Armory Sponsor
Posted: 4/6/2011 10:00:38 AM EDT
|
I reall like the Lyman 49th - bolds "most accurate" load tested. Anyway ordering a few things and though a book is always a handy addition (wish they had them on Nook).
I have Lee (not my best buy) I have Lyman I have every powder and bullet manufacturer information. So which would you buy and why? Sierra Hornady Nosler Speer Barnes |
|
I have the Lyman #49 as well, the loads in there tend to run hotter than the loads in my others. I have Sierra #6 plus my grandfather's #2 (I think) and the latest Hornady. The two Sierra and the Hornady are all pretty close to each other. The Lyman shows chamber pressures where the others don't.
When doing up a new load I just check all three and see where a starting ball park would be and hit the loads up from there. So I would say go for the Sierra and get the disc (though version 5) with it as the ballistics and trajectory charts based on your load data are pretty dead on. JMHO 
|
| Lyman. They are middleish to hot with their loads, and you will find better starting loads with them. The Lyman 48th is the most trustworthy manual that I own. As said above, Hornady and Sierra are conservative, with Sierra being by far the worst. If they could get away with it, Sierra would put in a disclaimer telling you to not even use gunpowder because it's too dangerous and you might get hurt and sue them. I haven't used Speer manuals that much recently, but in the past I found their loads to be really hot. In their online manual, the 180 grain loads for .308 Winchester are spot on, and I can appreciate that they have done some loads with Reloder 17 considering there isn't all that much data for it. |
|
I have a Lyman manual and a Speer Manual, To be honest I don't like either of them.
I much prefer the Loadbooks USA Manual's, they are cheap (Under $10, each) and basically what they've done is copy the load data out of each of the various reloading manuals for each cartridge. It's 1000x more usefull then 1 manual by 1 manufacture. If I'm working on .223 and I need to look up load data, I now have an entire book full of nothing bul .223 load data from most of the majior manufacture's manual's all in 1 small book. -Masta |
|
Quoted:
I have a Lyman manual and a Speer Manual, To be honest I don't like either of them. I much prefer the Loadbooks USA Manual's, they are cheap (Under $10, each) and basically what they've done is copy the load data out of each of the various reloading manuals for each cartridge. It's 1000x more usefull then 1 manual by 1 manufacture. If I'm working on .223 and I need to look up load data, I now have an entire book full of nothing bul .223 load data from most of the majior manufacture's manual's all in 1 small book. -Masta Seems like the best idea overall. |
|
Quoted:
I have a Lyman manual and a Speer Manual, To be honest I don't like either of them. I much prefer the Loadbooks USA Manual's, they are cheap (Under $10, each) and basically what they've done is copy the load data out of each of the various reloading manuals for each cartridge. It's 1000x more usefull then 1 manual by 1 manufacture. If I'm working on .223 and I need to look up load data, I now have an entire book full of nothing bul .223 load data from most of the majior manufacture's manual's all in 1 small book. -Masta I use these (in conjunction with others)... I like the spaces for editing/adding my data...no more separate log books... I also have a 3'x5' white board (dry erase) on the wall in front of my bench that I leave my current load data on (and the min/max values for comparison) When I need to look up data...all I do is look "up" |
|
Nosler has a "most accurate load" listed as well. I would suggest this over Speer or Barnes although Barnes is preferred by me over Speer. I do not have the Hornady or Sierra book so I can't comment there. I would also look at Lee just because they have so many different bullet and powder combinations listed.
edit: spelling |
|
My choice would be Sierra...
That said, you know my mantra. If loading brand x bullets you need brand x's manual. These are what I have. Lee Lyman Hornady Sierra Speer LaPua Vihta Vouri Oy I would also suggest you have Sierra Infinity 6 and that blue book on ballistics. It's got to be the most comprehensive and in depth compilations of data ever amassed in one binding. Of my books my favorite without doubt, my Sierra manual. Then, I load a metric shit load of Sierra too. Rogue and myself went to the plant in Sedalia, Mo. A short 60 minute drive. We bought bullets out of 55 gallon drums. Every kind of bullet Sierra makes in some 200 plus drums. Starline brass is Sierra's next door neighbor. MidwayUSA is 5 minutes from my house, Graf & Son 45 minutes, Sierra and Starline an hour drive. I can hit Sierra after spending a morning at a really nice 600 yard high power range. Life is good. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Order of most referenced/useful:
Sierra Hornady (8th) Nosler Hodgden Alliant - download Ramshot - download Vihtavouri (8th) - download Barnes - old one Speer - old one FYI I have recently been told by Berger that they are working on one and Sierra said if business will cool off they will too in the next year or two. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have a Lyman manual and a Speer Manual, To be honest I don't like either of them. I much prefer the Loadbooks USA Manual's, they are cheap (Under $10, each) and basically what they've done is copy the load data out of each of the various reloading manuals for each cartridge. It's 1000x more usefull then 1 manual by 1 manufacture. If I'm working on .223 and I need to look up load data, I now have an entire book full of nothing bul .223 load data from most of the majior manufacture's manual's all in 1 small book. -Masta I use these (in conjunction with others)... I like the spaces for editing/adding my data...no more separate log books... I also have a 3'x5' white board (dry erase) on the wall in front of my bench that I leave my current load data on (and the min/max values for comparison) When I need to look up data...all I do is look "up" The load books are out of date. Here is a list of manuals they use Summary of Material: 800 Proven & Tested Loads 28 Bullets Designs 32 Different Powders Information from the Following Manuals: Hornady 4th Edition Accurate Arms Nosler 3rd Edition Sierra 3rd Edition Rifle Speer #11 Lyman 3rd Edition Cast Bullet Handbook Hodgdon #25 Accurate Arms RCBS Cast Bullet Manual #1 Hercules IMR Powders Scot Powders Winchester |
|
Quoted:
Order of most referenced/useful: Sierra Hornady (8th) Nosler Hodgden Alliant - download Ramshot - download Vihtavouri (8th) - download Barnes - old one Speer - old one FYI I have recently been told by Berger that they are working on one and Sierra said if business will cool off they will too in the next year or two. |
|
Quoted:
The load books are out of date. Here is a list of manuals they use Summary of Material: 800 Proven & Tested Loads 28 Bullets Designs 32 Different Powders Information from the Following Manuals: Hornady 4th Edition Accurate Arms Nosler 3rd Edition Sierra 3rd Edition Rifle Speer #11 Lyman 3rd Edition Cast Bullet Handbook Hodgdon #25 Accurate Arms RCBS Cast Bullet Manual #1 Hercules IMR Powders Scot Powders Winchester H335 is H335, It's only a Guide, I find my own "Max Load" so I couln't give a crap if it's H335 Load data from yesterday or 10 years ago. All the manuals are way under a "True" Max load because they don't want to get sued. Seating depth, cartridge specs, etc. never changes, so really I think these "5000th edition" manuals are just a way to keep jacking customer for $$ every couple of years. -Masta |
|
Quoted:
I have and like the Hornady manual. But I also use more of their bullets than others so it is pretty useful to me. I would go with the brand that you shoot more of............. +1 Go with the majority of the bullets you like to use. I would suggest Sierra or Hornady. Nosler manuals tend to be geared to hunting rifles with little attention to milsurps if that's your thing. Every 2 or 3 years I buy a new manual to include newer cartridges and get the most up to date info. Funny thing to read my old 80's vintage and look how far the loads have been reduced currently. RCBS/Speer had some hot hot loads back in the day. Then again, no one said they were safe in every firearm, just their test rifles. I'm sure a lot of those loads killed the brass and primer pockets in short order. I tend to use the first accuracy node I come to anyhow. I'm not in a race for speed. In fact I view hot loads as excess wear on the firearm and the shooter which is important if you shoot more than a few rounds in a competition. |
|
Quoted:
My choice would be Sierra... That said, you know my mantra. If loading brand x bullets you need brand x's manual. These are what I have. Lee Lyman Hornady Sierra Speer LaPua Vihta Vouri Oy I would also suggest you have Sierra Infinity 6 and that blue book on ballistics. It's got to be the most comprehensive and in depth compilations of data ever amassed in one binding. Of my books my favorite without doubt, my Sierra manual. Then, I load a metric shit load of Sierra too. Rogue and myself went to the plant in Sedalia, Mo. A short 60 minute drive. We bought bullets out of 55 gallon drums. Every kind of bullet Sierra makes in some 200 plus drums. Starline brass is Sierra's next door neighbor. MidwayUSA is 5 minutes from my house, Graf & Son 45 minutes, Sierra and Starline an hour drive. I can hit Sierra after spending a morning at a really nice 600 yard high power range. Life is good. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Damn, I want to move there now! Ten years before I'm eligible for retirement! My favorite is also the Sierra but the Lyman is the bible for lead bullets. |
|
SAAMI.
Have visited with both Hornady and Sierra about this. A sue happy society is cause for concern. Fear of law suits do not play the roll some of us think. Load data is published to fit within SAAMI pressure specifications. Specifications that should be respected. Just because I can crank 650 hp out of a 550 hp engine doesn't mean the engine was made to with stand the pressure. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
I have a Lyman manual and a Speer Manual, To be honest I don't like either of them. I much prefer the Loadbooks USA Manual's, they are cheap (Under $10, each) and basically what they've done is copy the load data out of each of the various reloading manuals for each cartridge. It's 1000x more usefull then 1 manual by 1 manufacture. If I'm working on .223 and I need to look up load data, I now have an entire book full of nothing bul .223 load data from most of the majior manufacture's manual's all in 1 small book. -Masta Yeah - I have those for all the calibers I load - they don't have a 6.8 one yet. |
|
Quoted:
The Nosler manuals also list the most accurate load, and give the % of powder fill in the case for each load. High quality manuals. I haven't looked at the Nosler, but it is on my "buy" list because in addition to the other things listed, I read in a recent review that the Nosler book is the only one that also lists how efficient a cartridge is, giving you the calculation of FPS per grain of powder. Plus, I use a lot of Nosler bullets.... |
|
Quoted:
My choice would be Sierra... That said, you know my mantra. If loading brand x bullets you need brand x's manual. These are what I have. Lee Lyman Hornady Sierra Speer LaPua Vihta Vouri Oy I would also suggest you have Sierra Infinity 6 and that blue book on ballistics. It's got to be the most comprehensive and in depth compilations of data ever amassed in one binding. Of my books my favorite without doubt, my Sierra manual. Then, I load a metric shit load of Sierra too. Rogue and myself went to the plant in Sedalia, Mo. A short 60 minute drive. We bought bullets out of 55 gallon drums. Every kind of bullet Sierra makes in some 200 plus drums. Starline brass is Sierra's next door neighbor. MidwayUSA is 5 minutes from my house, Graf & Son 45 minutes, Sierra and Starline an hour drive. I can hit Sierra after spending a morning at a really nice 600 yard high power range. Life is good. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Never would have guessed you went in for the loading software. I have QuickLoad, but for $40, I'll give Infinity a shot. I had seen it, but figured it was all their bullets - looks like they list lots more than that . . . . Nosler with no COAL - now that's just odd. 55 gallon drums of projectiles and Starline right next door and Grafs right close by? Sounds like a place I'd like to retire. |
|
Nosler not listing oal has been a source of extreme agravation using Nosler's 185 grain 45acp hps..1.20,BTW.1.190 if you're wanting it warm.
Yes all those drums of bullets were cool. Infinity 6 is ballistic software just to clarify. Plan to get mobile version too. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
I have a stack of manuals for all the different brands I use, plus I get the pamphlets that the powder companies usually mail out. The Nosler manuals are generally my favorite, because I load a fair amount of Nosler bullets. I also print out a lot of data from the powder companies online. Hodgdon is a good source. I use Hodgdon powder most of the time and I like to compare their data with data from the bullet companies when I'm contemplating a new load.
All the load data I print from online sources gets put in a 3-ring binder that I keep on the shelf with my manuals. I don't believe you can have too much data. |
|
I got by with Sierra's and Speer's manuals for many years, recently (last two years) I added Hornady and Nosler. That reflects not only my preferences for bullets, but what I can find at my local dealers. These days, that's Berry's, Speer, and Hornady for pistols and Sierra, Hornady, and Nosler for rifle. I agree with the "if you buy x-brand bullets, then buy x-brand manual" post.
During the Obama Scare when everything was hard to find, these brands kept coming in my area, and when I could find primers they were always CCI. My favorite manual for the Reference info beyond load data? That's easy....Sierra. |
|
Quoted:
All the manuals are way under a "True" Max load because they don't want to get sued. Nothing to do with lawsuits and everything to do with standards and newer testing equipment. Many of those older loads were found to be WELL over SAAMI max pressure once the crappy old copper crushers were replaced with piezo transducers and strain gauges. Want to talk about a lawsuit, injure someone on the range with an kaboom from exceeding the published tested loads trying to demonstrate your knowledge of what is a "true max load." Seating depth, cartridge specs, etc. never changes, so really I think these "5000th edition" manuals are just a way to keep jacking customer for $$ every couple of years.
Nope seating depth and cartridge dimensions don't change for a given bullet or cartridge, but new powders, projectiles and cartridges come out regularly. Sierra #6 doesn't have the .204 Ruger in it at all or any .20 cal cartridges for that matter. Nothing other than the newest Hornady manual has anything for the 160gn FTX or the new LEVERevolution or Superformance powders. Nothing out there in the manuals for the newest Alliant powders yet. And unless you can say for certain that a powder formulation hasn't changed over the years, you can't say that powder X is powder X and old data is good. |
|
Didn't know Sierra's manual was so highly regarded. I bought one last summer when I started loading and all of the .45 charges they listed seemed pretty weak.
For the load I chose, Sierra's max load was less than Lyman's starting load for the same bullet type and powder. The manuals I grab for a new load are the Lyman and Hornady #7. I'd like to look and see what they changed for the Hornady #8 to see if it's worth buying. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
All the manuals are way under a "True" Max load because they don't want to get sued. Nothing to do with lawsuits and everything to do with standards and newer testing equipment. Many of those older loads were found to be WELL over SAAMI max pressure once the crappy old copper crushers were replaced with piezo transducers and strain gauges. Want to talk about a lawsuit, injure someone on the range with an kaboom from exceeding the published tested loads trying to demonstrate your knowledge of what is a "true max load." Seating depth, cartridge specs, etc. never changes, so really I think these "5000th edition" manuals are just a way to keep jacking customer for $$ every couple of years.
Nope seating depth and cartridge dimensions don't change for a given bullet or cartridge, but new powders, projectiles and cartridges come out regularly. Sierra #6 doesn't have the .204 Ruger in it at all or any .20 cal cartridges for that matter. Nothing other than the newest Hornady manual has anything for the 160gn FTX or the new LEVERevolution or Superformance powders. Nothing out there in the manuals for the newest Alliant powders yet. And unless you can say for certain that a powder formulation hasn't changed over the years, you can't say that powder X is powder X and old data is good. Once you work up a load, assuming you always use the same powder and same bullet, typically you stick with whatever load you worked up. So reguardless if the load data has changed 200 times in the various load books, who cares? Are you going to re-work up your load every time a new load book comes out? On top of that if your loadbook is your bible, then one would NEVER load outside the range in the books. Which means probably 95+% of people's loads for H335 alone would exceed every load book on the market. You are giving the "Reference" load books WAY too much credit. I will NEVER have a Kaboom due to too much powder. Outdated load book or not. I understand the purchase of a new loadbook if you are reloading for one of the new caliber's or trying a new powder etc. But the majority of people out there probably couldn't care less about the majority of new calibers or powders. If your loading for the most pouplar calibers, .380, 9mm, .40, 10mm, .45 .357, etc or .223, 7.62, .308, etc a new load book isn't going to do much for you, again unless there is something like a new powder or bullet that you are trying to use. Also as mentioned NONE of the load books can agree on charge weights. The load books with give you a general area to start and after that your on your own. Using a load book as a 'bible' instead of as a 'reference' is dumb as best. Don't get me wrong, EVERYONE should have a load book, everyone should READ a load book. But to own several and/or buy a new one every other year is nutz! -Masta |
|
Quoted:
Didn't know Sierra's manual was so highly regarded. I bought one last summer when I started loading and all of the .45 charges they listed seemed pretty weak. For the load I chose, Sierra's max load was less than Lyman's starting load for the same bullet type and powder. The manuals I grab for a new load are the Lyman and Hornady #7. I'd like to look and see what they changed for the Hornady #8 to see if it's worth buying. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Back in the Sixties, it was the Hornady manual that published loads way over Sierra's max....and over Speers manual as well. Today, Hornady is more in line with the Sierra load data I use (they mellowed or learned something?), so I trust 'em enough these days to use their bullets and manual....and am quite pleased. With the difference in gun, and cartridge designs, I feel Sierras' maximum loads are plenty maximum enough....considering that that load data is going to be tried in, and is probably safe in, any factory gun that's not broken or weakened by misuse or neglect. That said, I'm not about to start there in working up loads. I always start minimum...and always will. I'm thinking that's why I've not lost a rifle, a pistol, or any body parts in 40 years of playing with this.  Ears.....another matter...back in my early shooting days I wasn't taught the importance of ear protection..........what????......louder please.
|
|
Quoted:
Once you work up a load, assuming you always use the same powder and same bullet, typically you stick with whatever load you worked up. So reguardless if the load data has changed 200 times in the various load books, who cares? Are you going to re-work up your load every time a new load book comes out? On top of that if your loadbook is your bible, then one would NEVER load outside the range in the books. Which means probably 95+% of people's loads for H335 alone would exceed every load book on the market. Do you know what the pressure in your H335 load is? Do you know that the formulation of H335 has never changed? Many of the powder and bullet companies had some real "OH SHIT!" moments when they started testing loads that they though were good for years based on the copper crusher methods using modern methods and equipment and found them to be as much at 20,000PSI above the max pressure for the cartridge. That was one of the primary catalysts that lead to the almost across the board reduction in published charges awhile back. In addition to that, many of the powders that have been around for a long time have been refined over the years, changing their burn characteristics. This means that load data from the old version of the powder could be unsafe with the newer version. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Once you work up a load, assuming you always use the same powder and same bullet, typically you stick with whatever load you worked up. So reguardless if the load data has changed 200 times in the various load books, who cares? Are you going to re-work up your load every time a new load book comes out? On top of that if your loadbook is your bible, then one would NEVER load outside the range in the books. Which means probably 95+% of people's loads for H335 alone would exceed every load book on the market. Do you know what the pressure in your H335 load is? Do you know that the formulation of H335 has never changed? Many of the powder and bullet companies had some real "OH SHIT!" moments when they started testing loads that they though were good for years based on the copper crusher methods using modern methods and equipment and found them to be as much at 20,000PSI above the max pressure for the cartridge. That was one of the primary catalysts that lead to the almost across the board reduction in published charges awhile back. In addition to that, many of the powders that have been around for a long time have been refined over the years, changing their burn characteristics. This means that load data from the old version of the powder could be unsafe with the newer version. NO reloader knows what the pressure is, that kind of testing equiptment isn't really available to a home reloader... So your suggestion is to what? Buy a new manual every 1-2 years and rework up your loads every bottle of powder? That's a bit much. Your argument is moot though because as I said, a load manual is for REFERENCE. So it gives me a starting point, beyond that it's useless to me, other then as a general REFERENCE. Becides the fact that 95% of the time the rifle/pistol that they companies use to write the load data for isn't the firearm you are loading for so this makes all their "Data" questionable. Which again shows that the load data is for REFERENCE not a set in stone "This is how it has to be". You act like the load manual's data is a bible that if you don't follow to the "T" you will be stoned to death by God himself. -Masta |
|
Masta, your not only wrong. Your wrong headed and setting a good example of how not to do things.
You've been on this board as long or longer than I have. We've never mixed it up in the how to or why nots. For the last three exchanges we have. I'm alarmed for your safety and amazed you haven't blown something apart. HeloTaxi has shared both years of experience and wisdom. If you destroy something because of your near sighted foolishness that's your dime. You get somebody hurt because they listened to a person less than knowledgeable. OR Advocate unsafe practices. You've strayed within the responsibility of those of us who watch out for those who don't know better. Just stop it, back up, re-read this thread. Then with an open mind and an adult level of maturity have a discussion on SAAMI. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Masta, your not only wrong. Your wrong headed and setting a good example of how not to do things. You've been on this board as long or longer than I have. We've never mixed it up in the how to or why nots. For the last three exchanges we have. I'm alarmed for your safety and amazed you haven't blown something apart. HeloTaxi has shared both years of experience and wisdom. If you destroy something because of your near sighted foolishness that's your dime. You get somebody hurt because they listened to a person less than knowledgeable. OR Advocate unsafe practices. You've strayed within the responsibility of those of us who watch out for those who don't know better. Just stop it, back up, re-read this thread. Then with an open mind and an adult level of maturity have a discussion on SAAMI. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile If there was ever been a post that is completely out of line, it's this one. First of all I have never told anyone to do anything 'unsafe'. I said a Load manual should be used as REFERENCE not as a Bible to be followed to a "T". Maybe instead of posting arrogant stuff like this post, you should actually post something usefull to the topic at hand? I have to say that your posts lately have been nothing but argumentative. Before this post, I never took it personal. I promote people buying/using quality die's, reloading to tight/consistant measurements and working up loads. How is any of that unsafe? You promote the use of a case gauge as an accurate measuring device. A Load manual is a REFERENCE guide. The fact that every single load manal has completely different starting and max loads for the same powder and bullet weight and is tested on completely different rifles/pistols makes a load manual a usefull REFERENCE tool, but definitly not a book written to be followed to a "T". Which by the way almost no one follows a load manual to the "T" but you are trying to call me unsafe for saying a load manual is only a reference guide? My first few posts (If YOU would have actually read them) was saying that I like Loadbooks because they reference many different manuals for 1 caliber, which gives an easy reference to get an idea of a good starting point. I could tell you