Nosler 7th Edition Review

Here's the second part of my two-manual review (Hornady 9th ed. is here).

Nosler 7th edition Reloading Manual
This is a big book compared to the first six editions of Nosler's manual. There are over 860 pages in this edition.  There is a good bit of information on their bullets, including very good cutaway photos and fired bullet photos, which may be a bit propaganda, but also can be helpful if a particular hunter is fussy about what he wants his terminal ballistics to look like as an end result.  They included a larger basic reloading section than in the past, (though still not anything like Lyman's, the best manual for the beginner, in my studied opinion).  There is a larger powder burn rate chart than found in most manuals, with 178 powders.  Each cartridge has a one-page write-up by a well-known gun celebrity, gun writer, or Nosler staff member (except 14 cartridges that have been moved to the appendix as obsolete cartridges), and as in the past, one of the features of a Nosler manual is the in-chart accuracy recommendations at one of three load levels, plus an overall 'best powder
tested' notation for each cartridge.  I've found from past experimentation that the accuracy loads found in the Nosler manual tend to match my own reality better than some of their competitors.

There are universal drop tables to 600 yards by ballistic coefficient (not enough to plan a shot with, but good enough to get you on paper if you are long-range shooting).  There are also energy tables and there's now a one-page manual for Nosler's ballistics app for iOS products (everybody now seems to have an app for the iPhone, even the shooting sports.  I can't imagine taking my iPhone out just before shooting at a trophy elk, but that's a topic for another, probably humorous, blog post.). They also throw in a handy glossary at the end of the manual.

As usual, Nosler tends to focus more on rifle cartridges than handgun cartridges, but their handgun bullet selection continues to grow.  Here are the changes since the 6th edition.


New cartridges (rifle)-
17 Remington
17 Remington Fireball
204 Ruger
5.56x45 NATO
6.5 Creedmoor
6.5 Grendel
6.8 Rem SPC
300 AAC Blackout
30-40 Krag (dropped from 6th, in prev.)
30 TC
308 Marlin Express
308 Norma Mag (dropped from 6th, in prev.)
300 RCM
378 Wby Mag (dropped from 6th, in prev.)
416 Ruger


New cartridges (handgun)-
none


Deleted cartridges (rifle)-
375 Wby Mag
444 Marlin
450 Marlin
458 Win Mag
458 Lott


Deleted cartridges (handgun)-
454 Casull

The Hornady 9th Edition Reloading Manual

I've handloaded for many years, and I'm an NRA-certified metallic cartridge reloading instructor.  So when a new reloading manual is released, it is a cause for celebration, at least in my mind and in the minds of a few internet-reloading buddies.

So today, I was very happy to see my MidwayUSA order come in.  It had not one, but two brand new manuals in it:  one from Hornady (their 9th edition) and one from Nosler (their 7th edition).  I use a bunch of both bullets, so I'm happy to see the new data and write-ups for their products.

A few years back, I started posting reviews of new reloading manuals on Amazon.com and MidwayUSA's web site for the benefit of new reloaders or folks who were unfamiliar with these particular books.  I'm doing the same with these, so I thought I'd post the reviews here for the small handful of fellow reloaders who read my blog.

Hornady 9th edition Reloading Manual
The new Hornady 9th edition is bigger than ever, with over 915 pages total. There are the usual prefaces and introduction pages, and in this edition about 50 pages of basic reloading instructions, which come with some very nice color illustrations and cut-away drawings of internal ballistics and such.  There is an adequate (but not great) powder burn rate chart with 146 powders, a primer chart (useful), and a basic description of each of their bullet types (and a chart with min/max velocity recommendations...a very important and useful feature, especially for hunters).

Each cartridge has a very brief write-up (no celebrities, just Hornady staff writers/manual editor) with some basic history and a few important details about the cartridge.  The data itself is in the same format as past manuals with velocities in 50- or 100-fps increments rather than exact numbers, which is a better way to report it, in my opinion, since handloading is a stochastic (and not a deterministic) science. I've answered quite a few questions from new reloaders about why their manual says they should be getting 2864 fps from a load and they are only getting 2832 fps in their rifle.  The velocity ranges help keep that detail a little clearer.

One thing Hornady has never done is give in-chart accuracy recommendations, though they do give some recommendations in the write-ups of each cartridge for a preferred powder or two.  If they are using pressure test barrels primarily, this makes sense.  When using a specific gun for which a cartridge is popular (like the 30-30 Win in the Winchester Model 94 for example), an accuracy recommendation makes more sense.


Hornady was more focused on adding new cartridges than deleting old ones, as can be seen in my list below.  One new thing they are doing makes a lot of sense to me: they are putting data for some obsolete cartridges on their web site.  This saves a lot of money in printing costs, and still allows the reloader with Grandpa's Model 94 in 219 Zipper to get access to loading data.  Good move.  There are five cartridges so indicated in this edition (the 219 Zipper, the 219 Donaldson Wasp, the 7x61 Sharpe & Hart, 270 REN, and the 357-44 Bain & Davis).  Here are the other changes since the 8th edition.

New cartridges (rifle)-
17 Hornet
5.56x45 NATO
300 Whisper
300 AAC Blackout
356 Winchester
416 Barrett
416 Ruger
505 Gibbs

New cartridges (handgun)-
327 Federal Mag


Deleted cartridges (rifle)-
219 Zipper (moved to website)
219 Donaldson Wasp (moved to website)
7-30 Waters
7.92x33 Kurz

Deleted cartridges (handgun)-
7.63 Mauser
300 Whisper (as a handgun cartridge)

(The Nosler review will appear in a subsequent post.)

Side Topic: Handloading- Why Are Max Loads Not Always Safe?

I haven't been writing much on handloading recently, but I had to answer a question on my HL list recently, and thought I'd post it here for fun.

I was asked why the maximum listed loads in reloading manuals, supposedly well-researched and tested data, are possibly unsafe in certain applications.  Here's the response-

1) Max loads in reloading manuals are based on pressures achieved in/with their equipment, and subsequent to SAAMI max pressure recommendations for a given cartridge.

2) The pressure testing equipment is also subject to SAAMI specs to ensure it will produce consistent pressures within a certain set of variables.

3) SAAMI pressure recommendations can change over time.

4) Pressure-testing techniques and equipment do change, sometimes radically, over time.

5) When making load recommendations, we are dealing with stochastic (not deterministic) models.  [Example:  2+2=4 is a deterministic model.  yhat = beta-naught + beta-one-x-one + error is a stochastic model.  The error term contains a random factor that we can't control, and changes the yhat each time the equation is run.)

6) The stochastic model for pressure for a given cartridge is thus written in terms of a confidence interval, where there is allowed a small amount of error.  (This error-allowance is critical...the only way to ensure no error is not to load the ammo at all.)  The confidence interval varies based on how much the error term varies in a given situation (i.e. the sample variance), and a constant based on the bell curve determined by how much error we are willing to allow.

7) Rarely, some firearms do not meet SAAMI spec and thus will perform outside the parameters of the testing equipment and produce excessive pressure with a listed safe load.  This is why all load manuals repeatedly insist that we start 10% below the listed max and work up.

8) In addition, certain firearms designs are not as robust as they need to be to absorb full-power, maximum-pressure loads over time.  Thus, rather than a catastrophic failure, we will find a chronological failure with the firearm.  This is often manifest as excessive head space in a rifle, loosening of lock-up in a revolver, or gradual frame damage in a semi-auto pistol, for examples.

9) There are uncontrollable factors based on the skill and quality control of the individual hand loader that can change things in a hurry (i.e. seating bullets too deeply, or not crimping and thus allowing bullets to be pushed into or pulled out of a case during firing, etc.).

So, the likelihood of a catastrophic failure in any firearm when using a maximum listed load is very very small, but still a possibility.  The likelihood of a chronological failure when using maximum loads is still small, but larger than a catastrophic failure.  So one can generally say that load data in manuals is safe, but one must allow for exceptions and follow the 10% work-up guideline religiously to eliminate (as much as possible) the random factor in the hand loading process.

Bottom line- we rolls our dice and moves our mice, and hope nobody gets hurt.

Myth Busting

One of my favorite quotes is from Will Rogers, or Mark Twain, or one of several others, depending on who you ask- "It ain't what we don't know that hurts us, it's what we know that ain't so."

In this spirit, I like dispelling myths. I'll do this on occasion, on various topics. My favorite topics in this vein are firearms and medicine. Here's the first.




Have Lawyers Forced Manual Publisher to Reduce Charges Over Time?

This is a popular sentiment among handloaders. Many will say that max charges listed in their manuals have dropped significantly over the years, and that the cause is company lawyers forcing the changes to reduce liability.

In general, this is a myth.

Here’s why. First, it has been generally established that reduced loads with some powders can be as dangerous as excessive loads. So there is no guarantee that reducing loads will result in a greater margin of safety, thus no legal justification for compelling the reduced loads in the manuals. Additionally, the ammunition business is very competitive. Having max loads listed with your components that show a lower max velocity is not a good way to increase sales, and would be poor business practice. Artificially low charge weights just don’t make logical business sense.

Second, powders have changed to some degree over the years. While some powders are well known to have been tightly controlled as to burn rate over many years (Bullseye, for example…initial lot is over 100 years old, but is still tested against new lots to maintain consistency), others have not. One powder company admitted to Lane Pearce that the control lot for a particular powder was inadvertently lost, and it took some years to stabilize the burn rate of the powder.(1) Other powders have been shifted from their initial stocks of military surplus to commercial versions, including almost all of the IMR line (IMR stands for, “Improved Military Rifle” after all) and much of the Hodgdon line. These shifts mean that burn rates have changed slightly, and the resulting numbers in the load manuals have been adjusted accordingly.

Third, in the past, high-quality pressure testing equipment wasn’t as readily available as it is now. Some loads in manuals from the ‘50s and ‘60s were worked up with traditional pressure signs (flat primers, case web measurements, extraction difficulty, etc.) that are known to be somewhat subjective today. In some cases, loads that had been published for several editions were subsequently tested and found to produce pressures ten to twenty thousand PSI above recommended maximum levels. Obviously, these loads were reduced in the manuals at that point.

Fourth, we tend to notice what we don’t like. In the same article cited above, Lane Pearce found, after looking at six different pairs of manuals, each dated about thirty years apart, that in fact some of the maximum loads had been increased, not decreased.

And fifth, when directly asked, industry ballisticians consistently deny, even when offered anonymity, that lawyers have ever asked them to reduce charge weights below those arrived at by following company policy.

Conclusion: When charges have been reduced in loading manuals over time, they have been reduced for very valid reasons, not because a lawyer said so.


1 Pearce, L. Powder compared: Today’s versus yesteryear’s. Shooting Times, Sept. 1009, pp. 18-23.