Factory Cast Bullet Hardness Experiment?

[williamwaco]

I am very curious. Who would like to help me perform an experiment that would be simply too expensive for a single person to undertake?

I want to know how hard the ammo manufacturers think a lead bullet should be.

The only factory ammo I have bought these past 30 years was either .38 special wadcutters ( BNH 5 to 6 ) or jacketed stuff.
I have a box of Federal .327 Magnum on order for my new Ruger.

I expect many of you have a box or two of factory loads with lead bullets of one caliber or another. Some of you will have hardness testers.

If anybody is willing, it would be great if those who can would pull a bullet from a factory load and measure the hardness.

I will compile any results into a table for reference and post them back here.

If you would like to help but don't have a tester, if you would pull a bullet and send it to me, I will test it and give you credit in the results. ( If you don't want to be identified, that is OK too. )

Note that we need common unexciting cartridges too, not just high performance magnums.

The information needed is:

Cartridge:
Manufacturer:
Load Name: ( examples below )
Bullet cast or swaged?
Bullet weight:
Bullet BNH:
BNH tool:

Example load names:
Winchester Super-X Ammunition 44 Special 246 Grain Lead Round Nose
Buffalo Bore Ammunition 357 Magnum 180 Grain Lead Flat Nose Gas Check
Fiocchi Cowboy Action Ammunition 357 Magnum 158 Grain Lead Round Nose Flat Point
Federal Premium Hunting Ammunition 41 Remington Magnum 250 Grain CastCore Flat Point

[Larry Gibson]

From a recent test of VV Tin Star powder for use in low end CBA loads I did for Powder River cartridge Company and VihtaVuori. Test comprised 2131 recorded rounds tested for velcoity, pressure and accuracy.

Factory Handgun Ammunition BHN

Ammunition BHN

R-P 32 S&W 98 RN 5
Western 32 S&W 98 Lubaloy 5.5
Federal 32 S&WL 98 WC 6
Federal 32 H&R 98 SWC 6.5
W-W 38 S&W 150 RN 5
REM-UMC 38 S&W 150 RN 5.3
Western 38 LC Lubaloy 6
R_P 38 SPL Match 148 WC 5.3
Winchester 38 SPL CBA 158 FN 19.3 (cast)
Speer 38 SPL 158 LSWC 5/3
Western 38 SPL 158 RN Lubaloy 6
WRA 38 spl 158 RN 5.5
R-P 38 SPL 158 RN 5
R-P 357 Mag 158 LSWC 7.5
R-P 41 Mag 210 LSWC 7.8
R-P 41 Mag 210 JSP 5.3
HSM 41 Mag 210 SWC 18 (cast)
Magtech 44 SPL CBA 200 LFN 5.5
HSM 44 SPL CBA 200 LFN 19.3 (cast)
Magtech 44 Mag 240 JSP 6.7
Ten-X 45 Shcofield 200 RNFP 16.6 (cast)
Ultramax 45 Shcofield 180 RNFP 16.6 (cast)
Magtech 45 Colt 200 CBA LFN 6.5
Hornady 45 Colt 255 CBA LFN 7/5


Note; above BHN is the average of 8 bullets with most having a +/- 1.5 BHN
Tool was the Lee BHN tester as modified by me for use.


Larry Gibson

[williamwaco]

WOW!

A one man army.

Thanks.

( This forum is simply amazing. At least once a week I find somthing here that stuns me. )

[Frank]

Remember, hardness isn't everything! Fit is King! Hard lubes are used for commercial, and your bore needs to be in good condition. :coffee:

[1bluehorse]

It would seem that most factory rounds are swaged and are pretty close to straight lead, some with maybe a little "extra" stuff mixed in?? Whereas the cast are of a fairly hard alloy..am I reading this correctly?? It's been a loooong time since I purchased any factory assembled cartridges (other than jacketed) but I have bought commercial cast bullets from Lazer Cast, CSI, and IIRC Berger. Of those three LC were the hardest at 23+- a smidge, the others were around 18. But that was several years ago. I cast at around 11-12. Interesting thread though.

