The Lyman Cast Bullet Manual 4th ed.

[10x]

A long time ago Turner Kirkland (in the Dixie Gun Works catalog) advised me and many others to use just enough powder to get the bullet to the target accurately when target shooting. I have extended this to "use just enough powder to get the job done". This is why I have 22 hornet loads that push a 50 grain bullet at 700 fps and at 1400 fps. These low velocity loads are quiet, don't disturb the neighbors, are not hard on the brass, gun, or ears, shoot accurately, and are effective on the game I hunt with them.

That being said, the Lyman 4th ed. cast bullet manual seems to have forgotten us guys who like to shoot low velocity bullets. It seems there is a theme to get more velocity out of cast bullets, as if cast bullets were "the little brother" who is trying to catch up to jacketed bullets.

For me cast bullets serve a purpose. They allow me loads that are not ear splitten louden boomers, that are accurate, and they do the job I ask them to.

It is my opinion that the 4th edition can be regarded as a supplementary manual to the first and third editions of Cast bullet manuals. Then again one can never have too many manuals.

Bottom line the Lyman third edition is still the first manual I go to find a starting cast bullet load.

[chboats]

+1 It seems that most of the manuals are written for shooters that are pushing for MAX loads. They just skip over the lower end. I don't need loads using Unique that the start load is pushing 1800 fps.

Carl

[rintinglen]

IMO, many of the tests were too narrow, <1 grain top to bottom, and as has been mentioned, they too often start too fast. Additionally, the information content of the articles is better and more useful in the third addition. While I do like the addition of loads using other manufacturers boolits, the manual overall has a "hurry-up-it's-Friday-Afternoon" kind of feel to it.

[dragonrider]

I find that I prefer the #3 as it has more load data. The 4th manual includes other makers that's true, but it seems there are less loads overall.

[gray wolf]

So--should I look for an old 3rd. edition ??
or will the loads be to out of date ??
My money is like having one bullet, I only get one shot.
If I spend it and it's not a hit I can't reload.

[462]

gray wolf,
I have the third edition and have found it to be extremely informative and educational. I've been contemplating buying the fourth edition, but all the reviews I've read (here and the latest issue of Handloader) are leading me toward giving it a pass.

My gut feeling is that you would be better served by the third edition. Additionally, I don't recall ever reading anything negative about the third -- unlike the fourth.

[gray wolf]

Thank you for the answer,
I will look and see if I can find one.

[Rocky Raab]

You probably weren't born when the 3rd Edition came out, 462, LOL!

As I wrote in Handloader, the 4th has its faults as well as its strong points. You truly need both of them to complement each other. Besides, nobody ever has too many loading manuals, do they?

[Char-Gar]

I started with the 1st. edition, then used the 2nd, and the 3rd. Each of this is a very good resource to have. I have not purchased the 4th yet, but I am certain I will and find it useful as well.

[462]

"You probably weren't born when the 3rd Edition came out, 462, LOL!"

Oh, I was very much alive in 1980. In 1970, too, when my oldest Lyman Reloading Handbook was published. I have seven Lyman Handbooks so I'm not without articles from which to learn nor cast loads to work with.

I agree that one may never have too many manuals, and often expand my reloading library. I haven't decided not to buy the fourth edition, but there is a lack of enthusiasm and urgency.

[35remington]

10X, the third edition you favor had and has its own flaws.

462, here's the negative that you haven't seen about the third edition......and it's quite pertinent to those that wish to develop truly accurate loads with cast bullets.

Way too often in the third edition, only the fast pistol/shotgun powders were listed for many if not most of the rifle calibers....e.g. Red Dot, Unique, 700X, etc. Most especially the less popular ones. Review the data on the various cartridges to see this for yourself. This approach did not obtain the best accuracy or utility from most of these cartridges when using cast bullets, and in many cases the velocities above 1600 fps were completely ignored.

These pistol/shotgun powders, in most cases, did not extract anywhere near the accuracy from these cartridges that was possible using powders like 2400, 4759, 4227, 4198, etc. For hunting cartridges, velocities that approached factory loads, with bullets identical in weight to factory load offerings were not provided even in those instances where such loads would have worked admirably in terms of accuracy. Here I'm thinking of the 20-40,000 psi cartridges rather than the higher pressure ones.

So the third edition's data was quite limited in usefulness and scope, as there is little one fast pistol/shotgun powder could do that was not possible in an identical way with another powder of the same type. Needed variety in powder selection was sadly lacking.

If I want to get the best accuracy possible from a cartridge, the third edition rarely has load data up to that demand.

Simply a mistake Lyman made in developing the data for the third edition and reducing or eliminating the powders that were most likely to produce the best results.

If the new data seems more top heavy on slower powders and higher speeds, I myself regard this as a great improvement. These loads, for the most part, exceed the accuracy possible with the faster powders. Since that's what we're after, we are better served as a result.

I agree the third edition had a lot of feature articles that were excellent....Dennis Marshall, Frank Marshall, etc.

It's the loading data that was less than it could be. Considerably less.

I suspect Lyman, in this forth edition, is responding to the criticisms of the third edition regarding the lack of truly good data for cast bullet loading possible with more accurate powders. So that may explain the velocities and powder selection of this newest manual.

[nanuk]

Like Rocky wrote in HLM, one compliments the other

I will be ordering mine sometime soon

[mpmarty]

I've got #1, #2 and #3 as well as several Speer and Hornady books to go along with my LEE, Nosler and P.O. Ackley books. I'll probably skip #4 as redundant.

[HARRYMPOPE]

#1 is the best i believe.I have shot with a fellow that has some data quoted in #1 back in 1958 and he is still shooting well.

[462]

35remington,
Your point is well stated and understood. Perhaps I never paid attention to the absent of the many slower rifle powders, because they are to be found in later publications of Lyman's Reloading Handbooks.

[35remington]

Many good cast bullet calibers are omitted from detailed and proper coverage. Even in subsequent manuals.

Fine as the #3 was, it has considerable flaws.

[mroliver77]

I have a Lyman manual from the mid thirties. It gives 30-06 and 30-40 loads (among others) using Mauser 85 gr pistol bullets from 700 fps to 3000 fps. Cast from 75 gr to 250 gr in the .30 cals at speeds from slowwww to warp 3. Seems like that still should be doable in a loading manual.

I agree that a shooter/loader should have a good selection of manuals. I have picked up on a few mistakes by comparing loads from various sources.
J
J

[trapper9260]

I have the 4th lyman manual and it has some of the newer molds and some of the cal. that is out now it have the 327 that I was looking for .each manual has it own place and from what I understand some of the maken of powders has change also . as for speed of the bullets it is up to us to use and and amount of powder we want to use . That is why we have a starting and max that is to be use . I do have the 3rd also and I will not change what is working form what I have before the 4th . it is the new molds and cal. that I want to know about and like what was said too many manuals is not going to hurt. because there is molds out there that is old and you need the old ones to help you with them just like the new ones with the new manuals help . It is to each there own of how you want to make things work for you. It all comes down to what will work for you and not what ours say . What will work for one dose not mean will work for you . Hope this will help someone .

[10x]

Many good cast bullet calibers are omitted from detailed and proper coverage. Even in subsequent manuals.

Fine as the #3 was, it has considerable flaws.

Could you list some of those considerable flaws?

I consider the 4th edition to be an appendix to the third edition rather than a replacement. Great if you want to get the most velocity and accuracy at that velocity but it seems to leave out the low velocity (squib?) loads that some of us have an application for and like.

It is noticeable that heavy bullets in cartridges with less case capacity have been omitted. I would like to have data to load 180, 200, and 220 grain cast bullets in cartridges like the 7.62x39, 30-30, 300 Savage and 308.

One flaw of the 3rd edition is that there is no data for the 7.62 x 25. I am considering rebarreling a 310 cadet for this cartridge or maybe a spare Lee enfield No. 4. ....
The 4th edition includes 7.62x25 data and that is part of the reason I purchased it.

I would also like a load to shoot 115 and 130 grain bullets out of my 7.62x39 at velocities of less than 1700 fps. First because they are quieter and secondly because they get the job done - get the bullet to the target.

I have a considerable number of Lyman manuals. All are useful and I have found no issues with the loads in any of them over the 45 years I have been reloading. I have found every manual I have obtained to be useful.

I have been able to get very good accuracy with pistol powders at velocities between 1200 and 1750 fps and have matched that accuracy with a couple of loads from the 4th ed at higher velocity.

Once again, could you list the flaws in the Lyman third edition. I am working on my third copy as the only flaw I could find is that if you read the third edition enough the glue in the binding bio degrades and the pages fall out.

BTW: I also have the RCBS cast bullet manual as well as a couple of manuals put out by Wolfe Publishing. I also have both editions of the Lee manual. The RCBS manual has a sweet 180 grain load for 30-30. I would not mind seeing data for a 200 grain load for 30-30.

BTW: Mike Venturino's articles in the 4th edition are worth the purchase price by themselves without the data.

[Bret4207]

If I could only have one cast manual it would probably be #3. But I simply love #1 and #2 is great also. Love the RCBS cast book and all those other manuals I have, plus all the Handloader Cast Bullet editions and the books that also include cast. You can't have too much reference material.

[35remington]

Already have listed those considerable flaws, 10X. Asking me to repeat them does you no good when you may verify it yourself.

Haul out your manual and see how most of the rifle calibers are treated (big hint: see what's listed for your favored .22 Hornet, for starters). Lyman wasn't trying too hard with most of the loading data, and the unfortunate part is that they had more available cast bullet designs at the time than they do now.

As I stated before, if I want to find an accurate cast bullet load, one that gets the most out of cast bullets, the Lyman third doesn't measure up. In way too many calibers shotgun powders are listed and nothing else. Big mistake.

[10x]

Already have listed those considerable flaws, 10X. Asking me to repeat them does you no good when you may verify it yourself.

Haul out your manual and see how most of the rifle calibers are treated (big hint: see what's listed for your favored .22 Hornet, for starters). Lyman wasn't trying too hard with most of the loading data, and the unfortunate part is that they had more available cast bullet designs at the time than they do now.

As I stated before, if I want to find an accurate cast bullet load, one that gets the most out of cast bullets, the Lyman third doesn't measure up. In way too many calibers shotgun powders are listed and nothing else. Big mistake.

I have a different opinion and happen to like the loads I have found and used in the 3rd edition as they suit my purposes for both accuracy, velocity, recoil, and noise.

[btroj]

This just shows how hard it is to develop a manual that is everything to everyone. I use some loads from the 3rd edition but will say I prefer some of the data from the 4th.
35 Remington has a good point- the 3rd edition is heavy on shotgun powder loads.

In the end I view them as complimentary. Each has good points, each has shortcomings. This is probably why so many of us own so many manuals.

[35remington]

btroj, the shotgun powders are too much overused, agreed. Some of these should have been replaced with types better suited for cast.

10X, more power to you. You may like whatever you want, but that doesn't mean the Third is perfect for all of us, because it is not.

As I said, I find the load data very limited. It completely ignores powders that will give better results than the fast pistol/shotgun powders in a great many calibers, and that's a shame.

While you're entertaining yourself rereading the manual, look up the data they offer for the 22 Hornet, 218 Bee, 25-20, 250 Savage, 257 Roberts, 280 Remington, 32-20, 32-40, 35 Remington, 358 Winchester, 375 H and H, 38-55, and a great many others. I trust that's considerable enough flaws for you.

Some of these cartridges are good cast bullet shooters. Some are as perfect for cast as any that have ever been offered.....and they only have pistol/shotgun powders listed for data.

As I said, Lyman wasn't trying too hard, and best accuracy will not be found with these powders. Not to mention that we are nowhere near usable hunting velocities in many instances when such could have been had, with good accuracy, had slower powders been used. Most cartridges are at their best in accuracy and utility when used with slower powders rather than the fast pistol/shotgun types.

Whatever use you personally may have for the Third does not change the fact that my critique of the data there is relevant and points out a serious flaw, repeated for many calibers.

[btroj]

I agree on the shotgun powders. I use 2400 for cast loads a fair amount but basically never use any of the shotgun powders.
I would like to see 32-20 data for modern rifles. I don't complain as this is a pretty small market.
I mainly bought the 4th edition because it had data for more current powders.

[Rocky Raab]

Ahem. NOW you might understand why I used comments from this board when I wrote my review. When the manual first came out, you folks were vocal and lucid in your observations. You still are.

[Treetop]

There are two things that I personally like about the 4th edition.

1) Data for boolits other than Lyman.

2) Extensive use of 5744 in the .30 calibers.

You can't please everyone, but I say kudos to Lyman for these two. Tt.

[btroj]

There are two things that I personally like about the 4th edition.

1) Data for boolits other than Lyman.

2) Extensive use of 5744 in the .30 calibers.

You can't please everyone, but I say kudos to Lyman for these two. Tt.

Can't please everyone is right. Well, you could but it would take forever to compile the data and nobody would be able to afford the manual!

Lyman does a decent job of trying to be something to everyone while trying not to be nothing to anyone. I don't envy their editors for deciding what makes it in or not.

Rocky, we appreciate having a chance to be heard by a gun writer.

[10x]

Can't please everyone is right. Well, you could but it would take forever to compile the data and nobody would be able to afford the manual!

Lyman does a decent job of trying to be something to everyone while trying not to be nothing to anyone. I don't envy their editors for deciding what makes it in or not.

Rocky, we appreciate having a chance to be heard by a gun writer.

Between the two manuals there is a load that just may satisfy every one.
And the powders available. Some of the "better powders" mentioned are sometimes very difficult to get in Canada. The shotshell powders seem to be readily available - moreso than the "new" powders.

[white eagle]

any cartridge can be made to be sedate or wild
personally I like to use cartridges full potential
flex it muscles if you will
I have both manuals and cross reference them a bunch
everyone has their own parameters

[plainsman456]

I have not seen #1 or# 2 Lyman manuals but I have #3 and I bought #4 when it came out.
They seem to me to be a 2 part loading tandem that complement although the 3rd is easier to wrap my mind around.
All I can tell you is when I go about shooting something I have never done before I try to get as much information about the subject that I can get.
I have books on cds and other printed material that further the amount of information needed.

[rintinglen]

#1 is the best i believe.I have shot with a fellow that has some data quoted in #1 back in 1958 and he is still shooting well.
I have #1, and I love periodically going back and nostalgically perusing some of the pet loads, but unless you only use hercules or IMR powders, the l oads listed aren't too much help, especially since Alliant has changed the recipes for old standbys like Red Dot, Unique and 2400. When was the last time you saw a pound of Sharpshooter, Hi-vel No. 2, or 5066 for sale?
Additionally, Some of the loads listed are surely over the top, to the point of Danger. I can't recommend any of it, except perhaps using the starting loads, followed with a carefull work up. Anyone out there really think loading Data between the 30-06 and the 7.62 x 54 is interchangeable?

ps. for my vote, by far the most useless of the cast boolit handbooks is the number two, except for the pictures of the boolits in the back. Much of the rifle data deplored by 35 Remington (and properly so, IMO) stems from this mis-guided effort.

[ColColt]

I don't know what edition this is but the loading data leaves a lot to be desired for the 45 ACP for sure. Some of the powders listed have went belly up.

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x220/ColColt/_DEF3860a.jpg

[tonyjones]

ColColt,

That is the 2nd edition. My has a $4.64 price sticker on it.

Regards,

Tony

[ColColt]

Thanks, Tony-there was no copyright date anywhere in the book but at the very end it showed some ads with a date of 1973.

[tonyjones]

My 2nd edition has a 1973 copyright date in the bottom left corner of the inside front cover. The inside back cover has an ad for a 1976 Lyman Products catalog. For some reason, I can't remember when I bought it.

Tony

[Char-Gar]

Throughout the history of Lyman manuals, cast bullets have been a major part. For most of the time, the jacketed and cast loads were included in the same book. After WWII, Lyman introduced the first book dedicated to just cast bullets.

Cast bullet usage has also changed over the years. Before WWII, most folks who shot cast bullets did so as an economy measure. They wanted loads for target shooting and hunting. Often, the target shooting stretched out to 600 yards. In essence, they wanted pretty much jacketed bullet performance from cast bullets. But this were also before the days of "magnumitis".

As a result the earlier books contained a mix of fast and slow powder loads. The faster powder/lower velocity loads were considered small game and short range/gallery target loads. The slower powder/higher velocity loads, were used for big game and longer range target shooting.

With the advent of run-away popularity of high velocity rounds after WWII, spearhead by Weatherby and wildcatters such as Ackley and other, cast bullets dropped back down to lower velocity use and the load books were geared to such use.

It is not surprising the many mold makers such as Belding and Mull, Modern Bond, Cramer and others did not survive the war and/or the change in the attitude of shooters. Bullet molds always were a niche market.

Today, we have seen a resurgence of interest in cast bullets of both the low velocity and higher velocity type. So, the books are starting to reflect that trend again. We are probably in the "Golden Age" of cast bullets right now, but are not aware of it. Most of us enjoy shooting cast bullets because we enjoy the challenge of doing it all ourselves, and not because we must. Folks today also shoot many, many more rounds than they did in previous generations.

When doing a critique of cast bullet loading book, it is helpful to place them in the context of the cast bullet shooters principal interest at the time the book was introduced. Cast bullet shooting and load manuals have changed, as generations of shooters and their needs/wants have changed.

PS: Rocky, at last I picked up a copy of Handloader and read your review. Kudos to you for a 1st. rate honest and straightforward review.

[Rocky Raab]

I was just about to congratulate YOU for that most excellent post! Your point about context and the changing face of shooting is absolutely spot on. I only wish it had occurred to me while I was writing that review.

[Char-Gar]

Rocky.. I am 69 years old and have been a gun nut since the mind of man remembereth not. While I am not ancient, there are days I feel so. Like everyone who lives long enough, we see changes and shift is our culture. We know everything around us changes, but when it comes to shooting we don't make the connection.

When I read this thread and saw folks trying to connect the dots between Lyman Cast Bullet books 1,2,3 and 4, I made the connection in my head. I have known for a long time, shooters and shooting has changed, but it took me some time to figure out loading manuals reflect those changes. I don't know how something so obvious, seemed so opaque to me, but it did.

Shooting for 60 plus years and reloading for 50 does not make me smarter or more knowledgeable than others, but it does give a broader perspective than some...once the brain is plugged in! :-)

[clintsfolly]

My biggest beef is the use of RCBS 45-270swc in 45Colt and 460 S&W but not in the 454Casull. Other then that good to have hopefully won't wait 30yr for the next one! Clint

[Finster101]

I'm wondering why there is no data in .380 and 9mm for the 358-105 SWC mould. It is widely used in these on this forum. So far the only load data I have found on it has been from this forum.

James

[MikeS]

Just now going thru my Lyman CB manual #3 I noticed one strange error. For 45-70 they have 3 separate sections of loads, those for Trapdoors, one for 1886 Winchesters, and one for Ruger #1's & #3's. The only blackpowder load listed is a duplex load with 10% smokeless (I forget what powder), and 90% black, with a pressure below that safe for a trapdoor, but it was only listed in the Ruger section! There were no other BP loads shown for the 45-70, which kind of surprised me, as I would have expected in the trapdoor section at least the 2 standard loads, the rifle load, and carbine load.

[Suo Gan]

You really need all four manuals if you cast. There are some parts of CBH #4 that are very well thought out and researched (primarily heavy buffalo calibers if you shoot them this manual is a true blessing). But for most of us, who do not own 45-100-2 6/10 Sharps, CBH 3 is a better bet for getting more loads for a particular design. With that said, it is almost like they threw together load data from common calibers as many are just reprints of data from No. 3. Not a lot of new data or powders for the commons but if it ain't broke...

I give them a "B" grade on the project, some parts are D- work and others A+. Take it for what it is, a supplement to your other manuals and not a one stop shop.

[MT Gianni]

IIRC [I am in an motel out of town], there is 1/10 gr difference between the Max do not exceed loads of a 32 Long [12,000 PSI cartridge] and a 32 H&R [20,000+ PSI cartridge]. Some cartridges got short changed and I would have appreciated a few more mold selections. 358477 is still in production yet used only in 38 S&W in #4.