Boolit hardness & leading

[DrCaveman]

I am very new to casting but have been spending a lot of time doing it since I received my equipment. I feel like I have a decent handle on certain things, like safety, mold & pot temp, bullet shape, fluxing, and smelting. As typical I have reached a plateau in learning, where certain things do not make sense and conflict with what I seem to experience.

Obviously, I have much more to learn and hope that I can get my questions answered while helping others along a similar path.

So, I shot my first loaded batch of about 150 boolits today. All boolits tested with my Lee hardness tester at a BHN of 15.4 give or take about .3. So I figured initially that the literature should be the gospel, stating a max chamber pressure of 19,000 PSI. The boolit being a Lee TL358-158 SWC, my planned load was 2.8 gr Ramshot Competition. I have shot this under other cast 158s with nice results, never any leading or stuck bullets. I think the pressure is probably 15,500 or so, nominal, well under max.

I do more research, and find a school of thinking which state the minimum chamber pressure required for a cast to fully obturate, and little to no statement of "max" regarding boolit hardness. The formula was: BHN x 1440 = min PSI required for boolit obturation in barrel. For my first boolits, this was nearly 23,000 PSI. Not Magnum, but well beyond 38 +P.

Then I re-read about Elmer Keith and these BHN 11 boolits experiencing MAX 357 loads, 158 gr @ 1500 fps. I think, hmmm he would not have let his barrels get fouled to the point of cleaning every 5-10 shots.

I soon realize that I can make some Lil Gun loads using magnum cases that will be near 23,000 PSI and still be pretty fast Magnum loads. 14.0 gr is what I settle on. I may be off about the pressure but that is moot for the story and question.

Next, I say what the heck I'll try some good ol' 2400. I only went to 13.3 gr for this initial test.

Bullet prep was: 1) tumble lubed with Lee Liquid Alox 2) sized to .358 with Lee sizer 3) tumble lubed again with Lee Liquid Alox.

I have heard all about JPW mineral spirit mixing with LLA but I just wanted to go by the book this time... plenty of other variables are being tested.

REPORT: every single cartridge shot that boolit out near to where it was pointed, and caused no leading in any of three guns. Guns shot were Ruger LCR 38, Smith Model 19 4", Ruger GP100 6".

I did not, of course shoot the Mag's in the LCR. The soft loads were totally successful in all guns, reaching a low of probably 13-14k in the LCR, while still getting the boolit out of the 6" barrel. The Mag's were not too stout in the 357's, about the same feel and accuracy as jacketed bullets of the same weight.

Again, no leading from any cartridge, any boolit. Am I not interpreting the signs of "leading" properly? I clean my guns until I get a clean patch. I have looked at pics of badly leaded barrels (never seen one for real).

I feel like I have stumbled onto a boolit which can shoot any speed in my guns and work great. Something must be amiss. Can anyone let me know what else to look for, or what is going on? I have most of the tips, to examine, if that would be telling.

Thanks, I am glad to join this forum.

[RobS]

Your results sound similar to many here on the forum in regards to non-leading of properly fit boolits to their gun's barrel diameter. Boolit fit is one of the more important things to consider and you would have known if they were undersized as accuracy and leading are probable signs of such. The BHN of cast is nice to know but not an absolute. I use BHN readings to duplicate loads that I know work and write it (BHN readings) down in my load data.

[DrCaveman]

I did not take the trouble to slug any of the barrels... am I just lucky? Or is this problem overblown?

[RobS]

Luck............well that is a question that many ask. If you are sizing over the barrel's groove diameter and the cylinder throats are larger than the groove diameter in addition there are no barrel constrictions or roughness from tooling then your firearm should be very capable of shooting cast. The next part to shooting lead is to make sure your reloading process doesn't swage your perfectly sized boolits. Ensuring boolit fit allows for better chances of success and then load development and balance in regards to alloy hardness go into play. People sometimes complicate BHN readings. There can be a same BHN on two alloys however the metallurgy can be different among them which can give different results as well.

What I am saying is there are different courses for different horses and I see BHN readings as another tool in my load development. Nothing more, nothing less.

By the way, welcome aboard!!!

[beagle]

Interesting subject here and I'm not sure that anyone knows. I think that we all agree that bullet fit is one of the most important detriments to leading in handguns and especially revolvers.

Bullet hardness is a different matter. I once chased the holy grail of getting the hardest bullets possible. I acheived some success and some failures with hard bullets.

For years, I have gone to the other extreme and have used WWs cut with pure lead with a little tin added if required and I have experienced excellent accuracy and minimal or no leading.

I'm just not sold on hard bullets.

Now, I know this is like breaking wind in church to talk about the master but I beleive that old Elmer never practiced the hard bullet theory either.

He cast a lot of bullets in his lifetime and tried various methods. I recall his telling of his father buying plumbers lead in pigs for him in large quantities. Based on the knowledge available at the time and the remoteness of his place in Idaho, I can't see him running around gathering up lino and tin. It just wasn't available in those days where he was.

I'm thinking that he depended on bullet fit and with him, bigger was better and let the lead fly. I never heard him comment on leading very much in his writings.

Based on that theory and my practice of shooting softer bullets acurately and without leading, I think we're wasting good alloying materials on hard handgun bullets./beagle

[HangFireW8]

So, I shot my first loaded batch of about 150 boolits today. All boolits tested with my Lee hardness tester at a BHN of 15.4 give or take about .3. So I figured initially that the literature should be the gospel, stating a max chamber pressure of 19,000 PSI. The boolit being a Lee TL358-158 SWC, my planned load was 2.8 gr Ramshot Competition. I have shot this under other cast 158s with nice results, never any leading or stuck bullets. I think the pressure is probably 15,500 or so, nominal, well under max.

I do more research, and find a school of thinking which state the minimum chamber pressure required for a cast to fully obturate, and little to no statement of "max" regarding boolit hardness. The formula was: BHN x 1440 = min PSI required for boolit obturation in barrel. For my first boolits, this was nearly 23,000 PSI. Not Magnum, but well beyond 38 +P.

DrCaveman,

I started just 3 years ago, and initially was very hung up on exact BHN and matching pressures. I carefully blended my alloys, tested boolit hardness, and loaded at pressures to match. The formula really seemed to work because I didn't get leading. Then I experimented, sometimes accidentally, sometimes on purpose, and still didn't get leading, and often got some very very good accuracy.

Reading more here, I found that this pressure rule is routinely violated, with excellent results. So, it's not a rule at all.

Think about it. You stated "...PSI required for boolit obturation in barrel." Well, if the boolit starts out at groove diameter or larger, and has to swage down around the rifling lands, well, obturation is not really going to be a problem, is it?

The NRA did extensive accuracy testing back in the 60's, before this rule was codified. They found that in the 38 Special, very hard boolits with target loads gave the best accuracy. By best, we're talking a tiny margin better than soft boolits. As a result, the Lyman 3rd edition 38 Special section is full of Linotype loads, all loaded to SAAMI pressures, which is way too low to fit "the rule". I'm not recommending going this way, linotype is expensive and the gains in accuracy are very, very small (and possibly attainable by going in other directions, such as other lubes). What I'm saying is, this pressure rule has been violated from the beginning, forum members here violate it every day, so what is it good for?

HF

[stubshaft]

Elmer will always be one of my heroes. I was raised on his writings in Guns and Ammo along with his own tomes and various other articles. He was a seasoned hunter, pistol shooter and cartridge designer. IIRC - his favorite alloy was 1 in 16 and this is what he used to develope the 44 mag.

That being said, the majority of weapons he shot with boolits never saw the sunny side of 1900fps.

[GP100man]

I cast my handgun boolits from isotope lead with an extra 2% tin & it really helps tuffen em up yet still stay around 12-12.5 bhn.

I can shoot em slow to 1,200fps with no leading

Oh , the come out the sizing die .0005 bigger than the throats .

[geargnasher]

Well, you figured out two things: Richard Lee's theory isn't the gospel, and every gun is different.

If you make the boolit so it fits the gun initially, and build a load that gets the boolit from case to muzzle without leaking enough gas at any point to gas-cut and lead, then you have it made providing the gun is in good shape and properly dimensioned for cast boolits, then you'll likely have success. These three points could be expanded into many volumes with thousands of chapters on all the minutia that involves achieving them, but basically it condenses down to static fit (seating depth, correct boolit design to fit chamber/leade throat, sized diameter, loaded diameter), properly constructed and balanced load (powder type and charge weight for correct pressure curve, correct alloy for the application, correct lube viscosity, crimp, case tension, state of anneal, primer type, etc.), and having a gun that's suitable for cast boolits (good bore condition, free of all copper fouling, and has no restrictions or rough spots in the boolit path).

Gear

[DrCaveman]

Based on that theory and my practice of shooting softer bullets acurately and without leading, I think we're wasting good alloying materials on hard handgun bullets./beagle

That is kinda what I was hoping to get at. Simply sizing and lubing should make most boolits work at handgun energies, even hot 357 magnum... so I wanted to try to test this. When I look into popularly used loads for LSWC 158 gr I almost never see mention of how hard the bullets being cast are.

I guess point being made here is that the hardness does not matter much as long as the size is matched appropriately to your barrel. This being the case, how many barrels are out there which deviate from the standard?

The cast boolits I bought online (whose hardness weighed in ~4 BHN higher than box reported...) stated that the size was .358 and they worked great. Therefore I chose a sizer at .358 and everything has been great for me since.

Are there a lot of custom barrel owners out there, requiring custom sizes, or am I being too sloppy? My model 19 is from the 70's but the Rugers are both pretty new.

[geargnasher]

Fit is King, but you pressure curve is Queen, it's all about the launch. If you go to top-end pressures with Bullseye your results won't be as impressive as with top-end loads of 2400. The inverse is true for very light loads.

Boolit toughness has a lot to do with it too, and must be reasonably balanced with the powder and pressure in question or you'll get boolit skid in the rifling, the engraves will be too wide and will leak gas, lead, and your accuracy will suffer.

Gear

[DrCaveman]

DrCaveman,
What I'm saying is, this pressure rule has been violated from the beginning, forum members here violate it every day, so what is it good for?

HF

Yeah I see what you are saying. As long as my sized castings are as large as the barrel then obturation is definitely not a concern. I guess the next points of issue would be boolit base melting or other case pressure signs. Those dont seem too likely at 30-35k... but maybe depends on the powder. Not so sure above that.

If nothing else, I am really liking the fact that my cast lead boolits do not get stuck in the barrel and they also slam the bullet box hard and mushroom a little bit (the mags). It appears that I will have to blaze my own trail with the use of my cast in magnum loads, in terms of pressure/velocity vs hardness.

My conclusion based on what I seem to have experienced along with the testimony of this forum and some others, is that the provided charts to describe pressure vs BHN data leave out too many variables to be useful beyond most rudimentary safety levels.

Can we develop something more useful to cast boolit loading? Perhaps beginning with a priority list for cast boolit quality control, if a consensus could be come to? something like...
1. diameter matches barrel
2. lube fills all rings and lightly coats all surfaces
3. BHN between 10-18
4. clean casting

I throw this list out there but it obviously needs improvement from people more experienced than myself.

[Bret4207]

Dr C, you seem to be about 10 steps ahead of most newcomers tot his game. Good for you. Forget the formula and the concept of causing the boolit to obturate to achieve proper fit. That's backwards. Fit the boolit ( you lucked onto that) and work from there. There are at least 2 parts to fit- static fit and dynamic fit. Static is starting out with a boolit "about right" for the guns dimensions, ie- a .308 barrel will likely want a boolit at least .309 or more. Dynamic fit is matching the powder to your alloy or vice versa. But that's not as simple as "harder is better". As I've said repeatedly- I can take the same alloy and treat it it to give 3 different Bhn readings or 3 different alloys and make them give the same reading. Bhn says nothing about how the boolit will react t pressure really. It's a very coarse measurement considering everything we need to know.

There are pages and pages of theory on how best to get good shooting in these pages. Most of it is good workable solutions, some sheer brilliance and a little bit no more than repeated hogwash based on advertising hype. If I were to make a suggesting to you, it would be to record everything you do as you develop new loads, every minute change from weather to alloy appearance to lubes to cleaning methods. Over time you will eventually see patterns develop that give indications of what works best in that gun, with that boolit, with that alloy/powder/brass/primer, etc. Go to a different gun and some of the factors stay the same- fit is king. But some of the other may vary wildly.

This game is interesting because the little things vary from gun to gun and man to man. The little variations add up and what works like magic for one guy with one gun may be an utter failure for another.

[44man]

I hate BHN, tells you nothing at all. I have the LBT tester but it is mostly for fun like my chronograph.
I shoot a tougher boolit for accuracy but I use a lot of PB boolits in my revolvers.
The problem is we have no way to define alloy toughness or to tell what is actually in our lead to start with.
That means you need to shoot what you have or put together to see what it does.

[cbrick]

Not a lot to be added here that hasn't already been said such as fit is far more important than hard. In fact too hard is more often than not a detriment to accuracy and leading. The term "hardcast" is evil in that it leaves a very wrong impression in the minds of buyers of commercial cast and new bullet casters. Too many new casters believe that if they could only afford to shoot diamonds all would be good. They spend far too much time fretting over ways to get their alloy harder and harder.

The BHN/pressure rule you refer to is not a rule at all, it is nothing more than a rough starting point, a guide, something to look at. The first reference I am aware of it is from the pages of Hand Loader magazine many years ago and it is mostly misinterpreted, misused. I stopped using it or even considering it many years ago because too many other variables are at play that make it useless, things such as bullet fit.

Proper bullet fit in the firearm it is to be fired from is far and away the most important criteria; proper fit can overcome many other wrongs, even too hard. There can be large variations in throats, groove diameter, chambers etc within guns of the same caliber and even the same mfg so the key is fit in the firearm it's to be fired in.

Rick

[beagle]

I'll agree on #1, that's a given.

#2 is a maybe. I get good results in many loads with only one groove lubed. Some bullets have too much lube capacity..the 429303 and the 35893 for starters. They have so much lube capacity that I'd picked "lube boogers" off 100 yard tarrget backing after shooting. It will just depends on the bullet used and its lube capacity.

#3 I would even drop the BHN down to 8 and be satisfied. That's plenty, IMO for revolver bullets. I've evolved into the local cow killer around here. When one of my church members has a sick cow that needs to be put down, I get the call and have put down three with hot .38 Special loads with soft bullets with no complaints. The hardness testers, like has been discussed are something to play with.

I'll ad a #4 and it goes along with #1. You can't settle on one diameter for all guns. My Rugers like 'em big and I have one sizer that will size .3595" and shoot well from the Rugers. .3585" from another sizer and it does well in the Rugers and my single Smith. My darn 4" Python likes 'em smal at .357 and my two 9mms do as well. My Ruger convertible 9mm likes 'em at least .3575" and .358" if seating allows. Again, you have to tinker around and see what each gun likes and keep meticulous records.

Make good, well filled cast bullets, size them right and you'll be on the right track. You're miles ahead of some of the rest of the pack as it is./beagle


Can we develop something more useful to cast boolit loading? Perhaps beginning with a priority list for cast boolit quality control, if a consensus could be come to? something like...
1. diameter matches barrel
2. lube fills all rings and lightly coats all surfaces
3. BHN between 10-18
4. clean casting

I throw this list out there but it obviously needs improvement from people more experienced than myself.

[beagle]

One more thing on obturation. It is at it's best with fast burning powders. When I was messing with my article on Holow Based Bullets, I looked at the uneven roundness of the hollow bases on the 359395, the 358431 and the 429422 and I wondered ho that would affect accuracy as you don't always get a perectly round base cavity with HB bullets.

Recovered bullets showed perfectly round HB cavities so I know they were obturating even with lighter target loads in the 358395.

The 358431 displayed the same tendencies with lighter loads with fast powder and also with loads of slower burners as I was working on .38/44 duplication loads for use in .357 Magnum guns and used burn rate powders up to 2400.

Now, the hollow base is a special case and is designed to obturate and fill the chamber. From my recovered bullets, it appeared that it was doing it's job well. Recovered PB bullets such as the 358495 wadcutter and 358429 and 358439 all displayed clear, heavy groove marks at the base which indicated to me that the obturation process was working and these bullets were in the 1000-1100 FSP range./beagle

[Frank]

You know what alloy you have by weight. The proper alloy and casting method will determine that you have both the required toughness and hardness.

[MtGun44]

As has been said dozens of times, Fit is King. IMO, for pistols with a few unusual exceptions,
ignore hardness as a good starting point. I can shoot 8 BHN at full magnum velocitis and
get good accy and no leading, and I am not at all unique, many others do it.

Hardness is a secondary effect, and in pistols usually non-critical. In some partcular guns
often with shallower than normal rifling, some have run into a need to harden their boolits,
some 9mms and some .45 ACP revolvers have these non-standard rifling contours, but not
all.

Bill

[DLCTEX]

#2 should read... "OR lightly coats all surfaces". If you try to fill lube grooves with Alox, or 45/45/10 you will not be happy with the results.

[blackthorn]

Drcaveman you said --"Yeah I see what you are saying. As long as my sized castings are as large as the barrel then obturation is definitely not a concern. I guess the next points of issue would be boolit base melting----"

The bullet's base does not melt --if the bullet does not fit or if it has a damaged base it will be gas-cut! Melting bases simply does not occur!

[45 2.1]

#2 is a maybe. I get good results in many loads with only one groove lubed. Some bullets have too much lube capacity..the 429303 and the 35893 for starters. They have so much lube capacity that I'd picked "lube boogers" off 100 yard tarrget backing after shooting. It will just depends on the bullet used and its lube capacity.

Picking the right lube solves that and usually increases accuracy potential. Too sticky, high tech or viscous lubes do not help at times. I have both of those also and they don't do that for me......... but I use a different lube to.

[geargnasher]

Here's a copy/paste of posts Bret and I made in another thread. If we don't get the definition right on this forum, where's it going to end?


The only thing I would add is that the use of the obturation should not imply the type of obturation we think of when we talk about smashing a boolit into putty so it will swell to fit the bore. Having that happen the whole length of the barrel would lead to leading, not the other way around. Orturation in this case is blocking the pressure from escaping, which is what the word actually means. I simply cannot recall this mashing of lead alloy into puddings correct terminology.

Hope that clears any confusion.



