BACKING UP!!

[willy]

Just bought a Lyman #49 manual because of new calibers.
Been using a # 45 lyman and a Speer #10 for years.
I noticed that the #49 has most all the top end loads reduced for mag pistols by at least 10% except for the 357.
The 45 colt loads look more like the cowboy shooter loads!
Checked out the 45 colt in a rifle and they were a joke!
Top load for 250JHP barely reached 1200fps OUT OF A RIFLE!!!
My advice is stick to the older manuals for serious loads and leave the new manuals for the lawyers.

 

[dennis40x]

Life is full of choices both good and bad.

There have been protracted discussions on old and new manuals. Speer No. 8 in the forefront of those discussions. The choice is yours thus the responsibility is also yours.

Personally I would not tell a new Reloader/Handloader to use old manuals. At some point they may decide to use an old manual for reference or application but then that's their choice and responsibility. Life is full of choices both good and bad.

 

[Jellybean]

Their sort of like Bibles. When you first start out, go buy a new one. When you're ready to start studying on your own, buy all the others you can find.

 

[marlin.357]

And the lawyers wanted them to sell less powder.....right?

 

[Ron H.]

Just bought a Lyman #49 manual because of new calibers.
Been using a # 45 lyman and a Speer #10 for years.
I noticed that the #49 has most all the top end loads reduced for mag pistols by at least 10% except for the 357.
The 45 colt loads look more like the cowboy shooter loads!
Checked out the 45 colt in a rifle and they were a joke!
Top load for 250JHP barely reached 1200fps OUT OF A RIFLE!!!
My advice is stick to the older manuals for serious loads and leave the new manuals for the lawyers.

Sir, just curious: What does Lyman 49 list as max in regular (not "Ruger only") .45 Colt loads? I'm particularly curious about Unique with cast 250s.

Thanks, and Semper Fi.

Ron H.

 

[dennis40x]

Sir, just curious: What does Lyman 49 list as max in regular (not "Ruger only") .45 Colt loads? I'm particularly curious about Unique with cast 250s.

Thanks, and Semper Fi.

Ron H.

Lyman # 452664 250Gr 1.570" OAL maximum 8.2Grs Unique

Lyman # 454190 250Gr 1.600" OAL maximum 9.0Grs Unique

Lyman # 452424 255Gr 1.575" OAL maximum 8.5Grs Unique

49th Edition.

 

[Peter M. Eick]

I agree with the comment buy old manuals. I now have about 12 linear feet of old reloading manuals. I just periodically buy more off of ebay and gunbroker and add to the pile. You can learn a lot about the old loads that way.

Just recently I was reading Naramore's book from 47 on reloading and he talked about how mild the primers were. I did not realize that they were so different then more modern primers. Kind of fun to understand and learn how loading developed.

I recently just ordered Naramore's pre-war book on loading (39 I think) and some more books from the early 50's from Ideal and Lyman.

 

[Ron H.]

Lyman # 452664 250Gr 1.570" OAL maximum 8.2Grs Unique

Lyman # 454190 250Gr 1.600" OAL maximum 9.0Grs Unique

Lyman # 452424 255Gr 1.575" OAL maximum 8.5Grs Unique

49th Edition.

Sir, thanks for the info. Interesting.

Thanks again, and Semper Fi.

Ron H.

 

[WILDCATT]

old/new

what you all failed to mention is the powders are the same name but not the same as the old powders.they have been changed.
so if you read a charge and you know they made maximum under loaded you can up the charge several grains.
then when it blows up and takes you head off you will realize why they changed the data in the manuals.the manuals are a place to start not a final word.I make target loads because they are accurate,not so they make the loudest boom.be careful,you dont want to be the bad example.

 

[canoe on the yukon]

Powders have changed????....I've seen no evidence of that.A powder company would be insane to change a powder's burning characteristic without changing the name as well.

Data has changed for a variety of reasons....different testing equipment and methods,etc,etc...but the powders,themselves, have not changed.

A very popular gun writer has stated that he has good authority that 2400 has increased it's burning rate somewhat.I won't get into a fencing match with anyone about that but I've personally tested a batch of 2400 from the 90's against a batch from the early 70's and with all else being equal,chronographed velocities were within 15-20 fps (well within the normal variance between batches).

 

[bmcgilvray]

"Just recently I was reading Naramore's book from 47 on reloading and he talked about how mild the primers were. I did not realize that they were so different then more modern primers. Kind of fun to understand and learn how loading developed."

Is that "Principles and Practice of Loading Ammunition?"

 

[HUMONGO]

All I can say about the Lee manual is that the .38+p's are rather anemic.

 

[Bugs100]

Take a look at Alliants new data. They eliminated a lot of data and basically changed what's left, to all new data that's lower in most cases.

That started aRound the time the warning came out about not using Blue Dot in any .41mag loads.

I always thought it strange that they wouldn't expain why.

You can use Blue Dot in 357 and 44mag but not in .41mag I never thought that made much sense.

 

[ChuckS1]

Let experience and common sense be your guide when looking at loading manuals. I liked the older manuals because I primarily use Bullseye and Unique. Some can say new formulations are different, but so far I haven't seen any difference other then the pussification of the loads in the new manuals.

Personally, I start a new load development project with a manual I trust and start at the minimum load and work up with a chronograph until I find the accuracy and/or fps I want for the components I'm using. Anybody who doesn't do this gets what they deserve, IMHO.

Common sense and experience.

 

[canoe on the yukon]

I won't tell anyone what data they should use however I've used some loads for several decades,in numerous guns,which have given complete satisfaction in every way.Some of these are well in excess of many of the more current manuals.

The rule of starting low and working up"always"applies.No exceptions.This was true then and is true now.

Personally,I like to have data from different sources as well as different time periods.Sometimes,the comparisons can be very revealing,in and of itself.

 

[Snapping Twig]

Like Canoe, my loads go back some years. In my case I always give weight to primer condition and extraction. I also inspect the case head web for excessive bulging.

My collection of manuals goes back to the early 50's and the comparisons are dramatic in some cases.

 

[Peter M. Eick]

The question to me, yes, it was principals and practices.

Today Alibris sent me "handloaders manual" by Naramore from 1937. I am starting to get a nice collection of original prints from the Samworth publishing company.

I find these older books explain things in more depth and I can actually understand more the hows and why's then I can out of modern recipe books.