wave.jaco said
Thank you for your response, Bert.
I am inclined to agree with you, as all of the available load data (either published or community-shared) is consistent. I just don't understand why Gordon's Reloading Tool is predicting such overpressure conditions with the loads. Maybe some of my parameters for GRT are wrong?
  

If I were to undertake loading for the 32 WSL, I would start with the A2400 powder and reduce the starting load by 10% (10.8 grains).  If the rifle properly cycles (ejects the empty and picks up the next round), I would then begin accuracy testing in .1 grain increments.  For the SLR rifles, the less powder you can use and still get it to cycle rounds the better, but that old style balanced block (blow-back) action is a bit finicky.

Bert

TXGunNut said
My new P365 is coming up on that 1000 round mark, guess I better have a recoil spring handy next time I clean it. It likes a full case of Unique but there are cleaner powders. I just happen to have lots of Unique.
 
Mike
  

Yes there is... I stopped loading with Unique because it is a dirty powder, and it takes significantly less Bullseye to get the same result as compared to loading with Unique.  You being the miser that you are can certainly relate to that

Bert

Number I heard for the Defender is 2000 and it actually lasted longer than that before it started having trouble. My new P365 is coming up on that 1000 round mark, guess I better have a recoil spring handy next time I clean it. It likes a full case of Unique but there are cleaner powders. I just happen to have lots of Unique.

Mike

Bert H. said

TXGunNut said
I like the Wilson/Hackathorn video, Bert. My compact carry guns get shot a fair bit and my policy as of this year is "short gun, short spring life". Recoil spring in my little Defender failed after a few years. Springs are cheap. My Guvmint 1911 only needs a new spring once in a blue moon, if then. Thanks to the video I now know why!
The 1903 has some design features I find interesting, will need to get a better look at the frame. Saw some things in the above pics I haven't seen before. Neat gun!
 
Mike
  

Flat coil springs are definitely superior to coil wire springs for both consistency and durability.  I have shot at least 8,000 rounds through 92F with P+ loads and it keeps on ticking like a Swiss clock.  The physics of its design are what makes it so damn reliable.  Why the pistol manufacturing industry has not adopted them as a standard feature is beyond me.
Bert
  

I've inherited a Taurus semi-clone of the Beretta, the difference being it doesn't have a hammer dropper and is carried cocked and locked. Belonged to an old bullseye competitor and the SA trigger is mighty good. I think I'll order a flat wire recoil spring from Wilson.

Mike, all the compact blasters wear their spring sets out at 1000 to 1500 rounds. Sig says replace every 1k for the P365. 

I liked my Defender but like my CCO Commander better - since it isn't EDC. The time window for ejection/reloading is not nearly so critical. Regilar spring set replacement on the 3" shorties is extra important if they are social equipment. 

Nevada Paul said

Chuck said
Steve I definitely agree.  I collect old manuals and have never started a load development without a chronograph.  I use the data in the old manuals but always start low and work up.  Remember, speed alone does not give you what the actual chamber pressure is.  Some powders will go over the safe pressure before it hits the speed. 
  

I, too, collect old manuals and enjoy perusing and comparing loads across time. 
And yes, it is obvious that newer manuals often show 'lighter loads' than older manuals, all other things being equal.
But I've attributed this difference to liability and legal concerns more so than the newer powders being 'hotter'.
 
NP 
  

I agree about the liability issue for the new manuals.  But not so for the older manuals.  I've been using a chrono for at least 35 years and it proves my point.  You better start low and work up when using the old data.  Most of the new manuals don't even list data for most of the old calibers.   

I am inclined to agree with you, as all of the available load data (either published or community-shared) is consistent. I just don't understand why Gordon's Reloading Tool is predicting such overpressure conditions with the loads. Maybe some of my parameters for GRT are wrong?

Bert

TXGunNut said
I like the Wilson/Hackathorn video, Bert. My compact carry guns get shot a fair bit and my policy as of this year is "short gun, short spring life". Recoil spring in my little Defender failed after a few years. Springs are cheap. My Guvmint 1911 only needs a new spring once in a blue moon, if then. Thanks to the video I now know why!
The 1903 has some design features I find interesting, will need to get a better look at the frame. Saw some things in the above pics I haven't seen before. Neat gun!
 
Mike
  

Flat coil springs are definitely superior to coil wire springs for both consistency and durability.  I have shot at least 8,000 rounds through 92F with P+ loads and it keeps on ticking like a Swiss clock.  The physics of its design are what makes it so damn reliable.  Why the pistol manufacturing industry has not adopted them as a standard feature is beyond me.

Bert

I have been exploring the possibilities of loading for the Model 1905 in .32 WSL.

Published load data is quite scarce, with most online references (in the form of various online forum discussions) referring to Cartridges of the World editions listing the following loads:

• 165 grain bullet, 12 grains of 2400 for 1,450 fps ("2400" referring to Alliant 2400?)
• 165 grain bullet, 12.5 grains of 4227 for 1,440 fps ("4227" referring to IMR4227?)

Some other online sources also indicate similar loads with IMR4227.

Plugging these numbers into Gordon's Reloading Tool, the result is that the rifle will go kaboom:

View post on imgur.com

.

Yet still, many online references indicate these loads are fine. What am I missing here?

The 1903 has some design features I find interesting, will need to get a better look at the frame. Saw some things in the above pics I haven't seen before. Neat gun!

Mike

Nevada Paul said

Chuck said
Steve I definitely agree.  I collect old manuals and have never started a load development without a chronograph.  I use the data in the old manuals but always start low and work up.  Remember, speed alone does not give you what the actual chamber pressure is.  Some powders will go over the safe pressure before it hits the speed. 
  

I, too, collect old manuals and enjoy perusing and comparing loads across time. 
And yes, it is obvious that newer manuals often show 'lighter loads' than older manuals, all other things being equal.
But I've attributed this difference to liability and legal concerns more so than the newer powders being 'hotter'.
 
NP 
  

I agree... the powders of today (e.g. IMR 4198, A2400, IMR 4227, IMR 3031 are in reality no "hotter' than they were 50 years ago.  It is the legal eagles and the implied liability that has driven the revised (reduced) loading for them in the modern reloading manuals.

Bert

Chuck said
Steve I definitely agree.  I collect old manuals and have never started a load development without a chronograph.  I use the data in the old manuals but always start low and work up.  Remember, speed alone does not give you what the actual chamber pressure is.  Some powders will go over the safe pressure before it hits the speed. 
  

I, too, collect old manuals and enjoy perusing and comparing loads across time. 

And yes, it is obvious that newer manuals often show 'lighter loads' than older manuals, all other things being equal.

But I've attributed this difference to liability and legal concerns more so than the newer powders being 'hotter'.

NP 

Chuck said

Nevada Paul said

Chuck said
In P. O. Ackley's book on page 329 he shows a load for a 25-20 WCF with an 86 gr. bullet and 5.5 grs. of Unique for 1,795 fps.
8.5 grs. of 4227 will get 1,400 fps.  10.5 grs. of 4227 he says will get you 1,725 fps.  He also shows 2 loads with a 60 gr. bullet but these he uses 2400, 11.5 gr for 2,200 fps. and 4227, 12.5 grs. for 2,150 fps. 
Start low and work up....
  

Chuck, I have Ackley's volumes from way back in the day. Colorful and inventive guy, and interesting reading. But Ackley, much like Elmer Keith, seemed to have a bent to maximize velocity from every cartridge they encountered.   While that may be a worthwhile endeavor, it gave me great reluctance to jump into any of their loading data.
Paul
  

Not just Ackley and Keith.  The other thing is the older powders weren't as hot as the same powder today.  My chrono has found this out many times.
  

This is a very important point.  It makes the old loading book data's applicability questionable. Start low, work up slowly and use a chrono if possible.  I'll bet Chuck will agree with me on this.

Zebulon said
Understood. I have the 1908 Hammer Pocket but without nearly as much condition as your Military.  I haven't shot it beyond a magazine of vintage Western 130 ball. The magazine is, sadly, aftermarket and the retaining slot has been buggered. 
My 38 shooter is a bright stainless ELCEN serial prefix, an overrun from the Colt Custom Shop for a distributor order intended for sales South of the Mexican Border. Gaudy?  It will blind you on a Sunny day but the barrel is cut to headspace on the case mouth and it's the most accurate .38 Super I've ever had. Back when I still had to requalify to renew my LTC, it was always the gun I used.  
  

Bill,

If you have not seen this, I highly recommend it - Ken Hackathorn Discusses Wilson Combat Flat Wire Recoil Springs - YouTube

Bert