The definitive reloading book?

[Hardcast]

I did see a new ADI book the other day, it may have been around for a while, don't know, but it was certainly a better thing than the old style.
Bigger with more info. $15.95 at the LGS.

[Baldrick314]

I did see a new ADI book the other day, it may have been around for a while, don't know, but it was certainly a better thing than the old style.
Bigger with more info. $15.95 at the LGS.

I thought they gave them out for free? I didn't pay for the 4th or 5th edition

[Old Fart]

I did see a new ADI book the other day, it may have been around for a while, don't know, but it was certainly a better thing than the old style.

Came out about 2 months ago or something from memory...

[Old Fart]

I thought they gave them out for free? I didn't pay for the 4th or 5th edition

You can download it from the ADI powders website for free, gotta pay for a paper one.

[chilliman]

what about the books by Reloading for Handgunners (Patrick Sweeney) or ABCs of Reloading (James) or Hornady 9th Edition or Lee's Precision Modern Reloading or Lyman 49th Edition etc, any worth getting? (they're all in my ebay watchlist and seem to rate well on Amazon)

[Apollo]

BTW guys. ADI do not do any Load Testing what so ever. All their data comes from Hodgdon in the USA. If you look at the Hodgdon Data for the powders that are supplied by ADI you will see the information is exactly as printed in the ADI Reloading Manual.

The only testing ADI do is to check a new batch of powder manufactured to see if it performs the same as the batch run it replaced.

[Techc]

So Hodgdon have done the testing instead of ADI.

Not a big deal, it's still been tested.

You're comment sort of implies that the ADI data isn't safe or something, like there is actually no testing done at all?

Which obviously isn't the case...

[Apollo]

My comment does not imply anything and certainly not that ADI data isn't safe.

Hodgdon have the extensive facilities and equipment to test powder loads. They import all of the ADI line of powders and do the load testing. As said by my friend at ADI, why duplicate expensive facilities and increase the costs involved in manufacturing powders.

The ADI powders that are re-named by Hodgdon to their own brand names are not touched, they are exactly the same as we purchase here. One powder that is not sold in the USA by Hodgdon being Benchmark 1 is still tested by Hodgdon, it's just they choose not to supply it locally in the USA.

I use the Hodgdon Reloading Data quite often as it gives me the facility of having just a section that includes a lot of other powders for a specific calibre to print out and compare how different powders perform not only the ADI range of powders.

[Techc]

Yeah fair enough.

I've read quite a few people (not you, just saying...) bagging ADI saying their data is untested and unsafe and all that. Not the case IMO either.

Didn't mean to sound like I was having a go at you or anything in my other reply...

[Chronos]

The closest thing you'll ever get to a definitive reloading manual is one you put together from your own experimentation in your own rifles.

No manual can account for your chamber size, brass condition, length to lands, barrel length and twist etc so most recommendations are always conservative.

Only you can find the real maximum load in your rifle and chances are the most accurate load is below that anyway.

Chronos.

[Blackened]

I reckon that's right.

Obviously there is some essential information to have before hand...Starting and max powder loads and COAL for example so you don't do anything obviously dangerous.

Outside of that though it's largely fine tuning stuff which can all be cautiously experimented with on your own rifle to find the right cartridge.

[Chronos]

I reckon that's right.

Obviously there is some essential information to have before hand...Starting and max powder loads and COAL for example so you don't do anything obviously dangerous.

Outside of that though it's largely fine tuning stuff which can all be cautiously experimented with on your own rifle to find the right cartridge.

Thanks mate,

Once you (a shooter in general, not you specifically) get beyond the initial stages of reloading you find the only thing you look at in a reloading manual is the powders listed for a bullet weight and their safe charge range.

Then it's a matter of measuring COAL for that bullet in your chamber, comparing that to magazine max length and making a call on starting seating length for load testing then choosing a powder for the bullet weight and starting load testing starting at the lower end if the range for that powder/bullet combo.

The only time I go back to the load manual is if I consider an alternative powder.

For most of my guns I have a file with notes on load testing and some targets marked with loads for each group. And it's this I refer to when I set up to load another batch of ammo.

Chronos

[Lorgar]

Not to mention half the info goes out the window when you actually start reloading for your rifle.

How many threads have you seen along the lines of "best coal for my Tikka won't fit in the magazine"

[chilliman]

I saw the ADI book at Abela's Campbelltown today going for $8.

[Warrigul]

Not to mention half the info goes out the window when you actually start reloading for your rifle.

How many threads have you seen along the lines of "best coal for my Tikka won't fit in the magazine"

I had been reloading for about a year when I started with the .300WM, set it up .010" from the lands like I would for my 7.62 range loads, did the whole three loads at various weights and shot for best group(feeding them in singly at the fullbore range).

Went hunting for the weekend and had to hand feed them into the chamber as they were too long for the magazine- absolute PITA

[Blackened]

Went hunting for the weekend and had to hand feed them into the chamber as they were too long for the magazine - absolute PITA

Ha ha.

Screw that. I'd have probably gone home

[Warrigul]

We were 3 hours from home (may not sound far to a mainlander but it is for a Tasmanian) I filled my two fallow doe tags the first morning then used the other 98 spotlighting over two nights.

I realised after a couple of spotlighting sessions that a .300WM wasn't the ideal calibre for roo anyway...

[Monty]

Out of curiosity, what inspired you to pick up the 300 Win Mag for Fallow and Roo in the first place?

That's a lot of gun obviously and I take it from your other posts your not a "fan" of big calibres as a general rule.

Just giving it a go, or...?

[yoshie]

Nick Harvey's book is called the bible, but just like the bible you can't take what's in it too literally, always double check with the manufacturers data too.

[reddog]

As Nick says in the manual you should always cross reference with at least one other manual , and the more the better . As far as the loads in there being hot it says on the bottom of every page Approach maximum loads with caution
Also if you have a look at loads in older manuals you will find maximum loads have come down by around 2grns over the years , just something to think about if your using older manuals
But that is why you have to load test because as we allways hear every gun is different

[Warrigul]

Out of curiosity, what inspired you to pick up the 300 Win Mag for Fallow and Roo in the first place?

That's a lot of gun obviously and I take it from your other posts your not a "fan" of big calibres as a general rule.

Just giving it a go, or...?

It was real cheap in payment for a debt and dad thought it would be handy for the odd trip up North (2003), up until that point the family rifle had been a .243 and my .303 had been fine for deer with the .22LR and Hornet for spotlighting. I now use a .223 for longer spotlighting sessions where a .22 isn't enough.

At the time I also had a mate with one egging me on a bit which didn't help so I thought I should give it a run and that was what made me see sense, it was totally unneccesary for what I was doing and I had also come to realise on the fullbore range that I was never going to hunt anything much past 300m (I have been known to take the Omark in .308 and sit and wait at distance but it is too heavy to cart around)

Live and learn, I have now come to realise that a 7/08 or .243 and a 300m max shot are more than enough for anything down here(even stags- yes in TAS we call them stags). I still take the old .303 for a run occaisonally and will do for doe this year but the most used rifle in the family(the one that they all borrow off me) is the .243 T3 lite stainless/synthetic running 100grain softpoints- a fine rifle in a great calibre.

The .300WM doesn't do anything on the range out to say 900 that you can't do with a .308 but I still take it out for a stroll occaisonally just to remind my self of what it is like.

The 7/08 is for Sambar (but the .303 was more than capable in its day) and I am working on a few more mainland trips to justify the space the .300wm is taking up in the safe, but it really can't be beat with a big woodleigh out front and this is where I see the .300WM -big pills at a decent speed.

[Bills Shed]

Cross referencing the manuals is a very good method of finding a starting load. I picked up a Nick Harvey's manual the other day in the LGS and had a peek at what he said for my rifles. I noticed a few typos. In one case Min and Max were exactly the same. I have never seen that before and left the book on the shelf. Went back to the ADI web site and the Speer manual and checked again. With several manuals you will get an average Min and a average Max powder load. Work up from the Min and play safe.

Bill

[Mick280]

Cant have enough reloading manuals !!!

[Farmjer]

Cant have enough reloading manuals !!!

Sort of.

s**ts me every time a newer version of the one I bought comes out though

[Mick280]

Im hearing you , Great to have a few to compare though.

[Farmjer]

Yeah, interesting to see what different authorities say the limit is.

[Mick280]

I have the Barnes - Hornady - Nosler and the ADI books , Just cross reference those using the ADI powder equivalent chart , Works for me !
Dont trust the other one (But thats not a story for the forum)

[Usurper]

Dont trust the other one (But thats not a story for the forum)

Assuming we're talking about the same one... In past versions several of the loads were significantly higher than other manuals, more than a few reports of high pressure signs from a range of them too.

Never acknowledged by the author directly AFAIK but confirmed by the fact loads have crept down in subsequent versions I'd say.

Safe to assume you had a similar issue as above?

[headspace]

You get all the ADI stuff free online anyway. It's all I use, and in any case the loads are just really a guide. You get to a point with an individual rifle where you can go higher. A 243 load for an 85grain bullet and 2209 comes to mind. I'm well above their max load but not showing any signs of excess pressure, even though my muzzle Velocity is a bit less. However I have a 22inch barrel, so there's undoubtedly a difference there. Still good load though, dead on at 200m and a bit over an inch high at 100.

[TheDude]

Looks like 7th edition is out now in hard copy but only the 6th is available for download.