Author Topic: used reloading manuals (Read 2326 times)

mitchell · « **on:** July 07, 2004, 01:05:25 PM »

i've been listening to people talk about having a bunch of manuals and comparing them and find differences in them :eek: :eek: (this scare's me) so i thought i should get some more . so i was looking on ebay and saw a bunch of used manuals for very nice prices ,which important to me, but most of them are very old (well to a 17 year old they are). so my question is is there anything wrong with old manuals?

MSP Ret · « **Reply #1 on:** July 07, 2004, 01:26:24 PM »

The old (?) manuals may not have some of the newer powders in them but the loads they have will be safe, tried and true. If they are cheap it's great to have several around to check for different loads....<><.... :grin:

ScatterGunner · « **Reply #2 on:** July 07, 2004, 01:36:01 PM »

those old manuals are just fine. i use manuals that are 20+ years old, the main difference is what msp said, you won't see the newer powders but they are still a good resource.

sg

marv · « **Reply #3 on:** July 07, 2004, 01:39:43 PM »

I have to agree with MSP Ret. There is not a thing wrong with old
mauels, In fact I have some that are 40 yrs old, still use them.
Some powders and bullets are not list in some, some newer calibers
are not eather. Marv.

Siskiyou · « **Reply #4 on:** July 07, 2004, 01:57:29 PM »

I believe my earliest usable manual is pre-1962. That is not counting the very little one that came with my Lee Loader back in 1958. The one for the Lee Loader is the most obsolete because the loads are for paper 12 gauge cases. I have a number of manuals that are as valid today as they were when I have purchased them over the last 35 years. I have only added one new case in the last ten years. And it likes an older powder that I have been load otherwise.

There are a difference in the manuals as there are in lots of powders, cases, primers, and firearms. That is why each manual says to start at the starting load and work up. Because there is a known difference.

I learned and appreciated the difference. My brothers' .270 Win action would stick on loads that were no problem with my .270. That was good enough to keep little brother out of my ammo box.

Paul5388 · « **Reply #5 on:** July 07, 2004, 04:40:35 PM »

Mitchell,

The main thing to watch out for is the powders that now have a corresponding number from another company. In the Speer #7 and #8, the powder known as 4831 is actually H4831, because there wasn't an IMR 4831 at the time (H4831 was WWII surplus powder that had degraded somewhat over a 25 year span, IMR 4831 is the original full strength WWII powder formula). Just like 4350 was IMR 4350 and it was later that Hodgdon introduced H4350, which is not the same powder. The manuals usually have a section on powders in the front portion of the manual that tells the company that made the powder they posted loads for.

Quote

DuPont IMR 4831 was introduced as a cannister powder in 1973. In burning speed, it is slightly slower than 4350 but faster than H-4831. It is important that IMR 4831 not be used in charge weights recommended for H-4831. Speer #10, p.43 (Speer #10 was published in 1979 when there wasn't any H-4350)

Mac11700 · « **Reply #6 on:** July 07, 2004, 05:44:18 PM »

WOW....hang on here guys.... NO DO NOT USE OLD RELOADING DATA MANUALS TO WORK UP LOADS WITH .......

I stongly urge you to verify all loading data to the current manufactures specifications........most of the current data can be acessed on line and if you need to checkon what you have to load for, and cannot get it drop me a PM and I will be glad to look it up in what manuals I have and can get...

While it may seem ok because others have done so and not hurt themselves...or they may have verified it against the current data...don't ever ASSume it is a safe reloading practicein your rifles..because it is not..... Powders change and so do primers...and a few grains difference of powder and a different primer...can be very dangerous to you-bystanders-and your rifle,add to that a stiff crimp from a factory crimp die...and the pressures skyrocket...it's nice to compare older data to the newer data and see what's changed...but it is way to easy to obtain the new data from any of the powder manufactures or bullet manufactures as to your paticular cartridge...most have 800 numbers and are very willing to give any of their data to you over the phone,and even e-mail it to you.....

Play it safe and never ASSume...you know what happens when you do that don't you???

Mac

PS...I'm not really trying to be a smart alleck...but it s really not a recomended loading practice to use outdated loading data...use the older manuals for reference only please...but rely on the lastest manuals for your own reloading data....it's far safer.....Mac

Vincent · « **Reply #7 on:** July 07, 2004, 06:34:26 PM »

I feel it is very important if you are going to use old manuals that cross reference with new info. Powders change....not just new ones but some powders have changed over the years. Most of the old data was developed with out modern pressure measuring methods. Even bullets change in design and hardness. On top of all that SAAMI specs for cartridges change. The old manuals are fun and full of interesting stuff but load with the latest info available :roll:

Mac11700 · « **Reply #8 on:** July 07, 2004, 07:53:17 PM »

Welcome aboard Vicent

Mac

Paul5388 · « **Reply #9 on:** July 07, 2004, 08:24:37 PM »

Sorry to inform you, but powders do not change except for lot to lot variation. If there were to be a change, the name/number would change, because the company would be opening themselves to law suits that would result from powder not matching the data that has been published.

If you will take the time to check pressure standards for SAAMI loads, you will notice the pressures keep going down, especially in the .357 Mag. That's the reason I can load .38 Specials that out perform your .357 Mags and do it safely.

The same old loads Elmer Keith and Skeeter Skelton published on 2400 in a .357 Mag still work just like they always have. 2400 has been around since the 1930's, when it was developed for the .22 Hornet.

I have loaded the same load of SR 4756 for 30 years in the .357 Mag and it works the same whether it is DuPont powder or IMR powder. It works the same with the 1980 DuPont Powder I have or Dec 2003 IMR powder I have. I have loaded the same IMR 4350 load in a 7mm Mag for 35 years.

Contrary to popular belief, they have used pressure testing devices for longer than most people on this forum have been reloading. Speer #8 shows a picture of "Pressure measuring equipment in Speer Laboratory" on page 83.

Mac11700 · « **Reply #10 on:** July 08, 2004, 07:12:14 AM »

Paul:

Why don't you give any of the powder manufactures a call and see what they say...they all will tell you..... Always...use the most up-to-date reloading information they give out...now if that's because of liability reasons...so be it...but with all of the free new data available...one would be foolish not to cross check that information in those older manuals..to that of the new data given out.......While the older powders may have similar burning characteristics of the new powders that are being produced...there are variations in them...Unique,H4198.Imr3031 and many many more..all of those has been improved over the years...and they are close to what they were years ago....BUT...they are not identical...and when you are loading cartridges at the Max loadings...there are way to many variables to try to factor in to ASSume you are operating at a safe pressure level...stating that it may be safe for you and your guns is one thing...but ...telling someone else...it's perfectly acceptable to use out-dated reloading data is stupid and foolhardy without telling that person to verify it against the current data...all one has to do is to cross reference all of the different data that is out there now..to see some pretty wide discrepancies as the original poster mitchell stated...couple that with the fact that powders have changed somewhat thru different formulations and manufactures processes...primers being the same way...and NOT KNowing his reloading techniques...could lead to problems.........

mitchell........do your self a favour...go on line or call the powder manufactures of whose powder you want to use and get the latest up-to-date information they provide....then call any of the bullet manufactures and do the same thing....all of them will give you good data to use for free....and best of all...you can be assured that it is the most up-to-date SAFE reloading data you can get....It's ok to use those older manuals for reference on the different cartridges...but why take chances when you don't have to... Anytime when I have a doubt about a load or my velocities are higher than normal...I start checking different manuals to see if I can figure out why and ...if that doesn't help...I get on the phone and make those calls...you can get answers real easy that way....

Mac

Paul5388 · « **Reply #11 on:** July 08, 2004, 06:28:23 PM »

Actually, what is stupid is to not look at the published data for yourself. The latest IMR data in chart form says, the max load for a .357 Mag never excedes 36,000 CUP.

Speer #13, the latest Speer published, says on page 526,

Quote

The industry maximum average pressure for the .357 Magnum is 35,000 psi. These loads do not exceed that level.

Speer #10 says on page 364,

Quote

These maximum loads are slightly under the 46,000 cup working pressure of this cartridge.

