The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Why do so many people brag about Lyman's manual?

SL1 · June 9, 2012, 01:10 PM

Some of the loads in the old manuals from Salmoneye's links are WAY over modern data, and were NOT pressure tested. For example, the .357 "Factory Duplication Load" using Herco for the .357 Magnum on page 117 of the second link is a potential "gun buster."

I think Salmoneye needs to add a warning to his post.

And, in general, there seems to be some need for a warning about using load data from scans of old manuals that are appearing ever more frequently on the Internet, these days. The data in too many of those manuals from the 1960s and earlier was either not pressure tested, or was pressure tested with some dubious techniques. (No, I don't just mean the old copper crusher method, I mean eroded test barrels, no temperature controls, etc.)

SL1

June 9, 2012, 01:10 PM	#6
SL1 Senior Member Join Date: November 8, 2007 Posts: 2,001	Extra Hot Loads Warning Needed Some of the loads in the old manuals from Salmoneye's links are WAY over modern data, and were NOT pressure tested. For example, the .357 "Factory Duplication Load" using Herco for the .357 Magnum on page 117 of the second link is a potential "gun buster." I think Salmoneye needs to add a warning to his post. And, in general, there seems to be some need for a warning about using load data from scans of old manuals that are appearing ever more frequently on the Internet, these days. The data in too many of those manuals from the 1960s and earlier was either not pressure tested, or was pressure tested with some dubious techniques. (No, I don't just mean the old copper crusher method, I mean eroded test barrels, no temperature controls, etc.) SL1