GeoDudeFlorida
Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2020
- Messages
- 11,052
Oh, okay. Never mind then. Bad idea. Sorry to have interjected an opinion which may have seemed contrary to your expertise.
Reloading for revolvers, load data and testing proposals
- Thread starter Onty
- Start date
[QUOTE="Onty, post: 12574958, member: 7427"]I do not have late Lyman Cast Bullet handbook, just their standard Reloading Handbook, like #48th Edition. In it, they list as lead for casting #2 Alloy and Linotype. Of all shooters I met last 30+ years, they use nothing but standard wheel weight. If they make their own alloy using pure lead, they adjust "ingredients" to get wheel weight. For target and general shooting, they use as cast, for peppier loads, they quenched bullets. Worked decades before, will work decades in future.
As for me, nah, just a "freeloader" with fellow caster. Well, my duty was to quench their thirst, and they preferred it that way
.[/QUOTE]
How can you compose this essay of a thread and not have the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook??
It has more information then you can possibly need!
I have never had a problem finding load data for revolver calibers, Maybe some of the new powders are not listed but I don't care, as I do not use them
Spend the $30 or heck get the old version for free,
https://www.amazon.com/Lyman-Bullet-Handbook-Multiple-Model/dp/B086R4SPC2
https://www.scribd.com/document/366588877/Lyman-Cast-Bullet-Handbook-3rd-Edition-1980#
As for me, nah, just a "freeloader" with fellow caster. Well, my duty was to quench their thirst, and they preferred it that way
.[/QUOTE]How can you compose this essay of a thread and not have the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook??
It has more information then you can possibly need!
I have never had a problem finding load data for revolver calibers, Maybe some of the new powders are not listed but I don't care, as I do not use them
Spend the $30 or heck get the old version for free,
https://www.amazon.com/Lyman-Bullet-Handbook-Multiple-Model/dp/B086R4SPC2
https://www.scribd.com/document/366588877/Lyman-Cast-Bullet-Handbook-3rd-Edition-1980#
Charlie98
Member
I was actually referring to the testing criteria the old Ideal manuals had: their max load is where accuracy started to fall off in their testing gun, not where they started to see dangerous pressure signs. Their recommended loads were where they saw the best overall performance in their testing, not the minimum load where a bullet made it out of the barrel. I like that. If you don’t, that’s fine.
And, again, I look at it as... where accuracy may 'fall off' in their testing, may or may not be the same with my (or your) firearm. That was the accuracy node for their firearm, at that time, with those components. Your example is a little bit of cherry picking... it clearly states 'moderate loads,' which would not likely reach max pressure in any event, and features 2 cast bullets, including a hollow-base wadcutter.
The difference? The difference is in testing methodology. It's common knowledge that testing to CUP was an inexact science compared to modern (PSI) measurements. There is a fair amount of load data that was revised when it was retested to PSI.
Jim Watson
Member
Tetchy, tetchy.
Here is a Sound Level Meter and a reference to the Mil spec for use on firearms.
https://www.larsondavis.com/Products/sound-level-meters/firearm-noise-qpr
I know. But how do you or I make use of that information? The same load tested both ways will give different numbers. It seems that most of the stuff retested by piezoelectric transducer leads to a lower published maximum powder charge. Because the electronics pick up a short sharp peak that the crusher cannot physically respond to. But that old CUP load served for decades. Was it really deep into the safety margin of the gun as proof tested... based on CUP readings?
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,079
^^^...I tend to agree with Jim.
With the technology of the period, CUP was just fine. Being on numerous gun forums for almost two decades, I have yet to read a thread where someone legitimately blew up their gun with listed loads, from a reliable manual and they followed the practice of "starting low and working up". This is especially true with revolvers that would probably display sticky extraction. Reloading then(and now for most folks) was/is a common sense, create safe and accurate ammo thing. We did not have to know what the pressure was in every increment of a recipe, between min and max. We just needed a safe place to start and an approximate safe place to stop. Nowadays, for those folks that feel a need to know more info, it is going to come at a cost.
^^^...yep.
...as I stated previously.
.....but in the end, would any of it produce safer and more accurate ammo for you? Even with QB, the performance you get from your own firearm will not be the exact same. You still would need to shoot it.
GeoDudeFlorida
Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2020
- Messages
- 11,052
Believe me, no offense taken. Far better to buy a precision instrument for $$$$??? than to use something less precise that I ready have. This is an expert’s thread now and I am no expert on publishing loading manuals. My preferences are of no import in any regard. As the potential consumer, my opinions are completely irrelevant. It’s up to the people who know the science to make the decisions. Besides, I stopped buying loading manuals back in the 20-teens when I figured out they were all about the New Hotness and the data for the old, outdated guns I shot were just republications of old, outdated data I already had.
I’ll just sit back and watch, thanks. Pass the popcorn.
FWIW there is no standard wheel weight alloy. As someone who has sorted few hundred pounds of WW's, I can assure you some are very soft while others are very hard. Even clip on WW's can be dead soft.
Like others have mentioned the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook will work for lead just as well any other manual works for jacketed. None of them are perfect. With enough time and money it wouldn't be too hard to develop a comprehensive manual that has all the info anyone could ever want. And it'd be too expensive for anyone to afford...
Like others have mentioned the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook will work for lead just as well any other manual works for jacketed. None of them are perfect. With enough time and money it wouldn't be too hard to develop a comprehensive manual that has all the info anyone could ever want. And it'd be too expensive for anyone to afford...
I do have an old Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook, but as I said, no late one. Also, in some late Lyman handbooks no loads for some bullets using Bullseye, but they were listed in 48th Edition. And there are some other powders on the market that are not listed in some manuals for cast bullets.
Also, I would like to stress that this thread is predominantly to direct powder manufacturers to make their manuals better, more informative. If you use just those powders listed in Lyman manuals, that is fine with me. I want to use some other powders, with data I want to see. IMO, the better and more informative reloading manual leads to more customers. I call putting more money in better testing equipment, more testing and ultimately better manuals, a vise investment, not unnecessary expense.
Just for illustration, in this thread Unusual hammer on Security Six | RugerForum.com - Ruger Enthusiast & Owner Community I suggested another hammer spur on Ruger DA revolvers. Well, see some posts...
Last edited:
Between Hodgdon's online platform which is pretty useful and Vihtavouri's app I have most of my powders covered.
Somehow Alliant's has great powders but their online data is about the worst. I guess they aren't too worried about people finding data for their powders as most manuals do a pretty good job including them.
Somehow Alliant's has great powders but their online data is about the worst. I guess they aren't too worried about people finding data for their powders as most manuals do a pretty good job including them.
I am sure they will all jump right on this!
Heck so many new re loaders do not even buy a manual or two or three. The post on the internet, whats a good load for xyz!
Lead is in a downfall. Most lead used now is recycled from our car batteries that we sell to China and then they sell it back to us.
Most bullets are either plated or powder coatedThe lead bullet companies are relatively small, private (compared to the big organizations)
Jim Watson
Member
As Jeff Cooper's Embarrassing Question goes, what is it to be FOR?
Do you want to see how well your silencer is working and how much difference there is between powders? Use your app.
Do you want to help the OP tabulate noise for a range of loads to be published widely? Buy the sound level meter and set it up in accordance with the spec.
When the Lyman formulas were written, wheel weights were pretty consistent, lead+antimony+arsenic, the little bit of arsenic is what triggers quench hardness. Nowadays they are scrap lead if they are lead at all; Our Leaders are afraid of lead so we see zinc and iron wheel weights.
Commercial pistol bullets are commonly made out of 92% lead, 6% antimony, 2% tin. More tin like Lyman #2 90-5-5 just runs up the cost. And Elmer's range of 16:1 lead:tin is wasteful and 10:1 more so. I loaded for BCPR using 20:1 because all the pros said to not put antimony in a BP load; but a friend melted down birdshot bought cheaply at a going out of business sale, added some tin, and produced fine bullets.
The fact is that market situation is so good now, that most likely we will see just few efforts from manufacturers to increase sales. However, good times will not last forever, sooner or later, market will slow down, and companies will start looking for better marketing in order to get sales.
The truth is some shooters are OK with what is on the market. Some of us are not, and we would like better, in this case more comprehensive reloading manuals. Hope that some bright managers and businessmen will see the path. And if we ask, there is a good chance we could trigger something.
Just to remind you, until 50-ties, Smith & Wesson and Colt were ruling the show, SA revolvers were just same old design. Well, Sturm and Ruger started company, reinvented single action revolver, and rest is the history. Hope everybody knows about Freedom Arms and their revolvers. Why they start making them? Obviously, customers wanted top quality SA revolvers, with more punch than 44 Magnum or 45 Colt at "Ruger level".
