Trusting manufacturers load data

[Muleskinner]

I've been using a tested and trusted 5.56 load for about 10 years now.

22.6 grn of Accurate LT-32 with a 55grn pill. When I developed it it was in the middle of the manufacturers published data. I never load max.

This evening I prepped 500 cases for loading and decided to look to see if there was load data for 50 grn bullets since I have a couple boxes that were a gift..

Much to my surprise I found that the load data for the 50 grn is nearly the same as the data sheet I have for LT-32 that Hodgdon published when LT-32 was first introduced in 2013. So, I looked at the 55 grn ..they list the max now at 20.6grn..

Now I have a few thousand rounds of the 22.6 grn loads..I'm not worried about shooting those but wondering how you can trust manufacturers load data if they are going to change it so drastically..

 

[E.Shell]

It's not a matter of "trust" at all. It is matter of their components and their test fixture delivering the same pressures as your components and your rifle.

You are very lucky to have them closely agree, but, as usual, start low and work up

ETA: Forgot to say: Things change (component lots, test barrels, etc.) , measuring pressures gets more sophisticated... ALWAYS start low and work your way up.

 

[4g64loser]

I've been using a tested and trusted 5.56 load for about 10 years now.

22.6 grn of Accurate LT-32 with a 55grn pill. When I developed it it was in the middle of the manufacturers published data. I never load max.

This evening I prepped 500 cases for loading and decided to look to see if there was load data for 50 grn bullets since I have a couple boxes that were a gift..

Much to my surprise I found that the load data for the 50 grn is nearly the same as the data sheet I have for LT-32 that Hodgdon published when LT-32 was first introduced in 2013. So, I looked at the 55 grn ..they list the max now at 20.6grn..

Now I have a few thousand rounds of the 22.6 grn loads..I'm not worried about shooting those but wondering how you can trust manufacturers load data if they are going to change it so drastically..

If you do a longitudinal comparison of the same brand reloading data, it has all.gotten weaker over time.

If you worked the loads up in your rifle and had no issues, shoot em.

I have found that I maxed below published data a few times and in other cases have ended up pretty far over the redlines published in multiple sources.

 

[Growler215]

I looked at the Western Powders manual (they make LT-32). Your load is still under their max for 5.56 for the jacketed 55 gr bullets they list.

 

[Muleskinner]

If you do a longitudinal comparison of the same brand reloading data, it has all.gotten weaker over time.

If you worked the loads up in your rifle and had no issues, shoot em.

I have found that I maxed below published data a few times and in other cases have ended up pretty far over the redlines published in multiple sources.

That's exactly my point. You would think that once a powder has been developed and tested and the load data approved it should never change but it's pretty obvious that the manufacturer at least this manufacturer changes their load data So how can you trust it? You have to have someplace to start and the starting point for this particular powder is now the maximum point for this particular powder according to the manufacturer's load data from 10 years ago. If the powder is going to change that much then they need to rename the new powder. But that's not what happened here. It's the same powder they've just dumbed down the load data

 

[Blacksmith101]

If you do a longitudinal comparison of the same brand reloading data, it has all.gotten weaker over time.

If you worked the loads up in your rifle and had no issues, shoot em.

I have found that I maxed below published data a few times and in other cases have ended up pretty far over the redlines published in multiple sources.

As the lawyers get stronger the loads get weaker. However, because the other components can also vary ALWAYS start low and work your way up (know what pressure signs are and how to spot them). Don't beat your guns to death just for the sake of the absolute hottest load just because you can, they are seldom the most accurate. Stay safe!

 

[Muleskinner]

As the lawyers get stronger the loads get weaker. However, because the other components can also vary ALWAYS start low and work your way up (know what pressure signs are and how to spot them). Don't beat your guns to death just for the sake of the absolute hottest load just because you can, they are seldom the most accurate. Stay safe!

I've never loaded hot The load data for this used to be 20.6 to 23.5. That is the load data that the manufacturer themselves put out when this powder was first introduced in 2013. My load is 22.6. well within the load limits according to the manufacturer. Now their max load is 20.6. their minimum load is 18.6. So using the new data the new maximum is the old minimum. And now I've gone through and compared data in my old reloading books to some of the other calibers and powders that they have and I've noticed everything has been weakened. So again, how can you trust the load data from the manufacturer if they're going to continue to change it. I mean theoretically a person could say oh shit I've got thousands of rounds that are way over pressure.

I'm not sure I'll ever buy powder from this manufacturer again..

 

[Blacksmith101]

I've never loaded hot The load data for this used to be 20.6 to 23.5. That is the load data that the manufacturer themselves put out when this powder was first introduced in 2013. My load is 22.6. well within the load limits according to the manufacturer. Now their max load is 20.6. their minimum load is 18.6. So using the new data the new maximum is the old minimum. And now I've gone through and compared data in my old reloading books to some of the other calibers and powders that they have and I've noticed everything has been weakened. So again, how can you trust the load data from the manufacturer if they're going to continue to change it. I mean theoretically a person could say oh shit I've got thousands of rounds that are way over pressure.

I'm not sure I'll ever buy powder from this manufacturer again..

No one said you were loading hot. I was blaming the lawyers for changing the data. The powder will be formulated the same because the manufacturer can't stop people from using older published data so they can't change the recipe or bad things may happen.

The rest was generic good reloading practices added for information to anyone new to reloading who might be reading this thread in order to remind them to be safe.

 

[Growler215]

I've never loaded hot The load data for this used to be 20.6 to 23.5. That is the load data that the manufacturer themselves put out when this powder was first introduced in 2013. My load is 22.6. well within the load limits according to the manufacturer. Now their max load is 20.6. their minimum load is 18.6. So using the new data the new maximum is the old minimum. And now I've gone through and compared data in my old reloading books to some of the other calibers and powders that they have and I've noticed everything has been weakened. So again, how can you trust the load data from the manufacturer if they're going to continue to change it. I mean theoretically a person could say oh shit I've got thousands of rounds that are way over pressure.

I'm not sure I'll ever buy powder from this manufacturer again..

Hodgdon is NOT the manufacturer of LT-32. They bought the right to sell it. Western Powders is the manufacturer. They list 21.8 gr as the starting load and 24.2 gr as max for the 55 gr v-max for 5.56. The max .223 load is a bit lower.

 

[Growler215]

I just looked at the Hodgdon website. The load data you quoted is for the GMX, a solid copper bullet, not a jacketed bullet, in a .223 (not a 5.56). Their jacketed 55 gr data is 20.8 gr starting/23.1 max for .223. I couldn't find 5.56 data on their website. This data is the same as the Western Powders data for LT-32 in a .223.

 

[Harrys]

The 5.56/223 rounds are just like every round that has been developed. Times change, including case metallurgy, bullet manufacturing, primer manufacturing and powder manufacturing. Some of the powders I used 40+ years ago are no longer in production and have been super seeded by new and better powders. The newer powders are better burning and use in some cases 50% less with better results.

There are some very new rounds that have been developed in the past 20 years and some are under development. As newer technology is introduced the hand loading environment is ever changing. The old becomes newer and new becomes the newest.

Over the years I have used powders that were not published for use by a particular round with good success. Sticking with published loading data is the safest as someone has already done the testing.
I have found many contradictions between powder manufacturers, and bullet manufacturers. As others have said start small and work up.

Today's handloading has become a lot easier due to the development of the internet. I remember when you had to go to gun shops to look for the illusive loading manual. The information between each loading manual could be very different form each manufacturer. I think the confusion has lessened greatly due to the data access on the internet. Although it has lessened does not mean there is still some confusion.

