Consistency applied.

[MBTcustom]

Last year, I described in this thread http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?224168-How-consistent-are-you-REALY a method to find the sweet spot for a specific mold, using a specific alloy, at a specific temperature. By doing a few tests with the mold and creating bell curves with the boolits, you can quickly dial in where a specific mold likes to run consistently. That temperature, cadence, or process that gets you perfect, amen thank ya Jesus, boolits.
Well, I suggested that this method be used to find that sweet spot, and the critical information written down so that in the future you can walk up to your pot, set it up for success and start casting perfect boolits like you're a magician or something.
Many are still plotting bell curves with their boolits after every casting session based on that thread, to which I say more power to ya, but it's not really necessary, once you have found the sweet spot.

Allow me to demonstrate:

I needed some 30XCB boolits real bad, so a couple nights ago, I carved out enough time for a quick casting session.

I wanted 300 good un's to test in my bench rifle, so I pulled my empty pot off the shelf where it has been languishing for a month (that's the longest I have gone without casting a boolit!) Plugged it into the PID, plugged the PID into the power strip and turned it on.
Alloy was 95.6/2.2/2.2.
I needed 715 degrees, so I dialed it into the PID.
Mold needs to drop boolits that look a little frosty, with a 3-4 second sprue cut.
Spout must be primed every time.
Alloy stream needs to just clip the side of the sprue hole.
Puddle needs to be full and about 1" in diameter around each hole.
Stream needs to be almost subdued. Just strong enough to shoot straight down.
Wait five seconds between cut and fill, unless the boolits have plucked bases or get too frosty blah blah blah.
That's the critical information found out for this mold in previous casting sessions with bell curves. I don't need to do it again. I just sit down, set myself up for success and cast good boolits.

Here's the results.
All the boolits in the tub weigh 163.9 exactly (299 total). All the boolits on the side (41 total) deviate by .2 grains or more, and all but one were off by less than .4 grains.
130969

So basically, I'm not spending any more time than I ever did to cast a pile of bullets, but my yield has gone up drastically because I figured out, and wrote down, what works, and it's repeatable.
I'm going to mark the "duds" above, and use them for sighters to get the rifle talking before using the 300 perfect ones to shoot groups with.

I'm pretty happy with these results. That's about as easy as it gets.

[Yodogsandman]

You don't mention whether you preheat your mold or not. I'm still working on the right setting on the hot plate for mine. Sometimes it takes up to six casts to get the mold to the right temperature.

[RobS]

Consistency is just that........doing things the same every time. Record keeping for each mold helps and I have a small notebook in the mold box with each molds "likes" with such and such alloy etc.

[popper]

I have 3 Accurate 2x 30 cal Al. moulds. I use a hot plate but drop a few with the plate open, then close, pour, open slightly and let it set for a few seconds. My pot is PID controlled at 720F - the tap handle mod really works good - lift the handle & then drop. I'm finding sprue temp (for GOOD bases) and handle pressure make more difference than anything.

Puddle needs to be full and about 1" in diameter around each hole. Can't quite get that big a puddle but large is much better as it keeps the plate at a good temp.

[MBTcustom]

Yes of course, I use a hot plate. Every time I start casting after taking a break, the fist 2-3 drops are returned to the pot (or however many it takes to get back in the groove).

[ballistim]

I use a hot plate to pre-warm the molds, also use a cheap HF laser thermometer to check temp., helps to prevent overheating the mold, works well for me & fewer rejects.

[MBTcustom]

I use a hot plate to pre-warm the molds, also use a cheap HF laser thermometer to check temp., helps to prevent overheating the mold, works well for me & fewer rejects.

I must have gotten a dud. I bought a ""LASER"" thermometer, but when testing it against known instruments, it couldn't be trusted. Must have just got a bad one.

[ballistim]

I'm in no way able to confirm its accuracy, but it makes me feel better & I haven't killed a mold by overheating yet ;-)

[geargnasher]

If you spent fewer than 500 clams on an IR thermometer, you got a "dud". Also, they read better if you apply a little BC aluminum black to the outside of the mould.

Gear

[MBTcustom]

If you spent fewer than 500 clams on an IR thermometer, you got a "dud". Also, they read better if you apply a little BC aluminum black to the outside of the mould.

Gear

That's a good idea for a mold Ian, but I tried it out on my bluing tanks, my lead pot, my brass, and my coffee pot.
Yep, pretty much a waste of money (mine was) IMHO. Sure gave me a great feeling about everything till I actually checked it against standards. I only trust as far as I can verify, and that ""laser"" thermometer was a bust.

[jaysouth]

I use a hot plate to pre-warm the molds, also use a cheap HF laser thermometer to check temp., helps to prevent overheating the mold, works well for me & fewer rejects.

Just curious, what is the ideal temp for a mold?

Thanks

[MBTcustom]

Just curious, what is the ideal temp for a mold?

Thanks

It depends on the temperature of the alloy you are using, and that depends on the consistency you are able to achieve at that temperature. What I look for is a 3-4 second sprue freeze time after the lead has been cast into the mold. Not that the sprue means anything to how the bullet will shoot. It's that the sprue that you can see is an indicator for what's going on with the alloy in the cavity which you cannot see. If the sprue takes more than 4 seconds to freeze, then you are going to have very frosty boolits that are inconsistent in weight. If the sprue takes less than 3 seconds to freeze, you're going to have shiny boolits that are inconsistent in weight.
By setting it up to where the boolit is on the very edge between frosted and shiny, you are able to judge the temperature of your mold pretty darn close and you are able to achieve extremely uniform bullets.
Not that bullets that very 1-2 grains are going to amount to a hill of beans on the 100 yard line, but if you do this, and your bullets are dropping within .1 grains of eachother (mean average) then when you weigh them and find one that's lighter or heavier, you know that you have a void or your mold wasn't shut all the way respectively, which certainly will cause groups to open at 100 yards due to the imbalances/bad engraving caused by those two conditions.
We can't X-ray our boolits to see if there are voids (if you think I wouldn't go that far, you don't know me) so we have to devise some trick so that we can see whats inside the boolit.
A scale is a great way to do this, but you have to have the vast majority of your boolits dropping within .2 grains of eachother to have a prayer of using it to find the voids.

Like last night: I weighed out 25 boolits and found that all but one weighed exactly 163.9 grains. I took one of the boolits that weighed 163.9 and tared out my scale to that boolit and set it aside. Then all the boolits were weighed and any that didn't read 0.00 were culled. Most that missed the mark were lighter by .4 grains or less with a few that were heavier.

Out of about 350 boolits I had forty anomalies. What do you think the chances are that something was wrong with those boolits, and that something was exactly in the center and occured in a way that didn't imbalance the boolit?
Squirrels chance in a dog pound? Snowballs chance in hell? Democrats chance at a Tea party convention?
Yeah me too.

[runfiverun]

Consistency, consistency, consistency.
It goes right through from front to back , even when I have the mold in it's sweet spot I throw back the first part of a run probably more than I need to actually.
The focus it takes to pour good boolits without a pid, and all that other stuff limits me to about 300 boolits to a batch after that I'm pretty drained and need to do something else.

[W.R.Buchanan]

I had a similar experience with my IR Thermometer, It went back as it wouldn't do anything twice.

Any instrument that won't repeat or gives a phony reading immediately becomes toxic like Brian Williams, and you can't believe anything it says.

I haven't gotten to the level described here yet as the vast majority of my Boolits are spent on paper and steel targets from my pistols and if they go out the hole they are good enough.

However I do have a use for some good .30 cal boolits and I am going to have to get a little more empirical with those as the ones I have made already don't produce anything close to the results I need from them.

Many things to look at when casting boolits, so many variables to keep track of. It can be overwhelming.

I have found that the bigger the boolit the easier it is to get them to shoot well.

Randy

[geargnasher]

Just curious, what is the ideal temp for a mold?

Thanks

It's the same thing as the best bullet for your revolver or the best powder for your rifle.

Here, feast your eyes: http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?236488-Something-I-learned-last-weekend-about-temp

Gear

[Omega]

That's a good idea for a mold Ian, but I tried it out on my bluing tanks, my lead pot, my brass, and my coffee pot.
Yep, pretty much a waste of money (mine was) IMHO. Sure gave me a great feeling about everything till I actually checked it against standards. I only trust as far as I can verify, and that ""laser"" thermometer was a bust.But was the laser consistant? As long as it reads the same each time you can verify with known numbers and either do the math or just look for that reading each time. I purchased one of the HF models and its rather consistant across the same material shot multiple times at different angles. It does get effected by shiny vs dark objects but like said above, you have to spend $$ to get better results.

[ballistim]

Just curious, what is the ideal temp for a mold?

Thanks

I'm not sure what others think, but I'll start casting when mold temp. is just below 700 degrees, works well at this time of year casting out in the vented unheated barn, used to not even try to cast this time of year but I've enjoyed casting without sweating now that I'm able to.

[MBTcustom]

Follow the link. Focus on post #10. Gear pretty much nails it to the wall for ya.

[MBTcustom]

But was the laser consistant? As long as it reads the same each time you can verify with known numbers and either do the math or just look for that reading each time. I purchased one of the HF models and its rather consistant across the same material shot multiple times at different angles. It does get effected by shiny vs dark objects but like said above, you have to spend $$ to get better results.

It was not consistent. Not with the molds, not with the brass, not with the bluing tanks, and not with the coffee pot. Really fun toy. But no matter what I did, it found a way to be exactly wrong (even given trying to do math to compensate) which is the scariest of all instruments. I would be out of a job if I tried to make lemonade out of lemons when it comes to measuring equipment.
I can handle something that is consistently out of calibration (although it bugs me). But an instrument that changes it's percentage of error with the application is absolutely unacceptable.

[ballistim]

It's the same thing as the best bullet for your revolver or the best powder for your rifle.

Here, feast your eyes: http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?236488-Something-I-learned-last-weekend-about-temp

Gear

Gear's post #10 on the thread from the link here says what I've found to be true and a whole lot more. I think as with most things consistency is the path to success in casting, and my best boolits come when mold is properly lubed w/ester oil in the right places, mold and alloy temp. is right, and distance of pour and rhythm is there when everything is working and you are in the zone.
Probably goes without saying, but I'll only lube the hinge pin & plate with the cavities filled with lead from the first pour (and again in the session if needed) after cutting the sprue. I hate to be disturbed or stop once production is producing well filled cavities with no visible defects and will keep casting as long as it's there, and will only back off when signs of excessive temp. or alloy level gets too low in the pot. Like Grandpa used to say, "strike while the iron's hot, son!"

Tim

[Omega]

It was not consistent. Not with the molds, not with the brass, not with the bluing tanks, and not with the coffee pot. Really fun toy. But no matter what I did, it found a way to be exactly wrong (even given trying to do math to compensate) which is the scariest of all instruments. I would be out of a job if I tried to make lemonade out of lemons when it comes to measuring equipment.
I can handle something that is consistently out of calibration (although it bugs me). But an instrument that changes it's percentage of error with the application is absolutely unacceptable.Yes, if its off on the same object a few seconds apart it's not good. I have not compared the reading on mine against a calibrated source but it does give me readings that are close to each other so I can use those readings to see differences. I have only used it to look for cold spots in the attic to see where I need to insulate. I dont plan on using it for anything critical or even for the actual numbers, just differences in readings. For that it was worth the $15.

[MBTcustom]

Gear's post #10 on the thread from the link here says what I've found to be true and a whole lot more. I think as with most things consistency is the path to success in casting, and my best boolits come when mold is properly lubed w/ester oil in the right places, mold and alloy temp. is right, and distance of pour and rhythm is there when everything is working and you are in the zone.
Probably goes without saying, but I'll only lube the hinge pin & plate with the cavities filled with lead from the first pour (and again in the session if needed) after cutting the sprue. I hate to be disturbed or stop once production is producing well filled cavities with no visible defects and will keep casting as long as it's there, and will only back off when signs of excessive temp. or alloy level gets too low in the pot. Like Grandpa used to say, "strike while the iron's hot, son!"

Tim


Just remember that precision in the wrong place is useless.
That was the purpose of the consistency thread in the first place. To find out where to put it.
For instance, if you are casting in a place that the mold doesn't like to run, then all the precision in the world can't help you. You have to adjust things to where being consistent actually helps you. If not, then you're just working really hard to get the same result you would get if you just went at it like a newb.
The only way you know if you're really doing any good is to measure the results. If you don't notice your surroundings, and keep track of the cause and effect, of what you do, and sacrifice a little time/money to make sure that you get full benefit of the bulk of your time/money, then you will always be spending a lot of time/money and not getting premium return for it.
That's why I'm demonstrating this. Just one or two casting sessions where you may throw back most of the bullet you cast, will make it so that in the future, you get to keep most of the bullets that fall from your mold from now on. It's worth it.

[ballistim]

Just remember that precision in the wrong place is useless.
That was the purpose of the consistency thread in the first place. To find out where to put it.
For instance, if you are casting in a place that the mold doesn't like to run, then all the precision in the world can't help you. You have to adjust things to where being consistent actually helps you. If not, then you're just working really hard to get the same result you would get if you just went at it like a newb.
The only way you know if you're really doing any good is to measure the results. If you don't notice your surroundings, and keep track of the cause and effect, of what you do, and sacrifice a little time/money to make sure that you get full benefit of the bulk of your time/money, then you will always be spending a lot of time/money and not getting premium return for it.
That's why I'm demonstrating this. Just one or two casting sessions where you may throw back most of the bullet you cast, will make it so that in the future, you get to keep most of the bullets that fall from your mold from now on. It's worth it.

Consistently repeating my methods has made it clear to me that just as each individual gun has its quirks, likes and dislikes, molds can be found to be different one to the next. Marathon casting sessions using the same methods with similar molds using the same methods, temp., alloy etc. will produce instant results in one mold and I'll have to figure out what to change up to get results in another. Experience gives me the ability to identify problems sooner and react to them, also what methods are most likely to give the desired result. Sometimes a particular mold is a problem child and I'll set it aside and try again later after thinking it through and trying again. Science I'm sure is a part of it that I don't fully understand like someone with a more technical background can, but I do learn a lot the more I put in the time and learn things by experiencing what has worked, more often by what has not worked.

[geargnasher]

Just remember that precision in the wrong place is useless....

Now, where have I heard that before? :bigsmyl2:

I can tell you ahead of time that bullet consistency is paramount...both in size and weight. But, you have to have a system shooting well enough to tell the difference, then a simple test with weight variations and/or fillout inconsistencies, or even mixing bullets deliberately sized slightly different, will give you some meaningful results. It's intuitive and factual that bullet quality/consistency will make A difference, but there's still a point to testing to discover just HOW MUCH difference various bullet defects make. I think a quest to quantify what and where consistency matter is certainly a good idea, provided you get the big things taken care of first. It doesn't matter how perfect your ball bearings are if you just lubricate them with sand.

Gear

[MBTcustom]

Now, where have I heard that before? :bigsmyl2:

I can tell you ahead of time that bullet consistency is paramount...both in size and weight. But, you have to have a system shooting well enough to tell the difference, then a simple test with weight variations and/or fillout inconsistencies, or even mixing bullets deliberately sized slightly different, will give you some meaningful results. It's intuitive and factual that bullet quality/consistency will make A difference, but there's still a point to testing to discover just HOW MUCH difference various bullet defects make. I think a quest to quantify what and where consistency matter is certainly a good idea, provided you get the big things taken care of first. It doesn't matter how perfect your ball bearings are if you just lubricate them with sand.

Gear

You've probably heard it anywhere men are working at making things right. But I always appreciated the fellers who would stop and help me by explaining a process to me by which I could quickly get up to speed with them. Just trying to pass it on.

Now, like I said, doing something consistently wrong is just as bad as not having consistency at all in the first place. First thing you have to do is get consistent bullets and I have described a clear process to learn how to do that.
The next thing is to figure out what consistent bullet the gun likes, SOOOOOOOOO you use this process to figure out how to make consistent boolits out of several different alloys, harnesses, etc etc etc and then go shoot them, while using a similar scientific process to determine what works.

So far, in the slow twist method, we have used Lynotype, and Lyman #2, and have enjoyed very good success with both metals. I'm doing this now to find out if well made 95.6/2.2/2.2 alloy can hang with the other two, then I'll move on to other alloys. But when you're casting, it doesn't matter what is going to happen at the range later, you have to be able to make good bullets at the casting bench first, no matter what alloy you choose to experiment with. I did this same thing with 50/50 last year (in the original consistency thread) and while it was a challenging alloy to dial in, I was able to quickly find the sweet spot and spin that handle till it quit spitting out free skittles. Worked like a charm!
I found that these other alloys offer a much broader window of success (at the casting bench) but any alloy has an optimum way it likes to be used. This has just turned out to be a very effective way to cut to the chase.

But like I have said many times: It's not the only way, but it's a way​ that might work for you.

[MBTcustom]

Let me do one more demonstration that might help explain to people what I mean.
I just fired up my pot one more time and filled it with Linotype this time. Nothing else has changed. I did not adjust the temperature of the pot at all. Just waited for it to melt and started casting linotype.
Linotype is a very nice material to work with. It has the ability to cast absolutely picture perfect boolits that make you weak in the knees with their mirror polished surfaces and stuff.

Ok, so I didn't have time to do a full casting run, and I knew this one was going to be jacked up anyway so I only cast about 70 boolits.
I used the same pot
Same temperature
Same mold
Same casting cadence
Same wait times
etc etc etc
The only thing different was the alloy.
Here was the result:
131084
34 duds on the right
38 good ones on the left

Went to a better alloy and my cull rate went from 5% to nearly 50%.
Why?
Because my pot temperature was wrong.
I swear, hand on the Bible, I gave the exact same care and attention to timing as I had done on the crummy alloy I was using a few days ago. This alloy needs a different style of casting to make it work, and it's different for each mold.

[edctexas]

I have been using mainly NOE molds with the temp probe. By recording the melt temp and the mold temp for a session that works well (good yield), I am a lot happier casting as I get more useable boolits per hour. If I cast and get 50% bad, I have wasted time. While I enjoy even a poor session, I enjoy it if I learn something from producing boolits to recycle!

I don't change alloy currently as I try just to hold that variable constant until I get something working in the mold.

Ed C

[MBTcustom]

Ive got the same tool, but haven't gotten the hang of it yet.
Got any tips on how to use it?

[runfiverun]

Jeez I do things the hard way.
I only use my thermometer with one alloy and only with one mold.
The rest of the time is the old way, turn on the pot and work with the conditions I have that day.
No hot plate, no probes or pid's just focus and concentration.
Somehow I manage to wallow through.

[geargnasher]

Jeez I do things the hard way.
I only use my thermometer with one alloy and only with one mold.
The rest of the time is the old way, turn on the pot and work with the conditions I have that day.
No hot plate, no probes or pid's just focus and concentration.
Somehow I manage to wallow through.

Same here. I used a lot of fancy gadgets to help me learn, but they're mostly dead and gone except for the skills they helped me develop. The only thing I still use religiously is an analog thermometer for the pot, but that's because I still wallow through with a Lee pot most of the time, never saw reason to upgrade.

Gear

[runfiverun]

I did upgrade I use a 40 pound pot for the majority of my casting.
The thermometer is for the LEE 20 pounder with the 4/6 alloy.
It does fluctuate.

[MBTcustom]

No two ways about it fellers. I've always had a 25% cull rate. That's the way it's been for the past ten years, and it got worse when I started trying to do this HV thing. I became much more strict about the quality of what I make. After a few casting sessions where only 25-30% of the bullets actually made it to the finish line to get lubed and checked, it was obvious that I was wasting my time.
For me, I've got to do it quickly and perfectly, or not at all.
All's I wanted to do was find a way to walk up to the pot and cast perfect bullets from these molds that are part of the 30XCB project. Each one has a personality of it's own, and a specific temperature that it likes to run with a certain alloy.
I found out what that was and wrote it down.
Now I've tried it several times, and it works.
I waited for a while to write this post because I was worried that something might change that I hadn't considered, but so far it's been right as rain.
Even given differences in the ambient air and the humidity, the sweet spot found with the bell curve is still the sweet spot no matter what. Slight changes in casting rhythm help to combat a very cold room vs. a very hot room, but that's easy to see by the sprue plate and freeze time.

For me, it's worth flipping open a book, or opening a spread sheet and saying "OK with this mold, and this alloy, I do it just like this. Ok. Got it." to get 95% perfection. Rather than haphazardly casting using my best guess, and throwing away 25-50% of the bullets (after visual inspection and weight sorting) and only knowing that the ones I keep happened to weigh the same. That's awful shaky ground.

If you're going for groups, projectile quality is paramount. There is nothing as important as projectile quality. Ask any marksman you want to, in any discipline using any method, up to and including archery and baseball. They all say the same thing. The quality and consistency of the projectile is the most important thing.

Now there may be more than one way to get there, but I have demonstrated a way that works every time if you care to try it, or if you're unhappy with the consistency you're getting with another way.

[btroj]

Remember the difference between grey and frosted.
Grey well filled out is good.
Frosted is rounded edges and far past the grey stage.
most of my boolits come out grey, and if you look closely at them you can see all the details cut into the mold.
Shiny is just that shiny but without the detail unless the shine is from the use of tin.

This from a post in a different thread is very important.

Pay attention to the time the sprue takes to harden and the condition of bullets dropping from the mould. If they are getting a light grainy frost in areas then slow down a bit. If shiny then speed up a bit. Get in a rhythm and it all just works right.

I find that I cast too fast with brass moulds on the whole. Slowing down does improve keeper rate a bunch. I have an aluminum mould that requires me to dang near run to keep it hot enough. I don't like that mould.

Observation and drawing appropriate conclusions from what you see is the key.

[MBTcustom]

This from a post in a different thread is very important.

Pay attention to the time the sprue takes to harden and the condition of bullets dropping from the mould. If they are getting a light grainy frost in areas then slow down a bit. If shiny then speed up a bit. Get in a rhythm and it all just works right.

I find that I cast too fast with brass moulds on the whole. Slowing down does improve keeper rate a bunch. I have an aluminum mould that requires me to dang near run to keep it hot enough. I don't like that mould.

Observation and drawing appropriate conclusions from what you see is the key.

Well said Brad, and I agree completely.
However, you can use a mold to get that exact situation over a range of alloy temperatures. I can make boolits that are just barely frosty (grey colored as R5R said) anywhere from say 650 degrees to 800 degrees.

What I found is that within that casting method, certain alloy temperatures are optimum for certain molds. Once you know that a certain mold likes to be run at say 695 degrees, your casting method returns better results than it would at 650 or 750.

It has to do with the viscosity and surface tension of the alloy, vs. the shrinkage rate.

[dtknowles]

............It has to do with the viscosity and surface tension of the alloy, vs. the shrinkage rate.

Is that a fact with evidence or speculation?

Tim

[MBTcustom]

Is that a fact with evidence or speculation?

Tim

Neither. It's my best interpretation of the evidence I have observed.
There might be a different reason an alloy likes to be used in a mold at a certain temperature, but we know hotter alloy is more viscous, and fills the mold better, but drops smaller bullets, and we know that colder alloy does not fill the mold as well, is thicker, and drops bigger bullets (at least, that seems to be what I have observed).

Therefore I conclude that using an alloy that is just hot enough to fill out the mold, and cool enough to keep shrinkage to a minimum, is the reason for the excellent consistency I get at one specific temperature and no other.

I have described in detail how to test this for yourself to see if your evidence agrees with mine.

[btroj]

Hotter alloy is more viscous but you say colder alloy is thicker? Contradiction? Me thinks you have a typo.

What is being left out is mould temp. Alloy temp is A component but I feel strongly that MOULD temp is the true key to good bullet casting.

Alloy temp does control how fast you oxidize away tin and it does have some to do with mould temp but ultimately the mould temp is controlled by tempo and rhythm.

Has anyone ever done a test to see how these two things work together? Does melt at 675, 700, and 725 give the same results if mould temp is held steady? What about using a single melt temp but letting mould temp vary over a 50 degree range.

[geargnasher]

Is water any less viscous at 211F than it is at 33F?

Gear

[MBTcustom]

Hotter alloy is more viscous but you say colder alloy is thicker? Contradiction? Me thinks you have a typo.

What is being left out is mould temp. Alloy temp is A component but I feel strongly that MOULD temp is the true key to good bullet casting.

Alloy temp does control how fast you oxidize away tin and it does have some to do with mould temp but ultimately the mould temp is controlled by tempo and rhythm.

Has anyone ever done a test to see how these two things work together? Does melt at 675, 700, and 725 give the same results if mould temp is held steady? What about using a single melt temp but letting mould temp vary over a 50 degree range.

consistent mold temp is nessisary and is the first building block to superb consistency, but you can maintain good mold temperature regardless of the alloy temperature. What I'm trying to demonstrate is that assuming you know how to maintain consistent mold temperature, there is a narrow range of ALLOY temperature that will make more consistent bullets and allows you to get better results while you are using a consistent mold temperature.

This is is very easy to test for Yourself.
Fire up your pot and cast 100 good bullets. Maintain as much consistency as you can with your mold temperature.

Adjust the the temperature on your pot to 25 degrees cooler.
Cast another 100 bullets as carefully as you can. Maintain as much consistency as you can with your mold temperature.

Adjust your pot temperature to 25 degrees hotter than the original setting.
Cast another 100 bullets and again, maintain as much consistency as you can with your mold temperature.

Weigh each batch of bullets and set all the anomalies in cups. You might find there are less bad bullets in one of those cups, and you might just find that it's REPEATABLE.

Once you do this, you might come to the conclusion that you would prefer to run your pot at the temperature that gave you the most bang for your buck.

That's all I'm doing here.

[btroj]

Is water any less viscous at 211F than it is at 33F?

Gear

http://i1348.photobucket.com/albums/p733/Btroj/imagejpg1_zps1cf8d64d.jpg (http://s1348.photobucket.com/user/Btroj/media/imagejpg1_zps1cf8d64d.jpg.html)

[geargnasher]

Tim, not my experience at all. I modify alloy temperature within a range of 100 over fully liquid to 740F to suit the bullet size needed, particularly on a couple of fat-nosed moulds I have, and get consistency either way. Keep working on your technique.

Gear

[btroj]

consistent mold temp is nessisary and is the first building block to superb consistency, but you can maintain good mold temperature regardless of the alloy temperature. What I'm trying to demonstrate is that assuming you know how to maintain consistent mold temperature, there is a narrow range of ALLOY temperature that will make more consistent bullets and allows you to get better results while you are using a consistent mold temperature.

This is is very easy to test for Yourself.
Fire up your pot and cast 100 good bullets. Maintain as much consistency as you can with your mold temperature.

Adjust the the temperature on your pot to 25 degrees cooler.
Cast another 100 bullets as carefully as you can. Maintain as much consistency as you can with your mold temperature.

Adjust your pot temperature to 25 degrees hotter than the original setting.
Cast another 100 bullets and again, maintain as much consistency as you can with your mold temperature.

Weigh each batch of bullets and set all the anomalies in cups. You might find there are less bad bullets in one of those cups, and you might just find that it's REPEATABLE.

Once you do this, you might come to the conclusion that you would prefer to run your pot at the temperature that gave you the most bang for your buck.

That's all I'm doing here.


Ah, observation.

I agree that doing leads to seeing and like they say, seeing is believing.

Define "narrow range" of alloy temps that give best results. Are we talking 5 degrees? 25 degrees? 50 degrees?

Based on what you stated I am assuming you like to have the temp withing a 10 to 15 degree range.

Also, don't get fooled into thinking that weight alone tells all there is to know about bullet consistency. Read up on what Veral Smoth says about it. Weight alone tells little.

[MBTcustom]

Did you know that surface tension is effected by temperature

[geargnasher]

http://i1348.photobucket.com/albums/p733/Btroj/imagejpg1_zps1cf8d64d.jpg (http://s1348.photobucket.com/user/Btroj/media/imagejpg1_zps1cf8d64d.jpg.html)

That's right. The kinematic viscosity also changes as the molecules expand and get more excited from the heat. What DOESN'T change is how it behaves at any constant temperature.

Gear

[MBTcustom]

Unfortunately, ice makes lousy bullets. LOL!

So Ian, you're using alloy temperature to effect bullet fit, which this method precludes. I'm not saying it's versatile. I'm saying it's repeatable.
You're telling me you cast with an intent to observe if there were any noticeable difference in the number of weight variations as it pertains to alloy temperature, and you saw no consistent trend or ideal temperature that renders best results? (specifically as it pertains to repeatable bullet weight?).

That's all I'm doing here. The bullet designs I use are designed to drop the right size, and they are more dependent on angles than diameters anyway, so I'm much more concerned with repeatable casting than versatile casting that loses bullets (personal observation. Not saying you do.)

Like the slow twist method, I'm finding a spot where the requirement for personal skill and holding my mouth right is greatly reduced and I can easily get excellent results. These are methods I like to find. I like plug and play because it is faster. Not saying it's better. Just faster, easier, cheaper, less time consuming, less dependent on personal skill etc etc etc.

Some people call that better, some don't. I'm easy either way.

This is what works for me. Its not the only way, but its a way that might work for you too. If you're already getting 95% acceptability, then there is no reason in the world you would care. Personally, there is nothing I can do to achieve these results except within a certain alloy temperature.
That's just me.

[dtknowles]

Neither. It's my best interpretation of the evidence I have observed.
There might be a different reason an alloy likes to be used in a mold at a certain temperature, but we know hotter alloy is more viscous, and fills the mold better, but drops smaller bullets, and we know that colder alloy does not fill the mold as well, is thicker, and drops bigger bullets (at least, that seems to be what I have observed).

Therefore I conclude that using an alloy that is just hot enough to fill out the mold, and cool enough to keep shrinkage to a minimum, is the reason for the excellent consistency I get at one specific temperature and no other.

I have described in detail how to test this for yourself to see if your evidence agrees with mine.

The viscosity of lead decreases with increasing temperature not increases. I would expect the same with surface tension. I think that is what you meant and just worded it wrong. That would make for better fill out but with some alloys and moulds I get too long of vent groove fins when I run too hot. I don't understand what you mean about shrinkage rate. "It has to do with the viscosity and surface tension of the alloy, vs. the shrinkage rate." or how shrinkage rate is a problem?

Did you do any shrinkage measurements to support you conclusion, speculation.

I am not sure what test you are talking about. I have cast bullets and posted the bullets sorted by weight before, lined up side by side for the sine curve thing although it really was a big spike. It was to a thread you did months ago.

I don't have a PID, don't use my thermometer much, preheat my moulds by setting on top of my pot. The Thermostat settings are repeatable enough with a narrow enough band that I can get the needed consistency just by setting the thermostat.

I find that for me, the flow into the sprue and the puddle size is key to consistent weight and fillout and the rhythm/timing is critical to getting a clean cut on the sprue and keeping the mould in the right temperature range. With steel moulds I have to use two to keep from getting board waiting between fills, with 6 cavity aluminum moulds I have to work fast and leave huge sprues. This is so I can have to alloy at the right temperature. It could be like you say "It has to do with the viscosity and surface tension of the alloy, vs. the shrinkage rate." Without direct measurements of those three parameters it is all speculation.

Tim

[Doc Highwall]

I have a PID controller for my LEE pot, and a NOE temperature thermometer attached to my moulds that allow me to know what temperature that the mould is on the hot plate before I even cast.

Casting cadence now will affect the operating temperature of the mould that can be monitored while casting and observing if the bullets are wrinkled, shiny or frosted. Now the PID comes into play allowing me to raise or lower the alloy temperature to cast good bullets.


Now as Goodsteel has mentioned technique comes into play such as priming the spout on the pot or how far the sprue plate is from the spout when pouring.


I order all my moulds from NOE drilled and tapped for the temperature probe and I have drilled and tapped all my other moulds to accept the probe as well.


This is the temperature probe that NOE sells.
http://noebulletmolds.com/NV/product_info.php?cPath=22&products_id=31&osCsid=ddh09s1l3mtlc97n0b30q9jh15

I run the cable through a thin wall tubing that is attached to the mould handles to help keep it out of the way when casting.

[btroj]

I find that for me, the flow into the sprue and the puddle size is key to consistent weight and fillout and the rhythm/timing is critical to getting a clean cut on the sprue and keeping the mould in the right temperature range. With steel moulds I have to use two to keep from getting board waiting between fills, with 6 cavity aluminum moulds I have to work fast and leave huge sprues. This is so I can have to alloy at the right temperature. It could be like you say "It has to do with the viscosity and surface tension of the alloy, vs. the shrinkage rate." Without direct measurements of those three parameters it is all speculation.

Tim

YES!

Finding what the mould needs as far as rhythm, sprue size, and all that is far more important than anything else.

Technique is key, not science. This is the art of casting. Knowing is one thing, doing is another.

[MBTcustom]

I have a PID controller for my LEE pot, and a NOE temperature thermometer attached to my moulds that allow me to know what temperature that the mould is on the hot plate before I even cast. Casting cadence now will affect the operating temperature of the mould that can be monitored while casting and observing if the bullets are wrinkled, shiny or frosted. Now the PID comes into play allowing me to raise or lower the alloy temperature to cast good bullets. Now as Goodsteel has mentioned technique comes into play such as priming the spout on the pot or how far the sprue plate is from the spout when pouring.I order all my moulds from NOE drilled and tapped for the temperature probe and I have drilled and tapped all my other moulds to accept the probe as well.This is the temperature probe that NOE sells.http://noebulletmolds.com/NV/product_info.php?cPath=22&products_id=31&osCsid=ddh09s1l3mtlc97n0b30q9jh15I run the cable through a thin wall tubing that is attached to the mould handles to help keep it out of the way when casting.Doc, did you ever change the alloy temperature and see if it effected the consistency of your bullets? I saw a differance.

[Echo]

From an ex-Measurement Person: There are two factors relating to all measurement methods, Reliability and Validity.
Validity addresses the question, Does the Measurement System actually measure that which we want to measure?
Reliability addresses the question, Does the Measurement System provides repetitive results, that is, does it give always the same answer for the same stimulus?
Example: A steel tape is a very reliable measurement tool. It would provide a very valid answer to the question, How tall is that person. It would provide a very questionable answer to the question, How smart is that person - it would have no, or limited, Validity.
So what? Well, that Lyman thermometer mentioned at the start of this thread may provide very Reliable measures, but not very Valid measures. If the thermometer showed 1000*, then was removed from the pot and allowed to cool, then replaced, and showed 1000* again, we could conclude that it was Reliably doing it's job, just not very Validly doing it's job. The saving grace is that the thermometer could be calibrated so that we would know (at least closer, anyway) what the actual temperature. Which is to say it's possible to have Reliability without Validity, but impossible to have Validity without Reliability. If the measurement varies all over the place with identical stimuli, it's useless.
I have spoken.

[btroj]

There is also relevance. An MD doesn't measure BP to anything but full mm of mercury. Why? Because it is adequate for the job at hand. They could easily measure it, with the right equipment, to at least a couple places after the decimal. It would be more precise but it wouldn't increase the validity of the measurement because those small differences are not relevant.

A PID does a great job of temp control. If it was used to control to .01 degree F would it be better? Would we ever notice the difference? Would it be relevant?


Tim, you saw a difference in the weight variation of your bullets. Did you measure the diameter of each bullet? A small change in diameter can equal a change in weight. A slightly oversized bullet with a flaw could still be in the right weight range. Again, read up on what Veral Smith says about it.

[MBTcustom]

Tim, you saw a difference in the weight variation of your bullets. Did you measure the diameter of each bullet? A small change in diameter can equal a change in weight. A slightly oversized bullet with a flaw could still be in the right weight range. Again, read up on what Veral Smith says about it.

Not until I got the weight consistency I was after.
I was much more interested in getting rid of the 1-2 grain spreads of weight so that I could use the scale to find voids effectively.
Now once I had the consistency of weight I was after, I measured a bunch of them with a micrometer, adjacent to the part line, and found very very consistent diameter as well (like .0002 ???)
I still have to go through and inspect for surface flaws.

[popper]

For most alloys, +/- 25F variation won't make much difference in the cooled structure. It will make some difference in the plate/top-of-the block temp which is where most poor (low weight boolits are made -fillout) for a given cadence. Weight variations don't bother me other than it usually means bad fillout. Cast dia. changes with mould temp, so what? 1 % weight variation gives what is fps change? I assume we flux/clean our alloy so inclusions/micro voids in the boolit are NOT likely to appear. So fillout is the only thing that causes inaccurate boolits due to non-concentricity.
Someone here posted evidence of a void but we don't know how it happened.

[runfiverun]

I also think that the 25-f window is a realistic window to cast in.
If you keep both the mold and alloy temp within that window you will see weight spreads tighten up.
The color of the boolits is the visual clue I use to keep it there.

[MBTcustom]

I also think that the 25-f window is a realistic window to cast in. If you keep both the mold and alloy temp within that window you will see weight spreads tighten up. The color of the boolits is the visual clue I use to keep it there.I agree. Question is, what window is that? All the consistency thread is about, is demonstrating a way to test that for each alloy you might use. Most would never see the differance because they are using COWW, or a slight variation of them , and the window for 50/50, COWW, and COWW +2% is very similar, but not exactly. Plotting a few simple bell curves tells you exactly where the sweet spot is for each alloy to put you in the most forgiving window. I'm guessing about why it works, and I said that, but the cause and effect is easily seen if you just run a simple test like I described a few posts back. It might help somebody get where they want to be and if so, I say bravo! It might mean less than nothing to somebody else, and I say, sorry I wasted your time. It works very well for me (demonstrated in the OP) and it might work for you too. If not, no problem. I've been using this system for a while now, and im convinced it works based on the consistent temperature readings from my PID, and readings from my electronic scale (tested regularly with a standard). I think anybody who uses proper measurement tools and takes several different samples of at least 100 bullets each, and compares them will see exactly what I am saying is factual. Another benefit is that different runs made hours apart will be of identical weight and diameter like you never quit casting. I like that.

[geargnasher]

Use what works for you, no problem at all with that, but I just haven't seen just one "best" narrow alloy temperature zone with each alloy that you have. I can get a consistent run within a wide range of alloy temperature (as long as I keep the pot constant at whatever temperature for the whole run), and as I mentioned earlier, with some moulds I have to work in different alloy temp ranges in order to control certain dimensions.

Gear

[btroj]

It is like what I keep telling my daughter about Her engineering classes. Focus less on how to solve a single problem and focus more on understanding the concepts. Knowing how to solve a single problem lets you solve it well but leaves you in the dark for other problems. Understand the concepts and you can easily think your way to solving any problem.

I have improved my casting success by observing the bullets dropping from the mould and time for spry hardening. Seeing a color change on the bullet tells me when mould temp is too high or too low.

My PID did tell me how much the melt temp varies from simple things like addingg a few sprue. I was shocked to see the temp drop almost 50 degrees when I put my ladle in to hear it up. Took almost 2 minutes to come all the way back to temp.

I am learning to see what happens when we change things. This will let me be successful with about any alloy or mould.

[geargnasher]

I'll give a specific example. I got an NOE 311-155FN mould that casts so fat on the nose (.3035" x.3045" at the break of the ogive, out of round too) that it simply won't chamber in any .30-caliber rifle I own. That's with 50/50 WW/pure, no added tin. Short of going to basically pure lead, that's as small as I can make them with alloy. They also cast .313x.314" on the bands. That's at about 700F pot temperature and casting at a normal, 4-5-second sprue freeze rate. It's very consistent weight-wise. So I bump the pot temperature to 775F (I know, I know!) and cast like a madman, quenching the sprue plate on a wet sponge (something else I hate to do, think it's bad for the mould) and manage to get them down about 1.5 thousandths. That will chamber in two rifles, still out of round though, and I can't do much with the alignment pins on NOE moulds. Anyway, they're STILL consistent in weight, like +/- .2 grains with very rare culls, usually due to me catching a bubble in the lube groove. Totally different temp zone of both mould and metal, different pour method, different sprue puddle size, all that, still get fantastic consistency in weight and size for each respective method using the same alloy. You will probably have to adjust other things to get back to peak bullet consistency if you change alloy or alloy temperature, but no reason you can't get consistent bullets within a sane temperature range with any given alloy.

I haven't done it with this mould, but based on plenty of experience with others I'd bet I could get the same consistency down to 650F pot temperature with this alloy and mould.

Gear

[runfiverun]

I do a lot of on site testing here at work and I can see changes in our down hole and above hole samples based on temperature, chemical composition, and ph.
We will quite often run the same job design but use a different chemical foot print to get there.
Separating which one is affected where can be sometimes confusing what happens at surface temperature is something completely different again at 130-f, at 180-f it's again re-affected and another chemical reaction takes place.
To break down the whole thing again into a moveable liquid, you have to take temperature into consideration and change your catalyst.
We will also take temperature into consideration when looking at our gel loading as temp variance will totally affect our viscosity and ultimately the down hole composition and stripping of the chemicals from the hole.
Many times we have to make on the spot decisions as to what is negatively affecting the surface, intermediate, and down hole cross-link of the gel.
This can be as simple as the surface water temp or as complicated as a ph adjuster, and catalyst incompatibility.

Now what does this have to do with casting you say ??
if you think about the alloy as the chemical, the spot check as the visual, and the on the fly repair
as our slight cadence changes you can see how your alloy would totally affect the whole set up of your system.

[Doc Highwall]

Goodsteel, I have played with the PID temperature and the bullets did come out better looking but I have not weighed out enough to do a bell curve which I am planning on doing.

Most of my efforts have been designing and machining floating expander dies, and I have an order of O-1 drill rod that is due in this week so I can start machining them. I want to have all of them completed so I have them coated at the same time and save some money.

[MBTcustom]

Goodsteel, I have played with the PID temperature and the bullets did come out better looking but I have not weighed out enough to do a bell curve which I am planning on doing.

Most of my efforts have been designing and machining floating expander dies, and I have an order of O-1 drill rod that is due in this week so I can start machining them. I want to have all of them completed so I have them coated at the same time and save some money.

Well, if you go back and read the consistency thread I linked in the OP, you'll see the method I used and where all this got started.

So these expander plugs. Very nice endeavor! I make all of mine as well and out of the same material (I just order from McMaster Carr).
You say you're having them coated, is that TiN coating (the gold stuff) or something else?

[HARRYMPOPE]

The bullets must be segregated by cavity before weighing,if not its meaningless.seldom is each cavity dimension exact even though they might weigh very close.if you are taper bumping it will take care of this generally though.a good lesson is to shoot the "bad" bullets at the same range session as you "good" ones and see what happens.it may surprise you.

[MBTcustom]

The bullets must be segregated by cavity before weighing,if not its meaningless.seldom is each cavity dimension exact even though they might weigh very close.if you are taper bumping it will take care of this generally though.a good lesson is to shoot the "bad" bullets at the same range session as you "good" ones and see what happens.it may surprise you.
If you go back and read the original consistency thread, you would see that I did exactly that, and the first thing I did was make sure all the cavities were casting equal. That was the reson for priming the spout.
I whitness all the cavities in my molds so that I can tell if I am doing something wrong, or if the cavities are identical or not. I take the culls from the batch and put them all into cups according to cavity, then weigh the cups. If I find any one cavity that is producing consistently more culls than the others, I investigate the cause, be it my teqnique or the mold itself. I can tell you that I have never found a discrepancy in either NOE or Accurate molds. If the cavities are dropping different weights, it's me, not the mold, and this system I am trying to describe tells me what's what. I can argue with myself, but I can't argue with my instruments.

[Doc Highwall]

Goodsteel, Tungsten Disulfide is the coating I am going to have applied to the expanders.

Tungsten Disulfide has an extremely low coefficient of friction (0.03, titanium nitride is 0.6).

[bhn22]

The bullets must be segregated by cavity before weighing,if not its meaningless.seldom is each cavity dimension exact even though they might weigh very close.if you are taper bumping it will take care of this generally though.a good lesson is to shoot the "bad" bullets at the same range session as you "good" ones and see what happens.it may surprise you.

Point, set, match. Identical weights do not insure identical bullets if multiple mould cavities are involved. The old guys used to cast match bullets from single cavity moulds for consistency. Manufacturing technology is much better now, but there are never any guarantees that two seemingly identical mould cavities in the same mould are in fact identical. Depending on the technology used, they should be statistically identical, but we've all had moulds that cast two slightly different bullet weights. Then thereare little details like the front and rear cavities in a two cavity do not initially heat at the same rate. This affects consistency as well, and is really pronounced in a four cavity. And even more so in a four cavity when ladle cast. The thermal cycles in multi-cavity moulds are why I prefer four cavity & larger moulds to be made of iron. Just a personal preference of course. I also don't do the benchrest type shooting, so none of it is a really big deal for me.

[Doc Highwall]

sgt.mike. I just did a quick search and being about 80 Rockwell on the C scale it is pretty hard, the attached link has a chart (Fig 7) showing the coefficient of friction. Carbide is harder then steel giving it a lubricity but due to the surface the friction is often improved (lower friction) by coating it with Titanium Nitride.
http://www.burlingtoneng.com/wear_resistance.html


The Tungsten Disulfide that I am planning on using is what RCBS is using on their coated neck bushings.

[runfiverun]

Two cavity molds will throw two different boolits.
My rcbs 22-055s will throw boolits weighing .1 gr apart in the middle of a run.
This sucks as I end up with a .3 weight spread and the middle weight is a mix of both cavity's.

My accurate mold is super close in both cavity's but I get a weight variation there too but it's mostly from the two pour spouts I use on my pot.
They pour at slightly different rates, this means I have slightly different sorue puddles and slightly
different fill pressures.

[btroj]

Run, just got done casting about 250 30 Sil bullets. These are probably as good as I have gotten with that mould. By watching the bullets as they come from the mould and determining the casting tempo from the appearance I realized I have been casting way too fast. Bullets fell easily from the mould, they all have a very similar sheen, and bands are nice and sharp.

All this of because of your comments on grey vs frosted bullets. Those words of wisdom made a big difference. Thanks.

These were cast of straight range scrap at 700 degrees. Don't see a need for more heat, this was sufficient to keep the moul temp very consistent with a comfortable casting pace.

[MBTcustom]

brad, why did you go with 700 degrees and not some other temperature?

[btroj]

Because it is what I chose? It worked well so I decided not to mess with it. I could probably stand to go to 725 as my melt wasn't entirely liquid at 625.

I can can always readjust the PID and see if results are better at a different temp but going to hotter melt means more mould temp over time and longer time between pours.

[geargnasher]

brad, why did you go with 700 degrees and not some other temperature?

Are you trying to learn something, or prove something?

Gear

[MBTcustom]

Are you trying to learn something, or prove something?

Gear

Neither. I'm just telling what I measured, tested, observed, and proved already and I'm just wondering if anybody has cast three batches of 100 bullets each, measured the consistency of each batch with bell curves like I did, and came to a conclusion (good or bad).
No drama. Just wondering.

Check post #140 in this thread:
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?268811-SLOW-Twists-and-FAST-Casts-Using-CUSTOM-Barrels-Results-Please&p=3144295&highlight=#post3144295
Those bullets were cast using this method.

[geargnasher]

This thread isn't about opinions, Mike, it's about PROOF. I never did like a single example, which happens to be contrary to all of my 25 years of casting experience, being peddled as proof of something else. I'll consider it, but I'm experienced enough to know there are other explanations of the results Goodsteel got. Post #25 and 26 attempt to demonstrate a theory using a faulty premise and a faulty test. The faulty premise is that each alloy has a particular "sweet spot", or very narrow range of temperature in which it will produce uniform bullets. This was clearly isolated and stated as fact, yet is a fallacy because it isn't the only factor contributing to bullet uniformity. The faulty test was performed at the same pot temperature with two different alloys and one mould, using identical cadence, which put the mould in the middle of a proven "consistent bullet" window for one alloy, yet was obviously not in the "consistent bullet" mould temperature window of the other alloy. As someone who's payed a lot of attention to such things, I find that I can cast very consistent bullets with virtually any commonly acceptable bullet metal within a very wide pot temperature range....as long as I optimize bullet mould temperature through timing and sprue size and apply the necessary pour technique. The only thing Goodsteel proved is that incorrect mould temperature will produce inconsistent bullets.

