I have been reloading jacketed bullets in my .44 mag 629 but am trying cast ones. I bought some 240gr SWC ones that are cast out of a 92-6-2 mix and the manufacture (S&S Casting) says they are 17 BH. I have shot a few using 7 grs of Unique and am getting a little leading just forward of the forcing cone. I slugged the barrel today and although it was a little hard to measure it appears to be just under .430. The bullets are .430 and the slugged bullet will not drop through the cylinders but will go through with just a little force. So, here is my question. My Spear manual lists 7 grs as max for a 240 SWC but then for a hard cast Keith bullet the starting load is 9 or 10 and it goes up from there. Can I safely increase my powder weight up to maybe as much as 9 grs to see if the leading decreases? With 7 grs there is a lot of smoke but it may be from the lube which is that blue waxy stuff. What say the experts here?
Cast Boolits Newbe
- Thread starter elundgren
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Sir, you've got considerable latitude with a cast 240 or 250 in .44 magnum. I suspect some of Speer's lead bullet data is based more on leading with very soft swaged bullets than on pressure. With a harder cast bullet, you can certainly go up. Current Alliant data (here) shows a max of 11.0 grains of Unique with a cast 250.
FWIW, in my own workups with cast 250s and Unique in .44 mag, I found accuracy "sweet spots" at 8.5 grains and 10.0 grains. The 8.5 load also smoked and leaded less than lighter loads. I didn't chronograph it, but it's fairly mild. The 10.0 load is stiffer, about "three-quarter throttle" for .44 mag. It typically runs 1,100 fps or more, depending on the gun.
Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.
Ron H.
FWIW, in my own workups with cast 250s and Unique in .44 mag, I found accuracy "sweet spots" at 8.5 grains and 10.0 grains. The 8.5 load also smoked and leaded less than lighter loads. I didn't chronograph it, but it's fairly mild. The 10.0 load is stiffer, about "three-quarter throttle" for .44 mag. It typically runs 1,100 fps or more, depending on the gun.
Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.
Ron H.
Like any reloading, start conservatively and work up.
For that hard a bullet, sounds like you're low. I don't use Spear manuals anymore, but when I did their lead data was for softer swagged bullets.
In any case, for .44 Mag., 240 gr hardcast, Unique powder:
Lee second addition shows 10.7 gr.- 1152fps to 11.8 gr. - 1255fps.
Lyman 49th shows 10 gr - 937 to 11.7 gr - 1133.
Edit to add: for what it's worth my buddy uses .431 diameter for his 629. I use .431 for my Redhawk. Both our barrels slugged at .430
For that hard a bullet, sounds like you're low. I don't use Spear manuals anymore, but when I did their lead data was for softer swagged bullets.
In any case, for .44 Mag., 240 gr hardcast, Unique powder:
Lee second addition shows 10.7 gr.- 1152fps to 11.8 gr. - 1255fps.
Lyman 49th shows 10 gr - 937 to 11.7 gr - 1133.
Edit to add: for what it's worth my buddy uses .431 diameter for his 629. I use .431 for my Redhawk. Both our barrels slugged at .430
Last edited:
ILLWIND
Member
I have been casting for 20+ yrs, my fav load is 9 gr Unique and a Lyman 245 gr SWC. 1050 fps out of my Mod 29 (7.5" bbl) and 975 fps out of my Mod 629 (3" bbl). The lead I use is a mix of Lino/wwt/range scrap. I have gone as low as 6.5 gr Unique, soft shooting, and smokey. My mod 29 was notorious for leading the barrel during the first inch and a half. I fire lapped the barrel with soft pure lead cast bullets, un-sized, with a special SOFT abrasive (NOT Alum OX or Silicon Carbide) and just enough powder to get the bullet out the barrel. I read an article by Ross Seyfreid many years ago and followed his directions. After about 14 shots and cleaning between each shot, the barrel looked gorgeous, all the barrel constriction under the threads were smoothed down and I can now go several hundred shots before I have any leading. For hunting, a 255 gr Lyman SWCGC and a full load of 2400---Elmer Keith's Favorite. I use published data not Elmers btw.
Thanks for your info. I had hoped that I could go up to 9grs and maybe higher but did want some outside confirmation first. I will still go up slowly. I hope that I can make the .430 bullets work as I bought 1500 of them and would like to buy more as the price, $154 shipped, was hard to beat.
PhilOhio
Member
I've been loading this round with my own cast Keith type 240 gr. gas check bullets, and a few other swaged-jacketed and cast types, for 51 years. I agree with all the comments above. You are way low, but that's the safe way to start.
You can cast your own GC bullets out of an alloy such as wheel weights, and if bore finish is good, you are unlikely to get significant leading. The alloy is much less demanding than widely believed, if bullet lube is right. With wheel weights, it will be much lower than BH 17...more like 11 to 13. And I have to be a bit skeptical about the manufacturer's hardness claims...if you are getting any leading at all with BH 17 bullets. Check them with a hardness tester. Yet it is possible that some lead can be shaved in the loading process, and in going from case mouth to end of forcing cone. Some of this might be deposited, if your bore is not mirror smooth.
Be careful about accepting manufacturers' claims about lead bullet alloy and hardness. And never ever buy them at gun shows. Make them, and be sure.
But your load development is in very safe territory right now.
I much prefer the old Hercules 2400, or its successors, to develop maximum velocity with this bullet fired through a barrel of at least 6". But there are other good powders, all slower burning than Unique. That's the better, gentler way to get high velocity. And they fill the case, making double charges less likely.
Any bullet lube including the equivalent of Alox will minimize or eliminate leading with a reasonably hard gas check bullet below around 1800 FPS. It is very unlikely you will get nearly that speed with any .44 handgun firing a 240 gr. bullet load within the safe pressure range.
Bore finish is very important. A bore that is even slightly rough will attract, scrape, and retain lead even when your alloy, hardness, and lube are about right. With the old S&Ws, a near mirror finish bore was almost always assured. Today, it isn't. That is my personal observation, and I would prefer if it were otherwise.
You can cast your own GC bullets out of an alloy such as wheel weights, and if bore finish is good, you are unlikely to get significant leading. The alloy is much less demanding than widely believed, if bullet lube is right. With wheel weights, it will be much lower than BH 17...more like 11 to 13. And I have to be a bit skeptical about the manufacturer's hardness claims...if you are getting any leading at all with BH 17 bullets. Check them with a hardness tester. Yet it is possible that some lead can be shaved in the loading process, and in going from case mouth to end of forcing cone. Some of this might be deposited, if your bore is not mirror smooth.
Be careful about accepting manufacturers' claims about lead bullet alloy and hardness. And never ever buy them at gun shows. Make them, and be sure.
But your load development is in very safe territory right now.
I much prefer the old Hercules 2400, or its successors, to develop maximum velocity with this bullet fired through a barrel of at least 6". But there are other good powders, all slower burning than Unique. That's the better, gentler way to get high velocity. And they fill the case, making double charges less likely.
Any bullet lube including the equivalent of Alox will minimize or eliminate leading with a reasonably hard gas check bullet below around 1800 FPS. It is very unlikely you will get nearly that speed with any .44 handgun firing a 240 gr. bullet load within the safe pressure range.
Bore finish is very important. A bore that is even slightly rough will attract, scrape, and retain lead even when your alloy, hardness, and lube are about right. With the old S&Ws, a near mirror finish bore was almost always assured. Today, it isn't. That is my personal observation, and I would prefer if it were otherwise.
Didn't know that Lee made one. I will have to get it. The brinell testers that I have used in the past cost many hundreds even 30 years ago so it is good to know that I can get something to check it cheaply. These bullets don't dent or scratch with a fingernail and when scraped with a knife it flakes off rather then coming off like a piece of soft wax or butter.
Edit: Just went and looked at one at Midway. Price is right but how does it maintain a calibrated pressure force using a reloading press? Is the ball at the end of a piston that slides into the housing that screws into the press and is there then a spring under the piston? Set it up so that the ball just touches before the press cams into place and then finish the stroke?