Some years back I was reading not so glamorous reviews about Pietta and Uberti revolvers. Last year, after waiting more than six months, I managed to get Uberti 1858 New Army, Target, stainless. I can tell you, I am impressed with fit and finish. Why? Shooters let them know what they think about their products and what they wanted, and folks at Pietta and Uberti paid attention. Now, I am inline at local store for Pietta 1858 Navy, Target, stainless.
The truth is some shooters are OK with what is on the market. Some of us are not, and we would like better, in this case more comprehensive reloading manuals. Hope that some bright managers and businessmen will see the path. And if we ask, there is a good chance we could trigger something.
Just to remind you, until 50-ties, Smith & Wesson and Colt were ruling the show, SA revolvers were just same old design. Well, Sturm and Ruger started company, reinvented single action revolver, and rest is the history. Hope everybody knows about Freedom Arms and their revolvers. Why they start making them? Obviously, customers wanted top quality SA revolvers, with more punch than 44 Magnum or 45 Colt at "Ruger level".
Some years back I was reading not so glamorous reviews about Pietta and Uberti revolvers. Last year, after waiting more than six months, I managed to get Uberti 1858 New Army, Target, stainless. I can tell you, I am impressed with fit and finish. Why? Shooters let them know what they think about their products and what they wanted, and folks at Pietta and Uberti paid attention. Now, I am inline at local store for Pietta 1858 Navy, Target, stainless.
Without pressure gauges, and reliable design information for the fatigue lifetime information on firearms, we reloaders are back in the days of spirits, demons, and devils. We really don't know what is going on inside that chamber.
So, what do you do? I for one don't push it. I believe, without data to back this belief, that if my loads are going faster than pressure tested, then the pressures are higher. If I have pierced primers, blown primers, I consider that proof positive of over pressure loads. I am of the opinion, when I have sticking cases, I am way over pressure. I have shot enough hot reloads, without sticking extraction, that the lack of friction does not prove much of anything.
This youtuber is testing old Turkish 8mm ammunition and claiming it is safe.
Shooter claims Turkish S ball ammunition, 154 gr bullet, claims 2980 fps factory. In his 29 inch M98 Mauser, the only velocity measurement was 3200 fps and the one round fired had a split case neck.
As a reference, from Mauser Bolt Rifles by Ludwig Olson, 3rd edition
German 7.9 mm Model S cartridge
Bullet diameter: 0.323”
Bullet weight: 154 fps
Muzzle velocity 2936 fps (29.13” barrel)
Max pressure: 44,082 psi
German 7.9 mm Model sS cartridge
Bullet diameter: 0.323”
Bullet weight: 198 fps
Muzzle velocity 2575 fps (29.13” barrel)
Max pressure: 46,926 psi
Remarks: muzzle velocigty with 23.62” barrel is 2476 fvps
He then shifts to a Gewher G43 rifle that has a 21.5 inch barrel. Shooter starts off with “fresh” Yugo ammunition.Ends up with Turkish.
2505 fps Yugo
2515 fps Yugo
3080 fps Turk
3010 fps Turk
The shooter may not be having sticky extraction, but he is not beating the bolt open. But his velocities are high. Does anyone think 3010 fps out of a 21.5 inch barrel is reasonable based on known issue pressures and velocities?
I am sure a good quality, new firearm will take over pressures for a while. But something that has already gone through a lot of shots, I would not push it. Metal fatigue is real. Happens all the time. On all sorts of things.
Jim Watson
Member
Rotten powder or Turks thought they were smarter than DWM?
Interesting Hodgdon loads 8mm to 49000 CUP, not the neutered SAAMI safe in all guns limit.
Interesting Hodgdon loads 8mm to 49000 CUP, not the neutered SAAMI safe in all guns limit.
Last edited:
eddiememphis
Member
I don't think you understand my point.
Is there enough demand for obscure ammo reloading to warrant the expense of Lyman to purchase the equipment necessary to work out loads for 100 year old firearms? Or to test every bullet and powder combo?
How many additional manuals will they sell if they included that data? Enough to justify the expense? Likely not, especially since the internet never respects copyright laws. One guy will ask about Webley loads and one guy will post a picture of Lyman's work and then everyone will have that information for free.
They will never see the return on investment necessary to perform such tests.
If you think there is a market for manuals containing the loads you are asking for, do it yourself! I would love to have you send a picture flipping me the bird from the deck of your yacht, proving me wrong.
I am of the opinion that the Turkish ammunition in the video is showing high pressures due to age. It is well known that velocities, and pressures, go up with old gunpowder.
In terms of the Turks being smarter than DWM, I don't think so. Why should they be buying bolt guns, machine guns, all of which are sighted for, and function properly with standard ammunition. Anyone who has had ripped case rims, bolt over rides in semi auto matic mechanisms with over pressure loads, should ask themselves, why would the Turks do that to themselves with German made, and German supplied, machine guns?. It just does not make sense they would. And then, what does more velocity mean to a military organization, other than more velocity?. A basic question, sure more means more, just what does more provide? More does not necessarily mean more, or that more is worth the bother.
But, we could start the rumor that the Turks had a secret ingredient: Red Mercury. When the Ottomans controlled Egypt, they would extract red mercury from Egyptian mummies and add it to their gunpowder. Which is why the very old Turkish 8mm ammunition can push bullets so fast. And then, when the Turks were kicked out of Egypt, they lost their supply of red mercury, which would explain why newer 8mm is slower.
Hey, if repeated enough, this would be believed.
As for Hodgdon having 49 K CUP loads, I am surprised. The US does not have a proof system such as is used in Europe. The proof system in Europe is specifically designed to remove old, weak, firearms, and individuals cannot sell a firearm without it passing proof. European ammunition, such as Norma, can be sold with confidence in Europe because all the firearms have passed proof. Here in the US, there might be some liability to a vendor selling 50 K CUP loads or advice. But I guess Hodgdon thinks the liability is not enough to bother.
Last edited:
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,168
I guess that depends on who’s paying for it, a couple trillion dollars is chump change to some….and I’d do it myself for a small fraction of the cost.
Again, why Starline making 455 brass? The only answer is there is market for it, sufficient enough to spend tens thousands of dollars for tooling and manufacturing preparations.
As for "Or to test every bullet and powder combo", let be real, the one and only bullet relevant for 455 Webley is this one
See 455 Webley (Mk2), HB, 4 cavity mold - MP-molds . As for powders, how many? I think 3 or 4 should be more than enough. I do not want to turn this discussion into a shouting match, but from time to time I see some folks vigorously trying to keep things as is, telling to others how wrong they are asking for something in what they have no interest. Nor firearms.
Another example, when last 45 S&W (Schofield) revolver was manufactured? Yet, shooters asked for brass, Starline made it, powder companies provided load data. Personally, I have no interest in 45 GAP, and IMO, this round is way more obscure than 455 Webley. However, some folks like it, but I will never say a word against manufacturing brass or work on load data. Just contrary, will support those shooters.
In other words, who is among us qualified to say to companies what is feasible, what not? Our role is to ask, present opinion and facts, companies have whole bunch of qualified folks to make decisions.
Hope winter is coming to the end, and we will have more good time at outdoor ranges, way better than indoor ones.
Jim Watson
Member
Four grains of Revolver Neonite. Seems to have faded out in the 1960s. Too bad.
From Barnes, load data for 8x57 IS 8x57mmMauserWeb.xls (barnesbullets.com) :
*The SAAMI MAP (Maximum Average Pressure) for this cartridge is 35,000 psi. We chose to test fire our data to a maximum of 51,000 psi, the same pressure level commonly used with 6.5x55mm and 7x57mm cartridges.
*This data is for use in only modern firearms in good condition. If you have an old military rifle (including Mauser M98s), the rifle must be inspected and approved by a competent gunsmith prior to use. Do NOT use this data with earlier (Pre-98) Mauser models
Yikes! Someone is lucky the primer did not pierce or the case head rupture. Gotta say, shoot enough rifles with enough ammunition and things like that will happen. Reloads that were perfectly safe in button rifled Wilson or Douglas barrels, absolutely blow primers in Kreiger barrels. You only find these things out when smoke comes out of the action.
I don't know the back story, but I can't see how someone did this twice:
A gunsmith told me he had received a number of M700's where hot loads jammed the bolt in place. How he received the rifles were the shooter beat on the bolt so hard it snapped off!
This may have been due to a poor solder joint, not overpressure
as you can see, the solder joint is not perfect
One reason I preferred a forged bolt handle. This bolt root was forged as a part of the bolt body. Very strong.
