FWIW, I apologize ahead of time for this, my view through a prism of technologist. The profundity of this pull-quote(s) from the article below, is exactly what I'm wrestling, with coating bullets now that we're several years down that road.
'If everything is a trade-off, how do we make any decision about the design...simplicity is not simple." #KISS
"The Danger of 'Simplicity'"
https://tinyurl.com/ww8qtad
The problem with commercial powder coated bullets is that you don't know what the quality of coating is with them either. Unless they carefully spray each bullet with an even coat and bake it without touching something, then they are being done as well as most of the people in here are doing.
It is simpleMeasure everything and change one thing at a time to determine what it contributes to the problem. Of course you have to test enough of them to get a relevant sample group. As a test engineer for a number of years it is simple to determine all the pertinent variables and then compose a test matrix for your use. And don't forget control groups
As an example I just finished a range session where I was comparing seating a gas check before coating or after coating, double coat or single coat, and deep land engagement or shallow. Base group was seating after coating, single coat and deep engagement. 20 rounds each. 80 rounds. Found that shallower engagement was better. Double coating did not change groups nor did seating GC before coating.
But, there might be some combination that is better. Such as a double coat, seated shallow with gas check seated before coating (this is where a test matrix comes into play).
Lots of variables to go
PS some of the things I won't be testing are curing temperatures (I use powder mfg data), cleaning bullets before coating, ES spray application (I don't want to spend the money on it), using lube with the PC (PC is so I don't have to mess with lube), velocity change with coating (don't own a chronograph), and probably won't change PC brand (looks like one bag will last me thousands of rounds).
PPS this is for rifle bullets in a .308Win bolt action. Goal is MOA accuracy at 300-600yd.
Last edited by charlie b; 11-22-2019 at 07:10 PM.
Asked another way...has anyone else published any 'flow properties' of all the particular and differently applied bullet coatings and how each separately correlates to velocity?
Significance much? Speed of the different colors (i.e., slowest to fastest): Red<Orange<Yellow<Green<Blue<Indigo<Violet.
Yeah, I believe this correct. :-J
Bullet coating has changed everything to me. I actually got back to casting after discovering and trying Hi Tek coatings. It made volume shooting big calibers possible for me.
No more gas checks, plain base, full power 45-70 (1900 fps) , 500 S&W (1600 fps) and 357 Magnum loads. Clean barrels,ridiculously clean. Hi Tek is very easy to repeat exactly same way time after time,I'm sure PC can be done equally consistent.
I can use a softer alloy than before (Magnum 14 BHN, 45 ACP 8 ). I can use No Lube Groove molds that are a dream to cast with,raining bullets.
The journey has just begun,everything has changed and the rules are new now.
I just got this GC mold so I'll give the checks a try in a carbine,comparing accuracy.
So, from this I gather that you are interested in the maximum velocity that can be attained with PC vs other bullet types, and then if there is one powder type/color that allows more velocity than another given the pressure limits of the firearm.Originally Posted by agentwolf
Gibson is probably the only person in here with the experience and equipment to measure that.
Ah, now we're getting closer to my original query...what is the definition of performance and does one coating combination 'operate' different than another? The color comment, while true in light of things, was a bad attempt at humor...and simply nudging for statistics. D'oh!
Last edited by agentwolf; 11-23-2019 at 09:08 AM.
I mean; if Velocity + Weight = Power, can coating 'any' bullet have an expected influence? And I agree, arriving at accuracy is something to play with...with each specific weapon and/or caliber. If one's wanting to adorn a coat, which one might fit their concern best?
While of all the coatings the Hi Teck intrigue's me the most, I've no logical reason why it should? 'I Gosh, it's Damb Purdy' shame's my intellect.Bullet coating has changed everything to me. I actually got back to casting after discovering and trying Hi Tek coatings. It made volume shooting big calibers possible for me.
No more gas checks, plain base, full power 45-70 (1900 fps) , 500 S&W (1600 fps) and 357 Magnum loads. Clean barrels,ridiculously clean. Hi Tek is very easy to repeat exactly same way time after time,I'm sure PC can be done equally consistent.
I can use a softer alloy than before (Magnum 14 BHN, 45 ACP 8 ). I can use No Lube Groove molds that are a dream to cast with,raining bullets.
The journey has just begun,everything has changed and the rules are new now.
I just got this GC mold so I'll give the checks a try in a carbine,comparing accuracy.
Hi Tek has been used for 25 years in Australia,it was designed for coating bullets.While of all the coatings the Hi Teck intrigue's me the most, I've no logical reason why it should? 'I Gosh, it's Damb Purdy' shame's my intellect.
I can't believe that I heard about it only two years ago. But the results... There must be collected comparision data somewhere,the thing is,I'm not much interested in comparing lubed vs coated any more ,"proving" anything.
But I will say I eventually quit using cast in a Marlin 45-70, getting 2-3" /100 m with it. I sold my Marlin because I shoot 1" 300 meters with 300 WM. With Hi Tek I'm back to reasonable,jacketed-like 45-70 accuracy & velocity,got a Marlin again. I'm back to many other calibers,too. Not saying coated is inherently more accurate than lubed, no it is not,just easy to get good results right away. No fouling.
Next will be a friend's Merkel 470 NE double,loading a bit lighter practise rounds using these two Lee 476 bullets:
The lighter one is a GC design so I'll use a GC for now. Hi Tek TMG Gold,my favorite coating,very easy to use. There's a 357 Mag round for a size reference only.
Hick it looks like you have gone down the road I'm looking for, so a few questions if you would indulge me.
First I'm looking for peoples experience with the lube vs PC or Hi-Tec coatings using the same bullet at the same brindle hardness. So as an example, your 303, did you stay with the same BH when you switched from lube to PC? If so, could share the BH of your bullet and the velocity differences. What I'm hoping to achieve is a relatively (within reason) softer bullet at a higher velocity without leading, and maintain reasonable accuracy.
Most of my interest is with rifle calibers, most of which are going to be in the 1400 to 1900 FPS range, but, my question is I'm looking for results for a few calibers that can be pushed up into the 1900 to 2400 FPS range and will expand. 358 win, 35 Whelen, 30-06, 338-06, to name a few examples. I've pretty much figured out the lower velocity cartridges, both rifle and sixgun, and it just sounded like your 303 experiences would fall into these categories.
I have not tried bullets that are PC'ed then immediately dropped into ice water. I'm using COWW with 2% tin for about 12 to 13 BH air cooled. By quenching them I'm thinking I can achieve about 17 to 18 BH without adding any Supper Hard.
I'm currently starting to use PC but find that it can add .001 to .003 to the diameter of a given casting, but have not found the limits of where over sizing will come in. Some of my molds are large to start with, so I haven't yet tried (powders sitting on the shelf) Hi-Tec, but from what I understand it gives a thinner coating which would be perfect for certain calibers molds.
Anyway winter is here so with 5 hours of daylight going to under 3 hours by December 20th, and then there's the snow and cold kind of keeps me inside anymore. So I'm working on fit and chamber castings and slugging bores on various guns. Testing will be done from time to time after snow blowing the range path out. The shine has kind of worn off of the winter now that I'm on S.S.
Ok, I've rambled enough.
Thanks John
I really wish I had something useful to contribute to this thread. Unfortunately, I do not. So why am I cluttering the thread with a post? Two reasons:
1. Lloyd Smale said all the things I was too chicken to say.
2. I had to comment on Petander's skills... The man has boolit coating down to an art, and his photographic skills are equally amazing.
"Things sure are a lot more like the way they are now than they used to be." --Yogi Berra
I'll too declare Petander's knack for modeling pills purdy, excites drivel like a kid admiring translucent candy...borderline criminal!
Last edited by agentwolf; 11-23-2019 at 03:51 PM.
Is there any sense in leaning towards the idea of testing of different coatings with the greater consistency of swagged bullet over cast with the same alloy? Might it present truer results of significance?The problem with commercial powder coated bullets is that you don't know what the quality of coating is with them either. Unless they carefully spray each bullet with an even coat and bake it without touching something, then they are being done as well as most of the people in here are doing.
It is simple
As an example I just finished a range session where I was comparing seating a gas check before coating or after coating, double coat or single coat, and deep land engagement or shallow. Base group was seating after coating, single coat and deep engagement. 20 rounds each. 80 rounds. Found that shallower engagement was better. Double coating did not change groups nor did seating GC before coating.
But, there might be some combination that is better. Such as a double coat, seated shallow with gas check seated before coating (this is where a test matrix comes into play).
Lots of variables to go
PS some of the things I won't be testing are curing temperatures (I use powder mfg data), cleaning bullets before coating, ES spray application (I don't want to spend the money on it), using lube with the PC (PC is so I don't have to mess with lube), velocity change with coating (don't own a chronograph), and probably won't change PC brand (looks like one bag will last me thousands of rounds).
PPS this is for rifle bullets in a .308Win bolt action. Goal is MOA accuracy at 300-600yd.
It probably would. Swaged bullets tend to be very consistent, but, usually softer alloys as well. If the cost of swaging was not so high I would have gone that route instead of casting. If you have to buy them then it is back to economics, ie, is the swaged and coated bullet cheaper than the jacketed.
I would predict that a swaged bullet of the proper alloy, powder coated, could be very close to the equal of good copper jacketed. For rifles this is where you get into the twist rate issue as well. Too fast and the bullet has problems. Too slow and the bullet won't stabilize.
To be completely honest, I've been seriously contemplating this for years, looking for the reasons why it makes sense to cast some proper weight shinnies, apply the Hi Tek coating, and swage the bullets w/base guards...from my elementary experience of reloading/casting, it somehow seems right too my ****!
I've owned a Herters Model-0-Super heavy press for going on 30+ years and wanted to put it to a task(s) that merits its aged value.
So many bullet and coating combinations, yet no definitive, reasoned, accurate, scientific evidential information for one over the other? It's actually bizarre such hasn't already been complied in duplicate! Rational conclusions are much of what litters the interweb, and I don't have the resources to acquire the answer(s) I'm seeking!
Waah! It's now 2020, I feel I've somehow missed out. I'll admit while I'm closer to acting on my limited acquired knowledge in this matter, I'm not any closer to answering the question logically. Why, is what I reach for still that far out-of-hand?
It's so frustrating, because it seems such a simple request. Clearly, I'm unable to visualize the complexity of my curiosity, Huh? Wha? Maybe it really doesn't matter, and/or maybe the answer is asked for, too soon in time. But, guess what? Time will tell, guaranteed! Patient she is...yes? D'oh!
So, where would one acquire swagging dies for say a bullet for a ride down a longer ungreesed barrel?
Last edited by agentwolf; 11-29-2019 at 10:31 AM.
Glaciers
I don't think I have all the data you are looking for-- but Here's what I have. In my 303 British, I was driving my plain based pointed cast bullet with lube to just under 1400 fps and started to run into leading and accuracy issues. This bullet was made from Lyman #2 (~15 BHN). I ran low on my supply of Lyman #2 and switched to 10:1 lead/tin at about 9-10 BHN, and with powder coat I raised the velocity to 1410 fps with no leading and very good accuracy (hitting 3" gongs at 100 yards with Enfield open sights). How fast could I go? I don't know. But, I was doing load development in my M1 Garand, with the same bullet sized down to 0.309, same powder coat, and hit those same 3" gongs consistently at 2200 fps, with no deposits in the barrel.
Hick: Iron sights!
I still think your problem is going to be the alloy you use for swaging. If it is the typical dead soft lead then you will limit the velocity of your load based on the spin rate of the bullet.
If you have a slower twist barrel you can get a higher velocity.
Thanks for the photo compliments,everyone. Today's $100 smartphones are amazing.
I think it takes many years to really examine all this,one might write a book while at it. There are so many variables. Even only one barrel,one bullet and one powder ,trying different alloys with different bullet sizes and expanders with a few differently applied coatings,shooting groups with all them... I'm not volunteering. All I can say after two years is,we can use surprisingly soft alloys with coatings. And the size still matters.
I'm loading those new 357 bullets right now. I'll go shooting them today - but I'll only shoot claybirds and plates and chrono a few different guns. Shooting groups every session takes the fun out of all this,I used to shoot so many 300 meter groups that it stopped making sense. One can spend crazy amounts of time and money to shrink 300 meter groups from 32 mm to 28 mm.
So you were using the 10:1 bullet about 10 BHN powder coated in your Garand with no deposits. That does answer my question and thank you. I understand that fit, lube or coating, barrel condition and a few other factors enter into the equation. Besides every gun is to some degree unique.
But I find far more info on handguns then rifle, and most of the rifle info leave out some details. All I'm trying to do is add to the pile of variables to help come up with better results. Early on I was playing the game of harder is better to minimize or eliminate leading. Most of the results were disappointing, in the leading department. So I find slower, softer, heavy for any given caliber and coating, is where I have been heading. There are a few calibers I'd like to push up to around 2400, but few. Most of the higher velocity loading will be with jacketed bullets.
Thanks, John
Posting Permissions
| BP | Bronze Point | IMR | Improved Military Rifle | PTD | Pointed |
| BR | Bench Rest | M | Magnum | RN | Round Nose |
| BT | Boat Tail | PL | Power-Lokt | SP | Soft Point |
| C | Compressed Charge | PR | Primer | SPCL | Soft Point "Core-Lokt" |
| HP | Hollow Point | PSPCL | Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" | C.O.L. | Cartridge Overall Length |
| PSP | Pointed Soft Point | Spz | Spitzer Point | SBT | Spitzer Boat Tail |
| LRN | Lead Round Nose | LWC | Lead Wad Cutter | LSWC | Lead Semi Wad Cutter |
| GC | Gas Check |
Reply With Quote