Here's some cup numbers from the IMR Reloaders Guide downloaded from the IMR site

Quote

.30-06
REM. CASE; REM. 9 1/2 PR
REM. 150 GR. PTD. SPCL
.308" DIA.; 23" BBL.; 3.200" C.O.L.
SR 4759 31.0 2365 49700
IMR 4227 30.0 2310 50000
IMR 4198 38.0 2600 50000
IMR 3031 49.5 2850 49800
IMR 4064 52.0 2885 50000
IMR 4895 49.5 2845 50000
IMR 4320 51.0 2825 50000
IMR 4350 59.0C 2825 47800
IMR 4831 59.0C 2715 42900

Here are some psi numbers.for the same bullet weight and the same source

Quote

30-06 SPRG
REM. CASE; FED. 210 PR
NOSLER 150 GR. BALLISTIC TIP
.308" DIA.; 24" BBL.; 3.300" C.O.L.
IMR 4064 51.3 2940 57000
IMR 4895 49.0 2880 57000
IMR 4350 59.0c 2960 57000

The pressure in psi for the .30-06 is about 7000 higher than the pressure in cup. When it gets to cartridges like the .357, the psi pressure is 10,000 lower than the cup pressure, instead of getting closer, there is a greater gap between the two and it's a gap the wrong direction. Even if you only consider cup, the cup for IMR loads is 11,000 less than the industry standard. Certainly couldn't be any product liability for those wimp loads!

So, what has IMR told me that is worth knowing? Absolutely nothing, except a load that is assured of getting a bullet out of the barrel!

If you're satisfied whith kind of information, then more power to you, but don't try to imply the old loads are in error. SAAMI is continually moving the pressure down and you think there is something wrong with the old manuals, when it's actually something wrong with SAAMI!

Mac11700 · « **Reply #12 on:** July 08, 2004, 07:12:29 PM »

Well this real nice...but take a look at this one and then give who ever you would like to call a ring and discuss it with them,,,
compare the IMR 4831 charge to that of their recommended load...you could even give "Bob" in ballistics a call at 1-800-338-3220

Hornady 3rd edition 1987...

257 Weatherby Mag

bullet 120 grain hollow point

IMR 4831 start load 54.5 grains......max load 62.7 grains

I got this current data from him day before yesterday when I talked to him...........
The reason I called them was the 3rd edition was the only Hornady manual I owned...I now have a new set ordered...

Here's what I got from him...

Start load...51.0 grains.......max load 58.0 grains of IMR 4381 powder

Gee...that's 4.7 grains over their max recommended load...I wonder what the pressures might be........could it be perfectly safe......are the components exactly the same......there are always going to be variables...that's why I recommend to use the olders manuals for reference...and to call them to verify the out-dated data you might be wanting to use...

Now you can believe whatever you wish to...and use whatever data you choose too.....but I'll take the manufactures word over an individuals anyday of the week...I'm not saying your data for your rifles is wrong...and it sounds like you have crossed reference them,golly that's what I have suggested all along...but I'm not of a frame of mind to believe that I'm more knowlagable then those people who publish the data...nor make the components...for any reason...and if I advise someone to reload...I advise them to use the current data for safety sake...if they don't they could inadvertently use different components...and the results could be catostophic...I would rather err on the safe side...then to have caused a mishap to anyone..............why wouldn't you?

?.

Mac

Paul5388 · « **Reply #13 on:** July 08, 2004, 08:50:47 PM »

Well, I suppose you could just tell them to use factory loads to be on the safe side also.

I also have to wonder why the "experts" that wrote the new manuals are any more expert than the writers of the old manuals.

It was nice of your contact to give you a real safe load. After all, it's just 1.0 gr over a max .25-06 load from Speer #8 that he suggested. BTW, the contributor on powders in Speer #8, page 35, was B. E. Hodgdon, distributor of H4831.

I'm quite sure I'm going to call them to verify the loading data I use for WWII surplus H4831 that I still have. OTOH, that might not be the same powder they are using now even though they say it's the same.

Quote

Hodgdon H4831 is an imported powder intended to replace the old, discontinued surplus H4831. According to the distributor, its performance is identical to the discontinued powder of the same designation. Speer #10, page 43

Of course, I'm sure Hodgdon always posts unsafe loads on their web site.

Quote

257 WEATHERBY MAGNUM

CASE: WEATHERBY

BBL: 26"

PR: FEDERAL 215

100 GR. NOS PART

COL:3.185"
   H870   80.0   3463   53,000 CUP
   H1000   71.0   3351 46,900 CUP
   H4831   68.0   3436 52,300 CUP
   H4350   62.0   3319   51,200 CUP

120 GR. SPR SP

COL:3.170"
   H870   76.0   3240   53,200 CUP
   H1000   68.0   3231   50,800 CUP
   H4831   65.0   3220   51,500 CUP

This 65.0 gr load happens to be exactly the same as the IMR 4831 loads published in Speer #10 and Speer #13.

Quote

Like most other Weatherby cartridges, the 257 was not standardized by the industry until 1994. It's pressure limit was set at 53,500 cup. Speer #13, page 197

Nothing changed on the loads between 1979 and 1998. Either they were using the same 19 year powder or the new powder didn't change from the old powder.

You keep on calling and pretty soon they'll have you shooting the equivalent of a .257 Roberts.

Mac11700 · « **Reply #14 on:** July 08, 2004, 09:23:49 PM »

You know Paul....I'm really not sure anymore what point your trying to argue....first off...I didn't compare any of Hodgdons 4831...are you now saying that the data for H4831 and IMR 4831 can be safely interchanged for one another???

Secondly...all one has to do is to really look at the difference between the 2 reloading manuals and see the variation mitchell was describing...heck that's a no-brainer...but let me ask you something...if now they are getting 3200 fps with 4.7 grains of powder less...what caused the difference...and more importantly...what would be the result..if you used the older data....

Lastly...your feeble attempt to try to extrapolate some type of proof by using 3 totally different components(bullet) is in error...you cannot do that due to the different bearing surfaces and resultant pressure differences...not to mention the 3 different primers used and 3 different testing mediums as well, all will give totally different results in not only velocity differences...but pressure differences too

If you are going to quote me...at least have the courtesy to use the same components...in your rebuttal...if not...then we are done,and this argument is over...

Mac

dangerranger · « **Reply #15 on:** July 08, 2004, 10:53:42 PM »

Back to the question at hand I dont ever throw these load manuels out.There a great sourse of info. Youll find articles on casting, sporterising,stock refinishing,etc...but if you want good cheep load manuels write or email the powder cos and they will send there latest load manuels for FREE.Bullet cos will do the same.That way you get a couple sourses of the same info to compare.Did I mention there FREE?

mitchell · « **Reply #16 on:** July 09, 2004, 02:34:57 AM »

hummm did you say free? i think i made my decision. i would rather error on the side of cation then arrogants anyday

Paul5388 · « **Reply #17 on:** July 09, 2004, 06:36:21 AM »

To start off, Mac, you didn't specify any components except bullet weight and powder.

The second point is, H4831 is usually used in greater quantities than IMR 4831, and what I posted from Hodgdon was clearly under the standard pressure by a considerable amount. 58.0 gr is certainly a good ways from what Hodgdon says is the proper load for the Weatherby. After all, Hodgdon is the one having both powders made, not Hornady. I suppose you know Hodgdon owns IMR?

Third, if you really think 7.0 gr less powder will generate the same pressure and velocity as what is said to be the same powder as what was used in 1979, then I have to wonder if you ever used the older loads to see if they are over pressured. I have to wonder how Speer can list so much more powder, for 19 years, than what Hornady lists and not be sued out of business. 65.0 gr of IMR 4831 is current data for the max load and had been current for 19 years at the time of printing. Now you expect me to believe the data is no longer valid, because you called someone at Hornady. As I said, pretty soon they'll have you shooting a high dollar 250 Savage.

Winter Hawk · « **Reply #18 on:** July 09, 2004, 08:09:47 AM »

I'll join the fray here for a bit. This topic has come up very so often in questions to shooting magazines (including NRA's Rifleman) over the years. The answers were either that the powder formulations have changed or that the liablitiy was too great to give true maximum loads. The horse has died, gentlemen.

Agreed, that Hodgdon powders are different for the same number from IMR. I don't have my Hodgdon's manual handy, but I know it lists loads for BOTH brands.

Be safe, be happy, shoot straight!

-Winter Hawk-

Paul5388 · « **Reply #19 on:** July 09, 2004, 09:32:59 AM »

I hate tell you, but the IMR manual only lists IMR 7828 for the .257 Weatherby. I have the new printed manual for both powders.

What you said flies in the face of the qoute from Hodgdon that H4831 is the same ("identical") as the WWII surplus H4831 they have sold since 1948.

I also have a copy of a letter from Hodgdon that says RL22 is the same powder as Norma MRP.

I would suggest that you read the last paragraph.

Mac11700 · « **Reply #20 on:** July 09, 2004, 09:41:09 AM »

Winter Hawk:

Your right...the Hodgdons manual does list both...as does Sierras 5th edition..Swifts 1st edtion doesn't use either powder H4831 or IMR 4831...Nosler 5th edition list the Imr 4831...as well as Speers 13th edition ...these are the lastest manuals by the way only dealing with the 120 grain bullet.....

Paul...the Hornady 3rd edition I refered to only shows 1- 120 grain bullet and that is the Hornady bullet,sorry for the confusion...and yes I have used some of the data from the older issues...not in the 257 Weatherby...but in the 357 magnum pistol..44 mag pistol..30-30 Winchester...and 270 Winchester...The 270 data that I used wasn't as bad as the 30-30 as far as heavy bolt lifting because that was a bolt gun I used it in...the 30-30 was a single shot Topper that I had at the time,while in my Savage bolt 30-30 they functioned better...I guess that's one of the reasons I am a little more leery to use out-dated data,or even recomend it to anyone...with all the different gun chambers..what might perfectly acceptable for 1 may not for another......I'll try to find the data sheets I have on the loads and the velocities I got out of my Ruger for you...it's been several years since I looked thru them...

Oh...which part of the last paragraph...the part were it says to reduce by 10% and work back up,or perhaps the wording in it that says IMPROVED Versions of??If your are referring to the extreamly blurry print at the very bottom of the letter I'm sorry...I cannot make out what is said...if you aren't I see nothing that is flying in the face of any of my statements...

Paul.......since you ask for clerification on the different powders from the manufacture...what's the validity of your argument isn't this what I told mitchell to do in the first place.....their own statements in the letter which you posted proves my point.....If your argument is to be able to use the data indiscrimently and that they are identicle...why would they state to reduce the charge by 10% to be safe?

? I'll tell you why...there are no 2 rifles exactly the same...and what may be safe in yours...isn't safe in someone elses...in yours with a max load may be under the maximum safe pressure levels...and in someone elses it may be over...couple that with a 4 to 8 grain difference between loading manuals for the one rifle where max load is over pressured to begin with...now your heading for trouble......not always...but the possiblity is there...and that's the key to erring on the safe side....I'm not saying your rifle will blow up...and I pray to God it never happens to you...but partner...why take a chance on it...it just isn't worth it for a few extra feet per second...and this is my point ...don't recommend out dated data...unless you verify it...just like you did...what's so difficult about that???

Mac

Mac

Paul5388 · « **Reply #21 on:** July 09, 2004, 11:22:03 AM »

Mac,

Yes, and the need for doing that whenever any lot of any component is changed. Lot to lot variation means each lot of a component is very close to each other, but still may vary some. Organic chemistry is notorious for variation due to many different factors and powder happens to be organic chemistry. However, just because there is variation doesn't mean the formula has changed nor does it mean a particular formula will produce a different powder.

As the letter stated, 65.0 gr less 10% would be a starting load of 58.5 gr, not 51.0 gr.

