cast bullet book, lymnan #4

  • 1.7K Views
  • Last Post 11 August 2011
Savage99 posted this 06 August 2011

Lyman Cast bullet book #4, I have the #3 and it is well used. I am looking to get the 4th edition. I would like some reviews from you folks to see if it is worth it. Let me know. Thanks in advance

Attached Files

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
99 Strajght posted this 06 August 2011

I have had mine since January. Good book. Lots of good coverage. Wish it came out more often.

Attached Files

LWesthoff posted this 06 August 2011

Click on “REFERENCE SOURCES". You'll find a good discussion on the #4 Cast Bullet Handbook there.

Wes

Attached Files

Dale53 posted this 06 August 2011

This is a good addition to your library. I also bought a new #3 before they were all sold out as I wore out my original #3.

I think both are excellent books.

The #3 has somewhat more coverage but the #4 has some more modern powders.

Dale53

Attached Files

PETE posted this 07 August 2011

The big problem I see with this #4 Edition is the same one all the rest of them have. The loads listed have no rhyme or reason to them and not a one of them that I've tried that they said was an accuracy load turned out to be even close. In another thread, a whole back, that mentioned this topic it was stated that Lyman used the data they got from their chronograph using the low SD/ES's as their guide to the best loads.

Granted the book will give you an idea, vaguely, on what powders might be used with POSSIBLE success but that's it.

When working up a load recently for my .222 Rem. I tried all the bullet wgt.'s listed and the recommended accuracy loads going plus & minus 2 or 3 grs. and using MV's from 1300 to 2500 fps and not a one of them gave anything like reasonable accuracy you should be able to expect from this caliber in a varmint wgt. barrel.

Finally I just tried out... after a search on here..... the powders some of the guys recommended that worked well for them. Should have done this in the first place as the gun now is starting to shoot close to expectations. To late for this years Postals in the small bore, but there's always next year.

So, in my opinion, you have to go back to the Lyman Reloading books in the 50's, or so, in their “Pet Loads” tables for each caliber before you find anything worth using that stands a chance of success.

Pete

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 07 August 2011

Pete,

You have stated the truth that no one wants to hear. Lyman and American Rifleman used to have pet load type sections. These were loads that real people developed that really worked for them. Not universal loads, but something close. Since the 1960's and chronographs, the statisticians have tried to make SD/ES/etc. replace actual shooting at paper targets. It isn't going to happen.

The book sellers found that they could sell more books with articles by “names” of writers in the gunzines. Articles written by winners of national matches in different shooting competitions never get published. The “non-professional” shooter has nothing to say that is worth publishing.

Thank goodness I shoot old guns and can find good advice in the NRA pamphlets and Lyman books from before 1960.

Ric

Attached Files

galenaholic posted this 07 August 2011

"You have stated the truth that no one wants to hear.” It's about time I see someone besides me not being all that happy with Lyman's manuals, whether for cast bullets ot the “other kind". I've got the Lyman cast bullet manuals numbers 1,2 and three and haven't decided if I even want #4. My biggest issue ie I don't think they ever retest any of their loads with the only difference being if a new powder is added to the list. The regular Lyman manuay, IIRC is #44 and is copyright 1967. The 49th ed. manual is copyright 2008. The data for a 150 gr. bullet using IMR4895 has not changed in all that time.You mean to tell me that Lyman has not at least rechecked that data in 41 years? :shock: The only reason I spotted that one is years ago my go to load in the 30-06 was 49.0 gr. of IMR4895 and the 150 gr. Sierra flat base spitzer. (They did not call them Pro-Hunters back then. Accoring to the Lyman manual, that's a load smack dab in the middle twixt the max and min. Rifle in quetion is a J.C. Higgins M50 that I bought brand new way back when. The load was perfectly fine. A while back I decided to load up a box just for nostalgia as I was curious to just exactly what they did over the chronograph. First shot locked up the bolt tighter than a drum. After I got the bolt open the primer pocket was more like a gaping hole. With some trepidation, I tried one more round with the same result. Wll that ended that range session. When I got home, I broke down each shell, one at a time and reweighed the powder charges. They were right on the money at 49.0 gr. plus or minus 1/10 grain. Loads were thrown by an RCBS Chargemaster 1500 so I know the loads were weighed to begin with. On pulling the bullets the reweight was first on a digital scale, then the charge checked again on a balance beam scale known to be accurate. There was nothing wrong with my powder charges. The brass was measured to be sure it was within limits. It was. The load were fired in the very same rifle they'd originally been worked up in. The only thing I can figure is current IMR4895 may be a bit faster burning but according to the Lyman manual it'd a middle of the road load. The strange thing is it's been just fine in other cartridges with data and my results either being equal or very close. I no longer trust any data in the Lyman book with pressure marked as C.U.P. and take their data marked P.S.I. with a bit of skepticism. Of course, your mileage may vary. Paul B.

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 07 August 2011

I am sorry to say that your experience is pretty common with us older reloaders. In my opinion, the cost of shooting data sets is so high, with so many bullets, cases, etc. you are not going to see fresh information anytime soon. I try to use data from the time period the powder was sold, and so far it seems to work OK, but I don't trust it. I also read what case and primer they used and see if I have anything close.

What surprised me was the amount of response I got from writing the Fouling Shot article on Alliant 2400 powder. The chemical composition of 2400 has been changed quite a bit from the powder of pre-1990. I was informed that “lot to lot” variation could be the cause, but I am doubtful that the variation could be a full 15% reduction in powder charge.

Also I am surprised at the number of younger shooters, under 40, who shoot loads that would scare the crap out of me. I quit helping during “sight-in weekend” at the range with handloads. One guy told me he was using the “best” (read hottest) load from four differnet handbooks because it was 30 f/s faster than the other ones (Speer #8 from 1970). Every primer was flat and the case head had a shiny spot of the ejector.

Yep, it is a brave new world out there, and our old time information isn't always good any more.

Ric

Attached Files

shastaboat posted this 08 August 2011

Speer #8 is still the best reference I have. Also Lyman 45th for jacketed. Since I shoot cast from 2200 fps to 2400 fps I haven't found any good reference and rely mostly on my own experience. Problem is with new style powders. Then I refer to burn rate charts and start from there.

Because I said so!

Attached Files

PETE posted this 08 August 2011

As Brent points out...... I do use the Lyman #4 book but only for the ideas it gives me with the new powders when I don't have a clue as to where to start.

Ric,

Had to laugh at your “Brave New World” comment. Reminded me of a local guy who wrote, might still, for one of those Soldier of Fortune magazines. One day at the range he wanted us to go down and look at a target he'd just shot at 100 yds. Group was about 5” or so. He rook a coupla pictures and asked us if that would be a reasonable group for 300 yds. Seems he was writing an article on survival with the emphasis on travel by canoe. Yeah... Guess it would be if he'd shot it at 300 yds. Tried to get the local book store to save me a copy if they ever saw an article by him. Never did hear from them. But does make me real suspicious of a lot of these “facts” you see in magazines anymore.

Pete

Attached Files

.452dia posted this 09 August 2011

I just bought the 4th Edition a couple of weeks ago. I like the idea of giving data with other brands of molds but I wish I had kept my old book for reference.

Attached Files

w-d-s posted this 11 August 2011

I got the 4th adition a couple monthes ago. it is a good book and worth buying. dont know if its any better than the 3rd. was very disapointed with the data of a few calibers like 35 whelen, 375 h&h and 458 win. they are all reasonably common with cast bullets but the data was less then the 3rd and sould have been a lot better. but most of the 30s and the old stuff was good. just my 2 cents

Attached Files

Categories
Search
Popular Tags
This Weeks High Earners
Hot Topics
Close