Last edited:
Fishslayer
US Veteran, Absent Comrade
....
Skip Sackett
US Veteran
There is a lot of difference between a 240gr LSWC and a Keith 250gr LSWC. The Keith is designed to have less bullet in the case which allows for more powder and less pressure. To switch data that pertains to different bullets is a bad reloading practice. My suggestion: Work up in small increments, .2gr until you get the results you want but stop before the maximum for the Keith bullet. Just my suggestion. Also, use a chronograph. Stop when you reach your desired velocity.
My main concern was if I could even go above the listed 7gr max for Unique and the 240 SWC. I feel pretty sure that I can since these are hard cast bullets and the Keith data STARTS at 9grn. I haven't loaded any yet but intended to start at 7.5gr and work up to maybe 8.5gr in .2gr steps. I am lucky in that I can legally shoot on my property so I can work up fairly quickly. My intent is to hopefully reduce or even eliminate the leading that has started and maybe reduce the smoke. Can't even see the target for a second or two, might as well be black powder. It is that leading that has slowed my efforts as I need to get the existing lead out first. I had some Kroil in the garage and am soaking the barrel now for a few days. Need to buy a lead remover. Smith Crazy, I have read many of your posts here and trust your opinion. If you think my plans need adjustment I shall reevaluate them.
Skip Sackett
US Veteran
I am not saying that you cannot go above the posted data for the bullet you have. Keep in mind though that the main factor in increasing pressure with a load is seating depth of the bullet. A Keith has much less bullet in the case, using that data for a bullet that goes deeper in the case will prove to be problematic. As always, start low and work up, not high and work down. Good reloading practices will make our hobby more enjoyable for all involved. A chronograph may aid in this load development because you might attain the desired velocity at a lower charge weight. A win/win, in my opinion. Be safe, have fun.
PhilOhio
Member
With all due respect to those here whose opinions may differ, I have found there is no real world performance or safety difference between bullets of the same weight, but with different shape/configuration/bearing surface. That includes jacketed vs. lead bullets. The qualifier is that you must stay within the safe pressure limitations which went into the editing of all reloading manuals published since, let's say, about 1950. That's all of them, I guess.
There are indeed theoretical differences, and it is possible to measure them with laboratory pressure testing equipment, etc. And a good chronograph may show a few FPS variation. But as a practical matter, mass is the significant factor. A 240 grain bullet is a 240 grain bullet, for all practical purposes. Bearing surface is of much lesser importance, especially with any of the excellent modern lubricants.
If one is the sort of person who always pushes the safety limits, and insists on flirting with dangerous pressure boundaries, and feels that ridiculously high power is always better, then longer bullet bearing surface or higher coefficient of friction might take you around an explosive corner. But even then, probably not until you have pushed way beyond the limits of common sense.
Decades ago, I used to fret unnecessarily about such things as frictional differences between bullets of the same weight. As my experience grew, I came to realize my concerns were unwarranted. Those differences are almost irrelevant. Forget it, unless you venture beyond the limits of published safe loads, which should not be done for any reason, especially outside a lab.
I used to be especially concerned about the hardness of bullets containing much, or all, linotype...possibly causing so much start-up resistance as to elevate pressures closer toward the bursting point. But even that doesn't seem to be the case, in this real world. Nevertheless, I don't recommend loading linotype bullets to the max, just to see what will happen.
Think about what must be the dramatically greater start-up resistance and coefficient of friction of an unlubricated gilding metal jacketed 158 gr. .357bullet, compared to a gas check lead bullet of the same weight. Yet manuals show almost the same, or exactly the same, top powder charge for both. It is apparent that the ballistics engineers have found that bearing surface lengths are not important enough to waste their time considering, as long as their pressure testing equipment confirms that there are no strange surprises.
What seems to be the case, and granted this is my theorizing, is that harder bullets may have greater start-up resistance but less friction as they travel down the bore, meaning slightly less pressure. And softer bullets, with more lead, start more easily but have a higher coefficient of friction as they travel toward the muzzle. It must be something of a wash. And good modern bullet lube seems to cancel out most of these differences, as you can drive even wheel weight bullets far, far beyond what we accepted as the velocity limitations of only 30 - 40 years ago.
Study a loading manual sometime. See what the MEASURED velocity differences are between bullets of the same weight, but with different jacket metals or lead alloy bearing surfaces. Some of it even seems counterintuitive now and then, suggesting instrument error or other factors. But the differences are small and do not involve safety.
In particular, note where some prominent loading manual publishers show five or six different bullets of about the same weight, some jacketed and some lead, with different bearing surfaces, and state that the loads which follow may be safely used for all the types shown. Speer, for example, has done this for years; saves paper, rather than repeating the chart for each bullet, when there is no safety or performance reason to do so.
I thought I should toss this into the mix, so some of you new reloaders would not unnecessarily worry for years about whether it is more prudent to use a Keith type, or some other type, bullet of the same weight for a given power charge. It is not a factor.
There are indeed theoretical differences, and it is possible to measure them with laboratory pressure testing equipment, etc. And a good chronograph may show a few FPS variation. But as a practical matter, mass is the significant factor. A 240 grain bullet is a 240 grain bullet, for all practical purposes. Bearing surface is of much lesser importance, especially with any of the excellent modern lubricants.
If one is the sort of person who always pushes the safety limits, and insists on flirting with dangerous pressure boundaries, and feels that ridiculously high power is always better, then longer bullet bearing surface or higher coefficient of friction might take you around an explosive corner. But even then, probably not until you have pushed way beyond the limits of common sense.
Decades ago, I used to fret unnecessarily about such things as frictional differences between bullets of the same weight. As my experience grew, I came to realize my concerns were unwarranted. Those differences are almost irrelevant. Forget it, unless you venture beyond the limits of published safe loads, which should not be done for any reason, especially outside a lab.
I used to be especially concerned about the hardness of bullets containing much, or all, linotype...possibly causing so much start-up resistance as to elevate pressures closer toward the bursting point. But even that doesn't seem to be the case, in this real world. Nevertheless, I don't recommend loading linotype bullets to the max, just to see what will happen.
Think about what must be the dramatically greater start-up resistance and coefficient of friction of an unlubricated gilding metal jacketed 158 gr. .357bullet, compared to a gas check lead bullet of the same weight. Yet manuals show almost the same, or exactly the same, top powder charge for both. It is apparent that the ballistics engineers have found that bearing surface lengths are not important enough to waste their time considering, as long as their pressure testing equipment confirms that there are no strange surprises.
What seems to be the case, and granted this is my theorizing, is that harder bullets may have greater start-up resistance but less friction as they travel down the bore, meaning slightly less pressure. And softer bullets, with more lead, start more easily but have a higher coefficient of friction as they travel toward the muzzle. It must be something of a wash. And good modern bullet lube seems to cancel out most of these differences, as you can drive even wheel weight bullets far, far beyond what we accepted as the velocity limitations of only 30 - 40 years ago.
Study a loading manual sometime. See what the MEASURED velocity differences are between bullets of the same weight, but with different jacket metals or lead alloy bearing surfaces. Some of it even seems counterintuitive now and then, suggesting instrument error or other factors. But the differences are small and do not involve safety.
In particular, note where some prominent loading manual publishers show five or six different bullets of about the same weight, some jacketed and some lead, with different bearing surfaces, and state that the loads which follow may be safely used for all the types shown. Speer, for example, has done this for years; saves paper, rather than repeating the chart for each bullet, when there is no safety or performance reason to do so.
I thought I should toss this into the mix, so some of you new reloaders would not unnecessarily worry for years about whether it is more prudent to use a Keith type, or some other type, bullet of the same weight for a given power charge. It is not a factor.
Just an update here. Worked up to 8.0gr Unique with 240 hard SWC. Almost no smoke and I don't think is leading although I will have to load up a bunch to know for sure. Seems to be accurate too but of course I am the weak link in that chain. No sign of pressure problems so I may go on up to 8.5gr.
