What do you consider to be the best reloading book to buy, Speer, Nosler, Hornady, etc..... I have an old (10 yrs) Speer book, but I think it is time to get a new one.

I suggest more than one new book. If it was me, I'd get a book from the manufacturer of each of the powders I commonly use...in my case that would means books from Vihtavouri, AA, IMR, Hodgdon, Tubular, and maybe a couple of others. It also wouldn't hurt any to get a book or two from the makers of the bullets you most commonly use, such as Nosler, Speer, Hornady, Barnes, whoever.

I'm not just blowing smoke here either. I've done exactly that for myself and find them very useful to compare with each other.

The reason I suggest books from both powder makers and bullet makers is that some powder makers may not list loads for some bullets you use or want to use. And some bullet makers may not list loads for some powders you use.

quote:

I suggest more than one new book. If it was me, I'd get a book from the manufacturer of each of the powders I commonly use...in my case that would means books from Vihtavouri, AA, IMR, Hodgdon, Tubular, and maybe a couple of others. It also wouldn't hurt any to get a book or two from the makers of the bullets you most commonly use, such as Nosler, Speer, Hornady, Barnes, whoever.

That is about the best advice there is except, I would get a book from ANY/ALL of the bullet manufacturers, because you might decide to try several different bullets, and I also suggest hanging on to any of the older manuals you have been using, simply because of liability issues, many older standard "Gp To Loads" are now listed as above maximum. Also, I have noticed that some manuals do not list loads for some of the older but less popular calibers. JMO.

I agree with the above. I own a Lyman, Nosler, Lee, Hogdon, Sierra and Hornady book. Being able to compare loads across multiple books is nice. Also, each book is written differently with different information in each.

Everytime a manufacturer comes out with a new loading manual, I buy it. Sometimes, bullet designs, powder burn rate that change fractionally, or more primers are added to the mix, I want to know. I do compare the manuals and decide how I want to proceed. One manual is not enough.

While all these reloading manuals have a brief introduction to reloading technique, are there any references comparing different reloading techniques?

If you've been using the same manual for 10 years it's clear you know what you're doing already so buying a new manual for beginner instructions would be meaningless. And, no matter what I do, I know that having a stack of manuals does exactly nothing to add to what a knowledgable loader can do.

All loading data is generic by powder type and bullet weight, there is nothing magic about info from a bullet or powder maker. The single greatest difference we can through into any manuals listings is to change the gun it will be fired in so expecting gospel truth from any book is an exercise in hopelessness.

SO, I suggest you get one of Hodgedon's Annual magazine types that includes a LOT of data on a LOT of cartridges and powders. And the price is truly nominal for what you get.

The best book would use the components you use. I'd recommend the book from the bullet maker first then the powder second. Remember all loads are from a gun different than yours so velocities will differ.

I have an older Spear book myself, a newer Hornady, Sierra from 2005, and several downloads for newer powders to supplement them. Spear came with my press, Hornady because it was a good book, Sierra because I shoot a lot of SMK's, and the newer powders not in the books.

I've heard Lyman has a pretty well rounded manual.

I have manual from bullet, powder and reloading instruction there is no such thing as to much imformation when you are dealing with a subject this critical. The worsed that can happen is to have multi cross ref. That would only erro on the side of caution.

quote:

Originally posted
All loading data is generic by powder type and bullet weight, there is nothing magic about info from a bullet or powder maker. The single greatest difference we can through into any manuals listings is to change the gun it will be fired in so expecting gospel truth from any book is an exercise in hopelessness.

I have been wrong before and I may be again here, BUT I do not agree with this quoted statement above.

A basic tenet of reloading dogma is that if you change ANY component of your load, you should work your load up again. Pressures in particular tend to change if the bullet is changed because not all bullet makers use the same core alloys, the same jacket thicknesses, and so on. Most bullet manufacturers use their own bullets for the data published in their manuals, so it is a good source of data for loads behind those specific bullets.

I suspect that is one reason charge weights of the same cannistered powder behind the same weights of bullets tend to vary so much between loading manuals.

Sure, you may have to modify the loads for your gun(s) but at least you are starting from the same point as has been proved to work and be safe with those particular bullets.

The same is true with data in books from powder makers. The powder in a Hodgdon book is not a "generic" powder. It is a Hodgdon powder of the variety on the market when the book is published. As we all know, powder suppliers change. That is, just as one example there have been at least 5 different makers of powders providing "H-4831" over the years to Hodgdon for distribution. Those powders have NOT all been identical in chemical composition or grain size. So it is nice to know what the current version requires by way of charge weight.

And, how many plants has IMR powder been produced in?

Going farther, even the burn rates for some powders made in the SAME plants have changed a bit over the years...think "Unique" for example.

So, yes...loads vary from gun to gun, and working up a load in one's own gun is always the right way to go...but working up from WHERE?

I'd say from data provided in the current manuals published by the makers of the specific bullets and powders you are using (and often available free in small paperback form as handouts at your local gun shop)!

Everyone can believe and do whatever they wish, and good luck to you all no matter what approach you take. But I will stick by my recommendation to get multiple manuals from bullet makers and powder manufacturers whose products you do or might use.

There is no "best" of anything.

Lyman #49 is very good. You should also get the manuals that complement the bullets you are using, and the company manual for the powders you use.

I have several. but use the Lyman the most.

AC, while I tend to agree with you (somewhat), I also think that load books can be used as a generic source of information. If you have a handy, dandy load worked up for a xxx bullet in a WW case with xxx powder and xxx primer that is cutting close to the red line and you want to see how YYY bullet would work, you don't run to the store and get the YYY load book. But you damn sure need to back off a ways and start over with your developement.
I don't know about others but rarely are my loads exactly like the formulaes that you find in a load book. I have my own preferences as to components. If you look at the Hodgdon book, it gives you brackets of bullet weights that can be used with the various powders.

I cannot stand to not have the last book published by anyone, even the European books. I generaly start with the book of the bullet I am going to shoot. Most used would be Nosler-Barnes-Lyman-Hornady-Swift-Sierra. I sometimes take a reloading book with me on trips and spend hours concocting new loads. Always start below Max and you will be safe. Good shooting.

after 30+ years of reloading, I just pick up the free loading pamplets..

A reloader can never have too many reloading books IMO. Even old ones. I have numerous outdated books, I rarley use data from them, but it is certianly intresting to compare data. Sometimes the contrast is pretty stark and when one gets into load development it is fun to decipher which modern loads were reduced because of Lawyers and which were reduced (or increased) legitmatley.

I also find that some manuals are good for certian aspects. For instance the Nosler manual may be one of my least favorite because I feel it is slanted toward magnum chamberings. However I do like the way it shows the most accurate powder tested and it is intresting to see which powders had "the most accurate load" as the highest charge versus the lowest charge. It is an intresting look at various powder usage in every chambering.

If I do have a "go-to" manual I guess it would have to be Speer. But the more references you check the more informed you will be.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
[A basic tenet of reloading dogma is that if you change ANY component of your load, you should work your load up again. Pressures in particular tend to change if the bullet is changed because not all bullet makers use the same core alloys, the same jacket thicknesses, and so on. Most bullet mnufacturers use their own bullets for the data published in their manuals, so it is a good source of data for loads behind those specific bullets.

I suspect that is one reason charge weights of the same cannistered powder behind the same weights of bullets tend to vary so much between loading manuals.

It is true that if you take one load and alter nothing more than the bullet that there will most likley be a slight difference on a chronograph or pressure gage. But I think that variatons in manuals data are due to many other reasons other than that. Read "why balisticans get grey" in the Speer manual.

I think if typical cup and core bullets are used then the variation among them is negligble. Monolithics are a different story all together. Variations among different brands of powders are far more likley to have a significant effect from say going from a Hornady to a Core lockt of the same weight.

That is just my 2c. worth. YMMV.

guys,

I keep hearing about how good the Lyman manual is but have never even seen one over here.

I've seen or own the Hornady, Hogdon, Lee, Speer, Vithavouri and Alliant manuals and thought they were all, apart from the loads of course much of a muchness.

What is different about the Lyman?

quote:

So, yes...loads vary from gun to gun, and working up a load in one's own gun is always the right way to go...but working up from WHERE?

From where? Ahhh...from 'start"; I thought that was a given! After that, it's all generic and our safety is up to us, not the book. The first six years I reloaded I had ONE book and never felt I was handicapped. In fact, I now have at least two dozen manuals but I finally bought my second one simply because several new powders had entered the market. And I've never felt I am any safer due to all the extra data I added to my book shelf, reading books isn't the way I develop my loads.

Anyway, done correctly, intelligent load development corrects for all the variables you carefully list much better than any data developed with a rifle entirely different from ours, will it not?

If a reloader ignores pressure signs, no book or three dozen books from any sources can make him safe; that's my point and I'm sticking to it!

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:
AC, while I tend to agree with you (somewhat), I also think that load books can be used as a generic source of information..

Of course they can. That wasn't my point. My point was that they are primary sources of specific information regarding specific components. After that they can serve the secondary purpose of also being a generic reference.

And frankly, I don't believe anyone here started their reloading with no recommended loads from some source or the other.

I mean really, did they wonder into a store, buy the first can of powder and first box of primers they saw, go home and say..."Well half full (or "up to the shoulder") should be about right", and stick any old bullet weight of the correct diameter on top? I don't really think so...

The VAST majority of handloaders start from SOME given reference point. And I personally think references which include the same components one is going to use are the best.

I suppose one could flip a coin, or even use a "witching" stick to choose powders, and the amounts of them, but ME? I'd rather refer to manuals printed by the makers of the powder and the bullets I'm gonna shoot. It is a heck of a lot easier to find really sound loads if a person starts on that trek from the right jumping-off place.

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
[A basic tenet of reloading dogma is that if you change ANY component of your load, you should work your load up again. Pressures in particular tend to change if the bullet is changed because not all bullet makers use the same core alloys, the same jacket thicknesses, and so on. Most bullet mnufacturers use their own bullets for the data published in their manuals, so it is a good source of data for loads behind those specific bullets.

I suspect that is one reason charge weights of the same cannistered powder behind the same weights of bullets tend to vary so much between loading manuals.

It is trutethat if you take one load and alter nothing more than the bullet that there will most likley be a slight difference on a chronograph or pressure gage. But I think that variatons in manuals data are due to many other reasons other than that. Read "why balisticans get grey" in the Speer manual.

I think if typical cup and core bullets are used then the variation among them is negligble. Monolithics are a different story all together. Variations among different brands of powders are far more likley to have a significant effect from say going from a Hornady to a Core lockt of the same weight.

That is just my 2c. worth. YMMV.

If you are not using "hot" loads, you are likely right. But I know from experience that if you are working with warm loads, it is not always true.

In 1962 when I was first trying different loads in the then new 7m/m Remington Mag cartridge, I had a very effective load which employed the 160 gr. Sierra c-'n-c bullet. I decided to try the less expensive but same weight Speer c-n-c bullet, which had both an apparently thicker and softer jacket back then.

That change caused the load to blow primers...4 out of the 5 rounds I tried before calling it quits and dropping the load 3 grains. That's how (and when) I really learned to start a little low and work loads back up when substituting one bullet for another.

BTW, I did not intend to imply that different bullets are the ONLY reason loads vary in different manuals. Doubtless there are numerous reasons, of which that is one.

Along with the various books listed above, I always like to compare min and max loads to Steve's reloading pages and Quickload to see where the book recommendations fall.

When I am starting out with a new cartridge, I will check with several books and get a consensus of what powder to use and what can be considered max. I will almost always use the lowest max as my max.
Once again, I find that the use of a chrony is an excellent means of staying out of trouble.

Sounds like sound advise to me

From a new member here I just want to say thanks for this topic. My load manuals are at least 20 years old and MANY powders are not even listed in them. So I am on a quest now, for some good books to use, and there are plenty of great resources listed here.

Just wanted to let the folks here know, I suspect I am not the only new guy reading and trying to soak up this info, and this kind of discussion helps get me onto the right track.

LongPlay

Welcome aboard, LongPlay.

I hope you have many, many years to come of successful shooting and reloading, and that listening to us old pharts bicker with our friends here never turns you away from all the knowledge AR can offer.

Best wishes,

AC

Thanks Alberta Canuck!! Was just up in your neck of the woods. Peace River to be exact. Did a little commissioning on a new power turbine up there. For some reason, they were worried about noise... man, that is WAY out in the boonies. Nothing to disturb there but moose and deer.

I will probably hang around. Rapidly approaching the big 60, I am also considered an OLD PHART sometimes myself!! The bickering part I can do without. Too many moons have passed over my head to waste time with it. But while reading, it is sooooo easy to just skip the posts that are not on topic, and get to the meat of the issues, that I hardly notice it much anymore.

I will already have to agree with your assessment of the vast amount of info here. And being 20+ years behind on the reloader scene, I will need a great deal of it.

I already have scene that with this very topic. I had planned to buy a book or two and get started... now not so much. I am going to go back and re-read some of the 221 Fireball info and try and settle on a decent pick of powder first from the vast knowledge here. That should save me some money right there not having to buy 4 or 5 different brands to hunt down load info for.

I will get as much info as I can, But I think most of my posts will relate to the 221FB for a little while. My 7mm-08 and 222 Rem have good loads worked up already, and as long as I can get those old components I dont see a need to change those. Seems the 221FB is loader friendly as well, with most loads in the 3/4 MOA area if you do the business right.

Great site... Hope to learn enough to contribute one day...

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
[A basic tenet of reloading dogma is that if you change ANY component of your load, you should work your load up again. Pressures in particular tend to change if the bullet is changed because not all bullet makers use the same core alloys, the same jacket thicknesses, and so on. Most bullet mnufacturers use their own bullets for the data published in their manuals, so it is a good source of data for loads behind those specific bullets.

I suspect that is one reason charge weights of the same cannistered powder behind the same weights of bullets tend to vary so much between loading manuals.

It is trutethat if you take one load and alter nothing more than the bullet that there will most likley be a slight difference on a chronograph or pressure gage. But I think that variatons in manuals data are due to many other reasons other than that. Read "why balisticans get grey" in the Speer manual.

I think if typical cup and core bullets are used then the variation among them is negligble. Monolithics are a different story all together. Variations among different brands of powders are far more likley to have a significant effect from say going from a Hornady to a Core lockt of the same weight.

That is just my 2c. worth. YMMV.

If you are not using "hot" loads, you are likely right. But I know from experience that if you are working with warm loads, it is not always true.

In 1962 when I was first trying different loads in the then new 7m/m Remington Mag cartridge, I had a very effective load which employed the 160 gr. Sierra c-'n-c bullet. I decided to try the less expensive but same weight Speer c-n-c bullet, which had both an apparently thicker and softer jacket back then.

I agree completly. A "hot" load should absoloutly be reduced when anything is altered.
I guess we all bake a cake a little differently. I guess you could say I more or less use published factory velocities as a basic target for most of my loads. If I can eek a bit more out of my loads I will, if I can easily exceed them I also wont hesitate. But I dont like running any of my loads on the "ragged edge" perse. I guess the one exception might be my 257 AI, but I know that some folks exceed my loads with even that one.

quote:

I suppose one could flip a coin, or even use a "witching" stick to choose powders, and the amounts of them, but ME? I'd rather refer to manuals printed by the makers of the powder and the bullets I'm gonna shoot. It is a heck of a lot easier to find really sound loads if a person starts on that trek from the right jumping-off place.

And I never made such a suggestion! I said, and stand by it, that any source is generic by bullet weight and powder type. ALL books tell us to 'start low and only work up...etc"; IF we do that we can safely find the proper or max load for our rig, ignore that rule and no data source is "safe." Thus, other than for initial powder selection and safe starting charges for a "jumping off place", I don't care what book provides my data; it's all generic until it's been proven safe and effective in MY rifles! And, after that, it REALLY doesn't matter what book(s) I started with!

Presuming a max load is safe - or even safer - simply based on whether it's provided by a specific bullet or powder maker or if it's averaged from three dozen books is a road to ruin. And THAT is my point, no matter who disagrees!

And I stand by mine...that all people start somewhere with their loads and that it is generally desirable to start with loading data which was developed with the same components you will be using, to the degree possible.

Everyone should know that loads will have to be adjusted to their specific rifle(s) but that does not make it generic or non-specific.

It makes it known, specific information which was successful with those components in a rifle other than yours.

Certainly it is not data as indefinite and generalized as that which was produced with other bullets, other powders, or other primers, and for use in other rifles. I try to get books with data using as much the same variables as I will be using, even if I can't use the same rifle they did.

And, OP asked which book he should start with in choosing a new one, not which one he should use for choosing maximum safe loads. To that end, I tried to suggest to him sources which use the specific components he will be using, because I think it is important he get information as relevant as possible.

That doesn't mean he shouldn't work up (or DOWN) from there. It means he will most likely have a safe and useful place to start from, if he begins with the listed starting loads for his components....which he has been reloading plenty long enough to know.

Anyway, believe whatever you want.

On this one, we definitely do not agree. So be it.

quote:

On this one, we definitely do not agree. So be it.

I'm comfortable with that, it's a harmless mistake.

It's suprising to me how many people still buy reloading manuals.

The data in different manuals varies so widely that is a good idea to accumulate all you can and compare the data for any load combination you are contemplating. Sometimes starting load in one is max in another and where do you go from there. The more information you have available, the better your opportunity to make good decidions.

I have the Lyman 49th, (2) Nosler versions, Speer, Hornady and Lee manuals. I use them all but, if I had to use just one, it would be the Lee Modern Reloading 2nd addition. The selection of bullet weights and powders is impressive. I have a couple of Lee Powder measures and I like the fact that they address measuring by volume. The Lyman is more of a "How to" manual which I also like.

As stated above, having several manuals that cover the brands of bullets one is using works well. Something else to consider these days is the manufacturers that post load data at their website, such as Hodgdon powders. Sometimes the bullet manufacturers will as well - I loaded some Nosler bullets in a .30-06 recently, but do not have a Nosler manual (don't use them much) - was able to look up loads at their website.