If you think so, try this.

[Molly]

There's a lot of misinformation still out there about cast bullets. I just read in a very nice, professionally made magazine that lead alloys rub off on the bore at high speed to cause leading. I thought I'd start a thread where folks could post experiences that run contrary to such conventional nonsense. I'll start with a few that grate on me, and open it up for anyone else to chime in that might want to.

If you think leading is caused by rubbing off in the bore, try this: Look down the barrel of high power pellet rifle. There will be no leading at all at over 1000 fps from the air rifle, but your 38 special will lead like mad from unlubricated lead bullets at 500 fps.

Try this too: Get a heavy steel plate and lay it so that it presents a flat surface at a shallow angle, facing down so there will be no richochet into the distance. Fire a bullet across the plate and go take a look at it. You will not find any adherent lead. You will only find a powdery lead smear that you can wipe off with your finger.

If you think that bullets can lead at high velocity because they 'run out of lube', try this: Shoot through a sheet of newspaper from a distance of 10 or 15 feet: You will find small flecks of lube thrown off by the bullet's spin all over it. Cast bullets have lube far in excess of any need, or there wouldn't be any left to spin off after it exits the muzzle.

Try this too: Saturate a bore mop with bullet lube and coat the bore for each shot. You'll find that the load that caused leading before will still cause leading, though there is no possibility that the bullet 'ran out of lube.

If you think that bullets can't strip the rifling, try this: Load a series of shots from very light to the highest velocity that the rifle will still shoot well. Shoot them into something that will allow you to recover the base of the bullet. Large bundles of loose cloth or paper will work well. Even fine sand will do. It will shatter the bullet nose, but the base is usually recoverable. Find the bullet after each shot and mark it. Lay them out side by side by side and look at the width of the engraving groove. You will find that (above a certain point) it gets wider and wider as the velocity increases. You'll also find that accuracy - and leading - becomes wild when the width of the engraving nearly covers the bullet.

If you think that leading isn't caused by etching from the hot propellent gas, try this: Fire a few mild rounds of cast bullets in your rifle that have no lube. After you've got that mess cleaned up, load a few more rounds with the same powder charge, the same unlubricated bullet, but put about 1/2 cc of Cream of Wheat under the bullet. (Keep it in place with a bit of cotton ball.) The cream of Wheat will firewall and keep the hot gas off the bullet. You'll find your bore remains bright, clean and competely lead-free.

Try this too: Take the bullet that is leading, and load it to the same velocity with a slower burning powder. Go from unique in your 357 Mag to 2400, and you'll go from bad leading to lead-free.

Try this too: Wrap that unlubricated bullet in a paper patch. The paper will also act as a firewall to keep the gas off the bullet. And again, you'll find that your bore remains bright, clean and completely lead-free.

[klcarroll]

Hey Molly!

That's a great set of observations!


Kent

[akajun]

I disagree[smilie=l:

Seriously Im gonna print this out onto a card and the next gunstore I go into where the nut behind the counter is telling someone one of the various myths about cast boolits I'm just gonna hand him this and give him the name of the site.

I just left a Police Supply/ Gunstore and had to listen to the owner telling a guy that all lead bullets foul the bore, that he gc's all his cast boolits and they still lead, and you cant shoot more than 1-200 boolits before cleaning or else youll never get the lead out.

[Molly]

I disagree[smilie=l:

Seriously Im gonna print this out onto a card and the next gunstore I go into where the nut behind the counter is telling someone one of the various myths about cast boolits I'm just gonna hand him this and give him the name of the site.

I just left a Police Supply/ Gunstore and had to listen to the owner telling a guy that all lead bullets foul the bore, that he gc's all his cast boolits and they still lead, and you cant shoot more than 1-200 boolits before cleaning or else youll never get the lead out.

Gee, I'm sorry to hear that. I've got a 357 that I use with Keith loads that I hardly ever clean. Well, unless holster wear suggests it's time to reblue it again. It gets cleaned that often at least. But I never have any problem with leading, and it's been decades since it last saw a gas check.

If you think you can't shoot more than one or two hundred bullets without leading, try this: Stop using fast burning powders for high velocity. Try a recommended load of 2400 or H-110. Use a hard alloy - Wheelweights at least - and the Alox/beeswax lube, not something blue or red or polkadot or ... Size to fit the throat of your gun, not the bore. You'll find that your gun has been magically transformed, doesn't lead any more, and is astonishingly more accurate.

[Winger Ed.]

the various myths about cast boolits I'm just gonna hand him this and give him the name of the site..
I wish you well.
However; I've found that the truth doesn't stand a chance against a well established myth.

[leftiye]

Thas cuz everbody always lies. Isn't that what they're telling you when they automatically don't believe you? Onondaga turned me onto an interesting book "People of the Lie" by a guy named Peck. Not saying I buy it all, but some of it is earthshaking.

[akajun]

I wish you well.
However; I've found that the truth doesn't stand a chance against a well established myth.

Your right, this guy is different and I doubt he even has ever cast a bullet. He once tried to sell me a m1 garand as a ww2 bringback "not any of that imported junk". Funny when I looked on the barrel, it was stamped Century Arms. FUnny, I didnt know Century was issuing rifles to GI's in the European theatre.



I dont go in there on a regular basis, but he does have a good selection of police supplies, and I was in need of something that the other Police Supply store in town doesnt carry.

[Winger Ed.]

Your right, this guy is different.

We've got a local gunshop owned by a guy like that.
He's lived at least 15 lifetimes worth of high adventure,,,,,,,
and accumulated about that much expertise in many, many fields.

Hmmmm,,,, From all the similar stories I've heard-
I wonder if such a personality is a requirement for working in a gun store?

[Molly]

Ummm Gentlemen, could we return to the thread topic? It's OK to note how ignorant some (NONSPECIFIC) folks are, but the idea is to pinpoint their ignorance and explain why it's wrong.

Thanks,
Molly

[waksupi]

More mis-information abounding. Companies like Century Arms import various firearms for refurbishing, and use a roll stamp according to federal law, to mark them. So just because something is marked CAI, doesn't mean they can't be a somewhat legitimate piece. I know I worked on around 6000 AK's from Romania, that were wearing that stamp.

[45 2.1]

If you think that bullets can't strip the rifling, try this: Load a series of shots from very light to the highest velocity that the rifle will still shoot well. Shoot them into something that will allow you to recover the base of the bullet. Large bundles of loose cloth or paper will work well. Even fine sand will do. It will shatter the bullet nose, but the base is usually recoverable. Find the bullet after each shot and mark it. Lay them out side by side by side and look at the width of the engraving groove. You will find that (above a certain point) it gets wider and wider as the velocity increases. You'll also find that accuracy - and leading - becomes wild when the width of the engraving nearly covers the bullet.

Gee... guess what..... it doesn't happen for me. I got a half section of boolit that hit a rebar hanger..... it went into the clay sideways after shearing off about half the boolit lengthways. A clear impression of the rifling from meplat radius to base shows the normal rifling width ALL THE WAY.... no leading smears either. Particulars were 50% WW / 50% Pb water dropped at 2400 fps out of a 308. Seems if it was gonna strip, it would have did so......... didn't happen. Your choice of alloy or your loading method got you on yours.

[Ben]

I was at the range shooting by myself about 2 yrs. ago, 3 guys pulled up and walked over to my bench. I was shooting my 06' with the 311284 and 16.0 grs. 2400. As many of you know, if the bullet is sized properly and you have the correct alloy, you can shoot this load all day long and still have a mirror bright, spotless bore.

One of the 3 guys noticed my rounds sitting in the loading block. He said.... " Wait a minute, those are lead bullets ! ! " ( With a shocking emphasis, similar to them being radioactive or something like that ...)

I said " Yes, they are cast bullets."

He said, " There is no way I'd shoot a lead bullet out of any of my rifles." " If you shoot those lead bullets, you will clog up the rifling in the barrel and it will look like a shotgun barrel."

I started to attempt to explain it and realized it was too much of an uphill climb with these 3 " Bubbas " , and simply bid them a good day as they rode off into the sunset.

The myths continue........................

Ben

[Molly]

Gee... guess what..... it doesn't happen for me. I got a half section of boolit that hit a rebar hanger..... it went into the clay sideways after shearing off about half the boolit lengthways. A clear impression of the rifling from meplat radius to base shows the normal rifling width ALL THE WAY.... no leading smears either. Particulars were 50% WW / 50% Pb water dropped at 2400 fps out of a 308. Seems if it was gonna strip, it would have did so......... didn't happen. Your choice of alloy or your loading method got you on yours.

Golly gee. I suggested a series of shots at increasing velocities, recovering the bases and comparing the width of the engravings, predicting that as velocities went up, the engraving width would increase. I didn't say or suggest that the width of the engraving would vary on the same bullet. I said that the engraving width would vary over the SERIES of bullets.

I had no idea that there was someone out there so smart he could prove me wrong with a single half of a single bullet, but I learn something new all the time.

[geargnasher]

I think the point is that it is easily possible to open the engraves to the point that you get as many gas channels at you have lands, and THAT is a serious leading condition. Most experienced casters know what causes this, and as we do workups it is automatically factored into the equation. None of us would cast air-cooled stick-on weights into .30 caliber boolits and send them through the barrel with a 2K+fps charge of powder behind them. But others might.....

Lots and lots of misinformation abounds, even in the published standards of casting books. Richard Lee won't recognize that the guidelines he sets for pressure/alloy strength are often useless for determining limits, or even ideal, pressure conditions for a given alloy. Many of us here run nearly twice the pressure he says is possible for a given alloy strength with excellent results. Lyman is still functioning from 1950s discoveries and technology. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but for anything approaching high pressure they automatically suggest straight linotype alloy. It works, and I guess that's the easiest thing to publish for the average caster to follow, but there is SO much more that can be done with simple alloy formulas and heat-treating that really aren't even mentioned in the books. The softpoint articles are as close as they get to solving the HV hunting rifle dilemma.

Even here there are many contradictions of experience and advice, but most of the time we all agree on what the straight dope is regarding the basics of properly functioning, accurate cast boolit loading.

Gear

[MBTcustom]

I appeal to you all as a reformed idiot. I really drank the cool-aid on this one, and I have been drinking it for years. up until 15 minutes ago I truly believed almost all of the misconceptions you list. Having it explained in such a way makes it a lot easier to bite off. I did always think that WW would scrub off on the barrel causing leading. I was sizing a lyman WW boolit to .308 with a gas-check and green RCBS lube. Loaded these in a 30-30 with 11 grains of unique. Any hotter than that and the leading got to be too much. I just dealt with moderate leading for years and I have shot thousands of these SOBs and just scrubbed my barrel after wards, because that's all I could afford to shoot. I always knew that the gasses would vaporize the base of the boolits but I thought that they left "chalk lines" of lead in the bore also. Now I wonder if I should try sizing to .309 because if what you say is true, the gasses must be getting around the checks.
Whats the problem with strait WW?
I have always used alloys that I can get easily and I try to make it work.
Right now I am alloying eutectic solder 63/37 tin/lead with pure lead 50/50
Do you see a problem with that alloy being shot through a high power rifle?
Thank you for setting me strait, I apologize for including false propaganda in my posts so far.:groner:

[geargnasher]

GS, follow this basic rule of mine: If you have any significant amount of antimony present (1% or more), never add more tin than you do antimony. Overtinning your alloy will result in tin nodules forming on the surface and throughout the alloy as it sets up. When using a true binary lead/tin alloy, 10 parts lead to one part tin is about as high a concentration of tin as is effective. Beyond that, I don't know what you'd expect from the alloy at high velocity.

If you don't have SOME tin (at least a percent or so) in your antimonial alloy (read: Clip-on wheel weights or range scrap yielded from mostly jacketed bullet cores) you can get excessive "antimony wash" in your barrel, which may or may not accumulate in long strings. It's just abraded dust that usually doesn't stick very hard and just patches out with some powder solvent.

If there is ANY copper fouling in your bore from even just a few j-words fired through it, the copper will grab lead. This is friction abrasion, it does happen, but normally lead raked off from a rough spot on the barrel never sticks unless the rough spot happens to be copper or a "seed" streak of lead already deposited in the bore. These "seeds" can grow, change, or be shot out as you go through a long string.

Gear

[Molly]

Hi goodsteel,

> I appeal to you all as a reformed idiot. I really drank the cool-aid on this one, and I have been drinking it for years. up until 15 minutes ago I truly believed almost all of the misconceptions you list. Having it explained in such a way makes it a lot easier to bite off.

Welcome to the intellectually challenged fraternity!! I too once believed most of that garbage, until I started seeing things they didn't explain.

>I did always think that WW would scrub off on the barrel causing leading. I was sizing a lyman WW boolit to .308 with a gas-check and green RCBS lube. Loaded these in a 30-30 with 11 grains of unique. Any hotter than that and the leading got to be too much. I just dealt with moderate leading for years and I have shot thousands of these SOBs and just scrubbed my barrel after wards, because that's all I could afford to shoot. I always knew that the gasses would vaporize the base of the boolits but I thought that they left "chalk lines" of lead in the bore also. Now I wonder if I should try sizing to .309 because if what you say is true, the gasses must be getting around the checks. Whats the problem with strait WW?

There's nothing wrong with wheelweights for a bullet alloy at 30-30 velocities. You've been caught in the common traps of
1) thinking that for higher velocity, you just need a little higher powder charge, and
2) Believing the old 'expert advice' that you should size the bullet to the diameter of your bore. The first is misleading at best, and the second is flat-out wrong.

A lot of guys start out with a light charge of a fast burning powder, just to get the feel of this new game, with an eye toward mild loads for safety. When they get good results, they begin to wonder about somewhat more powerful loads, and increase the powder charge a little bit. It doesn't take long before they're in trouble with leading. Here's why:

Leading occurs when the hot gas swirls past the lead bullet and etches off tiny traces of lead alloy. This is slammed against the film of lube in the bore, which keeps it from sticking for a while. But as the load is increased, there is more force trying to make the melted lead touch the bore, where it sticks and builds up in the adherent mess called leading. There are two ways to deal with this:
1) Go to a slower burning powder. Then your pressure is lower while the bullet is still in the throat, and less etching will result. It will give you less etching in the bore too, but that’s another story.
2) Go to a larger diameter sizer for your bullet. Most 30 caliber rifles have a 0.312 dia throat, and will do a lot better with a 0.312" diameter bullet body than with a 0.308" diameter. That's because it fills up the throat better, and less eroding gas can get by. Again, less leading will result.

>I have always used alloys that I can get easily and I try to make it work.
Right now I am alloying eutectic solder 63/37 tin/lead with pure lead 50/50
Do you see a problem with that alloy being shot through a high power rifle?

Not with very low velocity loads, no. But you have to remember that eutectic solder is designed to wet and adhere to steel very easily. Once your load is high enough to produce some etching (and this takes very little), you have essentially built a machine (cartridge) designed to produce the maximum possible leading in your bore. Not only that, but you have used about the most expensive possible alloy to do it with. And there's not a thing you can do to change that, unless you try a more modern load.

I am particularly fond of cast bullets in the 30-30 Winchester. It is easy to match factory ammunition for velocity and accuracy using well designed bullets like Lyman's 311291 or 311041. Lee (and a host of others) makes comparable designed molds. Pick one with a long, blunt nose that weighs about 170gr. Cast up a mess of bullets out of straight wheelweights. Get a modern mold with a bullet nose that measures 0.300 or 0.301 inches diameter. Drop them from the mold into a tub of water for best/fastest results, or just dry them off and wait a week or two for them to age harden.

Now put a gas check on them and size them to 0.312" using a good lube like the NRA's 50-50 formula. Now charge half a dozen cases with a mild load of 25gr of IMR 3031. Seat the bullets as far forward in the case as you can without jamming the gun. Said another way, seat them to the longest overall length that still lets you close the action easily.

Now clean your rifle bore thoroughly (no green left on a patch of Shooter's Choice or a similar jacketed fouling remover) and dry the bore (a patch wet with kerosene or paint thinner) before you try the ammo out at the range. They should shoot very well, and not leave the slightest trace of leading. The 25gr load of IMR 3031 will kill deer with ease and dispatch (assuming good bullet placement) but you can increase the powder charge as prudence dictates. My personal 'go to' load that I assemble for my rifles without giving it another thought is the above using 30.0gr IMR 3031. Incidentally, you can also use your load of 11.0gr Unique here, instead of the 3031. You still shouldn't see any leading at all.

>Thank you for setting me strait,

That's my way of getting even with all the old goats who gave me such bad advice over the years! (VBG) Enjoy your rifle, and please feel free to drop me a PM if you have any questions. I’m always glad to help.

[JIMinPHX]

This thread might be a good candidate for a sticky.

[MBTcustom]

I have never been so overjoyed at finding out I was wrong. I feel like an idiot. I have (hand on the Bible) literally shot 1 and 1/2 five gallon buckets of WW through my 30/30 and every single one of them was wrong. Now I can't get WW for prices I can afford and I wish I could have one of those buckets back. Kinda makes me sick.

[geargnasher]

Naah, don't look at it that way! I did a lot of it wrong for fifteen years (except one gun, and I had a lot of help from a benchrest guy to get it right) and had a blast. Lead's easier to clean out than copper. I learned a few things along the way, but I operated from the perspective that some leading as inevitable and that guns really needed to be cleaned of accumulated lead each shooting session. I began to wonder if it was possible to eliminate it completely in a gun that was basically suited for cast (not mis-matched dimensionally, rough, or restricted), and after a while I discovered this site. After lurking for a while I essentially just started over from scratch mentally and went boldly forth as a "newbie", gradually bringing back the few good habits and techniques I had developed on my own years ago and merging it with about ten thousand years of casting experience condensed within this site.

I haven't fired a J-word out of any of my own guns in over two years.

Now I only have one gun that leads with most loads, and that's because it has a reverse-taper to the barrel. Small charges of Bullseye and stick-on wheel weight boolits work with that gun without leading, but it's a snap to clean so most of the time I just shoot the regular clip-on alloy in it.

Gear

[JIMinPHX]

Now I can't get WW for prices I can afford and I wish I could have one of those buckets back. Kinda makes me sick.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=26627

[45 2.1]

Golly gee. I suggested a series of shots at increasing velocities, recovering the bases and comparing the width of the engravings, predicting that as velocities went up, the engraving width would increase. I didn't say or suggest that the width of the engraving would vary on the same bullet. I said that the engraving width would vary over the SERIES of bullets. BTDT many many times with your series of shots.... didn't happen then either. I suppose you expect the grooves to get wider as you go up. A top end load doesn't show that.

I had no idea that there was someone out there so smart he could prove me wrong with a single half of a single bullet, but I learn something new all the time. You missed the point entirely................ like some other folks with pet theories here. Lots of Old Wives Tales keep get repeated here much too often. You need to look at the fit of the boolit in the leade, your alloy choice and how you load............ those things effect everything else and give false positives for the UNINFORMED.

[Echo]

I have always used alloys that I can get easily and I try to make it work.
Right now I am alloying eutectic solder 63/37 tin/lead with pure lead 50/50
Do you see a problem with that alloy being shot through a high power rifle?
:groner:

Well, Yes. You are apparently using an alloy that is about 31% Sn, and 69% Pb. Carrumba! Terrific waste of Sn! Two % is generally seen as sufficient, and anything over 3% is wasteful. Find some WW's, or even buy some alloy from one of our vendors, to mix with your solder. for rifle boolits. Elmer Keith did a lot with 1/15 Sn/Pb, and that is about as high a percentage of Sn I have heard of being effectively used in casting.

[Molly]

[QUOTE=45 2.1;1274596]...BTDT many many times with your series of shots.... didn't happen then either. I suppose you expect the grooves to get wider as you go up. A top end load doesn't show that.

Sure happened with my rifle. VERY pronounced increase in the engraving width of higher velocity / power loads over the engraving on lower power / velocity bullets. This using bullets from the same batch of alloy, the same lot of powder, gas checks, seated to the same OAL, and fired in the same rifle.

Not only was the engraving width greater, but close examination of the recovered bullets showed etching on the trailing edge of the engraving, suggesting that wear of the leading edge was responsible for the increase. I duplicated this until I got tired of it.

Would you care to suggest an alternative explanation?

[JIMinPHX]

I noticed a little bit of that changing width of engraving when I did trials on some .44mag loads a while back. http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=81258 I also saw that different powders gave me different amounts of boolit slump at the same velocity.

[Molly]

I noticed a little bit of that changing width of engraving when I did trials on some .44mag loads a while back. http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=81258 I also saw that different powders gave me different amounts of boolit slump at the same velocity.

Thanks for the confirmation. I took a look at your reference and photos, and it looks like you don't have a 'little bit' of engraving enlargement, you seem to have quite a bit. I also notice that 45-2.1 is well aware of your results. I guess we're BOTH wrong, since 45-2.1 says it doesn't happen.

[45 2.1]

[QUOTE=45 2.1;1274596]...BTDT many many times with your series of shots.... didn't happen then either. I suppose you expect the grooves to get wider as you go up. A top end load doesn't show that.

Sure happened with my rifle. VERY pronounced increase in the engraving width of higher velocity / power loads over the engraving on lower power / velocity bullets. This using bullets from the same batch of alloy, the same lot of powder, gas checks, seated to the same OAL, and fired in the same rifle.

Not only was the engraving width greater, but close examination of the recovered bullets showed etching on the trailing edge of the engraving, suggesting that wear of the leading edge was responsible for the increase. I duplicated this until I got tired of it.

Would you care to suggest an alternative explanation?

You haven't made ANY details clear as to what your loading or to what velocities. You sure seem to think it happens to everyone everywhere.


Thanks for the confirmation. I took a look at your reference and photos, and it looks like you don't have a 'little bit' of engraving enlargement, you seem to have quite a bit. I also notice that 45-2.1 is well aware of your results. I guess we're BOTH wrong, since 45-2.1 says it doesn't happen.

No..... I suppose you should read what I wrote.... I said it didn't happen to me. I also said your choices caused it to happen to you. See post #11. There are several ways to insure it doesn't happen, but I guess you haven't tried those yet.

[Molly]

Hi 45-2.1

>You haven't made ANY details clear as to what your loading or to what velocities. You sure seem to think it happens to everyone everywhere.

Nor should it be necessary to do so. I've already told you most of the things I kept constant, but I suppose it won't hurt to add a little more. Who knows, you may be able to point out something I've overlooked.

Let's see. The alloy was linotype cast into a 311291, seated into the throat of a Ruger 30-06, the high end powder & charge was 50.0g and 52.0g IMR 4831, the intermediate charges were same powder down to 40.0g, and the low end velocities were provided by 25.0 & 30.0g IMR 3031. What have I overlooked?

As to absolute velocities, I don't know, as I didn't have a chronograph at the time. But it doesn't take a great deal of experinece to see that I had the velocity range pretty well covered.

But even if I had fired and recovered only one round with ANY powder and ANY charge, and recovered a single bullet base with engraving that was noticably wider than the rifling that produced it, my case is proven. But the body of experimental evidence is considerably greater than that. A phenomenon of abrasive enlargement of engraving has not only been observed, it has been reliably reproduced by myself and demonstrated by others as well. Whether you think that some special conditions applied is immaterial. The enlargement occurred, which is all I ever said in the first place.

And even if there is some special condition that must be met, the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate your claim of its existance. You make a lot of noise, but you have yet to produce any alternative theory, or to point out a flaw in mine, or provide the first shred of experimental evidence except that you fired a single shot that didn't demonstrate enlarged engraving. That does absolutely nothing to discredit my observation that enlarged engraving is present in bullets recovered from high velocity rounds from my rifle.

I'll challenge you back your words. Produce a round under ANY conditions that results in enlarged engraving, and then make "the choices necessary" to produce a highly similar round / velocity that fails to show enlarged engraving.

...I said it didn't happen to me. I also said your choices caused it to happen to you. See post #11. There are several ways to insure it doesn't happen, but I guess you haven't tried those yet.[/QUOTE]

To repeat: Let's see you make some of the choices in a load that aproximates my own that produces enlarged engraving, and then make choices that prevents it.

[Molly]

This thread appears to have generated considerable discussion on the Accurate Shooting forum for cast bullets. I've tried to respond, but that takes joining, which requires approval, which hasn't occurred yet.

But one topic over there does deserve some comment here, to avoid misleading someone on this forum. I have been guilty of some carelessness in my description and discussion of enlargement of engraving marks, and have referred to it as 'stripping the rifling.’ This term can be (and is) understood to mean different things.

I believe it was Col Harrison who reported an attempt to strip the rifling in an American Rifleman discussion of his cast bullet research. If I recall correctly, his attempt to prove or disprove that possibility consisted of inserting a square rod into the muzzle of a rifle and casting a pure lead slug around it. After it had cooled, he tried to rotate the square rod and force the lead slug to strip the rifling. He did not succeed, and concluded that stripping the rifling was an impossibility. And I believe he was right: Cast bullets will not strip from rotary shear so far as I am aware. This is not what I intended to convey by the term, but a fairly extended discussion will be necessary to convey my meaning fully. Please bear with me.

I found that using ordinary conventional ‘bare’ cast bullet loads, recovered bases from light to moderate power loads were about as I expected and showed engraving widths compatible with the rifling in the gun. Damage to the bullet was nil in the lightest loads, but at a certain power level, small spots of etching appeared on the gas check shank exactly in front of the engraving mark on the gas check. (I still do not understand this: I would expect the first gas leakage to occur in an area NOT compressed by the rifling. But I just report exactly what I found.) These etched spots grew larger with increased power until they formed a ring around the base of the gas check shank. At more or less the same time, etching began to appear on the base band above the gas check shank. Its location was invariably on the trailing edge of the engraving, or on the side NOT being pushed by the rifling to rotate the bullet.

I can’t define exactly where the engraving enlargement began to take place, but by the time etching had advanced to the second band (again, on the trailing edge), a light but uniform enlargement of the engraving was noticeable. Etching continued to grow progressively worse on the base band as it progressed further up the bullet. And as the etching progressed, so did the enlargement, which was apparently uniform from the gas check as far forward as the condition of the recovered bullet allowed judgment. When the bullet engraving was roughly 170% of the rifling land width, leading spray was observed at the muzzle in a star pattern, originating on the trailing edge of the lands where the etching was. There was no lead / etching spray on the driving side of the lands. Accuracy had seriously deteriorated from a typical 1 to 1.25 MOA to roughly 2.5 to 3.5 MOA. I attribute this enlargement to the more powerful loads producing more pressure on the bullet against the driving side of the engraving. It’s rather like sanding a bit of woodwork: the harder you push, the faster the sandpaper will wear the wood down. Similarly, the harder you push the bullet against the land, the faster the land will wear the bullet.

From this evidence, I concluded that ‘stripping the rifling’ was entirely possible as an abrasive process. The bullet was being abraded by the driving side of the lands, which resulted in a constantly enlarging engraving on the bullet. The enlarged area acted as a passageway for gas to escape past the body of the bullet, etching lead droplets that were delivered from the muzzle as noted above. By extension, I could envision hotter loads which would abrade the engraving until it merged with the engraving of the adjacent land, leaving nothing of the original body diameter.

I cannot prove it, but I believe I have actually fired loads that did just this when I first tried cast bullets. I had NO guidance, and I loaded soft lead bullets over a maximum charge for a jacketed bullet in a 30-06. Shooting was quite wild! At 25 yards, I couldn’t even stay on the backstop, and the bore was so badly leaded by just a few shots that no rifling was visible.

I hope this puts things on a level that isn’t misunderstood by anyone, and apologize for any misunderstandings that may have resulted from my careless wording.

45-2.1, if this is the source of our disagreement, you have my sincere apology.

[Molly]

Originally Posted by goodsteel
>Now I can't get WW for prices I can afford and I wish I could have one of those buckets back. Kinda makes me sick.

I haven't tried it, but I understand that some guys have had good success by trading a fresh sixpack (or two) of cold beer for a bucket of dirty tire weights. Your mileage may vary, depending on your sociability index and whether the boss has been selling them ....

[MBTcustom]

Its all good! I think I scored a bucket of WW in trade for some solder. "imagine that!" one of our members said he would deliver right to me. What a deal. Thanks again for setting me strait, I cant wait to try out my guns with this new info.
I'm so glad I joined cast boolits! This is the best gun sight on the internet!

[Suo Gan]

Frankly, I enjoy it when the guru's battle. It makes me realize how much a babe in the woods I really am.

Molly, I am not clear, what is your theory as to why you are seeing the engraving increase in width as your velocity increases?

45 2.1 What do you think is going on?

[nanuk]

Sao Gan: here is how I understand what Molly is saying

the vertical edge of the rifling land that is pressured into the lead groove simply WEARS away some of the lead.

Imagine if you will a rectangle file with cutting one all sides. take a piece of metal , and drive one of the narrow sides into the metal, and with the other hand, pressure the file to one side. the trailing edge will appear to get larger, but it is actually the leading edge (edge where pressure is applied) that cuts the metal.
the open area left behind (to the side) of the file is where the Leading of the bore originates.

that is how I understand it

[BABore]

One thing I would be looking hard at is the use of linotype. Sure, it's plenty hard enough at around 22 bhn. It's also extremely brittle without any give, toughness, and elasticity. The increased pressure on the leading edge of the rifling permanetly shifts the material through shearing forces. Shear forces aren't kind to hard, brittle materials. HTWW's would work slightly better, but can still suffer from the same fate if your WW's happen to HT into the 28-30 bhn range. Water dropping WW's will show a slight improvement since it's more apt to produce a slightly softer core if done right. It's also much harder to do on 30 caliber boolits than bigger diameters. Although this doesn't necessarily apply to the OP topic of rifling marks widening and gas blow-by, both lino and WW's have another fault at HV. High antimony levels. At HV you tend to pick up more grey wash in your bbl which is caused by the antimony that has migrated to the boolits exterior. That wash is a hard fouling that reeks havoc on boolits.

A much better alloy choice would be a mix of 50-50 to 60-40 WW's and Pb, water dropped. Shoot for final hardness of 22 bhn and age the boolits at least a month. The same hardness as lino, but it will have the toughness and elasticity that will tolerate the high torque and shear forces. You also reap the benefits of the lower antimony level and reduced fouling. If even more toughness is needed, add a small portion of nickel babbit to the 50/50 alloy. The small amounts of nickel and copper will increase both hardness and toughness.

The next step would be proper boolit fit. The OP said that the boolit was seated to touch the rifling. That's all good. What about the rest of the boolit. Is the throat filled with boolit? Is the boolit sized big enough so the expanded case doesn't leave the boolit base hanging in the breeze? That wasn't given. The boolit has to get into the bbl straight and with the least amount of damage to give it a fair chance.

Finally, how you launch the boolit has a big impact on how it takes the rifling. High launch pressure will cause more distorsion and skidding. Getting the boolit into the bbl before it gets hammered is most desirable. The OP's use of 4831 in the 30'06 is a good start. You need a slow for caliber powder to pull it off. But, was it the right powder? Maybe. There's a whole slug of powders in the same burn rate and slower that could also be the one. You just have to try them. It's also sometimes necessary to make use of a compressible plastic buffer to further cushion the boolit base from the high pressure. Lube will also play into this to keep fouling down. Some work better than others.

[btroj]

Learning from mistakes is the best way to learn. I find it better sometimes to learn what won't work than to know instantly what won't. I also keep in mind that those rules are for that set of variables.
I find that shooting cast is a great way to remove the copper from a lightly copper fouled barrel. Seems to work well for me.
I think the original post makes some interesting points. Yes, a bullet can strip the lands. I don't have any doubt that it can, if driven hard enough. I also think the point about cream of wheat protecting the base shows that leading is a multifaceted evil. I don't think we can say that leading has a single source. Leading in many guns is caused by a variety of factors. The key is finding what is causing the leading in the gun with that load.

Brae

[45 2.1]

Let's see. The alloy was linotype cast into a 311291 Another probable ill fitting boolit., seated into the throat of a Ruger 30-06, the high end powder & charge was 50.0g and 52.0g IMR 4831 These charges are below the starting load for jacketed data and no cast data is listed for these in the current Lyman manual. 55.0 gr. lists at 2,564 fps/37,300 C..... these are hardly high end loads., the intermediate charges were same powder down to 40.0g Obvious why your having problems there., and the low end velocities were provided by 25.0 & 30.0g IMR 3031 29.0 gr. is listed as a starting load at 1,710 fps/ 13,900 C. What have I overlooked? Lets see, your loading outside known safe zones with a hard non ductile alloy without determining the proper boolit/throat fit. Your data and results (much like what another member here did) suggests an undersize boolit. Alloy is too hard for the pressure levels you've given........... etc. If you boolit has a sloppy fit, then the results you've given are the result, among other things. Try reading the archives here... they are full of how to do it right (Myself, BABore, 357 Maximum, Dutch4122), not the 1970's approach that you've listed. Sorry, i'm not biting on your entitlement approach / challenge. Don't bother with a reply as you will have to do your own work, like we did.

[Molly]

Sao Gan: here is how I understand what Molly is saying

the vertical edge of the rifling land that is pressured into the lead groove simply WEARS away some of the lead.

Imagine if you will a rectangle file with cutting one all sides. take a piece of metal , and drive one of the narrow sides into the metal, and with the other hand, pressure the file to one side. the trailing edge will appear to get larger, but it is actually the leading edge (edge where pressure is applied) that cuts the metal.
the open area left behind (to the side) of the file is where the Leading of the bore originates.

that is how I understand it

Very well put, Nanuk. That's an excellent illustration. And notice, if you will, that this ties in perfectly with the usually marginal to poor results of cast bullets used in microgroove barrels. The force necessary to rotate the barrel is applied with very shallow rifling, which has a correspondingly low area compressing the engraving wall. Same amount of force applied over less area means more wear, exaggerating the enlargement.

I have no microgroove barrels to test, but I wonder if anyone out there is interested enough to load and recover bullets from a series in a microgroove barrel. The series should consist of a very light control load, followed by increasingly more powerful loads until accuracy fails. It sure would be interesting to hear what happens.

[Molly]

[QUOTE=45 2.1;1275758]
>Let's see. The alloy was linotype cast into a 311291 Another probable ill fitting boolit., seated into the throat of a Ruger 30-06

You presume too much, 45-2.1. You have absolutely no reason to make such an assumption. The nose of my 311291 could not be forced into the muzzle of my rifle without a good deal of effort. The body was sized to 0.312" because 0.313" would not fit in the throat of my rifle, and required seating the bullet impractically deep, exposing the base to the powder chamber.

> the high end powder & charge was 50.0g and 52.0g IMR 4831

>These charges are below the starting load for jacketed data and no cast data is listed for these in the current Lyman manual. 55.0 gr. lists at 2,564 fps/37,300 C..... these are hardly high end loads., the intermediate charges were same powder down to 40.0g

You are indeed presumptious sir. Please review this thread and show me where I claimed that I was duplicating jacketed loads, or even that I was using a recommended load from Lyman or anyone else. What I said was that I used IMR 4831 powder, and that the highest load I used / tested was 52.0g of that powder, while the lowest load of that powder was 40.0 gr. That statement is factual, and does not require your approval or even your acceptance.

>Obvious why your having problems there.,

So provide some of the reasons that you think pertinent. If you can. Any fool can say "you've made obvious mistakes ..." It's a heck of a lot harder to finish that statement with " ... and this is what they are: (1. ... 2. ... 3. ...)"

>and the low end velocities were provided by 25.0 & 30.0g IMR 3031 29.0 gr. is listed as a starting load at 1,710 fps/ 13,900 C. What have I overlooked? [B]Lets see, your loading outside known safe zones

(Sigh) 30.0gr of IMR 3031 under a 170g bullet was a standard recipie for 30-30 loads for decades. If you are suggesting that using that charge in a larger case will produce unsafe pressures, .... well, let's just say we disagreee on that too.

>with a hard non ductile alloy without determining the proper boolit/throat fit.

Talk about arrogant presumption! Whatever gives you the idea I had to use an alloy or load that you had approved of? I used an alloy and a powder and a charge that gave me the results I wanted in terms of accuracy and power. I had and still have every right to do so. And as I pointed out above, (and counter to your line of presumption) fit for the throat and bore of the rifle had been examined and determined to be nearly optimum.

>Your data and results (much like what another member here did) suggests an undersize boolit. Alloy is too hard for the pressure levels you've given........... etc. If you boolit has a sloppy fit, then the results you've given are the result, among other things.

You are absolutely amazing! My boolit could not have been larger and still functioned. But without a single question from you for information about the dimensions of either the bullet or the throat and bore, you are somehow magically enabled to determine that I was using an undersized bullet.

>Sorry, i'm not biting on your entitlement approach / challenge.

I have no idea what you are talking about with this one. But then, neither do you, do you?

>Don't bother with a reply as you will have to do your own work, like we did.

Oh, I'm sure you would like that response to go unchallenged. Sorta takes the wind out of your sails to have your obvious mistakes and errronous assumptions pointed out for everyone to see, doesn't it? Well, perhaps not. You seem to have enough wind to cover a lot of sailcloth.

You know, 45-2.1, I have no problem with being criticized - as such. They give me an opportunity to learn more, and God knows, I appreciate it. But you have come into an honest report of what I did and the results I got, and - though it was obvious you didn't have the slightest idea what I was talking about - began throwing your weight around without the first question to be sure you had understood correctly. You rant about all the mistakes I made. So what? I wasn't trying to develop the perfect cast bullet load by your standards, or even by my own. I was only reporting what I did, the results it gave me, and the conclusions I drew from those results.

If you had come on equally strong but said something like "Have you considered that (X) might have happened?" or "Another explanation for your results could be (X)", I'd have thanked you. And I'd have meant every word. But you haven't contributed anything at all to the discussion. You've told me that the diameters of my bullet and throat /bore are incorrect, but I'm the guy with the micrometer. I KNOW you're off base. ... Let me rephrase that: I KNOW you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

Now if you don't want to 'bother' with a response, that's fine. In fact, it's more than fine. I can do without input like yours very nicely. But if you do decide to respond, could you throw in a few facts to go along with your assumptions? In particular, I suggest you give up the notion that I have to or should have developed my loads according to criteria that you set. I set my own criteria to satisfy my own interests and needs, not yours.

You are welcome to question both my logic and my procedures - but not until you ask a few questions to understand what they are.

I don't often allow myself the luxury of a response like this, but it just doesn't seem right to deprive you of the recognition you seem to have worked so hard to get.

Molly

[Molly]

One thing I would be looking hard at is the use of linotype. Sure, it's plenty hard enough at around 22 bhn. It's also extremely brittle without any give, toughness, and elasticity. The increased pressure on the leading edge of the rifling permanetly shifts the material through shearing forces. Shear forces aren't kind to hard, brittle materials. HTWW's would work slightly better, but can still suffer from the same fate if your WW's happen to HT into the 28-30 bhn range. Water dropping WW's will show a slight improvement since it's more apt to produce a slightly softer core if done right. It's also much harder to do on 30 caliber boolits than bigger diameters. Although this doesn't necessarily apply to the OP topic of rifling marks widening and gas blow-by, both lino and WW's have another fault at HV. High antimony levels. At HV you tend to pick up more grey wash in your bbl which is caused by the antimony that has migrated to the boolits exterior. That wash is a hard fouling that reeks havoc on boolits.

A much better alloy choice would be a mix of 50-50 to 60-40 WW's and Pb, water dropped. Shoot for final hardness of 22 bhn and age the boolits at least a month. The same hardness as lino, but it will have the toughness and elasticity that will tolerate the high torque and shear forces. You also reap the benefits of the lower antimony level and reduced fouling. If even more toughness is needed, add a small portion of nickel babbit to the 50/50 alloy. The small amounts of nickel and copper will increase both hardness and toughness.

The next step would be proper boolit fit. The OP said that the boolit was seated to touch the rifling. That's all good. What about the rest of the boolit. Is the throat filled with boolit? Is the boolit sized big enough so the expanded case doesn't leave the boolit base hanging in the breeze? That wasn't given. The boolit has to get into the bbl straight and with the least amount of damage to give it a fair chance.

Finally, how you launch the boolit has a big impact on how it takes the rifling. High launch pressure will cause more distorsion and skidding. Getting the boolit into the bbl before it gets hammered is most desirable. The OP's use of 4831 in the 30'06 is a good start. You need a slow for caliber powder to pull it off. But, was it the right powder? Maybe. There's a whole slug of powders in the same burn rate and slower that could also be the one. You just have to try them. It's also sometimes necessary to make use of a compressible plastic buffer to further cushion the boolit base from the high pressure. Lube will also play into this to keep fouling down. Some work better than others.

You make some good points BaBore.

Let me explain that I didn't go the quenched wheelweight route for several reasons. First of all, this work took place decades ago, before water quenching was a widely known process. At least, I didn't know about it. Secondly, it wasn't too long after Col Harrison published the results of his research, where he pointed out that a major factor in cast bullet failure was use of too soft an alloy. Scrap lead was very cheap but very soft. Col Harrison's comment on its use was - if I recall correctly - "Economy is a worthwhile goal, but when it leads you to use materials that guarantee failure, you may wish to re-examine your system of values." Linotype gave me the first reliable loads with power much above what was usable for squirrel hunting, and I turned to it for virtually all powerful loads. and though brittle, it was still quite effective on deer.

The third reason was that this was not a single unitized research project, at least at first. I didn't set out to find out what the failure mechanisims of cast bullets might be. I just loaded ammo and shot it. Sometimes I could recover bullet bases from dirt banks, pools of water, etc. I'd saved up quite a collection before I noticed that some of them showed varying amounts of etching around the gas check shank. Curious, I made a point of examining the recovered bases, and noticed that the amount of etching was proportional to the power of the load. It was when holding up different recovered bases to compare the etching that I noticed a difference in width of the land engraving as well as a difference in etching. Once noticed, it was embarrassingly obvious, but I'd looked at recovered bullet bases for years without noticing it. It was only when bases with very different engraving widths were held side by side that I saw it. I wonder how much more we see every day, but don't recognize?

This DID trigger a small research program. I fired (and recovered) linotype 311291 bullets over a range of velocities, and found the progression of etching and engraving enlargement that I reported in preceeding posts. I started with linotype because of the reliability of its results. I stayed with linotype for the simple reason that I didn't want to introduce more variables than necessary. (Geometric progressions grow out of control very quickly!) Once I had a consistent set of results, I thought something to the effect of "Gee, isn't that interesting?" and tucked it away in my memory.

Oh, I used it from time to time, like when I was developing Cream of Wheat loads. But I didn't number many casters among my friends, and nobody else that cast for rifles. It was just something I knew I'd done, and what the results were, and the conclusions I'd drawn. Then when I started this thread, I put it down here, never dreaming that anything so obvious would draw the attentiion it has received. Or the misunderstanding that some have exhibited.

By the way, I didn't follow some of your acryronyms: I'm probably showing off my ignorance, but what is 'OP'?

[DIRT Farmer]

Molly, OP would be origonal post.
I am not sure my comment here is part of the consideration here as the loads I will comment on(recovered from snow banks which here are random enough in occurance to hamper establishing results) I have noticed with standard low speed rounds in the '06 using the Lyman 311-291 ( sized to .312) from air cooled WW a slightly wider grouve impression on the leading edge of the first driving band. With the wad cutters in 38 spl from a Smith 66 the widening is more pronouched. When I learned the grease grouves did not need to be in the case neck I no longer noticed the impressions being wider on the front. As I said I don't know if this adds to the discussion but there are two ends to the projectile.

[Plinkster]

As far as microgroove rifling goes I have no experience but as a machinist I understand the theory behind it. Seems to me it's similar to the difference between coarse and fine pitch threads. Sure the coarse threads look big and burly and strong but what makes the fine pitch in fact stronger is the increased surface area that actually distributes the load. So microgrooves may in fact work better than ballad, with a projectile that fits properly for the malleability and hardness of said projectile. Now we all know that the manufacturers do not produce firearms for the masses to shoot cast, the masses shoot jackets. Back to the thread theory, a fine thread of X diameter will strip in aluminum before a coarse thread of same diameter does in steel. This is obviously due to material strength, yield pressures, etc. So this probably is why microgroove is looked down upon by casters as I suspect copper is just that much bit harder to be able to function in microgrooves. That and it's cheap to put in a barrel. Let me disclaim this by saying that I do not in fact own a microgroove gun and have not even inspected the bore of one, and that the above is all pure cranial conjecture based upon hundreds of hours of gleaning knowledge from mainly this site. I will add however that I have read a post or three claiming very good accuracy with cast in microgroove barrels.

[Molly]

Molly, OP would be origonal post.
I am not sure my comment here is part of the consideration here as the loads I will comment on(recovered from snow banks which here are random enough in occurance to hamper establishing results) I have noticed with standard low speed rounds in the '06 using the Lyman 311-291 ( sized to .312) from air cooled WW a slightly wider grouve impression on the leading edge of the first driving band. With the wad cutters in 38 spl from a Smith 66 the widening is more pronouched. When I learned the grease grouves did not need to be in the case neck I no longer noticed the impressions being wider on the front. As I said I don't know if this adds to the discussion but there are two ends to the projectile.

Hi Farmer,

Yes, what you saw has been reported in the literature for at least the early 1900's. It's not the same thing that I saw.

What you have encountered is usually referred to as 'skidding'. This is a term used to sum up a long-winded expression that would go something like this:

"When the bullet is seated well back from the origin of the rifling, the powder charge has a chance to get it moving at a pretty good rate before it hits the rifling. By that time, the bullet has a pretty good forward inertia and no rotary inertia at all. The forward inertia keeps it going forward without rotation until the rifling has a chance to bite into the bullet and get it turning as well as going forward. This usually happens within the first body band, though it is sometimes seen on the second band too. Sliding on the angled rifling produces a V-shaped engraving here until the bullet begins to rotate. Once the bullet is spinning, the engraving on the bullet reverts to normal width for the rest of the body length. Revolvers are particularly subject to this because the bullet has to traverse the cylinder and the forcing cone before encountering the rifling.

This usually does not present a problem in the practical use of the firearm, but if this skidding is believed to be a problem, it can be corrected by using a harder alloy or seating the bullet closer or actually into the origin of the rifling."

What I was reporting may seem similar, but is actually quite different. I saw a very uniform engraving over the length of the body of each bullet, but which varied in width from duplicating the bore rifling in lighter loads to considerably wider than the bore rifling in more powerful loads.

Hope this helps.

[Molly]

As far as microgroove rifling goes I have no experience but as a machinist I understand the theory behind it. Seems to me it's similar to the difference between coarse and fine pitch threads. Sure the coarse threads look big and burly and strong but what makes the fine pitch in fact stronger is the increased surface area that actually distributes the load. So microgrooves may in fact work better than ballad, with a projectile that fits properly for the malleability and hardness of said projectile. Now we all know that the manufacturers do not produce firearms for the masses to shoot cast, the masses shoot jackets. Back to the thread theory, a fine thread of X diameter will strip in aluminum before a coarse thread of same diameter does in steel. This is obviously due to material strength, yield pressures, etc. So this probably is why microgroove is looked down upon by casters as I suspect copper is just that much bit harder to be able to function in microgrooves. That and it's cheap to put in a barrel. Let me disclaim this by saying that I do not in fact own a microgroove gun and have not even inspected the bore of one, and that the above is all pure cranial conjecture based upon hundreds of hours of gleaning knowledge from mainly this site. I will add however that I have read a post or three claiming very good accuracy with cast in microgroove barrels.

FWIW, my understanding of the theory behind microgroove rifling differs a little bit from yours, but neither explanation contradicts the other. It's my understanding that microgrooves were originated by a desire to reduce bullet deformation in the bore to an absolute minimum. And it's only common sense that a disruption that is ~ 0.0025" deep will produce more imbalance than a disruption that is only ~0.001" inches deep. The theoretical advantge thus lies with the finer rifling. However, it's noteworthy that I know of not a single competition shooter who uses barrels so bored.

That does not mean that the microgroove system is without merit: I understand that it works fine with jacketed or paper patched bullets, though it has been reported to wear out a lot faster than normal rifling. I have also read an occasional report of good results with regular lead bullets, but they never seem to provide enough real information like alloy, hardness, load and velocity to enable a real understanding whether something unusual is really going on.

[3006guns]

The comments on "stripping the rifling" interested me greatly. I've seen the term hoo hahed by some very knowledgeable people..."it just doesn't happen" etc.

They've obviously never worked with a Japanese Arisaka before. At higher velocities I HAVE to use a very hard alloy or my groups look more like shotgun patterns. Those Metford rifling lands are great for preventing the accumulation of fouling, but being rounded they need a hard boolit!

[Suo Gan]

One thing I would be looking hard at is the use of linotype. Sure, it's plenty hard enough at around 22 bhn. It's also extremely brittle without any give, toughness, and elasticity. The increased pressure on the leading edge of the rifling permanetly shifts the material through shearing forces. Shear forces aren't kind to hard, brittle materials. HTWW's would work slightly better, but can still suffer from the same fate if your WW's happen to HT into the 28-30 bhn range. Water dropping WW's will show a slight improvement since it's more apt to produce a slightly softer core if done right. It's also much harder to do on 30 caliber boolits than bigger diameters. Although this doesn't necessarily apply to the OP topic of rifling marks widening and gas blow-by, both lino and WW's have another fault at HV. High antimony levels. At HV you tend to pick up more grey wash in your bbl which is caused by the antimony that has migrated to the boolits exterior. That wash is a hard fouling that reeks havoc on boolits.

A much better alloy choice would be a mix of 50-50 to 60-40 WW's and Pb, water dropped. Shoot for final hardness of 22 bhn and age the boolits at least a month. The same hardness as lino, but it will have the toughness and elasticity that will tolerate the high torque and shear forces. You also reap the benefits of the lower antimony level and reduced fouling. If even more toughness is needed, add a small portion of nickel babbit to the 50/50 alloy. The small amounts of nickel and copper will increase both hardness and toughness.

The next step would be proper boolit fit. The OP said that the boolit was seated to touch the rifling. That's all good. What about the rest of the boolit. Is the throat filled with boolit? Is the boolit sized big enough so the expanded case doesn't leave the boolit base hanging in the breeze? That wasn't given. The boolit has to get into the bbl straight and with the least amount of damage to give it a fair chance.

Finally, how you launch the boolit has a big impact on how it takes the rifling. High launch pressure will cause more distorsion and skidding. Getting the boolit into the bbl before it gets hammered is most desirable. The OP's use of 4831 in the 30'06 is a good start. You need a slow for caliber powder to pull it off. But, was it the right powder? Maybe. There's a whole slug of powders in the same burn rate and slower that could also be the one. You just have to try them. It's also sometimes necessary to make use of a compressible plastic buffer to further cushion the boolit base from the high pressure. Lube will also play into this to keep fouling down. Some work better than others.

If there was one response I have ever read here that is worth its writers weight in gold, this one is it. I hope the newbies are paying attention.

[deltaenterprizes]

More mis-information abounding. Companies like Century Arms import various firearms for refurbishing, and use a roll stamp according to federal law, to mark them. So just because something is marked CAI, doesn't mean they can't be a somewhat legitimate piece. I know I worked on around 6000 AK's from Romania, that were wearing that stamp.

He was trying to sell it as a "bring back" that is a weapon etc that was brought back by a soldier after WW 2 around 1945, they have no import markings because the 1968 GCA did not exist.:kidding:

[DIRT Farmer]

Thanks Molly, For many years I have been in a "casting wilderness" where my info came from the Lyman book and the rare article in The Rifleman. I descovered the advantage of filling the throat when using a rifle reguired .312 to be the standard .001 over bore. Back to your point, I have recovered castings that have had the land impression that were wider than the groove impression. Basicly I had no clue why but knew they leaded and strayed from the target.

[mroliver77]

I am surprised nobody else has chimed in about micro groove rifling. I have three Marlins with MG. They shoot cast very well. They are a bit more finicky about loads but with proper loading they perform as well as any other factory gun I have.

One thing that needs to be understood is the BORE is larger due to the shallow rifling. Bore riders suffer if the nose does not fit well. Another thing is Marlin 30-30 does not have a throat per se. It is more like a funnel from the neck o.d. to the bore size. Hard boolits handle this setup much better than soft does. My best shooting boolit in my Marlin 30-30 is an LBT 150gr . It is sized .310 and cast out of WW +tin or WW/PB 50/50 with 1-2% tin and quenched. Boolit lightly engraves when chambered. I use H414 powder for this load as it is on the slow end of suitable powders and is easier on the boolit. Looks like BABore and I subscribe to the same theory!


I fire soft lead also but with light loads. Again well fitted boolits are a must. I have a 311440 with a larger nose that shoots well in this gun. Even out of pure lead over 3 gr Bulls Eye shoots well. .313 round balls over small doses of BE is a bird bashers dream. I roll them in alox. I want to try 45-45-10 mix on them someday.

I could go on with the other MG guns but the loading regime is the same and the outcome is also. MG barrels do shoot very well. I don't know if they shoot benchrest well or not. ;) Now you got me thinking!

I forgot to add that I have NEVER had the slightest trace of leading in any of my MG barrels!

Jay

[MBTcustom]

Hey there fellers, I wanted to show the inspiring results that I have gotten by following what I learned on this thread.
First, I took pictures of what happens with the original groove size boolits (.358) in my .358 Malcolm wildcat. (In all of these results that I am going to show, the boolits were going faster than 2150fps with H335 powder.)
http://i1120.photobucket.com/albums/l481/goodsteel/IMG_0937.jpg
http://i1120.photobucket.com/albums/l481/goodsteel/IMG_0938.jpg
As you can see the boolits left a lot of lead in the barrel. The patch has gobs of it all over. That was one shot from a gaschecked boolit with two coats of 45/45/10 lube. (dont laugh I used that light lube because I wanted to test what I learned on this thread.)
The next boolit that I tried was identical to the first except that it was sized to .360 instead of .358.
http://i1120.photobucket.com/albums/l481/goodsteel/IMG_0942.jpg
As you can see, the difference is astonishing. Im sure you all are familiar with 45/45/10, and you know that there aint much lube there. I proceeded to shoot another five shots of the .360 diameter boolits and when I pushed the patch through, I got a few speckles of lead on the patch.
Next I tried felix lube (the best I could do anyway) on the same .360 diameter boolit and it yielded about the same result as the 45/45/10 did with one shot. So I loaded up 10 of them and shot them all with out cleaning the barrel. When I pushed the patch through, I was amazed.
http://i1120.photobucket.com/albums/l481/goodsteel/IMG_0944.jpg
There was no lead speckles at all. Nothing. Just powder residue. I think that this proves conclusively that what the OP was claiming is true (at least its gospel for me now) Although I knew I was reading truth when I read the OP. I have shot so many boolits the wrong way, I can tell you that I have experienced all most all of those scenarios he listed as experiments, I just didn't know what I was looking at.
Since I have taken those pictures I have continued to drive boolits very fast, and I have gotten some very good results from them.
Here's a 50yrd group with 200gr RCBS GC boolits I was pushing them 2250fps!
http://i1120.photobucket.com/albums/l481/goodsteel/IMG_0970.jpg
Thanks for setting me strait Molly! I got more out of this thread than any other one thread on CastBoolits. It was definitely a light-bulb moment, reading the OP.:Bright idea:

[Molly]

Hi again Goodsteel,

>Thanks for setting me strait Molly! I got more out of this thread than any other one thread on CastBoolits. It was definitely a light-bulb moment, reading the OP.

I really DO take some pride in what I've learned about cast bullets ... until I reflect on how ignorant I was when I started. I don't think there's a single idiotic mistake or notion in the field that I haven't tripped over. You can rest assured that any understanding I have is only the residue left over after making just about every possible mistake in the book, and custom developing a few new ones just for the sake of completeness.

My very first cast bullet load consisted of a long nosed spitzer bullet cast from the cores of recovered jacketed bullets - the lead had to be a good alloy because it shot so well in jacketed loads, right? It was sized to exact bore diameter and lubed - IIRC - with either Crisco or lard. Cooking grease of some sort anyhow. And it was loaded in a 30-06 over a max load for a jacketed bullet of the same weight. Accuracy was something on the order of 30 or 40 degrees of angle. Not minutes of angle. DEGREES! And the leading was so massive that there remained not one visible trace of rifling in the bore. That - like so many of my loads - constituted a real learning experience.

And every time I recall that experience, I am reminded of Ben Franklin's commment that "Experience is an expensive school, but fools will learn in no other way."

[Dannix]

I'm glad I came across this thread. It's great when the guru's "forge." Us newbies in nappies often learn a lot in the process. :) Welcome goodsteel!


One thought though:


Leading occurs when the hot gas swirls past the lead bullet and etches off tiny traces of lead alloy. This is slammed against the film of lube in the bore, which keeps it from sticking for a while. But as the load is increased, there is more force trying to make the melted lead touch the bore, where it sticks and builds up in the adherent mess called leading.
While probably a "good enough" description, I would postulate a more accurate description is when the hot gas flows past the lead, the lead sublimates. (The vaporous lead then condenses* a moment later).

*sublimates, technically. The term "sublimate" is used for both directions (solid to gas, gas to solid), though I've also seen the word "deposition" used in an "applied" meteorology context to describe gas to solid.

[Molly]

While probably a "good enough" description, I would postulate a more accurate description is when the hot gas flows past the lead, the lead sublimates. (The vaporous lead then condenses* a moment later).

Well, my (VERY) limited experience suggests that etching of tiny molten droplets is the most likely mechanism. I don't know a whole lot about sublimation, as the ONLY experience I've had with it was ice sublimating off my steps in the dead of winter. But in that case, the surface residues were high in gloss (shiny).

On the other hand, the surface of the gas check shank turns very dull when leading occurs. It goes from a shiny cast surface to one that looks as if it had been acid etched, which is why I used the etch terminology as opposed to sublimation terminology.

This etching is one of the areas that still mystify me. One would expect that the gas leakage (and subsequent etching) would be least where the fit of the bullet to the bore is tightest. But that's not what I find: The etching is first evident in the very tightest spot, where the gas check is engraved by the rifling. From there, it gradually increases with hotter loads until it encircles the entire top of the gas check band. This does not seem logical or reasonable to me, and suggests that - let's put it politely - my explanation (and/or my understanding) may not be complete. I'd invite comments on the subject.

[nanuk]

etching, sublimation...

just makes me wonder, if the hot gases etch the boolit, AND the GC, then they also must etch a j-word.

also, on high round/minute or high pressure/heat rounds, throat erosion is probably etching in the same context. Gas Cutting?

as to why it goes past the GC and around the perimeter before it cuts the next band, that could be as simple as the gas going to an area of least resistance....

or I may be completely misunderstanding

[Molly]

etching, sublimation...

just makes me wonder, if the hot gases etch the boolit, AND the GC, then they also must etch a j-word.

also, on high round/minute or high pressure/heat rounds, throat erosion is probably etching in the same context. Gas Cutting?

Yes, I have no doubt that the copper jacket of a modern bullet is etched. BUT ... for one thing, it's probably pretty hard to tell, as the high velocities result in bullets that are more or less shredded. And for another, the level of etching is probably quite low, as the melt point of copper jackets is FAR higher than the MP of lead alloys, and this would sharply limit the amount of etching that occurs.

The same would hold true for the barrel steel that is involved in throat erosion. Any etching that may occur is almost certantly negligible. Throat erosion is caused by an entirely different mechanism. When a high power round is fired, the temperature of the burning nitrocelulose gas is well above the melting point of steel. Only the brevity of the exposure keeps the barrel from melting. It's sorta like flashing your hand through the flames on a gas stove. If you do it fast enough, you'll hardly feel the heat.

But though the barrel itself doesn't melt to any appreciable extent, a VERY shallow surface layer actually does melt, and is instantly cooled back down by loss of heat to the rest of the barrel. The damage is caused by the fact that barrel steels contain an appreciable amount of carbon. The rapid cooling results in in a quench hardened steel layer just as if you had cooled a bit of cherry red steel in a tub of water. Thin though it may be, it no longer has the flexibility it did before. It's brittle. And when the next round is fired, it cracks. As more and more rounds are fired, the cracks get larger and deeper, until the passing of a bullet begins to chip tiny flakes of the brittle steel off of the bore.

This process has been exhaustively researched and documented by the military, who has a deep and abiding interest in the longevity of their weaponry. There is absolutely no doubt about it. And the reason that the erosion is pretty well limited to the throat is because the gas cools as it expands down the barrel. The further down the barrel it is, the cooler it is, and the less effect it has, until the flame temperature is below the melting point of the steel, where the effect completely dies out.

Hope this helps.

[nanuk]

Molly: I understand how you explained that

thanks for that

[Molly]

Molly: I understand how you explained that

thanks for that

You're welcome nanuk. It's no great revelation though: The better books on firearm technology have detailed it since at least as far back as WWII - or was it WWI?

One of them (I THINK it was in 'Hatcher's Notebook') went into it in considerable detail, with illustrations of the erosion in artillery barrels after so many rounds, after so many more, and after more yet. It's quite informative, and well worth the trouble of digging a copy up somewhere. I particularly enjoyed a story of the guy who convinced someone high in raqnk, but low in firearms knowlwede that hardening the barrel would reduce wear and extend barrel life. The order came down to explore the notion.

The ordinance boys came up with a moveable setup that could be pushed rapidly up the bore to heat the surface and followed it up with a column of water right behind to quench it, giving them a much harder bore surface than usual. When put to the test of actual shooting, lengths of complete lands were broken off because of the expansion of the barrel (from gas pressure) and the inability of the hardened bore surface to flex.

A lot of people still don't realize that just as gas pressure will expand a rubber balloon, it will expand a steel tube (IE barrel) too. Granted, a barrel doesn't expand a whole lot, and it takes a lot fo pressure to do it. But don't ever doubt that it expands. In point of fact, it does considerably more than expand. It also whips back and forth, and up, down and sideways, much like a garden hose gripped too far back from the nozzle - and for exactly the same reason as the garden hose does it. But it's usually referred to as 'barrel vibration' by the writers.

[MBTcustom]

I just reread this thread again. Its been over a year and there is a lot of water under my personal bridge. I still got more out of this thread than any other.
Thanks again Molly, I'm still thinking about your original post at least once a week.
Good info here, and I'm glad I listened.

[rbuck351]

Just a guess, but maybe the gas speed is higher as it escapes through a smaller gap causing more gas cutting at the smaller gaps.

[largom]

I have been handloading for 60+ years and thought I really knew what I was doing. Then I joined Cast Boolits and learned that I didnt know squat! Have learned more here in the past couple of yrs. than in all of the previous 60 yrs.

Larry

[RPRNY]

Well, I realize this thread is an oldy but a goody, but having just read it for the first time, the initial discussion and the OP's focus on the effect of engraving on the bullet, disproportionate impact on the lower edge of the bullet and cutting by the lands triggered a memory of having read something relative to this.

Sure enough, Major Ned Roberts of Schuetzen shooting fame, writing in Hunting and Fishing July 1943 addressed this very issue in describing the advantages of muzzle to breech seating bullets in the Pope rifles as opposed to straight breech seating. For those unfamiliar with the practice, in single shot Schuetzen (200 yard offhand) shooting, it was the norm with Maynard, Ballard and other rifles prior to the Pope rifles to seat the bullet (cast) into the lands at the breech, to use a single case which was decapped, primed, and charged between each shot and a card wad placed over the charge, at which point the case was placed in the chamber such that the bullet base was optimally 1/16th" or less from the case mouth, but not actually enveloped by the case mouth. This obviously exposed the bullet base and shank to combustion and supports the view of many that the bullet filling the THROAT rather than just the bore is important to accuracy and bullet stability. Along came Harry Pope and with his rifles he supplied an indexed muzzle extension (false muzzle cut from the original barrel and indexed to the rifling) and a bullet starter, so that the bullet would be inserted into the muzzle and pushed down the barrel to seat in the breech, after which the charged case was placed in the chamber behind it. The false muzzle was removed and the shot taken. Needless to say barrel overheating was not an issue. Pope's rifles were notably more accurate and took the Schuetzen world by storm.

Major Roberts explained why this was so, in his opinion (relevant to the thread above):

A bullet loaded from the muzzle will shoot more accurately than a breech seated one because in loading the muzzle loaded bullet the lands cutting forward into the bullet leave the base perfect without any burrs behind it . Contrast this with the bullet seated in the breech; here the lands cutting backwards into the bullet drag out burrs behind it, leaving an uneven serrated base. If this bullet is not perfectly centered these burrs will be longer on one side than on the other . As these burrs leave the muzzle, the gas escapes first first from the short side, tipping the bullet to the opposite side, in which it is assisted by the longer burrs holding the bullet back; the result is an uneven, wobbling flight. The greatest essential to perfect shooting is to deliver the bullet perfectly from the muzzle; that being done, atmospheric conditions and gravity alone govern the flight and results in accurate shooting. To so deliver the bullet, it must have a perfect base, be perfectly centered and have uniform velocity. (Bold in the original article, underline added)

I can't say as I follow how muzzle loading the bullet to the breech will leave the base perfect inasmuch as it has been engraved on the way down the rifling and the lands will have cut and serrated the base, albeit with any "burrs" arising there from heading up towards the muzzle rather than back towards breech and combustion. I imagine his case was that the cuts were smaller, would seal better with obturation and allow little to no combustion gas to pass the bullet in its journey down the barrel. He makes no mention of gas checks in the cast bullets universally used though does reference paper patching, albeit not as universal practice.

