Don't get rid of your old reloading manuals

Matt_G

Matt_G

Curmudgeon in training
Now, I know that 98% of you read that title and said to yourself: "Duh! Tell me something I don't already know Matt!"
This is for the other 2% that think if it isn't the latest and greatest, then it must be worthless.

So I was looking at old targets this morning, shot way back in 2006 with my Rem 700 Classic, chambered in 7-08.
I'm trying to get a lot of my paper only data into the computer to make it easier to find things.

Anyways, I noticed that with IMR 4064 powder and the Sierra 168 grain HPBT MatchKing, that the groups were best around 39.5 grains and at 40.0 and 40.5 had opened back up.
So I go to put load data into Reloader's Workshop and grab my 6th edition Sierra manual and notice right off, that for that powder/bullet combo, the max load is 38.0 grains and velocity was 2500 fps.
I'm thinking to myself, WTH was I thinking going that far over max load?
I quickly realized that the 6th edition wasn't even published until 2019, so I obviously hadn't used that manual when loading this ammo.

So I grabbed my 5th edition Sierra (copyright 2003) and the max load in there for IMR 4064 and a 168 MatchKing was 39.2 and velocity was 2600 fps.
Hmmm, must have used the 4th edition...
Grab that one and sure enough, in that manual (copyright 1995), the max load for IMR 4064 and a 168 grain MatchKing is 42.0 grains and velocity was 2700 fps.

Now I don't think that IMR 4064 has changed that much over the years, but maybe I'm wrong.
But I find it interesting that the max velocity with that powder has dropped 200 fps between the 4th and 6th edition, and the max powder charge dropped 4.0 grains right along with it.

Doesn't matter to me, I will keep using that old data, especially since a lot of my powder is that vintage as well.
Damn lawyers...
 
dannyd

dannyd

Well-Known Member
My reloading library goes from 1920 to 2024, but I don't use old data because powder and primers don't have a long lifespan on my shelves. ;)
 
JWinAZ

JWinAZ

Active Member
Better pressure measuring methods? The nature of liability litigation has changed too. One of my keepsakes is my 1971 Sierra manual, my first reloading manual.
 
RBHarter

RBHarter

West Central AR
But did you look at the pressure limits , primer , case ID .......

You know that Waters went back and checked his case capacities.....his data then against his cases now was blown primers . Also a delightful little quirk I've been enjoying with the 7×6.8 that should work with all of the 6.8 SPC data but just doesn't want to play nice .
 
P

Petrol & Powder

Well-Known Member
To put this delicately, the writers of loading manuals assume their readers are idiots.

The problem is the assumption becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Here’s an example using time instead of powder weights, but it’s the same principle.

The boss needs all the workers on a location at 10:00. The boss tells his subordinate that he needs all hands on deck at 10. The subordinate doesn’t trust the bosses beneath him, and he doesn’t want to take the heat if there’s a problem. So, he tells his subordinate that he needs everyone there at 09:30. That guy doesn’t trust the people below him to be on time, so he tells his subordinates that the reporting time is 09:00.

That first line supervisor doesn’t trust his workers to show up on time so he also builds in a buffer to make sure there’s no failure that will be his fault and he tells the workers to arrive at 08:00.

The workers, having been through these exercises many times, have learned that 08:00 really means 10:00 so most of them arrive by 09:30 and a few stragglers show up at 09:59. This behavior reinforces everyone’s beliefs (bosses and workers), and the process becomes self-fulfilling.

Now, take the reporting times and pretend those are powder weights listed in a reloading manual. The authors of the manuals assume the users will increase the charge weights above the limits, so they build in a safety buffer and list weights lower than they need to be. Over time, the users learn the weights are set artificially low and begin to use weights above the listed maximums, correctly assuming there is an ample safety margin built in. Of course, this only works when both sides distrust each other. The writers assume the users will exceed the limits and the users assume the writers are intentionally conservative.

The only way to correct this is to be brutally honest and list the real maximum values. Some idiots will pay the price but, oh well – life is harsh.
 
Last edited:
fiver

fiver

Well-Known Member
i've known a few guys that don't hardly read the data.
this is the powder i got, and this is the max amount the book say it'll take, this is what we're putting in... period.
 
RicinYakima

RicinYakima

High Steppes of Eastern Washington
For 20 years I bought 1903 Springfields made with nickel steel actions and bolts with excessive headspace for pennies.
 
smokeywolf

smokeywolf

Well-Known Member
Although I do very little load testing these days, I never sell or trade reloading books. Also don't load anywhere near max loads on larger cartridges, as my bursitis and arthritis let me know loud and clear that those days are over.
While I don't hot rod 32-20, maybe a little in 25-20, I do have a tendency to load the warmer charges in 218 BEE. Back when I did enjoy heavier recoil, I always made sure cases were sufficiently annealed so that better adhesion between case and chamber wall would help moderate hammering the bolt face.

EDIT to add: to stay on topic, I still enjoy cracking open Dr. Mann's "The Bullet's Flight". Have never read through it chronologically from front to back, but it stays on my roll-top desk which is also near the basement porcelain throne where a fair amount of reading takes place.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.