I can't recall the term for pressure deformation of the alloy either, I don't think there ever was one that was commonly agreed upon because people began misusing "obturate" to mean that. "Bump up" I think is mostly what's used, but that confuses the term with intentionally bumping boolits in a sizer to alter their shape.

Here's why I think the term "obturate" is so appropriate:

ob·tu·rate   /ˈɒbtəˌreɪt, -tyə-/ Show Spelled[ob-tuh-reyt, -tyuh-] Show IPA
verb (used with object), -rat·ed, -rat·ing.
1. to stop up; close.
2. Ordnance . to close (a hole or cavity) so as to prevent a flow of gas through it, especially the escape of explosive gas from a gun tube during firing.

So, a boolit doesn't "obturate" to seal the bore, it "bumps up" to obturate the bore if the lead is soft, the boolit undersized, and the pressure curve correct to achieve that. Otherwise, a properly fit and launched boolit will obturate the bore all by itself, no "bumping" required.

Gear

BTW, I'd really like to know who authored the Wiki-Poopia entry defining firearms obturation. They need to be tarred and feathered.

If anyone can remember the correct term for boolit deformation due to gas pressure, PLEASE refresh my memory.

Gear

[Iron Mike Golf]

Here's my pocketful of change on the subject.

We use hardness as a substitute for alloy strength. This is a common engineering practice. We can measure hardness with $50 tool, but measuring strength is much more costly. Now, by strength, I am meaning this as "resistance to deformation" in general, not tensile, compressive, or shear strength specifically.

Consider a plain base bullet, as compared to a hollow base. If we count on the pressure spike to deform the base as the way to accomplish obturation, then we risk engraving the bullet wider than the lands and possibly cause the portion of nose that's not supported by the bore to also deform (or "slump"). Being unsupported, I can see the nose may deform asymmetrically, adversely affecting accuracy.

While hardness informs us about strength, it does not give us insight into the alloy's toughness (which is the opposite of brittleness). For desired terminal effect, we may well want a tough alloy. Although we don't have a handy, cheap way of measuring toughness, we do know that keeping Sb and Sn in a 1 to 1 ratio gives us excellent toughness.

For my needs, I have been able to standardize things to a great degree: 1 alloy, 1 lube, 1 casting process (water dropped, 22 BHN after 1 week). I am not in pursuit of the absolutely most inexpensive alloy or do I have target bullets and hunting bullets. I cast and shoot low pressure 45 ACP plinkers to 44 mag and 45 Colt "Ruger/Contender" in several claibers. I have found if the bullets fit, I get great accuracy and no leading.

Of course, your mileage in your guns will vary. We don't "know" what happens in the bore. We can only look at the bullet after it has left and try to explain what we find.

[Iron Mike Golf]

If anyone can remember the correct term for boolit deformation due to gas pressure, PLEASE refresh my memory.

Gear

Gear,

I don't know if there is a term specific to interior ballistics. I'd sign up for "compressive deformation" though that name does not tie it to gas pressure.

[1Shirt]

My two cents for what it is worth on the subject: Have to agree with Beagle, Gear, and Bret on most postings, and this is no exception. I do giwver believe in hard, very hard for little hollow points if I am going to shoot where ricochet is a problem and I want them to pretty much dissintigrate. For these someplace in the 28+ BH suits me just fine for those. Regardless of hardness or lube, fit is what counts to me.

I am more concerned with rifle fit than with revolver or pistol, but with either, want and hope for the best accruacy possible (for me with my weapons), at what ever vol I am obtaining, and no leading. Also have thru experiance come to believe that to much lube, in multi groove blts can be a big detrement to accuracy. I do like the looks of all the grooves being full of a red lube in a 6.5, 140 or 170 gr. Sort of cool!! Experiance has taught me however that they can be a pain on the range with dust/dirt etc, and that they are not as accurate as when only half OR less of the lube grooves are full. Like Beagle, I have also run into lube traces (by what ever name you give it or them), with Lovern style blts with all the grooves full.

A good thread with good comments!
1Shirt!:-)

[DrCaveman]

I really appreciate everything that has been said here. Much of it is confirming my own suspicions/findings, and some is adding to my bank of "knowledge." (It always grows and sometimes changes, I find).

I think you guys have got me comfortable with the handgun side of things. My next planned endeavor is to get myself a few 30 cal rifle molds, for my 30-30 marlin, 30-06 Tikka T3, and CZ527 in 7.62x39. It looks like I will have to get a mold of approx .312" diameter for the CZ527, I think the standard .309 should work for the other two.

Does anyone here have experience with either the Tikka or the CZ527? They are both of European manufacture, so I have heard that the barrels may not be the same as American counterparts. I am looking at two molds: CTL312-160-2R and C309-150-F. BTW I like my Lee mold and will probably stick with Lee for the time being. Seriously, the others seem very excessively priced, when considering that I got quality boolits on my first day...ever...casting with the Lee. Oh yeah, my furnace had not shown up yet so everything I have shot so far was cast using a cast iron pan and soup ladle. Very large sprue. This got much better when I started using the furnace, and the mold was to temp much quicker.

To indicate that I have not missed rule #1 established by this thread, I should obviously slug the barrels, then buy the appropriate sizing die. I plan to do so, though I think I lack the tools... I will research more before side-tracking the thread into that arena.

But my question, as it pertains to the subject at hand, is: do the same flexibilities exist within rifle boolits in regard to hardness? Both of my proposed boolits are gas checked, and I am planning on velocities around 1600-1900 for 7.62x39 & 30-30, probably about 2300 for 30-06.

I would really like to hear that I can maintain a similar approach to alloying. So far my system is reliable and repeatable, and I would like to not scrap all my ingots and start from scratch while spending a bunch of money on "certified" alloys.

[cbrick]

No need what-so-ever for certified alloy. You could use it of course but pricey and not needed. WW will do what you ask.

Rick

[DrCaveman]

Right on. Well I will stick with my WW, 50/50 solder, and caught bullets. Man it is satisfying going out to shoot 300-500 rounds and coming back home with about 95% of what I shot (a few of the well-aimed hot loads manage to bust through my box. And I probably missed the box a few times, OK. Not ready yet for in-city use).

I figure this last shooting session, I was averaging about $2.50/box spent on light 38 loads, and about $4.50/box for 357 magnum loads. This is the way to do it! Now if only I can find a way to make my own primers...

And since I havent mentioned it yet, this website has accelerated my casting knowledge TREMENDOUSLY. Hard to guess where I would be without it, but certainly not this far along... one week out from receiving molds! Thank you CASTBOOLITS!

[DrCaveman]

I just read a bit more of a current "sticky" thread and realized that many of the same points are being covered. So perhaps this thread is redundant... surely not the first time it has happened, but I am going to read the rest of that thread and try to contribute to the pool of questions. Maybe just maybe I can help with an answer but I am not counting on it at this point. Thanks everyone for sticking with me here.

This sticky http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=108966

[Bret4207]

On the Marlin, if it's a Microgroove you want fat boolits I'm told. I don't own a MG, my 336SC 35 Rem is pre-MG. But the general idea seems to be fatter is better, so consider something more like .311 for your 30-30. The Tikka may be in the same ballpark. I size .311 for many of my 30 cals with complete success. The 7.62x39 may require something even larger.

I would have to disagree with you on the mould price issue. Lee's are just incredible bargains, the others are justifiably priced.

[DrCaveman]

Bret I appreciate the info.

Regarding competitor's molds, have you been able to get good results quickly after purchase? By quickly, I mean following the instructions and having expectations to match that which the manufacturer suggests are realistic. For example, with a Lyman 358429 (seems to be a popular classic) could I expect to get the cast "broken in" within my first hour casting, and be pumping out quality boolits? I am also a little more nervous about using a mold made out a material that can corrode...obviously I am not old school. I dont always exercise the best clean-up routine, so it is nice to have some leeway.

Upon reflection, a Lyman mold at $90 would basically pay for itself within about 1500 casts (compared to what I was spending). It'll probably take me a month to cast that many (considering the other molds and pre-cast boolits I have) but I guess the savings are down the road. I see your point, but I do not want the expense of the casting side of my shooting hobby to escalate too quickly. I am glad to hear you say that they are justifiably priced; I assume that means a reliable, well-built, long lasting product. Good for the long run, perhaps better than my Lee mold.

As for the Marlin, this info is very appreciated. I am hoping from your comments that I can buy one sizer from Lee (or maybe shop around) to satisfy both barrels, despite the unique properties of the MG barrel. Mine is definitely MicroGroove 336. I will have to look around for people with experience with the Tikka... there must be a few out there.

[geargnasher]

I own a Marlin 336 of late 60s vintage with 12 grooves. It prefers .311" boolits and shoots quite straight to over 2K fps with them. The deal with Micro-Groove rifling is it's formed by pulling a swage through the bore, and for some reason both bore and groove is a bit on the large side. The rifling can, in some instances, be shallower than typical cut rifling, although it actually has more holding power because there is more total surface area on the sides of the lands.

The vast majority of the Lee moulds I have cast just fine right out of the box with a little cleaning. You have to clean the other brands, too, BTW, they have either cutting fluid residue in the cavities or preservative coatings. I've concluded that most of the griping about Lee moulds has to do with the caster's expectations and level of experience. If you can't cast with a Lee mould, especially after some basic cleaning, inspection, and prep, odds are it's not the fault of the mould.

Gear

[Wolfer]

My 336 I got new in 66 the year it was made. It slugs .308 and the only reason I know is because of reading about marlins being on the big side. The gun was/is shooting my .309s just fine.

I find it simple and easy to slug a barrel but I have several guns that I don't know what size they are. I tend to shoot first and slug if there's a problem.

My experience has mostly been like yours, quite often if you go .001 over nominal grove dia with a bhn of 8 or up with a suitable powder it likely to work. I don't think your lucky, I think it's closer to the norm.
That being said most of us have had guns that didn't read the rule book and that's when you have to figure out what's wrong. Most of the time casting boolits isn't witches brew but sometimes it is.

[DrCaveman]

Wolfer- I thank you for this perspective. I am glad that I am not "lucky", and also am humbly satisfied that reading the rule books & instructions led me to a decent quality result.

Reminds me of when I started reloading, about 5,000 cartridges ago, when I would thoroughly research a proposed load, then think about it some more and consider a different load, and re-research the subject until my eyes were sore. Then after following every rule I could find, my results would always be good: pressure signs looked great, accuracy on par with factory, and barrel looked good (mostly jacketed bullets at the time). And of course, I was spending 25-50% of what I would on factory ammo.

Next I would deviate from published loads, nothing serious, just use a bullet not exactly called for i.e. Speer 150 gr SPBT for whatever the Lee manual was using. And results were still non-problematic, and in fact superior to factory loads.

Since then I have loaded quite a few handgun loads and have delved into cast boolits since I realized that a driving cost of my loaded cartridges was the tip. I resolved to save money on the tips... so I bought pre-cast (LC, MBC, both great) but then after I built a box to catch the shots, I figured why not cast them.

From my reading and re-reading of Lee and Lyman literature, I frankly thought that this would be more difficult. So far with the handguns, I seem to have found a path of success for myself. Stringent accuracy tests may tell a deeper story, but I am not there yet. I guess, if nothing else, this thread could provide an encouragement to those considering dabbling in the craft of boolit casting. Quick success can be found. Follow the hard rules, use common sense, bend the soft rules, and do it a bunch. Safely.

Now when I get my rifle molds I may be asking you guys for help with my problems.

Thanks as always.

[DrCaveman]

Wolfer I also would like to ask you about the barrel slugging. I get the concept: you push lead through the barrel, typically from muzzle toward chamber, and measure the resultant size for barrel and rifle dimensions. But what lead do I use? Surely not the same as I cast with...and what size chunk do I begin with?

Should I start a new thread?

[MikeS]

DrCaveman: When it comes to moulds, the Lee moulds are ok, but they won't stand up to a lot of punishment. While there are some folks that have Lee moulds they bought 20 years ago, many more find the Lee moulds are a disposable item, they tend to wear out after so much use. Part of that is because the two cavity moulds have an alignment system that is prone to wear. As for Lyman moulds, don't bother, many of their newer moulds come undersized. If you want to get a better mould than a Lee mould, get one from one of the custom mould makers. There's Mihec, NOE, Accurate Molds to name a few. The first 2 are really semi-custom mould makers, as they primarily do group buy moulds, but the last one is a true custom mould maker, and will make any boolit style you want, and you'll have the mould within 3 weeks, usually less. Also, for a better mould material than aluminum, look at getting a brass mould. Brass moulds won't rust like an iron mould can, and they cast better than any other mould out there. They're heavy, but that's not really a big problem if you're using an electric furnace with a mould guide. Another nice thing about brass, it's not as prone to size variations due to heat, both aluminum & iron tend to change size as they heat up, and while brass does too, it does it to a much smaller degree than the others.

Also, as you're new to boolit casting, don't be surprised when your opinions of several things change as you get more experience! I've found that at various times I thought I liked one type of mould, then later I changed, and liked a different kind, etc. As you gain more experience this tendency will slow down, and eventually you'll find that your opinions of things doesn't change much anymore. At least that's how things worked out for me.

As for slugging your barrel, do a search, there's LOTS of info about slugging a barrel already on the site. Basically you should use pure lead to slug your barrel, and with revolvers you should slug each of the cylinders as well. If you don't have any pure lead handy, you could use a boolit you've already cast, but before putting it in the barrel, tap it with a hammer so it's larger in diameter, so you can be sure it gets squeezed down to size when being pushed thru the bore or throats.

[Bret4207]

Bret I appreciate the info.

Regarding competitor's molds, have you been able to get good results quickly after purchase? By quickly, I mean following the instructions and having expectations to match that which the manufacturer suggests are realistic. For example, with a Lyman 358429 (seems to be a popular classic) could I expect to get the cast "broken in" within my first hour casting, and be pumping out quality boolits? I am also a little more nervous about using a mold made out a material that can corrode...obviously I am not old school. I dont always exercise the best clean-up routine, so it is nice to have some leeway.

Upon reflection, a Lyman mold at $90 would basically pay for itself within about 1500 casts (compared to what I was spending). It'll probably take me a month to cast that many (considering the other molds and pre-cast boolits I have) but I guess the savings are down the road. I see your point, but I do not want the expense of the casting side of my shooting hobby to escalate too quickly. I am glad to hear you say that they are justifiably priced; I assume that means a reliable, well-built, long lasting product. Good for the long run, perhaps better than my Lee mold.

As for the Marlin, this info is very appreciated. I am hoping from your comments that I can buy one sizer from Lee (or maybe shop around) to satisfy both barrels, despite the unique properties of the MG barrel. Mine is definitely MicroGroove 336. I will have to look around for people with experience with the Tikka... there must be a few out there.

I haven't priced new Lymans in some time, but $90.00? Last I knew they were around $50-60.00. Myself, I would be more inclined to shop in the Swapin and Sellin section here and look for older moulds. The brand new Lymans may be fine, or not, it's a gamble. RCBS and SAECO/Redding are a better bet. Haunting Ebay for Cramers, Yankees, H+G, older NEI, older Ideals, Lachmiller, etc. is an even better bet for getting a good mould. Our group of custom makers here is an even better bet. Anyways, yes, a new Lyman/RCBS/SAECO will very likely start dropping good boolits within 20 minutes of it's first heat up. That's assuming no burrs or anything. Lee's, for me at least, tend to take 3-4 heating/cooling sessions before they act right. As far as following the makers instructions, I recommend tossing Lee's out the window. Don't lube them with boolit lube, use a dry lube or specialty lube and for goodness sake don't get anything in the cavities! That includes smoke and "mould release". Bullshops lube was THE stuff, but friend Dan has disappeared (thoughts and prayers to him and the family) and no one seems to know what happened. It's said the synthetic 2 cycle lube is close to Bullshop.

Getting back on track, I own a lot of Lee stuff. Love it. As far as Mr Lees reloading books and thoughts on pressures, etc., I'm not a fan at all. If it works for you, fine, have at it. I think in the end you'll find that cast is a very forgiving way of shooting and that following text book recipes isn't required. There is enough variation between guns, moulds, alloys, shooters and casters that hard and fast rules are scarce. We tend to deal in generalities in this game you might say.

[btroj]

I have to say I agree more with the end of Bret's last post that anything I have ever read on here.
We do tend to speak in generalities here. We all use a slightly different lube, alloy, bullet, case, and gun. These variations make it about impossible to say "Use this and it will always work".
I know what works in my guns, for me. May or may not work for you or your guns.

ThE entire key to sucess in shooting cast is to find what works for you and your guns.

I learned most of what I know from trying and shooting. I may have gotten ideas from this site or a book but I still had to make those concepts work for me. That only happens by doing your work at the casting, loading, and shooting bench.

[popper]

For the 30-30, RD's for new marlins is a x6 and will get you a decent mould with PB and GC. .309 will probably NOT work in the Marlin. Mine slugs at .308 and likes .311 best.

[Wolfer]

For the 30-30, RD's for new marlins is a x6 and will get you a decent mould with PB and GC. .309 will probably NOT work in the Marlin. Mine slugs at .308 and likes .311 best.

I think I agree with this, my mold drops at .309, I size to .309, my barrel is .308
While accuracy is plenty good for hunting this gun will shoot j- words better. It's been my limited experience that when cast is right it will equal or better jacketed.

The easiest way to slug your barrel is with egg sinkers. Find what size is slightly bigger than your barrel. The hole in the middle gives it some relief and let's it go through easier.
You can also cast a pure lead in your own mold, tap it with a hammer to bump it up a little and then drill a relief hole down the center. Without the relief hole they can be a bugger sometimes.

[geargnasher]

I have to say I agree more with the end of Bret's last post that anything I have ever read on here.
We do tend to speak in generalities here. We all use a slightly different lube, alloy, bullet, case, and gun. These variations make it about impossible to say "Use this and it will always work".
I know what works in my guns, for me. May or may not work for you or your guns.

ThE entire key to sucess in shooting cast is to find what works for you and your guns.

I learned most of what I know from trying and shooting. I may have gotten ideas from this site or a book but I still had to make those concepts work for me. That only happens by doing your work at the casting, loading, and shooting bench.

I think Bret is right on too, and speaking of the end of posts, the last paragraph of yours pretty much sums it up for me.

:drinks:

Gear