PDA

View Full Version : Dipping makes better bullets that a bottom pour pot but why?



SODAPOPMG
04-02-2013, 09:44 PM
lead alloy is the same
the temperature is the same
the mold is the same and at the same operating temperature
the only thing that is different is the hole in the ladle and the bottom pour pot

Lyman dipper hole size is .185 dia.
Magma hole size is .086 dia. from their web site instructions on cleaning
Lyman mag 20 mine is .115 dia. but i have drilled this one oversize

my speculation at this time is that the bottom pour pot manufacturers do not want a large hole because it may splash with the faster moving more volume flowing alloy from a larger size hole so they use a smaller hole.

and i think that the hole size is why the ladle with the larger hole size work better because they fill the mold faster with more pressure on the metal which would force the alloy against the sides of the mold, it would also mean that less air would be introduced into the mold when the alloy is being poured because of the larger faster fill

i plan to enlarge the hole on my mag 20 to the .185 dia size but i will have to make up a new valve rod as mine will not go any lower unless i move the op handle slot upwards

any comments are welcome and please add the hole sizes of your equipment

Old Caster
04-02-2013, 09:51 PM
I think it is because when alloy goes through a bottom pour, dirt can collect because there is nothing to make it not add up. Eventually a piece comes loose and gets in the bullet. When using the ladle, it is constantly being moved and knocked clean so it is less likely to have dirt enter the cavity by adding up or collecting anywhere.

tudor8055
04-02-2013, 10:20 PM
With a bottom pour head pressure changes as the pot empties.
Ladle pour head pressure is always the same which makes it more consistent through the session.

runfiverun
04-02-2013, 10:44 PM
With a bottom pour head pressure changes as the pot empties.
Ladle pour head pressure is always the same which makes it more consistent through the session.

yessir

SODAPOPMG
04-02-2013, 10:50 PM
head pressure would not be a problem until the pot got below the 1 to 1-1/2 high head pressure of the ladle and you would think that having up to 6in of head pressure of the pot would be better more pressure faster fill
unless it is restricted by a smaller hole

i can see dirt affecting the occasional bullet but that would be a very small percentage of them and would be a problem with the ladle too depending on the operator

comments are always welcome

Le Loup Solitaire
04-02-2013, 10:55 PM
I use the ladle as well as the bottom pour so I don't rally have a horse in this race, but I am satisfied with the results obtained either way. I do suggest, that if possible, for interested parties to obtain/read the outstanding article written by Jim Carmichael on the subject/investigation regarding this matter..in "The Art of Bullet Casting"...a classic book still in print and available from Wolfe Publishing out of Arizona. Definitely worth the cost and the reading. LLS

BruceB
04-02-2013, 11:00 PM
You are making a WILDLY FLAWED assumption.

You ASSUME that your experience parallels that of legions of other casters, and that your so-called "superiority" of ladle casting is 'A Great And Accepted Truth'. It is not.

You ASSUME that everyone else shares your OPINION.

You ASSUME that you can make such a bald-faced statement without being challenged.

That will do for a start.

I have been casting now for some 47 years. I cast EXCLUSIVELY with a bottom-pour pot, and would fight like crazy to avoid changing back to your oh-so-wonderful ladle.

My bullets are just fine, and range from 55-grain .22s to 888-grain .50BMG, with around 100 moulds filling the gaps in between. Variations in bullet weight and dimensions are very small, and well-within my comfort zone.

"Pouring pressure" is just one rather-minor factor, and it is subject to operator technique. For example, I do NOT contact the sprue plate with the pot's nozzle, and I do NOT allow the level in the pot to drop more than about three pounds from full. I can assure you that there's danged little variation in flow rate when the "head" only varies from 22 pounds to 18 pounds. Without physical contact between spout and mould, pressure is a non-factor. Flow rate becomes the variable, and it's not an important consideration.

If you wish to discuss ladle vs, bottom-pour casting, that's fine, but you are starting out with an unwarranted position with which many of us disagree.

freebullet
04-02-2013, 11:08 PM
I shoot the **** outa my bottom pour boolits, and I'm happy. I need to many for slow production methods.

Lloyd Smale
04-03-2013, 07:41 AM
im with bruce. Id put my bottom pour bullets up against anyones ladle casted bullets. Actually i think that with a mold guide to insure the distance of the pour is the same each time its more consistant. If your rythem isnt perfect hand casting your temps will vary. As to pressure i keep two pots going and feed the pot im casting with from the other so the lead level never drops more then an inch. Bottom line is even if you dont do that i doubt youd see any more variation in bullet weight anyway. As to contamination. Most contaminants float to the top so if your not constantly cleaning your alloy your more likely to get contaminants ladle casting and if your constantly fluxing your alloy you can actually get some bad effects by contaminats in the flux. With bottom pour you can about flux at the beginning of a melt and not have to bother with it after that. If you want you can even put a layer of sawdust on top of your melt to block oxidation. Ive casted everything from 80 grain pistol bullets to 550 grain bullets and have done it both ways and have checked and if theres a differnce other then the fact bottom pouring is MUCH faster, i havent seen it. To me casting with a ladle is about like loading pistol ammo on a single stage press. If i had to go back to doing it that way therers a good chance i wouldnt do it at all.

M-Tecs
04-03-2013, 12:28 PM
I’m with Bruce and Lloyd on the one. I to will put my bottom pour bullets up against anyone’s ladle casted bullets. I do both not because of quality but since my primary bottom pour is ninety pounds it easier for me to use my twenty pound non bottom pour for special alloys for testing or small runs. Good technique is the key to both methods.

imashooter2
04-03-2013, 12:33 PM
I dipper cast for many years before moving to a bottom pour for the convenience and speed. I still believe that I get fewer rejects when I dipper cast, but the bottom pour is so much easier and faster that I do not mind the slightly higher rejection rate. The non rejects from either method are completely equivalent.

Old Caster
04-03-2013, 10:35 PM
If bottom pour is better, or at least as good, why do all the top notch BPCR shooters use ladle. Maybe you haven't enlightened them. Perhaps one of you could go shoot in a big match and show everyone how it is done.

gbrown
04-03-2013, 10:47 PM
Many, Many years ago, I started out with the ladle. Tried the bottom pour. All sorts of problems. Maybe of my own creation, I don't really know. Went back to ladle pour. A very satisfied caster. Figure out what works for you and go for it. Whatever floats your boat.

Bullshop
04-03-2013, 10:53 PM
This discussion gets kinda silly and even childish since its based on opinion and no one is going to change anyone elses. Kinda like the my Dady can beat up your dady at the playground.
If you must carry on children.

blikseme300
04-03-2013, 11:32 PM
This discussion gets kinda silly and even childish since its based on opinion and no one is going to change anyone elses. Kinda like the my Dady can beat up your dady at the playground.
I you must carry on children.

+1 ^^^^.

The hogs that I shoot don't know or care how the boolits were cast. No matter the method outcomes can and are different depending on the person doing the casting. It is like comparing the quality of the violin music depending on how the bow is held. Whatever works for you, stick to it.

Cane_man
04-03-2013, 11:48 PM
just to stir the pot some more :kidding:

" In my 20 plus years of bullet making experience, I have tried everything and made every mistake at least twice. I have found that the best bullets are made the old fashioned way--with a ladle. The volume of the molten lead in the ladle is easy to control--it's either full or it's not--and the stream of lead going into the mould is gentle and easy to maintain bullet after bullet. This means no cavitation and very consistent weights. I personally see every bullet I make and inspect each one 3 times before it's shipped to a customer. My acceptance rate of perfect bullets is over 95% with ladle casting and less than 60% with a bottom pour pot. You can make a decent bullet with a bottom pour pot if the bullet is short and not very heavy, i.e. most pistol bullets. But in my experience, a long, heavy caliber bullet, like the Big Bore rifle bullets I make, cannot be made to hit targets at 1,000 yds unless they are ladle cast and as perfect as humanly possible. The key to making perfect bullets is consistency in every aspect of manufacture and strict quality control." -Montana Bullet Works

http://montanabulletworks.com/page9.html

PS Paul
04-04-2013, 12:19 AM
Hmmmmm. and the pot errr, plot, thickens!! M. Venturino's writings in Lymanc CBManual comes to mind. He prefers ladle pour and says, like Old Caster above, that most top competitors in BPCR, prefer ladle pouring, but he woulen't argue someone's success if they bottom pour.....

Might be like this: for many,achieving consistent results with heavy cast boolits seems to be easier with the ladle. Bottom pour consistency can be achieved with greater attention to the process and systematically maintaining melt levels in the pot for desired results......

but, I digress since I only bottom pour and do NOT compete in BPCR, although I pour a beautiful 405 gr. .45 boolit with a bottom pour pot on a regular basis.

BAGTIC
04-04-2013, 01:44 AM
If some people think they get better pour with a ladle perhaps it is because the ladle slows down the casting rate and keeps them from getting carried away with how fast they can do it.

detox
04-04-2013, 05:23 AM
Bottom pour: Lymans #3 manual states "when contaminents like dirt, ash, dross build up between wall of pot and melt, they will find their way to the bottom of pot and then out the spout into mould. This dirt will cause voids in bullets". I believe these contaminants can be caused by DIRTY LEAD and by too much stirring and fluxing. One old time caster here says he does not flux at all when casting...I may try not fluxing next time i use the bottom pour. I will drain and wash out pot before doing so.

Linotype lead: I would like to know the process of filling those old linotype machines...do they flux and stir lead before filling letter moulds free of voids? CLEAN Linotype lead may work better in bottom pour if left unfluxed and stirred.

Ladle: So far i like the ladle method best, but i will also get voids if any dross gets into ladle and mould. I make sure to dip my ladle deep and away from dross.

Montana bullet works cast custom bullets for customers using ladle method only. As written by April 2013 issue of Handloader magazine. Also Mike Venturino likes using Linotype lead when casting for his military surplus rifles.

Lloyd Smale
04-04-2013, 06:51 AM
black powder shooting is an old school thing and id bet a good many of them cast with a ladle just because thats how it was done back in the day. I dont cast black powder bullets but have owned and shot the linebaughs, 50ak and 4570s for many many years and cast bullets as large as 550 grain and have done them both ways and if theres a differnce in quality of the finished product i havent seen it and it would show more in my high tin/antimony alloys then it would with pure as they set up much faster. Pure sets up slow so the lead in the mold is going to be molten for a bit either way giving it plenty of time to fill out the mold. Casting good bullets is all about technique. Its about doing the same thing every time in steady pace. It doesnt much matter if you ladle or bottom pour if you are consistant with what your doing. Keep contaminents out of your pour, keep the level in your pot consistant. Keep your mold temp and alloy temp consistant and either method will make good bullets. With a bottom pour your going faster and it takes a bit more consentration to be smooth, so theres a bit of a learning curve and id guess thats why some will claim the ladle is better. Most of us started with a ladle and when switching over you may have more rejects till you master it and im sure a good many give up before they give it a fair chance. Im retired now so have plenty of time to cast. If it was a better way id be doing it but im not going to do it just to do it. To me it would be like going back to loading pistol ammo on a single stage press!! Some bullheaded people still think you can make better ammo that way too!!!!! Ive seen cowboy action shooters who insist on loading there ammo on hand tools like they did back in the day too but does that make there ammo better?

rbertalotto
04-04-2013, 07:27 AM
In my experience...

Big bullets, 500g and above, to be "competition quality" with extremely small weight variations need to be ladle poured. Smaller bullets, plinking bullets, handgun bullets....no advantage to ladle pouring.

Dozens upon dozens of folks have proved this "theory" time and time again by ladling a large number of +500g bullets and bottom pouring the same, then weighing and sorting all. The ladle pour bullets ALWAYS have less weight varience. I've not seen, read or experienced with my own testing anything to challenge this result.

odinohi
04-04-2013, 07:52 AM
I cast sinkers both ways. The bottom pour sinkers seem to drowned the worm a little faster then the ladle poured. Either way, the fish dont seem to care.

PbHurler
04-04-2013, 08:38 AM
If you're happy when you shoot 'em, clap your hands;
If you're happy when you shoot 'em, clap your hands;
If your happy when you shoot 'em,
Top or bottom poured will do 'em,
If you're happy when you shoot 'em, clap your hands.

Chicken Thief
04-04-2013, 05:01 PM
lead alloy is the same
the temperature is the same
the mold is the same and at the same operating temperature
the only thing that is different is the hole in the ladle and the bottom pour pot

Lyman dipper hole size is .185 dia.
Magma hole size is .086 dia. from their web site instructions on cleaning
Lyman mag 20 mine is .115 dia. but i have drilled this one oversize

my speculation at this time is that the bottom pour pot manufacturers do not want a large hole because it may splash with the faster moving more volume flowing alloy from a larger size hole so they use a smaller hole.

and i think that the hole size is why the ladle with the larger hole size work better because they fill the mold faster with more pressure on the metal which would force the alloy against the sides of the mold, it would also mean that less air would be introduced into the mold when the alloy is being poured because of the larger faster fill

i plan to enlarge the hole on my mag 20 to the .185 dia size but i will have to make up a new valve rod as mine will not go any lower unless i move the op handle slot upwards

any comments are welcome and please add the hole sizes of your equipment

Please proof your claim with actual evidense please!

Actual shot strings with actual pics and actual measurements that state that boolit form and veight is the same.

Until then your ramblings are pure manure for the field (at least to me!).

So are you up to the task?
Will you back your claim with actual facts?
Best if you let another shooter do the proofing.
He wont know wich boolits he shoots in what cases he will reload.

Chicken Thief
04-04-2013, 05:07 PM
In my experience...

Big bullets, 500g and above, to be "competition quality" with extremely small weight variations need to be ladle poured. Smaller bullets, plinking bullets, handgun bullets....no advantage to ladle pouring.

Dozens upon dozens of folks have proved this "theory" time and time again by ladling a large number of +500g bullets and bottom pouring the same, then weighing and sorting all. The ladle pour bullets ALWAYS have less weight varience. I've not seen, read or experienced with my own testing anything to challenge this result.

May be so that the boolits has a smaller ES weight wise but i bet you $ for cents that they'll shoot the same if they measure the same.

Until the claim is proofed by the thread starter i'll declare a high BS rate on this
http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm153/Chickenthief/Blandet/Smilere/bsmeter80.gif

detox
04-04-2013, 05:16 PM
Bottom pour: Lymans #3 manual states "when contaminents like dirt, ash, dross build up between wall of pot and melt, they will find their way to the bottom of pot and then out the spout into mould. This dirt will cause voids in bullets". I believe these contaminants can be caused by DIRTY LEAD and by too much stirring and fluxing. One old time caster here says he does not flux at all when casting...I may try not fluxing next time i use the bottom pour. I will drain and wash out pot before doing so.

Linotype lead: I would like to know the process of filling those old linotype machines...do they flux and stir lead before filling letter moulds free of voids? CLEAN Linotype lead may work better in bottom pour if left unfluxed and stirred.

Ladle: So far i like the ladle method best, but i will also get voids if any dross gets into ladle and mould. I make sure to dip my ladle deep and away from dross.

Montana bullet works cast custom bullets for customers using ladle method only. As written by April 2013 issue of Handloader magazine. Also Mike Venturino likes using Linotype lead when casting for his military surplus rifles.

