.

Loading Manuals

RobOzRobOz Member Posts: 9,195 ✭✭✭
My manuals are getting pretty old, have not bought a new one for about twenty years. Short of buying new manuals, I was thinking about joining loaddata.com. Was wondering if any of you guys use their service and could offer feedback.

Manuals I have are Sierra, Hornady, Hodgdon(old hardback), Speer, and several filler manuals that the loading companies gave out free.

Comments

  • guntech59guntech59 Member Posts: 23,193 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Much of it is available online now (from the manufacturers).

    Hodgdon, Nosler, Accurate, Ramshot and others have published their data online.
  • bartman45bartman45 Member Posts: 3,008 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I get mine from the powder manufacturers web sites.
  • 243winxb243winxb Member Posts: 258 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Lots of new data online. The older manuals seem to have more load choices. See link. http://www.castpics.net/LoadData/Freebies/default.html
    [url] https://saami.org [/url]
  • Rocky RaabRocky Raab Member Posts: 11,031 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The bullet used makes a huge difference in peak pressure - even with bullets of the same weight. The cardinal rule is to use the bullet maker's data as your primary source, the powder maker's data as your secondary source, and an independent laboratory's data as your crosscheck. That would be Lyman. (Lee does no testing whatever, they merely reprint data they find elsewhere.)
    I may be a bit crazy - but I didn't drive myself.
  • RobOzRobOz Member Posts: 9,195 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Rocky Raab
    The bullet used makes a huge difference in peak pressure - even with bullets of the same weight. The cardinal rule is to use the bullet maker's data as your primary source, the powder maker's data as your secondary source, and an independent laboratory's data as your crosscheck. That would be Lyman. (Lee does no testing whatever, they merely reprint data they find elsewhere.)


    I'm right there with you on the bullet make matters.
  • RobOzRobOz Member Posts: 9,195 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by dennisnielsen
    Email me if you need any Sierra info
    I have the newest


    Thanks
  • jonkjonk Member Posts: 10,121
    edited November -1
    The problem I find is that most bullet and powder manufacturers only have data for the most common cartridges with their newest or most popular powders. For instance, say you have a gun chambered in 7.5 French, or 6.5 Mannlicher-Schoenauer. New manuals usually don't have those, whatever the source. Older manuals often do.

    I'd agree; START with bullet and powder manufacturer's data; however, while commercial load manuals fall short for most oddball cartridges, loaddata.com usually has them, as well as a much greater range for the common rounds.

    I've not subscribed to them, but when they had a free trial I used it to do a lot of look ups and prints; I think it's a very good site.
  • Rocky RaabRocky Raab Member Posts: 11,031 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Well, to be fair, how much time would it take to test every known cartridge with numerous bullets? Would you want them to take all that time before they release the new powder - or do what they do now and sell the powder with a limited but growing set of data?
    I may be a bit crazy - but I didn't drive myself.
  • RobOzRobOz Member Posts: 9,195 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I found out that the bullet matters with two 50grain loads for an AR15. One was fine and the other I had to wonder for a minute why my empties had no spent primer, and that was a full grain under max. I should have stared more on the low side of the data, but being young and not so smart at the time, I didn't.
Sign In or Register to comment.