Loading manual prefrences.

I kind of don't like that the guides are specific to the projectiles that they produce.
My 8th and 9th gen Hornady guides are of course Hornady specific.
But... I did notice that Cabela's sells a lot of guides that are caliber specific. They aren't beholden to any bullet manufacturer of powder manufacturer. They're about $11 each.
Have them in 223 Rem and 357 Mag. Been trying to find one in 300 Blackout.

I like the current Lyman manual unless you are going to shoot bullets mostly from one company. In that case buying their manual is a good idea. Most of the big companies now have a manual like Hornady, Sierra and the like.

It is best to have several data sources so you can cross reference. Is an eye opener just how much data can vary.

I definitely have a few manuals. I typically will create a spread sheet of the calibers I load cross referencing the data for the weight of the projectile. It gives me an average low and high charge across all the manuals and I take that and create a median charge. I have found that the median charge is usually the charge that cycles all my auto pistols of that caliber. For rifle I usually work my ladder up from the median charge to the high charge average. So far this process has served me well and I have only had to tare down a small amount of 7mm-08 due finding a better charge than what had originally been my staple load for hunting.

I have a number of manuals and it seems they all have something the others do not. Some have most accurate, some best hunting loads. Out of Hornady, Sierra, a few Lyman, Lee, and some caliber specific stuff I find myself going to the Lee and the Lyman the most. Heck, nowadays I usually start with the powder manufacturers site and double check with a couple manuals.

-Jeff

I sort of corral all the data from all my sources, then compare notes, looking at things like COAL and min/max charge weight. It always seems like I'll have a data set in there that just doesn't make sense... but that can be for a number of reasons to include the bullet type/construction, the purpose of the load, and some other factors. One of the biggest factors on published load data is the type of barrel and length... data from a 6" revolver is going to be significantly different than, say, a 10" test barrel. I used to miss little details like that.

It's interesting to note... loading handgun rounds is pretty cut and dried. Because I don't have a genuine 'target' pistol, nor is that how I shoot, arriving at a satisfactory handgun load is quite easy. Start low with the components you plan on using, work up to a velocity and/or accuracy threshold, pop a beer and call it a day. Rifle loads can be quite different, and there are so many factors that can affect rifle accuracy at 100, 200, heck, 600yds, that although you may start with book data, unless you are working with exactly the same components published data did, you are really on your own.

Some things I wish data publishers would work on... service rifle data. Hornady's manual, for example, has specific load data for some service rifles. Unfortunately, using 5.56mm data for example, they only list data for 69 and 75grn bullets... even though they make 55 and 62grn bullets for the AR platform. Data for those weight bullets would sure be handy. There is the argument, of course, that all data is supposedly SAAMI spec, but for those of us who shoot a lot of gas-operated rifles, knowing which powders are better for positive cycling would be nice, although that would introduce another data factor: Port pressure.

I would also like to see new data developed with PSI (vs CUP.) I think new data arrived at with new components, measured with modern technology would be worth the effort... although I understand it would be quite an endeavor.

I have printed manuals from the 1930's up through 2016 by Ideal, Lyman, Speer, Lee, Hornady, and T/C, and on-line manuals from 1968 to real-time, mostly in PDF but also the Sierra and BDC apps. One thing about rifles vs. handguns in reloading is range. I will never in my lifetime try to shoot bullseye target at 1000 yards with a cartridge black-powder .38S&W break-top revolver. It ain't happenin'. Being able to calculate bullet drop and velocity at time of target for that cartridge is pointless - as is trying to trickle every charge to within +0/-0.1gr. - but I will and have shot bullseye target with a .35Whelen at 900 yards. That was rough and very much an eye-opener in terms of the limits of heavy, medium-caliber bullets, but I did it and managed hit the paper, mostly. Having a BD calculator for long-range rifle, then using reloading manuals from across multiple platforms to find bullet, powder, primer, case and COAL to get an expected result is very rewarding. I'm not much of a shot so I need all the help I can get. I also agree with Charlie98 that handguns are, for the most part, pretty simple compared to rifles. The only complicating factors being caliber/cartridge combinations that never existed in a SAAMI manual - like .455Webley/.45ACP/.45AR black-powder for shaved Webley Mk. I/II - or the fleeting commercial loads like .32H&R, which was a black-powder predecessor to the .32 S&W Long but followed the .32 S&W. No one ever made the .455/.45 round but there are thousands of shaved revolvers out there and while H&R did make lots of revolvers for their proprietary cartridges, since a .32Long fits, most people just use that until the gun shoots loose and goes out of time; then they toss them or let them rust to dust.

I use Lymans 3rd cast the most. Their 4th and lees are a close second in use. I have Lymans 50th. And speers 15th and 12th, Hornadys latest. I use them now and then too. I like how Horandys shows FPS ranges in incriminates to the charge.

For "generic" data I prefer Lyman's 48th, 49th or 50th. If I'm using Hornady bullets, I'll use my Hornady manual, Sierra Bullets, Sierra manual, same with Nosler, Speer, etc. For cast I normally will go to my Lyman 3rd Edition cast bullet manual. I have several Hodgdon magazines/manuals. I don't care for the One Caliber pamphlets, all the ones I've seen are just photo copies of other manuals, and some look really old/dated. I have a Lee manual and did enjoy the front half, an interesting read I've gone back to a few times but the data seems sketchy to me' some combinations not offered, some offered with just one powder mfg. and some not available at all. Many folks like the Lee manual but if I want data from Hornady, Lyman, etc., I'll go to their manuals. The Lee manual is often the last manual I'll use...

I've even used data from Sharpe's "Complete Guide to handloading".

Lyman's is best at general powder and bullet data. They are across the board in that area. Western Powders data is best when it comes to bullet varieties. And I like that they list test pressure. Hodgdon is second best as for bullet variety selection.

The Hornady manual I use is data for reloads using Hornady bullet weights (which weights are usually standard for most calibers.(eg, 150gr and 170gr for .30-30).
I can understand Hornady not wanting to buy competitors bullets in sizes Hornady doesn't sell and invest in developing load info for them.

Lee does have more powders listed for cast loads. They also have data for plated. But Lyman is better for cast rifle loads.

I do own several caliber specific manuals but most of the time I prefer to go out to the powder manufacturers web site and find my data there. After that to the bullet manufacturers website if they publish data.

With few exceptions I no longer buy manuals. I think my most recent one was the Lyman cast bullet handbook with Venturino. Otherwise, just about everything I would want to know is available online, and for the few oddball situations, a call to the powder or bullet company is likely the only recourse available anyway.

Here is what I have, and yes, Lee does provide a lot of data about casting.

Yes, that is my sweet ride..

I have the Lyman 49, Lee and Hornaday manuals. Was baffled at first when I would find the max load in one might be the starting load in another. Found out that usually has to do with seating depth. Between what I have on my shelf, my own notes and chronograph data, and online data from powder manufacturers, it all culminates into a touchy feely kinda process. The data I have usually isn't exactly what I'm working with, so it provides a rough framework to work within. So, I typically start a little above starting loads and start working my way up the ladder.

dgod said:

Here is what I have, and yes, Lee does provide a lot of data about casting.

View attachment 1000642

Click to expand...

Harder to find than cast loading data is swaged bullet loading data. Hornady and Speer are typically the only sources of tested recipes. They only test their bullets, naturally, but most swaged is under 8BHn and typically 99-100% pure lead from extruded wire and unhardened.

Swaged are SOFT and will lead up a bore very quickly if run too fast or with a too-fast burning powder, especially in a loose fit. I usually look for a manufacturer's load sheet but I tend to scour the bargain bins of the internet looking for NOS, discontinued or estate finds - and those tend to be a bit "aged" - y'all might even call some of my estate finds "vintage" Other than Hdy and Speer, finding loading data for swaged lead can be a challenge and guessing or getting it wrong can be messy. But, that's why they still make bronze brushes and 000 steel wool.

EDIT: By swaged I'm meaning not coated or plated, waxed or lubed lead only. I know some folks encase swaged lead cores in a variety of materials to increase the resistance to leading.