What do you consider is "No leading"?

[Whistler]

The question may look a bit funny, but we hear it all the time. This hobby has a problem with nomenclature. For one shooter an alloy is "hard" but the very same is "soft" for another shooter and when not using BHN specifics you get misunderstandings and frustration.

So what is "no leading" for you?
I have run across casters who shoot one cylinder and claim "no leading", then I've read articles from veterans who firelap and say that if they have to clean their bore ever (10,000+ rounds), then something is wrong with the gun, alloy or bullet design.

Myself I am somewhere in between. If I can shoot 200 rounds (which is about one day of shooting) without it affecting accuracy and being able to clean it out with two or three passes of the bore snake without solvents, then yes, that would be a "no leading" case for me.

What's yours?

[dakotashooter2]

To me if I can shoot a few boxes of cartridges without enough lead to cause a significant drop in accuracy I call it no leading. I generally have more fouliing from lube than lead.

[Larry Gibson]

Shooting cast bullets will always produce some "leading" as many consider the light "wash' as leading. I don't consider a light wash as leading as to me leading is cumulative and the wash stays pretty much the same regardless of the number of rounds fired. I consider "no leading" to mean that the leading, residue, wash, etc. or whatever you call it is removed with a normal cleaning regimen without having to resort to excessive brushing (particularly with a stainless brush), a Lewis lead remover, ChoreBoy or any abrasive paste to remove the leading. A solvent patch (no streaks of lead on batch but don't confuse some powder residue as lead) followed by several strokes with a bronze brush and then 3 - 4 patches should clean out a non leading loads residue from a cylinder and barrels of just a barrel.

Larry Gibson

[RobS]

What Larry said with the antimony wash and of course it's also nice to not see anything with the naked eye when looking down the barrel. The right load development, lube, alloy etc. and I can look down the barrel of my 45 auto and it's shinny as if I hadn't even shot it.

[pdawg_shooter]

In my rifles I paper patch all my cast. So I can say "no leading" and be correct.

[Wally]

Shooting cast bullets will always produce some "leading" as many consider the light "wash' as leading. I don't consider a light wash as leading as to me leading is cumulative and the wash stays pretty much the same regardless of the number of rounds fired. I consider "no leading" to mean that the leading, residue, wash, etc. or whatever you call it is removed with a normal cleaning regimen without having to resort to excessive brushing (particularly with a stainless brush), a Lewis lead remover, ChoreBoy or any abrasive paste to remove the leading. A solvent patch (no streaks of lead on batch but don't confuse some powder residue as lead) followed by several strokes with a bronze brush and then 3 - 4 patches should clean out a non leading loads residue from a cylinder and barrels of just a barrel.

Larry Gibson

Well said. Seems that in most of my revolvers I get a little leading just inside the breach end of the barrel past the forcing cone. It builds up to a point and never gets worse. If you clean it all out, it will quickly build up again no matter what you do--powder, bullet sizing, velocity, alloy, etc. I was really fooled with my Ruger Blackhawk .45 Convertible. Looking in the barrel after firing many rounds its looked quite clean. At the end of the season I used an Outers FO on it....amazing the amount of gunk that it removed.... I dare say one should not be alarmed if their barrel leads up, if the accuracy stays "acceptable"..one needs to determine what acceptable is. If you want to keep a barrel lead free--I've found that a gas check is the ultimate solution.

[geargnasher]

There will always be some lead stuck in pits and machine marks on a microscopic level, visible with a bore scope, but what "no leading" means to me is I can shoot a gun for several years without "cleaning" the bore other than to wipe out powder/antimony residue with a dry patch. I've found that for the most part cleaning rifle barrels that don't lead is counter-productive, because you ruin the season when you run solvents and brushes down them. If lead accumulates in the grooves or starts to streak down the barrel after any number of rounds (10 or 1,000), something is amiss IMO. Whether it's fixable or not depends a lot on the particular gun.....

Of course there are some guns with bad bores, old revolvers that are dimensionally flawed, and so on that will lead some no matter what you do, but they are fun to shoot and we may not want to or be able to fix them completely. That's why we keep de-leading supplies/tools on hand, right?

It is possible, many times, to get a gun and load conditioned to where each shot leaves the bore in exactly the same condition as the last, no more or less lube, powder, lead, or antimony fouling. This consistency of bore condition, especially with regard to lead and lube film, is critical to getting good rifle accuracy. One thing, though, sometimes lead fouling doesn't seem to matter to accuracy, and might as well not even be cleaned out if it's consistent or accumulates very slowly.

I think overall that cast boolit shooters clean too much, and ruin any chance of getting a good bore season that is resistant to fouling. I like to think of my barrels as quality iron cookware, they have to season, and that seasoning has to be maintained. If you clean it of or burn something on it, time to strip and start over. Stainless steel and chrome barrels seem immune to seasoning, pores are too small, but they can and will lead up or have lube purge fliers just like any other barrel.

Gear

[Shuz]

+1 to what Larry said.

[Multigunner]

An old 19th century book on rifles mentioned an experiment done comparing accuracy of brand new highly polished rifle bores with well seasoned bores and found the seasoned bore was more accurate. The reason given was that microscopic pitting so long as it was evenly distributed would capture lubricants as globules that acted like a semiliquid ball bearing, the bullet never actually touching the bore surface. Like the crosshatch honing inside the cylinder of an automobile engine captures and holds oil preventing blowby from the combustion chamber while preventing or reducing metal to metal contact between piston rings and cylinder walls. Once the honed surface gets worn smooth the engine is not going to last long, rings start to wear and blowby contaminates the crankcase oil while oil gets sucked into the combustion chamber on the intake down stroke.

Bullets and barrels have a lot in common with pistons and cylinders.

I believe the gun barrel tests were repeated in the early 19th century and they found seasoned bores of Black Powder target rifles produced higher velocities for the same charge weight as well.

I've read of a similar bore finish being used for J-word bullet high velocity rifles, but don't know how thats worked out.

[stubshaft]

I'm with Gearnasher on the leading description.

[drklynoon]

I also equate leading to a marked decrease in accuracy. My forcing cones almost always have a ring of lead in them but the bores of my non leading guns are always clean. The cylinder throat is about the same as the forcing cone.

[btroj]

I am with Gear. I want to be able to run a dry patch down the barrel and when I look down the barrel see nothing but rifling. The patch should also run smooth down the length of the barrel, leading can be felt pretty easy with a dry patch.
I don't clean my guns very often and if they leaded I would need to. My 32-20 today told me it needs cleaning as the cases started to stick in the chamber due to powder and lube fouling. A few dry patches and maybe brush the chamber and it is back in business. That is no leading to me.
Most of the time if I get leading it is near the breach and pretty obvious.

[mpmarty]

Means no visible lead in the bore. If I can see it, it is too much.

[Marlin Junky]

The patch should also run smooth down the length of the barrel, leading can be felt pretty easy with a dry patch.


Yup... run a tight, dry patch from the chamber to the muzzle (we are talking about rifles, right?). If the patch traverses the barrel smoothly and comes out the muzzle with a little "glitter" on it as evidenced by viewing the patch in the sun, you are "opt-o-mized". 8-)

MJ

[Wally]

My Ruger SS Blackhawk will lead up with just about any load---solved that going to GC bullets...

[Bass Ackward]

All of this can be covered by one simple statement: Does the gun lose accuracy with the loads I started out with. Period. But this can be very complicated.

What I consider as no leading changes. And that's what makes it difficult to discuss.

It changes with the gun and the point it is in it's life cycle. I expect some leading with a new gun until it cleans / smooth up. Where and older arm that is worn, the standard might be nothing at all.

It changes with the velocity level I want to run. A HV rifle better be pretty lead free if you want that slug to hold the rifling and launch well. Soft lead in an open sighted wheelgun at 900 fps and you just keep on keepin on.

It changes with caliber or bore diameter. 22LRs handle fouling where a 45 caliber might choke.

It changes with the design and lube I am using. PB gets more slack than a GC.

It changes with the purpose of the arm based upon the number of rounds needed between cleanings.

One thing that NEVER affects my judgement on leading is how it comes out. Based upon the mix or lack of it, it can flake, peal, dust, patch, brush, soak, or scrape, but out it will come with the right tool, effort, and time and the game begins anew.

[Char-Gar]

Larry Gibson has expressed my views on the subject at hand quite well.

[2Tite]

No leading is just that.......no lead residue. Regardless of the number of rounds fired. When you clean with solvent and brush or no. There should be no flecks , specks or flakes on the patch.

[Colorado4wheel]

There will always be some lead stuck in pits and machine marks on a microscopic level, visible with a bore scope, but what "no leading" means to me is I can shoot a gun for several years without "cleaning" the bore other than to wipe out powder/antimony residue with a dry patch. I've found that for the most part cleaning rifle barrels that don't lead is counter-productive, because you ruin the season when you run solvents and brushes down them. If lead accumulates in the grooves or starts to streak down the barrel after any number of rounds (10 or 1,000), something is amiss IMO. Whether it's fixable or not depends a lot on the particular gun.....

Of course there are some guns with bad bores, old revolvers that are dimensionally flawed, and so on that will lead some no matter what you do, but they are fun to shoot and we may not want to or be able to fix them completely. That's why we keep de-leading supplies/tools on hand, right?

It is possible, many times, to get a gun and load conditioned to where each shot leaves the bore in exactly the same condition as the last, no more or less lube, powder, lead, or antimony fouling. This consistency of bore condition, especially with regard to lead and lube film, is critical to getting good rifle accuracy. One thing, though, sometimes lead fouling doesn't seem to matter to accuracy, and might as well not even be cleaned out if it's consistent or accumulates very slowly.

I think overall that cast boolit shooters clean too much, and ruin any chance of getting a good bore season that is resistant to fouling. I like to think of my barrels as quality iron cookware, they have to season, and that seasoning has to be maintained. If you clean it of or burn something on it, time to strip and start over. Stainless steel and chrome barrels seem immune to seasoning, pores are too small, but they can and will lead up or have lube purge fliers just like any other barrel.

Gear


Well said.

My 9mm KKM barrel works just like that. Same at 20 rds as 1000 rds. Even then it's very little if you can see it at all.

[Charlie Two Tracks]

No lead that I can see even with a bore light.

[MtGun44]

I want it to be a bore that, with a wet and dry patch wipe will look clean - basically just
removing the powder residue. I have seen a whitish lead oxide residue show up a few
months later, so there is a thin layer of lead sometimes, but no visible lead and no
accumulation.

Bill

[Whistler]

What really bugs me is that we have a ton of people giving advice on loads, methods and equipment with the sentence ending in "...and no leading", where they might have only shot 10-20 shots and deemed it lead free, when in actuality it leads like crazy when you get above 50-60 shots (which would make it utterly useless for someone like me).

I am mostly talking about revolvers and in some cases autoloaders. Unfortunately I have never owned a rifle.

[Bass Ackward]

What really bugs me is that we have a ton of people giving advice on loads, methods and equipment with the sentence ending in "...and no leading", where they might have only shot 10-20 shots and deemed it lead free, when in actuality it leads like crazy when you get above 50-60 shots (which would make it utterly useless for someone like me).

I am mostly talking about revolvers and in some cases autoloaders. Unfortunately I have never owned a rifle.




Atta boy Whistler! And that is the point I wanted to come out.

Accurate loads for cast are developed for a single gun THE WAY THEY WILL BE SHOT, not picked. Develop your "accurate" loads the way they will be shot.

Accurate loads are developed when BORE CONDITION stabilizes .... what ever that term means for THAT gun. That is the easy part. Using techniques to get a bore "TO" stabilize long enough can be tricky. So the best method of cleaning is shooting low velocity loads (600-700 fps and preferably with a check) to not start you back at square one. (clean gun)

That is why you read so many differences on this board. Techniques vary by platform type used too. (mostly for how they will be shot) A guy will argue what finally worked the way he wants it to work. You just need to figure out if "his style" matches how you want to shoot and tweak his techniques for your gun.

The people that really learn to work with cast are people that are willing to learn "their" guns and shoot through their failure on the way to that gun's success.

[btroj]

I will agree Whistler, the "no leading" must be for a suitable number of rounds for the fun in question. A handgun that only gives 50 rounds then leads is not a lead free load in my opinion. I want handgun ammo to give me hundreds of rounds with no lead.
I can live with a hunting load for a rifle that gives me 10 to 20 round before some leading. Why? I only plan on shooting a couple in the field so the number of rounds fired will be low so the leading, if any, is not really an issue.
I agree that we see lots of reports of no leading. We really do need to know how many rounds were fired. 5 rounds tells us nothing. When I had issues with my 1911 leading I wanted 200 rounds with no lead and good accuracy before I was satisfied. That was what I demanded from that particular gun.

Maybe we need to include leading with terms like hard and soft that should be better defined by those using the term. Using these words in a general way really doesn't tell us much.

[jonk]

If it is a little gray that's one thing. If I push a patch through and just dirt comes out with no visible flakes or shards of lead, that's no leading.

If a few shards of lead do wipe out but none adheres to the bore, that's getting dangerous but still no real leading.

Leading is when after removing all powder and lube residue, gray streaks still come out on patches and deposits are visible in the bore.

[Char-Gar]

Thanks to the original poster of this thread. There is so much misinformation about leading and other matters on this site, it does me good to see somebody try and get to the heart of the issue.