Mac11700 · « **Reply #22 on:** July 09, 2004, 05:00:03 PM »

Again Paul...where exactly on your letter from 1988 does it state anything about IMR4831 or H4831...perhaps it is my browser...because I certainly don't see anything typed that says that the only thing I see them mentioning in the Reloader extrapolation...not IMR...and to what your quoting isn't what I had discussed with you...you still show H4831 at 65 grains...I can only guess your pulling this from Hodgdons latest so I'll try this one more time.....where does it say that the IMR powders are completely intechangable with the Hodgdon powders????Just because Hodgdons aquired IMR...doesn't mean that they are one in the same...they are and will continue to be two totally seperate lines...and that is according to Hodgdons

Perhaps you misread my post and thought I meant Hodgdon?

I have a few letters to send off...so I won't be continuing this tonite...but I do hope you go back a read what I posted dealing with the IMR 4831...not H4831....maybe that might clear it up for you.

Mac

Paul5388 · « **Reply #23 on:** July 09, 2004, 07:36:37 PM »

Mac,

It seems like I addressed the fact that IMR doesn't list IMR 4831 for the .257 Weatherby, so that makes it a little difficult to cite IMR data for anything that applies to the discussion. However, Hodgdon, who owns both companies, does show H4831 for the application, which I showed does have a relationship to IMR 4831. No, they cannot be substituted for each other, but they are the same powder in different strengths. It takes a little more H4831 to equal the original formula, which is IMR 4831. Notice I said a little more, not 7 or 8 gr more. Speer #7 and #8 says you can use a max of 67 gr H4831 in your .257 Weatherby, whereas Speer #10 and #13 says you can use a max of 65 gr IMR 4831. That's a 2 gr difference between the two powders in this application. It certainly isn't 9 gr difference like you say Hornady is telling you.

The time span between Speer #7 and #13 is 32 years and yet there is only 2 gr difference in the load for a 120 gr bullet, because they switched to the original forumla, now called IMR 4831.

Speer #13, page 196 says the max load of IMR 4831, with a 120 gr bullet in a .25-06, is 50.0 gr. The same page says the max load, with the same bullet, of H4831SC is 52.0 gr. That's a 2 gr difference again.

Speer #13, page 176 shows the max load for both powders in the 6mm Rem 70 gr as being 52.0C gr. That's zero difference. On the next page there is a 2.0 gr difference again.

Speer #13, page 172 says the .243 Win 85 gr has a 2.0 gr difference between the max load of the two powders.

It seems pretty obvious the two powders are very close in their max loads and I figured you would be aware of that relationship.

The reason I posted the Hercules letter was to show you they don't always make known their marketing schemes/decisions to the general public.

Mac11700 · « **Reply #24 on:** July 10, 2004, 08:27:07 AM »

Paul:

I am aware of the relationship...I also know that with 2 different bullets the max charges can vary a-lot...that's my point...and when a company such as Hornady states to you that there can be pressure problems...at least as far as their equipment and components goes...one should listen very closely.

All Im trying to say again...is to verify the data...this isn't that hard understand...and it isn't bad advice to give anyone...you know that as well as I do..

You guys have a good week...I'm hitting the road on vacation....

Mac

ScatterGunner · « **Reply #25 on:** July 10, 2004, 09:18:02 AM »

i did a little digging here and found that powders can vary from batch to batch. it has nothing with the tenents of organic chemistry, it is more so due to variations in the manufacturing process and physical geometry of the powder granules.

chemically, a small grained single based powder is identical to a large grain single based powder. the major factor in pressure is determined by the shape and/or surface area of the powder grain. flakes burn faster, cylinders burn slower. the flake and cylinder can vary because of several things, like the guy running the flake cutter, the temperature of the water used in the process, etc, etc.

there are also burning retardant coatings used that do vary between the manufacturers. these retardants are the "secret sauce" for each powder maker.

so, IMR-4831 manufactured in 1938 will most likely have different time/pressure curves when compared to IMR-4831 made in 1973.

what does all this mean

use newer reloading manuals if you are using new powder, and old manuals if you are using grampa's canister he brought back from germany from WWII, use common sense, start below the maximum load. will older manual data kill you ?, no, as long you apply common sense and don't use a pencil to pack 58 grains of bullseye into your 30-06. we could also consult with our lawyers for their recommendation.

sg

Paul5388 · « **Reply #26 on:** July 10, 2004, 04:40:31 PM »

ScatterGunner,

I guess you should have read a little further.

