Lee Loader

Found this interesting quote while browsing. For us PPM users it's about time we got some positive feedback fro m the "experts". Of course we knew it was perfect all along.

"Glen Zediker wrote in his book Handloading for Competition that his Harrell's Culver meter was 3 times as precise as a standard measure (he did standard deviation testing), and 2x as precise as his Redding benchrest meter. He then went on to say that with long grain extruded powder, the $20 Lee Perfect meter beat them all and did not chop kernels, but he has trouble looking at it due to the low apparent quality (but said it did work and had not failed and it gets use). It might be nice to get like three of those and set them each up for a load and never touch them. I paid as much for an insert for my other meters. I love testing so I should get one and do my own standard deviation test. "

Hard to beat a Lee!

I saw an article/comparison of several powder measure that used a few different powders (stick, flake, ball, etc.). The Lee PPM came out on first or second overall for accuracy and consistency (can't find the link to the test on LASC web site). I already had a PPM and got a C-H 502 mainly because of the test...

I like the PPM so much I bought a second one for rifle powder only. Buying one and leaving it set where you want for a certain load is nice in theory but doesn't quite work like that, I did it for a while, but the volume/weight does change slightly due to environmental factors. Worked great for two pistol loads though, until I decided to change the loads. I decided it was worth it to get second one for large volumes and just adjust each slightly as needed. I also don't use a lot of different powders. My PPMs have been spot on with the powders I use. Of course, I usually follow the directions too and run powder through them and hten take my time going through the cyle with the handle consistently. I love them.

JohnnyEnfield wrote:...but the volume/weight does change slightly due to environmental factors.

This in itself could be a topic; Temperature, humidity, and, pressure (density altitude), can effect slight changes in weight so do you chase a specific charge or stick with the volume?

I stick with the volume, that is why I go with a dedicated Auto Drum, drum for each firearm/cartridge.

Lee PPM & the expert ????
Heck, any of us that have used a PPM more than once could have told that
expert they were on top??
Light weight, ease of use, price, accuracy, & a hopper you can shut off & remove.
Seems to me it's win, win start to finish.

larryw wrote:Lee PPM & the expert ????
Heck, any of us that have used a PPM more than once could have told that
expert they were on top??
Light weight, ease of use, price, accuracy, & a hopper you can shut off & remove.
Seems to me it's win, win start to finish.

RD, for the cast loads I was making (.357 and .45) I just kept the volume and always had good success. I knew I was in a safe zone and was very happy with my results. I think they started at 5.7 grains of CFE Pistol and fluctuated by a tenth of a grain or so. One day I did 100 of each at "5.6 ish" and they were just as good as they were when right at 5.7. Same loads, same powder went up slightly and down slightly a few times and never had an issue. I tend to write down the volume in CCs so I can get back in the right neighborhood either way, if needed. But I left that one powder measure alone for like a year. I think they are great. If I had an auto drum I would do like you and get drums for each load.

Just ordered another 4 drums for my bench top. Really like it no leaks so far and I've run True Blue in it. I also have a PPM that pretty much stay set for my Sharps 40-65 load 60 grain +- FFg. Still working on a long drop tube for it and longer arms for the operator .

Make smoke,

With my loading now, I usually don't come back to a cartridge for at least a year. When I do, I weigh a charge and I've never seen it more than a ½-grain off. I take samples and weigh them on my Safety Scale, the face has been marked using check weights.