"Hard" Bullets - Soft Surfaces? Hmmmm...

[AZ-Stew]

All,

Some twenty+ years after I bought it, I just re-read the NRA Cast BUllet Handbook, by Col. Harrison. Among the articles in the book was one written by Dennis Marshall, titled, "Stronger Bullets With Less Alloying", wherein he provides an excellent layman's description of the process of precipitation hardening.

After giving the reader enough information to understand the hardening process related to the melting, casting, cooling and heat treatment of cast bullet lead alloys, Marshall describes the softening process related to physical disturbance of the hardened alloy caused by pushing the bullet through the die of a lubricator/sizer. The depth below the bullet surface to which this softening occurs varies depending on the amount of size reduction caused by the sizer die.

The photo micrographs of sectioned bullets included in Marshall's article show this softening to extend 1 or 2 thousandths of an inch into the bullet. The article states that bullets which had been heat treated to BHN levels significantly above linotype had a thin area near their surfaces that had been work-softened to BHN in the 12.x range, or about the hardness of air-cooled wheel weights. This softening occurred immediately upon sizing. It did not occur over a period of several days or weeks as does complete hardening of the alloy after heat treatment.

So, sizing the bullet softens its surface, reducing the strength of the alloy at the surface. We all "know" that an unsized bullet that is a proper fit for the gun it will be fired through is better than a bullet that must be sized down several thousandths to properly fit the gun. The bullet will retain its harder heat-treated surface and should act like a "hard" projectile. Alternatively, we can cast, size, then heat-treat our bullets, thereby causing the surface areas that were disturbed by sizing to be hardened to a level equal to the unsized portions of the bullet. Now we're happy. All our bullets are hard and, given an effective lube, should not lead our barrels.

But, is this really true? Have we looked at all the details? I'm not convinced that we've accomplished all that much by going to the trouble of heat treating our bullets, except in the case of rifle bullets that are really long with respect to their diameters. Hard alloys will prevent these from deforming (bending along their axes) due to acceleration. According to other calculations in the NRA book, lead bullet alloys don't have to be super strong to resist shearing by the rifling lands. Therefore, for bullets that are relatively short with respect to their diameters, an alloy considerably softer than linotype should suffice. So why do we heat-treat? If we think we're doing it to prevent leading, I think we're fooling ourselves.

After we've cast our bullets, sized them to fit our guns, heat treated them to make them uniformly hard and lubed them (without again sizing them), what do we do with them? The obvious answer is that we load them into our rifle or handgun cartridges. Unless we want to risk having them fall out of the cartridge during handling, we do one or both of the following: We load them into cases that have their necks sized to several thousandths smaller than the bullet diameter and we may or may not use a crimp.

Think what just happened during loading or what will happen during firing. During loading we have to force the bullet into a cylinder (case neck) made of metal that's quite a bit harder than the bullet. While the brass will stretch, it may still be hard enough to "size" the bullet a bit as it slides into the case. While I don't have the laboratory facilities Mr. Marshall did to examine bullets that have had their surfaces physically disturbed by sizing, I'm willing to bet that our "hard" heat-treated bullets end up with a thin soft surface immediately upon seating them into the case. And what about the crimp on a handgun case? It certainly contributes to bullet surface disturbance as the bullet is forced past it upon firing. Same result. A physically disturbed surface on driving bands aft of the crimp.

Now for the worst part. Once the bullet leaves the case it encounters a much worse environment than it did scraping its way in and out of the cartridge, and this without even considering heat and gas pressure. Now it has to pass through the barrel. It must slide down the cylinder of the barrel grooves, having its surface dragged along the entire way, and worst of all, we intentionally deform the bullet in several places by jamming it into the rifling lands. Surely, this causes our "hard" bullet to become quite soft in the areas where its structure is disturbed by physical deformation. Somehow, probably because of good bullet lubes, we manage to avoid excessive leading. I believe that bullet hardness prior to seating them in our cases has very little to do with it. These things were not addressed in Mr. Marshall's article.

