close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

Hornady No.9

Discussion in 'Reloading' started by hogfish, Nov 11, 2012.

  1. hogfish

    hogfish Señor Member

    5,420
    511
    Aug 4, 2005
    fl
    Hi. I just saw that it's out. Anyone have it, or has heard anything about it? I have No.7, and I'm wondering if I should get it. IIRC, No.8 had bad reviews.

    Thanks.
     
  2. Kentguy

    Kentguy

    1,776
    116
    Nov 22, 2010
    Kent, OH
    hogfish,

    I have the 8th Edition, and I use it all the time, I also use Hornady's XTP & FTX bullets for 380, 9mm, 38 special, 357 mag, 45 acp & 44 mag. so I have found their load data to be extremely useful. I also have called Hornady on more than one occasion and found them to be great to work with and you don't have to feel like pulling teeth just to get some information. I have put together quite a few reliable & accurate rounds using my 8th Edition manual and am looking forward to checking out this new Edition.

    I saw that the 9th Edition is out (or coming out soon?). I am planning on buying it once it becomes available on-line or in my area.
     


  3. WiskyT

    WiskyT Malcontent

    11,682
    1
    Jun 12, 2002
    North Carolina
    I'm sticking with my #3. I did have to buy a Loadbooks for 40SW because the #3 was published before anyone invented the 40SW.
     
  4. hogfish

    hogfish Señor Member

    5,420
    511
    Aug 4, 2005
    fl
    Thank you for the comments on No.8.

    I got an e-mail from MidwayUSA saying they have No.9. This is why I posted.

    :)
     
  5. Kwesi

    Kwesi

    1,459
    7
    Sep 23, 2006
    TX
    I've got #3 but with 1980 copyright that is pretty limited on powders.
     
  6. WiskyT

    WiskyT Malcontent

    11,682
    1
    Jun 12, 2002
    North Carolina
    Unique, Bullseye, and 2400, what else is there?
     
  7. JBnTX

    JBnTX Texas

    19,747
    3,821
    Aug 28, 2008
    Texas
    I ordered one from Midway.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2012
  8. ron59

    ron59 Bustin Caps

    6,927
    20
    Jan 3, 2009
    Smyrna, GA
    I don't bother with buying loading books.

    I go to the powder manufacturer's website. They give LOTS of load data.
    I use that as a guideline, then look here or Enos for more info maybe for a particular bullet type.

    Start low, work up (ideally with a chrono)... $20 or $30 or more for load book? No thanks.

    I know that's not a popular answer, but at LEAST for 9mm stuff it's worked fine. I've used Solo 1000, WSF, TiteGroup, and VVN320, and have used 3 different bullets (Montana Gold, Precision Delta, and now Bear Creek molys). No problems.
     
  9. shotgunred

    shotgunred local trouble maker

    8,744
    969
    Mar 1, 2008
    Washington (the state)
    SO so many good powders and a few bad ones.
     
  10. noylj

    noylj

    389
    16
    Jul 20, 2010
    Alliant powders are all you need.
    Some love their "boutique" powders or powders de jure.
    I prefer 231/HP38 and AA2 over Bullseye and think Solo 1000 is a very promising powder (if it isn't eliminated), but wouldn't ever insult someone else's choice unless it was dangerous.
    Too many reloaders currently judge powders by how "clean" they are and not be accuracy on target.
    Since I fire at least 5000 rounds in my .45s between cleanings and have never had a failure related to dirty guns, I see no reason to be obsessed with cleanliness. However, we all choose a powder for our own reasons.
    I found Hornady #8 to be excellent for load data with newer powders. This is the big draw for a new manual. #9 should include many of the newest powders de jure--maybe even Superformance powder.
     
  11. hogfish

    hogfish Señor Member

    5,420
    511
    Aug 4, 2005
    fl
    Hi, again. I'd like to clear something up. When I wrote that I thought Hornady No.8 had bad reviews, I believe they were based on whether it was worth buying if you already had No.7. For example: I'd be disappointed if No.9 didn't have data for .338 RCM and Superformance powders.

    Thanks.
     
  12. Zombie Steve

    Zombie Steve Decap Pin Killa

    18,083
    18
    May 31, 2007
    Old Colorado City
    I have Hornady 7 and 8.

    I liked 8 better. Found 7 to be one of the most conservative in powder charges and optimistic in performance that I've ever seen.

    One thing I will say for anyone starting out, they have an excellent read on headspace and chamber pressures in the beginning of the book.


    The lead data is weak.


    What I'm really waiting for is Lyman #50. :cool:
     
  13. JBnTX

    JBnTX Texas

    19,747
    3,821
    Aug 28, 2008
    Texas


    :agree:...The Lyman Cast Book is my favorite load manual.
    I shoot lots of lead.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2012
  14. Kentguy

    Kentguy

    1,776
    116
    Nov 22, 2010
    Kent, OH
    Zombie Steve & JPnTX,

    I agree, I have the Lyman 49th edition and wouldn't hesitate to buy the 50th when (if) it comes out. :thumbsup:

    Sources like "Loadbooks" & "LEE" (which I have both) are a compilation of sources not necessarily their own test data. Still IMO when it comes to load data - the more the merrier. The only thing I would like to see from Hornady is more types/data on lead rounds. I know their specialty is jacketed bullets however it would be nice if they would expand that in their 9th Edition.
     
  15. fredj338

    fredj338

    21,709
    926
    Dec 22, 2004
    so.cal.
    Which is why it's good to have current manuals WT. New powders, new calibers, nice to stay current. Old books are for old powders, so I do keep all mine. Hornady seems to publish more than others so I do skip every other one. COunting on just the powder manuf sites is a mistake IMO, but they are useful for cross ref.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2012