Hornady reloading manual ?
- Thread starter rebs
- Start date
Your on to me. Besides my load manuals I will download powder and bullet manufactures load data and print it out in large print and tape it to the wall just above my press when I am working up a load on a bullet or powder that I haven't used before.
As far as keeping it once I am through testing a new load I write up my results transfer it to digits and it goes in my load database.
Buy the latest manual but always make sure the powder is dated to the manual. Example: Accurate #5 used to be AA#5. Same looking container label except "AA" was changed to "Accurate". They changed the powder formula and if memory is correct its about half or so of the old. It isn't just a reduction to be "conservative" and using the old manual data for the newer powder could be dangerous. This is first hand from using AA#5 and buying Accurate #5 during the transition period.
Buy the Lyman manual. It's far more versatile than any powder or bullet makers book. More loads using more bullet weights and powders than any powder or bullet makers book.
You do not require bullet maker specific data. Loading is done by the bullet weight, not who made it or its shape.
Plagiarize? Most do not. Lee Precision uses Hodgdon data, mostly, and do seem to claim it's their own. Doubt they're not paying for it though.
You do not require bullet maker specific data. Loading is done by the bullet weight, not who made it or its shape.
Plagiarize? Most do not. Lee Precision uses Hodgdon data, mostly, and do seem to claim it's their own. Doubt they're not paying for it though.
That is dangerous information that could get someone hurt.
Back 50-60 years ago this was basically true when there wasn't much difference between between any manufacturers bullets. But we don't live in the 1950's anymore.
Bullet shape as well the hardness of the copper jacket can have a huge effect on pressure and velocity. Some bullets have much more surface area in contact with the barrel than others due to their shape. Some use a harder metal in the jacket. The most extreme example is the all copper bullets. A 130 gr 30 caliber solid copper bullet is the same length with the same surface area touching the barrel as an old school 180 gr 30 caliber bullet.
As long as you are using a very similar bullet style and weight it is generally OK to use the same starting data. But as you start working up you'll find that some bullets will achieve much more speed and pressure than anticipated for the powder charge. You might be over pressure and dangerous with one brand of 150 gr bullet while still 2-3 gr under a max charge. With a different 150 gr bullet you may be 200 fps slower with the same powder charge and have a mid level load.
This is one of the reasons I think a chronograph is a good idea. There are people shooting dangerous loads and have no clue since they are still well under listed max powder charges. Others could safely shoot 200 fps faster and still have a mid level load. But since they are doing it blind they have no idea.
Wrong again! Even the Lyman manual you suggest contradicts your statement. For example, look at the data for 45 Auto and 185 grain bullets.
Shape and construction affect bullet length and overall length and these greatly affect pressure.
You give the worst advice ever, T. O'Heir. Somebody is going to get hurt if they believe you.
I've pointed out to Mr. O'Heir before that this is wrong, but he tends to be a drive-by poster of misinformation and doesn't see the responses and continues to repeat the same misinformation in other posts. M.L. McPherson tried every 130 grain bullet he could get with the same load in a .270 Winchester pressure test gun and got over 30% pressure variation. So, as you say, it does matter. This Alan Jones article is worth a read on the topic.
With the approach some bullet makers have taken lately with their published data, it's no wonder people are led to believe that all bullets of the same weight develop the same pressure regardless of the bullet's construction. Some bullet makers provide the same maximum powder charges for a half dozen or more bullets of the same weight in given cartridge, regardless of whether the bullet is a spire point, round nose, or monolithic. Though bullet construction does make a very significant difference in pressure, you wouldn't suspect it looking at some of the bullet maker's loading manuals.
Ridgerunner665
New member
I have the Hornady 10th edition loading manual in digital form (Amazon Kindle)...I'm not a novice reloader, and the data in that manual is not conservative at all, in fact some of the loads are quite literally to the max.
Case in point...280 Ackley Improved...the data is right in line with what I found to be true in my rifle well before I had the manual.
10mm Auto...again, the Hornady data matches what I have found in my 10mm.
Sierra is the one that prints the overly conservative reloading data.
That said...reloading data is never going to be exact, no two barrels are the same. The data is a guideline, not hard set rules.
Case in point...280 Ackley Improved...the data is right in line with what I found to be true in my rifle well before I had the manual.
10mm Auto...again, the Hornady data matches what I have found in my 10mm.
Sierra is the one that prints the overly conservative reloading data.
That said...reloading data is never going to be exact, no two barrels are the same. The data is a guideline, not hard set rules.
Ridgerunner665
New member
On this topic, and my 10mm...using Cutting Edge solid copper bullets....the 190 grain HG solid ( https://cuttingedgebullets.com/40-190gr-handgun-solid )
I've been working up loads for that bullet lately, there is no published load data available at all. CEB told me that any load data from a reputable source with the same weight bullet would be fine...I found that to be true...I used Lee and Alliant data for 190 grain bullets and it worked fine, but made for pretty weak loads to be honest.
My G40 has a 7" barrel, and using Hornady data with 200 grain XTP's I'm getting 1,365 fps at max load...with the CEB bullet, using published 190 grain data, I got 1,278 fps with both Power Pistol and Longshot....Accurate #9 was the speed king with a HEAVILY compressed load (13.5 grains), 1,275 fps...the CEB bullet is 10 grains lighter than the 200 XTP, .040" longer...and has WAAAAAAAY less bearing surface.
Notice in the pic, all the machining marks that are still visible...showing how very little bearing surface this bullet has....this bullet was recovered after slamming into solid ground/ slate rock at 1,275 fps, penetrated 16 inches into that...the bullet is designed to NOT make contact at the bottom of the grooves in the barrel.....only the lands and the SealTite band make full contact.
What I have found is that this 190 grain bullet is safe with most 180 grain bullet data...measuring case head expansion, I hit pressure at 9 grains of Longshot (1,285 fps).
I stuffed all the Accurate #9 that would fit under it and not push the bullet back out (13.2 grains) and got 1,260 fps and no signs of pressure...haven't done it yet, but my next move is to use Accurate #9 and magnum primers, hoping to get the pressure up where its supposed to be before I run out of room.
All that is to say...what matters is bullet weight, bullet length, bullet construction, and bearing surface...all of them...
Reduce the bearing surface, the bullet is easier to push down the barrel.
Reduce the weight, the bullet is easier to start moving.
Reduce the length, you can fit more powder before hitting the pressure ceiling.
Reduce the hardness (to a point), the bullet is easier to push down then barrel.
All those things work together and in relation to one another, no loading manual can tell you that relation, thats where some common sense comes into play.
I've been working up loads for that bullet lately, there is no published load data available at all. CEB told me that any load data from a reputable source with the same weight bullet would be fine...I found that to be true...I used Lee and Alliant data for 190 grain bullets and it worked fine, but made for pretty weak loads to be honest.
My G40 has a 7" barrel, and using Hornady data with 200 grain XTP's I'm getting 1,365 fps at max load...with the CEB bullet, using published 190 grain data, I got 1,278 fps with both Power Pistol and Longshot....Accurate #9 was the speed king with a HEAVILY compressed load (13.5 grains), 1,275 fps...the CEB bullet is 10 grains lighter than the 200 XTP, .040" longer...and has WAAAAAAAY less bearing surface.
Notice in the pic, all the machining marks that are still visible...showing how very little bearing surface this bullet has....this bullet was recovered after slamming into solid ground/ slate rock at 1,275 fps, penetrated 16 inches into that...the bullet is designed to NOT make contact at the bottom of the grooves in the barrel.....only the lands and the SealTite band make full contact.
What I have found is that this 190 grain bullet is safe with most 180 grain bullet data...measuring case head expansion, I hit pressure at 9 grains of Longshot (1,285 fps).
I stuffed all the Accurate #9 that would fit under it and not push the bullet back out (13.2 grains) and got 1,260 fps and no signs of pressure...haven't done it yet, but my next move is to use Accurate #9 and magnum primers, hoping to get the pressure up where its supposed to be before I run out of room.
All that is to say...what matters is bullet weight, bullet length, bullet construction, and bearing surface...all of them...
Reduce the bearing surface, the bullet is easier to push down the barrel.
Reduce the weight, the bullet is easier to start moving.
Reduce the length, you can fit more powder before hitting the pressure ceiling.
Reduce the hardness (to a point), the bullet is easier to push down then barrel.
All those things work together and in relation to one another, no loading manual can tell you that relation, thats where some common sense comes into play.
Last edited:
I agree in the Sierra and Hornady manuals and any others of that type, there should be a pressure reference.
Its a shame there is not.
It also pretty hard to make a contentions that bullet type maters when a page covers upward of 6 or 8 different style bullets from flat to VLD (and some weight variation)
I keep my Hornady 8 by the computer for these discussions .
150-155 grain bullets, no VLD (probably in 10) 8 listed, from a copper boat tail to lead tip round nose.
So I am going to assume that they established the high in the worst case.
Given that much variation of weight and shape, should you really be concerned if I buy a Berger and if its a close shape use the Hornady data?
Start below Mid point and work higher if you want or need to but concerned, no. Understand there is some caution required by staring below mid point, yes.
Amend that if its a tight running powder with little bit making large jumps.
But use it, I ask you, powder mfgs use a generic bullet for their data (boat tail, flat) and then where do you go? Yep, Hornady, Sierra and look at the overall.
Its a shame there is not.
It also pretty hard to make a contentions that bullet type maters when a page covers upward of 6 or 8 different style bullets from flat to VLD (and some weight variation)
I keep my Hornady 8 by the computer for these discussions .
150-155 grain bullets, no VLD (probably in 10) 8 listed, from a copper boat tail to lead tip round nose.
So I am going to assume that they established the high in the worst case.
Given that much variation of weight and shape, should you really be concerned if I buy a Berger and if its a close shape use the Hornady data?
Start below Mid point and work higher if you want or need to but concerned, no. Understand there is some caution required by staring below mid point, yes.
Amend that if its a tight running powder with little bit making large jumps.
But use it, I ask you, powder mfgs use a generic bullet for their data (boat tail, flat) and then where do you go? Yep, Hornady, Sierra and look at the overall.
Last edited: