Careless, foolish or lazy!

[Char-Gar]

I picked up the current issue of Handloader magazine yesterday and there was an article on page 12 that caught my interest.

A reader had written Brian Pearce with concerns about 44 Special loading data in Hodgdon #26 Data Manual. With data from that manual, he managed to stick a bullet in the barrel of his new Ruger revolver.

Pearce's responded by saying, the instant he read the load, he knew the fellow was going to stick a bullet. He went on to say that neither Hodgdon #26 nor any other manual in his collection of more and 100 manuals carried data for that powder for 44 Special loads.

His final analysis was "Perhaps the biggest lesson is to be 100 percent positive of your load data and to be certain ot comes from a credible source.".

So, I ask myself if the loader was totally loopy and careless in his loading data or did he trust another who was just as loopy and careless. Either is possible I suppose.

My best guess, is that he went to an internet site like this or others and requested data and got the bad data, with the assurance it came from the aforementioned Hodgdon data manual. The loader never checked the Hodgdon book or online data.

After seeing so much bad data handed out on online sites, I have come to the point when I refuse to do so and refer folks who ask for it, to established and reliable sources. I collect a fair amount of criticism for doing so.

Inexperienced loaders just can't seem to get it through their heads, that it is dangerous to take loading data from web posters they do not know to be reliable. It is no wonder we read of so many "kabooms" these days. There is a reason every firearms manufacturer says, that the use of handloads voids the factory guarantee. There are way to many reloaders out there who are either careless, foolish or lazy.

[fatnhappy]

I couldn't agree more Chargar.
I hate to say this because it will sound mean, but I'm glad to see handloader publish letters from "dumb*****"

If all the letter writer suffered was a stuck boolit then he learned a valuable lesson on the cheap. I've come to the conclusion that outside of 13 year old war heroes, bipolar antagonists and halfwits, the internet is populated by only a few core enthusiasts.
Even the best of load information on the internet should be taken with a grain of salt, as even the best intentioned knowledgeable handloader can make a typo.

[mustanggt]

I read the same article too and have come to the conclusion that you are right and I will not post anymore load data either. I don't want to be responsible for someone reading a typo into something different though I've always made double damn sure it was correct. It's not worth it. I have looked up in my vast quantity of load manuals anything anyone has put out on the sites I go to. So far I've not found any thing out of bounds. I've seen some that were closer to max than what I would be comfortable loading.

[Artful]

How true it is to have as many creditable sources as possible, and when I teach others to reload I always remind them that it is the experience of only one person maybe with one gun in working up that published data.

I found in trying to make subsonic loads that seldom did a load that worked with one rifle work the same in another rifle due to differing friction coefficents from one barrel to another.

This hobby is true a science and an art form, as what can work for one shooter and gun may not work for another shooter in his gun.

[Chicken Thief]

Reloading data is like reloaded ammo.
It takes some guts to use a strangers!

[Bad Water Bill]

I was taught to take loads from at least 3 loading manuals, average the hi and low loads then go from there. Each gun is as different as you and me. Find the load that works for that particular gun and use that load on that gun ONLY.

Yes I will waste a little more components than some others BUT I would never waste enough to pay for a hand or eye.

Be safe or do not enter this hobby.

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

Sometimes I will give vague information like what powder I like for a certain bullet or boolit in a certain caliber and then tell them to research your reloading manuals, just to get someone going in the right direction. But I will admit I have given recipes out...I will stop that from now on as well, with the one exception of my 40 cal. swaged brass jacketed Heavy bullet. There is really no info out there for it, so I give the info I have learned and give many precautions !
Jon

[Three44s]

Well ............ I checked my Hodgon's 26 and as much as I have liked BP in the past ........ he needs to eat crow here!

That manual does indeed list WW 296 as well as 300 gr JSP's for the .44 spec.

I also don't buy the notion that H110 and WW 296 are the same. The product I have of those two are NOT the same ......... Perhaps that has changed now but I heard and read the same "sameness" arguement back when my cans were new and it simply is not so.

I agree with BP that either of these powders are not suitable in jacketed loads (I would not even go with them for boolits) he the gun writer needs to look at his #26 more closely!


Three 44s

[Bass Ackward]

Let see ........................................ with load data from multiple reloading manuals I have personally seen one gun blown up and I have stuck bullets in virtually every caliber I have ever owned. Two other guns blew with factory ammo.

