Lee 2nd edition 44 mag loadings wrong ?

G

georgiacatweazle

New member
i've recently been looking at reloading 44 mag and came across a bunch of people reloading around 8.5gr unique basically a 44 skeeter.

the unique powder charge listed in lyman verifies this, 8.5 sits between regular 44 special top end and 44 mag. i'm using magnum cases and 8.5 as a light target load.

the lee manual 2nd edition (p565) shows unique under a 240gr lead as 6.2gr to 7.0gr ?? how can this be right ?
 
A couple thoughts; First, forget "Celebrity Loads", and get your load data from a reloading manual (Pay no attention to any forum expert, range rat, gun counter clerk, pet loads web site, or gun shop guru for load data). I have a Lee manual but it is the last place I look for load data as I will use a Lyman manual for my lead bullet loads, and check my Nosler, Hornady, Speer, or Hogdgon manuals first. I have been reloading for over 30 years now for 11 calibers, and I still get good, safe, accurate loads from my manuals. I've not run out of combinations of components or loads yet, and I trust my guns, and fingers with the data from my manuals (can't say the same for forums or youtube). K.I.S.S. and stay safe; use published reloading manual data and after you gain experience, mebbe you can "fiddle" with powder charges or try "Celebrity" loads...

Go slow, double check everything, and most important, have fun! :D
 
i've recently been looking at reloading 44 mag and came across a bunch of people reloading around 8.5gr unique basically a 44 skeeter.

the unique powder charge listed in lyman verifies this, 8.5 sits between regular 44 special top end and 44 mag. i'm using magnum cases and 8.5 as a light target load.

the lee manual 2nd edition (p565) shows unique under a 240gr lead as 6.2gr to 7.0gr ?? how can this be right ?
Click to expand...

It is amazing how other members on this forum read between the lines and or fill in the blanks. Lee shows 6.2 Grains to 7 Grains with a 240 Grain bullet for a 44 Remington Mag?

While looking at reloading what plans do you have for the weight of the bullet and why wouldn't the pressure be less when using a 44 Remington case as opposed to a 44 Special case. The 44 Remington Mag case is going to produce less pressure because of the additional room (length).

F. Guffey
 
i actually found the initial 8.5gr loading from a set of forum posts about skeeter skelton and the 44 skeeter.
mostly i only ask forums about loadings when i have a bullet combo that isn't directly listed in my lyman. sometimes i see significant disparities between lyman and lee.
 
the lee manual 2nd edition (p565) shows unique under a 240gr lead as 6.2gr to 7.0gr ?? how can this be right ?
Click to expand...
The current Lee book uses current Alliant load data for Alliant powders, and they publish some screwy stuff. But the fault is Alliant's, not Lee's.

As we have noted in a different thread, 7.0g Unique is way way below maximum for a 240g bullet, but maybe they are just trying to show lower level loads for lead to reduce leading? But if you look at the data for a 240g plated Speer GDHP, they show 10.3g is the max, and VERY STRANGELY, they go all the way up to 11.0g as max for a 250g cast Keith-type bullet!
 
Lee shows 6.2 grains to 7 grains with a 240 grain CAST bullet for a 44 Remington Mag using Unique.
8.5 of Unique is UNDER minimum for a jacketed 240 according to Alliant. Under minimum loads can be as dangerous as over max. Causes weird pressures. Do not mix jacketed and cast data.
That is from Alliant. Like SHR970 says, Lee tests nothing themselves.
There's no such thing as a "44 skeeter" either. "Skeeter" Skelton used 7.5 grains of Unique with a 240 or 250 grain cast bullet in a .44 Special. Not a .44 Mag. And that load is over max with current powders.
 
Skeeter liked his loads hot, and Unique has been reformulated since Skeeter was shooting his hot loads.

i actually found the initial 8.5gr loading from a set of forum posts about skeeter skelton and the 44 skeeter.
Click to expand...

.....and this is why we confirm any load we get from a random poster on the internet with published recipes from legitimate sources. Anything else is just asking for problems.

Even published manuals disagree or give us confusing info, especially with min/max loads. What one needs to realize is the difference of components used, different ambient temps, different lot numbers of powder used and different platforms used to test the loads. Still most published loads will be safe in any modern firearm...kinda why they publish them, and give them to us to use. I always use at least three sources of tested and published recipes whenever I develop a new load. That way I can compare mins/maxs and stay away from either extreme. When I find common load ranges, I know I am safe and they are the best place to start. Because Lee is known for only plagiarizing other sources, I never even consider them, as I know it's just a duplication.
 
Georgiacatweazle,

Relax. Get a cup of coffee to sharpen your focus and concentration. Then go back to page 565 and slowly let your eyes drift up to the top, where you will find it says "38 Special".

When you get done smacking yourself in the head;), have a look at pate 648, where the 44 Magnum loads for this bullet are, and you will find it says 10.7 grains to start and 11.8 grains maximum for Unique. Mind you, that start load is for a fellow wanting to work toward maximum. It's not a minimum, as Unique can be loaded way down. 5.5-7 grains is probably a good target load range for it. If you are satisfied with 5.9 grains or less, it's a good safety level to use for target work, as an accidental double charge is then still with the upper limits set by Lee.

Lee lists no Unique loads for 44 Special (page 642).
 
Because Lee is known for only plagiarizing other sources, I never even consider them, as I know it's just a duplication.
Click to expand...
buck460XVR,
You unfairly malign Richard Lee and his Excellent book - his load data is NOT PLAGIARIZED, the data is used with permission. In fact, if you actually read his book you will find where he really wanted to include data from one major manufacturer but could not because they refused permission.

Unlike you, I almost always go to Lee's book FIRST, specifically because it is a compilation of data from many published sources, so I can get a good idea of starting points there. Some of the positive things about his data charts are that they are all layed out in a uniform way and the loads are sorted from most powerful to least, allowing you to quickly get a sense of good powders for a specific use vs poor choices. To me, this makes it a BETTER source than the originals! Then I refine my thoughts by checking other sources, both old and new, such as Lyman, Speer, Hornady, etc.
 
Last edited:
Unclenick, you are wrong here:
Relax. Get a cup of coffee to sharpen your focus and concentration. Then go back to page 565 and slowly let your eyes drift up to the top, where you will find it says "38 Special".
Click to expand...
I assume you simply have an older book. I cannot say for sure what exact version the OP has, but the 2014 reprint of the 2nd edition absolutely does have .44 Remington Magnum data on page 565.
 
buck460XVR,
You unfairly malign Richard Lee and his Excellent book - his load data is NOT PLAGERIZED, the data is used with permission.
Click to expand...

I never said it was PLAGERIZED, I said plagiarized, the definition of which is "copy from(someone) and pass it off as one's own." If one reads Lee's advertisement for it you see they tend to tell us it comes from their experience,

The Second Edition of MODERN RELOADING is a summary of a lifetime of experience. No matter how knowledgeable you are, you will find new and interesting information in this book. It's a reference book you will keep forever.

It's surprising the amount of folks that think Lee does their own testing and Lee is quite smug about dispelling that myth....to the tune of $31. Later on they tell us

This is the best kind of load data--it is supplied by the powder companies.....which we all know is generally available online for free. Again, duplication of something I already have available. I have no need. I do not need to pay $31 for them to format this free info. I do it myself at home for the calibers and loads I need. If it is your Bible, good for you. It's not for me, nor do I think taking other folk's work and wrapping it up in your paper makes for an excellent book. Kinda like regifting that infamous fruitcake.
 
Mauser69,

Thanks. Apologies to Georgiacatweazle.

That surprises me. My printing is a decade older than yours, but usually more material, not less, winds up in later editions. Maybe they changed the size of the type.

Can you verify the small charge weight number he has? My copies of both Lee's First Edition and Second Edition show 10.7-11.8 grains of Unique.
 
You are not going to believe this but I can pick members of reloading forums out of crowds. They have receding hair lines and shrugged shoulders.

F. Guffey
 
That surprises me. My printing is a decade older than yours, but usually more material, not less, winds up in later editions. Maybe they changed the size of the type.

Can you verify the small charge weight number he has? My copies of both Lee's First Edition and Second Edition show 10.7-11.8 grains of Unique.
Click to expand...
The load data referenced by the OP is correct from the current book, and it matches the screwy data in Alliant's current book - the load data was all updated in 2011, and any Unique data before that (certainly any in the First edition) is probably old Hercules data.
 
I know they changed Unique's formulation awhile back to make it burn "cleaner". It makes me wonder if anything else changed about it?
 
Speer and Alliant are the same outfit. Going by Speer 13 and Alliant's website now:
7.0 gr Unique for a 240 gr bullet. Alliant says cast, Speer shows that for the Speer swaged bullet. 10% lower for a starting load, round down to 6.2.
Both show 11.0 max for a 250 gr cast swc.
So, keep it between 6.2 and 11 grains, you should be OK. Pretty flexible combination.
 
I also use and like the Lee book.

Speaking of hair: A man that is bald in the front is a Thinker.

A man that is bald in the back is a Lover.

A man that is balk all the way from front to back, just thinks he is a Lover. :)
 
That is one reason we have multiple references. I have a bookshelf of them. Plus the internet, Taffin, Keith, Pearce, and many others as 'backup' to the data that I use....

We sure have some paranoid people here! I've been loading Unique for years. I really have not noticed anything different with it over the chronograph from the 80s forward.... So to me Unique is well ... Unique! True, I do suppose I haven't tested any from the early 1900s but ....

My goto to load is 10g of Unique under 240g SWC for .44 Mag. I've tested from 7.0g (~900fps load) to 10.0g (~1100fps load) out of 6 1/2" SBH. Need more velocity than that I move to 2400 powder. 8.5g does about match the Skeeter .44 Special load (7.5g of Unique) which is 'standard' load for me in in most all my .44 Specials (except for the Bulldog of course). You can load Unique all the way down until the bullet sticks in the barrel... Your choice. Won't hurt a thing. Not sure what the beef is above, but Unique has been around for a lot years before most of us (willing to bet most of us) were even born. Lots of good data out there for it and many with 'experience' with it over the years. There isn't anything new under the sun :rolleyes: as much as the skeptics and 'the sky is falling' crowd would like to think :) . Not rocket science at all ... Just some research and some common sense mixed in with experience gets you a loooong way in reloading... well life too for that matter ;) .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top