Which manual do I believe?

[Cheap Shot]

I have Sierra's 5th edition and Lee's Modern Reloading 2nd edition, and look at Hodgdon's online version for another source. I also have several downloaded (pdf) manuals. My next planned book purchase is Hornady's.

Of course I want to start low and work up until I find what my firearm likes without going over the maximum or under the minimum load values. My problem is I have several manuals to compare and they all have different minimum and maximum values. Some start below other's minimum and some start above other's maximum, and the reverse also happens.

I understand too low may leave a bullet in the barrel, but who's low?
I understand too high may blowup the firearm, but who's high?

I've been reloading for 9mm and .30-06 since November of 2010 and with all the powder choices being changed (supply/new vs. discontinued) I'm having to come up with new loads.

[toby]

You will have to learn by doing, use the average of a couple/ few and work up. NEVER start at MAX unless you're just the careless type! I've never seen a manual that starts above others maximum. I own 11 books.

[Cheap Shot]

Example

110 grn jacketed
Sierra says 50.6 to 55.4 and Hodgdon says 55.0 to 59 of varget
Sierra says 50.0 to 55.5 and Hodgdon says 55.0 to 58.5 of 4064

So, in both of these examples Sierra starts lower and Hodgdon starts just below Sierra's max. I could get a stuck bullet if my firearm reads Hodgdon and I could get a kaboom if it reads Sierra.

While I can watch for signs of over pressure to hopefully avoid kabooms, what do I look for to avoid bullet stuck in barrel?

Lee's 2nd edition had the same numbers as Hodgdon, so I could go with their data. This only takes these 3 sources, who's to say how many books line up with Sierra's numbers swaying to them being more accurate?

I'm really more concerned with going too low, but in the above example too low and too high almost overlap my data sources.

This seems like the best place ask these questions. How about which reload book is the most accurate?

I've already read examples of different editions of manuals having varied data. The general theory being that they changed the data because their lawyers told them to.

Still, all this goes to the original question.

Which manual do I believe?

[sofbak]

How old is your Sierra manual? If Hodgdon and Lee agree that is good.

Start at 54 and go to 57 in half grain increments-10 rounds at each and check the signs st each rung before stepping up.

[rmelton]

Sierra shows 50.6 gr of Varget and 50.0 gr of 4064 at 3000 fps, if you stick a bullet in the barrel at that MV then there is something in the barrel besides the bullet and that is not going to end well. Sierra is using their bullet RN to a HP and Hodgdon is using Hornady sp, that might make a deference.

[rmelton]

In the Lyman Reloading Handbook 49th Edition it shows a Sierra 110gr Jacketed HP using IMR4064 50.0gr min and 55gr max

[Metal God]

Well the easy answer is use the manual of the bullet you are using . Now that's not always possible I know . From there it's going to be based on your experience and understanding of bullet shapes and baring surface . Hornady often has multiple bullets and weights of bullets in the same load data page . Meaning the same data is used for both the 178gr A-max and the 180gr interlock RN . Sure 2gr ain't much but when you look and compare the two bullets . The interlock RN has maybe 1/2 again as much baring surface . It's my belief there data is likely for that interlock RN which makes the data for the 178gr A-Max a little light . I want to be clear the above is an opinion please don't take it to mean load the 178 A-Max over max .

My point , and I'm sure you understand is that all these manufactures are using different components to come up with there data . Some times you just have to make a leap of faith based on your experience and common sense . I know I've looked at data before and thought NO WAY I'm starting there and vise versa thinking there's no need to start that low but that had some understanding and some experience of what I was working with . YMMV

[pacrat]

How old is your Sierra manual? If Hodgdon and Lee agree that is good.

Data for a given load listed in the Lee book, will likely always agree exactly with another published data set. Lee does not do ballistic load velocity or pressure testing. Other than sections such as the reduced loads etc. All data in a Lee book is reprinted from powder and bullet manufacturers data.

