Are old load books valuable sources of info?

[bobotech]

Inspired by this thread:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=385858

I will buy old load books at gun shows once in a while but I have a buddy who thinks that's a stupid idea. He said that powders have changed over the years and that its not worth it to buy the old books and use their load data.

I say that the powders haven't changed ALL that much and having a wide selection of books makes for good cross reference.

He gets all his load data from online sources and doesn't bother with books.

What do you all think?

 

[ants]

Well, bobotech, get ready with a paper and pencil because every member in the universe will have different answers for you.

You and every shooter who pulls a trigger on your reloads are relying upon your responsible nature as a reloader. Only you can determine which published data to follow. Be wise about it.

Powders, bullets, and methods of testing do change, but not every year. If a new edition comes out every 3 or 4 years, I think it is worth my trouble to take a look at it. You decide whatever is best for you.

Online data from powder and bullet manufacturers is highly reliable. The rest of the data on the Internet is worth doodly squat, until you double check it against data from powder and bullet manufacturers and published books. Once you check it against a commercial source, you're good to go.

Data published by folks on forums like this one (or web sites like Handloads Online) are highly subject to typing errors, idiocy, and guesswork. Once you double check it against a commercial source, you're good to go. The people who post their personal data are not responsible for your safety or the safety of the other shooters around you. You are solely responsible.

 

[Ala Dan]

Yes, handloading information (data) does change occassionally; but I
collect old loading manuals, just like I do firearms. Most of the time,
I find there is good reading between the covers~!

 

[Grumulkin]

I don't use old books a lot but I have them and at times they have a very good and unique load that you won't find in the newer manuals.

 

[cdrt]

Online data from powder and bullet manufacturers is highly reliable

Sometimes, NOT. I found a major error at the Alliant site on a load for the .44 magnum. Their starting load was above max for a 240 grain jacketed bullet. I emailed them letting them know they had some bogus data on their site.

I have a bunch of old reloading books. Not only are they a good read, but it's nice to be able to check more than one source. Over time, books will delete powders for a particular cartridge, not because the powder is no longer available, but because they make space for newer powders and they can only print so many different loads per cartridge.

For example, I still use IMR 4895 in my .243 Winchester, but try and find a load for it in Speer's #12 manual. It isn't there anymore. I'm using a load I worked up from Lyman's #45 manual.

Lyman's #45 is worth having just because of the loads in the back for "obsolete" cartridges. Some of those, like the .44-40 have resurfaced due to Cowboy Action Shooting and are now back in the newer manuals.

 

[ranger335v]

"He said that powders have changed over the years..."

That's a popular misconception. The powder makers actually try their best to maintain the same characteristics as well as they can.

Truth is powder is an organic material, made from organic materials. Like tomatoes and other foods, organic things are always quite simular but NOT identical, so individual manufactoring batches are always a little different but not by much. That's why it's good to carefully test each new powder contanier before we load any max loads with it.

Some powder makers, especially Hodgdon and IMR, have long had the same ID number but the burn rates were a little different because they were made in different places. The differences weren't planned, it was simpy that Hodgdon's contracted powder makers were unable to duplicate IMR. (Now that Hodgdon owns IMR I wonder if they will simply drop the near duplicates or renumber one of them.)

Anyway, even today we will see new manuals differ in charge info for the same powder and bullet. That's because they, like us, use different guns to develop their loads! And the critical point is that we, like they, must test the charges in our different guns to confirm that their data, new or old, is going to work right for us.

All the differences between old books and new rises from the same thing. The makers are not still using the same old guns, so, even if the powder was identical, the loading data would not be identical. Thus, old book data is fully as "good" as new book data.

As cdrt says, ANY source may contain typo errors! It's good to have as many sources as possible simply as a check against such mistakes by the printers. Compare suggested loads, if any one stands out vastly different, ignore it!

Work up your own loads, using the book as a reference and not a literal gospel Bible of truth, just as the books, old and new, tell us to do and you will be good to go.

 

[loadedround]

They're great for cartridge and powder research and just general information. Where else can you find information on obsolete or discontinued powders and bullets. Besides they are fun reading. I have a complete set of the Speer Manuals from #1 through #14 accumulated over the years.

 

[jim147]

I keep them around for many reasons. The main one I keep is the Hercules. I still have a lot of old pistol powder that I load.

 

[Clark]

I got ~50 load books off Ebay.

The Speer wildcat book is valuable ~$50.

I think load books may be obsolete for advanced reloaders, with Quickload available.

 

[Halo]

Like others have mentioned, they're interesting for historical information and commentary if nothing else. I have a Speer #11 from the mid-80s and the narrative for 9mm mentions that we will probably see this round become quite common. Good for a laugh.

As for the data, the near universal trend seems to be that they become more conservative with later editions. Some might say that is due to an increasingly litigious society, and others will say it's because pressure measuring equipment has become more precise in the intervening years and better able to detect peak pressure. I don't know which is the more likely explanation for that trend, but I doubt people were blowing up guns left and right with the published data 20 years ago so I wouldn't immediately dismiss them as obsolete.