Reloading Manuals!

[mikld]

I see a lot of questions from new reloaders on the forums I frequent. I'm not flaming anyone, I understand needing info and wanting experienced help, and I welcome all new reloaders and tell people about reloading's rewards and fun whenever I can, but, many questions I see can be answered by a reloading manual. IMHO, reloading manuals are as important as a good press, it can be done but how safely and what kind of ammo will you get? "Yep, uncle Gene's brother in law's friend uses 10 grains of Bullseye in his 38 special all the time, yep". Not for me! I'm a trusting soul, but ALL my reloading data comes from a hold-in-my-hands, paper and ink, reloading manual. Also most (if not all) manuals have a "how to" section about the mechanics of reloading. I suggest one or two manuals from a bullet manufacturer (Speer, Nosler, etc.), one or two from a powder manufacturer (Alliant, Hodgon, etc.) and one or two from a "neutral" source (Lyman, Lee, ABCs of Reloading, etc). I can sit down and cross check any load/bullet combo and determine which starting load will be best for me and my guns.

Again, not flaming anybody! Just trying to get across the importance of using reloading manuals.

RANT OFF...

 

[billcarey]

Don't forget that using old manuals can bite you bad. Example: Accurate changed #2 & #5 enough to make old loading data dangerous. The loads I was using with old #5 were reduced by about 50% if using current mfg powder. They are still named the same, have the same labels and containers are the same.

 

[Winterhawk56]

Could not have said it better! ALWAYS without EXCEPTION ---- Use the latest Reloading manuals! PERIOD!!!!!!!!

 

[David Wile]

Hey folks,

I realize that some of burn rates of some powders have changed over the years, but I do not agree that this fact means you must use the latest loading manuals. If you are loading properly by working up a load from the low end of an old Lyman manual, I doubt if you are going to get into trouble even if the powder is now a faster burn. The whole idea of working "up" a load is to insure you are on the safe side of the pressure curve. If folks use an old manual and start with a load at the hot end and are also using a powder that has become hotter over the years, that is not the fault of the manual. I would submit that such a problem is the fault of the loader's improper loading practice. I would also submit that such an error would more likely be made by someone who is new to reloading and who pays no heed to the whole idea of safe reloading practices.

The information contained in older reloading manuals can be very valuable if it is used with knowledge and safe loading practices.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

 

[Winterhawk56]

Good Point Dave but fortunatly I, like you, have been reloading for over 25 years. I should have made a better point that the beginners should alway use the latest manuals. I keep all my reloading books for the past information. Just to clarify but again good point!

 

[the_right_reverend]

excellent advice all..

.... after all some of gained all of our Knowledge years ago from manuals and Mags before the internet...........[

 

[TheNatureBoy]

I agree with you mikld. Like you I'm willing to share what little I know about reloading with others. I have on the other hand noticed that some new reloaders will purchase a high powered rifle and all of the components needed to produce a round, but won't spend the extra $20-25 dollars on a reloading manual. They then ask for a "good recipe" for their particular rifle caliber. A manual was the first thing I purchased. I read it a few weeks before I ordered any equipment. Thats just me and I acknowledge being different than everyone else

 

[billcarey]

My comments were really aimed at newbie reloaders who pick up an old manual from a gun show and start loading based on whatever start loads it has. It's an unsafe practice no matter how you slice it.

Want to start at loading at nearly double the new values...rely on start loads in old manuals and you will be there on this one...

90 LWC/S&W 32 Long
Old Accurate data #2 = 2.7-2.8 grains

New Accurate data #2 = 1.8-2.0 grains in their latest pub and 1.8-1.9 per Accurate on the phone.

Just for the record I started reloading 20 yrs ago and started with new manuals.
I contact the powder mfg everytime I buy powder and verifiy load data before reloading. Then I get their lastest published data to back it up. I also mark my old manuals with the revised data. Do I just grab an old manual and load away at "start loads"...never. I didn't get old from being bold.

bc

 

[Russ5924]

Myself if I give any info on reloading it is the reload that I personally use.Also I will not give out anything near max load Yes there are a lot of new reloader out there and yes they ask a lot of questions. But when we started didn't we also ask many questions

 

[snuffy]

A lot of the newer loading manuals have shyster lawyers writing them now. So their ambulance chasing brethren won't be able to sue the manual authors when some ham handed individual blows up his shooter.

