Reloading manual errors

[Bob Wright]

I have a handful of cartridges I reload for, so occasionally I'll run into some errors that are minor, to something else, that if a less experienced, "new to reloading" person might get caught in a more hazardous situation.
In this case, today I picked out a lower pressure load to fire some new brass in to just get some good data on water capacity increases, albeit around 1-3 extra grains of H2O were expected after(SAAMI chamber/SAAMI brass).
The cartridge overall length stated in manual was creating a .050 jam into the rifling, after I became suspicious visually of the seating depth.
I tested the first round seated and it was waaay out there, jamming hard by .050. Although this powder charge was mild, that jam was making me wonder what would have happened if someone thought "this must be ok..." and let one fly at the shooting range.
I set them .070 deeper from the manual (.020 jump).
I've had conversations with the same popular company but the techs laugh it off by telling me they know there are errors, "..but it cost too much to fix them all".
Yikes....
Are any of you seeing the same across a broader spectrum of manuals?

 

[elf]

Most manuals are on the conservative side. I use them as a reference and usually start my powder charge low, working up .001 until I see pressure signs. Jamming bullets for this test is not a good idea.

 

[cohunt]

That's why you always cross reference several reloading data sources...pretty sure every reloading data book has disclaimers basicly saying "it's all on you bud"

I've found data errors before and informed the manu, the digital format eventually got changed by them (took several months for them to change it)

 

[Memberberries]

I work in the Aviation industry and spend lots of days reading technical documentation. It's easy to get bent about a typo in something that you thought was perfect, that's why you should question everything and take no single source of information as the ultimate reference.

 

[Mikecr]

My opinion: As a reloader you should not assign too much value to manuals, but measure everything you can -yourself. Then follow the golden rule: work up.
[Like Bob Wright has done here]

It is unlikely, other than coincidence, that information in manuals would well represent your local situations. For the example here; how could anyone know your throat length? How could anyone know you're chamber is tight, loose, short, long? That your powder/bullets/primers/brass are this or that lot#? And your barrel cannot be assumed to be like test barrels used to develop load data for manuals.

Much of this can be compensated for & calibrated in QuickLoad, but notice various barrels (these were test barrels) for cartridge/cal. If you look closely at parameters for one 26cal cartridge barrel -vs- another 26 cal cartridge barrel, you'll see significant bore area differences. The folks behind QL don't just make up stuff with math. They test for data, like the folks behind better manuals. And similar, they leave it on you to understand that their components are not your components.

 

[Bob Wright]

I work in the Aviation industry and spend lots of days reading technical documentation. It's easy to get bent about a typo in something that you thought was perfect, that's why you should question everything and take no single source of information as the ultimate reference.

I did as well, in both OEM and as a supplier for main engines and the overhaul and repair of engines and components.
There is a process to get engineering documents corrected, rapidly, if it's a safety concern.
Not so much when 'anyone' is working with projectiles and high energy components apparently.
Literally anyone...
Rant over...sorry.

 

[Memberberries]

I did as well, in both OEM and as a supplier for main engines and the overhaul and repair of engines and components.
There is a process to get engineering documents corrected, rapidly, if it's a safety concern.
Not so much when 'anyone' is working with projectiles and high energy components apparently.
Literally anyone...
Rant over...sorry.

you don't get a "anything that happens while on this plane isn't our fault" disclaimer. I'm sure that companies have a review process for the next edition of the manuals and realistically lets say you are using a Sierra manual. The current printed revision is the 6th, this manual has been in print since sometime around 1970 I think which means approximately a new edition every 10 years. Rapidly means the next revision, one typo isn't enough for that change.

Recently I have been working with a component OEM to correct some dimensions in some technical documentation. This have been about 2 years to get to the point we are at where it will be approximately another 3 months before the corrected documentation is sent to the airframe OEM for approval (3 to 12 months) before it goes to the FAA/EASA for their approval (another 3 to 12 months) and after that the changes will show in the technical documentation. these are not documents for painting a logo or any B.S. like that, these are dimensions used to certify a part as airworthy...

I'm constantly astounded by the abundance of errors in almost everything technical I read, be it work or hobby. If you still get upset about it you need to keep reading until you reach the point where you give up on trusting anyone's information that you haven't personally cross checked.

 

[emp1953]

I never take the data from a single reloading manual as gospel. I always look at 3 or 4.

 

[JASmith]

I never take the data from a single reloading manual as gospel. I always look at 3 or 4.

Excellent advice -- I follow this practice too. But...

This is the second-best advice after "Start low and work up"!

 

[Deleted member 107796]

I like using the Loadbooks USA series that are caliber specific. I can quickly cross check specified powder charge, bullet AOL or other and I've rarely found errors. I did find a terrible error in the Lee Pacesetter die manual for 450Bushmaster, where it specifies a Lg rifle primer vs Sm.

 

[Tommo64]

The data in reloading manuals should only ever be treated as a guide. They are developed using a specific set of parameters and, as we all know, every gun is different. Hence the reason we always start off low with our charge weights. As for seating depth, ideally you should take measurements to determine where your bullet engages the lands to provide a baseline from which to work.

 

[Clark]

I would compare handloading to mountain climbing and handling poisonous snakes.

I climbed Mt Daniel from car to car in one day.
I poked a rattlesnake with my rifle muzzle.
I designed a wildcat, cut the chamber and made the dies. I made up my own starting load.

My grandmother will go up one flight of stairs if the handrail meets code.
She saw a snake at the zoo.
She needs to see a handload in more than one load book before trying the start load.

 

[emp1953]

Excellent advice -- I follow this practice too. But...

This is the second-best advice after "Start low and work up"!

Many of the manuals state that the load was fired from a "proof action" or "proof barrel" not a set up you would carry to the range, you can and should expect somewhat different performance than what you see in the manual. it is just a guide.

 

[alaska]

you have to go back to Mid 1960 Speer reloading manual to get real data. They have Waterdown all the reloading manuals since. H4831 and IMR 4350 were very popular then and still today.