[Bigslug]

Williamwaco, you've got my brain spinning in a new direction that might net us some additional valuable intel.

I would be interested in learning the hardness of the CORES of jacketed bullets pulled from factory loads. Bullets for top end handgun duty ammunition (Hydra Shoks, HST, SXT, Gold Dots, Golden Sabers, etc...) are heavily tailored to their cartridge to penetrate to a very specific degree. Rifle bullets are designed to do a whole bunch of different things (blow up a prairie dog, cleanly kill deer, punch through five feet of Cape buffalo...) I figure if we know the properties of what's underneath the copper jacket, we can develop better theories on how to get desired performance without the copper jacket.

If anybody's got recovered hunting or expansion test bullets laying around to test, would that info be appropriate to your data pool?

[runfiverun]

almost every jaxketed round uses a core that's swaged from pure lead to maybe 3% antimony at the top end.
expansion is controlled with jaxket thickness variations and striations and tin/zinc [and sometimes lead] additives to the jaxket and not so much core hardness.
even though the cores may have a different makeup thier final bhn is going to be quite similar because of the swaging.
if you collected 20 of them to test as soon as you cast the alloy for a test slug you would change the bhn that was really used inside the bullet.

[bobthenailer]

Years ago when i got my LBT hardness tester i checked the hardness of Speer & Hornday swedged pistol bullets for reloading . Speer @8 bhn, Hornday @5 bhn.

[Larry Gibson]

While I do try to "fit" my cast bullets to the throat I do not agree that "fit is king"

Just yesterday I shot a 8x57R 360 in a very nice German drilling. I had just got the cases (very expensive BTW) and wanted to fire form them to check dimensions. The groove depth is .318. My .318 sizer is out on loan and all I had was some GB 316291s sized at .314. I took a SWAG at a load and loaded them over 30 gr H4895 with a 3/4 gr dacron filler. Test was at 50 yards but the sights, especially the front sight are rather small and that's probably the best I can hold with my old eyes anymore. Aim was right at 6'clock so we see the drilling is pefectly zeroed. The 10 shot group including fouler is 1.55". The fouler is pretty much in the center of the group. Those were probably the 1st shots fired from that gun since before WWII. Got to love it when a plan comes together.

Point is I seriously doubt if bullets sized .318 - .320 would shoot any better. It does remain to be seen but I've had too many examples of non "fitting" cast bullets shooting every bit as well as the royal "fitted" cast bullets. I believe fit is important but I do not believe it is "king".

Larry Gibson

[303Guy]

Larry, perhaps a thread on your findings on fit? And the drilling of course. We gotta hear more on the drilling.:roll:

[williamwaco]

Larry !

How hard were those bullets?

[Larry Gibson]

Probably be a couple days on the "fit" thread as i've a lot of "honey do's" to catch up on.

BTW; I expect some leading with that much of an undersized bullet but I got none, zilch. Two patches of #9 and a couple dry ones and the bore is as shiney as the Hope Diamond. GCs were Hornadys and Lube was Javelina.

Larry Gibson

[Iron Mike Golf]

...even though the cores may have a different makeup thier final bhn is going to be quite similar because of the swaging...

I dunno. I suspect here's a lot of "it depends".

Speer #14 states in the .44 Mag chapter that the UCSP has a different core and that results in lower pressures and so the charges for the UCSP don't track with the Gold Dot loads (where max charge decreases with bullet weight). You can see that reflected in the max charge comparing the loads for 270 gr GDSP (max 21.0 gr H110) and the 300 gr UCSP (max 22.5 gr H110).

You also see it in the Ruger only 45 Colt loads (260 gr JHP max 20.0 H110 and 300 gr UCSP max 23.5 gr H110).

[higgins]

Larry's results, combined with spotty information bullet manufacturers were willing to share over the years, reinforces my practice of sorting (pistol) range lead into jacketed, cast, and misc./plated prior to smelting. That's probably more specific than need be, but I feel like I at least end up with ingots that are "soft", "hard" and "misc." The "misc." seem near wheelweights according to the thumbnail test, and are suitable for all but applications where one might want hard or soft bullets.

