sierra reloading manuels

M

montrock

Member
EE Expired
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I just received my newest sierra reloading manuel edition V and I noticed a slight reduction in the Max.loading data for my 300 Wby, I haven't called sierra yet but was wondering if there is a specific reason and is this common to all other newer loading manuels,mine are all relatively older books without some of the newer powders and rifles ie.short mags and ultra mag,that was why I bought new sierra book,haven't had time to check for rest of my toys.Is there anything to be concerned about.
 
What I have heard is older powders should be used with older manuals for load info.
The recipes for powder never stays exactly the same over the years.
If I am wrong someone please correct me.
They might be keeping the loads down due to liability issues as well.
 
I think something alse that may enter into the equation is with some of the later or recent production runs of powder it 'seems' the burn rate may have changed somewhat. One example that comes to mind for me is difference in the loads of 2400 I was using years ago, compared to the loads I now use with 'todays' 2400. ie: in the 44 Mag the 22grs with a Keith 250gr SW used to be the order of the day. Today, anything for me over 20grs in the same handgun and cases start sticking.
 
it's called LAWYERIZATION- the loads in my circa 1990 speer 11 are no less valid using the same powder than the newer "pussy" loads- in some instances the new loads won't generate enough recoil/gas to work the actions- ie if i shoot 42 grains of 748 in one of my m14s, it may or may not work the action- you have to go up to at least 42.5 to get some sembalance of reliability-in other guns, it causes an unusual feeding sequence
 
t-star said:
it's called LAWYERIZATION- the loads in my circa 1990 speer 11 are no less valid using the same powder than the newer "pussy" loads- in some instances the new loads won't generate enough recoil/gas to work the actions- ie if i shoot 42 grains of 748 in one of my m14s, it may or may not work the action- you have to go up to at least 42.5 to get some sembalance of reliability-in other guns, it causes an unusual feeding sequence
Click to expand...

Damn. Beat me to it. Yes....the whole "we could be held responsible" thing has dug in deep and it's not going away. I'm actually surprised that anyone is still putting out reloading manuals. I grab old ones every chance I get.....although, most of my loads are still way under max, even by todays manuals.
 
i use mine like a bible unless there's some powder or cartridge i don't know about or have listed- then again, there's not an awful lot of new stuff out there- i've got 223, 308, 338, 9mm, 45, and 44 mag- far as i'm concerned, that's all i need
 
Johnn Peterson said:
I think something alse that may enter into the equation is with some of the later or recent production runs of powder it 'seems' the burn rate may have changed somewhat. One example that comes to mind for me is difference in the loads of 2400 I was using years ago, compared to the loads I now use with 'todays' 2400. ie: in the 44 Mag the 22grs with a Keith 250gr SW used to be the order of the day. Today, anything for me over 20grs in the same handgun and cases start sticking.
Click to expand...

Johnn, I wish we were close enough that you could try some of my old Hercules 2400, out of the red, five pound can.
Old Elmer was not known for light loads, as you know, and his 22 grains of 2400 he developed the 44 mag on, is a pretty skookum load! I have measured the expansion of new brass, and that load was heavier than 25 grains of H110/W296. I too, reduced the load, of the old 2400, to 20 grains, for most shooting.
I would sure like to have the two versions of 2400 chronographed. When I chronographed the old, war time H4831, versus the newly manufactured H4831, the old drove the 130 grain 270 bullet 100 fps faster.
Without doubt, it was the danger of law suits that changed changed the loading books, and with it reloading and reloaders, forever.
Johnn, remember when the loading charts didn't distinguish between brands of bullets, just a certain load of powder for a given weight bullet?
Nothing was noted about the primer type, or brand. It was presumed you would insert a primer!
And nothing was said about COAL. In later years when I saw this term I didn't know what it meant!
 
H4831 said:
Johnn, I wish we were close enough that you could try some of my old Hercules 2400, out of the red, five pound can.
Old Elmer was not known for light loads, as you know, and his 22 grains of 2400 he developed the 44 mag on, is a pretty skookum load! I have measured the expansion of new brass, and that load was heavier than 25 grains of H110/W296. I too, reduced the load, of the old 2400, to 20 grains, for most shooting.
I would sure like to have the two versions of 2400 chronographed. When I chronographed the old, war time H4831, versus the newly manufactured H4831, the old drove the 130 grain 270 bullet 100 fps faster.
Without doubt, it was the danger of law suits that changed changed the loading books, and with it reloading and reloaders, forever.
Johnn, remember when the loading charts didn't distinguish between brands of bullets, just a certain load of powder for a given weight bullet?
Nothing was noted about the primer type, or brand. It was presumed you would insert a primer!
And nothing was said about COAL. In later years when I saw this term I didn't know what it meant!
Click to expand...

Takes me back. The day a buddy & I spent visiting him was 'memorable' to say the least.

That I do. That was in the pre-metric era;) I believe when, as the song says, " A hoe was a hoe, a screw was a screw and when you talked about crackin' up it ment you were tellin' jokes".

Yes, I know what you mean. When I first saw mention made of COAL I thought they were talking about energy and the mining industry in Kentucky:p.

On a more serious note, shortly after I first got my 500 S&W, the powder I setteled on for heavy loads was H110. When my supply of 2400 runs out, I'll 'probably' go to H110 in its place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom