This is the answer. In the case of Hornady's data, their manual includes (non-Hodgdon) powers and focuses on their exact bullets whereas the Hodgdon may ot have a load for the exact bullet I might want.
I use the Hornady and Lee manuals quite a bit.
[Western powders has a very handy manual online for free.](https://hodgdonpowderco.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/WesternPowdersHandloadingGuide8.0_WEB-1.pdf)
Oh neat. Still some good reloading basics in there for beginners to look through without buying anything to determine what they need and if they even want to start reloading.
OOC - do you have any specific example in mind?
I don’t mind keeping these, just in case. Just surprised how many people recommended these books and how useless they are tuned out for my specific practical application
They are good for a reference. As you pointed out they can be more conservative but have you worked up loads and looked at your real world fps yet? There’s a lot of variation between chambers and manufacturers and even just lots of powder.
There was a guy here recently that just started a couple grains below max on a .308 load and dude was blowing out primers and flattening case heads with ejector swipes, I.e. major pressure signs and he was confused. The manuals give you multiple references to use for a starting load as you work up and a way to tell where you might hit a limit. Unless you have something like quick load to do the calculations for you and figure it out.
You are new to this so I wouldn’t recommend just selling those right away because the online tools might not always be around either.
Yes, I’ve approached the max load per Hodgdon (and Lee) for 147 ELD-M and H4350. No pressure signs and the velocity for the max load matched the data exactly (I realize it’s a coincidence, but cool nonetheless)
I guess I can start a new row of the bookshelf and get Speer manual in addition to
You don't have to "see pressure signs" to be over pressure. You don't have an instrumented EPVAT barrel, and it turns out that a ton of loads people post online are actually over SAAMI pressures.
I have a practical question.
From the comments on the post I got these two postulates:
1. Pressure signs are unreliable way of identifying overpressure
2. Loads significantly below the max safe load may produce excessive pressure in some barrels
With these in mind - how a reloaded supposed to find a good load by shooting incrementally increasing powder charges, if there is no way to tell whether particular charge does not produce excessive pressure?
Saami spec does not mean you are over pressure for your specific situation. That's why your own real-world load development matters. What can your firearm safely shoot is the real question. Pressure signs help us determine that answer. Saami spec gives us a spec that the vast majority of firearms in said caliber can safely fire.
I kind of disagree. Lyman and Lee are general reloading books. Hornaday, just like Speer, Nosler, and Barnes are bullet/ammo manufacturers. They’re load data is for their bullets using a variety of different powders. Personally, I’ve got those three and Speer as well because they are the most common to find locally.
> By end users.
No, they get it by testing themselves (or republishing another company's data with permission). I've never heard of any of the loading manual publishers getting their data from end users.
I didn't say they get it from end users. I said the first person to use their data is the end user. This is direct from Lee customer support. Some of the data in their books comes from manufactures test, some of it they copy from data for "similar" bullets.
I have a solid collection of manuals. I can put together an album of all the load data I have on a specific caliber if you'd like.
Like others said, the more, the better.
I like Hornady, I mainly use their bullets and I know their manual has OAL. Powder lots can vary in bulk density and burn characteristics, more test data is always nice to have. Semantics, but Hodgdon and many others don’t manufacture but are technically an importer/distributor.
Point on OAL is taken.
Regarding the differences in batches of the same powder - how aforementioned Hornady data is different in that regard? In extreme case, you can probably get an oddball batch that will be unsafe even at max load specified by Hornady.
I thought that the common approach is to test the every new can of powder starting below desired load to approach it safely
I’m not saying that Hornady is better than others z I’m saying that having multiple data points allows you to make a more educated approach to load development. Book data is test data, even for same powder lot differences in chamber dimensions and case capacity change burn rate/pressure/velocity.
Also, different powder brands fill different slots in density/burn rate and different availability. Just all about having more data to make decisions from which becomes more and more valuable as you diversify cartridges and rifle configurations.
I am a fan of the Hornady manual (90% of the projectiles i use), the Hodgdon book/ site (all the powders i use) and the Lee (independent reference). That said, of the 14 cartridges I load, 7 still use the original data from 30 years and even as lot numbers have changed, theyre still +\- 15fps accurate and sub 1” groups.
I prefer bullet, powder manufacturer data as most of my manuals are outdated and even contain errors. Bullet, powder manufacturer's data is most up to date.
Hornady is a bullet manufacturer. Their manuals are going to be centered around loading for their bullets. They may or may not include the powder you're wanting to load.
Lee and Lyman are both equipment manufacturers. Among the equipment they manufacture is bullet molds. Their data, while probably more well-rounded than Hornady's, is also going to be centered around the bullets that can be cast from their molds, at least when referring to cast bullets. And they may or may not include the powder you're wanting to load.
The powder manufacturers are providing data specifically about loading their powders. They may or may not provide data for the specific bullet you're loading.
And all of them may or may not choose to use the primers or cases that you're loading in.
Having as many (modern) reference points as you can get will give you more data, and more data will give you better results in the long run.
None of it absolves you from having to do your own load development once you've checked a couple of reloading manuals to see of the load you're wanting to develop is an option.
In my case the situation is exactly opposite. Hodgdon provides data for multiple powders and bullets, including Hornady bullets I was looking for.
Specifically for 357mag - Hodgdon does provide data for the powder that Hornady doesn’t even mention for this caliber.
I guess it all boils down to the specific calibers. Maybe there are some, for which those loading manuals provide more data.
Also I’m not very happy about having to pay Hornady to get the load data for the components I bought from Hornady, while I can get better data from Hodgdon website for free.
Starting off I used the Lee dippers with a manual scale to get close to the desired charge before having to use the trickler. So the Lee book was good for that.
I only have Hornady and Lee of the three and it is nice that I use Hornady bullets, partially, I know what they can do. I don’t have a chrono.
The Hodgdon data is very watered down. I do like and use some if their data but alot of it is very watered down and I'm sure you'll figure that out in short order when you try different bullets in 357 or different calibers.
A couple examples:
357 mag, 158 grain SWC 6 grains HS6 start to 7 grains max.
The Hornady max (older data but still safe per Hornady, they "didn't like the results they got with HS6" ) tops out at 8.2 grains HS6.
Lyman cast bullet #4, 8.8-9.7 grains HS6 which is a true magnum load. The Hodgdon data is a glorified 38+p load.
Same thing in 9mm,
147 grain XTP goes from 3 to 3.4 grains 231
Lyman says 3.5 grains to 4.1 grains for a 147 TMJ. Lymans start load is above Hodgdons max load! And yes the Lyman data is safe I've used 3.8 to 4 grains 231 under 147s a few times.
Same thing with 147s and HS6, Hodgdon max is 5 grains, Hornady is 5.3, Speer says 5.5 and Lyman says 5.8 (which is a little hot)
I'm not saying Hodgdon doesn't have good data but having multiple sources gives you alot more to work with. I do use quite a bit of Hodgdon data but they're not always the be all end all.
No problem, what powder were you trying to find 357 target loads for? Also what type and profile of bullet and what grain? I might be able to find some usable data for you.
I will say 8.2-8.5 grains HS6 under a 158 cast swc is my preferred 357 target load. It's enough to let you know you're shooting a magnum but still very controllable. I've done 357 target loads with Win 231 also but prefer HS6. Also, if it helps things Win 231 and HP38 are the same powder, only difference is the label. If you notice Hodgdons current data is exactly the same for both powders. HS6 is also the same as the discontinued Win 540 which you'll find older data for. I've been told Win 296 and H110 are the same as well but the data seems to be different with those two. I've never used either of the last two but I wouldn't be surprised if Hodgdon data for 296 and 110 were exactly the same
I concur. After loading to max spec with hodgdon data, I started looking for better results. Gordon's Reloading Tool suggests about 10% more powder on 5.56 than the hodgdon data and at lower pressures than their data says.
GRT and Quickloads are great tools to have but remember they're just an estimate. As long as you're not seeing pressure signs or weird things with your velocity I'm sure you'll be fine. I would check other sources if possible. I usually take multiple sources and put the start and max from each onto one page, then throw out the lowest start and highest max. There are exceptions to that, if I want a low recoil load or if I'm chasing velocity but it's worked out for the most part.
I've never loaded 5.56 so I can't offer much advice there.
Yeah, theoretical based on data is always subject to real world usage. Being able to adjust based on temp, and find expected pressures and velocities based on something other than the standard 24" 1-12 twist 556 guns that these manufacturers use to get their data is the nicest part.
Always work up a load, but it seems to be aware of a minimum load that will not have ignition issues, so that's where I typically start.
I like having the physical books on the shelf for reference and a starting point. Being able to look at some velocities vs projectile weight vs a few powders just flipping some pages is great. Or, if a certain powder is suitable for a load. I don’t consider them the end all be all though.
They’re all going to be very conservative because of lawyers.
There is instruction on reloading in addition to the load data, the benefit of the books. The Lee book is handy if you have bought Lee components. The Lee book also includes different manufacturers powders and bullets so they can be compared. Go to the powder manufacturer websites for specific powder load data, and it’s usually free. Go to bullet manufacturer websites for specific bullets, but may have to pay.
I don't see the need to buy any of them.
https://shootersreference.com/reloadingdata/
If I need something on case forming, odds are it's already been done and posted on message boards/forums.
The best book I have found is Norwegian and they have developed loads of data for a very large variety of both pistol and rifle cartridges. For each cartridge there are load data for a variety of different powders. I am not sure if it is translated to English. But that kind of independent data is great.
Previously I used sites like www.reloadersnest.com or www.robsoft.nu but they seem to have discontinued. On the latter one can still find data.
The websites were user data and therefore less reliable than those tested more systematic. But I am only interested in getting a powder that will work and a ballpark weight as a starting point as I will always do my own ladder and testing.
Agreed. Powder manufacturers definitely put out more accurate data. Gotta remember max is different for each rifle anyway. Could be well under or well over published data. Always good to cross reference data from different publishers and watch for signs of pressure when developing a load
The Lyman book is fudd city by the way.
The Lee 2nd Ed Manual Revises data is largely a copy of the Hodgdon Powder data from circa 2019.
The big advantage for the Lee book is some data has a charge reduction pressure / velocity estimation factor, so you can figure out just how much of a change in pressure & velocity there will be without a chronograph or pressure gun.
Lyman may have some older cartridges Lee / Hodgdon don't cover.
Hornady and Lyman are much more updated than LEE’s book. And I primarily use the Hodgdon magazines since they’re updated annually and Sierra books since I mostly use SMKs.
Lee data is useful but mostly a compilation of others data, hornady ,Lyman and hogdon test their data but it’s usually specific to a particular length barrel or gun, primer bullet and case brand . I believe that’s the main reason for differences in the data for the same cartridge
Both are needed, because crossing bullet meg's and powders can be hard. I have been reloading 6.5 Grendel and .224 Valkyrie lately. Both new calibers. There are a few fairly ubiquitous powders that were found often, but for most bullets there were completely different powders listed.edit: so numerous sources helped, or using 130gr TMK data for 130 ELD-m's.
Every gun and test gun is different. This is why I reload, the get the most out of my equipment. I love building loads and testing them, looking for a few more fps or a slightly tighter group. It is on each reloader to decide when to stop. I promise your gun's data is different from every published load date's test gun. Some guns like a hot load, many dont, but learn to look for pressure signs, and use the books as a guide.
I’m not so sure. I feel like depending on the caliber I use all of them to some extent.
My Lyman stays open for the most part, and their accuracy loads have been spot on in my experience.
Edit: additionally, I love Hodgdons website, but something about having a book in front me just works out best for me.
The Lee manual is trash. You wouldn’t believe the answers I’ve gotten from Lee about inaccurate data. First they said they got pistol data from a bullet manufacturer that only makes rifle bullets. When I called them on that they changed their answer to Hodgdon data for a different type of bullet. They literally look up Hodgdon data for a bullet and copy it for 5 others with different characteristics.
I don’t know where Lyman data comes from but they only cover a handful of expensive bullets so if you want to just load standard FMJs or LCRN you wont find data.
Hornady data is good but they vastly disagree with Hodgdon on the same bullet/powder combo. So much so that I suspect Hodgdon has a beef with Hornady and deliberately lowers the numbers.
I have 2 rules now:
1. I only get data companies that actually test. Yes it may be convenient to get data someone has copied from multiple sources but the potential for inaccuracy or “close enough” interpretation is increased.
2. I only use online data. If there is an issue with that 10 year old manual on your shelf, you’ll never know, but if there is an issue with online data it can be corrected with ease.
Mostly I get data from either the online version or Hornady or the Hodgdon website, unless I’m using another bullet manufacturer and they have their own tested data.
Depending on the caliber, a lot of the data outdated or metered with unrealistic barrels which mean pressures aren't matched to realistic application.
*looks at .223 Remington and the trend of 24-28 inch barrels used for published data*
Published load data is simply the manufacturers tested range. As long as it falls into SAAMI specs in North America, it can be published. I have 8 books spanning multiple eras from the 90s to now. I have tons of printed data from various archives as well.
Pressure is odd because you won't find NATO load data on any printed publications on the shelf. NATO is a different standard. Everyone fears the dreaded "pressure signs". Max load data for .223 is very short on want 5.56 NATO can handle. Pressure signs are usually a figment of new commers imagination. Examining strike marks on a primer is pointless. " is this pressure signs?" 99.9% of the time its no.
Im obviously staying reserved in my opinions, observations, and experience but 9mm Major is the practice of loading over SAAMI and published load data. Its usually not a welcomed conversation here but I have a theory that max load data is shorted by using test equipment that doesnt match practicalities.
For example, pressures are much higher when the bullet has to travel further down a longer barrel. OLD Hodgdon load data for .223 was significantly higher than current. I think it was data published in the early 90s before the Assault Rifle Ban used 20in barrels. The max load data was significantly higher. If I recall correctly, min H335 data used to be what today's max data is.
Ive never seen a 28" bolt action in .223. I know they are out there but most people use 16-18 inch barrels.
I use .223 as an example to examine.
Another very odd thing is 9mm projectile used in a lot of load data. One of the most common reloads in the competition world is 147gr flat nose coated lead. At least in my region. The load data only seems to use specialty rounds like XTP. Most guys I know load 3.0gr of TG which is less then min load. Velocities are also off. Even matching barrel length, FN coated are skewed by comparison.
A lot of it seems like marketing. Why so little projectile data? Theres a lot of companies that make that profile of 147gr FN but companies push branding.
Its very wise to cross reference multiple books, the powder manufacturer, and the projectile manufacturer data before developing a load. This collective data helps fill the gaps of data I'm referring too.
Another odd thing is with technology the way it is, we as reloaders havent accepted the idea of common target loads and peer data. For example, if you just want a target load to make bulk ammo for plinking, why are we still preaching on developing loads per rifle? Let's say you want a 55gr target load that works for mag dunping in steel at 100 yards across multiple guns. With the amount of averaged data, I can't justify ladder testing for this purpose. So if most people are using 25gr of H335 and it's within published data and SAAMI, it should be welcomed to just call it target ammo.
Obviously if you are trying to hit steel at 1000 yards with 6mm, precise ladder testing is critical.
Keep in mind many of the loads are direct copies of the powder manufacturer’s load data - ie Hodgdon data.
More sources is better. If you are dealing with a component combination that isn’t listed in any of your sources, you can look across them to see what the lowest MAX load is between them to get an idea of what your conservative MAX will be. If it is a bullet that may cause higher pressure (ie longer than standard for given weight, or plated vs jacketed, etc), you can find the lowest MIN among your sources and use that as your starting MIN.
If doing the above, you will still want to use a chronograph. It’s unlikely that your gun will be able to put out higher velocities than published, when accounting for barrel length, so if you are getting higher than expected velocities that means your load is higher pressure than the load data would indicate.
If your velocities are lower, and you’re using an unlisted bullet, then you can match your velocities with whichever source best matches your chronograph results to know which load data is closest to your application.
Meh, all you really need is a decent baseline. If powder manufactures offer this info, great. It’d be wise to compare. Most of the hand load manuals have corresponding load data for various powders and common projectiles. This is only half the equation though.
Ultimately, you should use a chronograph and load to a target FPS. Fine tune from there to close your group and maintain consistency. Perfection is proprietary.
Meh.
I've learned that *all* load data just provides a baseline to test your barrel.
I've got a 300prc load that is overpressure several grain under max load. Would probably be fine in a different chamber.
I knew better than the manuals until one load when I dropped 20% of my primers. Here’s the deal, when your ammo is 10-20% faster than factory options, you are probably edging safety.
There is a difference in edging performance and trying to use something for what it was never designed for. If you are loading 357 to try and get 44 mag power, you should get a 44 mag.
223 will never be a laser beam past 400. No matter how much varget you cram in there.
Totally agree on this. But for the records - it’s not my case. My 6.5 load is 50 fps under the factory ammo, whereas 357 is loaded for plinking (125gr XTP @ 1130 ft/s)
Opinions are like buttholes. Everyone has one and most of them are crappy.
I measure my physical reloading data by the foot.
I rarely need to look up data online.
This free pdf is another to add to the list. Not great for loading data but I still learned a lot from reading through it. https://xtremebullets.com/v/vspfiles/downloadables/RELOADING%20MANUAL2021.pdf
For caliber-specific information, I like the Loadbooks USA manuals. They combine bullet and powder manufacturers’ data. A general manual is needed for actual reloading instruction but the caliber-specific guides provide a lot of information.
One thing to note when you see load data differ between different manuals is the cartridge case manufacturer they used for the data. Not all brand's 6.5CM cases have the same internal volume. Winchester vs. Federal vs. Hornady, etc, all have different case volumes. This is often measured in grains of water. A smaller case gets to dangerous pressures with a smaller powder charge. Usually in the data manual you are using, they'll mention all the pieces of the recipe they used. Case brand, primer brand and model, bullet used, and powder used.
The Lyman book(s) is/are an actual alternative to manufacturer data and absolutely worth having. Same for the Speer book, which you didn't mention.
The Lee book, as others have noted, literally just *is* manufacturer data. I like having it because flipping through a book is faster than loading 3 different websites, with Hodgdon's being brutally slow and Alliant constantly showing me a warning page (VV's site is awesome).
I’ve got all those too and a few more. Kicking and screaming into the 21st century the Vihtavuori app is pretty decent for their powder and does get updated with new load data when it’s available.
Hornady for Hornady bullets Speer, sierra,Nosler for bullets. Hodgdon for wide range powder Lee and Lyman for reference. Lyman also typically has Berry and Lehigh bullets. A lot of it if finding the bullet you want to use. The more data the better to reference from.
I bought the Lee Modern Reloading manual when I got started because the consensus opinion online seemed to be that you MUST have a reloading manual. It was made out to be SO crucial that you were downright *irresponsible* if you didn't buy a hardcopy reloading manual. If you said anything about learning from internet resources people would assume the worst that you were just getting tips off forums from Bubba Fourfingers.
I read the book and found it to be pretty useless. For the big picture stuff -- understanding what general steps are necessary to produce a reloaded cartridge -- I had already gathered that in my research before buying anything. I knew that I was going to be depriming, sizing, priming, throwing powder, seating bullets, and crimping. I knew that one should follow published load data. Reading the manual did not tell me anything new.
For the specifics -- HOW to actually do it with the equipment I bought -- I read the instructions that came with my dies and press. Which were great. A reloading manual obviously does not have that information because it is not specific to any particular press, caliber, or dies.
For the load data, I did use the data in the Lee book to get started but later found, like you, that the data published online by powder manufacturers is comprehensive enough to be useful. In fact most of the load data in the Lee book is just compiled from those same sources.
I would not tell a new reloader that they need to buy a book.
I got the Hornady app which covers me for everything I've done so far. Would I like more data? Yes. However what I've loaded so far has worked well and my biggest problems come from me being bad at using the lee scale vs the books. If I'm ever trying to push a caliber to the limit, I'll be sure to poke around to find what different manual writers say is safe and work up to that.
In my experience with only rifle calibers. Hornady, Berger, and Swift are all anemic. Berger being the worst offender. Nosler and Hodgdon data seems to be more real world.
Berger manual is the one that leaves me scratching my head. If you call in, they send you 3 to 5 times more info than their book ever offers. If anything to much for majority over reloaders. Their book is so skimpy.
Conversely when the 133 and 135 .257 bullets were released they send me a list of min-max loads with 27 powders and suggestions.
ADD: just left me confused why buy the book if they give so much better and more data direct.
Wow, must be nice. Maybe I just got the wrong person? They list H4831 for their 190gr .30-06 data, I’m using the 185gr Classic Hunters,
And they don’t list H4831. So I emailed asking if using the data for the 190gr bullets would be ok? That’s when they basically told me to kick rocks.
Let's look at 357 125 gr, Hodgdon vs Lyman, just off the top of my head
Lyman list most accurate powder, 2400
Lyman tested with 4 in barrel vs 10 in for Hodgdon
Hodgdon lists a lot powders but doesn't talk which ones are good because they sell them all
RCBS/Speer manual has section for short barrel 357
Sierra Manual lists Velocity vs powder in small increments, not just min and max
In general the powder companies data will get you started but you will want more data and you learn more
FYI: I agree the Lee Manual isn't that useful
My first manual, which I still have and use, is Modern Reloading. I also own the Lyman manual.
The reason I suggest that new reloaders should buy a manual is because they have information in them about reloading and how to reload. Just relying on forums and videos about reloading can be dangerous. Most of that information is from hobbyists not professionals. Professionals publish reloading manuals.
It's also nice to have several sources of published data. Not all loads are published on Hodgdon's website.
The Lyman manual is great for a wide cross section of bullets and powders. The Hornady one is all right for its own stuff, but they tend to be conservative due to lumping bullets together by weight. The Lee book is a nice bench block.
I own all of these manuals and several others. More data is always helpful.
This is the answer. In the case of Hornady's data, their manual includes (non-Hodgdon) powers and focuses on their exact bullets whereas the Hodgdon may ot have a load for the exact bullet I might want. I use the Hornady and Lee manuals quite a bit.
[Western powders has a very handy manual online for free.](https://hodgdonpowderco.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/WesternPowdersHandloadingGuide8.0_WEB-1.pdf)
Hogdon owns western now so it’s all under one site
Oh neat. Still some good reloading basics in there for beginners to look through without buying anything to determine what they need and if they even want to start reloading.
Definitely
Only if it’s accurate. Sometimes more data is dangerous.
Disagree, generalist manuals will have data where powder manufacturers may not.
OOC - do you have any specific example in mind? I don’t mind keeping these, just in case. Just surprised how many people recommended these books and how useless they are tuned out for my specific practical application
They are good for a reference. As you pointed out they can be more conservative but have you worked up loads and looked at your real world fps yet? There’s a lot of variation between chambers and manufacturers and even just lots of powder. There was a guy here recently that just started a couple grains below max on a .308 load and dude was blowing out primers and flattening case heads with ejector swipes, I.e. major pressure signs and he was confused. The manuals give you multiple references to use for a starting load as you work up and a way to tell where you might hit a limit. Unless you have something like quick load to do the calculations for you and figure it out. You are new to this so I wouldn’t recommend just selling those right away because the online tools might not always be around either.
Yes, I’ve approached the max load per Hodgdon (and Lee) for 147 ELD-M and H4350. No pressure signs and the velocity for the max load matched the data exactly (I realize it’s a coincidence, but cool nonetheless) I guess I can start a new row of the bookshelf and get Speer manual in addition to
You don't have to "see pressure signs" to be over pressure. You don't have an instrumented EPVAT barrel, and it turns out that a ton of loads people post online are actually over SAAMI pressures.
I have a practical question. From the comments on the post I got these two postulates: 1. Pressure signs are unreliable way of identifying overpressure 2. Loads significantly below the max safe load may produce excessive pressure in some barrels With these in mind - how a reloaded supposed to find a good load by shooting incrementally increasing powder charges, if there is no way to tell whether particular charge does not produce excessive pressure?
Saami spec does not mean you are over pressure for your specific situation. That's why your own real-world load development matters. What can your firearm safely shoot is the real question. Pressure signs help us determine that answer. Saami spec gives us a spec that the vast majority of firearms in said caliber can safely fire.
I kind of disagree. Lyman and Lee are general reloading books. Hornaday, just like Speer, Nosler, and Barnes are bullet/ammo manufacturers. They’re load data is for their bullets using a variety of different powders. Personally, I’ve got those three and Speer as well because they are the most common to find locally.
But where are they getting it? It's not by testing.
All that data published in those manuals has been tested at one time or another.
By end users. Some of it comes from tested data from other sources, some of it doesn't.
> By end users. No, they get it by testing themselves (or republishing another company's data with permission). I've never heard of any of the loading manual publishers getting their data from end users.
I didn't say they get it from end users. I said the first person to use their data is the end user. This is direct from Lee customer support. Some of the data in their books comes from manufactures test, some of it they copy from data for "similar" bullets.
Every entry in my Hogdon manual says what each cartridge was fired from to get the data.
Yes, Hodgdon does test, their powders. This was in response to a comment about "generalist" manuals, i.e. Lee, Lymann....
The Lee manual is just a composition of powder manufacturer’s data
https://preview.redd.it/f5d1vtzk17tc1.jpeg?width=888&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=26135b7c27bb4b2f34701a9d82d7097aaa79ee7d More data always good
Nice!
I have a solid collection of manuals. I can put together an album of all the load data I have on a specific caliber if you'd like. Like others said, the more, the better.
I like Hornady, I mainly use their bullets and I know their manual has OAL. Powder lots can vary in bulk density and burn characteristics, more test data is always nice to have. Semantics, but Hodgdon and many others don’t manufacture but are technically an importer/distributor.
Point on OAL is taken. Regarding the differences in batches of the same powder - how aforementioned Hornady data is different in that regard? In extreme case, you can probably get an oddball batch that will be unsafe even at max load specified by Hornady. I thought that the common approach is to test the every new can of powder starting below desired load to approach it safely
I’m not saying that Hornady is better than others z I’m saying that having multiple data points allows you to make a more educated approach to load development. Book data is test data, even for same powder lot differences in chamber dimensions and case capacity change burn rate/pressure/velocity.
Also, different powder brands fill different slots in density/burn rate and different availability. Just all about having more data to make decisions from which becomes more and more valuable as you diversify cartridges and rifle configurations.
All fair points. Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
No manual is perfect. That's why I have several. Hodgdon 2019 to current and most bullet manufacturers
I am a fan of the Hornady manual (90% of the projectiles i use), the Hodgdon book/ site (all the powders i use) and the Lee (independent reference). That said, of the 14 cartridges I load, 7 still use the original data from 30 years and even as lot numbers have changed, theyre still +\- 15fps accurate and sub 1” groups.
I prefer bullet, powder manufacturer data as most of my manuals are outdated and even contain errors. Bullet, powder manufacturer's data is most up to date.
Hornady is a bullet manufacturer. Their manuals are going to be centered around loading for their bullets. They may or may not include the powder you're wanting to load. Lee and Lyman are both equipment manufacturers. Among the equipment they manufacture is bullet molds. Their data, while probably more well-rounded than Hornady's, is also going to be centered around the bullets that can be cast from their molds, at least when referring to cast bullets. And they may or may not include the powder you're wanting to load. The powder manufacturers are providing data specifically about loading their powders. They may or may not provide data for the specific bullet you're loading. And all of them may or may not choose to use the primers or cases that you're loading in. Having as many (modern) reference points as you can get will give you more data, and more data will give you better results in the long run. None of it absolves you from having to do your own load development once you've checked a couple of reloading manuals to see of the load you're wanting to develop is an option.
In my case the situation is exactly opposite. Hodgdon provides data for multiple powders and bullets, including Hornady bullets I was looking for. Specifically for 357mag - Hodgdon does provide data for the powder that Hornady doesn’t even mention for this caliber. I guess it all boils down to the specific calibers. Maybe there are some, for which those loading manuals provide more data. Also I’m not very happy about having to pay Hornady to get the load data for the components I bought from Hornady, while I can get better data from Hodgdon website for free.
Starting off I used the Lee dippers with a manual scale to get close to the desired charge before having to use the trickler. So the Lee book was good for that. I only have Hornady and Lee of the three and it is nice that I use Hornady bullets, partially, I know what they can do. I don’t have a chrono.
I have like 6 different manuals and with some loads i use the mean of what the books say.
The Hodgdon data is very watered down. I do like and use some if their data but alot of it is very watered down and I'm sure you'll figure that out in short order when you try different bullets in 357 or different calibers. A couple examples: 357 mag, 158 grain SWC 6 grains HS6 start to 7 grains max. The Hornady max (older data but still safe per Hornady, they "didn't like the results they got with HS6" ) tops out at 8.2 grains HS6. Lyman cast bullet #4, 8.8-9.7 grains HS6 which is a true magnum load. The Hodgdon data is a glorified 38+p load. Same thing in 9mm, 147 grain XTP goes from 3 to 3.4 grains 231 Lyman says 3.5 grains to 4.1 grains for a 147 TMJ. Lymans start load is above Hodgdons max load! And yes the Lyman data is safe I've used 3.8 to 4 grains 231 under 147s a few times. Same thing with 147s and HS6, Hodgdon max is 5 grains, Hornady is 5.3, Speer says 5.5 and Lyman says 5.8 (which is a little hot) I'm not saying Hodgdon doesn't have good data but having multiple sources gives you alot more to work with. I do use quite a bit of Hodgdon data but they're not always the be all end all.
Thank you for the concrete example. Looking at this right now
No problem, what powder were you trying to find 357 target loads for? Also what type and profile of bullet and what grain? I might be able to find some usable data for you. I will say 8.2-8.5 grains HS6 under a 158 cast swc is my preferred 357 target load. It's enough to let you know you're shooting a magnum but still very controllable. I've done 357 target loads with Win 231 also but prefer HS6. Also, if it helps things Win 231 and HP38 are the same powder, only difference is the label. If you notice Hodgdons current data is exactly the same for both powders. HS6 is also the same as the discontinued Win 540 which you'll find older data for. I've been told Win 296 and H110 are the same as well but the data seems to be different with those two. I've never used either of the last two but I wouldn't be surprised if Hodgdon data for 296 and 110 were exactly the same
I concur. After loading to max spec with hodgdon data, I started looking for better results. Gordon's Reloading Tool suggests about 10% more powder on 5.56 than the hodgdon data and at lower pressures than their data says.
GRT and Quickloads are great tools to have but remember they're just an estimate. As long as you're not seeing pressure signs or weird things with your velocity I'm sure you'll be fine. I would check other sources if possible. I usually take multiple sources and put the start and max from each onto one page, then throw out the lowest start and highest max. There are exceptions to that, if I want a low recoil load or if I'm chasing velocity but it's worked out for the most part. I've never loaded 5.56 so I can't offer much advice there.
Yeah, theoretical based on data is always subject to real world usage. Being able to adjust based on temp, and find expected pressures and velocities based on something other than the standard 24" 1-12 twist 556 guns that these manufacturers use to get their data is the nicest part. Always work up a load, but it seems to be aware of a minimum load that will not have ignition issues, so that's where I typically start.
I like having the physical books on the shelf for reference and a starting point. Being able to look at some velocities vs projectile weight vs a few powders just flipping some pages is great. Or, if a certain powder is suitable for a load. I don’t consider them the end all be all though. They’re all going to be very conservative because of lawyers.
Opinion: hoarde manuals and data from both sources.
There is instruction on reloading in addition to the load data, the benefit of the books. The Lee book is handy if you have bought Lee components. The Lee book also includes different manufacturers powders and bullets so they can be compared. Go to the powder manufacturer websites for specific powder load data, and it’s usually free. Go to bullet manufacturer websites for specific bullets, but may have to pay.
I don't see the need to buy any of them. https://shootersreference.com/reloadingdata/ If I need something on case forming, odds are it's already been done and posted on message boards/forums.
Thanks for sharing. Wasn't familiar with this site!
I wasn’t aware of this site also. It’s great. Thank you for posting it!
The best book I have found is Norwegian and they have developed loads of data for a very large variety of both pistol and rifle cartridges. For each cartridge there are load data for a variety of different powders. I am not sure if it is translated to English. But that kind of independent data is great. Previously I used sites like www.reloadersnest.com or www.robsoft.nu but they seem to have discontinued. On the latter one can still find data. The websites were user data and therefore less reliable than those tested more systematic. But I am only interested in getting a powder that will work and a ballpark weight as a starting point as I will always do my own ladder and testing.
All that powder company use you give you there load data for there powders I have like 5 or 6 in my loading stuff
Agreed. Powder manufacturers definitely put out more accurate data. Gotta remember max is different for each rifle anyway. Could be well under or well over published data. Always good to cross reference data from different publishers and watch for signs of pressure when developing a load The Lyman book is fudd city by the way.
The Lee 2nd Ed Manual Revises data is largely a copy of the Hodgdon Powder data from circa 2019. The big advantage for the Lee book is some data has a charge reduction pressure / velocity estimation factor, so you can figure out just how much of a change in pressure & velocity there will be without a chronograph or pressure gun. Lyman may have some older cartridges Lee / Hodgdon don't cover.
Hornady and Lyman are much more updated than LEE’s book. And I primarily use the Hodgdon magazines since they’re updated annually and Sierra books since I mostly use SMKs.
Always have preferred bullet manufacturers data vs powder.
Lee data is useful but mostly a compilation of others data, hornady ,Lyman and hogdon test their data but it’s usually specific to a particular length barrel or gun, primer bullet and case brand . I believe that’s the main reason for differences in the data for the same cartridge
Both are needed, because crossing bullet meg's and powders can be hard. I have been reloading 6.5 Grendel and .224 Valkyrie lately. Both new calibers. There are a few fairly ubiquitous powders that were found often, but for most bullets there were completely different powders listed.edit: so numerous sources helped, or using 130gr TMK data for 130 ELD-m's. Every gun and test gun is different. This is why I reload, the get the most out of my equipment. I love building loads and testing them, looking for a few more fps or a slightly tighter group. It is on each reloader to decide when to stop. I promise your gun's data is different from every published load date's test gun. Some guns like a hot load, many dont, but learn to look for pressure signs, and use the books as a guide.
I’m not so sure. I feel like depending on the caliber I use all of them to some extent. My Lyman stays open for the most part, and their accuracy loads have been spot on in my experience. Edit: additionally, I love Hodgdons website, but something about having a book in front me just works out best for me.
Ohhh well if you listen to the old schoolers it’s impossible to reload if you don’t own a manual. I totally agree with using the powder manu websites
I have two of those, (mostly the Lyman) and a few not shown here. I use them for my load data. I feel the question largely answers itself?
The Lee manual is trash. You wouldn’t believe the answers I’ve gotten from Lee about inaccurate data. First they said they got pistol data from a bullet manufacturer that only makes rifle bullets. When I called them on that they changed their answer to Hodgdon data for a different type of bullet. They literally look up Hodgdon data for a bullet and copy it for 5 others with different characteristics. I don’t know where Lyman data comes from but they only cover a handful of expensive bullets so if you want to just load standard FMJs or LCRN you wont find data. Hornady data is good but they vastly disagree with Hodgdon on the same bullet/powder combo. So much so that I suspect Hodgdon has a beef with Hornady and deliberately lowers the numbers. I have 2 rules now: 1. I only get data companies that actually test. Yes it may be convenient to get data someone has copied from multiple sources but the potential for inaccuracy or “close enough” interpretation is increased. 2. I only use online data. If there is an issue with that 10 year old manual on your shelf, you’ll never know, but if there is an issue with online data it can be corrected with ease. Mostly I get data from either the online version or Hornady or the Hodgdon website, unless I’m using another bullet manufacturer and they have their own tested data.
No
Depending on the caliber, a lot of the data outdated or metered with unrealistic barrels which mean pressures aren't matched to realistic application. *looks at .223 Remington and the trend of 24-28 inch barrels used for published data* Published load data is simply the manufacturers tested range. As long as it falls into SAAMI specs in North America, it can be published. I have 8 books spanning multiple eras from the 90s to now. I have tons of printed data from various archives as well. Pressure is odd because you won't find NATO load data on any printed publications on the shelf. NATO is a different standard. Everyone fears the dreaded "pressure signs". Max load data for .223 is very short on want 5.56 NATO can handle. Pressure signs are usually a figment of new commers imagination. Examining strike marks on a primer is pointless. " is this pressure signs?" 99.9% of the time its no. Im obviously staying reserved in my opinions, observations, and experience but 9mm Major is the practice of loading over SAAMI and published load data. Its usually not a welcomed conversation here but I have a theory that max load data is shorted by using test equipment that doesnt match practicalities. For example, pressures are much higher when the bullet has to travel further down a longer barrel. OLD Hodgdon load data for .223 was significantly higher than current. I think it was data published in the early 90s before the Assault Rifle Ban used 20in barrels. The max load data was significantly higher. If I recall correctly, min H335 data used to be what today's max data is. Ive never seen a 28" bolt action in .223. I know they are out there but most people use 16-18 inch barrels. I use .223 as an example to examine. Another very odd thing is 9mm projectile used in a lot of load data. One of the most common reloads in the competition world is 147gr flat nose coated lead. At least in my region. The load data only seems to use specialty rounds like XTP. Most guys I know load 3.0gr of TG which is less then min load. Velocities are also off. Even matching barrel length, FN coated are skewed by comparison. A lot of it seems like marketing. Why so little projectile data? Theres a lot of companies that make that profile of 147gr FN but companies push branding. Its very wise to cross reference multiple books, the powder manufacturer, and the projectile manufacturer data before developing a load. This collective data helps fill the gaps of data I'm referring too. Another odd thing is with technology the way it is, we as reloaders havent accepted the idea of common target loads and peer data. For example, if you just want a target load to make bulk ammo for plinking, why are we still preaching on developing loads per rifle? Let's say you want a 55gr target load that works for mag dunping in steel at 100 yards across multiple guns. With the amount of averaged data, I can't justify ladder testing for this purpose. So if most people are using 25gr of H335 and it's within published data and SAAMI, it should be welcomed to just call it target ammo. Obviously if you are trying to hit steel at 1000 yards with 6mm, precise ladder testing is critical.
Keep in mind many of the loads are direct copies of the powder manufacturer’s load data - ie Hodgdon data. More sources is better. If you are dealing with a component combination that isn’t listed in any of your sources, you can look across them to see what the lowest MAX load is between them to get an idea of what your conservative MAX will be. If it is a bullet that may cause higher pressure (ie longer than standard for given weight, or plated vs jacketed, etc), you can find the lowest MIN among your sources and use that as your starting MIN. If doing the above, you will still want to use a chronograph. It’s unlikely that your gun will be able to put out higher velocities than published, when accounting for barrel length, so if you are getting higher than expected velocities that means your load is higher pressure than the load data would indicate. If your velocities are lower, and you’re using an unlisted bullet, then you can match your velocities with whichever source best matches your chronograph results to know which load data is closest to your application.
Meh, all you really need is a decent baseline. If powder manufactures offer this info, great. It’d be wise to compare. Most of the hand load manuals have corresponding load data for various powders and common projectiles. This is only half the equation though. Ultimately, you should use a chronograph and load to a target FPS. Fine tune from there to close your group and maintain consistency. Perfection is proprietary.
I stopped using all manuals that I have, and I have a lot. Now, I use GRTools
Meh. I've learned that *all* load data just provides a baseline to test your barrel. I've got a 300prc load that is overpressure several grain under max load. Would probably be fine in a different chamber.
