How often should you get a new manual ?

Varminterror said:

Reloading manuals are what we call “loss leaders.”

Click to expand...

I agree. The books themselves are a 'sales tool.' Think of it as the Sears Christmas WishBook (if any of you are old enough to remember those.)

Developing load data for your powder or bullet, and making that data available in published (or online) form, is just another cost of doing business... I would be surprised if they viewed it as a 'profitable' portion of their bottom line.

OrangePwrx9 said:

Save the old ones. Loads for Unique, Red Dot, and Bullseye as well as some other old-timers often come from my Speer 9 and an old Lyman.

My idea of using the Hodgden magazine type manual as an update was a bust. They don't list 35 Rem, 44Spcl, or Alliant powders (understandable), and their bullet abbreviations don't show up on the supposed 'key' page. Yet they list 44-40.

Lee manuals aren't bad, sort of like the Hodgden but more complete and their bullet descriptions are understandable. However, it's all dated and all someone else's data.

I'm waiting for the next Speer manual. Hope they have more up-to-date powders.

I currently don't have anything with BE-86 loads and have to rely on online data. That makes me nervous. Thanks to a sale, I've got a lot of the stuff but haven't loaded any yet.

Click to expand...

Speer No. 15 is out, if you want their latest. Also, Speer offers an extensive list of data on line that includes many of the newer powders. I would be careful using the old Speer No. 9 data. They had some pretty hairy loads listed, and it is possible some of the powders they listed have since been altered, and could cause pressure issues.

I still use speer11 for somethings.

What book you buy may also vary depending on what you want from the manual. The load data I reference most is the nossler on line data. They provide case fill information I find very useful. I don't own one but I should. The old imr manuals give listing for loadings with every powder they make, not just the best performing powders in that case. I find it very useful for things like 4198 or 4227 in a 308, where most listing are 4895 and slower. If your a hunter then you probably be good with any data in the last decade...

I'm tempted to get a new Speer, Nosler and Berger but Hornady manuals are absolutely useless now that they load for lawsuit prevention but most of my data comes from online sources and my own testing.

2ndtimer said:

I would be careful using the old Speer No. 9 data.

Click to expand...

My first manual was the Speer #11, I noted some changes between that and my current #14. I know some people source the older manuals for data they can't find in more current manuals... but you sure have to look at what you are reading, sometimes.

MonkTx said:

but Hornady manuals are absolutely useless now that they load for lawsuit prevention

Click to expand...

That's such an inane statement. I took about 3 minutes and compared Hornady data to some of the data in the Speer #14... in all cases, the Hornady data pushed higher velocities than the Speer. Hornady does have data that some might consider 'watered down'... things like the Service Rifle data... but that is specialty data, for very specific goals.

Charlie98 said:

My first manual was the Speer #11, I noted some changes between that and my current #14. I know some people source the older manuals for data they can't find in more current manuals... but you sure have to look at what you are reading, sometimes.




That's such an inane statement. I took about 3 minutes and compared Hornady data to some of the data in the Speer #14... in all cases, the Hornady data pushed higher velocities than the Speer. Hornady does have data that some might consider 'watered down'... things like the Service Rifle data... but that is specialty data, for very specific goals.

Click to expand...

I'm not comparing to other load manuals. I have no idea about other manuals, they may be just like Hornady now. I'm comparing to what people are using and winning with.

MonkTx said:

I'm not comparing to other load manuals. I have no idea about other manuals, they may be just like Hornady now. I'm comparing to what people are using and winning with.

Click to expand...

What competitions, in particular, are people winning with their reloading manuals?

I like books. So, I try to buy manuals soon after they become available. Don't know how many I have, but there's a bunch. Because of my Rule #1, I keep manuals in my shop and on my desk in the house and texts on the bookshelf in my bedroom (Rule #1; I pay little [no?] attention to any load data or critical reloading info I see on any forum, hear from any Range Rat, good intended friend, Gun Counter Clerk, shooting "Ace"/celebrity, or Gun Shop Guru. 98% of my load data comes directly from my published reloading manuals with a few from powder/component manufacturer's websites. Has worked quite well since about 1970 and I've had one squib and no Kabooms).

Only when I need new load data. Those loads I'm happy with now don't need a new manual.

I’m done buying manuals. I have two and some free guides from powder makers.

Web sites have all the information I need. I made the mistake of paying for the Hornady app. It was disappointing.

The perceived lack of need for loading manuals is quite evident in the questions often asked on reloading forums. Many of the questions are correctly answered in loading manuals, unlike the variety of answers often provided on the www.

GeoDudeFlorida said:

That’s a really good summary. Not much to add except to say, personally I don’t trust online data. I read “1984” long before I started handloading. Books can’t be changed on the fly; online data can. For good or bad. Might want to keep that in mind when telling people books are useless.

Click to expand...

”Online” load data is most often available in downloadable PDFs. They are flat files that you store and can even print for posterity. I often print them and have them around in a binder for quick reference. Personally, I think powder manufactures are the most likely to be accurate and up to date with their data so I usually use that as the most authoritative data for the purposes of safe limits. I occasionally will reference bullet manufactures if I have an infrequently used or new projectile that doesn’t have much loading data available. When I first started loading I got a Lyman manual and it was great for getting me started but don’t really have a reason to get another manual ever again.

Varminterror said:

What competitions, in particular, are people winning with their reloading manuals?

Click to expand...

Successful competitive shooters are relying on their own data derived from first hand testing, load development and match results. As a matter of fact, I’ll go further to say that there aren’t many shooters winning matches with loads that fall within any published load parameters.

Varminterror said:

I wouldn’t say there is any reason a reloader needs to update to new manuals. If you believe data may have changed for a given powder, or you start loading for a new cartridge not found in your existing manual, then the data is almost assuredly available through whichever device you are using to read this.

Click to expand...

I really only use the manuals to see what assortment of powder and basic parameters. For instance, when is started loading 65PRC last year I had never heard or seen Retumbo powder. It’s my choice now.

The last one that I bought was Nosler #6, I have a large library of older manuals in the reloading room. Never go by a garage sale.

Nature Boy said:

Successful competitive shooters are relying on their own data derived from first hand testing, load development and match results. As a matter of fact, I’ll go further to say that there aren’t many shooters winning matches with loads that fall within any published load parameters.

Click to expand...

Oh, sorry! I missed the part where the OP said he is a successful competitive shooter. That changes everything.

GeoDudeFlorida said:

Oh, sorry! I missed the part where the OP said he is a successful competitive shooter. That changes everything.

Click to expand...

The OP may not have, but it seems you missed when another user suggested that manuals are justified by those using them to win some unidentified form or another of competition, in an effort to convince the OP, with false information, to buy manuals.

Nature Boy said:

Successful competitive shooters are relying on their own data derived from first hand testing, load development and match results. As a matter of fact, I’ll go further to say that there aren’t many shooters winning matches with loads that fall within any published load parameters.

Click to expand...

I’ll extend this by also acknowledging that almost all of those shooters are using reloading processes and tools not found in any reloading manual either.

GeoDudeFlorida said:

Oh, sorry! I missed the part where the OP said he is a successful competitive shooter. That changes everything.

Click to expand...

He didn’t, it was a response to another post but I’ll take the blame for any thread derailment.

I’ll say that manuals have worth, whether they are they latest addition or an older version, however, their value is limited and it varies depending on the application.

For someone starting out they are a great source of basic information and for someone who’s been loading for a while they’re a good source for reference data.

However, regardless of the source of your load data, once you take hand loaded rounds to the range, your data and your observations take precedence over any data you got from a manual, your uncle Bob or a reloading forum.

So in that context, whether I have the 6th edition or the 7th of brand X’s manual, it doesn’t matter as much to me as long as I have enough information to safely start my load development process. After that I’m writing the manual on my rifle and my loads.

Nature Boy said:

He didn’t, it was a response to another post but I’ll take the blame for any thread derailment.

Click to expand...

It was my response to his nonsensical statement that Hornady data is 'lawyered up' and useless.

Nature Boy said:

He didn’t, it was a response to another post but I’ll take the blame for any thread derailment.

I’ll say that manuals have worth, whether they are they latest addition or an older version, however, their value is limited and it varies depending on the application.

For someone starting out they are a great source of basic information and for someone who’s been loading for a while they’re a good source for reference data.

However, regardless of the source of your load data, once you take hand loaded rounds to the range, your data and your observations take precedence over any data you got from a manual, your uncle Bob or a reloading forum.

So in that context, whether I have the 6th edition or the 7th of brand X’s manual, it doesn’t matter as much to me as long as I have enough information to safely start my load development process. After that I’m writing the manual on my rifle and my loads.

Click to expand...

I don't think there is blame. A competitive shooter is beyond manual knowledge. There are resources that will add to shooter knowledge at that level, but it's not a basic how to manual.

Nature Boy said:

However, regardless of the source of your load data, once you take hand loaded rounds to the range, your data and your observations take precedence over any data you got from a manual, your uncle Bob or a reloading forum.

Click to expand...

Absolutely! I’ve said many times, the best reloading manual is the one you write. I thought maybe the OP had said something and I just missed it - that happens - but I do agree with your point. I guess maybe what I hold onto with the published material is the background and history I don’t put in my notes. That and over almost 40 years, I’ve lost my hand written notes more than once. Most recently to a roof collapse. I have some scribbling in my old books - and most of what I’ve come up with is based on the books anyway - so this time it wasn’t a tragedy. Sad, but I didn’t lose everything. All my most useful loads are in boxes with tags describing the recipe.
I think the OP is asking if there’s anything new in any of the new manuals - and I agree with @BBarn : The need for a new book is based on whether or not an old one you already have has the bullet and powder combination you’re looking at. If so, then maybe you don’t need a new book. Then again, what does need have to do with anything?

AJC1 said:

I don't think there is blame. A competitive shooter is beyond manual knowledge. There are resources that will add to shooter knowledge at that level, but it's not a basic how to manual.

Click to expand...

That’s kind of sad. I’ve always been the type that, if the day ever comes I don’t think I have anything left to learn, I might as well just be dead. Then again, I’m not paid other people’s money to reload and pull a trigger. I do that for me. I don’t see a day when I know everything and don’t need references anymore. But I’m not a superstar either so there’s that.
I don’t think the thread is about worshipping superstar shooters. But if that’s where it’s going, I’ll leave y’all to it.

GeoDudeFlorida said:

That’s kind of sad. I’ve always been the type that, if the day ever comes I don’t think I have anything left to learn, I might as well just be dead. Then again, I’m not paid other people’s money to reload and pull a trigger. I do that for me. I don’t see a day when I know everything and don’t need references anymore. But I’m not a superstar either so there’s that.
I don’t think the thread is about worshipping superstar shooters. But if that’s where it’s going, I’ll leave y’all to it.

Click to expand...

I'm saying that you go to advanced sources for greater depth. I watch bolt action reloading and winning in the wind for speakers of greater experience. There are things to be relearned from the basics but there are students ready for college level. As they say get in where you fit in, and I am open to all options.