Iteresting article in handloader

[Love Life]

I just finished reading an article by John Haviland about alloys in the 44 magnum. He ran mild to wild with several different alloys with not too much difference in accuracy and leading.

This supports what I have found in my 357 magnums. The only metals I keep separate are my lino and pure lead.

I have run full bore 357 magnum loads with several different alloys with not much change in leading and accuracy as well. While I have never smelted all my metals (wheel weights, mystery range lead etc.) together I have never put any extra effort in load developement to compensate for different hardnesses or make ups.

Anybody else notice the same thing? Just brings home the fact that size and lube are as much a factor as alloy.

[44man]

I just finished reading an article by John Haviland about alloys in the 44 magnum. He ran mild to wild with several different alloys with not too much difference in accuracy and leading.

This supports what I have found in my 357 magnums. The only metals I keep separate are my lino and pure lead.

I have run full bore 357 magnum loads with several different alloys with not much change in leading and accuracy as well. While I have never smelted all my metals (wheel weights, mystery range lead etc.) together I have never put any extra effort in load developement to compensate for different hardnesses or make ups.

Anybody else notice the same thing? Just brings home the fact that size and lube are as much a factor as alloy.
I was not impressed with the article or how he got stuff to shoot. In fact not much really shot worth a hoot. It seemed he was baffled too many times.
I have every issue and this is the first I gave away. I am not renewing either.

[Rocky Raab]

I suppose he could have claimed everything went into less than an inch and that he knows everything about cast bullets.

Oh wait; that would make him a poster here...

[451whitworth]

I suppose he could have claimed everything went into less than an inch and that he knows everything about cast bullets.

Oh wait; that would make him a poster here...

:good one.

[Love Life]

I suppose he could have claimed everything went into less than an inch and that he knows everything about cast bullets.

Oh wait; that would make him a poster here...

Huh? John Haviland is a member? Or did I read that wrong?

I found it interesting. I have never been able to get my boolits to shoot under or at an inch at 25 yards. Heck I can't even do it with jacketed bullets. My hands twitch due to a little nerve damage I incured.

The alloy part was all I really cared about.

[Rocky Raab]

John Haviland isn't a member. I should have used sarcasm green font.

IF John the gun writer had claimed those things, he would have been LIKE one or more posters here.

(John is a helluva fine fellow. He is extremely knowledgeable, a gentleman, and a fine wordsmith. I count him only as an acquaintance, but would be delighted if he were a friend.)

The "alloy part" mirrors what I've said all along: it matters a whole lot less than what a lot of caster geeks think.

[Love Life]

John Haviland isn't a member. I should have used sarcasm green font.

IF John the gun writer had claimed those things, he would have been LIKE one or more posters here.

(John is a helluva fine fellow. He is extremely knowledgeable, a gentleman, and a fine wordsmith. I count him only as an acquaintance, but would be delighted if he were a friend.)

The "alloy part" mirrors what I've said all along: it matters a whole lot less than what a lot of caster geeks think.

Now I'm tracking! Sorry for the confusion.

[Rocky Raab]

See the "Newbie to newbie" thread for a post of which I am particularly satisfied.

[Charley]

Saw the article. Who'd have thought bullet diameter and lube make a bigger difference than hardness. Oh, yeah, pretty much everybody who casts bullets. You do need to remember his target readers, though.
As a writer, you often just tell the editor, "yep, I'll be happy to write it", while inside you're thinking "what a bunch of BS." The you wait for the check.

[williamwaco]

I don't claim everything I do goes into an inch!

I remember once shooting a 5 shotter that went 1.33" but oh wait, that was 50 yards.

I do claim however that there is no advantage in either accuracy or leading to going harder than BNH 9/10 for maximum loads in the .357 and .44 Magnum cartridges.

In fact the worst leading I have ever had comes from commercial hard cast bullets with hard lubes in loads of around 1000 to 1100 fps.

.

[fecmech]

If a persons qualifications for accuracy stop at the 25 yd line, I'm with the writer of the article, alloy doesn't matter much. I have shot pure lead HP's in the .357 that did less than 2"@25 yds and almost 1300 fps and I'd bet they wouldn't do 6"@ 50 yds. I did a lot of machine rest testing over 30 years ago and learned a lot about groups and their expansion. I did this by shooting through paper at 25 yds and captured the groups at 50 yds also to see how the groups expanded. Bullets that clumped together in rounded groups at 25 yds slightly more than doubled in size at 50 yds. Any outliers from the main clump at 25 really left the group at 50, increasing in size by at least a factor of 3 and sometimes more. Magnum pistol loads have high acceleration forces and high muzzle pressures which cause bullet slump and distort bullet bases at muzzle exit. These things affect accuracy greatly but at 25 yds they are just getting started. I posted this picture before of bullets recovered from snow a couple years ago. These are .357's loaded over 15 grs of WC820 (Approx 1300 fps). The top row is pure lead, middle is ACWW and bottom is 50/50 WW/lino. The slump and bases on the lead is very obvious. The ACWW show slump on the noses,the lube and crimp grooves are smaller along with slightly cupped bases which doesn't show up that well in the picture. The bottom row shows no slump or distortion at all in the ww/lino bullets. As range and required accuracy levels increase so does the importance of bullet alloy and hardness. Popping cans at 25 yds is one thing, turkeys at 75 yds is something else.
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=30279&d=1299793222

[beagle]

I read that article also and after years of shooting, I have found that there is really no need for really hard alloys in handguns. In fact, softer alloys seem to shoot better than the harder alloys for me and eliminates all the hassles of worrying about bullet hardness.

Most of my shooting is plinking. Some close and a lot at 100 yards and I haven't noticed the difference and I've put a lot of lead downrange.

Besides, softer alloys work better for expansion with my HPs./beagle

[beagle]

Of course, all my groups go into less than 1". That inch is sometimes scattered in pieces all over the target./beagle

[williamwaco]

Of course, all my groups go into less than 1". That inch is sometimes scattered in pieces all over the target./beagle


:drinks:


.

[steg]

I'm with beagle. on both postings.

[jblee10]

My Redhawk prints .430 inch one shot groups regardless of alloy hardness. Seriously though, I'm with Beagle on alloy hardness. I've never worried about it for plinking loads.

[Bret4207]

I suppose he could have claimed everything went into less than an inch and that he knows everything about cast bullets.

Oh wait; that would make him a poster here...

If we're such liars Rocky, why hang here? Data mining? I realize you'll always defend the gun writer, but that post was pretty harsh. I've liked Haviland as a writer, but his articles on cast show he's a rank amateur with cast at best.

[youngda9]

Was not impressed with the article. Wandered all over the place and came to no conclusion. His methods were poor and only shot 6-12 rounds of each IIRC.

[44man]

If a persons qualifications for accuracy stop at the 25 yd line, I'm with the writer of the article, alloy doesn't matter much. I have shot pure lead HP's in the .357 that did less than 2"@25 yds and almost 1300 fps and I'd bet they wouldn't do 6"@ 50 yds. I did a lot of machine rest testing over 30 years ago and learned a lot about groups and their expansion. I did this by shooting through paper at 25 yds and captured the groups at 50 yds also to see how the groups expanded. Bullets that clumped together in rounded groups at 25 yds slightly more than doubled in size at 50 yds. Any outliers from the main clump at 25 really left the group at 50, increasing in size by at least a factor of 3 and sometimes more. Magnum pistol loads have high acceleration forces and high muzzle pressures which cause bullet slump and distort bullet bases at muzzle exit. These things affect accuracy greatly but at 25 yds they are just getting started. I posted this picture before of bullets recovered from snow a couple years ago. These are .357's loaded over 15 grs of WC820 (Approx 1300 fps). The top row is pure lead, middle is ACWW and bottom is 50/50 WW/lino. The slump and bases on the lead is very obvious. The ACWW show slump on the noses,the lube and crimp grooves are smaller along with slightly cupped bases which doesn't show up that well in the picture. The bottom row shows no slump or distortion at all in the ww/lino bullets. As range and required accuracy levels increase so does the importance of bullet alloy and hardness. Popping cans at 25 yds is one thing, turkeys at 75 yds is something else.
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=30279&d=1299793222
I had to save that picture, best ever about what I have explained forever.
You do not need super hard but a boolit must be recovered that looks the same as when cast. Water dropped WW's work for most of my guns but there is still an increase in accuracy if I add a small amount of antimony and tin.
I got a huge ingot of stereo lead and I add 1# to 19# of WW's and it shoots great.
Those that believe in too soft might find their boolits look like the top row. That is why I said some would do as good with a length of lead wire instead of all the trouble of finding the perfect mold and casting perfect boolits. Why even lube when it all went out the gap?
Those pictures really show and everyone should sit and stare at them until they understand. :kidding:
I also found light loads of very fast powder really does need a harder boolit then a higher velocity with slow powder. Final velocity means nothing at all, it is how a boolit is started.
The rag writer should have done more work, shot farther and caught boolits for inspecton. He only showed the loads went "bang."
Yeah, those posts do refer to me! Include my friends too. It's OK, makes me grin! :D

[bruce drake]

Of course, all my groups go into less than 1". That inch is sometimes scattered in pieces all over the target./beagle

My groups usually average .312" in diameter:holysheep....but these are all one-hole groups....:groner:

Bruce

[Shiloh]

I suppose he could have claimed everything went into less than an inch and that he knows everything about cast bullets.

Oh wait; that would make him a poster here...

Ouch !![smilie=l:

Shiloh

[Rocky Raab]

Bret, I didn't say ALL posters here are like that. Many folks here are genuinely knowledgeable.

And a few simply claim to be. (They know who they are - and so do the rest of us.)

[MtGun44]

My experience with handguns tends to support the concept that with a good design,
good lube and proper fit it is not difficult to get solid accuracy (2-3" at 50, or 1-1.5" at
25 yds) with any hardness from 8 BHN up to about 18-20 BHN, or whatever I was getting
with water dropped wwt alloy. I didn't have the hardness tester when I was doing
most of the water dropping testing and haven't bothered to redo it now that I do.

