something i've noticed on reload manuals (and other published data)

[mozeppa]

I figured that most reload data was copies of copies of other companies data ...of web sites ...yada yada.

so in my ignorance i relied mostly on the LEE 2nd. edition to come up with loads on my springfield 9mm
R.O. 1911 auto.

without looking up a load ...i'll give you example of my problem..........
lets say.......minimum charge = 5.6 of powder and maximum is 6.6 ............so!...........
i figure i'm safe enough loading 6.1 grains ............wrong!.......6.1 will NOT cycle the action!
neither will 6.6 grains ...so i'm going WTH!....???? why?

so i get a few more manuals .....and here's where it gets odd.
5.6 to 6.6 in the Lee manual doesn't even come up to what Lyman 49th. says or speer or hornady

they start at min. 6.8 to a max. of 7.9......this on a 9mm!

has the lawyers gotten to the load data people and told them to water down the loads "so in case someone gets hurt".... they can't sue them for having hot loads?

so ...these past 10 days i've been compiling data from 9 different sources using all the same components,
with regard to bullet weights and styles.

and i've done this for these calibers...

30 carbine
.380 acp
9mm
.38 special
.357 mag
40 s&w
10mm
44 rem mag
45 colt
45 acp
50 S&W

and in every caliber i found that the speer website has consistently has Higher start loads and higher Max loads than most other websites or books.

there are cases where there are huge spreads of number variances in most calibers of ammunition....across the data board!

yes i know i should have made only a few ...and fire tested them ....my range is 40 miles away.
and i figured that 80 to 90% of max was safe ...wrong! ....they would fire alright...then jam because
the empty didn't clear....and i could nearly outrun the bullet!

so now i must break down a bunch of 9mm as they are too weak to cycle.

yeah... i'm hard headed ....must test more before green lighting the mass of 9mm to be made.

what i've learned .... don't rely on ANY data....use it as a starting point and work up to what the gun likes.

[Dieselhorses]

I see where you coming from and it's definitely a valid argument. In my experience I've had a few 1911's and other misc. auto-loaders that had "finicky" recoil springs. The gun either had to be broken in or I found that they were above the factory specs. But yea, what do you do, you trying to follow the data but ammo doesn't cooperate! Just my 2 cents.

[Livin_cincy]

Many manuals do not give starting loads and only a Max load.

The "rule of thumb" if the publisher does not list a min or give direction was to take 10% of max load. So your 80-90% is low by the rule of thumb.

You can also email / call and ask them.

Rapid firing can easily put (2) Bullets on a collision in a barrel. This is why many ranges call for a clear pause and a 2 or 3 count between shots.

I start with the Lee Manual as it is data loaned to Lee from other sources. I then look towards Bullet Makers, Powder Makers, and Lyman. I like those Caliber Specific Handbooks. I rarely have an exact match of Bullet, Brass, Powder & Primer so I am looking for a trend. Most of the time, just above the min shoots best. I avoid max charges.

[tazman]

People have some success with one manual and they don't look at anything else. Often this works. You just found out it doesn't always.
I am chicken, cautious, paranoid, take your pick. I have always looked at more than one source for load data. I almost never load max loads and those only after working up in the individual gun it will be shot in.
We have a lot of data available online now that was never at your fingertips before. We also have forums like this one and many others that cover these things.
The bad part is, you can take advantage of all these things and still fail under the right circumstances. Much better to have to pull down some ammunition that have to replace a gun due to an overload.

[XDROB]

In my short career of reloading no matter what caliber, bullet weight, or lets throw in the different powders, brass and primers. I load only 5 rounds and shoot them. If they all go bang, first objective met. If gun operates correctly second objective met. If the round hits the target third objective met. If all rounds hit where I pointed them fourth objective met. I always write down all of the ingredients of that round and if all of my 4 objectives are met. Then I will produce ten or twenty of them and then fire them in different ways, slow fire and the increasingly rapid fire. If at that time that load fits my gun ans and she's happy. That is a losd i will use. I then try it in my other guns of that caliber to see if they like the load.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[lefty o]

the few times ever ever used the lee book, ive run into troubles. it is for the most part incomplete data taken from other source, and its not a good thing. if you use the lee book, check it against another source before trusting anything in it!

[KenH]

Something you must take into consideration for those small cartridges like .380 and 9mm - OAL. Just a small bit can drastically change the pressures. i.e. on a .380 from max OAL of .98 down to .95" or even more to .93"

[dragon813gt]

the few times ever ever used the lee book, ive run into troubles. it is for the most part incomplete data taken from other source, and its not a good thing. if you use the lee book, check it against another source before trusting anything in it!

Lee simply reprints data from other published sources. So if you’re going to get in trouble w/ the Lee book you’re going to get in trouble w/ the others. Every gun is different so every load has to be tailored for the one you have. There’s nothing wrong w/ the Lee book. If you want to follow a recipe that has every detail, and some of it most likely wrong for your gun or you have different components, then you want to use another manual.

[LUBEDUDE]

Back in the 70s and early 80s I loaded 44 mag to the max. I went a few years without loading it. Then around 1989-90 I bought a new can of powder, call it X, and I loaded up some 44s as usual.

Well, when fired, it the most recoil I had ever experienced. Also the cases were Extremely difficult to extract. So, I didn’t fire anymore.

I picked up a new loading pamphlet at the gun shop by the company that made the X powder. The load data had changed very significantly, i.e., new powder formulation/blend.

Since I almost ruined a nice model 29 and could have been hurt, I no longer trust old data until I compare it with the new data.

That’s one of the reasons so many here preach about buying new manuals.

[lefty o]

Lee simply reprints data from other published sources. So if you’re going to get in trouble w/ the Lee book you’re going to get in trouble w/ the others. Every gun is different so every load has to be tailored for the one you have. There’s nothing wrong w/ the Lee book. If you want to follow a recipe that has every detail, and some of it most likely wrong for your gun or you have different components, then you want to use another manual.

problem is, some of what they reprint, is incomplete.

[RED BEAR]

try the alliant website even if you reduce the loads by 10% it is still higher than a hornady manuas max load. i found this to be the case in a lot of different calibers . i tend to believe there data because they make the powder. i very rarely shoot max loads but some manuals are definitely erring on the safe side. but i really feel that the data should be closer between different manuals. my new hornady manual seems to be the lightest . if interested alliant will send you a free manual. i found its better to call than to request one online.

[wv109323]

I always uses multiple references when I am loading a new cartridge or new components. I try to use the powder manufacturer as one reference.There are a lot of parameters that enter into load data. Some companies use actual firearms, some use universal receivers. Tolerances of barrels or twist rates may vary.
And I have been guilty of loading high quantities and found problems. It is usually accuracy but a couple of times it has been high pressure.

[Rcmaveric]

I notice the same thing with the load data account. It shows me everything. Enter 9mm, 125g cast bullet eith x powder. Then you can see how the load changed for the past 50 years. The way I see it is a reloading manual is another guys smart wild guess at where to start a reloading tune. I start low under what the min load is (if there is a min) then i go .03 to .05 g steps to over max.

Lawers probably did get a hold of them. Seating depth in those little cases can alter pressures and velocity alot though. Thats why they give a COL with thise loads. If Americans werent so sue happy it wouldn't be this bad. Cant even by a diskman or mp3 player without having a foot long warning label.

Then i shoot em all. Keeping an eye on leading, primers, brass, groups and recoil. Normally the groups let me know when enough is enough. I pulled down all the other loads to recycle components. Then check that majicly accurate load to see if it is repeatably. I have never made it high enough to flatten a primer. Groups always open before i have leaded a barrel.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[robg]

I like to use powder manufactures load data first ,then cross ref with my other manuals .but you still use common sense and be cautious.

[Shopdog]

Got a 2nd ed Lee manual used,at a fair to cheap price.It rarely gets opened now,after the initial read.

Had an interesting manual "problem" recently,trying to find "starting loads" for IMR4350,in an appropriate chambering. Just not a lot of printed data out there,..... max loads,no problem however.

Another anamoly...... try finding data on .223 specific to bolt actions,haha.

[lotech]

I have about fifty loading manuals and I think all of them have starting loads listed with the exception of Win. 296 powder where it is sometimes suggested to use only the published charge weight. For someone choosing to use only one manual, Lyman is probably the best, but using one manual is certainly a compromise. Even the Lee manual adds to the mix for cross referencing and comparison purposes.

Regarding .223 bolt-action data someone mentioned, look at the Sierra book. They have a pretty extensive section for bolt-action loads. Can't have too many manuals.

[nicholst55]

Some companies use pressure guns to develop load data. Some use actual firearms. Some use a combination of both. Not sure which I trust more, because who knows how many rounds that firearms has fired, or how it is chambered (short throat, long throat, no throat). I suppose the same could be said about pressure barrels. If you look through past editions of certain manuals, you will find the same exact data reprinted in one edition after another. So... nothing has changed in 20-30 years?

Who do you trust?

[rbuck351]

I have a bunch of manuals. In an older Speer manual it shows some max loads for some rifle that you cant even get in the case and that was with old powder from about the same time as the book. I consider manuals just a place to get started and then work up for each gun.

[mdi]

Reloading manuals are not hard and fast formula. They are published reports of the results one test facility found when they used their components (mfg. lots of powder, primers, bullets, which may vary from other lab's components), in their test equipment (some use guns, some use universal receivers, and barrel lengths vary). If I found two manuals' data to be identical, I would prolly question their findings...

Putting together a reloading manual is a time consuming, very expensive task, which is why, I believe, small changes are incorporated and old results are still published. Look at at a manual any you will see CUP pressures, an obsolete pressure measurement, and PSI, more accurate method.

When in doubt start with the lowest published loads and tailor them for your gun...

[BCB]

Can't have too many manuals as I see it...

I generally use several sources and average the minimum charge amount for the cartridge combo I am loading. I then do the same with the maximum listed from several sources. I then average the averages of the minimum/maximum. Crazy it sounds, but it has always worked for me. That gives a middle range load using all of the data available, at least with the sources you have...

It is interesting that sometimes the final average, mid-range, is less or more than other sources list...

Good-luck...BCB