[runfiverun]

Years ago when i got my LBT hardness tester i checked the hardness of Speer & Hornday swedged pistol bullets for reloading . Speer @8 bhn, Hornday @5 bhn.

point in case:
i know that hornady swaged have 5% antimony in them.
yet are still soft.
you cast those in a mold and the bhn jumps up considerably.

same with my 4/6/90 alloy, its hard, hard enough for 2700+ in many of my rifles. once i reswage them flatten the nose and hollow point they are very soft and my top velocity [even with the nose reformed to closer match the throat shape] is reduced to 2400 fps for top accuracy.

[runfiverun]

I dunno. I suspect here's a lot of "it depends".

Speer #14 states in the .44 Mag chapter that the UCSP has a different core and that results in lower pressures and so the charges for the UCSP don't track with the Gold Dot loads (where max charge decreases with bullet weight). You can see that reflected in the max charge comparing the loads for 270 gr GDSP (max 21.0 gr H110) and the 300 gr UCSP (max 22.5 gr H110).

You also see it in the Ruger only 45 Colt loads (260 gr JHP max 20.0 H110 and 300 gr UCSP max 23.5 gr H110).

the core does have some bearing, however the jaxket is the true influence.
a jaxket thats .008 will protect that soft core much more than necessary.
look at sierra rifle bullets, a soft core and a thin jaxket contribute to thier accuracy.
and then look at thier results on game.
they open fast and aren't known as a deep penetrator.
the same thing happens with pressures, and different bullet makers the thicker jaxket [it's make up],and the longer bearing surface, influences pressure far more than the core does.

if the core was the influence we would be shooting lazer cast boolits at full rifle velocities, and not having to back off on top loads when using solid copper bullets.

[MtGun44]

GC makes the difference. This is why folks that were clueless in the old days
found GCs 'necessary' in .44 and .357 mag loads. Not necessary with a properly
fitted boolit of a good design with a good lube. Not properly fitted? Use a GC
and it corrects for the problem.

Also, the one drilling I ever worked with (8x57) had VERY deep rifling, so I wonder
if this is a factor - tall enough lands to solidly engrave a too small boolit and a
GC scraper behind to seal and clean up afterwards.

Nice drilling.

Bill

[Larry Gibson]

Larry !

How hard were those bullets?

16 BHN; WWs + 2% tin:bigsmyl2:

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

GC makes the difference. ............Also, the one drilling I ever worked with (8x57) had VERY deep rifling, so I wonder
if this is a factor - tall enough lands to solidly engrave a too small boolit and a
GC scraper behind to seal and clean up afterwards.

Nice drilling.

Bill

As near as I could measure from the slug the lands are right at .045 which with the .318 groove depth leaves a .309 bore. The nose on the 316291s run .305. Thus between the .314 driving bands and the .305 nose there certainly was no "king" of fit there, perhaps the court jestor:shock:

Larry Gibson

[williamwaco]

All this just illustrates that there is no single correct answer.
( Especially the part about the drilling loads. )


Like runfiverun says "it's all an educated guess,,,, till the trigger is pulled."

[MtGun44]

I submit that Mr. Target IS king. ;-)


I know that USUALLY when my fit is bad, so is everything else. BUT ---

What works is -------- what works.

Don't you wish it were more consistent? I do sometimes. OTOH, another real
truism is that "Every firearm is a thing unto itself."

Still a nice drilling.

Bill

[Bigslug]

Two Winchester .38 Special loads for you, tested tonight on a Cabine Tree standard model from Buffalo Arms:

X38WCPSV - 158 grain LSWC (quoted as loaded to 755FPS from a 4" barrel)
X38SPD - 158 grain LSWCHP +P loading (quoted as loaded to 890FPS from a 4" barrel)

Both of these showed a BHN of 5-6. They're pure lead or something very close to it. Not much in terms of perceptible lube on them, although there was a bit of something that came off on the poker - dipped in something light, I suspect.