Posting old magazine articles allowed?

Discussion in 'Reloading' started by DoctaGlockta, Oct 2, 2012.

  1. 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.

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. Loading...

    Similar Threads Forum Date
    Time for a reminder about the rules governing posting here on GT Carry Issues Carry Issues Aug 15, 2015
    Trouble posting on Glock Talk Tech Talk Aug 11, 2015
    Guess I Didn't Know About the New Guy Posting "Hello" Policy... Introduction Forum Jul 12, 2015
    Finally Posting Here Introduction Forum Jun 21, 2015
    Why is everyone posting here? Introduction Forum Jun 6, 2015

  3. 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.


  4. shotgunred

    shotgunred reloading nut

    Post a link to the article if you can.
  5. I searched and searched for it but could not find.

    That is why I purchased an old physical copy.
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. Funny you mention Unique. The article talks about using Unique in various rifle rounds.
  9. WiskyT

    WiskyT Malcontent

    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.
  10. WiskyT

    WiskyT Malcontent

    If the data is from C.E. Harris, it is Gospel.
  11. The Accurate and Ramshot pamphlets both have a note that says
    I don't know if the data has changed from previous editions but the manufacturers are sure setting the stage for variations.

  12. WiskyT

    WiskyT Malcontent

    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.
  13. 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...

  14. 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.
  15. Is he still around?

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

    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
  16. WiskyT

    WiskyT Malcontent

    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.
  17. AA powders are notorious for 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 lawyers.

    All the more reason to own a good chrono !

    uncle albert
    #16 VN350X10, Oct 4, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2012
  18. shotgunred

    shotgunred reloading nut

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

    WiskyT Malcontent

    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.

Share This Page

Duty Gear at CopsPlus