Are Handloading Data and Manuals Watered Down?

Over the past several decades, the data provided in reloading manuals have steadily trended toward lighter loads. Max charge weights have diminished, and like many other reloaders, I’ve wondered why this is.

While researching for this column, I decided to go straight to the horse’s mouth and ask several major players in the reloading industry about why every new edition of various reloading manuals has lighter max loads. I wanted to know if it was due to new propellants or less-durable brass—or perhaps historic max pressures were overzealous or maybe modern maxes were due to today’s litigious environment.

Of the people I contacted, Hodgdon’s Aaron Oelger gave the most insightful answers, which is probably not a surprise since Hodgdon handles more propellant brands and develops more data than most companies.

“Historically, reloading manuals often published maximum loads that approached 100 percent of the SAAMI pressure standard,” he said. “In more recent years, Hodgdon and other publishers have moderated that approach, with maximum loads now typically developed closer to 95 percent of SAAMI pressure.”

Pressure Threshold

In the past, boundary-pushing handloaders such as P.O. Ackley, Elmer Keith and Col. Townsend Whelen were known for riding the ragged edge of safe with their handloads, which inspired a lot of folks rolling their own ammo at home to do the same. Unfortunately, with less experience and savvy to keep them on the right side of that ragged edge, it wasn’t uncommon for regular, everyday shooters to blow primers, lock up bolts and have brass separations. I know in my early days of handloading I did all three.

Historically, there was also a pattern of new cartridges being introduced with impressive muzzle velocities that were later reduced when the original loadings were found to be a bit overenthusiastic. The .270 Win. is a perfect example. Initial factory ammo was loaded to push 130-grain bullets at 3,140 fps. It wasn’t long before that was reduced to 3,060 fps. While that’s only a 2.5 percent decrease, it was a clear indication that original charge weights were a bit too hot.

It’s worth noting that when the .270 Win. was introduced in 1925, gunpowders weren’t nearly as stable as they are now. Ammo that generated perfectly safe pressures in November whitetail woods would produce pressure spikes when used in tropical climates and temperatures.

Oelger also brought up differences in today’s components. “With the growth of new sources for components such as brass, primers and bullets, variation between manufacturers has increased,” he said. “To account for these differences—and to help ensure safe performance across a wide range of combinations—it has become prudent to moderate pressure thresholds.”

Brass Variation

I had wondered about this. Back when Ackley, Keith and Whelen experimented, there was Winchester brass and Remington brass, and perhaps one or two others. Today, we’ve got those plus Hornady, Federal, Weatherby, Nosler, Barnes, Black Hills, Norma, Lapua, Petersen, Alpha, Starline, Berger, ADG and a handful more. Wall thickness, internal capacity, web construction, primer pockets and so on vary between brands.

Strictly speaking, load data are tied specifically to the brass in which they were developed, which is why the brass manufacturer is always listed in the specifications accompanying a set of data. That data won’t be exactly the same for, well, any other brand of cases.

But what reloading company in the industry has time to test and work up load data for every different brand of cases? None does. And because the internal pressures generated will be different with each of the other various types of brass, published data that are five percent below actual SAAMI max is no doubt prudent.

Oelger also noted that factory ammunition is commonly loaded to about 95 percent of SAAMI maximums, which provides greater reliability across different firearms, actions, barrel lengths and environmental conditions. Reloading data providers are simply aligning more closely with this industry standard, he said, which gives  us handloaders an added layer of safety.

Liability?

This just makes good sense. Current max loads should be safe in pretty much every rifle from the makers we all know. However, this “added layer of safety” doesn’t mean you should go straight to maximum charges when assembling handloads. Never do this. Always start 10 percent lower and work up cautiously.

Some handloaders have speculated that max loads are lower today because companies are wary about their exposure to potential litigation. Greggory Sloan at Barnes Bullets said this is not the case.

“I certainly understand the consumer perspective and the speculation that lawyers dictate what we do, or that we provide anemic data for safety and litigation reasons. However, that is not the case—at least not for Barnes,” he said.

“We always keep both user safety and protecting the Barnes brand in mind, but we achieve this through proper equipment, processes and practices to ensure the most consistent data possible. Our modern test equipment allows us to load to the SAAMI or equivalent maximum average pressure for each cartridge, powder and bullet combination. Importantly, we do not ‘download’ or artificially reduce maximum charges from those limits.”

Test Equipment Advancements

Sloan said advancements in test equipment, processes and practices have had the biggest influence on the perceived trend toward milder loads. These strides have simply led to more accurate data under real-world conditions compared to older published load data.

Sloan’s thinking on process was seconded by Zach Waterman of Nosler.

“The biggest change over the last 20 years has been a gradual improvement in instrumentation and test methods that have improved the accuracy of the data,” he said. “The industry has gradually moved away from copper crusher testing and into the use of conformal transducers, and the industry-wide use of reference ammunition has improved with an increasing number of SAAMI test stations, thus improving the quality of calibration data. Generally speaking, it’s just better data.”

I think Oelger summed it up best. “Taken together, these factors explain the more conservative approach reflected in today’s reloading data,” he said. “Above all, safety remains the guiding principle, and our data will continue to emphasize reliability and protection for the shooter.”

---