Why You Should Use More Than One Reloading Manual

When the Redneck Preppy helps out a new reloader he always makes sure to mention the usefulness of having more than one reloading manual. Sometimes they follow through and get more than one manual, sometimes they don't. Today the Preppy explains why it's such a good idea.

#reloading #reloadingmanual #reloadingbench

[stevewehner]

All the manual's have different variables that may not apply to your situation. Its up to you to work within your own set of variables to develop your loads.

[richardkut]

Thanks, One Book/One Caliber, is a good multiple manufacturers book. There also dirt cheap.

[thetexasrat]

H.V. Stent wrote an article called "A Handlaoding Mystery" which was about different manuals having varying load data for the 30-30. He shows how the load data varies by 7 grains between Speer Handloading Manual #7 (with 40 grains) and #9 (shows 33 grains). And while Speer gave the reply that there are bound to be changes between publications, they gave no explanation as to why. And while Sierra, Hornady, Lyman, and Omark all gave answers basically saying stick with the latest data, but Hodgdon's answer was "Some data sources keep loads purposely on the low side. We do this. Some data sources want to keep 30-30 loads super safe, below 35, 000, and some crowd 45, 000 or more...". But again Speer in their own manuals varied 7 grains between two of their own publications. [see: Handloader's Digest, eleventh Edition, page 97-99]

None the less as powder and primers do change over the years it is always best to use the most current load data available. And even then it still varies from one manufacturer to another, whereby leaving the question still up in the air as to which one should one trust.

I have noticed in the latest editions that Hornady publishes a much lower charge weights than the others which actually come close to one another. For example take the 45 Colt, Hornady's charge weights for their 250 grain XTP with Accurate #5 is 7.7 to 10.4 grains, while Lyman has10.0 to 11.0 grains, while both Western Powders and Accurate manuals show 9.9 to 11.0 grains. So Hornady has a minimum of 2.3 grains below the others, and a maximum of .6 grain below the other's maximum. Now if we are not to go below the minimum nor above the maximum charge weights we would be stuck between the two publications at 10.0 and 10.4 grains.

As these manuals warn that going below the minimum could cause erratic pressures so should we dare start with Hornady's low ball charge weight? Or should we be scared to dare start at the 9.9 to 10.0 grains stated by the others, which is close to Hornady's maximum charge?

Funny how they are all using the exact same bullet and powder with modern pressure testing technology and the data as of this day is all over the place. Yet if Hornady was worried about getting sued they would not drop the starting charge weight so low as to create erratic pressures, nor would the others raise the maximum to such heights above Hornady's maximum.

If they are all claiming 14, 000 PSI what is up with this? Well different primers and lots thereof, as well as different cases, and lots of powder could explain things to some degree. And then there is the difference in the exact diameter as well as the grooves within the test barrels too. So Hornady used their own cases (which may have a smaller useable case volume than the other cases involved) and Winchester WLP primers, while Accurate used Winchester cases and CCI no. 300 primers, and Western Powders used Remington Cases and Remington 2 1/2 primers, while Lyman chose Winchester cases and Winchester WLP primers. So none of these manuals used the same exact components in their texting which could easily account for the differences in recommended charge weights. Just the pressures between different primers can be 2, 000 PSI alone, and the useable case volumes between manufacturers could easily explain the majority of the discrepancy themselves. It is well known that Federal makes the hottest primers so keep those extra 2, 000 PSI in mind if you choose to go that route.

And, while this question will always seem to linger (even though I just explained why here above) as to why are there such differences between one manufacturer's load data compared to other's, simply remember to always start at the beginning charge weights and work up. But as to which one you will believe is best is up to your discernment alone! Plus when making up their mind which data is best perhaps one would do well to see which manual uses the brass they plain on using and stick with their primer choose to boot.

Personally, I went with Western Powders, Accurate, and Lyman's data. I used Starline brass and CCI no. 300 primers.
Yet my advise is y'all do you as I don't want to get sued.

[YERAFirearms]

I have all the data books you mentioned. And, a little more.

[thetexasr.a.t.]

I have got at least 70+ reloading manuals to date, and still have at least 10 to go that I know of. And I have been gleaning a lot of knowledge from the front halves of these manuals. But I only use the newest editions from 19 bullet and/or powder companies to gather load data from.

[thetexasrat]

In the Lee manual, on page 37, it states:
"Bullets seated deeper than normal will reduce case capacity and increase pressure. This is not too critical for large rifle cases, but extremely important for pistol loads. Good load data specifies bullet seating depth or over all cartridge length. Do not seat the bullet to deep.

On page 96, of the Lee manual, under the section of “The Latest Information On Pressure”, it states:
"2) the extreme expansion (XTP and Gold Dot) handgun bullets have a large and deep nose cavity that makes them longer than a regular bullet of the same weight. This requires deeper depth resulting in higher pressure. Seating depth is very critical for handgun ammunition because of the small cases and large bores. ... … The usable volume of … … … the 45 ACP is 1.14cc. Seating bullets 1/16” deeper … .. … reduces the volume … 0.16cc for the 45 ACP. That’s ... ... ... a whopping 14% ... . This large volume reduction has an equally large effect on pressure that is made more critical because the maximum pressure for the 45 ACP is 1/3 of [plus 60, 000 pound range as mentioned below. Keep in mind the 45 Colt working pressure is a mere 14, 000 psi.] …

On page 157, of Lee's manual under "Minimal Overall Length", It states:
This is critical on most handgun cases. A small reduction in overall length can cause dangerous pressures because of reduced capacity caused by seating the bullet too deep. See details on page 96."

On page 133, of the "Complete Reloading Guide", under "Loads For Handgun Cartridges", in bold font right under the heading it states:
Loads for handguns ... with less case capacity ... when loading ... ... ... mere tenths of a grain of powder can make the difference between a good load and one that is dangerous. Approach the loading of handgun ammunition with these facts in mind."

Plus on pages 88 thru 89, of the Lee manual, under "Signs Of Excessive Pressure" is a list of seven pressure signs and then the manual states the following:
"It must be emphasized that these signs will not manifest themselves in ... low pressure rounds. These are signs of pressure in the plus 60, 000 pound range. If you are loading for a gun designed to operate at 15, 000 pounds pressure, you will most likely never find a loose primer because the gun would have blown up and spread the primer and gun parts over a wide area."

And on page 158, of the Lee manual, in the section of “How To Read The Load Data”, under “XTP” it states :
“Use these loads for the Hornady XTP, Speer Gold Dot, or Remington Golden Saber bullets.

Now on page 270, of the Lee manual, under the “250 grain XTP” it gives load data with three different seating depths, because the data was taken from three different brand bullets, yet clumped together as if one. So if someone where to take the data developed for the shorter bullet and turn around and used it with the longer bullet they could very well raise pressures far above the 10% reduced starting charge weight. Especially if they use a case with smaller case capacity than that used in the development of the load data, as well as a hotter brand primer than that which was used to develop the data in the first place. Keep in mind that just changing the brand of primer can cause as much as a 2, 000 psi rise in pressure alone, which can by itself swallow up the safety margin. Then throw in a case that has a reduced volume than the tested one and on top of all that seating the wrong bullet father in to the case, because it has a deeper hollow point and thicker cooper jacket, than what was used to developed the load data could easily displace the primer into one's own eye - so to speak.

Or another way to put it would be as written in the book "Ammunition, Demystified" (page 17-18):
War Stories #1
"I used loading data from one manufacturer for the equivalent weight bullet made by a different manufacturer. I picked a starting propellent load based on the projectile weight I was loading. I fired two previous shots without much apparent problem. After the third shot, imagine my surprise when I dropped the lock block on my Ruger no.1 and found the whole primer, cup and anvil, missing! I immediately ceased shooting that ammunition and rifle until I got the rifle taken apart, inspected for various and sundry loose metal pieces from the primer, and successfully put them back together. The ammunition was broken down, never to be fired in that particular arrangement again. I know I do not want to do that again! While the bullet weight is an important factor in selecting the powder type and weight for your firearm, the ability of the bullet to engrave by the rifling (think of friction and radial stiffness) also dramatically affects the peak pressure a given powder load will attain. Use only the loading data published by the bullet manufacture! Substitution of loading data for equivalent weight bullets can get you into deep yogurt!"

And I know for a fact that other manuals have stated not to switch brands of bullets even if they are of the same type. I would post them here if I had the time to wade through 30 different manuals to find where they spoke of such, but I am tired just having to have dug up the above and below.

One can head the warnings of reloading or not, but what ever they do they should not teach others to ignore them just because they might so choose.

Again, the Richard Lee loading manual does not do pressure tests themselves, they only take test data from others that do and jumble it all together, of which they lose the test barrel length, case brand, primer type and brand, as well as bullet brand. And some 45 caliber bullets are .451" and some are .452" diameter. These are all important elements, as one should never take data made for one specific brand and type bullet and turn and use it with a different brand or type bullet. This is due to Brinell hardness and bearing surfaces can be different, as well as the shape can be slightly different with longer or shorter lengths, all of which can cause extremely high pressure issues. One should only use data straight from a reputable data source [see paragraph below] that does their own pressure testing which give the test barrel length, case brand, primer type and brand, and most of all the brand of the type bullet used in developing the data. Each one of these elements that are changed is a compromise of which if all are compromised at the same time could very well add up to a recipe for disaster.

First off, I am not implying that Lee plagiarized the data in their manual, just that they jumbled data from different sources together and lost key elements in the doing. And it has always been a given that one should use the starting loads and work their way up. This 10% reduction covers for smaller bore diameters, different lots of powder, different brand/lots of primers, and different brands of cartridge cases. These alone can take up that 10% relatively easy. Especially in pistol cartridges, as a little goes a long way in such small volume chambers. And the .001" difference in diameter with a stiffer jacket can definitely cause pressure issues when it comes to using load data for one brand bullet [i.e. - the smaller one] and using it for another brand bullet e.g. - the larger one].


Lyman, Speer, Nosler, Sierra, Barnes, Swift, Berger, Norma, Lapua, VihtaVuori, Accurate, Western Powder, Hodgdon, or even Hornady reloading manuals are far better suited than Richard Lee's for gleaning load data from, as they all not only do their own testing but they all give the test barrel length, case brand, primer type and brand, as well as the bullets brand and type for each load recipe.

Lyman has most everyone's bullets and many powders too, so it is a good all around manual to get first. Then once one figures a particular bullet they want to use they should get the bullet manufacturer's manual, and try and get the powder manufacturer's manuals that they plan to use as well. Then as one decides to use other manufacturer's bullets and powders they should add these manuals as well. And Lyman also has a Cast Bullet reloading manual for those who wish to cast their own bullets.

There are also other reloading manuals that do not pressure test their loading data and those should not be used for load data but can be used to glean information of the reloading process. So once one has all the powder and bullet manufacture's manuals they could continue to add these other manuals for the knowledge in the first half of them (only).

Yet again Richard Lee's manual throws out one of the carnal safety rules of "never use load data developed for one brand of bullet for another brand of the same style bullet". Keep in mind that it is always better to throw out Richard Lee's manual than any of the safety rules. But with all that said Richard Lee's reloading manual has a wealth of knowledge in the front half that makes the book well worth having. Just do not ignore the Cautions, Warnings, and Nevers there within.

[H.R.]

I have several books, also look online, in situations like this I add all the minimums and get an average, do the same with maximum and that's the start and max I use.

[jillbluerei]

At your age, you should know that it's pronounced "data" and not "data"! Haven't you ever seen Star Trek TNG??? ;-)

[junkerjunk]

The Lee manual is awful, what a waste of money.

[faithful]

I have a similar problem with 300blkout. I would like to load subsonic light bullets. Only Speer shows a 150gr subsonic load with 4198 powder, not any of the powder manufacturers!