From Wikipedia:

Linotype Casting section

The casting material is an alloy of lead (85%), antimony (11%), and tin (4%),[9] and produces a one-piece casting slug capable of 300,000 impressions before the casting begins to develop deformities and imperfections, and the type must be cast again.

The continuous heating of the molten alloy causes the tin and antimony in the mixture to rise to the top and oxidize along with other impurities into a substance called "dross" which has to be skimmed off. Excessive dross formation leads to the alloy softening as the proportion of lead increases. The mixture must then be assayed and tin and antimony added back (in the form of a specially proportioned alloy) to restore the original strength and properties of the alloy. In the later years of Linotype casting, it also became more and more evident that employee exposure to the elements of the alloy caused health risks. Lead easily evaporates form the molten mixture and enters the respiratory tract, and both lead and antimony have a tendency to be absorbed through the skin. Many operators and proof readers handled the slugs bare-handed.

M-Tecs
04-04-2013, 11:46 PM
Lloyd you know and I know that "Casting good bullets is all about technique". Some people will never be convinced of this.

I started with a bottom pour. I cast my first 100K before I ever tried a ladle. I did not start ladle pouring until I got into BPCR. I read and was told that ladle was the best way for BPCR so I have really worked at producing better bullets with ladle pouring but the best I can do is equal.

It is easier to have poor technique with a bottom pour but good technique produce equal bullets out of either method.

And yes I do check my BPCR bullets on a scale that goes to 0.01 of a grain.

rbuck351
04-05-2013, 12:44 AM
I have tried several times to use a ladle as many folks say it is so much better. So far my failure rate using a ladle is upwards of 95%. It's probably me doing something wrong but if I had to use a ladle I would probably give up casting as that rate of failure really ticks me off. I get between 90 and 95% success rate using bottom pour depending on the mold. You would have a hard time convincing me 95% failure is better than 90+% success rate. And that doesn't count the production rate.

blikseme300
04-05-2013, 06:32 AM
From Wikipedia:

Linotype Casting section

The casting material is an alloy of lead (85%), antimony (11%), and tin (4%),[9] and produces a one-piece casting slug capable of 300,000 impressions before the casting begins to develop deformities and imperfections, and the type must be cast again.

The continuous heating of the molten alloy causes the tin and antimony in the mixture to rise to the top and oxidize along with other impurities into a substance called "dross" which has to be skimmed off. Excessive dross formation leads to the alloy softening as the proportion of lead increases. The mixture must then be assayed and tin and antimony added back (in the form of a specially proportioned alloy) to restore the original strength and properties of the alloy. In the later years of Linotype casting, it also became more and more evident that employee exposure to the elements of the alloy caused health risks. Lead easily evaporates form the molten mixture and enters the respiratory tract, and both lead and antimony have a tendency to be absorbed through the skin. Many operators and proof readers handled the slugs bare-handed.

This quote from Wikipedia is garbage. The statement that lead easily evaporates is an old wives tale and not based upon science. The temperature at which evaporation starts is just over 3000*F. Check engineering and chemistry references, not Wikipedia for facts.

detox
04-05-2013, 07:32 AM
This quote from Wikipedia is garbage. The statement that lead easily evaporates is an old wives tale and not based upon science. The temperature at which evaporation starts is just over 3000*F. Check engineering and chemistry references, not Wikipedia for facts.

So dross is not made up of tin? Wiki never stated that it evaporates. They said the dross is skimmed off top. What is dross (scientificaly)?

detox
04-05-2013, 07:50 AM
I found the true meaning of dross:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dross

Texantothecore
04-05-2013, 03:14 PM
If you do not flux enough the ladle will carry more tin as it will separate as you cast.

detox
04-05-2013, 03:23 PM
If you do not flux enough the ladle will carry more tin as it will separate as you cast.

I notice the shiney tin forms on outside of ladle. I use a small pea size piece of beeswax or parafin to put dross/tin back into the melt when using ladle.

alfloyd
04-05-2013, 11:33 PM
"Lead easily evaporates form the molten mixture and enters the respiratory tract."
"Wiki never stated that it evaporates."

This sounds contrary to me.

Lafaun

blikseme300
04-06-2013, 05:10 AM
"Lead easily evaporates form the molten mixture and enters the respiratory tract."
"Wiki never stated that it evaporates."

This sounds contrary to me.

Lafaun

Exactly.

Many of the facts presented by Wikipedia are as accurate and factual as those found in the National Enquirer.

Lloyd Smale
04-06-2013, 08:08 AM
One advantage to bottom pour is you need to flux alot less and fluxing if overdone can add contaminants to your lead. Could be why some have problems with bottom pour casting, they just have a habbit of fluxing alot more then whats nessisary. Also id bet a dime to a dollar that most of the cheerleaders for ladle casting that claim they make better bullets and have even tested it are guys that have ladle casted for years because they were told it makes better bullets. Then they take a bottom pour pot and cast a couple days with it and compare bullets. Not a real fair comparison. Many dont understand that you have to adjust feed pressure and temperature when going from a light bullet to a 500 grain bullet. Temperature is probably even more critical with a bottom pour. Then factor in your casting those bullets about twice as fast and youll see where your technique is so critical. With a ladle its tough to speed up and with a bottom pour its touch to slow down and be consistant. I think it comes down more to what way you like to do it. Ive done it both ways and youll never convince me that theres spit differnce between bullet quality if you do it both ways RIGHT. Just another wifes tail like bullets need to bump up, or bullets sized nose first outshoot bullets sized base first, that one guy wrote about years ago and now everyone takes it as bible.

atr
04-06-2013, 10:13 AM
I am a new comer to bottom pour having spent all my time with a ladle....
I find that the bottom pour is faster but I have not been able to get the quality that I can get with the ladle. I have tried both pistol and rifle molds and the quality issue holds true for both.
I am going to continue trying the bottom pour, it may be my technique...
atr

jethunter
04-06-2013, 10:56 AM
You can make good bullets ladle or bp. It's all technique. I ladled a bit over 2000 350 gr 45-70 boolits yesterday and my forearms and wrists are feeling it today. Bottom pour looks pretty good to me right now.

detox
04-06-2013, 02:12 PM
One advantage to bottom pour is you need to flux alot less and fluxing if overdone can add contaminants to your lead. Could be why some have problems with bottom pour casting, they just have a habbit of fluxing alot more then whats nessisary.

I am pretty sure over fluxing was my biggest problem. All than darn sawdust......................

Raven_Darkcloud
04-06-2013, 11:32 PM
If you're happy when you shoot 'em, clap your hands;
If you're happy when you shoot 'em, clap your hands;
If your happy when you shoot 'em,
Top or bottom poured will do 'em,
If you're happy when you shoot 'em, clap your hands.

Best post of the topic. Put a big smile on my face.

PS Paul
04-07-2013, 12:15 AM
Best post of the topic. Put a big smile on my face.

Me too!!

MtGun44
04-07-2013, 04:25 PM
Wikipedia as a reference source on something that is controversial?


LOL!!!!

Zero accuracy checks on Wikipedia, ANYBODY can write or "correct".

I've done some ladle casting, and the pressure casting aspect helps
fill out, it seems, in my limited experience. However, I do manage to
make some pretty darned good boolits with my bottom pour pots.

Not calling anybody wrong, but seems like 'different strokes'
kind of discussion. Ford is better than Chevy. NO, Chevy is better
than Ford. . . . . No answer in reality.


Bill

detox
04-07-2013, 05:43 PM
Taking advice from members here today i casted some verygood boollits using the bottom pour. Fluxing only once with pea size parafin and keeping my melt temp between 650-700 produced some verygood results with only about 5% rejects. I used linotype as my alloy. I am getting better with the bottom pour.

I held my mould about 1/4" from spout then poured leaving a small puddle on top. I also adjusted for faster flow thru spout.

