/2 Large Rifle Primers in a magnum round/cartridge. The Remington 91/2 LR primers have the least brisance ( explosive/shattering capability) of rifle primers. Those Remington primers could be the key to that old load being safe.
Lil story:
When I acquired my 7mm Wby Mag, it was used. I took it to the range. As per my rule #5,- use factory rounds in a newly acquired rifle, I used Factory Weatherby rounds. Fired the first round, bolt was hard to open. Stopped right there, saddled up and headed for the local noted gunsmith ( who is also a long range shooter). He inspected the rifle, gave it a clean bill, but took a box of Remington 7mm Wby Mag rounds from his shelf and tried them in my rifle at his little range. Said the difference was in the Remington Primer which resulted in a lower pressure. Worked fine. No bolt stick. I shot them, sighted in the rifle with no more problems.
Still an all proceed with caution.

 

[5gauss]

Let common sense prevail. Nothing has changed but society. Old loads worked back then, they work now. You know what you are doing as a hand loader so continue on safely as you have in the past....