old loading manuals...

[cleardatum]

when getting new manuals, do y'all (all y'all) keep your old ones?

 

[mhblaw]

Sure!

 

[Chuck 100 yd]

Yes, I have lots of old load data manuals. Keep in mind that powders change over the years and with manufacturing changes and ownership. There are new powders and bullets and some that have been discontinued for whatever reason. There is still lots of good info in those old books.
I use the latest data when working up any load and also cross reference that load with another manual. Stay safe. Start low and work up.

 

[Luckyducker]

Not only do I keep all my data manuals I also have my late F-I-L's and B-I-L's data manuals and sometimes still use them.

 

[daveg.inkc]

Yes. I have collected the first ten Speer manuals. A wealth of information in them. I use Speer # 10 on .357 M. I have learned much by reading them.

 

[daveg.inkc]

My oldest is Lyman #39. 1953

 

[Rick Courtright]

when getting new manuals, do y'all (all y'all) keep your old ones?

Hi,

Yes. Especially helpful with shotshell loading, as I typically have enough components to last me into the next recipe book, where my favorite load may have disappeared.

One piece of advice I got from one of my first bosses, a former Winchester pro, was to use a manual that was "current" when your components were made, so subtle changes don't cause problems. So far that's been a good way to go.

Rick C

 

[powder smoke]

Pack Rat by nature, I find it hard to part with anything I spent my hard earned greenbacks on. ps

 

[any ruger]

Why do you keep them. Most forums say you can't use old data.

 

[Rick Courtright]

Why do you keep them. Most forums say you can't use old data.

Hi,

Folks have been reloading since long before there were forums. Or newsgroups. Or even the Interwebs! So it used to take a lot longer for misinformation to travel about. And we used to have to use our heads more. See my note above about using data that's "current" to the components. What's this mean?

Well, if I have a jug of powder from 1975 (I do! As do a number of handloaders, I'm sure), with cases, bullets and primers all made around the same time, and I have a 1975 manual, sitting next to a 2017 manual, I'll take a look at both books. Each has a recipe for supposedly "the same" components. But they're different! Now what do I do?

Well, the 1975 book says 20.0 gr of XYZ powder produces a safe load with my components. But the 2017 book says only 18.5 gr is safe, again with supposedly "the same" components. If ALL my components are leftovers from 1975, I'll have little or no problem following that old data. BUT... if I just got back from the shop with brand new, 2017 year components, even if all the labels are the same, I'll stick to the 2017 book.

Why? The powder and primers most certainly have undergone some changes over 40 years or so. That bullet, while still retaining the same name, may now be a tiny bit heavier or lighter, its profile may have changed, the hardness of the lead, thickness of the jacket, or something else may have been changed along the way. Even the brass case may have changed, with a different alloy, a slight change in internal volume from using new tooling or some other change. Add 'em up, and it doesn't look wise to use my "old data" any more since I've got new components, right? Remember, a change in even a single component produces a "new" load, and triggers the "start low, work up" mentality.

A little critical thinking with a dollop of common sense mixed in can be helpful in making some of these decisions. Included in that idea is the thought that if one must err, it's seldom wrong to err on the side of caution!

Rick C

 

[daveg.inkc]

I like to read every reload book I can find. The early Speer tells hiw some of first bullets were produced from empty..22 cases. And how some of our powders today have different names. Infallabe= Unique. Plus 7 grains of Unique in 1967 is 7 grains in 2017. Double check with new info,, no reason a person cant use 1968 book.

 

[Chuck 100 yd]

Why do you keep them. Most forums say you can't use old data.

Hi,

Folks have been reloading since long before there were forums. Or newsgroups. Or even the Interwebs! So it used to take a lot longer for misinformation to travel about. And we used to have to use our heads more. See my note above about using data that's "current" to the components. What's this mean?

Well, if I have a jug of powder from 1975 (I do! As do a number of handloaders, I'm sure), with cases, bullets and primers all made around the same time, and I have a 1975 manual, sitting next to a 2017 manual, I'll take a look at both books. Each has a recipe for supposedly "the same" components. But they're different! Now what do I do?

Well, the 1975 book says 20.0 gr of XYZ powder produces a safe load with my components. But the 2017 book says only 18.5 gr is safe, again with supposedly "the same" components. If ALL my components are leftovers from 1975, I'll have little or no problem following that old data. BUT... if I just got back from the shop with brand new, 2017 year components, even if all the labels are the same, I'll stick to the 2017 book.

Why? The powder and primers most certainly have undergone some changes over 40 years or so. That bullet, while still retaining the same name, may now be a tiny bit heavier or lighter, its profile may have changed, the hardness of the lead, thickness of the jacket, or something else may have been changed along the way. Even the brass case may have changed, with a different alloy, a slight change in internal volume from using new tooling or some other change. Add 'em up, and it doesn't look wise to use my "old data" any more since I've got new components, right? Remember, a change in even a single component produces a "new" load, and triggers the "start low, work up" mentality.

A little critical thinking with a dollop of common sense mixed in can be helpful in making some of these decisions. Included in that idea is the thought that if one must err, it's seldom wrong to err on the side of caution!

Rick C

I agree , add to the above that different results in velocity and pressures can/will be found in different guns of the same make and caliber. That's why starting low and working up and the use of a chronograph will allow you to develope loads that are not only pushing the limit in velocity but still in safe pressure levels.

 

[gunzo]

Not counting duplicates & the little free paperbacks, I have 23 loading manuals. While I don't use all of them all the time, I do use each of them for one reason or another. I plan to have more.

A friend & I were laughing at the fact, that if we had spent as much time in our school books as we have in our loading manuals, we'd have Doctor's degrees. But in reloading, we're still freshman.

 

[cleardatum]

thanks for all the input, everyone. i'm packing to move, and it looks like my manuals are (all) coming with me!!

 

[daveg.inkc]

What is your oldest manual? There is information in each and every one that may not be in next one you pick up. In the Hodgdon #25, there is an article on page 317 written by Rolland Emmert. I worked for him in 1992. A welding, fabrication, and tool and die. "The Name of the Game Is The Same" do every thing the same way each time. Picture of his wife with a .290" 5 shot group. 32/40 Pope/Ballard. Schuetzen rifle

 

[cleardatum]

my oldest is a barnes manual from the 80's, i believe.

 

[Johnnu2]

Since ALL my friends are hoarders, I try my best to lighten my load(s). I do my best (not always successful) to get rid of anything that I haven't used in the past year or two. Keep one "back-set" of manuals just to check what may have changed. I give away most everything that I don't need anymore.

 

[BucolicBuffalo]

The style of writing in some older reloading manuals is a bit entertaining. I recently picked up a Accurate Smokeless Powder Reloading Guide Number One (1994). Just a few pages in reminded me of why I like books.

 

[daveg.inkc]

The style of writing in some older reloading manuals is a bit entertaining. I recently picked up a Accurate Smokeless Powder Reloading Guide Number One (1994). Just a few pages in reminded me of why I like books.

Look for the Ideal Lyman books from 1930,1940's. And before. Very interesting reading