-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
9mm question
- Thread starter kenjb
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Check out www.hodgdon.com
You didn't know so you asked !
A ignorant and curious mind would of just loaded them the same for the purpose of finding out if all would end up good or not...
I don't know the answer to your question... What weight FP's you using ? Know who made them ?
So long as they fit in the magazine you are using and they cycle reliably in your gun, you should be okay at the same OAL unless you're already loading at the long end of the OAL. If you are, the profile of the bullet could hit the lands if your barrel is also short-chambered.
If it is the same weight as the FMJ, I'd stick with the same OAL. Consult a good manual or data from the bullet or powder mfg (or both).
If it is the same weight as the FMJ, I'd stick with the same OAL. Consult a good manual or data from the bullet or powder mfg (or both).
(I don't have a reloading manual...shh)
But I was able to magically use the internet and find out that 1.169COAL is the maximum COAL for the 9mm. Probably not a good idea to attempt to load to that length unless you are measuring each one by hand. It's common to get a little variation while loading and if you shoot for the maximum you could end up past. Find a reasonable COAL that works for you and try it out.
But I was able to magically use the internet and find out that 1.169COAL is the maximum COAL for the 9mm. Probably not a good idea to attempt to load to that length unless you are measuring each one by hand. It's common to get a little variation while loading and if you shoot for the maximum you could end up past. Find a reasonable COAL that works for you and try it out.
I don't know how else to put this JD, so I'll just come right out and say it: Comments like this are EXACTLY why you need a reloading manual. I could sit here and type it all out for you, but the simple fact is that you are ignorant of what the cartridge OAL number is there for, and it is NOT the absolute longest you can load to and stay safe.
With all due respect...go get yourself a book and read the dang thing. Heck, TAKE A CLASS, if that works better for you. Whatever you do, stop giving reloading advice in a public forum. You don't know what you're talking about. I don't say that to be a d**k, but to alert others reading this stuff to take what you're writing with a big ol' grain of salt.
Wow. Guess that one came out of left field. What exactly did I say that was incorrect? Are you claiming that you have a reloading manual that states the maximum COAL for 9mm is shorter or longer than 1.169"? I realize that Max COAL discussions are different for pistols than rifles since usually you won't bump the rifling and reliable function in the magazine is usually the limiting factor (assuming we get a good enough case / bullet friction to prevent setback and all that other silly nonsense like the bullet falling out of the damn thing and spilling powder on your slacks). If you re-read my statement I was simply saying that aiming for a generally accepted maximum length isn't a good idea. Do you find that statement incorrect? Why?
You make the statement that I'm ignorant to the meaning of max COAL and why it is listed in addition to the fact that you can safely load longer than the listed max COAL. Don't you think that isn't the type of information to be throwing around on a public forum? There is always room for experimentation, but as a general rule of thumb wouldn't loading longer than what the manual says is the maximum normally not a good thing?
I'm a pretty easy going kinda guy. I don't really like it when someone piles on, calling me names, claiming I should be giving information, and that I don't know what I'm talking about without having solid facts to back it up. What exactly am I missing in this holy book of yours that would change my ways and make me a safer reloader? I said I don't own a manual. Not that I haven't read them, worked and trained with long time reloaders, or done an inordinate amount of research and testing prior to coming to my conclusions.
JD, here's what I'll tell ya. You're wrong on a few important, and fundamental, aspects of reloading. You do not understand the association between cartridge OAL and attendant pressure. You speak of loading to less than the recommended length as though it is a safety measure, when the greater concern, with respect to high-pressure pistol rounds, is loading TOO SHORT!
The accepted convention for seating bullets in pistol cartridges is to follow the recommendations in the reloading manual. Compared to rifle cartridges, seating depth in pistol rounds is critical. In another thread, posted earlier today, you explain that you're going to go back and re-seat 1,000 cases for OAL. The weird thing is, you don't state that you're going to CHECK THEM...just run 'em all through the machine again. The notion of someone owning and operating a progressive press, but not owning a reloading manual, is..."unwise". That's probably the nicest term I can use.
If I have called you any names, I apologize. Based on what I've read, you should NOT be giving anyone tips on reloading; I stand by that, until you prove otherwise. I'm guessing you've been reloading for a year, if that, and you think you've got the tiger by the tail. The thing is, the smartest people I know are deserving of that respect largely because they are very careful to not imply that they know something, when they don't. You have an awful lot to learn about reloading, and if you ever get there, you'll look back on this little discourse and think, "Man...he was RIGHT and I shoulda kept my mouth shut!" That's not an indictment, just a little snow on the rooftop talkin'.
The accepted convention for seating bullets in pistol cartridges is to follow the recommendations in the reloading manual. Compared to rifle cartridges, seating depth in pistol rounds is critical. In another thread, posted earlier today, you explain that you're going to go back and re-seat 1,000 cases for OAL. The weird thing is, you don't state that you're going to CHECK THEM...just run 'em all through the machine again. The notion of someone owning and operating a progressive press, but not owning a reloading manual, is..."unwise". That's probably the nicest term I can use.
If I have called you any names, I apologize. Based on what I've read, you should NOT be giving anyone tips on reloading; I stand by that, until you prove otherwise. I'm guessing you've been reloading for a year, if that, and you think you've got the tiger by the tail. The thing is, the smartest people I know are deserving of that respect largely because they are very careful to not imply that they know something, when they don't. You have an awful lot to learn about reloading, and if you ever get there, you'll look back on this little discourse and think, "Man...he was RIGHT and I shoulda kept my mouth shut!" That's not an indictment, just a little snow on the rooftop talkin'.
1) I was referencing .223 cases in that other post. That's a rifle round...not a pistol round.
2) I explained nothing of the sort. I was full length sizing and had my full length sizer set 1/8" higher on the flat part instead of in the recess of the shell plate. None of them are loaded and they are still lubed. It only takes a few minutes to run them around the progressive with only a single die in place to catch that last 1/8". They all chamber fine and in my gauges meet all of the specs...but I'll hit them again for good measure. You are guessing that I don't check things.
3) I'm done with this discourse, and I won't be proving anything. You have a strange way of being friendly.
JD, here's what I'll tell ya. You're wrong on a few important, and fundamental, aspects of reloading. You do not understand the association between cartridge OAL and attendant pressure. You speak of loading to less than the recommended length as though it is a safety measure, when the greater concern, with respect to high-pressure pistol rounds, is loading TOO SHORT!
The accepted convention for seating bullets in pistol cartridges is to follow the recommendations in the reloading manual. Compared to rifle cartridges, seating depth in pistol rounds is critical. In another thread, posted earlier today, you explain that you're going to go back and re-seat 1,000 cases for OAL. The weird thing is, you don't state that you're going to CHECK THEM...just run 'em all through the machine again. The notion of someone owning and operating a progressive press, but not owning a reloading manual, is..."unwise". That's probably the nicest term I can use.
If I have called you any names, I apologize. Based on what I've read, you should NOT be giving anyone tips on reloading; I stand by that, until you prove otherwise. I'm guessing you've been reloading for a year, if that, and you think you've got the tiger by the tail. The thing is, the smartest people I know are deserving of that respect largely because they are very careful to not imply that they know something, when they don't. You have an awful lot to learn about reloading, and if you ever get there, you'll look back on this little discourse and think, "Man...he was RIGHT and I shoulda kept my mouth shut!" That's not an indictment, just a little snow on the rooftop talkin'.
Honestly, I wouldn't call anyone ignorant for looking up the information on a credited site such as hodgdon.com instead of in a reloading manual. I don't own a single reloading manual and I do just fine. The reason I don't own a manual is because out of the 3 I've looked at all of the information varies.
The manual that you own I'm sure lists a minimum and a maximum OAL for each round, just as every other manual, but I'm willing to bet that if you look in multiple manuals you'll find that the minimum and maximum are near each other but not exactly the same.
JD has just as much right to post his opinions and experiences on here just as much as you do, sir. Nobody on here (including myself) can prove that they know everything. It's simple knowledge. As far as taking everything he says with a grain of salt, I'd take everything you see on the internet as well as a reloading manual with a grain of salt. While manuals are books written with someones experiences, this forum as well as other reloading sites are the same thing only in virtual form instead of in a physical book that you can hold. Who's to say they didn't mis-type the information in that manual?
