"BEST" Reloading manual?

jwr0201

Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2009
Messages
49
Reaction score
1
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
 
Register to hide this ad
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!)

;)
 
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.
 
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.
 
Good morning
Get Ken Waters two volume set... will cover most everything there is from low to same max velocities. Mike in Peru
 
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?
 
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.
 
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! ;)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top