New Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook

[4296]

The few "reviews" I have read on this are less than impressive. I have the older addition. Is the new one worth it??

[nooneimportant]

I have had one on order for months.

The last cast bullet manual has remained for about 30 years now.
I bought mine in 82 I think.

The new manual is a slimmer edition 320 pages ads and all. the old one is 416.
but you have more cartages covered in the new 97 Rifle and 34 handgun in the new Vs 73 rifle and 34 handgun in the old.

Disappointing is the lack of mold manufactures covered. Lyman (well no kidding) and RCBS make up the bulk with some SARCO and even fewer Lee molds used.
NEI, Hoch, Balisti cast, LBT, Magma engineering, and a host of other simi commercial manufactures are not even mentioned in the data. Criminal omissions if you ask me.

My third edition is in tatters, it long ago gave up being a book and became a collection of loose pages. I still have every page in a three ring binder on my shelf.. While this Fourth edition will supplement the older one for me it will not replace it.

[white eagle]

if having updated cast data is important to you
then yes its worth it
if you really don't care about new data
then no it is not worth it

[MakeMineA10mm]

Yep, I agree with White Eagle. The articles in front, while informative and entertaining, are not deep, other than the one on alloys. Most of the experienced guys here you can learn as much off of by reading their stickied threads or their articles over at CastPics.

However, the load data section is what you buy a new manual for right? The load data is much updated. Still not perfect, but nothing is... Lots of new powders shown as well as loads with other company's bullets, which is a first!

[HighHook]

My 3rd and 47th is also in rags. Highlighted and written on through the years. I have them memorized better then all my familys b-days.

Would be nice to have an actual book that looks like a book though.

[Guesser]

I bought it mostly just to make my collection up to date. I do like the information on newer cartridges such as 327 Mag and newer powders such as Trail Boss. The book is a welcome addition. I still refer to all my other Ideal/Lyman handbooks, they may become obsolete but they are still very useful.

[NHlever]

I would have liked a couple of things different, but I have enjoyed the new manual, and have used it quite a bit. The new powder, and caliber information make it worthwhile. I have most of the reloading manuals available, and find they all have their strong points, and I wouldn't want to be without the new Lyman. I'll be looking for the new Hornady manual just out too.

[big dale]

I bought the new edition mainly because I am going to start loading cast boolits for a 357 Sig...and trying to look up some found that they do not cover the caliber. I figured it had been around for enough uears for it to be in the book.

I have been trying to find information about using red dot and Herco for some 44 and 41 mag loads and they are not in the book either.

I would say it is somewhat ok for some things, but don't count on finding answers to questions you have in that book.

Big Dale

[Rocky Raab]

This has been thoroughly discussed in other threads, But my review summary is this:

The book has flaws and is not a single source of cast-bullet knowledge, but is a valuable supplement to your existing manuals. The data for newer cartridges and powders alone make it worthwhile to own.

[Jech]

As powder formulas and batches evolve and more advances are made, I feel it is very important to keep load data up to date. There's a reason we don't use our manuals from the 60s and70s anymore as our primary data source anymore!

Disappointing is the lack of mold manufactures covered. Lyman (well no kidding) and RCBS make up the bulk with some SARCO and even fewer Lee molds used.
NEI, Hoch, Balisti cast, LBT, Magma engineering, and a host of other simi commercial manufactures are not even mentioned in the data. Criminal omissions if you ask me.

One could call these critical omissions but at the end of the day who has their name on the front of the book? I was pleased to see them at least acknowledge and list any non-Lyman bullet designs at all! You wouldn't expect to see Barnes, Nosler or Sierra load data in a Hornady load book or Lee data in a Hornady book would you? I sure wouldn't! My personal disappointment was found in the 45lc section where I would the Lee 452-200-FP when I was hoping to also find it in the 45auto section. I suppose that's my own fault for "repurposing" a 45lc-designed bullet for 45auto though eh?

I will admit I do not own the 3rd edition nor have I referenced a friend's copy so my $0.02 doesn't directly address your original question. However, when I develop new loads, the cast bullet 4th edition will be opened first followed by the 49th general use book and finally the powder manufacturer's website.

~ Jech

[mdi]

I, too, was disappointed with the new edition. As mentioned above the reloading data has expanded with more bullets and newer powder, but the articles section is of little value. For the average caster the 3rd edition has more info and the 4th's alloy article is waaaay above my level of comprehension...

[mpmarty]

I still use the manuals from the 60s and 70s as my powder is from that era. I've got a huge supply of 3031, 2400, Red Dot, Unique, H-870, H-380, 4831 and others that are over 40 years old in perfect condition. If I ever buy fresh powder I'll get the data for that powder.

[nooneimportant]

One could call these critical omissions but at the end of the day who has their name on the front of the book? I was pleased to see them at least acknowledge and list any non-Lyman bullet designs at all! You wouldn't expect to see Barnes, Nosler or Sierra load data in a Hornady load book or Lee data in a Hornady book would you? I sure wouldn't! My personal disappointment was found in the 45lc section where I would the Lee 452-200-FP when I was hoping to also find it in the 45auto section. I suppose that's my own fault for "repurposing" a 45lc-designed bullet for 45auto though eh?

~ Jech

Jech.
I guess it depends on if the emphasis is on the "Lyman" part or the "Cast bullet handbook" park

Lyman has loadings listed, 340 Wby Mag for example, that the ONLY mold used is a Lee. So Lyman has all ready crossed the bridge to using other companies molds exclusively in some cases.

So why not expand on that?
Lets take the .340 again. I think we can all name the standard bullet weights for 338 projectiles. If you only have one loading listed and it is with a "competitors" mold then why not a 225g from Hoch, and a 250 from NEI?

The Manuals from Projectile companies list powders made by everyone. The Powder manufacturers list projectiles made by everyone. I don't think it a stretch that the cast bullet handbook could list more molds from other companies especially if Lyman doesn't make molds in that weight or caliber.

NOI

[Wayne Smith]

Jech.
I guess it depends on if the emphasis is on the "Lyman" part or the "Cast bullet handbook" park

Lyman has loadings listed, 340 Wby Mag for example, that the ONLY mold used is a Lee. So Lyman has all ready crossed the bridge to using other companies molds exclusively in some cases.

So why not expand on that?
Lets take the .340 again. I think we can all name the standard bullet weights for 338 projectiles. If you only have one loading listed and it is with a "competitors" mold then why not a 225g from Hoch, and a 250 from NEI?

The Manuals from Projectile companies list powders made by everyone. The Powder manufacturers list projectiles made by everyone. I don't think it a stretch that the cast bullet handbook could list more molds from other companies especially if Lyman doesn't make molds in that weight or caliber.

NOI

The real answer is money, time, and effort. It is a considerable job to establish load data suitable for publishing for one boolit, much less many. That takes time and money. It takes the use of lab instruments. It takes a lot of time to cast and shoot that many times to establish statistical reliability. And that is just for one boolit/cartridge combination. Multiply that times the number of loads there and you begin to get an understanding of how much work goes into one of these.

Ever wonder why Lee simply copied other's data and developed none of his own? Time and money and avalibility of facilities.

Time and money are limited commodities. We complain that it's not done on time and then complain that it's not as complete as we would like. Let's try being thankful for what was done first.

[Jech]

Jech.
I guess it depends on if the emphasis is on the "Lyman" part or the "Cast bullet handbook" park

Lyman has loadings listed, 340 Wby Mag for example, that the ONLY mold used is a Lee. So Lyman has all ready crossed the bridge to using other companies molds exclusively in some cases.

The real answer is money, time, and effort. It is a considerable job to establish load data suitable for publishing for one boolit, much less many. That takes time and money. It takes the use of lab instruments. It takes a lot of time to cast and shoot that many times to establish statistical reliability. And that is just for one boolit/cartridge combination. Multiply that times the number of loads there and you begin to get an understanding of how much work goes into one of these.

Ever wonder why Lee simply copied other's data and developed none of his own? Time and money and avalibility of facilities.

Time and money are limited commodities. We complain that it's not done on time and then complain that it's not as complete as we would like. Let's try being thankful for what was done first.

NOI, you make an excellent point with the 340 Weatherby Magnum data; having not loaded for a rifle yet I will readily concede that I have not read the book cover to cover. If a truly comprehensive and cross-referenced database existed, trust me, I'll be first in line to sign up for it! However, I'm not aware of the existence of such a database and therefore am thankful for what inclusions Lyman has made.

I think Wayne's comment strikes a good balance. With me being a person who has become addicted to hand-loading and casting within the last year, it's a great publication even without covering every mould maker name out there.

[nooneimportant]

The real answer is money, time, and effort. It is a considerable job to establish load data suitable for publishing for one boolit, much less many. That takes time and money. It takes the use of lab instruments. It takes a lot of time to cast and shoot that many times to establish statistical reliability. And that is just for one boolit/cartridge combination. Multiply that times the number of loads there and you begin to get an understanding of how much work goes into one of these.

Yup, but the jacked bullet people seem to be able to do it every 3 to 6 years.
Hodgdon powder publishes new load data every year.

My 3ed edition handbook shows a copyright date of 1980.
In thirty one years of prep time I guess hoped for more.

NOI

[prs]

Even if the data in some of the old recipes are dated, the old handbook is still a good reference for casting and such. There are some things Venturino and crew did not cover.

prs

[Rocky Raab]

NOI, it's is also true that the loads in manuals aren't all re-shot to make a new edition. In fact, only new cartridges or new components get covered. There's little point in extensively re-testing the 30-06 with IMR4350 and your company's 180-gr bullet every three years, for example. Such data is merely re-printed.

If the Acme Goesboom Company started out to lab-test every bullet available for every cartridge ever made, using every one of the 180 or so powders out there, and include a "how-to" section listing every fact ever learned by every expert or semi-expert, we could make three predictions about that load manual: 1. It would never be completed, and; 2. It would require a forklift to move it. Plus, 3; It would cost $18,759.99 a copy. Plus shipping.

[1Shirt]

Rocky, Like the Acme Goesboom Company! Has a touch of humor, and a bit of reality. Pretty much agree with what most who have written who have posted on a positive basis. I would have liked to have seen more published for loads for heavy cast blts, which seemed to be lacking. Find it a great addition to my collection which for the most part (particularly the early ones) are more than a bit dog eared.
1Shirt!

[Rocky Raab]

Thanks.

My formal review was overall positive, although I did list quite a few drawbacks - many of which were brought up by posters here. So this board did have input and feedback to Lyman, albeit indirectly. Dave Scovill is probably reading it as I type!