Improved ES and SD with Powder Coat and Hi-tek

[CamoWhamo]

Over the past year i have meticulously logged every load across the 9 calibers i reload for.
Every load variation was ran past my Lab Radar chronograph and the data added to a spreadsheet.

I have been experimenting with coatings and often times comparing the same load and bullet combination with traditional lube and coatings.

Today i was looking at the 44-40 data for which i have fired several thousand rounds and over 30 different load combinations.

When i sorted the data by ES it struck me. Off all the different loads i tested throughout the year those with Powder Coating or Hi-Tek had the lowest Extreme spread and Standard Deviation and filled the top 10 rows of the spreadsheet. In those loads where i had tested the same bullet and powder charge the powder coated loads often had less than half the ES than those with the traditional lube.

Has anyone else noticed this?

[Forrest r]

Absolutely, switched over to pc for "ALL" my pistol/revolver reloading needs. Heck of a lot easier to find accurate loads with pc'd bullets compared to their traditionally lubed/sized counterparts. Same goes for low velocity (under 2000fps) rifle loads.

[dverna]

CW,

I have seen loads with higher ES shoot better than ones with low ES. It would be interesting to sort your data by groups size. After all, is that not the real goal?

[Petander]

CW,

I have seen loads with higher ES shoot better than ones with low ES.

Me too. I have some 300 WM long range J- loads like that. My guess is that in those cases the "better" load simply doesn't fit the particular gun for other reasons.

[Schreck5]

Camo, if you could, I too, would like to see what your accuracy was with those same rounds. That is, compared to the traditional lubed boolits. Bruce

[Forrest r]

Actually I'm the one that put the word "accuracy" in this thread. I stated "Heck of a lot easier to find accurate loads with pc'd bullets compared to their traditionally lubed/sized counterparts."

Generic statements like this "I have seen loads with higher ES shoot better than ones with low ES" really don't mean much. Es's don't mean much with pistol loads @ 50ft. Take that same high es load from the 50ft line out to 200yds for rams and you'll be back to the drawing board in a hurry. Same thing with rifle loads @ 100yds compared to 600yds.

The topic of this thread, using the same loads/bullets/firearm, the coated bullets had less sd's & es's than their traditional cast/lubed/sized counterparts. Hence my statement "Heck of a lot easier to find accurate loads with pc'd bullets compared to their traditionally lubed/sized counterparts."

I've showed this picture before, several years ago was having a discussion about the compression of the lube grooves. A member here sent me this picture. If you look at the lube grooves you will see that they are/have compressed compared to the unfired bullets at the top of the rows.
[IMG][/IMG]

The watered down version with traditional cast/lubed/sized bullets:
You hit the loud button "BANG" the bullets off to the races. Hot gasses push against the base of the bullet expanding it to seal the cylinders/chambers/bbl.'s. The hot gasses also compress the lube groove/grooves pushing the lube outward and forward. Some of the hot gasses get by the bullet's base/bottom drive band. Those hot gases pressurize the lube pushing it outward & forward sealing the bbl/bullet contact. Get the alloy too hard for the load and bad things happen. Same with the wrong lube, too much lube, too little lube. Get the alloy correct for the pressure of the load & use a lube compatible with the loads pressure and you get accuracy. If not you get flame cutting, poor seal, leading loss of accuracy.

The watered down version for cast/coated/sized bullets:
You hit the loud button "BANG" the bullets off to the races. The coating acts like traditional lube sealing the bbl/bullet. All's you have to do is make sure the alloy is soft enough to expand/seal the cylinders/chambers/bbl.'s. This shows up with a chronograph with lower sd's/es's and higher velocities. If you do a search you will find it's extremely common for people to post they get higher velocities with there coated bullets compared to their traditionally cast/lubed bullets.


A 10-shot group @ 50yds with a traditional cast/lubed/sized bullet in a 308w with a gc.
[IMG][/IMG]

Same bullet cast at the same time from the same pot as the bullets tested above, the difference is no gc and coated.
[IMG][/IMG]

The big difference between the 2. With gc is 60fps+ slower than the same bullet without the gc and has been coated.

Years ago I bought a beater 629, nothing more than a truck gun. Shot it a lot over the years and figured it would be as good a choice as any firearm to use for testing traditional lubed vs pc'd. Cast 5 different bullets & lubed/sized 1/2 of them. The other 1/2 I pc'd and ran thru the same push thru sizer that I used on the traditionally lubed bullets. Took 7 different powders and did ladder tests with the lubed & pc'd bullets. Was looking for 6-shot groups @ 25yds that were 1 1/2" or less. At the end of the day using the same firearm/same shooter/same bullets cast from the same alloy/same powder, dies, reloading press/etc. The pc'd bullets flat out smoked the traditionally cast/lubed/sized bullets. It was 13 loads with pc'd bullets vs 3 loads with the traditionally lubed bullets that would do 1 1/2" or less @ 25yds with 6-shot.
13 vs 3
[IMG][/IMG]

Like I said generic statements like "I have seen loads with higher ES shoot better than ones with low ES" really don't mean much. All's they do is create more generic questions like is that normal for "all" loads? Is it better to have loads with low es's or high es's? What tests did you do to come up with such a generic statement?

[BNE]

Actually I'm the one that put the word "accuracy" in this thread. I stated "Heck of a lot easier to find accurate loads with pc'd bullets compared to their traditionally lubed/sized counterparts."

Generic statements like this "I have seen loads with higher ES shoot better than ones with low ES" really don't mean much. Es's don't mean much with pistol loads @ 50ft. Take that same high es load from the 50ft line out to 200yds for rams and you'll be back to the drawing board in a hurry. Same thing with rifle loads @ 100yds compared to 600yds.

The topic of this thread, using the same loads/bullets/firearm, the coated bullets had less sd's & es's than their traditional cast/lubed/sized counterparts. Hence my statement "Heck of a lot easier to find accurate loads with pc'd bullets compared to their traditionally lubed/sized counterparts."

I've showed this picture before, several years ago was having a discussion about the compression of the lube grooves. A member here sent me this picture. If you look at the lube grooves you will see that they are/have compressed compared to the unfired bullets at the top of the rows.
[IMG][/IMG]

The watered down version with traditional cast/lubed/sized bullets:
You hit the loud button "BANG" the bullets off to the races. Hot gasses push against the base of the bullet expanding it to seal the cylinders/chambers/bbl.'s. The hot gasses also compress the lube groove/grooves pushing the lube outward and forward. Some of the hot gasses get by the bullet's base/bottom drive band. Those hot gases pressurize the lube pushing it outward & forward sealing the bbl/bullet contact. Get the alloy too hard for the load and bad things happen. Same with the wrong lube, too much lube, too little lube. Get the alloy correct for the pressure of the load & use a lube compatible with the loads pressure and you get accuracy. If not you get flame cutting, poor seal, leading loss of accuracy.

The watered down version for cast/coated/sized bullets:
You hit the loud button "BANG" the bullets off to the races. The coating acts like traditional lube sealing the bbl/bullet. All's you have to do is make sure the alloy is soft enough to expand/seal the cylinders/chambers/bbl.'s. This shows up with a chronograph with lower sd's/es's and higher velocities. If you do a search you will find it's extremely common for people to post they get higher velocities with there coated bullets compared to their traditionally cast/lubed bullets.


A 10-shot group @ 50yds with a traditional cast/lubed/sized bullet in a 308w with a gc.
[IMG][/IMG]

Same bullet cast at the same time from the same pot as the bullets tested above, the difference is no gc and coated.
[IMG][/IMG]

The big difference between the 2. With gc is 60fps+ slower than the same bullet without the gc and has been coated.

Years ago I bought a beater 629, nothing more than a truck gun. Shot it a lot over the years and figured it would be as good a choice as any firearm to use for testing traditional lubed vs pc'd. Cast 5 different bullets & lubed/sized 1/2 of them. The other 1/2 I pc'd and ran thru the same push thru sizer that I used on the traditionally lubed bullets. Took 7 different powders and did ladder tests with the lubed & pc'd bullets. Was looking for 6-shot groups @ 25yds that were 1 1/2" or less. At the end of the day using the same firearm/same shooter/same bullets cast from the same alloy/same powder, dies, reloading press/etc. The pc'd bullets flat out smoked the traditionally cast/lubed/sized bullets. It was 13 loads with pc'd bullets vs 3 loads with the traditionally lubed bullets that would do 1 1/2" or less @ 25yds with 6-shot.
13 vs 3
[IMG][/IMG]

Like I said generic statements like "I have seen loads with higher ES shoot better than ones with low ES" really don't mean much. All's they do is create more generic questions like is that normal for "all" loads? Is it better to have loads with low es's or high es's? What tests did you do to come up with such a generic statement?

Thank you for sharing this data. It is a lot of work to set up, perform, then document your results. I applaud your work.

BNE.

[OS OK]

Thank you for sharing this data. It is a lot of work to set up, perform, then document your results. I applaud your work.

BNE.

Same here, I appreciate your efforts...it's a lot of work and not much thanks around this joint!

[Forrest r]

Thank you for the replies.
It's really no big deal, just don't know why someone would ask the op about accuracy when the op made the simple statement that the pc's bullets had lower sd's & es's then their traditionally cast/lubed sized counterparts. It was my post that had the word accuracy in it for the 1st time. Looks like the op has been recording data for a long time & I would be interested in anything that gets posted from that data.

I did those tests years ago when I 1st got interested in pc'ing bullets. Played around with a bunch of bullets/loads in a 308w before venturing out to pistol/revolver bullets. The 1st revolver bullets I did were the 44cal's & after doing the accuracy tests I was sold. IMHO 13 vs 3 is HUGE!!!

Can their be accurate loads with traditionally cast/lubed bullets? Absolutely!!!
Can traditionally cast/lubed bullets be more accurate than their pc'd counterparts? Absolutely!!!
Can a load with a higher es be more accurate than a load with a lower es? Absolutely!!!

But I can also say that more often than not if I take a pile of cast bullets cast at the same time from the same mold/alloy. And then pc/size 1/2 the bullets and traditionally lube/size the other 1/2. The make test loads with both bullets using the same powder/load, the pc'd bullets/loads will have:
Higher velocities
Lower sd's & es's
Easier to find accurate loads with

So when the op asked if anyone noticed that the pc'd bullets had lower sd's & es's when testing pc vs traditional lube. My answer is Absolutely!!!

[dverna]

Forrest r,

My question was pragmatic. I do not care about ES or SD, if I have an accurate load. Why would it matter?

But I am old...do accuracy testing the old way...maybe wasteful way? Shoot groups until I find a load that gives desired accuracy consistently. All I need.

For rifles, it is 5 - 5 shot groups. Pistol accuracy used to matter when I shot Bullseye. Testing was 50 shot groups at 50 yards using a Ransom rest...3.5” max. Now, I no longer need that degree of precision. If the load will put 10 shots from the revolver into 2.5 inches at 25 yards it is good enough. For the Glocks 3.5”.

BTW, bought a chronograph 15 years ago and have never used it. It was on sale and thought it would be neat. My observation wrt ES and its affect, or lack of it, on accuracy came from analysis of data others had posted. A lower ES usually gives better accuracy, but not always.

Not sure why you got worked about it, but apologize for any grief I caused you or the OP.

Your post was very informative and I want to thank you for sharing your data.

[Traffer]

Same here, I appreciate your efforts...it's a lot of work and not much thanks around this joint!

Yup, me too. Makes the efforts worth while. This is what is driving me to try and create the most accurate 22lr. Because they are all non-jacketed, a pc'd then swaged 22lr will eventually yield the most consistently accurate 22lr ever made.
That is what I keep in mind when they laugh at me for working with 22lr.

[Forrest r]

Forrest r,

My question was pragmatic. I do not care about ES or SD, if I have an accurate load. Why would it matter?

But I am old...do accuracy testing the old way...maybe wasteful way? Shoot groups until I find a load that gives desired accuracy consistently. All I need.

For rifles, it is 5 - 5 shot groups. Pistol accuracy used to matter when I shot Bullseye. Testing was 50 shot groups at 50 yards using a Ransom rest...3.5” max. Now, I no longer need that degree of precision. If the load will put 10 shots from the revolver into 2.5 inches at 25 yards it is good enough. For the Glocks 3.5”.

BTW, bought a chronograph 15 years ago and have never used it. It was on sale and thought it would be neat. My observation wrt ES and its affect, or lack of it, on accuracy came from analysis of data others had posted. A lower ES usually gives better accuracy, but not always.

Not sure why you got worked about it, but apologize for any grief I caused you or the OP.

Your post was very informative and I want to thank you for sharing your data.

I guess when I posted "it's really no big deal" it meant I was ("all worked up").
Can't put it any plainer, op asked a simple question and got an answer from that had nothing to do with what they asked. By your own post, you don't care, don't know & don't test for es's and don't do anything with demanding enough accuracy wise to see what they can or can't affect.

Anyway, no big deal, just seeing more and more of it on this website. Way to many people correcting posters with info/statements that have nothing to do with the original post. Heck got a chuckle when a poster got "corrected" in another thread on this website because he mis-quoted the bbl length of a firearm and said 4" bbl and was immediately corrected with no it's a 3.6" bbl. It was 1 of those what bullet does your XXXX caliber firearm like? Poor poster put "my 4" bbl'd xxx like this yyy bullet". DARN, everyone knows that it's a 3.6" bbl, like that really makes a difference???

I did however try to do the best that I could in answering you about accuracy with pc'd bullets which really had nothing to do with this thread. Not mad, upset, or even gave anything a 2nd thought. Please don't take anything that way, just simply couldn't understand why someone in interject a generic statement that had nothing to do with the spirit of the thread.

Glad you shot 50yd bullseye, did a little myself. Then I found I like the 50m free pistol better. So now I shoot a lot of 10m air pistol, 25m sport pistol & 50m free pistol.
[IMG][/IMG]
It's kind of important to keep track of the ammo being used/tested along with testing the mechanics of the firearm itself. Best way to check the velocities, sd's & es's.
I also like to shoot standing silhouettes, specifically smallbore silhouettes. Find it relaxing to take a pistol out and go up against smallbore rifles. It's only a 100yd course but it can be very humbling.
[IMG][/IMG]

Too bad you didn't use your chronograph, most people that own them really never fully use them anyway nor truly understand what the sd's & es's actually bring to the table. Years ago I bought a cz lux (3 importer ago/1996), always liked that rifle, just never did anything with it. Most shooters put four 5-shot group @25yds is supposed to average 1/4" as the "gold standard" for a 22lr rifle. That's all that cz lux could do with 15+ different ammo's. I buy cases of ammo specifically for testing 22lrs. They have nothing to do with accuracy & everything to do with low sd's & es's along with being known to have rock hard cases that anything but firearms in excellent mechanical condition with sledgehammer fp hits can ignite. So I broke out the chronograph, a known rifle, the cz lux, and 2 different lots of test ammo. The "known" rifle did as it always did and the cz lux failed miserably with twice the sd and huge es's. Coupled that with the hard cased ammo was even worse. Now on paper the groups still looked good @ 25yds running 1/4" with the match test ammo & 3/8" with the hard cased ammo. The sd's & es's were the tell tail.
Took the bolt apart on that cx lux and rework it polishing, treating the metal, re-shaped the fp & added an extra-power striker spring and went back and re-tested.
The rock hard cased ammo and what the fp hits looked like with the re-worked bolt.
[IMG][/IMG]
Typical 25yd groups after the reworking of the bolt. Groups were cut by 40%+
[IMG][/IMG]
Playing a game on another website. And please the four 5-shot groups are in inches and mm's. Posted this on another website and of course some had to say I changed the #'s to mm's to confuse people!!! I guess that .288" is on there for nothing.
[IMG][/IMG]
Some people value chronographs and the sd's/es's they point out and actually not only understand that information. They use that information to be competitive. Something as simple as that 10m air pistol, you'd just think your in a slump. Your scores stay the same but your x-count is down. Test your pistol over a chronograph you'll find that the velocities are down & the es's are up. Nothing a $10 rebuild kit can't fix, ask me how I know.

There are times when I don't bother with a chronograph also, like when I test 50ft/25yd/50yd pistol/revolver loads or 100yd rifle loads. Wanted to work up a dirt clod killer load @ 10 paces to shoot shotgun shells @ 50ft. We put up 12ga shotgun shells on the bowling pin table and shoot them @ 50ft. Same rules as bowling pins just shotgun shells instead & at 50ft. Didn't both to break out the chronograph but did manage to come up with these 6-shot groups/test loads.
[IMG][/IMG]
But I can say that the firearm that shot those groups was tested over a chronograph and is mechanically right and tight.

Sorry for the thread drift, this post is actually about sd's & es's along with chronographs and what they can bring to the table. Not mad at anyone, ticked off or anything else. I'm glad the op brought this thread up and recognized something in all the data he's been saving & decided to share it with everyone.