How often should you get a new manual ?

[CQB45ACP]

I see reference to downloading a pdf of a particular web site load data. Then printing, and keeping the data in a binder. What's the difference between that and a reloading manual? Besides a decent reloading manual has waaaay more info than load data...

I'm seeing some really off the wall, weird and nonsensical posts in this thread so I'm outta here. If a reloader believes 50% of the misinformation here, he's on his own.

What if he believes the OTHER 50% of the misinformation?

 

[Varminterror]

I see reference to downloading a pdf of a particular web site load data. Then printing, and keeping the data in a binder. What's the difference between that and a reloading manual?

I agree with this - there's not much sense in printing most load data. A lot of folks like to have some piece of paper in front of them - myself included - but I acknowledge when I move to the bench for load development, I have a piece of paper in my hand. I acknowledge when I am comparing one powder option to the next, or seeking exact parameters when none are available and I'm stuck discerning between "close" data from multiple sources, I'll have a piece of paper in my hand. But in neither case is that paper a generic and comprehensive print out of powders I won't be bringing to my bench - I don't have much interest, typically, in minimum starting loads for most cartridges, as I'll never load 300-400fps slower than possible for any cartridge, and I expect it is understandable that I have no interest in loading 77.6grn of 7828 in my 300wm, just because I accidentally read the max charge of neighboring H1000, instead of the appropriate max of 73.2grn 7827... Data at the bench should ONLY be the relevant data for the powder being loaded. Then what I catalog in my digital databook isn't a screenshot of a manual, but rather my test structure and corresponding notes - so what rises to the top are the nodes and the relevant data I need.

But... I can appreciate - having ONLY data relevant to cartridges we own, either digitally stored or physically printed, can make more sense than owning manuals. I load for a lot of cartridges, but I typically don't load more than one or two bullet weights for most of them, definitely not more than one or two weight classes, and I don't load 10-30 powders for any of them - typically only one or two powders per cartridge, and frankly, only a handful of powders for MOST cartridges. So if I could print singular pages of the bullet weights I use wit the powders I use, I'd have ~$5-10 in printing costs, and a very thin notebook, as opposed to having an entire book shelf dedicated to housing a few hundred dollars worth of manuals. Again, better still having that condensed data stored in digital and transferrable form.

He must’ve learned, a reloading manual is for general information and helping to learn what questions you might want to ask, but it’s not intended to answer all those questions.

^ This.

I've frequently mentioned on this forum and others - reloading manuals contain two things: 1) relatively comprehensive load data of various permutations of cartridge, bullet weight, and powder choices, which is almost ALWAYS orders of magnitude more information than a reloader/handloader actually needs, and 2) a description of the most basic, exceptionally manual process to make small volumes of generic, but safe ammunition. In most cases, this process description does not survive contact with reality, as almost all creeds of reloaders use some DIFFERENT process for their own needs. So recommending manuals to a new reloader is advising they 1) waste money on excessive data they don't need, and 2) pursue a process which in all likelihood does not meet their specific wants and needs.

Care to splain it to me? And how frequently you get into this level of detail?

A velocity curve like I shared above, plotting muzzle velocity against charge weight, should have visible nodes. The fact that particular experiment produced a straight line suggested a primary ignition issue - in a manner of speaking, like hitting a bell with a feather instead of a hammer, the barrel wasn't ringing - so the solution was to increase neck tension. How frequently do I get into that level of detail? Personally, between 10-20 times per year, as I use that proven method of long range load development for all of my barrels, and I use the same test as node confirmations before almost every match I shoot. In that case, I had switched brass, and obviously had the wrong neck bushing for the new neck size, which also was noted that week when I seated the bullets, as seating pressure was very light. Given a little more neck tension, I picked up a little more speed, and nodes revealed themselves.

I was taught the influence of neck tension on node width many years ago, circa 1999, and was taught the Satterlee velocity curve method not quite 10yrs ago now, as an evolution of the Audette Ladder I was taught those ~24yrs ago. Owning many reloading manuals, I've never seen either load development method described, nor have I ever seen explication of neck tension influence on primary ignition and combustion which would have identified an answered my problem depicted above...

Instead, @BBarn, as a reloader which is mislead into assuming reloading manuals are actually valuable, couldn't see the forest for the trees - insisting that missing units was in some way preventing him from seeing the problem standing right in front of him... Load curves should have nodes - that curve didn't have any nodes. Why? Well we can be sure he didn't find that answer in the manuals either. But within seconds, I recognized the problem when I saw that curve, because I'd been instructed not by a manual, but by a talented and experienced reloader, and I increased my neck tension to fix the problem. Later in the week when I shared the story with another shooter that I'd been frustrated by a Satterlee curve which was a straight line, their response was "oh yeah, so like 7fps per 10th? Did you increase neck tension?" meaning they were also familiar with the test, the problematic result, and the solution...

Manuals are elementary education. We learn how to do 2+2 =4, and maybe even get a cursory education in fractions. But we have to acknowledge that middle school, high school, university, and graduate level knowledge exists which extends far beyond the basics found in manuals. So I'm more prone to suggest a new reloader doesn't really gain much even by owning a manual, and certainly doesn't gain anything by buying NEW revisions as they become available, ESPECIALLY in ~2018 and beyond, when almost any data you could desire could be found for free, online.

 

[CQB45ACP]

I agree with this - there's not much sense in printing most load data. A lot of folks like to have some piece of paper in front of them - myself included - but I acknowledge when I move to the bench for load development, I have a piece of paper in my hand. I acknowledge when I am comparing one powder option to the next, or seeking exact parameters when none are available and I'm stuck discerning between "close" data from multiple sources, I'll have a piece of paper in my hand. But in neither case is that paper a generic and comprehensive print out of powders I won't be bringing to my bench - I don't have much interest, typically, in minimum starting loads for most cartridges, as I'll never load 300-400fps slower than possible for any cartridge, and I expect it is understandable that I have no interest in loading 77.6grn of 7828 in my 300wm, just because I accidentally read the max charge of neighboring H1000, instead of the appropriate max of 73.2grn 7827... Data at the bench should ONLY be the relevant data for the powder being loaded. Then what I catalog in my digital databook isn't a screenshot of a manual, but rather my test structure and corresponding notes - so what rises to the top are the nodes and the relevant data I need.

But... I can appreciate - having ONLY data relevant to cartridges we own, either digitally stored or physically printed, can make more sense than owning manuals. I load for a lot of cartridges, but I typically don't load more than one or two bullet weights for most of them, definitely not more than one or two weight classes, and I don't load 10-30 powders for any of them - typically only one or two powders per cartridge, and frankly, only a handful of powders for MOST cartridges. So if I could print singular pages of the bullet weights I use wit the powders I use, I'd have ~$5-10 in printing costs, and a very thin notebook, as opposed to having an entire book shelf dedicated to housing a few hundred dollars worth of manuals. Again, better still having that condensed data stored in digital and transferrable form.



^ This.

I've frequently mentioned on this forum and others - reloading manuals contain two things: 1) relatively comprehensive load data of various permutations of cartridge, bullet weight, and powder choices, which is almost ALWAYS orders of magnitude more information than a reloader/handloader actually needs, and 2) a description of the most basic, exceptionally manual process to make small volumes of generic, but safe ammunition. In most cases, this process description does not survive contact with reality, as almost all creeds of reloaders use some DIFFERENT process for their own needs. So recommending manuals to a new reloader is advising they 1) waste money on excessive data they don't need, and 2) pursue a process which in all likelihood does not meet their specific wants and needs.



A velocity curve like I shared above, plotting muzzle velocity against charge weight, should have visible nodes. The fact that particular experiment produced a straight line suggested a primary ignition issue - in a manner of speaking, like hitting a bell with a feather instead of a hammer, the barrel wasn't ringing - so the solution was to increase neck tension. How frequently do I get into that level of detail? Personally, between 10-20 times per year, as I use that proven method of long range load development for all of my barrels, and I use the same test as node confirmations before almost every match I shoot. In that case, I had switched brass, and obviously had the wrong neck bushing for the new neck size, which also was noted that week when I seated the bullets, as seating pressure was very light. Given a little more neck tension, I picked up a little more speed, and nodes revealed themselves.

I was taught the influence of neck tension on node width many years ago, circa 1999, and was taught the Satterlee velocity curve method not quite 10yrs ago now, as an evolution of the Audette Ladder I was taught those ~24yrs ago. Owning many reloading manuals, I've never seen either load development method described, nor have I ever seen explication of neck tension influence on primary ignition and combustion which would have identified an answered my problem depicted above...

Instead, @BBarn, as a reloader which is mislead into assuming reloading manuals are actually valuable, couldn't see the forest for the trees - insisting that missing units was in some way preventing him from seeing the problem standing right in front of him... Load curves should have nodes - that curve didn't have any nodes. Why? Well we can be sure he didn't find that answer in the manuals either. But within seconds, I recognized the problem when I saw that curve, because I'd been instructed not by a manual, but by a talented and experienced reloader, and I increased my neck tension to fix the problem. Later in the week when I shared the story with another shooter that I'd been frustrated by a Satterlee curve which was a straight line, their response was "oh yeah, so like 7fps per 10th? Did you increase neck tension?" meaning they were also familiar with the test, the problematic result, and the solution...

Manuals are elementary education. We learn how to do 2+2 =4, and maybe even get a cursory education in fractions. But we have to acknowledge that middle school, high school, university, and graduate level knowledge exists which extends far beyond the basics found in manuals. So I'm more prone to suggest a new reloader doesn't really gain much even by owning a manual, and certainly doesn't gain anything by buying NEW revisions as they become available, ESPECIALLY in ~2018 and beyond, when almost any data you could desire could be found for free, online.

Well it’s beyond me. When I was young I achieved marksman level and no better. So all of that work wouldn’t help me. Now that I’m old, I just shoot pistols and my eyes appreciate it.
The manual to me was essential at first for the “do this but not that” guidance and to help me learn vernacular and such. Now I get info I need from THR, guys at the range, and powder mfrs.

 

[Soonerpesek]

Well it’s beyond me. When I was young I achieved marksman level and no better. So all of that work wouldn’t help me. Now that I’m old, I just shoot pistols and my eyes appreciate it.
The manual to me was essential at first for the “do this but not that” guidance and to help me learn vernacular and such. Now I get info I need from THR, guys at the range, and powder mfrs.

BUT……………….
You were told that you don’t really like sourdough anyway……
Why don’t you listen…….!!!!!……………. LOL

 

[Spclk]

I'd have been better off reading one of my "useless" manuals than the 4 pages of this post.

 

[CQB45ACP]

I'd have been better off reading one of my "useless" manuals than the 4 pages of this post.

Agreed but which did you actually read?

 

[Skeptic13]

I am in the online data exclusively club. For me it is just easier and it should be the most up to date info available for that source.