Speer Handloading Manual

[Skip_B]

OK, I might just as well ask this question over hear. On another forum, some of have been "tar and feathered" for using these old manuals for loading data. Some, having loaded much longer than I, have used them for years with no incident at all. Others have said: "The first time I used any of that old stuff I blew up my gun."
Some have called us all crazy, among other things not to be mentioned in mixed company, for not using current data.

I know there are others out there that have used these manuals for years and years without mishap.

I am just kind of curious to see how many still do.

Post a comment when you vote, let us know what you think!

[JustaShooter]

I inherited a Speer #10 (2nd printing, 1980) from a friend when I started reloading, and just this year added a #14.  So, a little over a quarter of a century out of date... Used it for 9mm, then .45 ACP, then .30-06 most recently.  Nothing ever blew up, but I've never been bitten by the max load bug either.

Just a Shooter

[AtlLaw]

I'll have to go down and look to see what # mine is, but it's OLD!     I still use it, but I normally don't select a load without checking several sources.

[charles p]

Some old manuals do not identify 4831 as IMR or Hodgden.  Beware.

[cwlongshot]

I'll have to go down and look to see what # mine is, but it's OLD!     I still use it, but I normally don't select a load without checking several sources.

 This is VERY GOOD ADVICE and something I have suggested before. Thank you Rich!!!!

Remember, TYPO's HAPPEN if there even was a proof reader anymore, its a slim chance they knew anything about guns let alone reloading!!! Ultimately its is our own responsibility to be sure of what we are doing. Reloading can be very dangerous!

CW

[Lone Star]

There are several problems with using the "old" Speer Manuals - this has been discussed ad nauseum on GBO.  One is that Speer did not use pressure testing equipment until Manual #9, so they did not really know what pressures the earlier published loads produced - kinda spooky today.  Speer "thought" they were within industry specs, but subsequent manuals using pressure equipment indicated that some were way too high, others low.  Since firearms are made to handle specific pressures safely, using loads producing unknown pressures can be seen to be risky. 

The second problem is that some powders have changed in the past 40 years, as have primers. This means that even loads developed with pressure equipment are suspect today.  The only reason I can see to use most obsolete Speer data is to validate the handloader's desire to load to excessive pressures.

[Graybeard]

I have some maybe all of them but mostly they are just part of my loading manual collection. I might use them as a cross reference but for current loading data I use current loading manuals pretty much all the time.

[Troyboy]

Why wouldn't you use the current information? Because you didn't want to spend the money on a new book? Just makes no sense. You only have 1 life. I prefeer all my apendages as issued

[Skip_B]

Why wouldn't you use the current information? Because you didn't want to spend the money on a new book? Just makes no sense. You only have 1 life. I prefeer all my apendages as issued

You see, that is following the fallacy perpetuated by "those in the know", and I say that cynically, that the loads of yesteryear are "DEADLY AND UNSAFE. All I can say to that is, hogwash. I have known folks that have used these loads since they came out in the same firearm, with the same charge, with newer powder, with yada, yada, yada, with no ill affects at all. The firearms are still tight and shoot like a house afire!

It's kind of like what Rush Limbaugh calls the "feminization of mankind". They have done the same things to load data and we do what the liberals want us to do, crawl under a rock in fear. How foolish. We now have to have a 10mm to do what the old 38/44 loads used to do!


I refuse to succumb to such nonsense, I refuse. Now, use the data if you feel safe. If you don't feel safe, fine, but don't try to make those of us that use if feel like we are the freaks. Those that cower in fear to use loads long established are the ones that are "freakish", in my opinion, that is.

FWIW

[buck460XVR]

It's kind of like what Rush Limbaugh calls the "feminization of mankind". They have done the same things to load data and we do what the liberals want us to do, crawl under a rock in fear. How foolish.

When it comes to current load data, I consider it more a "education of mankind" than "feminization". New methods, better equipment, technology  and perhaps adjustments made for changes in the manufacture of components makes current load data much safer than ever. Safe reloading practices are not "girly", just a mark of common sense and intelligence.

We now have to have a 10mm to do what the old 38/44 loads used to do!

Ain't that nice? Most of us that can afford a computer and internet access can afford to have guns in multiple calibers. I have several myself. Now instead of loading that .357 to shoot like a .44, I just take the .44......and if I need more than what the .44 can safely handle I get out the .460. No real need for stinging hands and unsafe and over max loads.

I refuse to succumb to such nonsense, I refuse. Now, use the data if you feel safe. If you don't feel safe, fine, but don't try to make those of us that use if feel like we are the freaks. Those that cower in fear to use loads long established are the ones that are "freakish", in my opinion, that is.

My manuals are all labeled as "Reloading Manuals" not "Handloading Manuals" They give suggestion for starting loads with various components at levels that have been tested to be safe in most modern firearms. IMHO, Deviations from these recipes fall into the category of Handloading, which is the development of custom loads for a particular gun. Most Handloaders know their guns and have worked their loads up carefully from recommended starting points and know that there is a certain amount of risk when loading over published specs. They also know that altho the loads listed in "Reloading Manuals" have little or no risk of blowing up their favorite gun, that their untested Handloads might. If you have tested handloads that work well in your guns, then you should be confident that they are safe......but, that does not make them safe in my guns, or anyone else's.

