Quite a difference.

Ben

Moderator
Staff member
A comparison of load data that is 40 years vs. today's modern load data :
_____________________________
Here is today's load data with Herco Powder.

.357 Magnum Handgun (Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook)

.357%20Magnum65.gif

Warning! Notes: cases: Federal; trim-to length: 1.285"; primers: CCI 550; primer size: Small Pistol Magnum; Lyman shell holder: No. 1; cast bullets used size to .357" dia.; firearm used: Universal Receiver and Special Vented Barrel; barrel length: 4"; twist: 1-18 3/4"; groove diameter: .356"
Be Alert: Publisher cannot be responsible for errors in published load data.
Wt. Bullet Powder Manufacturer Powder Charge Velocity (FPS) Favorite?
158 Cast #358311 Alliant Herco 6.3 963
Remarks: sugg. start load; 18,700 cup
158 Cast #358311 Alliant Herco 7.9 1203
Remarks: max load; 41,000 cup
********************************************

Here is load data with Herco powder that is 40 yrs. old :

Lyman # 44 manual .........
Take a look at the Herco Load .
This is for the 357 Magnum :

8c0JnIq.jpg


I made the mistake , 40 yrs. ago, of loading 11.2 grs. of Herco with a 158 gr. cast in my Ruger Security Six in 357 Mag. cases.

I had to beat the cases out with a wooden dowel. Primers flattened.
I've always wondered what the pressure was. I'm glad I was shooting those rounds in a Ruger ! ! I'm also thankful that I nor my revolver were harmed.
Needless to say , no more of that load.

Ben
 
Last edited:

Brad

Benevolent Overlord and site owner
Staff member
I think many of those old loads were pressure tested by eye.
Amazing how many loads have been reduced as pressure testing has become in vogue.

Look at the new max load, it is almost the same as the old start load. Yikes
 

Ben

Moderator
Staff member
That day I fired those loads Brad, I said
more than " Yikes " ! !

Being conservative and comparing MANY different sources of MODERN reloading data from REPUTABLE sources is a wise thing.

Ben
 

Ian

Notorious member
.020" of seating depth can turn a mild load into an overpressure load, too. Lots to consider. Some of the old data gives me the "fan todds".
 

Brad

Benevolent Overlord and site owner
Staff member
I tend to look at estimated velocities too. Any load that seems to give 100-200 fps more than all other loads is met with skepticism.

I tend to avoid looking for free lunches....
 

Brad

Benevolent Overlord and site owner
Staff member
No, but physics does like to deliver lessons ina spectacular manner at times.

Spontaneous dissembles are to he avoided.
 

Ben

Moderator
Staff member
Hopefully, something good will come from this thread... ? ? ?
 
Last edited:

KHornet

Well-Known Member
Always compare old loading data with modern loading data.
Sometimes there is appreciable differences!

Paul
 

fiver

Well-Known Member
that old start load IS my Herco load now. [I probably have well north of 3,000 of them made up for my 92 carbine]
it's flippin loud in a revolver.
I prefer 6 grs of bulls-eye under a 150gr deep seated wad cutter in those.
that would probably be over what the older manuals say it can be loaded to.
 

RBHarter

West Central AR
Interesting as I have data in books that disagrees with the reduction . The 1975 edition of the Hornady book shares data numbers with the 1994 Speer manuals that says it is reduced to 35,000 .......then says in the silhouette that "these loads are loaded to 45,000 CUP .
IMG_20170819_155832346.jpg
My suspect is that ;
A . The reduction was seen as the "real numbers" in the change from copper crush units to PSI .
B. CIP is still advertised in CUP while SAAMI must do so in PSI .

C. Nothing changed , except the type set and they just penciled in a print reduction of 4.15% , at least for a 158gr jacketed data .

If there were an industry wide change why would a big name publish knowingly "dangerous" data ? I could dig through my later Lyman manuals but as I recall the data is the same there as well .

.3 of a gr is a variation that can be seen manual to manual and source to source .....based on a cartridge example .3gr in max loads could be a case change say from Win to S&B .

Maybe sour grapes , maybe a thread of truth hiding the man behind the curtain ......

As an alternative argument ,not because I want one but rather as an example , we've been shooting 308 Win and 7.62 NATO side by side with each other since 1965 and 223/556 since not long after that and there is still no fixed definition to distinguish between the civi Win/Rem and the NATO counter parts ......my explanation is that the NATO versions are thick necked like the GIs that use them . So if you have a tight Civi chamber ream/turn the necks on the GI brass .
 

JWFilips

Well-Known Member
For a long while I thought the new data was based on legal issues to keep the companies safe!
But there is no reason to start as high a load as was published in the old data!
Start low and work up your loads safely.
I know I for one, always start my cast bullet loads with the bullet in the lands!
So my loads automatically are started light... And most times do not go much further because I am only shooting target loads! Most of my load development is based on "node one" accuracy....the lightest accurate load
 

RBHarter

West Central AR
Well , I load everything with the idea that I will hunt with it . However what that really means is that I start at some point at or a round number above a start load and work until the group closes and opens to my preassigned maximum . Basically our goal is the same except that in some cases I need to hit a certain number set . When I don't/can't I back it off to the best group and call it good .

I have 2 in my stable that will shoot max loads as best loads ...... oddly enough it's an XD 40 and a 945 High Point ...... So not right . I have an 06' that shoots its best groups just below 7 books average start loads but 200 fps faster .......
All of which is why we do what we do .

I only wanted to show that inspite of the advertised changes at least in my books there actually wasn't a substantial change .
 

RBHarter

West Central AR
By the by thick necks is a complimentary term or at least has been in the circles of my exposure to the Corps ,Army ,Navy and Coasties ......the Air Force MPs at Edwards were the only "fly boys" with any sense of humor at all ........hot coffee on Christmas Eve may have had something to do with that though .
 

Pistolero

Well-Known Member
I am pretty sure that much of the old data was not pressure tested, more "seemed to work in my pistol,
nothing every blew off". Certainly some pressure testing was done, but less than we probably imagine.

I will bet that the reason that much modern data is a bit milder sounding is that they finally tested that
old standby load and went "YIKES!!!!!" when the saw the actual pressure.

Brad is really right about looking at velocities. Gotta be some more pressure to get more velocity,
except when substituting a cast bullet for a Jbullet. There you can go faster with less powder, IME.
Not always, but often enough that I tend to expect it.

Bill
 

Intheshop

Banned
Reckon I was lucky?The only round I ever even considered getting serious pressure from was the 44 mag.Reading everything I could get greasy fingers on warned of,or twds early Keith loads in a respectful manner.

So,started low enough with 429421 and 2400 and working up to what the revolver and where my tolerance for abuse was balanced with tackdriving accuracy and called it quits.And then got on with killing whitetails.

Taking to heart the repeated warnings of pretty much every reloading resource to do it that way.Same with JB'd varmint rifles,solid testing working up to high accuracy potential balanced with velocity,considering the fine red mist part of the equation.The gun will last longer.
 

Ian

Notorious member
19.6 grains was my limit on the 429421 and 2400. Or should I say if I went any higher, the Remington cases started sticking in the Model 29's paper-thin chambers. Published powder manufacturer and historical data shows a lot more headroom, but not with my revolvers. Chalk it up as reason #463 why I dislike almost all Smith & Wesson DA revolvers. The Model 10, the K-38 Target Masterpiece, the Airweight, and the Bodyguard will probably be the only ones I keep when the time comes to cull the herd.
 

Intheshop

Banned
SBH,and DW744 both just kept getting more slackjaw accurate up the pressure ladder they went.It then becomes more of what that's doing to my ability to hold on to them?So,whilst they "possibly" could take more juice....just don't need it.

My 1980-81 ,4" 629 just ain't in their league,don't care what anybody says.I load nice mid level cast loads and one of the VERY few rigs here with JB's is a 180 g Hornady jhp,with Blue Dot to around 1200 or so fps.Dbl lunged Deer just don't like this load....
 

Pistolero

Well-Known Member
I have shot up to 22 gr of 2400, prefer and get best results in several different S&W and Ruger .44s with 20 gr under 250-260 Keith.

Old manuals can be helpful, but need to be cross referenced and a bit of careful working up from below, as has been said.

Bill