Reloading Manuals

[greenrivers]

I have noted big differences in data published in my Lyman manual verses other on line references. I am also aware of the need for conservatism when working up loads. But yesterday while discussing several calibers that a friend is choosing his next rifle from, he was looking on line at ballistics charts while I was at my reloading bench following along with my latest edition of the Lyman manual. In every caliber from .22-250 to .45-70, the stats were considerably differant. With the manual I refered to as vastly Conservative as compared to the Remington on line site.
If Remington is publishing factory specs for loads that are considerably higher than our manuals, how are others using the manuals to determine load basics for a starting point?

[necchi]

Manuals are guide lines. And each use different "test" barrels with different lengths, different primers and different brass.
Each load needs to be worked up to what the individual needs for his rifle.
 That said, it gets easier as you get to know your gun, what it likes and what it doesn't. I haven't used "starting loads" for quite some time now. I can start mid-range of the load data and work up and I have a few favored loads that have gone over book max with-out pressure signs. But when I get close to max I go really slow and carefully look for any signs of problems.

 The Lyman manual comes highly recommended on this site, but it's actually my least looked at book. I'm glad I have it for the "cast" data, as it might come in handy if/when I move in that direction, but as you say the data in some cases is very conservative and of little use to me. It's good to look at several differant sources.

[wncchester]

" In every caliber from .22-250 to .45-70, the stats were considerably differant."

Yeah.  The differences in velocity between sources almost makes a guy suspect different guns provide different results don't it?

[cwlongshot]

I agree with both authors above...

Data is derived form specific circumstances. Temp, altitude not the least of them. Different lots of powder and primers, not to mention different firearms. SO MANY variables!!  As Nicchi already told us its a guideline.

I always suggest new loaders buy the LYMAN manual because Lyman doesn't make any components and uses a array of popular bullets, primers and powders. So a new loader can get closer data to what he or she might be loading. Then once opinions and favorites are formed. I suggest they buy a manual form that bullet or powder manufacturer. as you continue along your reloading path you will acquire a number of manuals. its ALWAYS a good idea to check loadings form a number of sources. It's EASY to have a "typo" or even a mistake in the recipe so checking from other sources offers a double check at accuracy.

There is another variable... age. One of my favorite loads uses WW748, a LR primer and a 170GR Hornady FP bullet... Yup it's a 30-30 load. It's safe in my guns and is a multiple grains above current maximums in current manuals!!!  SO, things change, and you NEED TO CHECK and DBL. CHECK!!!

Good luck and load safely!!

CW

[greenrivers]

The versatility and quality of the Lyman data is not the issue. As stated test arms and individual environments can alter stats. Rarely do two firearms perform the same. The data listed in the Lyman for both cast and jacketed are a definite plus as I am a cast shooter and use the info often. The issue noticed as is noted in your posts as well, is the Conservative loadings. With manufacturers loading to suit the weakest of arms that may be in the field, but still surpassing the loading data listed was a surprise to me. Having several manuals and both this forum and the internet to compare, gives one the op to tailer loads without extensive testing with expensive components. Conservatism in a manual is expected to some degree and would be highly suspect if found otherwise.

[roper]

I have noted big differences in data published in my Lyman manual verses other on line references. I am also aware of the need for conservatism when working up loads. But yesterday while discussing several calibers that a friend is choosing his next rifle from, he was looking on line at ballistics charts while I was at my reloading bench following along with my latest edition of the Lyman manual. In every caliber from .22-250 to .45-70, the stats were considerably differant. With the manual I refered to as vastly Conservative as compared to the Remington on line site.
If Remington is publishing factory specs for loads that are considerably higher than our manuals, how are others using the manuals to determine load basics for a starting point?

Remington hasn't made a reloading manual for at least 20yrs so are you comparing their factory ammo velocity to reloading manuals thats what it sound like.

We can buy the same brass,primers and bullets(sometimes) that Rem uses but we cann't buy the same powder they use a non-canister grade powder.  You can do a search and they explain what a non-canister grade powder is.   

I don't know any reloader that use factory ammo as a guide for reloading.  As others have said you have variation in reloading manual due mainly to different test rifles etc.  How we figure out start loads is sometimes hard to explain as some like certain type of powders and what manuals they had luck with in the past.

Myself I like Hodgdon/Nolser manuals I use alot of Hodgdon powders and Nolser manual they use alot of custom barrels which I have on alot of my rifles.  I also get other manuals Speer/Hornady,Barnes,Sierra and that keep me up on new bullets haven't got the latest Lyman doesn't offer me much.