Lyman's 51st Handbook (2022) vs. 49th (2008)

1
This year, in January 2022, Lyman did the first printing of their new 51st Edition Reloading Handbook. It's got most of the new cartridges, sure, but I was really interested in the new powders, such as Accurate TCM, Accurate 11FS, and so on. The reason for this is that Lyman does their own pressure testing out of their own equipment, so it's a good check against what the powder companies themselves also report. I bought Lyman's 49th Edition in 2009 shortly after I started reloading (I already had and read Lee's "Modern Reloading, Second Edition" by then).

What I found about Lyman's 49th was that while it didn't contain quite as much actual data per cartridge as, say, Lee's book or even Hornady's book, the data it did contain was very good and prescient for what I was trying to do, real-world. It was with the data from Lyman's 49th that I developed most of my loads, checking them against Lee's book for sanity. I got good results from this. That includes the ".45 Colt Magnum" loading that I use, which came straight out of the 49th Edition's "T/C Contenders and Encore" section, and verified in other sources. That load is 22.0gr of 2400 under a 255gr cast bullet, same as with Hornady's 250gr HP/XTP. It shoots great.

Therefore, when Lyman's 51st came out, naturally I bought a copy. It arrived a couple of weeks ago, and as with all my other reloading manuals, I've read this one cover to cover. Yep, every chapter, every article, every cartridge.

The 51st Edition is a good manual, by any objective measure, just as the 49th Edition is. It's now in color, as the 50th Edition apparently was. It has photographs of the cartridges, along with the drawings. That's helpful because sometimes, e. g. for the 7mm Remington Magnum, the drawing didn't always reflect the actual shape of the cartridge in previous editions. The 51st Edition does contain some of the newer powders (e. g. LEVERevolution, Superformance) and bullets (e. g. Berger--it's about time!). Turns out the good ol' .30-06 benefits rather nicely from Superformance, to the tune of 50 to 100 ft/sec over most other powders. I have found this to be true in real-world shooting as well.

However, I do have a few "areas of improvement" for the new edition. They are as follows.

1.) The "lawyering-down" of some loads. Here's an example. The aforementioned ".45 Colt Magnum" loading using 2400 that I've been using for 12 years now? They reduced that down from 22.0gr of 2400 to 21.0gr. I see no good reason for this, given how well this load shoots. They are using the same primer, case, and bullet (Hornady 250gr HP-XTP) as in the 49th Edition. It works just fine in not only T/C Contenders, but also Ruger Redhawks and, obviously, the Super Redhawk. There are other examples of that in the book.

2.) They should've included more powders with certain rounds.

2a.) Many of us have old milsurp rifles, such as the Mauser 98, Mosin-Nagant M91 series, British SMLE Enfields, and so on. In my case, it's the Mosin-Nagant. Given the (totally understandable) embargo of Russia, Putin, and Putin's cronies currently in force, milsurp Russian ammo isn't coming in anymore. Ukraine hasn't been in a position to export any of their ammo since 2014, either, due to self-defense. Therefore, for a lot of these ComBloc rifles, we have to reload now (Prvi Partizan, Lapua, etc. cases). The powders for the 7.62x54R Russian are not at all extensive. Same goes for the 7.62x39 used in Kalashnikovs and SKS's. That's something that, given the embargo, would've been nice to see them expand upon. This is especially true given the level of attention that they gave to a lot of new chamberings like the .224 Valkyrie, .26 Nosler, .28 Nosler, 6mm Creedmoor, 6mm PRC, .300 Norma Mag, .30 PRC, .350 Legend, etc.

2b.) The Lyman book does not include either Accurate TCM or 11FS at all. They should've been included since Lee's book, which came out in 2021, includes them. Accurate TCM came out in 2017, and 11FS came out in (from what I could confirm) 2018. The latter is basically H110/W296 with a flash suppressant added. So, they've had time to give these powders some analysis and development as well.

3.) The "Notes" section that was in the back is no longer there. It was a convenient place to note down load information.

4.) Articles. The 49th Edition had some very interesting articles about bullet types, firearm types, good gun cleaning, and so on. I found them most educational, even if I don't shoot the particular cartridges or firearms that they were discussing. The 51st Edition has one article, which is a good one, about progressive reloading, now that Lyman has acquired the Mark 7 line of presses. Finally, Lyman has a progressive press! The information does apply, generally, to other models of progressive presses as well. But it's the only such article. Maybe they felt that there was not much more to write about? Actually, they could've discussed, for example, how to apply ballistic coefficients to downrange ballistics. It could be anything else that might be useful to a reloader.

The big question, then, is, would I recommend this new 51st Edition to a reloader? A beginning reloader, definitely. The information about reloading is as good as it was in the 49th Edition, which means it is quite good indeed. For an intermediate to advanced reloader, also yes, but with a caution to also keep your older version around for certain cartridges.

And, of course, have more than one reloading manual. That's true no matter whose book(s) you have.
"SF Liberal With A Gun + Free Software Advocate"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/
Image

Re: Lyman's 51st Handbook (2022) vs. 49th (2008)

2
I have both the Lyman 49th and 50th - they are almost identical so they must have backed the data back down for the 51st. I also have the Speer manual #15 which I bought as it is known for having “hotter” data. It certainly does. For hot loads the manufacturers websites seem to be pretty mild compared to the Speer reloading data. But I use them all When working up a new load - for sanity checking. More information is definitely better.


If I’m loading “.45 colt magnum” I use the data in the “Thompson encore section” and cross check it with the Speer data. The max load in the normal .45 colt section is anemic for a modern design. I find the .45 colt magnum to be extremely accurate out of my Henry rifle & just a bit hot for my Ruger Blackhawk. (Not so much recoil-wise; but the heat out of the forcing cone area is concerning) The “hot” .357s are a bit more pleasant and easier to shoot in a Blackhawk .357 Because the pistol is quite a bit heavier.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Lyman's 51st Handbook (2022) vs. 49th (2008)

5
tonguengroover wrote: Fri Nov 25, 2022 8:34 pm Is it better than Lee's new one?
https://www.amazon.com/C-Kerman-Outdoor ... B000N8OKAU
Funny you should ask, because I also got Lee's latest 2021 edition, too.

Is it "better"? Depends. Lee's book has more powders per round in it, generally. It also has the now-late Richard Lee's somewhat shameless self-promotion, as previous editions of the book did. They've removed some powders that I'm a bit concerned about them removing, e. g. almost all of the .38 Special loads using Alliant Bullseye powder have been removed, as have most of the Bullseye loads for .357M. Same goes for .45 ACP. Why they would remove *THE* traditional powder for .38 Special from the .38 Special section is...curious. So, to a lesser degree, it's similar to one of the areas of improvement for Lyman's 51st. But it still has considerably more powder options per cartridge than Lyman's 51st.

The reloading information in "Modern Reloading, 2021 update" is actually good, as long as you can look past the gratuitous self-promotion. The cast bullet data is especially helpful for those like me who do cast our own. It also has a fine "reduced loads" section for rifle cartridges, aimed primarily at cast bullet shooters, but it's also applicable to jacketed bullets.

For my initial loads back in 2009 and 2010, when I was first developing them, while Lyman's 49th had fewer powder options, I found the ones they did include to be easier for real-world load development. I'm not certain that the same is true for the 51st Edition in some cases. For others, yes, it is.

I would still do like I did back in 2009 and get both.

Interesting about INVICTVS138's comments about the Speer reloading manual. That sounds like some of the older reloading data before the lawyers started getting so involved. I do have some of that older reloading data, some of it courtesy of a post here on the LGC's forums. For example, I am aware that .357M max load data got lawyered down due to the S&W K-frames. But my .357M revolver is a Ruger Security-Six, so it should be able to take any of the older data without problems. Also, the Rossi 92 should be able to handle that pre-1990's data. It's a Winchester 92 clone, after all.
"SF Liberal With A Gun + Free Software Advocate"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/
Image

Re: Lyman's 51st Handbook (2022) vs. 49th (2008)

6
Yeah - I only shoot the hot .357s in my .357 Blackhawk, Henry or S&W 586. Those guns are all overbuilt - especially with the Blackhawk with cylinder walls almost as thick as the chambers!


I use medium .357s or .38 SPL +P in my K-frames, and Ruger SP101. Supposedly the SP-101 is strong enough but IMHO; a 25 oz pistol is too light for Hot .357s. Plus the recoil is no fun. Even my 627 snappy with .357s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Lyman's 51st Handbook (2022) vs. 49th (2008)

7
The OP was a great review. It made me drag out my Speer 13th, the 2003 printing. It was the first complete manual I'd bought, relying before that on those little booklets by each powder company for that one, specific powder. As luck would have it, the first reloading I did was for the Mosin Nagant rifle--likely a 91/30, but that was a while back, so it may have been for an m44, of which at the time I had more than one. I wasn't that worried about blowing up one through idiocy. Turns out I have not blown up any guns with poor loads. Before I got the Speer, I'd already developed my 7.62x54r loads from those little pamphlets. Oddly, the Speer has loads for the SKS 7.62x39, but not for the x54r. Go figure.

The first perhaps 120-odd pages of the 720-odd pages contain the articles about powders, weapons, loading, and so on. One drawback of the Speer manual is that it only features Speer bullets of all types. This resulted in my placing all kinds of sticky notes in the book with the little edges hanging out that hold my information gleaned from using >gasp< other brands of bullets of all types. The last 100 or so pages contain the Handloading reference section, which includes short and long range ballistics tables.

It is hard to emphasize to folks new to reloading the importance of getting a manual in order to read some of those articles. Plus, it's great to pick up classics like Hatcher's Notebook and others. Also mightily important is to get a blank book to keep one's own reloading notes in. The one I use was designed to be a diary, and it's leather bound. They clipped me eleven bucks for it in the late 90's. When I got it, I had some crud scribbled in the margins and the back covers of those IMR booklets and so on, and I spent a coffee-fueled afternoon making partitions by caliber and transferring my notes into there. I'm probably done with new calibers because I'm old. I still have a few calibers left for which I have not yet developed easy target loads and/or close-to-max ones. I don't know if that's good or bad, but that's where I sit. As you've seen in some pics,I have bins of cast boolits and all manner of jacketed ones, and some of them have yet to be subjected to my experimentation. Like some of us here, the pandemic sort of put the brakes on several loading projects, so now I'm hosing out my reloading shack so I can get back in there.

So, thanks CT for posting that review/comparison-contrast. I hope many new folks will read it. One funny thing that happened when I was leafing through that old Speer book is that I held it by the spine in my palm, and with a little manipulation and wiggling, it would open on the half dozen calibers I'd researched the most. First opening from jiggling today was the 8x57 Mauser. Sweet.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests