Is modest leading normal?

[HammerMTB]

Hopefully you will read this before you reply:
The background is this, I often see a very small amount of lead in my bbl after an extended shooting session. It is not uncommon for me to shoot 2-300 rounds. The lead amounts are small, and readily removed with a Lewis Lead Remover. This is the case with either a polygonal bbl like my stock Glock bbls, or with an aftermarket Ballard rifled bbl for the same guns.
So, with that in mind, which would you think best describes "normal"?

[Blammer]

I have shot 200 rounds plus before cleaning, and I get no leading at all.

I don't shoot any polygon rilfed guns cause I don't own any.

[RobS]

Well I do not own any polygonal barreled firearms either but answered the thread with "I have and use Ballard rifled bbls and a small bit is normal" but this is not totally truthful either as I do expect certain scenarios where there should not be leading.

It all depends on what I am asking of the bullet is what I am trying to say. Let me explain: A PB bullet that I am pushing to the brink of maxing out or is maxed out regarding its relationship to the alloy strength then sure a small bit of leading is normal/ok. Although if I am shooting a bullet that is of intended alloy and design for the pressures/velocity and it leads then that is not acceptable.

[geargnasher]

The short version is no. On properly dimensioned guns, properly loaded, alloyed, and lubed, I get absolutely ZERO leading of any kind, even after hundreds of rounds. I don't own any polygonal barrels, either.

Some tweaking is involved with achieving this, often reaming, lapping, polishing, firelapping, rethroating, or playing with alloy, boolit size, and altering reloading dies is necessary for perfection, but my philosophy is that cleaning lead out of a gun after shooting it means something is wrong.

Gear

[MtGun44]

Nothing that really builds up. Just some traces here and there. A normal brushing and
a few patches and it is gone. Certainly no need for a Lewis Lead remover.

I never have tried polygonal rifling.

[fredj338]

Nothing that really builds up. Just some traces here and there. A normal brushing and
a few patches and it is gone. Certainly no need for a Lewis Lead remover.

I never have tried polygonal rifling.
Exactly the same for me. SOme guns more or less than others.

[Buckshot]

............The ONLY time leading is an issue is when it has an effect on accuracy, and that tends to be accumulative leading. I have several rifles I seldom bother to clean. I run an oily mop down the barrel, wipe'm down and put them up. I have others that at home if you shine a bright light into the muzzle you can see a faint 'grayness' on the RH side of the lands, but they shot as well at the end as they did at the begining.

The worst case of leading I've EVER experienced was with my Ruger MkII 678, and it had been exceedingly accurate and trouble free with any ammo previously. I'd had good luck with Remington Vipers in my Rem 582 and tried them in the Ruger. Accuracy degenerated from one shot to the next. You could see clumps of lead in the bore. At home I had to DRIVE a a bare aluminum cleaning rod (no brush) through the barrel. It pushed out a raggedy tube of lead, but I still had a few days work ahead of me!

I didn't see it, but our old range master said once he'd seen a guy shooting cast and he had lead stalagtites (or would they be stalagMITES?) hanging out of the rifle's muzzle! Now THAT is leading:violin:

...............Buckshot

[Bret4207]

Nothing that really builds up. Just some traces here and there. A normal brushing and
a few patches and it is gone. Certainly no need for a Lewis Lead remover.

I never have tried polygonal rifling.

Same here more or less. I would question the use of the word "normal" in the OP poll. What's normal for one gun might be something never seen in another, and that goes for either side of the middle. The closest to "normal" I get is a light grey wash in many barrels. Maybe a slight streak of it here and there. Most of my barrels remain lead free, at least to the extent that I can easily see it looking through the bore, but my eye's ain't so hot anymore. I have a couple that hate lead, so far at least, and 5 rounds leave the barrel looking like the proverbial sewer pipe. Oddly, i also have a few that are "rough" looking and don't lead at all. I have another that required running a mop with Mule Snot on it through the barrel before the leading stopped, I figured it filled the pits.

[44man]

Leading is funny and I will get some depending on the alloy. It never sticks and a patch will bring out a few strands. Doesn't matter if I shoot one or 500 shots, the amount will be the same so it must be loose and it shoots out with each shot.
The worst seems to be straight WW's. If I change the metal a little by making it harder or adding pure to make it softer, there will be zero leading.
Adding a little tin to WW's has not shown it to cast easier or to stop the strands of lead. It only takes a patch to remove it anyway.
Since my hunting loads all are about the same velocity, it is only the alloy. If I shoot light loads of fast powder, changing the alloy also gives me zero leading.
In my BPCR I shoot 20 to 1 or 30 to1 with zero leading but WW boolits will leave some lead in the bore. I shoot over size boolits too.
It must be the binding together of the metals on a molecular scale that is just not right in some alloys. The leading I get is mechanical. If you have gas cutting, it will solder itself to the bore.
If the boolit skids past the base you can have gas cutting but also even if it does not gas cut, the larger land marks will not scrape out the bore.
Anytime someone says a filler or wad helps clean the lead out, it means the boolit has skidded too much and the mechanical action behind the boolit will help. But what does that do for accuracy?

[Bass Ackward]

The fact that you have asked this question in the manner that you have tells me that you are approaching this from the wrong point of view.

I have shot both types. Polygonal generally has a lower velocity limit than Ballard style rifling of the same height. Another way to say this is that you need a harder bullet to hold the same height rifling with polygonal rifling. So the velocity level of the cartridge has to be considered in this answer.

But polygonal rifling is easier to make uniformly because you are not forming that sharp angle at the base of the rifling groove junction either. So you "can" get a barrel that seals better. Seal will be maintained up until the point that the lead is not strong enough to hold.

To visualize this in your mind, think of pushing a heavy ball up a sloping ramp compared to a 90 degree wall.

But polygonal rifling constantly changes. Lead with antimony will polish off high spots in a barrel. So polygonal rifling rifling that is exposed beyond the initial engraving of the rifling is worn away. It is transformed to a much steeper angle that more closely matches Ballard type rifling. I have a Smith that had polygonal that the groove space has now widened and looks like it was broached to most people. As it changes, it will be able to handle softer slugs at the same velocity level or .... you will be able to increase velocity levels.

If you do not exceed the ability of the rifling type to hold the lead, then it is very possible that the polygonal could be a better seal than a Ballard style barrel. So what is "normal leading" can only be defined in reference to the quality of "THAT" specific barrel, regardless of rifling type. Either type can lead up a storm or not at all.

[Shuz]

I have no polygonal bbls, so can't comment. In my rifles, I expect and get, little or no leading. If I do start to get leading with a load, I change things until it disappears. In my 44 mag handguns, I sometimes get minor leading with medium charges of powders like Unique, or Green Dot, but nothing that can't be removed by either a cloth patch or shooting a few gas checked boolits. On 1100 to 1300 fps .44 loads, I get zippo leading with 2400, H-110, and Wc 820 and plain based boolits. Interestingly to me, most of my Smith 629's have .429 minus throats and yet I shoot .431 diameter Bhn 11 boolits with zippo leading! I have no idea what the bbl diameter is, and it's too hard to measure due to the 5 land rifiling. Since I get no leading....I don't care either!

[HeavyMetal]

If you HAVE to use a lewis lead remover it is not normal leading!

Normal leading is easily brushed out with a few strokes of a brass brush after who cares how many rounds. In most case's corrrect fitting boolits should not lead if you are doing everything right!

I hate putting a brush of any type down any barrel because of the collatteral damage caused by the rod and attaching points on the rod!

This is what wipes out rifling at the muzzle of most rifles!

[Slogg76]

"Normal" leading for me is a light streak here or there that comes out easily with a few passes of a brass brush regardless if I fire 20 rounds or 500 rounds before cleaning. Oddly, at least with the casting/lube combos I use in my firearms, there seems to be about the same amount of leading after round 500 as there was after round number one. No matter how many rounds I fire between cleanings the leading appears to be the same. I bought a used Accusport Ruger Bisley in 45 Colt/45 ACP at a local gun shop one time that you could hardly see the rifling in. The guy that brought it in said it just kept shooting worse and worse. The shop let me have it for what they gave him in trade in value. The previous owner said he had used factory ammo, but I was never able to duplicate leading that bad in anything.

[StarMetal]

Bass,

Having shot accurate groups at very high velocity with rifles with both very deep cut rifling and with very shallow button rifling and both with very fast rifling twist.......and with 50/50 alloy both WQ and AC,I can tell you unequivocally that one is hard pressed to fine the limit of the alloy as far as holding the rifling.

Now with that said you're way off on polygonal rifling. Being the poster is shooting a pistol I seriously doubt he'll ever reach that point when the alloy won't hold the rifling. To further prove that I have a 16 inch long barrel with poly rifling that I have really put to the test velocity wise with no ill behavior what so ever.

What I'm not so sure about is the wear difference between conventional rifling and poly rifling.

Now to answer the gentleman's question I don't think it's abnormal to get a little leading that can be easily removed. It's not clear in his post if he has to use the Lewis Lead remover or not.

Now I have been known to say ".....and there was nothing, absolutely nothing in my barrel after shooting except powder carbon". That has been said here by other posters, but worded differently. Would they and myself bet big on that if our barrels were taken to a scientific lab and tested for traces of lead?

[Adam10mm]

Leading of any kind is unacceptable.

[StarMetal]

So jacketed alloy of any kind is unacceptable too huh?

[Bass Ackward]

Bass,

Having shot accurate groups at very high velocity with rifles with both very deep cut rifling and with very shallow button rifling and both with very fast rifling twist.......and with 50/50 alloy both WQ and AC,I can tell you unequivocally that one is hard pressed to fine the limit of the alloy as far as holding the rifling.

Now with that said you're way off on polygonal rifling. Being the poster is shooting a pistol I seriously doubt he'll ever reach that point when the alloy won't hold the rifling. To further prove that I have a 16 inch long barrel with poly rifling that I have really put to the test velocity wise with no ill behavior what so ever.

What I'm not so sure about is the wear difference between conventional rifling and poly rifling.

Now to answer the gentleman's question I don't think it's abnormal to get a little leading that can be easily removed. It's not clear in his post if he has to use the Lewis Lead remover or not.

Now I have been known to say ".....and there was nothing, absolutely nothing in my barrel after shooting except powder carbon". That has been said here by other posters, but worded differently. Would they and myself bet big on that if our barrels were taken to a scientific lab and tested for traces of lead?



Well Joe I had a 7MM Shilen in the late 70s that was a 10 twist polygonal. Still have it downstairs as it was converted to an Ackley in the early 80s. Took it off to make my new Whelen. Very accurate with cast or jacketed. Just would go squirrely with cast at much lower levels than conventional rifling we had in other family members standard 7s. Those were 8.66 twist of varying height 98s. So I should have had an advantage with a slower twist. Didn't happen. That's just the results I saw cause I casted for everyone. No leading.

Now in my 627, Smith the 358156 was a pie plate killer at 25 yards with 12 grains of 2400. I use 12 1/2 in the Mod 27 with conventional. Yep, that's a 9" pie plate that I could only hit 6 out 8 at 25 yards. Back down to 9 grains and it came in to about 3". Never had any leading. Rifling to groove ratio new was about 70% land / 30% groove. Now it is closer to 50 / 50. I am back up to 11 1/2 grains now with the same batch of bullets. Still not up to the 27 that has the same twist rate. I was able to come up gradually every 1000 rounds or so. The improvement I saw came with the wider grooves and less angled (steeper) rifling.

Plus think back to my pure lead 06 stuff into gel. Without any nose deformation, as velocity increased, penetration dropped and was erratic. That indicated to me that I was not getting the RPMS. Had to be muzzle stripping.

And you didn't read the word always in there anywhere. Just what I have seen so the advise I offered.

[Dollar Bill]

To me, it depends on the load and what you are using it for. Target /plinking loads, if I have leading, I work on it until it's eliminated. On the other hand, I have a .41 mag full house load for boar hunting that leaves lead after 4 to 6 rounds. I don't care to spend all the time analysizing it and extended load developement to achieve a result that has no benefit to me. Over the years, I've taken enough game with it to have confidence that it will do the job.
As long as you make it through the intended shooting session without a decrease in accuracy, I wouldn't worry about it., BTJM.

[Adam10mm]

So jacketed alloy of any kind is unacceptable too huh?
Not sure what fight you're trying to pick. Please clarify.

[StarMetal]

Not sure what fight you're trying to pick. Please clarify.

I don't know why you are TRYING to stir the pot and cause trouble. If you are referring to Bass and I, John and I grew up with a few miles of one another and are very good friends. So you see, you're all wet and a trying keyboard trouble maker. :bigsmyl2:

[StarMetal]

Well Joe I had a 7MM Shilen in the late 70s that was a 10 twist polygonal. Still have it downstairs as it was converted to an Ackley in the early 80s. Took it off to make my new Whelen. Very accurate with cast or jacketed. Just would go squirrely with cast at much lower levels than conventional rifling we had in other family members standard 7s. Those were 8.66 twist of varying height 98s. So I should have had an advantage with a slower twist. Didn't happen. That's just the results I saw cause I casted for everyone. No leading.

Now in my 627, Smith the 358156 was a pie plate killer at 25 yards with 12 grains of 2400. I use 12 1/2 in the Mod 27 with conventional. Yep, that's a 9" pie plate that I could only hit 6 out 8 at 25 yards. Back down to 9 grains and it came in to about 3". Never had any leading. Rifling to groove ratio new was about 70% land / 30% groove. Now it is closer to 50 / 50. I am back up to 11 1/2 grains now with the same batch of bullets. Still not up to the 27 that has the same twist rate. I was able to come up gradually every 1000 rounds or so. The improvement I saw came with the wider grooves and less angled (steeper) rifling.

Plus think back to my pure lead 06 stuff into gel. Without any nose deformation, as velocity increased, penetration dropped and was erratic. That indicated to me that I was not getting the RPMS. Had to be muzzle stripping.

And you didn't read the word always in there anywhere. Just what I have seen so the advise I offered.

John,

I know it's not always. I sure would like to give the guns and barrels you have mentioned a try. Remember it was said that 45 2.1 and myself couldn't shoot the Swede at HV with accuracy...or for that matter any really fast twist. I believe that has been, as the Mythbusters would say, BUSTED. [smilie=w:

[Adam10mm]

I don't know why you are TRYING to stir the pot and cause trouble. If you are referring to Bass and I, John and I grew up with a few miles of one another and are very good friends. So you see, you're all wet and a trying keyboard trouble maker. :bigsmyl2:
Stir the pot and cause trouble? Please. The question was asked if "modest leading was normal" and my personal response was any leading is unacceptable. This is unacceptable to me. Others opinion may vary.

I don't rightly care who you know or who you grew up with. It matters not to me nor the discussion of the acceptability of leading in our firearms which is this topic.

I simply gave my opinion as it pertains to my shooting desires. I was responding to no one but the OP and his question. IMO, your inflammatory response seemingly aimed at me was uncalled for.

Good day, sir.

[StarMetal]

Stir the pot and cause trouble? Please. The question was asked if "modest leading was normal" and my personal response was any leading is unacceptable. This is unacceptable to me. Others opinion may vary.

I don't rightly care who you know or who you grew up with. It matters not to me nor the discussion of the acceptability of leading in our firearms which is this topic.

I simply gave my opinion as it pertains to my shooting desires. I was responding to no one but the OP and his question. IMO, your inflammatory response seemingly aimed at me was uncalled for.

Good day, sir.

And because my opinion differs, along with more then one other member, I'm singled out by you? I gave my opinion too. Have you taken a good look at the votes???????????????

[Bass Ackward]

Remember it was said that 45 2.1 and myself couldn't shoot the Swede at HV with accuracy...or for that matter any really fast twist. I believe that has been, as the Mythbusters would say, BUSTED. [smilie=w:


And I have theories for that too. Different thread. :grin:

[HammerMTB]

............The ONLY time leading is an issue is when it has an effect on accuracy, and that tends to be accumulative leading. I have several rifles I seldom bother to clean. I run an oily mop down the barrel, wipe'm down and put them up. I have others that at home if you shine a bright light into the muzzle you can see a faint 'grayness' on the RH side of the lands, but they shot as well at the end as they did at the begining.


...............Buckshot

It is time to clarify:
No, I don't HAVE TO use the Lewis Lead Remover, it's just handy and quick. It is also nice to be able to see just how much (or little) might be in the bore.
I separated polygonal and Ballard rifling to see if there was any correlation in leading. If there is, it certainly is not clear yet. My experience is that while there are more Mfr cautions out there about polgonal rifling, it seems to take to lead OK. It may require some slight changes in technique. Whether they make it easier or harder to shoot lead boolits you will have to judge.
What is clear is that there are just as many who ignore a slight lead wash that doesn't affect accuracy as there are who have ZERO tolerance for leading.
I say whatever works for ya.
I have one gun that's absolutely free of any trace of lead. I use paper patches in that 45-70. The bore looks polished!
When lead contacts the bore it is hard for me to imagine that there is no trace of it in the bore. I'd bet that a chemical reaction process would bring some out of bores thought "clean" by their owners. Kinda like copper wash with a j-word bullet.

:lovebooli

[geargnasher]

So jacketed alloy of any kind is unacceptable too huh?

Joe, I know that wasn't directed at me, but I can't help answering since it seems to be a valid question all by itself: YES, that's right, I don't shoot jacketed bullets in ANYTHING anymore because of coppering, and then I have to decopper before I can shoot lead, and that involves seasoning the barrel again. I get darned good results, just like you do, from lead alloys and have no need for condoms.

Gear

[geargnasher]

It is time to clarify:
No, I don't HAVE TO use the Lewis Lead Remover, it's just handy and quick. It is also nice to be able to see just how much (or little) might be in the bore.
I separated polygonal and Ballard rifling to see if there was any correlation in leading. If there is, it certainly is not clear yet. My experience is that while there are more Mfr cautions out there about polgonal rifling, it seems to take to lead OK. It may require some slight changes in technique. Whether they make it easier or harder to shoot lead boolits you will have to judge.
What is clear is that there are just as many who ignore a slight lead wash that doesn't affect accuracy as there are who have ZERO tolerance for leading.
I say whatever works for ya.
I have one gun that's absolutely free of any trace of lead. I use paper patches in that 45-70. The bore looks polished!
When lead contacts the bore it is hard for me to imagine that there is no trace of it in the bore. I'd bet that a chemical reaction process would bring some out of bores thought "clean" by their owners. Kinda like copper wash with a j-word bullet.
:lovebooli

Hammer, I agree that what we claim are "lead-free" bores might have all the microscopic pores filled with lead, but when I say "ZERO", I mean I can't see it with a bore scope and it won't build up after several hundred shots between cleanings, to me that's good enough. An antimony wash happens with some of my guns, FIL's model 29 with pb boolits, for example, gets an antimony wash in the bore, blast marks around the cylinder gap, and a silver star on the muzzle crown that takes a bit of wiping with a rag and Ed's Red to remove, but nothing ever builds up in the rifling since I doped out the load.

Some leading is "normal" with average guns and average reloading skills, but it can USUALLY be tweaked away in my experience so far. That's not to say it's possible with every gun, or every type of rifling.

Gear

[StarMetal]

Joe, I know that wasn't directed at me, but I can't help answering since it seems to be a valid question all by itself: YES, that's right, I don't shoot jacketed bullets in ANYTHING anymore because of coppering, and then I have to decopper before I can shoot lead, and that involves seasoning the barrel again. I get darned good results, just like you do, from lead alloys and have no need for condoms.

Gear

It was a generalization directed at all that voted for zero leading in the bore.

I shoot jacketed in certain calibers and out certain rifles. I like to enjoy all types of shooting and ammo including cap n ball, patched ball, BP. I clean well after shooting jacketed too. I like to start any shooting with a clean bore from previous different fouling.

[MT Gianni]

I don't own a polygonal barrel but experience no leading after 2-300 rds in most of my firearms. I may get some in one or two and may get some after 5-800 in others That answer is not available in the poll.

[deerslayer]

Hammer, I too shoot a glock with the factory polygonal barrell. After 4-500 rounds I still see no evidence of leading when I take the barrel out and hold it up to the light after shooting. I don't have a bore scope and I have no intentions of using a microscope. As far as a cleaner I have found that a shot of brake cleaner and the factory nylon brush cleans mine just fine and it "looks" like new at least to my eye.

[Char-Gar]

With plain base cast bullet most often there is some traces of lead. A dozen fore and aft stroked with a brush takes it out. More than that Iconsider it a problem.

With CG bullets there should be no lead.

[Charlie Two Tracks]

I don't want to have any lead in my barrels but it is there. It takes more than a swipe with a patch to get it out but that is a part of learning here.

[Maven]

Hammer MTB,

"What would you consider normal RE: leading in pistols?"

Option 1: "The only acceptable answer is none at all in ANY case"

I think I'd have rephrased the first choice in your poll to state, "The ideal [answer] is none at all."

However, in practice bbl. condition may vary from little/no leading to a great deal of leading. The former may have a minimal effect on accuracy, while the latter will [al]most certainly affect it. Nevertheless, this begs the question, Why is there leading in the first place (and type of rifling isn't the first or only contributing factor)?

[Leftoverdj]

We may be talking about different things. I get the light gray wash several posters have mentioned. It does not build up. It does not seem to affect accuracy. It does not reguire any special measures to remove. I consider it perfectly normal for shooting cast bullets.

Visible flakes or strips of metallic lead is what I consider leading, and I consider that unacceptable.

[geargnasher]

We may be talking about different things. I get the light gray wash several posters have mentioned. It does not build up. It does not seem to affect accuracy. It does not reguire any special measures to remove. I consider it perfectly normal for shooting cast bullets.

Visible flakes or strips of metallic lead is what I consider leading, and I consider that unacceptable.

Well put.

I've heard that light grey wash called "antimony wash", and since all my boolits contain some amount of antimony I can't say it isn't that, but since I haven't had the stuff analyzed it might just be powder soot mixed with lube residue. Whatever it is, as long as it's present, accuracy is good and leading is non-existent in most cases.

Gear

[Gunslinger]

I have a poly barrel in my EAA Witness. I shoot around 700 rounds each week. 9MM, 125gr and 135gr under 1000fps. When I started casting it really bothered me that no matter what I tried, I got leading in that barrel. So I got to think, maybe it's fowling?! I shot 50 rounds, looked through the barrel... and I looked leaded. The next time I looked through the barrel was 500 rounds later. Barrel looked the same. Next look was 1200 rounds... same looking barrel. And it doesn't decrease accuracy. So I live with it. I admit, when I clean with chore boy wrapped around a brush, I have difficulty removing the last few spots in the forcing cone area. But hey, after 100 rounds, what's the difference?

My S&W 686 (traditional rifling) loves lead, and I can shoot hundreds of rounds in it without seeing lead in the barrel. I just run break free through it with a patch.

[Mal Paso]

My only experience is 44 cal. When I used faster powders like Titegroup and 231 to push the 240g 429421 (1000+ fps) I got serious leading. I've pulled out streamers almost as long as the barrel. I use mostly 2400 now. My 14g load for steel targets is about 900+ fps, will Never Lead but needs to be in 44 Special Brass. 18g in Magnum Brass (which seems to be minimum for reliable ignition) gets me a few flecks on the cotton patch after 200 rounds but the patch is all that's needed. At 21g+ and I get a few 1/32" flakes .001 thick stuck to the barrel but No decrease in accuracy but that's 1400 fps from a 4" barrel. The Lewis Lead Remover makes it not a second thought.

[jonk]

I have one .45 that leads horribly even with a properly fit bullet and hand lapped barrel (to try and stop the problem). Hard alloy, light alloy, stiff charge, light charge.....some worse than others but all seem to lead.

With that exception, my definition of 'acceptable' is 'wipes out with a few patches' or at MOST 2-3 passes with a brush. I wouldn't define that as 'leading' as leading will be galled onto the bore metal, requiring stiff cleaning to remove; but rather as 'residue.'

[HammerMTB]

Well this has been an interesting and revelational poll.
I hoped to find out whether most or nearly all considered ZERO leading the norm, or only acceptable level of lead "fouling".
At this time, it is about 2 to 1 in favor of my opinion that a small amount of lead fouling that will not affect accuracy is- for lack of a better term- normal.
I realize that with a lot of fiddling, MOST guns can be made to shoot free of lead fouling of any kind. However, it looks as though most of us would rather shoot than fiddle endlessly with loads looking for the Holy Grail of ZERO leading. For those that have that happy condition, good for you. Whether it was consummate skill, good luck, or some combination of those 2 or many more, it's a good thing. :drinks:
My intent in the poll was just to find out how common, or uncommon, it is to see lead-free barrels after more than just a few shots.
I believe I have that data now.

[CiDirkona]

I've got about 7k rds of hardcast lead through my Glock 17s (dardas 356 124gr lrn, lonewolf barrels) and have nothing more than powder soot. A single pass with a bore snake and I'm clean.

My compensator on the other hand, gets a nice splattery cake though! :D A few rounds of FMJ at 155pf though and she's also clean as a whistle - blows that stuff right out!