Sierra Reloading Manual #5

[BLUEDOT37]

I recently added Hornady's manual to my reloading collection & noticed the Sierra manual was available at the gun shop yesterday & bought it. It's physical construction is very nice, maybe nicer than necessary, but bulkier than need be. It seems every manual has it's own unique feature, or supplemental data, which also applies to Sierra's. It has a lot more data than I will need, since I don't actively reload for rifles. I really only use the pistol section's data in these manuals. I was pleased to see a section for modern 45 ACP revolver load data with appropriately higher loads.

Unfortunately I was disappointed to find it's grossly outdated (2003) & missing many newer cartridges. Two of the newest cartridges I'm loading for are the .454 Casull & 500 S&W Magnum. There's no section for the 500 S&W even though it's almost ten years old now. The 454 Casull section lists (just) two bullets and it's data is severely limited because each apparently has a max. velocity restriction (240gr: 1400fps & 300gr: 1550fps) ?. The 240gr. is even missing several of the main magnum powders (2400, AA#9, H110/W296) & the listed loadings don't represent the power for which people buy a Casull for. (There's no section for the 460 S&W Magnum (2005) which would use the same bullets.) In the 45 Colt/Ruger section they also only list these same two bullets. Oddly for the 240gr, they have higher velocity loads listed for SR4756 & Blue Dot (both faster burning) than for 2400; W296 & 4227 (slower) are listed with higher velocities. Also, it's disappointing that there are no "+P" listings for 38 Spcl., 9mm, or 45 ACP.

I emailed them about some of these & received a prompt reply. He did say the 460 S&W is too powerful for their .452" existing bullets but they work well with the 45 Colt. He did attach a pdf that listed data for the 500 S&W, but it only had loads for two bullets, 350gr & 400gr, which had good velocity but not quit on par for this cartridge. (Again they had higher velocity loads using faster burning powders than for 2400?) The response to not having any "+P" data was that "they don't shoot them", & that there are other cartridges available in the same caliber that are faster, 357 vs. 38, 38 Super vs. 9mm & 460 Rowland vs. 45ACP. (This is bogus logic!!) I asked if a new manual was coming soon & he said they're too busy trying to keep up with demand & range time is all reserved for QC & that it'd probably be a few more years for a new manual. (Wow!) I couldn't find a downloadable product guide/catalog on the website & asked why they don't have one there & they said you can request one be mailed. (Later I did find a link on their blog site for a pdf catalog: 2013 Bullet Catalog | Sierra Bullets)

It's nice having choices in manufacturers & bullets (when you can find them) but Sierra doesn't seem to be what they used to be. What do you think about their manual?

 

[brucev]

I've been an active handloader of rifle and pistol cartridges since 1980. I started out with the Speer No. 9 manual. Even then that manual did not cover every cartridge that someone might want to reload. It did however cover the vast majority of what folks were loading and shooting. Further as Speer only offered swagged lead bullets, the Speer manual only offered loads suitable for swagged lead bullets along with the jacketed bullets produced by Speer. Later I bought a Lyman manual that had loads for a variety of cartridges, some of which were at that time beginning to be obsolete. These loads featured lead bullets cast using Lyman mold designs as well as a broader variety of jacketed bullet loads featuring bullets made by domestic and specialty producers. The Lyman manual did not cover ever cartridge existent nor did it cover every cartridge in the Speer Manual. Later I added a Sierra manual which gave much more attention to current cartridges of that era especially benchrest cartridges as well as long-range rifle cartridges. It omitted many of the cartridges covered in the Speer and Lyman manuals.

Were the Speer and Lyman manuals grossly outdated? Was the Sierra manual incomplete? It really depended on the interests of the reloader. For my purposes at that time, the Lyman manual was the most relevant. Even today it is my most used manual as I very much enjoy loading cast bullets. Much of the information in the Lyman manual remains applicable to my reloading. If I want to try a new powder, etc., I buy a manual that is current production. I do not expect any single manual to cover every single cartridge, bullet or powder that I might have an interest in loading.

As to load levels, etc., such things are not left up to mere opinions. Very happily the days are long gone when manuals are produced by good ole boys using by guess and by golly methodology to determine if a load is or is not safe, appropriate, effective, etc. in common firearms. Even the Lyman manual to which I refer gave reference to PSI/CUP for given loads both rifle and pistol. Today no company produces a loading manual that does not use excellent laboratory quality testing to determine loads for use by the handloader. If a particular manual does not offer a particular load that suits someone's particular interests, there is likely a very good reason. For instance, once upon a time some folks thought that 1,500 FPS from a six inch .357 Magnum w/ 158 gr. bullets cast or jacketed was standard. Then came chronographs... and real pressure testing equipment and the world changed! Some folks felt let down because their assumptions were found to be unwarranted by reality. All those estimated velocities, etc., turned out to be... assumptions.

