Irritated with LEE

[hoosierlogger]

Damn guys, Most of you act like I was asking for the secret recipe to a perfectly successful dead on accurate load. All I was getting at it that I was disappointed that they dont even list THEIR bullet on the 30-30 page in THEIR book. Sorry to bother everyone. Trying to be careful with the loads since The 3 books I have vary wildly on starting load suggestions.

[Tar Heel]

Only us old Pack Rat Cast Reloaders have that one ... I would buy every cast boolet book that came out back then ... no internet ... no other way to learn how to cast and load them except through manuals .
Gary

Yup. And now the youngsters just want a fast answer to a complex question. No learning, no education, no desire to learn - just want an immediate answer and then they will argue your answer is incorrect. Jeez.

[MOA]

Yup. And now the youngsters just want a fast answer to a complex question. No learning, no education, no desire to learn - just want an immediate answer and then they will argue your answer is incorrect. Jeez.

[1hole]

All I was getting at it that I was disappointed that they dont even list THEIR bullet on the 30-30 page in THEIR book.

All we can say is that being critical about Lee may feel good but, until every other mold maker (and jacketed bullet maker too) starts giving noobs detailed answers for pointless questions about bullet points, your posted great disappointment with Lee's failure to provide trivial data is meaningless. IMHO of course.

You need to do what everyone else working with a new bullet does. Relax a bit, pick any starting point you like for that weight and develop your load because the shape of bullet points don't change chamber pressure.

[Land Owner]

Yup. And now the youngsters just want a fast answer to a complex question. No learning, no education, no desire to learn - just want an immediate answer and then they will argue your answer is incorrect. Jeez.

It is NOT reserved to the young! My BIL, a Marine Vet, at 69 y.o., is interested in shooting his 9mm "more", but factory ammo, being scarce and expensive, puts him off. Over the holidays he asked me to review his reloading equipment and make recommendations.

I cataloged the equipment he has and what he needs (a lot) in order to GET STARTED. I questioned his underlying motivation to reload - what research had he done (none), did he have a motivation to reload - other than cost (no), why go through the initial equipment expense that won't be amortized over his shooting days ahead, and why doesn't he purchase expendables and come to my "laboratory" for reloading (he is considering that). He wants to purchase a Dillon, "to make a lot of cheap and easy bullets", and has no desire to go through a learning curve. I have to continue to live, as family, with my BIL and this is with what I am now faced.

[ChuckJaxFL]

Damn guys, Most of you act like I was asking for the secret recipe to a perfectly successful dead on accurate load. All I was getting at it that I was disappointed that they dont even list THEIR bullet on the 30-30 page in THEIR book. Sorry to bother everyone. Trying to be careful with the loads since The 3 books I have vary wildly on starting load suggestions.

I’m going to go against the popular position and agree with you.

It does not seem at all unreasonable to me to pick up a Lee manual with the expectation that Lee put load data for Lee bullets in it. It seems to me that the Lee manual is the FIRST place I’d look for such information. I also start looking in the Lyman manual when I pick up a Lyman mold.

For years and years, I’ve read post after post after post in which pulpit pounders have cried “buy a manual and stick with it”. Now you have done so, and you’re being scolded, and told to go figure it out on your own.

I don’t get forum culture sometimes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dtknowles]

Damn guys, Most of you act like I was asking for the secret recipe to a perfectly successful dead on accurate load. All I was getting at it that I was disappointed that they dont even list THEIR bullet on the 30-30 page in THEIR book. Sorry to bother everyone. Trying to be careful with the loads since The 3 books I have vary wildly on starting load suggestions.

I got that, irritated not fighting mad. I rarely look at starting loads unless I am planning on staying on the low side. I usually look at the max load and back off what I think will be enough cushion for a safe place to start. With cast bullets often the max load listed is not pressure limited but velocity limited or somebody's idea of a good place to stop. Some references only list a max load.

Tim

[charlie b]

I guess I should be irritated that Lyman does not list load for all of their bullets for a given cartridge either, even the more popular ones.

Just not something to get fired up about.

[cwtebay]

You know, I should have started off with this: Lee is an incredible company that has been nothing if not helpful to me. I appreciate their products and their customer support. Props to all of them!!

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[GONRA]

GONRA's half *** comment is - ALWAYS get the POWDER MANUFACTURER'S info / folders / etc.
for Official Safety References. You can "read between the lines" and infer lottsa useful info.....

[richhodg66]

I have a copy of that RCBS manual I got at a gun show for ten bucks and have found it useful quite a few times. When looking for a deer hunting load for my 7x57 Mauser, none of the other cast manuals I had had a load for a 165+ grain bullet as fast as I wanted it, but the RCBS one did and I used it. Worked fine.

[dbosman]

My understanding is that Richard Lee didn't think the bullet nose shape made enough of a difference to bother with.

The big problem with the lee manual is that it doesn't identify the bullet other than its weight.

[Bazoo]

Well I'll buck the trend. I think there is nothing wrong with wanting data specific for a bullet even if one can extrapolate or substitute data.

Nose profile don't matter. But bearing surface does. Lee bullets aren't a copy of some other bullet with a differen nose. They are different bullets entirely.

I'd like very much for a company to test all of lees bullets for the common calibers. Do I need it to develope loads? No, but I'd buy a copy.

[1hole]

Well I'll buck the trend. I think there is nothing wrong with wanting data specific for a bullet even if one can extrapolate or substitute data.

Nothing "wrong" about wanting info, even if it's useless trivia. But .... it IS useless. ?

Nose profile don't matter. But bearing surface does.

Yeah, a little I suppose. So does the alloy, lube, gas check, bullet diameter vs. the bore diameter, the bore surface, the chamber and throat probably more than the bearing surface. But it's all cast stuff. At the bullet's hardest, longest, largest it's so much softer than steel that agonizing over specific load data minutiae isn't even helpful.

Bottom line, we all want what we want no matter if it's relevant to the job at hand or not. But, being aggravated at Lee and not Lyman, RCBS, NOE, Hensley & Gibbs, et al, for not spoon feeding us a lot of measureless modest pressure variations for every specific cast bullet seems more than a bit odd.

Doesn't matter and I don't much care anyway. Maybe I've been doing this stuff so long I've forgotten how complicated it is.

[cwtebay]

Nothing "wrong" about wanting info, even if it's useless trivia. But .... it IS useless. ?



Yeah, a little I suppose. So does the alloy, lube, gas check, bullet diameter vs. the bore diameter, the bore surface, the chamber and throat probably more than the bearing surface. But it's all cast stuff. At the bullet's hardest, longest, largest it's so much softer than steel that agonizing over specific load data minutiae isn't even helpful.

Bottom line, we all want what we want no matter if it's relevant to the job at hand or not. But, being aggravated at Lee and not Lyman, RCBS, NOE, Hensley & Gibbs, et al, for not spoon feeding us a lot of measureless modest pressure variations for every specific cast bullet seems more than a bit odd.

Doesn't matter and I don't much care anyway. Maybe I've been doing this stuff so long I've forgotten how complicated it is.

Well said, and I do hope none of us lose the beauty and allure of the complexity of this!!!

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[Bazoo]

What I'd like to see, and buy, would be a cast bullet manual, that tested not only bullets by lee and others, but tested various lubes and alloys as well. Useless yeah, but it'd be interesting.

[cwtebay]

How many variables would have to be in such a book to be anything but a novelty? Casting temperature, alloy composition, boolit sizing, cooling technique, ambient temperature, elevation, brass used, crimp technique / tension, etc, etc ad nauseum. The major jacketed data has all of that. What do you think the price of moulds will go to if that sort of data is accumulated by a manufacturer? What do you think the book would cost if it was done third party?
The quest isn't always the destination, but the journey that is the appeal.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[dtknowles]

People especially beginners need more data. They don't have expertise like the old obnoxious hands so it would be nice to see more data.

Tim

[Bazoo]

I read everything I can get my eyes on pertaining to the subject of reloading and casting, guns, shooting, and hunting.

[fcvan]

no matter what is said or implied, Elmer Keith blew up and re-welded many 44 Colts while developing the 44 Magnum. I know less about the 357 M from 20 year prior, only that the larger frame 38/44 was part of the deal.

Flash forward, not all chambers are the same, not all bores are the same, not all loads should be the same. What works in my 8 3/8" M57 shoots well but hard in my Dad's 4", but is okay in my Brother's 6" M57, or his 10" Contender. I know it works well in my Marlin 1894C Lever 41 Magnum. Load for what you shoot, keep those load withing tested specs.