I loosened sprue plate so that it would swing freely and just rest on top of mould. This produce boolits with square bases.

I was fluxing way too much in past sessions resulting in too many dirt specs and cavities.

Lower casting temps of 650-700 resulted in larger diameter boolits. Before hand i was casting around 725-775 resulting in slightly smaller diameter boolits.

I also drain and wash my pot after every session. Water allways comes out looking dark and dirty.

Thanks,

Ben
04-07-2013, 05:45 PM
I've been reading this but have not made a comment.

Well, time to change that.

I've seen molds that would not cast a good bullet unless they were under a " pressure pour " situation with a ladle.

I've also seen molds that form whiskers when subjected to this technique.

Many molds do well with bottom pour.

I think it is hard for a right handed person to switch over in life to being left handed.

Likewise, if you've developed successful patterns of casting and those techniques are yielding good results, it isn't likely that someone with a different view is going to persuade you to do it differently.

Which is better than another..... ? ? ?

TheCelt
04-07-2013, 06:06 PM
I like my Lee bottom pour!!! Mine Doesn't drip (much) and it's real easy to control the sprue size.

Texantothecore
04-08-2013, 10:44 AM
If bottom pour is better, or at least as good, why do all the top notch BPCR shooters use ladle. Maybe you haven't enlightened them. Perhaps one of you could go shoot in a big match and show everyone how it is done.

The most likely physical reason is that the ladle takes from the top of the stack of lead and may have more tin in it than a bottom pour pot that is isn't fluxed frequently.

10-x
04-08-2013, 12:39 PM
Each to his own............Been casting BP for 30+ years and only do the ladle for "Old Timey" casting for round ball Black powder.

detox
04-08-2013, 01:38 PM
Each to his own............Been casting BP for 30+ years and only do the ladle for "Old Timey" casting for round ball Black powder.

Nothing wrong with that. I just purchase the smaller Lee 5 lb pot for quick ladle casting. I am now convinced that both methods produce good boolits once you learn how.

sergeant69
04-08-2013, 05:02 PM
:Fire: ladle casting is the BEST and ONLY way to cast. why? cause my WAAGE pot doesn't have a bottom hole or a lever to operate said hole on it. so....theres your proof!

shadowcaster
04-08-2013, 07:00 PM
I think that when it comes right down to it... To Each His Own! I do way more bottom pour than ladle, but they both peform well for the job intended.

Shad

Awsar
04-08-2013, 07:35 PM
had a bottom pour given to me so its all ive ever used and thanks to the great people on this site a few mods to it and it does everything i could ask.
boolit goes bang and hit near where i aim it--all good :)

p.s boolit more accurate than i am im sure

cbrick
04-08-2013, 07:42 PM
The most likely physical reason is that the ladle takes from the top of the stack of lead and may have more tin in it than a bottom pour pot that is isn't fluxed frequently.

Not possible! Tin will not - cannot separate and drift to the top of the pot from a lack of fluxing or stirring or anything else. The only loss of tin will be that which is already at the surface of the melt and in contact with oxygen which will oxidize.

Rick

Lloyd Smale
04-09-2013, 06:46 AM
correct answer. Once alloyed with lead it cannot seperate and the lead at the top of your pot is the same as whats at the bottom.
Not possible! Tin will not - cannot separate and drift to the top of the pot from a lack of fluxing or stirring or anything else. The only loss of tin will be that which is already at the surface of the melt and in contact with oxygen which will oxidize.

Rick

cbrick
04-09-2013, 07:24 AM
From Wikipedia:

Linotype Casting section

The continuous heating of the molten alloy causes the tin and antimony in the mixture to rise to the top

That's pure BS.


Lead easily evaporates form the molten mixture and enters the respiratory tract, and both lead and antimony have a tendency to be absorbed through the skin.

And this is even bigger BS. Lead does not evaporate at anything even close to casting temps, you can get lead vapor when over 1,100 degrees. Lead cannot be absorbed through the skin. To get lead poisoning you have to ingest it.

So much for Wikipedia . . .

Rick

sergeant69
04-09-2013, 10:13 AM
ya mean like in the good old days when roy rogers and john wayne caused the bad guys to "ingest" some lead? hell yea!

mrbukers
04-09-2013, 10:56 AM
And this is even bigger BS. Lead does not evaporate at anything even close to casting temps, you can get lead vapor when over 1,100 degrees. Lead cannot be absorbed through the skin. To get lead poisoning you have to ingest it.

This isn't accurate. You can get lead vapor at any point after the lead is molten. It's typically a very small amount that grows as you approach the boiling temperature. This is why you should always work with molten metals outdoors or in well ventilated spaces. Just because it's a very small amount of lead vapor doesn't mean you can't ingest it. This is a large concern because your body gets rid of lead very very slowly.

cbrick
04-09-2013, 12:34 PM
ya mean like in the good old days when roy rogers and john wayne caused the bad guys to "ingest" some lead? hell yea!

Yep, that is one form of acute lead poisoning. :mrgreen:

Rick

cbrick
04-09-2013, 12:43 PM
This isn't accurate. You can get lead vapor at any point after the lead is molten. It's typically a very small amount that grows as you approach the boiling temperature. This is why you should always work with molten metals outdoors or in well ventilated spaces. Just because it's a very small amount of lead vapor doesn't mean you can't ingest it. This is a large concern because your body gets rid of lead very very slowly.

That is accurate, lead does not vapor at melting temps. Of course good ventilation should be used, lead is not the only thing in your melt. Your odds of getting any lead poisoning at melting temps is quite remote. If you have elevated levels of lead in your system you ingested it one way or another. I highly recommend washing your hands after handling lead and no thumb sucking until you do.

Rick

EDG
04-09-2013, 01:03 PM
I think we need a different forum for people that cast for handguns and those that cast for rifles.
The two groups often cast with different techniques, alloys and have different criteria for a good bullet.

BPCR shooters want MOA results to 400 yards or more.
Pistol shooters often do not even have a way to measure the accuracy of their bullets.
A bullet produced for plinking at 30 feet does not necessarily meet the demands of long range rifle shooters.
Yet the two groups argue about technique - when the two groups have completely different requirements.

Threepersons
04-09-2013, 01:40 PM
I ladle pour. Because I'm to cheap to buy a bottom pot.
Now for all you folks wanting to know about Linotype machine. I was
a Linotype operator in the 50's and 60's. Linotypes casts under pressure. They had
a piston, which I removed daily, cleaned and fluxed the pot.

M-Tecs
04-09-2013, 02:36 PM
I think we need a different forum for people that cast for handguns and those that cast for rifles.
The two groups often cast with different techniques, alloys and have different criteria for a good bullet.

BPCR shooters want MOA results to 400 yards or more.


The only argument that I see is the ladle pour only casters are not willing to accept that some bottom pour casters can produce equal bullets. I cast for and shoot BPCR out to 1,000 yards using both methods. I am a toolmaker by trade and I understand precision inspection better than most.

I never have nor will I be able to run a 4 minute mile but I do acknowledge that others can. Why is it so hard for some to acknowledge that good technique equals good bullets with both methods?

mrbukers
04-09-2013, 07:10 PM
That is accurate, lead does not vapor at melting temps. Of course good ventilation should be used, lead is not the only thing in your melt. Your odds of getting any lead poisoning at melting temps is quite remote. If you have elevated levels of lead in your system you ingested it one way or another. I highly recommend washing your hands after handling lead and no thumb sucking until you do.

Rick

No, you're still wrong. Lead doesn't vaporize at a rate that you can see with your eyes, but some of the lead at the surface may have enough energy to vaporize. It's called evaporation. The rate may be very low, but it will still happen. The rate increases as you approach the boiling point. I don't have a phase diagram for lead handy, but it might even sublimate in a vacuum. Not that that is useful to this discussion, but telling people that you can't get lead vapor at casting temperatures is both incorrect and can lead to unhealthy practices.

cbrick
04-09-2013, 07:43 PM
One of the things most of us on this forum have worked hard on is stopping the spread of old wives tales. Please don't sign on here and perpetuate them. If you wish to believe them by all means go right ahead but don't spread them here.

Lead does not evaporate at normal casting temps. You have considerably more to worry about with antimony and arsenic than from the lead. Safety precautions such as good ventilation are preached constantly on this forum and no one, least of all me is suggesting unhealthy casting procedures. I handle lead nearly daily, I have my blood lead level checked yearly and it's never been higher than low normal for an adult, I don't think what I do or suggest to others is unhealthy.

Rick

Texantothecore
04-09-2013, 07:51 PM
Not possible! Tin will not - cannot separate and drift to the top of the pot from a lack of fluxing or stirring or anything else. The only loss of tin will be that which is already at the surface of the melt and in contact with oxygen which will oxidize.

Rick

Thanks for the clarification. I am not sure where I got that piece of incorrect info.

detox
04-09-2013, 09:35 PM
No ladle and no fluxing of lead with the Magma Master Caster. Listen to the fan blowing to cool the sprue. Look at bucket of water to slow fall and harden boolits. Notice lead temperature
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYdNiMuenUU

This is also very interesting. Cleaning and fluxing of lead info for bottom pot pourers. White beeswax for fluxing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfmRXffM1Qs

detox
04-09-2013, 10:12 PM
The last time i casted boollits i melted my ingots and fluxed with small piece of parafin in seperate pot. Then i poured melt into my clean RCBS bottom pour pot before casting boollits (i never fluxed while using the RCBS bottom pour). I also kept temp around 650-700 degrees. This produced very clean and well filled out boollits. For a more square base boollit loosen sprue plate so that it swings freely and vents better. Do not press sprue plate against spout...leave about 1/4" distance between when pouring

If you do not have a second pot, you can melt your clean ingots in bottom pour, but do not flux. The ingots and pot must be very clean before casting. Then cast away.....

Fluxing in the Lee Drip-o-matic may be the cause of the drip.....maybe? Dirt in between seat and plunger.

mrbukers
04-10-2013, 01:06 AM
One of the things most of us on this forum have worked hard on is stopping the spread of old wives tales. Please don't sign on here and perpetuate them. If you wish to believe them by all means go right ahead but don't spread them here.


That's unfortunate considering you are wrong. Any liquid with an exposed surface to air can evaporate. Liquid metal is no exception. You learn this in any introductory chemistry class.

Even if you don't believe that there is observational data that shows that lead vapor exists at normal casting temperatures. I invite you to take a look at this publication (http://www.oecd-nea.org/science/reports/2007/pdf/chapter2.pdf) which shows a collection of 5 studies conducted over the past 50 years or so regarding the saturated vapor pressure of molten lead. All 5 studies agree, and the saturated vapor pressure at 700 F is around 1.0e-5 Pa. That number is not zero. Non-zero vapor pressure means that there is lead vapor at that temperature.

The section covering vapor pressure starts on page 41 and the plot showing vapor pressure vs temperature is on page 43.

badbob454
04-10-2013, 02:07 AM
when your boolits come out perfect every time once the mold is up to temp , how can a ladel do any better? my ol drippy works great , and i never get dirt in my pour as lead is heavier than dirt and the dirt floats to the top ... i never drain my pot completely so the spout never sees any dirt , it is a matter of choice or whatever floats your boat ...

btroj
04-10-2013, 05:46 AM
That's unfortunate considering you are wrong. Any liquid with an exposed surface to air can evaporate. Liquid metal is no exception. You learn this in any introductory chemistry class.

Even if you don't believe that there is observational data that shows that lead vapor exists at normal casting temperatures. I invite you to take a look at this publication (http://www.oecd-nea.org/science/reports/2007/pdf/chapter2.pdf) which shows a collection of 5 studies conducted over the past 50 years or so regarding the saturated vapor pressure of molten lead. All 5 studies agree, and the saturated vapor pressure at 700 F is around 1.0e-5 Pa. That number is not zero. Non-zero vapor pressure means that there is lead vapor at that temperature.

The section covering vapor pressure starts on page 41 and the plot showing vapor pressure vs temperature is on page 43.

Technically you are correct. Lead at 700 had a vapor pressure of .00001 Pa. Water, at 37 C, which is body temp, has a vapor pressure of roughly 6200 Pa. Tell me which number is relevant.

At normal casting temps the chance of breathing in "lead vapors" and getting lead poisoning is basically nil. Want to avoid lead poisoning? Good basic hygiene. Don't eat, drink, or smoke while casting. Wash hands very well when done casting. After casting wash clothes well. All this is because you pick up lead oxides on your clothes and hands. Lead by itself does not absorb well into the body even of ingested. The oxides and worse yet acetate is much more easily absorbed. avoid the dust from primers, lots of lead salts in those.

Making technical arguements that lack relevance doesn't cut it here. Many here have been casting for decades, not years. Many have blood levels checked regularly. Molten lead is not a danger, unless you get burned.

Lloyd Smale
04-10-2013, 06:46 AM
ill give a big amen to that!
The only argument that I see is the ladle pour only casters are not willing to accept that some bottom pour casters can produce equal bullets. I cast for and shoot BPCR out to 1,000 yards using both methods. I am a toolmaker by trade and I understand precision inspection better than most.

I never have nor will I be able to run a 4 minute mile but I do acknowledge that others can. Why is it so hard for some to acknowledge that good technique equals good bullets with both methods?

Lloyd Smale
04-10-2013, 07:01 AM
the wives tales on here will never stop. All it takes is some gun writer that hasnt casted a 1/10 of the bullets that some here has or some outdated publication like lymans casting manual to say that something is so and act like they got that info from God himself. Things like overfluxing because people think its the only way to keep tin mixed with lead. Misconceptions about how people get lead poisoning, which by the way ive been treated for and got from eating and smoking and poor handling practices. People stil think a bullet needs to be soft enough to bump up even in a good gun which is the one that trips my trigger the most. What about some who wont use wws because the impuritys in them wear our barrels and even this one that bottom pour pots cant make quality bullets
Technically you are correct. Lead at 700 had a vapor pressure of .00001 Pa. Water, at 37 C, which is body temp, has a vapor pressure of roughly 6200 Pa. Tell me which number is relevant.

At normal casting temps the chance of breathing in "lead vapors" and getting lead poisoning is basically nil. Want to avoid lead poisoning? Good basic hygiene. Don't eat, drink, or smoke while casting. Wash hands very well when done casting. After casting wash clothes well. All this is because you pick up lead oxides on your clothes and hands. Lead by itself does not absorb well into the body even of ingested. The oxides and worse yet acetate is much more easily absorbed. avoid the dust from primers, lots of lead salts in those.

Making technical arguements that lack relevance doesn't cut it here. Many here have been casting for decades, not years. Many have blood levels checked regularly. Molten lead is not a danger, unless you get burned.

btroj
04-10-2013, 07:02 AM
Yep. Most of the garbage about shooting cast comes from people who don't shoot them. Imagine that.

I am not an old wife so I don't believe in old wives tales.

Oh, I shoot cast in micro groove barrels quite well, thank you.

Jeff Michel
04-10-2013, 07:22 AM
I primarly use a bottom pour. Maybe I'm imagining it but for 6.5, some 7mm, the bottom pour creates a turbidity which leads to voids/wrinkles. I almost have to lay my molds at 45 degrees to the spout to avoid this when I pour. When I use a ladle, this disappears. I think that a ladle will always have a place on my bench.

cbrick
04-10-2013, 07:39 AM
Technically you are correct. Lead at 700 had a vapor pressure of .00001 Pa. Water, at 37 C, which is body temp, has a vapor pressure of roughly 6200 Pa. Tell me which number is relevant.

At normal casting temps the chance of breathing in "lead vapors" and getting lead poisoning is basically nil. Want to avoid lead poisoning? Good basic hygiene. Don't eat, drink, or smoke while casting. Wash hands very well when done casting. After casting wash clothes well. All this is because you pick up lead oxides on your clothes and hands. Lead by itself does not absorb well into the body even of ingested. The oxides and worse yet acetate is much more easily absorbed. avoid the dust from primers, lots of lead salts in those.

Making technical arguements that lack relevance doesn't cut it here. Many here have been casting for decades, not years. Many have blood levels checked regularly. Molten lead is not a danger, unless you get burned.

That is correct and accurate. If you place your face over a 700 degree lead pot and breath deeply you would get very, very little lead. One of the problems is that lead is rarely the only thing in the melt. Many people believe that lead is radioactive and it is just sitting there eagerly waiting to jump out and get you & this belief is perpetuated even more in this day & age by the greenies.

For anyone that exercises both common sense and good hygiene there is in reality little to worry about with lead. You will get far more lead oxide on your hands from handling ingots than from breathing around the melt. Lead does not absorb through the skin so keep your hands off food etc and out of your mouth until you wash them. Use extra caution around your tumbler, that is a far worse cause of lead contamination than the melt in your pot.

Now that we have turned this thread into a lead safety thread let's go back where it started - Bottom pour vs ladle casting. I don't understand what/where the problem is, I cast both ways and have for years. I get good boolits from both methods though more and more lately I prefer the ladle, not for better boolits but rather it's just more interesting to me. That is a personal preference though and has nothing to do with better boolits.

Rick

btroj
04-10-2013, 07:43 AM
I bottom pours because it works. I cast very few bullets over 250 gr and then only for my Marlin 45-70 and those are 420. I don't shoot long range BPCR so I don't care what works "best" for them.

I do what works for me. My feeling is that everyone sould whatever makes them happy.

Rick, common sense ain't so common anymore, is it?

Kull
04-10-2013, 09:59 AM
I get good boolits from both methods though more and more lately I prefer the ladle, not for better boolits but rather it's just more interesting to me. That is a personal preference though and has nothing to do with better boolits.

Rick

I've never used a bottom pour. My first pot was, is, a Waage and I find I enjoy the ladle for the same reasons. The act of scooping up molten lead is just more interesting and fun to me than what I imagine using a bottom pour would be like.

mrbukers
04-10-2013, 12:42 PM
I am very disappointed with the reactions in this thread. I am neither trying to scare people away from casting nor implying that if you cast you will get always get lead poisoning. I have only been casting for about a year - does that mean that my scientific knowledge backed by evidence from several sources means nothing compared to your vast years of experience?

Technically I am correct about lead vapors. That is the ONLY type of correct. The vapor pressure is much much lower than that of water at the same temperature. The difference is that your body is designed to ingest water and has mechanisms for getting rid of it when you have too much. There are no such mechanisms for lead. Once it's in your body, it will stick around for a long time. That means that any and all lead ingested, even at very small amounts, is relevant. It's fine if you don't believe that yourself in spite of the evidence, but you do the community a disservice by spreading false information.

btroj
04-10-2013, 01:23 PM
Ok, I have a BS in Chemistry and am a Registered Pharmacist.

I think I know a bit about chemistry and the human body.

Elemental lead is poorly absorbed by any means. The various lead salts are far more dangerous as they much more readily cross mucous membranes.

We are NOT doing a disservice, we are dispelling a common myth.

Many people with far more scientific knowledge than myself have looked into the "lead vapor" issue and found it to be of no real concern.

I will use my knowledge and ability to reason to dispel myths like this every time I come across them. Knowledge is much more than reading a scientific paper or chart and garnering a piece of information.

We can either use reason or we can take everything at face value and create panic.

cbrick
04-10-2013, 06:53 PM
One member here has a PhD in heavy metals and has the same misinformation that we have said, he even wrote a book on the subject, buy hey what could he know huh.

Since your lead is laying in wait to get you perhaps casting isn't for you, much too risky you know. Also, there are forums that thrive on cast bullet old wives tales, perhaps they would like to hear it. You have 4 posts here and every one of them is an attempt to put forth an old wives tale that with nothing more than a little common sense and the normal safety precautions is insignificant. I for one would like to see you contribute something worthwhile.

On another subject, do you shoot at an indoor range?

Rick

btroj
04-10-2013, 07:03 PM
Oh Rick, don't go there.

I don't need to know the vapor pressure of lead styphenate at powder ignition temps.

I have been casting for 30 years. Blood level is just fine. Maybe my body is just too dang dumb to know it is poisoned?

Lloyd Smale
04-11-2013, 06:16 AM
rick i hope that doesnt mean I HAVE to post things that are worthwhile too;)
One member here has a PhD in heavy metals and has the same misinformation that we have said, he even wrote a book on the subject, buy hey what could he know huh.

Since your lead is laying in wait to get you perhaps casting isn't for you, much too risky you know. Also, there are forums that thrive on cast bullet old wives tales, perhaps they would like to hear it. You have 4 posts here and every one of them is an attempt to put forth an old wives tale that with nothing more than a little common sense and the normal safety precautions is insignificant. I for one would like to see you contribute something worthwhile.

On another subject, do you shoot at an indoor range?

Rick

6bg6ga
04-11-2013, 07:04 AM
Been making bullets for 40 years. The have done the dipping as well as the bottom pour pot. I have personally found no difference in the bullets. Its just so much easier filling a 4 cavity mold using a bottom pour pot. The new Ballisti-cast will make the process so much nicer and easier.

cbrick
04-11-2013, 07:22 AM
rick i hope that doesnt mean I HAVE to post things that are worthwhile too;)

Only if you start perpetuating old wives tales. [smilie=s:

Rick

btroj
04-11-2013, 07:36 AM
I don't think Lloyd will start telling old wives tales.

I think he and I can agree with each other that if one of us starts the other will be the first to grab a rope.

cbrick
04-11-2013, 08:19 AM
the wives tales on here will never stop. What about some who wont use wws because the impuritys in them wear our barrels and even this one that bottom pour pots cant make quality bullets

The old wives tale that you shouldn't use WW is one that I'm kinda fond of, leaves more for me. :mrgreen:

One of the below boolits was bottom poured, the other was ladle cast . . . tell me which is which!

67084 67085

Rick

detox
04-11-2013, 03:51 PM
The boollit on left was bottom poured because you have a dirt speck in it and base is not perfectly square.

You guys sound like a bunch of old wives.

cbrick
04-11-2013, 05:27 PM
That's not a speck of dirt, both bullets were sized and that's a bit of lube from the die.

Rick

Old Caster
04-11-2013, 11:40 PM
My suggestion is for everyone but me to bottom pour when shooting BPCR. I bottom poured cast bullets since 1965 when in the AMU for the army. I never ladle poured until I started long range BPCR shooting in the late 90's. (No the 1990's not 1890's). I don't know of any one of the top competitors that shoot any bullets with antimony in them nor do I know any that don't ladle cast. The only time any one of us has ever had problems with high lead levels is when shooting in an indoor range. None of us have any idea whether it is from lead splatter against the steel back stops or if it is from primer dust but it really only matters that it is from an indoor range. Some of our IDPA friends cast a tremendous amount of bullets compared to my Bullseye, BPCR, and occasional twice a month steel plate shoots and they have never had a problem with lead poisoning because they never shoot indoors. -- Bill --

Fishman
04-12-2013, 04:02 AM
I read that there is a .00000000000000001% chance that a huge asteroid will hit the earth this year. Technically correct, but not something I'm going to waste time worrying about.

Lloyd Smale
04-12-2013, 06:07 AM
you must have spent an hour polishing those pretty bullets!
That's not a speck of dirt, both bullets were sized and that's a bit of lube from the die.

Rick

cbrick
04-12-2013, 06:28 AM
you must have spent an hour polishing those pretty bullets!

Polishing?? Not hardly, they are as cast & sized without lube. Alloy is clip-on WW with 2% Sn added. One of them was bottom poured & the other ladle cast.

Rick

6bg6ga
04-12-2013, 06:33 AM
Polishing?? Not hardly, they are as cast & sized without lube. Alloy is clip-on WW with 2% Sn added. One of them was bottom poured & the other ladle cast.

Rick

Please let me know what pain killers you are on so that I can request the same from my Dr.[smilie=w:

6bg6ga
04-12-2013, 06:34 AM
The old wives tale that you shouldn't use WW is one that I'm kinda fond of, leaves more for me. :mrgreen:

One of the below boolits was bottom poured, the other was ladle cast . . . tell me which is which!

67084 67085

Rick

I can get the same shinney bullets from my bottom pour pot....so this means nothing to me.

cbrick
04-12-2013, 06:52 AM
Please let me know what pain killers you are on so that I can request the same from my Dr.[smilie=w:


I can get the same shinney bullets from my bottom pour pot....so this means nothing to me.

I can't imagine what it is your trying to say. Neither of these posts make a lick of sense.

Rick

PbHurler
04-12-2013, 07:26 AM
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmm; The rifle boolet is the ladle poured?

Hey, I've got a 50/50 chance of being correct......:kidding:

mrbukers
04-12-2013, 07:29 PM
While I may not have a BS in chemistry or a phd in "heavy metals" (find me an accredited institution that grants that phd and I'll send you 5 dollars) I did minor in chemistry while in college. It's true I haven't had an account on this forum until recently but I have been lurking awhile and have gained other useful info. The fact that I'm a forum newbie in no way discounts the SCIENTIFIC evidence that I have provided that shows that lead vapor does exist at casting temperatures. The only "evidence" I've seen contrary to that is that "it's an old wives tale" and "some guy who's writing a book about this said so".

Even ignoring all that please find where I said you should panic and never cast again because the evil lead will invade your brain. I was merely pointing out that the statement "Lead does not evaporate at anything even close to casting temps" was incorrect. I even provided proof. Nowhere did I say you should stop all activity because you'll immediately get lead poisoning which you imply that I said. The fact that lead vapors exists is merely ANOTHER REASON why good habits should be used. To say otherwise is incorrect. I don't understand why you guys are so invested in telling people that lead vapors don't exist.

sergeant69
04-12-2013, 08:13 PM
I can't imagine what it is your trying to say. Neither of these posts make a lick of sense.

Rick

+1, and I take pain killers everyday!

btroj
04-12-2013, 11:36 PM
While I may not have a BS in chemistry or a phd in "heavy metals" (find me an accredited institution that grants that phd and I'll send you 5 dollars) I did minor in chemistry while in college. It's true I haven't had an account on this forum until recently but I have been lurking awhile and have gained other useful info. The fact that I'm a forum newbie in no way discounts the SCIENTIFIC evidence that I have provided that shows that lead vapor does exist at casting temperatures. The only "evidence" I've seen contrary to that is that "it's an old wives tale" and "some guy who's writing a book about this said so".

Even ignoring all that please find where I said you should panic and never cast again because the evil lead will invade your brain. I was merely pointing out that the statement "Lead does not evaporate at anything even close to casting temps" was incorrect. I even provided proof. Nowhere did I say you should stop all activity because you'll immediately get lead poisoning which you imply that I said. The fact that lead vapors exists is merely ANOTHER REASON why good habits should be used. To say otherwise is incorrect. I don't understand why you guys are so invested in telling people that lead vapors don't exist.

I posted facts that show the insignificance of lead vapors at casting temps.

Did you read that post? it appears that you did not.

A difference of about 10^8 in vapor pressure between lead at casting temps and water at room temp. Technically it happens but that doesn't make it relevant.

Technically we are all dying from conception on but we don't buy funeral plots as baby gifts.

7of7
04-13-2013, 01:43 AM
....Even if you don't believe that there is observational data that shows that lead vapor exists at normal casting temperatures. All 5 studies agree, and the saturated vapor pressure at 700 F is around 1.0e-5 Pa. That number is not zero. Non-zero vapor pressure means that there is lead vapor at that temperature.

.000001 pa, is roughly equal to .00986 micrograms per cubic meter of air... OSHA maximum contaminant limits for 8 hours exposure is 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air.

Does lead evaporate at casting temps, yes, on a technical basis. But then again water evaporates at 14 degrees (yes, that be ice) too. (roughly 2759847micrograms per cubic meter of air... really happy water isn't toxic)

So, the evaporation at casting temp is miniscule.. and not really even worth worrying about. I am more concerned with washing my hands then having an exhaust fan directly over my melting pot to remove lead vapor.. (it would be nice to remove the other smoke from fluxing..and stirring the pot with wood sticks... though)

Thanks for the good reason to dig into this...

PbHurler
04-13-2013, 07:47 AM
Technically we are all dying from conception on but we don't buy funeral plots as baby gifts.

That's signature line material right there if I've ever seen it!

btroj
04-13-2013, 07:49 AM
Bob, I have many more signature line worthy lines. I just like to use analogies to set the tone.

gmsharps
04-13-2013, 08:00 AM
I have a couple of old Lyman bottom pours that have provided years of fantastic service and a Lyman ladle pot that also has provided great service. Depending on what I am casting as to which I use. I seem to get more consistant weights with larger bullets by ladeling. I feel that is because I have a larger stream of lead flowing from the Rowell ladel than the smaller stream from the bottom pours. I also seem to get more rounded bottoms with the bottom pours. If I cast smaller boolits i.e. 9mm,38cal and the like the bottom pours are fine. I believe it's mainly technique and both types of pots will work great if used properly. This is just the way I choose and what I have become comfortable with.

gmsharps

cbrick
04-13-2013, 08:29 AM
The fact that I'm a forum newbie in no way discounts the SCIENTIFIC evidence that I have provided that shows that lead vapor does exist at casting temperatures.

I must have missed that post, please post again your scientific evidence that lead vapor is at any significant level at normal casting temp to need any more than normal casting safety precautions.


Even ignoring all that please find where I said you should panic and never cast again because the evil lead will invade your brain.

If that highly exaggerated comment is in reference to me that is not what I said and I've seen no other posts by anyone else here that said that either. What I said was that if you are so concerned maybe casting isn't for you.


I even provided proof.

I must have missed that post, please post again your scientific evidence.


The fact that lead vapors exists is merely ANOTHER REASON why good habits should be used. To say otherwise is incorrect.

Please use the quote button and place here anyone's comment stating that "good habits" or common sense or normal casting safety measures shouldn't be used. Guess I missed all that too.

You can use all the misstatements and exaggeration you like but it changes nothing, you are getting more ridiculous by the post in an attempt to promote an old wives tale on something that is insignificant at best.

Let's start this thread drifting way off course and discuss something like, hhmmm, maybe bottom pour vs ladle casting.

Rick

btroj
04-13-2013, 09:56 AM
I would consider a ladle IF I was shooting large amounts of long, heavy bullets at long range.

I don't do that so i bottom pour. Works for my needs. Isn't that the important thing? Fit the technique to the need?

cbrick
04-13-2013, 10:25 AM
Yep, if you are happy with your results you are certainly doing it the correct way for you.