What do YOU think, Mike? Have you ever done the 300 bullet test such as was mentioned in post #77? What were your results?

Gear

[btroj]

Neither. I'm just telling what I measured, tested, observed, and proved already and I'm just wondering if anybody has cast three batches of 100 bullets each, measured the consistency of each batch with bell curves like I did, and came to a conclusion (good or bad).
No drama. Just wondering.

Check post #140 in this thread:
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?268811-SLOW-Twists-and-FAST-Casts-Using-CUSTOM-Barrels-Results-Please&p=3144295&highlight=#post3144295
Those bullets were cast using this method.


That at post shows that bullets cast that way can shoot well. It doesn't say anything about bullets cast any other way.

What you have found is a way for you to get better bullets. It is A way, but it is THE way? Is it the ONLY way?

I'm not buying for a second that melt temp MUST be held at a specific temp for each different alloy for best results. How man people shoot good groups with cast yet never use a PID? How many of those people vary the alloy used but never touch the thermostat on the pot? How many don't even have a thermostat on the pot?

[Bjornb]

Brad,
If you thought there was even a small chance that Tim's method would shrink your groups just a little (say 10-15% for argument's sake), would it be worth trying?

[btroj]

That is a huge if. Problem is that I don't think there is any chance.

Why would I mess with each alloy casting at a range of temps to see IF a certain temp did "better"?

For one thing I use a ladle for most casting now. That was the single best thing I ever got. Rick kept telling me, as did Bhn22, that it would make a marked difference and they were right. Got a 2 Rowell and wouldn't be without it.

Too many factors involved other than just alloy temp being specific to that alloy. Way too many.

Take a look at this thread.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?173606-Casting-while-it-rains

Too many variables to be taken into account to say it is as simple as setting the pot to a perfect temp and having at it.

I think more good was done by finding how that mould wanted to be fed than anything. Straight into the hole? Swirling? Each mould has likes and dislikes, finding them is important.

[MBTcustom]

So you're not willing to try it at all? Why post in this thread if that's not the case?
I'm not coming into your threads and calling BS even though I have some personal reservations about what you are doing as well. If it's not something I care to mess with, then I don't try to destroy what someone else is doing. The results on target tell the tale every time.
You have accused me of saying it's the only way to do things, in spite of the fact that several times in this thread I have said very clearly "it's not the only way but it's A WAY that might work for you".
I don't mind if you don't care to try it, but why is it necessary to come into this thread with nothing but your opinion? (By that I mean you have clearly NOT tried it, so you have absolutely no evidence to the contrary whatsoever except that you don't like the sound of what I am saying.)
That doesn't seem right to me? I don't come into the your thread and say all your work is total poppycock. I have no place to do so because you are entitled to your opinion and to say whatever you want and it's up to the reader to decide whether it's credible or not based on whether or not he can duplicate your results or mine by following the instructions you or I provide.

That's what I'm doing here. All I'm asking is that people try this. It's easy to do, and I know you will find a certain range of alloy temperature that gives more consistent weights and less culls. More importantly, you can use your scale to find bullets with minor voids (which I also demonstrated) if you are an experienced boolit caster. When your bullets are dropping within .1 grains you can see things with a scale that you are blind to with worse deviations (for instance, I've found bullets in a bad run that weighed perfectly but had very clear voids in them because they had two countering defects going on at once).

Now, say you actually try it and you find that I am right, and for whatever reason, you are more consistent in a certain spot. Does that mean you have to cast there? Certainly not! You may have a very good reason for casting in a different temperature range, and people have since the dawn of boolitry. No problem at all!
That doesn't mean what I'm saying is wrong. It's just an observation.

I'll say it again just so there is no confusion:
Cast three or four batches of 100 bullets at different alloy temperature settings, say 25 degrees apart. Plot bell curves with the bullets by lining them up in rows based on weight. (Pot or ladle, it doesn't matter). Observe if there is a better result (taller Christmas tree) in one temperature range over another. Decide if you want to cast at that temperature range or some temperature range other than what you demonstrated was most consistent.

That's it.

Again, it's not the only way, but it's a way that I use, and it might work for you. If it doesn't, then it doesn't. No problem at all.
I'm just showing how I applied what I learned and demonstrated in the consistency thread and hoping somebody else might be able to use it. That's what we're here to do. So far, not one single person who has tried this method came back and said they did the test as I described it and saw no difference, and no one in this thread has said that either, so I'm sticking to my guns.
Politely.
Thank you.

[geargnasher]

Attempting to find just one narrow temperature band within which your chosen alloy casts best isn't a "method", it's a limitation. What if you want to make your bullets bigger or smaller without changing alloys, yet still want optimal uniformity? You change your pot temperature and adjust your casting routine to match, if you know to do that. If you listen to what's been proposed on this thread, you'll never know how to do that because you'll just be stuck believing that there's only one optimal pot temperature for each alloy. I HATE it when people try to box things into a corner and make the world believe it.

"but any alloy has an optimum way it likes to be used". Yes, within a pretty broad window, like 150 F, and you keep the actual temperature you choose constant when casting a run.

"Went to a better alloy and my cull rate went from 5% to nearly 50%.
Why?
Because my pot temperature was wrong. No, it's because you didn't adjust your casting technique to match the the alloy change.....which brings us to a nugget of truth in the same post.... "This alloy needs a different style of casting to make it work, and it's different for each mold."

Ah, there you go. So what the real deal is here is the MOULD temperature needs to be optimized for the alloy and alloy temperature you choose. You do that through casting technique. I pointed all that out long ago in a thread linked back on page one which a few people, including Goodsteel, agreed with, but evidently didn't understand completely.

Ask Larry Gibson about a certain 454190 mould that he got to cast .003" larger with descriptively identical alloys by increasing the pot temperature a full 50 degrees and slowing the casting rhythm (I can tell by degree of 'frost' that he ran the mould more slowly and cooler than I did). We both got very consistent bullets, though I don't know what the bell curve of his long sessions looked like. I imagine they were very consistent based on the quality of the samples he returned to me. See? Different techniques can make a mould more usable, but if either of us were locked into the concept that WW +2% tin ONLY cast consistently uniform bullets at 675F, or at 725F, we'd be doing ourselves a disservice. Don't do the membership a disservice by attempting to convince them that they have fewer options than they do. Like I said in a previous post, if you can't get consistently uniform bullets at different respective points in a fairly large temperature window with any given alloy, explore your casting and mould temperature control techniques.

If you find ONE set of control conditions with a certain mould, alloy, pot temperature, and casting pace that fits your rifle to a tee and does everything you want, by all means go to the local mortuary and have the particulars engraved on a granite slab for future reference, nothing wrong with that at all, provided you don't stunt your own thinking or anyone else's thinking trying to prove that that one alloy has only ONE, "optimal" casting temperature for all things.

Gear

[geargnasher]

I have, many many times. Melt your alloy, determine the full-liquidus point. Heat it 100 to 125 F hotter than that and keep it there. Preheat the mould to 400F. Start casting and adjust stream volume, pour technique, and sprue puddle size, and the cadence of each operation until you get good bullets. Keep making micro-adjustments as necessary to maintain good bullets for the whole session. If your bullets don't fit, it may be possible to adjust pot temperature and the other things to get different results. This works with any mould, any weather, any alloy. If using pure or near pure lead, I go to about 775-800F on the pot.

Gear

[MBTcustom]

I have, many many times. Melt your alloy, determine the full-liquidus point. Heat it 100 to 125 F hotter than that and keep it there. Preheat the mould to 400F. Start casting and adjust stream volume, pour technique, and sprue puddle size, and the cadence of each operation until you get good bullets. Keep making micro-adjustments as necessary to maintain good bullets for the whole session. If your bullets don't fit, it may be possible to adjust pot temperature and the other things to get different results. This works with any mould, any weather, any alloy. If using pure or near pure lead, I go to about 775-800F on the pot.

Gear

Good for you Ian! Glad you have a method that works for you!
So do I.
Matter of fact, it's almost identical to yours except instead of saying "melt point + 100 degrees", I found a way to pin point where I get the best results.

Again, you accuse me of putting people in a box and telling them there's only one way to do things. In spite of the fact that I have repeatedly stated this is not the only way but it's A WAY that might work for you.
Personally, I have way too much respect for our members to try to control what they do, or do not, read. I know full well that they are more than capable of testing this for themselves and coming to their own conclusions about the validity of this method (or any other for that matter) This is real simple: somebody tries it and they like it, or they try it and they do NOT like it, but I'm not buying this "I didn't try it, I don't like it, and neither should anybody else" thing.

i really don't see what that has to do with your pot, or your casting bench. I also don't see why you feel a need to control the information being shared on this board, when you are totally unwilling to do the test that I described and bring those results into this thread to discuss. I don't mind a little off topic chatter, but your personal attacks on my method, along with your refusal to try it before you diss it, along with your insinuation that anybody who does is somehow offending the cast boolit gods, I find extremely.....well....it makes me sleepy.................

Where was I? Oh yes!!!
Cast three or four batches of bullets, 100 each. Make a bell curve with each and see if you get better results in a certain temperature range, and whatever you do, remember!!!!!:
Its NOT the only way, but it's A WAY that works for me, and it might work for you too!
(besides, you get to measure stuff, use techno gadgets like a PID and an electronic scale, and that makes you a rebel. Can I get a "yee haw" up in here?!?!?)
LOL!
OK, seriously. This isn't for everybody (like geargnasher) It's for somebody who has a rifle and they want to spend more time at the range shooting good bullets then at the casting pot learning to walk the rice paper. It's simply using the tools we have available to us to measure our proficiency at the pot, so we can make and duplicate really accurate ammo. After all, if you never measure your accuracy, you can never be sure if you have improved or not. That's what I love about this method. It's great for finding a sweet spot in the temperature, but it's also an awesome way to see yourself progressing towards perfection. If you develop a bad habit, you know about it instantly and you can make corrections before it takes hold.
I really like doing it this way.
Not only that, but since I'm paying close attention to the process and saving pictures of the casting runs, and the bell curves they produced, I have documented everything about every casting session I have made, and if there is a problem, or if I get good results, I'm not going to be standing out there wondering what I did to get here. This allows me to duplicate my results session to session.
It's all good. Try it if you like.

[geargnasher]

Tim, I was doing bell curve weight sorting since before you learned how to shave. Don't make out like this is all new to me, too, and must play your game to have valid information. I noticed you ignored my examples too, including one you should really ask Larry about. You might not like the answer he gives you, either, about manipulating alloy and mould temperature to cast larger or smaller bullets, yet still generate uniformity.

THERE IS NO "SWEET SPOT" IN ALLOY TEMPERATURE. The whole premise of your method is that there is, and how to find it. If that approach works for you, fine. But you're missing the boat, just like if you were to tell us about how beeswax is the greatest flux on earth, or that BHN vs. peak pressure is the most accurate way to load for rifles.

Gear

[kbstenberg]

Excuse my question I skipped from page 1 to ask it. Tim I assume you used a Ladal to pour the bullets?
I will go back now and read the full thread.

[MBTcustom]

Gear, relax, I'm not trying to turn the world upside down here. This is just a project that I have had success with. You don't need to do it if you don't want to. This is just what I do and it works on many different levels FOR ME, and it might work for someone else too. There's only one way to find out, and that is to try it.

Kbstenberg, I have tested this method with both ladle casting and BP pot casting and found the same to be true. I will say that I needed to run at a lower temperature with ladle casting.

[btroj]

My problem is that this ignore so many other factors.
Last year, I described in this thread http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...-are-you-REALY (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?224168-How-consistent-are-you-REALY) a method to find the sweet spot for a specific mold, using a specific alloy, at a specific temperature. By doing a few tests with the mold and creating bell curves with the boolits, you can quickly dial in where a specific mold likes to run consistently. That temperature, cadence, or process that gets you perfect, amen thank ya Jesus, boolits.
Well, I suggested that this method be used to find that sweet spot, and the critical information written down so that in the future you can walk up to your pot, set it up for success and start casting perfect boolits like you're a magician or something.

All this talk about the "sweet spot" being what is required to get "perfect" bullets could easily lead a noob to think it is the only thing to look at. Thye would ignore mould temp, how to tell when bullets are from a hot or cold mould, how to figure out why bases aren't filled out, and many other common issues.

In the post you linked it shows the run using a pot at 875 degrees. Look at how small the sample was. With a 4 cav mould you did about 8 fills per cavity. Not near enough to see how long term use of that pot temp would change things. Did you alter the cadence using that pot temp? Do anything to help cool the mould between fills?

Changing the pot temp REQUIRES a change in cadence. This is because the melt temp and rhythm control mould temp. Rhythm to me is more than just fill, wait, dump, and refill. I let the mould sit a bit after dumping bullets too at times, it lets it cool a bit more than when filled with lead. this is a good way to prevent over heating a mould. This time may vary during a casting session as mould temp changes slightly from start to finish.

I needed 715 degrees, so I dialed it into the PID.
Mold needs to drop boolits that look a little frosty, with a 3-4 second sprue cut.
Spout must be primed every time.
Alloy stream needs to just clip the side of the sprue hole.
Puddle needs to be full and about 1" in diameter around each hole.
Stream needs to be almost subdued. Just strong enough to shoot straight down.
Wait five seconds between cut and fill, unless the boolits have plucked bases or get too frosty blah blah blah.


Lots more going on here than just pot temp, isn't there? And blah blah blah? Blah blah blah tends to lead me to believe that you don't find bast condition or frosty bullets to mean anything. Blah blah blah is a way of saying I don't put credence in what was just said, isn't it? Have you tested to see if pot temp alone gives good bullets if you ignore how the melt enters the mould? What about sprue size? Not priming the spout? If melt temp was THAT important then it would trump those other factors and they would have little bearing on consistency.

I am not discounting the fact you found a way to get better bullets from your setup. What I am discounting is the idea that melt temp is such a critical factor in bullet consistency.

Don't ever forget that with new casters reading what is posted here we need to make certain that they understand the impact of the ideas we are promoting. Many of the things you mentioned are very important. Cadence is key as is learning how a mould needs to have lead directed into the cavities. We just differ on the level of importance overall of melt temp.

Let me give an example of what I mean. When I shot highpower I saw lots of guys who were just not good shooters. These were the guys always looking for just the right powder, bullet, or magic load to improve scores. The figured it had to be a secret load they needed. What they never figured out is that learning to be a good shot required lots of focused practice. Practice with a purpose. The good shooters didn't have a magic load, they had just done the work to learn to shoot. The guys looking for magic loads were never going to improve until they learned to learned what it took to be a good shooter.

What does this have to do with casting good bullets? Promoting the idea that a single, ideal melt temp is the key to perfection in casting leads people to believe they need to find that magic load. It does them a disservice as it leads them to ignore things that matter much more.

[MBTcustom]

See Brad, that's where you've got me all wrong.


All this talk about the "sweet spot" being what is required to get "perfect" bullets could easily lead a noob to think it is the only thing to look at. Thye would ignore mould temp, how to tell when bullets are from a hot or cold mould, how to figure out why bases aren't filled out, and many other common issues.
Those "other common issues" are the thing that will cause the most variance in consistency. Alloy temperature is the very last cherry on top of the cake, and you must have everything else right in order to even see it.

In the post you linked it shows the run using a pot at 875 degrees. Look at how small the sample was. With a 4 cav mould you did about 8 fills per cavity. Not near enough to see how long term use of that pot temp would change things. Did you alter the cadence using that pot temp? Do anything to help cool the mould between fills?
So you're saying you didn't read the whole thread. Seems like I was accused of that recently myself. Regardless, if you did read the whole thread, you would observe my progress and pictures of much larger samples. The one you are referring to is on the very first page, and was the very first sample I ran. But thank you for at least looking at the first page. This is progress! LOL!

Changing the pot temp REQUIRES a change in cadence. This is because the melt temp and rhythm control mould temp. Rhythm to me is more than just fill, wait, dump, and refill. I let the mould sit a bit after dumping bullets too at times, it lets it cool a bit more than when filled with lead. this is a good way to prevent over heating a mould. This time may vary during a casting session as mould temp changes slightly from start to finish.
No argument Brad. That's bullet casting 101.

Lots more going on here than just pot temp, isn't there? And blah blah blah? Blah blah blah tends to lead me to believe that you don't find bast condition or frosty bullets to mean anything. Blah blah blah is a way of saying I don't put credence in what was just said, isn't it? Have you tested to see if pot temp alone gives good bullets if you ignore how the melt enters the mould? What about sprue size? Not priming the spout? If melt temp was THAT important then it would trump those other factors and they would have little bearing on consistency.
It's not that I don't find them to mean anything. It's just that I consider them a forgone conclusion. I have done all the things you mention and have been since 1994. Not all at once. As time has gone on, I have become more and more studious in my observation of what matters, and I find that when you have done all you can do, and you have stopped progressing to a higher level, this method will take you there. Regardless of what issues you are using it to correct. For me, I had controlled everything except alloy temperature, and after all the things your mentioned were learned and learned very well, it was alloy temperature that cut my culls down to almost nothing.
This method can be used to learn anything you want to know about improving yourself at the casting pot. For me, it was alloy temperature (but I am further along in my skill level than some). For somebody else, it might be cadence that they need to work on, or cut time, or mold temperature. This method provides a sounding board to see instantly if what you changed had an effect and whether it was good or bad.

I am not discounting the fact you found a way to get better bullets from your setup. What I am discounting is the idea that melt temp is such a critical factor in bullet consistency.
For where I am, it is. That's just me.

Don't ever forget that with new casters reading what is posted here we need to make certain that they understand the impact of the ideas we are promoting. Many of the things you mentioned are very important. Cadence is key as is learning how a mould needs to have lead directed into the cavities. We just differ on the level of importance overall of melt temp.
On this point, I will apologize and agree that I was not really thinking about that, but I could easily have worded it to make it more palatable to the less experienced, but it would help them as well. In fact, I may start a different thread and correct that oversight. You do make a good point.

Let me give an example of what I mean. When I shot highpower I saw lots of guys who were just not good shooters. These were the guys always looking for just the right powder, bullet, or magic load to improve scores. The figured it had to be a secret load they needed. What they never figured out is that learning to be a good shot required lots of focused practice. Practice with a purpose. The good shooters didn't have a magic load, they had just done the work to learn to shoot. The guys looking for magic loads were never going to improve until they learned to learned what it took to be a good shooter.

No argument Brad. None at all. But youll notice, they also had a way to measure their success or failure. Measuring your success or failure at the pot with a rifle at the range is a really rough way to learn and I did it for years. Casting is casting and shooting is shooting. I view the two as separate disciplines connected to a common purpose. I need something right next to my pot that will help me be better so that I can go back and forth quickly and not take years learning to cut the sprue with a 4 second freeze with a rifle 30 miles away from my pot. This puts instant feedback on my bench so I can learn to cast superb bullets, and learn to shoot them at another time.

What does this have to do with casting good bullets? Promoting the idea that a single, ideal melt temp is the key to perfection in casting leads people to believe they need to find that magic load. It does them a disservice as it leads them to ignore things that matter much more.
I don't think so. My goal when I'm at the pot is to cast 300 bullets with no culls. Every one a jewel of perfection. I worry about finding a perfect load months later when the bullets are properly aged and ready for service.

[btroj]

You missed the point of my story. Pot temp IS the perfect load in my analogy. By seeking a perfect pot temp people may ignore the other, bigger factors in producing good bullets.

[MBTcustom]

If somebody tries this and they don't have a good handle on all the basics of casting as you laid them out, they're not going to see alloy temp variances at all. In fact, they might think they have a really good handle on the basics and still not see it. But they're going to see where they need work and that's for sure and for certain.
If you actually read the consistency thread, you'll see that I hit all the high points there.

You do have me thinking though. I really need to take a step back and start a thread on each of the basic casting disciplines, and demonstrate how to use this method to quickly attain perfection in each of them.
That's actually a good idea. I kindof started at the end of the book here.
I just assumed we have more than our fair share of expert bullet casters here, and the thread was directed at them.

I've been using this method for over a year now, and it has taken me to levels of consistency that I never thought possible with a cast bullet. I was really close on everything, but just needed to massage all of my skills just a little to really take it over the edge. This time last year I was keeping and shooting everything that weighed +-.4 grains and visually sorting after that. Now I throw back anything that doesn't way 0.0 grains when the scale is tared to the bullet weight, and out of 350 I lose less than 50 and of those 50, only one or two miss the mark by more than .6 grains (nearly always on the light side I might add). I'm excited about that! That's good stuff right there! That's a bell curve that's a single line halfway down my bench with just a few duds clustered around the base of the curve!
Nice!!!!!! I get to shoot more of the bullets I cast than ever.

[btroj]

Or just link to this

http://www.lasc.us/Fryxell_Book_Contents.htm

[bhn22]

I really need to take a step back and start a thread on each of the basic casting disciplines, and demonstrate how to use this method to quickly attain perfection in each of them.
That's actually a good idea. I kindof started at the end of the book here.
I just assumed we have more than our fair share of expert bullet casters here, and the thread was directed at them.


If you write it in article form, you may be able to sell the articles to one of the shooting publications, like Wolfe for example. It could be a good source of extra income for you. They're always looking for new talent.

[Larry Gibson]

I've been casting bullets for rifles since '68 and have found that most alloys we use for cast bullets do indeed have a "sweet spot" for a casting temperature to get consistent bullets of size and weight with minimum defective bullets. I find this especially the case if you want to produce the same weight and size cast bullets at various casting sessions. Just yesterday I cast up some linotype 30 XCB bullets for HV testing (2900 - 3100+ fps) in my 30x60 XCB rifle Dawn. Having years of experience casting with straight linotype I put 18 lbs of linotype in the Lyman Mag 20 furnace and cranked it up. When melted and the temp got to 740 according to the Lyman thermometer in the alloy I set the Mag's thermostat to maintain 725 - 740 degrees and let the alloy "cook" for 30 minutes. After that I fluxed the linotype with beeswax to remove the impurities and mix the oxidized alloy back into the mix.

With the 4 cavity aluminum NOE mould (no PID) I used a casting tempo of about 1 1/2 pours per minute. As soon as the sprue completely turned mottled grey I gave a "one - one thousand" count and cut the sprue. The bullets were immediately WQ'd from the mould. I didn't have a lot of time but ended up with 436 bullets. Visually sorting for any defect (I get rather anal about that for my HV bullets) rejected about 25 -30 bullets. Weight sorting found 325 of the bullets to weigh 154.5 +/- .2 gr. Those less than that weight (154.3 gr) were rejected also. There were 40 bullets weighing heavier than 154.7 gr were separated out for use in the 14" twist .308W Palma rifle. Thus out of 436 bullets there was 76% that were +/- .2 gr for use in Dawn and another 9% for use in the Palma. That gave a 85% rate of very usable and consistent cast bullets.

In my experience that rate of consistency is very good.

We have learned over the years that consistency of proper technique in casting bullets, consistency in loading those bullets and consistency in shooting those bullets all leads to the best accuracy at any velocity. I see nothing wrong or out of place with goodsteel's proposal to find the "sweet spot" for whatever alloy you are using. Doing such will pay dividends in accuracy, if that's what you're after.

Larry Gibson

[geargnasher]

Linotype will also cast most excellent bullets at 575F. There isn't one "sweet spot" for every alloy, it's a range. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. And beeswax doesn't remove impurities, for the eleventy-gillionth time. I do believe we're headed back to the stone age of casting here.

Gear

[Larry Gibson]

Original post deleted. I only stated what I did and what worked to get consistently good cast bullets. I thought a 85% consistent rate after careful visual inspection and weight sorting was pretty good. Guess I'm wrong:sad:


Larry Gibson

[MBTcustom]

Ian, once again, you try to win the discussion by degrading yourself to insults. Unless you find a way to send a PM to my scale and calculator, and get them to change what they are telling me, you will not change my mind on this.

I choose to respectfully disagree with you, and I will continue operating the way I am because it works for me, "and apparently several others as well".

Thank you.

[MBTcustom]

I use wood shavings when smelting, and beeswax at the casting pot.
Why?
Because my bell curves showed an advantage to doing it his way. That's just another thing I tested with this method. For some reason, the alloy takes the mold better when "fluxing" with beeswax.
I don't know why. The calculator and scale cannot postulate an opinion. It just gives a thumbs up or a thumbs down.
I just use whatever makes my bell curves happy and its helped quite a bit.

[popper]

Don't ever forget that with new casters reading what is posted here we need to make certain that they understand the impact of the ideas we are promoting. Many of the things you mentioned are very important. Cadence is key as is learning how a mould needs to have lead directed into the cavities. We just differ on the level of importance overall of melt temp. Can we get an atta-boy for Btoj?
I have a PID on my pot because it eliminates one more variable. I can concentrate on other aspects. L.G. mentioned one item I think most forget, let the alloy stabilize for 30 min or so before casting. I purposely don't throw the sprue cuts back in the pot immediately, but when I do the dump, reflux, clean, wait another 30 min.
As to weight sorting, I have done it. Remember, one cubic millimeter is 1 grain - visualize that size! Does it make a difference? Yes, I will repeat, it is primarily due to dimensional differences of the cast product. Do these difference affect most of us - NO. Do wrinkles, bad bases affect us - YES. But we inspect ( or should) optically! Now what can we do in consistency to avoid/reduce culls?
So maybe someone will collect all the pertinent ideas into a post, put it to the front so learners can see what may help them.
Visualize one cubic mm of lead as a bubble/inclusion in the boolit. Now imagine that is in 50 arbitralily placed bubbles. Think it make a hoot in accuracy at less than 500K RPM?

[geargnasher]

I've explained this over and over. It is a handy thing to realize that one can learn how to make excellent bullets, of the quality Larry and Goodsteel mention, within a wide range of pot temperatures, because alloy temperature is a large factor of final bullet size. Sometimes bullet size needs to be manipulated when fitting a certain mould and certain gun, and this is a good way to do it. Encouraging people to think in a narrow range only doesn't do them much of a service, it robs them of a tool they may need one day.

The fluxing thing has been beaten to death. Beeswax doesn't remove impurities, it only reduces oxides. Fryxell explained that in great detail along with the chemical processes if anyone wants to know the truth.

I really don't care what anyone else does to get results, what I care about is all the great oratory directed at newbies (or anyone) which is either simply not correct, or could limit their perspective.

Gear

[MBTcustom]

Telling newbies to measure, record, observe,change only one thing at a time, and giving them a method to do so is not a limiter. It's an enabler. It puts the power of observation in their hands. And rather than teaching them a process to follow, it gives them the ability to measure for themselves and create their own process. That is what I am demonstrating here, but it seems that the accepted processes are very narrow indeed. You have demonstrated what happens to someone who demonstrates a willingness to use their minds and tools, and back up the results. They will be ridiculed in public by people who refuse to try out what the OP demonstrated before casting judgment. I have done nothing but tell what has worked for me, and never insisted that anyone do it themselves, and we have an argument here, propagated by narrow minded people who's minds were made up before they read the OP. I disagree with that point of view. If anybody actually tries this, they would quickly see its value as an instrument of learning at ANY level. Thank you.

[dtknowles]

I use wood shavings when smelting, and beeswax at the casting pot.
Why?
Because my bell curves showed an advantage to doing it his way. That's just another thing I tested with this method. For some reason, the alloy takes the mold better when "fluxing" with beeswax.
I don't know why. The calculator and scale cannot postulate an opinion. It just gives a thumbs up or a thumbs down.
I just use whatever makes my bell curves happy and its helped quite a bit.

Do you run enough bell curves to be statistically accurate and repeatable or just a few for each case to get and anecdotal feel or just one set of data for each test condition. Do you run the bell curves for various conditions on the same day or over a period of days. I know that in my own testing I do not have the time or conviction to do testing that is statistally valid, I report my results but don't make claims and just let the readers form their own opinions, I hazard a guess based on my experience.

Tim

[btroj]

Larry, I found your post very interesting. I'm less interested in the temp than your cadence. The counting, cutting sprue, and quenching is pretty "normal" stuff. What I found interesting was the fact you mentioned about 1.5 pours per minute. I understand it is hard to tell exactly as you are paying attention to casting, not a clock. Paying attention to a clock is not a way to make good bullets.

After you dropped the bullets where was the mould? Do you let it cool a bit before refilling? Was it refilled right away?

I find that I get better bullets if I pour, let the sprue just flash, cut sprue, wait about 4-5 seconds, drop, wait 5 seconds, then refill. This is with a 4 cav brass mould from MP. Aluminum moulds need a totally different cadence. The wait time before refill is the main place I control mould temp. If bullets look a little too frosted I give a few extra seconds for cooling.

I am more interested in what the mould is doing from pour to pour than anything. I really think that is a critical part of consistency in bullet casting.