that using 1 load manual is "unsafe". Fact is I have said NOTHING unsafe and nothing I have said should cause anyone to go out and get hurt or hurt someone else. I invite you to use the "Ignore" feature on the forum if you don't like what I have to say. But please don't ever disrespect me in the way you have again, it's uncalled for and completely out of line. -Masta |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Once you work up a load, assuming you always use the same powder and same bullet, typically you stick with whatever load you worked up. So reguardless if the load data has changed 200 times in the various load books, who cares? Are you going to re-work up your load every time a new load book comes out? On top of that if your loadbook is your bible, then one would NEVER load outside the range in the books. Which means probably 95+% of people's loads for H335 alone would exceed every load book on the market. Do you know what the pressure in your H335 load is? Do you know that the formulation of H335 has never changed? Many of the powder and bullet companies had some real "OH SHIT!" moments when they started testing loads that they though were good for years based on the copper crusher methods using modern methods and equipment and found them to be as much at 20,000PSI above the max pressure for the cartridge. That was one of the primary catalysts that lead to the almost across the board reduction in published charges awhile back. In addition to that, many of the powders that have been around for a long time have been refined over the years, changing their burn characteristics. This means that load data from the old version of the powder could be unsafe with the newer version. True This; I read an article by Layne Simpson of Speer in Shooting Times, he stated that they were shocked when they modernized their testing equipment and found that many of their published loads were way over their "calculated " pressures when they actually got a direct measurement. They immediatly set about revising the Speer manual. I'm sure other manufacturers had similar experiences. I use current data for all my loads. |
|
Quoted:
True This; I read an article by Layne Simpson of Speer in Shooting Times, he stated that they were shocked when they modernized their testing equipment and found that many of their published loads were way over their "calculated " pressures when they actually got a direct measurement. They immediatly set about revising the Speer manual. I'm sure other manufacturers had similar experiences. I use current data for all my loads. Here's where I am coming from... As an example, my load for .223 is 25gr of H335. If you have ALL the load manuals at hand, you look up this load and you will find that most all the manuals put a max load of H335 with a 55gr bullet around 23gr, but of course every manual is different from the next, so depending on what manual you are looking at your max load could be a 3-5gr spread. Why is 1 companies data soo much different then the next? What about the amount of crimp you put on the case? or how far you seat the bullet? This is why I say a manual should be a REFERENCE and nothing more. I have no doubt that technology changes and that they probably know alot more about actual pressures, etc now then they did 10 years ago. As I said, if you are loading a new caliber or a new bullet or a new powder, then one should definitly buy a new manual with the new data, but if you are loading a caliber that has been around for many years and components/powder that's been around for many years and you have already done testing and load work up for your rifle and caliber, why would you need to keep buying new manuals? Are you really going to change your entire load that you've already worked up and know is safe just because the "new" manual says all of the suddon that your load is "unsafe" or above "max"? Anyone that thinks load manuals don't have a large safety buffer and is there to infact protect them from lawsuits is obviously not living in the real world. I still stick with my origional post. I like Loadbooks for a large range of coverage that is catered to the caliber I am loading. Since it's only a REFERENCE anyway, I don't mind if the data used is a bit out of date. Which by the way I am sure Loadbooks is/was/will be updating. -Masta |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
There was no disrespect given. I call unsafe when seen. That's the bottom line. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I said NOTHING that was unsafe. That is the bottom line. -Masta Anytime you operate outside of SAAMI specifications you're operating outside of known safe parameters that are established by industry standards. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There was no disrespect given. I call unsafe when seen. That's the bottom line. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I said NOTHING that was unsafe. That is the bottom line. -Masta Anytime you operate outside of SAAMI specifications you're operating outside of known safe parameters that are established by industry standards. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Okay, I'm game... How do you test your rounds to insure they are within SAAMI specs? (Oh yeah, that's right YOU CAN'T) Becides, I never said ANYTHING about loading outside of SAAMI specs. Again, since you don't seem to want to answer any of my questions/comments.. If I own 5 manuals and there is a 3-5gr variation between the manuals as to what is "Max Load" and no information on weather or not the round they produced was crimped or not and how much of a crimp and if my seating depth is at all different from what the manual says, how do you know what your cartridge pressure is? If I product a round that is within 'spec' of what 1 manual says, then I open another manual and now the round I just made is over the 2nd manual's "Max Load", does that round now become out of spec or "Outside of SAAMI spes"? If so, how does a round phically change pressure by means of opening a different book? How about if I make a round EXACTLY to all the minimum specs in my manual, but in my manual the rifle was a bolt action hunting rifle, is that round now acceptable for my semi-auto AR15? So again, I NEVER said anything unsafe and again YOU are wrong. I'm done with this. At this point it's obvious your out of your mind. -Masta |
Ok Masta, fair enough. I'm out of my mind.  Snapshot time. 
Originally Posted by Masta-MarksmanI have a Lyman manual and a Speer Manual, To be honest I don't like either of them.
I much prefer the Loadbooks USA Manual's, they are cheap (Under $10, each) and basically what they've done is copy the load data out of each of the various reloading manuals for each cartridge. It's 1000x more usefull then 1 manual by 1 manufacture. If I'm working on .223 and I need to look up load data, I now have an entire book full of nothing bul .223 load data from most of the majior manufacture's manual's all in 1 small book. -Masta Originally Posted by oldschool63 responds with
The load books are out of date. Here is a list of manuals they use Summary of Material: 800 Proven & Tested Loads 28 Bullets Designs 32 Different Powders Information from the Following Manuals: Hornady 4th Edition Accurate Arms Nosler 3rd Edition Sierra 3rd Edition Rifle Speer #11 Lyman 3rd Edition Cast Bullet Handbook Hodgdon #25 Accurate Arms RCBS Cast Bullet Manual #1 Hercules IMR Powders Scot Powders Winchester Originally Posted by Masta-Marksman
H335 is H335, It's only a Guide, I find my own "Max Load" so I couln't give a crap if it's H335 Load data from yesterday or 10 years ago. All the manuals are way under a "True" Max load because they don't want to get sued. Seating depth, cartridge specs, etc. never changes, so really I think these "5000th edition" manuals are just a way to keep jacking customer for $$ every couple of years. -Masta So you think new manuals are a conspiracy to cheat us from our dollars, is that it ?? Technology changes every year. Bullets and powders don't stay the same every year. Powder blends vary from lot to lot and year to year.. Quoted:
All the manuals are way under a "True" Max load because they don't want to get sued. Originally posted by HeloTaxi
Nothing to do with lawsuits and everything to do with standards and newer testing equipment. Many of those older loads were found to be WELL over SAAMI max pressure once the crappy old copper crushers were replaced with piezo transducers and strain gauges. Want to talk about a lawsuit, injure someone on the range with an kaboom from exceeding the published tested loads trying to demonstrate your knowledge of what is a "true max load." Originally posted by:MastaMarksman
Seating depth, cartridge specs, etc. never changes, so really I think these "5000th edition" manuals are just a way to keep jacking customer for $$ every couple of years. Originally Posted by:Helotaxi
Nope seating depth and cartridge dimensions don't change for a given bullet or cartridge, but new powders, projectiles and cartridges come out regularly. Sierra #6 doesn't have the .204 Ruger in it at all or any .20 cal cartridges for that matter. Nothing other than the newest Hornady manual has anything for the 160gn FTX or the new LEVERevolution or Superformance powders. Nothing out there in the manuals for the newest Alliant powders yet. And unless you can say for certain that a powder formulation hasn't changed over the years, you can't say that powder X is powder X and old data is good. Originally Posted by:MasterMarksman
Once you work up a load, assuming you always use the same powder and same bullet, typically you stick with whatever load you worked up. So reguardless if the load data has changed 200 times in the various load books, who cares? Are you going to re-work up your load every time a new load book comes out? On top of that if your loadbook is your bible, then one would NEVER load outside the range in the books. Which means probably 95+% of people's loads for H335 alone would exceed every load book on the market. You are giving the "Reference" load books WAY too much credit. I will NEVER have a Kaboom due to too much powder. Outdated load book or not. I understand the purchase of a new loadbook if you are reloading for one of the new caliber's or trying a new powder etc. But the majority of people out there probably couldn't care less about the majority of new calibers or powders. If your loading for the most pouplar calibers, .380, 9mm, .40, 10mm, .45 .357, etc or .223, 7.62, .308, etc a new load book isn't going to do much for you, again unless there is something like a new powder or bullet that you are trying to use. Also as mentioned NONE of the load books can agree on charge weights. The load books with give you a general area to start and after that your on your own. Using a load book as a 'bible' instead of as a 'reference' is dumb as best. Don't get me wrong, EVERYONE should have a load book, everyone should READ a load book. But to own several and/or buy a new one every other year is nutz! -Masta So, you're saying, knowing blends can change and knowing powder manufacturers update published data to reflect changes in blend. They're nuts ?? hhmm...... 
Time to go check the locks on my tapiocca pudding cans, be right back. 
|
|
Ok, back. Despite seeing black helicopters in my Cheerios. The pudding is O.K...what a relief.
Let's see, where were we..... Ahhh, yes. Nuts. nuts, nuts, is where we left things. Despite changes in blends, changing technology, reloading emerging from medieval science to the digital age. An age we can accurately gage case pressure and up to date manuals reflect modern science. We're nuts for updating manuals. O.K. Originally Posted by:HeloTaxi
Do you know what the pressure in your H335 load is? Do you know that the formulation of H335 has never changed? Many of the powder and bullet companies had some real "OH SHIT!" moments when they started testing loads that they though were good for years based on the copper crusher methods using modern methods and equipment and found them to be as much at 20,000PSI above the max pressure for the cartridge. That was one of the primary catalysts that lead to the almost across the board reduction in published charges awhile back. In addition to that, many of the powders that have been around for a long time have been refined over the years, changing their burn characteristics. This means that load data from the old version of the powder could be unsafe with the newer version. HeloTaxi is sharing some insight that SHOULD NOT be ignored Originally Posted by:MastaMarksman
NO reloader knows what the pressure is, that kind of testing equiptment isn't really available to a home reloader... So your suggestion is to what? Buy a new manual every 1-2 years and rework up your loads every bottle of powder? That's a bit much. Your argument is moot though because as I said, a load manual is for REFERENCE. So it gives me a starting point, beyond that it's useless to me, other then as a general REFERENCE. Becides the fact that 95% of the time the rifle/pistol that they companies use to write the load data for isn't the firearm you are loading for so this makes all their "Data" questionable. Which again shows that the load data is for REFERENCE not a set in stone "This is how it has to be". You act like the load manual's data is a bible that if you don't follow to the "T" you will be stoned to death by God himself. -Masta But you not only ignore but assume you know better than the companies who use far more scientific methods of pressure testing than can be done by our eyes. We don't know we are over pressure until we see over pressure signs. Unless you're omnipotent and all knowing how can you presume to know more than the companies who establish SAAMI standards 
Time for another break. be back shortly and answer questions from your last post. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There was no disrespect given. I call unsafe when seen. That's the bottom line. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I said NOTHING that was unsafe. That is the bottom line. -Masta Anytime you operate outside of SAAMI specifications you're operating outside of known safe parameters that are established by industry standards. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Okay, I'm game... How do you test your rounds to insure they are within SAAMI specs? (Oh yeah, that's right YOU CAN'T) Becides, I never said ANYTHING about loading outside of SAAMI specs. Again, since you don't seem to want to answer any of my questions/comments.. If I own 5 manuals and there is a 3-5gr variation between the manuals as to what is "Max Load" and no information on weather or not the round they produced was crimped or not and how much of a crimp and if my seating depth is at all different from what the manual says, how do you know what your cartridge pressure is? answer: I don't know, unless I'm loading brand x bullets, then I use brand x manual for that information. I use a lot of Hornady and Sierra bullets. By using up to date manuals I not only know velocity, I know case pressure provided I'm using the same barrel. With 45acp and .308 Winchester I use exactly the same length and twist rates.I If product a round that is within 'spec' of what 1 manual says, then I open another manual and now the round I just made is over the 2nd manual's "Max Load", does that round now become out of spec or "Outside of SAAMI spes"? If so, how does a round phically change pressure by means of opening a different book? How about if I make a round EXACTLY to all the minimum specs in my manual, but in my manual the rifle was a bolt action hunting rifle, is that round now acceptable for my semi-auto AR15? Both Hornady and Sierra have sections within their most current manuals just for service rifles. That data is exclusive to gas guns within given caliber and seperate from bolt gun data. So again, I NEVER said anything unsafe and again YOU are wrong. I'm done with this. At this point it's obvious your out of your mind. -Masta When loading bullets that aren't specifically mentioned in manuals. Plated and lead for instance. All I can do is throw out the highs and an extreeme low if there is one. Then average. On pistol loads I use the 1/32nd rule and seat 1/32nd an inch of ogive and start my loads at my established minimum. With rifles I use my magazine to establish oal. Now for a personal note a personal discussion between us. I have no hope of changing your loading practices. I wish you the best of luck. My purpose in this relentless rebuttal is to represent to the best of my abilities the how and to the why of things those of you who are new to this and might misconstrue proper work up procedure and the value of staying within guidelines. This OP started with what manual to buy next and rebutted with the dismissal of up to date information. Up to date manuals are essential, they reflect changes and standards within the reloading industry and new concepts within reloading community. With new powders and bullets coming to market faster than manuals are keeping up with new and ever changing products. The pressure has been on component and powder companies to keep pace. That said. Hornady's 8th manual is awesome. Now if Sierra could catch a breath from Lake City business to update their manual and test powders like IMR8208 XBR that would be equally as awesome. |
|
Quoted:
When loading bullets that aren't specifically mentioned in manuals. Plated and lead for instance. All I can do is throw out the highs and an extreeme low if there is one. Then average. On pistol loads I use the 1/32nd rule and seat 1/32nd an inch of ogive and start my loads at my established minimum. With rifles I use my magazine to establish oal. Now for a personal note a personal discussion between us. I have no hope of changing your loading practices. I wish you the best of luck. My purpose in this relentless rebuttal is to represent to the best of my abilities the how and to the why of things those of you who are new to this and might misconstrue proper work up procedure and the value of staying within guidelines. This OP started with what manual to buy next and rebutted with the dismissal of up to date information. Up to date manuals are essential, they reflect changes and standards within the reloading industry and new concepts within reloading community. With new powders and bullets coming to market faster than manuals are keeping up with new and ever changing products. The pressure has been on component and powder companies to keep pace. That said. Hornady's 8th manual is awesome. Now if Sierra could catch a breath from Lake City business to update their manual and test powders like IMR8208 XBR that would be equally as awesome. You are trying to take what I say and pull it WAY out of context. Yet I STILL never told ANYONE to do anything unsafe, nor do I do anything unsafe in my practices. However your "Good enough if it clears a case gauge" leaves alot to be worried about. Yet I've never taken what you post and take it out of context and try to tell everyone else you don't know what your talking about. You still never answered all of my questions, which is fine. I expected that. I still would like to know though how a round that was created inside the "Standards established by 1 load book manufacture" can out of the blue become "Outside SAAMI specs established by a 2nd load book manufacture"? and how a round that I know not to be over pressure can out of the blue become "Outside SAAMI specs" just because 1 company's book says it is while I've shot thousands of rounds of that load and know it to be a safe round? I also want to know why you put too much faith into a company who's 'Found out their published charge weights were WAY over SAAMI specs", but you are trying to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about when using a load that was established whthin specs of several load manuals at the time and since is "Over max spec" of most of the new load manuals, but is a load that not only me but 1000's of other people have shot hundreds of thousands of round of and there are no pressure issues? Look, you want to buy a new load book every year and change your establishes safe loads around what the ever changing load books say, you have my blessing. God knows with your other "Good Enough" practices, you need all the safety buffer you can get. I'll keep using the load manuals as a REFERENCE which is all they were designed to be anyway, and keep loading my KNOWN safe loads. I still believe Loadbooks to be a good purchase for a reference point if one already owns atleast 1 loading manual. -Masta |
|
First of all. Premise of Maryland_Shooters OP is soliciting advice for a new reloading manual.
Now you are three ways sideways and dancing in circles. I have answered your questions as best I comprehend them. Do this..... Stop the tail chasing. List your questions in numerical order. I am more than happy to answer them in numerical order given. |
|
Quoted:
First of all. Premise of Maryland_Shooters OP is soliciting advice for a new reloading manual. Now you are three ways sideways and dancing in circles. I have answered your questions as best I comprehend them. Do this..... Stop the tail chasing. List your questions in numerical order. I am more than happy to answer them in numerical order given. Your an idiot. I couldn't be any more clear. Welcome to my ignore list. I'm not wasting more time typing to you. Because it's obviously a complete waste of time. -Masta |
|
"MastaMarksman", Overall I would say you are the idiot. You and the mods can take this as a personal attack if you want. I don't care much what happens to my account on this site lately. Just trying to save some new reloaders a lot of pain.
Now I will say I agree strongly with one of your points. A manual is a reference or guidline. Not a "bible" as you put it. For new reloaders that don't understand the evils beyond book max, it does need to be a "bible". When you can understand the physics of reloading and recognize pressure signs then go ahead and push the envelope. I will be the first to tell you that Sierra is very conservative with their reloading data. When I called Sierra about an accuracy node that I had well above book max with no pressure signs I was told the only thing he can tell me is to go no further than their max load. For liability purposes I get it, "go past this and there be demons". I've had great accuracy nodes a full two grains and almost 200 fps faster than book max in my .308. No pressure signs on brass whatsoever, velocity right where I wanted it. Hell the Sierra manual says max load with 175 SMK with Varget (probably the most popular precision .308 load know to man) is 41.7 gns of Varget going 2500 fps out of a 26'' tube. You can ask anyone in the precision rifle world what their node is and they will tell you it's between 43.5-44.5 gns. I was getting a good node at 44.3 gns going around 2600 fps out of a 20'' tube. My 208 AMAX load is even more ridiculous. Now I'm done agreeing with you and on to my next point.... You state that powder is powder, seating depth is seating depth and they never change. This is where you couldn't be more worng. First off lets say you buy an 8 lb keg of powder and it lasts you a year. The next year you buy a new keg. Powder changes from lot to lot. This is why I buy powder in bulk and write down the lot. I've known Varget to vary as much as two grains from lot to lot. A guy develops a a load that shoots great. buys a new keg of powder and can't figure out why he's getting sticky bolt lift or flattened primers. I'm not saying develop a new load every time you buy powder or a new manual like you said, but I will definitely dial it down a little. How much depends on how cautious you are. Then I work back up to my original load. OAL. You honestly think that every OAL of every bullet is the same? That makes me wonder why every serious rifle reloader measures from the ogive. It's because of the inconsistency of the bullet. I don't care if its a HPBT, FMJBT, PPBT etc. They will vary. Measeure a few sometime. I won't even get into seating depth because we all know that no precision rifle shooter loads their .308 at 2.800''. I've known people to load em out past 3.00'' with good results. I like 2.865'' most of the time. Just don't tell Sierra. I like having a surplus of manuals. I recently started loading an odd ball .40 cal lead load that I couldn't find data for. I looked through a few manuals and asked for the help of a fellow reloader and we averaged the little data we found and developed the most accurate .40 load we both have ever seen. Anytime you operate outside of SAAMI spec the load is unsafe. Whether or not you decide to do this is up to you and your cost to benifit ratio. Please feel free to add myself and more informative advice to your ignore list. It would just break my heart. OP, get as many books as you want. Each one will come in handy at some point. |
|
Quoted:
Now I will say I agree strongly with one of your points. A manual is a reference or guidline. Not a "bible" as you put it. For new reloaders that don't understand the evils beyond book max, it does need to be a "bible". When you can understand the physics of reloading and recognize pressure signs then go ahead and push the envelope. I will be the first to tell you that Sierra is very conservative with their reloading data. When I called Sierra about an accuracy node that I had well above book max with no pressure signs I was told the only thing he can tell me is to go no further than their max load. For liability purposes I get it, "go past this and there be demons". rogue4: This is exactly what I said... About 20 different times. 1911smith just likes to try and twist what I say and throw it back in my face. Notice he added NOTHING in all his posts that was in any way helpfull to anyone. I was trying to give him examples of how he was wrong, but instead of reading what I wrote and answering my questions, he decided to argue with everything I said. My point has been the same threw the whole post.. A load manual should be used as a REFERENCE. Nothing more, nothing less. My other points were that how can an established load that is known to be not over press, out of the blue become over pressure just because 1 load manual changes their max load data? He decided to attack me and tell me I was unsafe and aiming to hurt myself and/or others. I said NOTHING to promote anyone to do anything unsafe, nor did I lead on to say that I did anything that was unsafe. My load is/was within a load manuals 'max load' at some point, but along the way they have scaled WAY back and so my question still remains the same... If my load was within "spec" of a load manual say 5 years ago, how then does it become "Out of spec" in today's version, yet myself as well as many thousands of others have shot this exact load, many hundreds of thousands of rounds of it and it is a proven load that is no where near over pressure? These were my points, I had to keep repeating them because 1911smith was chaising his tail trying to divert my questions and make dumb accuations toward me. Hopefully this makes things more clear? -Masta |
Armory Sponsor