Dipping makes better bullets that a bottom pour pot but why?

[btroj]

Bob, I have many more signature line worthy lines. I just like to use analogies to set the tone.

[gmsharps]

I have a couple of old Lyman bottom pours that have provided years of fantastic service and a Lyman ladle pot that also has provided great service. Depending on what I am casting as to which I use. I seem to get more consistant weights with larger bullets by ladeling. I feel that is because I have a larger stream of lead flowing from the Rowell ladel than the smaller stream from the bottom pours. I also seem to get more rounded bottoms with the bottom pours. If I cast smaller boolits i.e. 9mm,38cal and the like the bottom pours are fine. I believe it's mainly technique and both types of pots will work great if used properly. This is just the way I choose and what I have become comfortable with.

gmsharps

[cbrick]

The fact that I'm a forum newbie in no way discounts the SCIENTIFIC evidence that I have provided that shows that lead vapor does exist at casting temperatures.

I must have missed that post, please post again your scientific evidence that lead vapor is at any significant level at normal casting temp to need any more than normal casting safety precautions.

Even ignoring all that please find where I said you should panic and never cast again because the evil lead will invade your brain.

If that highly exaggerated comment is in reference to me that is not what I said and I've seen no other posts by anyone else here that said that either. What I said was that if you are so concerned maybe casting isn't for you.

I even provided proof.

I must have missed that post, please post again your scientific evidence.

The fact that lead vapors exists is merely ANOTHER REASON why good habits should be used. To say otherwise is incorrect.

Please use the quote button and place here anyone's comment stating that "good habits" or common sense or normal casting safety measures shouldn't be used. Guess I missed all that too.

You can use all the misstatements and exaggeration you like but it changes nothing, you are getting more ridiculous by the post in an attempt to promote an old wives tale on something that is insignificant at best.

Let's start this thread drifting way off course and discuss something like, hhmmm, maybe bottom pour vs ladle casting.

Rick

[btroj]

I would consider a ladle IF I was shooting large amounts of long, heavy bullets at long range.

I don't do that so i bottom pour. Works for my needs. Isn't that the important thing? Fit the technique to the need?

[cbrick]

Yep, if you are happy with your results you are certainly doing it the correct way for you.

I mostly ladle cast anymore simply because I no longer am doing large quantity's and it's more interesting, more hands on. For me it has nothing to do with which method will give me better boolits because they both give me fine boolits.

Rick

[btroj]

And YOUR satisfaction is all that matters. I cast to make me happy, not someone else.

You do what is enjoyable for you Rick, what more is there?

[PbHurler]

And YOUR satisfaction is all that matters. I cast to make me happy, not someone else.

You do what is enjoyable for you Rick, what more is there?

Exactly; If you're getting the results you desire, with the methods you prefer, what more could you ask for?

Oh, and not to be self-serving but; refer to post #23

[btroj]

Pretty much Bob. Keep it simple as possible. I shoot for fun, agonizing over minutiae isn't fun.

When, or if, I decide to compete with cast then I will adopt the techniques that competition requires. Until then I will cast, load, and shoot. It is fun and makes me happy.

[montana_charlie]

when your boolits come out perfect every time once the mold is up to temp , how can a ladel do any better?

Having read the entire thread in a single sitting, I consider this to be the most remarkable post in the whole discussion.

This member has reached Nirvana ... he has acheived the ultimate goal of us all.

His bullets are not 'good enough' or 'pretty spiffy'. They aren't 'accurate in my gun' or 'my best yet'.
No sir, this member's bullets are "perfect every time".

I sure wish I could see some of those.
Considering the pictures which have been posted on this website, and the high praise of examples which were barely suitable for slugging a bore, I wonder what percentage of the membership includes casters who even know what constitutes perfection.

I may not cast bullets that are "perfect every time", but I know one when I see one.

Those who can cast perfect ones with a bottom spout have a leg up on me, because I can only do that with a Lyman dipper.

CM

[cbrick]

Charlie, it all depends on the caster. What is perfection for one caster for his type of shooting, his guns and his shooting ability may well end up back in the pot for another caster.

If your happy with the results of your casting session load them and shoot them, if your still happy . . . Repeat.

If there is something about any of the above your not satisfied with try something different. If you are happy with all of the above but simply want to learn something else/different then experiment.

That is one of the best things about this hobby. Some want/expect nothing more than the boolit coming out the muzzle without leaving a bunch of it in the bore. Others, many of us actually, are afflicted with the "what if" syndrome and are experimenting constantly. It doesn't get any better than that for any hobby.

Rick

[montana_charlie]

Thanks for the 'schooling'.
Still, I find it difficult to see 'satisfactory' and 'perfect' as being equal.

I'll have to work on that ...

[PS Paul]

I just re-read the article on lasc.us by Todd Spotti (for about the tenth time) on casting .357 for the Freedom Arms revolver. According to the author, a certain caster made nearly perfect boolits (my words, not the authors) with great attention to detail. It does not say if that certain caster ladle poured or bottom poured for these boolits, but considering the amount of effort and incredible detail spent on each boolit, I would suspect that caster ladle-poured.

If you have not read the article, I would encourage you fellas to check it out.

So, have we all reached an agreement yet on which method is best? har-har-har!!!

[Old Caster]

Charlie, I think what some people are trying to tell you is that as long as the bullets come out the front, everything is fine. -- Bill --

[Vinne]

Years ago I had a H&G 10 cavity in 38 cal 148gr and I could dip and pour all ten way faster than bottom pour. I could make hundreds in no time with a 20# pot. I never got tired because I would out of lead before then and had to refill the pot.

[TXGunNut]

I wish I knew. Seems to be only partially true for me. Seems my Lyman steel moulds with big cavities do better with ladling. Aluminum moulds, especially six-bangers, seem to be happiest when using the bottom pour. Still working on my technique (always will be!) but that's the way it seems to me. I think some moulds are like rifles; they have likes, dislikes and sometimes personality. Once I figure out what they like I try to keep them happy.

[TXGunNut]

That's signature line material right there if I've ever seen it!

A good man once told me that life is a sexually transmitted disease, 100% fatal. Cleaning cases is a higher risk activity than casting, as is shooting indoors. Enough hijacking, I still want to know why dipping sometimes seems to work better.

[dverna]

I think we need a different forum for people that cast for handguns and those that cast for rifles.
The two groups often cast with different techniques, alloys and have different criteria for a good bullet.

BPCR shooters want MOA results to 400 yards or more.
Pistol shooters often do not even have a way to measure the accuracy of their bullets.
A bullet produced for plinking at 30 feet does not necessarily meet the demands of long range rifle shooters.
Yet the two groups argue about technique - when the two groups have completely different requirements.

I stopped reading this thread after the above post. EDG NAILED IT!!

Most have done limited (or no) testing and they talk the loudest. Your end use and your criteria will establish your acceptable quality specifications. A CAS shooter has totally different needs than a competitive shooter. The guy making "blasting" ammo for his 9mm is different than a Bullseye shooter looking for 50 yard accuracy.

Almost every post here is unsupported with data. What is the ES and SD on your bullets. What are your reject criteria? What YOU think is only important to YOU. If you cannot support your opinion it means NOTHING to someone with critical thinking/analytical skills.

There are some good points that have NOTHING to do with quality. BP is easier for those who cast for long periods of time, have physical issues, and/or use larger molds. If making thousands "plinking' bullets, that is more important than a small difference in "quality" - even if a difference is proven. Also, most people will not take the time to learn a new way - and give up too soon to give it a fair trial.

[Old Caster]

Dverna, When I molded for BPCR, I would ladle cast about 300 bullets at a time. Afterwards I would weigh every bullet on a digital lab scale and put them in rows on a towel in .2 grain catagories. That would give me about 6 rows that would have any significant amount of bullets plus some that weighed too little and were obviously rejects but not from appearence. One can sit there and look at them forever and never decide whether it weighs too little because of dirt inside or temperature varience making the outside diameter a tiny bit different.

I use a Waage pot because they hold their temperature very accurately. On a bullet that weighs around 500 grain, if the outside diameter is just the smallest under you could never see the difference and have to go with the weight. You don't want to keep bullets outside of the core of the largest amount in the rows because you don't know where the difference comes from.

When you shoot a sequence in BPCR you may shoot 15 targets at a given range without changing distance so I loaded enough to fire at the targets and then another 5 or so for sighters at the swinger. Sometimes your partner that you get isn't so good at reading where you are hitting when firing your first shot at the swinger so the reason for the extra 5. Then I would use bullets out of a different row for the next sequence. After you are on, the rest are just about reading the wind. If I had bullets left over from a string, they were for practice later because I couldn't risk mixing a different bullet weight after already being sighted for a given range.

When shooting at the rams at 600 yard, you only have I think 11 inches top to bottom of the chest and the bullet is curving towards the ground a bunch. When shooting the falling block rifles with Black powder most everyone shoots about 1250 fps. The brass has to be full of powder to the base of the bullet and the only difference for the most part is if you use a different bullet weight. With Black the extreme spreads are very close together no matter what you do and the amount of powder doesn't make much difference in speed other than it changes the compression of the powder and that does change accuracy. All of this is why it is imperative to ladle cast your bullets if you want to win.

If a person just plinks, you can bottom pour and virtually never reject a cast projectile because it will still come out the barrel and hit a target at close range like 25 yards. I do bottom pour when I shoot Bullseye but I am critical about using quality molds, proper alloy, and the correct pouring technique but the maximum distance is only 50 yards and the gun will only hold about 2 inches at that distance whether I bottom or ladle cast them.