Quick question....I noticed on here alot of you guys like to buy older reloading manuals. I came across a Speer #10 manual today tucked away in a corner of a local pawn shop. It was not priced..what is the reason for buying older manuals and what is it worth. Thanks in advance.

__________________
You'll shoot your eye out kid

Older manuals, the Speer #8 in particular, have powder charges listed that are higher than anything more recent. Some say it's due to the fact that there wasn't all the litigation that there is now. That is partially true, but a lot of older data was created without the use of presssure guns since they are costly pieces if equipment. It was worked up by checking for what was once considered normal signs of excess pressure. Nowdays, a lot of the old "pressure check" methods have been proven totally unreliable in labs while using a pressure gun. There are just too many variables from gun to gun, loading practice to loading practice, for the old ways of checking pressure to be very accurate. (There was an article in Handloader magazine about a lot of this, just a couple of years ago, I still have it somewhere)Also, SAAMI has lowered the maximum average pressure of a lot of rounds from what they were back then, which leads to lower listed powder charges in the newer manuals.

Some loads listed even today are not pressure tested by most labs. The 340 Weatherby comes to mind instantly. Very few labs have a pressure gun for that round, which is why its ballistics from the manuals doesn't really seem any better than that for the 338 Win. I have owned several of both (still own a 340), and can tell you that with proper loads, that were worked up in a lab pressure gun, there's as big a difference between it and the 338, as there is between the 30-06, and the 300 Weatherby/300 RUM. Quite a bit in other words.

I don't really feel like answering the questions you ask, because they would call for more conversation than I can undertake at the moment. I write only to warn you to not go near the Blue Dot maximums with .357 loads in that book - two friends and I have all had the same disturbing experiences with them.

And I'm not an especially conservative handloader . . .

__________________
Now go make God proud...

One can't have too many manuals. Some people are particularly enamoured with old manuals that show much heavier loads for some cartridges than current manuals-interesting info but other readers will caustion that such data is suspect if pressure data isn't provided. The most relevant reason for seeking out older manuals is if a loader has a supply of discontinued powder......but as I said-one can't have too many manuals. Among other things seven data sources spanning 40 years showing a certain commonality, in max loads of say Unique with X bullet weight in Y cartridge gives a lot of confidence that a particular load will work without unpleasant surprises.

This really isn't true across the board. There are some real zingers in the older manuals, there are also some real duds. Look at the Lyman #44 for instance. It has some REALLY ANEMIC loads in it.

The reason that I, and I can only speak for me, get the older manuals when I can is for history, really. I like to know and study my hobby to the "inth" degree.

To say that is the only reason I have the older manuals would be a fallacy though. As mentioned in the post I quoted, our beloved SAAMI has reduced loads over time. I imagine some justifiably so, some not. I like to experiment with some of those that are above what is posted today and draw my own conclusions.

That being said, "THE LOAD" used to be a standard 38/44 load to be fired from an "N" frame revolver. I can say I have shot it with no ill affects.

Some of them have interesting articles too. I use them for data for old discontinued cartridges, but the problem there is most of the powders they used aren't available anymore.

As for price, I wouldn't think it would bring a whole lot of money, especially since it's never been put on a pedestal. You can go to bookfinder.com and get an idea of what people are asking for them, which doesn't always mean they are getting that much for them.

If it's tucked away in a corner,it'll probably be pretty cheap.If cheap enough,I'd buy it.I don't have a Speer #10 and I'd get it just for comparison purposes.I have manuals dating back over 40 years.

I bought a Speer #10 off Amazon.com a few years ago for only $6 in very good condition. (along with a Speer #8 and #12 for a similar price) I wouldn't pay much more than that even today.

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

The reason I keep my older manuals is that they have loads for powders in applications that current manuals don't. For example many of the older manuals have loads using Red Dot and Green Dot that many current manuals don't list though these powders are still being sold.

I've also picked up powders or have powders on hand that have been discontinued and are no longer available. Current data for them isn't to be found. While these powders are no longer sold they're still perfectly good for reloading and the only data you can find is in the older manuals.

I got a jolt recently when looking thru an old Speer #10 for 44 mag loads using Blue Dot. ( I had just bought some BD for "reduced" loads.) The manual listed a top load of 17.2 grs under a 240 gr jacketed bullet. Something told me to check on-line. Alliant Powder's site listed a charge weight of 13.7 grs. It didn't say starting or maximum just the one number. I loaded up just 3 rounds of each charge weight from 13.5 to (I cheated death) 13.9. I didn't see any signs of pressure and the recoil was relatively mild. The 13.5 chronoed at 1138 and the 13.9 turned in an average of 1177fps. I'm glad I checked because I'm not stupid enough to blindly run up to 17.2 grs if the manufacturer lists 13.7. I likened my experience to double checking an electrical circuit with an amp probe before touching a wire.