Lyman cast bullet handbook 4th edition review.

[Bazoo]

Well I finally broke down and bought a Lyman cast bullet handbook 4th edition. Bought it here on the forum, and it arrived today. I skimmed through it and am somewhat disappointed. I've not read any of the articles yet, but I'm looking forward to those.

The disappointing part is the lack of data for Lee bullets. There is some, but not nearly as much as I'd expected given the popularity of lee moulds.

Overall I'm happy, but I am hoping we won't have to wait too long for the Lyman 5th edition and that it's chocked full of lee and RCBS and other cast bullet data.

[zymguy]

What’s better tho ????


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[georgerkahn]

I share your disappointment. I have mainly "old" powders, to wit Bullseye, 2400, Unique, IMR3031, 231, etc., etc., etc -- and I note most published loads nowadays use modern powders, some of which I've not heard of. And, as you aptly remarked, loads for the moulds at hand.
I subscribe to both AmmoGuide as well as LoadData.com, and generally have had luck finding a close -- I mean REAL close -- bullet to mine, and -- albeit a pia -- load ten at less than their suggested starting load (e.g, about 1gn for pistol bullets). A real helper, too, is Ken Waters' Pet Loads. At range I see what they do... and perhaps move up to the next ten, at a tenth or two-tenths more grains of powder. Keeping an eye on the velocity as well as spread -- again, albeit somewhat of a pia -- a usable safe load is generally found in one 2- to 3-hour range trip.
Regardless if you're waiting for the 5th edition or 150th -- lots, I assure you, will not be offered. Just as one example re my challenges: Figure full wadcutter 0.452" bullets, each weighing in at 223 grains. The plan is to seat the wadcutter almost flush with case mouth -- this to be used in a Ruger New Vaquero in .45 Colt. You reckon the loading for this might be published?
Good luck!
geo

[MT Gianni]

What a shame that manufacturers don't market others products.

[Bazoo]

It's a shame when the company that makes the moulds don't supply data for the resultant bullets.

[Dusty Bannister]

Yes, and then look at the Lee reloading manuals and they do not even show data for their own bullets. Good thing that we can have other reloading manuals to provide appropriate references for working up loads.

Maybe they just do not have the facilities to pressure test hundreds and hundreds of loads to keep folks happy. Or maybe they are busy making the tools that we enjoy using.

[sutherpride59]

I agree with the above, lee has enough on their hands making the equipment already. Lyman is more worried about their own products. If you use data for the same weight bullet and work your way up you will find what you’re looking for pretty easily. Half the fun of casting is being a mad scientist and most people on this forum will give you good advice as to where to look if you are totally lost. I love hodgdons reloading website and use it for all of my load data just about.

[Bazoo]

When using a lee 309-170-fn, sure it's simple enough to start with Lyman 31141 data.

It's not as simple for something like the lee 356-95-rf in 380, as there isn't really anything similar. In this example, having a seating depth and starting load would be beneficial.

By my way of thinking, if Lyman is going to test some lee bullets and advertise it on the back of the manual as a selling point, they aught to make it more comprehensive. They obviously know that few people limit themselves to just one brand of moulds. I have lee, Lyman, and RCBS currently.

[JBinMN]

I have found the Lyman CBH #3 & #4 incredibly useful, and I currently do not have anything but Lee molds.


Sometimes one needs to "extrapolate' data from a similar boolit & then to go to the regular load testing to find the load to use for the boolit one has in hand.
Doing that is a bit more advanced than many folks who reload & takes a bit of effort some times, but in the end it works well.

BTW it is why you see folks asking about loads for some boolits , or the dimensions of other mold makers boolits, so they can compare to the ones they cannot find.

For anyone who, when in similar circumstances, would like a kind of relatively simple explanation for "extrapolation" to find load data for similar boolit weights, the process of which is more advanced than regular reloading, you can read below...

If you are not comfortable , or have no reason to do it, then skip to the next post if ya like.
;)

------
One example of "extrapolation" might be, that if I wanted to find 9mm 120gr Lee TC data in the Lyman CBH#4
( or any manual for lead boolits), but was only able to find the 9mm RCBS 120gr. TC boolit in the manual, and I did not have that mold or boolits, I could either ask here in the forum if someone had the RCBS TC boolit & get the measurements from them, or go search the internet to find the dimensions, either from RCBS or elsewhere.

Once I got the measurements of the RCBS boolit, being that it is the same weight as the LEE TC one, I would look at the OAL of the RCBS & subtract the length of the RCBS boolit from the OAL to find out where the base of the RCBS boolit is, and them measure the Lee boolit & do what was necessary to adjust the Lee OAL so it matches the base of the RCBS in the case.

{Just hypothetically...If the RCBS is .250 long and the COL for that round is 1.15", then the base of the RCBS would be at .90 inside the case, by subtracting the boolit length from the OAL.

1.15" OAL -.250" RCBS boolit = .90" < RCBS boolit base

If the Lee was .220" long , then I would have to subtract the .03" difference from the RCBS 1.15" OAL to accommodate for the shorter Lee boolit, as compared to the longer RCBS boolit of .250", to 1.12" OAL for the Lee boolit.

.250" RCBS boolit - Lee .220" = .03" 1.15" OAL - .03 <difference between boolit length to accommodate for the bases to be the same place ( .90"). = 1.12"OAL for the Lee boolit.

Thus, doing the above would be keeping the base of the Lee boolit in the same location in the case as the RCBS boolit. The capacity of the case would be the same for the powder used, so the pressure(s) for the Lee boolit should be relatively the same as for the similar RCBS boolit.

So, then, the Start - Max. powder charge range for the powder I was using for the Lee one, would be the same as the manuals list of Start - Max. powder charges.

The same sort of hypothetical "extrapolation" can be done when using powders that have similar characteristics, like if one only saw the ranges for Bullseye, but only had Red Dot, & one knew that RD was a little bit faster & used a little less powder by a couple .1(tenths) of a grain, easily seen by comparing the data when RD & Bullseye are in the same load data with other similar boolits.

If the powder charge Start - Max. range for Bullseye was 4.2gr. - 4.8gr. , then one could start with a charge of RD around 4.0gr. or 4.1 gr. reducing the Bullseye START charge (minimum) to where the RD would likely start for its' range, & then work up the load by .1" gr. ( tenths) increments, checking for similar velocity & for any pressure signs, as one worked out the load. Or, increase in larger increments like .2 gr. or .3 gr., if the load had a wider range.)

---------------

OK, that is all from me for now, on that stuff.
;)

Bazoo, I think you will find the manual to be useful as you use it more, and Thanks! for sharing what you have discovered so far.
:)

[Bazoo]

Thanks all for the replies.

Thanks for the reply JB, I do exactly as you describe with bullet selection and substitution, but couldn't explain it nearly as well.

Thanks for the reminder about cast bullet selections being more advanced. I forget sometimes this ain't off the shelf bullets we're working with.

[mdi]

There is much more lead bullet data "wiggle room" than jacketed bullets. If I have a Lee mold for a 255 gr bullet, I can safely use the data for 255 gr. Lyman bullet. Another reason for the much recommended practice of starting low and working up.

I bought a 4th Edition a few years ago and the only thing better is more data; more powders listed and more bullets listed, but the "front half" is only interesting if one casts for and shoots black powder cartridge, cast bullet loads. The 3rd has a much more "user friendly" front half, especially for newer casters...

[Conditor22]

IF you can't find the same weight boolit, you can safely use data from a heavier boolit.

[35remington]

The Lyman 3rd edition was widely feted, and in my opinion this was both deserved and undeserved.

The articles were excellent. Big plus.

The load data in a great many cartridges was less so. Over reliance on very fast powders like the pistol shotgun types in far too many examples. I have nothing against these for lighter loads.

However, in many cases the fast types were the only ones used, and velocities were pushed higher than good results could be obtained. Absent all too often were 2400, 4227, 4759, 4198 and slower that often to usually give superior results especially at similar to higher speed than the overdriven very fast powders.

The newer version addresses this problem in the data better than the 3rd did. A wider range of suitable powders other than the fast types is used.

[gwpercle]

I got the #4 when they first came out...it has some pro's and con's . Newer powders and other makers boolits ...big pros . The information sections in the front , 98 pages , are left wanting a little when compared to #3, but there are a few good chapters ... slight con .

Glad to have the additional information in #4 ... BUT , not getting rid of manual #3 because of all the good information contained in the first 10 informational chapters , 123 pages .

Handbook #4 along with Handbook #3 make a very good set....
so don't toss #3 after getting #4 ,
#3 is still useful .
Gary

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

I started casting when #4 came out, it was such a great resource for me. Later on, I was given #3 by a generous member here. I was happy to see many different powders in the Data section...also a great help.

[MT Gianni]

My opinion is that Lyman puts out a manual to sell molds and casting gear. It doesn't make much on the sales of it and marketing is slow to say the least.
I like #3 and find it light years above the data contained in #'s 1 & 2. There is far more data to be found here, in the Fouling Shot and specific published articles, old and new.

[Bazoo]

I'm sure Lyman takes note that those here suggest their manuals but not their new moulds. They probably figure if they can't sell moulds they aught to atleast sell a mess of handbooks.

[megasupermagnum]

I've been disappointed in a lot of post-2000 reloading manuals, but the Lyman #4 isn't one. Plenty of good data in there. I was surprised how many Lee bullets are listed, when they didn't have to list any. If Lee bullet mold load data what you want, buy the Lee manual, another great one, I like it even more than the Lyman. While Lee doesn't list the exact mold number, they usually list "95 grain lead", which of course is their 95 grain mold, also works with other 95 grain cast bullets.

I agree with 35remington, the Lyman #3 wasn't that great. The #4 has load data for rifles from mouse fart to all out, velocity beyond any hope of accuracy. That's fine, I want to see the whole spectrum and choose accordingly.

Another manual you can look into is the Lyman pistol and revolver handbook. I have the #2, and it has some good old school data, from back when the 357 mag and 44 mag had some hair on their chest.

[Mal Paso]

I was disappointed all the 44 Mag data was with .429" Lead bullets. I know exactly one guy who shoots .429" boolits. LOL

Mine burned up but I got #3 in PDF here and I like it better.

[megasupermagnum]

The diameter the bullets were sized to makes no difference to load data at all. If you didn't like it, fine. You could have at least donated it.

[Bazoo]

I've read the Lee manual second edition. It doesn't list their lead bullets specifically because their data is just copied from various bullet and powder manufactures and not from their own. Cast data in rifles doesn't make much difference with regards to seating depth, but it's very important in handgun ammo. Lees truncated bullets should be tested in all applications, but sure no reason to test lees 230 round nose in 45 auto when it's totally fine to use Lyman's RN data. I'm about halfway trough Mike Venturinos articles and they are pretty decent. Overall I'm pretty satisfied.

[Walks]

Too many of you sound like those who complained about the new Lyman Casting Furnace. The mold guide didn't fit their N.O.E., Lee & Accurate bullet molds.

Well kids, Manufacturers make items to work with their own stuff.

We're lucky all the Manufacturers all got together after WW2 and made dies & shell holders to a std pattern.

I personally think Lyman adding other Manufacturers molds is a pretty big step. Plus they added a Nose Punch Conversion Chart too.

And for those of you younger casters out there, there is an old trick with the Lyman Mold Guide.

Just turn it over. Or if you don't have any kind of mold guide, then you turn over an ingot mold on top of a 2"x6" wood block. Adjust height by adding pieces of 1/4" plywood or sanding down the 2"x6".

But then we are REALLY LUCKY that Al Nelson came up with a New Mold Guide that works with the Old RCBS Pro-Melt and the New Lyman Furnace too. And maybe others for all I know. I do know It's an excellent accessory and has been improved twice so far. The First one is still working fine for me. I for one really appreciate it.

[Tim357]

Well said sir.

[6bg6ga]

Go by bullet weight not a specific bullet type or shape.

[JBinMN]

The diameter the bullets were sized to makes no difference to load data at all. If you didn't like it, fine. You could have at least donated it.

MalPasos house burned down in a wildfire & his reloading stuff along with the house. As well as a lot of other things he would like to still have to use, I'd bet...
;)

[megasupermagnum]

MalPasos house burned down in a wildfire & his reloading stuff along with the house. As well as a lot of other things he would like to still have to use, I'd bet...
;)


Dang, well I'll just be over here removing my foot from my mouth.

[6bg6ga]

The 4th edition is decent but when one has been reloading for many years they usually have 4 or 5 reloading manuals to choose from. When I cannot find a specific bullet say for a cast bullet mold I have I generally go with the bullet as close as I can come to the weight and style or if I cannot find something close I will reduce the load load a few to try and make adjustments from there.

[bedbugbilly]

Late to this one but will a my 2 cents. I have all four editions and when I got the 4th, I also was a bit disappointed - just couldn't put my finger on "why" . . . but I was. I was glad to see the addition of some cartridges such as the 45 Schofield . . . and I think we all look at things such as the handbook based on what "we" reload . . . . but I still back to my 3rd edition the majority of the time.

I was interested in your comment Bazoo, in regards to Lee boolits. While it is a "Lyman product" (book) I can understand the leaning towards their particular molds and such . . . but give the devil his do . . . Lee molds are in popular use as well and if that is in doubt, it can be verified on this very site.

I learned a long time ago to not necessarily try to match up data and particular design . . . sometimes you have to be flexible and realize that a 158 gr boolit is a 168 grain boolit . . . just as an example and too load a dummy up and see what COAL is and copper to the info given in the data . . . and then start low and work up. I would guess we all do it.

I still refer to the 4th edition but it's not my "go to" copy. It relation to your comments, I decided to make sure that I had other loading manuals on the shelf - I don't load anything but cast but most have at least some data in the for cast. I no longer use many Lee olds but i decided to pick up a copy of the Lee Reloading Manua a few years back . . . "just 'cause" . . . I read quite a bit of it and waded through the "Lee is the best" propaganda . . . if you are publishing the book I guess you have the right to "plug" all of your products. BUT . . . what surprised me greatly was that I expected the Lee manual to cover data for their molds as well as others. Maybe it was just the cartridges I was looking at but I was surprised that a good number of the Lee molds/boolits were not there.

Don't get me wrong . . I don't regret any of the manuals I've purchased and have on the shelf over my bench . . . they all offer something useful but it's not hard to tell which one I use most - Lyman's 3rd edition. My first copy is so worn that I have another one as a back-up when the day comes that I decide I'm tired taping in pages that have come loose and the binding finally takes the last nose dive.

[Bazoo]

Thanks for the comment bedbugbilly, and all.

I need to get another copy of the Lyman 3rd, it was great. I do have it downloaded on the laptop but it ain't the same. The Lyman 47 and 48 handbooks are drilled to be put in a binder. I've not tried it yet but I expect I can drill the others for binders. They hold up a whole lot better that way.

[Green Frog]

If you go back to the original Ideal loading manuals started by Talbot in the late 1800s, you will find nothing but ideal moulds described and tested to provide suggested loads... he wrote and sold them to go with his own products. Once Lyman took over Ideal and all of its product lines, there was already a precedent (or business model) for what had worked for Ideal, so they continued the Ideal Handbooks for a few decades until they changed the title and the format a little to start the series we know as the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbooks. Why expect anything different?

If you want a book to have information about a variety of mould manufacturers, you might look to powder makers, die makers (that don’t make moulds) or even third parties who have no axe to grind. It is somewhat unrealistic to expect a mould manufacturer to write a book that would encourage its users to buy from the competition.

JMHO, YMMV
Froggie

[Larry Gibson]

Go by bullet weight not a specific bullet type or shape.

That simplification can lead to serious over pressure in handgun cartridges. Seating depth is actually the important consideration there. Of a given bullet weight some designs seat deeper which increases pressure of a given load.

[trapper9260]

I have the 3rd and 4th Ed of Lyman . I learn from the 3rd one. I have got the re print of the 1st and 2nd Ed because I wanted it for the information.I also have some of the other of Lyman of the I think the 47th and 48th also the 50th. I always go to the 3rd for information .It have more on there then the 4th. I have the Lee also but dose not have much. I go by the weight of the boolit mold to go with the data. Not always by the mold number. and then work on the OAL . I had wrote to Allient about why they do not have much of cast bullet on there site and book they say there is too many out there for the data so they go by what Lyman comes up with for data. So tells me alot of how much they go by Lyman .

[32-20]

An old thread, but I also suggest you go search out a 1957 or 1958 vintage Lyman reloading manual. Now you got some good stuff going on, for just about all the classic molds. Some powders in there are long gone, but many in there are still around today!

[WRideout]

I have old, falling apart, loading manuals from Lyman, RCBS and Hornady. I also recently finished reading Phil Sharpe's tome. It was interesting to see that a lot of that old data still applies, and some powders that were first produced over a hundred years ago are still doing the job. I turn to the old books when I need data for an oddball cartridge.

Wayne

[Golfswithwolves]

I think that the #4 Lyman cast handbook is about the best cast bullet reference. There are things I would like to see which are not in there (such as Unique loads for some handgun bullets I load, loads for the discontinued mold 358432 bullets in .38/.357, .38 SP loads for the 358477 bullet, and any realistic modern .44 SP loads). I would prefer to never need to extrapolate loads. But all in all the Lyman manual is pretty great in my estimation.

[Bazoo]

I’ve started to like it more and more. It’s shortcomings don’t nearly outweigh its benefits when working with cast bullets.

[Rapier]

I do believe every bullet caster and shooter that casts for accuracy should have a decent library of reloading manuals, and read them. After reading, put them on a shelf at arms length for reference. Make detailed notes of your reloading, keep on a computer or in a binder. I see so many posts of tell me, tell me.
My Survey Chief School instructor said; “Look it up, Read it, Then you will remember it.” That was his answer for virtually every question after his initial instruction.

[Soundguy]

Here's what I do.. And I'm not saying for anyone else to do it.. just what I do.

When working up a new load for a lead bullet for which there is not specific data, then I search my manuals for a lead bullet that is the same weight, has the same number of grease grooves and similar profile. The goal is to get the approximate same amount of driving band bearing surface and depth of bullet into the case. The nose profile that doesn't touch rifling matters much much much less pressure wise on a bullet of the same weight, same depth inside the cartridge, and with the same bearing surface area that has to be swaged into rifling.

I've had great luck working up loads this way. Start low.. work up. About the only hitch is the lee micro groove bullets.. but I've had ok luck finding load data for those.. though it is limited... luckily nothing in rifle.. so even less of a concern, as most of the micro groove stuff I have is low pressure handgun.. very hard to go wrong that way.

PS.. look for older speer data too. Speer used to make plenty of odd stuff.. like.452 roll swaged bullets with knurled midsections.... try to find modern data for that... and they are a hair soft too... great for 45lc though...

I also use the lyman pistol and revolver handbook. plenty of duped stuff.. but plenty not duped.

[gwpercle]

There is way more data on Lee boolits in edition #4 than there is in edition #3 .
Pick a Lee Manual and you will be well covered .
Hang on to Lyman #3 ... there is still a lot of valuable info in it .
By and large I was pleased with the Lyman #4 book ... I mean it's better than just about any other new cast boolit reloading manual out there .
Gary

[quasi]

This site is the best reference for anything to do with cast boolits including loads.

[JCM45]

I have and use both the Lyman #3 and #4. They supplement each other nicely.

[Alferd Packer]

Being familiar with the books mentioned here ,the Lyman 1,2,3 , and 4 and owning them along with Speer, Hornady, Lee, and so forth as well as having access to the threads posted on this forum and others, I am excited when I see a newcomer posting his or her success and also trials and errors on here without the benefit of having read or seen the literature printed over the years concerning reloading, casting, sizing, the advisability of using starting loads before max loads are attempted.
But then I see loaders who started with max loads and have never used a starting load in their years of reloading and consider anyone using a start load to be a weakness.
Many starting loads are accurate, sweet shooting with little wear and tear on firearm, shell casings and the shooter.
Of the many loads available, the fun of reloading is always experimental .
After weighing, sizing, calibration, the question is : how does it shoot?
You may find that your favorite load is too heavy or too lite, ls too low , or just not accurate in your neighbor's gun.
Because, as the saying goes, every firearm is a law unto itself and mostly, no two shoot the same load the same way.
Many of the reloading questions are Custom Reloading questions regarding a gun that others may have in the same caliber, but since no two guns shoot the same load, the same way ( rarely) they cannot expect the same results.
Basically, the law of averages is at play here with out much expectation of repeatable results.
Even locking the gun down in a machinists vise is the closest comparable result, and most of the shooting is done freehand.
So I think, be careful out there and have fun, but each successive shot can spoil a good group so just have fun.⁷
Let your gun tell you whi load it likes best
.
Them that skim a book for knowledge usually cheat themselves out of the price they paid for writers to explain the questions that appear many places on the internet.
If you are in a hurry, your loading and shooting results will
reflect this.
Shoot some, read some, reload some, read some more.
I still have the original LEE loading handbook first edition, .98 cents that was for the hand hammer type LEE loading tools.
And before you ask, the loads listed were largely the same loads in the Lyman reloading manual.

The starting loads have usually always proved to be the most accurate loads for the firearm in that caliber.

LEE loaders still use a starting load recommended for their first loads.

[rintinglen]

Up until a couple of years ago, I recommended the 3rd edition over the fourth. The articles and information in the front of the book were far more informative, there were more boolits listed in calibers I used and I found it to be an excellent teaching resource.

However, as time passed and more and more of the powders listed were discontinued (Curse you, Hodgdon) eventually I had to change my mind and recommendation. 5 out of the 8 powders listed for the 44 special 200 grain boolit are no longer produced. Many of the other cartridges face similar problems, with a quarter or more of the suggested loads based on powders that are no longer available. And then, there is the problem of "new" powders that have come onto the market in the last 40 years.

At this point in time, I say buy the 4th: you'll need the fresher data, [but download and read the 3rd].