Leading-Revolvers vs Autos

[ColColt]

Maybe someone can help explain this for me.I have several revolvers of which two are 357-both Rugers...a little SP101 and the GP101. The M29-2 in 44 has never caused leading problems but the GP101 has no matter what size boolit. The chamber throats mic at .358" and I've tried .359" boolits as well-still leading but not to a great degree-I can live with it no more than what it is. It's been fire lapped, albeit not 100 rounds with 280 compound but with 320 and maybe 50 rounds-didn't help as I could see. I ended up firing about 50 regular jacketed boolits through it as a last resort to maybe help smooth out any irregularities in the barrel.

Now, the 1911 SW is a horse of a different color. I've used mostly BHN 10-11 boolits with it-specifically ww's plus tin and zero leading. I mean it looks like I shot jacketed boolits through it. So, why is that, whereby revolvers seem to cause more problems. The 1911 gets a .452" size boolit(Mihec's H&G 68 clone) and is superbly accurate.

[Wayne Smith]

Two suggestions: You seldom see a barrel constriction caused by tight threads in an auto barrel; the 45 ACP is a low pressure cartridge and the .357 is a high pressure cartridge.

A more fair comparison would be between the .357 and the 9mm auto. Both are high pressure cartridges. Revolvers do have more geometric challenges, though.

[Az Rick]

You didn't mention the BHN of your .357 rounds. If it's 10//11 it might be a little to soft for a "hotter" round. I have some Rugers and love them but sometimes the chamber dimensions are not optimal with the actual barrel measurements. You could have an undersized barrel throat, squeezing the boolit or an oversized barrel, or a constriction where the barrel is threaded again squeezing your boolit.
Do the chambers lead too? Does just the barrel lead? Where is the leading worse?
Let us know.

[mpmarty]

Revolvers are by nature hard to deal with when shooting boolits. You have six different chambers, six different throats of those chambers and a gap between the chamber and the forcing cone. Add in potential constriction of the forcing cone and you have many chances for trouble. Semi autos only have one chamber and no gaps to the bore. I don't think the difference in pressure is causing you the problems as I load and shoot my 10mm pistols with no problems or leading and my S&W model 610 leads like crazy with my cast boolits. I think I'll retire the 610 to safe queen status.

[ColColt]

You didn't mention the BHN of your .357 rounds. If it's 10//11 it might be a little to soft for a "hotter" round. I have some Rugers and love them but sometimes the chamber dimensions are not optimal with the actual barrel measurements. You could have an undersized barrel throat, squeezing the boolit or an oversized barrel, or a constriction where the barrel is threaded again squeezing your boolit.
Do the chambers lead too? Just a tad. Does just the barrel lead? Primarily. Where is the leading worse? Right ahead of the forcing cone area.
Let us know.

The groove diameter is typical Ruger for this caliber-.357-.3575".

[Sonnypie]

mpmarty,
Safe queen status.

:lol: LMAO!

Ahem... Why not just load it some nice HP jacketed bullets and leave it at that? :-|

[mpmarty]

sonnypie every safe needs a queen. On the other hand (still five fingers) my neighbor has shown some interest in trading for it.

[Az Rick]

ColColt, that's good, do you notice anyplace in the barrel it leads worse?

Sonnypie, just say NO! to jacketed.

mpmarty, What good is a S&W you won't shoot, the 610 WILL shoot real boolits, even if it kills you. I'll pm my full legal name and address, please remember me in your will,...I always wanted a 610, since I was a little kid, did I mention I was orphaned at an early age? I live in a cardboard shanty, down by the river.

Back to topic, ColColt, where's it lead worse?

[ColColt]

Leading is worse just ahead of the forcing cone.

[Az Rick]

Have to give the "nod" to mpmarty, the barrel is "tighter" there. It's very common.
I would urge you to check out Rugerforum.net. You'll find lots of Ruger specific info there. It's a pretty good group. You can research and ask questions, they shoot lots of boolits too.
I have several Rugers that lead there also, along with Smiths.
Okay, now a confession, I reload as many here do. I buy cheap jacketed bullets and shoot a cylinder full after I shoot my real Boolits. Makes cleaning easier. I also use copper Chore Boy scrubbing pad fibers wrapped around my cleaning brush, it removes the lead fast and easily.
I do notice though, the more you shoot the less they lead.
I wish I had the time to alloy more and experiment more than I do, I can put up with some leading till I get everything perfect. Maybe when I retire.
Keep us posted, hopefully someone else will have some ideas too.
Good Luck, I mean it.

[Char-Gar]

ColColt... What alloy are you using that is causing you trouble in the 29?

One of the problems I see with frequency on this board has to do with people's expectations when shooting cast bullets in revolvers. I have been at this cast bullet shooting in sixguns for over 50 years and 95% of them will leave some kind of lead wash in the barrel with plain base cast bullets. This is just part of shooting, like powder trash in the barrel.

I will give my sixgun about 20 back and 20 forward strokes with a good solvent and tight bronze brush. This is followed by a wet patch or two and then several dry ones. Now look in the barrel from both ends with a good light at the other. What do you see?

Most often the barrel is sparking clean. But sometimes there will be a small clump of lead in the first 1/2 inch of the barrel. Some more brush work with that that out. I don't consider this to be leading!!!

Leading is when the lead buildup starts to destroy accuracy in 100 rounds or so. Leading is when after doing the above, the barrel is still coated with lead at the breech end. This can be cured in any sixgun!

I have had very few sixguns, very few indeed, that did not give this lead wash, even with the best fitting bullets, the proper alloy and a good bullet lube.

Gas check bullets are a different kettle of fish. They most often leave zero lead wash.

I have many friends who shoot cast bullets and I can tell you my experience is typical. Somewhere in this age of internet isolation folks have passed on the notion that they are to expect zero metal deposits (lead or jacket metal) in their pistol barrels. That is not a real world expectation.

Autopistols are much less prone to develop serious lead deposits than sixguns. I attribute this to the fact that the bullet doesn't have to jump from cylinder to barrel forcing cone and then to the barrel. All of this movement of the bullet leaves the base and sides open to gas attack. A sixgun with proper dimensions, and a bullet of proper temper for the pressure and with a good lube can drastically reduce this problem. But sixguns by their mechanical design expose the bullet base more and longer to the hot gases.

[Az Rick]

Char-Gar, makes a valid point. When you shoot you have to clean, it's part of the game. On many boards I see the claim, " I have no leading". Does that really mean there is absolutely nothing in the bore, it's sparkly clean?
I feel my leading is minimal, meaning it comes out in a minute or so. My autos are very easy to clean.
Shooters have written books on why revolvers seem to lead. Timing, chamber dimensions one out of six will always be out of spec, at least, the only way to measure a throat properly is with a set of pin gauges.
There is most always a constriction at the threads, however minimal. many factors come into play.
I say, shoot the **** out of it, and then clean it.
Just like everything else in this world, revolvers are manufactured to a price point. Rugers are good solid guns, manufactured to beat the Smith/Colt price point. They can only be so good. Anything else would put the price so high I couldn't afford it. An example would be a Freedom Arms revolver, would love to have one, not now.
We love our guns and expect them to be perfect, I'm guessing your GP is pretty perfect for what you have in it. Add a "GOOD" gunsmith and another $500.00, and your GP could be perfect.
I shoot mine box stock
and they all are better than me. Some "lead", some don't, but they are all my "babies", some get cranky some don't but I like them all.

Go shooting and cast lots of boolits, Life is Good!

[Sonnypie]

Sonnypie, just say NO! to jacketed.



And leave an otherwise fine firearm in the safe?

Sacrilege!

Are you full of bananas:kidding:?

[ku4hx]

Circa 1964 I got my first pistol: Ruger Blackhawk in .357 Magnum. The only ammunition available to me then was the j-word type and pure lead. The lead stuff was far cheaper so that's what I shot. After shooting, it'd take twenty minutes of brushing the bore to get the lead out. And it came out in chunks!

Use a harder alloy. I'd suggest 92% Lead, 2% Tin and 6% Antimony. Commercially that's "Hard Ball" by name. But in all my guns it works very, very well. Which is NOT to say other compositions won't work equally well.

But you need a harder alloy I'm betting. Something approaching a Brinell number of 18 coupled with proper boolit sizing for your gun.

[Bret4207]

My bet is that your alloy is fine in general terms. What you have is likely a combination of a rough or swaged barrel and the resultant fit issues and possibly a load that is not to the liking of your gun. There are dozens of good 357 loads out there, just because one tends to lead doesn't mean they all will. I suggest a good slugging of the barrel looking for tight spots, some time shooting to smooth it and then some experimentation with different loads.

[btroj]

What Bret said. Experiment. Try different loads. Find what the revolver does like. Just because it leaded with one load doesn't mean it is going to lead with every load.

I have had a few guns in my life that were a pain to figure out. Poor accuracy with various loads. Leading with many loads. Nothing more satisfying than figuring out what does work in that gun. I then feed a very strict diet to that gun.

[243winxb]

The 45 acp is a low pressure round sitting in the chamber, a few .001"s from the rifling, it does not have to travel far to engage the rifling. The 357 & 44 mags are high pressure & have to jump a gap to the forcing cone, where the bullet is bounced around till it hits the rifling. Different alloy for different pressures.

[ColColt]

ColColt... What alloy are you using that is causing you trouble in the 29?


Char-Gar-It's not the M29, it's the Ruger 357 that has given the problems. After a string with a given powder/boolit combination when I was trying to find a good and accurate load with several different powders, I'd clean the barrel by running a wet patch of Hoppe's regular solvent or Shooter's Choice Lead Remover, let sit a little and then follow with a brush. Then, several dry patches before starting a new string. It doesn't matter the powder, the leading is the same place, albeit, not an earth shattering amount but it's there and visible with a bore light just ahead of the forcing cone beginning as the boolit hits the rifling. for the most part, there's no significant problem from that point on but for about 5/8" you can see small amounts of leading regardless how many times you clean the barrel. I can get it out with Chore Boy after I get home but it takes more than a few passes.

I mentioned this problem before in another thread a couple months back and did all that was recommended but the problem still persist. I have slugged the barrel and couldn't detect by feel a constriction. I have to suspect a roughness in that area or like many have indicated, a slight constriction that I've tried to hone out, so to speak, by fire lapping then by shooting a quantity of handloads using jacketed boolits. Perhaps I just need to fire more jacketed boolits...I don't know. Changing the hardness factor doesn't help as I've used BHN12-15 and get the same results. These loads are not "magnum loads but more around 900-1100 fps using 357 cases and several different powders such as HS-6, Universal, AA#5 and Unique. I get best accuracy with Lee's 158 gr RNFP.

[MtGun44]

I see no mention of boolit design or lube being used. These are critical issues. IMO, if
you have a poor design or a marginal lube, you may solve it by improving one or both of
these items.

IME, Lyman 358477 or 358429 will shoot at any speed in .357 with great accuracy and no
leading at all. RCBS 38-150-SWC (old marking 38-150-K) is a near clone of 358477 and
works extremely well, also. Lee 358-158-RF has done extremely well for me, too.
I have pushed all of them up to my favorite hot .357 load of 16.3 of H110 with no problems
in multiple revolvers. I use NRA 50-50 and LBT soft blue most of the time, both are
"known good" lubes.

Bill

[ColColt]

Bill-I mentioned the Lee 358-158-RF above. That one seems to give the best accuracy-better than a custom mold and about as good as the 170 gr Lyman mold that Erik opened for me. My lube is usually BAC although I tried CR earlier. It doesn't seem to matter the bullet design, powder or lube. I do think, however the forcing cone could stand a little polishing as could the throats. I wish I could get a good photo of the forcing cone and the area just ahead in the rifling but I've tried with limited success. Something about that rifling doesn't look kosher to me. It looks like several "steps" before actually getting into the rifling.

[MtGun44]

OK , sorry I missed the boolit type. Have you tried other designs? The Lee designs are very
short on lube quantity, and if your gun is demanding more, that could be the issue.

But, "steps" doesn't sound right. I'd look at recutting the forcing cone if it is really rough,
but apparently these steps are just ahead of the forcing cone, so that wouldn't help. But if
this is the front end of the actual forcing cone, recutting would smooth it up.

More jacketed rounds, or maybe firelapping, but maybe hand lapping would smooth it
up.

Bill

[Down South]

You say that you fire lapped it. Do you have pin gauges? If so, find the largest pin gauge that will fit in the muzzle and see if it will slide all the way through. If it gets tight about where the barrel screws into the frame then you still have a constriction.
Lube, what are you using? What alloy, BHN? How hard/fast are you pushing your boolits?
I have a GP-100 and I don’t have any leading. I had to work on the barrel and the loads to accomplish that. I can shoot several hundred rounds, run a swab and the barrel is mirror clean.

As Bill mentioned, the boolit design can be a factor.

[Bret4207]

Okay, now I recall the issues and post. That's your problem child gun. I'm with Bill, it all seems to come back to a mechanical issue, the forcing cone, a possible restriction. Recutting the FC and putting a couple hundred jacketed through it may well smooth things up. Like you said, without us being able to see exactly what you have there it's hard to judge things.

[ColColt]

OK , sorry I missed the boolit type. Have you tried other designs? The Lee designs are very
short on lube quantity, and if your gun is demanding more, that could be the issue. I've tried several to include the Lyman 358429 and a custom mold from Mountain Molds-all the same.


But, "steps" doesn't sound right. I'd look at recutting the forcing cone if it is really rough,
but apparently these steps are just ahead of the forcing cone, so that wouldn't help. But if
this is the front end of the actual forcing cone, recutting would smooth it up.
The forcing cone itself has "swirls" around it and not exactly what I'd call smooth. The steps I mentioned is like there was an intent to start the rifling but it "chattered" before actually cutting -sort of like it skipped a couple of two or three times before the rifling was cut creating those steps with a very slight space between each before the smooth rifling kicked in...hope that makes sense. A pic would tell it all...if I could get one.

More jacketed rounds, or maybe firelapping, but maybe hand lapping would smooth it
up.

Bill

Down South-No pin gauges that will fit properly to check. I have several but none that will fit down the bore. I need to get a full set. I mentioned the alloy and lube in #18 and 20 but ww's and tin is the alloy and BAC is the lube..

Bret-Yep, good description as it has been a problem. The gun shoots very good except for the leading. I guess I'm not versed on recutting the forcing cone as that's an endeavor I haven't tried before and it would be like putting the janitor in charge of brain surgery. Well, that may be extreme but I like to know exactly what I'm doing and in this realm, I don't.

[243winxb]

This Ruger 357 looks ok to me? http://i338.photobucket.com/albums/n420/joe1944usa/357goodbbl_1.jpg

[ColColt]

I managed to get a couple of fair shots as to what I was talking about. The sun didn't co-0perate well as I couldn't bounce enough light into the area in question but this will give a good idea.

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x220/ColColt/Misc%20Stuff/_DEF3795.jpg

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x220/ColColt/Misc%20Stuff/_DEF3794.jpg

[cbrick]

There's your problem. Look at the sharp edge at the beginning of the rifling. The following picture taken through a bore scope diagnosed the same problem in a 1960's Winnie 94 30-30, had to ream the throat with a finish reamer and all is well. What you see there is the start of the rifling. The rifling starting like that slices off lead from the side of the bullet.

Rick

[ColColt]

The red lines show the "steps" I mentioned(see red lines). If you cut back enough to eliminate those it will cut into the groove shown and make it shorter. It looks like a mess to me. Where those steps are should have been solid rifling.

It's hard to see due to depth of field but the forcing cone has machine marks all the way around the circumference.

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x220/ColColt/Misc%20Stuff/_DEF3794a.jpg

[jblee10]

The forcing cone definitely needs recut. It is both aburpt and rough. A gunsmith with a forcing cone reamer should be able to clean that up in ten minutes. There may still be some restriction in the barrel thread area, but first things first.

[jblee10]

It the smith has to cut to deep, you may need a barrel set back.

[Char-Gar]

I agree, that washboard forcing cone in most likely the culprit. Recut to give a nice smooth cone. Shoot it and see how things go. If accuracy goes way south, think about having the barrel set back a thread or so, and recut again. But, shoot it first, don't borrow problems until they show up. Sometimes these things will surprise you.

[ColColt]

I've never cut one before and just a bit leery in doing so. Maybe I should send it back to Ruger. I did write them about an hour ago so, maybe a response in a couple days. The tools involved in me doing it would most likely be more than the shipping-particularly since I'd only be doing it once.

I knew that after trying all that was recommended here to no avail, something was wrong. I compared that area to a SP101 I have and a M29 and you can readily see the difference.

[geargnasher]

I'm pulling these over from the first page of your other thread, the one where you were fighting this same issue. The pictures describe exactly what I was talking about and how I chose to fix it in one of my guns:


Ever hear of the term "Thread choke"?

Rugers are famous for it. Due to a Ruger innovation that enables sorting and matching barrels and frames into three groups, the amount of barrel torque varies quite a bit, and if you have a gun with the torque at the ragged edge of needing to go on a frame with the threads in the next clocking position, then the forcing cone area gets crushed when the barrel is torqued, and the resulting restriction will cause leading if your boolits are too hard for the pressure you're putting behind them. I'd say clean the gun, stuff some 2400 in the cases and work right up to book max, see if the leading goes away. Clean between strings. HS6 might do it, I've done a lot of shooting with my buddy's using the Lyman 358665? and HS6, my notes are at home but I was using more powder I'm fairly certain. I fixed the thread restriction in his, polished the machine marks out of the forcing cone, reamed and polished the cylinder throats to .3583", and it quit leading the barrel with .358" air-cooled WW boolits.

If you want to measure thread choke, cast some boolits out of pure lead. Clean and lightly oil the bore. Drive one through from the muzzle all the way with a brass rod. Then, drive another one in from the muzzle, but this time STOP about an inch shy of the frame. Cut some small sections of 5/15" birch dowels that will fit through the frame opening, place a flat bar through the frame near the recoil shield so you can press the dowel through the bore from the breech end. When the bar touches the barrel, insert another section of dowel, push it through, and keep stacking them until the slug comes back out the muzzle. If this second slug, which did NOT go through the frame area of the barrel, is LARGER than the one pushed all the way through, then you have thread choke. Anything over .0005" (five ten-thou) will likely cause leading unless you tweak your loads to maintain obturation, and that requires softer lead or at least pressures well above the yield strength of the alloy.

Gear



ColColt,

[snip]

I fixed my Ruger New Vaquero with a .4525" chucking reamer, some 400-grit sandpaper, some 320 Clover compound, some Lee 255-grain boolits cast from 30:1, and three grains of Red Dot and a half-grain of Dacron. The idea to coat just the barrel with the Clover wasn't mine, someone else here mentioned it in passing once, but it works. I took a Q-tip and swabbed just the forcing cone and first inch of the barrel with the paste, then fired the above boolits lubed with 45/45/10 through it, that way the throats didn't get messed up. When I got rid of the choke (about 30 rounds), I reamed the cylinders using the chucking reamer and some painter's tape for a guide bushing in the cylinders, polished with 400 emery, oil, and a dowel rod, and polished the forcing cone with a lead lap made from a filed-down Lyman 457132. Keep in mind, I tried everything I could think of loadwise to get the leading to stop and the thread choke was just too severe.

So now you know the rest of the story!

Gear


ColColt, I was making the recommendation for 2400 load only because it is a good way to deal with leading caused by a restriction. If you don't have a measurable restriction, and your cylinder throats are slightly larger than the groove dimension (which they appear to be), then I think your gun is good to go, and you should proceed with load development in a direction of something more to your liking.

What I'm thinking now is that you are having bigtime blowby right when the boolit base clears the case mouth, or maybe before it even moves. Sometimes (maybe always) cases expand before the boolit moves and lets a jet of gas go around the boolit and out the cylinder ahead of it before it gets moving. If you can figure out a way to seat the booit further out into the cylinder, or try a design with a longer front band, maybe this would help. Also, if you can size .359" and still chamber the cartridges it would be a big help. The goal here is to prevent gas blowby the whole way through the gun, and as the boolit goes through the cylinder throat and into the barrel gas leakage will erode the boolit and can cause leading.

The Ruger forcing cones sometimes look like they were cut with a rusty step-drill and lead actually rubs off on the rough machine marks, then gets smeared down the barrel on subsequent shots.

Lots of things to try here, but I'd focus on your velocity goal, and use a medium alloy like straight clip-on wheel weights and Universal/Unique (or equivalent), and play with the alloy until you get to a happy place. FYI, soft alloy like straight stick-on weights at about 7 bhn will shoot lights out with my buddy's 4" SS GP100 using 2.7 grains of Clays pushing a 158 grain RFN at about 750 fps.

Gear

This is ONE of the things I was trying to get you to determine before, if you have a ragged forcing cone you're wasting your time with load development until you get it fixed. Sure looks to me like it's ragged as hell. Go compare it to your .44 Smith that DOESN'T lead, I'll bet it's forcing cone looks much better.

What you have is a slight bit of abrasion leading, and the bits that get rubbed off on the jagged edges of the forcing cone get smeared and ironed on for the next inch or two. You might have some gas cutting going on as well due to the lead being ripped off as the boolit engraves, possibly leaving gaps for gas to leak by. You want the forcing cone to PRESS the engraves into the boolit, not scrape them out. If you want more details on how I fixed several of my revolvers that had this problem, I'll be glad to help.

Finding a gunsmith that has a Taylor throating reamer in your caliber and knows how to use it is a very, very long shot, but is probably your best choice.

Gear

[geargnasher]

I've never cut one before and just a bit leery in doing so. Maybe I should send it back to Ruger. I did write them about an hour ago so, maybe a response in a couple days. The tools involved in me doing it would most likely be more than the shipping-particularly since I'd only be doing it once.

I knew that after trying all that was recommended here to no avail, something was wrong. I compared that area to a SP101 I have and a M29 and you can readily see the difference.

I see you just did that comparison. Forget sending it to Ruger, I'll tell you right now exactly what they'll say. It's within their accuracy specifications with jacketed bullets, it functions properly and safely, have a nice life. Remember, Ruger isn't building match-grade pistols, they're building very durable general service pistols. I don't think they have a true throating reamer, and if they did, it's probably the same on that was used to cut your forcing cone and is likely worse by now than it was then. I believe you can polish that up quite satisfactorily at home and not have to set the barrel back a thread if you're careful.

Gear

[Char-Gar]

Recutting a revolver forcing cone with the tools Brownell sells is not a difficult task. You don't have to be a gunsmith to do it. Just read the instructions and go slow. I bought the tools years back and have recut a couple dozen barrels. The cost has long since been reduced to very little.

Once you have the tooling, you will find a need for it, you didn't realize. It is about a 15 minute job to recut a forcing cone.

Those tool marks in the cone act like a file when the alloy bullet do across them. It is no wonder you are having leading problems.

I am not sanguine about Ruger fixing the problem, but it is worth a try.

[cbrick]

I think that since Col has already written to Ruger that what I would do is wait for a reply. It looks like it's very possible that it wasn't cut with a bad or worn out reamer but rather that the reamer wasn't ever run into the barrel far enough initially, just wasn't cut deep enough.

If Ruger fails to correct the problem my choice would be Char-Gar's and see what a reamer would cost at Brownell's, they aren't all that expensive. It would be both the fastest and the simplest cure. After that some of Gear's method's would polish it up smoother than a baby's hieny.

Rick

[Bret4207]

Agree with the recommendations on recutting the FC. That's probably 99% of your problem right there.

Another example of a picture being worth a thousand words, eh?

[ColColt]

Gear had it right early on when I first mentioned this but, he's much more versed, as are all of you, in fixing this sort of problem. I follow instructions well but if I go too far I've screwed it up. He's made me anxious about ever getting it fixed right, if at all from Ruger. When I sent them an email I did included two pics of the problem I posted here. Don't know if that will do any good or not.

A picture is indeed worth a thousand words and I wish I could have gotten rid of the shadow but you've seen enough of it to know what I was talking about. Even the little SP101 doesn't look like that and it's suppose to be a somewhat underdog of the GP100.

If someone could supply me with a link at Brownell's as I'm not sure what to search for or what they may call it would be appreciated. Is it just called a forcing cone reamer?

[Tazman1602]

Any chance that Col may be able to polish those "ribs" out with a Brownells flex hone? Just an idea, I just looked at the throat on my Vaquero 357 and it too is a bit rough with the cutting scores but not quite as bad. I've never had any leading issues BUT my cast is fitted to the cylinders and I've slugged the barrel so I know what sizer to use. Just an idea but hey I'd try it.

Brownells is www.brownells.com by the way Col and if you call them they've got pretty fair techs that might help out also.

Art

[ColColt]

it seems they're out of the 38-45 chamfering tool kit. Perhaps I can find it in their catalog and give them a buzz. I haven't heard of a flex hone. I'm interested in what Ruger has to say on this.

[cbrick]

I would wait to hear from Ruger also, or call Ruger rather than wait. In the mean time wouldn't hurt to call Brownell's and explain the situation & ask what it is you would need including the pilot.

You could also call any gunsmiths in your area and ask them if they have the proper reamer for your caliber & make of firearm.

Brownell's Phone (800) 741-0015

Rick

[geargnasher]

I checked on getting a Taylor throating reamer and the pilots from Brownell's last year for .45 Colt, at the time their website said they were discontinued from the manufacturer, hopefully they are still available somewhere. If not, a regular 11-degree reamer and matching brass lap should do the trick. I'm non-plussed with Ruger's service in the past, they are stellar at making guns function to their specs and will cheerfully repair or replace stuff that is defective, but I just don't think they have the tools in their facility to make that forcing cone as smooth as it should be. They just aren't set up to do fine finish work, since they aren't building masterpieces, just tough, reliable, functional guns that shoot copper bullets reasonably well most of the time. When you start shooting lead and having problems, they really have no interest in fixing it, at least in my experience. That's why I took a box-new Vaquero and worked it over until it shot to my standards with cast.

Gear

[Char-Gar]

Gear... I agree with you about Ruger, but with one exception.

Recently, I purchased one of the new Lipsey 45 Flatop revolvers. The cylinder throats were a uniform .452. The charge holes were of proper size and not the over sized hog wallows most often found in Ruger 45 Colt sixguns. The cylinder alignment was perfect, as was the forcing cone and barrel/cylinder gap. The fit of the grip frame to the receiver was seamless and like that on a good Freedom Arms. Trigger pull was crisp. The bore is smooths and no leading from the get go. Accuracy is outstanding.

In short, it was the first Ruger revolver I have had in years, that did not need work right out of the box. All this proves is that Ruger can produce a first class sixgun when the mood strikes them. I suppose Lipsey is holding their feet to the fire on quality. Now just why can't Ruger hold their own feet to the fire on regular production sixguns?

I am delighted beyond words to get such a great sixgun, but on the other hand a little peeved because so many other folks get less than perfect sixguns from the same maker.

[ColColt]

Is this what I should be looking for? There's no picture but a description. Of course, it's back ordered. They have the individual components but not the kit.

http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/pid=514/Product/-38-45-BASIC-CHAMFERING-KIT

[MT Gianni]

Char-Gar, how much case expansion did you have with the 45 Colt brass near the cartridge base?

[Iron Mike Golf]

Is this what I should be looking for? There's no picture but a description. Of course, it's back ordered. They have the individual components but not the kit.

http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/pid=514/Product/-38-45-BASIC-CHAMFERING-KIT

ColColt, I think that is for cutting a chamfer at the entrance of the forcing cone. After quick look through Brownell's, I don't see revolver forcing cone reamers.

Check out Manson's:
See pg 17 here (http://www.mansonreamers.com/Current%20catalog/2011%20January%20Catalog.Version%20II%20pmd.pdf)

[Char-Gar]

I have not measured the fired cases yet. I threw them into a plastic bag with fired cases from both a Ruger BH and a Colt New Service, and at this point in time, I can't say which is which.

Col....Yes that is the tool you are looking for to recut forcing cones in sixguns.

[ColColt]

Col....Yes that is the tool you are looking for to recut forcing cones in sixguns.

Will it clean up the area I have pictured besides cutting an 11 degree bevel as well?Sorry, I haven't seen one before.

[ColColt]

This is the response I got from Ruger today about my problem.

Response:
"We recommend that you send your entire firearm into our Product Service Dept for evaluation. Ship to: S & R 411 Sunapee St. Newport, NH 03773. Put a letter inside with your firearm stating the issue. Include a daytime phone number, return UPS address, and mailing address. Also a email address or fax number if available.

Pack in a plain brown box. Handguns can not be mailed. They have to be sent through a firearms dealer or FED EX."

I not only stated the issue when I first wrote them, but supplied them with the two photos shown here. What more could they want?

[mpmarty]

What they want is for you to check the cost of using Fedex to ship the gun and go away.

[ColColt]

I must have missed something in the translation as they first want a return UPS address then they say I can only send it FED EX? That doesn't make sense.

[Char-Gar]

Ruger will send a prepaid UPS mailing label addressed to them, when they agree to fix something that is wrong. The fact they did not do that, makes me believe, they may not do anything. Ruger has some pretty loosey goosey ideas about what is within their acceptable specifications and tolerances. I have had both good luck and bad luck sending guns back to Ruger.

I suspect that they want it shipped UPS to them, because they are afraid, it might end up on their UPS bill. They do have a contract and special rates with UPS, or so I have been told.

The tool in mention will cut a new forcing cone and put a nice taper on the back end of the rifling. It most certainly will take out that area, BUT there is a limit on how far you can cut into the barrel without opening up the rear of the cone to far and destroy accuracy.

Brownells sell a little plug gauge that is supposed to tell you how far you can go, but I have seen many sixguns that swallowed that gauge even before the cone was recut. So, the gauge is ground on the small side. I have had to cut cones farther that the gauge said I could go in order to clean up the old factory cone. Thus far, it has not hurt anything.

So, you just have to try and see. If the rear of the cone is opened to far, it will have to be set back a thread or two and the cone cut again. But your barrel sucks anyway, the way it is, so in my thinking, go for it.

If you decide to send it to Ruger, clarify the issue of shipping cost. If they do decide it is bad, will they reimburse you the cost of shipping it to them? That can get to be a pretty hefty charge these days.

There is a lesson here about stainless steel guns. Stainless does not machine as well as carbon steel and the finished product isn't as good as a carbon pistol.

A couple of months we ordered two Lipsey Ruger Flatops 45/45ACP sixguns, one of carbon and one in stainless. The carbon steel pistol was much more finely machined than the stainless. You could little waves on the outside of the stainless barrel but none on the carbon steel barrel. There were a number of other differences as well.

[ColColt]

Maybe I should take it to my dealer and see if they'll send it out and hope Ruger will do something. I may ask about the on sight gunsmith and see if he knows how to fix it. It's a gun shop/ indoor range with the gunsmith in a building next door to them.

[cbrick]

If he is any kind of smith at all he can do it, it is a pretty easy fix. It's only a matter of "does he have the correct reammer".

I would try that first. The last revolver of mine that went to Ruger they had for nearly a year. I'll admit that it was kind of an odd thinng they had it for but still, a year and involved Ruger going back on a deal that they made in the first place. But that's all another story for another thread. Try the smith, worse he can do is say no and that costs nothing.

If your smith does take it in try to get an idea of how long he will have it. I've seen some smiths take horrible amounts of time as well and this really is a pretty simple proceedure.

Rick

[ColColt]

Good grief!! I can't imagine them keeping it that long. I would have been chomping at the bits. I hope to get over there Friday and I'll ask if he can and the time span for sure. It's a pity it got to this as I always thought highly of Ruger's quality.

[cbrick]

Well Col, nobody walks on water. The last Ruger I got just a few months ago has the most consistent throats I've ever seen. All 6 are .452" on the money and the bore is a beautiful .4517".

Poop happens and yours isn't all that bad now that we know what the problem is. Disappointing though I know. Just makes ya wanna get'er fixed and start jerking on the trigger doesn't it?

Rick

[rockrat]

Dave Manson (mansonreamers.com) has the tooling that you would need. See page 18 of their catalog. Cost you just a little more than it will, more than likely, to ship the gun back to Ruger.
Have a Ruger #1 that would not fire about one round out of three. They "fixed" it to where it only does it now about one round out of seventeen.!!! Vast improvement. I found out what was wrong with it before I sent it back(hole misdrilled in breechblock), but they said it was 'within specs".
You could try the cotton swab in the forcing cone trick first. Did that with a 22 revolver I had and it helped quite a bit. Just shoot lower powered loads thru it, light 38 spcl, if you do go that route.

[Char-Gar]

Ruger handguns have never been truly high quality. They are budget firearms. They are a good platform which to build and or/ tweak to a high quality firearms. So, I expect these kinds of things.

If you want a truly high quality firearm right out of the box, you must pay allot more for it, than you would pay for a Ruger.

I must say the new Lipsey's 45 Flatop to which I referred a few posts up, is most definitely an exception.

[ColColt]

One of the primary reasons for the Ruger over S&W was not so much the cost, I liked the way it looked and I knew it was strong. I've had several over the years to include probably one of the first 45 Colt calibers that came off their assembly line. Best I recall that was about 1972-73. I bought it with the interchangeable 45 ACP cylinder. I decided I didn't like the longer barrel and traded it for the 4 5/8" version. The serial number I think, was 45-00075. I should have kept it. Three screw models bring a pretty good price these days.

If I get another 357 at some point, it's going to be a non-lock 686. What kills me is that my little SP101's forcing cone area looks much better on more akin to what they should look like.

rockrat-I'll probably just take it to the gun shop and have them send it to Ruger. If they keep it several months, I have plenty to keep me occupied until it returns...hopefully fixed. I'm, just not into having to fix a relatively knew pistol right off the bat. That gun should not have left the factory looking like that.

[Molly]

FWIW, I use revolvers almost exclusively, and can't remember the last time I had a leading problem with any of them. I learned the secret something like 50 or 60 years ago, when I was starting out. My first loads used Bullseye and Unique because of the ecomomical charges. This was fine with target loads, but I got massive leading with heavier loads. Someone told me to try different powders, and that did the trick. I went to 2400 at the time, and my leading in 357's went away. Since then, I've used quite a few slow powders, and all of them give me accurate loads with absolutely no leading, even at magnum levels. A good lube helps, and I use the 50/50 NRA formula exclusively.

This basic routine works in both pistols, revolvers and rifles. Use a fairly hard bullet for the gun (w/ gas checks in rifles, not in handguns), slow powder and a good lube. That's all there is to it.

[rockrat]

Yeah, bunch of guns should never leave the factory, but they do. Had a Ruger 22 once that didn't have any rifling. Wish I would have kept it.

[ColColt]

FWIW, I use revolvers almost exclusively, and can't remember the last time I had a leading problem with any of them.

Well, Molly, I guess you've just been lucky. If you had this one you would have your first problem child to deal with regardless the powder choice.

[Molly]

Well, Molly, I guess you've just been lucky. If you had this one you would have your first problem child to deal with regardless the powder choice.

I suppose that's possible, but I've got somewhere in the neighborhood of a bushel and a half to two bushels of revolvers ranging from breaktop 32 & 38 S&W through 32 long, 32 H&R Mag, 32-20, 38 Special, 357 mag, several 44 specials and a Ruger Redhawk 44 mag. Mostly of American mfg, with a few Spanish and Brazilians tossed in to spice up the pot. I've also used 32 ACP, 9mm Para, 45 Colt and 45 ACP autoloaders of various manufacture rather extensively, and a handful of weird and long obsolete european rifle and revolver calibers. Not to mention a sample or two of most military surplus rifles you've heard of, and a few you probably haven't, along with a reasonably generous dosage of fairly current American and European rifles.

At one time, I hardly ever left a gun show without some sort of gun or caliber I hadn't loaded for or shot yet. I've made my own molds made cases, and paper patched ammo for the 10.4 mm Vetterli-Vitalli, 500/450 Martini and 11 mm Mauser, just as examples. Firearm quality has varied considerably, but leading is never an issue. All with cast bullet handloads almost exclusively.

My Highway Patrolman has had to be reblued three times now (holster wear), and the only factory ammo it's ever seen was a lone 38 Special wadcutter someone left on the bench at my range. And it's first leading is somewhere in the future too.

The guidance I posted works with all of them without a single exception that I can think of at the moment. Ahh, not quite true! I have to admit little to no interest in guns with badly rusted bores, though there have been one or three of them in the mix.

Whoops! I just remembered one case of intractable lead fouling, but it wasn't with handloads. It was a Llama .22 autoloader that leaded with every type and brand of ammo I fed it. One clip was generally enough to obliterate visible rifling and give me something to do for the next few days getting it clean again.

But you say, that's just luck, right? Nah! I don't have that much luck.

[ColColt]

All I can say is I think you're dreaming. Either that, or you've secretly made a trip with your two baskets to Fantasy Island and had Tattoo put his mojo on the contents of that basket. I don't think the real world experiences what you have. Come on, all those guns and no leading....:holysheep Totally amazing.

[MtGun44]

I never get leading any more. I have not scrubbed out lead in many years, with the exeption
of slight streaking in my competition 1911 from the too hard commercial H&G 68 clones
with that crummy crayola lube. Even then it is slight, does not build up beyond a few streaks
and I only scrub it out every few thousand rounds. None of my other guns, revolvers (many) or
semi-autos ever lead. Years ago, I had a some cases that were pretty bad, even used a Lewis
Lead remover a few times. Haven't had it out in 10 years and almost never shoot jacketed in
my pistols and revolvers.

Bill

[geargnasher]

ColColt, a few years ago I would have thought Ken's claims of "leading is never an issue" to be outrageous also. Not anymore. Some kind folks here got me straightened out with my leading problems promptly and I've been so happy and lead-free for several years now (aside from a wild experiment or two really pushing the envelope) that I keep trying to pass on what I can about this commonly mis-understood phenom.

Gear

[Bret4207]

All I can say is I think you're dreaming. Either that, or you've secretly made a trip with your two baskets to Fantasy Island and had Tattoo put his mojo on the contents of that basket. I don't think the real world experiences what you have. Come on, all those guns and no leading....:holysheep Totally amazing.

I don't claim to have a gazilllion guns and zero leading, but I've had no leading issues to speak of in any properly prepped handguns using proper boolits and loads for many years. In a copper fouled rifle barrel? Yeah, I get leading. But nothing to speak of in my handguns. Not to say it won't happen, but I haven;t run on to a real sour lemon so far.

[Molly]

All I can say is I think you're dreaming. Either that, or you've secretly made a trip with your two baskets to Fantasy Island and had Tattoo put his mojo on the contents of that basket. I don't think the real world experiences what you have. Come on, all those guns and no leading....:holysheep Totally amazing.

Colcolt, what would be my motive for lying? I'm telling it to you straight. If you use properly fitting bullets of a decent hardness with a good lube and slow burning powders, leading is NOT an issue.

Perhaps you don't understand what causes leading. Whe I first got into cast bullets, I didn't either. But after after a few experiences, I decided to find out.

There were all sorts of explanations making the rounds. Bullets rubbed the lead off on the bore. They ran out of lube. They melted from hot loads. The list of old wives tales is long, but I tested every stinking bloody one of them. Nothing I tried produced ANY adhesion of lead to steel unless the temperature was high enough to melt the lead. And believe me, I tried. Even with no lube, I couldn't get lead to stick to steel at all, unless the temperature was high enough to melt the lead alloy. The most I could get at any speed, any pressure was a light lead dust that wiped off with my fingers.

But that didn't make sense either: FMJ bullets have lead exposed at the base, but they don't melt, even with loads much hotter than my cast bullet loads. I started recovering bullets from shooting them into everything from pools of water to bales of hay to sand banks. The nose was generally shattered, but the base could be recovered almost every time. And examination of the base NEVER showed any melting. But with hot loads, the bases often showed dull patches that contrasted sharply with the shine of freshly cast lead alloy bullets.

I could go on for pages with what I learned, and how different mechanisms work with plain base and with gas checked bullets, but it all boils down to the simple fact that leading is caused by hot gas leaking past the bullet, especially at the base. The lead is etched (not melted) by the hot gas and the etched metal is deposited on the bore as leading. Add a gas check, and it's higher melting point prevents etching until the load begins to push jacketed performance. Then gas leakage past the gas check will begin to etch the sides of the bullet and produce leading.

It's really quite simple, once you understand the underlying mechanisms behind leading. Proper (tight) fit in the throat helps because it provides a better seal, giving less gas leakage. Bullet lubes help because they 'contaminate' the bore and -up to a point - they prevent the etched lead from adhering. Think of trying to solder to greasy metal, and you'll see how it works. Slower powders help because they burn at lower temperatures.

And if you doubt ANY of that, try this simple experiment: Fill the empty space in your round with a tuft of cotton or dacron, and add a little cream of wheat (DRY!) under your bullet. But don't use any bullet lube or gas check. In fact, you don't even need to size the bullet if the loaded round will chamber. And load it hot! Use loads recommended for top jacketed loads for whatever rifle you're using. When the round fires, the cream of wheat forms a firewall that keeps the gas behind the bullet, and doesn't allow any leakage past the bullet. Consequently, there is no etching, and as a further consequence, there is no leading, even from bullets loaded just as they fall from the mold.

The nice part is that the same mechanisms are at work in ALL firearms. Once you learn how to prevent leading in one gun, you pretty much know how to prevent it in ANY gun. Oh, sure, there are variations in guns that make one more likely to lead than another. You just have to adjust your load to compensate. Does this rifle have a looser throat than the last one? Use a bullet sized larger to compensate. The old advice to slug your bore and size your bullet to fit accordingly is a shipload of fertilizer, almost guaranteed to give you leading. Size your bullet as large and as far out as you can and still chamber the round. The larger bullet is a tighter fit in the throat, and will be much less prone to leading. And don't worry about it fitting the bore: It will size down to a perfect fit as it leaves the throat.

Just try it ColColt. Once you get the hang of it, you'll be a believer too.

[NHlever]

You might also give Ruger a call, and tell them that you have one barrel that leads more than other Ruger barrels you have, and that you suspect a rough bore. Most, if not all of Ruger's round barrels (Blackhawk, Super Redhawk, etc.) are hammer forged these days, and that results in a smooth barrel. Barrels with ribs, and/ or underlugs can't be processed that way and have to be broached, reamed, and button rifled, or have broach cut rifling. In a production setting sometimes this leaves a rougher bore, though they can be very nice indeed.

The other thing is that it can be difficult to hold a revolver frame perfectly square with the barrel hole when the front of the frame is milled, or ground. This very slight out of square condition. When the barrel is torqued on, it actually has a tiny crimp, or bend in it that causes the "tight spot" that folks often talk about. (now before I get flamed as I have before for mentioning such things, you should know that over more than 30 years I spent a lot of time measuring such guns, and guns without that condition with engineers, and quality control folks that know what they are doing with tools most of us won't have. That is also why so many Rugers, and other guns with the "tight spot" usually could use a higher front sight. it is an unfortunate situation that can be fixed, but so far companies don't feel enough people care. If more would talk to them in a constructive way, or send their guns back, perhaps we could get this fixed. I am a Ruger guy from way, way back, but I sure have talked to them about this, and yes I got the "meets Ruger specs" speech, but it can, and should be fixed.)

[Char-Gar]

Somebody please define what "leading" is and is not". Does this mean and absolute "zero" of lead in the barrel after shooting or something less? How many rounds are involved in this issues?

I have been around sixguns and autpistols with cast bullets a very long time. I know all of the tricks and secrets that anybody else knows. These conversations tend to make me a little queasy, as we are talking about things which are undefined or self-defined.

So, you folks who have decisively defeated leading, please tell us what it is and what it is not.

I started a whole new thread on this subject under the Sixgun section, if anybody would like to comment there.

[ColColt]

I'm just aggravated about this in that after all the trouble many here went to to aid me in analyzing this problem and it turned out it's not the hardness, not the size and probably not the restriction but a poorly cut forcing cone. It's hard to see with the naked eye and even a bore scope can't show you all. The photos is what brought things to light for me and It appeared that was the problem area to deal with.

This is the only handgun I have that has given this problem and out of countless changes of powder, bullet shape, velocity changes, fire lapping, etc. it was all for naught until the revelation from the pics. Many years ago I had leading problems in several handguns-primarily revolvers and of which one was a Ruger 45 Colt. It could have been the alloy as back then I mostly used Lyman #2 and a variety of powders but mostly Unique and 2400. I think probably the boolits were undersized as I have that same mold today and believe it was cut small.

Molly-No implications of lying-mostly teasing. The throats in this revolver are .358 and I've tried that size to no avail so, I ordered a .359" size die and used that-same problem. The boolits I used to fire lap were.360" Of course, nothing is going to change until that forcing cone area gets cleaned up.

That brings me to what to do. I went to the gunshop today and talked with the gunsmith. He seemed reluctant to cut an 11 degree angle preferring to leave the 5 degree as is and just clean up the forcing cone. We went back and forth about that and I think I finally convinced him to do it. He did say he would just cut a little, call me and for me to try it out before cutting deeper. I don't know if I did the right thing by leaving it with him or whether I should have just sent it on to Ruger. I've heard they may not do anything hence my reason for leaving it with the gunsmith. I may end up just using this thing for a paper weight. I'm about over it.

[Char-Gar]

ColColt... Don't feel aggravated about the issue. Quite frequently we stumble around in the dark for a time, before the cause appears. That is just the limitation of communicating on these kinds of boards. Frequently, I read threads where folks have problems, and if I had the gun in my hand, I feel certain I could track it down in short order. That is just the nature of these boards.

[cbrick]

Col, I'm another one that get's little to no leading in my revolvers. The only exception to that was recently in my S&W 624 44 Special and that was my fault. Why was it my fault? Because I didn't fit the bullet properly to seat against the ball seat of the throats and it leaded the cylinder, spread to the forcing cone and into the bore past the barrel threads. At first I thought it was a barrel constriction and was about to fire lap it. Glad I didn't, further shooting and examining revealed the real proplem. My normal cure is to shoot a heavy enough (long enough) bullet that the front driving band chambers inside the throat with a mild snug fit and this cured about 99% of the leading issue. Next I properly sized and used a COL to fit up against the ball seats and this also cured the leading.

Also, I do not shoot diamonds, the vast majority of my shooting, rifle and handgun is done with air cooled WW alloy.

A reasonable alloy properly fitted to the firearm in question is a great cure to leading. There are of course mechanical proplems such as your Ruger but that too is fixable.

Rick

[ColColt]

Advice well taken and appreciated. I've used a sundry of boolits for this revolver to include the 358429-a favorite and accuracy seems best with Lee's 358-158 RNFP. I just called the gunsmith and got another worker there and just told him to tell Joe, the head smith, to go ahead and just cut the 11 degree angle and be done with it. Incrementally doing this is time consuming and to me not necessary. I don't know why he was hesitant about changing the 5 degree angle but after all, it's my gun. If it works, fine, if not-I'll just have to contend with that when time comes.

[MtGun44]

Good luck, hope you sort that one out!

Bill

[Char-Gar]

ColColt, every year there are fewer and fewer gunsmiths that really know what they are doing. They just replace pasts and tinker with things. There are still some high quality folks out there, but they are very busy, charge high prices and don't take guff of customers.

For every good experience I have had with a local gunsmith, I have had two or three bad ones. That is why I took to doing my own work. It isn't rocket science and I will take the time to pre-think every job and go slow enough not to make any mistakes that can't be fixed.

You man is afraid to change a 5 degree angle to an 11 degree angle, because he is afraid he will have to enlarge the cone to far. I don't think that will happen, as I have recut several Ruger forcing cones to 11% without any problems. I have read in print that with the Powers 11 degree cutter on a Ruger, you will produce a two step cone. I never have.

[ColColt]

He did mention a two step cut and I wasn't sure what he meant. This guy has been around awhile (71 years old) and should know what he's doing(hopefully). That might have been part of his reluctance but surely he's done it before and should know. Both he and one of the other guys said my problem was because I was shooting lead boolits, if that tells you anything...didn't make me feel good. I told him if he'd like to pay for about 500 jacketed boolits I'd try his method first. I'm hoping he does what I want and doesn't botch it up.

[geargnasher]

The information was there, in the other thread, but it was overlooked.

Tell your gunsmith that he doesn't have to cut the 11-degree cone clear out to the edge of the existing cone, only enough to reach the area where the boolits have been hitting it. Even if it is a two-step when he's done with it, that doesn't mean it won't shoot just fine. Also, a friend of mine has one gun that is about .060" too deep with the cone due to excessive use with full-power loads and hot-burning powder and a re-cut to sharpen the lands a bit. It shoots just fine with slow powder, but if you use fast powder and boolits that are too soft they will skid enough to leak the entire length of the trailing edges of the lands and lead the whole barrel.

I know I took some pics of it, but I can't seem to find the disc at the moment. It would swallow a 429421 up to the middle of the grease groove before the front band found steel in the forcing cone, but it shot great.

Gear

[Charlie Two Tracks]

I believe there is a thread on the Ruger forum (reloading) that shows a forcing cone as you are describing. It was going to be sent back into Ruger for repair on their dime. That forcing cone may just be the whole problem.

Just went over there to look. I guess it's your thread.

[Char-Gar]

The potential problem with cutting forcing cones in sixguns is not going to deep. The so called "Taylor" throat, cut a one bullet length freebore into the breech end of the barrel. That is deep!

The potential problem is over enlarging the opening at the rear end of the barrel, allowing the bullet base to expand way to much, when the nose engages the rifling and the base is hanging in the air taking the hit from the gases.

The purpose of the little plug gauge that goes with the forcing cone cutter is to make certain the opening at the rear end of the barrel isn't to extreme. However, these gauges are ground on the very conservative side. About half of the revolvers I have recut had to go past the top step on the gauge to clean up the old forcing cone.

I would agree that two step would not be a bug-a-boo, but I have never seen one and I have recut a number of Ruger forcing cones.

A 11 degree cutter will give a longer more gentle taper than found in may sixgun forcing cones and ease the bullet into the barrel. The older Pre-War Smiths and Colts have little more than a steep angle bevel for a forcing cone. Others, (including one Python) look like the cone had been cut with a cast iron burr.

Handguns made in the last 15 or 20 years seem to have better forcing cones. The gunmakers seem to be paying more attention to that detail than they did in prior years. Ruger in general does a good job of cutting forcing cones.

The problem in this case is one of quality control. I hate to see ColColt hung out to dry with this mess. If wish he lived close by, I would recut that cone in about ten minutes and he would go away with a sixgun that would not lead with decent cast bullet ammo.

[ColColt]

Gear-What I would give to have had you as a gunsmith today. They didn't seem to want to listen as to what the problem was and mostly early on blamed it on the fact I was shooting lead boolits. I knew I was in trouble then but did the best I could to assure them that the 11 degree chamfer was what I wanted.,

Charlie-someone had recommended I post about this on the Ruger forum but, I've had more help/responses here than there.

[ColColt]

I had a call today while at work from the gunsmith that's working on "supposedly" putting the 11 degree angle on the GP100. His message was that he had started it and discovered the gun "had no forcing cone at all" and just cut enough to give it one!!. Now, that was a surprise to me. He said he had shot some 38 Special wc's through it with no problem and wanted me to pick it up and try some of my reloads to see how it did before he went any further.

Why didn't he just cut the 11 degree chamfer and do what I asked? I'm sure anywhere else would have done that. Wish I had just sent it on to Ruger.

[geargnasher]

I managed to get a couple of fair shots as to what I was talking about. The sun didn't co-0perate well as I couldn't bounce enough light into the area in question but this will give a good idea.

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x220/ColColt/Misc%20Stuff/_DEF3795.jpg

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x220/ColColt/Misc%20Stuff/_DEF3794.jpg

Unless I suddenly just got really, really STOOPID or those pics aren't of the gun you sent to this supposed "Gunsmith", THAT REVOLVER HAS A FORCING CONE. It's rough as a cob, especially where it tapers up the lands, but it's most certainly there. Your gunsmith is an idiot. I'd take the gun away from him before he hurts himself with it.

Gear

[cbrick]

I dunno gear, it's really hard to tell from the pics but what it appears to be is Ruger started the reamer to cut a forcing cone and didn't run it in far enough, ie, never finished cutting it.

If that's so the smith is at least half right. None of my revolvers forcing cones look anything like that, almost straight and ends abruptly at the rifling. Also, look at the groove, even that appears to have a step up that would shave lead and probably jacket material too. The groove was the first thing I noticed when Col first published the pics, had to look twice to see it was a groove and not rifling.

Gonna have to wait till Col goes and talks with the smith and see what he learns and what it looks like now. Did the smith give it enough forcing cone to clean up the rifling? I do agree with Col that the smith took the revolver in to get an 11 degree forcing cone cut and that is just what he should have done unless he has a logical reason for not doing it. Big question is did he taper the forcing cone into the rifling or leave it like that? If he left the rifling as it was . . . Your right, take it away from him before he hurts himself with it. He doesn't know enough to be handling firearms.

Rick

[geargnasher]

Setting back a barrel one thread, refacing to set the cylinder gap, and recutting the forcing cone is gunsmithing 101. Wanna see a good one? Wife's Model 36, haven't fixed the forcing cone yet, but it shoots pretty good and the only leading it gets is the leading you see, whether two shots or two boxes. I don't even bother to remove it when cleaning anymore. You can see a hint of the radial scars just like ColColt's Ruger through the lead buildup on the land on the trigger side of the barrel.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/imagehosting/thum_89094ea76ffff2284.jpg (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2503)
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/imagehosting/thum_89094ea771dca089c.jpg (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2504)

This pistol came to us as an infernal leader having .355-6" throats and shot nine inches to the right at five yards because the frame was twisted sometime during manufacture. A 20-ton press and some judiciously shaped and placed blocks of hard maple fixed it, and whaddaya know, it's still in time. Reamed the throats with a .358" chucking reamer bushed with masking tape for a good fit in the chamber. This is from the time when S&W was turning one out every six minutes and, I believe, was using a rusty step-drill to cut the forcing cones.

Gear

[cbrick]

That's what I would call no forcing cone. It does appear that the rifling does have a bit of an angle in towards the rifling but again, tough to say for sure from photo's. Col's rifling is set further back like as I mentioned, they started to cut and never finished.

Hopefully if Col picked up his revolver he will post more pics to see what the smith actually did do. Curious minds want to know.

Rick

[HDS]

There seems to be contention on the issue of forcing cones as well. Veral Smith thinks as little as possible is best, claiming the best working revolver he had was an old smith that had only a slight bevel and no forcing cone.

[Char-Gar]

There is no use in trying to second guess your gunsmith. I would have cut the 11 degree cone and be done with it. Doing so will never hurt and often helps.

As far as Veral Smith goes, I take most of what he has to say with a grain of salt. I have had a couple dozen old Smiths and Colts with just a bevel and no forcing cone. Everyone of them performed better after an 11 degree cone was cut in them. If Veral had a old SMith with one of the "bevels" that was a good performer, it shot well in spite of the bevel and not because of it.

[Char-Gar]

Gear, I have only owned one Smith with cylinder throats of less than .3575 - .3580 and it was a Model 36 like your wife's. They were .356 plus or minus a little variance from throat to throat.

[Molly]

There is no use in trying to second guess your gunsmith. I would have cut the 11 degree cone and be done with it. Doing so will never hurt and often helps.

As far as Veral Smith goes, I take most of what he has to say with a grain of salt. I have had a couple dozen old Smiths and Colts with just a bevel and no forcing cone. Everyone of them performed better after an 11 degree cone was cut in them. If Veral had a old SMith with one of the "bevels" that was a good performer, it shot well in spite of the bevel and not because of it.

As an added note on the utility of forcing cones, I like to play with old junkers like breaktop revolvers. Quite a few of them were made with no forcing cone, and every bloody one I've found like that spit lead like it was chewing tobacco. And every one of them behaved itself after I cut a slight forcing cone into the barrel.

Another note for those of you who have something like this. I made up a little throating tool by epoxying a little chamfering tool (Lee? Lyman?) on aabout a six inch steel rod. This is the little black pointed thimble with a short cone on the end, with a slit in the cone.

Yeah, I know, It has the 'wrong' angle for a proper throat, and wasn't designed to cut steel, etc etc. But it's a cheap way to improve one of these old junkers and stop the spitting in any of them with half decent allignment. It's a lot smoother / better than using a grindstone, which I've seen done by a jackleg who knew the problem, but not how to cure it.

[ColColt]

I talked with him this morning as he apparently doesn't work long when he's there. He said he did use the 11 degree cut but didn't go in too far, whatever that meant, but did clean up the tool marks. He indicated he shot the 38 Special wc's with no ill affect although that could have been just 5-6 shots and he left the pistol with the guys next door in the gun shop for me to try out before he went any further. Apparently he thinks what he's done may be enough.

I distinctly remember at least twice telling him and his assistant I wanted the forcing cone cut at 11 degrees and to clean up the tool marks as shown in the same pictures I have here. I gave him photos of both. That's all I wanted. I'll be going over there Friday after a doctor's appointment and bring my bore light to see what it looks like, shoot about 25 and see how it does.

It seems the GP100 has a lot more "free bore" than the Smith M36 does. I just looked at my SP101 and it's far and away smoother than the GP100...same manufacturer.

[cbrick]

Thanks Col, eagerly waiting your report.

Rick

[ColColt]

I went to the range today and picked up the GP100 for testing per the gunsmith. I only fired 12 rounds of 5.5 gr of 231 with the Lee 158 gr boolit and ran a wet patch followed by a dry one down the bore and looked inside with my bore light. you could see leading at the forcing cone and for about 3/4" into the rifling...as bad or worse than before.

I had them call him over to the gun shop so we could discuss things. I showed him with the bore light what it looked like and told him he still needed to clean up the cone and the beginning of the rifling as that step on the grooves was aiding in the leading by shaving off lead and smearing it further on. I shouldn't be having to tell him all this. He should know by looking at it what needs to be done the first time and just do it. So, I left it with him again and he said he's go deeper. One of the guys that works there said had it been him, he would have just sent it off to Ruger. I'm beginning to think maybe I should have.

[243winxb]

5.5 gr of 231 with the Lee 158 gr boolit Your 1/2 gr over maximum, compared to the Hodgdon website. I have fixed the same problem with a tight patch and pearl drops tooth polish. :drinks:

[geargnasher]

ColColt, you can make a lap from a .45 boolit, a drill, a file, a section of cleaning rod, and about 8" of masking tape and fix that problem in about 30 seconds.

Take a .45 boolit, at least 250 grains, any profile. Drill a 1/8" hole in the middle of the nose, about 1/4" deep. Thread the male end of the cleaning rod section into it, force it so it cuts threads in the hole. Chuck the other end of the cleaning rod into an electric drill of some sort (cordless is nice), and turn the boolit nose down to a straight cone of an angle similar to that which your cone is cut already. Remove the lap, insert the rod through the bore and bush it with tape until it is barely bore diameter, locating the bushing so it will be just inside the muzzle end while the lap is in the forcing cone. Thread the lap back onto the rod with the rod inserted, apply lapping compound to the forcing cone, and spin the rod between your palms back and forth to spin the boolit "lap" against the forcing cone. Every few turns, let the lap fall back a bit and then bring it up to touch again, just like lapping engine valves if you're familiar with how that's done. This will refresh the lapping compound since it wears out very quickly. After 10-15 cycles, refresh the compound and repeat. This won't recut the cone, but will polish the marks out of what is there.

Gear

[ColColt]

I'm about disgusted with this pistol to tell you the truth. I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out what was wrong with it and expended lots of rounds with different powders and bullet styles to no avail. I fire lapped it and tried the next size up diameter sizing die with no results. I may just get it back from the gunsmith this time and just sell or trade it. This has been going on for months and I'm nearing being over it. Had I taken the advice given in another thread on this problem and looked more carefully at the suggestions and at the forcing cone area/entrance into the rifling, I would have seen the problem long ago.

[geargnasher]

PM me if you decide to get rid of it and the forcing cone isn't butchered too badly.

Gear

[ColColt]

I'll let you know when he calls me again and I try it out once more.

[cbrick]

You may be pleasantly surprised Col, it just may be a fine shooter once you eliminate the automatic lead shaving feature it had built into it.

It's the law, you must post results including pics.

Rick

[ColColt]

Actually, when I tried it out the first time after he had "worked" on it, I only fired 12 rounds and it had more lead than before. The forcing cone itself didn't lead before-now it does...or did last time. I will post pics after I try it this last time. I'm not going to go on forever with this with him only cutting a minuscule amount each time. I should get a call some time this week.

[ColColt]

I got home from work today and saw I had a message on the answering machine. It was from the gunsmith. He said he had cut some more like I requested and smoothed out the forcing cone area and the beginning of the rifling where the grooves looked "stepped". He also made the comment that I needed to face reality and that was that "all 357's leaded and there's no getting around it and that's just a matter of fact". Can you believe that? He said if I wanted to shoot lead bullets I'd have to shoot "awfully hard bullets". I'll go over and shoot it again and see what happens. Either way, I'm not going to leave it again but just bring it home.

[geargnasher]

Stupid can't be fixed. There might still be hope for the Ruger, though.

Gear

[MtGun44]

I can push 8 BHN boolits to full velocity in multiple .357 pistols with no leading. The folks
that say it can't be done are just ignorant.

Bill

[ColColt]

I wonder if this fellow ever heard of Elmer Keith? Best to my remembrance, he's the one that help bring about the development of the 357 as well as the 44 Magnum and from all I've read he used a BHN 10-11 alloy. This guy is out in left field as is his cohort who told me my problem was that I was using lead boolits!

[Iron Mike Golf]

ColColt, maybe you'd be better off getting a forcing cone reamer and DYIing it.

[Molly]

I wonder if this fellow ever heard of Elmer Keith? Best to my remembrance, he's the one that help bring about the development of the 357 as well as the 44 Magnum and from all I've read he used a BHN 10-11 alloy. This guy is out in left field as is his cohort who told me my problem was that I was using lead boolits!

Actually, I think a fellow by the name of Phil Sharpe was a prime mover for the 357, and Elmer for the 44 mag.

Be that as it may, you may find it interesting that the 357 used to have a terrible reputation for leading bores. There were a number of reasons for this, like half-jacket bullets at high velocity. The bullets would slug to fill the bore and leaded like mad. At that time, cast pistol bullets were also made of pretty near anything that could melt, usually very soft. Bullet lubes by Lyman were half decent, but a lot of folks (including me) used anything waxy they could melt, just for economy. Why we thought we were saving a lot of money is beyond me now. We also tended to use the least amount of powder possible that would give desired velocities without blowing the gun up. Also supposedly for economy.

Col Harrison once observed something to the effect that economy is an understandable goal, but when it leads one to use materials that guarantee failure, it is time to re-examine our objectives.

Not wanting to beat anyone over the head, but it is noteworthy that the 357 has made a pretty decent recovery based on more fully jacketed bullets in factory ammo, and on reasonably hard cast bullets with slower powders and a good lube in handloads. You will search long and hard for a recommended 357 load that combines high velocity, fast powders and soft lead bullets, be they swaged or cast.

[fecmech]

One of the big reasons lead bullets got a bad name in .357 mags was Winchesters 158 gr Lubaloy bullets in factory ammo. If you fired 15-20 of them you no longer had any rifling in your barrel. When I started loading in the 70's everyone told me you couldn't shoot lead in magnums. Because at that time I was "balls to the wall" with everything, I went right to max with 296 and "Keiths" in both the .357 and .44 mag lubed with Javelina. Result was no leading and excellent accuracy. No skill there though, just plain dumb luck in wanting to go fast!

[Boolseye]

Where else will you get this many competent people going to bat for a guy with a forcing cone issue. What a great community.

[ColColt]

Where else will you get this many competent people going to bat for a guy with a forcing cone issue. What a great community.

+1
You won't find another, I promise you.

[fstreed]

...I only fired 12 rounds of 5.5 gr of 231 with the Lee 158 gr boolit...

I'm a newbie to this forum but have been handloading, casting, and shooting for several decades. Reading through posts on this forum has challenged some of my long held beliefs and I realize that even with my years of experience I still have a lot to learn. I have kind of got away from shooting for the last several years but am now getting back into it. Having said that, I believe one of the factors contributing to your leading is your load. I would try some slower powders. I have had good luck with powders like IMR 800X and Blue Dot, it might even be worth going to H110 or W296. Of course your forcing cone is still a mess and needs to be dealt with.

Any "gunsmith" that tells you your problem is cast boolits probably isn't going to fix the problem. Either find one who will recut the forcing cone or get the reamer to do it yourself. I have personally used up my stock of patience on half-witted gunsmiths, mechanics, carpenters, plumbers, doctors, and computer call center geeks who really don't know what they are talking about. I pay strict attention to those who do.

[Char-Gar]

I would tend to agree with fstreed. 231 and Bullseye has similar burning rates and uses. They are essentially target and mid-range loads in 38 Special rounds. They are also good powders for use in the 45 ACP round.

There a couple of problems associated with their use at the pressure levels generated by 5.5 grains over a 158 grain bullets.

1. They are so fast that even a small increase in amount can push the pressures over the red line.

2. Leading in the breech end of a sixgun barrel is most often caused by gas cutting. This is not melting, but the velocity of the gas cuts into the bullet base before it has a chance to seal in the chamber throat and barrel. The faster the powder the more gas cutting will occur.

In the .357 Magnum round Unique would be the slowest powder I would consider but even then I would not attempt full snort pressure and velocity. For that task 2400 would get the nod.

You have a forcing cone problem, but you will not find joy using 5.5 grains of 231 no matter how it is recut.

[ColColt]

OK-Here we go again. I got a call from the smith the other day who told me he had went a little further with the 11 degree reamer and cleaned up the forcing area. But, he added a caveat..."there's no 357 I've ever seen that don't lead-you have to realize that and if it doesn't work for you, you'll just have to shoot jacketed bullets". That's one helluva note from a gunsmith. This was the message in essence over the phone via my answering machine.

I went to try it out yet again today, same 12 rounds as before and unfortunately didn't bring my bore light nor did I bring any cleaning equipment with me so, the results I saw when I got home may have been due to his not cleaning it the last time after I fired those first 12 rounds. At any rate, I cleaned it with one patch soaked with Hoppe's and ran two clean patches down the bore. I was not happy upon checking it out with the bore light as it looked like it did before. However, as I said, this could have been his not cleaning it before turning it over to me. It cleaned up with a minimum of fuss and I took a couple of pics for you to see what it looks like now. I didn't want to leave it with him anymore and paid for his services($40) and won't be taking it back.

I won't really know how it will do until I get back to the range again and sit down and test fire and check to see if the leading is under control. It does look better than the original pics I posted. What do you think?

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x220/ColColt/Misc%20Stuff/_DEF3812a.jpg
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x220/ColColt/Misc%20Stuff/_DEF3809a.jpg

This is a before shot...
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x220/ColColt/Misc%20Stuff/_DEF3794.jpg


You have a forcing cone problem, but you will not find joy using 5.5 grains of 231 no matter how it is recut.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying 5.5 gr is too much of a good thing? Speer's #14 manual shows 5.4 gr as max but that's with their super soft boolits. I figured they're probably close to if not indeed, pure lead. Mine are BHN12. The velocity is only about 950-980 fps.

[Char-Gar]

What I am saying is that you are using to much of the wrong powder and you are likely to get leading where you have found it, regardless of how hard or soft your bullets are.

I don't care a fig what Speer says. They are testing in a lab for pressure and velocity with no regard for performance on the target or leading in the revolver.

I am not making this stuff up about fast pistol powders in magnum revolvers with the resulting gas cutting and leading. It is just a fact of life in sixgun shooting. Trying to economize by using faster powders sometimes just doesn't work out in the long run.

You gunsmith is wrong about getting leading no matter what in a 357 Magnum. That just tain't so.

Go to 5.5 to 6 grains of Unique and watch your leading go away. I am talking 357 magnum sixgun here and not 38 Specials. Your recent pics show that forcing cone good to go as far as I am concerned.

[cbrick]

The forcing cone looks far, far better. Notice how the cone tapers into the rifling without any of those sharp edges to slice off lead.

I also gotta jump on Char-Gar's wagon here, he's right except I would go with an even slower powder. In fact not only would I . . . I do.

As for your smith, tell him . . . never mind, probably shouldn't say things like that. Somebody that had no better idea than your smith told him that 30 years ago and he's still spreading the wisdom.

Use a slower powder and go shoot, you'll be a happy camper now.

P.S. Calm down, he's only one smith, they're not all like that.

Rick

[ColColt]

Caar-Gar-I thought 231 was THE powder to use for target shooting. I know it does a superb job in my 1911. Actually I use to shoot 4.5 gr in the 38 Special case in this same gun and it gave great accuracy so, I figured the 5.5 gr in the 357 case should be good since, hey; after all this is a Ruger! I don't' think it develops over 20-25,000 psi at best.

One of my better loads is 5.5 gr of Universal and I suppose I should keep that load since 231 seems to be a troublesome load. I don't much care for unique in this caliber and like Universal better. I've found 7.5 gr of HS-6 is another good one not to mention 13.5 gr of 2400 but, I don't shoot that one often.

Rick-I guess when you see a guy 70-71 years old you figure he's been smithin' for along time and ought to know about all there is to know on what he was confronted with. I was mistaken. The thing is as you mentioned, he's spreading this around the other 4-5 guys I saw working there as one mimicked the same thing he told me nearly word for word...about problems with lead bullets, that is.

At any rate, I'll give her another try soon. Right now my time has been given over to my new SW1911 5" version and I'm giving myself an early Christmas gift with their 1911SC E-Series bobtail. It should be arriving next week at the latest.

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x220/ColColt/Misc%20Stuff/SW1911SCSeriesE.jpg

[geargnasher]

MUCH better. I second what's been said about Universal, that's what I use for one of my favorite practice loads. Scrub it good with a Chore Boy, get all the old lead out, lightly oil it, and go shoot some more.

Gear

[Char-Gar]

Col...231 is a great powder for target loads, as is Bullseye. But, just because the loads are shot at targets does not mean it is a target load.

I don't think there is a standard definition, but target loads in a 38 Special are in the 650 to 750 fps range. Go above that speed and you are into mid-range or service load area. In a 45 ACP a target load is less than 800 fps.

I suggested Unique as you get more loads per pound and it works very well in the .357 Magnum round up to about 1.1 K fps.

If you go above 1.1 K fps in the 357 Magnum, I would use an even slower powder. I like 2400 for that purpose but there are a number out there that will fill the bill.

A rule of thumb for me is to use Bullseye or similar powders like 231 for target loads. Unique or similar powders like AA5 for mid-range loads, and 2400 or similar powders like AA9 for full snort magnum loads. For wrist wrenching loads in the 45 Colt or 454 Casull, really slow powders like 296/H110 are the way to go.

When I started reloading for sixguns 50 years ago, the old Hercules powders (Bulleye, Unique and 2400) were by far the most popular and there were not nearly the choices you have now. I am just sot in my ways,and have never seen any reason to change from these old standards. I have used them so long, they are like old friends who hold no secrets. There are many, many more powders out there today and you have far more good choices. But, whatever powder you choose, you can't get away from No. 1 below.

To get a good accurate cast bullet sixgun load that does not present leading issues requires;

1. The proper powder for the pressure/velocity
2. A bullet of the proper temper for the pressure
3. A lube that works
4. A bullet that fits the dimensions of the revolver

If a shooter has all four of these issues correct and there is still unacceptable leading, then there is a mechanical problem with the firearm. Most often when folks come to this board with sixgun leading issues, the problem will be found in 1 - 4 above. It is is not, then it is time to look for a mechanical issue.

In your case, you have a double whammy. Your handgun will never resolve it's leading issues with that rough forcing cone, and to fully resolve the issue, you will have to go to a slower powder.

Folks have been shooting cast bullets in sixguns for generations and there is not much we have not figured out. It is a pretty straight forward process with principals that if followed will give good results for almost everybody.

Around 1990 or 91 David Scovill wrong an article in Handloader Magazine entitled Developing Cast Bullet Loads for Revolvers. It was reprinted in the 1991Handloaders' Bullet Making Annual II. If you can get a copy of this, it is well worth your effort, for it is the best single article on the subject I have encountered. Everything I have mentioned is covered in that articicle.

Best of luck with your sixgun and your shooting. All of us encounter situations that are very frustrating and seem to have no solution, but with persistence and learning, they can all be resolved.

"There ain't been a horse that can't be rode. There ain't never been a cowboy that can't be throwed." That old saying applies to cast bullet in revolvers as well.

[ColColt]

In my mind a mid range target load for the 357 is something like 850-1000 fps and since they don't allow chronys at the indoor range, I just have to speculate as to the velocity. I have used 6 gr of Unique with the 158 gr boolit, usually the Lee's RNFP or one from Mountain Molds. For heavier boolits I use the 358429, which in this gun is superb. While it gave pretty good accuracy, Universal was cleaner and gave just as good if not slightly better velocity. All in all, HS-6 is one of my top three favorite powders for either the 357 or 44 Magnum. AA#5 has given good results at 8.2 gr. My throats are .358" but I've gone to sizing them .359". The ones I had when last shot this were .358 with the231 loads.

I'm going to try this baby out again with the 158 and 170 gr boolits I have in stock with three powders, Unique, Universal, HS-6...and maybe some 2400. It's got to be better than before as the first to pics show how much better it looks than the last pic, which was before any work at all done on it.

[Char-Gar]

Keep us posted on how things work for you. We are interested.

Good luck..

[MtGun44]

Has someone else found that some guns prefer "throat +.001" ? [Throats .358 but
size to .359]

I have been questioned and disagreed with repeatedly when commenting that throat diam
or +.001 are what one should try when developing revolver loads.

Bill

[Char-Gar]

MtGun....I often shoot bullets larger than throat diameter with excellent results. Like you I have also had folks call me out on this and say it can't be so.

[geargnasher]

Bill, I've sized all sorts of ways for revolvers, and it works both ways, sometimes even .002" larger has given the best results, but sometimes not. I've tried to determine trends so I could establish a "rule" for myself when working up loads for new guns and take a more direct line to the "best" load for each, but nothing definite emerged except that each gun likes one thing best, and if you change powder or alloy it might like something else.

I'm sure somebody will be along shortly to tell us both that you can't chamber boolits that are larger than throat diameter on the first band, but you know the answer to that! :mrgreen:

Gear

[Char-Gar]

In a conversation a couple of years ago with a couple of gun writers, who names would be instant recognized, we were discussing the issue of reloading for a number of sixguns with cookbook loads, which work well in every revolver of that caliber. Of course, you always have the issue of the variety of specs among the sixguns.

I mentioned that long about, I had settled the issue, but sizing the bullets for the largest cylinder throat in the fleet, and just shooting them oversized in the smaller throats of other revolvers. One of the guys said. "Hush Charles, you are giving away one of our secrets, if we put that in print, we would have much less to write about."

There are folks that enjoy trying to turn ordinary sixguns into bench rest one hole wonders, and that is a good pursuit. However, for the average sixgun shooter, the larger than cylinder thoat bullet most often works just fine and gives all the accuracy that can be utilized.

[cbrick]

However, for the average sixgun shooter, the larger than cylinder thoat bullet most often works just fine and gives all the accuracy that can be utilized.

In many instances that would work just fine but not all. If your shooting a lite enough (short enough) bullet that when chambered the front driving band does not reach the throat a bit over size can help accuracy and seating against the edge of the throat can also be an advantage.

However, when your shooting a bullet that is heavy enough (long enough) that when a round is chambered the front driving band is fully inside the throat and your sizing .002"+ over throat diameter how do you chamber the round? In this case they should be sized to a mild snug fit inside the throats.

Rick

[Char-Gar]

I have never had any problems cambering a round with a bullet .002 -003 larger than throat diameter in;

1. 38 Special and .357 Magnum, with SWC bullets that weight 150-160 grains.
2. 44 Special and Magnum with SWC bullet that weight 230 - 260 grains.
3. 44 Colt with SWC bullets that weight 245 - 285 grains.

I have done this in scores of Smith and Wesson, Colt and Ruger handguns. If you can drop a loaded round in the cylinder with no pushing, you are good to go.

The above is the limits of my experience and I make no assertions beyond that limit.

[Molly]

I have never had any problems cambering a round with a bullet .002 -003 larger than throat diameter in;

1. 38 Special and .357 Magnum, with SWC bullets that weight 150-160 grains.
2. 44 Special and Magnum with SWC bullet that weight 230 - 260 grains.
3. 44 Colt with SWC bullets that weight 245 - 285 grains.

I have done this in scores of Smith and Wesson, Colt and Ruger handguns. If you can drop a loaded round in the cylinder with no pushing, you are good to go.

The above is the limits of my experience and I make no assertions beyond that limit.

Char-Gar, I not only agree whole-heartedly with your experience, I'd even go so far as to say that as long as throat diameter is not smaller than the groove diameter, the throat has almost no bearing. In my experience, as long as you don't object to how difficult it may be to chamber a round with a grossly oversize cast bullet, it will work just fine, shoot accurately, and not lead. And as long as the round will chamber, the larger diameter cast bullet will be much superior to the bore diameter slug, all else being equal.

[cbrick]

That's folly Molly. If your shooting a bullet that is out of the case enough that a chambered round is fully inside the throat and that bullet is larger than throat diameter it will at the very best be difficult to chamber. After all, your trying to place into a hole an object larger than the hole.

Next, it matters not how much larger you deem best or how much larger than throat diameter you decide to shoot . . . When that bullet exits the throat . . . It WILL BE throat diameter. Revolver throats are the very best bullet sizer there is. Put in a bullet larger than throat diameter and it will be throat diameter when it exits. It also doesn't matter how much effort is acceptable to get a round chambered, it's still throat diameter when it exits. So where is the benefit in making a round anywhere from difficult to impossible to chamber?

Next, no one is talking here about shooting bore diameter bullets, the conversation is on throat diameters and bullet sizing. If you have a revolver with groove diameter larger than throat diameter there is a mechanical problem with the revolver that needs to be resolved, it's not a handloading problem and it's not bullet sizing problem.

Rick

[Char-Gar]

Cbrick.. You really just need to load up some rounds with oversized for the throat bullets and see what happens. You might end up having to apologize for that "folly" wise crack.

In most sixgun charge holes there is plenty of space between the end of the case and the beginning of the throat, plus a slight taper at the rear of the throat, for the front driving band of the bullet that sticks outside of the case to be oversized.

Nobody is saying you can stick a .454 bullet into a .452 throat. We are saying you can load a round with a .454 bullet into a sixgun with cylinder throats of .452. There is a big difference here that you seem to be missing.

I have also read Elmer Keith where he says the top driving band of his design bullet is supposed to fit into the throat to guide the bullet along. But, I have shot thousands of Keith bullets where the top driving band was larger than the cylinder throat and had them just plop into the chamber without any force at all. The reality of this stuff is often different from the theory.

[Molly]

What on earth are you talking about Rick?


That's folly Molly. If your shooting a bullet that is out of the case enough that a chambered round is fully inside the throat and that bullet is larger than throat diameter it will at the very best be difficult to chamber. After all, your trying to place into a hole an object larger than the hole.

Huh??? How on earth could ANYONE chamber a loaded round fully within the throat of a revolver? That one just staggers me. I think (hope) you were being careless with your phrasing. Rounds fit within a chamber, not a throat. The chamber is notably larger than the typical loaded round for ease of operation. This enables one to use a bullet that is also notably larger than normal, right up to the point that the round becomes too difficult to insert into the chamber. But some slight resistance (due to oversize bullets) to chambering that can be overcome with a little finger pressure causes no harm to the accuracy of the round.

Next, it matters not how much larger you deem best or how much larger than throat diameter you decide to shoot . . . When that bullet exits the throat . . . It WILL BE throat diameter. Revolver throats are the very best bullet sizer there is. Put in a bullet larger than throat diameter and it will be throat diameter when it exits. It also doesn't matter how much effort is acceptable to get a round chambered, it's still throat diameter when it exits. So where is the benefit in making a round anywhere from difficult to impossible to chamber?

The primary advantage of larger bullets (up to the point that they become inconvenient to chamber) is reduced blowby and thus much reduced tendency to produce leading. The tighter the fit, the greater the blowby reduction. A similar but possibly lesser advantage is that the closer the fit of the bullet to the chamber, the better alligned it will be. Note that the very successful Keith style wadcutter had a reduced diameter on the first band so that it would just barely fit within the throat for better alignment than the typical RN bullet of the time. Granted, all bullets will have the diameter of the throat through which they are fired, irrespective of their initial diameter. But passage of the bullet from the case into the neck involves some pretty sloppy fit, especially at the beginning of the journey. The larger the bullet, the better the fit and the better the allignment, and (as a rule) the better the accuracy will be. This is hardly new technology.

The effect is well established in rifles too: It is well recognized that for best results, bullets should be sized as large as can be chambered, and as far into the bore as can be chambered, and for exactly the same reasons I outlined above.

Rick

[swheeler]

I shoot all my revolvers with cast bullets .001" larger than throat dia. Now there are certain types/brands of brass that are thicker and do create tight fit on chambering, but that has nothing to do with throat diameter, it's the chamber size. My solution is to not use that type of brass, peddle the Win and keep all the RP.

[cbrick]

No, that is folly. Here is why.

Placing an object larger than the hole you’re trying to put it in will make it from difficult to impossible to chamber depending on how much larger it is. Why would that be so difficult to understand?

When that larger than the hole bullet exits the hole it will be the size of the hole. Why is that so difficult to understand?

To think that either of the above two paragraphs is not exactly what would happen is certainly folly.

Sure, you could seat the bullet much deeper in the case and cost powder space or raise pressures but there is a better way . . . Size to a mild snug fit inside the throats when a round is chambered where the front driving band belongs, this will better align the brass and bullet with the center line of the bore. This is where long range revolver accuracy starts. Being a mild snug fit in the throats is where not leading the bore or cylinder begins.

Some of my more recent testing has been using 360 DW brass trimmed to properly fit the chambers of my 357 in order to place the entire front driving band into the throats with even less bullet in the case. More of a slower powder, mild snug bullet fit in the throats, bullet aligned with the center line of the bore is a more accurate load with zero leading even after hundreds of rounds.

You edited your post but from what you originally posted but . . . Shooting my mouth off instead of shooting my guns is what you originally posted. Long range revolver accuracy has been my passion for the past three decades, it is the majority of my shooting and many times I spend more time testing than practicing or match shooting. I will be more than happy to have a long range revolver silhouette match with you. Your own cast bullets and handloads only please.

Shoot my mouth off instead of my guns indeed!

Rick

[cbrick]

What on earth are you talking about Rick?

There is another way Molly. There is a way to produce stearling accuarcy with zero leading. Reducing powder capacity is not the way to do that. The method you describe IS ONE WAY, are your eyes shut to a possibly better way?

Rick

[Char-Gar]

A oversize top band of a Keith type SWC does not intrude into the cylinder throat enough to case problems. Why is that hard to understand!


Just quite putting words on the screen and try it!

[Molly]

We seem to have a number of misunderstandings here. Let me see if I can clarify a bit.


No, that is folly. Here is why.

Placing an object larger than the hole you’re trying to put it in will make it from difficult to impossible to chamber depending on how much larger it is. Why would that be so difficult to understand?

I have no problems at all chambering 357 ammunition with bullets sized to 0.358 - 0.359. The reason is that I do not attempt to put it into a smaller hole as you seem to think. I put my ammunition into a LARGER hole, the chamber. The only thing that goes into the throat is the lead band and the nose (of 358429), both areas considerably SMALLER than the hole that they are inserted into.

When that larger than the hole bullet exits the hole it will be the size of the hole. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Why do you think I am unable to understand that? If you re-read my post above, you will see that I agreed that no matter what the excess diameter of the bullet might be, it will size down as it passes through the throat.

Sure, you could seat the bullet much deeper in the case and cost powder space or raise pressures but there is a better way . . . Size to a mild snug fit inside the throats when a round is chambered where the front driving band belongs, this will better align the brass and bullet with the center line of the bore. This is where long range revolver accuracy starts. Being a mild snug fit in the throats is where not leading the bore or cylinder begins.

