Which Reloading Manuals?

[azphx55]

When I was first considering reloading, I read the "ABC's" book and got a couple of those little "The Complete Reloading Manual for the [caliber]" load data compilation manuals.

When I bought my press, I got the Lyman "Pistol and Revolver Handbook" instead of the full Lyman 49th manual, since I only plan to load for handguns.

I guess the short version of my question is: "What am I missing?"

Should I get the Lyman manual, or maybe something else? So far, I've been able to find answers to my questions on-line, so I guess what I'm most concerned about is finding the answers to questions I haven't thought of.

[Brian Pfleuger]

I don't consider manuals to be necessary for a number of reasons.

First off, many of the powder people and some of the bullet people publish load data online for free. Second, even among those who don't, all have so far responded to my request for load data within a couple of hours. Third, is TFL. Fourth, is QuickLoad.


All this, naturally, assumes that you understand that actual loading process and are simply looking for starting/max points. If you don't know how to load a round then, yes, "The ABCs" and a couple of manuals would be good.

[RWBlue01]

You could probably be happen and safe with just your original manual. From what I remember Lyman's book had a lot of lead loads and very little jacketed loads.

If you want to be cheap (cost efficient), you can down load data from the powder manufacturers. This would help add extra data points for FREE.

I have never had access to Quickload. From my understanding it works if you are staying in the normal range and not trying to do something odd. My problem is, that is not what I need a computer program to do. I can get this out of a book.

As for additional books, I like the Hornady and Speer books.

I assume this is the above is the standard answers you will get, here are my few hints that others may not post.

Start an Excel spreadsheet with all the book data you can. Then add your own load data. Then start downloading data from the web. If you do data analysis you should see patterns emerging. This will allow you to understand how some of those loads you find on the internet are WRONG, UNSAFE and some are the sweet spot on most rifles of that caliber.

At some point you may be able to go off book and extrapolate expected safe loads and velocities. IF you try this, think about, sleep on it, review your data, sleep on it, review your data.....then finally act only after you are absolutely positive you will not blow yourself up.

[TXJohn]

I would suggest strongly you get at least one manual they have starting loads with alot of different powder and lots of good info in them for oal and primers, brass, and also to refer back to if you have some problems. I would never trust a load on the Internet with out having something to check it against. I have seen lots of so called ''pet loads'' that I would never attempt to load. The Lyman is excellent as are the Sierra, and Nosler manuals I personally have 8-10 different and I compare them to each other. Do what you want but every handloader needs at least one new and updated manual.

[wncchester]

You have enough. If you see one you want, get it, but you don't need it.

There is no real advantage in having as many manuals as I have, maybe 30, but I'm a loading geek and have been doing this a long time. I only buy new manuals now when there are new cartridges or powders I'm curious about. Many of us who shout "as many manuals as possible" tend to be reloading geeks who relish studying and worrying over tiny listed load differences and/or arguing about which manual is "best."

One, and only one, reloading rule; "Start low, work up to book max unless you see signs of excess pressure sooner" takes care of any differences in anyone's books or components. Period.

Book OAL is irrelivant as anything but a starting place for noobs. In more than 45 years I have never paid any attention to book OAL. Few old manuals even listed that and some still don't. I just set my length as needed to feed and chamber correctly and go with it - that's generally exactly what the book makers have done.

[jmortimer]

If you use Lee Precision equipment then "Modern Reloading" by Richard Lee is worth getting. It is cheap from Midway USA. Otherwise, load data is available from the powder mnufacturers online. I pay for Load Data online which I really like along with online subscription to Handloader.

[tac_driver]

If you just loading a few pistol calibers you can get the loadbooks USA for your specific pistols. For instance I have the 38 spcl, 9MM and 45ACP loadbooks USA as those are the only cartridges I load for. They give you data for the bullet manufacturers as well as the powder manufactures.
Midway USA sells them for under 10.00.

Stay safe

[FrankenMauser]

I don't consider manuals to be necessary for a number of reasons.

First off, many of the powder people and some of the bullet people publish load data online for free. Second, even among those who don't, all have so far responded to my request for load data within a couple of hours. Third, is TFL. Fourth, is QuickLoad.

The "Free" online data is usually incomplete, or very limited. A proper manual offers much more information.

TFL isn't exactly a reliable source of information. It definitely shouldn't be considered to be a good load data source by a new reloader. (Helpful; but not reliable.)

QuickLoad is outside the budget of most reloaders, especially new reloaders. The OP also plans to load only for pistol cartridges. QuickLoad will be essentially useless.

[RWBlue01]

Many of us who shout "as many manuals as possible" tend to be reloading geeks who relish studying and worrying over tiny listed load differences and/or arguing about which manual is "best."

Speer

One, and only one, reloading rule; "Start low, work up to book max unless you see signs of excess pressure sooner" takes care of any differences in anyone's books or components. Period.

Except for some cartridges and loads which have published minimums to worry about.

Book OAL is irrelivant as anything but a starting place for noobs. In more than 45 years I have never paid any attention to book OAL. Few old manuals even listed that and some still don't. I just set my length as needed to feed and chamber correctly and go with it - that's generally exactly what the book makers have done.

This probably deserves it's own thread if the OP doesn't have a good understanding at this point.

I think everyone will agree....
You need to be consistent.
You need to load to the magazine (for the most part).

Let me give an example. I load for 45ACP/Super. For standard 45ACP, I wanted FMJ, JHP, lead loads. I wanted them to work in my 1911 and my G21. I made dummy cartridges using several bullets FMJ, JHP, lead. I made sure they fit and function fed in the magazines and in the chambers of these guns. Once set, I didn't change my seating die. If I change the seating die to push the bullet in or let it be further out, it would increase the pressure or decrease the pressure of the cartridge. THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT MY JHP, FMJ AND LEAD HAVE THE SAME OAL, because they don't. Am I making any sense?

[howlnmad]

If you're just loading pistols, the Lyman that you have is fine. It's the same as the 49th just minus the rifle data. I do like to have a manual from the bullet manufacture that I'm loading,though it's not always possible. Be safe and enjoy.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by Franken Mauser

The "Free" online data is usually incomplete, or very limited. A proper manual offers much more information.

That's why I mentioned asking the manufacturer directly. Yes, it's true that manual "offers much more information". It's also true that 95% of it is for cartridges that we'll never own and, unless you choose components based on the manual, even the cartridges which we do own most often list for information for components that we're not using.

"TFL" may not be reliable, but there are a large number of members here who ARE reliable and a priceless source of information.

QuickLoad only costs as much as about 5 manuals, pricey, yes, but considering some guys have 30 manuals, hardly a show stopper. It's also not "useless" for handgun cartridges. Sometimes it's not so good, other times, like my experience with 357sig and 10mm, it is just as accurate as it is with rifle cartridges... well under 1% error.

[m&p45acp10+1]

You have a great manual with the Lyman Pistol, and Revolver 3rd. I own the same one. It has more listed loads for bullet styles, weight, and powders than any of the others that I have seen do. The other manual I will probably be buying when I can is the Nostler manual. It has been spot on for loads for my rifle.

[noylj]

From where you are, any additional manuals should be to serve some perceived need.
I find that my rifles really like Sierra bullets. Thus, I would tend to buy the Sierra manual since they have loads expressly for their bullets.
In pistols, about all I shoot are lead bullets. Thus, I buy the Lyman and RCBS Cast bullet manuals and Richard Lee's reloading book (he has compiled almost all available date and only listed the minimum loads, so you can be confident that the loads he lists are safe in 99.99% of all guns in good condition that have SAAMI chambers). I also have an OLD edition of the NRA reloading book from the early '60s, I think.
Just on a personal preference, I tend to have the latest Speer and Hornady manuals as they have bullets I like and I just plain enjoy their manuals.
You can never have too many manuals, but you don't NEED more than you have. At least not right now.

[Mike-Mat]

I like the big Lymann book.

I avoid book from specific bullet maker, because I don't use specific bullet brands. Those book usually only give spec's for their bullets (Sierra, Hornady, etc...).

Since Lymann makes bullet casting equipment, you'll get good info for cast bullets and good info for jacketed bullets.

[TXGunNut]

Lemme see; Speer (2), Lyman (3), Hornady (2), SPG Primer (1), Loadbook (1), Lee (1-just bought it!), bookmarked websites (2). Quite honestly OP, you're off to a great start as long as you read carefully and understand. If you become interested in a particular bullet or loading equipment manufacturer then by all means, buy their manual. Old manuals give valuable insight @ times, new manuals have the latest info.
I could be a reloading geek but I'm a well-read geek. I've learned something from every manual and I consult as many as I feel is necessary when I'm trying to figure something out. Latest manual is quite interesting, mainly because the author and I don't agree on much, probably never will, but I'm quite aware that Richard Lee knows more about reloading and bullet casting than I ever will.
An impressive library doesn't make me a better reloader than the posters who use only a few, BTW. With the cartridges I load and the firearms I load for I need all the manuals I can get. I approach each new load as a scientific project and I feel research is a necessary starting point.
Interesting points, wncchester. I've been trying to figure out which manual I like best but I have no idea. Maybe I'm not a reloading geek after all.

[FrankenMauser]

QuickLoad only costs as much as about 5 manuals, pricey, yes, but considering some guys have 30 manuals, hardly a show stopper. It's also not "useless" for handgun cartridges. Sometimes it's not so good, other times, like my experience with 357sig and 10mm, it is just as accurate as it is with rifle cartridges... well under 1% error.

Good to know.. (That it's accurate with some handgun cartridges. I'm assuming you're not using them in revolvers, though.)

[Brian Pfleuger]

(That it's accurate with some handgun cartridges. I'm assuming you're not using them in revolvers, though.)

I don't have any revolvers so I can't say anything about that personally. I have been told that the main problem is that QL does not simulate the cylinder gap. Some guys have said that the numbers are pretty close for some cartridges/guns though. Don't know.
If somebody would like to donate one for the cause, I'd be happy to conduct thorough tests.

[wncchester]

"One, and only one, reloading rule; "Start low, work up to book max unless you see signs of excess pressure sooner" takes care of any differences in anyone's books or components. Period."

RW, #9: "Except for some cartridges and loads which have published minimums to worry about."


Not really. If anyone has a book with a listed load it WILL have the "published minimum" as well as max, will it not? So, how could that be improved upon with multipule manuals?

[temmi]

It depends on what you have…

If it your first book I would recommend one from a bullet manufacture… the one you plan to use….

Failing that Hornady….

If you are looking for a book with a Lot of good information… A Squares “Any Shot You Want”

[rtpzwms]

You can add Sierra Bullets to the reloading list as well. I like it because I can open it and grab the pages I need and move them to the front of the manual. So as a result it takes seconds to find those data pages I need without flipping through all of the pages. And it stays open with NO effort.

[GeauxTide]

I like the Nosler and Speer manuals. Before I ever started loading, I devoured the Hornady, Speer, and Sierra manuals. I like the history and the stories along with the data. And today, lots of reloading tips.

[RWBlue01]

"One, and only one, reloading rule; "Start low, work up to book max unless you see signs of excess pressure sooner" takes care of any differences in anyone's books or components. Period."

RW, #9: "Except for some cartridges and loads which have published minimums to worry about."


Not really. If anyone has a book with a listed load it WILL have the "published minimum" as well as max, will it not? So, how could that be improved upon with multipule manuals?

My argument wasn't for more manuals (but they may help on occasion), it was the phrase "Start low, work up", you can start too low, some powder/bullet/cartridges have true minimums. I have run upon poorly published minimums twice. Once was with the 44mag using W296 or H110 (I don't remember). And Once with a 45-70 load (I don't remember the powder) the published minimum was to low. As I approached it, I started having rounds that don't go bang.

My suggestion is to start with a medium load and work in the direction you want to go.

[FrankenMauser]

I have also run into "true minimums" before.

The example that always comes to mind first:
Working with a non-standard cartridge equivalent to the .22 CCM, I had a very odd experience.

I wanted to load Lil' Gun under 36 grain HPs. The recommended load on a reputable small-bore forum was 6.0-8.0 grains. With the data, was a warning much like you'll find for some powders in proper reloading manuals, "Do not use less than 6 grains of Lil' Gun; undesirable results can occur, including bore obstruction, or spontaneous pressure spikes."
Since I was using brass that was thinner than what the loads were developed in, I wanted to start a little lower - regardless of the warning. Bad mistake.

From 4.0 to 5.3 grains, each successive bullet lodged in the bore, closer to the chamber with each increase in powder charge (but 4.0 grains should have been enough powder to reach ~1,200 fps). Even though the increase in charge weight was causing less bullet movement, that wasn't the weird part. I was getting less, and less burned powder with each firing.

But... When I reached 5.4 to 5.6 grains, things got really weird (as the warning tried to tell me). Some rounds would seem to detonate and rupture the cases, and others would just have an audible "fizzle" with the bullet barely lodged in the throat. The "fizzled" rounds had completely fused powder charges. They looked like some one had poured tiny plastic beads into the case, and heated it until it was a congealed mass (but still recognizable as beads).

Since I was doing this testing with major safety precautions in place; I continued. At that point, I wanted to see if the 6.0 grains really was a breaking point. (This was a continuous process. I had a reloading press, and all of the components available at the test location.)

The 6.0 grain charge was still a little erratic, but bullets were actually exiting the barrel. At 6.1 grains, it was a little better. At 6.2 grains.... it was like some one flipped a light switch. I Suddenly had 100% reliability, and excellent velocity. And that's where I had to stop testing. My thinner brass was over-pressure, and couldn't go on. I found a true minimum, but never did get that load to work.

[wncchester]

"My suggestion is to start with a medium load and work in the direction you want to go."

My suggestion, unless you know both reloading AND the specific firearm in use, is to start at the listed minimum and work up. I accept that you found an exception with H-110 but I've never seen any such error and I've seen a lot of books.

Starting at mid-range with an unknown firearm is safe? I know a new reloader who bought a new M70 in .22-250 and started with mid-range loads of Varget that expanded his new case primer pockets so far the spent caps fell out of three consecutive rounds. Manuals aren't as "lawyered" up as a lot of people say they are.

[RWBlue01]

Starting at mid-range with an unknown firearm is safe? I know a new reloader who bought a new M70 in .22-250 and started with mid-range loads of Varget that expanded his new case primer pockets so far the spent caps fell out of three consecutive rounds. Manuals aren't as "lawyered" up as a lot of people say they are.

The manuals are lawyered up because the primers can be hot or cold, the powder can be hot or cold, the brass can be thick or thin and chambers can be tight or very loose.

For a medium load to be hot enough to drop primers, well it smells fishy.
What did it do with factory ammo?
What was his final load?