lead bullets coated with polymer paint

[HI-TEK]

I didn't get that either. Hopefully bmiller will clarify what he meant.

I've been following this behemoth thread forever, and I've REALLY been interested to see if gas checks can be omitted at rifle velocities. I've yet to see a definitive answer.

And I've got one 9mm pistol that leads badly no matter what size and lube I've used so far. So I'm keen to try this at some point. Piglet's deal sounds cheap enough to try, but I'm reluctant to drop a C-note on an experiment from what I've read so far. I'm not much of a trail blazer, and I'm pretty well stuck on 45/45/10 Recluse Lube. Maybe someone will coax me out of my rut.

Stan

Stan,
Please find attached details of testing done in February, in Australia by a coating user, where they used the Dark Green HI-TEK coating on alloy 92:6:2.
This may shed some light on what can be done.
Hope it helps with your questions.

165 grain, 309 dia, 308 rifle, maximum load 41 grains ADI powder 2206H , travelling 650-750 ft/sec,
20 shots were fired. Only powder residue left barrel was clean. 2 coats of coating.

One coating also gave same results same. No gas checks were used on one coated or two coated projectiles.

125 grain, 316 diameter, 8 grains 2205 powder, travelling at 1200-1300 ft / sec with 2 coats.

310 Cadet rifle. No gas checks. 65grn 309 diameter Marksman fired at 1700ft/sec with 2 coats.

[Whizzer]

Hi-Tek, did you REALLY mean 41 grains of smokeless only got 750 FPS out of a 308?

[Norbrat]

Hi-Tek, did you REALLY mean 41 grains of smokeless only got 750 FPS out of a 308?

He means 2650 - 2750fps; see posts #737 - 739, page 37

[HI-TEK]

Hi-Tek, did you REALLY mean 41 grains of smokeless only got 750 FPS out of a 308?

Thanks for reply.
Apology, the mistake was a typo error.
I contacted user to have clarified, what was done.

The speed that was chronographed was at maximum speed of 2750 ft/sec.
The main reasons for test was to determine if
1. the coated alloy (92:6:2) could be fired at speed
2. determine if coated projectiles will foul up or Lead barrel without using gas checks.
2. determine if alloy stays in one piece without gas check.

They advised that the alloy was intact at 100 yards, but grouping was inconsistent.
Target which was shot at, showed clean punch holes, not spatter or tumbling holes.

As they were not intending to test for grouping or accuracy, they did not do more work as they realised that they had not done correct powder fill for power factor being required and which may have resulted in poor grouping.

When examining the barrel, they only found powder residues & no Lead.

I requested some time ago, to capture these projectiles in ballistic gel and examine projectile.

To this date they had not done more work, as they are manufacturing and selling product as fast as they can, and cannot get time to do more extensive testing to work out detailed results.

Hope that this clarifies matters.
If you wish to contact them directly, I can ask them, if they wish to discuss their tests with you so far.

[Whizzer]

Wow.

Alrighty then. I missed that post. AND I missed the correction. Thanks to you both.

2750 FPS is darned respectable...w/out a gascheck.

Yes, if your contact is "primary-source documentation" I surely would like the phone number. PM me if they agree, and I'll give you me cell. (USA only) And I'll include my email if not stateside.

[piglet]

How come You - HI-TEK, the manufacturer of these Home-Kit bullet paint resins - have not tested Your products with rifle velocities?
Or maybe You have, but have not published the results?

You write that You have manufactured these resins for many-many years. If I have understood correctly, ofcourse.

This far I have neither seen nor heard of any bullet paint that really works perfectly with lead bullets and rifle velocities like 2500FPS and so on.

If somebody else has, please tell me too.

Commercial painted lead bullet manufacturers, like ARES for example, have not succeeded with this, so if the resin Your factory manufactures really works with rifle velocities, there You have potential customers!

Of course I believe this 2750 FPS customer of Yours, would be nice to know exactly how did he paint the bullets.

Also it would be nice to see Your own test results. Since You are the sole manufacturer of these resins, You must have tested the products You sell.

[HI-TEK]

How come You - HI-TEK, the manufacturer of these Home-Kit bullet paint resins - have not tested Your products with rifle velocities?
Or maybe You have, but have not published the results?

You write that You have manufactured these resins for many-many years. If I have understood correctly, ofcourse.

This far I have neither seen nor heard of any bullet paint that really works perfectly with lead bullets and rifle velocities like 2500FPS and so on.

If somebody else has, please tell me too.

Commercial painted lead bullet manufacturers, like ARES for example, have not succeeded with this, so if the resin Your factory manufactures really works with rifle velocities, there You have potential customers!

Of course I believe this 2750 FPS customer of Yours, would be nice to know exactly how did he paint the bullets.

Also it would be nice to see Your own test results. Since You are the sole manufacturer of these resins, You must have tested the products You sell.

Thanks for your blog.

As had been published many time previously, and had advised many enquirers, I manufacture lubricants and specialized coatings.

I do not shoot, and do not have any guns.
This a long reply, but it seems I have no other choice but to satisfy your curiosity.

Your questions have encouraged me to provide you with some answers, to understand a few things.
The history of the coatings goes back 20 plus years, 1991, where, I was approached by an owner of a cast projectile manufacturer who wanted a "Teflon" lubricating coating.
In co-operation, I produced the first, black coating, which was supplied to and tested by that caster for suitability.
I did not use any Teflon or any Fluoro polymers nor did I use Moly Disulphide.

To be fair, the feed back I received on my first coatings were a dismal failure.

Coated projectiles, simply did not hit the target, and powder was observed to burn outside barrel and we were unable to get any velocity. Barrels were clean aside from powder residues.

As at that time, we were unable to determine, why the coatings produced such results.
The feed back I received from cast manufacturer, was information gathered from their customers, who tested their produced coated projectiles.

After many reformulations, and many trials, the results we arrived to, was that the information being supplied back by shooters as being required, or what was required, was wrong.
As a result, what was required and I had tried to produce, sent all coating developments in the wrong direction.

Products I produced, were much too slippery, and projectiles simply were not accelerating as the severe lubrication, prevented pressure build up to propel projectile to suitable speeds to gain any accuracy.

I went back to my design, and begun reformulating to manufacture a product that had some slippery nature, separated metals as required, and, stuck to projectiles well.

Other considerations were determined as also being required, was hardness, heat stability, heat reflectivity, non abrasive, ability work with minimum film thickness, easy to apply, and allowed flexual deformability to cope with hydraulic deformation, and minimum effects to the alloy and coating with heat produced by burning powder & frictional forces..

After reformulating, and had considered above engineering requirements, we began to get positive feed back, where shooters testing the products were reporting to their suppliers, with successful results..
Upon further refinements, the coating performed well with majority of high volume use applications.
The company that initially requested the manufacture of the first coating, asked me for a 12 months start on every other company to develop the market.
Within that 12 months, sales growth escalated at alarming rates.

With further close co-operation with owner of the casting company, we had many discussions about some failures that were reported, where the coating was blamed as not working.
It was discovered, that customers who purchased various cast alloys were trying to use them in areas where we did not ever envisage use.

I was asked to try and produce a product that was a multi-purpose try and fit all end uses.

Not knowing about the total requirements needed, I researched many handbooks about loads, ammunition and guns use.
Total waste of time, as it seemed that the coatings I produced, totally changed the recommended ballistic load and engineering requirements due to changes introduced by the coatings.

As no information was available, why certain materials were used as lubricants, no data could be found any where to assist with developments.
All I was supplied, is a constant message about eliminating fouling and Leading, which then required expensive cleaners, brushes, polishes abrasives and so on for gun users to keep their barrels clean.

With knowledge of what modifications may required with previous testing, I began to expand into various areas of research to determine how we may be able to cope with as many gun applications as possible and improve upon the coating in certain areas that were considered necessary.

Again, testing on any new & modified coatings, was done by customers of cast companies.
Test results were sometimes available and sometimes not.

What was discovered, that many manufacturers, simply did not want to supply back any success, but complained like mad about any failures.
It seemed that for no other reason but to protect their markets and interests.
New coating developed were purchased at increasing rates.

As a result of all this, and, why I advised you the history, is for you to understand that I was always kept one step away from direct contact with users of the coated projectiles, and it became impossible for me to collect data that can be tabulated.

It seems, that apparently, I got the development area correct, to manufacture a product range, that seems to satisfy majority of markets, but as to getting feed back, it is like pulling teeth without pain killers.

Use of these coatings became the norm in Australia since 1992.

Some manufacturers were exporting the coated projectiles, but did not advise their customer of what they were using.

This all changed.

I had a couple of my larger customers, not only substitute materials into my coatings, but one tried to clone all coloured coatings I had previously supplied to them for years.

As a result, this put many users in a position where failures occurred, and no one was aware of substitutions and deceit with products that produced and escalated distrust in the coatings.

Now, before any one buys my coatings, we insist that manufacturers advertise what they are using so people are educated with correct data and end use success and be able to ask questions at retail end.
With that change, I have had some co-operations with manufacturers, that will carry out testing as required.
Especially if it means that I have developed something that would increase their sales.

Aside from that, I cannot advise you with information that I do not have.
All I can advise, that my coatings have been used by majority here for 20 years, and if the coatings were no good, I would be out of business.

As to try and advise you of every possible end use, you are asking the impossible.

May be you should be contacting manufacturers who use and sell the coated projectiles, to see if they will share their successful test results with you or provide you with their manufacturing process and techniques..

In terms of shooting results supplied to me this February, and published on this blog, the test was done by a user of my coatings, and manufacturer of cast projectiles, to determine for himself capability of normally used and coated alloys in higher velocity applications.
That information was kindly supplied to me so some records can be maintained.

I hope that I have clarified matters and answered your questions.

[olaf455]

Hi-Tek coating was probably created with only pistol boolits in mind.

[Whizzer]

And you know....there isn't one thing wrong with that. I shoot waaay more pistol rounds every year than rifle. Just not everyone does.

[TheDoctor]

Maybe wrong on this line of thought, but concerning the too slippery aspect of the original coating. Could that be compensated for by using a heavier bullet, or lighter load with faster powder. Extreme case, maybe take a heavy load of H-110, and substitute it with a much lighter load of Bullseye to achieve similar velocities without exceeding pressure limits? Seems that if you could, that would be a "holy grail" solution to weight/pressure/velocity problems. If I could push a 300 grain 44 mag with 9 grains of Unique and safely get the same results as 24 grains H-110, that would be just too cool. Just a hypothetical, and possibly not thoroughly thought out question.......

[piglet]

Thanks for your blog.

I manufacture lubricants and specialized coatings.

I do not shoot, and do not have any guns.

.....May be you should be contacting manufacturers who use and sell the coated projectiles, to see if they will share their successful test results with you or provide you with their manufacturing process and techniques..

I hope that I have clarified matters and answered your questions.

Fact is that You have not clarified much anything. Not to me anyway.
I am wondering more and more what is what, feels odd.

Every manufacturer tests his products before starting to sell those.
Or do You suppose GM would manufacture cars, would not test those because they have nobody who can drive a car, and would let the customers do the testing.

That You do not happen to have a gun is no explanation. You could have bought a gun or asked some gun owner to do the testing for You before starting to sell the stuff.

Actually I have contacted one manufacturer, ARES, and received test results from them.
They are testing what they sell using different guns and velocities, BEFORE they sell, and their test data is no secret, helps reloaders, and they also answer questions.

If You did not know, ARES is a very well known manufacturer of really good painted bullets in Europe.

[Whizzer]

I actually thought that same thought. If Boeing didn't have pilots who spent thousands of hours flying and meticulously logging every aspect of an aircraft's handling, other characteristics, anomalies, we would all be reluctant to check our bags, much less place our bodies in those things.

Most makers of fine guitars also play at some level. I know this is an apples to oranges comparison, but not completely.

I'm probably still going to try out this or similar stuff at some point, but I'm just not ready. When I've finally seen on this forum post after post of "WOW! This stuff is works as advertised," then I'll definitely bite.

[popper]

The speed that was chronographed was at maximum speed of 2750 ft/sec.
The main reasons for test was to determine if
1. the coated alloy (92:6:2) could be fired at speed
2. determine if coated projectiles will foul up or Lead barrel without using gas checks.
2. determine if alloy stays in one piece without gas check.

They advised that the alloy was intact at 100 yards, but grouping was inconsistent.
Target which was shot at, showed clean punch holes, not spatter or tumbling holes.

H4895 load, no GC? interesting. Same load I'm using with PC & GC'd, about same results. I need to work on alloy now & crank up the load for PB 30-30.

[piglet]

This comes from www.bulletfactory.com.au

"Bullet Factory projectiles are made using the highest grade bullet lead (Lead 92%, Antinomy 6%, Tin 2%), encapsulated in a specially formulated bronze Hi-Tek Supercoating by J & M Specialized Products ( jandm@blue1000.com.au ), allowing a performance factor of 3200 ft.per sec and zero fouling of the barrel."

performance factor of 3200 ft.per sec and zero fouling ????

[StratsMan]

Every manufacturer tests his products before starting to sell those.
Or do You suppose GM would manufacture cars, would not test those because they have nobody who can drive a car, and would let the customers do the testing.

Apples and oranges...

Sure, manufacturers test products... GM makes cars, and Boeing makes airplanes... but I'll wager neither of them make the paint that's applied to their products... DuPont employs chemists who make paint that GM and Boeing can use, but they don't build airplanes to test them on... It's up to the vehicle builders to do final testing of the paint they put on their products, and decide if that paint is the "best" product for the application... And they may certify one coating for one application but not for another... It's not the chemists responsibility to test for every bullet velocity/configuration; his job is formulation... He's a custom coatings formulator. I'll wager he'll reformulate to fit your need, if your volume is high enough.

Some businesses succeed by anticipating marketplace needs/wants (ie: cars & clothing)... Others succeed by providing custom services in smaller markets...

[mrjohn]

Thanks for your info (piglet) going to try it very soon.

[piglet]

Apples and oranges...

... DuPont employs chemists who make paint that GM and Boeing can use, but they don't build airplanes to test them on... ...

Maybe so. But believe me, DuPont tests the airplane paint so that they know that it does not disappear from the aluminum plate at the speed of sound even when it rains.
And all that before Boeing paints the airplane.
And GM tests their cars.

It just is so that reliable manufacturers test their products.

[HI-TEK]

Hi-Tek coating was probably created with only pistol boolits in mind.

Thanks for your reply.

You are right. The big volume users were 9mm and 38 special for target shooting.
Manufacturers were interested in the high volume business, as automatic casters were running non stop with such products.
There appeared very few that really asked about coated ammo for rifle applications.

As I tried to previously explain, as people began thinking about rifle applications, some ammo was coated and shot, apparently successfully in some instances but not with others.

That is why I was contacted to carry out more developments to design a product that was suitable for a broader range applications so users were able to coat what ever they wished without the need to purchase several products.

What I did not supply previously, was that some manufacturers, actually coated jacketed ammo which was fired very successfully at rifle speeds.
Examination of the barrel revealed no Copper deposits or any residues being left and aside from powder residues the barrel was clean.

The idea was to try and find out if alloyed Lead without Copper can be used with the coating.
In some applications it has worked well, in others not so well.
Because we were not directly involved with such tests, it is very difficult if not impossible to try and work out why it worked with some and not with others.

Just getting back to the coating matter, the coating, is very unique.
With heat, it does not soften, and in fact, with heat and or energy input, it actually develops more hardness and slipperiness.
If the coating is stuck to the alloy well, and does not melt or fuse,and if it lubricates and survives shooting, it has done the job.
After all, that is the design, to keep one metal away from another so that there is no associated problems.
Once the projectile has left the barrel intact, the coating has done its job.

[HI-TEK]

Apples and oranges...

Sure, manufacturers test products... GM makes cars, and Boeing makes airplanes... but I'll wager neither of them make the paint that's applied to their products... DuPont employs chemists who make paint that GM and Boeing can use, but they don't build airplanes to test them on... It's up to the vehicle builders to do final testing of the paint they put on their products, and decide if that paint is the "best" product for the application... And they may certify one coating for one application but not for another... It's not the chemists responsibility to test for every bullet velocity/configuration; his job is formulation... He's a custom coatings formulator. I'll wager he'll reformulate to fit your need, if your volume is high enough.

Some businesses succeed by anticipating marketplace needs/wants (ie: cars & clothing)... Others succeed by providing custom services in smaller markets...

Thanks for your input.
You are right, we tested any new coatings for adhesion to alloy, and all relevant tests to ensure easy application.
We know what is technical requirements required for the coatings, so making adjustments with intent to improve any physical/engineering area, is a slow and progressive step, to make product suitable for wider range of applications.
Then, after we had done some modifications, the casters then coat and have tested the coating with loaded ammo.
Casters wait for feed back and success or failures. Depending on the type and quality of feed back is what then provides some answers about any modifications.

Despite suggested details, that we don't test the coatings, I beg to differ.
I have spent enormous amounts of time, with casters who had coated thousands of cast alloy, and coated them with various coatings, and which were loaded and shot at rapid fire using various guns.
At the end of rapid fire, the last projectile was fired into water tank, and examined.
Barrels were the examined for residues.
We the determined from such physical examinations, how the coatings had performed.
Over the years, many such one day tests were carried out using various handguns.

In reference to testing of our coatings, in terms of certifications for health and safety, the gold coating was tested by independent environmental engineering company to measure atomised Lead emission levels being produced by use of the coatings on cast alloy.
Results determined, was that the gold coating provided similar atomised Lead emissions as with use of Jacketed ammo.
The coated cast projectiles, atomised Lead emission levels , met requirements with both Australian and US health regulation standards.

I have not seen any other company nor person who can claim such test results, with any suggested coatings or lubes.

[Skip62]

2nd batch looks much better than the first. This is MEK(acetone) and HF PC.