“Insurance Edited” Loading Manuals

[CQB45ACP]

Laws are useless when there isn't proper punishment for breaking them. I believe this is where we are today.
Bring back the road gangs for clean up of public roads, stocks in a public area and a few VERY public executions would be a good start.

Amen! As my Pastor jokes...”if we had a little more leprosy we’d have a lot less sin.”

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Same bullet mold (358311), different casting materials. Look in particular at the Unique loads.
Is that change because of lawyers, lot numbers, bullet hardness, testing or a new formula which includes flash suppression and shelf life stabilizers? Maybe all of the above but, I doubt it.

 

[WrongHanded]

What's your point?

Pretty obvious isn't it? I mean, really it is pretty obvious. You must have thought about it enough to understand what I said. But okay, I'll explain further, just for you.

If some data lists max charges with pressure testing records that fall below SAAMI maximum average pressure, then the data doesn't go to SAAMI max. Which means it's not a full pressure load. Which means it watered down.

 

[buck460XVR]

Thoughts

IMHO, it comes down to reputation and common sense. Most folks buy printed manuals for the tested loads that are deemed safe in all modern firearms in good condition. Why would by folks that produce those types of manuals do anything to purposely deviate from that? Just because a load tests 1000 psi below SAAMI in the test firearm/receiver/barrel does not mean that's the pressure created in all firearms. This, along with slight variances in components is why they do not always print recipes right up to the last # of psi. Doesn't take a lawyer to explain the sense in this or the possible risk of not staying within safe parameters.

 

[fxvr5]

If some data lists max charges with pressure testing records that fall below SAAMI maximum average pressure, then the data doesn't go to SAAMI max. Which means it's not a full pressure load. Which means it watered down.

By your definition, if the MAP is 15,000 psi, and the load data stops at 14,900 psi, the load is watered down.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Pretty obvious isn't it? I mean, really it is pretty obvious. You must have thought about it enough to understand what I said. But okay, I'll explain further, just for you.

If some data lists max charges with pressure testing records that fall below SAAMI maximum average pressure, then the data doesn't go to SAAMI max. Which means it's not a full pressure load. Which means it watered down.

Fact remains: from 1955 to 2002, the data just isn’t very far off. Less than a grain difference in half a century. Where’s the lawyering in that? Get some old books and compare bullet-to-bullet, apples-for-apples, and leave out the prejudices. They did a pretty darned good job back in the day just going by observation and gut instinct.

 

[ballman6711]

If some data lists max charges with pressure testing records that fall below SAAMI maximum average pressure, then the data doesn't go to SAAMI max. Which means it's not a full pressure load. Which means it watered down.

I don't know if this is entirely true. Maybe the company saw a spike in pressure when going to a higher charge.

Ex: The testing company got a result 1K psi below SAAMI limits at 5.x grains. At 5.x plus 0.1 they hit the SAAMI limit, and at 5.x plus 0.2 they exceeded SAAMI limits by 1K psi or more.

Or maybe they stopped going higher because accuracy with the components they used fell off a cliff.

Ex: At 5.x they have a 1 MOA load, but at 5.x plus 0.1 it opens to 1.2 MOA, and maybe at 5.x plus 0.2 it's opened to 1.5 MOA.

I'm sure lawyers are involved to some degree or another, but I believe their involvement is very small compared to the numerous other reasons that could cause a company to publish the data they do.

chris

 

[tightgroup tiger]

When powder companies blend powders from different lots to get the desired burn rate, it tells me that the powder's burn rates can be quite different from lot to lot, when it's made.
We are at their mercy as to how good they are at "adjusting", the product we buy.
I always wondered how much variation they are allowing for "being in spec" and if this tolerance has widened any over the years, and if some "marginal blends" ever get through QC that really shouldn't have. We will never know, so I tend to err on the side of caution these days no matter what the reason is for lowering the data.
Just my 2 cents.

 

[WrongHanded]

By your definition, if the MAP is 15,000 psi, and the load data stops at 14,900 psi, the load is watered down.

You know full well what my original post said. Now you're trying to take 1,000+ psi and make it into 100.

So by your counter-argument, if the MAP is 15,000 psi, and the data stops at 10,000 psi, that's still a full power load right?

See, we can both make stupid exaggerations.

 

[WrongHanded]

Fact remains: from 1955 to 2002, the data just isn’t very far off. Less than a grain difference in half a century. Where’s the lawyering in that? Get some old books and compare bullet-to-bullet, apples-for-apples, and leave out the prejudices. They did a pretty darned good job back in the day just going by observation and gut instinct.

Look at my original post before you start assuming I think it's got anything to do with lawyers.

 

[WrongHanded]

I don't know if this is entirely true. Maybe the company saw a spike in pressure when going to a higher charge.

Ex: The testing company got a result 1K psi below SAAMI limits at 5.x grains. At 5.x plus 0.1 they hit the SAAMI limit, and at 5.x plus 0.2 they exceeded SAAMI limits by 1K psi or more.

