Too many reloading manuals is a bad thing

[rodell]

No wonder people are confused. I was comparing some .38 recipes last night and I drifted into a dream of confusion ...

Hodgdon #26 says:

125 gr JHP W-231 4.1-4.7 grns

Hodgdon online promotes:

125 gr XTP W-231/HP-38 4.3-4.9 grns

Speer expounds:

125 gr JHP W-231 5.6 grns and do not reduce!

Sierra directs:

125 gr JHP W-231 4.8-5.8 grns

And finally, Nosler proclaims:

125 gr JHP W-231 4.7-5.7

I didn't even relate the velocity differences, but the test firearms weren't that different in the big scheme of things but the reported velocities certainly are.

If you happen to have Montana Gold or Rainier or Berry's or Magtech bullets, I guess you guess.

I think this confusion is what is promoting the on-line load sharing sites. For those people without a chronograph (or a range that allows you to set them up) it really is a guessing game.

 

[505Gibbs]

I'll take the opposite stance - too many is a good thing!
There are : different lots of powder and primers, different cyl. gaps for revolvers, no two barrels or forcing cones are necessarily identical and the list could go on. A lot of these are worked up on pressure barrels rather than actual firearms.
The manuals are references and as stated start 5 or 10% below and work up looking for pressure signs.
The manuals, even from the same source, change over time that perceive these differences.

 

[Rule3]

Ain't reloading fun!

I rely on Speer more than others. If its the factories bullet then I would go by what their manual says. If it is a generic bullet I go by the powder company.

So if Speer says load a Gold dot at xyz, that's what I go with
Likewise with Hornady I load the XTP with what that used.

Is the do not reduce from Speer in the +P section?

 

[Andy Griffith]

There is no such thing as too many books.

These books aren't "the law" on reloading...think about them as cookbooks- changing the recipe will give quite different results. Also, some of the ingredients have ever so slight changes over time...

It looks as though everything is in the same range roughly except for the Speer book...must be a +P load or something.

Are you loading for accuracy, match the POA on a fixed sight gun, or to get the "hottest" load you can? Chances are you'll have to try several loads with this bullet with increasing charge weights in order to find the "sweet spot" for your handgun. At least, that's what I've done in the past, and used lots of bullets doing it.

On the subject of where different loadbooks list name brands of bullets- Speer is going to show a Speer branded bullet because that is what they make and sell, and the same for Hornady and also Sierra. If the bullet is the same shape, length and weight- it will not matter the brand of the bullet- but always work from the bottom up. Not all similar weight bullets will give the same pressures because of larger surface contact with the bore, etc. So, a Magtech, Sierra and a Speer 125gr. HP will likely be very similar enough in shape that there is little concern. However, a 158gr RN FMJ jacketed bullet and a 158gr JHP will be different, but may still be able to start with the same bottom load and work up.

The Rainer bullets are plated, and use cast lead loads- get a Lyman cast bullet book.

 

[OFT II]

They can be confusing. I've been using an old manual from the early '70s and recently looked at a 2006 edition and found that most of my handloads are now overloaded. Oh well, I'm still using the same old guns so I think that I'll stick to the old loads.

 

[Titegroups]

Why I own a chronograph. With all the other reloading crap you end up buying a $125 chronograph is money well spent.

 

[Skip Sackett]

A chronograph is a necessity in my opinion. Oh, I know it doesn't tell us pressure but it is the only rule of thumb we laymen have.

If 4.5gr of Whateveryoulikepowder gives you 1000fps, and most manuals agree and say that 4.6gr of the same powder gives you 1200fps but you only get 1001fps, that tells you something. It tells you that you are getting 1001fps from your gun. That is what a chronograph is for, nothing else. If you want to go outside the data until you reach published velocity, go ahead. Part of being an adult gives you the right to do what you think is best. Just remember, there are consequences for your decisions. Be ready to deal with them!

There is one other assumption that I make concerning the above statement that makes it dangerous to follow. Here it is: If I don't get the velocity as posted by the source, a reputable one, I assume that I am not at their published pressure either. Be it chamber size, bore size, throat size or whatever, that is just what I assume. So far, so good!

The differences in published data are very easy to explain too. Since none of them are of Biblical Authorship there is the greatest of possibilities that there are mistakes in them or in the way the data was gathered. Just wondering here to, why do we think that data books are supposed to all agree when the fad today is to pick out which Bible we think says what we want? Seems kind of odd!

At any rate, since we don't have their equipment to run our tests on, we have to do it on the equipment we have. Use the old rules, that by the way are printed in every new data manual that is in print today, watch extraction and primer condition. Couple that with a chronograph and you are as good to go as you can be.

If you have a question about your load, test it in a firearm that is rated above the cartridge you are loading, 38spl in a 357Mag, a 44spl in a 44Mag, a 44Mag +P in a Ruger or Handi-Rifle carbine or a Contender.

To expect all of the manuals to agree is kind of pointless. We know they don't so make some edjumacated guesses (within reason) and go for it!

 

[rodell]

I'm not personally bothered, but, I thought it was quite interesting. I believe it leads to a lot of confusion for people who would like to start reloading.

 

[HAGEN]

I Agree
I limit InPut to 3 Sources for my Recipes.

 

[okie john]

Guns and manuals both vary. When a manual matches a gun I'm loading for, it becomes the rule-of-thumb manual for that gun.


Okie John

 

[Harrison]

It just means that you have lots of choices. Thats the way it should be. The Ten Commandments were the only rules written in stone. If you actually read the manuals they explain why there is such a difference in loads.

 

[BruceM]

"I was comparing some .38 recipes"

My emphasis added.

For one thing, the information in the book is data collected using those lots of the exact described component, fired under the atmospheric conditions that day out of the publisher's gun or fixture. They are NOT recipes from a cookbook. That's why the manual gives instruction on how to work up a load for your gun. You can duplicate all components and charge weights and the results when fired through your gun can and, in all likelihood, will deviate from those printed in the book. There is a connotation to the term "recipe" that does not apply apply to handloading. "Data" and "recipe" cannot be used interchangeably.

A chronograph is not an absolute necessity but it does start to approach that when you are working with maximum or near maximum loads. That said, you cannot verify any velocity from your loads thru your gun without one. It will also tell you things which are not immediately apparent on the target.

Anyway, remember that you're dealing with a collection of data in reloading manuals and not a recipe book.



Bruce

 

[PDL]

There was a lot more info you left out. What equipment was used in testing - universal reciever, 8" bbl, whatever. What primers, brass, COL whatever. Take your pick as to which variables influenced that particular load recipie.

As has been said, it's a starting point. It's up to you to used the data safely towards whatever your shooting goals happen to be.

 

[Skip Sackett]

Let's agree on one thing. They were recipes for that load, that day and that equpment

"I was comparing some .38 recipes"

My emphasis added.

For one thing, the information in the book is data collected using those lots of the exact described component, fired under the atmospheric conditions that day out of the publisher's gun or fixture.
Bruce

Bruce,
Few of us laymen are word smiths or statisticians. Most of us are just uneducated bumpkins that like to think in simple terms.

From the Lyman #48 manual in Chapter 2 on page 14 middle of the right column, it says this: "You must follow the recipes of reloading - the data listings - exactly."

Lyman must be confused on the use of those two words too!

What we, the reloading community needs to understand is that the data collectors used a recipe to obtain thedata collected in the manuals. Call it whatever you want, collection of components or whatever, it is a recipe. That being said, and this makes a lot more sense in explaining it to a new reloader, you will never have the exact same recipe that they did, never. Do you own their test equipment? No, variable #1. Do you have the same lot of powder they used? No, variable #2. Are you there on that day at that elevation with all of the climatic data exactly the same? No, variable #3. Are all comparing the same bullet, crimp, OAL, yada, yada, yada? No, variable # 4 -1000. But, whatever you call it, they used a recipe on that day to get the data they got, period.

Now, reasonably, we can expect NEAR the same results IF we use components significantly similar to the ones they used. Notice the qualifying statements.

Case in point: Chocolate Cake: Take the recipe from 0ft elevation to 5000ft elevation and see what happens. There is going to be some difference, you just cannot get the EXACT same components together that they had, impossible. Hence, the "start low and work up" recommendation to all.

One thing I can tell you, if you use the Speer #8 data and the same length barrel as they used in one of their recipes, you will get data so close to what they got, you will think you are there!

In my opinion, call it whatever you want, I'll use recipe 'cause that keeps me on the same plane as my peers!

 

[Paul5388]

Back in the old days, a recipe was more similar to a load formula than data was. Data is exactly that and only represents numbers that need to be converted into physical components. That's exactly what a recipes does too, so it wouldn't be good to get all tangled in semantics.

In the old days, they used real guns for most velocity measurements. That's why they correlate so well with the guns we use (if the barrel length is the same). Sure, production guns vary, but rare is the time when the average person will have a test barrel chamber on a production gun.

This is all sorta like people who are worried about humidity when they're reloading. Here's an Alliant advertisement that shows Unique with water covering it, just to show it's waterproof.

It's hard to read, but it was the best I could scan in. When they test this powder, they only blot it dry and then load it. That waterproof quality was a selling point a hundred years ago.

 

[ColColt]

I mostly stick with Hornady or Speer. You'll see variances there with the same powder/bullet weight because of the different components used I imagine. I wrote Speer once about the discrepancies in Hornady's manual and theirs using Hercules(Alliant now) powder with a certain bullet weight and was told whenever using their bullets-used their data.

 

[Engineer1911]

Old timer

After 35 years of reloading, I've made a simple decision. At the end of the day, you need a new primer in the case, some powder, and a bullet. I assume you resized the case and did something for a crimp.

Load the gun. If you followed directions, recipes, or your buddy's instructions the gun goes bang, not pop, not ka-boom and you have a hole in the target. For more fun repeat the exercise again.

I had reloaded 38 / 357 for a year - no big deal. Now the first 50 rounds of 44 magnum were a big deal in my Ruger Super Black. Pulled the trigger on round #1, bang, no big deal. Lyman # 45 edition worked just fine. Haven't looked back, don't worry, and close will work safely no matter what load, what caliber if you're some place in the middle.

It ain't do it yourself heart surgery. Brass case, primer, powder, bullet: some assembly required.

 

[PNUC]

Call them recipes or formulas, most manuals make it clear substituting ingredients can cause serious pain. Personally I think the term "recipe" is bad. Even if an authority uses the term, it suggests casual substitution of ingredients, and that is dangerous. "Formula" is better.

Second, none of the manuals "promote" or "expound" or "directs" or "proclaims". They "report". Take them for what they are.

It's unusual that I can find a match in any manual to the brass, primer, powder, bullet, chamber and barrel I'm shooting. So, I like having multiple references. I can interpolate. That said, Lyman's manuals best match my own results.

There was another post earlier, a guy upset because published references "contradicted" each other.

Guys, these are reports, about facts. If there is a "contradiction" it's in your expectations.

When you shoot a handload you are conducting a high-pressure, high temperature physics experiment. And you are responsible for the results. Use every damn reference and instrument you can.

 

[firearmsunlimited]

Add a copy of Ken Waters' Pet Loads to your library. It is a good yardstick to measure the others by.

 

[BruceM]

"Lyman must be confused on the use of those two words too!"

Probably.

I don't think Betty Crocker ever published data. Her books don't admonish users to approach some recipes with caution but I may be wrong-there is always an exception to the rule.

Some folks feel that using the non-word "boolit" makes them equal with their peers-me, not so much!

Anyway, words and how you use them do mean something. Possibly some may feel that the difference between the meaning of recipe, data and, for that matter, formula is trivial. Maybe so but I remain skeptical-not that it matters.

At any rate, there is a steady diet of these types of threads on most boards and the important thing to remember is that data from one manual will never exactly match that of all others for a number of fairly obvious reasons. Some may not be even close. Data from a Speer manual a number of years back regarding the 7mm Remington Magnum come to mind pretty quickly although I'm sure in that case their numbers out of their gun were accurate. Number one on the list is that the published results are a reflection of a specific set of events on a specific day and the publisher himself probably will be unable to exactly duplicate the results on another day. If he cannot, how can another observer, independent of the first, be expected to match them exactly?



Bruce