info/help on Lee loader

[Reiver Boy]

I have just started using Lee Loaders for .308 and .303 and find them to be more than adequate. Its actually quite therapeutic sitting in my office loading when I should be working. Fitting the primers was a little hair raising at first ! I started off weighing every scoop as a confidence check but like others on here have said, the scoop is fine on its own (top flattened off with credit card). I recon the scoop is +- 0.2gn going by the scales. I love the fact that my whole loading kit, powder and all, fits in a small Peli case.

Im well and truly hooked on these awsome little bits of kit.

 

[Sharpie]

OK one last post on this topic.

Volumetric measure is un challenge-able.

It is the way all commercial ammo is made.

It is the way (large quantity) precision ammo is made.

Weighing individual powder charges is an amusing pastime for dilettantes who have far too much time on their hands, and sometimes even seem to prefer faffing about with mechanical scales, when <£15 carefully spent on ebay will deliver a superior electronic scale, including cal. weights, etc, that will give them the ability to measure their charges to 1 milligram or 0.02 grains resolution and much better than 0.1 grain accuracy.

£10 scale, Lee scoop, chem lab spatula (or trickler, I do have one, but the spatula is quicker), steady hand.

It is what I use.

Once you own such a precision device you will soon understand that powder weight is not a precise subject. It absorbs atmospheric moisture (gets heavier). It loses volatile matter (smell) so gets lighter. If you shoot black powder all this is known and only volumetric measure is used.

By all means worry about whether your Lee vs. Ohaus vs. ... is better at the nth. decimal place, but recognise that in the real world powder is (correctly) measured by volume.

So focus your attention on the precision of powder measures, and learn to use scoops accurately (they are very good).

 

[gixer1]

Nope, the conversion factor is 16.387. So you are 0.055% out

1 inch = 2.54 cm. Cube it.



Nope, you reckon your dipper is 3.275cc. I reckon its 3.36cc. Even with your slightly incorrect conversion you should have worked it out to be 3.358cc.

I suggest you buy a new calculator, or learn to push the buttons in the correct sequence

For future reference, Lee publish what they call "VMD factor", i.e. cc/grain, for many powders. Its in their manual, or if you buy a set of scoops you get a cardboard slide rule, or download the latest version from http://leeprecision.com/cgi-data/instruct/VMD.pdf

The VMD for Varget is 0.07310 cc/grain, which is the same as the 13.67 grains/cc you calculated. You got that much correct.

So by my reckoning, your 0.205 cubic inch scoop should drop 0.205 x 16.387 x 1/0.07310 = 45.96 grains of Varget.

Which is 1.2 grains higher than you calculated.

in all fairness the error you mention twice is the same error, the 16.387 was incorrectly used as 16.378...

but thanks though - that's why I put it on here...

regards,
​Gixer

 

[gixer1]

Ok folks, thanks for the help so far, I took the scoop and first tried the "dip it in, tap to the side then pour into the scale" method and the variance was 2.2 grains across 10 dips (45.1 the lowest to 47.3 highest) so I then tried the "dip it, scrape a straight edge across the top and then dump it in the scale" method this gave a 1.1 grain variance across 10 dips, (43.8 lowest to 44.9 highest)

obviously this his was standing at a counter tring it for the first time with dippers so we'll see how it goes.

would the 1.1gr variance make a massive difference in round performance?

the charger tub does state 30/06 but states a 51 grain load for a 150gr bullet., haven't checked all the load data yet but will do that...

thanks so far and keep it coming.

regards,
​gixer

 

[Hornet 6]

would the 1.1gr variance make a massive difference in round performance?


regards,
​gixer

I started with one of these in .223, my first loads were ok, as you have found with practise you get more accurate, I found it easy to improve on the factory ammo I was using at the time.
As for the 1.1 grain difference, if you were loading hot and weighing every charge yes it could make a difference.
But if staying with the scoops, which are never a top end load then probably not.
If you just want simple easy ammo that gets the job done continue to use the scoop with the powder suggested for the bullet weight you are using.
The only negative with the Lee loader I found was a tendency for the locking ring to come undone when loading big batches, I used loctite once I had settled on a bullet and OAL.
The instructions say you can crimp a load, I suppose you could, but it is done on feel i.e. haw hard you hit it, best not to crimp this way.
Seating primers, eventually you will pop a primer while seating, I did it several times, only with small primers and there is no drama a missing digits.
The first thing I noticed was black soot on my fingers as I removed the primer seating rod.
To cut the chances of it happening at all, only ever work on a good solid bench that has no 'bounce' when seating the primer.

Neil.

 

[Muir]

Ok, the old red dippers are apparently cubic inches so you take the number (205 in this case) and put a point infront of it so it's .205 cubic inches - by my reckoning this would be multiplied by 16.378 to give me cubic centimeters as per the new dippers???

And if the above is correct then on the chart for modern dippers it doesnt have a 3.275 cubic centimeter dipper so I take the one that is there (a 3.1) and then divide the grains with the powder i'm using ( i will say Varget in this case) so the figure is 42.4 grains divided by 3.1 = 13.67 then multiply this by 3.275 and this gives me 44.76 grains per dip??

Is this correct?

Regards,

Gixer

You see? This is where the Lee Manual comes in so handy. They have a chart in the back that gives the cubic centimeter measurement per grain of every powder they list. Varget is .0731 CC per grain. So yes, your math is correct.

I have a shelf full of Lee Classic Loaders in many calibers. I love them. The best 270 handloads I ever made were from one of these and IMR 4350. Ditto a buddy's .222. His loads are so good he won't even load .222 on his bench mounted press with the offer of a free set of dies.~Muir

 

[gixer1]

You see? This is where the Lee Manual comes in so handy. They have a chart in the back that gives the cubic centimeter measurement per grain of every powder they list. Varget is .0731 CC per grain. So yes, your math is correct.

I have a shelf full of Lee Classic Loaders in many calibers. I love them. The best 270 handloads I ever made were from one of these and IMR 4350. Ditto a buddy's .222. His loads are so good he won't even load .222 on his bench mounted press with the offer of a free set of dies.~Muir

Muir,

Thanks, I switched the number for the conversion so I guess that's the bit I messed up on!

Can I ask what sort of variance you get in your dips??

regards,

​gixer

 

[FrenchieBoy]

I use a Lee Loader for both my .222 and .243 ammunition and I am more than happy with the results that I am getting, but I should add that I have always weighed my powder on a set of Lee Safety Powder Scales while using these Lee Loader Kits.
After reading through this thread I have "just as an out of interest thing" checked what weight of powder the dippers supplied are giving as I knew that they wwere not correct for the loads that I use, and the results are quite surprising.
For the .222 my ideal load (With 52g A-Max heads) is 18.5g of H4198 but the dipper supplied with the kit (Which is a rather old kit that has a black dipper marked 108) gives 23.2g or H4198 - a heck of an "overload"!
For the .243 my ideal load (With 58g V-Max heads) is 47g of H414 but with the dipper supplied with the .243 Lee Loader kit that I have (A yellow dipper marked 2.5cc) this gives a powder load of 37.4g - A fair "underload"!
This doesn't worry me as I know about the differences in weights and as said I weigh all of my powder loads but it does go to show the importance of having all of the correct data available when reloading regardless of what system you use. Also, I have no doubt that if I were to buy a new set of Lee Powder Dippers (Under a tenner from Henry Kranks) the sliding chart supplied with them would allow me to work out a farily consistent and correct load using the powders that I am using and save me the time spent in weighing every load of powder. Maybe I will invest in a new set of dippers at some time but in the mean time I am happy weighing my powder loads and getting the consistent accuracy that I am at the moment using the Lee Loaders that I have!

Just as a footnote I can understand what is being said about volumetric measures of powder and how humidity could effect the weights but I would have thought that if you stored your powders on good dry conditions the differences would be minimal, but I could be wrong, I usually am!

 

[bewsher500]

For the .222 my ideal load (With 52g A-Max heads) is 18.5g of H4198 but the dipper supplied with the kit (Which is a rather old kit that has a black dipper marked 108) gives 23.2g or H4198 - a heck of an "overload"!
For the .243 my ideal load (With 58g V-Max heads) is 47g of H414 but with the dipper supplied with the .243 Lee Loader kit that I have (A yellow dipper marked 2.5cc) this gives a powder load of 37.4g - A fair "underload"!

but what powders are listed in the data sheet with said dippers?

 

[FrenchieBoy]

but what powders are listed in the data sheet with said dippers?

As stated the .222 kit is an old one so the powders listed on that are: IMR3031, 4046, 4320, 4895 and Nobel Rifle No. 1
The list of powders given for the .243 kit (which is much newer) is too long to mention but the data given with the kit for 58g heads does not list H414.
I realise that they might not be able to list all powders and head weights available with the data in these kits which really highlights the need for a good Load Data Book and a reliable set of dippers or a good set of scales!

Edit: I have to add that the .222 kit is that old and bought second hand I can not even say that the dipper that came with it is the original kit.

 

[Sharpie]

Edit: I have to add that the .222 kit is that old and bought second hand I can not even say that the dipper that came with it is the original kit.

That dipper marked 108 will be 1.77cc.

VMD of H4198 is 0.075, so theoretically it will scoop 23.6 grains, which is pretty close to the 23.2 you measured. Demonstrating that Lee's VMD data works accurately with their scoops.

But consider: the useful case capacity of 222 Remington is only 1.68 cc.

I think it is safe to assume that it is not the original dipper No wonder you found it gives heavy charges, they would be highly compressed .

If you look at the Lee manual you will find that all of their 222 loads use either a 1.3 or 1.6cc dipper, i.e. either 77% or 95% of case capacity.

Likewise the 243 case has a useful capacity of 3.42cc, so the 2.5cc dipper is 73% of case capacity. Lee's loads for 243 use dippers varying from 1.9cc to 3.4cc depending on powder and bullet weight.

FWIW VMD of H414 is 0.0661 so 2.5cc = 37.8 grains, again very close to your 37.4gn measurement. The Lee system works

Lee supply one scoop to get you started. Use that scoop with the powders and bullet weights specified in their data and you will get a safe moderate load. If you want to use other load data, buy the full set of scoops and use the correct size.

 

[Sharpie]

I took the scoop and first tried the "dip it in, tap to the side then pour into the scale" method

Not the correct method, as you have discovered

I then tried the "dip it, scrape a straight edge across the top and then dump it in the scale" method

The important thing is not to drag the scoop through the powder, which can pack it in unevenly and cause variations. What you must not do is use it as a scoop

Either lower it into the powder and let the powder fall in and fill it, or scoop up some powder with e.g. a spoon and gently pour it into the scoop from no more than 1cm above. Then level it off with a straight edge e.g. business card. Hold the card vertical so that the powder is cleanly scraped off. If you hold it at an angle it can compress surplus powder into the scoop.

You should get the variability down to about 0.5 grains, depending on size of scoop. Not much more than 1%

would the 1.1gr variance make a massive difference in round performance?

I doubt that you would detect any difference. As long as you are confident that you won't be getting close to max. load. Nevertheless you should be able to do a bit better, with good technique.

The beauty of using scoops is that, provided you use them correctly i.e. don't force the powder in, and level off the surface, any variability will be on the light side. You shouldn't get any over-charges.

 

[Muir]

Sharpie:
I 100% agree with your post on volumetric measure. Volume, not weight, is the industry standard.

I use Lee Dippers quite a bit. I pour out a generous quantity of powder into a bowl, push the dipper into the powder, remove it, light tap on the edge of the bowl and dump it. That's what I do, but I have friends who draw the scoop through the powder. That's OK. Rifle powders don't compress easily and you cannot get too much powder into the scoop unless you really work at it. Several shooters I know use a playing card to level across the scoop. It all works. The key is to do it the same every time. Scoops work as well as they are used.

The reference to the cut off cartridge case with the wire soldered onto it brings back memories. I would make scoops from dead (worn out) cases sawing, then filing them down to take a charge for some pet load. Then I'd solder or epoxy on a wire handle. They really sped up my loading and it freed me to use charge volumes not specifically listed with the dippers.~Muir

 

[gixer1]

Not the correct method, as you have discovered



The important thing is not to drag the scoop through the powder, which can pack it in unevenly and cause variations. What you must not do is use it as a scoop

Either lower it into the powder and let the powder fall in and fill it, or scoop up some powder with e.g. a spoon and gently pour it into the scoop from no more than 1cm above. Then level it off with a straight edge e.g. business card. Hold the card vertical so that the powder is cleanly scraped off. If you hold it at an angle it can compress surplus powder into the scoop.

You should get the variability down to about 0.5 grains, depending on size of scoop. Not much more than 1%



I doubt that you would detect any difference. As long as you are confident that you won't be getting close to max. load. Nevertheless you should be able to do a bit better, with good technique.

The beauty of using scoops is that, provided you use them correctly i.e. don't force the powder in, and level off the surface, any variability will be on the light side. You shouldn't get any over-charges.

Yep, discovering there's more to dipping than would meet the eye....

 

[gixer1]

So with all this in mind are the people who use the lee loaders finding the roundsa are more accurate than factory rounds?? and if this is the case I wonder how much variance is in a factory charge...?

 

[gixer1]

Sharpie:
I 100% agree with your post on volumetric measure. Volume, not weight, is the industry standard.

I use Lee Dippers quite a bit. I pour out a generous quantity of powder into a bowl, push the dipper into the powder, remove it, light tap on the edge of the bowl and dump it. That's what I do, but I have friends who draw the scoop through the powder. That's OK. Rifle powders don't compress easily and you cannot get too much powder into the scoop unless you really work at it. Several shooters I know use a playing card to level across the scoop. It all works. The key is to do it the same every time. Scoops work as well as they are used.

The reference to the cut off cartridge case with the wire soldered onto it brings back memories. I would make scoops from dead (worn out) cases sawing, then filing them down to take a charge for some pet load. Then I'd solder or epoxy on a wire handle. They really sped up my loading and it freed me to use charge volumes not specifically listed with the dippers.~Muir

Muir, I wonder if that fella in the indoor shooting range was you?? you never go to DFW or SCRAP shooting range do you?

 

[Muir]

I have just started using Lee Loaders for .308 and .303 and find them to be more than adequate. Its actually quite therapeutic sitting in my office loading when I should be working. Fitting the primers was a little hair raising at first ! I started off weighing every scoop as a confidence check but like others on here have said, the scoop is fine on its own (top flattened off with credit card). I recon the scoop is +- 0.2gn going by the scales. I love the fact that my whole loading kit, powder and all, fits in a small Peli case.

Im well and truly hooked on these awsome little bits of kit.

Your variance is about what I get once I've got a rhythm established. I like these kits also and try to have one for every different chambering I shoot. At one time Lee made these over 70 different cartridges. Now it's down to a handful. Lee is phasing them out of production. I can't tell you how many rounds of 30-06 and .222 I've loaded using Lee Loaders over the last 35 years. I once ran a test to see how long it took to load a round from fired case to loaded cartridge. This with a 0000 steel wool wipe of the necks, a trim and chamfer, and primer pocket clean and it took less than a minute and a half. One aside on the Lees: I ran a pretty extensive test comparing Lee Classic loaded .223 ammo to .223 loaded on bench mounted equipment. Accuracy was down to minute of operator: There wasn't enough difference in grouping to make a definitive judgement. What did show itself glaringly was the loaded length of the cartridges. The Lee variance was .003" and the bench mounted gear had .006" variance. That held pretty much through the entire trial and while it might just have been the quirk of this particular equipment, it was nevertheless interesting to note.~Muir

 

[Muir]

Muir, I wonder if that fella in the indoor shooting range was you?? you never go to DFW or SCRAP shooting range do you?

Highly unlikely. It would be a long drive from Montana!

Making scoops is as old as shooting. Black powder target rifles were supplied with scoops for the maker's recommended charge of powder and shooters would jealously hang them around their necks to keep competitors from stealing them from their kit. When I was young I would try to hang out with the older reloaders and they always had home made scoops hanging above their benches with the weight and powder scratched into the side of the brass body. The most popular way of attaching a wire handle was to stick it into the flash hole of a fired case, then bend it up and along side the case, soldering it at the base. Later, when I was doing my time workng at gunshops I would see these scoops come in with reloading gear on an estate purchase and wonder what pet load they were made up for, and what gun, and try to imagine the former owner using them. It was a little sad that they got tossed into the "free for the taking" bin. ~Muir

 

[gixer1]

Highly unlikely. It would be a long drive from Montana!

Making scoops is as old as shooting. Black powder target rifles were supplied with scoops for the maker's recommended charge of powder and shooters would jealously hang them around their necks to keep competitors from stealing them from their kit. When I was young I would try to hang out with the older reloaders and they always had home made scoops hanging above their benches with the weight and powder scratched into the side of the brass body. The most popular way of attaching a wire handle was to stick it into the flash hole of a fired case, then bend it up and along side the case, soldering it at the base. Later, when I was doing my time workng at gunshops I would see these scoops come in with reloading gear on an estate purchase and wonder what pet load they were made up for, and what gun, and try to imagine the former owner using them. It was a little sad that they got tossed into the "free for the taking" bin. ~Muir

Yeah, the last guy i saw using this was an older gent with a bench rest and an old model 70 rifle knocking up a round and then shooting it, not sure what he was doing but at the time I was renting an assult rifle and needless to say spraying a zombie target, when the guy reeled in his target it had nice little cloverleaf patterns!

 

[FrenchieBoy]

So with all this in mind are the people who use the lee loaders finding the roundsa are more accurate than factory rounds?? and if this is the case I wonder how much variance is in a factory charge...?

The simple answer to that question is Yes!
Here is a photo of a target I shot at a measured 100 yards with my .222 using ammunition that I loaded with my Lee loader. This ammunition is made up using Hornady A-Max heads with 18.5g of H4198 and CCI Small Rifle Primers loaded to an OAL of 2.165" in PRVI brass which is perfect for my CZ 527. The results that I get with ammunition loaded with the Lee loader for my .243 using H414 and Hornady 58g V-Max (For foxing) are very much the same. I would struggle to get close to these results using the PRVI ammunition that I used to buy and use!