.44 Mag. leading problem, light loads

[Murphy]

Okay, straight up facts first.

Cast boolit: Lyman#429421
Alloy: Wheel Weights - straight.
Weight: 256.0 grains 'average'.
Sized to: .430
Lube: Felix Lube
Firearm: Smith & Wesson Model 29
Barrel Length: 4"

Load:
Brass: Winchester Western
Primer: WLP
Powder: Unique
Charge(s): 9.0/9.5/10.0

I started with a clean barrel, ran one wet patch of Hoppes #9 through the bore followed by a dry. Then I started testing my loads. I would check after each group. I'm not totally sure at what point the leading began. The lead was in the first inch/inch and half of the barrel. It brushed out easily enough. Then I began testing with the same components, except with full house loads. Alliant 2400 at 20.0 to 21.0 grains. Then about another 35 -40 rounds of full house loads of H110. No leading.

What gives? Am I not kicking the bullet hard enough to get good obturation with a too light charge of Unigue?

Any other 'medium' loads anyone can suggest? Or is there something I can do about my current choice of working between 9.0-10.0 grains of Unique? I'm looking for a good practice load.

Thanks,

Murphy

[David R]

"What gives? Am I not kicking the bullet hard enough to get good obturation with a too light charge of Unigue?"

Uh Huh!

[StarMetal]

Murphy,

When I had my Smith 44mag Classic my general target load was the Saeco 240 gr TCN gascheck bullet over 10 even grains of Unique. Exceptionally accurate and shot clean, but then again it was a gascheck. On the other hand my standard 45 LC load is the RCBS 255 gr SWC over 9 even grs of Unique. Now we're talking about a plainbase bullet. Shoots clean in all my handguns and rifles. Lube is either Javelina or my own.

Joe

[45 2.1]

Keith's plinking load: 18.0 gr. of 2400 with your boolit. If your cylinder throats allow a larger boolit, then do so.

[1Shirt]

Try going to .331 or .332, will probably make a big difference.
1Shirt!

[Cherokee]

Murph - I'm sure 1Shirt ment go to bigger bullets, like .431 or .432. That's my suggestion. Try using as-cast bullet, although my 429421 with WW cast out at .430 so that may not help. Measure the throats.

[redneckdan]

try some range lead if you can get yer hands on it. Softer and will seal the bore better, Sounds almost like gas cutting to me.

[Larry Gibson]

Murphy

I know it is probably sacreligous to suggest this but it is the Feelix lube that is failing you at lower velocities. There are many, many of us that shoot that same bullet in .44 Special cases with 7.5 gr Uniques and 8.5 gr Unique in Magnum cases (both very good loads by the way) . We get no leading at all but then we don't use Felix lube or anyof the hard wax types either. Most of us use an Alox type of lube (Javelina, Tamerac, etc.) or a soft BP lube (5 parts beeswax to 4 parts olive oil works great). To find out take 20 bullets, remove the Felix lube (running a dull pencil tip around the groove should remove enough) and rub Lee's liquid Alox or some Javelina in the groove. Load them over 8.5 gr of Unique and shoot them. I'll bet you'll not have any leading.

Larry Gibson

[felix]

All suggestions are valid and should be tried. Your frame might be grabbing the barrel too tightly as well, and if that is the primary cause of the problem (after trying everything else), then you should purposely force some wear into that forcing cone area. ... felix

[NVcurmudgeon]

Murphy, All the above looks like worthwhile advice. In addition, my favorite plinking load, thanks to Shuz and Nevada Duke, is 7.0 gr. Green Dot for 900-950 fps, depending on barrel length.

[fourarmed]

About any time you have a constriction at the back end of the barrel, you're going to see that leading. I presume it comes from squeezing the bullet down enough to allow gas cutting just past the constriction. If the bullet is booted hard enough, it will expand back up enough to seal, then the leading stops. Not saying that is your problem, but it is worth looking into.

[txbirdman]

Felix,

You mentioned the frame grabbing the barrel too tight and causing a constriction. I've often wondered if going to the "crush fit" from the "pinned barrel" design has caused such a problem with leading on the S&W's. I have the exact same gun that I use quite often with the 429421 bullet and 9.5 gr. of unique without a leading problem. However, my revolver was made about 1968 (pinned barrel days).

[robertbank]

Since your leading is in the first 1/2" or so of the rifling I'll bet your boolits are just to soft. Boolit smears lead into the rifling before it takes the rifling and starts to turn. Ad a little tin to the mix or water quench them and I suspect your leading will all but disappear. I am also a fan of harder lubes but that is just me. Never been a big believer in bullet bump up in revolver/pistol cartridges. What seals the bore is the boolit being larger than the bore diameter IMHO. Ditto for gas cutting in pistol/revolvers, not enough time in the barrel and it seems to me lpgically that if gas cutting were occuring you would see it more at the end of the barrel as the gas cutting opened up more of the boolit.

Stay Safe

[StarMetal]

The old pinned barrels Smiths aren't immune to a constricted barrel at the frame section. I've seen quite a few Smiths , old models , this way along with other make revolvers.

From what I understand on the new Smiths with the crush fit, the threads are mismatched too. .

Joe

[felix]

Very few revolters are good out of the box, and not much you can do to fix them without mucho bucks. Some lead up just aft of the forcing cone, some squirt lead at the front of the cone, and some just don't shoot. Let's change that to most don't shoot. I have only have 3 revolters that shoot good out of 20 or so. A gun with a barrel pin is no better. ... felix

[Dale53]

Felix;
My experience has been quite different from yours. I, until a couple of weeks ago, had access to a Ransom Rest (a careless smoker burned down our range house with chrono and Rest inside [smilie=b: ). I have put a number of my revolvers on the Rest. Not one revolver that I have, failed to shoot less than an inch at 25 yards (cylinder full). Most were right at 3/4". My K-38 shoots 1/2" with factory wadcutters but I could never get it to do better than 3/4" with my reloads. My 24, and two 624's shoot at about 3/4". All do really well. Understand, this was from the Ransom Rest. When I was in "pistol shape" I could shoot just about as well off sandbags. I have shot many groups under 1" with witnesses off bags. Some of the guns wear scopes and some open sights. Since a good bit of my vision "went away" I cannot shoot quite so well with open sights but still do well with scopes.

At any rate, I apparently have been fortunate. I would like to make the observation that most of my revolvers and autos have been around for awhile - they definitely were not made yesterday.

I have NEVER had problems with a revolver leading. I have had friends that do but I never have been "blessed" with a leading revolver. Mostly what I shoot are plain base bullets (hey, if Elmer didn't need a gas check, I don't either :razz:.

I do match the lead hardness to the load (but I am NOT anal about it) and I have used NRA formula Alox lube almost entirely. My bullets are cast well and I inspect carefully. I use mostly Federal pistol primers. I use W231 for low velocity stuff and W820 (old lot) for magnum stuff. In my 44's, I mostly have used the Keith style bullet from both H&G and Lyman moulds. My .44 magnums are shot with 23.0 grs of Carbine Ball (W820 - old issue that chrono's the same as H110). My .44 Specials are shot with 7.5 Unique. My .45's are shot with W231 and my .32's and .38 wadcutters are shot with W231.

As you can see, when I get a load that works, I use that and forget about further experimenting and just SHOOT!! :razz:.

Not that anyone should copy what I do, but the above has been my experience.

YMMV
Dale53

[StarMetal]

Dale,

That's my experiences exactly. I didn't have access to a Ranson Rest though. I don't get anal about any of the steps of reloading for my revolvers, used Javelina lube for longer then I wanted to think and got excellent accuracy and no leading like you. Also like you if I found a load that worked good I left it alone and moved onto another gun. One reason I don't have a tractor trailer full of different bullets moulds. Then I come to this forum and they go rocket science on you and you have to do this and you have to do that, blah, blah, blah...and you know what....you don't. I'm glad you posted what you did. Nobody believed me.

Joe

[felix]

I guess I am anal about it. A pistol/revolter must cloverleaf at 50 feet out of my hands for me to happy with it. It must do this all day with reasonably hot loads. That was my criteria for evualation. ... felix

[Bass Ackward]

Most handguns that I have seen in my life require close to 1000 firings before all mechanicals seat in and work out. I would say that 90% of all handguns sold never reach that tally. So this can be a lot of today's problems.

After the 1000 rounds, alignments were correct, constrictions were minimized, bore conditions smoothed, ets. They usually liked to do this with copper.

Most of the "real" handgun entheusiasts I know dreaded two thing in their lives. One was to break in a new gun and the other was to have to clean a dirty one after they got it how they wanted it. They measured good loads by how many rounds between cleanings, not by real accuracy. 800 rounds was a starter.

[felix]

BA, stopping to really think about it, your observation is entirely correct. The following hand guns I have that will clover leaf consistently at 50 feet had at least 10K rounds through them before I took possession of them: Smith mod 41, mod 27; Colt mod P, Ruger 357 3 screw, Ruger 22 mag/LR switch cylinder 3 screw. I have a Hammerlii 45 Colt that was bought new, and perfect out of the box. I can't think of any others that shoot across the board as well as these. I have a Mod 29 that shoots with a couple of loads only, and my brother has a Mod 57 and 29 both that shoot extremely well. Both of his guns have been tuned to the hilt, though. Nick, my son, has a 45acp Kimber target out of the box that might do the trick if tried. ... felix

[carpetman]

You guys that keep saying you aint anal. Didnt Oral Roberts have a twin brother named Anal? If he didnt,he should have.

[Bass Ackward]

BA, stopping to really think about it, your observation is entirely correct.


Felix,

I would think that autos have a slight breakin advantage over wheelers. The finest shooting handgun I ever got to shoot was a SBH that was so misaligned when new that it was spitting lead and stinging people on the line for 15 feet around it. The guy sold it to one of the guys at work who started with a steady diet of jacketed because that was all he knew. If he tried to shoot off his knees you could tell with the cuts in the material of his pants.

Now .... that gun rattles and the cylinder moves up and down what feels like 1/4". When the cylinder is rotated when cocked, it rivals a wagon wheel in a Three Stooges Classic. The darned thing shoots anything and everything as well as my best efforts. And no spitting.

When you have a gun tricked out, all you get is the same thing that bullets do only you get it faster. The advantages to the two methods is that the tricked out gun may still be tighter throughout the action. If you just shoot it in, then the bullet makes conditions "exactly" as it wants it. Sometimes when you trick them out, they still have to be broken in to some extent. Depends on who does the work.

I have both types, and this is what I have observed. But the guys at the range used to cuss and moan and then at some point you would here them say, "OK, here we go now." Then the gun went into competition.

[Larry Gibson]

Gotta go with Dale53 and a couple others here. For several years I was the police firearms instructor for a tri-county area. I also did repair to many of the firearms. I had a Ransom rest available also. I Ransom tested many, many M10/15s, M19s, M27/28s, M57/58s along with M29s etc. Also there were Colt Troopers, Pythons, etc and several semi-autos. Say what you will but they were all just as accurate "out of the box" as when well "broken in". No, most of them did not have the clean trigger pulls or the smoothness of action as when broken in but they were just as accurate.

I have several "pet" loads in most police calibers that I always tried, standard loads, +P loads and magnum loads. I never had leading with them in ANY handgun period!!! They are loaded with WW cast bullets and Javelina lube. Never heard of "barrel constrictions" until Ross Siefreid (SP) wrote the article in G&A pushing fire lapping to remove them. Then all of a sudden every body had barrel constriction and leading from it. Hog wash!!!

I'm not saying that some, but not all by any stretch of the imagination, revolvers haven't some constriction. I have found a couple myself. However leading nor poor accuracy was never a problem with them. I even fire lapped a couple and removed the constriction and guess what? Accuracy did not improve and I wasn't getting leading anyways so what good did it do. I think fire lapping has it's place but that isn't one of them.

I have "cured" many, many leading problems that fellow shooters have brought to me over the years. Invariable they used commercial bullets with a hard wax lube or some high tech baked on conglomoration. The solution was simple; use an alox/beeswax lube on the same bullets, use same powder and charge and their leading problem was cured. I have proven it too many times. Given an appropriate load, an approprite alloy and a bullet that at least fits the groove diameter and use alox lube and there will be no leading in the throats, the forcing cone or the barrel. I'd also bet that if the shooter can shoot (always a big "if") well enough to really tell the difference then accuracy will also be improved.

Getting "anal" has been mentioned but I prefer to call it "witchcraft and old wife's tales". Almost all "inaccurate" guns are due to piss poor marksmanship, almost all leading is the result of poor lubrication. That is fact, not witchcraft.

Larry Gibson

[robertbank]

Jeez my three Smiths must be the exception. I have a K22, K38 and a Model 27 and they will shoot cloverleafs at 50 feets from a rest. The K 38 and K 22 are scary accurate. The old S&W's could and can shoot. The old eyes ...not so good.

Stay Safe

[Dale53]

I have shot a lot of competition NRA Bullseye. I was never a Master shot (high Expert). I just didn't have my heart behind the NRA Bullseye program. I did it because, at the time, it was the only show in town. However, I was a Master Smallbore Shooter and Big Bore Shooter, so do know what it takes. Since we are talking pistols and revolvers here, I might mention that I shot Class A IPSC for several years. I shot the Soldier of Fortune first and third match (a nice experience - met many nice people) and did well. So, I can handle a pistol or revolver decently.

However, I need to relate a short, true story. A really nice older fellow at our gun club really likes nice "short guns" and has a few. He was complaining to me that his Ruger Match .22 would not shoot. He talked about sending it back to the factory. He is a friend, so I suggested that he bring it out to the range when I was there. We set a date and time and both showed. He shot the pistol off a rest and it WAS terrible. I asked him if I could shoot it and did. Off the rest at .25 yards I shot a couple of groups approaching 1/2". He asked me to do it again as he wanted to be sure that it was not a fluke. I did a ten shot group that again went well. There was absolutely NOTHING wrong with his Ruger.

With this new knowledge, I set him down in front of the rest and his next groups ran under 1.5" at 25 yards as opposed to 4-5 inches before. He could shoot, he just had no faith in his pistol and as a result could not shoot it. I left him a MUCH happier man. There has to be a moral here somewhere...

Since most of my shooting with a pistol and revolver is no longer in NRA Bullseye, I mostly shoot two handed standing. I am practicing for that PRACTICAL shot, be it hunting or defense. I also shoot a bit from various field positions, sitting, kneeling, and rests of opportunity. I have used field rests many times when hunting and as a result of using them when practicing, I can go into field rest mode whenever the opportunity presents itself. Over the years, I have also done some long range shooting. This was YEARS before silhouette shooters really showed in large numbers what could be done at relatively long range. You do NOT want to be standing at 200 yards and letting an experienced long range shooter shoot at you. Keith related stories about Indian Fighting Cavalrymen shooting at long range with their black powder .45 Colts. Believe the stories.

Just some thoughts of an idle fellow...

Dale53

[Bass Ackward]

Getting "anal" has been mentioned but I prefer to call it "witchcraft and old wife's tales". Almost all "inaccurate" guns are due to piss poor marksmanship, almost all leading is the result of poor lubrication. That is fact, not witchcraft.

Larry Gibson


Larry,

Glad to see you made it back. Thank you for your service.


Still heavy in absolutes I see. :grin:


I have handguns that today shoot some loads as poorly as the day they were new. Neither fire lapping or break in changed the effect of these loads. Nor did placing them in a Ransom. Conclusion: Fire lapping and break-in is useless.

Those same guns have cast loads that improved as things broke in or were fire lapped allowing much higher velocities than when new without leading producing much better accuracy. Conclusion: Fire lapping and break-in is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

This is going to be a bubble burster. One of the most consistently accurate handgun loads I have for 44s, 13 grains of Blue Dot, with a PB anything leads in every gun I use it in regardless of lube choice or bore condition. Accuracy improves as bore condition deteriorates and stabilizes at about 150 rounds. From a clean gun accuracy starts out at over 2" and ends up as a one holer. Old wives tale: leading is bad for accuracy.

[Larry Gibson]

Bass Ackward

It's good to be back. I do appreciate your thanks, especially being an old Vietnam vet too.

Not really into absolutes, well maybe a couple I guess;-). One thing about broke in guns (particularly revolvers), they lead to better shootability, i.e. you shoot them more accurately. I've not seen one become more inheriently accurate because it was "broke in". Do worn or smooth barrels really shoot faster with the same loads? Hmmmm....I'd better send my Oehler 35P back for repair cause it sure isn't readin' that way. Guess I'm stupid too as if I had to shoot 150 rounds of a load through my .44 before it started shooting a "one holer" (hope no one was sittin' on it!) I'd start using another load. Is that being absolute? Grins from me to...

Larry Gibson

[StarMetal]

Larry,

I'd paid particular close attention to gun tests where they take a new semi-auto pistol and then put it through the destruction shoot the hell out of it test. First they put it in a Ranson Rest and test for accuracy and velocity. Then they start shooting. Taking like a 10,000 round test. Then every so many hundreds of rounds they put it back in the Ranson and check it again. There is a point that after so many rounds go through it, that the accuracy improves and the velocity goes up...and it just not a few hundred round...it's usually alot more.

Joe

[carpetman]

Starmetal---After several thousand rounds the accuracy and velocity improves? You getting close to the point where you can post some .30 cal hole groups at 3000 fps from your .45ACP?

[Larry Gibson]

StarMetal

Ya know, I've read several of the same articles. A couple say that accuracy improves and velocity increases. Other same type articles say just the opposite. I've never had a "broken in revolver or semi-auto handgun shoot more accurately or any faster (given the same ammo). Many are equal to when they were new. We used to hear that .30 cal match barrels hit their "best accuracy around 3,000 rounds. I never saw that either. Not saying it's never happened but a one or two time occurance does not make it a truism. I've not seen it and I've looked hard.

Larry Gibson