Best Reloading Manual

[2428 miles]

Its my Birthday on Saturday and thought I might treat myself to a reloading Manual. I prediminantly load with Hornady heads as they are readily available and good hunting rounds.

The obvious choice for me is the Hornady 8[SUP]th[/SUP] edition.

Any other surgestions…?

Thanks

M

 

[Muir]

Lee Modern reloading 2nd Edition. My favorite. Once you see all the information you can get from it with regards to pressures and loading densities, you will keep reaching for it. Lee's data comes from the major powder makers and they are always a better source of data than the bullet makers. JMHO.~Muir

 

[scrun63]

Its my Birthday on Saturday and thought I might treat myself to a reloading Manual. I prediminantly load with Hornady heads as they are readily available and good hunting rounds.

The obvious choice for me is the Hornady 8[SUP]th[/SUP] edition.

Any other surgestions…?

Thanks

M

Some would say buy the manual for the powder you are using - infact i'm sure I saw a post saying exactly that recently. However I load Nosler BT's and bought their book and use their recommended "best" powder for the weight bullets i use. Personal choice i suppose, but at least with the bullet manufacturers book you are using the exact same bullet with the same characteristics rather than a generic bullet.

Muirs comment re Lee Modern is a good place to start as it takes you through all the reloading steps.

re buying - found this on ebay, but i don't know how this compares with other prices

Scrun

 

[Dovebob]

I have Lee 2nd, Hornaday 8th and whatever the latest Nosler one is.

I use Vit powders in my rifles and use their data, which is free to download off t'internet.

The Lee book reads like an advert for Lee re-loading gear in places, but all the manuals are guilty of this. Its not the glossiest and looks a bit old fashioned compared to the others, but the info. is spot. There is a lot to go at. I constantly refer back to it. I only really look at the others for the "heads up" info. they give on the different calibres.

If was going to have one only it would be Lee.

Cheers,

Bob

 

[pilgrimmick]

+1 For LEE

 

[deeangeo]

I've no idea if it's better or worse than the others mentioned, but I use a Lyman manual. Has loads of stuff in it & easy to understand.

 

[Muir]

I've no idea if it's better or worse than the others mentioned, but I use a Lyman manual. Has loads of stuff in it & easy to understand.

My #2 choice.~Muir

 

[ABOLT]

Lee reloading data for me easy access on line.

 

[MarinePMI]

Aside from the Lee Manual (which is generally what I reach for when having to figure pressure issues out), and since this is for your Birthday (which should make it special, no?), I'd suggest a copy of "Ken Water's Petloads". Not a reloading manual per se, but has a lot of data on many differnt and venerable loads as well as quite a bit of history on each cartridge.

A reloading manual you can buy whenever, but for a special gift; might try looking at this book.

JMHO...

 

[dlz90]

just chalk up anotheer lee fan excellent read again and again

 

[Yorkie]

The LEE is a good read. Loads of Data presumably obtained from all the powder manufacturers.
The Nosler is very good in as much as i find their loads and velocities are very close to those i obtain across my chronograph.
Buy as many as you can afford. They make excellent reading and are must really.

Yorkie.

Happy Birthday. Just noticed it`s Saturday.

 

[Muir]

The LEE is a good read. Loads of Data presumably obtained from all the powder manufacturers.
The Nosler is very good in as much as i find their loads and velocities are very close to those i obtain across my chronograph.
Buy as many as you can afford. They make excellent reading and are must really.

Yorkie.

Happy Birthday. Just noticed it`s Saturday.

I'll second that. I have dozens of them from 1900 to present. ~Muir

 

[Mountainstalker]

Its worthwhile having a few different ones particularly from bullet makers. Different powder marketers use different approaches to generating there data, some use test barrels and some like speer use factory rifles. Additionally look for an older manual or two, they tend to ofetn have different data for the same powder which can or may answer a what if type question.

 

[Brithunter]

The problem with older manuals having slightly different data is often because although the powder is called/named the same sometimes they do alter it slightly. So one has to watch for that. If one follows the advice given by the industry tot he letter one would work up/develop the laods again with every new batch of powder procured. The Tubs/tins will have batch numbers on them.

 

[Muir]

Its worthwhile having a few different ones particularly from bullet makers. Different powder marketers use different approaches to generating there data, some use test barrels and some like speer use factory rifles. Additionally look for an older manual or two, they tend to ofetn have different data for the same powder which can or may answer a what if type question.

I'm with Brit. Old manuals are just that. They can give you an idea about some loads but shouldn't be used with current powders -or done so with great care.

All US powder makers us test barrels and pressure guns. Bullet makers have been the ones who use small arms. This is why data from powder makers always trumps that of bullet makers. (Lee uses data from the powder makers) ~Muir

 

[2428 miles]

Gents,


Thank you kindly for your advice and birtday wishes!

My brother kindly splashed out on the Hornady 8[SUP]th[/SUP] edition for me. I have not had a chance to sit down andread it properly yet but it certainly has a wealth of information in it.

It seems the Lee is a very popular recomemdationso that is duely noted and on my reading list. As is Ken Waters book, looks like a serious read!

Thanks again. Do any of you folk knock around at Bisley ever?

Best

Miles

 

[Whitebeard]

I have Sierra, Nosler, Speer and one of the last Hodgden hardbacks, out of all of those i always reach for the Sierra first, cross referenced with the Nosler.

Ian.

 

[dingwall_dave]

I'm with Brit. Old manuals are just that. They can give you an idea about some loads but shouldn't be used with current powders -or done so with great care.

All US powder makers us test barrels and pressure guns. Bullet makers have been the ones who use small arms. This is why data from powder makers always trumps that of bullet makers. (Lee uses data from the powder makers) ~Muir

Are you saying the 1976 Speer reloading manual I've got might be out of date?

 

[Mountainstalker]

Speer manuals contain load data tested in factory rifles. The provide the rifle make and barrel lenth and twist for each calibre.
The data in old manuals still has great relevance, and often can give you useful data points for developing a load. A lot of common powders have had no changes to their properties in the last 30 years and use rates remain the same for the specific cases and copper and lead type projectiles.

If significant change is made to a powder it is not what it "once was" it has to be re-introduced as a new powder brand to avoid confusion and injuries. This is basic QA practice and maintains the value of having a few old manuals, plus the loading technique info at the front in all manuals has some useful nuances. Winchester have a history of pulling old powders and replacing them with new ones WW 780, WW WMR etc to avoid this type of confusion.

For example my early Herculex manual gives a recommendation up to 58.5 gns of RL-15 for a 250 gn projectile in the 35 whelen. The more recent Alliant manual provides a max load of about 54 gns of RL-15. In my rifle i use the earlier data or a bit more to attain accurate loads with some zip and see no pressure signs. If i only had a recent manual i maybe less likely to have worked these loads up but having the old data available allows me to do this with some insight.

 

[Muir]

I agree about the relevance of old loading books to some extent. There are always tidbits of info to gather and some data gives you a basis for loads; especially for obsolete cartridges. I have dozens of manuals and have read every one of them.

I disagree with the statement about no major changes in powder over the last 30 years and that the maker's need to "reintroduce" them. It hasn't happened in several cases; IMR and H-4350's used to be interchangeable. No more. Likewise, IMR and Hodgdon 4895 and 4831 powders. IMR and Hodgdon 4198 are no longer interchangeable, either. They didn't reintroduce them, they just moved them around on the burning rate chart and offered up new load data. Alliant peoduces "2400" pistol powder and only offers the advice not to use older "Hercules 2400" data. The same with Unique pistol powder: There have been subtle differences in the Unique data over the years for this powder as well.

-But that is nothing new. The data shifts around all the time as small changes are made to the powder. Makers even warn people to back off established loads (especially if near max) when a new can of powder is purchased of a different LOT number. Call it over cautious, but I have seen differences in lots of current production powders so I tend to take their advice. But that's just me.~Muir