Quote

Naturally, the exact chemical composition of the powder also affects its burning rate. source

You could also check this site to see there are different compositions for gun powder, http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/april2002/mccord.htm

Most of the time, flakes are double based powder, not single based. Double based powders have varying amounts of nitroglycerine in them. When there are varying amounts of anything, the chemistry changes with the variation.

The burning rate is a function of oxidation, which is a chemical reaction. However, burning rate doesn't have a whole lot to do with the stoiciometric relationship between the composition and the production of gases. The burning rate just tells you how fast it burns, nothing is known, from the burning rate, about how much gas it produces.

BTW, nitro cellulose and nitro glycerine are both organic compounds and the purity does vary. That's why we have different grades of purity, i.e. Technical grade, Lab grade, and USP grade.

ScatterGunner · « **Reply #27 on:** July 11, 2004, 12:48:52 AM »

hi paul -

i do acknowledge there are variations in the end product, but you may be discounting the effects of geometry on gas production, isn't that why they control geometry to tailor otherwise we would get powder in all different granuales sizes and shapes ?

from a practical standpoint (the application of using single and double based gunpowders in reloading ammunition, not in an analytical setting) i don't think there is significant variation in the specific energy in any one powder to mount to much over a hill of beans. otherwise we would need to work up a new load for every new batch of powder made.

sg

JPH45 · « **Reply #28 on:** July 11, 2004, 04:28:18 AM »

Sounds to me as though some are perfectly capable of believing whatever they want to believe. I would encourage them to do so. I would also encourage those who have been following this thread in the hopes of getting a straight answer to do your research elsewhere. The common wisdom relating to the use of old manuals is to use new data. Not that what an older manual suggests is not useful, just that it is out of date. The comparison of CUP (Copper Units of Pressure) to PSI (Pounds per Square Inch) is absolutely false. THERE IS NO DIRECT COMPARISON TO THESE TWO METHODS OF CHAMBER PRESSURE DETECTION. If one does not like this, one is free to contact all the ballisticians employed by the powder manufacturers and complain to them. Every ballistician will tell you flatly, data that was developed with one lot of powder is not directly interchangeable with the same powder of a different lot. EVERY manual I have ever read cautions the reloader to begin at the starting charge shown and slowly work up watching for excessive pressure signs stating this very condition as cause. I do not think this is because of a concern of liability on their part. It is easier for them to prove that you blew up your gun with an overcharge than it is for you to prove it was a listed safe load. Afterall, the strength of the gun is a known quantity.

Paul, your scientific method sucks. You begin by discussing one cartridge, change to discussing another, and another and another, you are not consistant in your proofs. The only relationship a 257 Weatherby and a 357 Magnum have is that they are both firearms cartridges and must obey the rules of internal ballistics. Other than that they have little relationship to one another. And to compare the max charge of a 25-06 to that of the 257 Weatherby is a reloading absurdity, even though the cartridges are quite similar in capacity, it is like suggesting that 300 Win Mag data could be used to load the 300 H&H. Sorry, but if your arguments are an example of your reloading practices, I'm not interested in using them.

ScatterGunner · « **Reply #29 on:** July 11, 2004, 05:34:28 AM »

hi paul -

here is a quote from your fbi reference.

""Chemical composition is one important characteristic defining smokeless propellants; however, another important characteristic is its morphology. Shape and size have a profound effect on the burning rate and power generation of a powder (Meyer 1987). ""

i believe the word "profound" used in this text describes something more than a tertiary parameter supporting the unwashed opine in my previous post.

an excerpt from your previous post:

""The burning rate is a function of oxidation, which is a chemical reaction. However, burning rate doesn't have a whole lot to do with the stoiciometric relationship between the composition and the production of gases. The burning rate just tells you how fast it burns, nothing is known, from the burning rate, about how much gas it produces. ""

please explain to me what you mean by the "stoiciometric relationship between the compo.....", i.e., how is the ratio of composition to gas production a stoiciometric function ??!!?? please be as technical as possible here.

sg

(edited to correct spelling error)