[Graybeard]

Data in old manuals was gathered by a seat of the pants style of loading and often before SAAMI standardization. Lots of info in them is way above SAAMI standards. That's why they are changing it as the do pressure tested load work ups.

Just cuz it hasn't blown up your gun yet doesn't mean it won't the next time you pull the trigger. Use whatever data you like even ignore the manuals all together and work up your own if you so please. Just don't list those loads on here.

[Lone Star]

You see, that is following the fallacy perpetuated by "those in the know", and I say that cynically, that the loads of yesteryear are "DEADLY AND UNSAFE. All I can say to that is, hogwash.

Just where did anyone - in or out of "the know" - say that all "the loads of yesteryear" were 'deadly and unsafe' to use?  Nowhere I've seen.  That kind of hyperbole does little to support your opinions....

They do remind me of the typical hoopla made by some of my more senior friends in the 1960s and 1970s who insisted that smoking was perfectly safe -  'I've smoked all my life and I don't have lung cancer!'    Oh, and we can't forget seatbelts - 'I don't wear seatbelts 'cause I don't want to be stuck in a burning car!'   Or speeding on the freeways - 'I've driven 90 mph for years and I've never had a wreck!'     

I like to think that rather than being "girlified", modern reloaders are just better informed, smarter and safer than they were thirty to forty 40 years ago.   


.

[Skip_B]

Just where did anyone - in or out of "the know" - say that all "the loads of yesteryear" were 'deadly and unsafe' to use?  Nowhere I've seen.  That kind of hyperbole does little to support your opinions....

.

I should have qualified my statement, forgive me for not. Nowhere on this forum has anyone made the point I mentioned above. MANY on other forums have though and I kind of drug it here. That wasn't right, and I apologize.

Not wanting to make enemies of the management, I won't address the fallacy of those manuals "loading by the seat of their pants" comment! I have pictures of pressure equipment in Speer's labs back into the 1960's. Using pressure equipment, even crusher type, was good for many years.

FWIW

[davem270win]

I've always considered the Speer manuals to be more conservative than most others, at least in general. There may be specific loads that were hot, but for the most part, when I compared manuals, the Speer MAX was often 1-2 gr. less than other manuals.

[Lone Star]

Not wanting to make enemies of the management, I won't address the fallacy of those manuals "loading by the seat of their pants" comment! I have pictures of pressure equipment in Speer's labs back into the 1960's. Using pressure equipment, even crusher type, was good for many years.

You should have quit while you were ahead.     It is true that Speer # 5 shows a pressure barrel in use on page 67 - but a close look at the photo shows it is credited to "H.P. White Laboratories".  White was a large commercial ballistics lab used by the NRA, Speer, the US military and many other clients.  The pressure equipment shown on that page is clearly White's - even the ballistician is wearing an H.P. White lab coat.

The #8 Manual was published in 1970, the #9 Manual four years later.  Right after the #8 Manual , Speer ballistician Bill Caldwell began publishing his initial pressure findings on revolvers, etc. (Gun Digest 1972) using Speer's brand new piezometric measuring device (seen on page 83, #8).  This equipment was required since Speer had just started loading commercial revolver ammunition. 

Further, in Speer #9 starting on page 103 the editor states, in part:

"In this, the Ninth Edition of the SPEER Reloading Manual, there is a major change in the way the data was prepared compared to previous editions.  The Number Eight Manual explained how primer appearance, ease of case extraction, and case head expansion were used to develop the loading data.  These methods are still valid,  and are the only ways the handloader can estimate the safety of his loads without some rather complicated laboratory equipment.  To suppliment these methods, the SPEER Ballistic Laboratroy Staff, using ammunition industry standard test barrels and copper crushers, first determines the powder charges which gave maximum pressures for each powder-bullet combination in each of the standard rifle cartridges....

"Some reductions in recommended charge weight from older editions are required to avoid exceeding maximum pressure levels....where pressure barels were not available - all of the woldcat and foreign cartridges and some of the older and less popular standard US cartridges - loading data was developed using the primer-appearance/case-extraction.head-expansion methods....all three of these methods of pressure detection were used to determine the maximum loads for the wildcat, foreigh and older standard cartridges lissted.  The powder charges for a given bullet in a given cartridge were increased successively until indications of excess pressure were present.  The charge was then decreased 6% and the resulting charge considered maximum fo rthat powder, bullet, case and rifle." 

Speer started widespread use of pressure equipment as a standard method in the early 1970s, and even then they listed plenty of data without actual pressure tests - as clearly stated in the quotes above.  We have come a long way in the past 35 years.



.

[Skip_B]

You should have quit while you were ahead.

I guess that would have necessitated "knowing" one was "ahead", wouldn't it?

I read your post and need to get an "eyeball" on the #9 manual myself. Not to doubt your accuracy on the wording or anything but I have seen misrepresentations of printed material before only to find that it really didn't say that at all.

I don't happen to have a #9 but there are friends that do, I'll take a look.

Speaking to the part in your post about "reading the signs" of over pressure and reduction of load data by 6%. I wonder when

These methods are still valid,  and are the only ways the handloader can estimate the safety of his loads

became invalid. According to this statement, it would seem like Speer was speaking out of both sides of their mouths, metaphorically speaking.

Let me assure you of this though Lone, if the manual indeed does say what you have posted, I will drop such allusions as posted in the first post of this thread. An old dog can learn new tricks. They will even be appreciative to the teacher!