Had nothing to do with the data and whether it came from a manual or not. Problem was poor initial ignition probably from faulty primers. On one, the 223, the brass head let go. (why? I don't know)

The cooler the primer that you choose to run for accuracy and the lower the loading density you accept, the more .... risk you eventually undertake for a weak or faulty primer.

You guys need to remember something that you were taught from day one. Each and every time you pull the trigger, you are potentially igniting and explosive charge.

[exile]

Being probably the least experienced person here, I would say this, and hope I don't get flamed for it. I see nothing wrong with asking for suggestions as long as I am going to check 2 or 3 reloading manuals after I have gotten an idea from someone, just to be safe. Also, the only loss I see here is that many good recipes for cast boolit rifle shooting do not seem to be in any established manuals. (I may be wrong here.)

Finally, I will say that the one cartridge that I have benefited from data that was not in a reloading manual is the .32 H & R magnum. I have been shooting .32 H & R magnums in my .327 Federal SP-101. The only way I have found a load that shoots to point of aim is to use Brian Pearce's data for the cartridge. Without his assurance that Starline .32 H & R cases are as strong as .327 Federal I would never have found the load I am looking for, which is not nearly as hot as what he has been loading, but it does the job for me.

So, while I would not take load data from other websites, I will continue to look for data here, especially if I eventually buy a cast boolit rifle as I would like to do.

Having said that, I maintain that each individual is reponsible for what they put in their load and their gun, no matter where they got the information in the first place.

exile

[Bwana]

You mean to say you can't trust the info in manuals? Get out of town!!!!!
Why I just went and looked in the 2009 Hodgdon's Annual Manual and under 44 Spl they have the following load, in fact it is the first 44 Spl load they list, for a 165 gr cast LRNFP: 74.0 grs of AutoComp. Yes that is what is there, 74.0 grs. And that is the starting load. The top load is 8.0 grs.
So even the "professionals" make mistakes. And it was probably the printers, not Hodgdon.

[Char-Gar]

Somebody with Hodgdon #26 is going to have to lend a hand here. I don't have that book, but I did check with the Hodgdon online data, and they list no loads for either 296/HC110 or bullet heavier than 240 grains.

We are talking 44 Special here and not 44 Magnum. There are indeed loads for the 44 Magnum with 296/HC110 and bullets heavier than 240 grains, but not 44 Special.

I would like to know if Brian Pearce screwed the pooch on this one.

PS.. I have never stuck a bullets, blown up a firearm or been around when one was blown up.

[cbrick]

Well ............ I checked my Hodgon's 26 and as much as I have liked BP in the past ........ he needs to eat crow here!

That manual does indeed list WW 296 as well as 300 gr JSP's for the .44 spec.

I also don't buy the notion that H110 and WW 296 are the same. The product I have of those two are NOT the same ......... Perhaps that has changed now but I heard and read the same "sameness" arguement back when my cans were new and it simply is not so.

I agree with BP that either of these powders are not suitable in jacketed loads (I would not even go with them for boolits) he the gun writer needs to look at his #26 more closely! Three 44s

I'm confused. Perhaps because I haven't read the Handloader article mentioned yet.

I read this thread down through the above quote, post #8. I never saw Winchester 296 or H-110 mentioned until post #8, maybe it was in the mag article. Thought I just missed it so I went back and re-read post #1, hhmmm, powder not mentioned. If 296 was mentioned in the article someone here that has read it should say so.

So unless 296 was specifically mentioned in the mag article why does Brian P. need to eat crow? Was it just assumed that 296 was the culprit? Whatever powder is referenced in the article it would be good to know.

As for posting load data online it's been a long time since I've done that. As for getting load data online, in my shop is a 3 foot wide, floor to ceiling steel book shelf, two of the shelves are packed with load manuals. I try to keep up with all of the latest editions of each manual but there are currently a few newer ones I've yet to get, however, I have no shortage of places to look. To take data from an unknown poster and use it? As was mentioned, unknown load data or someone elses unknown reloads . . . Pertty scary thought.

Rick

[cbrick]

Why I just went and looked in the 2009 Hodgdon's Annual Manual and under 44 Spl they have the following load, in fact it is the first 44 Spl load they list, for a 165 gr cast LRNFP: 74.0 grs of AutoComp. Yes that is what is there, 74.0 grs. And that is the starting load. The top load is 8.0 grs. So even the "professionals" make mistakes. And it was probably the printers, not Hodgdon.

Certainly an "OOOPS" but not really a dangerous one. I'd like to see someone get 74.0 Gr. of anything except lead into a 44 Special case.

Rick

[Larry Gibson]

Sage advise from Charger. If the choice of powder is not one listed in any manual then there is no tested data for it and the reloader is in dangerous territory. Any inexperienced reloader should not go there. Experienced reloaders should also ponder why there is no data for that powder (usually a pretty good reason) and if they really want to go there. Any one with enough experience also would recognize a printers/editers error in that 74 gr starting load. Should have been less with a max load listed next to it of 8 gr. A cross reference with other manuals would have pointed that out.

Yes things can go wrong even when using listed data. Just 3 days ago I was pressure testing some .223 loads and with one powder a midrange load was already up at 69,000 psi(M43). That's why all the manuals tell you to start low and work and stop if pressure signs are evident before the max load is reached. None of them tell anyone to always shoot the max loads which is what most every inexperienced, sometimes experienced reloaders also, want to jump right to and shoot.

Inexperienced reloaders and experienced ones should stay within published data unless they have the knowledge (different than experience) and testing ability to go into unchartered territory.

Larry Gibson

[WILCO]

Be safe or do not enter this hobby.

Best advice! :Fire:

[462]

When it comes to loads, I don't respond to the "What is the best load for XYZ cartridge" posts. I don't have any evidence to prove it -- since this is the only forum of which I'm a member and don't read any others -- but I suspect that those posters are probably hitting every reloading forum with the same question. And, once they get their answer they are never heard from again. Besides, I think they're lazy, wanting others to do their research and be their sources of information, and too cheap to buy a few manuals.

Occasionally, in the course of a discussion, I've mentioned a published load that has worked for me.

[Huntducks]

With the mass amount of new loaders jumping on ship and trying to do it as cheap and as fast as possible i'm surprised we don't hear about 10 a week.

I frequent a number of sites and read some of the questions some ask I know they don't have a clue what is going on and just want to save $$$ and cut corners and want it done right now.

[Leadmelter]

I was a party a long time ago, a guy was there and we got a yacking about reloading.
He told me he could not get a good load in his 9MM using 2400. Pre-Internet.
A friend told him to try it. I told him to buy a reloading manual and lose the friend.
Gerry

[nicholst55]

One problem that I frequently encounter is new reloaders asking 'what's the magic load for X bullet/powder combo in Y caliber?' They go on to state that they don't want to waste time and components doing load development, or that they want the 'easy way out.' Sometimes it is apparent from the conversation that they don't even own one loading manual, let alone more than one!

All I will do for them is to refer them to the online data source for that powder manufacturer. I know that if I list my own load data for that combination, they will immediately load up a bunch of ammo with my data, ignoring my remarks about 'reduce 10% and work up carefully.' Then it will be my fault when they encounter problems - either pressure or accuracy-related.

The new reloader doesn't learn anything from this process, and he cops an attitude with me; I don't need the drama. Better they cop an attitude for me telling them to do their homework.

[nicholst55]

Having said that, I maintain that each individual is responsible for what they put in their load and their gun, no matter where they got the information in the first place.

exile

Exile, while I personally agree with you, the vast majority of Americans, to include the courts, do not. Don't you know that any misfortune that befalls you is someone else's fault? :|

[Bad Water Bill]

Always keep in mind that the LAZY people WILL find a lawyer and try to own your home and car if anything goes wrong.

To lazy to work up a load AND to lazy to earn their own money.

[DCM]

At a gun shop I frequent an older gentleman came in and asked about some problems he was having with his rifle reloads. I listened intently to him and when he was done I asked him which reloading manual he was using, blank stare! I told him as a new reloader the first thing he needed to do was buy a manual and read it, especially the stuff in the front of the book. He did not like my reply. Cheap and lazy? Oh well you can lead some to water but you can't make them drink, some you can't even lead to water.

[swheeler]

Somebody with Hodgdon #26 is going to have to lend a hand here. I don't have that book, but I did check with the Hodgdon online data, and they list no loads for either 296/HC110 or bullet heavier than 240 grains.

We are talking 44 Special here and not 44 Magnum. There are indeed loads for the 44 Magnum with 296/HC110 and bullets heavier than 240 grains, but not 44 Special.

I would like to know if Brian Pearce screwed the pooch on this one.

PS.. I have never stuck a bullets, blown up a firearm or been around when one was blown up.

Well I do have Hodgdon's Data manual #26, bought it new about 5 years after I bought #25.
Page 697- 44 Special- Winchester powder , loads with 296 start at 225 gr jhp and end with 300 gr jsp.

