Peter M. Eick
Member
I was reading yesterday from my Handloader DVD set, (yes, I know it was a holiday for the rest of the states, but here at sea it was just another day of waiting on the weather to die down). Anyway, in the july-august 1970 issue on page 17 they list a bunch of interesting loads and factory velocity information.
CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The High Road, nor the staff of THR assume any liability for any damage or injury resulting from use of this information.
Just for information sake, here is the loads, and measured velocity from different guns.
From the factory:
Remington 158 Jhp's, 2" 725, 4" 788, 6" 960, 8 3/8" 915 published 1150
Winchester 158 lead 2" 851, 4" 924, 6" 1036, 8 3/8" 1008 published 1060
Speer 158 jsp 2" 826, 4" 817, 6" 971, 8 3/8" 913 published 900
RWS 158 jhp 2" 727, 4" 910, 6" 978, 8 3/8" 910 not published.
Now for the reloads:
158 jsp, 10.5x2400 2" 674, 4" 811, 6" 883, 8 3/8" 810
158 jsp, 11.0x2400 2" 774, 4" 858, 6" 971 8 3/8" 878
158 lead, 10.5x2400 2" 808, 4" 904, 6" NA, 8 3/8" 964
All were with cci500 primers, oehler md 20 chrono at 10 ft.
In another issue, I found that my old standard load of 5.5 grns of unique with a 158 would go 1050 out of a 6" and in the same issue winchester was promoting its new 158 grn load at 1050 also. Today we call these 38/44 loads, yet back then it was just a routine 158 38 special load.
The thing that struck me about this is the fact that the factory ammo out of a 6" was really doing over 900 fps and sometimes over a 1000 fps with a 158 only 36 years ago. We have been over the change in pressure measurement and the downgrading of the ammo several times but I don't think I have seen any one post when this occurred.
As a comparison today:
158 lead cbc, 2" 640, 4" 765, 6" 771, 8 3/8" 710 (my 8 3/8 is slow)
158 lead winchester 2" 681, 4" 783, 6" 830, 8 3/8" 814
4.6 unique, 158 lead 2" 781, 4" 893, 6" 925, 8/38" 843
I just thought I would post the information out of curiosity.
When I get back ashore I will have to make up and shoot off a ladder test with 2400 and make the same table so we can see the difference between 2400 in 1970 and 2400 in 2006.
CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The High Road, nor the staff of THR assume any liability for any damage or injury resulting from use of this information.
Just for information sake, here is the loads, and measured velocity from different guns.
From the factory:
Remington 158 Jhp's, 2" 725, 4" 788, 6" 960, 8 3/8" 915 published 1150
Winchester 158 lead 2" 851, 4" 924, 6" 1036, 8 3/8" 1008 published 1060
Speer 158 jsp 2" 826, 4" 817, 6" 971, 8 3/8" 913 published 900
RWS 158 jhp 2" 727, 4" 910, 6" 978, 8 3/8" 910 not published.
Now for the reloads:
158 jsp, 10.5x2400 2" 674, 4" 811, 6" 883, 8 3/8" 810
158 jsp, 11.0x2400 2" 774, 4" 858, 6" 971 8 3/8" 878
158 lead, 10.5x2400 2" 808, 4" 904, 6" NA, 8 3/8" 964
All were with cci500 primers, oehler md 20 chrono at 10 ft.
In another issue, I found that my old standard load of 5.5 grns of unique with a 158 would go 1050 out of a 6" and in the same issue winchester was promoting its new 158 grn load at 1050 also. Today we call these 38/44 loads, yet back then it was just a routine 158 38 special load.
The thing that struck me about this is the fact that the factory ammo out of a 6" was really doing over 900 fps and sometimes over a 1000 fps with a 158 only 36 years ago. We have been over the change in pressure measurement and the downgrading of the ammo several times but I don't think I have seen any one post when this occurred.
As a comparison today:
158 lead cbc, 2" 640, 4" 765, 6" 771, 8 3/8" 710 (my 8 3/8 is slow)
158 lead winchester 2" 681, 4" 783, 6" 830, 8 3/8" 814
4.6 unique, 158 lead 2" 781, 4" 893, 6" 925, 8/38" 843
I just thought I would post the information out of curiosity.
When I get back ashore I will have to make up and shoot off a ladder test with 2400 and make the same table so we can see the difference between 2400 in 1970 and 2400 in 2006.