Many of us have noticed the performance drop in more recent editions of manuals, for example the 220 swift being loaded in most modern books to similar velocity as the 22-250.

What are some of your favorite go-to manuals for older hotter loads?

Lyman

Hornady and Nosler. Though I tend to buy all of them as I enjoy reading the cartridge info. The only one I haven't bought for over 20 years is the Sierra as I hate the ring binder as the page holes tend to rip.

Nosler , Barnes, Sierra

There are two major faults of the Lyman manuals (and yes, I have all the recent editions):

1) They often test pressures in one barrel, and then velocities in another. This often results in MAJOR anomalies, which don't help handloaders much. Speer used to do the same thing, and in one manual had to explain why the .308 Winchester data got higher velocities than the .30-06--which was due to to shooting velocities in a "fast" .308 barrel and a "slow" .30-06 barrel.

2) They don't test newer powders much. But that won't matter to those handloaders who believe all meaningful rifle-powder development ended in the 20th century.

On the other hand, they provide more cast-bullet data than other manuals--which is their biggest virtue.

But all of this is also why I have all the most recent manuals from every available source: Their is NO single "best" source of handloading data.

For older hotter loads in books I suggest Speer from number 11 ranging back to number 9 and beyond coupled with the various books by Bob Hagel. Most anybody who relied on case measurement will suggest loads in excess - sometimes far in excess - of SAAMI specifications.

There has been extensive discussion on this very board - and many others - about the .38 S&W Special load using 4756 found in Speer #8. Jeff Cooper suggested some loads with far too much Red Dot as for achieving the same performance from a .38 Special snubby as from a full size revolver with a barrel twice as long and longer. I promptly shot my own snub nose .38 Special loose with a load Mr. Cooper repeated regularly as a remarkably fine load in the snubby.

It is my firm and unshakeable - don't bother telling me how wrong I might be - conviction that pressure signs on the case or in the rifle such as bolt lift or ejection pattern in a semi-auto don't tell me anything useful. I bought a cute little jig for measuring case head expansion from one of the majors as used in their own load development. Too much noise to be useful although I did verify that loads in .243 measured even more all over the place than did loads in a 6mm Remington.

I can't tell from my guns using pressure signs the difference between a powderpuff 9x19 or 9mm Largo and a Winchester factory 9x23. Again judging by the case I can't tell the difference between a #130 with 3.5 grains of Bullseye in a .45 Wad gun and a .460 Rowland. This though my Oehler 35P reinforces my conviction that the pressures are in fact quite different. Again see the extensive and repeated discussion here and in other places about using a chronograph for comparative but not absolute pressure measurements.

I make exceptions for less popular cartridges where apparently there is no current firing data or at least I can't find it and for cartridges like the .45-70 where guns in the field vary from a Trapdoor to a Siamese Mauser conversion. These include 7x57 and .45 Colt. I also accept different data for gas guns and bolt actions including large case heads in a modern sporting rifle.

For these and many reasons I rely, and advise others to rely, on the very latest edition of any data book and no other.

I enjoy the Hodgdon Annual Manual and have found good loads there. Nosler data is useful. Honestly I haven't used much data from Lyman unless mild loads are the mission. Hornady data can be useful as well if it's from the older manuals. I've noticed a rather striking trend towards under powered loads in the latest manuals. I will not purchase underwhelming information. I have most of my familiar loads memorized and quickly open the newer manuals to see how far off base they are.

I usually bought one of those cartridge specific manuals that had all loading data from all the major manuals , but just for that one cartridge. I do have Lyman, Hornady,Sierra, and Speer.

I like the old Sharpes' manual for my old firearms

i have a lot of reloading manuals new and old i like to cross reference but i do like the newer Berger reloading manual

I use Hodgdon and Lyman data the most, but also Barnes and Western (now part of Hodgdon) a fair bit.

*added*

I generally don't load hot.

Ditto.

Old 20th Century Wonder Powders? Mostly what I have a stupid big amount of, and the pile has to be whittled down considerably before I go buying any amount of any kind of other powder.

I subscribe to Wolfe's load data .com which has loads from all sorts of sources, powder and bullet manufacturers as well as from years of articles in Handloader. It's an easy way to check several sources against each other for the same components.

I have manuals from several sources dating back to the 60's. However I don't load "hot". There is a reason some loads have been reduced in the newer manuals. If you can't achieve the velocity you want with current data, switch to a cartridge with more powder capacity.

For an individual cartridge, I like the "Complete reloading manual of the xxx".

Has cross-referenced loads from multiple manuals. Cost : about $10.

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=complete+reloading+manual&adgrpid=1343603773342988&hvadid=83975306783294&hvbmt=be&hvdev=t&hvlocphy=108482&hvnetw=o&hvqmt=e&hvtargid=kwd-83975579645164%3Aloc-190&hydadcr=22565_10446406&tag=mh0b-20&ref=pd_sl_15u0oghg0y_e

Nosler

The powder and bullet manufacturers reduced velocities in some cartridges because of better and more accurate methods of measuring pressure. In other words unless I’m shooting a obsolete/uncommon cartridge where only older data is available, the newer manuals provide more accurate—and safer—load data.

Equally important is that powders of the same label manufactured 50-60 years ago don’t necessarily have the same burn rates or energy as current manufacture. IMR4350 50 years ago isn’t the same as it is today, for example. My H4831 manufactured in the mid 90’s produces higher velocities than current H4831, using the same brass in the same rifle.

Where possible I rely on the more recent data.

I like the Hodgdon manual, but own 4-5 dozen manuals and often consult them to get a “feel” for a consensus among different pressure barrels.

Which is why I mentioned earlier that I don't have a "favorite" manual--or Internet source. I consult them all--partly because powders can change considerably over time, despite retaining the "manufacturer's" (often a distributor's) designation. Often the newer versions are even made in factories on the other side of the world from the original factory.

Yet I still know handloaders who believe some manual is the best because they "agree" with it. Many still have major flaws, some which I've mentioned already--such as pressure-testing in one barrel and then chronographing the same loads in another barrel.

Then there's the difference in pressures that various bullets create. Yet some handloaders still believe that, say, all 180-grain .30 caliber bullets result in the same pressure with the same powder charges--not to mention differences in brass, primers, etc. This is another major difference from older manuals, which often lumped all .30-caliber 180-grain bullets into the same data. But even quick look at modern data, such as Hodgdon's Annual Manual's, shows significant differences in pressure with various .30 180s, when using the same powder.

Hodgdon #26.

For many years now I've relied on the late Ken Waters Pet Loads. Though Ken's been gone for a while now I still find that loads he identified as his "most accurate" were in fact the most accurate in my rifles. Many times producing three shot cloverleaf groups at 100yds. Plenty good accuracy for pursuing whitetails and most other big game. I still have letters answering question from Ken from back in the day when he wrote for Handloader magazine and would answer reader questions with a personal letter. Ken was one of the last old time handloaders that walked the walk and talked the talk. Never read any of his stuff that was armchair BS.

^^^^^

I use them all. If I see one ‘way out of line with others, I may ease up to their loads as I watch my chronographs. As I’ve matured, i.e. gotten a little older 😁, I’ve realized that if I need a little more reach than a cartridge can give me, I have another rifle that will give me the performance I need.

I have a Hodgdon manual, a Nosler Manual and a Hornaday Manual. If I am shooting Barnes I just look up the data for Barnes and go with it. Same with Speer. You really don't need manuals in this day and age since the data is available online.

That's pretty much true--with a few exceptions. But the price of a Speer 15 is worth it because they've apparently FINALLY gotten their stuff together, and use the same barrel for both pressures and velocities.

My notes dating back to 1962.

My favourite manual is the one produced by whatever bullet company I am loading. Almost always it’s the latest edition.

My favourite is Speer when loading Speer bullets. Hornady, when loading Hornady bullets. Etc.

Quickload and a Chronograph. Often I'll also consult either the powder or projectile manufacturer's (or both) website as a cross reference for velocity/pressure.

And not ALL 180s in .30-cal from the same manufacturer (i.e. - Speer, Hornady, Barnes, etc) give the same exact results in psi and MV, given the same load from the same rifle, as indicated in manuals. And that applies to other same weight bullets in other calibers from the same companies with differences in bullet structure, such as bonded vs non-bonded, mono metal vs lead core with gilding metal jacket, etc. While listed in manuals as giving the same results, often there can be significant distinctions. One example: The 225gr NP/.35-cal gave significantly higher MV from my .35 Whelen than the 225 AB using an identical load from the same rifle.

Bob
www.bigbores.ca

Yep, I would agree... altho I only have about 2 dozen manuals.

I have over 60 manuals and do not use any of them.
I develop my own loads.


But the loads I develop look more like the Sierra books.

I'm a reloading manual reading geek, so I look at them all. BUT, I prefer as much info as possible in the data. Velocity, % of case filled, most accurate powder tested, preferred powder for lighter and heavier bullets, twist rates used, primers used especially when loading ball powder. I enjoy the right ups as well in most cases, but a bit bored with the O'Connor/270 type words year after year. I like the Nosler manuals, but don't like not separating monumental and lead bullet data. The latest Hodgdon magazine manuals are pretty good, but as a 240 Wby, 257 Roberts, 7mm WSM and 338-06 shooter, I'm disappointed in this mag since none of these cartridges are listed in the 2022 addition.

Lyman, Hornady, Speer and online data is what i use nowadays. Mostly loading for lever rifles and S/A revolvers in same calibers. Only "deer and elk" rifles I have left are my 30-06[Ruger No. 1B] and my Mod 94 30-30. No longer hunt, but, those two have older, well established loads. Lyman probably more than the others.

Don't have a favorite. Usually start with the guide for the bullet manufacturer I'm loading and compare it to other guides to find a starting load. Sometimes there's a large discrepancy like I found recently when loading Berger 52 gr bullets in a 22-250. The listed max load for H380 in the Berger guide is a few grains less than data from several other sources so I started at the max load in the Berger guide and have worked up from there. The Berger max load yielded significantly less velocity than listed, which is what I suspected would happen.

I like the Lyman for the how to reference, but when I start a load I like to compare the data from the powder manufacturer with the data from the bullet manufacturer to see if they are in line with one another.

i need to mention this , i may own 40-50 reloading manuals but i also used John Barsness " Mule Deer " books plenty too ! also excited about Mule Deer`s new book that will be out very soon. Pete53

I use Sierra and Nosler most of the time.
Sierra’s has given me some damn accurate loads over the years. Their 150Gr .30-06 accuracy load is in 4 different rifles flat works.