Reasons Why Reloading Manuals Load Data Differs One From Another

Help Support Ruger Forum:

Joined
Jan 1, 2025
Messages
334
Location
Texas
H.V. Stent wrote an article called "A Handlaoding Mystery" which was about different manuals having varying load data for the 30-30. He shows how the load data varies by 7 grains between Speer Handloading Manual #7 (with 40 grains) and #9 (showing 33 grains). And while Speer gave the reply that there are bound to be changes between publications, they gave no explanation as to why. And while Sierra, Hornady, Lyman, and Omark all gave answers basically saying stick with the latest data, but Hodgdon's answer was "Some data sources keep loads purposely on the low side. We do this. Some data sources want to keep 30-30 loads super safe, below 35,000, and some crowd 45,000 or more...". But again Speer in their own manuals varied 7 grains between two of their own publications. [see: Handloader's Digest, eleventh Edition, page 97-99]

None the less as powder and primers do change over the years it is always best to use the most current load data available. And even then it still varies from one manufacturer to another, whereby leaving the question still up in the air as to which one should one trust.

I have noticed in the latest editions that Hornady publishes a much lower charge weights than the others which actually come close to one another. For example take the 45 Colt, Hornady's charge weights for their 250 grain XTP with Accurate #5 is 7.7 to 10.4 grains, while Lyman has10.0 to 11.0 grains, while both Western Powders and Accurate manuals show 9.9 to 11.0 grains. So Hornady has a minimum of 2.3 grains below the others, and a maximum of .6 grain below the other's maximum. Now if we are not to go below the minimum nor above the maximum charge weights we would be stuck between the two publications at 10.0 and 10.4 grains.

As these manuals warn that going below the minimum could cause erratic pressures so should we dare start with Hornady's low ball charge weight? Or should we be scared to dare start at the 9.9 to 10.0 grains stated by the others, which is close to Hornady's maximum charge?

Funny how they are all using the exact same bullet and powder with modern pressure testing technology and the data as of this day is all over the place. Yet if Hornady was worried about getting sued they would not drop the starting charge weight so low as to create erratic pressures, nor would the others raise the maximum to such heights above Hornady's maximum.

If they are all claiming 14,000 PSI what is up with this? Well different primers and lots thereof, as well as different cases, and lots of powder could explain things to some degree. And then there is the difference in the exact diameter as well as the grooves within the test barrels too. So Hornady used their own cases (which may have a smaller useable case volume than the other cases involved) and Winchester WLP primers, while Accurate used Winchester cases and CCI no. 300 primers, and Western Powders used Remington Cases and Remington 2 1/2 primers, while Lyman chose Winchester cases and Winchester WLP primers. So none of these manuals used the same exact components in their texting which could easily account for the differences in recommended charge weights. Just the pressures between different primers can be 2,000 PSI alone, and the useable case volumes between manufacturers could easily explain the majority of the discrepancy themselves. It is well known that Federal makes the hottest primers so keep those extra 2,000 PSI in mind if you choose to go that route.

And, while this question will always seem to linger (even though I just explained why here above) as to why are there such differences between one manufacturer's load data compared to other's, simply remember to always start at the beginning charge weights and work up. But as to which one you will believe is best is up to your discernment alone! Plus when making up their mind which data is best perhaps one would do well to see which manual uses the brass they plain on using and stick with their primer choose to boot.

Personally, I went with Western Powders, Accurate, and Lyman's data. I used Starline brass and CCI no. 300 primers.
Yet my advise is y'all do you as I don't want to get sued.
 
Register to hide this ad
This is an ages old issue and yes, some of the above can cause variable results but I'm extremely skeptical of variances on lots.

Regarding lot variances... I read in an old manual (maybe Hornady) that they store lots of gunpowder IN WATER and dry out a bit from time to time to test against current lots for burn rate comparisons. I remember them saying that consistent burn rates from lot to lot is of paramount importance. I believe it. Imagine buying one lot of powder that you have tested vigorously only to have to develop more loads all over again because you bought a different lot? Maybe bench rest shooters would do it anyway but the average shooter? Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think so.

As far as legal counsel goes, across the spectrum of calibers I've loaded over the years, I found that Speer manuals are THE most conservative of all the many manuals I own. That goes beyond testing machines, atmospheric conditions, moon phase or other things and that points to (IMO) keeping your company out of court.
 
This is an ages old issue and yes, some of the above can cause variable results but I'm extremely skeptical of variances on lots.

Regarding lot variances... I read in an old manual (maybe Hornady) that they store lots of gunpowder IN WATER and dry out a bit from time to time to test against current lots for burn rate comparisons. I remember them saying that consistent burn rates from lot to lot is of paramount importance. I believe it. Imagine buying one lot of powder that you have tested vigorously only to have to develop more loads all over again because you bought a different lot? Maybe bench rest shooters would do it anyway but the average shooter? Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think so.

As far as legal counsel goes, across the spectrum of calibers I've loaded over the years, I found that Speer manuals are THE most conservative of all the many manuals I own. That goes beyond testing machines, atmospheric conditions, moon phase or other things and that points to (IMO) keeping your company out of court.
I have found that Hodgdon and Hornady are the two manuals that are the most conservative on powder charge weights for my applications. But I haven't used any Speer bullets either to compare data against (yet).

Earl Naramore in his book tells of militaries storing their smokeless powders under water for long term store as the best way to preserve it from breaking down, so it would not surprise me if the powder companies did the same. Other than that I have read that the powder companies save back powders from previous lots to mix with new ones to try and get the burn rates where they want them. Personally from one lot of powder to the next I will make a small test samples to see which loading comes closest to my previous tests, just in case, and then make the bulk accordingly.
 
This has somewhat driven me crazy over the years. Anymore I try to stick with the actual powder company's load data, ie Hogdon, IMR, etc. I figure they know what they are talking about. But, even then you sometimes run into road blocks. I have a large amount of IMR Target powder. It's basically IMRs version of Bullseye. There is load data for dang near every cartridge except .357 Mag. Plenty of load data for .38 Special using this powder, so basically I just use the max load of .38 in my .357s and so far it's worked fine.
 
This has somewhat driven me crazy over the years. Anymore I try to stick with the actual powder company's load data, ie Hogdon, IMR, etc. I figure they know what they are talking about. But, even then you sometimes run into road blocks. I have a large amount of IMR Target powder. It's basically IMRs version of Bullseye. There is load data for dang near every cartridge except .357 Mag. Plenty of load data for .38 Special using this powder, so basically I just use the max load of .38 in my .357s and so far it's worked fine.
Specific powders were designed to burn best under certain pressures ranges and between 38 Special and 357 Magnum there is quite a divide between 18,500 psi vs 40,000 psi. According to Western Powders' manual their 38 Special +P loads are @ 20.000 psi. And I have little clue as to the amount of useable space volume gained from 38 Special to 357 Magnum but that would be one concern to consider. Another would be is the bullet being used the same as the bullet in the data. It might just be that 357 Magnum's pressure range is out of the powder's characteristics is why there is no data for it. ls the powder burning completely or is it leaving unburnt powder in the barrel would be a good clue as to whether it is optimal for the over bore capacity of the cartridge .
 
I have done things in the loading room that would have made Elmer Keith run screaming into the woods. Now I know better 🙃
 
Top