Just my
about getting frustrated at people because they would rather look up the information on a website than pay $30.00 for a book...Honestly, I wouldn't call anyone ignorant for looking up the information on a credited site such as hodgdon.com instead of in a reloading manual. I don't own a single reloading manual and I do just fine. The reason I don't own a manual is because out of the 3 I've looked at all of the information varies.
The manual that you own I'm sure lists a minimum and a maximum OAL for each round, just as every other manual, but I'm willing to bet that if you look in multiple manuals you'll find that the minimum and maximum are near each other but not exactly the same.
JD has just as much right to post his opinions and experiences on here just as much as you do, sir. Nobody on here (including myself) can prove that they know everything. It's simple knowledge. As far as taking everything he says with a grain of salt, I'd take everything you see on the internet as well as a reloading manual with a grain of salt. While manuals are books written with someones experiences, this forum as well as other reloading sites are the same thing only in virtual form instead of in a physical book that you can hold. Who's to say they didn't mis-type the information in that manual?
Just my
OK, point by point:
You say looking up load recipes on Hodgdon's website is a perfectly fine way to determine what loading components to use. I tend to agree. Please post a link to the portion of Hodgdon's website that teaches you HOW to reload safely and effectively.
Hodgdon is a marketer of powder. They do not manufacture powder. They buy it from suppliers, marketing and selling it, wholesale. As such, there are some questions about where Hodgdon gets their data. Have you ever seen an actual Hodgdon reloading manual, per se? No, I'm not talking about the 72-page advertising and load recipe PDF you can download from their site. I'm talking about a real, honest-to-goodness, hard-cover, tome of information that you can refer to over and over, like a trusted friend.
Let me ask the question another way: When you have a choice of load data from a powder company or the bullet manufacturer, whose do you go with, and why?
You say the loads in the books you've looked at vary. Did you notice what EXACT components they used, or what rifles they were fired from? If you owned those three books and someone bought you a 270 Weatherby for Christmas, you could look through each of them and get different perspectives on what loads to test. Instead, you're just going to go out to "loademifyagotem.com" and hope for the best?
I guess if you reload for a couple pistols and 223, maybe a reloading manual isn't "necessary", but I do have to ask...how did you learn what process to follow, and why? Did you learn everything you need to know about reloading from a friend or two and the Internet? I can't even fathom why someone would intentionally handicap themselves like that, particularly with something that is potentially dangerous.
OF COURSE cartridge OAL is not the same for every round! Why do you think it would be? The shape of each bullet isn't the same, is it? So, how could the recommended OAL always be the same? If nothing else, you have different bullet weights to contend with, so naturally you've got different lengths. This is the kind of "Reloading 101" you'd know if you actually read a book or two on how it all works.
JD has a right to express his opinion, but I have a right to point out the gaps in his knowledge base. Some might say experienced reloaders have an obligation to do so, to protect unsuspecting readers from bad info! Now you say to take everything on the Internet with a grain of salt. Does that apply to Hodgdon's load recipes??
No, this forum is NOT the same as a reloading manual! Do you have pressure trace equipment or a universal receiver, with a SAAMI spec barrel and proof loads for testing new components? Do you have any way of verifying the loads mentioned on this site are safe? If I tell you about the loads I use in my 44/40 Model 92 Winchester, do you know whether or not those are safe in your 1880's revolver?
Reloading manuals are documented and proof-read and gone through with a fine-toothed comb by editors and lawyers to make darn sure that if a gun blows up, it's YOUR fault. Not so with a single thing you read on the internet. Go ahead and search for a load on Hodgdon's site...the first thing they have you do is click on a disclaimer that basically says you'd better know what the heck yer doing before you start reading.
Sorry, but this is apples n' oranges. Someone who reloads ammunition should have a reloading manual, or 5. If you don't, and your efforts are narrow in scope, you will probably not blow yourself up. For most people, who like to be well-informed and load more than just 223 and 9mm, load books are something they trust and take comfort in. Read one...no, really READ ONE...and you just might learn a few things ya didn't know.
I'm your Huckleberry... Point by Point it is... I was trying to quit this stupid pissing match, but you are still calling me out to other people.
