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

[therealhitman]

I'm betting I'm not the only one looking at that picture, then my own bookcase, and going "Hey...that looks like my shelf!"

[JeepHammer]

When I teach reloading, I INSIST the students have at least 3 sources for load data.

There are several reasons, the biggest is MISPRINTS ABOUND!

Without a second data source you have no idea there is a problem,
Without a third source, you have no idea which one of the first two was wrong.
If you have three, and two (more or less) agree, both that agree are probably correct...

I NEVER use load data off the internet unless it comes directly from the manufacturer, and I still triple check sources.

Keep in mind that component makers provide FREE updates with load information to the local retailers, and these little booklets are FREE, and have the latest offerings listed for FREE.
(Did anyone catch the FREE part?...)

I select my sources, I have a Lee load book that lists a 55 grain charge for H335 in a .223 case!
Obviously an outright misprint since 55 grains will do a good job of covering the progressive press head after it runs the case over...
The next edition I picked up had that misprint corrected, but had 6.1 grains of TightGroup listed for 9mm, another obvious misprint...

[country gent]

I have data from several books ( Serra Hornady lyman speer ect). When starting out with a new cartridge or components I check all my data sources for them, its a little time consuming but gives a much better idea of where to go. I also like the one caliber books when available since they have most published data in them from all the sources bullet makers, powder makers, and others in one book.
One thing to do that may help when multiple data is used is to average the starting charges to get an idea there then the max charges again to get an idea. O prefer manuals that give a pressure rating for a given load over those that don't.

Another thing to consider is the changes in data for given powders bullets over the years. This is because the components have changed slightly over the years, or data accepted before was found to be warmer than it should be. Not only having several sources of data, but several current sources of data. 2-3 of the newest edition manuals should be available.

[3leggedturtle]

Agree with never having to many manuals. I also try to use a manual that was printed about the same time the powder I’m using was made! Todd/3leg

[KenT7021]

I personally would not use the Lee manual for load data.If you want to avoid having too many reloading manuals the Lyman 49th or 50th editions would be good start with a Hornady manual if you want to cross check load data.I probably have a couple of dozen reloading manuals.The older manuals have some pretty impressive loads listed.The Ackley reloading manuals have some scary data.

[biffj]

I find it best to start with someones load that you know is safe and then work up for your own firearms. I know the loads given for the 7.63 mauser were nowhere near enough to cycle the action on any of my Broomhandle Mausers. I ended up a bit above the max load from the sierra book. Many of these guns were developed for european ammo that was loaded hotter. The other issue is variation in lots of powder, primers and cases. Maybe your powder is on the weak side or you're not crimping the same as the book writer did. That means work up your own load for your own pistol, rifle etc and I start over when I get to a new lot of powder.
Looking in older manuals makes you realize things have gotten a bit less adventurous over the years.

Frank

[John Ross]

I have a few suggestions that vary from free to somewhat expensive that have stood me in good stead for 50 years, 300,000+ rounds loaded, and zero* damaged guns.

Two caveats:

1. I have rarely loaded for semiauto handguns (mostly .45s, and the Automags 40 years ago) and never loaded for any really small cartridge like .25 ACP, .32 ACP, .380, etc., where the powder charge is tiny. The smallest handgun round I've ever loaded was .357 Mag. Thus, I've never faced the challenges that these rounds can present.

2. I've never loaded a cartridge that was to be fired in an especially weak firearm like an original 1880-era Colt SAA. The least robust handguns I've ever loaded for were S&W .44 Specials made after 1940, and the least robust rifle a Winchester 71 in .450 Alaskan.

As a matter of interest, the smallest rifle round I've loaded was .17 Hornet, which is actually not small when considering the powder charge vs bullet weight...

I have found four things to be of invaluable importance in developing loads for new cartridges:

1. A bunch of burning rate charts. Here are four:

http://www.castpics.net/LoadData/BurnRates.pdf

https://www.hodgdon.com/wp-content/u...rate-color.pdf

http://www.accuratepowder.com/wp-con...burn_rates.pdf

https://www.grafs.com/uploads/techni...df-file/14.pdf

2. A free DOS program Called Suggest-A-Load by Louis Sayre. It was the best and most accurate internal ballistics program I have ever used until the advent of QuickLoad.

3. A chronograph. Decent ones such as the Shooting Chrony can be had for under $100. Check your favorite Online seller.

4. QuickLoad software. If you've got an extra $150 laying around, it will be some of the best money you ever spent.

With a chronograph and a few rounds of factory ammo, you can see what velocity to look for in your gun. Perusing existing loading data and the burning rate charts, you can get an idea of where to start, and one shot over the chronograph will tell you if you're in the ballpark or not.

Computer programs are an excellent tool for answering "what if?" questions, especially regarding changes in seating depth and OAL.

* I took out one entire forcing cone on a .500 S&W fitted with an aftermarket barrel that was too soft. The gun was fine.

[Mxrick55555]

I'm betting I'm not the only one looking at that picture, then my own bookcase, and going "Hey...that looks like my shelf!"

Lol I was thinking the same thing! Can never have to many cook books for reloading.

[Shawlerbrook]

Yes, you can never have too much reference material.

[Walks]

I agree with Jeephammer.
3 hardcopy sources of info before you pick a new load/powder.

I've been luckier then most. I literally started loading at my FATHER'S Knee, I started pulling a press handle & priming cases with a 310 Tong tool, almost 60yrs ago.
Most of the loads I shoot today, are ones I learned from him. I had a stage when I started my own loading setup that I tried as many powder/bullet/load combos you can imagine. Eventually coming back to my DAD'S loads. But we all have to experiment & learn. And that's part of the fun of our hobby.

A new gun/cartridge combo is a great learning experience & FUN.

I started collecting old Reloading Manuals when I was in High School. I have over 60 by now, and I buy every new one that comes out.

I also go to the Powder Company Website's every year to get the FREE POWDER HANDOUTS.

I DON'T TRUST any powder recommendations from anywhere/anyone EXCEPT THE HODGDON or ALLIANT Websites.

However I think the LOAD DATA site from WOLFE Publishing is a great idea. I just don't have the annual fee. But as I write this, I think I'm going to come up with it.

I haven't taken a powder recommendation from anyone in almost 30yrs. Anyone I've ever taught to reload has shot that same load in my gun, BEFORE they loaded it for their guns on MY BENCH.

[John Ross]

I haven't taken a powder recommendation from anyone in almost 30yrs.

So, you have not tried any powder that was introduced after 1990?

[mozeppa]

So, you have not tried any powder that was introduced after 1990?

i think he has ...but not solely on any ones recommendations...probably thru his own research.

[Mr_Sheesh]

John Ross - I am interested in Suggest-A-Load by Louis Sayre, is it still available somewhere on the Web? (I own a few DOS palmtops, could be interesting to look at that.)

[JBinMN]

John Ross - I am interested in Suggest-A-Load by Louis Sayre, is it still available somewhere on the Web? (I own a few DOS palmtops, could be interesting to look at that.)

I would be interested as well.

[Walks]

I have partially used cans of RELOADER 33, LEVEREVOLUTION, SUPERERFORMANCE, IMR 4451, AUTOCOMP, POWER PRO 4000-MR, CFE 223 & VARGET. And I believe TRAIL BOSS came out after 1990.

Other then LEVEREVOLUTION, POWER PRO 4000-MR & VARGET & MAYBE TRAIL BOSS.

I haven't found anything that DOES ANYTHING BETTER for me then what I've been using most of my life.

I AM NO LONGER PHYSICALLY ABLE TO SHOOT WELL ENOUGH FOR ANY NEW POWDERS TO MAKE AN ACCURACY OR VELOCITY DIFFERENCE FOR ME.

IF IT AIN'T BROKE, WHY FIX IT ?

[Dieselhorses]

I have partially used cans of RELOADER 33, LEVEREVOLUTION, SUPERERFORMANCE, IMR 4451, AUTOCOMP, POWER PRO 4000-MR, CFE 223 & VARGET. And I believe TRAIL BOSS came out after 1990.

Other then LEVEREVOLUTION, POWER PRO 4000-MR & VARGET & MAYBE TRAIL BOSS.

I haven't found anything that DOES ANYTHING BETTER for me then what I've been using most of my life.

I AM NO LONGER PHYSICALLY ABLE TO SHOOT WELL ENOUGH FOR ANY NEW POWDERS TO MAKE AN ACCURACY OR VELOCITY DIFFERENCE FOR ME.

IF IT AIN'T BROKE, WHY FIX IT ?

I strongly agree and live by that myself!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

[John Ross]

Other then LEVEREVOLUTION, POWER PRO 4000-MR & VARGET & MAYBE TRAIL BOSS, I haven't found anything that DOES ANYTHING BETTER for me than what I've been using most of my life.

I AM NO LONGER PHYSICALLY ABLE TO SHOOT WELL ENOUGH FOR ANY NEW POWDERS TO MAKE AN ACCURACY OR VELOCITY DIFFERENCE FOR ME.

That's something I would have stated first at the beginning of a long post about reloading.

There are many members on here that are much younger than we are, and have another half-century of development and experimentation ahead of them before they get to that stage. I always keep that in mind whenever I offer any advice or so-called "wisdom" I may have acquired over the years...

[John Ross]

For those that are interested in getting a copy of this program, perhaps the mods (or a member) can have it available for download somewhere on this site or on one of theirs.

I used to have it available for download on my website, but that doesn't exist any more.

It requires using a DOS emulator like DOSbox to run under Windows 7 (and other versions, I assume.)

DOSbox is available for free download at https://www.dosbox.com/download.php?main=1

As a matter of interest, I first acquired Suggest-A-Load when I purchased three CDs that listed all the FFLs in the U.S. in 1992. Included with all the data were some free programs of interest to shooters. The others weren't terribly useful but Suggest-A-Load was a gem.

I contacted Mr. Sayre around 2003 about offering his program to a wider audience. He said he'd gotten enough money from it over the past 15 years and to put it up for download on my website with his blessing.

[RED BEAR]

you must take the info in some of the older manuals with a grain of salt. there are new better ways of measuring pressure now. powders are made in large batches and there can be small variances in the lots so that manuals change over time i always try to check several newer manuals for data i will admit i rarely start at the lowest loads i generally start in the middle and if it works well usually go no higher. although there are times i have to check the old manuals as i just love the old surplus guns pre 1900.

[BillP]

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.

Exactly that!!! I don't use old loading data until its been verified as current though the powder mfg. Yrs back (20?) Accurate changed #5 and slightly changed the powder container...but not enough to catch my eye that it was a different powder. I had old #5 and purchased new #5 at that time. At first glance it was the same powder but in reality it was a new formula and loading values reduced by a large margin.