Now where did THAT come from? I did not say the first word about seating bullets deeper in the case. What I DID say was that sizing to throat diameter would permit excessive gas blow-by until the bullet moved forward to seal the throat. A larger diameter bullet (seated exactly the same) will provide a reduced gap for blowby, and at the same time, will be less able to get cocked in the chamber, and thus be better alligned.

Some of my more recent testing has been using 360 DW brass trimmed to properly fit the chambers of my 357 in order to place the entire front driving band into the throats with even less bullet in the case. More of a slower powder, mild snug bullet fit in the throats, bullet aligned with the center line of the bore is a more accurate load with zero leading even after hundreds of rounds.

Oh, assuredly accurate loads can be assembled with bore diameter bullets. I've not said otherwise. But accurate, high power loads free of leading are notably easier - in my experience - to achieve with bullets that are as large as can be chambered. And I do not speak of a few hundred rounds. I speak of so many rounds that the gun is still lead free and deadly accurate when holster wear makes it necessary to reblue it again. How many thousands of rounds that is, I couldn't guess.

You edited your post but from what you originally posted but . . . Shooting my mouth off instead of shooting my guns is what you originally posted. Long range revolver accuracy has been my passion for the past three decades, it is the majority of my shooting and many times I spend more time testing than practicing or match shooting. I will be more than happy to have a long range revolver silhouette match with you. Your own cast bullets and handloads only please.

Shoot my mouth off instead of my guns indeed!

Sir, you are mistaken. You will not find such a statement in anything I have posted, nor will you find anything resembling it. I DO sometimes edit my posts when I discover a mis-spelling or a factual omission. I do not needlessly insult anyone, no matter how I might disagree with him.

As for a potential match, I would enjoy a shooting session with you or anyone else. Do you get anywhere near Charleston, WV in your travels? I have done some long distance shooting, though I would hesistate to consider myself expert in the field. The best I have done is six consecutive shots into a six inch post top at a steel taped two hundred yards. I have also managed to put six full power shots into the K-1 zone of a Colt silhouette target at a measured 75 feet in two seconds or less by the stopwatch. Now that was when I was a younger man, and I don't know that I could duplicate it exactly today at 69 years of age. But I can supply plenty of witnesses to the preceeding, and I'd lay money on still coming close enough that there wouldn't be very many doubts about my veracity.

[cbrick]

A oversize top band of a Keith type SWC does not intrude into the cylinder throat enough to case problems. Why is that hard to understand!

Sure it does. In fact it's into the throat as far as I can get it.


Just quite putting words on the screen and try it!

There can be little I haven't tried.

Rick

[cbrick]

We seem to have a number of misunderstandings here. Let me see if I can clarify a bit.

I have no problems at all chambering 357 ammunition with bullets sized to 0.358 - 0.359. The reason is that I do not attempt to put it into a smaller hole as you seem to think. I put my ammunition into a LARGER hole, the chamber. The only thing that goes into the throat is the lead band and the nose (of 358429), both areas considerably SMALLER than the hole that they are inserted into.

Yes, the cartridge case goes into the chamber and the front driving band of the bullet is then inside the throat, in my case sized to a mild snug fit.


Why do you think I am unable to understand that? If you re-read my post above, you will see that I agreed that no matter what the excess diameter of the bullet might be, it will size down as it passes through the throat.

Does it not sound logical that since it's going to be throat size when it exits to size it to a mild snug fit in the first place and use it to align the bullet straight with the bore?


Now where did THAT come from? I did not say the first word about seating bullets deeper in the case. What I DID say was that sizing to throat diameter would permit excessive gas blow-by until the bullet moved forward to seal the throat. A larger diameter bullet (seated exactly the same) will provide a reduced gap for blowby, and at the same time, will be less able to get cocked in the chamber, and thus be better alligned.

No, sizing to a mild snug fit does not allow blow by nor does it allow the bullet to be "cocked" in the throat, what it does is align the bullet with the center line of the bore.


Oh, assuredly accurate loads can be assembled with bore diameter bullets. I've not said otherwise. But accurate, high power loads free of leading are notably easier - in my experience - to achieve with bullets that are as large as can be chambered. And I do not speak of a few hundred rounds. I speak of so many rounds that the gun is still lead free and deadly accurate when holster wear makes it necessary to reblue it again. How many thousands of rounds that is, I couldn't guess.

We are not talking bore diameter, we are talking sizing to a mild snug throat diameter/fit, bore/throat diameters are another discussion. If the bullet could be "cocked" in the throat it is NOT a mild snug fit, it is loose and probably would cause blow by and an entry into the throat not as aligned as possible with the bore.

Yep, I shoot many hundreds of high end loads in long range competition with zero leading in bore or cylinder and I don't peek in the muzzle to know either, I use a bore scope to know what's in all of my bores.


Sir, you are mistaken. You will not find such a statement in anything I have posted, nor will you find anything resembling it. I DO sometimes edit my posts when I discover a mis-spelling or a factual omission. I do not needlessly insult anyone, no matter how I might disagree with him.

Sorry for not making that clear, that wasn't directed to you, Char-Gar is the one that made that statement.

Rick

[geargnasher]

I'm having deja vu'. We (I believe the same group) hashed this out before, not too long ago.

I don't see what's so difficult to understand about how the holes in a revolver cylinder are shaped, and how they allow a boolit that's .002-3" larger than typical throat dimensions to be chambered easily, even after much shooting/fouling buildup.

That being said, I set about having two different custom boolit moulds designed to cast basically a button-nosed wadcutter but with more of a truncated cone for a nose. These were sized to .0002" (three zeros) under throat diameter and were designed with noses that were almost flush with the end of the cylinder when trimmed brass was crimped into the designated groove. They shot better than anything else I tried, but I had to brush the cylinder throats with a bronze brush every three cylinder-fulls or they wouldn't chamber. For practical accuracy and practical function, traditional designs like the round, flat-nose or Keith semi-wadcutters work fine, and work better if they're larger than the throat diameter in many cases (not all).

Rick, there is something about the over-throat boolit that you don't seem to get. You state repeatedly that the boolit will come out throat size no matter how big it was when it went in. Well, not exactly. Unless you're shooting dead-soft lead, an over-throat boolit will do two things when passing the throat: It will stretch the throat a tiny bit like a snake swallowing an egg, and the boolit will squeeze down some on the way through, but is springy like rubber and pops back some after going through the throat. This spring-fit is FAR better at sealing combustion gas than a throat-diameter boolit. The idea is to start bigger, and get a spring-loaded interference fit through the throat that won't leak and blow lube out ahead of the boolit and/or gas-cut the base. I've fixed many leading-prone revolvers by going to a thou. or two over throat diameter, even though the boolit was as much as .005" larger than groove before firing.

Cast a dead-soft boolit, cast a wheel-weight boolit from the same mould. Measure them. Pound them through a cylinder throat that's smaller than the boolits. Measure the boolits again. Tell me which one is throat size and which one is LARGER. This trick works sometimes with revolvers with undersized throats, if you get a springy enough alloy sized large enough, it will come out of the cylinder large enough to still seal in the barrel and not lead.

Gear

[Char-Gar]

This whole affair can get very frustrating to the point that any meaningful communication goes out the window.

I have no issue/problem with anybody doing whatever they want and coming away from that with success and happiness. I don't care if they get there, my way, their way or by way of the moon. I really don't have a bone to pick with what anybody does that suits their needs.

What does get my goat is when folks start to say.."No, you can't do it that way, for it is not my way and therefore it is wrong." Anytime we start to discuss the use of bullets oversize for the cylinder throats, others show up and start telling us we can't do what we do, and we can't have the results we have.

I just refer back to my original posts on the issue and say it has worked to my satisfaction for many years, for many thousands of rounds in scores of revolvers. If, you don't want to do it that way, then don't do it that way, just quit trying to tell me and others we don't know what we are talking about and can't have the success we have.

I am content to let everybody do what they want. Let them share their experience, learn from each other is possible, and stop the infernal criticism and know-it-all-ism.

[cbrick]

Gear, springy bullets? Come on now, are we shooting cast bullets here or dabbling in voodoo? Springy bullets? Really?

I'll stick with my mild snug fit in the throats along with my National and State long range Revolver Championships.

You of course are perfectly free to play with springy bullets. :mrgreen:

I might add that if you need springy bullets to enlarge them exiting the throats in order to fill the grooves correctly that you get the revolver fixed, it's dimensionally wrong.

Rick

[cbrick]

What does get my goat is when folks start to say.."No, you can't do it that way, for it is not my way and therefore it is wrong."

I missed that thread, who said that?



Anytime we start to discuss the use of bullets oversize for the cylinder throats, others show up and start telling us we can't do what we do, and we can't have the results we have.

Missed this one also, who is saying that?


If, you don't want to do it that way, then don't do it that way, just quit trying to tell me and others we don't know what we are talking about and can't have the success we have.

Are you reading a different thread? I haven't seen anything like that in this thread.


I am content to let everybody do what they want. Let them share their experience, learn from each other is possible, and stop the infernal criticism and know-it-all-ism.

If your refering to me I haven't criticized anyone, simply making the point that there are other methods. If there is any "know-it-all-ism" in this thread it is from you telling me how wrong I am and that your way is the only way. NO. It is not. Look in the mirror Char-Gar.

Rick

[geargnasher]

C'mon Rick, you can't tell me you don't savvy boolit springback. You've been playing with cast boolits HOW long?

If I were to compete with revolvers for accuracy, I would want the MOST ideal setup, and generally it's a no-compromises, perfect slip-fit of the boolit into the throat with the first band or major nose dimension nestling firmly in the ball seat of the throat with maybe a half-thousandth interference. But most of the time I shoot production revolvers off hand at 10-25 yards for fun, and the method Charles outlined so well works best for me box after box with nary a loading hitch due to fouling, or accuracy hitch due to leading.

Yes, the best thing to do is fix the revolver if it's dimensionally *****, BUT I was pointing out that sometimes, if a person doesn't want to mess with it or can't afford to, a simple alloy and size adjustment can make it much more shootable and reduce or eliminate barrel leading. Not all the time, but sometimes, in some instances, it's worth a try. Just another trick in the toolbag.

Gear

[cbrick]

I was pointing out that sometimes, if a person doesn't want to mess with it or can't afford to, a simple alloy and size adjustment can make it much more shootable and reduce or eliminate barrel leading. Not all the time, but sometimes, in some instances, it's worth a try. Just another trick in the toolbag. Gear

Yep, that's correct, never said it wasn't. I did say that it's not the only way because . . . Well, because it's not the only way. I load many rounds in revolvers such as the 44 Spl, 45 Colt etc for plinking rounds just as you say, seated against the ball seat but that's not the only way.

Yes, I am aware of alloy spring back, aware enough that I wouldn't count on getting enough of it to do any good if the throat/groove dimensions are off.

Rick

[MtGun44]

LOL!!! :bigsmyl2:

I thought this would get a rise, but this is amazing.

The transition from the chamber to the throat is a tapered zone which is exactly where
Elmer designed the front band on his boolits to sit, JUST ABOUT touching the taper, but
ahead of the chamber proper, and WELL SHORT OF THE THROAT. The throat is a
purely cylindrical portion of the cylinder ahead of the chamber, and connected to the
chamber by a taper from the larger diameter chamber to the smaller diameter throat.

I have found many revolvers that either prefer or excel with throat +.001, and a few that
prefer throat +.002.

No offense but this should not be so hard to understand. We ARE NOT seating the band
into the "throat" we are seating the front band between the chamber and the throat.

Now - just to stir the pot . . . . . . My Colt 1917 .45 ACP has almost no transition from the chamber
to the throat, just a square step - due to the fact that it has a chamber design lifted
directly from a semi-auto. I can see nothing but a step, but have not cast it yet, there
might be a TINY taper. In any case, a 455423 from Miha's excellent mold and
sized to .456 diam will not chamber. . . . . Darn it! Throats will not take a .456 gage pin
gage in 5, will take it in one. All throats take the .455 pin.

In this ONE non-std GUN, cbrick is right, I can't chamber my .456 front band boolits. Sure was a
surprise after having successfully doing this in MANY different revolvers - chambered in
REVOLVER cartridges with revolver chamber designs, not semi-auto chamber designs. [smilie=1:

Bill

[Char-Gar]

Do not be amazed for human nature will always show up to join the fray! It can be very frustrating, but it is predictable.

When somebody does something for a length of time and it does well for that person, it becomes like the laws of the Meades and Persians which can never be changed. All information to the contrary, just must be rejected. The proven personal way, just must be defended against the assault. It is not a mental process, just a reflex.

Some of the early Colt 1917s had a charge hole that was bored straight through without a cylinder throat. These will take about anything, including the 44 Magnum round. I knew a fellow who fired factory 44 Magnum rounds in his. Stupid? Yes, but he did it.

[cbrick]

We ARE NOT seating the band
into the "throat" we are seating the front band between the chamber and the throat.

In this ONE non-std GUN, cbrick is right, I can't chamber my .456 front band boolits. Sure was a surprise after having successfully doing this in MANY different revolvers - chambered in REVOLVER cartridges with revolver chamber designs, not semi-auto chamber designs. [smilie=1:Bill

Yes, I am seating the front driving band into the throats, as far into the throats as I can and still use the crimp groove.

Not a surprise to me Bill, I cannot chamber a round in my 357 Revolver when sized to .358" and seating depth to use the crimp groove, simply won't go fully in without significant effort. I cannot chamber any round sized .453" in my 45 Colt either when seated to use the crimp groove. [smilie=1: The only option in either of these two examples is to use a shorter (lighter) bullet and seat against the ball seat as Gear recommends and yes, in this case slightly over size is a benefit.

Nothing in this thread has been about semi-auto's, the entire thread is about revolvers.

Rick

[cbrick]

Do not be amazed for human nature will always show up to join the fray! It can be very frustrating, but it is predictable.

When somebody does something for a length of time and it does well for that person, it becomes like the laws of the Meades and Persians which can never be changed. All information to the contrary, just must be rejected. The proven personal way, just must be defended against the assault. It is not a mental process, just a reflex.

But you describe yourself perfectly.