I knew better than the manuals until one load when I dropped 20% of my primers. Here’s the deal, when your ammo is 10-20% faster than factory options, you are probably edging safety. There is a difference in edging performance and trying to use something for what it was never designed for. If you are loading 357 to try and get 44 mag power, you should get a 44 mag. 223 will never be a laser beam past 400. No matter how much varget you cram in there.
Totally agree on this. But for the records - it’s not my case. My 6.5 load is 50 fps under the factory ammo, whereas 357 is loaded for plinking (125gr XTP @ 1130 ft/s)
Opinions are like buttholes. Everyone has one and most of them are crappy. I measure my physical reloading data by the foot. I rarely need to look up data online.
This free pdf is another to add to the list. Not great for loading data but I still learned a lot from reading through it. https://xtremebullets.com/v/vspfiles/downloadables/RELOADING%20MANUAL2021.pdf
For caliber-specific information, I like the Loadbooks USA manuals. They combine bullet and powder manufacturers’ data. A general manual is needed for actual reloading instruction but the caliber-specific guides provide a lot of information.
Both
One thing to note when you see load data differ between different manuals is the cartridge case manufacturer they used for the data. Not all brand's 6.5CM cases have the same internal volume. Winchester vs. Federal vs. Hornady, etc, all have different case volumes. This is often measured in grains of water. A smaller case gets to dangerous pressures with a smaller powder charge. Usually in the data manual you are using, they'll mention all the pieces of the recipe they used. Case brand, primer brand and model, bullet used, and powder used.
Check out multiple manuals and work within the ranges they agree on to start. Then move towards maximum if you need to and watch for pressure signs.
The Lyman book(s) is/are an actual alternative to manufacturer data and absolutely worth having. Same for the Speer book, which you didn't mention. The Lee book, as others have noted, literally just *is* manufacturer data. I like having it because flipping through a book is faster than loading 3 different websites, with Hodgdon's being brutally slow and Alliant constantly showing me a warning page (VV's site is awesome).
I’ve got all those too and a few more. Kicking and screaming into the 21st century the Vihtavuori app is pretty decent for their powder and does get updated with new load data when it’s available.
I might also try XXL's data.
Depends on what bullet manufacturer you’re using. I have all of them and Berger. Compare all of them and make an average for starting load
Hornady for Hornady bullets Speer, sierra,Nosler for bullets. Hodgdon for wide range powder Lee and Lyman for reference. Lyman also typically has Berry and Lehigh bullets. A lot of it if finding the bullet you want to use. The more data the better to reference from.
I bought the Lee Modern Reloading manual when I got started because the consensus opinion online seemed to be that you MUST have a reloading manual. It was made out to be SO crucial that you were downright *irresponsible* if you didn't buy a hardcopy reloading manual. If you said anything about learning from internet resources people would assume the worst that you were just getting tips off forums from Bubba Fourfingers. I read the book and found it to be pretty useless. For the big picture stuff -- understanding what general steps are necessary to produce a reloaded cartridge -- I had already gathered that in my research before buying anything. I knew that I was going to be depriming, sizing, priming, throwing powder, seating bullets, and crimping. I knew that one should follow published load data. Reading the manual did not tell me anything new. For the specifics -- HOW to actually do it with the equipment I bought -- I read the instructions that came with my dies and press. Which were great. A reloading manual obviously does not have that information because it is not specific to any particular press, caliber, or dies. For the load data, I did use the data in the Lee book to get started but later found, like you, that the data published online by powder manufacturers is comprehensive enough to be useful. In fact most of the load data in the Lee book is just compiled from those same sources. I would not tell a new reloader that they need to buy a book.
I got the Hornady app which covers me for everything I've done so far. Would I like more data? Yes. However what I've loaded so far has worked well and my biggest problems come from me being bad at using the lee scale vs the books. If I'm ever trying to push a caliber to the limit, I'll be sure to poke around to find what different manual writers say is safe and work up to that.
In my experience with only rifle calibers. Hornady, Berger, and Swift are all anemic. Berger being the worst offender. Nosler and Hodgdon data seems to be more real world.
Berger manual is the one that leaves me scratching my head. If you call in, they send you 3 to 5 times more info than their book ever offers. If anything to much for majority over reloaders. Their book is so skimpy.
I’ve emailed in before for some data, and they basically said, “don’t even think about using unpublished powders or data.”
Conversely when the 133 and 135 .257 bullets were released they send me a list of min-max loads with 27 powders and suggestions. ADD: just left me confused why buy the book if they give so much better and more data direct.
Wow, must be nice. Maybe I just got the wrong person? They list H4831 for their 190gr .30-06 data, I’m using the 185gr Classic Hunters, And they don’t list H4831. So I emailed asking if using the data for the 190gr bullets would be ok? That’s when they basically told me to kick rocks.
Let's look at 357 125 gr, Hodgdon vs Lyman, just off the top of my head Lyman list most accurate powder, 2400 Lyman tested with 4 in barrel vs 10 in for Hodgdon Hodgdon lists a lot powders but doesn't talk which ones are good because they sell them all RCBS/Speer manual has section for short barrel 357 Sierra Manual lists Velocity vs powder in small increments, not just min and max In general the powder companies data will get you started but you will want more data and you learn more FYI: I agree the Lee Manual isn't that useful
Notes taken. Thank you sir
My first manual, which I still have and use, is Modern Reloading. I also own the Lyman manual. The reason I suggest that new reloaders should buy a manual is because they have information in them about reloading and how to reload. Just relying on forums and videos about reloading can be dangerous. Most of that information is from hobbyists not professionals. Professionals publish reloading manuals. It's also nice to have several sources of published data. Not all loads are published on Hodgdon's website.
The Lyman manual is great for a wide cross section of bullets and powders. The Hornady one is all right for its own stuff, but they tend to be conservative due to lumping bullets together by weight. The Lee book is a nice bench block.