-Gadsden-
Member
see you guys in a week or so!
Learning about all this stuff is pretty darn fun
Learning about all this stuff is pretty darn fun
My Lyman 49 just arrived
- Thread starter -Gadsden-
- Start date
- Status
ArchAngelCD
Member.
Don't forget to read the front of the book instead of jumping right to the load data. (but it sounds like you are already doing that)
You bought a good load manual...
You bought a good load manual...
red rick
Member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2009
- Messages
- 3,153
I got mine 2 weeks ago and have read it twice now while I am waiting on my press. I also read Lyman's Pistol & Revolver 3rd ed. My kit is coming with the Lee book. I might get the Hornady 8th or 9th and Speer #14 while I am still waiting for the press. The backorder date has been changed from 03/08/13 to May.
Reloadron
Contributing Member
Wandering through the new Cabela's grand opening in Ohio I saw a 49th edition hard bound so I tossed it in my basket. The Lyman manuals are a great wealth of information.
Ron
Ron
thomis
Member
Yes, fundamentally one of the best. The fundamentals are everything.
powell&hyde
Member
Get the Lyman Cast Bullet book which is dedicated to cast only. I have #3 and #4 books, great info in them.
-Gadsden-
Member
Book is great so far -- Looking forward to getting a few other manuals to compare/contrast.
When Lyman gives data for a 120gn lead bullet (#356242), does this data correspond for a 124gn bullet that you might buy at an online retailer?
When Lyman gives data for a 120gn lead bullet (#356242), does this data correspond for a 124gn bullet that you might buy at an online retailer?
LiveLife
Member
Yes, but there are reloading variables to take into account (bullet nose shape/ogive, bullet seating depth, OAL used, etc. - more on this below).-Gadsden- said:
I have found most jacketed bullets can vary by 1+ grains and I use load data for 124/125 bullets interchangeably when using OAL longer than published.
I have found most plated bullets can vary by 1-3+ grains and I use load data for 124/125 bullets interchangeably when using OAL longer than published.
I have found many lead bullets can vary by 3-5+ grains and use load data for 120-125 bullets with some consideration. If I was pushing 125 gr bullet at near max load data, I may do my initial work up to .1-.2+ gr below max charge depending on the bullet seating depth.
Here's an example.
When I used 125 gr lead RN bullets with a step like Dardas/ZCast bullets shown on the right in the above picture, W231/HP-38 Hodgdon load data for 125 lead CN bullet and 1.125" OAL worked well.
1999-2005 Winchester load data
When I switched to Missouri 125 gr RN, I got leading at 4.2-4.4 gr charges during my powder work up. I initially wondered if the transition from 22-24 BHN to softer 18 BHN made that much difference but found the real cause with the bearing surface and bullet seating depth.
If you look at the comparison picture above, the shiny part of the bullet base represents the bearing surface that rides the rifling (except for the stepped base of two RN bullet on the right). As you can see, Missouri RN bullet has shorter/rounder nose profile (ogive) than Dardas/ZCast RN bullets with longer bearing surface (BTW, Dardas sells both nose profiles). During my barrel drop test, I found I needed to use shorter OAL of 1.080"-1.100" for the Missouri bullet so the bearing surface of the bullet won't hit the start of rifling.
Using shorter OAL with different nose profile (ogive) caused the bullet base to be seated deeper in the case neck which would increase the chamber pressures. Lower 3.8 - 4.0 gr charges indicated by 1999-2005 Winchester load data did not cause leading.
Here's the seating depth calculations I used (OAL - bullet length = bullet seating depth). For calculation purposes, I used 1.125" as OAL for the CN bullet (.620" in length) and 1.080" OAL for the RN bullet (.565" in length) - but always measure the bullet lengths as bullets from different company may vary in OAL (case in point, SWC bullets from MBC and Dardas on the left in above picture).
So based on this example, bullet base got seated .010" deeper with the Missouri RN bullet with 1.080" OAL as compared to CN at 1.125" OAL.
So why use one nose type over another?
Well, longer the bearing surface, more bullet base to ride the rifling to rotate and stabilize the bullet in flight. More specific to lead loads, IME, longer bearing surface helps with sealing the bullet to barrel (obturation) to produce more consistent chamber pressures which translates to more consistent muzzle velocities which produces greater accuracy. Another bonus? I can use less powder charge and still produce accurate loads.
So why use stepped RN with shorter bearing surface over shorter/rounder Missouri bullet with longer bearing surface? That would depend on the barrels used. My aftermarket Lone Wolf 40-9 9mm conversion barrels for Glock 22/27 were reamed at the factory and allows for longer OAL for the barrel drop test. The new Lone Wolf conversion barrel I got for the Glock 23 has much quicker start of rifling with almost no leade like my Sig 1911 TacPac barrel.
Consequently, I needed to seat the Missouri 125 gr RN bullet to much shorter OAL to pass the barrel drop test and at the shorter OAL, bullet base would compress the 4.0 gr Promo/Red Dot powder charge I usually use (for 1.080" OAL, 4.0 gr of Promo is the max charge before I start compressing the powder charge - The shorter OAL would even compress the lighter 3.6 gr charge of Promo). Using the stepped RN bullets from Dardas/ZCast with 1.120" OAL passed the barrel drop test and did not compress the 3.6-4.0 gr Promo/Red Dot powder charges.
BTW, The quicker start of rifling/almost no leade Lone Wolf barrel ABSOLUTELY provides faster chamber pressure build up and better obturation as even after several hundred rounds of shooting, the barrel is shiny clean with no smearing even at the chamber end! Life is good.
Last edited:
-Gadsden-
Member
that's an incredibly thorough response -- thank you very much. I'll be bookmarking this so I can come back and reference it repeatedly!
Certaindeaf
member
Just wait'll you get a Lyman 55!
LiveLife
Member
I want to clarify that 22-24 BHN stepped 125 gr RN bullets came locally and not from Dardas/ZCast (Dardas advertises 16 BHN and ZCast 14-16 BHN).
Hondo 60
Member
-Gadsden-
Welcome to the addict... oh, I mean hobby, ya that's it ... hobby
You'll LOVE the wealth of knowledge here - and FAST responses!
red rick mentioned Lyman's Pistol & Revolver 3rd ed.
If you have #49, don't bother with the Pistol book.
It's just a duplication.
I wish someone had warned me about it before I wasted my money.
(I bought the Pistol book - it's good, just a duplication)
Welcome to the addict... oh, I mean hobby, ya that's it ... hobby
You'll LOVE the wealth of knowledge here - and FAST responses!
red rick mentioned Lyman's Pistol & Revolver 3rd ed.
If you have #49, don't bother with the Pistol book.
It's just a duplication.
I wish someone had warned me about it before I wasted my money.
(I bought the Pistol book - it's good, just a duplication)
-Gadsden-
Member
Ok good call. I'm on a budget
just bought the Lee Modern Reloading 2nd Edition from Midway, should be here in a week or two!
just bought the Lee Modern Reloading 2nd Edition from Midway, should be here in a week or two!
-Gadsden-
Member
Got the Lee Modern Reloading 2nd Edition on Friday, and I've read it pretty thoroughly. I plan to get a Lee Challenger Press so it's helpful to have some Lee-specific information. I also prefer the Lee style of writing better.
One thing I did notice is that comparing the Lee with the Lyman, for a given caliber and bullet weight, the powders listed varies.
For instance, in 9mm loading, the Lyman shows essentially the same powders used for jacketed bullets as with lead, while the Lee lists numerous powders that are listed for jacketed but not for lead, and visa versa.
Can this just be chalked up to a. the manual author's preference for a given powder with a given bullet and caliber, b. not enough space, time, resources to try every powder, or maybe a combination of the above? Perhaps there are some branding issues, with certain authors giving preference to this powder over that powder?
One thing I did notice is that comparing the Lee with the Lyman, for a given caliber and bullet weight, the powders listed varies.
For instance, in 9mm loading, the Lyman shows essentially the same powders used for jacketed bullets as with lead, while the Lee lists numerous powders that are listed for jacketed but not for lead, and visa versa.
Can this just be chalked up to a. the manual author's preference for a given powder with a given bullet and caliber, b. not enough space, time, resources to try every powder, or maybe a combination of the above? Perhaps there are some branding issues, with certain authors giving preference to this powder over that powder?
KansasSasquatch
Member
Lee basically compiles everyone else's data for basic bullet styles. Lyman did their own testing and it probably was too much burden to test EVERY bullet/powder combo.
-Gadsden-
Member
So omission can't necessarily be construed as disapproval? I just find the discrepancy between lead and jacketed interesting. This is fun!
Maj Dad
Member
Cast Boolits Forum
Check out Cast Boolits - a plumb veritable lead mine of info for galenaphilics...
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/forum.php
Check out Cast Boolits - a plumb veritable lead mine of info for galenaphilics...
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/forum.php
Hondo 60
Member
^^^^^ huh?^^^^^
From Google: "Your search - define:galenaphilics - did not match any documents."
(also tried Webster's Dictionary & got the following) - The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary.
From Google: "Your search - define:galenaphilics - did not match any documents."
(also tried Webster's Dictionary & got the following) - The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary.
- Status