When I run a Keith or LBT design at pretty much full power .44 mag or .357 mag loads
in various revolvers, the group size is the same or worse with water dropped wwts in
all the loads that I have tested. I don't get leading, and do get accuracy with good
designs, without GCs in 8 BHN and up as long as the lube and fit are good.

I just skimmed the article and it seems right to me.

Bill

[1Shirt]

Yep, what Beagle says!!!
1Shirt!:coffee:

[bowfishn]

With a scoped handgun shooting cast, I would think something was wrong with my gun if it didn't do way better than 1" at 25 yards. With open sights 1" would be real good for me I can't see then worth a D@mb!
I do not concider my self any kind of cast expert or a great marks man, but both my Ruger SRH 454 that I owned and 44 mag SRH that I have now could and can break clay pidgeons at 200 yards at least 2 out of 3 times all day long. Both were with cast and both Scoped.
I have learned much from the members here at Cast Boolits, If something sounds reasonable I will try it out myself to see how it works for my set up. Don't spend much time reading gun mags.
I have learned enough to realize that the general public that shoots J bullets and not cast have some real strange ideas about what cast will do or not do.

[looseprojectile]

that did the bad article on cast boolits a couple,? of years ago?
The article that he poo pooed casting soft nose boolits cause he couldn't figure out how it is done?
I will give him this, he takes very good pictures of all his rejects. At least I would throw them back in the pot.
He has not ever shown me anything in his articles that I could use.
He probably is a nice old gentleman and fun to argue with.

Life is good

[H.Callahan]

My groups usually average .312" in diameter:holysheep....but these are all one-hole groups....:groner:

Bruce

+1! Over the years I have found the secret to good groups is to shoot 1 shot groups. Since I made the switch, my groups have shrunk considerably. :Bright idea:

[turbo1889]

As to 1" groups my questions would be at what range, how many shots in the group, and out of what platform. So far I have only been able to obtain 1" groups (5+ shots) at 50 yards or less out of any platform with cast lead boolits and I have several platforms that no matter what I do I would be lucky to print a 1" group at 25 yards or less much less any further out. Heck not even considering cast lead reloads with most of my guns with precision tuned reloads using jacketed or brass/copper monolithic solid bullets printing 1" at 100 yards is very difficult at the very least.

As to knowing everything about cast lead boolits. Absolutely not, I have come close to thinking that once or twice and every time I get close I get a project that smacks me face first into the dirt and pounds my face into the dirt until I'm appropriately humbled or humiliated back into line.

As to alloy composition mattering. I have found a few cases where it does seem to make a difference but in general medium hardness alloy mix made from WW's and range lead plus a dash of tin seems to work for the vast majority of things just fine provided the rest of the variables all line up right.

[44man]

With a scoped handgun shooting cast, I would think something was wrong with my gun if it didn't do way better than 1" at 25 yards. With open sights 1" would be real good for me I can't see then worth a D@mb!
I do not concider my self any kind of cast expert or a great marks man, but both my Ruger SRH 454 that I owned and 44 mag SRH that I have now could and can break clay pidgeons at 200 yards at least 2 out of 3 times all day long. Both were with cast and both Scoped.
I have learned much from the members here at Cast Boolits, If something sounds reasonable I will try it out myself to see how it works for my set up. Don't spend much time reading gun mags.
I have learned enough to realize that the general public that shoots J bullets and not cast have some real strange ideas about what cast will do or not do.
Yes, the truth finally. The SRH is wonderful and I shot many pop cans at 200 from the bench with cast. Vision has been the limit for a good revolver and load.
Anyone tells us they can do it at 200 with a soft Keith needs beat up side the head! :mrgreen:

[44man]

As to 1" groups my questions would be at what range, how many shots in the group, and out of what platform. So far I have only been able to obtain 1" groups (5+ shots) at 50 yards or less out of any platform with cast lead boolits and I have several platforms that no matter what I do I would be lucky to print a 1" group at 25 yards or less much less any further out. Heck not even considering cast lead reloads with most of my guns with precision tuned reloads using jacketed or brass/copper monolithic solid bullets printing 1" at 100 yards is very difficult at the very least.

As to knowing everything about cast lead boolits. Absolutely not, I have come close to thinking that once or twice and every time I get close I get a project that smacks me face first into the dirt and pounds my face into the dirt until I'm appropriately humbled or humiliated back into line.

As to alloy composition mattering. I have found a few cases where it does seem to make a difference but in general medium hardness alloy mix made from WW's and range lead plus a dash of tin seems to work for the vast majority of things just fine provided the rest of the variables all line up right.
I was fooling around with a can at 100 yards. I shot 5 shots with my revolver and had to go down and set it back up after every shot. The small hole in the top of the can were my shots and the others were from a friends rifle. I suppose the actual group size was less then 3/4", I did not measure.
Boolits were from my home made mold and cast from WD, WW metal. Cast can out shoot jacketed.

[turbo1889]

Well, I haven't done a 3/4" five shot group with a revolver at 100 yards but if you all want to get into a bragging rights competition ~ here is my best feat so far with cast boolits:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3066/5721239694_39e441cc5e_z.jpg

Cast Boolit = AM#31-180B (a plain base non-gas checked boolit)
Cartridge = 7.62x54R
Firearm = Original Soviet Mosin-Nagant
Sights = Genuine Original Soviet WWII Sniper Scope
Shooting = Bench with Sand Bags
Range = 300 yards
Rounds Fired = 10
Hits on Target = 9



That is my personal best so far with cast lead boolits, others have done better. One guy posted a 600-yard target with a better group in the special projects section from a home-built wild-cat gun he had specifically built for cast boolits exclusively.

[1bluehorse]

Turbo, I know nothing of the Mosin-Nagent rifle, but your target has a strangely familiar resemblence to my 25yd pistol targets. I'm always in awe of the guys that can shoot 5 shot groups under 2in at 50yds and 3in groups at 100 with their revolvers and stock sights...I personally don't know many guys that could do much better than that with their 30-30's. Have faith, evidently it can be done..

[Char-Gar]

I have no read the article in question, so can offer no opinion on the credibility of the author. But, I am glad Rocky posted what he did, be it harsh or otherwise. I found a smile creeping accross my face and it felt good.

[Rocky Raab]

Perdamnzactly why I posted it, my friend.

Folks, gun writers are not much different than anybody else. We talk about the the things we've learned or what we think -- at the time. Any of it is subject to additional learning or UNlearning at some future time.

But there is one major difference: what we write is there for all to see - forever. Including all the stuff we've unlearned or learned better than. I have old stuff that makes me cringe a bit, and I'm sure John Haviland does, too. Even Elmer Keith did.

[waksupi]

If you can't explain it simply, you do not understand it well enough.

---Albert Einstein

[Blackwater]

Guys, this is a great board, but some of the snide comments about someone's ability to cast and shoot better than they do are a bit off-putting. I usually cast for speed of production rather than top accuracy, but I've proven to myself that one CAN most definitely load for accuracy, and make significant improvements in that area, too, to the point that 1" groups at 25, or even 50 or more yards is very realistic.

Like anything having to do with accuracy, it assumes that you're ABLE to shoot that well. Most folks aren't, but most often, that's simply because they've never really TRIED to achieve that level of accuracy. Given the DESIRE to do that kind of shooting, the only thing left, really, is an ardent pursuit of said proficiency.

That includes having a gun capable of it, shooting technique capable of USING the gun's potential, and more careful and observant casting, lubing and loading. Simple. Lots of folks COULD do it, but most find a level of accuracy that satisfies them sufficiently, and never pursue anything more demanding of them. That's perfectly reasonable .... BUT .... to say that NOBODY can do things they can't .... well, that's another matter entirely!

It saddens me to see folks cast aspersions on others who claim to do things they can't, or more appropriately, just don't feel the need or desire to do. Think about it! All that such thoughts and words can do is ensure that the ones casting the aspersions will NEVER reach that level of competency and performance.

Once we were a "nation of riflemen." That included proficiency with the handgun and shotgun as well, of course. Today, I see far, FAR too many casting aspersions on those who can ... and WILL .... do things they can't. A nation of real "riflemen" could NEVER have been dominated or defeated by any foe imaginable. Sadly, today, we almost uniformly have succumbed to the theory of "poliitical correctness" that we're all equal and nobody can .... or maybe even SHOULD .... stand out from the rest. What a total reversal of essential philosophy and ethics THAT is!

44 Man and many others have EARNED every scrap of their ability to perform well above the ordinary. Many, many more COULD achieve that level of competence, understanding and performance IF they just pulled their heads out of the ether and took a breath of good, fresh air. I don't look for that to change much, but I'll be danged if I'll just sit here and shake my head and not say something when it's so obvious that such thinking and philosophy comes from a place that's so foreign to what we shooters OUGHT to believe in.

For myself, I've always sought out guys who shot, or did anything else BETTER than I could at the time. I couldn't learn much from those who were no better than I was, so it was the only logical thing to do, or so it clearly appeared. It just doesn't make any sense to do anything else, but ..... well, just look around. Everywhere we look today, folks want the "short cut," the "down and dirty," "just the facts," reduced down to the least common denominator "rules" to follow without any real understanding of the PRINCIPLES involved in achieving REAL competency with the rifle, pistol, shotgun, or anything else you can name. All semblance of real CRAFTSMANSHIP seems to be disappearing, if not disappeared. This doesn't bode well, folks, for the fate of what was once "a nation of riflemen," or for that matter, the nation, and all its individuals who live here, at large.

Such a pity! Such a terrible pity! We're all more rushed and busy today than the population has ever been in the history of man. Why we should continue with that ethic into our hobbies as well is .... well, less than understandable, really.

44 Man and many others CAN and DO achieve more and better performance from their guns and loads BECAUSE .... as the old commercial said that featured John Houseman, "They EARNED it!" So can most of you, IF you really WANT to. So let's see if we can't keep our aspersion to ourselves, and at least TRY to understand that others CAN often do things we're simply unwilling to do, or seek. As one thinks, so goes our fates. Simple. True. Reliable.

[felix]

Well said, Blackwater! ... felix

[Char-Gar]

Ahh.. I true believer! I have never understood how a fellow can issue a long scathing criticism about somebody else being critical. Seems somewhat convoluted to me. But, many things in this life don't make sense, one more won't upset the balance of the universe.

One fact Blackwater misses, is that many of use have spent many decades shooting and competing at the highest levels. He assumes that because one is critical, he is without experience and skill. It works the other way around, it is this experience that causes us to disbelieve what is posted on the Internet. We are not a bunch of wet behind the ears, green horns looking for short cuts and quick and dirty solutions. There are riflemen and handgun shooters among us with over a half century of individual experience.

Mr. Blackwater, I don't know who your are, where you come from and what you have done, but I can assure you my shooting credentials are in order. There is no need to list them nor brag about. I EARNED the right to not believe that water runs uphill.

[fecmech]

Char-gar--I respect most of your posts and yes, you have "earned " the right to not believe that water runs uphill. You have not earned the right to attack others ability or credibility.

[Char-Gar]

Nobody was attacked. No names were mentioned. An opinion was expressed about the claims that some nameless folks make on the Internet. Those who rose up to challenge my opinions are the only ones that made this personal. That is an important fact that should not be missed. Personal attacks are not allowed on this board and I am very careful not to do so. You should be mindful of the same.

That said, when anybody (myself included) puts anything on this or another board it is open for discussion, inspection and credibility. The "smell test" is still valid. One should not lay aside their critical thinking skills, and swallow anything that is thrown at them. Just because something is posted and some more folks give it an amen/+1 does not mean it is true. Folks who know it is not true, should not themselves be attacked for saying so.

So lay your knowledge and experience out there and let others sniff it. They can either accept it or reject it and have the right to say.."I don't buy that". No need to start arguments and rush to defend. A rush to defend is just as much an attack as the supposed slight in the first place.

Most of the old timer on this board have left because the BS and gullibility factors have gotton to high to tolerate.

[Love Life]

Wow. Didn't really expect this thread to turn the way it did. I am no stranger to flinging poo, but I usually keep it in the pit.

Exceptional accurcay can be achieved with a revolver or auto. The only handgun I put that much effort into was my freedom arms 83 in 454 Casull. For my 9mm pistols minute of chest is fine. Or the ability to keep them both in the chest and 1 in the head when I am practicing. It is a coin toss with my model 28s. The 4 inch minute of pieplate is fine. The 6 inch (got me another) I expect minute of jackrabbit face.

Never have hunted a shoot-n-see bullseye...

[Char-Gar]

Wow. Didn't really expect this thread to turn the way it did. I am no stranger to flinging poo, but I usually keep it in the pit.

Exceptional accurcay can be achieved with a revolver or auto. The only handgun I put that much effort into was my freedom arms 83 in 454 Casull. For my 9mm pistols minute of chest is fine. Or the ability to keep them both in the chest and 1 in the head when I am practicing. It is a coin toss with my model 28s. The 4 inch minute of pieplate is fine. The 6 inch (got me another) I expect minute of jackrabbit face.

Never have hunted a shoot-n-see bullseye...

Accuracy either exceptional or otherwise is one of those flexible terms. It means different things to different people. I started the Bullseye shooting competition in the early 60s and excellent accuracy to me means the ability of the handgun and load, to keep ten consecutive rounds in the X-Ring at 25 and 50 yards when fired one handed from a standing position. The accuracy potential of the equipment must be greater than the X-Ring by a good amount to allow for the human error of the fellow holding the pistol in his fist.

I killed my first deer with a hangun in 1962 and it was duck soup compared to trying to shoot out the X-Ring. I am now 70 years old, and the eyes, muscles and nerves are not what they once were. But I still enjoy shooting both rifle and handguns. Shotguns never did hold much interest for me, but I did shoot allot of skeet back in the late 50's. It is a fun game and did teach the basics of wing shooting.

[Bret4207]

Perdamnzactly why I posted it, my friend.

Folks, gun writers are not much different than anybody else. We talk about the the things we've learned or what we think -- at the time. Any of it is subject to additional learning or UNlearning at some future time.

But there is one major difference: what we write is there for all to see - forever. Including all the stuff we've unlearned or learned better than. I have old stuff that makes me cringe a bit, and I'm sure John Haviland does, too. Even Elmer Keith did.

I know exactly who you meant. That isn't the point. The point is the Haviland, great guy or not, is writing in the premier handloading magazine from the stand point of being an "authority". That carries with it some responsibility to check his work, go beyond taking wild stabs at things and calling it done, to provide accurate information. Unfortunately, he and a whole big bunch of other writers aren't doing that anymore. The days of the Ken Waters type writers are gone.

What really irks me is the idea put forth that just because someone knows the writer to be a great guy, that he is somehow relieved of any expectation of criticism when he writes a fluff article or one that's so dumbed down that the reader is, or should be insulted. You rushing to every writers defense at the drop of a pin doesn't help. Hey, even really well known writers Like Venturino have come here and bounced ideas off the clan looking to get the straight scoop. That to me indicates a willingness to do good research and not just complete 1500 words so the check gets tot he bank.

[Rocky Raab]

Bret, I don't like to talk ill of anybody. There are several writers I think very little of and I'd never defend them. Or even reply in threads about them.

In the case of this article, there's a lot of what John says that I can't disagree with. Or disagree completely, anyway. So I won't condemn the whole piece because of a few points of disagreement. I certainly won't paint him as a know-nothing on the basis of one article, as some here have. I'd rather learn what I can from it, because that's the whole point of his writing it and my reading it.

[Char-Gar]

I have never met the man that is always right or always wrong. Everybody I have ever know are sometimes right and sometimes wrong. If we try real hard, we can be mostly right. Folks who don't try hard, are often mostly wrong.

My problem comes with folks who are always right and never wrong. The flip side, is the same folks feel, that those who do not agree with them, are always wrong. When that kind of stuff starts to fill the air, the BS detector starts to screech.

[Guesser]

Rank amateur? That covers my entire 50+ years of casting and shooting my casts. I've never fired a group that measured 1" at any distance with any hand gun. I have taken game and varmints tho, didn't matter to much how hard or soft it was. I'll retain my amateur status for the rest of my life, hopefully.

[2 dogs]

I didn't care at all for his article. Over 3 pages on this thread and NO one recognizes that his results were particular to his gun? One wonders if he had a really smooth bore on his particular sixgun thus getting far better results than another with a less slick bore might display.

But y'all go right on arguing. I got shooting to do.

[44man]

I didn't care at all for his article. Over 3 pages on this thread and NO one recognizes that his results were particular to his gun? One wonders if he had a really smooth bore on his particular sixgun thus getting far better results than another with a less slick bore might display.

But y'all go right on arguing. I got shooting to do.
I am old school when a gun writer worked his tail off and did the research to find the best and what worked. They were magazines back then but today they are RAGS. Some shoot 6 shots at 20 yards and only count the best 3 shots. They get paid for that folly!
Read an article and the very next page is an add for what was used.
I go way back in my old Handloader magazines and find useful info. No longer, it has turned to an advertizing rag. The Rifleman used to be super, no longer. Hunting rags are just a constant repeat. I really hate those that try and tell you how to hunt instead of a nice hunting story. Maps to show where a stand should go---get real. But just a nice story about a youngster on the first hunt is nice.
Maybe the worst are fishing rags that tell you where a big fish is according to the lake bottom. You need a certain 100 HP boat to catch it. You need GPS and the latest fish finder. Neither has ever made a fish bite.
My wife likes to watch basketball and football. I told her to record one game and then just watch it over and over. It is the same but she does get angry. :bigsmyl2:
My question is, just how much has anyone here learned from the latest rags?

[runfiverun]

gun magazines haven't changed all that much over he years.
we just remember them a bit differently because of our experience level at the time.
when you read the writings of someone that knows SOMETHING versus your KNOWING nothing.
it makes it seem right.
the witers back in the 50's-70's-80's just wrote about what they did that month.
but gave more information about thier observations,rather than product reviews.
i recently read a GUNS mqagazine from 59 and a recent handloader and one from the 80's they are all basically the same format.
Elmer done a review of a rifle, and so did several others, they told you how the gun worked and there was an advert right there for the new improved woo-hoo.
we also need to remember these are magazines meant to inform and entertain not engineer manuals.

[blackthorn]

Quote "we also need to remember these are magazines meant to inform and entertain not engineer manuals."

Inform, entertain --and--act as a catalouge (that WE pay money for) so they can sell stuff!

[looseprojectile]

I have this problem. I call a spade a manual solids manipulator when I see it.
I can tell when someone does not have the ability to solve problems.
Some people have to have detailed instructions and some can figure it out for themselves.
A writer for a gun magazine is dealing with some pretty dangerous stuff.
What works for me might sound like BS to someone else.
Show me it works. I can certainly show that which doesn't work. When dealing with firearms and ammunition there are so many variables in play I sometimes wonder how anyone can agree.
I like to think that when I make a statement I can prove it or at least back up my statement with supporting data. Some things just don't work for me.
At this point in my life a lot of what I say is memories of facts that have lost some of the fine focus over time.
At times when discussing shooting with my fellow gun loonies I am told of some shooting that they remember I did years ago and it sounds like a lie.
For instance, one time I was camped out on a remote river with a friend who is now in his late seventies. We were watching some ducks floating around on a sort of a pond in the river. He waited till two ducks were lined up so that he shot two ducks heads off with one shot. But wait there is more.
He was shooting a Colt single action 38 special with .357 magnum loads. About forty yards. Non adjustable sights, it can't be done, right? I would call that a really good one shot group. :coffee:
I am still learning. Run it past me!


Life is good

[paul h]

Perhaps what folks are missing is that this article can encourage more people to try casting as it's not that hard to get many combinations of alloys to shoot well.

While I love reading about all the tests people are conduction on lubes and alloys it can easily put the potential caster off as he thinks he needs to go incredible levels of effort to cast a bullet and get decent accuracy out of his gun. Many guys are excited to shoot a cylinder full into 2" or less at 25 yds with an iron sighted wheel gun, and if they can do that with ww's, a lee mold and a commercial lube, then lets spread the word. Casting bullets to get decent accuracy in a wheel gun isn't that tough.

Yes, I can poo poo the writer as well and cite my own experience that 5 shot 1" groups at 50 is easily achievable with a scoped wheelgun as I've done it countless times with my 480 with multiple bullet designs. And I have no doubt if I had the inclination to further my casting and load work I could print 5 into 1" at 100 yds. But that's not the point of the article, and applying our own high standards isn't always in our sports best interest.

[Char-Gar]

The perspective on shooting cast bullets in handguns has changed 180 degrees over my shooting life. When I started handloading for hanguns, there were very few jacketed bullets. They were confined to RNFMJ autoppistol bullets and a few engine busting FMJ in the 357 Magnum round. Everything else came from the factory with some kind of swaged lead projectol usually of a very poor design.

The hanguner was a bullet caster by necessity in those days. The whole jacketed HP thing had not happened yet. It was no trick to get a cast bullet to shoot to and beyond the ability of the hangunner whatever his skill level might be. Cast bullet loading and shooting was a ho-hum everyday things for anybody that handloaded. A mold and sizing die were as necessary as a set of reloading dies.

Fast forward a half century until today and a couple of generations have been raised on jacketed HP bullets and cast bullets have become something of an oddity, an arcane science, and something that seems too complicated for many loaders.

I have not read the article in question, but if it removes some of the cloak of mystery from cast bullet loading in handguns, that that is a good thing. It really isn't rocket science.

[Blackwater]

Char-Gar, FWIW, you're a guy I respect, even though we differ (usually subtly) at times. Maybe I should have noted that not ALL revolvers (or guns of any type) are capable of producing exceptional groups, even when all the workup possible has been done. One friend of mine "cherry picks" his guns, usually from guys who he helps sight in or tune or work on. Occasionally, he finds one that'll group exceptionally. It's like finding an inexpensive guitar that has the voice of an angel and whose intonations are dead on. When he finds one like that, he lays in wait until they want to sell or trade it, and picks it up. He's got a house full of exceptional shooters acquired through the years for his patience. The guy has MUCH better eyesight than normal, but can't hear squat due to the volume of shooting he's done without plugs or muffs. He's my favorite shooting partner because he can generally shade me. That happens when you can't see the sights any more. [smilie=l:

I don't question your authority or right to disbelieve anything. I just feel it appropriate to note my own experience in support of folks whose experience matches my own when they're challenged. Not that big a deal to me, but it just seemed appropriate. I've taught, or tried to teach, a fair number of shooters to shoot well. Very few listen, but continue to do the same old thing, expecting different results. Doesn't happen. Most people tense up when they want to try for a good group. That's exactly opposite of what they should do. Since this isn't a forum on marksmanship or technique, I'll leave that there, but THAT, I believe, is where the real problem is that causes many potentially talented folks to fail to achieve their true potential at the bench or in the woods. Ego's a tough nut to crack. Everyone WANTS to shoot great, but few apply themselves to the task fully. Technical knowledge is needed too, along with experimentation, because each gun, in the end, is a law unto itself. A buddy and I used the Lyman and Saeco Kieth bullets some years ago in our SBH .44's, and as luck would have it (for once), his bullets shot best in his gun, and mine in mine. Murphy's Law must have missed us on that occasion, I guess.

If you're an old bullseye shooter, you're a man I respect. We'll just have to differ on this one, but that's life. No biggie.

[Char-Gar]

Blackwater.. I have to be honest and tell you I really don't get the point of your post except you disagree with me on something, but I am not certain what.

I am 70 years old and have lost all of my high frequency hearing from the sound of gunfire. I have bad arthritis in my shooting hand from way to many heavy recoiling handguns. My wrist on that hand is in pretty bad shape as well. The tendons in my shooting arm elbow are tattered from recoil as well. I can't see as well as I used to, and dont shoot as well as I used to. I still compete, but now it is with a 22 and a red dot sight.

How I got to this shape was by spending over 50 years and more than a million rounds down the barrels of hanguns, although rifles are my first love. I fired high level Bullseye on several teams at the state and local level. I did make the trip to Camp Perry for a number of years to shoot over the course 4 position rifle. I only say this to let you know, I do understand rifle and pistol craft.

I know what you say about relaxing and shooting to be true.

In a nutshell, I know how to shoot well and shoot with the big boys. No matter how long you shoot or how good you shoot there is always somebody better. I used to shoot with Bill Jordan years ago and nobody could match him with handgun, rifle or shotgun, because he had physical reflexes and concentration that very few people can match.We did have a fellow who shot Skeet on the same Olympic team as Robert Stack who could give Joran a run for his money on Skeet. Practice and technique will take you to the top, but there are a few folks who just are gifted in one way or another.

So, I don't have problems with folks who can shoot better than I can or do things with a firearm I can't. I have had to eat crow to many times, to have much ego left.

I don't know what we differ on, but I can live with it, whatever it is.

Take care...

[runfiverun]

So, I don't have problems with folks who can shoot better than I can or do things with a firearm I can't. I have had to eat crow to many times, to have much ego left.


anybody that shoots in any type of competition needs to learn this one right quick...
i have shot at some high levels with a shotgun [grand american,and western grand, regional and state class champ & state champ in skeet] shotgun come natural to me it was/is easy.
i have won some rifle shoots and i am pretty fair at it.
but i have lost more, far more, of both than i ever won.

[44man]

anybody that shoots in any type of competition needs to learn this one right quick...
i have shot at some high levels with a shotgun [grand american,and western grand, regional and state class champ & state champ in skeet] shotgun come natural to me it was/is easy.
i have won some rifle shoots and i am pretty fair at it.
but i have lost more, far more, of both than i ever won.
I agree! The worst guys were the ones that HAD to win and got angry at every shoot. They never really had a good time.
We were always relaxed, joked and laughed and when there was a problem with a load or gun, I went home and solved it. Winning or losing meant nothing. Look up to the man that beats you and shake his hand.
But that was not the point here, the point is not even the writer and I am sure he is a great guy. The thing is not enough was done because of a deadline and it is not the writer in most cases, it is the rag itself.
Do any of you remember Ken Waters? I have all of his books and it took years and years for all the work he did. Anything he wrote was extensive but the editors today only want quick and not next week but TODAY.
That is the reason for my not taking a renewal for most rags. Read most about something and it is a page or so glossed mostly with pictures.
Handloader used to be for the loader but now you see fancy, expensive guns and factory loads. More time is spent on shotguns and I have seen half the rag devoted to one.
Yes it has changed because I can go to old issues and find very useful information for someone with a caliber I do not have. That gives a start. I bet I have everything there is but today you fan the pages and toss it.

[Char-Gar]

Firearms publications are commercial enterprises. They are published for the purpose of making money and are written for the average person who picks one up on the newstand. That person likes guns or just may be curious about them. He is not into the finer points of gunology.

There are many, many more folks that shoot and handload today than when I was in my salad days. More are coming on line every months. It is to be expected that the gun publications would change their focus and aim their material more toward this new group.

It really is unfair to be critical of these publications as they are not written for the average person on this board. It is like damning a poodle because it isn't a coon dog. I tend to not buy them as well, for most of the reasons the rest of you guys don't. But, I don't feel cheated, as they a service to me when it was needed.

[Echo]

If a persons qualifications for accuracy stop at the 25 yd line, I'm with the writer of the article, alloy doesn't matter much. I have shot pure lead HP's in the .357 that did less than 2"@25 yds and almost 1300 fps and I'd bet they wouldn't do 6"@ 50 yds. I did a lot of machine rest testing over 30 years ago and learned a lot about groups and their expansion. I did this by shooting through paper at 25 yds and captured the groups at 50 yds also to see how the groups expanded. Bullets that clumped together in rounded groups at 25 yds slightly more than doubled in size at 50 yds. Any outliers from the main clump at 25 really left the group at 50, increasing in size by at least a factor of 3 and sometimes more. Magnum pistol loads have high acceleration forces and high muzzle pressures which cause bullet slump and distort bullet bases at muzzle exit. These things affect accuracy greatly but at 25 yds they are just getting started. I posted this picture before of bullets recovered from snow a couple years ago. These are .357's loaded over 15 grs of WC820 (Approx 1300 fps). The top row is pure lead, middle is ACWW and bottom is 50/50 WW/lino. The slump and bases on the lead is very obvious. The ACWW show slump on the noses,the lube and crimp grooves are smaller along with slightly cupped bases which doesn't show up that well in the picture. The bottom row shows no slump or distortion at all in the ww/lino bullets. As range and required accuracy levels increase so does the importance of bullet alloy and hardness. Popping cans at 25 yds is one thing, turkeys at 75 yds is something else.
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=30279&d=1299793222

Outstanding post, FM. I had read it before - it should be a Sticky!

[1bluehorse]

Rank amateur? That covers my entire 50+ years of casting and shooting my casts. I've never fired a group that measured 1" at any distance with any hand gun. I have taken game and varmints tho, didn't matter to much how hard or soft it was. I'll retain my amateur status for the rest of my life, hopefully.


We're hittin about the same in shootin years and results there Guesser, but I'm thinkin about givin up the amatuer ranking and goin pro..I'm settin me up some pop cans at 100yards and get to where I can put 5 shots through the same hole with my Redhawk... :target_smiley:...soon as I get there, I'm callin Bob Munden and challenging him to a shoot off on "Impossible Shots". He won't have a chance... :Fire: Not the guy with the arrows though...no..no.....:bigsmyl2:

[swheeler]

[smilie=w:
If we're such liars Rocky, why hang here? Data mining? I realize you'll always defend the gun writer, but that post was pretty harsh. I've liked Haviland as a writer, but his articles on cast show he's a rank amateur with cast at best.

Why don't you tell it like it is Bret:bigsmyl2:

[1bluehorse]

My wife likes to watch basketball and football. I told her to record one game and then just watch it over and over. :bigsmyl2:
[/QUOTE]

Ohhhh, I like that one......a perfect analogy of my sentiments also..:lol: