Maximum Load Question

This has to do specifically with DR loads and Bullseye powder. I hear and see a lot that 3.4 or 3.5 grains of BE is the "go-to" load for DR with either a 158 gr LSWC or LRN (with a favor towards the RN). In my Lyman reloading manuals it lists 3.4 grains of Bullseye as a Maximum load. I was taught not to exceed max load data. Is 3.4 or 3.5 grains of Bullseye a heavy recoiling load? I have and use a S&W Model 14-3. Is that a safe load for my revolver considering it's age and what ammunition was like back then?

Go straight to the manufacturers site. Alliant powders. they list 3.5 gr Bullseye for a 158 gr lswc.

Their lawyers say your good to go.

Thanks - SHOOT! I thought I was in the right spot for this. I meant to put in "Ammunition" .... Sorry....

3.5 of Bullseye is just a bit less than the 158 grain factory load. It's not a +P load at all.

My Lyman 3rd edition of the Cast Bullet handbook shows a max load as 4.2 of BE under a 158 grain RN and a +P load of 4.5 of BE under the same 158 grain RN.


Virgil

I have a Richard Lee book I just referenced and it's got a max load 3.8 grains. I suppose ever company that puts out a book will probably have their own idea of whats safe and whats not. Probably some "covering their own rear" stuff going on. I will bench test the 3.4/3.5 grains and see what happens. The only reason I've shy'd away from it until now was my Lyman 49th edition and Lyman 4th edition for cast bullets, both said 3.4 max. Other sources including Hodgdon's site says 3.8 is max so I guess I'm safe.

Tim,

over the years, the Lyman book has always been a safe, conservative loading manual.  Many years ago I worked in a gun-store with lots of good traffic, and the old timers talked about, if I recall correctly, Speer Manual #2, which they referred to it as "the blasters handbook" for the very hot loads out there. 

My point is that things have changed a lot, and you will see lots and lots of variation in the pistol loads through time, with modern manuals being a lot  less diverse than they were, and much more conservative for any number of reasons (technically better pressure readings, legal reasons, etc.).

-Ron