Lee 2nd edition 44 mag loadings wrong ?

[Unclenick]

Yeah. It's funny to see a jump down in published data like that. Makes you wonder if they experienced an anomaly. The powder was changed, but most makers try to keep a reformulation compatible with existing data for obvious liability reasons. The one exception I noticed was when Accurate Nitro 100's original manufacturing source ceased to be available. For a time, Accurate had only shotgun loads for the new stuff, renamed Nitro 100 NF, for New Formula, and they were waiting to develop pistol data with it and recommended not substituting it into old data until they had. Now comparing the 2016 pistol load data to the 2007 load data for the the original formulation, the maximum charges all seem to be around 18% reduced.

It will be interesting to see if Lyman or someone else testing pressure independently comes up with any change in the Unique maximums. As of the new Cast Bullet handbook, they had not. I have a strain gauge on an Encore barrel of mine in .44 Magnum. If I get a chance, I'll try to do a measurement of the new Unique with case bullets, but I'm busy enough at the moment that you shouldn't hold your breath waiting.

 

[Prof Young]

Dang I think . . .

Dang I think Guffey has spotted me.

I started with Lee and now have the second edition. I have another manual, that doesn't have as much load data as lee, the name of which escapes me a the moment. I also look at handloads.com.

I think best practice is to look at all your sources and compare data for same powders and bullets. Start with a near minimum load and work up from there. I'm not a pro at this and still have a lot to learn.

Live well, be safe
Prof Young

 

[mikld]

There is nothing wrong with publishing load data from other, reliable sources. The problem I had with my Lee manual is there were incomplete data, mostly lacking a variety of powders (one instance was I was looking for data for a specific bullet weight in .38 Special, and the manual only listed one powder manufacturer's powder for that bullet). Some of the other cartridges I load , the data was hit-or-miss, mostly lack of info for more than one powder. If I happened to have the components listed, the data is OK. I liked reading the "How To", of front section, but load data, for me and my reloads, is now found elsewhere in one of my other manuals.

 

[Mauser69]

It all depends on how old it is

The problem I had with my Lee manual is there were incomplete data, mostly lacking a variety of powders (one instance was I was looking for data for a specific bullet weight in .38 Special, and the manual only listed one powder manufacturer's powder for that bullet).

Well, that issue is no different than any other manual - it can only include the data that was available at the time of publishing. Every year that goes by means more and more component combinations will be missing from any older book (no matter who publishes it).

For example, even the long awaited and brand new Lyman 50th is missing significant new powder information, even for some powders that have been out for several years already and are being pushed heavily by the manufacturers. The most egregious (and the main reason I will not spend any money on the 50th), is the total lack of any BE-86 data. My 2014 reprint of Lee's book does not include BE-86 either, but that is quite understandable since the load data was last revised in 2011. But the new Lyman book is only months old!

The Lee book includes all load data published by almost all major powder manufacturers at the time of editing, so if something is not in there, it is because the POWDER COMPANY did not publish it at that time. Lee takes all that various powder data and reformats it to blend together in a single common format for each caliber, sorted by velocity within bullet type. Typically anything that is missing from the current Lee book can be found in more current published data from the powder companies or CURRENT manuals published by the bullet companies. The obvious difference is that the powder companies cover ALL their current powders, but only for limited specific bullets, where the bullet companies cover ALL their current bullets, but only with limited specific powders - that is why we check multiple sources!

I have lots of old manuals to which I still refer on a regular basis (and based on the 2011 editing date, even the newest Lee book is getting old). I find them very useful, and I have little interest in buying new editions of almost any of them. But all of us with experience in this hobby know that anyone with even moderate intelligence knows to cross check multiple sources, and to especially include at least one CURRENT source when looking at old data. I wanted the new Lyman book until I found out how much it was missing (now I'm sticking with the 46th!). I am quite certain I will buy the next edition of Lee's book whenever it finally shows. That is because it brings more current data togther in one place than any other source for which I am familiar.

 

[Clark]

15 years ago I found a mistake in Lee, where they were not the same as what they were copying. I contacted Lee and they said to use the original. I can't remember now, but I think it was because AA kept changing the recipe.