Pick the book with the lowest starting charge. Then let your rifle decide what it likes best as you slowly work upwards.

Books are printed on paper because they are for reference. They are not carved in stone. None of those loads will "stick" a bullet in your bore.


JM2c

[noylj]

A given load and the pressure produced is based on the EXACT chamber dimensions (which vary from gun-to-gun), the exact lot of powder (yes, powder lots do vary), the exact brand and lots of primer used, the exact lot of cases used (weigh a few and see how they vary), and the lot of bullets used (again, they do vary from lot-to-lot).
So, you are unlikely to have any of the exact components any loading manual used, and certainly not the same gun.
I have never had any problem with a bullet NOT exiting the barrel starting with the lowest starting load I have found by comparing several manuals.
I have, however, twice, had a max or over-max load from starting with the start load in a manual and NOT looking for data in other manuals.
I can find many examples where one manual's start load is over the MAX load in another manual, and both manuals tested and reported the pressure.
I have never found a single manual that was "the best," and the bullet manufacturer or the powder manufacturer is no better since they have no more control over the components I use and they used and any differences there are.
At least factory ammo can control every variable except the gun it is used in.

[opos]

Must be 1000 cookbooks and they must contain 5000 recipes for chocolate chip cookies..most will have similarities but you have to work to find the best recipe for you....normally all will be pretty good but you have to find your own "best"..If one recipe says to use 3# of chocolate chips and all the other recipes say to use 1 # ...something is probably wrong with the one saying 3# so be wary.

I got probably 12 or 13 loading manuals from the years..some have changed due to components changing and some due to the lawyers and liability...I've found that I can usually match (or come close) the components with a powder type and I normally start about "lower mid range" to begin working up a load...I have heard of folks confusing lead with jacketed bullets and getting in a jam...also learn to check your bore and chamber dimension to tailor the loading...old Mosins for example can have barrel diameters from .310 to .316 or more based on wear...slugging the barrel on old war horses is about the only way to know what you are working with for sure...

I shoot several CZ handguns..the older CZ 97 (45 cal) has characteristics with the feed ramp and the leade that make it very picky about ammo...I've found that the published data for many of the .45acp loads and the COL are simply not suitable for that pistol...how did I find out...by lots of testing to determine the "dimensions" of the chamber...that pistol was built on military history and the ammo it likes is more like ball ammo of a shorter COL..once I'd found the specs of the chamber it was much easier to "weed out" things that would not work..for example the Hornady hollow point has a shape that is not particularly easy to load for the CZ...it will work but takes a lot of "learning" and testing...If I were to just take some generic data on 45 acp hollowpoints and substitute the data for use in that CZ I'd have issues..some might even be a little dangerous...Now that I know the pistol I can simplify my choices for load data.

The move to no lead hunting bullets has brought about some new issues...for example Barnes all copper bullets are going to have very different data for loading than a SP lead core bullet...the B/C is probably different and the bullet shape is different...also the load data will not be the same....that said if a person stays away from extremes on either end and works up carefully it's not difficult...an example with the Barnes is that I bought a 7mm Mauser Mark X from a man and it came with a bunch of his late Dad's reloaded ammo....it was 120 grain all copper and the amount of H4350 powder seemed really excessive...I contacted Barnes and they confirmed that it was, in fact way over max...I found that it might be excessive by looking at the other 120 grain 7mm Mauser published load data and none of it was anywhere near the indicated loads that I'd received...while the all copper was different...there was a "mid range" loading for all suitable powders that would have given me a starting point to work from.

Just go slow and don't deal in extremes either high or low until you have slowly worked things out. I'm leery of internet loads unless it's a known source....I've used the M.D. Smith load data as a general "check" from time to time...seems that he had a pretty good handle on things...but even with his loads I still double check...

There are little "handbooks" (not to replace the manufacturer's manual) called "one book, one caliber"...they are a compilation of load data from many powder and bullet manufacturers and it's an easy "flip through" to make comparisons...I didn't want to buy another couple of manuals for an "off breed" caliber but did find one of their little pamphlets...it gave 3 powder manufacturers and a few bullet manufacturers in one little booklet and a way to compare and to start...e bay has them...but again..not a replacement for a manual..they are copies of manual pages but are sometimes from older manuals and things might have changed.

[milotrain]

This is a really excellent thing to have happened to you. It is the problem that most westerners have with the nature of reality.

Someone drew the lines.

[Cheap Shot]

In my 5 years of reloading I've only made 2 mistakes...

..that I became aware of anyway. First one was not enough lube and stuck a .30-06 casing in the die. Ended up mangling the expander/decapper pounding the case out. I have tools to remove stuck cases now, and I have a better lube method also. The second mistake was loading 2 small batches of rounds (less than 15 rounds each) of 110grn and 168gnd .30-06. I ended up squashing the shoulder on one of the rounds because the die was setup for the other round still. That round ended up at the range and would not feed into the rifle. Back at the house I tried fixing this round by pulling the components and reassembling them into a new case only to repeat the same squish. It finally hit me and I adjusted to die.

What brought me hear asking about which manual to believe was looking at what was available at the local stores and trying to make an informed decision on which powder to try next. My manuals aren't agreeing and I'm feeling less informed.

Was curious to note that all the new and improved powders seem to need 10-20% more powder to have similar data. Does improved mean that I buy more so they make more (hee-hee)?

I like the discussion so far but would like to lean more away from newbee answers and towards expanding knowledge style answers.

[milotrain]

Sorry I wasn't trying to be a dick, but the nature of reloading is to fully understand what is going on and then realize that all the "rules" are based on assumptions that the book made. To be a good reloader you need to convert those assumptions to the data that you have in front of you.

What powders are you using?
What brass are you using?
What primer are you using?
Are you neck turning?
What 30-06 chamber do you have?
What is the bore diameter of your barre?
What is the length of your barrel?
What is action are you using?
What is your freebore?
What are you attempting to get from your loads? (110gr Flat base and 168gr HPBT are completely different)

[liber]

Was curious to note that all the new and improved powders seem to need 10-20% more powder to have similar data. Does improved mean that I buy more so they make more (hee-hee)?

That's not always the case. Varget vs. 8208 XBR is just the opposite for me.

Of course it goes without saying that one can never have too many reloading manuals, and I certainly have opinions of the ones I use.

Hornady as an example has good information on each caliber, but the loads are light. Whether on purpose or not, I'm not sure. The Hornady manual does have NATO cartridges listed in many cases, such as Remington 223 and 5.56x45 NATO or 308 Winchester and 7.62x51 NATO. I like that fact. Hornady is also more current on powders being used, but since so many powders have been used for years and years, that might not be a factor for some.

My Lyman manual is old, a 47 I think (49 is current). I was asking some people at my club if the 49 has more modern powders. As an example the 47 doesn't even have Varget or 8208 XBR.

The other manual I have is the Speers, and it is the most recent. My problem with the Speers is that it doesn't have some of the sizes of projectiles I use. This is true of Hornady also, in that it doesn't have all the same sizes. Off the top of my head, Hornady also mixes some projectiles with the same data, I find that annoying. Where they will have 175 gr and 178 gr projectiles in the same data.

In the end there is no definitive manual as has been said many times in this thread, and I find the Hodgdon reloading web page to be an invaluable as it covers Hodgdon, IMR and Winchester powders and lets you select the projectile size you want or search by powder to see what they recommend.

[milotrain]

Liber, my 49th doesn't have 8208 I think and it doesn't have the new IMR fancy neon powders. I like the Nosler for it's coverage of contemporary powders. I pretty much use the 49th, the Nosler 7th, the Hodgdon website, and then ask specific people who shoot similar things what they like.