Your favorite reloading manual?

[luxone]

I was hoping to get an idea of what reloading manual or manuals everyone likes best. I currently only have the Speer 13 and was wanting to get another. I would like to get some input from others as to the +/- of other manuals. Thanks for the help!

 

[Mal H]

That's a tough one. For the sheer amount of reloading advice and info, for me it's the current Lyman manual. But strictly for load data, the current Speer manual is usually my goto book. Hornady is a close second, followed by Nosler (I love the blurbs at the beginning of each caliber) with the Hodgdon manual a distant 4th.

 

[P95Carry]

I'm sure we had a thread on this not so long ago .......

Anyways .. I'd always recommend more than one - for achieving the best balance of decisions. Speer #13 is great and i use it. I have Lyman #47 . not yet got #48. Also use lee 2nd edition. Over and above that - I often search the web to comparison data too, in particular with working up new loads for hand cannons.

Some PDF stuff is available for download . I have the Vhit and Win ones I know .. further sources for checking stuff out.

I'd end with a small caveat . IMO max-max loads are rarely necessary or even desirable . Many a rifle comes to its best with a load just below max ... tightest group etc .... fastest velocity is rarely the best.

 

[swifter]

I get the latest of each : Speer, Hornady, Nosler, Hogdon, as they come out
Hogdon is probably "best".

Tom

 

[The_Antibubba]

Ramblin' Richard

Modern Reloading by Richard Lee-he's got a very laid back, good ol' boy writing style. And since I plan to start reloading using the Lee dippers, I need his book.

 

[JuniorG]

If I had to grab one and go it would be the Speer #11, there is alot of info in here besides load data.

Hodgdons has a lot of diffrent powders for alot of diffrent calibers from a lot of manufactors listed.

Lees manual also has alot of load data.

I always check Sierras manual for the accuracy load before starting.

and if I cant find what I want in the top four I have about a doz. other sources to check.

Buy as many as you can afford.

 

[Valkman]

They're each loaded with different kinds of info, so getting as many as you can is a bonus. I have Speer, Hornaday and Lyman don't have a favorite as I use them all equally. Use as many sources as you can.

 

[Kamicosmos]

I have the Speer 12 and Lyman 48th. I also grab the free booklets from the powder manufacturer, and hit their websites as well. I just ordered the Lee 2nd Edition and the Seirra manuals. I like books!

I like the layout of the Lyman, but have been concerned at the data. Some of it (ok, most of it) seems to be quite a bit hotter than Speer or even the power makers...hence getting more books. I'm looking forward to the sierra, it has a good layout, and a gazzilion loads.

 

[stans]

Lyman is my favorite manual, but I also have and use Sierra, Speer, Hornady, and Nosler manuals.

 

[WhoKnowsWho]

I like the Lyman 48th Edition the most usually, but it lacks certain standard loads, like 124 FMJ 9mm Luger or 180 Grain FMJ 40 S&W. I guess since that data is in any of the powder company's manuals, they didn't bother to do it. Both the Lyman and Speer #13 have good information about each specific caliber. The Speer is very centered on Speer bullets. Since all my dies are Lee, I finally picked up the Lee Manual to compliment the information that comes with the die sets. With those, I am pretty much set. 1st, Lee because of the shear amount of load data, and 2nd Lyman because of load data and caliber data and pressure data.

 

[ojibweindian]

I'd end with a small caveat . IMO max-max loads are rarely necessary or even desirable . Many a rifle comes to its best with a load just below max ... tightest group etc .... fastest velocity is rarely the best.

I will definitely second that. The most accurate 150gr load I have for my .30-06 uses 55.7 grains of H380, which is 5.59% under the max load listed in Lee's "Modern Reloading" and Hodgdon's web site. With this load, I am getting, out of a "Wally World" Winchester M70, 0.60" - to 0.75" at 100 yards. The powder is a little temperature sensitive; better groups are acheived at lower outdoor temperatures.

BTW, to stay on topic, Lee's "Modern Reloading" is my favorite manual. Not for the data, but for its down-to-earth writing and explanation of the whole reloading process.

For safety's sake, I constantly compare the load data in that manual for the cartridges I reload against the powder manufacturer's web site data and loads posted here by our more experienced reloaders.

 

[Ala Dan]

I got to agree with my friend Mal H on this one; cuz
with the Lyman and Speer manuals, you pretty well have
all the bases covered.

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

 

[Grampa]

I have several, and regularly look at each to compare loads. That said, the first one I grab is Speer #13. Second is usually the Hornady.

Comparing loads between the Speer #10 and #13 is always very interesting.

 

[greg531mi]

Some Speer loads are way too hot!!!! My favorite is Lyman, they do not make bullets, powder, or primers....totally independant.....I use at least two references when reloading...Speer burned me in a couple of loads, but I worked up the loads, and a good reloader does, so make sure you go to the range and test them, before you load a 1000 rounds!!!!!

 

[Black Snowman]

I prefer the powder mfg data on their web sites or manuals, then bullet mfg, then Speer #13, then Lee but it leaves out a lot of info that should be there. OAL of the load, specific bullet used, barrel lenth tested, etc. . . It does have lots of useful info however, like the estimated volume of the charge in CCs which is handy for rough setting your powder thrower.

The new Hodgon manual / periodical has a LOT of re-tested data in it and is pretty trustworthy if you are using their powders. From what I read just about everything in it measured in PSI will be more accurate than CUP data as the strain guage equipment that they are using to get the data is much better at detecting early pressure spikes than the copper crusher method.

These superior testing methods as well as upgrades in testing platforms have made for a lot of data changes in the manuals in recent years.

I've seen some interviews with people who helped write the old load manuals before the days of excessive lawsuits and they said that many times they were just guessing and had no idea if a load was truly safe or within spec. Many were just pet loads of people they knew.

Data labeled PSI and from a current manual is probably going to be the most accurate. Hodgdon actually bumped up a few of their 9mm loads as they discoverd with the new testing equipment that the pressure wasn't spiking like they had assumed from the CUP data of old.

Max pressure doesn't always mean max velocity. Some powders show a max powder charge that is signifigantly below the max pressure. 800-X is a common one. It's possible that heavier charges of these resulted in lower velocities even though pressure didn't hit SAMMI spec max.

I know in my 9mm loads full charges of #7 with 124 gr Rainier's from my CZ 75B are sligtly more consistant on velocity but average slightly slower than loads backed off .3 grains. Plus, accuracy goes to hell at the max with my gun and those bullets. Backed off slightly and it's a tack driver.

 

[Clark]

I have ~ 50 manuals.
The only manual as bad as "Speer 13" is "Speer 12".

I like Sierra for rifle loads.
I like the free publications or on line information from powder manufacturers for pistols.

 

[David4516]

My favorite WAS Speer 13, but a few weeks ago I ran across an old Hornady Manual (3rd Edition, Printed in 1985), used of course, at a darn good price.

I like the Layout in the Hornady book better. They give you different velcoity ranges and then sort the loads into those ranges...

With most mauals like Speer, you get two loads for each powder, the start load and the max load. But this Hornady manual has up to 5 loads per powder...

Example:

.30-30, with 170 gr bullets and IMR 3031 Powder:

Speer #13:

Start Load: 25.5gr, 1699FPS
Max Load: 29.5gr, 1975FPS

Hornady:

1800FPS: 26.4gr
1900FPS: 27.7gr
2000FPS: 29.0gr
2100FPS: 30.2gr
2200FPS: 31.5gr *Max Load

The next maual I buy will be the latest Hornady manual...

 

[MikeHaas]

That would be...
http://ammoguide.com/


New rounds and loads added all the time, interactive tools... reloading references lend themselves to dynamic content very well; paper reloading manuals are static and expensive. (Of course, over time, paper manuals DO get those comfortably personal worn pages and rolled covers...)

AT the NRA convention in April, I spoke at length with the owner of Swift bullets (fine products - http://www.swiftbullet.com/) who had just published their first reloading manual. It was a nice piece of work, but he lamented the high cost of production and liability concerns (liability is something the CONSUMERS of load data think little about), commenting that reloading manuals were no way to make money. But he was compelled to have a load manual to promote his bullet line.

Powder companies are much more enthusiastic about providing reloading manuals (both paid and free) because their product is not interchangable... one must use their powder to take advantage of that data. Bullet manufacturers are at a disadvantage, since bullets of different makes can be safely and easily interchanged.

Anyway, I think VENDORLESS reloading sources are best - you get information using all kinds of products, not just that from one company.

And of these, ONLINE, VENDORLESS resources are the wave of the future and my preference. The product IS the load data and delivery mechanisms - the website's ease-of-use and sophistication of the online tools it makes available, not something else someone is trying to sell. So that's where the focus of improvements will go over time. This gets into free vs. pay sites and the relative motivation behind supporting each (the old "you get what you pay for" adage). But this is the world where one has REAL CHOICES at their fingertips!

They don't call it the "Information Age" for nothing!

Mike Haas