In your first sentence you talk about load recipes. In your third sentence you want a place to learn to reload. Those are two totally different things. I have other methods of finding out how to reload. If I'm a Hodgdon's website, it's for load ranges and starting points. Read your first sentence and then read your third and realize they make no sense being in the same paragraph.
Interesting. Unfortunately not true. Hodgdon disagrees with you and your reloading manuals. If you consult their history HERE you'll see that
There are? What questions are those? You don't trust their data? In this day and age of lawsuits you don't believe their data to be from trustworthy sources? I'm sure a call (or letter to the older booky types among us) would net you the sources.
I'm not sure whether that was directed at me or CKCollins, but it doesn't matter as we've both stated we don't own manuals. What exactly, pray tell, does that have to do with anything? Anyone who doesn't generate manuals in print doesn't have accurate loading data? Seems like a pretty big stretch to me.
Gee, if they are both large reputable manufacturers I would say "Both." If the bullet manufacturers aren't testing on their own who do you think they get the data from? Perhaps those wonderful manuals you are constantly going on about? Perhaps the purveyors of the information in those manuals. I've seen multiple bullet manufacturers who quote data from the large powder companies when asked.
I'm sure there is a fancy logic name for what you are doing...but I'm going to call it "Making up a fake scenario to justify my point." I have no interest in a 270 Weatherby. I'll bet that if one fell into my lap that I could find load ranges, cartridge dimensions, tips, and starting points in various places around the interwebs and forums without one of your handy dandy reloading manuals.
This website doesn't exist. Perhaps the owner got sued for providing information instead of selling reloading manuals? I'll let you in on a secret, however...those of us using the internets for information don't just go to a website and pick the first number to go throw a round together. There is a process that involves reading from many places, cross checking numbers, checking with the big companies, asking around for what others do, etc. When we satisfy ourselves that our search has turned up meaningful data then we set about testing that data. It's worked for every type of data you can imagine from computer problems to reloading problems to engine problems since the dawn of internet time.
So if I may paraphrase...You believe that the information stored in your manual that was outdated at the time of printing has enough information that people using the entire wealth of reloading data available to them from forums, websites, reloading companies, professional shooters, etc are handicapping themselves? Perhaps you are the one handicapping yourself with your antiquated methods of gathering load data.
Have you ever thought that if there is a typo in a reloading manual...they don't run off a new manual and send you the updated version for every correction. If they make a typo on a website, they can change it within seconds of finding out about it. Why would you buy a manual every year when less than 1% of the information changes? What a waste of money. I just bought 1000 bullets for the cost of one of those manuals and golly gee if I manage to load them and shoot them without blowing off a finger I'm in a better position I would say.
Reading for comprehension. Use it. He didn't say it was. He doesn't think it would be. Bullets are the same if we mean the same load. What he meant is different manuals give different values for the SAME load. If there are variables, then why do you need a single manual to be your holy grail? Why not go to a place that has lots of working loads for different people. Do you buy 1 of every reloading manual every year? You must have more money than I do.
What exactly gave you the impression that CKCollins or myself don't understand that different weight bullets have different lengths. That's like me pulling out of the blue and lecturing you that you should be smart enough to know the difference between the sharp edge of a knife and the spine. Not only is that completely from nowhere...of course you know the difference. Why type up that sentence? It doesn't fit in this conversation, and of course we know that fact. You think we would be reloading without knowing something like that? You needed a big fat $50 book to teach you that one?
Sure. That's how forums work. I say something incorrect. You correct me with facts. I say "Gee, you are correct, thank you for correcting me." The problem is, you haven't done that yet. Was I wrong about anything that I've posted? If I have been then please tell me how. Just jumping up and down yelling someone is ignorant won't get you very far on the internet. That's why it's so beautiful. You can't win by force, volume, seniority, or willpower. You win by using logic and facts. Don't tell me how little I know about reloading, or how much you know because you've been doing it for a hundred years. Point out my mistakes using sound logic, reasoning, and facts and you'll be heard loud and clear and I'll have no foot to stand on.
Absolutely. We have some experienced reloaders here who speak softly and without arrogance and yet are highly respected. Do you think Andrew has become one of the de-facto reloading gurus on here because he makes fun of people, calls them ignorant, or yells about manuals this and 1-year experience that? Absolutely not. It's because he answers questions with honesty, integrity, and a wealth of practical experience. Shibumseeker is the same way along with a slew of others. They know their stuff and everyone knows they know their stuff because the put out meat and potato knowledge when a problem arises. You aren't doing a very good job of working your way to the "experienced reloader" table acting like someone more fit for the child's table.
Absolutely. You should be able to reasonably trust them as a good starting point. But do a few searches. If Hodgdon says start with 22gr of X powder and you find 13 people on various forums saying the starting load should be 21gr of X powder...maybe start with 21 or 21.5gr and look for the normal pressure signs. If hodgdon says 22gr of X powder is the starting point and people say they are starting with 30gr...I'm going to be doing a bunch more looking before I dump my first load of powder because something isn't adding up here. In addition to that I may call up some friends and ask for their opinions, loading data from old manuals, etc before I make my first round. Do your homework, be safe, take your time, double check, etc.
See the response above...I think that answers this part handily.
Gee, I would probably do some more research. Hell for an 1880s I would probably be heading to the library first, heading to some old cowboy action or legacy shooting forums and seeking out experts for something old and rare like that. Might ask a buddy of mine who has 50 year old manuals what some of those old antiques say. The key is...like CKCollins said. Take everything with a grain of salt and do your research.
And yet in every manual someone finds a typo or error. Here are two examples for both Barnes & Hornady. Both top tier reloading manuals and both with documented errata. How much do you want to bet that data was updated in electric form right away? People are falliable. Proof-reading fails like anything else can fail. AKs go out on Vodka thursday, chinese toys get dipped in lead instead of paint, best sellers spell words wrong, etc. Everything needs to be tempered with a healthy does of critical thinking and safety...including your fancy pants expensive reloading manuals.
Quite simply...these are your opinions. Everyone here in entitled to them. I take issue when you personally attack me, my knowledge, and my opinions and advice when you know nothing about me. I understand your feelings on manuals. We should have been able to agree to disagree long ago without the attacks and name calling. Now you've seen my opinions. There is no reason to continue this and we aren't going to make any headway. You'll read my responses and shake your head and I'm not dishing out $50 on a reloading manual in the foreseeable future. I don't have any use for 20 calibers at this point and it just isn't a good value.
In your first sentence you talk about load recipes. In your third sentence you want a place to learn to reload. Those are two totally different things. I have other methods of finding out how to reload. If I'm a Hodgdon's website, it's for load ranges and starting points. Read your first sentence and then read your third and realize they make no sense being in the same paragraph.
Interesting. Unfortunately not true. Hodgdon disagrees with you and your reloading manuals. If you consult their history HERE you'll see that
- Hodgdon's manufacturing facilities are located in Herington, Kansas
- Hodgdon owns IMR and therefore manufactures all IMR powders, although you could also say IMR still makes them, to which I would argue IMR is Hodgdon now...and I would be correct.
- Winchester Licenses propellants to Hodgdon so Hodgdon does not manufacture those
- Hodgdon owns GOEX which is the only US black powder manufacturer making Hodgdon the only black powder manufacturer in the US via the same reasoning as bullet point #2 above.
There are? What questions are those? You don't trust their data? In this day and age of lawsuits you don't believe their data to be from trustworthy sources? I'm sure a call (or letter to the older booky types among us) would net you the sources.
I'm not sure whether that was directed at me or CKCollins, but it doesn't matter as we've both stated we don't own manuals. What exactly, pray tell, does that have to do with anything? Anyone who doesn't generate manuals in print doesn't have accurate loading data? Seems like a pretty big stretch to me.
Gee, if they are both large reputable manufacturers I would say "Both." If the bullet manufacturers aren't testing on their own who do you think they get the data from? Perhaps those wonderful manuals you are constantly going on about? Perhaps the purveyors of the information in those manuals. I've seen multiple bullet manufacturers who quote data from the large powder companies when asked.
I'm sure there is a fancy logic name for what you are doing...but I'm going to call it "Making up a fake scenario to justify my point." I have no interest in a 270 Weatherby. I'll bet that if one fell into my lap that I could find load ranges, cartridge dimensions, tips, and starting points in various places around the interwebs and forums without one of your handy dandy reloading manuals.
This website doesn't exist. Perhaps the owner got sued for providing information instead of selling reloading manuals? I'll let you in on a secret, however...those of us using the internets for information don't just go to a website and pick the first number to go throw a round together. There is a process that involves reading from many places, cross checking numbers, checking with the big companies, asking around for what others do, etc. When we satisfy ourselves that our search has turned up meaningful data then we set about testing that data. It's worked for every type of data you can imagine from computer problems to reloading problems to engine problems since the dawn of internet time.
So if I may paraphrase...You believe that the information stored in your manual that was outdated at the time of printing has enough information that people using the entire wealth of reloading data available to them from forums, websites, reloading companies, professional shooters, etc are handicapping themselves? Perhaps you are the one handicapping yourself with your antiquated methods of gathering load data.
Have you ever thought that if there is a typo in a reloading manual...they don't run off a new manual and send you the updated version for every correction. If they make a typo on a website, they can change it within seconds of finding out about it. Why would you buy a manual every year when less than 1% of the information changes? What a waste of money. I just bought 1000 bullets for the cost of one of those manuals and golly gee if I manage to load them and shoot them without blowing off a finger I'm in a better position I would say.
Reading for comprehension. Use it. He didn't say it was. He doesn't think it would be. Bullets are the same if we mean the same load. What he meant is different manuals give different values for the SAME load. If there are variables, then why do you need a single manual to be your holy grail? Why not go to a place that has lots of working loads for different people. Do you buy 1 of every reloading manual every year? You must have more money than I do.
What exactly gave you the impression that CKCollins or myself don't understand that different weight bullets have different lengths. That's like me pulling out of the blue and lecturing you that you should be smart enough to know the difference between the sharp edge of a knife and the spine. Not only is that completely from nowhere...of course you know the difference. Why type up that sentence? It doesn't fit in this conversation, and of course we know that fact. You think we would be reloading without knowing something like that? You needed a big fat $50 book to teach you that one?
Sure. That's how forums work. I say something incorrect. You correct me with facts. I say "Gee, you are correct, thank you for correcting me." The problem is, you haven't done that yet. Was I wrong about anything that I've posted? If I have been then please tell me how. Just jumping up and down yelling someone is ignorant won't get you very far on the internet. That's why it's so beautiful. You can't win by force, volume, seniority, or willpower. You win by using logic and facts. Don't tell me how little I know about reloading, or how much you know because you've been doing it for a hundred years. Point out my mistakes using sound logic, reasoning, and facts and you'll be heard loud and clear and I'll have no foot to stand on.
Absolutely. We have some experienced reloaders here who speak softly and without arrogance and yet are highly respected. Do you think Andrew has become one of the de-facto reloading gurus on here because he makes fun of people, calls them ignorant, or yells about manuals this and 1-year experience that? Absolutely not. It's because he answers questions with honesty, integrity, and a wealth of practical experience. Shibumseeker is the same way along with a slew of others. They know their stuff and everyone knows they know their stuff because the put out meat and potato knowledge when a problem arises. You aren't doing a very good job of working your way to the "experienced reloader" table acting like someone more fit for the child's table.
Absolutely. You should be able to reasonably trust them as a good starting point. But do a few searches. If Hodgdon says start with 22gr of X powder and you find 13 people on various forums saying the starting load should be 21gr of X powder...maybe start with 21 or 21.5gr and look for the normal pressure signs. If hodgdon says 22gr of X powder is the starting point and people say they are starting with 30gr...I'm going to be doing a bunch more looking before I dump my first load of powder because something isn't adding up here. In addition to that I may call up some friends and ask for their opinions, loading data from old manuals, etc before I make my first round. Do your homework, be safe, take your time, double check, etc.
See the response above...I think that answers this part handily.
Gee, I would probably do some more research. Hell for an 1880s I would probably be heading to the library first, heading to some old cowboy action or legacy shooting forums and seeking out experts for something old and rare like that. Might ask a buddy of mine who has 50 year old manuals what some of those old antiques say. The key is...like CKCollins said. Take everything with a grain of salt and do your research.
And yet in every manual someone finds a typo or error. Here are two examples for both Barnes & Hornady. Both top tier reloading manuals and both with documented errata. How much do you want to bet that data was updated in electric form right away? People are falliable. Proof-reading fails like anything else can fail. AKs go out on Vodka thursday, chinese toys get dipped in lead instead of paint, best sellers spell words wrong, etc. Everything needs to be tempered with a healthy does of critical thinking and safety...including your fancy pants expensive reloading manuals.
Quite simply...these are your opinions. Everyone here in entitled to them. I take issue when you personally attack me, my knowledge, and my opinions and advice when you know nothing about me. I understand your feelings on manuals. We should have been able to agree to disagree long ago without the attacks and name calling. Now you've seen my opinions. There is no reason to continue this and we aren't going to make any headway. You'll read my responses and shake your head and I'm not dishing out $50 on a reloading manual in the foreseeable future. I don't have any use for 20 calibers at this point and it just isn't a good value.
sloughfoot
Grandmaster
Oh my. Lets meet tomorrow. I will buy the coffee.
I noticed the humor in both of your original posts. Both of you are taking this too far. We are all friends here.
You both agree that the OP should look it up in a reputable manual.
I noticed the humor in both of your original posts. Both of you are taking this too far. We are all friends here.
You both agree that the OP should look it up in a reputable manual.
I used Hodgdon's load data for my 115 grain FMJ 9mm loads. As the Lyman manual does not list data for such load. I did use the manual for checking max case length, etc. For my 115 grain JHP loads I checked both the Lyman data, and Hodgson's data. According to the Lyman manual for a 115 grain JHP load using TiteGroup powder. COAL 1.090", suggested starting grains 4, max load grains 4.5, Hornady XTP 115 grain bullet. According to Hodgdon's data for the same load. COAL 1.125", suggested starting grains 4.5, max load grains 4.8, Speer Gold Dot 115 grain bullet. I'm personally not using either bullet listed for my reloads, instead I use 115 grain Montana Gold JHP bullets. Between the two though, you are looking at .035" difference in COAL. That's because Hodgdon suggests starting with 4.5 grains and Lyman suggest starting with 4 grains. I went pretty much in the middle with 4.2 grains for my load. Case in point, refer to multiple sources if available.
So, the data in reloading manuals is obsolete by the time I get it...but then you ask, "Why would you buy a manual every year when less than 1% of the information changes?" One way or the other, JD...can't be both.
I get it that you don't like being called out for a n00b, but this isn't a forum about crocheting. Most folks, if they don't know what they're talking about, are smart enough to shut up and listen to someone who does. In a RL situation, I'm sure you would, and be grateful for a chance to learn a few things. In a virtual setting, you get your back up and throw out one retort after another. What you don't even know enough to understand, at this point, is that to experienced reloaders, you are emphasizing every concern I expressed earlier.
Knowledgeable reloaders, like US Patriot above, refer to the bullet manufacturer's data when it's available. Ask anybody who's reloaded for more than 2 or 3 different rounds, and you'll find that almost every single one of them does so, and with good reason. If you reload long enough, or for enough cartridges, you'll do so, as well. That is just one of the many things you've got "wrong", but this is one pig that will clearly never sing. Heck, you are proposing that if a dozen people on the Internet give different advice than a reputable reloading company, who actually has something to LOSE, to go with the Internet consensus. How can I argue with "logic" like that?
So, if you're not sure about the safety of a given load, you will call a friend and have them refer to an "old reloading manual"? That's smart and I'm glad to see you type it. Why not spend a few bucks and own a few of those yourself? I find it interesting, and frankly telling, that you brush aside the questions about actual pressure testing equipment by saying "refer to above", where you basically state to refer to a reloading manual. Can you see the contradiction in where you're saying, here?
(Kudos on the proper use of the word, "errata"! )
Again, referring to US Patriot's advice above: "Case in point, refer to multiple sources if available." The underlying question is whether or not you consider an Internet forum a reputable source of data. I consider powder and bullet manufacturer websites to be trustworthy, as are reloading manuals. I do not trust any load data presented by individuals on a forum, and never will, regardless of how many others corroborate it. Printed media is what lifted man out of the dark ages. The Internet, for all its wonders, also has pitfalls. One of them is arm-chair experts who point to the Internet as both their source AND their verification. Wise men know to cross-reference with an independent source.
It seems there are some folks who have come to consider the Internet THE authority on reloading data. I feel safe in saying they are a distinct minority, but at the same time, I am not oblivious to the advances in technology. I know the eBooks will replace reloading manuals, and I'm looking forward to it, in a way. I also trust the data found on websites maintained by reloading industry companies. I'm sure we will see more and more of that and eventually, there will be no more reloading "books". If they still print them, $50 would not be enough to purchase one. I won't lie...I'll still be sad to see them go. As corny and nostalgic as this may sound, I trust reloading manuals and have a faith in them that far surpasses what I feel for an anonymous poster on an Internet forum. If that makes me a dinosaur, then I'm fine with that, too.
When I was a young man, I liked old guys and I hung out with old guys. Old guys know stuff. They've been there and made those mistakes. And the truth of the matter is...things don't really change all that much. Maybe 1%, as JD said?
I will continue to call 'em as I see 'em, particularly when someone who doesn't really understand what they're saying offers up a misleading bit of commentary. If that gets a nose or two out of joint, so be it.
I get it that you don't like being called out for a n00b, but this isn't a forum about crocheting. Most folks, if they don't know what they're talking about, are smart enough to shut up and listen to someone who does. In a RL situation, I'm sure you would, and be grateful for a chance to learn a few things. In a virtual setting, you get your back up and throw out one retort after another. What you don't even know enough to understand, at this point, is that to experienced reloaders, you are emphasizing every concern I expressed earlier.
Knowledgeable reloaders, like US Patriot above, refer to the bullet manufacturer's data when it's available. Ask anybody who's reloaded for more than 2 or 3 different rounds, and you'll find that almost every single one of them does so, and with good reason. If you reload long enough, or for enough cartridges, you'll do so, as well. That is just one of the many things you've got "wrong", but this is one pig that will clearly never sing. Heck, you are proposing that if a dozen people on the Internet give different advice than a reputable reloading company, who actually has something to LOSE, to go with the Internet consensus. How can I argue with "logic" like that?
So, if you're not sure about the safety of a given load, you will call a friend and have them refer to an "old reloading manual"? That's smart and I'm glad to see you type it. Why not spend a few bucks and own a few of those yourself? I find it interesting, and frankly telling, that you brush aside the questions about actual pressure testing equipment by saying "refer to above", where you basically state to refer to a reloading manual. Can you see the contradiction in where you're saying, here?
(Kudos on the proper use of the word, "errata"! )
Again, referring to US Patriot's advice above: "Case in point, refer to multiple sources if available." The underlying question is whether or not you consider an Internet forum a reputable source of data. I consider powder and bullet manufacturer websites to be trustworthy, as are reloading manuals. I do not trust any load data presented by individuals on a forum, and never will, regardless of how many others corroborate it. Printed media is what lifted man out of the dark ages. The Internet, for all its wonders, also has pitfalls. One of them is arm-chair experts who point to the Internet as both their source AND their verification. Wise men know to cross-reference with an independent source.
It seems there are some folks who have come to consider the Internet THE authority on reloading data. I feel safe in saying they are a distinct minority, but at the same time, I am not oblivious to the advances in technology. I know the eBooks will replace reloading manuals, and I'm looking forward to it, in a way. I also trust the data found on websites maintained by reloading industry companies. I'm sure we will see more and more of that and eventually, there will be no more reloading "books". If they still print them, $50 would not be enough to purchase one. I won't lie...I'll still be sad to see them go. As corny and nostalgic as this may sound, I trust reloading manuals and have a faith in them that far surpasses what I feel for an anonymous poster on an Internet forum. If that makes me a dinosaur, then I'm fine with that, too.
When I was a young man, I liked old guys and I hung out with old guys. Old guys know stuff. They've been there and made those mistakes. And the truth of the matter is...things don't really change all that much. Maybe 1%, as JD said?
I will continue to call 'em as I see 'em, particularly when someone who doesn't really understand what they're saying offers up a misleading bit of commentary. If that gets a nose or two out of joint, so be it.
