Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > Ammunition-Gunsmithing > Reloading
Forum Register Expert Commentary Members List


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-06-2011, 01:47 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default "BEST" Reloading manual?

I'm on the hunt for another good reloading manual / load source for mainly pistol loads, with a good smattering of load data for light rifle (223) info. I have Lee and Lyman manuals and the 38 special load handbook along with Hodgson and Alliant handbooks. I'm not at all impressed with the load info for 38 and 357 in Lyman's. Actually, the Lee handbook is the most comprehensive, but there are bits of misinformation between 231 and HP-38 loads in some areas. The Hornady manual seems to get a lot of negative reviews, so I passed on that one.
What is a sincerely good loading manual to look into?
RR
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-06-2011, 02:08 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: \'ell if I know
Posts: 782
Likes: 0
Liked 215 Times in 133 Posts
Default

Because I use a lot of Hornady Bullets, I like their manual. The Lee manual is just a compilation of info from other manuals. Since W231 and HP-38 are known to be the same powder, I assume the Lee info is old. I have the Speer manual also cause I use a lot of their bullets also, but find their info and Hornady's are similar. I use the Hodgdon website quite a bit too....never heard of Hodgson.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-06-2011, 02:16 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by buck460XVR View Post
Because I use a lot of Hornady Bullets, I like their manual. The Lee manual is just a compilation of info from other manuals. Since W231 and HP-38 are known to be the same powder, I assume the Lee info is old. I have the Speer manual also cause I use a lot of their bullets also, but find their info and Hornady's are similar. I use the Hodgdon website quite a bit too....never heard of Hodgson.
Right - Hodgdon (sp).
RR
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-06-2011, 02:18 PM
SWCA Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 3,057
Likes: 107
Liked 371 Times in 180 Posts
Default

There is no one do-it-all manual. Lyman 49th is the closest I have found to that. The Lyman manual along with online reloading data gives me everything I need.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-06-2011, 02:19 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,204
Likes: 4,089
Liked 4,029 Times in 2,236 Posts
Default

They ALL have something to offer.

If you shoot lead get the Lyman Cast Bullet manual.

The Speer Manual is very good also.

I like the new Hornady Manual, not that I use many of their bullets other the a few XTP's but do use it for bolt action 223 Rem.
__________________
Occam's Razor
NRA, RSO
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-06-2011, 04:02 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 4,145
Likes: 2,525
Liked 1,544 Times in 830 Posts
Default

Just try to verify loading info with a second source.

PRINTING ERRORS HAVE OCCURRED.

Be careful of internet loading advice, Some of it is definitely JUNK, even dangerous. Everything on the net is not GOSPEL.
__________________
NRA Pistol/Rifle Inst. RSO
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-06-2011, 04:26 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hoosier Land!
Posts: 4,389
Likes: 587
Liked 499 Times in 274 Posts
Default

I LIKE THE SPEER #8, BUT WHAT DO I KNOW!


The Lee's are the most comprehensive, but they are also an advertisement for their product. If you can wade through that, get it.

Actually, when I START on a load, I ALWAYS start with the powder manufacturer's data and all of it can be had online. Now, I may, no, I do, venture way away from that BUT that is where I START.

(I hope I made that clear about where I START, not where I end up!)

Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-06-2011, 06:36 PM
Paul5388's Avatar
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Rusk Co. Texas
Posts: 1,326
Likes: 0
Liked 19 Times in 15 Posts
Default

I like Speer #8 enough that I have both editions!

Other than those, I like the Lyman offerings, Cast Bullet Handbook, 48th and 49th editions. I have 3 or 4 Hornady's, but they don't do much for me. Lee is just for a quick check and then see if I can find their information somewhere else including the rest of the needed information.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-06-2011, 08:40 PM
TAROMAN's Avatar
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The wet side of Oregon
Posts: 4,250
Likes: 2,551
Liked 2,700 Times in 1,095 Posts
Default

I have a shelf full of manuals. Most used are:
#1 Lyman Cast
#2 Hornady
Of course, I shoot mostly revolvers w/....cast bullets!
__________________
-jwk-
US Army '72-'95
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-06-2011, 09:00 PM
johnjohn's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Baton Rouge La.
Posts: 89
Likes: 1
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Default

I have Lyman and Lee, and much prefer Lyman.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-06-2011, 10:10 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 333
Likes: 248
Liked 62 Times in 42 Posts
Default

Getting the manual from the manufacturer of the bullets you use most makes sense to me. Partly because that's the only way to have some confidence in suggested COAL.

