Using old published data

[Kurastduuks]

Funny my speer #8 manual is still working just fine...yes there are some stiff loads in that book but it owns up to it in clear print. It says continued use of these loads in weak guns will cause them to become loose pre-maturely. The only issue with that manual today is that it was printed in a time when common sense was the rule rather than the exception.

 

[ClarkEMyers]

Maybe so. I suppose #8 works as well as it ever did but that may be to damn with faint praise. I'm not sure Speer #8 ever worked very well.

IIRC there was a second printing as #8 with some 4756 loads dropped for whatever reasons. There are later editions with new numbers and even more changes. A Google on Speer #8 will find much discussion and some unsatisfied users.

Others, and I'm one of them regard each and every successive new edition as a revised and improved data book.

That said I do use a #11 as the newest edition with a fair amount of data for 452 and 473 powders for handgun loads with those powders. If Speer had reshot those loads and included them in newer editions I'd look first to the newer editions.

 

[dwhite]

BlueDot loads for .357 mag and 158 grain bullets
in Speer #11 will seize cases in the chamber of my
Ruger Security-Six. Bought this manual new and had
issues with then with what was current production
powder. Don't know how they came up with them
but they are way HOT!

Haven't found anything close to these in anything newer.

All the Best,
D. White

 

[Hangingrock]

I'll admit/allow that I used the SR4756 data from Speer number 8 manual and realized it was not the most prudent thing I've ever done. Experience is what it is. One learns!

 

[ClarkEMyers]

Alliant long ago warned about 125 grain loads in a .357 and advised no use at all in a .41 Remington Magnum. There are many reports of odd results and pressure spikes at extremes of both high and low temperature.

1911Tuner

Blue Dot holds the distinction of being the only powder that I've used to destroy a revolver with a manual recommended load...and I cut it a half-grain below the listed maximum. Oddly, the load was fine when I loaded and fired the rounds in the summer...and turned on me when I shot from the same lot in January.

 

[Peter M. Eick]

I use a lot of older published data, but every bit of it is approached with caution and worked up to it. Yes I shoot "grossly" overloaded by modern books 4756 loads in my 38/44's. They are accurate, consistent and my guns seem to love them. Just keep them away from a K frame or D-frame and we are good to go.

The bottom line is older data should be treated the same as newer data. With skepticism. New data can have just as many errors as older data so caution is warranted. I am especially wary when I can't cross verify a load from two different sources. If I only have one bit of data for a load, then extra caution is warranted.

 

[Mad Chemist]

Sometimes Old Data Is Milder

We talk all the time about how some of the old data is hotter and may not be safe. I noticed something interesting with Speer#11 and Alliant's data for .380acp. For Unique the published load in Speer #11 for a 88gr JHP is 3.8-4.0. Alliant's data for a 90gr GDHP gives a max of 4.6, a 15% increase over the old Speer max for a heavier bullet

I suspect that this may be due to the increase in locked breach .380 pistols and the decline in the amount of blowback operated guns being produced. Just a guess on my part though.

 

[gamestalker]

I always try to go with the most recent data, but I have at times used what I had available, I just always take the charge down to it's published start charge, then work my way up. This process has never failed me. Although the old Speer data is often higher than most other publishers, the start charges are usable IMO.

GS