Or maybe they stopped going higher because accuracy with the components they used fell off a cliff.

Ex: At 5.x they have a 1 MOA load, but at 5.x plus 0.1 it opens to 1.2 MOA, and maybe at 5.x plus 0.2 it's opened to 1.5 MOA.

I'm sure lawyers are involved to some degree or another, but I believe their involvement is very small compared to the numerous other reasons that could cause a company to publish the data they do.

chris

You don't really think reloading manuals only print "accurate" data, do you? I seriously doubt accuracy dropping off is any kind of factor.

As far as pressure spikes go, yes I suppose it's possible at at a certain point in load development they hit a point where there average was right at SAAMI MAP, but they had such a large extreme spread that the top was pushing way beyond the allowable limit, so they had to reduce the load.

What I think is more likely, is that they haven't re-tested every load after it's worked up and established. So some loads are quite old and their max was already established. When they then tested it with new equipment, they found the pressure below SAAMI MAP, and didn't bother working on further development.

 

[fxvr5]

Some folks have not considered that adding a wee bit more powder might have pushed the MAP just above the SAAMI limit. Instead they claim that the loads are purposefully watered down.

Why would they 'water down' a load with one powder when they didn't do it with the other powders?

And the conspiracy theorists say . . .

 

[mdi]

If it could be proven (factual not internet wisdom) that a manual is in reality "Lawyered Down", I for one would drop that manual in the round file. I use data from manuals that are not suggested, but those actually tested. Yes manuals' data varies from manual to manual, but so do components and equipment...

 

[jmorris]

Most folks buy printed manuals for the tested loads that are deemed safe in all modern firearms in good condition. Why would by folks that produce those types of manuals do anything to purposely deviate from that?

This is something I have also thought about. Not just with reloading data though. I think the most jarring I have seen is the incredibly short throats I have seen on Ruger 6mm rifles for example.

Bullet on the right is a factory loaded round, the middle one shows how far into the lands it is shoved (must be tapped out by the nose, thus the distorted tip). One on the left is how deep they have to be seated to not stick in the bore.



Obviously, they do not take into account VLD bullets, even with factory loaded ammunition.

And that should be a much lower set of variables than all other guns so chambered, like load data.

 

[jmorris]

If it could be proven (factual not internet wisdom) that a manual is in reality "Lawyered Down"…

I would say the final decision was most certainly not made by an attorney, even if one strongly suggested it.

Back in the ‘70’s kids could ride in cars without a car seat, anywhere inside or out. Heck, in the ‘60’s seat belts were an “option” at the dealer. Only a “special” person would have been seen wearing a helmet casually riding a bicycle. Doctors smoked in their office. All of that has changed much more than any load data difference I have seen.

If “proof” is books from the past have higher/lower starting points than the entity currently suggests, it would be easy to provide evidence of both.

That said, I did a lot of things in my life, I wouldn’t suggest my kids do. So there’s that too. If you are going to err, it’s better to be on the caution side vs the kaboom side.

 

[jmorris]

By your definition, if the MAP is 15,000 psi, and the load data stops at 14,900 psi, the load is watered down.

If “watered down”, means ~ .6% reduction from standard operating pressure, yes. I suppose that would count.

That said, I have had people call my 9mm “minor” loads, “mouse fart” loads, despite them actually running at quite high pressures (over max, from some sources). So it’s important to define what sayings mean despite common use.

If you put any water in my whiskey, it’s watered down. That I do know. Well, that and if you water down powder, it doesn’t seem to work at all until it’s dry again.

 

[ballman6711]

You don't really think reloading manuals only print "accurate" data, do you? I seriously doubt accuracy dropping off is any kind of factor.

Some may, and some may not, print accurate data. I don't think reloading manuals print only accurate data, but I believe Nosler shows their "potentially most accurate" load in their data. Sierra's app shows "accuracy" and "hunting" loads, with the hunting load having more energy in ft/lbs.

And I thought I read somewhere that when Hornady tests their loads, they not only look for pressure but also test every load for accuracy at 100 yards. Maybe someone can verify this.

chris

 

[BBarn]

If some data lists max charges with pressure testing records that fall below SAAMI maximum average pressure, then the data doesn't go to SAAMI max. Which means it's not a full pressure load. Which means it watered down.

SAAMI compliant load limits are not determined solely by MAP. They must also comply with MPLM and MPSM limits. So some SAAMI compliant loads may develop less MAP than others of the same cartridge.

 

[WrongHanded]

Some may, and some may not, print accurate data. I don't think reloading manuals print only accurate data, but I believe Nosler shows their "potentially most accurate" load in their data. Sierra's app shows "accuracy" and "hunting" loads, with the hunting load having more energy in ft/lbs.

And I thought I read somewhere that when Hornady tests their loads, they not only look for pressure but also test every load for accuracy at 100 yards. Maybe someone can verify this.

chris

Oh I'm sure if a particular powder just doesn't work well for a certain bullet and cartridge, it won't be included in the published data. But I have serious doubts that when data stops significantly short of SAAMI max pressure, it has anything to do with accuracy dropping off in test barrels.

 

[WrongHanded]

SAAMI compliant load limits are not determined sole by MAP. They must also comply with MPLM and MPSM limits. So some SAAMI compliant loads may develop less MAP than others of the same cartridge.

Now that is a reasonable explanation to data falling short of MAP. Thank you.

 

[jmorris]

…thinking folks know that the actual reason for any reductions is science,

I think the thread to yank on, to unravel the mystery, is why do all burn rate charts not list the various powders we choose from in the exact same order?

This “scientifically” collected data is in disagreement before cases, bullets and guns are even brought into the mix to add to the confusion.

 

[ballman6711]

I chose to use Hornady's data when I started loading .223Rem. Their data was lower than all the other data I found.

I also found that a near max load (using Hornady's data) gave me an acceptably accurate round in my rifle. I stopped 0.2 grains shy of their max because I achieved the results I was looking for. I could certainly go higher since the data from other manufactures is there, as well as my rifle being chambered for .556, but I don't need to. Others might, and that's fine with me, but my load is accurate in my rifle.

Oh I'm sure if a particular powder just doesn't work well for a certain bullet and cartridge, it won't be included in the published data. But I have serious doubts that when data stops significantly short of SAAMI max pressure, it has anything to do with accuracy dropping off in test barrels.

I certainly do agree with your first sentence, but i still disagree with the second. Many company's have built a reputation for accurate ammo, or accurate/consistent bullets for reloading. If they find accuracy drops off with a given set of components before reaching max pressure AND have tested to max pressure, why would they publish data all the way to max?

I think the thread to yank on, to unravel the mystery is why do all burn rate charts not list the various powders we choose from in the exact same order?

This “scientifically” collected data is in disagreement before cases, bullets and guns are even brought into the mix to add to the confusion.

^^^^
This is a very good question, and could be a new thread all it's own.

I still don't think the data is "lawyered down".

chris

 

[Blue68f100]

One thing to consider is the actual components used. We all know using a different bullet or lot number can effect our results. Their barrel or test equipment does not match what we have. These are only suggested guides to what their test results were using their particular set of components. Change 1 component in the mix and your teat data may or may not match theirs. Chambers these days seam to be all over the place. Most now having extremely long leade's to prevent bullets being jammed resulting in over pressure. Then like mention some have none.

I have over 25 yrs experience in materials testing, R&D. When I started to when I retired 20 yrs ago advancements in electronics and instrumentation had greatly improved. When you get to high speed acquisition it only takes 1 device/chip being out of spec or not designed to work at the speeds in which your looking at to throw your results off. But you may not have a way to verify it's actually right. One of my R&D projects ended up requiring us to design our own high impedance isolation amp that would respond to the speed we needed. There was nothing on the market that would meet our requirement, though some mfg claimed theirs did. Data collection is only as good as the equipment you use, and test procedures.

Believe what you want on Lawyer driven or not. I personally do not believe lawyers write the load data we used. They write the disclaimer to remove there responsibility if something goes wrong. Even that is not protection in today's society.

 

[WrongHanded]

I certainly do agree with your first sentence, but i still disagree with the second. Many company's have built a reputation for accurate ammo, or accurate/consistent bullets for reloading. If they find accuracy drops off with a given set of components before reaching max pressure AND have tested to max pressure, why would they publish data all the way to max?

Because not all barrels are the same.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

before you start assuming I think it's got anything to do with lawyers.

"Get some old books and compare bullet-to-bullet, apples-for-apples, and leave out the prejudices."

Lyman Ideal No.40, Lyman bullet #358311/358432 (20:1 Alloy)
Bullseye - Start: 2.7 Max: 3.2
Unique - Start: 4.5 Max: 5.2

Lyman No.44, Lyman bullet #358311 (#2 Alloy)
Bullseye - Start: 2.0 Max: 3.5
Unique - Start: 3.5 Max: 5.4

Lyman No.48, Lyman bullet #358311 (Linotype)
Bullseye - Start: 3.2 Max: 4.1
Unique - Start: 4.2 Max: 5.3

I don't know what you're seeing in this timeline of data that tells you "maximum pressure" is being avoided or something has changed drastically over time. I don't see anything being "watered down" and I'm looking for it. I see progressively higher charges with progressively harder alloys. From Lyman No.40 to Lyman No.48, nothing has been watered down for any reason. What's so hard to understand about that?

Bottom line and then you can have the last word because this is sounding more like "The Religion of Ka-Boom" than the arts and crafts of handloading. If all a handloader cares about is max! Max! MAX!!!! then they really have no business behind the trigger. That's my opinion. Disagree if you like - or just go blow up a few guns like Elmer did - but I'm entitled to my opinion and in my opinion unless the SAAMI/CIP MAX!!!!! load is also the most accurate, easiest to manage, and overall useful load, then it's a waste of time, money and components. You're welcome to blow up all of your guns you want but I'd really prefer the manuals stick what won't blow up my gun, or anybody else's.