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

[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!"

https://i.imgur.com/VC85Wc4.jpg

[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/uploads/2017/09/burn-rate-color.pdf

http://www.accuratepowder.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/burn_rates.pdf

https://www.grafs.com/uploads/technical-resource-pdf-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!"

https://i.imgur.com/VC85Wc4.jpg

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.

[jsizemore]

My first load manual was Speer #11. At the top of the page was a list of the components and the rifle that was used for testing. Who pays attention to that stuff? First time I Lake City once fired 308 the start load from the manual brought the powder to just below the neck/shoulder junction. 2/10's of a grain was part way up the neck. YIKES!

I started buying manuals and picking up load pamphlets when I was at the gun shows or gun shop that sold reloading supplies. Eventually you'll get enough info to reload what you have at hand.

[MT Chambers]

The Lee loads correspond with their dippers and should not be used for reloading with modern smokeless powders.

[JBinMN]

The Lee loads correspond with their dippers and should not be used for reloading with modern smokeless powders.

Would you mind elaborating a bit more on that statement, Please?

[corey012778]

I use lyman manuals all the time, both cast and regular. also have lee and a lyman ar load book. have another one but can't remember off hand what it is.
I think all companies use each other data. in todays world, would not be shock if some was data worked up by reloaders like us.


The Lee loads correspond with their dippers and should not be used for reloading with modern smokeless powders.
as for dipper, in "theory" it should give you consistent powder charges, as long as you are doing your part. but you would have to buy a set for different charge volumes. so if lee, is using other companies load data to start with, they have to figure what dipper will load with what powder and bullet. I think they are the only company that has a dipper measuring system, so it makes sense that they would load and test with only a dipper charge load. but they also give Autodesk data, the work up for that has to be factored. they may have a custom computer program that translates the data but It would not make sense to publish something without even a fixed battery test.

[Rcmaveric]

Lee dippers work just fine with modern smokeless.

The volumtric information given for powders in Lee modern roloader is merely reference only. And shoukd be checked.

Your supposed to do your load work up. When you get the load dialed in then you measure your volume of your load. Then pick your corresponding dipper.

Thats all a powder dispenser is in essence. A fancy compact adjustable Lee dipper with a built in credit card to scrap it level. I can dip just a consently with a Lee dipper and my powder dropper. Ones just faster than the other.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[2400]

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

229006

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


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!"

https://i.imgur.com/VC85Wc4.jpg

I agree, I've been collecting manuals since the late 60's and am still adding new ones.

229007