First choice in reloading manuals?

[Adirondacker]

The source you'd consult first, & trust most, for general information & loading data (smokeless) on a cartridge you've never before reloaded. Mine is Ken Water's Pet Loads, head & shoulders above "all the rest" in my opinion.  (And a major portion of "all the rest" gathers cobwebs on my bookshelves.)  Afterwards, out of curiosity, I'll often check an Ideal or Lyman Handbook (the '70 ed. is latest I've got), or the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook, but it's seldom I diverge very far from Ken's recommendations.

Why?  The incredible breath & depth of his practical experience, matched only by loading-handbook writers long, long gone--the likes of Phil Sharp & Earl Naramore.  And not least, his sound common sense.

I'm interested to hear what others think.   

[Sagebrush Burns]

Almost all of the manuals have a wealth of useful information.  Often it differs enough from one to another that it is advisable to check more than one.  When I'm doing something new I'll check many manuals and I'm often surprised and amazed at the range of difference among them.  There is no one manual which I've found to always be the best.

[w44wcf]

Adirondacker,
I usually use the latest Lyman handbook (& Cast Bullet book) as well as the Hodgdon on line guide & also Ken Waters excellent work. After that I might see what the latest Speer and Hornady manuals have to say.

If it's an obsolete cartridge, then Phil Sharpe's book and the older Ideal manuals as well as Ken Waters comes into play.

w44wcf  

[Adirondacker]

Almost all of the manuals have a wealth of useful information.  Often it differs enough from one to another that it is advisable to check more than one.  When I'm doing something new I'll check many manuals and I'm often surprised and amazed at the range of difference among them.  There is no one manual which I've found to always be the best.

That's the problem--"the range of difference among them."  The long tradition of Lyman-Ideal makes that company a special case, I think, but otherwise, how can one evaluate the experience & judgment of the anonymous technicians & engineers working for the powder & bullet companies?  (Not that I don't respect their technical expertise.)  Guess for me it comes down to a matter of trust & confidence...which Ken Waters has earned in spades with his countless articles over the years in Handloader & Rifle; talking about  practical experience with a multitude of "old guns." 

 

[w44wcf]

Adirondacker,
I reworded my original response a bit. I do use Ken Waters in addition to Lyman and Hodgdon at first pass. The reason I like to also reference Lyman and Hodgdon is that they also have pressure data. Understandably so, as you indicated, there can be a "range of differences."

I do cherish all of Ken's works. No one else comes close.

w44wcf     

[Pettifogger]

I do have an OLD copy of Pet Loads and because we shoot lead in CAS I use to use the Lyman manual.  However, since the Internet was invented, I don't buy any manuals.  Everything is on-line.

P.S.  With BP you don't need any manuals.  Just fill up the case and seat the bullet.

[dusty texian]

On my handloading bench there are 6 or 7 loading manual's,mostly circa 1960's through 1980's Speer ,Lyman, Pacific tool,Hodgdon,but the one I alway's pick-up first is a battered old Hornady volume II.I seem to look at it first then compare   that ,to the other's. I dont think anyone can go wrong following the advice of Ken Waters, I know he has pointed me in the right direction more than once. Year's back I picked up a very old sporter Mauser in 250-3000 cal. Never had worked with the little 250 before that, and did not know how great a cartridge it  really is. Just so happen's Ken had just done a write-up on a pet 250-3000 he had ,What good timming for me . One of the best in the business giving pointer's on the very cartridge I was getting started with. Well took his advice and the little 250-3000 turned out to be one of the most accurate rifle's I have ever owned. Ken Waters you can trust ,My hat is off to Ya Ken...........Dusty

[rickk]

Lyman Handbook and Cast Bullet Handbook are my two favorites.

I also use Hodgden's handbook a lot but it does tend to be a bit vague in terms of the actual bullet being used.

[Jefro]

I use Lyman's Handbook and Hodgdon web site. Hodgdon also has a Basic Manual PDF with Cowboy Load Data starting on page 30. Good Luck
Hodgdon Basic Manual PDF


Jefro Relax-Enjoy

[PJ Hardtack]

Three of my manuals are Speer.

Every time I consider a new manual, I seem to pick another Speer. Must be the format. I have the Lyman cast bullet manual, their BP manual and other references, but my 'go-to' books continue to be Speer.

Never has an issue with their load recommendations - yet. I do note that over the years, their top loads have been reduced by a few grains. Powders have also changed, so what was once a safe load is now considered over the top for safety.

[Trailrider]

While some manuals like the Lyman work pretty well with moderate loads and cast bullets, more recent techniques in measuring pressures, using piezo-electric measurements rather than crusher data, and the introduction of new propellants makes it smart to use the latest editions of the various published manuals. This is especially true if you are loading hot, high pressure cartridges.

Differences in bullet jacket thickness and hardness will cause pressures to vary widely when jacketed bullets are used with smokeless powder. Likewise, different guns having different dimensions in barrel and throat diameters, rifling leade, etc, will cause considerable differences in pressures with smokeless (yes, and with BP, too!).

Underloading, below recommended minimum loads can also cause pressure variations, and ignition delay pressure excursions, sometimes sufficient to blow up guns! Bullet pull and crimp or lack thereof can also result in squib loads or ignition delay excursions.

Ride careful, Pards!

[Adirondacker]

While some manuals like the Lyman work pretty well with moderate loads and cast bullets, more recent techniques in measuring pressures, using piezo-electric measurements rather than crusher data, and the introduction of new propellants makes it smart to use the latest editions of the various published manuals. This is especially true if you are loading hot, high pressure cartridges.

Differences in bullet jacket thickness and hardness will cause pressures to vary widely when jacketed bullets are used with smokeless powder. Likewise, different guns having different dimensions in barrel and throat diameters, rifling leade, etc, will cause considerable differences in pressures with smokeless (yes, and with BP, too!).

Underloading, below recommended minimum loads can also cause pressure variations, and ignition delay pressure excursions, sometimes sufficient to blow up guns! Bullet pull and crimp or lack thereof can also result in squib loads or ignition delay excursions.

Ride careful, Pards!

In Pet Loads, Waters devotes considerable space to easy, practical methods of estimating pressure--which I seldom apply, frankly, because I stay well away from max loads in the original guns I'm shooting; less worried about harming ME, than harming THEM.  More commonly, I run into the opposite problem--pressures LOWER than expected because I've seated the bullet further out of the case than normal (into the throat), which in effect increases case volume.

I am skittish about underloading, having heard those stories of bulged chambers & worse, & I don't do it deliberately.  When I was once playing around with such loads, using the usual kinds of wads & fillers, I found the easiest way (for me) to hold the powder back against the primer was the old trick of stuffing the "silk" from 1 or 2 milkweed seeds into the case with a dowel.  Wouldn't hold up to rough handling, but otherwise very satisfactory.   

[joec]

I have Lee's current book, Lyman's Cast bullet, 49th Reloading and Back powder. I also have Hornady, Speer and several smaller books such as Laser Casts book, The Complete Reloaders guide for (enter your caliber here). I get the periodic updates from Hodgdon, Allient, Accurate etc as well as a number of much older ones. I also use Ammo Guide, Load Data sites and the various powder makers sites. If I find differences I use the middle ground of both and split that in the middle to start.

[Sir Charles deMouton-Black]

I have, and refer to PET LOADS frequently.  I do recognize that it is about 35 years old and new pressure measuring technology and new powders demand that newer databases, like from the powder manufacturers, should be cross checked. In a thread on Winchester '73 reloading I quoted a load from Pet Loads that was a half grain above current data. I had to retract that one!