 

[lazarus]

The 5.56/223 rounds are just like every round that has been developed. Times change, including case metallurgy, bullet manufacturing, primer manufacturing and powder manufacturing. Some of the powders I used 40+ years ago are no longer in production and have been super seeded by new and better powders. The newer powders are better burning and use in some cases 50% less with better results.

There are some very new rounds that have been developed in the past 20 years and some are under development. As newer technology is introduced the hand loading environment is ever changing. The old becomes newer and new becomes the newest.

Over the years I have used powders that were not published for use by a particular round with good success. Sticking with published loading data is the safest as someone has already done the testing.
I have found many contradictions between powder manufacturers, and bullet manufacturers. As others have said start small and work up.

Today's handloading has become a lot easier due to the development of the internet. I remember when you had to go to gun shops to look for the illusive loading manual. The information between each loading manual could be very different form each manufacturer. I think the confusion has lessened greatly due to the data access on the internet. Although it has lessened does not mean there is still some confusion.

It has. Except for H110 in 357. Several loading manuals have the starting load at or over the max of some other loading manuals with near identical components used. Hornady is very conservative in their load data for H110 in 357...

 

[Uncle Duke]

Remember that load data is most properly listed as having used a specifically named brand and type of primer, a specifically named brand of brass, specifically named powder and charge weight parameters, and a specific bullet weight, composition AND bullet configuration. All tested in a barrel that in any case, may or may not be similar to one's own, and typically nowadays won't be what you're shooting. Atmospheric conditions may not match yours either. Any change of conditions and/or components can introduce some degree of variation, small or large, or somewhere in between. And short of having a ballistics lab, you don't know exactly just how much variation has been introduced. And neither does anybody else. It's why you want to introduce an absolute that you can control into the equations, which is to absolutely work your way up with charge weights.

 

[atblis]

Sometimes load data changes because they get better measurement equipment and can now see things they couldn’t before. Pressure as a function of time…

For something like 223 using a powder that’s ideally suited, I tend to go off how many reloads I get before the primer pockets gets loose.

 

[Uncle Duke]

It has. Except for H110 in 357. Several loading manuals have the starting load at or over the max of some other loading manuals with near identical components used. Hornady is very conservative in their load data for H110 in 357...

H110 seems to be a different animal within the powder world. Many folks like it, but others avoid it. Charge weight parameters tend to be very tight, as this powder is known to dislike wide variations. And undercharges are to be avoided. But it can be a bit disconcerting with this powder, especially when there isn't always agreement with regard to what those charge parameters should be. I have notes of some wide variations in chronograph velocity by lot number with H110 as well.


,

 

[lazarus]

H110 seems to be a different animal within the powder world. Many folks like it, but others avoid it. Charge weight parameters tend to be very tight, as this powder is known to dislike wide variations. And undercharges are to be avoided. But it can be a bit disconcerting with this powder, especially when there isn't always agreement with regard to what those charge parameters should be. I have notes of some wide variations in chronograph velocity by lot number with H110 as well.


,

I see that with other cartridges too, like 44 magnum with H110. Though the variation between published data isn't as broad as 357. The only cartridge I've run across (not that I've looked at everything) that seems to be very consistent across reloading data is for 30 carbine and H110. Which makes some sense as that is what it was developed for originally.

I just find that interesting.

 

[John from MD]

It has. Except for H110 in 357. Several loading manuals have the starting load at or over the max of some other loading manuals with near identical components used. Hornady is very conservative in their load data for H110 in 357...

Hornady has had a reputation, going way back to when Joyce was running the company, for being conservative in their loads.

 

[Harrys]

I see that with other cartridges too, like 44 magnum with H110. Though the variation between published data isn't as broad as 357. The only cartridge I've run across (not that I've looked at everything) that seems to be very consistent across reloading data is for 30 carbine and H110. Which makes some sense as that is what it was developed for originally.

I just find that interesting.

I have been using H-110 in my .500 S&W magnum 350 grain rounds. So far loading data has been consistent between 39 for starting loads and 43 grains for max loads in many manuals.