SAAMI Is A Crock !

[alfsauve]

The National Bureau Of Standards wouldn't come out and take 4 ounces out of a gallon. inal standard.

Yeah, but the National Coffee Association said a Cup is 6oz.    Why can't other groups, just make things up as they go.

I blame soccer.  Who plays a game with a count-UP clock?  Then when the clock gets to some magical number, 45?, supposedly the "regulation" time,  the refs just assign some extra, arbitrary minutes of play. 

[alfsauve]

Having handloaded .38spl for over 45 years, I've had the same feeling but never tried to quantify it.

Of course now I load for a specific velocity.  For competition I load to make Power Factor and everything else, I want the highest velocity possible with the lowest pressure.  (Hence H110 for .357 and .44)

[Big Frank]

Something else occurred to me. The metallurgy of new guns is getting better but that also means the metallurgy of old guns wasn't so good. Considering the fact that the .38 Special was invented in the 19th century the SAAMI pressure may have been lowered over the next 100 and some odd years so 21st century ammo won't blow up a 19th century revolver. I know for example that .45 Colt ammo is loaded to way less pressure than a Contender or Super Blackhawk could handle and some .45-70 loads are loaded to less than half of it's potential to keep people from blowing up antiques.

P.S. My coffee maker must make 5 ounce cups. I use slightly less than one liter of water to make 6 "cups" or half a pot of coffee and most coffee cups I've seen are about 11 ounces. 

[billt]

With accurate measurements they decided the pressure was too high in some calibers. It may have just been that they thought the pressure was excessive and had nothing to do with lawyers, etc. We're not likely to ever find out for sure.

Something else occurred to me. The metallurgy of new guns is getting better but that also means the metallurgy of old guns wasn't so good. Considering the fact that the .38 Special was invented in the 19th century the SAAMI pressure may have been lowered over the next 100 and some odd years so 21st century ammo won't blow up a 19th century revolver.

I'm not buying any of that. If the metallurgy was bad, and or the pressures too high, you would have had guns coming apart left and right. That has never been the case. The .44 Magnum had more research and testing done on it before it's introduction in 1956, than any other caliber up until it was introduced. The 9 MM has been in continuous production since 1902, and has ALWAYS been loaded as a high pressure round.... Especially in Europe by NATO countries to this very day. The .357 Magnum has been here since the 30's. And the Smith & Wesson Registered Magnums that chambered it back then were some of the finest crafted revolvers ever manufactured in that companies history.

In the late 60's and early 70's the .454 Casull round came roaring on the scene, along with it's 65,000 PSI chamber pressures. The highest ever attained to this day by ANY revolver. Even the .500 S&W Magnum doesn't match it. All of the guns that were built around these cartridges at the time handled the pressures just fine. There was nothing wrong with the metallurgy, or materials they were made from. Yes, both Elmer Keith and Dick Casull blew up a few guns during their development of both rounds. But once the research was complete, and both the .44 Magnum and .454 Casull went into full factory production, there were zero issues with factory guns blowing up, when loaded with factory produced ammunition.

I agree the steel being produced today is the best it's ever been in regards to tensile strengths. Then why the reduction in pressures? It doesn't make sense. If we go with your argument that the guns "back in the day" were made from inferior material, and today they're produced with much better steel. Then the pressures should be HIGHER, not LOWER. Remember, they never had issues with these Magnum revolvers, or Weatherby rifles blowing up, with the hot loaded factory ammunition that they were being fed back then. Shooting loose over time, perhaps. Blowing up, no.

Sure, you have some of the older guns that were built around black powder cartridges at the time. Like the Trapdoor Springfield's in .45-70, and the like. Along with .45 Colt revolvers that had what amounted to "black powder frames". But those guns are few and far between. Most are collector items rarely found on the range. Today they're as scarce as finding an old, "Balloon Head" .45 Colt case. Same with guns that had varying barrel groove diameters like the 8 MM Mauser. Which still accounts for factories both here and Europe downloading that cartridge. (Serbian produced PPU in 8 MM Mauser is horribly anemic because of this).

Most all of the high performance Magnum rifle and pistol rounds have been loaded down by the ammunition factories, over what they were producing 40 years ago. None of those loads back then were "unsafe". Nor were the guns. Hell, I'm still loading to manuals from the 70's. I value the information in those manuals far more, compared to the diluted crap that's being published today. Most every loading manual out there printed in the 60's and 70's show loads across the board substantially higher in both pressure and velocity over what's being published today. I can understand the loading manuals have legal liability issues. But that doesn't excuse SAAMI for continually lowering the standards since they first established them.

And yet another thing that doesn't support all of this downloading and reduced pressure "standards". Are all of the excellent slower burning powders available today, that didn't exist back then. This has allowed even better performance, with less pressure. No matter, they still keep lowering the pressure standards on these cartridges that have been around forever. Even with better powder, better steel, better guns and all.

You either have a standard, or you don't. You don't keep changing it in order to suit whatever legal climate just happens to exist at the time. And that's exactly what they're doing. You never heard about guns blowing up back then, anymore than you do today. And since they started this whole silly "+P" and "+P+" nonsense, it has just managed to confuse an already screwed up "standard" even more.   

[les snyder]

my guess is that a lot of the pressure down sizing came about when the .40SW became a law enforcement standard a decade ago...the 9mm actions (that locked into the ejection port) that were upgraded to .40SW just unlocked too early, and subjected the ordnance brass to unacceptable pressures...cartridge case wall thickness was not under the control of the pistol manufacturers, the principal litigant in a kaboom case.....in USPSA during the 175 power factor era, a lot of 1911 based .40s (as well as .38super) shooters suffered  face tattoos from case ruptures using the then available propellants... VihtaVuory cured a lot of problems

[Sponsor]

[Magoo541]

You are all over thinking it, two words-SAFETY NAZIS.

[billt]

You are all over thinking it, two words-SAFETY NAZIS.

That pretty well sums it up. It still pisses me off, however.

[PegLeg45]

You are all over thinking it, two words-SAFETY NAZIS.

Indeed, suh.
Job security for lawyers and their label-makers.



We live in a nation that has to put directions on shampoo.

[Big Frank]

I'm not buying any of that. If the metallurgy was bad, and or the pressures too high, you would have had guns coming apart left and right. That has never been the case. The .44 Magnum had more research and testing done on it before it's introduction in 1956, than any other caliber up until it was introduced. The 9 MM has been in continuous production since 1902, and has ALWAYS been loaded as a high pressure round.... Especially in Europe by NATO countries to this very day. The .357 Magnum has been here since the 30's. And the Smith & Wesson Registered Magnums that chambered it back then were some of the finest crafted revolvers ever manufactured in that companies history.

In the late 60's and early 70's the .454 Casull round came roaring on the scene, along with it's 65,000 PSI chamber pressures. The highest ever attained to this day by ANY revolver. Even the .500 S&W Magnum doesn't match it. All of the guns that were built around these cartridges at the time handled the pressures just fine. There was nothing wrong with the metallurgy, or materials they were made from. Yes, both Elmer Keith and Dick Casull blew up a few guns during their development of both rounds. But once the research was complete, and both the .44 Magnum and .454 Casull went into full factory production, there were zero issues with factory guns blowing up, when loaded with factory produced ammunition.

I agree the steel being produced today is the best it's ever been in regards to tensile strengths. Then why the reduction in pressures? It doesn't make sense. If we go with your argument that the guns "back in the day" were made from inferior material, and today they're produced with much better steel. Then the pressures should be HIGHER, not LOWER. Remember, they never had issues with these Magnum revolvers, or Weatherby rifles blowing up, with the hot loaded factory ammunition that they were being fed back then. Shooting loose over time, perhaps. Blowing up, no.

Sure, you have some of the older guns that were built around black powder cartridges at the time. Like the Trapdoor Springfield's in .45-70, and the like. Along with .45 Colt revolvers that had what amounted to "black powder frames". But those guns are few and far between. Most are collector items rarely found on the range. Today they're as scarce as finding an old, "Balloon Head" .45 Colt case. Same with guns that had varying barrel groove diameters like the 8 MM Mauser. Which still accounts for factories both here and Europe downloading that cartridge. (Serbian produced PPU in 8 MM Mauser is horribly anemic because of this).

Most all of the high performance Magnum rifle and pistol rounds have been loaded down by the ammunition factories, over what they were producing 40 years ago. None of those loads back then were "unsafe". Nor were the guns. Hell, I'm still loading to manuals from the 70's. I value the information in those manuals far more, compared to the diluted crap that's being published today. Most every loading manual out there printed in the 60's and 70's show loads across the board substantially higher in both pressure and velocity over what's being published today. I can understand the loading manuals have legal liability issues. But that doesn't excuse SAAMI for continually lowering the standards since they first established them.

And yet another thing that doesn't support all of this downloading and reduced pressure "standards". Are all of the excellent slower burning powders available today, that didn't exist back then. This has allowed even better performance, with less pressure. No matter, they still keep lowering the pressure standards on these cartridges that have been around forever. Even with better powder, better steel, better guns and all.

You either have a standard, or you don't. You don't keep changing it in order to suit whatever legal climate just happens to exist at the time. And that's exactly what they're doing. You never heard about guns blowing up back then, anymore than you do today. And since they started this whole silly "+P" and "+P+" nonsense, it has just managed to confuse an already screwed up "standard" even more.

In a previous post, reply #7, you said, " If anything, today's guns are stronger than ever before. Modern metallurgy, along with steel manufacturing is producing far higher tensile strength materials, than were being produced back 50 years ago." but disagreed with me when I said, ". . . the metallurgy of old guns wasn't so good." Make up your mind. Which is it?

[billt]

In a previous post, reply #7, you said, " If anything, today's guns are stronger than ever before. Modern metallurgy, along with steel manufacturing is producing far higher tensile strength materials, than were being produced back 50 years ago." but disagreed with me when I said, ". . . the metallurgy of old guns wasn't so good." Make up your mind. Which is it?

I said the material today is better. No question about it. However that doesn't mean what was used in the past was inferior.