9mm leading

[MtGun44]

My P6 has a clean and shiny bore after shooting 10-20 mags of my Lee 356-120-TC sized
to .358 and lubed with NRA 50-50. No lead on the bore other than a microthin uniform
slight gray tint, no buildup or streaking at all.

Bill

[Who's this Guy ?]

My P6 has a clean and shiny bore after shooting 10-20 mags of my Lee 356-120-TC sized
to .358 and lubed with NRA 50-50. No lead on the bore other than a microthin uniform
slight gray tint, no buildup or streaking at all.

Bill

Have you tried Lee Alox?

[fish0123]

Are you tumble lubing? If so I haven't had much luck with tumble lubing with 45/45/10 or straight lla in anything but 45 acp. It works for a lot of people just not me.

[MtGun44]

I tried LLA ( AKA 'mule snot') a couple of times, had terrible inaccuracy with
light loads in a .45-70, marginal results at best in a .30-30, and acceptable results
with .45 ACP. I really hated having the sticky crud all over the front of the boolit,
plus I do not like the stink.

It appears to have attraction to the new caster that does not have a lubrisizer and
is looking for a quick and easy path to workable ammo, especially for a pistol.
I can see the real benefit for the newbie to get started without a large investment
in hardware. LLA can clearly work, we have many members using it, but from
the posts I see, it appears to be a marginal lube system that will fail if you move
outside of it's capability area. Some are huge fans of the system, I am not.

IMO, pan lubing with conventional lube groove designs is about the same initial setup
cost (near zero) and slightly more effort to do, much less mess, leaves the boolit cleaner
and is a more certain route to success. Frequently LLA designs have been failing
in 9mm and .40 S&W applications, although we do have plenty of reports of success,
too. It seems to work most reliably on the lower pressure and velocity cartridges like
.38 Spl and .45 ACP where the demands on the system are lower.

I have RCBS and Lyman lubrisizers plus a couple of Stars on my bench and have
little interest or time to fiddle with it now. I am set up to easily run conventional
designs and am sticking to that now.

Bill

[fish0123]

You are definitely right, the only reason I used it was because it was the absolute cheapest option. I have to admit I was happy with how quick the process was, but if it doesn't work it doesn't work. My next purchase is going to be a lubrisizer. When pan lubing, even with the silicone pans and a steady hand I always manage to make a mess, then I have to wipe each boolit down before they go through the dies.

[pistonwolf]

Could we maybe be getting "universal" and "clays" powders confused?

[P Flados]

I am also fighting getting cast to work in a finicky 9. With the factory barrel, my boy's Glock 17 did badly with lots of stuff tried including low power (as low as 3.3 titegroup & 3.5 promo), lead hardness (8 bhn range lead to COWW), boolit size (0.360, 0.3575, 0.3563), boolit style (Lee 110 RN, Lee 125 RNFP), seating depth (0.970" to 1.20" OAL), crimping (seat + crimp in one pass, seat first then medium crimp, seat first and then only remove flare with crimp die) and lubes (traditional lube, LLA, BLL and then even ASBB HF Red PC).

We obtained an after market barrel. New problems were created and leading is still an issue. The new barrel had next to nothing for a throat (pretty much just a taper on the rifling) and a sharp edge an the end of the chamber.

I was getting intermittent failures to fully chamber (offset primer strike) with resultant FTFs and some FTFs with center hit primers. The chambering problems were found to be caused by accumulation of lead shavings at the front of the chamber. The center hit FTFs were found to be a primer seating issue caused by range pick up mixed brass in combination with a near worn out round Lee priming tool. I got this under control with a couple of trips to the range and no FTFs. Solutions were to start using a different priming tool and to make sure to not have lead accumulation at the front of the chamber.

The issue with lead at the front of the chamber was improved by lapping in a bevel to get rid of the sharp edge at the front of the chamber. It probably needs more work, but I am reluctant to do any more than absolutely needed.

For the Lee 110, there is now no shaving at all. Unfortunately, my PC coating and 0.3563 sizing still ends up with some leading even at 3.5 grs of Titegroup where function is not consistent. I really need to be in the 3.7 - 4.0 gr range for reliable function. I have some 3.7 gr Titegroup test loads ready to try. Two tests will be with with 50 round of PC and sizes of 0.3575" and 0.360". I also have 80 rounds with boolits sized at 0.3563" and BLL on top of PC (I will try anything).

The Lee 125 RNFP will function with loads that do not lead, but it still shaves. I am going to go back and try some more different OALs and different bullet diameters.

For earlier discussion of my 9 mm struggles, see post 17 at http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...29#post4092529

[gwpercle]

I stopped the 9mm leading problem before it started by gettin a gas checked boolit mould.
NOE 124 grain , 358 , truncated cone , gas check design. I wanted to load them warm with a soft alloy , I don't powder coat. The gas check works perfectly with COWW - pure lead, 50/50, air cooled. Works like a charm in 4 different 9mm's!
Lubed with Lithi-Bee . This one also works wonderful in 357 magnum loads !
Gary

[fecmech]

For what it's worth, my 9MM experience. I loaded for 4 different 9's and had no real problems with leading. I did get very light streak leading with the max velocity loads but it was no worse after 100 shots than after 1 shot. Accuracy at 25 yds out of both my Khar and BHP were <3" with max loads( in the BHP that was 1250 fps. I think the Lyman M die (or equivalent) is important in loading for the 9 as without that deep case expansion cast bullets get sized down by the case. Excessive taper crimping also makes bullets smaller, I basically removed the bell at the case mouth and called it good. When I wanted speed I used Longshot or Blue Dot or other similar burn rate powders. I never did much with fast powders like Bullseye or Red Dot because I got leading and accuracy went south before I got to 1000 fps. I claim no expertise with the 9MM but I just thought I'd post what's worked for me.

