Not entirely true... the Lee manual has boatloads of recipes for cast bullets.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).
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.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.
Ah. I stand corrected. Has Lee always had cast data or is that something new?Not entirely true... the Lee manual has boatloads of recipes for cast bullets.
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.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.
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.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?
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.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.
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.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.