First time loading my own amoo... Ever! 44 magnum. Advice needed.

[RC20]

I will look at my logs but I think my practice 41 mag loads are Unique.

Higher end I liked Herc 2400 but that may be dated (I still have it and use it though)

[mellow_c]

Thanks for the information about overall length regarding 44 specials and 44 mag. Sounds like I can just use 44 special loading data but still use 44 magnum overall length in regards to a specific bullet and then be just fine.

My reason for using jacketed bullets was for ease of cleaning more than anything. But is the cost savings when using lead bullets worth it? Not that cleaning lead out of the bore is so terribly difficult.

Where is the cheapest place to buy bullets? Or any good recommendation.


I’m not sure how I will end up dispensing powder. Dipper, dispenser, maybe a trickier as well??? I could see bigger grains of the Unique powder being more difficult to work with if I using a dispenser and I don’t check each powder charge with a scale.

I like the idea of buying a powder that I can purchase locally from a Sportsman’s Warehouse. Something that would be versatile enough to use to load 38 special, 357 mag, 44 special, 44 mag, and maybe even 45 acp eventually. Also a type that would have easily available load data that will work with a variety of bullet weights. Again, just so I have something safe, effective, clean, and versatile.

[mikld]

I started measuring powder with a dipper, a beam scale and a teaspoon (for trickling). Next purchase was an RCBS trickler. This worked well for me for about a year. Next was a Lee Perfect Powder Measure (and despite all the Lee Haters, I could hold less than 1 grain of variation when dispensing W231. Other powders while not quite as easily metered, got very good results too). My PPM is just as accurate and repeatable as my $$ C-H 502 powder measure.

One key to working with powder with dippers, tricklers, powder measures, etc., is consistent use. Every powder charge, either dipped or "thrown" (powder measure) needs to be done as close the the same as possible every time. A dipper should be dipped the same way, same speed, same pressure every time. Same with powder measures, same every time. If you bump the handle at the ends of the travel, run the handle slow, whatever, do it the exact same every time...

[F. Guffey]

One key to working with powder with dippers, tricklers, powder measures, etc., is consistent use. Every powder charge, either dipped or "thrown" (powder measure) needs to be done as close the same as possible every time. A dipper should be dipped the same way, same speed, same pressure every time. Same with powder measures, same every time. If you bump the handle at the ends of the travel, run the handle slow, whatever, do it the exact same every time...

I am beginning to believe adding instruction to the box when packed is a waste of time, effort and paper. I have 3 sets of Lee dippers is red, another set is yellow and the other is black. In the beginning, R. Lee talked about how scientific his dippers were and that was 'by design'.

And then there is the 'very' remote chance I am the only reloaders that received the instruction describing the science that went into his dippers.

F. Guffey

[Jim Watson]

I have the black set, apparently graduated in fractional cubic inches, and a couple of yellow dippers graduated in cubic centimeters. Don't know about the red.

[Unclenick]

Just multiply the cubic inch number on the old ones by 16.387 to get cc's, and vice versa. I think the red ones were also cubic inches. Where are the darn drams when you want them? Multiply cubic inches by 4.4329.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by mellow c

Thanks for the information about overall length regarding 44 specials and 44 mag. Sounds like I can just use 44 special loading data but still use 44 magnum overall length in regards to a specific bullet and then be just fine.

No, you can't. The .44 Magnum case is larger in volume than the .44 Special because of the added length. That means a load recipe for a .44 Special will generate less pressure and less velocity if loaded in a .44 Magnum cartridge. Depending on which powder you choose and just how little case volume will be occupied by powder, there is the possibility that this may result in issues other than unexpectedly low velocity.

• If the powder is sensitive to position within the case, in addition to being low your velocities may be extremely erratic.
• I have never encountered it, but some powders reportedly don't behave well when too little powder is used in a large case. The primer flame overshoots the powder charge and then somehow doubles back, creating more of an explosion than a rapid burning. (Hopefully UncleNick can expound on this more knowledgeably.)

The bottom line is, if you want to load using .44 Special data, use .44 Special cases. If you want to load using .44 Magnum cases, use .44 Magnum data and look for light loads for .44 magnum.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by F. Guffey

I am beginning to believe adding instruction to the box when packed is a waste of time, effort and paper. I have 3 sets of Lee dippers is red, another set is yellow and the other is black. In the beginning R. Lee talked about how scientific his dippers were and that was 'by design'.

And then there is the 'very' remove chance I am the only reloaders that received the instruction describing the science that went into his dippers.

I have a full set of Lee's yellow dippers somewhere. I have never used them and I can't remember why I bought them. Lee (the father) claimed that measuring by volume rather than by weight is the ONLY proper way to measure powder charges. That's an extraordinarily silly claim to make, of course, because even if you carefully try to scrape the top of each dipper flush after dipping, it's almost guaranteed that there will be some variation from one dipper to the next. Since we're after consistency, variation is not good.

That said, ALL powder dispensers meter the powder by volume. It doesn't matter if it's Lee's Autodisk, Lee's Perfect Powder Measure, Hornady's Lock-N-Load Powder Measure, Dillon's RL 550/XL650 powder measure, or any other. If you're not trickling the powder into a pan on the scale, you're dispensing by volume. Some powder measures seem to me more consistent than others, and most are more consistent with some powders than they are with others.

The energy in gunpowder is related to the quantity of powder, and that is most accurately measured by weight, not volume. For Dick Lee to claim that the dippers are in some way "scientific" is (IMHO) nothing more than marketing hyperbole. I don't say that as a Lee detractor -- my presses are Lee, and all my dies except one old set of Lyman .38 Special dies are Lee. Their products work, but that doesn't mean I have to believe the hype.

[Unclenick]

AB,

Go back and read my post about the special circumstance of the 44 Mag. Even though the case is longer, the max COL is actually slightly shorter than the 44 Special (1.610" vs 1.615"), so if you seat the bullet to max COL in both cases, you end up with essentially the same powder space, just very slightly less in the 44 Mag case. That doesn't happen if you use the same bullet with the same crimp cannelure in both cases, but a number of bullets are made with two crimp cannelures just for this reason; the lower one for 44 Special, which has a maximum bullet protrusion beyond the case mouth of 0.455", and the one nearer the nose for 44 Magnum, which has a maximum bullet protrusion beyond the case mouth of 0.325" (though there are dual crimp grooves for different pairings, as well, so look closely). That difference covers the 0.125" case length difference with 0.005" to spare.

One way to shoot 44 Special-only bullets in the 44 Magnum is to use the relatively new Lee Collet Style Crimp Die for the 44 Magnum. It will provide adequate crimp whether the bullet comes with the right crimp groove or not.

[mikld]

Red, yellow, black, just use the included chart (my yellow dippers came with a slide rule type charge chart). CCs, or CI makes no difference if you just use the chart (instructions). I used dippers for a while and with practice, and when I was on a roll, I was able to keep powder charges very close, some powders to about 1 grain. I've been reloading for quite a while and I have seen no reloading manual that published load data by volume, just weight, so I never payed any attention to the volume vs. weight debate...

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Unclenick

Even though the case is longer, the max COL is actually slightly shorter than the 44 Special (1.610" vs 1.615"), so if you seat the bullet to max COL in both cases, you end up with essentially the same powder space, just very slightly less in the 44 Mag case.

That's true, but it's comparing apples to pomegranates. The SAAMI spec for .44 Special COAL is 1.415" to 1.615". The COAL for the .44 magnum is 1.535" to 1.610". BUT -- the SAAMI dimensions are predicated on a round-nose bullet for the .44 Special, compared to a flat nose, semi-wadcutter style bullet for the .44 Magnum.

[F. Guffey]

Red, yellow, black, just use the included chart (my yellow dippers came with a slide rule type charge chart).

Mikld, R. Lee used a business card to rake the dipper for accuracy, he claimed he developed loads for a customer using dippers, after testing the loads he returned to the shop to weigh the powder weight in grains.

I also have the slide chart. And then there is the belief the dipper is a one dipper full load without starting load and no maximum. R. Lee claimed his dippers were designed for precision.

F. Guffey

[mikld]

FWIW; I started reloading for revolvers in '69, and specifically for the 44 Magnum in '87. Every bullet I used was seated to the crimp groove or cannalure and I disregarded book OAL. In the tens of thousands of revolver rounds I've loaded and fired, never a problem...

[Unclenick]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

That's true, but it's comparing apples to pomegranates. The SAAMI spec for .44 Special COAL is 1.415" to 1.615". The COAL for the .44 magnum is 1.535" to 1.610". BUT -- the SAAMI dimensions are predicated on a round-nose bullet for the .44 Special, compared to a flat nose, semi-wadcutter style bullet for the .44 Magnum.

Yes, but the premise is the OP is moving the same bullet to the longer Magnum case and was using the SAAMI max COL in both instances. So as long as he sticks with that or at least uses the same COL in both, what I described will apply. Where the choice goes away is when loading the same bullet to the same crimp groove in the different length cases. Then what you said about powder space becomes true and, if it is a bullet whose crimp groove is intended for 44 Special at max COL in that cartridge, the COL in the magnum case will exceed the SAAMI maximum and grow to the length of the cylinder in a Redhawk.

[mellow_c]

Thanks everyone for more of your experiences and opinions.

Uncle nick and AB, now I have another question!

Based on the idea that I could load a 44 magnum case with a powder charge recommended for 44 special, so long as I crimp the case to the bullet at the cannelure closet to the nose of the bullet (which would be following a recommended COAL for 44 magnum) thereby creating a similarly equal sized space inside the case for the powder to create a similar pressure... then wouldn’t that completed cartridge fit into a 44 special only chamber??? I mean if the COAL of a 44 magnum can fall within the same measurements as COAL for 44 special wouldn’t that mean you could potentially fit a magnum cartridge in a special chamber?

Obviously I’m thinking about how I’ve heard that when the 357 magnum was developed it was originally in 38 special length cases but when commercial production of the round began, the 357 magnum cases were made longer so that they would not be able to fit in the old 38 special chambers, to keep people from accidentally firing them in their 38 special firearms.

I could still use a good recommendation for a place to get cheap jacketed bullets

[F. Guffey]

The energy in gunpowder is related to the quantity of powder, and that is most accurately measured by weight, not volume. For Dick Lee to claim that the dippers are in some way "scientific" is (IMHO) nothing more than marketing hyperbole. I don't say that as a Lee detractor --

I don't say that as a Lee detractor

You could be accused of not knowing 'dipper' about Lee.

I have a full set of Lee's yellow dippers somewhere. I have never used them and I can't remember why I bought them. Lee (the father) claimed that measuring by volume rather than by weight is the ONLY proper way to measure powder charges. That's an extraordinarily silly claim to make, of course, because even if you carefully try to scrape the top of each dipper flush after dipping, it's almost guaranteed that there will be some variation from one dipper to the next. Since we're after consistency, variation is not good.

Lee published a book on modern reloading; reminds me of a post card, the illustration depicted a lady and a cowboy with the caption: "I can tell by the way you are dressed you are a cowboy". I can tell by the way reloaders describe Lee dippers they never read R. Lee's book on 'MODERN RELOADING'.

I said he said the dippers were scientific. No one ask, "WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?" There is something about the tapper that reloaders can not get their minds around. How does the reloader get a tapper with a Lee dipper? Don't rake the top of the dipper with your 'favorite' card.

F. Guffey

[Unclenick]

Originally Posted by mellowc

... then wouldn’t that completed cartridge fit into a 44 special only chamber?

No. In principle, a metallic cartridge revolver chamber is wide enough for the case only for the length of the case, and then it tapers down toward bullet diameter. The fact the 44 Magnum case is an eighth of an inch longer than the 44 Special case means that if you try to chamber it in a 44 Special it jams against the taper of the throat before it goes all the way in. As a result, you won't be able to close the cylinder (or advance to the next chamber in gate-loaded SA revolver) of a 44 Special if you try to force the magnum cases into it. This is the whole reason the 44 Magnum case is longer than a 44 Special case. It prevents the higher pressure round from fitting into a 44 Special chamber.


Mr. Guffey,

Do you mean the taper (conical section) in the dipper hole? There is a tapper on the Lyman #55 measure (the door knocker on it). The reason for clarifying the spelling is some readers could get the funny idea that it is good to tap the dipper with a tapper of some kind, which those of us who have used them know is not so.

I admit I always assumed the taper in the dippers was just a mold release draft angle. It didn't occur to me Lee was controlling how uniformly it filled. I wonder why he didn't also go to a hemispherical bottom to eliminate corner packing variation?


AB,

The argument about weighed vs. volumetrically dispensed charges is not trivial to resolve. I know Mr. Guffey eschews references to Hatcher, but in this instance, there is a useful one. In working up the load for National match ammunition one year (1927?), he had two powders he said had about the same burn rate as modern IMR 4320. One was a coarse, long-grain stick powder the Frankford Arsenal loading equipment's volumetric powder measures could only throw to within a weight span of 1.7 grains (±0.85 grains), and the other was a shorter grain powder the arsenal powder measures could throw within a 0.6-grain span (±0.3 grains). But the coarse grain loads proved to be consistently more accurate in a machine rest gun and became the load for that year's NM ammunition and several records were set with it at Camp Perry.

If you are weight-only oriented, you tend to assume uniform weight dispensing will inevitably produce the most accurate loads. But it doesn't always. This can happen because how a powder packs into a case affects how easily the flame front propagates through the grains, changing its ignition rate which, practically speaking, is like changing the burn rate. The other reason is powder picks up as much as 1.5% water weight in high RH. When you weigh powder, you don't know how much of that weight is water as compared to the last loading session unless you store it in constant RH.

The reason we use charge weight to calibrate what volume to set a powder measure to rather than a volume to calibrate what charge weight to use is the 1.5% water weight variability is smaller than powder bulk density variation, which can approach 6% from one lot to the next in some powders. So weight is the less variable of the two for establishing how much stored chemical energy you are putting in the case at the start of load workup.

Another variable: one thing the Norma load manual points out is that powder burn rate varies with that water content. They said desiccated powder (effectively 0% RH storage) has about 12% higher burn rate than the same powder stored at 80% RH will. Additionally, if you move a loaded cartridge to a different RH ambient condition, water molecules are so small they gradually work their way between the surface imperfections of the brass and bullet and primer and about 1 year later the powder inside has the same moisture content as if it had been stored in the new RH conditions.

A couple of takeaways from that are: If you don't keep your powder in the same RH the maker did when developing his load manual, your results will mismatch. For Norma that is around 50% RH. For Hodgdon, it is around 70%, IIRC. This is another factor in why load manuals differ from one another. But rather than try to copy a storage condition, it is wiser for the handloader to just work up loads with powder that matches his conditions, and not sweat this detail too much.

Another takeaway is don't store ammunition or powder in sealed containers with desiccants. Keep them at a reasonable RH you can maintain. Don't transport them from a high RH environment to a low RH environment and expect them to keep shooting the same months later.

Another takeaway is to use weight initially to calibrate your powder measure, but then work the load up to a sweet spot for that lot of powder in your RH environment and expect it may be different in the next lot.

If you are going to dispense by weight only, also keep the powder in RH conditions that are consistent within a 10% span and also find a way to put the powder in your cases that produces consistent packing. Pouring it from a weighing pan into the wall of a funnel at the same angle every time and letting it fall down the same length of drop tube every time will tend to keep packing consistent which should minimize shot-to-shot variation.

Sometimes things defy easy explanation. Try both weighed and volumetric dispensing with each load you develop to see which one gives you the best range results. Don't just assume actual performance will reflect what you think should happen. You may well find some gun and cartridge and powder combinations like being weighed better and some like being dropped from a measure better.

A technique I have tried for working around the above and have yet to identify a problem with is to tare a scale with a primed case, dispense most of the powder charge into it from a powder measure, set it back on the scale and trickle the rest directly into the case mouth until you see the right charge weight. This way you get both volumetric and weighed dispensing at the same time, working around your load combination's preference for one or the other.

[F. Guffey]

Mr. Guffey,

Do you mean the taper (conical section) in the dipper hole? There is a tapper on the Lyman #55 measure (the door knocker on it). The reason for clarifying the spelling is some readers could get the funny idea that it is good to tap the dipper with a tapper of some kind, which those of us who have used them know is not so.

I admit I always assumed the taper in the dippers was just a mold release draft angle. It didn't occur to me Lee was controlling how uniformly it filled. I wonder why he didn't also go to a hemispherical bottom to eliminate corner packing variation?

I have no ideal how it becomes something I meant. Lee was very pleased with his dippers, a lot of his effort was wasted on reloaders. WHY? It is not possible to get them to read.

Raking the dipper with a 'BUSINESS CARD" was a starting load, no one ever ask about maximum loads. The unappreciated effort on Lee's part was there was no way a reloader could start with the correct dipper for a starting load and finish with an overcharge. the 'magic' was in the diameter and tapper of the powder stacked above the dipper. He had it worked out where it was not possible to get one grain of powder to be supported by the tapper.

Anyhow, I was impressed.

F. Guffey

[Unclenick]

It was your use of "tapper" that I was concerned would confuse some into thinking they should tap the dipper. Taper rhymes with paper. When you use two p's you have tapper which rhymes with snapper.

I don't usually mention the odd misspelling, but in this case the non-cognoscenti might misinterpret. I also didn't catch that you were meaning the taper of the powder heap on top of the dipper. I wonder how consistent Lee thought different hands would get it?

"...While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
“’Tis some visitor,” I muttered, “tapping at my chamber door—
Only this and nothing more.”..."

E.A. Poe

[F. Guffey]

I wonder how consistent Lee thought different hands would get it?

In his efforts all he could do was protect the reloader from himself. If the reloader raked the top of the correct dipper with the correct powder he was achieving a starting load. If the reloader went for maximum the maximum load with the came powder and same dipper there was no way he could overcharge the case. The powder cone above the dipper would not allow it. In his thinking the diameter of the dipper controlled the amount of powder in the cone.

And then there were reloaders with a few shop skills, some of them made their own dippers complete with handles. For those with steady hands it was possible to pour the maximum charge of powder from a Lee dipper into a case and then trim the case length for 'raking for maximum load'.

And I agree with you, I can see some reloaders banging the dipper on the rim of something to settle and lever the powder.

F. Guffey

[Unclenick]

Yes, alas. I think Winston Churchill¹ is usually credited with saying,

"I doesn't take all kinds, there merely are all kinds."

The guys tapping a dipper would have to be numbered among them.

I've made dippers from .22 rimfire cases and soldered handles onto them before and trimmed them to dip really small charges for .32 ACP. It seemed to work just fine. The only additional modification was I added a few drops of a really thick epoxy resin (decoupage resin) in the bottom to both fill the rim to avoid trapping powder there and to slightly round the bottom of the dipper a to improve consistency.


¹This site disagrees with the attribution and words it a little differently. But I've also heard it attributed to still older sources. It's possible more than one person thought of it over time.

[mikld]

I'm sensing a bit of confusion. If you are going to try the "Special loads in Magnum brass" route, think of it as this; you will be lading a 44 Magnum case with light loads. But the loads you get from your manual will come from the 44 Special section. Period. You are loading 44 Magnum. Your choice of loads comes from 44 Special data. Whatever methods you choose as in seating, crimping, OAL are all for the 44 Magnum...

K.I.S.S.

[mellow_c]

Thanks everyone.

Thanks Unclenick

Thanks mikld

!

[Unclenick]

Mikld,

Yep, that's exactly the proposition. Light 44 Mag loads by using 44 Special data.

[RC20]

And thank you mellow C. I got a real education in several areas over this discussion.

Unclenick as usual has an enormous amount of info. I think we need to have the Borg assimilate him so we don't loose it (we won't ask him of course, he and John Louque (sp) just have to live with it for our benefit!

Its only fair, I continue to beat my head against a drop working better than weight.

Shouldn't the span of the larger variation be cut in half, centered up and weight it to that and be as or more accurate?