Loading manuals

[shooterbob]

How many loaders have noticed that their load books give incorrect info at times. I've seen many instances where stuff was just incorrect that wasn't dangerous and times where a misprint could be dangerous. One example is this which isn't dangerous, but doesn't make sense.
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/05/02/uvyqe6ev.jpg
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/05/02/yvy9y7am.jpg
In this instance the last paragraph is the key...Our test weapon produced highest velocities with HS-6, yet load data contradicts that in the next chart.
Just an observation
Stacy

[mdi]

Easy, load data was not achieved with the gun mentioned. Probably used a universal receiver for the data; pressure, etc., and used a test gun for "real life" shooting.

FWIW; I don't treat my reloading manuals' data as hard and fast formula, but just results a specific test technician achieved using a listed powder, with a listed bullet, with a listed case and primer and shot in his particular test equipment. So, in my mind there isn't conflicting information, just different results from slightly different components (powder lots, primer lots, bullet alloy, etc.) tested in different equipment...

[dbosman]

Different authors, different type setters, typos, transcription errors... That is one reason many of us recommend having multiple sources for load data. Compare and start under maximums. Work up, not down.

Your mileage may vary. Mine often does.

[GRUMPA]

That is one reason many of us recommend having multiple sources for load data. Compare and start under maximums. Work up, not down.

I do EXACTLY that. Seems reloading books are pre-read by lawyers with almost double standards. I learned long ago never to take something as gospel when it comes to things like this, there's just to many variables.

[44Vaquero]

Shooter Bob,

In the case you mention and show picture examples of Hornady has been lax in editing all the "Cartridge Forwards" over the years. Although I do not have a Hornady 1st or 2nd edition to look at, my 4th and 3rd additions sport the same comments. In the 3rd installment only one powder out performed HS-6, I think it's safe to assume that in earlier additions HS-6 was the top performer!

Good catch though, maybe Hornady should hire you as an editor.

[shooterbob]

I was thinking of letting new loaders know about these same issues when I posted this...a lot people do take a load book as truth, but need to know there are discrepancies with these as well. I wish the standards would make them all use the same test guns, so that all of the different books would show the same data. But, I guess in a way having different test devices also gives us a range to look at. But yes I always start low and work up as well. Thanks for the responses.