Has anyone on this board ever sacrificed any cartridges to allow examination of bullets that have been seated into properly sized cases? In order to look at them after only one pass through the case neck, the cartridge would have to be split to allow the bullet to be removed. Using a collet or inertial bullet puller would expose the bullet to two passes through the neck. I'm interested in knowing whether the bullets are sized to a measurable degree or whether the surface disturbance is mainly abrasion caused by the bullet and brass surfaces sliding along each other. If there is measurable sizing, how much occurs? Certainly, neck tension affects the amount of bullet surface disturbance. Should we be using different diameter neck expanders for cast than we do for J-bullets? How much different? Do we make our bullets .001 larger than bore/cylinder throat diameter to compensate for all these things that unavoidably damage our carefully crafted projectiles, or is it just to positively fill the bore and seal the gasses?

Comments? Answers (supply data please, not speculation)?

I've never seen any of this addressed in 30+ years of reading gun stuff on almost a daily basis. Details like these gnaw at me. Maybe I just have too much empty brain bandwidth. At least it will be interesting reading the responses.

Regards,

Stew

[44man]

My comment is that you are entirely correct. As soon as a boolit enters the rifling it softens on the surface. Proper fitting boolits and a good lube will prevent leading. How hard the boolit is under the surface that is softened is most likely very important too as to how it takes the rifling and holds it's shape. Too soft a boolit that turns to goo under high pressure and deforms would not be very good but one that holds it's shape should shoot very well. One reason the gas check is so good. I don't like the name gas check because it is no such thing, it is a hard drive band. I think boolit slump is worse then surface softening. Making the boolit hard will help it keep it's shape. A boolit that looks like a boolit always shoots better then a blob of lead.
My take on it is that surface softening is not important, overall hardness is. Size those boolits and don't worry if .001" is softer.

[VTDW]

Stew,

I like your writing style and though process. My only comment is that you are equally as anal as I am brother.:drinks:

[AZ-Stew]

125 vewers and only 2 responses. That's gotta be some kind of record. :shock:

Did it hit too close to home for some folks, or did you all just think I'd been hittin' the sauce too hard before I wrote it? Or didn't anyone want to read a post that long?

I'd still like to hear the thoughts of others on this subject.

My belief is that we'd be better off spending our time concocting new bullet lubes as we try to defeat the evil "leading monster", than spending it heat-treating bullets, at least the ones for handguns. I think that hardening is warranted for rifle bullets that are bore-riders, less so for the Loverin designs.

Speak up, folks. It's an open forum. :bigsmyl2:

Regards,

Stew

[Pop Gun]

125 vewers and only 2 responses. That's gotta be some kind of record. :shock:

I'd still like to hear the thoughts of others on this subject.

Stew


Stew,

The same fella that you quote wrote the RCBS Cast Bullet Handbook sections in the front. In it, he says,

"Secondly, some wonder whether a bullet will soften when it is fired since it is deformed (sized) by the rifling or gas pressure. To this we can give a resounding, NO! While hardening begins within seconds of the quench, softening requires minutes to months, depending on the alloy. The bullet remains hard all the way through the bore and to the target." page 32 & 33. RCBS Cast Bullet Manual No1.

I have never found him to be wrong except for his time tables. He says max hardening takes place in one to 10 days. I have tested HTWW at 10 days and thought that I had a poor treatment only to find hardness reach my target by 30 days. And I would add that bullet diameter has a dramatic effect on final hardness. After all, if its too big to cool quickly, and lead is slow to transfer heat which is why it leads, then smaller diameter bullets should get harder than large. And from my experience, they do.

Marshall answers many of your questions that you have in the RCBS Cast Bullet Manual if you can get your hands on one. Very informative allowing guys to make safe and correct decisions instead of wasting years trying to answer the riddles. And many seasoned shooters / posters here prove how this is misunderstood.

That is what holds this sport back to a large degree. And I shoot 14 BHN to 2800 fps in 22 caliber. No need for harder lead for me.

[44man]

Everyone is right again, all we were thinking about is the very skin of the boolit getting soft as it does when run through a size die. The rest of the boolit should stay at the same hardness it was made to. If it is soft and deforms in the rifling, it will not get any softer and if it is hard it will hold it's shape and still not get any softer. Just where it rubs the bore and this skin does not get real soft. The harder the alloy to start with the less soft it will get. I think the surface will only change as much as the difference between water dropped and air cooled, if even that much. Anyway it is something I never got excited about. I shoot all kinds of alloys from lead added to WW's, straight WW's and very hard but not brittle alloys that I mix. I never see any difference in accuracy except a slight change in the point of impact.
Straight WW whether air cooled or water dropped always leaves some lead in my bores.
One strange thing I found with my .44 and a gas checked boolit, using straight WW is they are far more accurate if I anneal the checks. On my harder boolits, there is no difference at all.

[Doughty]

AZ,

I have read these post several times now and keep coming back to your demand for data, not speculation. Hard to come by for the average caster. Hard to come by for even the "anal" amongst us. So many variables. Are we really "testing" for what we think we are, or has some other variable crept in.

I cast and load to two different degrees. One is for competition, the other is for practical. I compete in schuetzen and CBA benchrest matches. The most "anal" I get is when testing and preparing for these matches. For these matches I know exactly what the range will be, how fast I will have to fire, how many rounds, and even to a large extent, what the weather will be like. Further more I have been using the same rifle for years. For this senario I have collected quite a bit of data, but it only has meaning in a very narrow sense.

From this perspective, in regards to your speculations concerning bullet hardness and sizing I have developed a truism. If I am going to shoot the bullet at a "slow (-1300 fps)" velocity, I don't use a gas check and keep my alloy "soft (20-1)." Schuetzen rules forbid gas checks, so it's slow and soft. Sizing is accomplished when the bullet is breech seated in the barrel, but since the bullet is already soft "work 'softening" is probably not at play. I have tried "harder" ACWW and harder yet, lino with varying velocities, but accuracy was never as good.

If I am using a gas check I go "hard" and "fast." CBA matches allow gas checks. By "fast" I mean 2200 to 2400 fps. By "hard" I mean 21 BHN or higher. I have tried several different bullets over the years. What I have found to be critical is the fit of the bullet. The bore riding portion of the bullet must fit "perfectly." The neck and throat area must be nearly so. The bullet must be "hard enough" but after that it seems to matter little. I have never been able to see a difference in accuracy whether the bullet was sized before or after tempering or if it was sized at all.

I have consistently shot better groups and scores with hard and fast over slow and soft.

I have used a lot of lubes. I think of lube as more of a "gas sealant" than as a lubrication. With slow and soft it seems that any lube will work as long as there is enough to get a lube star on the muzzle. Past that point, more is not necessaily better. Hard and fast always brings more pressure, so the "lube" here must be able to withstand the pressure of breaking the "seal."

Of late I have been paying close attention in a related area. That is regarding "bent" or deformed bullets. It is very easy to bend or deform a bullet while sizing it. The longer and softer the bullet, the easier it is to bend. Bullets with long bore riding sections are especially prone. While it is easy to measure weight variances, it is more difficult to measure hardness differences, and still more difficult to measure bending and deforming variances. How this plays in with sizing before or after tempering is still very much in question in my opinion.

In practical shooting I've carried this over. If I'm shooting "slow" below 1300fps, I leave off the gas check and don't go any harder than ACWW, so when I size is not an issue. If I go fast I try to stay above 1700 fps, I use gas checks, and try to get bullet hardness to about 24 BHN. I size when it's convenient for me. I try to size as straight and consistently as I can.

In summation, for me, if when you size a tempered bullet is important, it's so far down on my list, that I haven't given it a number.

[44man]

Yup, thats it in a nutshell. If I use my lubrisizer at all it is with an oversize die just to lube or seat checks. I just don't like to size my boolits. Most of the time I smear the lube in the grooves with my fingers and run a tube over them or push them through an oversize Lee die to remove excess lube. I don't need a large quantity of boolits so it is easy. For the amount of shooting some of you do, the sizer is the only way to go for speed but you don't really have to move metal, just use the next size up die. As long as a boolit chambers, why size it down?

[454PB]

My recent experiments with quenching WW have not agreed with some of what I believed to be true after reading the same articles by Dennis Marshal. I started the experiments to prove to myself that quenched boolits could keep their hardness if sized immediately. So far, it has proved to be true. I took the same batch of boolits and hardness tested them right out of the water bucket, then set some aside as a reference. I sized some within an hour of casting, and they continued to harden for 10 days to a maximum of 28 BHN. I sized some a week later, and they immediately began to soften, within a month they were back to the same hardness as ACWW, about 12 BHN. My testing indicates that the resoftening is deep....not one or two thousandths. I used a file to cut down 1/3 of the boolit diameter for testing, and the hardness was the same as it was on the untouched surface during both hardening and resoftening.

For these reasons, I don't believe a heat treated or quenched boolit would resoften in the few milliseconds it's traveling down the bore.

However, the question concerning resoftening caused by seating and crimping them is interesting and worth checking.

I'm not a big fan of heat treating, I usually adjust the alloy. I also think that extremely hard boolits will shatter whether that hardness is achieved through heat treating or alloying.

[9.3X62AL]

GREAT thread starter, Stew--and I am totally out of my depth when it comes to formulating a satisfactory answer for you, due to both the reasons given by Vic and the limits of my knowledge.

I am a big believer in empirical data--assessing and using observations of what works and what doesn't. Thank goodness--because I was a social science major in college for very good reasons, mostly due to NOT having "math-brain", as Marie calls it.

Understand that high velocity is not a thing I spend a lot of time pursuing. Practical accuracy is my meat, pun intended--I'm first and foremost a hunter, and I do MUCH more of that with a shotgun than with rifles and handguns. It is enough for me that whatever load I'm using will stay "minute of quarry" at whatever range I choose to engage the critter at. Few--if any--of my cast boolit loads exceed 1800 FPS.

Many of my cast boolit rifles and their loads need more work to get them to where I want them to be for field use. There are exceptions to that--chief among them my Rem 788 x 243, which will get close to 1 MOA pretty reliably over a long period of time and many groups--and the 9.3 x 62, which seems to want to do the right things with the castings at roughly the same accuracy standard. My Ruger #1 in 45-70 is nearly that good, too. All three of these rifles would be selected for hunting of species appropriate to their power levels without hesitation.

What has worked for me is a thing I posted on another thread a few days back, and its content is based on the load characteristics described above--this is presented in descending order of importance.

1) Boolit fit to the throat and barrel

2) Metallurgy of the boolit

3) Lube characteristics

Once you exceed 1800 FPS, I think the latter two variables increase in importance and become equivalent factors to Variable #1. By choice, I keep things slowed down to make my shooting life a lot simpler. If I need more power, I either increase caliber, or increase boolit weight, or both.

All the calculations of terminal ballistic performance rely on a squared element of a projectile characteristic--diameter, weight, or velocity. I should remind readers that the ONLY variable value that increases both in real life and in calculated effect from linear to squared value is DIAMETER. We called that a CLUE where I used to work.

I don't think either a sizing die or a rifle/pistol barrel do a boolit's exterior surface any favors in terms of strengthening its surface. I share Stew's view of the role and function of lube as a sealer more than a friction coating, but I BELIEVE WITHOUT OBJECTIVE PROOF there is still an ablative effect of boolit lube that shields a boolit sidewall to some extent from friction during its passage down the bore. Make that, "it MUST seal, and it MAY grease the skids".

My bottom line--when either 270 or 405 grains of poured alloy will cluster around 1.25" at 100 yards--and can therefor be relied upon to wreak havoc in the boiler room and shoulder joint of a tasty critter (God made them outta meat for SOME reason)--I don't need much more than that. When that 243 can cartwheel ground squirrels and jack up jackrabbits at 75-150 yards reliably--I am ecstatic. While there might be no such thing as "too accurate", there can be such a thing as "too focused on minutiae" in my world. Some would say I'm not terribly demanding--and they might be right.

[Lloyd Smale]

me no scientist. Me cast um shootem and if they shoots good me dont care. If they dont shoots good me try something else.

[David R]

I have been reading this thread and came up with MY answer. I only look for results. Some boolits shoot better unsized but as usual I think its more to do with fit than anything else. I don't water drop my peestol boolits, but do for all my rifle boolits. If it works, I just go on my simple way.

If sizing softens the first .001" or .002", the rifling should be .003 or more, so it shouldn't matter.

David

[mag_01]

:coffee: --Good thread AZ-Stew--Gets all to thinking just whats going on--I do agree with what has been said--I have always found an unsized boolit or the largest boolit you can chamber will usually perform best. Here is something I found that makes me wonder--I usually get leading in pistol boolits some calibers more than others but very rarely see leading in rifle calibers.----:castmine:

[Ricochet]

I was put off by the "data, no speculation" part. Not many of us have the testing facilities to come up with a lot of "data, no speculation."

But since others have been speculating, I'll join in. I've thought a lot about this, knowing that lead alloys work soften. But I don't think it can happen as rapidly as when the bullet is squeezed into the rifling, and I don't think it will happen either when the bullet is sized or when it's partially "sized" by loading into a tight case neck while the alloy's freshly quenched. I don't know about later on after it's aged, but suspect it might make more difference then.

When the alloy is suddenly quenched from a temperature above that where all of the antimony (and any other precipitating alloying elements) goes fully into a "solid solution" and is in equilibrium at that temperature (either because it's cooling down to that from having just solidified from melt, or because of being oven-heated long enough for any precipitated crystals to go back into "solid solution" and diffuse to even distribution), initially the stuff is trapped in that "solid solution" state at room temperature. Not that hard, but harder than pure lead. The "solid solution" is supersaturated at that low temperature, and is unstable. The antimony wants to crystallize out within a matrix of lead. If it gets to do so slowly as the bullet air cools, it forms relatively large crystals with a soft matrix around them. That's the lowest energy state for the mixture. The relatively large crystals grow at the expense of smaller neighbors, as antimony atoms diffuse into the solid solution from the relatively greater surface area of the smaller crystals, join the larger ones, and diffuse back out of the larger ones' relatively smaller surface area more slowly.

At high temperatures this diffusion can go on relatively easily. In cold alloy the alloying atoms aren't very mobile, and have to precipitate out into more, smaller crystals that are more closely distributed through the soft lead matrix. On compression the soft lead can't flow as easily around many small crystals as it can around fewer, more widely scattered larger ones, so the treated and aged alloy is much harder. Eventually the tendency would be for the alloy atoms to move from smaller to larger crystals as with air cooling, but with the very slow diffusion at room temperature this would take a very long time. Working the metal opens up channels for diffusion in the matrix and breaks smaller crystals, allowing diffusion to occur more rapidly. Still takes considerable time for the atomic movement to occur, though. Might happen in the stressed metal after sizing or squeezing into the rifling, but not right while the bullet's being fired. Not enough diffusion time.

And in the unaged quenched metal while the antimony's still in solid solution, I don't think working the homogeneous alloy briefly could have much effect on the precipitation of crystals. The alloying atoms still have to diffuse together to agglomerate into crystals.

There. Speculation but no data. I believe it's physically sound, though.

Was it Buckshot who's tracked the hardness of quenched bullets over a considerable time period? Found they hardened over weeks, softened back up some over a year or so, and stayed much harder than air cooled over several years, if I recall correctly. Fits with what I've said above.

[44man]

Right on guys, what does it matter? For one thing, there is no way to measure the softening of the surface from sizing. A hardness tester will always go beyond the surface and measure the base metal. Let's say you size .0005" and the surface work softens! I defy anyone to measure the surface and tell anyone what it's hardness is. I get a kick out of guys that say their boolits didn't change after sizing right away, or a year later. Well guys, there is no way to measure it! All you are measuring is the hardness of the boolit, not the thin skin on the surface that slid through the die. Sizing does not soften the whole boolit. Now if you swage them, the softening might go deeper.
Then what nobody has thought of is that a slight softening of the surface when shot might be a good thing. The lead can form to the bore tighter without disrupting the rest of the boolit. A better gas seal perhaps!
I guess we should stop nit picking and just shoot what works best.

[9.3X62AL]

Quite a post, Ricochet!

[AZ-Stew]

For Pop Gun, Old Vic, Deputy Al and Ricochet, I appreciate your extensive responses. This is ths kind of discussion I was trying to promote. When I said "data, not speculation" I was trying to discourage responses that were along the lines of, "I'm just guessing, but I think..." or "A cousin of one of my buddies did something like that, and I think he said...but I don't really remember". Those of you who have chronicled your personal experiences and experiments have provided "data', even though it's not in the form of a lab report with charts. The info you've provided can help others by providing them with a starting point from which they can conduct their own experiments. As far as I'm concerned, that's a lot closer to "data" than it is to "speculation".

What I was talking about in the original post, and as suggested by its title, is not that the entire bullet goes soft by surface disturbance, but rather that a thin layer of the surface is softened. This is what Mr. Marshall explained in his article, with the pertinent parts on page 128 of the NRA Cast Bullet Handbook. It is an immediate effect, unlike the overall softening that occurs during prolonged storage. I have a copy of the RCBS handbook and will review Marshall's writings in it. There are a lot of things going on within the structure of the bullet during sizing, but Marshall's article leaves some questions.

I have, probably 30 years ago, experienced rifle bullet deformation caused by sizing. This deformation resulted from using unknown and apparently quite soft alloy. The bullets were likely not straight, and over-enthusiastic use of the sizer to seat gas checks by an inexperienced caster (me) also caused the bore riding section of the bullets to expand several thousandths, resulting in a number of additional problems. The fact that I could get the bullets to land reasonably close to each other, I believe to be more an accident than anything else. Other subsequent experiments with Dacron filler over the powder charge caused a slight ring in the chamber neck of a nice Remington 700 BDL. Since then, almost all my cast bullet shooting has been through handguns, where I have been reasonably successful. Several years ago I managed to get my hands on a Remington 788 in 30-30 while I was assembling a 788 collection and I intend to spend a lot of time working with it over the next few years. I have the tools, workspace, experience and patience now to approach cast rifle bullet shooting in a more judicious manner.

The concept of bullet lube as a gas seal rather than a lubricant is interesting. I wonder, however, if this is the case, why didn't Col. Harrison find more successful lubes when he was gathering data for the NRA handbook? The best he found was the Alox/Beeswax formula. Though he used several formulas that included beeswax, there was something about the Alox which made that particular formula do the job. I have some ideas of my own that I want to try. I used to live across the street from a beekeeper who gave me a big chunk of beeswax that I've been saving for many years. Now that I have a place to do my experimentation, I want to try combining beeswax with some of the synthetic lubricants which are available now that didn't exist when Harrison did his work.

Anyway, thanks to those who have posted so far and additional responses to this thread will be welcome, especially the ones that include detailed info. Anything that can help us think about different ways to approach the details of our craft is helpful to everyone.

Regards,

Stew

[felix]

AZ-Stew, one thing that has not been mentioned so far, is that it is always best to size a boolit (heaven forbid) when that boolit is at its hardest state. Then, if the boolit becomes too soft for your condition(s), then that boolit needs to be hardened again. Too much work for most of us for the gain, if any. Most of our guns cannot shoot that good to tell the difference. Yes, a BR gun can, but lugging one out for an outing indicates a serious adventure is at stake, and not worth the hassle. ... felix

[robertbank]

Ummm interesting. I don't know how much softening takes place in the less than 1/72 thousandths of a second my .45acp bullet is in the barrel, less for my 9MM barrels. I'll leave that to the physicists (sp) on the forum. What I do know is that I experience no leading in my 9MM guns sizing water quenched bullets to .357. My 45acp guns don't lead now or very much using Felix lube and water quenched bullets sized .452.

My .38 Spl doesn't lead and my .357 doesn't due to the GC bullets I use.

For the volumes I shoot pistol rounds any gain in sizing, the heat treating then lubing is just not practical. Besides at the yardage I shoot at 15 yards max in defensive pistol it relaly doesn't make much difference.

Man has to know his limitations. 40 years ago I was no natural athlete and time hasn't improved the situation much I don't think.

Rifle, well that is an art form involving witch craft and sorcery of which I am but a novice. I shall heat treat my sized bullets with care. NOw where is my rabbits foot, monkey paw and mushrooms.

Take Care

Bob

[David R]

Stew,

I would like to hear more about the ringed chamber. I haven't bee lucky enough to do that one yet. Do you know the specifics? Some people swear by fillers, some swear at them. I have found almost always more ballistic uinformity, but only rarely better accuracy.

David

[44man]

I seen the question about whether seating a boolit in the tight case will size a boolit. I know it will and have measured it when using too soft of a boolit. One reason all of my revolver loads use hard lead because I use slow powder and need tight boolit pull without sizing the boolit. If you use soft lead, tight cases and want high velocity for hunting with slow powders, you are defeating the fit of the boolit to the bore by sizing it in the case. This condition will benefit from starting with a larger boolit being carefull to make sure they chamber after loading. Expanding the case a little more for the larger boolit will reduce the sizing. The softer boolit, properly loaded CAN have good neck tension but you have to beyond normal loading procedures.
Then the question comes up of what a tight crimp does to a soft boolit! I know some of you have seen a semblance of crimp left on fired cases. Does anyone know what happened to the boolit? If you want to find out, size and crimp an empty case, cut the back half off and force a soft boolit through from the rear and measure it. Yeah, I know, someone will say it is not the same as shooting it because the brass expands away from the boolit before it is released! Well you sure have to explain that to me and demonstrate it. Too heavy and soft of a boolit with a hot load will shorten and expand while in the case and force the case walls into the chamber walls but that is another thing entirely.
I think the softer boolits work better with faster powders, lower velocities, less neck tension and lighter crimps.
I will be the first to admit that I don't know if it is all true. No way to prove my theorys and every gun and condition is different. I just know what works for me.

[robertbank]

"I will be the first to admit that I don't know if it is all true. No way to prove my theorys and every gun and condition is different. I just know what works for me."

Amen. Like everything else in life if it works for you and your applications then why change. I water quench all my bullets and, like you, it works for me. Sometimes I think we get to thinking to much and don't do enough shooting.:)

Take Care Eh

Bob

[georgeld]

It's plumb amazing to me you guys delve into so much detail about cast bullets like this.

I enjoy casting them, sinkers and such things. and enjoy shooting them a whole lot more. Am sporatic at how many, sometimes none for a couple months, yet other times over a thousand a week for months.
I do it because I enjoy it, not to have another ordeal in live which it seems like it would be doing it so precisely as you fellows are.

I guess it's like they claim: "no matter what subject, you can find 'extremists' doing it".

Am assuming you also go into such details on case prep, selection of powders, primers, and cleaning your guns too. Am I right about that?
Do you do these things for a challenge, or to have something to do, or do you find this much details a pleasure? I'd honestly like to know as otherwise I'm just one of many scratching our heads trying to figure out why.

Thank you, enjoy yourselve's, and I do hope you find success in what you're doing.

[waksupi]

It's plumb amazing to me you guys delve into so much detail about cast bullets like this.

I enjoy casting them, sinkers and such things. and enjoy shooting them a whole lot more. Am sporatic at how many, sometimes none for a couple months, yet other times over a thousand a week for months.
I do it because I enjoy it, not to have another ordeal in live which it seems like it would be doing it so precisely as you fellows are.

I guess it's like they claim: "no matter what subject, you can find 'extremists' doing it".

Am assuming you also go into such details on case prep, selection of powders, primers, and cleaning your guns too. Am I right about that?
Do you do these things for a challenge, or to have something to do, or do you find this much details a pleasure? I'd honestly like to know as otherwise I'm just one of many scratching our heads trying to figure out why.

Thank you, enjoy yourselve's, and I do hope you find success in what you're doing.


George, a very good question. I believe many of us are extreme in our pursuit of taming the cast projectile. Most here, are folks who have been reloading for years, and have gone past the point of simply assembling ammunition, as reloading with jacketed bullets amounts to. Reloading jacketed bullets bores me. Same ol', same ol'. Cast bullets allow you the chance to not only make your own bullets, but to pick the configuration, hardness, lube varieties for various applications, on and on.
One of our customers recently remarked, he wasn't sure if he shot to reload, or reloaded to shoot. I believe many of us here are in that same quandry.
I choose not to question it. Instead, I will continue to follow the silver stream, to see where it will lead me. I already know where jacketed rounds will lead me, and I have found superior performance with cast for my main interest of hunting, and for the pleasure of target and plinking.

[carpetman]

georgeld are you implying you don't go to exacting details to mix a specific alloy? Starting with an unknown alloy like wheelweight and mix precise amounts of whatever to it to come up with an exact(even though you started with an unknown). Then weigh each and every bullet. Then heat treat them and measure BHN atleast twice a day. Determine how many hours after cast that they will be the exact hardness needed. Then determine depending on temperature exactly what lube you need and not only that,what color lube to use? Gosh this stuff is rocket science and you are trying to make it simple?Try every mold made by every company and then decide none work--what you need is a special one from Lee. BruceB for example has a casting technique where he produces a big pile of bullets in a hurry. Many of the mentioned steps are obviously omitted. He also reloads at warp speed. He uses a turret press and once the brass is in the holder,it doesnt come out until it's a finished round. That precludes several steps that many swear are needed in the process. But you know what? Last year on a Canadian hunt(he was hunting in Canada--not hunting Canadians) he "lucked"out and brought home some meat. I heard tale he may have "lucked"out in the past---maybe he could tell us about that?

[robertbank]

"Last year on a Canadian hunt(he was hunting in Canada--not hunting Canadians)...."

Sheech I was loading my .303 and heading for the bunker before you clarified that.:mrgreen:


"he lucked"out and brought home some meat."

I was wondering where our cat got to....:-D

[AZ-Stew]

I can walk and chew gum at the same time, but I can't reply and laugh at the same time. I'll get serious later. :lol:

Regards,

Stew

[44man]

C'mon AZ, make us laugh!

[waksupi]

I'm seeing 28 responses.

???????????

[Ron]

I am just one of those averge people who enjoy casting my own projectiles. I have ready access to recovered range lead which is all from the same manufacturer. This manufacturer obtains his lead from a foundry, made to his specifications. His product is accurate and doesn't lead my barrel. after smelting and casting the recovered lead into ingots, I add a small amount of 60/40 lead to assist in fill out when I cast.

I figure that if the manufacturer has probably spent time and money in perfecting his product and they work for me, why when I recast his lead should I worry about such things as hardness etc.

I shoot for accuracy on paper targets and find that air cooled boolits work for me in my revolvers. In my semi auto 9mm I cast a harder boolit by adding lino type, use the same lube as in the revolver and as long as it is accurate, it works for me.

Those of you who want to delve deeper into the physics of lead probably enjoy that as much as I enjoy not doing it. If this makes you happy then go for it I don't think too many on this board will critisize you.

[NuJudge]

Hey! A metallurgy discussion, the subject has been beaten to death, and I haven't posted anything on it!

For those of you worried about work softening of a bullet as it transits the bore, it actually takes time, progressing at a rate my professors said was about the speed of sound.

CDD

[leftiye]

It's the smearing of the lead destroying the crystals that's making the lead soft. There's no crystal formation involved, and it is instantaneous. You just break down the crystals mechanically, and you have soft lead right now and henceforth.

That being said, it's only a couple of thou. deep like 44 Man said, and it may actually be a benefit in sealing the bore. The strength is still there and resists boolit deformation. Far as I know the softer lead melts at the same temp,so it doesn't factor in flame cutting any easier, but I'd guess that it galls easier. Probably the source of the light film of leading in hardened boolit loads. At the speed of sound how long does it take to travel.001"? One twelve millionth of a second roughly.