Modern Loading Manuals are Lawyer Light

[Dean2]

I found this post on another site, made by the guy that shot the test loads for Nosler and Barnes. I thought it made an interesting read, and explains that modern load manuals are done with much better tools and pressure equipment than the ones from 40 years ago. That better pressure equipment tells them that many of the old loads were seriously over pressure.Given all the recent threads discussing loading over book max velocities or powder loads I thought this might be of interest.

Winfwt338-06

Location Washington

Cohunt like you I intend no disrespect. Completely agree with 99% of what you said. Amen that people should think twice about exceeding published data. Much of your statement is true, not a lot of lawsuits over load data. However, it is a very real possibility. The above mentioned section of your statement I struggle with. I personally shot 85-90% of Barnes #3 manual myself, and shot data at Nosler for their #4 manual. My pic is in both. I assure you both of those companies shoot their data as close to SAAMI max as is safe, and use reference ammo from SAAMI. I lean toward advancements in pressure measuring equipment leading to "lighter" loads. Have spoken to many early ballisticians and heard how they used to mic cases to extrapolate pressures of a load, as company could afford better equipment either purchased copper crush method for CUP, or Oehler stain gauges for Psi. Ignorance and impatience are to blame. While at Barnes answering pressure issues was the most common call I took, simply because the " experienced loader" on the other end took the same load, COAL that he shot for 30 years with his favorite lead core and blew a primer, stuck his bolt, simply because they didn't read the pages leading up to the data. They knew how to load, done it forever, even though they are trying a completely new component, a monolithic bullet. Simply backing off rifling. 050" from lands would have avoided that call. With the ability to truly customize a throat, free bore, set neck tension, lengthen magazine for longer OAL, you can reduce/ raise operating pressures significantly. I have been the experimenter and it can be scary as hell. Working up data when none is available is serious business. I have had multiple actions rendered useless working up reduced and max function loads for new cartridges while working in ballistics labs, part of the job, but having a firing pin end up 2" from your safety glasses, and sting from powder burns is a real crap your pants moment. I've loaded for 37 years a never had an issue with a load and don't exceed published data. If you can win a lawsuit burning your crotch with coffee because the cup didn't say it was hot, or sue the national weather service for failure to predict a storm and your loved ones perish in a small boat at sea, you may not lose, but the cost to do so can be staggering. I'll get off my soap box, I think and agree that if you shoot a cartridge that has published, pressure tested data, it's wise to stick to it. It may be shot to fit any standard factory chamber or magazine, but is anything but "light".