[robertbank]

Buy some real lube and the problem will go away. After you have the problem solved,
then you can play around with mixing your own. I don't understand why folks resist
using a known good lube and try some unknown mix. Spend the $5 on some NRA 50-50
or LBT soft blue. These lubes have worked under wide ranging conditions and many
different calibers for decades to earn their accolades - they WORK.

Bill

This, read then heed. While a fan of frlix lube lately I have been using a commercial soft lube or Magna lube which is a hard lube. All the commercial lubes work just fine in about seven different 9MM pistol designs I shoot regularly. Unless there are barrel problems the 9MM should shoot lead without leading if sized properly and shot with a decent lube.

Take Care

Bob

[GooseGestapo]

I haven't seen it mentioned in this thread, but my solution to leading/inaccuracy with cast in the 9mm was solved by adding some 95/5 lead free solder (95% tin, 5% antimony) to acww.

I use the Lee 105gr SWC, 120gr TC, and 125gr RFN at .357" w/SPG lube in my S&W Performance Ctr. 9's and get accuracy equal to jacketed. I haven't shot a jacketed bullet in competition since the NRA eliminated the factory ammo requirement for the Distinguished matches. From a Ransom rest, the Perf. Ctr. guns will shoot the cast boolits 2" at 50yds.
The guns still shoot as good as new 15yrs ago.
Me, not so much...

[fecmech]

The guns still shoot as good as new 15yrs ago.
Me, not so much...

Amen to that! I find my scores dropping in Hunters pistol a bit but my sporting clays is still about the same. Shotguns seem to be the last refuge for "old f**ts" judging by the age of my squad mates!

[youngmman]

You're absolutely right on the lube issue, IMHO.

When I started casting in the early 1980's I called Veral Smith at LBT and he helped me with the molds I needed and suggested I use the LBT Blue lube. I never used any other lube and don't regret it.

[oldsalt444]

I'm not a Glock owner, so forgive my ignorance. Isn't there a reason why Glock says NOT to shoot lead boolits in the factory barrel ? The polygonal rifling tends to lead up quickly and destroy accuracy or something like that ? I even heard a silly rumor about a Glock blowing up from shooting lead. Sounds far-fetched to me. If it were me, I'd load a very hard cast bullet and add a GC.

[dragon813gt]

I'm not a Glock owner, so forgive my ignorance. Isn't there a reason why Glock says NOT to shoot lead boolits in the factory barrel ? The polygonal rifling tends to lead up quickly and destroy accuracy or something like that ? I even heard a silly rumor about a Glock blowing up from shooting lead. Sounds far-fetched to me. If it were me, I'd load a very hard cast bullet and add a GC.

Every manufacturer says to not shoot reloads. I'm sure most of us here just ignore that disclaimer.

[DerekP Houston]

Every manufacturer says to not shoot reloads. I'm sure most of us here just ignore that disclaimer.

^, it voids the warranty. Oh well.

[P Flados]

Oldsalt,

Glock rifling is different, the "land" portion is more of a crescent shape that protrudes inward from the groove region.

The factory Glock barrel I was working with also had a larger than typical groove diameter, 0.3565" if I recall correctly.

I have not yet been able to get a cast bullet load that would not lead badly in the factory barrel. I think that the biggest issue was more the groove diameter combined with my inability to stop the cases from sizing my boolits to less than groove diameter. However, regardless of reason, most if not all of my "top ten" cleaning sessions with "most lead removal effort required" have been for this one gun. And this is with plenty of other guns/loads that leaded pretty bad (mostly in my pre-PC days).

The above is my personal experience that sets the stage for the following.

In general, some have good luck with cast in a 9mm, some have mixed results, some (like me) find it their "biggest challenge", some just give up. The unique Glock rifling, combined with the possibilty of have more than normal percentage of guns with a bigger than typical bore (my guess based on a sample of one), provide reason behind what I feel is a common belief that at least a portion of the 9s made by Glocks lead very badly and possibly to an extent more than other makers.

While reading everything I could find on Glock leading, I found where excessive lead buildup from shooting cast was blamed on a one or more kabooms.

If the "some Glocks lead badly" position is considered by many as "common knowledge", then the people at Glock are probably smart enough to not try to say they are "no worse than other makers" unless they have convincing proof (I doubt this is possible). With the above situation, and a few kabooms in guns that were used with cast, the reason for the Glock position is a no brainer. For the same reason, the amount of people noting their position is also pretty obvious.

[pistonwolf]

Stock glock barrel's don't stabilize heavy cast projectiles well, Hickok45 has a youtube video on this, and he even had some shots key hole. Then the chamber's in these are a bit on the "loose" side of town, this adds to reliability, but is hell on brass. When hand loading, we sometimes make "gallery" loads, being lower in pressure, will they have enough pressure to expand the brass to fill that larger chamber? I run the alpha wolf in my G26, tight chamber, slugs out to .356, and puts the sights right where I like them. I find the stock barrel to shoot a bit high.