Warning for 10mm older Hornady manuals

[The_Shadow]

WARNING!  I am going to post this data to show examples of Hornady's 10mm data which may be incorrect for Accurate Arms #7 powder.  Please understand that it could be a miss print in some of the older manuals, so read and understand what you are seeing here.


This is Hornady 6th edition Data for 10mm pay attention to the AA#7 powder in particular for the 155 grain XTP.
Hornady 7th ed. pg 861 is the same as the 6th.
(I suspect this data is for AA#9 and not suppose to be AA#7 based on my obsevations)




This is Hornady 8th edition Data for 10mm pay attention to the change for AA#7 powder in particular for the 155 grain XTP.




This is Hornady 4th edition Data for 10mm (older data I gathered)


Now this is the Accurate Arms data for 10mm in the early days.  (This has the pressure data values that many publications dropped.)

[Ridgerunner665]

10th edition says 12.7 grains Max for the 155.

[TonyRumore]

Hornady 3rd edition doesn't show any 10mm data.

Hornady 5th edition shows 15.1gr max #7 with the 155gr.

[The_Shadow]

  Hornady 5th / 6th / 7th editions show 15.1gr max #7 with the 155gr. 

While some firearms may handle this data, some casings and chambers maybe questionable thus the WARNINGS here...

[Benchrst]

Yikes!

With new Starline & a very well supported chamber I ventured up to 13.5 (155 XTP), brass shear was real.

After 13.0gr #7 was no longer linear (for me), backed it down to 12.7 and only lost 90fps.

[Taterhead]

Shadow,

That data was BAD, and this is good data worth repeating! I also think some of the old Loadbooks data for a 135 gr JHP and 800-X was suspect.

FWIW 15 + gr of Accurate No. 9 under a 155 gr XTP makes a pretty nice load, but would be trouble with No. 7.

[The_Shadow]

TaterHead, I believe we discussed this on GlockTalk many years back.  Yes and the data for 800X was also one that was wild with the 135's as you stated.  I know people who tested that 800X data with wild 1800 fps velocities and some had catastrophic failures as well...
Just trying to keep people from messing up by using this older misprinted  data that is wrong and dangerous...

[crimsondave]

TaterHead, I believe we discussed this on GlockTalk many years back.  Yes and the data for 800X was also one that was wild with the 135's as you stated.  I know people who tested that 800X data with wild 1800 fps velocities and some had catastrophic failures as well...
Just trying to keep people from messing up by using this older misprinted  data that is wrong and dangerous...

Oh my Lord!  1800 fps?!  I got swelled cases at just over 1600!  Thanks for the info.

[Taterhead]

TaterHead, I believe we discussed this on GlockTalk many years back.  Yes and the data for 800X was also one that was wild with the 135's as you stated.  I know people who tested that 800X data with wild 1800 fps velocities and some had catastrophic failures as well...
Just trying to keep people from messing up by using this older misprinted  data that is wrong and dangerous...

You're right! Our discussions go back a long ways. While my personal workups with that data yielded no indications of excessive pressures, I don't load that any more or recommend it. I did see a solid 1700 fps average in my stock G20. However, in the back of my mind, the data seemed suspect to me.

[First Manchu]

That whole book was screwed up. I shot some mid range loads for my .270 and had shiny case heads, split necks, massive recoil, large fire balls and horrible shot groups. A .357 load locked up my King Cobra. I don't trust the loads out of that book. My Nosler load book has never let me down.

[gnappi]

For my purposes, bullet maker's load data has always been useless, the rest of the book (ballistics tables loading / historical data) have been the only use for me. I always use the powder maker data.

[Pablo]

For my purposes, bullet maker's load data has always been useless, the rest of the book (ballistics tables loading / historical data) have been the only use for me. I always use the powder maker data.

This makes a ton of sense!

[ragsflh]

thanks for info.