Glock Talk

Glock Talk (http://glocktalk.com/forums/index.php)
-   Reloading (http://glocktalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Posting old magazine articles allowed? (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1445810)

DoctaGlockta 10-02-2012 08:20

Posting old magazine articles allowed?
 
I recently purchased an old rifle mag (1980) off the interwebs to read a story by C.E. Harris and get some reloading data. I don't often see magazine articles posted here so I'm assuming this is a no no.

I think the info may be helpful to some here and generate some discussion.

F106 Fan 10-02-2012 08:55

There would be copyright issues related to republishing. I would think you could quote a bit of the text with attribution but an image copy would probably be over the line.

Richard

shotgunred 10-02-2012 16:30

Post a link to the article if you can.

DoctaGlockta 10-03-2012 08:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by shotgunred (Post 19478554)
Post a link to the article if you can.

I searched and searched for it but could not find.

That is why I purchased an old physical copy.

norton 10-03-2012 18:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoctaGlockta (Post 19477210)
I recently purchased an old rifle mag (1980) off the interwebs to read a story by C.E. Harris and get some reloading data. I don't often see magazine articles posted here so I'm assuming this is a no no.

I think the info may be helpful to some here and generate some discussion.

You probably already know this, but for any newbs out there-
Don't use old reloading data. Its ok to check it for comparision but only up to date info should be used.

VN350X10 10-04-2012 11:47

Old data is fine, if you also have old stocks of powder.
Old Unique is different from new Unique, the newer IMR powders differ frrom the old DuPont IMR'S, etc.

The big problem is having older calibers that are no longer covered in new manuals, caution needs to be used in loading from old manuals with newer powders.
The only saving grace is the fact that the newer formulations of long time powders tend to be more consistant, lot to lot, than were earlier versions.

load safe !

uncle albert

DoctaGlockta 10-04-2012 13:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by VN350X10 (Post 19484927)
Old data is fine, if you also have old stocks of powder.
Old Unique is different from new Unique, the newer IMR powders differ frrom the old DuPont IMR'S, etc.

The big problem is having older calibers that are no longer covered in new manuals, caution needs to be used in loading from old manuals with newer powders.
The only saving grace is the fact that the newer formulations of long time powders tend to be more consistant, lot to lot, than were earlier versions.

load safe !

uncle albert

Funny you mention Unique. The article talks about using Unique in various rifle rounds.

WiskyT 10-04-2012 15:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by VN350X10 (Post 19484927)
Old data is fine, if you also have old stocks of powder.
Old Unique is different from new Unique, the newer IMR powders differ frrom the old DuPont IMR'S, etc.

The big problem is having older calibers that are no longer covered in new manuals, caution needs to be used in loading from old manuals with newer powders.
The only saving grace is the fact that the newer formulations of long time powders tend to be more consistant, lot to lot, than were earlier versions.

load safe !

uncle albert

I disagree. I've loaded Unique for a few decades and notice no practical difference in it. Do you really think the manufacturers would produce a faster powder and give it the same name? Wouldn't Alliant caution us not to use old data with "new" Unique? They still have Unique that is over 100 years old that they use to ensure that current batches are close enough to it to be called "same". Also, I have never seen any printed information to use only new data.Even new manuals don't tell you to disregard older manuals, or to replace the new manual when a new edition comes out.

New data is suck data. Much of the data out there won't even cycle the slides on guns because it is so watered down. I've given away my newer manuals and don't even consider a manual less than 20 years old worth the paper it's printed on.

WiskyT 10-04-2012 15:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by norton (Post 19482335)
You probably already know this, but for any newbs out there-
Don't use old reloading data. Its ok to check it for comparision but only up to date info should be used.

If the data is from C.E. Harris, it is Gospel.

F106 Fan 10-04-2012 15:46

The Accurate and Ramshot pamphlets both have a note that says
Quote:

THIS DATA SUPERSEDES ALL PREVIOUS ACCURATE LOAD DATA. Always use the latest load data
or
Quote:

THIS DATA SUPERSEDES ALL PREVIOUS RAMSHOT LOAD DATA. Always use the latest load data
I don't know if the data has changed from previous editions but the manufacturers are sure setting the stage for variations.

Richard

WiskyT 10-04-2012 15:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by F106 Fan (Post 19485571)
The Accurate and Ramshot pamphlets both have a note that says

or


I don't know if the data has changed from previous editions but the manufacturers are sure setting the stage for variations.

Richard

That makes sense, I wouldn't trust any of their data anyway. AA powder varies so much that guys like C4W use a chrono to figure out their loads every time they buy a new can.

F106 Fan 10-04-2012 16:27

I don't use any Accurate powders but everybody seem to love TAC for .223 or .308 and TAC is made by Ramshot.

I bought an 8# can of TAC so I better like it! I have loaded some 55 gr .223 and the powder seems to work very well. I mostly shoot my AR-15 for effect. The trigger is too ugly to even bother trying to get groups. Maybe someday...

Richard

Jim Watson 10-04-2012 16:42

Ramshot and Accurate (both divisions of Western Powder) don't MAKE anything. They are packagers and distributors.
TAC is made in Belgium and I think many if not all the other Ramshots are, too.
AA has contracted powder from all over the world but is now buying American, undoubtedly from St Marks, the only US maker of Ball powders. I really want current AA data because the powders have changed while the labels have not.

C.E. Harris, mentioned above, says the big shift in IMR powders was when production shifted from the US to Canada in 1976.

vafish 10-04-2012 18:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by WiskyT (Post 19485561)
If the data is from C.E. Harris, it is Gospel.

Is he still around?

I don't recall reading anything from him I'm a long time.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

WiskyT 10-04-2012 19:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by vafish (Post 19486013)
Is he still around?

I don't recall reading anything from him I'm a long time.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

I posted a question that he answered on a different board probably 3 years ago, so as far as I know he is still around.

VN350X10 10-04-2012 20:32

AA powders are notorious for changing....to the point of being dangerous!
AA5 has been made in South Africa, Israel & the Czech Republic that I know of (and have had cans so marked) and the data, while fine if loaded by weight, can get crazy if you are using a volume measure & have to change while in the middle of a run. Densities vary by as much as 40% !!
Had this happen while loading 9mm on a Lee press w/Lee measure.
Fortunately, the powder looked different enough in color that it caught my attention.
I had gotten 5 or 6, 1# cans from the SAME SUPPLIER IN THE SAME ORDER. From the 3 different countries mentioned !
I made a vow after that....I no longer use ANY powder from AA !

Just another good reason that I use Vhit powders in most everything now.

Note to WiskyT....

They even BRAG about Unique being "New & Improved" as far as being cleaner. They must have changed something in it.

But I have to agree, a lot of the new data seems to have been written by corporate liars....er... lawyers.

All the more reason to own a good chrono !

uncle albert

shotgunred 10-05-2012 06:01

Just start a new thread about what you want to talk about and then just quote the relevant part of the paper.

WiskyT 10-05-2012 07:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by VN350X10 (Post 19486518)
AA powders are notorious for changing....to the point of being dangerous!
AA5 has been made in South Africa, Israel & the Czech Republic that I know of (and have had cans so marked) and the data, while fine if loaded by weight, can get crazy if you are using a volume measure & have to change while in the middle of a run. Densities vary by as much as 40% !!
Had this happen while loading 9mm on a Lee press w/Lee measure.
Fortunately, the powder looked different enough in color that it caught my attention.
I had gotten 5 or 6, 1# cans from the SAME SUPPLIER IN THE SAME ORDER. From the 3 different countries mentioned !
I made a vow after that....I no longer use ANY powder from AA !

Just another good reason that I use Vhit powders in most everything now.

Note to WiskyT....

They even BRAG about Unique being "New & Improved" as far as being cleaner. They must have changed something in it.

But I have to agree, a lot of the new data seems to have been written by corporate liars....er... lawyers.

All the more reason to own a good chrono !

uncle albert

Yes, they changed the base material (linters?) of Unique from one type of fiber to another so it burns cleaner. I think it is an ancillary benefit of the change to a different production facility rather than a deliberate attempt to make a cleaner burning product based on what I read at the time. Regardless, they went to a lot of trouble to make sure it performed the same as it always had since it would be irresponsible to do otherwise.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 20:06.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2013, Glock Talk, All Rights Reserved.