I mostly ladle cast anymore simply because I no longer am doing large quantity's and it's more interesting, more hands on. For me it has nothing to do with which method will give me better boolits because they both give me fine boolits.

Rick

btroj
04-13-2013, 10:32 AM
And YOUR satisfaction is all that matters. I cast to make me happy, not someone else.

You do what is enjoyable for you Rick, what more is there?

PbHurler
04-13-2013, 10:57 AM
And YOUR satisfaction is all that matters. I cast to make me happy, not someone else.

You do what is enjoyable for you Rick, what more is there?

Exactly; If you're getting the results you desire, with the methods you prefer, what more could you ask for?

Oh, and not to be self-serving but; refer to post #23

btroj
04-13-2013, 11:14 AM
Pretty much Bob. Keep it simple as possible. I shoot for fun, agonizing over minutiae isn't fun.

When, or if, I decide to compete with cast then I will adopt the techniques that competition requires. Until then I will cast, load, and shoot. It is fun and makes me happy.

montana_charlie
04-13-2013, 12:47 PM
when your boolits come out perfect every time once the mold is up to temp , how can a ladel do any better?
Having read the entire thread in a single sitting, I consider this to be the most remarkable post in the whole discussion.

This member has reached Nirvana ... he has acheived the ultimate goal of us all.

His bullets are not 'good enough' or 'pretty spiffy'. They aren't 'accurate in my gun' or 'my best yet'.
No sir, this member's bullets are "perfect every time".

I sure wish I could see some of those.
Considering the pictures which have been posted on this website, and the high praise of examples which were barely suitable for slugging a bore, I wonder what percentage of the membership includes casters who even know what constitutes perfection.

I may not cast bullets that are "perfect every time", but I know one when I see one.

Those who can cast perfect ones with a bottom spout have a leg up on me, because I can only do that with a Lyman dipper.

CM

cbrick
04-13-2013, 01:08 PM
Charlie, it all depends on the caster. What is perfection for one caster for his type of shooting, his guns and his shooting ability may well end up back in the pot for another caster.

If your happy with the results of your casting session load them and shoot them, if your still happy . . . Repeat.

If there is something about any of the above your not satisfied with try something different. If you are happy with all of the above but simply want to learn something else/different then experiment.

That is one of the best things about this hobby. Some want/expect nothing more than the boolit coming out the muzzle without leaving a bunch of it in the bore. Others, many of us actually, are afflicted with the "what if" syndrome and are experimenting constantly. It doesn't get any better than that for any hobby.

Rick

montana_charlie
04-13-2013, 03:18 PM
Thanks for the 'schooling'.
Still, I find it difficult to see 'satisfactory' and 'perfect' as being equal.

I'll have to work on that ...

PS Paul
04-13-2013, 04:44 PM
I just re-read the article on lasc.us by Todd Spotti (for about the tenth time) on casting .357 for the Freedom Arms revolver. According to the author, a certain caster made nearly perfect boolits (my words, not the authors) with great attention to detail. It does not say if that certain caster ladle poured or bottom poured for these boolits, but considering the amount of effort and incredible detail spent on each boolit, I would suspect that caster ladle-poured.

If you have not read the article, I would encourage you fellas to check it out.

So, have we all reached an agreement yet on which method is best? har-har-har!!!

Old Caster
04-13-2013, 06:44 PM
Charlie, I think what some people are trying to tell you is that as long as the bullets come out the front, everything is fine. -- Bill --

Vinne
04-14-2013, 12:15 AM
Years ago I had a H&G 10 cavity in 38 cal 148gr and I could dip and pour all ten way faster than bottom pour. I could make hundreds in no time with a 20# pot. I never got tired because I would out of lead before then and had to refill the pot.

TXGunNut
04-15-2013, 10:31 PM
I wish I knew. Seems to be only partially true for me. Seems my Lyman steel moulds with big cavities do better with ladling. Aluminum moulds, especially six-bangers, seem to be happiest when using the bottom pour. Still working on my technique (always will be!) but that's the way it seems to me. I think some moulds are like rifles; they have likes, dislikes and sometimes personality. Once I figure out what they like I try to keep them happy.

TXGunNut
04-15-2013, 11:09 PM
That's signature line material right there if I've ever seen it!

A good man once told me that life is a sexually transmitted disease, 100% fatal. Cleaning cases is a higher risk activity than casting, as is shooting indoors. Enough hijacking, I still want to know why dipping sometimes seems to work better.

dverna
04-21-2013, 10:18 AM
I think we need a different forum for people that cast for handguns and those that cast for rifles.
The two groups often cast with different techniques, alloys and have different criteria for a good bullet.

BPCR shooters want MOA results to 400 yards or more.
Pistol shooters often do not even have a way to measure the accuracy of their bullets.
A bullet produced for plinking at 30 feet does not necessarily meet the demands of long range rifle shooters.
Yet the two groups argue about technique - when the two groups have completely different requirements.

I stopped reading this thread after the above post. EDG NAILED IT!!

Most have done limited (or no) testing and they talk the loudest. Your end use and your criteria will establish your acceptable quality specifications. A CAS shooter has totally different needs than a competitive shooter. The guy making "blasting" ammo for his 9mm is different than a Bullseye shooter looking for 50 yard accuracy.

Almost every post here is unsupported with data. What is the ES and SD on your bullets. What are your reject criteria? What YOU think is only important to YOU. If you cannot support your opinion it means NOTHING to someone with critical thinking/analytical skills.

There are some good points that have NOTHING to do with quality. BP is easier for those who cast for long periods of time, have physical issues, and/or use larger molds. If making thousands "plinking' bullets, that is more important than a small difference in "quality" - even if a difference is proven. Also, most people will not take the time to learn a new way - and give up too soon to give it a fair trial.

Old Caster
04-21-2013, 11:06 PM
Dverna, When I molded for BPCR, I would ladle cast about 300 bullets at a time. Afterwards I would weigh every bullet on a digital lab scale and put them in rows on a towel in .2 grain catagories. That would give me about 6 rows that would have any significant amount of bullets plus some that weighed too little and were obviously rejects but not from appearence. One can sit there and look at them forever and never decide whether it weighs too little because of dirt inside or temperature varience making the outside diameter a tiny bit different.

I use a Waage pot because they hold their temperature very accurately. On a bullet that weighs around 500 grain, if the outside diameter is just the smallest under you could never see the difference and have to go with the weight. You don't want to keep bullets outside of the core of the largest amount in the rows because you don't know where the difference comes from.

When you shoot a sequence in BPCR you may shoot 15 targets at a given range without changing distance so I loaded enough to fire at the targets and then another 5 or so for sighters at the swinger. Sometimes your partner that you get isn't so good at reading where you are hitting when firing your first shot at the swinger so the reason for the extra 5. Then I would use bullets out of a different row for the next sequence. After you are on, the rest are just about reading the wind. If I had bullets left over from a string, they were for practice later because I couldn't risk mixing a different bullet weight after already being sighted for a given range.

When shooting at the rams at 600 yard, you only have I think 11 inches top to bottom of the chest and the bullet is curving towards the ground a bunch. When shooting the falling block rifles with Black powder most everyone shoots about 1250 fps. The brass has to be full of powder to the base of the bullet and the only difference for the most part is if you use a different bullet weight. With Black the extreme spreads are very close together no matter what you do and the amount of powder doesn't make much difference in speed other than it changes the compression of the powder and that does change accuracy. All of this is why it is imperative to ladle cast your bullets if you want to win.

If a person just plinks, you can bottom pour and virtually never reject a cast projectile because it will still come out the barrel and hit a target at close range like 25 yards. I do bottom pour when I shoot Bullseye but I am critical about using quality molds, proper alloy, and the correct pouring technique but the maximum distance is only 50 yards and the gun will only hold about 2 inches at that distance whether I bottom or ladle cast them.