Older Reloading Manuals

[03psd]

Has the fear of being sued effected reloading manuals?

I bought today a new Sierra manual Version 5 4th printing and some of the "maximum" loads looked a bit light to me. I checked my Version 2 (1978) Sierra manual and for the same bullet (SMK 168) and same powder (RL15) there is 1.5 grains difference. I looked at several other calibers and noticed the same thing, the newer printing shows a smaller charge for the same powder and bullet. I just loaded some 155 Scenars with 46.2gr of RL15 based on suggestions found here, but this amount of powder is over the max they recommend for any 150-155 pill.

Thoughts?

 

[Suasponte]

Re: Older Reloading Manuals

Global Warming! LOL!

I have noticed the same thing! It all comes down to the fact that they are a go by, and not gospil!

Lawyers I am sure have had something to do with it! They always do!

By the way! Where is that global Warming?

Terry

 

[steve marshall]

Re: Older Reloading Manuals

There are quite a few good reasons for this. One is, as you suggested, liability issues. But there is also awareness of older firearms that was sometimes missing before. There is the scientific end in that PSI versus CUP tends to give more accurate results and the manual authors are loath to exceed SAMMI pressures. Too there has always been variations in powder and the lots used in their testing sometimes runs higher pressures. Then there is the differences due to where they acquire the powders. If one year it's made in Europe and the next it's from Australia etc. If you want a real eye opener, look for P.O.Ackley's reloading manual especially the first one. In those days there weren't any easily available chronographs so the claims made were outrageous. Check out the Gibbs line of cartridges for one. But old P.O. was a very experienced reloader so he could and did push the envelope. Bottom line is there is no free lunch. If you want 300 Weatherby velocities buy a 300 Weatherby and not a 30-30.