I picked up the most recent revision of the Hornady manual and when comparing thier min-max loads for calibers i reload (38/357/44), its significantly lower than the other sources i usually use. Typically i refer to the hodgdon www, accurate www, lyman and speer and they usually corroborate to a resonable degree but Hornady is way low. any ideas why? I'm not sure i want to use this manual, even for loading thier own projectiles.
Hornady reloading manual data low?
- Thread starter JonF
- Start date
- Status
brandon_mcg
Member
i used their data for loading my .45 acp with no problems. 4.4 grains of bullseye i believe pushing a 230 gr round nose
Funshooter45
Member
It seems to be that way quite often, but not always. I think most all the manuals have been decreasing their load data the last few years out of fear of lawsuits.
788Ham
Member
I believe this afore mentioned post is correct! I know Hornady has adjusted some of their loads in the past 2 reloading manuals, use the info or decide on using another manual, your option.
HOWARD J
Member
I gave up trying to bulge the chamber a long time ago.
Like you say--there are a lot of other manuals & data out there.
Have fun---------------
Like you say--there are a lot of other manuals & data out there.
Have fun---------------
Xfire68
Member
I bought the new Hornady manual as well and found the loads to be low on some but, it has a few that are higher then the Lyman book. This is just looking at 9mm.
An example is 115g XTP Hornady starting AA #7 7.0g and max of 8.6g.
Lymans data is Starting 6.8g max 8.5g. Not a big difference but, they are the same bullet and powered.
I found that Hornady uses S&W Model 39 4.1" barrel and Lyman uses a Universal Receiver 4.0" barrel.
An example is 115g XTP Hornady starting AA #7 7.0g and max of 8.6g.
Lymans data is Starting 6.8g max 8.5g. Not a big difference but, they are the same bullet and powered.
I found that Hornady uses S&W Model 39 4.1" barrel and Lyman uses a Universal Receiver 4.0" barrel.
Lol, nice dig but i too wish to keep my fingers in thier current arrangement. My concern is quite towards the contrary though. I will soon start reloading 9mm for some fun matches where no specific PF is necessary and want to load little mouse fart rounds. I'm concerned that thier load info may be too low due to a previous bad experience using thier recipe for min load of H110 and .357. Although that powder and bullet combo has caveats of its own, i still want to clear at least the barrel every time if i load to the bottom of the Hornady spectrum for a 124g 9mm. That plus typical % of error for powder measures may not leave much room for error.
I understand the CYA approach, but when they all say start at the bottom and slowly work up and its the bottom that causes issues, its not very confidence inspiring. All the reason for multiple sources though.
I understand the CYA approach, but when they all say start at the bottom and slowly work up and its the bottom that causes issues, its not very confidence inspiring. All the reason for multiple sources though.
Funshooter45
Member
Well... you know the old saying:
"A man with a watch always knows exactly what time it is. A man with 2 watches is never quite sure."
Same goes for multiple manuals. When all I had was my Speer manual, I thought it was gospel for load recipes. Then I noticed differences between it and the Hodgdon data. Naturally, I had to find confirmation to find which one was "right" so I found another source and then another source, etc.
It can make you go crazy sometimes. If you consult 5 manuals, you will typically find 3-4 of them are fairly close so you feel OK going with the consensus. But... in the back of your mind... you wonder if that 5th one knew something really important...
All things considered, I tend to go with Hodgdon data usually if I don't want to take the time to research every single source to death. And I start at the starting load.
"A man with a watch always knows exactly what time it is. A man with 2 watches is never quite sure."
Same goes for multiple manuals. When all I had was my Speer manual, I thought it was gospel for load recipes. Then I noticed differences between it and the Hodgdon data. Naturally, I had to find confirmation to find which one was "right" so I found another source and then another source, etc.
It can make you go crazy sometimes. If you consult 5 manuals, you will typically find 3-4 of them are fairly close so you feel OK going with the consensus. But... in the back of your mind... you wonder if that 5th one knew something really important...
All things considered, I tend to go with Hodgdon data usually if I don't want to take the time to research every single source to death. And I start at the starting load.
Hangingrock
Member
I just received the 8th edition of the Hornady reloading manual yesterday. Most likely Hornady is complying with Industrial trade group standards and their own quality control SOP (AKA- Standard Operating Procedures). In other words their publication, product, and standards are being adhered to.
I recall in bygone days that 57.0grs (?) of IMR 4350 was a charge weight specified for an 180gr bullet for the 30-06 in the DuPont/IMR reloading data. Not every source concurred with that charge weight for their particular 180gr projectile. The variance I believe 57grs-55grs (?) of IMR 4350.
The charge weight specified in the new 8th edition from Hornady specifies a maximum charge weight of 54.5grs of IMR 4350 for (7) different bullet designs in the weight range of 178grs-180grs to be employed in the 30-06. Typically sighted in @ 2-½ high at 100yds I doubt if there is going to be that much meaningful deference @ 300yds between 54.5grs and 57.0grs charge weight of IMR-4350.
As for handguns my usage of revolvers is much reduced today as opposed to decades past. Basically I’m punching holes in paper with the 9mm-Luger and 45ACP cartridges. I have standard loads for each caliber and don’t tailor loads for one particular hand gun. Therefore functionality is important for several different handguns of the same caliber with out problem.
The selection of propellants listed is absolutely amazing. Now in my sixth decade of life I’m set in my ways. With more Saturdays over my shoulder than to my front if it can’t be done with IMR-4350, R-15, W-231 and Unique I’m no longer doing it.