[swheeler]

I haven't read the article, and probably never will, but sounds like maybe BP had better sight in his crow gun.

[Az Rick]

Reloading is more about the journey than the destination. If you have no interest in what it takes to get there, you have no business going!
I cringe sometimes when new reloaders talk of cheap ammo. It's not cheap when you blow up a firearm or yourself.
There's no excuse for not having data on hand. If you can post on this forum, you can go to any powders website and get the load data. You don't have to buy a manual, just read what the manufacturer says, and follow it.
There's no substitute for common sense, if you don't know or understand what your doing,...DON'T.
Rant off.

Please ask reasonable and thoughtful questions, The Guys here will help.

Best, Rick

[canyon-ghost]

One problem that I frequently encounter is new reloaders asking 'what's the magic load for X bullet/powder combo in Y caliber?' They go on to state that they don't want to waste time and components doing load development, or that they want the 'easy way out.' Sometimes it is apparent from the conversation that they don't even own one loading manual, let alone more than one!



Nicholst55, you said it all. Reloading and cast bullets is ALL load development. If you can't find your own load, you can't blame someone else! Hoorah!

Reloading is more about the journey than the destination. If you have no interest in what it takes to get there, you have no business going!
Amen!

Ron

[Char-Gar]

John Taffin called Brian Pearce on this subject as 44 Special loads using 296/H110 appeared in JT's Hodgdon #26. It appears that JT has the 1st. Edition and Pearce has the 4th Edition. Somewhere between 1 and 4, Hodgdon pulled the data for 296 in the 44 Special round.

[MtGun44]

I have personal friends that are on the inside at Hodgdon and H110 and W296 have always
been made by St. Marks in Fla. The only difference is whatever difference there is in lot to lot
variation. Neither powder has ever been made at any other factory and you can doubt it all
you want, but doesn't make it so. I have twice asked this question of someone who is
definitely in a position to know the answer.

If your two cans act differently, it is because they came from different lots, perhaps made
years apart. Two cans of H110 made years apart will show some variation, as will two cans of
W296 made years apart, which is why when you change lots of powder you need to back off and
see if the current lot acts just like your old lot did.

Interesting that they pulled the date. Must have been some problems with it. I do not have
#26, but zero H110/W296 loads in #27. BUT - Hodgdon #23 manual shows Maximum loads (only?)
for H110 in .44 Spl for 180 gr (17.5), 210 gr (16.0), 215 gr lead (16.0), 225gr (15.5), 240gr(14.5),
250 gr lead (16.0), 265 gr (13.0).

Bill

[Three44s]

My WW 296 and H110 cans were produced reasonably close to one another ...... a year or 18 months apart. With 296, I get clean burns from the start to max loads and H110 is dirty top to bottom. H110 shoots snake eyes and WW 296 gives only mediocre accuracy in long range. The charges are often very close in published manuals but in my 2 Ruger DA's they don't even act like cousins.

As to the Hodgon's #26 it does in fact list WW 296 from 225 gr. bullets to 300 gr slugs and the charge listed by the gun owner in the article is in fact on the money as to the manual in question.

Brian Pearce says that H110 and WW 296 "come out of the same spigot" (his words) ........ I don't agree as to my experience by my powder's are around 10 years old so if they are made differently than they were then ......... I would stand corrected as to current production.

But I firmly recall that this claim of "sameness" was going full tilt when my powders were made.

The gun owner bought into the twin powder theory and substituted the H110 and used the WW 296 charges from Hodgon's #26 .......... in .44 Special cases.

Brian Pearce could not have looked at all of his 100 load manuals ........ he certainly did not look at the Hodgon's #26 under .44 special ......... he would have clearly seen WW 296 listed there which he claims comes out of the same spigot as H110 which with clair voyance he just knew would stick a slug in the tube.

That said, I'll still enjoy BP's writings ......... we are all human and subject to brain fizzles.

Three 44s

[Bass Ackward]

This subject brings up many points. And from the responses, it ain't just common sense. And it ain't just slow balls. Manuals are outlines for testing. And low pressure cartridges make things worse contrary to thought because everything has to be right at lower pressure to get the burn. Yet some get no respect because they ARE low pressure.

The powder has to WORK at those low pressures. If it's dangerous to cut charges / pressure with a powder in a magnum situation, why try to run it at low pressure in a low pressure environment? Whether it's listed in a manual or ten, is this logical?

Loads that are developed for manuals use controlled environments under ideal conditions. Loads that come up out of a holster or are shot down hill like a river bank or are done in February can be entirely another. Gun oil thickens, hammer fall slows, ignition decreases. Guns, dies, and cases are different. And fast powders way down in the case can be just as bad as slow. But they are safely listed in the manual. 45 Colt was ALWAYS the worst for me.

With all the powders and manuals we have had over the decades, Trail Boss was developed for big volume, low pressure, light, lead bullets, temperature insensitive, up out of holsters. (must have been a need) Coarse a magnum primer will cure most ills mentioned more cheaply and it can be compensated with powder charge for most powders a large percentage of the time. But you have to be bass ackward to do that cause it defies common sense and it ain't in the manual. Especially for low pressure cartridges and especially for faster powders.

Safe load combinations can sometimes run contrary to "best" accuracy. They come from chronoing many ways, which often is contrary to results obtained under bench / target conditions like those from "some" manuals.

[watkibe]

I mostly don't post charge weights anymore. I never really pay attention to what people say their load is, beyond what powders they used. My guns and I are just picky I guess, but we have to go from published data and work it out from there.
All the powder manufacturers have websites where their data is published. I figure it is the most recent, most well checked, and the safest data out there. That is the only online data I use, ever. And I still check it against several other sources.
Data from a magazine ?!? Forget it ! Why do you think they all use the same lawyer-proof disclaimer in every article which has load data ?

[MtGun44]

Just because the cans were marketed and sold 18 months apart has very little to do with the
age of the powders. Marketers sometimes buy huge quantites of powder and do not package
it up into cans for many years, even decades in some particular examples that I am aware
of. Even if they were provably shipped from Wincheste and Hodgdon on the same day, it has
no real bearing one when the batches of powder were made. I do not doubt that the examples
that you have behave differently, just what the implications are. You judge that the powders
are different, I know that this is a lesson on lot to lot variation only.

I presume you know that Winchester is totally out of the powder business and all Win
powders come from Hodgdon. I'm pretty sure that at one time Win owned the St. Marks plant,
but sold it to General Dynamics (I think GD still owns it). For decades neither Hodgdon or
Winchester actually made any of the St. Marks powders like HS6/W540, HS7/W571, H110/W296,
both just bought it and packaged it up for retail sales.

All three were St. Marks powders marketed by two companies, now by one company under
two labels. Hodgdon has never actually made any powder beyond their Pyrodex, but I have not
asked about 777. They are ultra efficient in their packaging line and and business practices
so are able to out compete less efficient competitors. They did purchase the IMR powder
business - that powder is made in Canada, in what was originally a Canadian DuPont subsidiary.
When a serious fire did extreme damage to IMR (formerly DuPont)'s US plant, they gave up
and just make all of it in Canada now.

Makers cannot control their powder making extremely precisely, so the batches that vary too much
from the published standard data are not used for the retail trade, but for factory ammo.

If Remington buys 1000 tons of a "almost 296" powder, they don't really care, since they will work
up load data for that batch of powder in their ammo in their own labs. Then they will load the
1000 tons of powder with that data.

If the next batch is quite a bit different, they don't care much, and work up new data. The
retail trade cannot do this and the batches that fall "close enough" to the standard are packaged
up for retail sales. But there is real variation from lot to lot, but it has to be close enough to
be safe with previously published data.

Bill

[1Shirt]

Agree with Charger, and most of the others who responded. Don't think it is possible to read and compare to much from a number of different manuals and sources. I trust the old timers on this forum and have tried and used a number of their recommendations, but only after I have done manual comparisons. Kind of a trust but varify proposition. Am currently working on 375H&H loads for 2 rifles. In cast there is a wealth of knowledge for the 375 from Beagle's article "375 Ouch and Ouch". I trust but varify his data as well as data posted by some others like Ben, 44 Man, Larry Gibson, Felix, etc. A big problem with a number of casting reloaders is that they don't read enough, and have only one or two manuals or reloading sources. I seldom play with a new loading without checking Lyman, Speer, Hornady, and the free data pamphlets from the pdr mfgs. It pays to be overly literate when it comes to reloading!
1Shirt!:coffeecom

[acl864]

I couldn't agree more Chargar.
I hate to say this because it will sound mean, but I'm glad to see handloader publish letters from "dumb*****"

If all the letter writer suffered was a stuck boolit then he learned a valuable lesson on the cheap. I've come to the conclusion that outside of 13 year old war heroes, bipolar antagonists and halfwits, the internet is populated by only a few core enthusiasts.
Even the best of load information on the internet should be taken with a grain of salt, as even the best intentioned knowledgeable handloader can make a typo.


I read the same article too and have come to the conclusion that you are right and I will not post anymore load data either. I don't want to be responsible for someone reading a typo into something different though I've always made double damn sure it was correct. It's not worth it. I have looked up in my vast quantity of load manuals anything anyone has put out on the sites I go to. So far I've not found any thing out of bounds. I've seen some that were closer to max than what I would be comfortable loading.

I'll go against the grain here. I will still post some of my load data in online forums. I always include the disclaimer that the reader should use safe reloading practices while using ANY data, including that which I provided. The folks who might use my load data in potentially unsafe ways are prone to do the same thing with Factory Data. I can't see a whole lot of difference.

For every yahoo out there taking shortcuts and blowing up guns there are hundreds of thoughtful, dedicated and safe reloaders. I benefit greatly from the interchange of ideas with this group. The pool of freely shared knowledge and experience here and on other forums dedicated to the art of reloading is one of the best things about the internet. I'd hate to see it dry up because of a small percentage of idiots and the threat of litigation.

[dverna]

1Shirt,

Very good advice. Even well intentioned people make typos.

Rick,
It can be both the journey and the destination but the destination is what counts. Once I have an "acceptable" load the journey is over. Reloading for pistol and shotgun then becomes a way to shoot less expensively. Rifle performance has a higher performance standard; but in the end, cost savings are a given.

Don

[mdi]

Forum members may think they are being helpful when giving load data to the "what's the best load for...", but in reality, it's detrimental to a new reloaders development. If all that a new reloader needs to do is ask on line, he may never purchase a manual, or learn how to research loads, or learn about pressures/load density, etc. Personally, I don't read those "What's the best load..." threads nor do pay much attention to loads handed out by forum "experts" or "gun shop gurus". I have 6 or 7 manuals that suit my needs just fine along with the common sense God gave me.

FWIW; I saw a similiar question about a year ago on a reloading forum. The OP wanted a load of Unique for his handgun. One of the well intentioned responces was a "favorite" load that was in fact a 6.0 grain overload. Several hours went by before the mistake was corrected. Perhaps the OP wouldn't have been able to get those extra 6 grains in the case, or perhaps the OP hadn't gotten around to trying the load, but it was posted for several hours. Person who posted "favorite" load apologised profusely, and couldn't figure out why his post was so high...

[casterofboolits]

I'm of the shool that does not post specific load data. I will specify the boolit and powder, but not the specific charge weight. I will say that I developed my load based on data from "Lymans Reloading Handbook, 49th Edition or Lyman Cast Bullet handbook, Third Edition".

There is only one person in this world whose reloads I will shoot as I have total confidence in his reloading practices. Any other reloads that I end up with are pulled, powder burnt and cast boolits recycled into the pot. I'm currently doing this to over 200 45 Colt rounds. The rounds were given to me with no idea of thier pedigree.

To me, reloading means to work up your own loads for your firearms. I will comment if I think some one is not being safe.

[ilike2hunt]

"I benefit greatly from the interchange of ideas with this group. The pool of freely shared knowledge and experience here and on other forums dedicated to the art of reloading is one of the best things about the internet. I'd hate to see it dry up because of a small percentage of idiots and the threat of litigation."

+1
I agree 150% I frequent this board and others (read much more than I post) and have seen both good and bad shared info. Myself, I always check my multiple sources before asking for others load info, and ask myself "does that seem reasonable" when given an answer before even looking at a press. That said, I find it very frustrating when I cant find the info I'm looking for, and other more seasoned loaders are unwilling to help. I also find it a bit irritating when I see "check the powder manufactures website, they have all the info you need" type answers....Ill give an example of why: This is the entire 9mm Luger section of Alliant's website
9mm Luger
Bullet -115 gr Speer GDHP | 124 gr Speer GDHP | 147 gr Speer GDHP |
Now I have learned enough up till now to be able to use this info to figure out an acceptable(to me and for my gun) place to start for say a 130gr LRN boolit with Unique, but what is someone that just started and is looking to make their first loads really going to do with that? FWIW, in the 8 manuals I have checked for a 130gr LRN load none actually list that bullet.

Long story short: Loading manuals are great, and we should all have as many as possible.....but they don't always have what we are looking for, and it is very discouraging for people without years of experience to ask for help and get "read a manual" as an answer.