How old is too old for a reloading manual to be useful for the price it might cost...

[Spur]

Was in an "antique" store with my wife not too too long ago and one booth had a Speer manual from the late 50's, another from the late 60's, and a Hodgdon manual from 1970. I was going to pick up one of the Speer's, mainly because I liked the cover art, but ended up talking my self out of it telling myself that the data would be too old...esepcially given what the price, something a little over $20 I think.

So my question is, how old is too old for a reloading manual?

 

[desi2358]

When none of the powders listed are available anymore? Not really sure, I have a couple older Lyman manuals that still get some use because they list cartridges that no longer appear in newer manuals. Some older manuals do list heavier max charges than newer versions of the same publication but I don't know if this is due to changes in the powder, measuring equipment or liability lawyers............ Since I always start low and work up to find a load I like that's not a big issue for me.

Also, some of the older books have some good info and tips that can be useful if you like to read through the whole thing (which I do). If the price seems at all reasonable I'm often happy to add another book to the reference library.

 

[WR Moore]

That kinda depends. The older manuals will have data for some old, now obsolete cartridges that might be of interest. You'll also learn about powders that no longer exist. Many are far more informative about the mechanics of reloading. You'll also find information about reduced velocity loads that no longer seem to be published and bullet weights that have fallen out of fashion-like 200 gr .38/.357.

However, practically, much of the load data itself is likely to be suspect. Some makers have admitted their powder compositions have changed. Also piezo electric pressure testing has shown pressure spikes that didn't show up in copper crusher testing or calibrated eyeball examination of fired primers and data was revised downward. I've got a Lyman manual from the late 1960's. While it's useful as a reference, I compare current data to old data before using that data. At least for currently produced cartridges.

ETA: One of the neat things about that old Lyman manual was that they ran factory cartridges through the same guns they used in load development and had the factory velocities at the back. In them thar days, published velocities for factory ammo were, ah....optimistic. They're still often optimistic but not to the same extent.

 

[Krogen]

Well said, WR Moore. I fully agree. I love reading old reloading manuals. Ken Waters' Pet Loads is a great read. Not that I can get most of the components he used, but I still like reading about the old days.

I consider published loading data as guidelines. Just because somebody published it, doesn't mean it's right for your gun and components. They're not "recipes" afterall, as has become a fashionable term. Shotshell loads are more like recipes, in that one shouldn't deviate from them. Metallic cartridge data to me, are merely guidelines. Consider old data and new data in the same light with a cautious eye. Newer data may be more trustworthy . . . or not.

 

[dwh]

I recently purchased ideal #38, 39, 40 along with Speer #2,3 and the wild cat manual. I load for a lot of old and odd cartridges. that data is invaluable to me.

 

[GypsmJim]

I bought my first Speer manual in 1971. I selected loads for .38 and .45 since that's what I was reloading at the time. Still use the same formulas to this day. I never checked a new manual to see if they changed.

 

[Mike SC Hunter]

Their data is still good.........Heck!!.........I grew up loading from a Speer #8 manual and I didn't blow up.....

 

[rockquarry]

Current data is best, but old manuals are excellent reference sources and there is much material that is not available online. I have forty ot fifty going back to the 1950s. Some of the data is virtually the same through the decades, but much of it is not.

 

[mm93]

Depending on what powders you use, and what cartridges you load for, an old loading manual might actually be more valuable than new manuals!
I load for a lot of old obsolete cartridges and my newer manuals don't even list many of them. But I've bought old Ideal loading manuals that are 100 years old and older, and found many of my old cartridges in them. Also enough powder choices to be able to find some I still use today. Both Unique and 2400 are very old powders, and have loads in the ancient manuals.
But I also use a ballistic program if I can't find data in any of my manuals so I can work up proposed loads there and check both velocities, but more important chamber pressures. Before the ballistic program I took data for other known cartridges and just figured comparable case capacities, and bullet weights and started working up loads near minimum data specs until I got a good load. So much easier now with a program to run things through quickly.

 

[rwsmith]

I like and I'm glad I have...

...some old reloading data rather than the watered-down loads that are common now. I don't do anything 'stupid' but I used to shoot stout loads with a 'strong, modern revolver' with no problems. I'm ALL for safety, but this safety on top of safety just to C.Y.A. is a big bore. Now SOME loads, like those in the Speer #10 were borderline 'unsafe' but that is recognized across the reloading community as such. I'll keep my old books, thank you very much.

 

[SS336]

I like old reloading manuals.
I keep all the ones I have used over the years and the ones my father used. I still find them useful and just enjoy reading them.

That being said if you are just starting out reloading and load a lot of the newer cartridges, and don’t really care for the history of the hobby, just buy the “Lyman #51 Handloading Manual”. It has everything you will need.

But most reloaders will want some history of the cartridges and Ken Waters, Pet Loads is a wonderful resource for older cartridges. Who doesn’t want to know what Col. Whelen, PO Ackley , Sharpe and Hart, have to say.
It is a great hobby with a lot of history, just let common sense prevail

 

[cd228]

You could use them to compare with the modern version of the same load and see if there is a difference. I'd still take a modern loading manual over an old one.

You can alo read the the "how to section" and see if there is any old tricks of the trade that have been lost. Or to see if there is insight to why we reload the way we do.

 

[CH4]

I have a couple manuals from the 60s I still use because they list cartridges the new books don’t have. I often compare loads between the old, new manuals and other sources to make better informed loading decisions. Sometimes max loads in the new manuals are a little anemic.

 

[WR Moore]

In the case of "anemic" loads, you have to look and see what gun they were using as a test piece. I was taken aback by some recent .44 Spl load data until I realized they were basing the data on one of the few guns chambered that way these days: Charter Arms something or other. Not necessarily destructive, but something you might regret shooting, pain wise.

 

[tom2]

Lot of newer manuals do not cover powders I have on hand. They often list "the latest thing" while skipping some of the old reliables in some common calibers. Then again the old ones list powders that are long extinct. And like someone said, your newest may not get decent data on something like .38 Smith and Wesson for your old guns, or they may not have much data for the old ones. My criteria for old loading manuals is they gotta be fairly cheap. Not being sold by speculators or dummies that think they got a rare book of some sort.

 

[Borderboss]

I still use the manuals that I accumulated from the late-80s through about 2000. But then again, the powder and primers I'm using all date from that time too, so everything is in synch.

 

[Jack Flash]

I bought an old manual because it had reloading data for the .455 Webley.

 

[moosedog]

Since I use mostly Unique and 2400, along with 296, I still use my old 1970's vintage manuals from time to time.
I have standardized my loads over the years, so I rarely use any manuals at all.

 

[rwsmith]

Still, loads....

In the case of "anemic" loads, you have to look and see what gun they were using as a test piece. I was taken aback by some recent .44 Spl load data until I realized they were basing the data on one of the few guns chambered that way these days: Charter Arms something or other. Not necessarily destructive, but something you might regret shooting, pain wise.

....need to be worked up. in my Speer #9 they were shooting .44 Special in a Charter Arms Bulldog, which I suppose is something like shooting .357 in a J frame.

 

[Muley Gil]

....need to be worked up. in my Speer #9 they were shooting .44 Special in a Charter Arms Bulldog, which I suppose is something like shooting .357 in a J frame.

Skeeter Skelton's favorite .44 Special load was a 245 grain Keith bullet over 7.5 grains of Unique. Kinda bites on both ends when fired from a 3" Charter Arms Bulldog.