I have Hornady and Lyman manuals. The "Service Rifle" section in Hornady's is unique and you need it if reloading for an M1 Garrand or M14/M1A variant. However, I wish Hornady listed pressure data like others do. Lyman manual seems useful mostly for lead bullets.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-07-2011, 04:03 AM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Arequipa, Peru
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Good morning
Get Ken Waters two volume set... will cover most everything there is from low to same max velocities. Mike in Peru
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-07-2011, 05:09 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 122
Likes: 26
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Default

for handguns data :

1) speer manual
2) Lyman Handgun manual
3) Hornady manual

for rifle data (your 223)

1) Sierra manual
2) Speer
3) Nosler

Guy -
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-07-2011, 06:44 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: W. NC
Posts: 662
Likes: 38
Liked 114 Times in 57 Posts
Default

I've been buying Missouri Bullet Co. and Dardas Cast bullets, is the Lyman Cast Manual still a good resource? Or,is it all about their (Lyman's) moulds and bullets?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-07-2011, 07:42 AM
Maximumbob54's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: JAX, FL
Posts: 7,073
Likes: 7,671
Liked 1,635 Times in 918 Posts
Default

I really don't think there is a "best" reloading manual. And I agree with the above comment on COAL when it involves bullet seating depth. Then you have to sort through the reviews of the various products. I don't see very many negative reviews of the Hornady books unless you listen to the talk about how they don't have very much data that doesn't involve their own bullets. I can't say that is really a bad thing or a good thing, it's just something to know before you buy that book. The Speer books are very similar in that they give the bulk of the data to cover their own bullets. So if you don’t like the Hornady books then you very likely won’t care for the Speer books either. I know the Castboolits guy trash talk both the Lyman reloading book and the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook. My view is that they do it for the same reason that many guys trash talk most modern reloading data. Everyone seems to think that published data these days had been written by lawyers and not shooters. My take on that thought is that we used CUP data for a long time. From what I have read up about how CUP is measured, it isn’t a very exact science. Now we are using PSI as measured from some fairly high tech and pretty accurate machines that cost a boatload of money. So load data used to be not so accurate, there are a lot of worn to heck revolvers out there, and you still get the guys that want to keep adding more powder until they see flattened primers, and the Ruger/TC/BFR type guys demand still more lightening to come from their barrels. So I think this becomes another case of “You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”…

All of that being said, I’m slowly buying all the manuals that I find. I recently burned myself by not checking all of those that I have and went ahead and loaded some possible +P to +P+ type ammo. I even weenie out this last weekend on even trying a couple. I just boxed them up and set them aside for further thought later. Then I tried loading some .223 using data from the Hornady book. Did all the case prep, started to dump some powder, looked in the loading block, and there were lots of uneven levels. I poured a bunch of them into the 505 scale only to find they were all pretty spot on. It’s the cases that have the pretty wild difference in volume. And that isn’t covered by loading data in any book that I have.

I’m even working on my own personal reloading book. I write down what components I use in what loads and when I find a load that works well in one or more of my guns then I write that down. I write down that a load in my Combat Magnum works great but my Security Six doesn’t like that load. I write that my tumble lube bullets work great in this revolver and this rifle, but they lead in this or that gun. I write pretty much anything and everything down that I can think of for review later. Call it OCD, I just enjoy my reloading time and seeing the end results.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-07-2011, 08:22 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hoosier Land!
Posts: 4,389
Likes: 587
Liked 499 Times in 274 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximumbob54 View Post
And I agree with the above comment on COAL when it involves bullet seating depth.
If you get this, you got it when it comes to loading cartridges. OAL means NOTHING unless you understand seating depth. Same weight bullets, similar profiles, can have very different seating depths with the same cartridge OAL.

Since I am an electrical/electronics/engineering technician, I KNOW that not everything electrical or of an electronic nature is as fool proof as we tend to believe.

Stuff like that is only as good as the individual calibrating or the tools used to calibrate them are. That being said, there has been some dumbing down of data, for whatever reason. The old data can still be used if you take note of what firearm you are shooting them out of. If it is yours and rated for the caliber, of a newer manufacturing date, then you just might be able to push the envelope. Case in point: 38Spl in a new revolver rated for 38spl +P ammo or even a 357Mag revolver. Another case in point: 44Spl data from the Elmer days can be safely used in a 44Mag revolver or possibly even a new 44Spl that is made today.

The real problem that comes to mind is when folks try to go out on their own and decide that if xxgr of uber fast powder gives xxxxfps then certainly just a bit more will give xxxx+100fps and it just doesn't work that way. Sometimes, depending on powder, those few extra tenths of a grain can push pressures through the roof, or, through your cylinder as the case may be.


I am going to go out on a limb here but, of the current manuals, there isn't one that has data in it that will blow up a gun that is in fine working order. Flattened primers? Hard extraction? Have a KB in an automatic? Yeah, all of that. Send a gun into oblivion? Um, I strongly doubt it.

Just me though and YMMV and so might your opinion!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-07-2011, 08:31 AM
Maximumbob54's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: JAX, FL
Posts: 7,073
Likes: 7,671
Liked 1,635 Times in 918 Posts
Default

I use the Lee book for data from time to time and I still think it is the worst one as far as "best data". I'm not big on their view of "lead bullet" vs. "jacketed bullet" data. I find that this data almost never gives you a seating depth for the crimp groove to be used and sometimes just seems really far off. I get the feeling that this wild seating depth issue they have is the reason they seem to have their auto disk loads dropping pretty light loads. I could just be making this up, but they do give pretty light loads.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-07-2011, 10:52 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Eastern Washington
Posts: 81
Likes: 376
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Default

I have used Nosler reloading guides and a 1973 Hornady guide for years and find no fault with either one.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-08-2011, 12:39 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,204
Likes: 4,089
Liked 4,029 Times in 2,236 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximumbob54 View Post
I use the Lee book for data from time to time and I still think it is the worst one as far as "best data". I'm not big on their view of "lead bullet" vs. "jacketed bullet" data. I find that this data almost never gives you a seating depth for the crimp groove to be used and sometimes just seems really far off. I get the feeling that this wild seating depth issue they have is the reason they seem to have their auto disk loads dropping pretty light loads. I could just be making this up, but they do give pretty light loads.
The Lee "loads" are not from Lee at all. They are compiled from other known sources as they were tested by the powder company, bullet maker or whatever at some time in the past.So it is not their data that is "light"
It's nice to have them all in one place for comparison. They do not list OAL but do list Min length to avoid people seating to deep and causing problems.

The auto disc cavities are just holes of certain volume, they hold what they hold. Different powder lots will vary by lot, humidity etc. The "chart" for the discs or dippers is what they got at the time and lot used, some are pretty close other are way off.

Seating depth is best determined by testing in the barrel and adjusting powder charges if needed.

I have yet to find a seating depth or OAL for a lead round nose 9mm bullet that will chamber in my CZ's or Browning HP. They need to be seated much shorter due to the short leade in the barrel.

As I mentioned previously, all the manuals have something of use. Take what you can use or want and disregard the rest. I use 2-3 plus the powder company before arriving at loading something the first few times.
__________________
Occam's Razor
NRA, RSO
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-08-2011, 06:47 AM
Maximumbob54's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: JAX, FL
Posts: 7,073
Likes: 7,671
Liked 1,635 Times in 918 Posts
Default

I guess I could have explained my thought a little better. If you look at the data in the Lee book, use the cavity in the Auto Disk they say to use, you will always find that the volume of the cavity throws a rather light load in the data they print. Yes, they get their data from everyone else, but they add their dipper/Auto Disk data to it since that is where many dipper/Auto Disk users go for their data. It hasn’t been my experience that there are many custom made dipper users out there. You find the occasional person that has taken a 9mm and either trimmed the case or filled it with epoxy to get the load they want with their pet powder but that’s pretty rare. So when I say they publish light loads, I meant with the Auto Disk and dippers.

And I just don’t care for the idea of a “minimum OAL” but it must work. I may be a bit too OCD for that one.

I never mean to sound argumentative, I’m just trying to share my point of view or perspective. I do appreciate being corrected when I am flat out wrong.

Oh, and I cast Lee's TL356-124 and it feeds and shoots in my BHP just fine. It's a truncated cone bullet and I have yet to see one deform as it feeds into the chamber. PM your address and the next time I cast some I can mail you a few to try out. They are tumble lube though. Their other TC version is the standard lube groove mold and is a bit lighter and shorter and may be even better.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-08-2011, 10:18 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,204
Likes: 4,089
Liked 4,029 Times in 2,236 Posts
Default

The thing about Min OAL is just a safety thing, to never go below that with the listed powder charge or bad things can/will happen.

Never took it as argumentative, just us talking (typing here)

When I first started loading, I used dippers and made a lot of custom ones by grinding down shell casings and gluing on little handles.

It seems for the auto discs the finer powders are a lot closer to the chart then the flake. Powders like Blue Dot, Unique are probably 2-3 discs different in my batches.

I tried the micrometer thing but for small charges it's useless.

I just find a disc that is close to what I really want and live with it. If the max load is 6.0 grs and all I can get is 5.5 it works for me. The paper can't tell.
__________________
Occam's Razor
NRA, RSO
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-08-2011, 11:02 AM
Maximumbob54's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: JAX, FL
Posts: 7,073
Likes: 7,671
Liked 1,635 Times in 918 Posts
Default

Over All Length and Seating Depth…

I still don’t get it. I don’t see why they don’t tell you that you need X amount of case volume remaining with Y powder amount for Z named powder. I can only assume there is enough “give” to work with since it doesn’t seem to be a problem.

But then some guys say not to use .44 special data using magnum cases since the case volume is different. If that is the case then why not just seat the bullet a bit further in the case??? A slight crimp at the edge should hold in most any .44 bullet loaded at .44 special pressures. But this isn’t done.

It just seems that you should really know the “Maximum Seating Depth” for any powder used since that has more influence on pressure in a bad way. Seat deep and pressure jumps up, seat too far out and there may be not enough pressure and leave a bullet in the barrel.

But again, I guess there is enough tolerance worked into the load data to cover this. And deep down I really do know I’m being OCD about it.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-08-2011, 11:29 AM
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: up-state SC
Posts: 726
Likes: 30
Liked 32 Times in 23 Posts
Default

I try to use a current manual by the manufacturer of the bullet I am loading. When possible I back that up with info by the powder manufacturer.

I do not use data posted by individuals on the net. They do not have proper pressure testing equipment and most of the time they don't have anymore experience than I do.

I find the reloading articles in Reloader magazine and Rifle usefull and I keep all issues of both for reference material. I have Pet Loads, but because it is dated I only use the starting load data.

I have seen some pretty serious injurys due to reloading mistakes in my 40 years of reloading. I have also seen a good many wrecked firearms where there were no injuries. All this has me convinced that there is a reloading angel that watches over us as a group. I am much more fussy about the data I use these days and if I find myself wanting more performance from a gun than the manuals show, then I buy or trade for another gun that will give that performance to me, without the risk. My eyes, fingers, hands etc...are just too darn valuable to risk them like I did back when.

Choose your reloading data sources carefully.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-08-2011, 01:12 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,204
Likes: 4,089
Liked 4,029 Times in 2,236 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximumbob54 View Post
Over All Length and Seating Depth…



It just seems that you should really know the “Maximum Seating Depth” for any powder used since that has more influence on pressure in a bad way. Seat deep and pressure jumps up, seat too far out and there may be not enough pressure and leave a bullet in the barrel.
Isn't that just another way of saying Minimum OAL??

Don't seat your bullets lower than the Min OAL or you will kabom! Anything over, up to Saami Max is OK.

Look at Hodgdons data for say the 230 gr bullet in 45 ACP every dang one of them is 1.200 for every powder.

I asked them about this and was told for testing, keeping them all the same to determine a safe length no matter what bullet so everything is consistent and we do not blow ourselves up (not in those exact words)

Same reason they use Mag primers for any mag load even though the powder does not require it.
__________________
Occam's Razor
NRA, RSO
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-08-2011, 01:16 PM
Maximumbob54's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: JAX, FL
Posts: 7,073
Likes: 7,671
Liked 1,635 Times in 918 Posts
Default

So what happens with a longer bullet?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-08-2011, 03:09 PM
GCF GCF is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Corpus Christi, TX
Posts: 478
Likes: 1
Liked 108 Times in 64 Posts
Default

I like the Lee, because I find it to be the most comprehensive, & because they list powders in order of most likely accuracy.

Some cartridges like 45-70, are broken down into multiple levels, such as old time, Marlin 1895, & Ruger No.1.

They also list a fair amount of applicable cast bullet data.

I load a lot of Nosler rifle bullets, & find that their manual can be helpful - but not the last word. Their 5th, does not even list the best to date (IMHO) bughole accuracy powder, RL-22, for 25-06. Had to go back to Lee, for that one.

Lyman always gets a look, but I always compare their data to Lee (& others) - for starters.

W/ regards to COL, conventional wisdom for rifle loads, is "close to the lands". I've found that the ammo manufacturers have done a good bit of the work for us - w/ their "premium" ammo lines. Federal Gold Match 308, & WW Supreme are good examples. The 25-06, WW Supreme (Nosler 117CT) shoots well in a variety of rifles. Couldn't tell you what powder they use, but I "stole" their COL of 3.185" (way off the lands), & use it for Nosler 100BT, 115BT, & the older 120SB.

If I ever break down & buy a couple of boxes of their .257" 110AB, 3.185" will be my starting point. I'd be willing to bet lunch that in the end, it will be the magic number for that Nosler bullet too.

There is no "last word" for loading data. Too many variables. As always, no matter who's data, the best policy is to start low / work up slow, think things through FIRST, & pay very close attention to the details...

Now, let's go burn some powder!
__________________
Regards - GCF
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-08-2011, 04:58 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 376
Likes: 5
Liked 36 Times in 24 Posts
Default

One cannot have too many manuals. Lee's is very useful but some powder makers were publishing horrible wimmpy loads when itr was compiled. Lyman's is very good especially for those of us who love cast bullets. Single most useful with usefull comparisons ofpowder performance taken in the same barrel? I'd vote for Hodgdon #26.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-09-2011, 05:25 AM
Jeff423's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: St. Louis County, MO
Posts: 478
Likes: 149
Liked 53 Times in 36 Posts
Default

www.loaddata.com
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-09-2011, 10:14 AM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Show-Me State
Posts: 252
Likes: 18
Liked 16 Times in 15 Posts
Default

Lyman 1967 Edition
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-09-2011, 01:29 PM
trulyapostolic's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: North Central, Indiana
Posts: 214
Likes: 6
Liked 23 Times in 16 Posts
Default

I've got several different manuals, but they're all used as starting points. I only have 1 firearm, out of the last 20 I've loaded for, that came close to duplicating what the load books would state.
Not to be rude to anyone on this board, but it is quite comical to read about different loads that people assume are +P just because that's what the manual states. I've developed loads for my 44 and 357 that would scare some of these folks if I shared them. But, the loads have been tailored to my gun while very carefully looking for pressure signs. With that being said, load books are nice starting points.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 11-09-2011, 04:37 PM
GCF GCF is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Corpus Christi, TX
Posts: 478
Likes: 1
Liked 108 Times in 64 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trulyapostolic View Post

...load books are nice starting points.
1+

Also worth mention, that any listed "max" data, could conceivably be over the line - for a particular gun / bullet / powder combination.