Then there's the improved testing methods for determining pressure. No more LUP,(Lead Units of Pressure), or CUP,(Copper Units of Pressure), it's displayed in PSI now. Since switching to PSI some of the loads that worked okay before, were found to be too high.

I would question whether the old loads that accurate put out were reduced because the powder changed burn rate. I'd bet the legal eagles said it might bend an old or cheap 32 top break revolver.

 

[freakshow10mm]

A lot of the newer loading manuals have shyster lawyers writing them now.

Not really.

Here's how the lab technicians arrive at max load data.

After shooting a string, the mean and standard deviation are calculated from the data. After all the strings are shot and statistics calculated, max load is the one whose MAP plus two standard deviations does not exceed maximum pressure (SAAMI or whatever standard is adopted).

So a large standard deviation will keep the max load to a very low pressure. A small SD will yield a MAP very close to the standard.

This also explains why max load may increase or decrease compared to previous editions of the same manual. As you very well know, SD can vary widely from sample to sample. Although Internet lore says that lawyers lower the data, the technicians point out that newer methodologies often produce different data than old methods. Different data can yield grossly different standard deviation statistics, even if average pressure remains the same.

 

[mikld]

Wow! Look what I started. I started reloading before computers became household items (early 1970s). I started with a Lee Loader and the instructions included. My next purchase was a Speer Reloading Manual (since then I buy the latest manuals available). I had no one to ask so I did a lot of reading. By researching FIRST, from more than one referance, I've not had any mistakes/catastrophic accidents (thank God)! I did have one oops! in 1973 when a 38 Spec. didn't get any powder. But I learned from that about double checking and today I actually LOOK inside each charged case, with a flashlight, to check powder levels. I'm just hoping new reloaders don't get ahead of themselves; buying hi-tech progressive super whiz-bang reloading machines, and maybe one manual, and missing the safety aspects of reloading. Go slow, be safe, and enjoy!

 

[David Wile]

Hey folks,

Bill brought up an interesting topic to consider. He mentioned the difference in load data for the .32 S&W using old as well as new Accurate powders (he does not mention which Accurate powder, but that is not the important thing). I don't know where he got his data for the Accurate powders, but he picked a caliber that is somewhat difficult to find load data information in the newer manuals. My Lyman 47th edition doesn't list the .32 S&W. I looked in my older Speer #8 manual and found data for the .32 S&W, but it sure didn't even list any data for any of the Accurate powders.

There are a lot of older calibers that are no longer carried in the newer manuals, and I would submit that this is reason enough to keep your old manuals on the shelf. Bill also mentions that he calls the powder companies to get the latest information from them on their powders. I, too, have called Hodgdon on a few occasions over the years to get some information on powders. However, when it comes to making a decision on what charge of powder I am going to use in any given load, I am always going to make that determination based on the information I read in one or more of my reloading manuals. For nearly fifty years now, the Lyman manual has always been my first source for reference information. Speer, Hornady, and Sierra have all been my second sources for reference information, and I still have all my original manuals, and I still find a use for the old ones on occasion.

I may be behind the times, but I have never obtained load data from any internet source. I am stuck on using the published data from old reliable sources like Speer, Hornady, Lyman, and others. In addition to good load data, they have also provided me with a wealth of information about practicing the craft of reloading in a safe manner.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

 

[fields]

Best place to get the manuals?

richard

 

[Archie]

One other point...

On the same basic subject...

Again, not to flame anyone, but some of us have been loading for quite a while. Like mikld, I started loading in the early '70s. Others have more time on the bench.

Then a new guy comes on line and posts something like, "Tell me what you know about .357 Magnum loading." There is no way to relate thirty or more years of loading .357 Magnum ammo in a single posting. So we direct the new guy to a manual. It is not that we're too cool to be bothered, but there is no simple and short answer.

Mr. Fields; loading manuals are available at gun shops, gun shows, and on the internet from most of the reloading supply houses. Midway, for instance has a good selection. I think Amazon might as well.

And Cartridges of the World is a good reference work as well. It gives some load information, and more in the way of history and intent.