Reloading data...

[Jim Puke]

First let me apologize for the picture...cannot figure out why either my phone or photobucket is turning pics like this and will not allow me rotate them...IDK what the problem is.

Anyway, check this Unique data for the Lyman 429421 bullet...this max load appears to be off the charts as compared to other manuals. Starting load is 9.8grs and Max load is a whopping 13.0grs.

This data came from the Lyman 3rd Edition Pistol and Revolver Handbook copyright 2004.

 

[Chief 101]

I have that mold and over the years I have used a 12gr. loading as a mid range Badger hunting load...13gr. is not out of the question...not a lot of my books have hardcast bullet data included, but, and old Speer book has a similar loading of Unique for a jacketed bullet...it seems like a perfectly normal max loading of Unique to me...

 

[Jim Puke]

I have that mold and over the years I have used a 12gr. loading as a mid range Badger hunting load...13gr. is not out of the question...not a lot of my books have hardcast bullet data included, but, and old Speer book has a similar loading of Unique for a jacketed bullet...it seems like a perfectly normal max loading of Unique to me...

I have cast and loaded thousands of the 429421...it is the only 44 bullet that I cast. This Lyman manual load is at least 1gr over the max load in any other manual that I have...old or new. I have loaded up to 12grs...but that is my limit...I will leave the 13grs to others.

 

[Jimbo357mag]

If you are going for max pressure and velocity I would not be using Unique.

 

[Jim Puke]

If you are going for max pressure and velocity I would not be using Unique.

I am not...what would make you think that?

I was just looking at this load in the book because I shoot Unique from 10-12grs for the mag.

If I want horsepower, H110, 296, 2400 or 4227 is the place to find that.

 

[Mtneer]

I have that mold and over the years I have used a 12gr. loading as a mid range Badger hunting load...13gr. is not out of the question...not a lot of my books have hardcast bullet data included, but, and old Speer book has a similar loading of Unique for a jacketed bullet...it seems like a perfectly normal max loading of Unique to me...

I have cast and loaded thousands of the 429421...it is the only 44 bullet that I cast. This Lyman manual load is at least 1gr over the max load in any other manual that I have...old or new. I have loaded up to 12grs...but that is my limit...I will leave the 13grs to others.

Yeah, 13grs of Unique behind a 429421 sounds kind of weird to me too seeing as how I've read about a hundred times on these internet forums that loading manuals are becoming more and more "lawyer proof." Yet I have the exact same "Lyman Pistol & Revolver Handbook," copywrite 2004 that lists, just as Jim Luke says, a maximum load of 13grs of Unique behind a Lyman 429421, but I also have a "Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook" copywrite 1973 sitting in front of me that lists a maximum load of only 12grs of Unique behind a Lyman 429421.
I personally like 10grs of Unique behind a Lyman 429421 in my .44 Magnums. It's a real good, light to medium load that has snipped the head off many a Blue Grouse and punched holes in many a tin can. Besides, the Lyman 429421 and the Lyman 358429 are my two favorite bullets to cast.

 

[Rook]

Here it is right side up.

 

[pruger45]

I use 10 grs. with Elmer's bullet for my mid-range 44 mag. loads. The latest Lyman Cast bullet handbook lists the same 13 grs. of Unique as max also.

 

[WIL TERRY]

ARE WE TO ASSUME the cartridge involved is the 44MAGNUM? IF SO, that data is not out of line and we ran it on a pressure gun any years ago. HERCO worked up there mighty fine too.
And so it goes..

 

[Chief 101]

you did notice that they recommended 2400 powder for the best choice here...besides Unique, they showed that you could use a few other powders that are also not the best choices...I just don't see a problem here, all this data is information

 

[Jim Puke]

you did notice that they recommended 2400 powder for the best choice here...besides Unique, they showed that you could use a few other powders that are also not the best choices...I just don't see a problem here, all this data is information

Do you notice that I was just pointing out the difference in the data...I made no mention of planning to use 13grs of Unique. Unique is NOT my choice for seeking maximum performance from 44 magnum rounds. I am not a newbie to reloading...and I understand that a loading manual is for information. BUT, I just happened to notice that this information is out of the ordinary.

 

[gster]

This pic. is from my Lymans 4th. copyrighted 2010. Yes, it is for .44 mag.

 

[NikA]

Didn't Unique get reformulated in the past 10 or so years to be "cleaner"? If so, could the differences in the loading manuals be due to the reformulation? The other alternative is a change in the test method that revealed lower than previously estimated pressures for a more powerful load (i.e., change from CUP to direct PSI measurement)

 

[mikld]

I don't see what all the fuss is about. The OP made an observation the 13.0 seemed pretty hot to him. Personally, if I ever wanted to drive my 429421s up to max. I would trust my manual before I would forum members (no offence fellers!)...

 

[Mtneer]

you did notice that they recommended 2400 powder for the best choice here...besides Unique, they showed that you could use a few other powders that are also not the best choices...I just don't see a problem here, all this data is information

Do you notice that I was just pointing out the difference in the data...I made no mention of planning to use 13grs of Unique. Unique is NOT my choice for seeking maximum performance from 44 magnum rounds. I am not a newbie to reloading...and I understand that a loading manual is for information. BUT, I just happened to notice that this information is out of the ordinary.

I get it Jim. The information in the Lyman Third Edition Pistol & Revolver Handbook is just "out of the ordinary" - not necessarily wrong.
I'm not a newbie to reloading either. And Unique certainly wouldn't be my choice for maximum performance 44 magnum rounds either. As a matter of fact, I've loaded tens of thousands (literally) of "maximum performance" metallic silhouette 44 magnum rounds using 2400.
But back to the subject of the information in the newer Lyman Pistol & Revolver Handbook being "out of the ordinary," NikA, in a later post in this thread, might just have the answer - I too have read Unique has been reformulated in the last 10 years or so to make it cleaner burning. I have no reason, nor do I have any desire to try it, but it's plausible that when using the "new" Unique, 13grs behind the great Lyman 429421 bullet in a 44 magnum is just fine.

 

[NikA]

Isn't the SAAMI limit for .44M 40k CUP? The loads listed are hot, but not that hot, which suggests to me that maybe the difference is a bullet performance consideration? Do the other manuals spec the lead composition/hardness like Lyman does?
Alliant's own data for the 250gr Keith bullet shows 11gr giving better than 1200fps, same OAL, 7.5" test bbl. Lyman's ~1150fps at 13gr seems inconsistent by that measure.

 

[mikld]

I don't see what all the fuss is about. The OP mad an observation the 13.0 seemed pretty hot to him. Personally, if I ever wanted to drive my 429421s up to max. I would trust my manual before I would forum members (no offence fellers!)...

I'm surprised (as a newbie) to hear some saying this is just information.

I thought due to pressure dangers etc. this stuff is 'the law' and is not to be screwed with.

The "fuss" was about the reactions and recommendations for a simple post about how high the OP considered a specific load. Just his observation. Nowhere did he state he was loading with that data.

Reloading manual data is not hard and fast formula. Manuals merely report the results of what their lab technicians found using their specific lot of powder, in their particular cases, with their particular lot of primers, loaded with their particular lot of bullets (yes bullets can vary lot to lot), tested on their equipment on a specific day/time. It is just information.

Reloading safely take a bit of logic (brains) and common sense, and the ability to follow directions. If one chooses, haphazardly, to start reloading with maximum recommended loads, then he should expect hazardous conclusions. The manuals are "suggestions" using the data the lab personnel found.

But to expand on my statement; I pay very little (no) attention to any forum expert, pet loads web site, gun counter clerk, range rat or gun shop guru for any loading data (powder charges). I get 95% of my data from published manuals (and normally start loads for a new to me cartridge at "starting load" levels). I have obtained data from powder manufacturer's web sites and only one cartridge data from an on line source (Garand load data). Works for me for mebbe 30 years.

G slow, double check everything, and most important, have fun...

 

[Jimbo357mag]

Reloading manual data is not hard and fast formula. Manuals merely report the results of what their lab technicians found using their specific lot of powder, in their particular cases, with their particular lot of primers, loaded with their particular lot of bullets (yes bullets can vary lot to lot), tested on their equipment on a specific day/time. It is just information.

Yep, exactly. Lyman is a reloading equipment company. That is why we compare data from various sources. I like to use the powder manufacture's latest online data with a known bullet. Cast bullets can vary a lot. Linotype bullets are very hard. If you notice on the Alliant website it recommends 11.0 grains of Unique with a 250gr (Keith type) bullet at 1211 fps. They don't give min and max numbers or pressures.

http://www.alliantpowder.com/reloaders/recipedetail.aspx?gtypeid=1&weight=250&shellid=33&bulletid=47

 

[Rclark]

Seems high to me ... but that is because, I was getting stuck cases as 12.0g under a 240g bullet back when. Now when using Unique 10.0g is what I use, and go to 2400 for anything warmer.

 

[Rick Courtright]

Hi,

Another observation about the bullet: what are YOUR 429421s weighing out at? That picture of Jim's book shows a 245 gr weight. I don't use that bullet, but a buddy says his 429421s come in about 10+ grains over that figure, using straight wheelweights IIRC. That could make a difference in the powder charge quite understandable...

Rick C

 

[Mtneer]

Hi,

Another observation about the bullet: what are YOUR 429421s weighing out at? That picture of Jim's book shows a 245 gr weight. I don't use that bullet, but a buddy says his 429421s come in about 10+ grains over that figure, using straight wheelweights IIRC. That could make a difference in the powder charge quite understandable...

Rick C

Possibly, but I cast my 429421s out of pure linotype, and every one that doesn't weigh 250grs (+ or - .5 grs) goes back in the scrap bullet pile to be melted down and recast. I've found that casting temperatures, both of the mold and the alloy, makes a difference how much the cooled bullets from a particular mold are going to weigh.

 

[gtxmonte]

You guys get too hung up on Grains of powder...........how about look at what matters, which is the C.U.P. That load is not near the highest on the chart.

I have about 20 manuals, dating from the 50s to current. I have a couple old Hornady manuals that list 13.2 as a max load for that bullet...............so I guess that's REALLY out of the ordinary.

Some guys are the book, the book, the book and don't DARE stray from the BOOK......except in some cases, the BOOK has GOT to be wrong, because that can't be right. Well make up your minds. And unless you HAVE pressure testing equipment in your basement, how could you possibly proclaim something is wrong?.......answer, you cant

 

[Mtneer]

You guys get too hung up on Grains of powder...........how about look at what matters, which is the C.U.P. That load is not near the highest on the chart.

I have about 20 manuals, dating from the 50s to current. I have a couple old Hornady manuals that list 13.2 as a max load for that bullet...............so I guess that's REALLY out of the ordinary.

Some guys are the book, the book, the book and don't DARE stray from the BOOK......except in some cases, the BOOK has GOT to be wrong, because that can't be right. Well make up your minds. And unless you HAVE pressure testing equipment in your basement, how could you possibly proclaim something is wrong?.......answer, you cant

Gotta agree with you gtxmonte - in reality, it's the C.U.P. that matters, not the grains of powder. Besides, it's just conversation on an internet message board. Nothing for anyone to get their panties in a wad about. :lol:

 

[gtxmonte]

Oh I know that. I have been handloading for 40+ years. I have MANY loads that are not "book" loads and well above published data. Why?......because I have been doing it a LONG time and KNOW what I am doing and so do MANY others. As with any published data, the manuals are "guidelines" and not the law. But when it comes up that somebody is at a max or above max loads........the "newbies" come out in force and tell us how stupid we are, should ALWAYS go by the "book" and are going to blow ourselves or guns up. When frankly, they have no idea what they are talking about. Many "new" manuals are "lawyered up" for lack of a better term and are not near what was published years ago. I know how to read pressure signs and have not blown up or damaged a gun EVER and doubt I will start now. Also not going to alter a "proven" load, because some new book now tells me it's not safe.

Also, different companies test different ways and have different equipment, so I certainly put no stock in their chronograph numbers. One says 1200 and another says 1160........so what. I would bet MY chrono doesn't agree with either of those numbers. So does that mean any of the 3 are wrong? No, it just means that's what those chronos read on those days, using those test pieces. I have rebarreled rifles with the same exact barrel it had and shot the same load it always has and chrono numbers be off by 100. What does that mean........not a thing because it's a different barrel and chamber

 

[Jim Puke]

You guys get too hung up on Grains of powder...........how about look at what matters, which is the C.U.P. That load is not near the highest on the chart.

I have about 20 manuals, dating from the 50s to current. I have a couple old Hornady manuals that list 13.2 as a max load for that bullet...............so I guess that's REALLY out of the ordinary.

Some guys are the book, the book, the book and don't DARE stray from the BOOK......except in some cases, the BOOK has GOT to be wrong, because that can't be right. Well make up your minds. And unless you HAVE pressure testing equipment in your basement, how could you possibly proclaim something is wrong?.......answer, you cant

Gotta agree with you gtxmonte - in reality, it's the C.U.P. that matters, not the grains of powder. Besides, it's just conversation on an internet message board. Nothing for anyone to get their panties in a wad about. :lol:

The reason people get caught up with the "grains" is because there is a direct correlation between grains and pressure. And, generally, it is widely assumed that pressure is the reason that manuals list a MAX load for a particular bullet/powder combination. So, when a max load is higher in one manual than is found in the vast majority of other manuals...there is absolutely nothing wrong with strongly considering the validity of that data. Also, it is widely known that with the vastly improved test equipment available today, testing has proven that many published loads of yesteryear produced excessive pressure and that data has been changed to reduce these levels of pressure...to a safer level. SO,just because it is listed in an "OLD" manual, that does not mean that it is safe.

gtxmonte, if you choose to follow data that is largely out of line with what is considered to be the mainstream of reputable reloading guidance...go right ahead. But, caveat emptor...

 

[gtxmonte]

You contradict yourself.............if its all about C.U.P. why is it that you never mentioned it, only the grains. Go back and look at what you posted. The load you are questioning, is only about the 4 or 5th highest C.U.P. listed. And if the load in question had not been tested with modern equipment, how could they have C.U.P. numbers on it?

And just because it is listed in an old manual and not a new one, does not automatically make it "unsafe" either.

Like I said, been doing this a LONG time.............I also cut the tags of my mattresses. So I guess I am just a non conformist and choose to form my own conclusions instead of taking everyones word for it.

Let me ask you there Jim. If you had been shooting the same load, in the same gun, for 30 years, thousands and thousands of rounds and then a "new" manual comes out and your load is now over max. Are you all of a sudden going to think wow, I am way overpressure, I better lower my load before I blow myself up...........probably not

 

[Jim Puke]

I have rebarreled rifles with the same exact barrel it had and shot the same load it always has and chrono numbers be off by 100. What does that mean........not a thing because it's a different barrel and chamber

This statement makes NO sense...how do you rebarrel a rifle with the SAME EXACT barrel? And, then say that it is a different barrel.

Some of us pay no attention to clowns that think they have the market cornered on all of the knowledge about reloading... just because they have been doing it all of their lives. Hell, a lot of us have been doing this most of our lives...you are not the only one.

You do your thing the way you want, I will do mine the way I want.

 

[gtxmonte]

You take a Shillen barrel off that is shot out and replace it with the same length and same twist Shillen barrel, shoot the same load and the chrono is different. It happens all the time. That means ALL test barrels will not produce the same numbers either. Who is to say that EVERY lab uses the same crimp. Does this not change the pressure? What about the throats, what about the cone, what about the chamber. Does not all this effect pressure? Yet you question how numbers can differ from tester to tester. Been doing this most of your life....how do you not know these things?

You didn't answer my question either.

Clown?............that's a little personal. There may be some clowns here, but it's not me. You follow the leader, you will always be behind. You think innovators like Elmer Keith, PO Ackley and any of the number of wildcatters got their information from a book. It's called "load development". You trust your knowledge and abilities and try and make something better. They didn't have the technology available to them we have today and they seemed to do just fine. You don't trust YOUR ability and totally rely on what some book tells you do, that's fine, but don't assume everybody else feels the same. So take your own advice and let people do what they want. YOU have no position to tell anyone they are wrong. lowegan just pointed out in a thread about the 7x57 that he felt the "published" loads were way too soft and he loaded stuff that was well over book data. Did you also call him a clown?

Let me make it PERFECTLY clear. I am NOT advocating that someone new to reloading stray from published data and strike out on their own...............but I also wouldn't tell somebody else what NOT to do either if I didn't have any FACTS to back it up

 

[Rick Courtright]

Clown?............that's a little personal. There may be some clowns here, but it's not me. You follow the leader, you will always be behind. You think innovators like Elmer Keith, PO Ackley and any of the number of wildcatters got their information from a book. It's called "load development". You trust your knowledge and abilities and try and make something better. They didn't have the technology available to them we have today and they seemed to do just fine. You don't trust YOUR ability and totally rely on what some book tells you do, that's fine, but don't assume everybody else feels the same. So take your own advice and let people do what they want. YOU have no position to tell anyone they are wrong. lowegan just pointed out in a thread about the 7x57 that he felt the "published" loads were way too soft and he loaded stuff that was well over book data. Did you also call him a clown?

Let me make it PERFECTLY clear. I am NOT advocating that someone new to reloading stray from published data and strike out on their own...............but I also wouldn't tell somebody else what NOT to do either if I didn't have any FACTS to back it up

Hi,

One of the most important things I've learned in a hair over 50 years of reloading:

"Reloading ain't no (whizz)in' contest!"

With thanks to one of my first bosses, who'd spent decades working for a major arms and ammunition company.

Rick C

 

[5of7]

I will say this much; every loading manual that I have ever used, stressed the doctrine of starting with the starting loads and then slowly work one's way up to the maximum.
I have found cases where a maximum load was too hot for my particular gun, and settled for a lighter powder charge.

There are too many variables to do otherwise. Burn rates vary a little from lot to lot, primers vary from lot to lot, cases vary from lot to lot and guns vary from gun to gun.

The result is that a load that might br too hot in one gun is fine and dandy in another gun of the same make and model.

That is just basic handloader 101 information. 8)