Nothing is chiseled in stone...
__________________
Regards - GCF
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-10-2011, 02:54 PM
trulyapostolic's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: North Central, Indiana
Posts: 214
Likes: 6
Liked 23 Times in 16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GCF View Post
1+

Also worth mention, that any listed "max" data, could conceivably be over the line - for a particular gun / bullet / powder combination.

Nothing is chiseled in stone...
Absolutely, always start low and work up.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-10-2011, 03:04 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hoosier Land!
Posts: 4,389
Likes: 587
Liked 499 Times in 274 Posts
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rule3 View Post
Isn't that just another way of saying Minimum OAL??
Nope, the two are not the same thing, not even close UNLESS you are talking about the same, exact bullet.

Same weight bullets can be VERY different in length.

These two bullets are the same weight and have the same "type" of nose. With the same OAL, which is going to have the deeper seating depth?




Okay, say you build your load with the shorter bullet, the one that gives you less in the case and your load is a "real" maximum (not one from a book). Say you seat to the same OAL but use the longer bullet AND your thought process is "Aren't they the same".

You are flirting with a problem friend and someone that is loading ammunition, needs to understand the difference.

FWIW
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-10-2011, 03:38 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,204
Likes: 4,089
Liked 4,029 Times in 2,236 Posts
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by smith crazy View Post
Nope, the two are not the same thing, not even close UNLESS you are talking about the same, exact bullet.

Same weight bullets can be VERY different in length.

These two bullets are the same weight and have the same "type" of nose. With the same OAL, which is going to have the deeper seating depth?




Okay, say you build your load with the shorter bullet, the one that gives you less in the case and your load is a "real" maximum (not one from a book). Say you seat to the same OAL but use the longer bullet AND your thought process is "Aren't they the same".

You are flirting with a problem friend and someone that is loading ammunition, needs to understand the difference.

FWIW
Well since the "Maximum seating" depth is not published anywhere that I know of (this is all for naught) and we are talking about the Lee published loads which do not list a specific bullet in many cases, then you do not want to go shorter than their published min OAL.

In the Lee data only the bullet weight is listed other than a few XTP's. The Min OAL is shown to change based on the powder.

In your two bullets shown, not knowing or even knowing what bullet it is (say one is Berry and one is Rainer) show me where the data for those exact bullet is???

As I mentioned, look at Hodgdons 45 ACP 230 gr. It just says 230gr bullet either FMJ FP or Lead RN and they are ALL 1.200, regardless of powder.

Now, are all those bullets the same length??????????
__________________
Occam's Razor
NRA, RSO
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-10-2011, 03:54 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hoosier Land!
Posts: 4,389
Likes: 587
Liked 499 Times in 274 Posts
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rule3 View Post
In your two bullets shown, not knowing or even knowing what bullet it is (say one is Berry and one is Rainer) show me where the data for those exact bullet is???

As I mentioned, look at Hodgdons 45 ACP 230 gr. It just says 230gr bullet either FMJ FP or Lead RN and they are ALL 1.200, regardless of powder.

Now, are all those bullets the same length??????????
The "EXACT" data is known for very FEW bullets, unless you want to go down the "Speer Manual" trail again!

Those are a Ranier and a Berry as you have well guessed and what does each site say to use for their bullets? Right, lead bullet data, the EXACT data for that EXACT bullet! (Don't go OCD on me here!)

This is where the loader has to be smarter than the published data! If you loaded one bullet and then switched, YOU aren't going to find that information in ANY manual! YOU have to know what you are doing and how x affects y. Otherwise, you are always going to be held captive by book loads that keep getting weaker and weaker.

Just my rant.................done now...................
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-10-2011, 03:55 PM
GCF GCF is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Corpus Christi, TX
Posts: 478
Likes: 1
Liked 108 Times in 64 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smith crazy View Post

Same weight bullets can be VERY different in length.

FWIW
At the risk of butting in, here is a good example. A couple of 41 cal / 250 grainers from CP.

If no COL is given - & all a guy considers is listed data for a 250 grain cast... ;=]

41/250gr. WFNGC .410 dia 100 Count

41/250gr. WFNPB .410 dia 100 Count
__________________
Regards - GCF
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-10-2011, 04:33 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Default

I was told by a tech at Sierra bullets that their manual was not a recipe book but rather a report on how different loads performed on a particular day. Sounded good to me, and made me look at loading manuals in a different light.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-10-2011, 07:38 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hoosier Land!
Posts: 4,389
Likes: 587
Liked 499 Times in 274 Posts
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by snake charmer View Post
I was told by a tech at Sierra bullets that their manual was not a recipe book but rather a report on how different loads performed on a particular day. Sounded good to me, and made me look at loading manuals in a different light.
Semantics. What did they use on that day? The recipe they printed for us to look at!
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-10-2011, 07:42 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hoosier Land!
Posts: 4,389
Likes: 587
Liked 499 Times in 274 Posts
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rule3 View Post
Well since the "Maximum seating" depth is not published anywhere that I know of
Well, I used to have limited knowledge in this area too!

Just because WE don't know something, doesn't mean that it CAN'T be known or SHOULDN'T be known.

Check out Phil Sharpe's book on reloading and remember what I told you: "We used to know things but now, since we didn't pass them on, we think we are smarter and don't NEED to know them."

With that in mind, history will always be repeating itself!


Seriously, in Phil's data, one portion of it, "SEATING DEPTH"!

FWIW
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-10-2011, 07:57 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,204
Likes: 4,089
Liked 4,029 Times in 2,236 Posts
Default

Show me the DATA.

Lets take lead SWC bullets with a cannelure. There are lots and lots of them out there. All kinds of different molds and different folks making them.

Now unless it is some odd ball, how many re-loaders actually measure the OAL or seating depth of those Boolits??

Or, do they just seat them to the cannelure, crimp and if they fit the cylinder all is well?? Now are all those in what ever caliber the exact length boolit?? No they aren't.

In the Berrys, Rainer example, IMHO the slight difference in total bullet length would not make a dangerous difference, even up to a max listed load for lead or 1/2 the fmj depending on what you believe. I have shot thousands of Berrys at FNJ loads and had no problems. I do not have either so can not measure the few mil variance

No, I do believe that is why so many think that the load manuals and powder companies have anemic load data.

I believe in their wisdom they have developed the loads and used certain OAL (like 1.200) for all 230 gr 45 ACP so their fine customers do not blow themselves up.
__________________
Occam's Razor
NRA, RSO
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 11-10-2011, 08:58 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hoosier Land!
Posts: 4,389
Likes: 587
Liked 499 Times in 274 Posts
Default

Read this first:
http://www.darkcanyon.net/And_the_angels_sing.htm
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11-10-2011, 09:00 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hoosier Land!
Posts: 4,389
Likes: 587
Liked 499 Times in 274 Posts
Default

Then you will be ready to handle this: (grasshopper)
http://www.bbhfarm.com/gallery/album28/aab?full=1
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11-10-2011, 09:04 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hoosier Land!
Posts: 4,389
Likes: 587
Liked 499 Times in 274 Posts
Default

"WE" (us handloaders) used to KNOW this!

In the vernacular of today: "Just sayin'"
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 11-10-2011, 11:44 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,204
Likes: 4,089
Liked 4,029 Times in 2,236 Posts
Default

Master, it is most interesting but has Diddly Do Da on what we originally had been discussing.

In another vernacular "What Ever"
__________________
Occam's Razor
NRA, RSO

Last edited by Rule3; 10-02-2013 at 02:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 11-11-2011, 04:20 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hoosier Land!
Posts: 4,389
Likes: 587
Liked 499 Times in 274 Posts
Default

Cop out. Folks do that as a defensive measure when their argument has been proven wrong! Not a psychologist, just an observer over time!
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 11-11-2011, 06:17 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hoosier Land!
Posts: 4,389
Likes: 587
Liked 499 Times in 274 Posts
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by GCF View Post
At the risk of butting in, here is a good example. A couple of 41 cal / 250 grainers from CP.

If no COL is given - & all a guy considers is listed data for a 250 grain cast... ;=]

41/250gr. WFNGC .410 dia 100 Count

41/250gr. WFNPB .410 dia 100 Count
This is a good point, but just a little different than what I am saying. This does show why folks like Elmer Keith developed his famous bullets. Get more out of the case than in the case.

I am speaking more about when you aren't loading to a crimp groove. The big "what if" is what happens when you seat the same bullet deeper.

Thanks for the input and you are not butting in........
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 11-11-2011, 06:32 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hoosier Land!
Posts: 4,389
Likes: 587
Liked 499 Times in 274 Posts
Default



Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 11-11-2011, 09:21 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,204
Likes: 4,089
Liked 4,029 Times in 2,236 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smith crazy View Post
Cop out. Folks do that as a defensive measure when their argument has been proven wrong! Not a psychologist, just an observer over time!
It's not a cop out. I never disagreed that seating a bullet deeper will increase pressure. I agree with that.

But you yourself have copped out by not giving an answer to my questions, instead have redirected the conversation to some data from 1937 (not that it's wrong because it's old) showing a extreme difference in seating depth and exceeding 35,000 psi which would just be dumb.

I do like your little graphics and hope you did not spend all night on them.

So, time to move on. Good Day.
__________________
Occam's Razor
NRA, RSO
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 11-11-2011, 03:14 PM
Maximumbob54's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: JAX, FL
Posts: 7,073
Likes: 7,671
Liked 1,635 Times in 918 Posts
Default

I hope I'm not to blame for all this discontent. I think it should be a given that if you seat the bullet deeper then it will decrease the case volume which will increase the pressure. The fact that seating depth isn't widely published data kind of eludes me. However, the fact that people aren't blowing themselves up seems to indicate that it isn't quite the big deal that I think it may be. Either way, this is part of the reason (IMHO) that we are routinely told to back off ten percent and not all load data is safe or intended for all guns.

Personally, I have found this whole conversation interesting. I love the old manual in the pic.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 11-11-2011, 04:02 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Intelligent debate can be educational . I enjoy this information and the essays .
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
223, 38spl, 45acp, browning, cartridge, crimp, hornady, m14, micrometer, model 14, model 19, nosler, ruger, sig arms

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Reloading Thread, "BEST" Reloading manual? in Ammunition-Gunsmithing; I'm on the hunt for another good reloading manual / load source for mainly pistol loads, with a good smattering ...
LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: http://smith-wessonforum.com/reloading/216189-best-reloading-manual.html
Posted By For Type Date
Thread Hornady 8th Edition Reloading Manual | S-W Forum | BoardReader This thread Refback 05-04-2012 09:25 PM

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"The S&W Revolver: A Shop Manual" by Jerry Kuhnhausen...can't seem to track one down? Robinett_11B S&W-Smithing 33 04-16-2014 01:55 AM
Looking for S&W Model 3000 12-Gauge One-Sheet Users "Manual" Professor Bop Smith & Wesson Long Guns 2 02-05-2013 10:44 PM
WTB: 6" 27-2 & 5" 27-3 Presentation Boxes + Cleaning Kit/Manual/etc ... miamitj WANTED to Buy 6 06-26-2011 05:11 PM
DON'T LET ME HANG HERE. LOOKING FOR "OWNERS MANUAL FOR LADYSMITH MODEL 3914 PISTOL" Swissman The Lounge 2 01-31-2010 08:06 AM
Need Model 547 Manual "FOUND" HEADKNOCKER S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present 3 10-09-2009 09:04 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:49 PM.


© S-W Forum, LLC 2000-2015
Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)