Load Data subscription, is it worth it or not?

[Rickf1985]

I have been subscribed to Handloaders magazine online edition for about 5 years and I swore the reason I got that was because it came with the Load data subscription with it. Maybe when I got it it did but apparently I no longer am subscribed to Load Data and they want something like 35.00 a year. Is it worth it?

[huntinlever]

I have found it useful, though because I've largely found my loads, I don't refer to it much anymore. Probably won't re-up but for $35 annually, worth it to me.

[dannyd]

I had it for years, but did not renew this year because manufacturers web site's are all that I need.

[stubshaft]

With the plethora of load data available I have better things to spend my $35.00 on.

[MUSTANG]

Searches on this site; coupled with the 8 or 9 reloading manuals I have, gives me all the info I have needed for reloading. I have used the online "Load Data" in the past when it was offered as a short term "Incentive"; but have not found it sufficiently useful to subscribe.

[huntinlever]

With the plethora of load data available I have better things to spend my $35.00 on.

I'd agree. I had it years ago but had been off a long time, wasn't aware how much was out there for free. If I had it to do over again, I probably wouldn't.

[Winger Ed.]

Do you actually use it?
Is it better than a hard copy loading book, or the free info from the manufacturers?

If I didn't get $35. of use from it, I wouldn't subscribe.

[Nueces]

I've subscribed for years. It's just images of the load tables that accompanied articles in Rifle and Handloader, but without the associated text, which limits it's usefulness some. I like it because there is often data on older rounds and components and some interesting wildcats, such as the 450 Alaskan. A good deal of cast loads, too. I would prefer that the article text be shown, but I'll keep subscribing.

[Rickf1985]

If you are asking me I don't use it because it will not let me without the subscription. I am sure at one time it did but now when I need info on loading for cast in 7.62x39 it will not let me in. So I don't know if it is a good thing or not. Kind of why I am asking. I did pose the loading question on here and I got two or three replies but not much real info. One person tells me to load same as jacketed. I am pretty sure there is a reason why cast is loaded at a much different loading on all other calibers and Lymans shows only two loads for cast on this one. I am not chancing loading jacketed loads which are close to double cast.

[wasa]

I have had a subscription for a few years. None of my reloading manuals have data for 8x56mmR loads (for my WWI Mannlicher M1895 straight-pull bolt rifle). Loaddata had a bunch of loads, of which the ones I tried appear to work well for my tired eyes.

I agree with others - if you are using a fairly common cartridge, and have a bunch of reloading manuals already, not sure it's worth the $35 per year.

As an aside, a shout-out to the powder/projectile manufacturers for providing free online data. Speer, Campro, Hodgdon, and Alliant all come to mind - I'm sure there are more.

[mace2364]

I just got a subscription recently. If you load oddball calibers, it’s definitely worth it in my opinion. The manufacturers don’t typically publish data for a lot of the old military calibers, for example. I found a decent amount of data on Load data for stuff like 6.5x53r Dutch, 8x50r Lebel, etc. That stuff is usually a bear to find data for, and I found it on there. That alone is worth it for me.

[Rattlesnake Charlie]

As wasa and mace 2364 have already commented, it is not mostly useful for other-than-normal. My most recent use was for .40-82 Winchester for a friend's 1886. For "normal" stuff, I use the manufacturer's online data mot of the time. I will continue to subscribe to it.

[308w]

I use it several times per week.
Its handy because it has a lot of different load sources in 1 place.
Its worth the 35.00 to me.

[lx2008]

i`ve had for yrs. i guess a little redundant but its all in one place. i`m keeping.