[Dhs123]

I am new to reloading an would like to know which book Ineed to buy to get the oal and powder charts. I have a new dillon 550

 

[gasmitty]

Get at least two. My standards are the Lyman, the Hornady, and the Lee. There's enough difference among them that you really need more than one.

 

[the6shooter]

Lee of course, great info. on steps of reloading Speer #14 mine is on the way, I had # 12, and wanted to update, was backordered for 3 months.
Speer in my opinion is the bible of reloading. It's so easy to read, anyone can do it. My opinion.

 

[Inspector71]

I have three: Speer, Hornady and a Nosler which I picked up at a good price at an estate sale. I agree with having more than one.

 

[sixgun]

I plan on getting a couple more but right now I have Hogdons. I use their powder so I use their annual manual to.

 

[TX expat]

If you want lead data, then for sure get Lyman's. It's a good one, regardless, but it's the only one with cast data. Otherwise, any two will do (yeah, I do second the 'buy two' philosophy).

 

[gasmitty]

If you want lead data, then for sure get Lyman's. It's a good one, regardless, but it's the only one with cast data. Otherwise, any two will do (yeah, I do second the 'buy two' philosophy).

Not entirely true... the Lee manual has boatloads of recipes for cast bullets.

 

[SmokinFool]

Get at least two. My standards are the Lyman, the Hornady, and the Lee. There's enough difference among them that you really need more than one.

Yep, the more information you have at your fingertips, the better. I use Lyman, Hornady and Speer. The best one (that I have experience with) is the Lyman book. I haven't looked at the Lee book so I can't comment on that one.

 

[ccw9mm]

Ditto, gasmitty's remarks.

Have two myself, the Lyman and the Lee. It's important to compare various formulas, as typos exist here and there. Along with The ABC's Of Reloading, these work well enough for a newbie.

 

[Rob99VMI04]

I have the LYman and the sierra book but i mainly use the powder manufacturer websites.

 

[TX expat]

Not entirely true... the Lee manual has boatloads of recipes for cast bullets.

Ah. I stand corrected. Has Lee always had cast data or is that something new?

 

[high pockets]

I, too, have the Speer, Lyman, and Nosler manuals. In addition to the bullet makers manuals, I encourage you to get the, usually free, manuals from the manufacturer of the powder you are using. Winchester, Hodgdon, Vihta Vouri, and Accurate all have data available on-line. I expect the other powder makers also have their data on-line as well.

Read up, and be safe! Remember, your cartridges CAN be longer than the book O.A.L., as long as they will feed in your firearm, but it can get dangerous if you start going shorter than specified O.A.L.

 

[Stevew]

I buy more Speer and Hornady bullets than anything else. So those are the two main manuals I use. The Speer manual is a better instruction manual than the Hornady.

 

[Bad Bob]

I have been reloading for 40 years and have never understood the logic of buying 3 or 4 reloading manuals. The recipes are not that much different, and non of the published data is unsafe. I can see buying a new one every few years to keep up with changes in powder, but beyond that it seems like a waste of money.

 

[ccw9mm]

I have been reloading for 40 years and have never understood the logic of buying 3 or 4 reloading manuals. The recipes are not that much different, and non of the published data is unsafe. I can see buying a new one every few years to keep up with changes in powder, but beyond that it seems like a waste of money.

There's no other way to catch printing/typographic errors except to compare against another printing of the same basic recipe. One can either do that online or via another book. Without a second resource, an invalid recipe could either end up with too little or too much powder, ending with a recipe for potential disaster. Particularly with noobs who are searching for decent loadings and who don't have 40yrs' worth of familiarity with a given loading book, it seems a reasonable basic precaution to have two sources. JMHO.

 

[BamaT]

I'm in the multi book camp. Lyman is my main go to, but I agree with cross checking data. I also use the Hornady book, and online data from the powder manufacturers. I especially like the Accurate Arms data. I'm planning on getting a Lee book. Never had one, but it's on my list.

 

[GeorgiaDawg]

I haven't gotten into reloading yet, so forgive my ignorance, by why trust a manual with typos in it? Shouldn't those be corrected by the editor/publisher?

 

[ccw9mm]

I haven't gotten into reloading yet, so forgive my ignorance, by why trust a manual with typos in it? Shouldn't those be corrected by the editor/publisher?

Yeah, sure. But show me a single printed 1000pg book created in the past 50yrs that doesn't have at least one typo in it and I'll eat my shirt. Point is, if it were just a novel, that's fine. But with a recipe that can blow up in one's face, IMO it's worth the minor precaution. 'Cause, you'll n ever know there's a typo if (a) you never verify and (b) only find out after it blows up. Hard to get around that one.

 

[GeorgiaDawg]

Yeah, sure. But show me a single printed 1000pg book created in the past 50yrs that doesn't have at least one typo in it and I'll eat my shirt. Point is, if it were just a novel, that's fine. But with a recipe that can blow up in one's face, IMO it's worth the minor precaution. 'Cause, you'll n ever know there's a typo if (a) you never verify and (b) only find out after it blows up. Hard to get around that one.

Oh I understand the precaution and I would do the same, I'm sure. I just think it seems a bit irresponsible to publish a book on mixing gunpowder cocktails without making sure the recipes are safe and accurate.

 

[ccw9mm]

Oh I understand the precaution and I would do the same, I'm sure. I just think it seems a bit irresponsible to publish a book on mixing gunpowder cocktails without making sure the recipes are safe and accurate.

Though, it's just as unsafe blowing a book of mathematical log tables, as well, though I've seen a few errors in those things, too. It is what it is. Wouldn't surprise me, too, in this age of over-reliance on spell-checkers that the problem's even worse than it used to be. Ah, well.

Can't say as I recall any errors in the unabridged Encyclopedia Brittanica, for example, but it's been some years since I waded through all of that. I'd bet there are at least a few in there, despite it being one of the bastions of perfection. Wouldn't want to mistake a pygmy alligator for a Nile cayman, now would we? :tongue: