If any of you have this manual would you please tell me if it shows loading data for Remington bullets(9mm-38 Sp.-357 Mag)?
I called Remington and the lady told me that the Hodgdon and Lyman
manuals contained Remington bullets. I would like to know before I buy either. Thanks for any info.

I do not know about the Lyman Revolver manual but their regular Vol 49 does not mention Remington bullets.

The Hodgdon "manual" is more of a yearly magazine which has the same data as their web site which also does not mention Remington bullets. Mostly Speer and Hornady..

http://data.hodgdon.com/main_menu.asp

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

Manuals don't have to mention a bullet by name for you to reload for it. You need to look at type and weight of bullet to get your reloading info. For example,9mm, 124g, fmj, hp, etc.

I have that manual and just checked. I see no reference to Remington bullets, or any other bullet manufacturer for that matter. It just indicates bullet type, shape and weight.

Just an opinion, I've loaded for many years and I'd just load by bullet
type and weight and not worry about brand as long as you're not intent
on pushing the limits.

The Lyman manuals favor bullets cast from their moulds. The jacketed bullets are spelled out in the article section for each caliber. I don't have the manual you asked about but all of their other manuals work that way.

The above mentioned criteria for selecting charges based solely on bullets weight needs a little bit more explaining. It is true that staying below maximum limits may prove to be fine in most situations but bullet shape needs to be thought of as well. A 230gr LSWC is going to be longer than a LRN of the same weight. If I seat to the same OAL the longer bullet is much deeper in the case and that could cause a problem even with midrange loads. Maybe not with today's data though!

Of course, bearing surface and such needs to be figured into the equation too.

At any rate, we need to think in terms of seating depth coupled with OAL.

It lists the bullets, but there are no Remingtons in any of the calibers you asked about. But as others have stated you can use the data in it for their bullets so she was telling you the truth.

The bullet seating depth is what I was concerned about. I have loaded some Remington 158gr. SJHP in both 38 and 357 using Sierra data because the distance from the base to the cannelure(1.385) is the same on their 158gr. JHC as the Remington. I have shot quite a few of them with no problem.
I just bought my first semi, a 6906 and was considering reloading some 124gr. Golden Saber and was trying to find some data for that. Thanks for you replies.

Well why didn't you just say so?

The factory 124gr Rem GS +P I am looking at right now is OAL of 1.120

Great handgun, will devour anything, accurate also.

I have Factory Golden Sabers in 380, 9mm and 40 SW if you need those OAL's.

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

Is there some reason you're concerned about the seating depth in a revolver round and can't move forward without a dimension?

These types of questions amaze me. If you follow good reloading procedure, start low and work up, the location of the cannelure on the bullet will make the seating depth ( and the C.O.A.L.) self evident. I really don't understand how we all survived when there was no internet, only a couple of loading manuals which covered only a few of the available bullets.

For a jacketed bullet in an auto pistol round, you would start with the maximum O.L. length and then decrease if there are functional issues. Just because you use the length given in a manual does not insure functionality in your gun.



Bruce

In his last sentence of his last post he was concerned with the OAL for the Rem GS for his first semi auto pistol.

Factory load is 1.120

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

I asked exactly the same question to Hogdon and was informed that Remington and Hornady use very similar pistol bullet designs. Since that time, I have shot probably 10,000 Remington pistol bullets in 357, 41 and 44 Magnum & 45-70 rifle using Hornady data from the Lyman book. I have never run into a problem. I always start low and work up and use Lymans maximum as absolute do not exceed under any circumstances maximum. I load to what is the most accurate in my guns and that is usually in the middle range.

Give tech support Hodgdon a call and verify for yourself:
Hodgdon - The Gun Powder People

Bruce,
Is there a problem for a new reloader to be overly cautious? I applaud it. While I wouldn't be "frozen" by the concern, I think it noble to enlist help when one is uncertain. Whether it is a phone call to the manufacturer (which is what I would have done if I had the same kind of questions and no help locally) or a post in a thread where others may have some knowledge to pass on.

I don't think berating someone for asking for help is productive either.

FWIW

I too, am new to reloading. I have had a number of questions about loads for the 38 spl. and have found great support here. The 38 is probably one of the easier rounds to load for (I'm guessing) but to a new guy, it is a lot of info and concern for not ruining a gun and/or a gun hand. I suspect that before the internet, people new to hand loading, hooked up with experienced loaders in MOST cases. I'm sure that there have always been the adventurous types out there, but in this day and age, why not save some grief and ask?
I say thanks for the information and the patience.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking a question. However, and this is a big however, ALWAYS confirm the data you get over the internet. And dont believe ANYTHING you read in a magazine article on face value. Confirm with an independent resource. There are people out there advocating some extremely questionable practices.

+1 for the Lyman Pistol & Revolver Handbook. It is a great starting manual. It shows both Jacketed and Cast Bullet loads.
While it does not mention brands it has a very clear illustration of the bullet, and OAL for the load in LARGE figures. It features a good selection of powders.
Compare the bullet you have with the one in the Lyman's illustration. My experience for what little it’s worth is that in jacketed bullets of the same shape and weight the load will be similar.
Not necessarily so in cast bullets when hardness, number of driving bands and their width come into play.

__________________
Ipsis Rebus Dictantitbus

*a little embarrassed, and red faced, he replys*

I do have this manual! It's a bummer getting old!

ALL recent Lyman manuals tell what bullet they used in each set of data. That information just isn't with the data! It's in the article portion of each caliber!

I just emailed Lyman for permission to post out of this manual for this time from the 357Mag data. It will probably be tomorrow before I hear, one way or the other.

It is so detailed in it's description that it even gives the manufacturer's part number! It also gives the cast bullet mould info, the alloy used, what size they used and if it had a gas check!

Hopefully they will let me post it.

"Is there a problem for a new reloader to be overly cautious?"

It depends on the question.

Actually, the problem is the notion that the information contained in loading manuals is chiseled in granite and that the data given, including C.O.A.L. data constitutes a recipe and not a reflection of test results for a specific batch of components assembled on a specific date and fired thru a specific firearm or fixture under specific atmospheric conditions. In essence, the manual is a guideline.

Regarding the O.A.L in revolver rounds, that dimension is controlled by two factors, the length of the case and the location of the cannelure on the bullet. This makes any number listed in any manual more or less academic as long as the finished round will chamber correctly in the cylinder. As long as the bullet is crimped correctly and the loaded round doesn't protrude past the face of the cylinder, ammo exceeding saami maximum lengths are perfectly acceptible.

Listed lengths in autoloader rounds are of even more dubious value IMV because the determining factor is what both fits and feeds reliably in your gun as opposed to what it says in the book.

I don't know. There are questions and then there are questions. My first full time engineering job was working for the manufacturer of bottling & canning equipment for the soft drink and brewing industry. I did machinery layouts. When I layed out my first chain link conveyor line, I asked my mentor where the motor drives for the conveyor should be located. He, in turn, asked me whether it was easier to push or pull a chain. At that point, I wondered why I had asked that question..............



Bruce

Well Bruce, we do have something in common! The engineering job I am working right now has to do with the electrical controls for aerosol bottling lines! Small world!
The only difference between soft drink and hair spray bottling is that there are enough chemicals and propellants in our tank farm to make quite a crater should something go terribly wrong, not just a sticky mess!

I completely understand your logic. What should be noted though is that bullet construction controls seating depth. Where is the cannalure on the bullet? Is it closer to the nose of the bullet or the base, from one manufacturer to another?

This is a very important factor if data for one bullet is available and the other is not. If seating depth, which is controlled by where the cannalure is placed on the bullet and has nothing to do with C.O.A.L., is increased by .030" and is coupled with an uber fast powder loaded at the maximum pressure, things can get squirrely quickly.

So, it depends. You are counting on common sense playing a role in every reloader's ability to assemble rounds. I'm here to tell you that "common sense" or even the ability to reason some things out, just "ain't too common" anymore.

And no, the recipe in any given manual isn't of Biblical importance BUT as you have stated, it is a set of results given for a particular set of criteria. One can hope to duplicate those results if one follows the "recipe" or set of criteria.

Ya know, sometimes things just get taken way too far. The OP wanted the OAL for loading a Remington Golden Saber 124gr bullet. No he did not originally say so, but eventually did.

I gave him that dimension from a factory round which as close as you are gonna get. (sure hope its a Rem nickle brass or that could alter things) and also that most manuals do not list Remington bullets specifically.
Lyman regular Manual does list what bullet and part number before the load data..

I also gave him a link to another site that shows how to test for OAL in the drop the bullet in the barrel technique, but I do not dare link it here.

I believe he has his answer and hopefully will continue to post any and all questions here.

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

"You are counting on common sense playing a role in every reloader's ability to assemble rounds. I'm here to tell you that "common sense" or even the ability to reason some things out, just "ain't too common" anymore."

Agreed! I would add that we live in a world where students learn to use a pocket calculator before mastering long division. I doubt I could find one high school student in 100 who can do square roots long hand. We then wonder why they can't handle money or make change without a machine. A variance of instant gratification the American way if you will. Do it fast but don't bother to learn how or why things work-just get 'er done. Handloading for folks who don't take time to learn the basics of how things work, then use common sense and instead take the "insert tab A into slot B" approach can be a risky endeavor regardless of which question is asked and how many times it is repeated.

Your change in seating depth of .030" is correct as you approach upper end loads with "uber fast" propellants and is a good analogy except for the fact that you need to go back to starting low and working up when dealing with unknowns-the most basic handloading concept. Any starting load used in combination with any "common sense" seating depth will, in any conceivable likelyhood, be safe but......you get back to that common sense thing again.

Again, I'm amazed at these types of questions but, as you point out, maybe I shouldn't be.



Bruce

I suppose it depends on what you do with the knowledge that some folks don't have any "common sense".

There are three options:

#1: Get cynical and bitter, thinking you have something better than what most folks have.

#2: Totally ignore the fact that some people need help answering questions that have a simple logical answer and go merrily unconcerned along your way.

#3: (And this is the one that I WANT to fall under)You can recognize the problem and do all you can to help someone develop some "uncommon common sense" by showing them/telling them, the thought process whereby you arrived at your conclusion in a palatable way. I have to admit that the last part has been extremely hard for me to do with my own children. I EXPECT them to know what I do and THINK things out just like I do. WRONG!

Case in point: We, my wife and I have two sons, we also have 3 daughters. To make things simple, we will leave the girls out of this discussion!
One of our sons is a "non degreed" engineer working for one of the largest truck manufacturers in the world. Mechanical things and statistics and numbers and math and construction and........ come super easy for him. To be honest, in that area, he is just like me.
Our other son is a physical brute. Not in personality, just physically. He has a weight lifting record at our local high school and there have been graduates from there that have ended up in the pro football ranks. I mean, this kid is as strong as an ox. You want it moved? He is the man for the job. Ask him to do the simplest of algebraic equations and forget it, he is lost. He used to have trouble remembering "righty tighty, lefty loosey".

So, the moral to this story is: not everyone is blessed with an abundance of common sense or the ability on their own to think things trough to a logical conclusion. That's where I come in, that's where the forum comes in, that's where folks that are genuinely concerned with our hobby come in, that's where folks get the practice to make good decisions in the future.

Ask all the questions you want. If I have an answer, I'll share it AND how I came to that answer. Hopefully, the next time, they can answer it for themselves. If they can't, let them ask away and I'll answer them again!

The ones I don't have time for is those that think they already know the answers even before the question is asked.

When it comes to reloading, "thinking the problem through" or more accurately extrapolating data is not necessarily a good thing. If you dont know, ask the technical department of a reloading or powder company. There are people paid to answer our questions 8 hours daily 5 days per week:

Sierra Bullet Smiths 800-223-8799

Hodgdon 913-362-9455

Alliant 800-276-9337

Lyman 800-225-9626

There are those who reason that since old Elmer Keith could drive a 44 special bullet at 1200 fps, so can they. They dont take into account differences in bullet construction, case construction, powder forumulation, primer formulation. Nobody seems to mention that the reports of S&W sending guns to Elmer and him sending them back in pieces and S&W replacing them, only to have them again destroyed until he finally got it right. Old Elmer wasnt just cooking this up on his own; he had lots of support from S&W that ultimately led to the S&W 29, a very successful business venture.

Now if a moderator or the big gorilla want to see the email, all they have to do is ask! I'll send it right over!

So, tonight, after I get home, I'll get a scan or picture of the part I am talking about and post it.
Hopefully it will help.

We all had to start at the beginning and I for one needed some basic instruction before working with gun powder at high pressure. I believe that asking for advice is prudent.

__________________
Richard Gillespie
FBINA 102

The wisdom accumulated and shared here is amazing.
To add a bit:
I have five different 158 gr jacketed bullets in my supply, four manufacturers, Norma, Hornady, and Remington seem to have their cannelures at approximately the same distance from the base. The Speer bullets (two designs) have their cannelures closer to the base by about .1” hence would not be loaded as deeply in the case. Overall lengths are not the same either.
My experience with .45 acp bullets is that they are more similar, that is 200gr JTC and JSWC seat to about the same depth.

__________________
Ipsis Rebus Dictantitbus

OK, here is where you look in all of the Lyman manuals to get the exact bullet they tested.

On the other side of this page, there is the information for the cast bullets used in the data.

I really hope this helps.

Attached Images

357 Jacketed.jpg (51.4 KB, 61 views)

Again, thanks to all for their help.

Bruce,

It has been so long since I did any long hand square roots, I've forgotten how. However, I do still know how to read the A scale and D scale on a slide rule and that will give me a close enough answer for most practical purposes. You can also obtain cube roots by using the K and D scales.

Roger that! I'd have to think about it now also. Ditto for using the Hardy-Cross method for balancing pressures and flows in water distribution systems which are looped multiple times. This is not something that you would do manually as a matter of course. A computer program does that now. However, we had to learn how to do it manually because it was necessary to understand the short strokes of how the method worked.

Bruce