Not once did I say your method that you defend like the laws of the Meades and Persians which can never be changed would not work. All the while your making one post after another trying to put me and the method I use down.

But please, continue on with your reflex. It no doubt makes you feel warm & fuzzy all the while keeping your mind & eyes tightly shut to the possibility of learning something.

Rick

[Char-Gar]

Cbrick... In all of your verbage, you seem to forget that a conversation was going well, when you injected yourself into it with..."That is folly Molly!". When you begin with such a pejorative statement, nothing good will result. That sets the stage for point, counter point and argument.

I have repeated stated that if your way produced good results for you, then that is a good thing. I have never said, you didn't get good results or your way was wrong. I simply stated that for some of us another way works well and before you declare it folly and reject it out of hand, you should at least give it a try.

Your methods and your accomplishment have not been challenged or downgraded, so there is no need for such a level of defensiveness.

I think we have had enough of this stuff. If anybody is interested in knowing what was said and what was not said, it is all here, if they care to take the time and review the posts.

You continue to do what you want to do and have a good time and I will do the same. I won't call your way of doing things wrong or folly and I would hope you will do the same.

[tonyjones]

I have learned from this thread. Thanks to those that posted.

Regards,

Tony

[ColColt]

Man-I go away from this thread for a few days and come back to discover I've opened up a can of worms!! Well, I haven't gotten back to the range yet to try the 357 just having got it back recently but I'm currently reloading some as mentioned in my last post and will be trying it out this upcoming week.

You guys made me dizzy with all this hashing back and forth...but, it's most interesting. It's like Ben Casey and Dr. Zorba discussing a patients neuroblastoma and how to operate on it. Both extremely intelligent and knowledgeable but just couldn't come to agreement.

I will say this. My M29 with a custom 260 gr boolit from Tom sized to exact throat diameter(.432") has never leaded. I just want the same from another magnum-my 357.

[Char-Gar]

Anybody that remembers Ben Case and Dr. Zorba is to old to be trusted with a firearm unsupervised. :-)

[ColColt]

I guess that includes us both if you remember, too.:bigsmyl2: Ben was my hero when I was in high school. I wanted to be a neurosurgeon like him but girls got in the way too much for that kind of study..

[Char-Gar]

I hate to admit it, but my childhood was before TV in the days of the vacuum tube radio. Even then girls were a big distraction for a adolescent boy with all the hormones pumping through his body. I was supposed to be President of the United States in 1984, but girls got in the way of that too.

[MtGun44]

I remember Ben Casey (man, woman, earth, infinity or something like that) but never found it interesting, too
young at the time, born in '51.

Bill

[ColColt]

Bill-It seems I was about 16 when that show came out. It was unique as a TV show-no sex, no violence, no cussing and not nearly the number of commercial you have today. A different time. It ran from 1961-'66 I think.

Ben(Right) and Dr. Zorba
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x220/ColColt/Misc%20Stuff/bencasey.jpg

[MtGun44]

All I remember is they started out drawing symbols for - IIRC - man, woman, life, death, infinity
or something like that. I only really remember "man" "woman" and "infinity" but
think there were more.

I guess this was the first of the 'doctor shows'.

Bill

[Iron Mike Golf]

...I guess this was the first of the 'doctor shows'.

Bill

Ben Casey premiered at the same time as Dr Kildare. The Dr Kildare character was around longer though, I think, dating back to movies made in the '30's.

[jandbn]

LOL!!! :bigsmyl2:

I thought this would get a rise, but this is amazing.

The transition from the chamber to the throat is a tapered zone which is exactly where
Elmer designed the front band on his boolits to sit, JUST ABOUT touching the taper, but
ahead of the chamber proper, and WELL SHORT OF THE THROAT. The throat is a
purely cylindrical portion of the cylinder ahead of the chamber, and connected to the
chamber by a taper from the larger diameter chamber to the smaller diameter throat.

I have found many revolvers that either prefer or excel with throat +.001, and a few that
prefer throat +.002.

No offense but this should not be so hard to understand. We ARE NOT seating the band
into the "throat" we are seating the front band between the chamber and the throat.

Now - just to stir the pot . . . . . . My Colt 1917 .45 ACP has almost no transition from the chamber
to the throat, just a square step - due to the fact that it has a chamber design lifted
directly from a semi-auto. I can see nothing but a step, but have not cast it yet, there
might be a TINY taper. In any case, a 455423 from Miha's excellent mold and
sized to .456 diam will not chamber. . . . . Darn it! Throats will not take a .456 gage pin
gage in 5, will take it in one. All throats take the .455 pin.

In this ONE non-std GUN, cbrick is right, I can't chamber my .456 front band boolits. Sure was a
surprise after having successfully doing this in MANY different revolvers - chambered in
REVOLVER cartridges with revolver chamber designs, not semi-auto chamber designs. [smilie=1:

Bill


MT,

For a picture of the transition from chamber to throat that you describe (and may be worth a thousand words), SAAMI has the perfect examples. On SAAMI's webpage, http://www.saami.org/specifications_and_information/index.cfm, select Cartridge and Chamber Drawings.

My current favorite is for the 45 Colt: http://www.saami.org/PubResources/CC_Drawings/Pistol/45%20Colt.pdf

[Char-Gar]

That a lot..That is a good clear picture of the round and the chamber along with the barrel forcing cone in a sixgun. It clearly shows the tapered portion in the front of the chamber before the bullets his the cylinder throat which was such a source of discussion here. A picture is worth 1,000 words. Thanks again.

[MtGun44]

OK, here is a great example of what I meant. This is the official SAAMI drawing for a
.357 Magnum chamber. It is easy to see the tapered transition from the chamber to the
throat. This is where the driving band sits, not in the throat (at least in most designs, and
definitely with Keith designs). The taper starts at .380 (chamber OD -.0001") and goes
to the throat diameter - .358.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/picture.php?albumid=161&pictureid=4577

Bill

[cbrick]

In the chamber drawing where it's listed as .3580" all throats in my 357m are a very uniform .357" and this IS where the front driving band sits with a chambered round crimped in the crimp groove. .358" sized bullets will not chamber. The ONLY way to chamber them would be to seat the bullets much deeper or shoot lighter (shorter) bullets.

Rick

[MtGun44]

This would mean that you have some of the full diameter portion of the boolit more than
.096 forward of the front of the chamber proper?! What boolit design are you talking about
here? The front of the chamber (.380 diam) ends at 1.3019" and the throat (.358 diam)
starts at 1.3986. Subtract the two and you have 0.0967". A case I grabbed is 1.274"
long, so it is 0.1246" short of the .358" start of the throat. We would need about 1/8"
of full diameter portion ahead of that case to just touch, but not enter the throat.

As I said, the .358 throat starts (on the spec drawing) at 1.398". I have a .357 mag reload of
mine with a 358429 Keith in it and the front edge of the front driving band is at ~1.391", or .007"
short of the start of the throat. This is what I am talking about EXACTLY.

My random example case measures 1.274 (have not looked up the trim length; never trim my
pistol brass) and measured the front driving band length of a 358477 at .081", so that combo
would put the front edge of the front driving band at ~1.355", or about 0.043" short of the
throat proper.

I have no idea how you are getting boolit full diameter portions into the throat unless you have
some sort of a design with VERY long full diameter portions ahead of the brass. Maybe some
LBT style designs have that much full diam fwd of the case, I have not checked my Lee 358-158 RF
which is not a real LBT, but is "LBT-style".

Keith explains his design intent clearly in his writings, and it is neat to see that his design puts
the front corner .007" from the start of the throat, which meets his goal if minimizing the jump
for the boolit, getting it guided by the throat before it leaves the case.

Bill

[cbrick]

In my 357 match revolver I shoot the RCBS 180 gr silhouette @ 188 gr.

My Ruger 45 Colt is the same situation, all 6 throats slug .452", my most common bullet in this is the MP 270 SAA and the front driving band chambers fully inside the throats when crimped in the crimp groove. Again, either seat very deep or find a lighter bullet or use a mild snug fit in the throats.

Rick

[Char-Gar]

This is getting somewhat tiresome. all, I will say is this morning I went out and fired 50 Rounds through my Lipsey's 45 Flatop. The 45 Colt load was RCBS 270 SSA (acutal weight 283 grains) over 20/H4227. The bullets were sized .454 and the cylinder throats are a uniform .452. Each round slide in without effort and accuracy was first class.

Slip in the 45 ACP cylinder than things are different. There is no taper into the throats and any cast bullet must be small enough to slip into the throat. It won't take some of the loads I used in my 1911.

[MtGun44]

Chargar - I have the same situation. Never had any issue with oversized boolits until I tried .456 in my
Colt 1917 Army. No apparent taper between the throat (.455) and the chamber. It is an autopistol
chamber in a revolver - a significant anomoly.

Cbrick - I gave you a bunch of specifics but you make no comment on how you manage to
reach the throat in your revolvers. How about some actual dimensions that we can compare
to a SAAMI diagram? I think I have showed that it is extremely difficult to actually reach
the throats in a SAAMI .357 mag. How about showing some dimensions about how you
actually accomplish what you claim? I am absolutely ready to learn if you can show me how
this is happening, so far - I see it as highly improbable and you offer no clear explanation.

I'll have to do some measuring when I get home after T-day, on the road now with no guns, tools or
ammo to measure. Since the 270 SAA follows Keith's design, I start off doubting what you claim, unless
you mean the smaller diameter nose is in the throat, which is correct. The front driving band is in
the tapered transition, I'll wager - and this is specifically what Elmer intended, NOT in the throat.
Perhaps there are some non-SAAMI chamber out there?

I have a 270 SAA MP clone mold and a Ruger .45 ACP/LC Blackhawk, so I should
be able to see what they do when I get home.

Bill

[ColColt]

All I remember is they started out drawing symbols for - IIRC - man, woman, life, death, infinity
or something like that. I only really remember "man" "woman" and "infinity" but
think there were more.

I guess this was the first of the 'doctor shows'.

Bill

Bill- It was man, woman birth, death and infinity...remember it well. (born Valentine's Day '46. On Medicare and just signed up for SS so, I'm officially an old timer now).;)

[462]

ColColt,
My son was born Valentine's Day '76. A great-aunt was born Valentine's Day, as well.

[MtGun44]

1951, just 5 short of SS age. Where have the years gone?

Bill

[Char-Gar]

1942 here

[ColColt]

I thought I was special being born on Valentine's Day...I reckon I'm not alone.:) My sister was born on Labor Day-heck of a day to be born on.

I really feel like an old timer now. Last February I was prompted to sign up for Medicare but I didn't take SS at that point. Now that I have that too and get AARP magazines and burial insurance offers, that doesn't leave much to the imagination.

Just one day-just for 24 hours I'd like to feel like I did at 18. Back when there was no Cialas and sure wasn't any need for it...remember?:D Would someone like to join me in a few bars of Precious Memories?

[357shooter]

Dang, and I thought dirt was old! :kidding::kidding::kidding:

[ColColt]

Dang, and I thought dirt was old! :kidding::kidding::kidding:

I'm the one that made Moses' sandals!!:bigsmyl2:

[ColColt]

I figured I may as well continue this saga with the Ruger GP101 rather than start fresh with a new thread so, here's the story. I took it out today since receiving it back a second time from the smith and I took two different batches of reloads. One was 7.5 gr of HS-6 and the Lee 158 gr boolit and 5.5 gr of Universal.

Leading was nearly in the same place as before-between 6-9 o'clock at the beginning of the rifling. So, I quit. I'm not fooling with this anymore. I had seen the smith while waiting in line to get a lane and he asked how it was doing and I told him I didn't know yet as today was the first time I had a chance to try it again. After taking my bore light 24 rounds later and looking into the cone area and seeing what I did, I didn't bother to take it back to him a third time. So, I'll consign it to the case it came in and tuck it away somewhere. I should have gotten a 686.

[MtGun44]

Without going back thru the whole thread, did you try firelapping?

Bill

[Reload3006]

have you thoroughly checked the cylinder throat to see if it had burrs ... this causes a lot of miss diagnosed leading problems... I think midway sells a polishing kit for that I know that brownells does.

[Char-Gar]

I don't blame you for being frustrated and selling that sixgun down river. The level of angst can get so high it takes the joy out of owning the revolver. I hope you have better luck with another brand of sixgun.

[geargnasher]

Ok, so it still leads (did anyone bother to check timing and crane alignment?), but the real question is how did it shoot?

Gear

[ColColt]

I did try fire lapping early on, Bill. I also shot a bunch of jacketed boolits through it before the smith saw the pistol.

The throats are not what you'd call S&W smooth(what Ruger is?) but not bad and I detected no burrs.

Gear-It shot pretty good. Not any better than before but no worse either. I was sorely disappointed after shooting just 20 rounds and running a wet patch followed by a dry one that the bore light showed the same leading as before-and, I'm out $50 for nothing gained. It's till in my range bag from yesterday. I haven't even bothered to clean it.

[ShinyPartsUp]

....I have several Rugers that lead there also, along with Smiths.
Okay, now a confession, I reload as many here do. I buy cheap jacketed bullets and shoot a cylinder full after I shoot my real Boolits. Makes cleaning easier....

First, to the OP, I'm sorry for all your troubles. I read the entire thread with interest, and learned quite a bit. Not much solace to you, but it was a valuable learning experience.

Since this thread has gone astray once or twice, I take the liberty to quote the poster above. I did the same in a GP100 after a hundred or so commercial cast bullets in test loads and plinkers caused some leading. Worked really well and my groups tightened up again. Cleaning was no worse than ever. But I got grief on another forum for potentially ruining my barrel through burnishing and micropores in the barrel being ruined with lead or some such. Is this a religion issue (no true "answer" but lots of faith expressed)? Is this not a good practice of mixing lead with copper jacketed bullets?

[geargnasher]

Ruger barrels, especially their stainless steel barrels, seem to be just about indestructable. As far as shooting copper after lead, I figure that calling it a "religion issue" is extremely accurate. As for me, my religion prohibits firing of copper-jacketed bullets in any of my guns, except in extreme cases where I can do so to check the "baseline" accuracy or other dire circumstance where immediately afterward I seek the priestess of the Foul Out III and be forgiven of my sins.

Gear

[Char-Gar]

Gear...We go to the same church!