I recall in bygone days that 57.0grs (?) of IMR 4350 was a charge weight specified for an 180gr bullet for the 30-06 in the DuPont/IMR reloading data. Not every source concurred with that charge weight for their particular 180gr projectile. The variance I believe 57grs-55grs (?) of IMR 4350.
The charge weight specified in the new 8th edition from Hornady specifies a maximum charge weight of 54.5grs of IMR 4350 for (7) different bullet designs in the weight range of 178grs-180grs to be employed in the 30-06. Typically sighted in @ 2-½ high at 100yds I doubt if there is going to be that much meaningful deference @ 300yds between 54.5grs and 57.0grs charge weight of IMR-4350.
As for handguns my usage of revolvers is much reduced today as opposed to decades past. Basically I’m punching holes in paper with the 9mm-Luger and 45ACP cartridges. I have standard loads for each caliber and don’t tailor loads for one particular hand gun. Therefore functionality is important for several different handguns of the same caliber with out problem.
The selection of propellants listed is absolutely amazing. Now in my sixth decade of life I’m set in my ways.
With more Saturdays over my shoulder than to my front if it can’t be done with IMR-4350, R-15, W-231 and Unique I’m no longer doing it.Crashbox
Member
I also noticed this, especially comparing .357 Magnum loads using 2400 and H110, the latter MAXIMUM charge below the MINIMUM charge in Lyman's 49th (and IIRC Hodgdon's own recommended minimum!)... it's a puzzler!
GooseGestapo
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2003
- Messages
- 6,156
Apple to Oranges....
Remember that both manufacturing methods, materials, and suppliers are constantly in flux.
Nothing stays the same.....
I too have found that with my "old standard" loads that I'm having to reduce powder charges.
I've got a custom built .257Roberts built in 1983. Loads for it will lock up a 1990's built Ruger M77MkII. BTDT!
I've got a Colt Lt.Rifle in .30/06 that LOVE's that 55.0gr load of IMR4350 and a 180gr bullet. Shoots under MOA with at least 4 different 180gr bullets. However, it will require a block of wood and a cleaning rod to remove the fired cartridge case from a Savage M110LH .30/06, if it will chamber in the first place. The Savage won't accept an '06 cartridge loaded over 3.265" oal with a Sierra, Nosler, or Remington PtSpt bullet due to the short throat, and lacks the camming force of a Remington/Mauser type action.
So, accept the data from Hornady with the SPECIFIED components and EQUIPMENT as their observed maximum.
Another example is I have a Marlin mod.338MX in .338MarlinExpress. The Hornady data for the Hornady FTX with Acc#2520 is 44.4gr max for 2,400fps. My rifle agrees. With the Hodgdon Data, the max is 46.5gr for 2,500fps. I shoot the later load, but it is WARM. But, the factory ammo is WARM too, in MY Rifle...... I shoot the later load, but with future lot#'s of powder may require a charge reduction....
Hence, the age old standard recommendation: Any time you substute componenets, even a new Lot# of the same item, re-work up the data!
I had a nasty suprise with a Remington M788 in .243 back in the late '80's. H4831 isn't neccessarily H4831. The new production powder is MUCH faster burning than the original Mil-Surplus stuff....Wrecked a rifle, with a starting load!
Nuff said!
Remember that both manufacturing methods, materials, and suppliers are constantly in flux.
Nothing stays the same.....
I too have found that with my "old standard" loads that I'm having to reduce powder charges.
I've got a custom built .257Roberts built in 1983. Loads for it will lock up a 1990's built Ruger M77MkII. BTDT!
I've got a Colt Lt.Rifle in .30/06 that LOVE's that 55.0gr load of IMR4350 and a 180gr bullet. Shoots under MOA with at least 4 different 180gr bullets. However, it will require a block of wood and a cleaning rod to remove the fired cartridge case from a Savage M110LH .30/06, if it will chamber in the first place. The Savage won't accept an '06 cartridge loaded over 3.265" oal with a Sierra, Nosler, or Remington PtSpt bullet due to the short throat, and lacks the camming force of a Remington/Mauser type action.
So, accept the data from Hornady with the SPECIFIED components and EQUIPMENT as their observed maximum.
Another example is I have a Marlin mod.338MX in .338MarlinExpress. The Hornady data for the Hornady FTX with Acc#2520 is 44.4gr max for 2,400fps. My rifle agrees. With the Hodgdon Data, the max is 46.5gr for 2,500fps. I shoot the later load, but it is WARM. But, the factory ammo is WARM too, in MY Rifle...... I shoot the later load, but with future lot#'s of powder may require a charge reduction....
Hence, the age old standard recommendation: Any time you substute componenets, even a new Lot# of the same item, re-work up the data!
I had a nasty suprise with a Remington M788 in .243 back in the late '80's. H4831 isn't neccessarily H4831. The new production powder is MUCH faster burning than the original Mil-Surplus stuff....Wrecked a rifle, with a starting load!
Nuff said!
In the Lyman, all the loads listed for .357 mag are with magnum primers. I can't recall if the Hornady loads are with magnum or standard. 2400 can be affected considerably with the different primers. At least with larger charges.
cheygriz
member
I always have a minimum or 4 or 5 manuals on the bench, and discount any data in one manual, either low or high, that is grossly different from the others.
Remember, a new class just graduated from law school last June, and they need as many people as possible to sue!
Remember, a new class just graduated from law school last June, and they need as many people as possible to sue!
Last edited:
- Status
