Reloading manual

[MrRobot]

Not everything is true on the net lol... When I started reloading 1yr ago I thought I would only need one book. Well I got that wrong everything there's new info plus other manuals have something different or the load is a little down or up. But over all it's all the same as long as you don't reach MAX...

The only hard part for me is finding the bullets to match in the book. Someone mention to me all you need is the GR from the bullet and try to match it as close as you can to the book. Just start out slow.

 

[Havok1]

Not everything is true on the net lol... When I started reloading 1yr ago I thought I would only need one book. Well I got that wrong everything there's new info plus other manuals have something different or the load is a little down or up. But over all it's all the same as long as you don't reach MAX...

The only hard part for me is finding the bullets to match in the book. Someone mention to me all you need is the GR from the bullet and try to match it as close as you can to the book. Just start out slow.

I wouldn’t just copy a load posted on social media, or some other random website, but I’ve never heard of any issues with online data that came from a powder or bullet manufacturer.

 

[Vaquero]

I generally get a hodgdon manual every year or two.
It's not a lot of how to stuff. It's load data from their current powder offerings with generic projectile inputs. Soft cover magazine type book. Usually in the magazine section of Walmart or Academy.

It'll keep you up to date on newer chamberings cheaper than Speer, Hornady, etc......

 

[Tcruse]

Probably good to have more than one. There are quirks/characteristics of each (some more conservative than others for example), and having more than one can help work that out. Suggest that you DO have the manual for the bullets you are shooting at a minimum. As time went on, I've picked up manuals from several bullet and powder manufacturers that have served various combinations of components.

If you HAVE to have only one, you might consider something like the Lyman manual as it will contain information on several power and bullet manufacturers. The Sierra manual only lists Sierra bullets (Hornady bullets for Hornady manual, Berger bullets for Berger manual). The Hodgdon manual only includes their powders, etc.

True, but today Hodgdon sells just about every power that is available. The only one that comes to mind is a re-packager of the DO powers in GA.

 

[deemus]

I remember updating from Lyman 42nd to Lyman 50th because it had load data for 458 SOCOM.

I look at computers all day. Not interested in doing that when I’m done working. One exception was when I got into 300 Blk about 10 years ago. There was almost zero out there, except on a couple websites, which I printed.

 

[RankAmateur]

True, but today Hodgdon sells just about every power that is available. The only one that comes to mind is a re-packager of the DO powers in GA.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. My post was to recommend using manuals from various manufacturers as Hodgdon doesn't publish load data for any other powders. As an example, the screenshot is from Hodgdon's Reloading Data Center, seeking load data for one of the standards of competition - the 6BR with Berger 105gr bullets. The ONLY data offered is for three powders from one manufacturer (Accurate), using only two bullets (and neither of those is a Berger). So, for this target application, I would have recommended getting load data from Berger, Hodgdon, VihtaVuori, Alliant, and others for reference.

If your point was that the only powders you can find are manufactured by Hodgedon, I think a number of folks here could recommend LGS or on-line vendors with at least periodic availability of powders other than those from Hodgdon.

 

[popper]

Don't have a reloading manual or a casting manual, evidently didn't need one.

 

[RankAmateur]

Don't have a reloading manual or a casting manual, evidently didn't need one.

Glad you've been successful and safe. I'm sure there are people who don't need manuals for their purposes, but suggest a conservative approach, especially for those relatively new to hand loading. As posted above, data in manuals tends to be well tested and conservative (safe) in most settings, so it provides a good starting point. What we do isn't benign, and can be hazardous to the shooter. The pic below is from this year's F-Class US National championships. That barrel is a full 1.25 inches in diameter, and still exploded. This firing in a much thinner barrel would have been catastrophic. Just an example.

One gentleman I know is relatively new to reloading and is attempting to develop a load for a 6.5 Creedmoor AR-10. Last week, he fired 30 rounds in a "seating ladder" test to optimize seating depth. He showed me his cases when he was done, and 25 of the cases had pierced primers!! He got his load off the internet, and didn't understand "pressure signs", so thought the powder he was using was just "normally dirty" due to the soot he was finding in his action.

Just sayin' - have fun, shoot well, but be safe too.

 

[Lonesome Dove]

I have a stack of manuals that I haven't touched in years. It's so much faster to to just search for reloading data online.

Or make notes is even faster.

 

[benenglish]

... from this year's F-Class US National championships. That barrel is a full 1.25 inches in diameter, and still exploded.

Benchrest shooters, including "belly benchrest" shooters, are known for being convinced that there's another accuracy node to be found if they can just push those bullets a little faster. They do some jug-tipping, pour in more and more powder, and stuff like this happens.

I had hoped that the widespread adoption of barrel tuners would make that practice a thing of the past.

Apparently not.

ETA - Are tuners allowed under F-Class rules?

 

[RankAmateur]

I had hoped that the widespread adoption of barrel tuners would make that practice a thing of the past.

Apparently not.

ETA - Are tuners allowed under F-Class rules?

Ben, yes they are allowed, but you have to understand "the power of AND". Just because you've added a tuner doesn't mean you don't ALSO continue to push the pressures (grin). Kidding, of course.

I think most competitors use tuners to adjust/maintain tune of their competition loads to adjust for conditions on the day of the match. They still develop loads for tune and to optimize against conditions in competition. The tuner to adjust back to that tune on the day of competition is the "and".

 

[benenglish]

Ben, yes they are allowed, but you have to understand "the power of AND". Just because you've added a tuner doesn't mean you don't ALSO continue to push the pressures (grin). Kidding, of course.

I think most competitors use tuners to adjust/maintain tune of their competition loads to adjust for conditions on the day of the match. They still develop loads for tune and to optimize against conditions in competition. The tuner to adjust back to that tune on the day of competition is the "and".

I don't get that mindset. There's so much to think about on match day. Just keeping my own mind calm and focused is enough of an obstacle to success.

For example, back when I shot pistol silhouette I developed a load and zero that allowed me to treat my sights as fixed. I never made sight adjustments. There was too much else on my mind.

I know some other folks feel the same way. Those benchrest shooters who arrive at matches with pre-measured powder charges in little vials are like that. Why worry about humidity changing thrown powder charges when reloading behind the line?

I can't imagine fine-tuning barrel harmonics during a match. Perfectionism of that sort means getting bogged down in details and taking the chance of forgetting fundamentals.

Or maybe I'm just too simple-minded to understand. I've never done F-Class so I'm not qualified to judge, anyway.

 

[deemus]

Or make notes is even faster.

Yep. I have a book with every load in it. It’s nice to not have to reinvent the wheel every time.

I’m still messing around with a ladder test for 224 Valkyrie, but can’t seem to find range time. Ladder test rounds are already loaded.

Now I’m revisiting 308 with a different bullet than I previously used. About to load several rounds to see which my gun likes. Then I’ll do a ladder test to dial it in once I choose the powder.

 

[iamjimd]

Glad you've been successful and safe. I'm sure there are people who don't need manuals for their purposes, but suggest a conservative approach, especially for those relatively new to hand loading. As posted above, data in manuals tends to be well tested and conservative (safe) in most settings, so it provides a good starting point. What we do isn't benign, and can be hazardous to the shooter. The pic below is from this year's F-Class US National championships. That barrel is a full 1.25 inches in diameter, and still exploded. This firing in a much thinner barrel would have been catastrophic. Just an example. View attachment 421575

One gentleman I know is relatively new to reloading and is attempting to develop a load for a 6.5 Creedmoor AR-10. Last week, he fired 30 rounds in a "seating ladder" test to optimize seating depth. He showed me his cases when he was done, and 25 of the cases had pierced primers!! He got his load off the internet, and didn't understand "pressure signs", so thought the powder he was using was just "normally dirty" due to the soot he was finding in his action.

Just sayin' - have fun, shoot well, but be safe too.

I'm betting that split barrel came from an obstruction.

 

[RiverRider]

People still use manuals?

Quickload and GRT software is 10x more versatile.

Both QL and GRT a great tools, but I would NEVER take the outputs to the bank and treat them like pressure tested published data. As properly used tools, QL and GRT can keep you out of trouble. As misused tools, they can get you deeply into trouble. Even published, pressure-tested data can get you there if you're not careful.

BTDT, got the tee shirt.

 

[Mike_from_Texas]

Both QL and GRT a great tools, but I would NEVER take the outputs to the bank and treat them like pressure tested published data. As properly used tools, QL and GRT can keep you out of trouble. As misused tools, they can get you deeply into trouble. Even published, pressure-tested data can get you there if you're not careful.

BTDT, got the tee shirt.

Software is no excuse not to practice safe reloading traits. Like you would never sort at or near max load from a manual as they are wildly inconsistent, don’t do the same with software data. QL even prints you a handy load table starting at around 15% below calculated max to about 7% over. And it even tells you there could be variation in powder lots.

I’ve never had a dangerous load as long as I did my part and put in accurate data in the proper input fields and I’ve been using it for over 10 years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[RiverRider]

QuickLOAD and Gordon's Reloading Tool do not generate pressure tested data. They both output calculated solutions. If you want to use starting loads 15% below the calculated max and go through all those components to work up a load you're not likely to get into trouble, but if you believe all those calculations are accurate you're simply misled. There are known issues with certain cartridges in the QL database where the calculations are even more significantly inaccurate. I have been using it myself for at least ten years, and maybe closer to 15 years...and I have learned that it has some pretty significant limitations. I ALWAYS check published data as well, when it is available. I have over 100 different references and they get used, but occasionally I'm off in uncharted waters where all I have is QuickLOAD. In situations like that I am extremely cautious and have never had a mishap as a result, but I do not blindly accept QL's outputs.

 

[benenglish]

QuickLOAD and Gordon's Reloading Tool do not generate pressure tested data. ... it has some pretty significant limitations. I ALWAYS check published data as well, when it is available.

A note about that.

Reloading manuals aren't always informed by pressure tested data. Nowadays I suppose they are but I have several old manuals.

Back in the 60's and 70's (and in some cases through the 90's) those "official" numbers from loading manuals were generated by experienced reloaders who just worked up loads. They looked at primer condition and had the tools to detect case head expansion, etc. But many manuals have published data that was not pressure tested before publication.

If you're like me and occasionally reference old sources, this is something to keep in mind.

 

[RiverRider]

Absolutely true and a good point, Ben. Pressure testing has not always been "a thing" in the reloading industry.

P.O. Ackley was The Man when it came to reloading way back in the day. Not only did he develop the AI wildcats that are still popular, but he wrote a lot and furnished a lot of load data in his writings. Modern pressure testing has shown that many of the loads he advocated are significantly over-pressure when tested by modern methods.

Copper crusher testing gave us the old C.U.P. figures which were better than guessing, but now we have methods and standards that are way better.

There are still plenty of people out there who claim that "traditional" pressure signs are reliable and all you need. Those would be things like primer appearance, case head expansion, and maybe others that don't come to mind at the moment. These are NOT reliable methods and they can sometimes not even appear until you are north of 70,000 psi.

If you do not have the means to measure pressure directly then the best thing you can do is monitor velocity. If your velocities stay in line with what is typically seen for your barrel length and the components you're using, then you are probably within the limits or at least not too far beyond.

Before any accusations begin to fly, let me make clear that I do not see myself as an authority on the subject matter. I am a student but I've been enrolled in this school since the early 70s when I learned the ropes, and I've had many professors.


edit to add: I do not advocate ignoring "traditional pressure signs." They do tell you things you should be aware of, but they just are not the data to rely on to be reasonably certain that you are operating within the boundaries of safety and good sense.

 

[RiverRider]

Here's one way to check. It's not as good as using equipment designed to measure these things, but I think it's way better than just guessing.

In these images, I have used a .30-cal insert in my Stoney Point comparator. It's meant for checking bullet seating, but it sits somewhere close to the datum line on a .223 case and will give you some pretty good info on shoulder movement (I use this method of measurement to monitor shoulder movement while setting up sizing dies as well because doing that is such a delicate procedure it's easy to move things too far).

These cartridges are handloads for my Model 70 HV. Both the fired case and the loaded cartridge are from the same box.



Before firing:

After firing: