Air cooled or water dropped for .44mag

[762cavalier]

OK I plan on casting for a .44mag super Blackhawk using a 250gr keith style mould. Which would be better using straight WW(maybe with a little tin added) Air cooled for softer boolits or water quenched for harder boolits? I don't know yet what diameter the Keith mold will drop at but will be running them through .431 cylinder throats and a .429 barrel.

[Blammer]

I just air cool mine and they shoot pretty good.

[Ricochet]

Air cooled WW hardness is fine for .44 Magnum.

[HeavyMetal]

I've alway felt it was a matter of which load I was going to shoot.

250 Kieth on 10 or 11 grains Unique air cool.

250 Kieth on 23 grains 296 water harden.

The harder bullet works better in the higher pressure load.

[jhalcott]

I've tried both water and air cooled in the .44 Ruger super Black hawk. I have NEVER found enough difference to tell which is being used. Targets groups are the same, Both go thru the deer I've shot them into.. Silly wets fall just as easily with either also! I'd try them both ways just to be certain if there is a difference that will help your needs. One note of caution, the .44 REVOLVER seems to need much more practice than other guns to remain very accurate. I have no idea why this seems to be so, but several friends and I all have to play with our RSBH more before we are ready to deer hunt with them.

[AZ-Stew]

If I recall correctly, ol' Elmer used to cast a 1:16 or 1:20 Tin:Lead alloy for his bullets. Either is softer than AC WW.

Regards,

Stew

[mike in co]

for convienence mine are all water dropped. srh straight ww, 245's to 290's, 1430 to 1050 fps.
shoot VERY well.

mike in co

[MT Gianni]

I get good results with AC. I have shot water dropped and now stick with AC. See what your guns prefer. Gianni

[bart55]

I HAVE ALSO used both in my ruger super black hawk and super redhawk and both seem happy with both .Last deer i shot with the blackhawk was with water quenched ww . HE just waklked about 20yrds and fell over .

[Mugs]

Another thing to consider is how long after you cast do you plan on shooting the boolits. AC lead alloys take about 3 weeks to reach max hardness. WD will reach max hardness in hours.
Mugs

[Ricochet]

Both AC and WD evolve their hardness levels over time, but the AC will never get nearly as hard as the WD does, and it will be a long time before the WD drops to a level approaching the AC. AC is near its final hardness level when it cools. WD is soft for a short time after quenching and hardens up drastically over a few hours, peaking after a week or two. At 6 months it's softened a bit.

[JIMinPHX]

If you are going to use a gas check, then keep them soft. If you are going plain base with a heavy powder charge, then you may want to water drop.

[BruceB]

Mugs raises a good point, concerning the CHANGES in hardness over time. The process goes further, however. Once the bullets reach maximum hardness, they then begin softening again. Eventually, if not loaded and fired in the meantime, they'll be back where they started for hardness of the original alloy.

Since I tend to cast considerable quantities of a given type once I get started on a run, many of my bullets won't be loaded, let alone fired, for many months. Therefore the hardness at time of firing can be all over the map. This doesn't bother me, because I still get good accuracy and no leading with my WW bullets. The 7.5" Super Blackhawk pushes the RCBS 250KTs right around the 1500 fps mark in the heavy load, shooting cleanly without gaschecks.

To this day, after forty years' casting, I don't own a hardness tester, nor do I think I need one. A hardness test is a snapshot of the alloy TODAY.....but it won't be the same next month or next year, until it stabilizes at the original reading for the alloy, or unless the alloy is cast without hardening. If the bullets will loaded and fired almost immediately, then a hardness test may be of value. For my purposes and methods, I don't need the information.

Air-cooled or water-quenched, either will work in the .44 Magnum. One advantage of aircooling (to my thinking) is that your bullets will be at a stable, unchanging hardness, and the subject need never cross your mind again.

[HeavyMetal]

Good points brought up by all.

My suggestion for a hardness tester is simple: the more information you have the more informed a decision one can make, in this case about the alloy and load your going to use.

Yes old Elmer liked 1:16 and 1:20 alloys for his cast 44 mag bullets. What usually gets lost, as it did here, is the fact he also prefered a gascheck on those alloys so they would expand when he used them to hunt.

With a gas check on the base niether of those alloys will lead!

Bear in mind you don't shoot near as many rounds hunting as you do practicing! So a soft alloy that expands to hunt with is good, while a hard alloy to practise with is good.

See what I mean. Pick a load and a bullet, soft or hard, to suit then reason for shooting in the first place.

So I'll say it again AC for light load WD for heavy loads.

[Dale53]

heavyMetal;
I beg to differ with you. I have Elmer's books and have read most of what he wrote in his lifetime. He was NEVER an advocate of a gas check bullet for revolvers. In fact, he was flat against their use.

Not intending to give offense, just correcting an error.

Dale53

[AllanD]

Yeah, the "keith" design SWC's have a couple common features,
a LACK of a gas check is the first and a single deep lube groove
with a narrower crimping groove is the other.


If I recall correctly Keith depended on softer alloys obturating and expanding in the bore and thus avoiding leading through forming a tight seal through set-back expansion.

AD

[38 Super Auto]

OK I plan on casting for a .44mag super Blackhawk using a 250gr keith style mould. Which would be better using straight WW(maybe with a little tin added) Air cooled for softer boolits or water quenched for harder boolits?

Water dropping or heat treating and quenching will increase your bullet hardness. Is more hardness always better? I say no. In low velocity loads and other applications, shooters would do more better with softer alloys.

I think the factors are accuracy, leading, and very importantly cost of your cast out bullets.

I assume that you have slugged your bore and are sizing 1-2mils over groove diameter.

If you are shooting low velocity loads, I believe softer is better because of better bullet obturation.

If you are shooting higher pressure loads, harder alloy should give you better accuracy. Higher pressure loads tend to create more bullet base deformation, which if left unchecked, :) , will degrade your accuracy.

The other factor from an economics point of view, is you should add as little antimony or tin as you can get by with.

I am speaking in fairly broad generalizations here. I have experienced both leading from high velocity projectiles with insufficient hardness and very low velocity boolits (38 WC) that were too hard. YMMV. I think you should do some evaluation with your gun - water dropping vs. aircooling and perhaps evaluate different sizing diameters. You can always sell your unused sizing die on this forum or maybe ebay (for a profit?)

I think there are so many higher order effects (with interactions) and conflicting requirements, it's difficult to definitively proclaim which (harder or softer)
is better.

I think a little R&D on the loading bench and at the range could very well give you the answer you need.

[HeavyMetal]

Elmer was never a fan of gas checks for everyday use. I once read where he condemed a maker of gaschecks because he could not get them to crimp on the bullet base as he could the Lymans! Said he saw them come off in mid flight and was worried he'd get one stuck in the barrel.

In the same column, and please bear with me as this was in Guns and Ammo back in the 60's and I don't have a copy of it, he suggested a Lyman 429215HP in his 1-20 alloy with the Lyman crimp on gas check. This would expand and not lead a barrel in his experience.

I have always known that kieth preferred his 429421 in almost every way and suggested the same bullet in the same column to the same shooter.

However he did suggest a gas check design and claimed to have some experience with it. From what I've read he was constantly looking at new products and ways to do things so I'm real sure that he had more than passing experience with gas check designs.

I think it's safe to say Elmer Kieth probabely forgot more about casting than any of us will ever discover on our own and had a great deal of insight on how and way a gas check worked.

I suspect he felt they were a nessary "evil" to be used when needed and only when needed!

[Naphtali]

Mugs raises a good point, concerning the CHANGES in hardness over time. The process goes further, however. Once the bullets reach maximum hardness, they then begin softening again. Eventually, if not loaded and fired in the meantime, they'll be back where they started for hardness of the original alloy. . . .

Air-cooled or water-quenched, either will work in the .44 Magnum. One advantage of aircooling (to my thinking) is that your bullets will be at a stable, unchanging hardness, and the subject need never cross your mind again.Does this same return to original hardness of alloy occur after heat treating those lead alloys that are heat treatable? I'll be casting once a year and shooting off that one casting session. I anticipate a session being no longer than a holiday weekend.

If heat treated bullets retain properties of their heat treat for a year, this logically brings me to the theoretical question: How long can a heat treated bullet retain its properties obtained by heat treating?

[Ricochet]

Does this same return to original hardness of alloy occur after heat treating those lead alloys that are heat treatable? Yes, but it'll take many years to get there.

[MtGun44]

I do not remember having seen any writing by Elmer Keith that supported
the use of gas checks in .44 mag/spl handguns. Can you provide a source?

My memory (which I stipulate is imperfect!) says he called them 'diapers' in
a very derisive manner and did not like them at all.

Bill

[willwork4ww]

In all of my reading, Elmer was very anti gascheck for revolvers, as am I.

Heat treated bullets return to original hardness? I almost always shoot AC and don't own a hardness tester, but as per Veral's research, HTWW soften over time but never return to AC hardness. Perhaps a reduction from 22-18 or so Brinell, but never a return to AC hardness. Also, he proclaims keeping them in a freezer stabilizes their hardness so that is the way to go for long term storgage. My .02, YMMV

[Ricochet]

I've got some I water dropped in 2000 that are still quite hard.

[HeavyMetal]

As I mentioned it was in the late 60's I read his column in guns and ammo. Might have even been early 70's as I was still living in Sacramento at the time I read the column and left that area around 72.

My memory is far from perfect also, but This stuck in my mind because Elmer had never been a fan of gas checks. However to formulate an opinon one must have experience with the product.

Again it was a question of expansion, and Elmer did advise the use of a gas check, posibley because it was a 429215?, as well as suggesting he go straight to the 429421 cast 1-16.

I'm sure it was a response to the way the question was asked and not a suggestion that he use a gas check because they were"better" some how.