If a particular manual does not cover a particular cartridge, it simply reflects the realities of the market place. There are few if any who reload for the K-.22 Hornet, the .222 Remington Magnum, the .30 Luger, the .30 Remington, etc. There are not so many who reload for the .357 Sig., the .460 Roland, the .45 Super, etc. And... some cartridges simply do not have a +P level, i.e., the .40 S&W, the .357 Sig., etc. To suppose that failing to give major attention to calibers of minor commercial interest marks a manual as inadequate is illogical. It is simply the result of a manufacturer responding to the commercial market. With respect. brucev.

 

[Cdog]

Excluding bulk .224" I shoot more Sierra rifle bullets than all others combined.

I may have two boxes of of Sierra .357" handgun bullets, it just ain't their market.

I buy any manual that's priced right, but I don't expect to find a great deal of info for handgun loads from a company like Sierra.

I love my Sierra manuals. Great bunch of info other than the load data to be found in them.

 

[kwselke]

When I started shooting .454 Casull it was a hand load only proposition. The then current version of the Sierra manual was number three, which had rifle and handgun loads in seperate volumes.

Data and bullets for the .454 were pretty much the domain of Freedom Arms in those days. Sierra produced a 300 grain 45 caliber bullet for use in Ruger and T/C heavy loads, and I figured they would work in the Casull. I called them and was transferred to the technician working on the .454 Casual data for the Sierra Fourth Edition manual. We had a great conversation and he ended up mailing me typed manuscript pages, with proofread marks, suitable to add to my Sierra ringed binder load book.

Sierra works up loads for their bullets. I like their work so much that I have their Third, Fourth, and Fifth version manuals in my library.

 

[novalty]

I have about 20 manuals now, if you have some more specifics on what you are loading in 454 Casull or 500 S&W, I'll see if mine have any info for you.

 

[rwsmith]

All manuals

All manuals have strong and weak points. I think you could own all the common manuals and still have questions about some calibers/loads.

I started out with a Speer #9, too. Talk about outdated. It was published in 1974 and the data they used was older than that. No such thing as a plus P in that book.

What disappoints me is that all of the old data made with copper crushers has been thrown out and they haven't had enough time to gather enough different data using the piezoelectric setup.

 

[BLUEDOT37]

I have (8) printed manuals going back to the 70's & many more powder manuals/pamphets & online manuals I've downloaded. I don't expect one to have everything, that's why I have many. And while I know that the data in my old books are outdated, I don't expect to buy a new, current version manual, at full retail price, that's got (10) years old data in it. If they can't publish a new one then they should stop printing (this is it's Sixth printing) the old one. And if you ask them a reasonable question, I think a reasonable answer is due, or not say anything at all.

 

[Nevada Ed]

I have had great luck and good accuracy with the Sierra bullets but they are beast as............
Target use and general shooting with their design.

I have taken many a deer in my 270 and 30 cal rifles but
they are no way like "Bonded" or "Sealed core" hunting bullets.
I have yet to loose a deer shot with their bullets but here is
a picture of a .270 140gr Ptd BT taken from my last Nevada
Mule Deer buck that was at around 200 yards.

It would be nice to see their new manual coming out in..........
2015, or 16 or 17, though.

 

[rockquarry]

Some of the Sierra .38 Special loads in #5 appeared to be (but not necessarily were) +P but there was no +P designation. I spoke with a Sierra technician regarding this. He replied that they designated no loads as +P because the published data should be safe in any .38 Special revolver that was in good condition. Hard to argue with that logic and most would assume the Sierra people know a little bit about handloading. Still, loads should be approached carefully; pretty basic handloading advice.

 

[BLUEDOT37]

Some of the Sierra .38 Special loads in #5 appeared to be (but not necessarily were) +P but there was no +P designation. I spoke with a Sierra technician regarding this. He replied that they designated no loads as +P because the published data should be safe in any .38 Special revolver that was in good condition. Hard to argue with that logic and most would assume the Sierra people know a little bit about handloading. Still, loads should be approached carefully; pretty basic handloading advice.

In closer review of their 38 Spcl. load listings, I do have to agree with you about some of their loads being "+P like", just not designated as such, which is what I scanned the data for. They are pretty high on some powders. (They actually list B-D with 110 & 125gr bullets in the 38 & 357 too?) I don't see that for 9mm or 45ACP though.

But the problem I see with their answer is that it contradicts what they already do in the manual. They have a 45 Colt +P (Ruger/TC) section that gives the appropriate warnings. They also have a 45 ACP Revolver section that list +P like loads, & the appropriate warnings. Why not the same for the others?

+P loads in 9mm, 38 Spcl, & 45ACP are SAAMI standardized pressure loads. Even though this manual was developed & printed 10 years ago (& still currently published ) these SAAMI standards existed then. I don't see a SAAMI 45 Colt +P standard, but they provide load listings nonetheless. They don't seem consistent to me.

Doesn't it still boil down to the user only using what's appropriate for their gun. The "provider" shouldn't take the position that this data might not be good "for everyone" so we're not going to provide it to anyone?

It's their book & they can do what they want, just sayin'...