His remarks do however speak directly to the points that Molly was trying to articulate and, in my understanding at least, bridge the distance to the points that 45.2 and other "old hands" were making. In any event, it has most certainly peaked my interest in having a go at breech seating some paper patched (to fill out the leade) .454 bullets in my H&R single shot 45 Colt/454 Casull (below) and to keep an eye out for a 38-55 or 32-40 Schuetzen that I can afford. :roll:

Roberts makes for very interesting reading and reaches back to an age when casting and shooting cast bullets were the norm.

Not exactly a Schuetzen but definitely a Stutzen:

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa272/LRDG/Turkey/454%20Stutzen%20Build/001-5.jpg

[Neo]

I'm new to casting I shot my first 20 bullets that I cast for my 30/30 lubed and sized .309 178gn flat point 15 grains adi 2207 powder. And when I cleaned my rifle after use I noticed no difference in how dirty the barrel was to firing jacked rounds.also I did recover one of the bullets and the base of it was still nice and round and the head of it was nicely mushroomed with no breakup of the lead.

[Gtek]

With the state of our world, and the for sure increase in all metals a thought. Should we not keep the success to our little group and let the non believers be waiting on Wal-Mart to restock. Let the flat earth crowd be. Gtek

[guicksylver]

Just to muddy the waters or confirm some of what's been said.

On those hot summers days when I shot IPSC or IDPA and participated in the scoring,
we noticed that there would be lube splatter all over the targets.

Not so on the cooler days.

[jackmanuk]

hmm i odnt lube my bullets maybe i should try, but i dont get any leading anyway i have an issuer with poorly burned powder down the barrel

[Rangefinder]

I was just talking to a guy last night who was very interested in casting and wants to learn--and, as expected, he asked about the whole leading and dirty-to-shoot myth. It just so happened I was carrying my Smith, which has had somewhere between 800 and 900 rounds of cast through it since the last time I scrubbed it--something I do intentionally with this one for this exact reason. SO... When he asked the question, I pulled the barrel and said "have a look for yourself." The look on someone's face when they look down a bore that is near spotless and then are told it's sent nearly 1K rounds down range with LEAD--well, it's priceless. I should also note those weren't mouse-fart loads either. My Smith .40 runs at near J-word velocities always.

[hickfu]

I just read this thread for the first time... I laugh at people when they tell me that lead boolits are bad for your bore and all the other myths that they spout. I actually got in an argument with a guy at the gun show about a year ago about this subject because he was telling people that shooting lead boolits without his molly coating will lead their barrel and cause all sorts of problems. At first I wasnt really talking to him but I said loud enough to be heard that it was a myth and he shouldnt lie to people. Of course he tried to give me the line of how the lead scrapes off at the boolit goes down the barrel and the molly stops this. I told him that if he sized the boolits correctly then he wouldnt have to molly coat them. Only 1 person standing there asked me about it and I explained that this guys boolits were undersized for what you would want a lead boolit to be. I dont know if the guy took what I said to heart and I really dont care because it would leave more lead for me to shoot.

Doc

[old beekeeper]

Consider the lowly .22 long rifle. It shoots nothing but lead, coated with a light coating of wax and I have never seen any leading. Maybe some soot and powder fouling, but never had to scrub lead out of the barrell. Wonder if it is because of bullet fit?

[Garyshome]

Got to slug the bore and get the correct size. Then worry about the other stuff later. First things first.


___________________________________________

I know a thing or 2 about a thing or 2!

[bandmiller2]

DanG, I don't know what to believe now. If copper from the "J" word is so bad what about the copper checks, their rubbed into the lands and grooves on the way out too. Mayby the reason wax gas checks work is they just help seal. For sealing it seems the right case filler should work wonders. Frank C.

[Whitespider]

Consider the lowly .22 long rifle. It shoots nothing but lead, coated with a light coating of wax and I have never seen any leading.

I have... I've owned a few that lead-fouled badly.
I owned one Marlin that would near fill the groves unless I used the copper-plated type ammunition.
I owned an H&R 939 revolver that lead "cones" would build-up on the cylinder face to the point it wouldn't turn.
By far the worst was a Savage that would only shoot 'round 10 times before accuracy turned into shotgun patterns from lead fouling.
*

[Jtarm]

How bout this experiment in a .38/.357 revolver?

Buy a box of way-to-soft 148-grain swaged lead HBWCs made by Speer or Hornady.

Buy a box of commercial HARD CAST 148-grain WCs (because we all know cast boolits must be titanium-hard to make it through the bore without evaporating), sized .358 (because everyone knows cast boolits should be .001 over bore diameter, and we all KNOW the bore is exactly .357, cuz that's what's stamped on the barrel )

Load 50 rounds of each to about 700 FPS (because everyone knows lead boolits can't be pushed any faster.)

Shoot all 50 rounds of one boolit followed by 50 of the other. Which load left lead in the bore? (Hint: shoot the swaged slugs first to avoid having to scrub the bore before proceeding prior to the next batch.)

[1Shirt]

Excellent thread, and one well worth periodic review just as a reminder. A few years ago I bought a Blackhawk 357 in a pawn shop that was extremely leaded, for about 2/3 of the price it should have been, because I showed the owner the barrel, and said, I would probably have to rebarrel it. Took about an hour to get the leading out of it. Doubt it had ever been shot over 100 rounds, probably with way undersized bullets. It is probably my second favorite carry gun today. It just wants .3585 bullets!
1Shirt!

[williamwaco]

By the way, nobody mentioned this one.

If you shoot cast bullets long enough your skin will wrinkle.

Happened to me, and to most cast shooters I know.

[62chevy]

By the way, nobody mentioned this one.

If you shoot cast bullets long enough your skin will wrinkle.

Happened to me, and to most cast shooters I know.


Hey that happened to me before I stared casting, lol.

[dsh1106]

Interesting read!

I guess I have some work to do before I start pouring..... :-|

[BUFFALOW RED]

my son & i shot my 1866 cimmrion 44-40 rifle 180 rounds in one day no cleaning till that evening & no leading at all
full starline case load of compressed 2F swiss BP with 200g biglube boolit cast from COWW with my home made lube
now if i can just do that in smokless in my 303 B with modertly to high velocity id be happy

[El Bango]

Molly,thanks for the very informative thread.Been casting a long time and you have clarified a few problems I have been dealing with.

[popper]

An old post but let's summarize some.
1) lead will rub off due to friction. Good lube will prevent it.
2) 'gas cutting' occurs due to the high fps of gas molecules (Bernoulli's venturi effect), not just the high temp. Smaller the 'tube', higher the fps. Leaves 'sputtered' droplets of lead which cooled fast after the boolit passes.
3) running out of lube does happen, not just by quantity but quality as well.
4) MG barrels are used in modern cannon, but the projectile is really hard. You need a harder alloy for Marlins.
5) stripping can be caused by weak alloy (plain ol shear) and gas cutting on the non-drive side of the rifling.
6) muzzle loaded doesn't leave a deformed base, just like base first push-thru sizing. Lead moves to the nose end. ergo, better accuracy due to better base.
7) Wrinkled skin does NOT come from casting as I was wrinkled when I started casting in my late 60's. She says I still look good.
8)hard alloy does NOT cause leading. Undersized boolits do NOT cause leading. My experiment was with 36+ BHN (like superhard) 170 GC PCd 308W sized 3085 (bore). 42 gr. H4895 gives close to 2700 fps, my normal load. 10 shot in 2 trips. NO leading or cleaning. Last shot was unchecked, same boolit but 39gr. LeverE (maybe a tad slower). Inspect with a bore light - 1 speck of something about halfway down the barrel. Blew it out. Accuracy @ 100 was hunt-able (not with this boolit), the non GC one was on paper. OK, it was the PC right - nope. I've gotten lots of leading running PC with weaker alloys. Before you flame, yes you can get leading with hard, under 'normal' cast sized boolits BUT IMHO it's due to something else. This was not the purpose of the experiment but I'll use the results.
9) the purpose of GC is to provide a good base all the way down the barrel. The OP's test show gas will get past it and cause cutting, even of the copper. So it doesn't completely 'seal' the bore and can do some scraping to remove some leading.
10)paper is fibrous and actually very strong. Others have tested thick wads on the base and gotten excellent results, much like a GC.
Not saying we are doing it wrong, just that we have test evidence to show what is really happening.

[Ricochet]

I miss Molly!

[Bama]

By the way, nobody mentioned this one.

If you shoot cast bullets long enough your skin will wrinkle.

Happened to me, and to most cast shooters I know.

I resemble that remark!!

[Alferd Packer]

Very interesting, but there is something to be gained by study and application of the methods and ideas presented here.
Certainly worth a second look as well as trying on these ideas thru experimentation before time runs out.
Everyone seems to be in such a hurry to get there these days.
Speed is of the essence.
I believe it will make their arrival all the more spectacular! Indeed.

[MN91311]

When I started with cast bullets 30 years ago, all I had was Lyman books to go by. No cast boolit forum. I loaded Lyman 358495 full button wadcutters to full velocity, cast with #2 alloy. Yes I know, unnecessary waste of tin, excess hardness, etc. Beeswax /alox lube. Sized to 356 for a 3555 slugged bore, S&W model 14 38 special.

Probably shot 1000+ of those without the slightest sign of leading.

Good lube, sized properly, no leading, even with way-too-hard alloy.

Even then, some guys told me the lead had dirt/grit in it, and would eventually wear the bore.

Self taught with only Lyman manuals, guys, just do the basics, and all will be well.

[Alferd Packer]

Read, shoot, read, cast, read, shoot, read some more.
There is much knowledge to be gained by reading and applying to casting and shooting what the book says.