Choosing the starting load..

[BandeauRouge]

well i actually found the alliant manual with 9.8 grains Bullseye for a 240 grain cast bullet in the 44 magnum. The technicians at Alliant have already said the data is still safe to use when i asked last year.

The current alliant data for BE is max 6 grains with 240 speer swagged swc.

Considering that the older manuals were done with regular cast bullets, would 6 grains be a reasonably safe minimum START charge?

[HiBC]

You can load whatever you find as a published starting load.
Bullseye has a lot of fans. Its economical and is known for good accuracy.

That said, I'm not a fan of using Bullseye in a large case like the 44 Magnum.
Its not like I'm a ballistic authority. I've loaded and shot a lot of 44 Magnum.

Try this. Use UNPRIMED BRASS ,(Correction! Unprimed brass will leak powder,. I meant to say brass with fired primers. ) We want NO CHANCE these will get a bullet seated or that they will be fired. Take 20 pieces of brass. Charge 10 with a single charge of 5 gr of powder and randomly place them in your loading block.
Now charge 5 with a double charge. Like a shell game, set those randomly in your loading block. Now do a triple charge. 15 gr. Hide those in your block.

Move them around.Get yourself lost.

Do a visual check of powder level. Sort out the 5; from the 10's from the 15's.

Now imagine you have a full 50 rd block with one double charge. Yes,you do your visual check after charging. But its very easy to miss a double charge of Bullseye.

A double charge of Bullseye is likely to break something. Now,dump all the powder back in the only can of powder on your bench after you read "Bullseye" out loud,twice. Do that every time and you won't ever use the wrong powder.

I'd go with a slower burning powder.
I also like a bulkier charge. I want a double charge to be obvious.
Seems like Elmer did some development with 2400. I think some would use Unique. You might search out a "Skeeter Skelton" load for the 44 Special.
IIRC that will get you around 950 fps ,maybe 1000 fps with the 240 gr cast.

Thats a great bullet for the 44Mag. Thats a solid load that will get business done but its not brutal to shoot.

You can go to the Hodgdon Powder website and get load data.

I typically loaded full power 44 Magnum loads with H-110. Winchester 296 is for practical purposes the same powder. Its not a flexible powder. Hodgdon will tell you its not for reduced loads. The "Start" load is near max. IF thats what you want,its a good powder.
Use a substantial roll crimp . Its critical to good ignition and it will prevent recoil from pulling your bullets.

Speer Swaged? Dead soft lead. I'd avoid them. Look for "Hard Cast"

[BandeauRouge]

1 can only have the powder they have on hand ... im not trying to hunt down random cans of powder to see what each one likes..

Realistically Speer data is actually skewed, and they admit it as they can only push swagged bullets so fast before they smear lead like a sick beagle leaves smears on the carpet.

[44 AMP]

Realistically Speer data is actually skewed, and they admit it as they can only push swagged bullets so fast....

Skewed? interesting choice of word. Isn't ALL loading data "skewed" in one direction or another?

Swaged bullets are typically dead soft pure lead, or a very soft alloy. Chunks of lead wire are cut to length, pressed into/through a die, and out comes a swaged bullet.

Cast bullets can be anything from pure lead to alloy as had as lead alloy gets. QUITE different from swaged bullets, when harder alloys are used, and so, of course the data for loading them is different.

Data for swaged bullets isn't "skewed" because there is an upper velocity limit, it is "focused" for the materials (swaged bullets) used.

[Shadow9mm]

https://www.alliantpowder.com/reload...1&cartridge=33

Per Alliant, the 240g is a cast lead SWC. they used a speer case, but there is no reference to a swaged speer bullet being used in this test.

If you already talked to the technicians at Alliant, why are you asking us? Generally when only a max charge is listed you go 10-20% below max for your starting load.

If Alliant's current load data say 6.0g is max, IMHO, that is max and I would not exceed that. At the very least I would start 10% below that work up to it before even considering progressing beyond the currently listed max.

[mehavey]

Do a visual check of powder level.....

FWIW:
- Cut off a 2-3" piece of 1/4 - 3/8" dowel.
- Drop it into a [correctly] filled case.
- Pencil-mark the dowel at case mouth.

- Drop that dowel into every case in the loading block/check the mark



'60-sec-total-time Peace-of-Mind drill' means never having to say you're sorry
(ps: save that dowel/make it req'd part of procedure)

[Sevens]

1 can only have the powder they have on hand ... im not trying to hunt down random cans of powder to see what each one likes..

We are genuinely trying to help. I can't speak for other posters, but I offer help for other handloaders to give back from what I've gained. I've rolled my own for over three decades and I could only describe it as a royal success.

My first many years moved very, VERY slowly. Discussing it online with other enthusiasts launched me forward exponentially.

HiBC's post is a gem. I urge you to read it again and digest it. Here is what I would say to place a point on his post: If your goal was to blow up a .44 Magnum revolver with handloads, I believe the best route would be Titegroup powder. If I couldn't find Titegroup, I would use Bullseye to destroy a revolver and possibly injure myself or others.

What I learned decades ago and it hit me like a ton of bricks -- the powder matters SO MUCH and it's really hard to truly understand it if you haven't "been there, done that." When you use a fast burning powder in a large magnum revolver round, this is exactly the result:

--costs a few cents less in powder
--gives you less recoil
--gives you less "bang" and less recoil
--gives you radically less performance/bullet speed
--gives you FULL PEAK PRESSURE
--gives you a pressure curve that peaks at the wrong time
--gives you a half (or more) empty case
---- ^^this gives erratic round to round performance

--gives you with no doubt whatsoever the best opportunity to blow up a revolver catastrophically by a failure at the load bench

Let me put this another way...

If you had H-110 or Alliant 2400, you could make over-max loads by being careless or reckless, but you could not blow up a modern .44 revolver with a load powdered by either of these two propellants and a 240gr bullet because there isn't nearly enough space in the case to do it. --HOWEVER-- with Bullseye or Titegroup, you could grenade any .44 revolver ever made and you wouldn't even need to fill the case with powder.

I say these with a pure heart. I literally remember decades ago when somehow, the clouds parted and I actually understood WHY it makes fantastic sense to chose the right powder for the job. I just did not understand for the first many years. For me, it was an epiphany and a turning point in my life as a handloader.

If you want to make .44 Magnum ammo and the only powder you can get is Bullseye, my suggestion is to purchase ammo and delay your handloading of .44 Magnum.

[mehavey]

If your goal was to blow up a .44 Magnum revolver with handloads,
I believe the best route would be Titegroup powder. If I couldn't find
Titegroup, I would use Bullseye to destroy a revolver

Again, see Post #6.

While I don't recommend Bullseye/TightGroup for the likes of large-case handloads, BE & TG are useful especially w/heavy cast
where you want fast pressure to obturate/seal the bore, moderate velocities/pressures, and 100% burn to minimize muzzle blast effect.
IF -- the handloader takes a modicum of disciplined care.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To the OP's specific question re the Alliant Bullseye/44Mag/240gr LSWC
https://www.alliantpowder.com/reload...1&cartridge=33
That's a fairly mild/mid-range load for that application
(Use a dependable scale, and remember Post#6)
.

[Scorch]

Years ago, the main reason we used Bullseye was 38 Special and 45 ACP reloads. Bullseye will easily catch an inattentive reloader who accidently throws a double charge because it is so dense. Using a bulkier powder like Unique, Titegroup, WW231 which is fluffier will keep you from accidently blowing up a gun because you can't seat a bullet on top of a double charge in most cases.

[mehavey]

QL thinks 6.0gr Bullseye/44Mag/240gr LSWC (LYM LSWC 429421[#2])/1.61" OAL
produces 43% case fill, and ~14,400psi ...for a 36,000psi-rated cartridge.

That wouldn't be a problem for a traditional plain-base/soft(30-1) bullet.

Now the OP's Mileage May Vary [OMMV], so take care.

[Unclenick]

6 grains of Bullseye is still a target load in that cartridge. Consider for a moment that a maximum charge of Bullseye in a 45 ACP, which has dramatically less powder space, with a 230-grain FMJ, which is almost as heavy as the 240-grain 44, is 5.5 grains, and you will realize that in the much bigger case space, this is not a heavy load. It's more than a 700-something fps target load, but not a lot. Good pistol range steel plate load, I expect.

[44 AMP]

.for a 36,000psi-rated cartridge.

That would be the .44 Magnum, today, right??

I find it amusing (and a bit confusing sometimes) how that before the mid 90s it was a 43,500 c.u.p. cartridge...

[mehavey]

Roger that -- 44 Mag (in SAAMI psi) / p33
https://saami.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/206.pdf

(and a bit confusing sometimes)

Worse, some manuals inter-switched the two CUP/psi units w/o any sense that they'd perpetuated bad info.
Has taken years to (mostly) clean up the battlefield.

[Hammerhead]

Titegroup and W231 are both more dense than Bullseye.
Unique is less dense and requires larger charges, so you get a lot more bulk there.
Too bad it meters poorly for many of us.

[Unclenick]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I find it amusing (and a bit confusing sometimes) how that before the mid 90s it was a 43,500 c.u.p. cartridge...

I don't know when 43,500 CUP was changed to 40,000 CUP. The lower number is in the 1992 rifle Standard. I am guessing that may be the year the change was first published because the Vihtovuri first edition manual, which came out in 1994 and included both CIP and SAAMI pressure numbers, still lists the SAAMI numbers as 43,500 CUP, and 37,800 psi. They apparently hadn't got their copies of the 1992 (rifle) and 1993 (handgun) SAAMI standards before they went to press.

So both the crusher and transducer numbers came down, 10% for the crusher and 5% for the transducer. The question is, why? I'm tempted to suggest the reputation of the S&W 29 for shooting loose might be a consideration, but because the change isn't proportional, I rather suspect it came from getting different results measuring the same reference ammunition in the two instrument types over time. Also, powders like H110/296 were reaching SAAMI recommended velocities at lower peak pressures than the maximum allowed, so the higher numbers may have been considered unnecessary. It would be interesting to ask SAAMI how it came about.

Incidentally, the SAAMI centerfire pistol and revolver standard was updated again last year from the 2015 version (the rifle standard is still on 2015). The update includes that the copper crusher and transducer standards are now in adjacent tables, so you see them side by side should you want to compare.

[Sevens]

Another long time old gun crank trope is that everything has been lowered, watered down and weakened over the decades. There's a lot of truth to this, but there is even more outright fabrication as to why.

Everyone loves to blame liability lawyers and legal staff as the reason... and yet nobody can point to any specific examples that support this claim.

I believe that any and all lowering of pressures has been the net result of advances in testing. I submit that 80-100 years ago, they did not know NEARLY what they know now about internal ballistics and the actual measuring of same.

For all the daily complaints about how life on this planet has gone to the dogs... there has never been a better time to be a shooter, gun owner and handloader. I say this because:

We still have the guns we hadd 100 years ago (or most of 'em!)
We also have new ones -- maybe not better, but made from better steel
We have all the old load data but we have FAR better tested data today
We have much better projectiles and a wider selection of them

...we also have the ability to share ideas and conversations instantly whereas in the past, you either had a conversation in a dusty, dimly-lit shop with a select group or you wrote a letter to a gun scribe and waited 8 months to see if they published your letter in a magazine.

But the lazy answer is "everything is weaker so nobody gets sued." There's zero evidence of this, but it's the go-to answer.

[44 AMP]

Another long time old gun crank trope is that everything has been lowered, watered down and weakened over the decades. There's a lot of truth to this, but there is even more outright fabrication as to why.

Since the industry has essentially remained silent about why, people make up what sounds reasonable, and in our litigation driven society today, "lawyers fault" sounds reasonable.

And, judging from observed results, not everything has been watered down. The 9mm Luger has been jacked UP!!!

The .357 Magnum is generally noticeably less than what we were shooting 40-50 years ago and that was a bit less than the original 1935 load levels.

Personally, I think this is so that the industry can sell J frame size .357s that don't get overstressed right away, that fired cases extract from, and that don't immediately damage shooters hands and nerves, but, that's just my opinion, and of course, worth what you paid for it.

I don't know when 43,500 CUP was changed to 40,000 CUP.

For the .44 Mag, I don't know, either. I do know that the Speer #11 (published 1987, my copy was bought in 90) listed 43,500 CUP as industry standard.

Speer #12, (published in 94) lists 36000 PSI as the industry standard.

I don't know if they are the same pressure, or not, and I no longer really care. Thanks to all the different measurement methods, and no handy consistent conversions between them, I no longer worry about what the actual numbers are. I'm back to the "seat of the pants reloading" where I go by the pressure signs on the cases and the way the gun behaves.

People constantly say how pressure signs are unreliable, and they are both right, and wrong about that.

Pressure signs are unreliable as indicators of what the amount of pressure is (the number of PSI, CUP, or what every system you use). Pressure signs won't and can't tell you if the load is 36000 or 43000.

What they DO reliably tell you is that you have pressure signs, and there for the pressure is excessive for your gun and combination of components, no matter what testing shows the number value to be.

Cratered primers, marks on the brass, sticky extraction, these things say "its not right" and that's what matters more than the calculated numerical value of the pressure in units.

Every gun and ammo/component combination can be different and handle the pressure differently. What matters most isn't what the book says, but what the gun and ammo in your hands does.

One time I ran some pretty warm 125gr JHP .357 stuff through several guns, and got different results. S&W M19, M28, and a Desert Eagle all with (nominal) 6" barrels. Velocities were 1620fps. 1670fps and 1720fps, respectively. Primers were flattened a bit in all guns, but the M19 required cases to be driven out of the cylinder with a rod, could not be ejected by hand. The M28 ejected by hand, and the DE cycled flawlessly.

Different guns, SAME load, different results. A different M19 might have given different results, cases might have ejected normally, I don't know, I do know that the individual gun we tested that day proved unsuitable with that ammo. Note I said "unsuitable" not "unsafe". There is a considerable difference.

So. take the industry pressure numbers under advisement, use them for guidelines. but pay the most attention to what the gun and ammo in your hands does. Even while being "book safe" not all loads are suitable for all guns, and different individual guns of even the same make and model CAN, when the stars line up the right way, give you unexpected results.

[Unclenick]

It's a good example of a pessimistic explanation versus an optimistic one. I agree liability is overemphasized in conjecture about why things happen. One has only to look at the needless risk Remington took with the Walker trigger after Walker himself warned them about it in the late '40s or early '50s, and he even gave them a 5₵ fix for that they didn't think was a worthwhile expense per rifle to avoid the liability. Not exactly liability-averse behavior. Of course, it ultimately cost them in the end, so, with hindsight, they should have been more concerned about it, not less. But then, people who refused to spend all those nickels on making the change were also long since retired or dead by then.

No question there have been a few technical advances since the copper crusher was first conceived back in 1868 (according to this paper it was first proposed by Noble, though I expect he means Nobel, though I can't find confirmation of that).