Hardness Matters

[.458]

Tested various hardness boolits in the 454 Casull today. Shot 5-shot groups with boolits at 10.1, 11.0, 12.5, 14.3 and 15.4 Brinell. All loads were 300 grain Lee flat point GC boolit atop 25.0 grains of IMR-4227. Load was previously chronographed at approximately 1230 feet-per-second. All groups were 2 to 3 inches at 25 yards except the 12.5 Bhn that can be seen below . If it isn’t there then I haven’t figured out the picture posting portion of this forum yet. It printed all 5 in the same hole. Swabbed the bore between sets with no apparent leading.

A bit miffed about Lee’s Min/Max pressure table though. I would expect this load generates around 36,000 PSI which Lee’s table would require a hardness of 26.0 to 28.5.


http://home.comcast.net/~beanpole27/pics3/Brenell-12.5.jpg

Now I'm Addicted!

[missionary5155]

God morning
That load looks like a keeper if it is repeateble.
Another consideration could be if Lee´s pressure table is refering to plain base boolits. Also a slower burn rate powder can push a soft boolit faster without causing base destruction.

[357shooter]

Great test.

I've done a very similar set of tests with 357 magnum, multiple hardness, with multiple diameters and multiple moulds and multiple powders.

Looks like the bigger 454 likes a bit harder bullet than a 357, but still much softer than many folks believe.

The min/max pressure chart that Lee produced for rifles doesn't apply to handguns. It just flat doesn't work. If you change the BHN and try to adjust the load to the "correct pressure" the results are disappointing.

What does hold true (in a 357) is the best performing BHN is always the best. No matter what bullet design or powder and charge. The best performing diameter is always the best no matter what else changes. The best powder charge is always the best for a given bullet powder combination (changing BHN or size doesn't change the best performing charge).

The most interesting thing is OAL. Bullets that don't respond to optimizing OAL dilute the effectiveness of all other "tuning" factors. Bullets designs that perform best with a slightly long OAL outperform designs that don't. That's in a 357 and I can state it as fact, not speculation. I don't know if that holds true for large bore handguns like yours.

Now that you are addicted, I thought it may interest you to hear about the way it works in a 357. It may provide some thoughts on what to test next.

[357shooter]

FYI, you might be interested to see some test results that debunks alloy/pressure matching in a 357.

I "speculate" that alloy/pressure matching doesn't apply to 99.9% of handguns.

http://357shooter.blogspot.com/2010/12/handgun-only-pressure-and-alloy.html

[Bass Ackward]

A bit miffed about Lee’s Min/Max pressure table though. I would expect this load generates around 36,000 PSI which Lee’s table would require a hardness of 26.0 to 28.5.[/COLOR][/CENTER]



Lee's chart is one dimensional. The chart is based upon pressure. There is a second component to hardness and that's establishing and holding bore center. If a bore has too long of a jump or too short of rifling, it will need harder lead even at 38 Spec pressures.

Hardness is like everything else, it only matters if it does.

[357shooter]

Lee's chart is one dimensional. The chart is based upon pressure. There is a second component to hardness and that's establishing and holding bore center. If a bore has too long of a jump or too short of rifling, it will need harder lead even at 38 Spec pressures.

Hardness is like everything else, it only matters if it does.Quick question (sorry to hijack) when you say short rifling. Are you meaning the length of the rifling in barrel or the depth of the groove? I suspect depth of the groove but wanted to check. I've seen that strip the lead off the bullet, and wanted to make sure I understood your post.

[Bass Ackward]

Quick question (sorry to hijack) when you say short rifling. Are you meaning the length of the rifling in barrel or the depth of the groove? I suspect depth of the groove but wanted to check. I've seen that strip the lead off the bullet, and wanted to make sure I understood your post.


Rifling height (and width) is the issue cause if you strip or start up off center, then you have no way of getting a good launch. The issue is really lead displacement, So if you have narrow rifling they need to be taller than a wider form.

Once you foul, your rifling height is even shorter. If the fouling is next to the rifling, then you have reduced the "bite" (angle).

Also tied into this is bullet design as the strength of the design works together to get a good launch.

[btroj]

I believe Bass was speaking of rifling depth.

I have grown to appreciate the simplicity of Bass and his answers. It only matters when it does is a gem. Now if he could only give us the info to know when it will! Sadly, we have to get that from our gun thru loading and shooting and seeing what works in that gin.

I would be interested to know how the other loads grouped. I also would like to see if this test is repeatable. Was it offhand or benched?

Not trying to be a jerk but I have been burned a bit in the past when I shot a nice group thru the stars being aligned properly or something and though I had a good load only to find later that it was a fluke and the load sort of sucked.

Brad

[44man]

I test alloy hardness with known accuracy loads I have worked up for each boolit.
The first indication of GC boolits too soft will be fliers. 2 or 3 in one hole, then a few fliers.
PB too soft will just have large groups. As boolits get harder, groups will tighten.
When fliers go away, the lead is right and there is no need to go harder but even harder has never opened my groups.
Fast powders in the .44 do not reach maximum accuracy for the boolit until I get to 25 to 28 BHN. For slow powders, 22 BHN is enough and those are just WD WW boolits.
Watch your WW's, a friend sent me WW boolits, air cooled and I get wide fliers in my .44 revolver. I checked them as low as 10 and as high as 14 BHN. I oven hardened them and they did not harden at all. A few actually measured 7 BHN. After a week they are exactly the same as the air cooled so it means the WW's were depleted of antimony and arsenic by recycling with too many stick on weights.
Sadly, we have no idea what is in scrap lead and softer can work if the alloy is tough enough but only shooting with fliers will tell you it is still wrong. BHN is a poor rating for toughness but it is all we have.
Yes fellas, when you get a few touching and then some out of the group, your alloy is not tough enough. Changing the load will have little effect.
My testing is done at 50 yards only, that is where things show up fast.

[Bret4207]

Threads like this bring out the cynic in me. Not because I don't believe what anyone is saying, but because other people will take whats written and try and make it a "rule" or use it to justify their position which my be incorrect for a number of reasons. Worse yet, they'll use this as ammo to spread disinformation and harm the incredible gains we've made here over the past 15 years or so. I think Bass put it best- hardness matters only when it does. If the the OP author can reproduce those groups on demand over a wide range of conditions, THEN my friend you have a clear winner.

357- That's an interesting theory. My first question would be- how many guns have you observed this in and how many alloys have you used? If it's just one gun/alloy then it only holds true for THAT gun/alloy, no offense intended. If it's 2-3 guns/alloys then you have a working theory. When you can get 20-40 other guys to reproduce your observations across a wide variation on guns/alloys/designs/powders/etc. then you get into the "fact" area. I mean absolutely no disrespect or offense, but I have been guilty of stating a few "facts" in rather strong terms myself only to end up realizing I wasn't as right about things as I thought. I hope you ARE right, finding some rules to this game beyond "fit is king" would be very helpful.

I would tend to agree over all, in a general way, that "hardness matters", but in a limited way (is that non-comital or what?!) . That is, hardness ( talk about ambiguous terms, 15.4 Bhn is almost dead soft to some people!!!) is part of the boolits dynamic fit. Fit remains King and comes first. That's the one true fact in the game as far as I can tell.

BTW- I tried to get an agreement on definitions for "hardness" a while back. I thought it would be helpful to clear the air of just what people mean when they say soft, medium, hard, really hard, etc. There was practically no interest in defining terms. The one thing we did discover is that those who responded felt "hard" ran from about 15 Bhn to well over 30 Bhn. That's a pretty wide range to use and have people understand what you mean.

[357shooter]

Rifling height (and width) is the issue cause if you strip or start up off center, then you have no way of getting a good launch. The issue is really lead displacement, So if you have narrow rifling they need to be taller than a wider form.

Once you foul, your rifling height is even shorter. If the fouling is next to the rifling, then you have reduced the "bite" (angle).

Also tied into this is bullet design as the strength of the design works together to get a good launch.That's what I thought you meant, thanks for verifying.

[357shooter]

Bret4207: I've tested and had it work in 4 guns, all 357 magnum. I haven't tested in Ruger single action, Freedom Arms, Thompson single shots and plenty of others.

I don't believe the softness of the lead, or the other things I mention that work well in a 357 work in bigger calibers, so please don't think I'm claiming that.

I have run into some range guns (specifically a GP100) that just won't shoot lead accurately no matter what.

So nothing works 100%, but somethings work 80-90%. In consider that to make a great "guideline".

Bullets that didn't react well to OAL tweaks were all over the place in how they responded. Which is why I mentioned it as being an important factor.

[357shooter]

On the question of hardness matters: that can be very true related to leading, working with the rifling etc.

However the topic is alloy and pressure matching (I assume for accuracy from the context): in that context doesn't according to the chart. It does affect accuracy though. At least in a 357.

Looks like it's true here too, which is why this interested me so much.

[felix]

A projectile has to enter the barrel straight on for the gun/load to be accurate. Anything that promotes that is mandatory. Two wide lands barrels shoot softer boolits well, right? Going one step further, a camera tripod is just that having three narrow lands. So a barrel improvement would have three lands, but with lands taking up instead more space than the grooves. The idea is to force the boolit to orient itself straight on into the bore before any acelleration that counts. If the boolit jumps too fast (fast powder), then it is imperative the lands have to be wider to give more orientation power to the boolit. ... felix

[44man]

Threads like this bring out the cynic in me. Not because I don't believe what anyone is saying, but because other people will take whats written and try and make it a "rule" or use it to justify their position which my be incorrect for a number of reasons. Worse yet, they'll use this as ammo to spread disinformation and harm the incredible gains we've made here over the past 15 years or so. I think Bass put it best- hardness matters only when it does. If the the OP author can reproduce those groups on demand over a wide range of conditions, THEN my friend you have a clear winner.

357- That's an interesting theory. My first question would be- how many guns have you observed this in and how many alloys have you used? If it's just one gun/alloy then it only holds true for THAT gun/alloy, no offense intended. If it's 2-3 guns/alloys then you have a working theory. When you can get 20-40 other guys to reproduce your observations across a wide variation on guns/alloys/designs/powders/etc. then you get into the "fact" area. I mean absolutely no disrespect or offense, but I have been guilty of stating a few "facts" in rather strong terms myself only to end up realizing I wasn't as right about things as I thought. I hope you ARE right, finding some rules to this game beyond "fit is king" would be very helpful.

I would tend to agree over all, in a general way, that "hardness matters", but in a limited way (is that non-comital or what?!) . That is, hardness ( talk about ambiguous terms, 15.4 Bhn is almost dead soft to some people!!!) is part of the boolits dynamic fit. Fit remains King and comes first. That's the one true fact in the game as far as I can tell.

BTW- I tried to get an agreement on definitions for "hardness" a while back. I thought it would be helpful to clear the air of just what people mean when they say soft, medium, hard, really hard, etc. There was practically no interest in defining terms. The one thing we did discover is that those who responded felt "hard" ran from about 15 Bhn to well over 30 Bhn. That's a pretty wide range to use and have people understand what you mean.
That is the problem, there is no rule for hardness. One alloy at 14 BHN will shoot lights out yet another at 14 will give fliers all the time. That means the alloy needs changed.
It always comes back to the same problem, none of us has the same lead.
How I wish I could compile it for everyone but I can't even do it for myself. :veryconfu
I do know for a fact that the wrong alloy will cause fliers.
The charts for alloys are just like twist rate charts, none will work.
Bass is correct too. Alloy does matter when it does.
Bear with me Bret, it can not be solved except by the shooter. If he gets a lot of fliers, leave the boolit alone and work with the alloy.
We both agree that fit is first.
Some use the same alloy for every caliber and velocity and I will say that is the route to failure in most guns.

[felix]

The more the gun approaches BR specs, the softer the lead can be for the same accuracy. There is NO doubt about that. ... felix

[Three44s]

A belated welcome to the forum .458!!

A very nice group!!!

"Hardness matters when it does"

I'll agree with that!

I do see a general thought amounst beginers that HARDNESS IS KING ............ and it's NOT.

It's quite seductive to fall into that trap and come up disappointed later on.

But hardness does just matter "when it does"!

As other's have pointed out, the OP is using a 4227 powder and it's dwell time is longer than others and that matters as well.

And though the OP is using the .454 Cas .......... Running one at 1200+ fps is not straining things .......... and that's good particularily for lead.

And most of us don't have .454's ...........

I shoot a lot of .44 mags ........ and as .44man aludes to ... top loads in that caliber can and will stretch the envelope with lead but most of don't load all of our ammo to that pressure.

Some mention of variations alloy came up .......... certainly if your alloy is jumping around, you've got a problem ........ I like BIG lead pots for breaking things down.

The law of averages is your friend.

After I get things into ingots, I run them again in the big pot and re-clean ........... more averaging.

Now that big pile of ingots are pretty average.

If and when I need something unaverage for an alloy, I blend for that need and take a letter stamp and mark those ingots to what that alloy has been blended up to.

I work by one golden rule: If isn't broke don't fix it!

And I am with Bret ........... it you've got a problem ........ get your fitament right first!

Everything you do thereafter will work much better!

Three 44s

[1Shirt]

An interesting thread, and even more interesting opinions and comments.

Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that regarding fit, bigger is better, and smaller is leading. And for me that seems to work. So in that regard agree with Bret on that point.

As to hardness, it seems to me that in shooting anything we cast, it is going to be softer than jacketed material (please someone correct me if I am wrong on that point). Don't mind shooting plinking loads that run in the 1000-1200 fps range with lower end BH numbers (12-15), but when vols go up, I want harder and slightly oversized for bore blts. Most everything that I shoot in rifles at vols between 1600-2300 fps, are at or above Lino hardness. That is true for the 22's, thru 375's.:brokenima

And of course there are issues of punching paper, or punching game, and what constitutes accuracy at what range, etc.etc.etc. Any how, still an interesting thread.
1Shirt!:coffeecom

[Bass Ackward]

Well, if you have ever moved something heavy, then you know it is more difficult than something light. Bullet mass will can be more difficult to turn over.

If you have .004 tall rifling as a standard, which bore diameter do you think will be more flexible with lead? A .224 bullet, or a .458? Which one is likely to need harder lead at the same velocity?

As a result, which bore diameter will have the highest, accurate, velocity potential? So as bore diameter increases with standard height rifling, what happens to the velocity range of the accuracy zone?

So two men are walking down the street, one shoots a .357 at moderate velocities while the other shoots a 500 anything. Will these guys tend to have the same opinion on hardness?

Lets stay within the same bore diameter. Take a 44 with 250 grain bullet and one with a 350 grainer. Which might have to be harder than the other?

This is the view from the top of the hill. Now you throw diameter on top of this and it gets complicated unless it isn't. If you just load and shoot what a gun wants, life is good. It's when we get determined to throw what we want that bad things happen. It only matter if it does.

[Larry Gibson]

.458

Welcome to this forum, you'll enjoy it here.

A couple things about your test; it is well thought out and executed, just to small of a sample to draw a reliable conclusion from is all. As mentioned the results need to be repeatable. I do agree with you and others, however, that Lee's min/max psi table is not correct as to the absolute conclusion drawn and many times that table/chart is misleading to many new cast bullet shooters. Among the other things mentioned in other posts here is how well a particular alloy does with regards to accuracy is directly related to the rate of accelleration. With a given max peak psi a fast burning powder accellerates a bullet faster than a slower burning powder. Nothing new there. What is misunderstood about it though is how uneven obturation, slump, set back, etc. or as Bass puts it; "not establishing and holding bore center" can adversely affect the balance of the bullet and it's accuracy during flight. Given equal psi a faster burning powder can cause more unbalance to the bullet than a slower burning powder and thus not be as accurate, even at a lower velocity. I beleive this is what 357shooter demonstrated with his test.

With regards to "hardness" what does "Hardness is like everything else, it only matters if it does." mean? While to those who understand about hardness it might point in the right direction. To those who don't understand it means as much to me as "where ever you go, there you are." Not trying to be critical of Bass here at all, just pointing out that it is somewhat misleading to those who don't understand "hardness" in cast bullets as is Lee's table.

Given the parameters of Lee's test, specifically what powder(s) were used and the specific alloy used, the min/max psi chart for alloy BHN is probably correct. The problem is as 44man says; " It always comes back to the same problem, none of us has the same lead." So what do I mean by that? Going to what Bret4027 mentions about trying to get an agreement on definitions for "hardness" . Not having a concenses on that definition (and many other terms we use) causes us confusion many times and specifically this time. Most want to give the BHN as the measure of "hardness". That is only half of it though. The malleability of the alloy must be taken into consideration as at least half of the equation/definition, perhaps more than half. I do know that a malleable alloy with a lower BHN (50/50 WW/lead & linotype/lead at 70/30 for example) can almost always be driven to higher velcoity (that means higher psi) with better accuracy using the same powder than a brittle bullet (straight linotype for example). So we see here that BHN alone does not tell the story but only part of it.

How do we measure mallebility of an alloy accurately? I don't know. I use a hammer and anvil. Not very scientific but it's worked for me. I place a cast bullet (aged properly) on the anvil base down and hit it hard with a large hammer. I do this with 10 such bullets of a given alloy. If they squish with no shattering then the alloy is good for upwards of 2600+ fps. An alloy that does this will not chip or unevenly set back in the bore during the push into the lands or during accelleration. Thus it will be a more balanced bullet and less adversely effected by such during flight. Ergo more accurate. I've also found this test to be relavent to accurate cast bullets in the .357, .41 and .44 magnums at 1400+ fps velocities. Caveat here; the use of GC'd or PB'd bullet also adds another factor to consider as someone mentioned.

Malleability of the alloy, BHN, the accelleration, the "fit", "enter(ing) the barrel straight on, whether GC'd or not, etc. are all important factors for accuracy. Unfortuneately Lee's table leads many to believe that just BHN is important when considering the "hardness" of a cast bullet and as you've discovered, that isn't correct.

Larry Gibson

[Bass Ackward]

.With regards to "hardness" what does "Hardness is like everything else, it only matters if it does." mean?


In the 60s, Hippies had a similar saying, if it feels good do it.

It means that everything is discussed in endless detail with opinion on top of opinion.

In the end, Professor Gun has the only opinion that matters.

No rules.

[MtGun44]

Overall, an interesting test. There are some issues that need to be discussed.

First, the whole range of hardnesses tested is pretty small and with most testers, I wonder if you
could repeatably tell the BHN difference between one sample and the other due to the
variability of the measurement process. Also, it is a bit odd that a TINY, almost unmeasurable
change in hardness from 11BHN to 12.5 BHN makes a giant difference.

Second, one set of groups is interesting but means almost nothing. If you can run the
same test about 9 times more and get the same results it will be meaningful.

Sorry to be a wet blanket, but there are so many variables in a test like this that are
totally uncontrolled that drawing hard conclusions at this point is scientifically and statistically
impossible. WAY too little data. It is an interestig result, and if confirmed by more
repetitions, is very valuable. Color me skeptical until it is confirmed by at least 4-5 more
identical results, and 9 would be a lot more valid.

[1Shirt]

Yep, have to agree, there are a whoop of variables. Guess that's what keeps me casting/sizing/lubing, loading and shooting. If everything were exactly the same, and every group fired was min of angle, and, and, and. Sure do enjoy this forum!
1Shirt!:coffeecom

[mpmarty]

I studied the LEE book religiously for hours on end comparing the pressure vs velocity and so forth and have decided that the book is only right part of the time. A very small part. I shoot cast in 7.62 Nato and my boolits run around 15bhn. I shoot them with H-335 and Varget and get velocities in the 2200fps range. Accuracy is fine and there is no leading at all. My lead stock is comprised of straight clip on wheel weights that are air cooled and gas checked. All my boolits are lubed with 50/50 LLA JPW without the mineral spirits.

[44man]

Larry, you have broken the bank this time! :holysheep Just maybe the best way it has ever been said.
This deserves a "sticky"!

[.458]

I spent quite some time in replying to the previous replies and posting the other targets when the site requested that I log in again. I did so and lost 45 minutes of text. Have a Honey-Do list to take care of and a Honey that's pushing the issue so if my post doesn't show up soon I'll write it again later this evening, in my text editor and SAVE IT before pasting it here.

[918v]

In my 45 ACP revolvers, hardness does matter. 12 BHN 200gr SWC shoot twice as accurate as 22 BHN. I have to increase pressure way past SAAMI limits to get hardcast bullets to even approach the assuracy I get with softer slugs. My 1911's don't care about hardness, but my revolvers do.

[white eagle]

458 has seemed to have found the place where the Professor likes to be
will that place be shared amongst the rest of the class has yet to be determined
I doubt it ...........

[lwknight]

What's hard and what's not?
When I first started casting , I thought that any ingot that clanked or rang was hard lead.

Truth is that you can put a little bit of just about anything in lead and it will not thud anymore.
So far me a 15-16 bnh is pretty hard.

[.458]

Wow! I'm amazed at the responses. Keep in mind that I'm still very wet behind the ears when it comes to casting boolits. Being ignorant is bound to cause me to make some wrong assumptions at times. I realize that a single 5-shot group in no way is conclusive of anything. But at the same time, in comparison of the other targets, it stands out.

I'm an experienced shooter and handloader but for 30 years or so I thought lead boolits were too soft to work in the guns I enjoyed shooting. Companies advertising their "hardcast" boolits that would shoot great in anything just misled me even more when they wouldn't shoot in my guns.

After finding this forum and reading for hours I decided to try a new hobby. I've only scratched the surface but what little scratching I have done has been very encouraging. Getting ideas from you guys after sharing my test results has been fantastic.

I have about 100 boolits left from the alloy that shot so well and of course I will shoot more groups with the same load. Unfortunately I could spend a lifetime trying to recreate the exact alloy. It was the first I mixed when my bottom pour kettle arrived. It was 5 pounds of linotype, 5 pounds of roof flashing, a partial roll of 60/40 rosin core solder that had something spilled on it that made it sputter when soldered with and a bunch of those purchased "hardcast" boolits that wouldn't shoot straight and filled my bore with lead.

Last night I mixed pure lead with Roto's Hardball alloy to the same hardness. I put a rubber band around the Lee microscope and drop it into a Lee 452 sizing die mounted on my press. With the microscope stable I can slide the boolit around on the ram and focus by raising or lowering the ram. As some here have eluded to, the same hardness number doesn't make for the same alloy. They may not shoot well at all but I'll find out next week.

btroj: All groups were fired from a portable bench at 25 yards from a scoped (Leupold M8-4X EER) Freedom Arms 454 Casull with a 6 inch barrel using 2 sandbags. Recoil is light with this load so flinching wasn't an issue. All boolits were sized .452 and generously pan lubed with beeswax and petroleum jelly, about 9/1.

At the beginning of this year I had never cast anything but pure lead for my muzzleloader so I’m very much encouraged with these early results.




WW at 10.1 BHN


11.0 BHN


12.5 BHN



Rotometal’s Hardball alloy at 14.3 BHN


Roof Flashing and Roto’s Superhard at 15.4 BHN

[Bret4207]

I spent quite some time in replying to the previous replies and posting the other targets when the site requested that I log in again. I did so and lost 45 minutes of text. Have a Honey-Do list to take care of and a Honey that's pushing the issue so if my post doesn't show up soon I'll write it again later this evening, in my text editor and SAVE IT before pasting it here.

Been there, done that, got the tee shirt! Nothing worse than getting a post just right and then having it disappear.

[.458]

Having the pics not show up is also a pain.

http://home.comcast.net/~beanpole27/pics3/Brenell-10.1.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~beanpole27/pics3/Brenell-11.0.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~beanpole27/pics3/Brenell-12.5.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~beanpole27/pics3/Brenell-14.3.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~beanpole27/pics3/Brenell-15.4.jpg

[Bret4207]

Larry and some others have brought up something I've been preaching on for some time- alignment. I spend a lot of time reading old American Rifleman mags from back in the 30's, 40's and 50's. I don't know how many times I've seen reference to poor grouping with spitzer type boolits like the 311413 "Squibb" boolit or some of the real short bodied number like the 323366. Without perfect alignment those long noses are going to work like a lever on those relatively fragile boolits. Push them faster and they just get worse. It simply makes sense, yet nowhere in my reading did I ever see any discussion of alignment as regards cast boolits- till I got here.

I keep harping on this board being THE cutting edge for cast, no matter what some famous author says. I maintain I'm correct!

[357shooter]

Nice pics and results .458. If you think folks here are obsessed with cast boolits, you'd be right. It's a good thing though.

I use those Dirty Birds too, they work well.

[357shooter]

Bret4207: When you say alignment, it sounds like bullet alignment in the gun and how it affects stability after it's out of the gun. Am I getting that right?

[TCLouis]

several of the folks I know /shoot with say

And some here have alluded to

And some others have let their education get in the way of

Perfessor gun will tell us what shoots well, hardness of a certain level or not

And as the PhHds all said and were adamant about being the absolute truth in all cases . . .

In dealing with higher temperatures or pressures the statement it should behave thusly should be preceeded by an experiment to show that and that it true, not known not . . . NOT based on scientific suppostition.

Thus shoot it, if it does well, that is a good combination for your gun.

[Bret4207]

Bret4207: When you say alignment, it sounds like bullet alignment in the gun and how it affects stability after it's out of the gun. Am I getting that right?

Alignment as in having the boolit aligned with the case and the case aligned with the chamber. Picture seating a boolit with a long nose, of less than bore diameter, crooked. It happens, I've even done it with wad cutters! Any way, then picture that brass you seated the boolit into crooked being FL resized and that you have a sloppy chamber to start with. That would be about the max for chances of poor shooting in a rifle, in a revolver add in that the cylinder doesn't index well. Now picture that cartridge pretty much laying in the bottom of the chamber wit the boolit nose pointing towards 3:00. Then the next round it might be at 7:00 or 12:00. Every time you shoot the boolit is leaving thr case headed in a different direction. The boolit slams into the leade and is deformed to an extent, giving you a bent boolit to one degree or another. The base is not aligned with the nose, one side of the boolit may show it's further into the rifling than the other. So what happens when it hits the muzzle? No more barrel walls to contain the boolit and it's now somewhat slanted base. As the boolit exits the muzzle the powder gases may be released sooner on one side of the base than the other causing even more imbalance. As the boolit flies the nose works like a lever or an out of balance tire on your car and flies far more wildly than a boolit in balance. The less support the boolit has over it's length, the poorer the fit of the boolit, the less aligned it is then the more chance that things will go haywire.

Hope that helps illustrate what I'm saying.

[Bret4207]

Having the pics not show up is also a pain.

http://home.comcast.net/~beanpole27/pics3/Brenell-10.1.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~beanpole27/pics3/Brenell-11.0.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~beanpole27/pics3/Brenell-12.5.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~beanpole27/pics3/Brenell-14.3.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~beanpole27/pics3/Brenell-15.4.jpg

Your dispersion is almost all horizontal. That strikes me as extremely odd to the point of wondering if this isn't a mechanical issue.

[btroj]

Thanks for posting the other groups. I am with Bret in that the almost all horizontal dispersions makes it look like it could be a problem in how the gun was held or how it was sitting on the rest for some of the other groups.
If we seem cynical or harsh it is because we have seen too many times where one group was a fluke, not a real proof of anything. If you can go out and repeat these results a couple more time it becomes far more believable.
I am willing to agree however that extreme hardness is not needed at lower velocities and pressures. Every gun and load combo will have a hardness it wants with that bullet.

As for Bass's comment that hardness only matters when it does- I agree entirely. Hardness is just another variable in shooting. It is no more, or less, important than factors like diameter, pressure, velocity, lube, bullet fit, etc. When you are at a point in load development where a simple increase or decrease in hardness makes "the difference" then it matters, if that change does not improve things then it obviously didn't matter. We can only find out if hardness matters in our gun/load situation by finding out thru testing. Bass is simply stating that the assumptions made about hardness are not always right, not always wrong, but they are always an assumption. Hope I explained that well Bass.

Brad

[357shooter]

Bret4207: Thanks, that description was perfect.

[357shooter]

Thanks for posting the other groups. I am with Bret in that the almost all horizontal dispersions makes it look like it could be a problem in how the gun was held or how it was sitting on the rest for some of the other groups.
If we seem cynical or harsh it is because we have seen too many times where one group was a fluke, not a real proof of anything. If you can go out and repeat these results a couple more time it becomes far more believable.
I am willing to agree however that extreme hardness is not needed at lower velocities and pressures. Every gun and load combo will have a hardness it wants with that bullet.

As for Bass's comment that hardness only matters when it does- I agree entirely. Hardness is just another variable in shooting. It is no more, or less, important than factors like diameter, pressure, velocity, lube, bullet fit, etc. When you are at a point in load development where a simple increase or decrease in hardness makes "the difference" then it matters, if that change does not improve things then it obviously didn't matter. We can only find out if hardness matters in our gun/load situation by finding out thru testing. Bass is simply stating that the assumptions made about hardness are not always right, not always wrong, but they are always an assumption. Hope I explained that well Bass.

Brad

Good read on that. Shooting off a rest, in itself, takes lot's a rounds to be good at. For myself, the trigger finger with a revolver can cause a horizontal spread.

[Larry Gibson]

"no rules"

"NOT based on scientific suppostition"

Not hardly. There are the laws of physics and ballistics is based on proven scientific facts, not "supposition". There are reasons that accurate loads are accurate and inaccurate ones aren't. If we understand the reasons (laws, rules, principles, guidlines, suppositions, etc.) why the accurate loads are accurate and induce those reasons by following proven laws, rules, principles, guidlines, suppositions, etc. into other loads we will produce accurate loads from the get go.

There are loads that will shoot well in any rifle or handgun that is capable of reasonable condition and accuracy. Granted they may not be the most accurate possible for that rifle/handgun but they will shoot well if not very well. Those loads do this because they are loaded following the basics of the , rules, principles, guidlines, suppositions, etc. that govern loading cast bullets for rifles and handguns. To say otherwise is to disregard any knowledge gained. Yes, there are things yet to be learned. Perhaps insinuating that we should disregard what we have learned because we haven't learned everything is somewhat counter productive to me.

There are differing opinions on this but I think if we closely examine the loading/casting procedures used and advise given by those who disagree we find that they fall within the laws, rules, principles, guidlines, suppositions, etc. that the rest of us understand and follow.

Larry Gibson

[btroj]

I agree to a point Larry. What bothers me is the idea that A lube or A hardness or A bullet design is THE answer. Every situation or gun is an individual. What works very well in one may not work in another. When shooting cast we introduce lots more variables than the jacketed crowd has to deal with. these variables make it far more difficult to say for certain that a certain load combination will always be best. Exceptions to the rule do exist.
Do we disregard all we have learned? No way, but we also need to remember to not be constrained by what others have said can't work. If we all followed the conventional wisdom none of us would be shooting cast bullets in microgroove rifling beyond 1600 fps and then only with rock hard bullets.
I only ask that people keep an open mind regarding load development. Do not be constrained by "rules". Starting within conventional ideas is good, but when that does not work it is time to look outside the box.
Sadly, there is much more to be learned regarding internal ballistics and not just dealing with cast. We think we know what is happening but can anyone state for a fact that they KNOW what happens when we pull the trigger? When a bullet enters the forcing cone of a revolver? We can assume and form opinions based upon observations but that is all. I do not mean to reduce the importance of this type of information or data gathering. Observation is a key skill in learning.
We have many new casters and shooter on this site. They have minds that are wide open, or I hope they do. I don't want them to feel that only a certain set of parameters will work. I want them to be open to all ideas. They should listen to all the various dissenting opinions here. We have numerous frequent posters who have vastly differing opinions on what works best. Following the advice of only one person can lead you down a road to either success or utter failure. Listen to all and learn by doing. Assume nothing, try your loads in your gun and find out. That is the way to learn.
Rules can either be a starting point or a limit. I view them as a starting point.

Brad

[Char-Gar]

I will throw in with Larry. This stuff is science and not witchcraft, chance or karma. Follow the principals you get results. Ignore the principles, you get consequences.

[Bass Ackward]

Larry, it depends on how you look at things.

Whole problem with the argument for scientific facts is that there is no evidence to support that argument. After 300 years we still can't find the best bore diameter, the right cartridge, the right bullet, the right way to make a barrel, the best platform, a best load, twist rate, .... anything.

This isn't a help post. This guy just wrote a novel of Science Fiction according to you. Except he has photos not only of success but results that lead up to that success. So, sorry Larry, Judge Gun wrote the verdict on THAT 454 and soft lead. How do you argue with success?

The beauty of this board isn't the education for the masses. This board demonstrates, each and every day, problems with cast aren't because of laws, or lead, or even troublesome guns. Nope, problems with cast are from operators .... stereotyping AND NOT doing the things their gun requires for success.

There are enough "law providers" for those that it helps. I see my role to provide "options, hope, and encouragement" with other possibilities when "the law" fails them. To make those who believe in "law" open their eyes, if they will.

As a result I can tell you emphatically, there are many thousands of possible combinations to try with cast and some won't make sense. You gotta be flexible to succeed, but you gotta pull the trigger to know for sure.

Changes will only make a difference when they do cause the law is written by THAT gun. Not somebody with a degree on the wall.

[btroj]

No, this isn't voodoo or which craft. I give you that. But it sure as heck isn't cookbook reloading either.
If hard fast rules worked we would never have arguments about bullet hardness, best diameter, lubes, check or no check, powder choice,velocity, twist rate, whatever. These arguments take place because no one single answer exists. We need to find what works in our situation.

Are the "rules" a good starting point? Absolutely. But they are not absolutes. Not every gun shoots best with the same load. This is because not all guns are the same. Not every cast bullet is the same. Variables. That is the wild card here. You must take the variables into account.

I watch with great joy some heated discussions on this site. I do this because it demonstrates more than one way can work.

Success is where you find it. I just want to find it in my gun, on my target.

Brad

[.458]

Bret4207:
The horizontally distributed pattern in targets 1 and 4 was something I noticed right away. "Hmm". What 357Shooter said about the trigger finger is something I will be especially conscious of next trip to the range. I don't think I was pulling it but anything is possible. The other thing that baffled me was that one of the 11.0 Bhn boolits missed the target completely. I realize I’m not the greatest shot in the world but I was only 25 yards away!

I agree with Larry's scientific approach. My problem is that I haven't the experience with cast boolits and therefore, don't know the effect of a small change in each variable. I've tried to keep all the variables that are within my control as close to each other as possible, varying only the alloy because a previous trip to the range showed boolits from that alloy shot better than the others I was shooting. On the surface it appears (to me) that the 12.5 hardness bullet is the answer but what I'm getting out of reading between the lines here is that you guys wouldn't expect this much variability across this narrow band of hardness. That's good. I'd prefer to have some latitude.

btroj:
Don't worry about sounding cynical or harsh. I'm searching for truth. If I were offended by something that someone said then I would be the one with the problem. My belief is that "Political Correctness" caters to the group with the problem.

I'm looking forward to shooting this boolit some more.

[Bret4207]

I have to latch onto one word Chargar used- principles. I like that a whole lot better than "rules". There are principles that apply to reloading in general and some that apply more to cast than jacketed and vice versa. There are also some exclusively applying to cast. Then there are the variables and that's where the art of this comes into play. It's not witchcraft ( although I'd be willing to try the belly button lint from a goddess as filler if someone says it'll help!) but there is an art or a degree of flexibility required to get some guns to shoot right. That's the difficult part and the part that takes this out side the cookbook/science area. Lets face it, we can probably all give a load with jacketed for a 308 that will result in groups under 1.5" in the vast majority if guns. We can also give general guidelines for cast loads that will shoot under 4" in the same 308. It's when the guy wants to do that 1.5" at 2500 that the art comes in.

I wish it was science. We can't even get people to agree on terms, how do you make science out of something when "hard" means anything from 14 to 35 Bhn? When we can't even agree on what constitutes the throat or what to call it? When we can't nail down just what perfect fit is? In the end the variables might be able to be put on a spread sheet and over a 5 years period we might be able to recognize principles leading to good shooting, but they sure aren't LAWS.

[btroj]

I agree entirely on the "art" of casting and shooting cast. Some of it comes down to a feel, something you can't put into words but you just sense something is happening or needs to be done. This is where experience pays off.

The terms like hard, throat, etc are where I have problems with the idea that this is all cookbook. Wo writes the book? Who determines what different terms mean?

There are basic principles we should all be able to agree on, most of the time. In general terms certain things will generally lead to success or failure.

It is when you want to push the envelope, good luck defining that, that it gets into the grey areas. This is where the years of experience and ability to observe and "feel" what is going on comes into play. This is the art or shooting cast.

Brad

[44man]

I agree entirely on the "art" of casting and shooting cast. Some of it comes down to a feel, something you can't put into words but you just sense something is happening or needs to be done. This is where experience pays off.

The terms like hard, throat, etc are where I have problems with the idea that this is all cookbook. Wo writes the book? Who determines what different terms mean?

There are basic principles we should all be able to agree on, most of the time. In general terms certain things will generally lead to success or failure.

It is when you want to push the envelope, good luck defining that, that it gets into the grey areas. This is where the years of experience and ability to observe and "feel" what is going on comes into play. This is the art or shooting cast.

Brad
Nicely said! :drinks: ART and EXPERIENCE rather then science. It takes an old timer seconds to figure what is wrong but a new fella will be baffled. It really is hard to help a new caster.

[Larry Gibson]

Charger indeed nailed it. It is principles indeed. Obviously some think that by rules, principles, science, etc. that it means there is only one way to do things; one lube, one design of bullet etc. That is not correct. There are many ways to "find the best bore diameter, select the right cartridge for the intended use, the right bullet for the intended use, the right way to make a barrel, the best platform, a best load or select a twist rate". With any of those you can go very wrong very quickly by stepping outside the "rules, principles, laws of physics and ballistics".

Select the wrong bore diameter, put it into the wrong cartridge, shoot it in a poorly made barrel in a loosely bedded action with a powder that gives inconsistent ignition in a twist that is to slow to stabilize the bullet and guess what? Inaccuracy will follow. Throw in a lube that doesn't do the job and the design of the bullet (to long for the twist) and you just make things worse. Conversely if we follow the rules, principles and laws of physics and ballistics we can come up with accurate loads very quickly without any real problems.

A lot of confusion here between what makes accuracy and how to apply those things that make accuracy. The rules, principles, laws of physics and the laws of ballistics are pretty well known. They apply to cast bullets also. For example of a "rule"; if the twist isn't compatable with the bullet and velocity then inaccuracy will result regardles of the lube, sizing, alloy, powder, primer or GC used, etc. That is pretty hard and fast regardless of what some may think. Conversely there is no "rule" that says only one type of lube will work. The rule there is (if we are using a lubed bullet) a lube must be used. Some rules can also have exceptions such as seating bullets below the case neck. Most often inaccuracy will result but there are some instances where it can be done successfully. They are, however, the exception rather than the general "rule".

BTW; there is indeed all sorts of evidence to support scientific facts. Surprisingly if Bass would read many of his own past posts on numerous topics he would find he argues for many of, if not most, of those scientific arguments. It is in the application of the "arguments" where the confusion appears to be.

Larry Gibson

It is science, not art. We may be "artful" in our own techniques how we apply that science but if we vary from the princilpes of the science we suffer the consequence as Charger says.

[Char-Gar]

No, this isn't voodoo or which craft. I give you that. But it sure as heck isn't cookbook reloading either.
If hard fast rules worked we would never have arguments about bullet hardness, best diameter, lubes, check or no check, powder choice,velocity, twist rate, whatever. These arguments take place because no one single answer exists. We need to find what works in our situation.

I watch with great joy some heated discussions on this site. I do this because it demonstrates more than one way can work.

Brad

Brad, I have also watched some pissing matches on this site over the years, although I have never found it be a joyful experience. The heat generated far exceeds any small amount of light produced. Well, to be honest, I should say there is considerable light, if a fellow knows who to believe. The new fellow have no idea who knows what he is talking about and who is blowing smoke.

IMHO, the root cause of these events are more rooted in human personality than empirical shooting experience.

1. Some folks just want their posts to be taken as gospel and get their hackles up if somebody challenges any part of their posts.

2. Folks get into defending their position and dig themselves in deeper into their bunkers.

3. Different folks have different expectations an definitions of what is going on in their shooting world.

4. Folks tend to talk about their successes and tout that as their norm. Their failures are dismissed as having a bad day.

5. Folks seem to have an inbred chip that tells them.."My way just must be the best way, because it is my way."

6. There is also a copious amount of BS, distortions and outright lies that are posted here as well.

In the end, all of this heat says far more about human nature, than it does about there being different ways to make cast bullets shoot well. I will stick to my guns, that there are principals that must be followed if success is to be found. There is some running room within the principals for individuals to play around and still get good results. But, ignore the principals, do the polar opposite, and tell me you are having tack driving accuracy, and I will refer you to No. 6 above.

The you is generic and not individual.

[btroj]

I agree entirely on No. 6 above.
Perhaps that is why I am skeptical of one group meaning much. Until it can be repeated over time it is not proof of anything.
The heated discussions can get to the point of silliness. I just think it is interesting that people with such vastly differing views both seem to have success. It means they are either broke No. 6 or they found different ways to get results.
No. 4 is as important as No. 6. I want to see and hear of your failures as much as your success. Failure often teaches far more than anything else.

I hope to never be seen as no 1 or No 2. I try my best to keep an open mind. I have learned to take what many here say and use it as a guide but certainly not as gospel.

I certainly take no offense to anything said here. In the end I think we are on the same side, at least to a large degree.

Fit, good lube, an appropriate powder and charge, and good technique are all important in any good load. After that it is up to the user to figure out what is happening. That is where the art comes is. I don't call that a science because I don't think we can always say that if A happens, do B. That would be great but it isn't reality yet.

Brad

[Bret4207]

Brad, I have also watched some pissing matches on this site over the years, although I have never found it be a joyful experience. The heat generated far exceeds any small amount of light produced. Well, to be honest, I should say there is considerable light, if a fellow knows who to believe. The new fellow have no idea who knows what he is talking about and who is blowing smoke.

IMHO, the root cause of these events are more rooted in human personality than empirical shooting experience.

1. Some folks just want their posts to be taken as gospel and get their hackles up if somebody challenges any part of their posts.

2. Folks get into defending their position and dig themselves in deeper into their bunkers.

3. Different folks have different expectations an definitions of what is going on in their shooting world.

4. Folks tend to talk about their successes and tout that as their norm. Their failures are dismissed as having a bad day.

5. Folks seem to have an inbred chip that tells them.."My way just must be the best way, because it is my way."

6. There is also a copious amount of BS, distortions and outright lies that are posted here as well.

In the end, all of this heat says far more about human nature, than it does about there being different ways to make cast bullets shoot well. I will stick to my guns, that there are principals that must be followed if success is to be found. There is some running room within the principals for individuals to play around and still get good results. But, ignore the principals, do the polar opposite, and tell me you are having tack driving accuracy, and I will refer you to No. 6 above.

The you is generic and not individual.


Lotta truth in all that Charles. If there's one thing I've learned here it's that putting things in terms of absolutes generally ends up with me eating a big supper of crow, with egg on my face and both feet in my mouth up to the hip! But people come here looking for cookbook recipes for easy cast success. There's a learning curve to this, one that never ends. People try to help, to get around the questioners pre-conceived notions and the answerers own notions is the hard part. Maybe instead of rules we should stick with principals and instead of art we should use the term flexible thinking.

[44man]

A lot of truth has been said here. That is why suggestions only are important. Everyone must pass on experiences or we are lost in bickering because nothing works for everyone or in every gun.
I have too many boolits I can't get to shoot. I have had guns I could not get to shoot. Trying to get accuracy with home made shotgun slugs has been a bust even when I try everything ever said about them. I am still trying to get a Marlin .44 to shoot.
I try EVERYTHING posted here if it is about what I shoot or do. I have some rules that I have to follow but it is not science, nothing can be put on paper so the rules work for everyone. One would be that the GG's MUST be such and such size, shape and depth or a million other TRUTHS that just don't pan out. Another is that one GG must be left empty, well if it works for you, how can it work for everyone? If that is scientific proof it is funny, the Genie was just let out of the bottle! :mrgreen:
Another would be that a boolit has to have 7.3254 gr rear of center or it will not shoot. Don't you fellas also not know a FP will go unstable past 50 yards?
Everyone has pet theories and truths they follow but not a single person can show what they do will work with every gun, boolit, powder, primer, lube or alloy. Things we are all blessed with that are all so different you really need a Genie! [smilie=1:
Tell and show your experiences because it might help someone---IF THEY TRY IT and nothing says it will work for them but it just might.
Just don't sit there and tell everyone that the front drive band or the rear drive band must be a certain width or the angle of the GG's just has to be such and such or the boolit only shoots with 7.137 gr of Unique and will fail with 7.5 gr.
Those are personal theories, none is based on scientific fact.
Think of the fun if every one of our guns was based on the science of Greenhill or you gun will not group unless the ES and SD is less then 1!
I will wait forever for someone to explain the principals of cast boolits! :drinks:

[Bass Ackward]

I think it's hilarious. The SAME gun isn't even the same through it's shooting cycle.

The truth is that any gun including the most accurate rifle in the world can be a 4" shooter when it fouls from enough shots no matter what bullet material is used. That's why they clean often.

So what you have with any gun is an operating range from clean to fouled with the number of rounds determined by what YOU are doing and the gun. Why even POI most likely will change.

Now some of those things may shoot from clean to moderately fouled. Some loads can be developed to go from moderately fouled to the end of the shooting range so that they shoot better on the back end over fouling.

The more uniform the gun is and more it is broken in, makes for wider fouling windows or higher round counts between cleanings.

In fact, a smart fella has loads developed both ways so that he can make use of his gun no matter where it is in this cycle unless he only needs a few shots between cleaning.

The science is that anything can be made to work someplace in the cycle. And anything can spray slugs in another. This order may even be switched if the gun is going in another direction. Older guns are smooth when clean and go rough with fouling. New guns tend to be rough and technically smooth as they foul.

No single technique, primer, or anything else works the whole time even in the same gun little alone in somebody else's.

That's the joke. Repetition. Doing the same thing until it fails. :grin:

All you have to do is methodically try enough combinations in the bore condition window area you need to shoot (how many rounds before you want to clean). Key word there is try. Not think, not read, try. I'll do what ever is necessary if I want to. Or I'll quit and clean.

The man who shoots cool (slow) and the man that shoots low velocity, have the widest amount of possible combinations to make work and the widest round count windows before the RPM monster grabs him. And yes the RPM monster comes to you even if you are below the zone. When you foul enough that the lead can't hold or load balance changes, your accuracy game is done.

As you speed up firing rate or shoot longer strings, the fouling monster arrives sooner and technique can become more critical. And still the gun may limit you sooner than mine or someone elses as .... science says it should. The guys that don't understand this scream for 10 round shot groups.

Fouling drives the train that hits us all. Some experienced people never get it as you see comments from barrel break-in to accuracy moderate accuracy levels cause they shoot in ways that brings on the RPM monster faster. And they cry BS when somebody else makes a claim. not so really, but it is for them because they make it so.

And that ladies and gentlemen is why you got copper.

Why do guys have the opinions they have? Because guys have their set bag of things they are willing to try before they give up and restart their round count clock. Or they lower their accuracy expectations and cry foul if you claim other wise. Who's right? We all probably are. But inflexibility is a cross that we all eventually bear.

The science of banging ones head off the wall comes when we look for theories when accuracy leaves. In a way, it's the "misery loves company" syndrome.

Again why we have copper. Copper allows less POI and accuracy change over it's fouling cycles which is "normally" wider than lead especially if you push.

The sooner a rookie learns this, the more flexible they will be. And the happier too. Or not/

[Char-Gar]

Bass.. I gave your post above a very careful read. I had a hard time coming up with the jist of what you are driving out. Mostly, it seems disconnected. But, the impression I get, is a cast bullet shooter, just keeps trying different combination until he find one that works that day. The next day, that may or may not work, and so forth.

If you are saying, what it seems you are saying, then why the heck are we working at trying to solve the puzzles anyway. It would seem, you feel the efforts to be hilarious and without merit.

If that is the substance I respectfully disagree. It I have your post wrong, the please try again and give me your thinking in a way I can understand.

[Larry Gibson]

Bass

You refer to "the science" or some such several times. If you are defining science here I have to disagree with what I percieve, with some difficulty, your definition. "Trying" different things is not science, it is research. It can be done methodically so a reasonable result will be found or it can be done in a very limited (as in accepting one 5 shot group as "accurate") or it can be done in a helter skelter fashion (as in changing several things at one time). One is reliable (the methodical) and the other (helter skelter) isn't. Neither are science, they are only research.

The science comes from the laws of physics and ballistics. There are rules to loading and casting bullets. There may be different techniques to accomplish a specific rule however. That is where many differences of opinion come into play. Just different ways to skin the cat is all. That the cat needs to be skinned is the rule, which knife you use or which is "best" is the opinion. A bullet must be spun at a certain RPM to be stabilized. That is the rule. By increasing/decreasing RPM we can minimally stabilize the bullet, stabilize the bullet or over stabilize the bullet. That is the technique. The point being there is a difference between science/the rules and technique. We can vary the technique but not the rules. Everything I've read that you posted regarding "let the gun be the judge" is based on manipulation of technique not breaking, bending or ignoring the science/rules.

Larry Gibson

[Bass Ackward]

Speer researched accuracy with Unique in a 44 magnum and says accuracy is at 7 grains with a 240-250 bullet.

Elmer says nope, it's 8.5.

Then writers in the 80s and 90s come along and say 9.2.

And the consensus on this board is 10 grains.

Can somebody please tell me where the laws or science is in this situation? How does a man puff out his chest, let out a Tarzan yell, and then claim art or science got him accuracy at 9 grains when the whole world found accuracy at almost every level around him?

What about the guy who hates Unique? Is this guy uneducated in science cause he couldn't get accuracy with Unique? What's the scientific advice? Unique works for everything and everybody unless it don't. Wish I could have passed test in school with answers like that.

Accuracy can be found at any level with the right set of combinations based upon bore condition. Bore condition changes from heat and from fouling. If you develop anywhere along a guns operating cycle, then you can expect YOUR best accuracy when bore condition meets the point that it was developed in it's leading cycle.

Many here dread any leading. Yet 22LRs shoot leaded all the time. In fact, you need to shoot a couple hundred rounds just to see how a batch is going to perform. That's generally around 1050 fps with pure lead.

Do folks even know where their guns are the most accurate to begin development? Do they know at what operating states that their guns provide the WIDEST, accurate, operating round count? What hardness of lead works better at each state?

Its kinda useless to want to shoot clean if the gun gives you 50 accurate rounds. Unless 50 rounds is all you need. Would that load be good for somebody else that burns through 500 a day? Does that have anything at all to do with load? Or science? Or physics?

Not that anyone can predict yet. That's why I have to pull the trigger. Fouling, or the lack of it, is the load killer. (friction changer) Guns foul at different rates.

Want it in scientific terms? Bore condition has a certain coefficient of friction. Friction changes how powder burns. Powder burning differently throws different pressures. Do your loads shoot differently if you put different powder charges in them? Mine do. Do they print at different places on the target? Mine do. That's why slower powders work better for lead. Each change is a smaller percentage change than with a faster powder.

Just sit down with jacketed and shoot 20 rounds and clean. Do that five times and you will see an accuracy trend where accuracy is better with one series of groups than another. Might be the first. Might be the last. Then amplify and elongate that with lead.

Some of my most accurate loads lead from a clean barrel. But they shoot like **** till they do. Others shoot clean up front and require more cleaning. Different techniques work better at different points. So, no rules.

[44man]

Seems like Larry and Bass agree with me and we think the same.
So fellas can't we agree that beyond the "rules" there is no science involved?
If it was science, every cast boolit made would shoot one hole groups from every gun, every time by just reading a formula! :drinks:
Damn, that's funny! :mrgreen:

[Larry Gibson]

Bass, 44man

The science is in what makes any of those loads go bang and fly straight. The rules are in how they are put together. The different accuracy claims? All 3 used different componants and were using different definitions of "accurate". Those are the "variables" mentioned so often that have different answers.

Science tells us if every gun were perfect, if every bullet cast were perfect, if the load was perfect with equal ignition, of the conditions were perfect and the shooter could shoot perfect then all the bullets would go into one hole. Can you claim "perfect" in all the above? Neither can I nor anyone else. We strive for perfection (controlling the variables and being consistent in our application of the rules) but never really achieve it, that's why they are groups instead of one hole.

This is an example. It only deals with a couple aspects of science and rules as they relate to accuracy. There are of course other aspects of the science of ballistics and the rules of reloading cast bullets that affect accuracy. I am only discussing two of them here to simply make the point. The "formula" from the science tells us a 1- 38" twist won't stabilize a 300 gr cast bullet at 1000 fps very well and many have found out that is correct. The "formula" tells us that lighter weight .44 bullets will be stable in that twist at 1000 fps. A 250 gr 44 bullet in that twist which is well cast with no defects will be more accurate than a poorly cast one that is out of round, has wrinkles or voids or it's base isn't square, that is the rule (striving for perfection; one is closer to perfection than the other). Yet both the good bullets and the defective bullets are "stabilized" as per the science. Yet the more perfect bullet is more accurate. Follow the science of having an appropriate weight of bullet for the twist and velocity used and better accuracy is the result. Follow the rule to cast as perfect a bullet as possible and even better accuracy will result

The fact is; there is science involved. Always has been whether or not you understand that you are complying with it. If you did not comply with the science neither of you would develop and load ammuntion (cast or jacketed bullets) as accurate nor shoot as good as you do.

Larry Gibson

[Bass Ackward]

If you are saying, what it seems you are saying, then why the heck are we working at trying to solve the puzzles anyway. It would seem, you feel the efforts to be hilarious and without merit.

If that is the substance I respectfully disagree. It I have your post wrong, the please try again and give me your thinking in a way I can understand.


In real life, I am pretty easy going really.

I'll agree with pretty much anything anyone says except that they have found the one true / best / or the only way. Or .... you can't ____________. I hate can't.

So instead of saying I agree with you or not, I would rather say that we agree 100%. It's my darn guns that might not. If those stubborn ____ don't agree, I have to go another route. If that means ditching the Fed 150s, or sizing to bore, or going harder / softer, shooting leaded or clean, or going down a list of options that is contrary to the board, I have to go.

Then we disagree if they become happy. That's my experiences, and what I write about. Thus, the handle.

Hilarious Charles cause I have about as many excellent surprise results as I do planned successes anymore. "Well, would you look at that!" is heard more and more these days.

Sadly, I don't write very well or you would have known this 8 or 10 years ago now.

[Bret4207]

Jeeze guys, I don't even know where my personal thoughts, theories and biases fit in to all this anymore. It seems like I agree with part of what everyone is saying. Yeah, there's science to this and principles and some facts and a couple rules. Then there is that one thing that only time with hot lead and sandbags gets you- experience. My experience matches some folks here perfectly and some it doesn't even come close. I honestly don't know how some guys even get good boolits much less good groups from reading their descriptions of what they do. Heck, there was a guy here who did some tests with purposely deformed boolits, wrote out all the results and then said damaged boolits (variables) simply didn't matter even though his data showed just the opposite!!! So I'm getting to the point of calling the art part nothing more than experience and flexibility. I admit that for myself I often discover I'm beating the proverbial deceased equine on a problem that I KNOW how to fix, I just can't get my mind out of the rut (HARDNESS is one rut) and get flexible.

[btroj]

We also need to take into account "good accuracy" and other terms. They are like hard or soft. One guy thinks a 3 inch group at 100 is good, another is unhappy with anything over 1 inch. We need to speak in set numbers, although they don't always mean much either. Not all 18 BHN bullets are the same, are they? BHN is a scientifically defined number yet it can tell us much, or nothing at all. All of these principles, rules, whatever need to be taken in a certain context.

I do believe, to an extent, that CONTEXT is what Bass is trying to get at. In a certain set of circumstances a specific load does well. Change the parameters and all may go to pot. Could be a different alloy, different powder, different whatever, but the parameters have changed. New context.

An example of where this matters- do all loads that give a 200 swc in a 1911 45 ACP at say 800 fps group the same? No. The parameters are different.

Ultimately I do believe certain parameters are more likely to work. Certain alloys, bullet sizes, guns, and powder are most likely to work in a given set of circumstances. Sadly though, there is no guarantee of success because each gun is an individual. As reloaders we also introduce the biggest variable of all, ourselves. Each of us has a spec if way of doing things and looking at things. My idea of a good crimp might be very different from Bret's. Neither is right or wrong but we have introduced a variable. This is the problem with principles. My reAlly massive, excessive, hard crimp may be what Bret calls good. We are not speaking the same language. Different context again.

Until certain terms can be standardized and easily measured they mean little in many circumstances. This does not mean they not useful at all, they just need to be further explained and the context of the term needs to be explained.

Don't know if this is clear or not but it sure makes sense to me!

Brad

[Larry Gibson]

btroj

"BHN is a scientifically defined number yet it can tell us much, or nothing at all. All of these principles, rules, whatever need to be taken in a certain context."

That was my point regarding the topic of this thread. With regards to good alloys the BHN is only half the equation as I mentioned. Malleabiity is the other half. Two alloys can have the same BHN of say 22 yet one is brittle and one is malleable. Has to do with their composition (that's the science) but the point is a malleable bullet most often shoots better given equal BHNs (that's the rule). That's a generalized rule not the science of the matter. There definately can be exceptions to rules but the laws of physics and ballistics are pretty hard and fast. I anyone is simply mentioning BHN without the alloy compositition then it indeed must be taken in that context. That context being you only have half the information. That makes for a lot of room for error by anyone.

Larry Gibson

[btroj]

I agree entirely on a malleable alloy. They not only shoot better they are the only way to go for hunting.

My gear with some of the principles we talk about here is not the experienced caster but the newbie. I see so many posts on this site where a newbie is worrying about minute details that will likely have no bearing on what they are doing. Adding tin, measuring hardness or pot temp, making lubes from new recipes, etc are all things an experienced caster might do but a new guy should keep it simple. This is where your principles come into play. The new guy should stay within a small set of parameters. Once they have gotten the hang of things, which may takes a year or more, they can venture into more advanced areas of casting.

Brad

[Larry Gibson]

btroj

"The new guy should stay within a small set of parameters."

My sentements exactly. That small set of parmeters is what I refer to as the basics. No better place for the basics than the Lyman Cast Bullet handbook. That is the "primer" for the basics. Yes there are a lot of advanced things that many of us have learned beyond the basics in Lyman's Handbook. However, we all learned the basics first. The nebie has to graduate from grade school before attempting high school level studies. I don't think too many can leap into graduate level studies of cast bullets from the get go. Got to learn the basics first, both with book learnin' and experience, and when those are learned advanced studies and techniques can be learned also if one has the desire.

BTW; by "learned" I do not mean simply reseaching the internet and asking one or two questions on this or any other forum. The newbie can get some book learnin' that way (best to get the Cast Bullet Handbook first) but he has got to cast a lot of bullets, test them and then cast some more and test some more before he gains any appreciable experience. Proficiency and shooting ability with cast bullets does not come from the internet alone. Unfortuneately many think it does in this "information highway" age.

Larry Gibson

[btroj]

Agree entirely on earning by doing. Cast some bullets, load, shoot em. See what happens. Repeat. ALOT. Too many thunk that by "learning" what need to be done they will be able to do anything. I can read a book on rocket science but I wont be working NASA anytime soon. Takes years of experience and OJT for that. This is what I mean when I talk about the art of casting. You need to learn to see and feel what is happening. You need to learn to understand that leading is not a simple one trick pony. Leading has many types, causes, and fixes. This is learned thru time and doing. The school of hard knocks is the best teacher in the world.

The best thing a newbie can do is get a book like the Lyman manual and read it. Then try to find an experienced caster who can give some hands on training. If a picture is worth a thousand words what is a quick training session worth? Then go cast. A bunch. Try to figure out what works for you and what does not. This is not failure, it is learning. We all learned to walk by trying and falling. We eventually got the hang of it but it took time.

Brad

[Charlie Two Tracks]

As a new caster, I really thought that there were "recipes" in casting. A lot of other things are that way. I had no idea about all of the variables. Lead is lead and heat is heat. Heat lead up and it melts. Let it cool in a mold and you have a boolit. I had a very bad time of getting anything to shoot until I found this site. I have cast many Folgers cans of boolits and ended up melting them down again. Very slowly I am learning about what the process is in the ART of casting. It's kind of like golf. I can buy the best clubs, go to the best course, buy the best balls, read and watch videos of golfing but the first few times out, I will be lucky to hit the ball let alone get it to go where I want it to. All this reading and casting thousands of boolits is really helping my end result of wanting something good to shoot that I created myself. I have a few loads that actually work! It's kind of like hitting the golf ball and keeping it in the fairway. Tiger Woods would be very disappointed with the hit and results but I'd be very happy. Please keep the info. coming. It helps greatly.

[Char-Gar]

Charlie--- I don't know what a receipt means in this matter, but I do know, I can give a step by step plan for a new person to follow, that if followed, without deviation, or improvement, will produce good results the first time out. Will it produce the best results possible? Probably not. But, it will give good enough results to urge the shooter on, rather than discouraging the shooter. I should limit my comments to 30 caliber rifles, like the 30-30, 30-40, .308 and 30-06, as that are what I know best.

Even though I have been casting (mainly for handguns) for 50 plus years, I stayed with jacketed bullet for rifles most of the time. In the due course of time, that became boring and without the challenge it once had. I went to shooting cast bullets exclusively in the mid-90s BECAUSE of all of the variables and the enjoyment of learning and experimenting. I think, my experience is somewhat common. The complexity and challenge, is what makes this stuff so very interesting. I don't have enough years left, to plumb the depths of this craft.

Never-the-less, I do maintain there are principals, that when followed ,will give good results for just about anybody. I do find the term "art" inappropriate, as it distorts the concept of art. Art is subjective and individual. What is art to one person may mean nothing to another person. All of this talk of "art" and the mysterious workings of cast bullets, does nothing to encourage new casters. Trying to understand "art" is like trying to nail Jello to a tree.

Bullet casting is a "craft" and not an art. To do it right, requires knowledge and experience, but it is learnable and nowise reaches the level of being an art. New casters/shooters should know there are principals. Follow these principals and the caster/shooter will get results. Ignore these principals and the caster/shooter will get consequences. Once the basics are mastered, then "boldly go" where your interests lead you and enjoy the quest.

As, I read posts on this board, I wonder how a new comer would ever be able to sift through the wisdom, BS, hobby horses and valid experiences to ever get on the right track. It is a true morass of good information and nonsense.

I don't expect to sway the cognoscenti with this post. It is my intent to encourage the new comer to press on in spite of this fog of subjective experience. I am a teacher at heart and by nature, and I realize this is not just a conversation among ourselves. Others are watching and reading, and trying to learn. It is to those folks this post is directed.

[white eagle]

Chargar
once again you cut to the quick
I for one read most of your posts
with a studious eye

[btroj]

I am using art in a traditional sense mean to master a skill. I do not mean it is an art in the same sense as painting is an art. The art of casting is learning to master the mould, pot, lube, etc to the point of being able to get good results. It is a craft in the same sense. We are using two terms to define the same thing.
There are basic principles. These will guide a new caster well. What I fear is the new caster assuming that because Joe on this sight said he gets good accuracy at 2500 fps with cast that high velocity with cast is easy to accomplish. It can be done but it is by no means easy. Takes years of experience to learn the skills required to cast bullets, load them, and shoot them at that velocity.

Beginners should stick with the basics. Don't worry overly about hardness, making lube, extremes of velocity, etc. Find a few calibers that are cast friendly and have at it. Try a 30-30 or a pistol cartridge lever action, a revolver, etc for a beginner gun with cast. They are pretty easy to get good results with. Don't start with a 300 Rem ultra mag. Don't start with high velocity as a goal. Don't start out expecting 2 inch groups at 300 .

Can we agree that certain skills are mastered over time in shooting vast? Some master them sooner, some never do. It is these skills that allow some to get good results at times with some combinations when others get poor results. Call it skill, credit, or an art, it is all the same. Time and learning. Experience is required. Getting that experience takes time and effort.

Brad

[Bass Ackward]

As, I read posts on this board, I wonder how a new comer would ever be able to sift through the wisdom, BS, hobby horses and valid experiences to ever get on the right track. It is a true morass of good information and nonsense.


The same exact way man has been doing it for 300 years, pull the trigger. And lead cleans out. There is no crisis of information here.

You probably don't use the same technique for an automatic ACP at 800 fps and a 416 Rigby.

You don't use the same technique or bullet designs with a new 700 Remington vs a WWI military rifle that can seat a bullet one bore diameter up.

Techniques aren't the same for a single shot vs a gatling gun.

Guys shooting off hand with a 4", open sighted gun aren't likely to do what some do with a scoped handgun benched.

What is truth to one, is a lie to another. Always has been, always will be. That was why copper came about.

This thread started off with an anomaly in 454. Hardness, bullet deformation, balance, all went right out the window. Exceptions add to knowledge just the same as another statistic. It shouldn't be feared, but embraced.

I am glad for the guy cause he is happy shooting someplace while we ring our hands typing here.

I'm going shooting too. Just have to take off the white lab coat and comb my hair. Whoooooo haaaaaaaaaaaaa Caution: Mad scientist on the loose!!! :grin:

[Bret4207]

I'm with Brad on the "art". "Art" in the sense I use it here is like the "art"/craft/skill of fly casting, fly tying, welding, etc. I can give anyone a fly rod, fly tying materials or welder and rod. That doesn't mean it's going to come together with out some help and time.

I'm also with Charles on laying out simple, usually work recipes for noobies. You know what the problem is though? They don't listen. Or what we're saying doesn't translate or something. Seems like every time we get a noob asking questions it revolves around high capacity moulds, Bhn and jacketed speeds. So you tell them to start as square one and lay it all out step by step and they come back and ask about high capacity moulds, Bhn and jacketed speeds. That gets really old after 10 or 15 years.

[Larry Gibson]

Bass

You are correct in that different techniques are required for all the example you give. However the point being missed is that all the various different types of loads you mention all still require the same basics; of reloading.

Correct componant selection for the cartridge/need at hand
Clean the cases
Inspect the cases
Size the cases (lube if necessary)
Size the cases
Trim cases if necessary
Prime the cases
Charge with powder
Seat bullet

Those are the "Basics" of reloading metalic ammunition. The beginner must learn to do those basics before he can move on to more advanced techniques. He must also learn what equipment is necessary for his specific needs. In our case the basics of casting good bullets, at least reasonable ones, out of an alloy that will work across a broad spectrum of loads/cartridges (like #2 alloy or even WWs) are also necessary.

Note; the loading equipment used and techniques in use of such loading equipment also varies but each type of equipment also has the "basics" of its use to accomplish the basics of reloading. Yes we can and do vary the techniques but even with various techniques we still accomplish the basics. Leave any of the basics out or don't do it correctly and the ammunition produced will not be satisfactory.

I agree that there are basic recipes for just about every common cartridge that do shoot well in any mechanical sound firearm with a good bore. The newbie should concentrate on those to learn the basics before going off on some essoteric search for the one perfect componant that makes for one hole groups.

Larry Gibson

[crabo]

I shot a lot of cast when I was shooting ISPC and Steel Plates. I never really shot at 50 and 100 yards with my pistols, because that wasn't what I needed. I started working on precision a little more when I shot the 4" squares at 35 yards for the Sportsman's Team Challenge pistol event.

I stopped shooting for a while and when I tried to buy cast boolits again, they were expensive. At this point I found this website and everything has been downhill since. I'm buying molds for guns I don't even have.

That said, I found some principles that have worked for me. I put it in a post in the handgun section. As I look back on it, I still believe the concept is valid. Every gun is a law unto itself, but there are things you can do to help you get started in your journey. I named the post "A Beginner's Guide to Revolver Accuracy". Most of the things I posted, came from reading and doing things from this site.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=21598

Even though we all realize that one size does not fit all, there needs to be a place for the beginner to start. I guess it is the teacher in me that wants to give someone a place to start. The readers will be just like students in real life. They will pick and choose what they want to do.

I did not want to do a chamber cast in a gun that was giving me fits. But once I did it, and saw the results, it made so much sense why Bass kept telling me to do it.

I would love to see a stickie written on where to start with shooting cast in a bolt gun. It seems like Larry may have written a post on how he goes about it.

Hardness matters, size matters, lube matters, brass matters, powder and primers matter... We just have to work through it all. Sometimes we get lucky and find a combination that works well, out of luck, or because someone else did the work to get it close for us.

[Bass Ackward]

I can see that I have lost the argument. I am clearly off base on board policy, so I guess I give up. Yes there is the one true way.

This fella that started the thread broke "the consensus of the board" by shooting soft lead at high pressure in a 454 Casull and doing it accurately. (infidel!!!)

This is now a no, no for noob development. Why noobs will now be scarred for life. And he had the nerve to post pictures so that we couldn't call him a liar.

And this is now A STICKY for all to see! OMG!!!

That means that he broke the laws of matching pressure to hardness, bullet balance, and deformation. Yep, it's in print and clear for all to see.

Too bad too, because he seemed like such a nice fella. It was only his 15 post. That sure is bad luck for him.

Is Ol 458 gonna be banned for acts of "cast extremism" and leading noobs astray? :grin:

[btroj]

I do not see you as having lost the argument t all Bass. I see both sides as arguing different points.
Larry and Chargar have a valid point that there are good starting points for loading and shooting cast. I agree entirely that some general principles apply in most cases.
Bass is correct that when these general principles don't work it is time to get creative. Problem guns are not going to be fixed by cookbook loading.

I also agree entirely with Bret and his point about new guys here. They all seem fixated in very specific points and wont get off that one idea. They get hinge up the BHN or the BHN to hardness relationship or stuff like that. They refuse to get away from one silly idea and work on listening and trying what is generally accepted as working.

I can see valid arguments on both sides. Start with tab A in slot B but when that does not work, get creative. Try different things. Don't assume that because the normal didn't work that there is no solution. This is where so. Many new guys fail because they don't want to tale the time to master the ART of cast. Being a good caster and shooter of cast is not something to be learned from books, it needs to be learned at the loading bench the casting table, and the range. It is learned by doing, not reading.

Don't ever give up Bass, we need someone to keep us honest. Someone to keep us alive. Someone to make us think way outside the box.

Bad

[Char-Gar]

This thread highlights one of the frustrations with online discussions. Folks use different definitions for common words. I am one of those folks who has made their living with words and as such, I chose mine with great care. Words are very important, being the essential stuff of communication. I am one of those who feel that precise language is very important in this life.

The age old question of "What is art?" aside, I reaffirm my thinking and posting in it's entirety.

Bret.. One of the major problems in trying to teach folks anything, is they think they can skip steps, improve on your instruction, or in general cherry pick which part they want. The result is they get bad results and blame the teacher. I have observed this often with noobie question on this board. That and the flood of answers, that are often not on point, and/or in conflict with other answers. It really is hardly worth the effort. Mostly I just let the inhabitants of the board have their way with noobies.

[Charlie Two Tracks]

Hope I don't offend anyone here but what I referring to with the term "recipe" was a starting point. Something just to get going on. When I first started casting, I had a LEE 2 banger 148 TLWC mold. I cast them up, thought they looked ok and shot them. Leading all over the place. I used 3 grains of Bullseye, seated them flush, used 45-45-10 lube and had a real mess on my hands. I thought it was the cylinder throats but it turned out to be an incorrect boolit. The ends of boolit were fine but the middle of the boolit was way to narrow. Someone here told me to get a micrometer and that's how I found out what was wrong. I'm talking about loads that just shoot without major leading. From a starting point, I can improve. I have a few loads that don't lead or leave me with a squib. Now (with the info here) I can improve my loads until I get what I am looking for.

[btroj]

Sorry, but I am using art in a very precise way. Advising to Webster , art, noun, skill acquired by Experience, study, or observation. As in the art of making friends. In the case casting is an art.

Yes, nook's do pick and choose what they want to listen to. That is a problem, as is the unwillingness of some to get away from a specific FACT they have decided is the key to everything. In my opinion this ultimately is due to a lack of personal experience. They try to replace first hand knowledge with "research" online or thru reading. This kind of learning does have a place but there is no replacing first hand knowledge gained at the range.

Chargar, your example is a good one. You had a problem with a very specific set of components. Ulu dis some asking, got the info to solve the problem, and FOLLoWED THRU. You dis not rely on others to solve a problem for you, you simply gained enough knowledge to know where to look for the answers. Ultimately the answer came thru testing and this allowed you to gain experience. That is the way to learn. In the future should you have a similar trouble I bet I know one of the first things you will look at!

Brad

[Char-Gar]

Charlies.. My first experience will REAL leading came when I lived in Houston back in the early 60's. There was a foundry there where I could buy fresh Linotype at a very good price. Well, I cast up some good 38 wadcutters, sized them .357 and loaded them over the famous 2.7 Bullseye and fired them in a good Smith K-38.

The cylinders throats and barrel was lead plated. How could that be? Harder, just had to be better..right? Scrubbing the lead out of that pistol taught me a very good lesson. Harder is not always better and I needed to understand just what the heck was going on. I went to a much softer alloy and the leading went away. Softer alloys lead less than harder alloys? Boy that gave me something to ponder.

Learning by mistake is the hard way to do it, but it does work if a fellow doesn't give up.

[btroj]

I have leaded a revolver but good with .356 hard commercial cast bullets in my GP100.
I still have 50 or so loaded. Need to just go shoot em up. By 50 rounds they start hitting the target sideways.

This is another example of why focusing on ONE thing just won't work with cast. It is a balancing act. Hard bullets that are undersized are a recipes for disaster.

Brsd

[Bret4207]

I don't think there's any need for anyone to get upset over anything said here. Hashing stuff out only gets done when you discuss it. I think, assuming the world doesn't end, we'll eventually get our terms solidified a bit more, out theories fleshed out and our rules written down. Just takes time and effort.

[Larry Gibson]

Concur with Bret.

Larry Gibson

[Char-Gar]

Yes.. It does help to bat this back and forth until we understand either others language. Once we are communicating on the same wave length, many issues tend to go away, or at least become clear.

[btroj]

So many of the terms we use here are open to interpretation.
This is my problem with terms like hard, soft, etc. Too vague. Sadly, BHN is not much better.
How do we create a set of terms with no wiggle room to them? We can't even agree on what obturate means or how it is used.
I would love to see these terms defined for all to see and use but don't know it will happen. Too many of us use terms in a generic way to describe something without knowing what the term really means.
Chargar hit it right in an earlier post where he said that words do matter. Using a term incorrectly leaves too much open for discussion. I would hope that if I am guilty of using a term incorrectly that one of you will jump me for it and correct me.

Brad

[44man]

It is great to see so many come to terms with "terms". And to agree that none of us here should SWAMP a new caster with 1000 posts. Let it be simple for him. He has a way to go and most troubles are best solved by him and experience.

[btroj]

Sadly, we don't intentionally make it hard on th new guys. They do it to themselves. They see a discussion on something and rather than ask if it is relevant to what they are doing they decide it may be THE thing that matters.
I would love to tell all the Noobs the following. Buy a Lyman manual, read it a couple times. It may have some bad info in a few areas but it is a great book for a beginner. Get a one or two cav mould. Cast with it. ALOT. Then some more. Lube the bullets with a known lube, this is not the time to come up with the next wonder lube. Shoot said bullets in a rifle that is prone to good results with cast. A 30-30 or 45-70 are great starter guns for anyone. Start with low end loads. Sot the snot out of the thing. Once you have cast and shot hundreds, or even thousands, of bullets move on to other areas of casting. Learn to crawl, then walk, then run. If you decide to start with things best ledt to experienced casters, like high velocities, new lubes, etc, then you are in for a world of hurt. It will be a very steep learning curve. There is NO replacement for the school of hard knocks. You will,and should, lead a few barrels. If you aren't leading a barrel now and then you are not shooting enough! Learn to observe. Chang one thing t a time and see what happens. Experiment with things. Don't ever give up trying new ideas but only after you have the basics down.

Brad

[Char-Gar]

Brad.. Myself and others have told many noobies exactly what you said. Buy the Lyman book, read it cover to cover twice and then come back if you still have questions.

I have never had one of them say..." Thanks, I will do that very thing.". Most often they get pissed and a bunch of others chime in thinking you are mean and rude and are not willing to help a fellow with a simple question.

I have a theory or two why this is so, but no sense taking up space with it. Let's just say folks are not interested in laying out any effort to learn. They want to be spoon fed.

44 is dead on. A fellow solves his own problem and he has learned. He is forever independent of the opinions of others.

[btroj]

Ah yes, the old give a man a fish feed for the day, teach him to fish, feed him for life.

Sadly, we do live in a give me a fish society.

Brsd

[Stoats]

In reference to the Lee maximum hardness versus pressure table, they are working from a completely different precept than most of the rest of us.

Their table relates to the pressure at which a particular hardness of alloy will flow. They assume that you don't want this. As a result, if you follow their table it's Linotype wadcutter time, and heaven knows how anyone would achieve rifle velocities -- 35+ BHN! However, in real life we know that 12-18 BHN will do for most rifle applications, and Linotype is far too hard for wadcutter loads....

However, if you compare the figures in the table to the formula at LASC for the MINIMUM pressure to permit bullet set-up, you will find that corresponds pretty closely with the Lee maximum, since bullet setup requires the lead to flow...

Best advice: ignore the table completely.

[prs]

After reading through all of this, no one really hit upon my internal defintiion of "hard lead', although Larry Gibson was close with his hammer test. I may say "hard", but I am thinking "TOUGH". Hard and tough are not the same. Tough lead may e relatively hard, but hard lead can be very fragile, even brittle depending upon alloy andn treatment and how green it is. I think the best alloys for fast rate rifling and/or high pressures are those that are those that are tough or strong without being brittle. Malleable, the ability to be deformed without breaking, is a big part of that adn maybe there is another part to it about resisting of tearing or shear stripping by the rifling. In this regard air cooled wheel weight is a good example or well aged chilled wheel weight.

prs

[Char-Gar]

prs.. When I started casting way back when, I got my lead from the local gunsmith who had a bunch of ingots under a bench. He picked them up and hit two together. If they went "thud" it was pistol alloy. If they had a "ring" to the thud, then it was rifle alloy.

In light of the status of knowledge on this board, that sound very crude and rudimentary. But even so it worked very well and did so for generations.

[btroj]

I still use a similar method Chargar. I don't like to over think this stuff. I just add more hard for rifle, more soft form pistol or hunting.

[trixter]

This may have been answered before, but I didn't see it. I acquired a bunch of lead ingots. I have no idea what their hardness is. Is there a way I can find the approximate hardness before I melt and cast some bullets with them? I need to know if I need to add anything.

Thanks

Rick

[d0n]

Brad.. Myself and others have told many noobies exactly what you said. Buy the Lyman book, read it cover to cover twice and then come back if you still have questions.

I have never had one of them say..." Thanks, I will do that very thing." ...

I am a noobie and would like more information on this Lyman book. I know (personally, but not all that well) a few people from the range who cast, and their basic attitude seems to be that I should just fire up my as yet unused pot and just "git r done" (apparently learning everything that I need to know through trial and error) . That doesn't really sit well with me, and if there a book out there that I should be reading, I plan to do just that.

So, in advance, I will say: " Thanks, I will do that very thing." in regards to reading this book :-D


(BTW: I know that sometimes it's hard to gauge sarcasm over the internet on forums, so I just want to say that there is no sarcasm intended in this post, whatsoever)

-Don

[Larry Gibson]

Don

You'll want to get the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook, Third Edition as it is a little more informative than the Fourth Edition. However, if you can spring for both they are worth it. The Fourth Edition give a somewhat different perspective in the front "information" section. The Third Edition is more techically oriented and a better "source" as such.

Larry Gibson

[d0n]

Larry,

Thank you for pointing me in the right direction. Third edition is in my Midway shopping cart, waiting on me to add some gun parts to the order.

Sorry for hijacking this thread.

[Char-Gar]

DOn, I was making reference to the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook in my post. Sorry, if I didn't make that clear. RCBS also has a decent book out on the subject. Glen Fryxell has a digital book entitled "From Ingot to Target". This is probably the best work up to date. There is a link on this board. It is cost free. Glen deserves the biggest "attaboy" around for making this available.

Any of these resources will give you all the information you need and will be far more reliable to much of the stuff you get from posts on this board. There is an awful lot of uninformed opinions passed off at fact around this place.

[btroj]

Read the darn book. That gives you a very good starting point.
if I could tell noobs to do one thing it is this- learn first hand. Try things. Test things. Casting and shooting cast is best learn at the pot, load bench, and range. You need to shoot ALOT. Cast ALOT. Test ALOT. Think about what happened and what was different. This need not be a hard core scientific study but just a rational cause and effect thought. Why dis one load lead and another didn't? What happens when you push the velocity envelope? Or pressure? Or hardness?

Read for the basics but learn at the range. You need to DO. This is an active learning process. Much of what I know I didn't learn on the web or from a book, I learned from the school of hard knocks. I leaded barrels, and learned how to clean them up. I cast bullets too hard and too soft. I shot a deer with a hard HP and almost lost it. Is is the kind of lesson you never forget. Failure is a great teacher, I learn more from what doesn't work than from what does.

Never think their is only one right answer. Find what works for you. If you are satisfied with your results then you have success. Period.

[waksupi]

Read the darn book. That gives you a very good starting point.
if I could tell noobs to do one thing it is this- learn first hand. Try things. Test things. Casting and shooting cast is best learn at the pot, load bench, and range. You need to shoot ALOT. Cast ALOT. Test ALOT. Think about what happened and what was different. This need not be a hard core scientific study but just a rational cause and effect thought. Why dis one load lead and another didn't? What happens when you push the velocity envelope? Or pressure? Or hardness?

Read for the basics but learn at the range. You need to DO. This is an active learning process. Much of what I know I didn't learn on the web or from a book, I learned from the school of hard knocks. I leaded barrels, and learned how to clean them up. I cast bullets too hard and too soft. I shot a deer with a hard HP and almost lost it. Is is the kind of lesson you never forget. Failure is a great teacher, I learn more from what doesn't work than from what does.

Never think their is only one right answer. Find what works for you. If you are satisfied with your results then you have success. Period.

Pretty good answer. Remember, cast boolits are for advanced reloaders, and you need a very good grasp on assembling ammunition for best success.

[Bret4207]

This may have been answered before, but I didn't see it. I acquired a bunch of lead ingots. I have no idea what their hardness is. Is there a way I can find the approximate hardness before I melt and cast some bullets with them? I need to know if I need to add anything.

Thanks

Rick

A little late finding this Rick, but here's my advice- FORGET HARDNESS! At least for now, just forget it. Go ahead and cast some up, see what it does, how it fills out, what it takes to get good boolits and then see how they shoot. Start off low and slow and work up. I'd also take all my ingots and melt them up together into one big batch so you have the same alloy as a base source. Then, AFTER you try all this, then if you find you need a little more tin or maybe a little more antimony or maybe that it's waaay too hard to start with for your uses and you need to cut it with pure lead...then you have a base to start from. You have "ingots", you don't have a specific alloy. That alloy may all have a Bhn or 14 and be made up of 27 different combinations of lead/tin/antimony/copper/aluminum/zinc/godknowswhatelse. So, considering you can alter your end Bhn number with different cooling techniques, quenching, enrichment alloys, etc...does the Bhn now really matter? What if it's 15? Is that a magic number? What if it's 10? Is that good or bad? If it's 30 what does that tell you? Do you know if it's heat treated? Air Cooled? Is it a babbit of some sort?

Forget Bhn, cast some up and shoot.

[dwtim]

I don't understand why this has to be so complicated. I always read the pressure tables as a suggestion of the minimum pressure needed for base obturation. I go with softer rather than harder. The actual hardness isn't that spot-on. My alloy for 45 ACP, for example, is typically 8-10 BHN. I make my own lube with plenty of Alox and I don't have problems with it. I make sure that the bullets are oversize, but not so much that they don't chamber.

I don't make connections between alloy and accuracy other than the observation that a badly fouling load is an inaccurate one. Without the fouling, I assume that the lion's share of inaccuracy is caused by me. :) I put in enough tin for good fill out. It's possible to buy alloys with certified values for consistency that don't contain excessive amounts of expensive hardening metals. Expensive alloys don't necessarily pay off at the range. I have shot wadcutters from my .38 that were cast from recovered .22 rimfire bullets, and these were accurate beyond my ability.

What does bother me is when people have a bad experience due to overly hard commercially-cast bullets that are too small, and their minds can never be changed otherwise. I'd like to prevent that if possible. I can't recall how many times people have repeated that it's not possible to push a lead bullet beyond 1,000 fps (while I'm standing at the firing line sending .44 slugs downrange at 1,300 fps), or that lead fouling is always worse than copper. My best loads never accumulate lead. The gun will fail from powder residue in the moving parts before lead accumulates in the bore. It took some experimentation to get to this point, and I believe anyone can achieve the same results.

[Maximumbob54]

I don’t know what to think of reading a hundred plus comments to a thread. I know that the bullet must fit the bore, the velocity can’t be so much that the lead shears off into the rifling, and that pressure and burn from the powder can burn the base. I also know that I’m guilty of assuming too much when it comes to both loading and casting. I keep thinking that after so many decades of smokeless powder that we would nail down a set of common powders that are best for certain cartridges with certain bullet weights , but this just doesn’t seem to be the case. I read the ABC’s of reloading, the Lee manual, and then the 4th ed. Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook. They were informative but so full of knowledge overkill that I almost didn’t try my hand at casting. It made it out to be more than I really wanted to do. But all I want is some decent revolver ammo and I would like some hundred yard rifle ammo to maybe one day cast something that will shoot straight enough from a .308 Rem 700 at three hundred yards. So maybe my desires are simple enough to not stress over the mass of variables. My revolver lead is mostly just a pinch of tin added and they work just fine with the LLA even though I’m not big on the goo, the stink, or the drying time waiting. Now I have my first .30-30 ammo to test and I’m hedging on it. But it will either work or it won’t. If it doesn’t then back to the drawing board I guess. If nothing else, this forum can tell me what I’m doing wrong if it can’t tell me how to do it right.

And just to make sure everyone gets what I’m saying… I used to work at a Home Depot. If a guy came up to me and asked for a standard size anything, I had to do my best not to laugh… So really, I get this is much the same. Guilty of all kinds of assumptions when you are just ignorant of the reality can really hold you down.

[pls1911]

The number of comments to the stream is indicative of the number of variables we can, have, and will encounter, some of which may seem contradictory for different calibers, bore conditions, etc.
While after 40 years or hunting and casting, my own universal practice is to cast soft, heat treat hard, load, and shoot for everything between .38 special to 45-70, applied to rabbits pigs, deer, and elk, steel, and a bundle of tin cans and rocks, it does NOT mean I have nearly all the answers. It only means I've benefitted from the knowledge shared on this site, and my own numerous number of failures..... and in the process found a combination that works well and is most economical for my use.
I can only hope to pass to others what has been shared with me, and likely learn something new in the process.
Thanks to all.
Cheers.

[Char-Gar]

pls1911.. I really don't think the number of comments is indicative of the number of variables. I tend to think it is indicative of the number of human opinions about something that is relatively simple.

[justingrosche]

Chargar, your disclaimer sums it up nicely.

[tom threepersons]

I bought some lead in 2 boxes the ingots are marked 10 to 1 lead to tin. What would be the use of this alloy? I cast for a 45-110 and use paper patch bullets. I also cast for muzzle loaders. I could add lead to make this into 20-1. I could not find this 10-1 listed in any loads. I am not a real informed caster so bear with me. THX

[Chill Wills]

TOM,
The standard answer is always "it depends".
Most of the old Sharps paper patch factory bullet boxes list alloy 1-16 and some 1-14.
Using as is or cutting it with Pb to make something less rich "depends".
What is your bullet design like. A long target nose? You need harder alloy for accuracy like 1-16 or 1-18 or1-20 can be tested. Avoid nose slump with those long nose designs.
Using a blunt design for hunting go soft like 1-30.
I would mix it tho, as 1-10 might not be the best use of all that tin.

Is your rifle a Big Timber sharps? :-) Have fun with that rifle!

Chill Wills

[looseprojectile]

More than a half a century ago I cast and shot thousands of rounds out of the
.357 and .44 magnum mostly Ruger single action guns.
I have continued to shoot about the same loads up to this day.

I have had several people scoff at my statement that the faster I shoot them the more accurate they are. At that time lead boolits had a really bad reputation because of the crappy pure lead swaged boolits found in factory loads.

After reading these more than a hundred replies to a mans question about a .454 Cassull I now know why that happens to me and my loads.

Back in the day I was using really hard and tough alloy such as copper babbit and such. Out of neccesity I had created an alloy that was not susceptable to deforming at high pressure and velocity.
Most of those boolits were too hard to mark with my thumbnail.
I used the hammer and anvil trick also and if the boolit broke when hit my alloy was too brittle. Then I made them tougher with the addition of tin or the afore mentioned babbit. All this came about when I was in pursuit of ammo for my guns that didn't leave the bore of my guns lead plated. 1955 vintage commercial swaged pure lead loads in .357 would lead a bore horribly with just six shots.
The companies that sold that lousy ammo had to know it couldn't work.
I will bet that they didn't know how to make ammo as good as mine.
I also have loaded a lot of light loads that did not need to be so hard and tough.

Thank you all for enlightening me.

In 1955 powder was fifty cents a pound,[H 240], primers were fifty cents a hundred and less if you bought in bulk and wheel weights, linotype and bearing metal was free for hauling it off.
My son in law just last Saturday bought a box of twenty 35 Whelen cartridges for forty dollars. I just loaded forty rounds for him that cost me eight bucks.



Life is good

[tmattox]

I just shot some 230 grain bullets I coasted from a Lee .45 ACP mold. I had some barrel leading after 50 rounds. I usedLee liquid Alox. Should I switch to a stick Alox and use a sizer/lube die on mu lumber sizer? My bullets tested out to 16.3 on my hardness tester.

[Griz44mag]

Tmattox,
There are just way too many things that we do not know about what you are doing to make any kind of determination to be of help to you. Have you slugged or sized your gun, what material are you loading, what powder, how much of that powder? If you will furnish a lot more information, you will get some very good advice from the folks here, there's a lot of experience and knowledge here.

[jonp]

An interesting thread, and even more interesting opinions and comments.

Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that regarding fit, bigger is better, and smaller is leading. And for me that seems to work. So in that regard agree with Bret on that point.

As to hardness, it seems to me that in shooting anything we cast, it is going to be softer than jacketed material (please someone correct me if I am wrong on that point). Don't mind shooting plinking loads that run in the 1000-1200 fps range with lower end BH numbers (12-15), but when vols go up, I want harder and slightly oversized for bore blts. Most everything that I shoot in rifles at vols between 1600-2300 fps, are at or above Lino hardness. That is true for the 22's, thru 375's.:brokenima

And of course there are issues of punching paper, or punching game, and what constitutes accuracy at what range, etc.etc.etc. Any how, still an interesting thread.
1Shirt!:coffeecom

Some boolits I bought from Hunters Supply for my .357 are BHN 10 which they claim works fine up to 1400fps. I'm a little confused here. Are you saying that they should not be driven that fast as they will not seal the bore or will cause leading and that Hunters Supply is being a little generous with the fps that they are claiming?

[catboat]

,458 (original poster),

Have you been able to reproduce those accuracy results?

Haven't read all the responses. I'm glad you had great results, but sometimes results like that are
mistakes gone good." Hope you found the correct hardness for your pistol.

[pls1911]

Jonp... If the bullets are gas checked and you don't push 'em too hard, you should do fine.

[trixter]

After reading from post #1 and trying to fit it all together, my head is in danger of an explosion, however I did learn something: Smelt it, cast it, size (.001 over) and lube it, load it and shoot it.
After that SMILE, cause it went bang and put a hole in the paper then SMILE again, cause you're having fun.
And, finally "If it ain't fun, DON'T do it!" Maybe try fishing. LOLOLO.

[Garyshome]

I'm too old to learn all this stuff!!!!!!!!!!!

[Nickle]

An old, yet very good thread.

I tend to agree with Larry. There's a lot of science involved.

Do avoid using terms that are relative, such as "hard". Brinell number may not be the whole answer, but it isn't relative.

Now, malleability has everything to do with the subject, hand in hand with hardness.

A bullet has to be soft enough to obturate, yet neither soft or hard enough to lead. Where that plays out, depends on the caliber, twist, velocity and bullet fit. And design plays a major factor there.

I, for one, refuse to believe boolit casting is "black magic". Heck, I'm even starting to swage jacketed and cast bullets, and many folks believe that is black magic. It isn't.

There are skills involved, that have to be learned. You learn them by a combination of research and experience. Neither alone will truly get you there.

And, I agree with the fact you do really need that Lyman Cast Bullet reloading manual in your library. Not just the loads section either.

[303Guy]

I did an alloy toughness to pressure test to find an alloy and that obturates up to the ogive without nose slump. I did a thread on it, here is the pic of the two boolits tested, both of the same alloy, sized the same an knurled the same and paper patched the same. Only the powder charge was different, that being a fast shotgun powder for low muzzle velocity.

73955

[.458]

Catboat, no I have not tried to duplicate the test. I have about 500 boolits left from the original alloy that I've been shooting. I can duplicate the hardness but I didn't write down what the mixture was. I've handloaded my own ammunition for decades but casting boolits is a new game for me so I'm still jumping from gun to gun and just plain having fun.

Right now I'm casting for my S&W 696 in 44-Special and a model 60 in 38-Special. Both guns seem to like BHN 8.0 and HS-6 powder. I'm sure there are better loads that I'll adopt when I find them.

I swore off lead boolits 30 years ago because they turned my 357 into a smoothbore. I lost 30 years of casting experience due to my jumping to conclusions. If we had the internet and this forum around back then I'd be an expert by now.

[Hanzy4200]

This is a concept I've heard from several old timers. When I mention leading and hardness, they always say the same thing. Size. Size and lube is much more important than hardness. I hope it's true, because I don't have a tester......

[Enyaw]

I'd say....the amount of bearing surface to the bullet compared to the diameter(weight) of it is an important factor especially considering the rate of twist to the rifling of the barrel.
A wider range of hardness/maleability to the bullet at a wider range of vel./pressure should be able to be realized using a bullet with the most bearing surface possible compared to the sectional density of the bullet.
If you take a .223 bullet in the heavy range it'll be longer so it'll need faster rifling twist so it'll need the most bearing surface the bullet can manage in it's design and that will let it perform the best in a widder range of all the variables like maliability...vel./pressure....bullet alloy hardness......powder burn rate ect...ect..ect...
I'd say.....take a bullet with the most bearing surface it can have with it's inherent sectional density when using any lead alloy in a good gun(naturally) with a good alignment of the chamber....chambers(with revolvers) to the bore and start at the min. loading and slowly work up a .10 or two gr. weight of any powder listed in the manual and try the loads in lots of a certain number of at least 20 cartridges to a lot.
Watch for any increase or decrease in accuracy and any other problems like barrel leading. When you get to where you can see the most accurate load without leading of the barrel then you have the fastest load that powder with that bullet can achieve with that alloy.
When things go the wrong way or you aren't satisfied with the accuracy then.....change one variable at a time untill you figure you have the best you're going to get with that bullet made of that alloy with that pressure/velosity from that certain powder.
I'd have to say....the starting point is to get the bullet with the most bearing surface compared to the sectional density and keep the length of the bullet compatable with the rifle/handgun rifling twist and.......always make sure one of the variables is bullet diameter that ,with lead alloy bullets, is right at or .001-.002 (sometmes .003) bigger than the groove diameter of the barrel rifling.
If someone believes smokeless powder has the ability to obsturate the alloy bullet then going to a slower burn powder might help but......I don't thunk obsturation of bullets using smokeless powder is all people seem to crack it up to be. I think obsturation is more a black powder concern and figure fracturing harder cast bullets due to set back entering the rifling isn't as prevelent as some believe......unless the gun has a chamber alignment to the bore problem.
I ain't no expert....that's just the opinion I have about some things shooting lead alloy bullets. I just figger the bearing surface of the bullet in any cast lead alloy should be as much as is possible to work in a widder range. If the bullet has too much non-bearing to the front section then it has less to work against the bullet resisting the centrifical forces and fracturng or destructing the lands(what goes in the rifling grooves) imprinted on the bullet.
Does this make any sense to anyone but me????? ha ha ha ha

[Walstr]

FYI, you might be interested to see some test results that debunks alloy/pressure matching in a 357.

I "speculate" that alloy/pressure matching doesn't apply to 99.9% of handguns.

http://357shooter.blogspot.com/2010/12/handgun-only-pressure-and-alloy.html

IMHO -- Here's another case of technical folks listing "obturation" as "critical" when pressure & BHN are discussed. If the boolit FITS PROPERLY to engage the rifling, then "obturation" ain't a factor! Obturation seems to have been a critical element when using Minnie rounds within varying barrel manuf. specs. for sure.

[Dposey717]

How hard would you want to make a standard 9mm boolit before harbor powder coating it?

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

How hard would you want to make a standard 9mm boolit before harbor powder coating it?
Dposey717,
welcome to the forum.
I'm assuming you may be new to loading castboolits in 9mm, here is a good read. While PC isn't covered in the OP, alloy is mentioned in the end...But there is lots of great info, that may answer some of the questions you haven't thought of asking yet.
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?121607-Setting-up-for-boolits-in-a-new-9mm

[BOOLITCASTER83]

So my favorite load is 45LC with six grains of trail boss pushing a 300 gr Hornady XTP. No cronogragh does anyone have any thoughts on this. This load is on the light side I believe but case is not full. This lad is very fun to shoot:Fire:

[GONRA]

You Cast Boolit Guys are the experts, but in Semi Auto Pistol Loading, GONRA finds
harder bullet alloys are needed with worn or otherwise shallow groove depth barrels.

[Polar_Hunter]

YIKES, what a read :veryconfu:veryconfu:veryconfu. The question in my mind that lead me to read this thread was,,, How hard is to hard? and I think I have an answer that makes sense to me. I have really only just gotten into casting in the last two years and got serious about it this season.
In trying to get an acceptable group with a 577 Snider I experienced just what "44man" said on page one,,, "The first indication of GC boolits too soft will be fliers. 2 or 3 in one hole, then a few fliers. PB too soft will just have large groups. As boolits get harder, groups will tighten. When fliers go away, the lead is right and there is no need to go harder but even harder has never opened my groups.",,,,,,,,,,,, An experiment going from dead soft lead to some 14 BHN WW metal did tighten up my groups considerably. Of coarse this did lead me to the question of,, how hard should I go?,,,, On page six I got a clue from "Nickle",,,, "Do avoid using terms that are relative, such as "hard". Brinell number may not be the whole answer, but it isn't relative. Now, malleability has everything to do with the subject, hand in hand with hardness. A bullet has to be soft enough to obturate, yet neither soft or hard enough to lead. Where that plays out, depends on the caliber, twist, velocity and bullet fit. And design plays a major factor there.",,,,,,

So I come to the conclusion that if the bullet metal is so hard that it becomes brittle (as some of my scrap babbit metal does) it is to hard.

Winter has set in here so I won't get to mix up some "custom alloys" with the scrap that I have until next spring but I think I know the direction to go in now. Thanks for the great info.

[Walstr]

Hey BOOLITCASTER83; I settled on 5.5gr Trailboss, 210gr home cast boolits, LEE #90697 mold, in annealed 45LC cases, for my CAS shooting. Originally more powder was needed to reduce the dirty blowback, so I decided to try annealing. It works & I had success with just 5 gr TB, but decided to settle on 5.5gr TB to extend the clean shooting as the cases harden over time.

[Polar_Hunter]

https://youtu.be/T3fiZ3CkOxM

[Tripplebeards]

So my favorite load is 45LC with six grains of trail boss pushing a 300 gr Hornady XTP. No cronogragh does anyone have any thoughts on this. This load is on the light side I believe but case is not full. This lad is very fun to shoot:Fire:

6 g of trail boss in my 44 mag snubby with a 265g devisator was around 650 fps. Your probably just a hair under 600fps. Fun to shoot...they have been bouncing off wood pallets at 25 yards for me. Not a lot of penatration but as you said fun to shoot all day and a good practice plinker. They probably would leave one heck of a bruise on a whitetail and not be a very humane hunting round IMO.

[Hanzy4200]

One of the things I love most about the new PC craze. Hardness matters a whole lot less for many of us.

[Tripplebeards]

One of the things I love most about the new PC craze. Hardness matters a whole lot less for many of us.

Ditto

I pushed 7.5 BH all the way to max 44 magnum rifle velocities with no leading using PC and GCs with great accuracy. My tightest 100 yard group was .6” at 1600 ft./s

[kevin c]

If PC or HiTek is used, hardness variation may not be an issue as far as leading is concerned, but will a different hardness in a different lot of the same boolits change accuracy, or, at least, POI, being shot with the same coating, load and rifle? I shoot pistol at big targets at short range, and know nothing about what it takes to gets good rifle accuracy.

[Tripplebeards]

If PC or HiTek is used, hardness variation may not be an issue as far as leading is concerned, but will a different hardness in a different lot of the same boolits change accuracy, or, at least, POI, being shot with the same coating, load and rifle? I shoot pistol at big targets at short range, and know nothing about what it takes to gets good rifle accuracy.


Yes, if I try a different alloy with my above load it opens up my groups. In the short time I’ve been casting bullets ive found that if I change the BH It’s like I just tried a different bullet in my gun. I have to start all over and ladder test it. The same boolit in 80/20 with 15% Pewter likes 21.2 grains of lil gun and will shoot sub MOA. It also likes a max load of 23.8 grains of H110. At lower velocities with my harder Alloy my groups open up.

[kevin c]

Good to know. Thanks.

[trapper44shooter]

Hey fellas I am going to start casting my own lead round balls for the 44 cap & revolver I am buying very soon what BHN should my lead be for the round balls

[waksupi]

Hey fellas I am going to start casting my own lead round balls for the 44 cap & revolver I am buying very soon what BHN should my lead be for the round balls

They must be pure lead for the revolver.

[pcmacd]

Tested various hardness boolits in the 454 Casull today. Shot 5-shot groups with boolits at 10.1, 11.0, 12.5, 14.3 and 15.4 Brinell. All loads were 300 grain Lee flat point GC boolit atop 25.0 grains of IMR-4227. Load was previously chronographed at approximately 1230 feet-per-second. All groups were 2 to 3 inches at 25 yards except the 12.5 Bhn that can be seen below . If it isn’t there then I haven’t figured out the picture posting portion of this forum yet. It printed all 5 in the same hole. Swabbed the bore between sets with no apparent leading.

A bit miffed about Lee’s Min/Max pressure table though. I would expect this load generates around 36,000 PSI which Lee’s table would require a hardness of 26.0 to 28.5.


http://home.comcast.net/~beanpole27/pics3/Brenell-12.5.jpg

Now I'm Addicted!

Of course it does. Think about it.