Let's talk gas checks on cast bullets

[Swagerman]

I have a revolver that loves cast bullets with gas checks, most of my loads are under 1,000 fps velocity...usually about 750 to 850 is more like it.

Some people are very critical about me using gas checks on bullets under 1,100 fps velocity on another website...very picky uniny on the subject to say the least.

My main purpose in using them is to avoid lead build up on the forcing cone, the barrel rifling while using softer lead mix bullets...and so far it is working great for me.

It also helps to keep the gun cleaner inside and out, lube snot, unburned powder and powder residue from dirty burners.

The revolver is my favorite Taurus m-441 in .44 special. It also has over sized cylinder throats of .434 dia...and I size my bullets to .432 dia.

One of my best swaged bullets is the Lyman #429244 GC, very accurate and flat shooting to POA & POI.

What do you guys think about gas checks on bullets under 1,100 fps velocity.


Jim

[Heavy lead]

Jim,
I think whatever floats your boat, or shoots in your revolver. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Oh I know in a perfect world it would be nice to not shoot a gas check if you didn't have to. But it sounds like you're worried more about what other people think more than your own opinion. Everybody's situation is different, now by the book you should be able to shoot a plain base boolit just fine in that (although you might have to beagle and size bigger, but that also sounds like busy work to me) revolver, but why do it, if it's not distressing you and it works.

[dk17hmr]

If its accurate and you dont mind buying gas check go for it. I shoot gas checks on pretty much all of my bullets, except for the 38 spl, the bullet for the auto's 45 and 9mm, and some 45-70 for my dads Sharps re-pop those are all plain base . Other than that they are all gas checked.

[Swagerman]

Yes, I guess its what people critisize you for when you didn't promote using gas checks in the first place, but merely showed some very accurate target work when you used them.

The nay sayers always have their testy opinions on that other web site. Its very difficult to communicate with them when trying to talk reloading. Even when you explain its this one gun lthat responds well to GC.

But that web site is noted for anti Taurus bashing, so it should not have been a big surprise when showing some target work from a Taurus revolver.

Jim

[Little Doc]

jim
give soft checks a try. google cf ventures, if it will work for you it will save you a lota bucks.
good luck
mike

[chunkum]

I like to use GC designs of a lower BHN (say 8 or thereabouts) in my 44 Special revolvers. They've given good accuracy at standard MVLs (750 - 800 fps) without leading. One of my favorites for this use is the Lyman .44 caliber Devastator (429640) .
Best regards,
chunkum

[missionary5155]

Well hey.. If they do not like a Taurus they can leave them for others..
I have a Taurus 41 mag Titanium and it will be one of the last items to ever be released. What a fine piece of metal! My only regrets is I did not buy 2 !

[Heavy lead]

Are they still making those titanium. I remember a few years ago, the market was just full of the Taurus titanium, I too would love to find a 41, but I just don't see them much.
Hope I'm not hyjacking, I do like the Taurus guns though.

[felix]

A gun used for accuracy, rather than bouncing charging cans at less than a hunnert, all of us need ONE GC/PP boolit when your loading style that day is straight forward with no bells and whistles. However, if you enjoy the research chase, internally supported (wads/fillers) naked boolits would be preferred for that "I got in now" feeling. Yep, gotta' float that boat. ... felix

[leftiye]

I suspect that it may be them boolits that are smaller than the cylinder mouths that make the gas checks work better than boolits without gas checks do. Could be it slows down the gas cutting that undersized boolits allow.

[dwtim]

I have no problem with GC designs. In fact, I made sure that my mold collection included the Ray Thompson ones in .358" and .429". I don't care if anyone uses them; it's up to them if they want to shoot a boolit that costs 50 percent more. If it shoots 100 percent better, then isn't it worth the cost?

However, I will point out that I shoot certain GC designs (in pistols) for their accuracy, not to reduce leading. The 429244 shows enhanced ignition with certain slower burning powders, especially with lesser quantities. Other than that, a bad load fouls as much as one of my plain base styles.

[35remington]

At the current cost of gaschecks a checked bullet is more like 2.5-3 times more than a plainbase in cost, but if it shoots better and you need better shooting then you need justify it to no one.

Accuracy is its own justification, and prolonged accuracy due to less leading is more of the same.

[Bass Ackward]

Funny how history repeats itself. :grin: And cost is generally a poor way to justify anything in shooting as we leave out to many factors justifying being over gunned. :grin:

In the olden days, all handgun bullets were PB. For decades guys used to moan, cry, and complain. Necessity being the mother of invention, Ray Thompson throws a gas check on some designs and he is immediately nominated for president. Vernon Speer gets the idea to extend that GC a little farther up the sides and you now you had semi-jacketed handgun bullets. Those pills built a company, an industry, and they almost drove casting to extinction.

Now today, we strive to turn back the clock and return to the PB design. This movement has moved so far that it's almost macho not to use a check. Bottom line is that some guns will shoot PB right off. Some guns need a few thousand rounds or fire lapping before things clean up enough. Some guns may never shoot a PB without fouling affecting accuracy after just a few shots. Some guns will lead with a check too. Some guns will shoot lead better than jacketed, and .............. some .... just don't. We all know this, we just get stubborn. :grin:

Today, the cost argument is PB vs checks. The guy that will tout PB will be the guy that's stuck launching more lead than necessary to do what someone else does more cheaply with less lead using a check. :grin: Tomorrow, the argument will be smaller bore diameters vs large as lead gets harder to obtain. Just as the popularity of this board expands and creates competition for lead. :grin:

Big bore, heavy bullet types will become today's gas guzzlers. :grin: You wasteful Americans you. :grin:

[crabo]

[Big bore, heavy bullet types will become today's gas guzzlers. :grin: You wasteful Americans you. :grin:[/QUOTE]

Yeah Baby! That must be why a 45/70 guide gun is next on my list.

[Swagerman]

Hey you guys bring up some really good points concerning PB vs GC.

What it is with me, I like to tinker and this leads me into a lot of labor intensive areas of the shooting hobby.

Bullet swaging is fun, it helps me achieve shaping and resizing bullets, and gas checks help one of my guns to be very accurate.

So, like one fellow here said, whatever floats your boat is the way to go.

I'm experimenting with lite and heavy bullets...all this to acquire some knowledge about our hobby that satisfies our needs to shoot big bore revolvers.

Trying new powders that do the job.

Best of luck to us all in that endeavor.


Jim :drinks:

[45nut]

You saw right through it eh ?

[Swagerman]

I usually do with nit picking. :mrgreen:

Jim

[Nose Dive]

CHUNKUM... You can soften the GC's by heating them up bit. I put mine in a old cast iron fry pan and heat them up...Let'em get a bit green from the heat and air cool on a plate for somehting.... I do all mine this way.... don't 'loose' any in flight.

[thx997303]

nosedive, it appears this thread is a couple years old.

Also, it appears that Chunkum has passed on.

[bbailey7821]

I've used both plain base and GC's. I use them now only on my .44 and .454. I agree with many of the previous comments that you should use what works for you!

One of my biggest *****s was too shoot a bunch of .44 Mag loads from a friend who assured me that they didn't lead(at all). In my levergun, IT DID! It was a royal pain in the rear to get all that stuff out of there.

Good Luck and Happy Trails!

[Nose Dive]

Yup...BBailey...been der,,,dun dat....Buddy shared his headaches with me on several occassions. "try these..there GREAT'....they weren't.

Sorry to hear about ChunKum. We lost a real 'resource'.

Nose Dive

[454PB]

Swagerman has also passed....