Lees new reloading manual. No way

W

Wendyj

New member
I ordered some things from Midway last week. No free shipping and I noticed Lees 2nd edition on sale with no shipping so I though what the heck and bought it. Unique not even listed as a 45 colt load. More information on dippers than I ever care to know. My Sierra and Hornady are way better books for reloading. And Wednesday they put the Lyman on sale with no shipping. Pays to wait. Richard had a lot of good ideas but other than his equipment there is more info on line.
 
With the exception of the dipper info, which likewise I have no use for, Lee manual is simply a compilation of public domain information.
 
The Lee manual has a good variety of bullets for many calibers, but a lot of the actual load data is some of the more uncommon powders and often times the common powders aren't listed. Additionally you'd think they might have a section dedicated to all their various bullet molds, but I guess that would require them to actually do some pressure testing themselves.
 
I started casting bullets a little over a year ago. What really hacks me about the Lee manual is that it doesn't have load data for THEIR cast bullet molds.
 
No nothing is made up. The people that like lee stuff always bash the other reloading tool makers.
They have to justify the money they spent!
 
I use a Lee classic cast and all my handgun dies are Lee. I have no problem with his reloading gear. The manual was just not worth the money. I don't need to make anything up.
 
It does, and the value is in reading is for more than the dated data at this point. His testing of lead bullet alloy hardness vs. actual pressures is unique. I find that as I own more information that a lot of data books have just one or two chapters I find new material in. I got a copy of Norma's manual last year and learned that humidity inside loaded cartridges equilibrates with the humidity they are stored in over a period of about a year, and that desiccated bone-dry powder burns enough faster than powder stored at 80% RH to raise peak pressures 12%. I hadn't seen that anywhere else.
 
I do have to eat a little crow. I did find a load for Unique in the 250 grain range I overlooked. Still kind of disappointed it was updated in 2017 with no more load data. I really wanted to find a lot more about casting but I'll just move on to Lyman for that. Don't get me wrong. I think Richard Lee was great for first time reloaders. Not that I've got as much experience as a lot of people on here but I was expecting a lot more.
 
I don't recall that any of my general load manuals does much with casting. My Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook is really the necessary resource. As far as loads specific to exact molds, I just match up bullet general type and weight and call it good.

It occurred to me that in the era of online resources and changes in the spectrum of powders available, the printed manuals in hard copy are pretty arcane, unless data is withheld, forcing one to buy the book. They are also pretty annoying to have to replace with updated versions at $30 a pop and shipping. The advantage with online resources is that errata can be corrected on the fly. That leaves the powder companies rather than bullet and equipment companies as the most dynamic resource.
 
Last edited:
I personally use Lee and Hornady a lot, but then again i shoot pistols not rifles. Have no need for Sierra and Hornady manuals....some people seem to forget there is another world out there other than rifles.
 
To me, the Lee and Lyman manuals are the entry points into the art form. They teach you the basics and provide fundamental load data. I have both and they taught me perhaps the most important parts of loading; process and safety (along with this board). Like him or not, Richard Lee is part of the history of the industry and he has a good deal of information to impart.

When you move up into the manuals from the bullet manufacturers you've taken the next step on the ladder. Now you're thinking at the next dimension of the physics; bullet weight, velocity, pressure, powder speed, etc. and how it affects the outcome you desire. It's simply a progression of your own learning curve. The skys' the limit after that.

Best to all. Be safe.
 
I have a lot of Lee equipment and the original 2nd edition of the manual (just bought the Auto Drum measure and love it). Since all of the load data is from powder manufacturers (some), they could have just given links to the online data tables as all powder mfgrs post their data for free and it would be the latest.

I agree with UncleNick that I learn from every manual at least a chapter or two not covered in any others. Lee is good on pointing out H4895 as a reduced load powder with much discussion and data, and the lead hardness vs. pressure info was new to me.

The main thing I don't like is Lee sometimes cannot help but criticize other people or mfgrs. I appreciate he takes pride in his innovations and contribution to the reloading community (how many thousands got into it on a budget via Lee?). But that does not have to come with barbs to others.

Since it is relatively low cost I think the Lee manual is worth getting, especially if you have Lee equipment. But with Nosler and Speer posting their most current bullet/load data for free along with all the powder manufacturers, I would buy a manual based on the narrative chapters way more so than for any additional load data. The exception being for proprietary components such as the Barnes TSX/TTSX bullets.

Lyman's 49th (can't comment on the 50th) edition was one of the best overall manuals with lots of good articles on the how-to and why, and coverage of jacket as well as cast bullets. I am impressed with the latests Speer data as they used many of the newer powders, including most of my favorites for .223 (Varget, 8208XBR, CFE223, H335).
 
"...Lee manual is simply a compilation of..." Nope. It's directly copied data from the manufacturers like Hodgdon. That doesn't mean it's bad though.
"...information on dippers..." Most important part is that they can vary the powder charge plus or minus a full grain. Ok for getting close,with a scale, but not for use by themselves. And they're calibrated in CC's. CC's are a metric unit of liquid volume measure that have nothing to do with reloading.
 
Liquid volume and dry volume can both be used to measure weight assuming you apply the correct conversion factor. In most reloading Powder is thrown by volume and measured by weight. Now I use automatic scale that throws by weight, but that is not the historic norm.
 
I went back and forth with Mr. O'Heir about that claim in PM's, and he is stuck in the past with the idea CC's are defined by the volume of a gram of water, which was true between 1901 and 1964. However, when it was discovered different isotopes of water didn't match the volume, plus the temperature had to be at maximum water density, which occurs at about 3.98°C, and as water is very slightly compressible it also had to be at exactly one standard atmosphere to be true, in 1964 the original 1795 definition of a liter as 1 cubic decimeter was reverted back to and the cubic centimeter is just 1/1000 of that. The standard meter (metre, in International Bureau of Weights and Measures spelling) is now defined as the distance light travels in 1/299792458th part of a second in a vacuum, and so a cubic centimeter is a cube whose side lengths are defined as the distance light travels in 1/29979245800th part of a second in a vacuum. So it is not dependent on liquids anymore.

But even if the definition were dependent on liquid water at a certain temperature as the fluid ounce still is (the volume of an ounce of water at 212°F), there is nothing that stops anyone from measuring flour or other dry goods in those same measures. So I fail to see the relevance a volume being a liquid measure anyhow. It just doesn't matter to the proceeding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top