Rifle Boolits from Linotype

[Nickle]

Has anybody used straight Linotype to cast rifle boolits? I'm using Lyman 311410, 311332 and 308291 in semi auto's and bolt guns and have a big batch of Linotype. I water quench while casting, drop the fresh boolits into a bucket of water.

I'm wondering if it would work without mixing with wheel weights, and if I were to mix, what's everybody's experience and recommendations?

[Bullshop]

I recommend you do alot more reading.
bic/bs

[Pepe Ray]

Nickle;
There'l be varying ideas on this . Since there are so many different ways to get the same desired results ie alloy formulars, I'd say it depends on your supply of resources. IIWM I'd hoard my Lino till it became necessary to use it.
First you should list your requirements. Then determine whats absolutely necessary to achieve them. Then look at your stock of supplys.
It's my impression that Linotype is not going to be around forever.
Pepe Ray

[Uncle R.]

For many years I cast almost everything from linotype - 'cause I had plenty of lino and very little softer stuff. I hoarded my tiny stocks of soft lead for black powder stuff.
:-D
The lino worked VERY well in magnum pistol and rifle loads - but everything I shot in those calibers was gas-checked. I took home a lot of sillywet trophies using pure lino gas-checked bullets in .357 and .44 mags. :roll:
Light "bullseye" pistol loads with plain base SWCs or full wadcutters shot okay - but they'd lead the throats pretty badly. Service loads in .45 acp would also lead the throats. I'd guess you'll want something a lot softer for those applications.
Uncle R.

[Nickle]

Now, don't get me wrong, I do have a modest amount of experience, but not in choosing alloys to use in Battle Rifles.

And, thoughts on hoarding are well taken.

So, what I have readily available is wheel weights and Linotype. Strangely, the Lino is free, the WW I sometimes have to buy.

I do use gas checks, and will be shooting at a reasonable velocity. I'm thinking of following Nonte's suggestion of using slower powder. I do have to be careful, since I don't want excessive port pressure in the semi-autos, but do want reasonable velocity (over 2000 fps) and do want the guns to function.

The cartridges used will be 7.62x39 (AK and SKS), 7.62x54R (Mosins and RomAK 3), 30-40 Krag, 308 (FAL and M14) and 30-06 (M1 and 1903/03-A3). All but the Krag ammo will be used in semi autos, and all but the 7.62x39 will be used in bolt guns. I do shoot more than just a little bit. I load in batches of 500 to 1000 rounds at a time, except for the Krag and 7.62x54R, where I load a couple hundred at a time.

I don't want to tailor the ammo for each specific rifle, that's way too much trouble.

I have no desire to get into high cost bulletrs, because after a point, Mil-Surp jacketed gets cheaper. So, fancy allow additives are out.

Alloy sugegstions, other than 50% WW and 50% Lino? (And comments on that alloy, please.)

And yes Bullshop, I've done a moderate amount of reading, both here and other sources. And I do know straight Lino has certain disadvantages.

Also, I do know pistol boolits well enough, and I use straight wheel weights for those.

[garandsrus]

Nickle,

The 50/50 would be a good alloy at 2% tin, 7% antimony, and 91% lead. It is very close to Taracorp which is touted as being a "universal" alloy at 2/6/92.

John

[felix]

For your battle guns, use WW augmented with Lino, just enough of it for expert casting and accuracy. Start as low as 1 pound Lino per 20 pound WW. ... felix

[Nickle]

Nickle,

The 50/50 would be a good alloy at 2% tin, 7% antimony, and 91% lead. It is very close to Taracorp which is touted as being a "universal" alloy at 2/6/92.

John

Seeing what your user name is, are you using this in your M1?

[garandsrus]

Nickle,

Sadly, I haven't done much cast shooting with a Garand yet... I have done a lot with a 03A3, 7.5x55, 6.5x55, 30-30, .375 Win, 30-06 bolt, etc but just haven't made it to the Garand!

I would use the alloy in a Garand or any of the other rifles though. Most of my alloy to date has been either WW or reclaimed bullets.

John

[Char-Gar]

I see no reason to write a essay on bullet alloys in general and linotype in particular when every handbook on cast bullets contains a good one. Don't be so lazy and cheap.. but split for an RCBS or Lyman cast bullet handbook. It has the answer and lots, lots more.

Let's just say, you have a lot to learn and have no business casting bullets until you get and read on of the handbooks.

We are willing to help, but you have to do your part. There is no need to spoon feed you the most basic of information.

[Scrounger]

Nickle, there is no easy answer, but yes, you can use straight linotype if you want to; I've known guys who did. Do you know about the BHN Scale? That is the chart that defines the hardness of the lead and lead alloys. One BHN hardness in theory requires 1,440 pounds per square inch of pressure to deform (mash, splay, obturate, pick your own verb) lead of that hardness. Pure lead is supposed to be about 5 BHN, so about 7000 pounds should work with it. Lino is 21 or 22 BHN, water dropping raises its hardness up to about 28 to 30 BHN. So, at least in theory, you would need about 44,000 PSI loads to cause it to meld well into your barrel, virtually the same as shooting jacketed bullets. There is science to shooting and doubly so in cast bullets, but so too is there 'art' or even the occult involved it seems like. So try your lino bullets and see if they work for you. Remember that with them you will be able to load them much heavier than guys using wheelweights or Lyman #2. I wish I could make it clear to all the new shooters asking questions here that the fun isn't in getting the answers given to you but in the learning experience you have in finding them for yourself. In questions of safety, it is always wise to ask someone; in other matters you're only cheating yourself out of the fun of learning.

[Nickle]

I see no reason to write a essay on bullet alloys in general and linotype in particular when every handbook on cast bullets contains a good one. Don't be so lazy and cheap.. but split for an RCBS or Lyman cast bullet handbook. It has the answer and lots, lots more.

Let's just say, you have a lot to learn and have no business casting bullets until you get and read on of the handbooks.

We are willing to help, but you have to do your part. There is no need to spoon feed you the most basic of information.

Seeing that you don't know me, that's an awful "cheap shot", isn't it? If you wanted to insult me, a PM would've been more appropriate.

Let me defend myself here, though I can take criticism.

I asked a simple question, and then only after I looked here for a while, and didn't find the answer. And, I'm not asking to be "spoon fed". Not my way, and I hate it too (people that want to be "spoon fed").

Like I said, you don't know me, or anything about me. You didn't know I started casting bullets in the '60's, working at the family shop. I've cast a fair amount of bullets over the years, though frankly, I use straight WW, and generally have stuck to pistol buulets.

You didn't know that I have researched this issue, and frankly the info isn't out there. I'm going to be checking those 2 references (at least the Lyman is at the shop), and I'd wager there isn't diddly squat about cast boolits in an M1 (or another other semi-auto MBR) in either of them. Yes, I've got a copy of Nonte's Modern Handloading, and he pretty much covers it and more, but, he doesn't cover anything on current usage of alloys and water quenching, because frankly, it's an older book. If YOU don't have a copy of it, I suggest you follow your own advice.

Matter of fact, I've got a fairly decent library, my father has a better one. Seeing he's a type 06 FFL, and has been over 50 years, he has a really GOOD library. And, yup, he's cast more than a few bullets over the years. Loads them into ammo and sells it, too. That's what a Type 06 FFL does.

But, I guess you didn't really read the questions posed. See, I'm going to be shooting these boolits in a semi-auto, and at over 2000 fps, trying for 2400-2500. And, we don't make this kind of ammo at the shop (I work there part-time).

You didn't catch that part about the M1 and M14, did you?

You didn't know I checked the stuff from the LA group, and though they covered a bunch of stuff, they didn't cover what I needed. I printed it out and read it about 4 or 5 times to make sure I didn't miss something. And, I mean ALL of what they have.

Yes, I understand Brinell, and I know if I use quenched WW, I might be able to push the velocity to where I want it. But, see, problem I have right now is what I have for alloy. I've got 400 pounds of Lino, but only just over 100 pounds of WW. And, strange as this sounds, it's easier to get Lino than WW for me right now (and the Lino is FREE), unless I pay a moderate amount of $$ for the WW (I usually pay up to $10, and $40 a bucket isn't cheap, and some places in my area don't sell it, they send it back). At that point ($40), I'd simply buy jacketed bullets.

Scrounger, I REALLY appreciate that info, more than you could ever realize. I've been researching info on straight Lino, and frankly, what little I saw, I was leery of. That's why I asked, and your info confirms what I thought. And, I appreciate knowing what I'm looking at for hardness on quenched lino. Looks like I'll be coughing up the bucks for a lino tester. Any recommendations on a good one (I know there's several available at Midway)?

After I finish the research, I will be generous enough to post what I learned. And, I'll do that politely.

[Ricochet]

Nickle, I don't have any lino, but I do generally water drop my boolits. Out of curiosity I'd asked on this board if anyone knew whether lino would harden when quenched. I don't recall now who told me, but he said that indeed quenched lino boolits harden, but they get very brittle. Just passing it along FWIW.

[Larry Gibson]

Nickle

Felix and Garandsrus alloy mixtures will give a good hard bullet when WQ'd for your application. It will be as hard as it needs to be for the velocities you desire and with a good proper lube you shouldn't have leading problems given decent barrels. At those velocities your accuracy will be on par with milsurp. Also fo use in the gas guns, except the 7.62x39, you may find a heavier bullet like 311299 or 314299 will give better functioning reliabilty at a slower and perhaps more accurate velocity. Either will be eminately usefull in the bolt guns. In the 7.62x39 it is hard to beat Lee's 312-155 (designed for that cartridge in gas guns). As to powder I would suggest 4895 as I have using it for years in all those cartridge/rifle combinations with great success though at lower velocity. I know you only asked for input on the aloy but I thought I'd add the other. Let us know of you success or failure as that is what most of us are intersted in here so we can learn and expand our knowledge.

Larry Gibson

[Nickle]

Nickle, I don't have any lino, but I do generally water drop my boolits. Out of curiosity I'd asked on this board if anyone knew whether lino would harden when quenched. I don't recall now who told me, but he said that indeed quenched lino boolits harden, but they get very brittle. Just passing it along FWIW.

Yeah, Scrounger mentioned that it should harden to 28 to 30 BHN. It has Antimony, and that's what's needed to harden it. I know since I've cast a few (to see just how they'd look) that they are some hard, but, not as brittle as I expected. I didn't use anything more scientific than a large bolt and hit them (and did the same to the same bullets that are quenched WW) and compared the two. The lino was definitely harder than the WW.

I like the idea of quenching, it makes casting easier for me. All of the time I've been casting, it took looking into making harder rifle bullets for me to find it (I first saw it at the LA site).

Larry, I chose my bullet numbers based on Nonte's book.

He got fairly good results using big charges of slow powder, with a limited reduction of velocity, and still functioning the semi-autos. He even got an HK to work.

Of course, if you use those slow powders for full power loads, you'll get way too much port pressure. And that is NOT a good thing.

[Ricochet]

You've got to wait a couple of weeks for quenched antimonial lead alloys to get to full hardness. Immediately after quenching they're usually quite soft and ductile.

[felix]

Nickle, a hard boolit is not necessairly a tough boolit and vice versa. You can speed up the transistion from soft to hard by placing the boolits in a oven at 200 degrees max for a couple of hours or hot sun for a couple of days. After water dropping, of course. To decipher how tough, stick a bar, pencil thin is good enough, and bend back and forth until the bar cracks. The one that lasts the longest is the tougher, even though they measure out to being the same hardness on your gadget of choice. ... felix

[Larry Gibson]

"Of course, if you use those slow powders for full power loads, you'll get way too much port pressure. And that is NOT a good thing."

That's the point. At the velocities you're talking the port pressure with the slow powders will be up there. If you drop back for reliable functioning at 1900-2000 fps with good accuracy then the slow powder work fine also. At those slower velocities the port pressures are within spec. Read an article once by Nonte where he assisted a machinegun dealer develop such loads using WQ'd WW bullets and the slower powders (4831 I think). Was a good article with useful info. However, after experimenting for 40+ years with '06 and 7.62 loads using cast bullet loads in the M1, M14, FN49, FAL and the HK91 I've found 4895 to be the better choice of powder.

Larry Gibson

[Nickle]

However, after experimenting for 40+ years with '06 and 7.62 loads using cast bullet loads in the M1, M14, FN49, FAL and the HK91 I've found 4895 to be the better choice of powder.

Larry Gibson

4895 is my all time favorite. Yeah, if I do some at the higher velocoties, I'm using 4895, no question. If I was to reduce to 2000-2200, 4350 to 4831 looks good, but, I was planning on cheap Mil-Surp (7323?) for that. Got to get some anyways, I'll use it in the bolt-guns and the Dragunov. That system will take incredible abuse.

[Ricochet]

I was planning on cheap Mil-Surp (7323?) for that.
I think you mean 7383. My most-used powder. May not be the "best" for anything, but it works for a lot.

[Nickle]

I think you mean 7383. My most-used powder. May not be the "best" for anything, but it works for a lot.

Yup, that's why I put the ? after it. I thought I was wrong, wasn't going to take the time to check. From what I've seen it's roughly equivalent to 4350 or so by burn rate. Slow enough to get the right port pressure for slower, lighter loads (and thereby the action will still function).

I'm going to get some, and try it. Worst case scenario, I'll use it up in the Krag and the Mosins, with CB's.

[fourarmed]

Straight linotype is wonderful in rifles, and if I had an unlimited supply it is what I would use. Unfortunately...

[Char-Gar]

Nickle.. You are a right to be peeved, as I did use you as a straw man for a general issue I have with many who come to this board asking simple questions they should have answered for themselves with a little basic reading.

What were my clues?

1) Has anybody every cast bullets from Linotype? Well shure, it has been a staple for 50 years albeit that hardness is not needed for most application. Do a search on this thread and you would find much information on Linotype. Read any cast bullet manual and you will find we all have cast from lino at one time or another.

2) Waterquenching lino..well hardly! If lino is to hard for most use, why make it harder.. or try to anyway.

3) I didn't miss the M-14. Lots of folks here shoot cast in various gas operated military rifles. Do a search of this sight and you will find plenty of info.

4) Alloy hardness for gas guns related only to the velocity needed to create enough pressure at the port of operate the rifle. If you are content to use the rifle as a straight pull bolt, alloy needs are the same as any other rifle.

I am going to stick by my guns that you were asking very simple questions that you could have answered yourself with a little effort on you part.

True.. I don't know who your are.... But I do know the content of your question and that does reflect who you are to some degree. You are a guy who finds it easier to ask someone else, rather than do some research and learning for yourself. The world is full of such folk.

Feel free to strike my name from your Christmas card list. I can live with that.

[Phil]

ditto Chargar.

[mto7464]

Personally I think Charger is being a jerk. Unless he is the owner of this site what gives him the right to rip on people. I am sure he has asked people questions, for instance a doctor, that I would think were common knowledge. I never berrate or belittle people who ask me simple medical or health questions. Perhaps it is becuase he likes the aninimity of the forum and it makes him feel safe or tough, whatever it may be. If you dodn't like a question then you can simply not respond.

[Char-Gar]

mto.. Jerk! Surely you jest! Well, maybe so..but there is a method to my jerkism.. let me explain it to you as you appear to have missed the whole point.

Reloading in an inherently dangerous activity, akin to sky diving. The difference is you are not jumping out of aircraft, but sparking off flamable solids to very high pressure, in a thin brass jug a few inches from your face. IN both reloading and sky diving you can get hurt or killed if you don't know what your are doing and/or don't pay attention to what you are doing.

In these days of the Internet, it is the first place some people go for information. Got a question or a problem, go to some board or forum. They will know!

Well, the problem is they may or may not know. But there are many, many self proclaimed experts who will answer like they know. I have seen lots and lots of downright bad and sometimes dangerous information about handloading given on such board/forums.

A man is a fool to do his basic learning on sky diving from the Internet. A man is also a fool who does his basic learning about handloading on the Internet. You won't want to bet your life, eyesight, or number of fingers on your hand to the expertise of folks you don't know on the net.

The Internet is a good place to comes with questions, but only after the person has gained basic information from a TRUSTWORTHY source and can distinguish between the good answers and the crap they get on the Internet.

We are not doing people a long term favor by allowing them to ask truly basic questions. The mere asking of such questions indicates the person has not done the most basic self study on the dangerous activity.

Jerk.. well you can say that if you want. But what I say comes from a concern for the safety of the person asking the questions and the overall good of the craft.

We are not well served by allowing people to be lazy in learning about handloading. Folks have been hurt by stupid answers to stupid questions on the Internet.

I am not to concerned if you or mr. maple think I am a jerk. If it will cause a few to go to the books before coming to the Internet, I am well satisfied with that result. I would rather be truly helpful in the formation of a handloader than be popular.
Popularity is vastly over rated and most often it comes at the expense of values and principles.

Jerk... well maybe.. or maybe not! Your parents spanked your butt a few times when you were growing and learning. They did it because they cared about you and not because they were jerks.

I take it you are cutting me from your Christmas card list as well?

[Bullshop]

mto
How come nobody called me a jerk, I said the same thing. Just aint fair.
If ya call one a jerk then ya gotta call all the like minded a jerk too.
Nope I guess jerk callin just aint PC. But now suggesting somone read up on the subject like me and Chargar well I dont see no harm in that. Like he said just the opposite might keep somone from harm.
BTW I see your new. I musta missed your entry so a belated welcome!
bic/bs

[mto7464]

Bullshop and Chargar,
My point is you do not know this guy. You don't know if he is just interested in getting started and has some rookie questions such as I have had (and still have). He may not have yet purchased any manuals on the subject etc. These questions may seem mundane since many of you have loaded cast for years. I too tired of the same old M1 Garand questions over on jouster. I just stopped replying and let others do it, I did not tell him to read before asking. It seems the internet is an excuse not to be polite. I have seen too many times where a newbie has been shamed on a website only to never return.

[Char-Gar]

Jeeze Moto... You continue to miss the point.

1) If doesn't matter who he is. I don't have to know him, I can read the question..it is the question..the question. The question tells the level of knowledge. His lack of knowledge on bullet alloys is as plain as a rat turd in the sugar bowl..as Senior D'Albini said to young Skeeter.

2) If he hasn't bought handbooks yet, then he shouldn't be asking question. You buy the book FIRST and ask question SECOND. That is the whole point. The idea is to get him to read the book first..

Are you reading any of this or just reacting to a supposed slight and carrying some old emotional baggage from other web sites? If some newbie get's POed because he gets directed to the primary source instead of being spoon fed and leave, then everybody is better off.

What we are trying to do here is to keep newbies from hurting themselves by relying on untested sources of information.

[Bullshop]

mto
You are exactly right we dont know him. All we know is what he has posted.
He has posted that he has a fair ammount of experiance in this game but at the same time ask's a question that had anyone done the most basic of research in reading any source of basic casting information would have known. What could we know from that? In the first post he asked for suggestions. In reading the post I got the same idea as Chargar and apparantly others and as per his request I suggested LOTS MORE reading.
He asked for advice and he got it and good advice it was too and I for one dont feel there was any thing improper said. Maybe Charger could have been a bit more gentle MAYBE. You know you can have ten people say about the same thing and some will sound like an insult and some a compliment. We all got our ways. Truth be told I still cant figure a way to make jerk sound complimentry so guess I just wont use it.
bic/bs

[mto7464]

No emotional baggage here sir, I have never been slighted online. You too seem to be missing the point.

Let me put it to you this way. If an Atheist came to you and asked, "why did Christ die on the cross?". Would you throw the bible at him and tell him to read it before asking such a simple question? I hope not becuase you may have lost a convert.
Instead give him some sources, or tell him to do a search, and don't use terms like "Lazy", "cheap" and "spoon feed".

[Char-Gar]

Forget it...you are using an apples and oranges comparison. I have explained it the best I can, you either understand or you don't. It appear you don't. Onward and upward.

[Char-Gar]

Bullshop... Me need to be more gentle!! I am sweet as sugar and gentle as a lamb! Well, once I had to raise my voice to get a fellow's attention..just once though.

[Bad Water Bill]

Just a few items. George Nont DIED over 30 years ago. He was a very knowledgable person on reloading AT THAT TIME. There has been much printed on new information since. If you are just curious you ask a simple question then START buying lots of books on the subject. This person is safe in hyperspace so he can say anything and try to stir up arguments to make himself feel good. I started casting in the 60s but am not ashamed to say I am still learning new things every day. I WILL not get good info by arguing with someone who is trying to help. IF his father had been casting for 50 years PROFESSIONALY he should have asked dad. OOPS he works for dad. 50 years and NO hardness tester available? I to know a few professional casters and none of them would have asked these questions. O well enough of this. P S George died in a fire IN his reloading room if I remember correctly but that was over 30 years ago so I could be wrong. Just another reason why sometimes Good reloaders challenge newbies. Do they REALLY belong in this hobby OR shooting their reloads (handgrenades) next to ME. BWB

[waksupi]

I think Nonte's book on Black Powder, carries more dangerous information for a new shooter, than I have ever seen in one place.

[Char-Gar]

Well, live and learn. I knew Nonte died in funky circumstances but never heard how. I also know many of his peers were critical of his approach to reloading. I never read his book on black powder.

I do have his book on pistolsmithing. Lee Jurris was culling his library when he moved last year, and I bought his copy. Lee has a chapter in the book and Note presented and autographed the book to Lee. I value it because I hold Lee Jurras in high regard. I also got Lee's copy of Hatcher's Notebook, which is a true treasure trove of information and history.

As an aside, some friends were having a shoot this weekend and yesterday they had a kaboom on the fireing line. One fellow had a Smith and Wesson explode and a the tops of two cylinders went into the arm of the fellow next too him. It took surgury to remove the steel. He will be Ok, but what would have happend if it hit him in the head. They don't know what happen yet, but you can be certain it will be traced back to a handloading mistake.

I have never had a kaboom or anything close, but it happens frequently enough to make me hinky who I shoot next too. Such things happen even to experienced loaders and even more freqently to newbies who don't learn the basics or keep their eye on the ball.

The internet is a wonderful things and this site is the crown jewel. There is more concentrated knowledge on cast bullets here than anyplace else in the world. For that reason, I think it behooves us to mentor the newbies to be safe and sane loaders and casters. We shouldn't hold back from challenging some of those folks, if that is what is needed in a particular circumstance.

Some of them may pout a little and some may take up golf, but everybody is better off if that happens. This handloading stuff can be very, very dangerous business and the fools, the lazy and dumb should stay away from it.

[joeb33050]

After using WW almost exclusively since 1960, I've started buying or trading for alloys. I have lead, linotype, 25:1 and foundry type. It seemed to me that it got harder and harder to cast good rifle bullets from WW, I weigh and inspect each bullet with a 4X magnifier.
I've been casting and shooting linotype bullets in 311299, 314299, 308403 and 31141 for a ?year? now, and find that they're much easier = faster to cast than with WW. Also used 25:1, same story.
Linotype bullets are harder to size than WW, but not impossible, 2 steps helps if going down a lot.
Somebody, somewhere, wrote about trouble with WW and maybe zinc got in the mix. I always was able to see the zinc WW and get them out. I think. I also suspect that something has happened to WW, making them harder to cast with.
Linotype bullets work just fine, easy to cast, and very shiny!
Good luck;
joe brennan

[MT Gianni]

To chime in way to late there is a difference between published data and bar talk. Published data is reviewed, checked for errors and backed with a lot of testing. One can get a lot of loading info in a bar but it is best to check it against some manual before you try it. As a forum we are ahead of a bar but behind published data when only one speaks out. Our collective information is ahead of most gun magazines because of the resources we use. Has anyone seen surplus powder data recently in Guns or Handloader? How about the Hornady manual? If we are to consider ourseves as an advanced course we have to assume that everyone read the course materiels to arrive here prepared. If and when new books come out we will flock to them but as for now the big 3, LY cast bullet handbook, RCBS cast book, Verals Book are the easy to find ones. E. Harrison's Cast Bullets, older NRA handbooks and others are the ones for us smokeless shooters, Black Powder has it's own. You don't teach a 9 year old how to drive on a Ferrari and you don't insult Mario Andretti with the gift of a Yugo. I'm off the soapbox now, Gianni.

[Nickle]

Well, looks like I sure asked the wrong question, and stirred up quite the "manure storm".

Folks, let me lay it out to you all REAL SIMPLE.

First, there's tons of info on casting and alloys. No way could any of us have read all of it, unless we don't have a life outside of reading about casting.

That being said, there flat isn't that much about casting PURE Lino into bullets. Not that I saw, anyways. Thanks to a PM from George, I've now got the info I need. Want to know WHY I want to use straight Lino? Because I've got a bunch of it, far more than I have WW, and I've got more coming (and the Lino is free). I knew it has been done, and was looking for info from folks that have done it.

Sure, I could do the safe things, continue to use straight WW, water quenched, or, I could've made up some standard alloy (and I do know how). Hell, folks, I wouldn't have asked the question if I was going to do either of these. Why? Because there's an elderly gentleman a few miles from me that probably knows more about reloading than the lot of you together. And, yup, he's got a BIG library, since he's self taught. Of course, he makes his living reloading.

And, guess what? He doesn't have the answer about STRAIGHT LINO either, because, frankly, he probably hasn't done it himself.

Now, I thank everybody that was polite, and yes, even those that were less polite. Bullshop, you did bust my chops, a little, but not like Chargar insinuating I'm an idiot (or lazy, or both).

Well, I'm none of those. And, I've probably loaded a hell of a lot more ammo than you think, definitely in more calibers than you would think (of course, I've been loading my own since the '60's, and worked for/with my father for quite a while) . Thankfully, I'm not a newbie to reloading, or gun forums on the internet, though I am to this site. Because if I was, there would be one less person here.

Ever think you might scare people off, when you're so rude to them? Think many newb's want to ask a question after reading this thread? Yeah, we ALL hate dumb questions. We ALL hate folks that don't research. Truth is, I did both, before I asked. Read the question carefully, think about it.

Chargar, next time I ask a question, save us both some trouble. Don't answer, because I don't need your kind of help. I can read just fine.

And I apologize to all for starting this thread. Mods, feel free to delete it.

(Yes, the forum owner and I have "spoken", no, I didn't gripe, but he did apologize. Chargar, you should apologize to him for embarrassing him in his house, IMNSHO.)

[Sundogg1911]

Nickle,
I've tried using straight Lino for my 30-06 and they were horribly inaccurate. I don't thing it was the Lino as much as barrel fit. When I used a WW alloy I think the boolit would expand more for a snug barrel fit. I never did slug the Barrel of that rifle, because my checked boolits using a WW, Lino, 60-40 bar solder mix works so well. I think Lloyd Smale said His Lino rifle boolits were very accurate.

[Char-Gar]

Aww Nickel..don't be a spoiled sport. I promise I won't answer your questions.. unless

Take care and keep em in the X ring.

[leftiye]

Nickle, My reaction to your question was to think that everyone has cast boolits from linotype, and that it worked admirably. It makes nice hard shiny pretty boolits. But, it is only one alloy that is available, and only excells at certain loading "situations". Hard booits don't necessarily solve all problems as some think, and they definitely don't work better than all else does. In other words, yes it has been tried (probably more than any other alloy except wheelweights or pure lead). The only answer for you other than this is "try it, you MIGHT like it!" Ted

[jhalcott]

Nickle , I got a question! CAN you heat treat Lino? As I understand it ,there is NO Arsenic in Lino . You need this to heat treat the alloy. There is a trace in WW's and chilled bird shot, but none in Lino. I do agree with you on the lack of SPECIFIC info on Lino. My gripe about asking questions on casting ,is 90% of the replies will be for HAND gun use not RIFLE use even though that's what one asks about. Look IT'S April 1st,things could be worse.!

[454PB]

I was one that thought Linotype wouldn't heat treat, so I tried it. It DOES heat treat. I can't say mine doesn't have any arsenic, because I haven't had a metal analysis done, but mixed 50/50 with pure lead, it hardens to 26 BHN when quenched and sized immediately.

I've also shot thousands of straight linotype boolits in both rifles and handguns, with excellent accuracy. Yes, the brittle metal does have some short comings, but it punches tight groups in paper and is great for plinking.

[leftiye]

Actually I've seen data that linotype does have arsenic in it, maybe 1/4%. Also, my 1 to two linotype/ pure lead alloy hardens to BHN 23!

[tanstafl10]

nickle,

my first impulse was to take offense at what Chargar ( or maybe how) said. But you know, he has a point. We need a thick skin if we open ourselves up to asking questions/opinions.. we may not always like the answers. It does tend to make one "gun shy", (which is terrible at a place like this)!!!! I know it has me, but I will get over it.

To input on your question....
I have been trying straight linotype in a 257 Roberts because I promised my friend who built it not to shoot WW because of his concern about "grit" in the lead that would scratch the barrel. I do not agree w/ him, but he is a friend and older than me and I want to show respect, so pure lino only.

I have a Loverin design that shoots less than 1/2" at 100 yds at around 2300 fps at this point. I like it a lot! Because of that accuracy and the fact that lino is said to be very brittle, I had Buckshot ( plug, plug) hollow point another 257 mould I picked up. This one for a linotype varmint bullet that may (may!) function like a Vmax and violently fragment in the little varmints. If it works, it will NOT be a waste of linotype for me.

Still in the experimental stages, Just cast a 100 or so and am in the process of reloading them for accuracy testing.

Boy do I have fun experimenting.

Take care

[Char-Gar]

Guy.. When you look through the winners of the Cast Bullet Association matches, you will find that most often Linotype is the alloy of choice. It is the gold standard for target shooting alloy.

It casts very, very, well, is plenty hard and has a standard composition as wheel weight does not.

This business of tempering wheel weight came about as people tried to boost the hardness of the cheaper often free wheel weight to about lino hardness. Today, many folks have gone to seed on tempering alloy and try and temper just about everything, thinking it does something positive which it does not.

There certainly is no reason, I can think of, for tempering linotype. It may or may not harden up a bit, buy why? Just adds work with no benefit.

Lino is not a good choice for hunting as it is brittle. Although there is a group of folks who think that is a good thing in hunting and advocate the use of lino for that purpose. I have not shot enough game with both kinds of bullets to have any kind of informed opinion.

I try very hard not to shoot off my mouth, unless there is some personal experience to back it up. I don't want to turn into just another guy spouting something they read back as fact. That works until something you read turns out to be wrong or even dangerous. Guys.. there is lots and lots of myths and bad information on the net. You must have experience or a dependable reference source to keep you safe from this stuff.

Now Nickle don't get your knickers in a twist.. This is not an answer to you, but to others. They have not banned me.. yet! :-)

[joeb33050]

To chime in way to late there is a difference between published data and bar talk. Published data is reviewed, checked for errors and backed with a lot of testing. One can get a lot of loading info in a bar but it is best to check it against some manual before you try it. As a forum we are ahead of a bar but behind published data when only one speaks out. Our collective information is ahead of most gun magazines because of the resources we use. Has anyone seen surplus powder data recently in Guns or Handloader? How about the Hornady manual? If we are to consider ourseves as an advanced course we have to assume that everyone read the course materiels to arrive here prepared. If and when new books come out we will flock to them but as for now the big 3, LY cast bullet handbook, RCBS cast book, Verals Book are the easy to find ones. E. Harrison's Cast Bullets, older NRA handbooks and others are the ones for us smokeless shooters, Black Powder has it's own. You don't teach a 9 year old how to drive on a Ferrari and you don't insult Mario Andretti with the gift of a Yugo. I'm off the soapbox now, Gianni.

I believe that if you tell me that you did "A", and then "B" happened, with details, then generally I believe you. I call this "data", as opposed to "opinion".
I believe that if you tell me that if "A" is done, then "B" will happen, without any supporting cites or data, then what you are offering is:
An opinion-and I was taught that there are no valid opinions without supporting data. Two experienced and educated ?climatolagists? may differ about global warming after examining the data, and their different opinions have to do with interpretation of the data, and it is "proper" for them to have and express opinions. I, not educated in the field, without looking at the data that I can't understand, cannot form a "proper" opinion about G.W. Neither can (most of) you. Nor can Newt or Barbara.
An "ought to be true", "I've thought about doing "A" and whether or not "B" will happen, and have decided that "B" will happen." This is more dangerous than an "improper" opinion because it is often submerged in irrelevant data. The best example that I know of is $ and education and outcomes. Since I was in grad school in the early 70s, the data has shown little relationship between dollars spent and educational outcomes in public education. However, EDUCATION is a popular issue, like highway safety-who dares be against it? Who dares be against education? Who dares be against increased spending for education?

So, give me the data. Tell me what you did, and what happened. Mostly I'll believe you. This is why I like data as opposed to opinion.

Chargar here, and 45 2.1 on the bullet diameter thread, are getting prickly. Years ago I watched the XLH forum "old hands" get prickly, then nasty, then go away. My take is that they got tired of answering the same questions over and over again. Hence:"...archives....search". I think that on forums such as this that we should expect repetition, repetitive questions. Don't get prickly, get used to it; it's the state of nature. Since the shooting, handloading, cast bullet population is diminishing-I read recently that reloading equipment sales have been going down 5% a year-unless we want to be alone we should be nice to these newcomers. The reason I wrote the first book is to put what "we" know in one place where "they" can see it.

While I'm at it, a comment on the self-deprecating comments some make. If you really don't know much, then put in the "IMHOs" etc. For me and a lot of others on this forum, I've been doing this for 47 years, as a hobby. Casting, reloading, shooting. I don't know everything, never will, nobody will. But in that period I've spent enough time reading and experimenting and doing, equivalent to going to medical school and an internship. If I had gone to med school, I could take your gizzard out, I'd be an acknowledged expert. In a similar vein, after 47 years at the guns, I know a lot, and so do you. You old guys. Do what you want, but the self-deprecating comments nettle me some.

That's my story, and .......
joe brennan

[Ricochet]

As I understand it ,there is NO Arsenic in Lino . You need this to heat treat the alloy.
No, you don't. A wide range of alloy metals can solution harden lead alloys in this matter. Antimony and arsenic are two of them. (Tin is one that doesn't.) Hunt up that article from Key to Metals that I've linked on here several times on "Heat Treatment of Lead Alloys."

[Ricochet]

Today, many folks have gone to seed on tempering alloy and try and temper just about everything, thinking it does something positive which it does not.
Chargar, that's an unsupportable statement. I've found that very soft alloys not far from pure lead will still harden up substantially with solution treatment and cold aging. Can't give precise quantitative data on either alloy composition or hardness with what I have, but it certainly does harden. Try it yourself and see. I got there from starting with quenched wheelweights, going to lesser proportions of wheelweights mixed with soft scrap, and finally quenching just the soft scrap. Gets pretty hard.

I'll readily agree that hardening boolits isn't always desirable, for a variety of reasons.

[Char-Gar]

I'll readily agree that hardening boolits isn't always desirable, for a variety of reasons.[/QUOTE]

Well Ric.. what I intended to say was what you said, and it pretty much is the same thing. I really don't see much, if any difference. Now why should mine be unsupportable and your not?

[Ricochet]

I'm not fighting you, Chargar. I was taking exception to your statement that "they think it's accomplishing something beneficial, which it's not" with regard to "tempering all sorts of stuff," right after the part about "gone to seed." I'm just pointing out that even though I don't have quantitative data, even very simple crude testing will show a big difference in hardness with some stuff that's initially soft enough to stick your thumbnail into. Like I said, try it yourself.

[Nickle]

Um, I forgot to mention exactly why I'm water quenching. See, I like to sit down and cast a few hundred to a thousand at a time (went to the trouble to start the pot up).

Well, I found it easier to simply drop the bullets from the mold into a 5 gallon bucket half full of water and a folded towel in the bottom. I used to use just a folded towel, and pick the bullets up every so often. I saw this quenching technique mentioned on the LA site, and tried it. I like it, but, I know I won't use it on pistol bullets, because they'll be too hard IMNSHO.

And, yes, there's a big difference between rifle and pistol bullets, unless you're shooting those rifle bullets fairly slow.

See, I've got 400+ pounds of Lino, and 120 pounds of WW at this point. I want to do several things.

1. Save the WW for pistol bullets (and maybe the Krag).

2. Have consistent rifle bullets for target shooting and training.

3. Have bullets that will function in the semi-autos.

I know to function the semi-autos, I either have to shoot large charges of slow powders, or shoot close to normal charges of "correct" powders. In the latter case, velocities may be too high for shooting WW. Maybe even with the first, if I'm not careful.

Now, this situation really isn't covered by the usual manuals, since they are going to reduce velocities to the point that WW (or #2) won't lead. And, I seriously doubt Lyman or RCBS tested their data in an M14 or M1 (let alone a FAL, AK or Dragunov), did they?

The final issue is simple. I can assume what they've printed is right, or I can ask some guys that might just have done the experimenting in this area. Guess which one I trust more. Damned sure isn't the manual.

I take even Nonte with a grain of salt (about a 5 pound bag, he's made mistakes), and I think he's one of the better ones, when it comes to Battle Rifle data.

And, yes, I've got an incredibly tough skin. Have to, in the line of work I do at my day job.

[Nickle]

Oh, forgot to say, I do agree with Chargar on people hardening their bullets. Some think harder is better. It flat ain't so.

Pistol bullets for 9mm and 45 ACP (and similar) shouldn't be too hard. You won't get adequate obturation with hard bullets at slow velocities. I'm partial to air cooled WW for these. My 7.62x38R bullets (RCBS 32-098-WC) I try to keep nice and soft, since I'm only running them at about 700 fps, if that.

[Char-Gar]

The notion of water quenching WW to give more hardness is a very good one and it does save time. Such bullets are fine for informal practice and general fun shooting.

The downside to droping bullets in water is there will be a lack of uniformity which in inherent in such a process.

Tempering WW in an oven will produce a uniform hardness that can be repeated with the same batch of WW.

WW is wonderful stuff, but differs quite a bit from batch to batch and it is hard to have long term uniform hardness for critical use.

For this reason, Linotype is the alloy of choice for long term critical use. It has (or should have) a standard composition. When you jack with the alloy, you change that composition and you may or may not be able to do it again.

However there is Linotype and there is Linotype. Now that linotype machines are not used any more, there are ton and tons of this stuff coming out of the back of prints shops all over the country. Most of it has been melted and remelted many times. This process will cook some of the good stuff out of the alloy. Print shops used to add tin to the mix every few cooks to bring it back up to snuff. Today we really don't know what is in the stuff we get as scrap from the print shops.

Foundry fresh Linotype is wonderful stuff. I am shooting some 311467s right now from the stuff. Back in the mid-60's I used to buy Linotype from a foundry (Sterling Type Metal) in Houston. I would pay 11 cents a pound, if I picked it up on their loading dock.

I tried using this stuff to cast some 38 wadcutters for Bullseye shooting in the 38 Special. Leaded worse than anything I had shot before!!! I couldn't understand how a 38 special Linotype wadcutter over 2.7/Bullseye could lead a pistol. After all, soft alloys is what caused leading..right? Well, that is when I started the learning process about alloys and sixguns.

Foundry fresh Lintotype is still (IMHO) the alloy of choice for very serious paper punching (rifle) when there are blue chips on the table and the big boys on the firing line.

Oh yes.. I should have said, I would not water quench Lintotype. Because it is precious stuff and I would not want to introduce any possible step that could degrade the uniformity of the bullet to bullet hardness.

[Char-Gar]

Ric... I think we both were reacting to words rather than trying to understand the content. I know it was the word "unsupported" that got my goat.

Believe it or not, I am supposed to be an expert in communication. I do know that certain words invite communication and other words are flag words that invite a reaction and not a response.

However knowing this, doesn't mean I am not as guilty as the next fellow about using them.

[felix]

If there is no slush stage between melted and solid, then water quenching is a waste of time. Makes no difference what the alloy is called. Arsenic will generally guarantee a slush stage of some sort, but so will a bunch of other crap, good and bad for casting. How good depends on how the boolit forms in the mold per given day, per alloy, per unknowns. The most consistent boolits generated, by all physical dimension measurements including spinning, is the final alloy desired for the most part. If too hard, then use for fun and games; if too soft, use for hunting. ... felix

[R. Dupraz]

There seems to be a lot of "off the cuff" info spewed about whenever the question of shooting linotype bullets comes up. Back in the sixties that's all I and several others used in revolvers and pistols. Primarily because it was cheap and available. We were shooting .357, .45 and .44 revolvers as well 1911's and a contender in .357/44.

I have shot a many hundreds and probably thousands of linotype bullets in .357's, .38 special's and .44 mag revolvers without any leading in the bore. And these loads were not light. As a matter of fact, the best groups that I ever shot out of several S&W 19's were with linotype metal and no leading. The same was true with the .45 ACP, both in 1911's and revolvers.

I use hard cast bullets in two .38-55's and both shoot well without leading. And I know others who are successful with them on the target range without any leading. However, linotype would not be my choice for a normal hunting bullet because of their hardness.

When I read the comments tossed about by some regarding linotype bullets, it's obvious that they don't understand what the real issue is with cast bullets. And that is, the lead bullet must fit the rifle chamber throat or the grooves in the bore. In a revolver, the cylinder throats must be at least as large as the grooves or a little more. In both cases the lead bullet will then "fit" the gooves which is needed to make small groups on the target. Otherwise, the lead bullet, linotype or not, will lead because it is too small. The flame from the burning powder escapes by the bullet causing lead to be deposited in the bore. And yes, one can make a small soft bullet work, so that it will obturate, but not a hard one. The same thing happens to a jacketed bullet when it's too small, only copper will be left in the bore instead of lead. A working lube must of course be used.

One question that I always like to ask when linotype or the obturation word comes up is... if the bullet fits the grooves, why does the bullet need to bump-up anywhere other than out the muzzle? Haven't gotten an answer yet.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with linotype for bullets and if they don't work, fix the gun or the mold.

[Char-Gar]

When considering the use of cast bullets in sixguns and the proper alloy, the critical firearm dimension is not the barrel groove diameter, but the diamter of the cylinder throat. Providing of course that the bullets in not smaller than the barrel groove diamter.

A bullet that is smaller than the cylinder throat and to hard to obdurate and form a gas seal will start to get gas cut IN the cylinder throat and continue into the first inch or two of the barrel regardless of being as large or larger than barrel groove and leading will occur.

I had been shooting Lintotype bullets in my .357 and 44 mag with zero leading when I experienced the bad leading with 38 Special target loads and linotype bullets. That is what threw me for a loop. We are talking about 1965 or so here. I had fired about ten thousand rounds of much softer home cast wadcutters through the same sixgun with no leading at all.

Lintotype bullets work just fine in sixguns IF your pressure is above 22K fps or so. They will obdurate at that pressure and certainly will at full snort magnum pressure.

Drop pressure to below 20 - 22 K and the same linotype bullet in the same sixgun will start to lead and there is not enough pressure to obdurate the bullet in the throat and for a good seal. That was what was happening in my target load. I was shooting .357 linotype wadcutters at 700 fps through .3585 cylinder throats and that thou and a half undersize was enough to get gas cutting and leading at that pressure with linotype bullets.

Now you can shoot linotype bullets in sixguns at lower than 22K providing they are larger than the cylinder throats to start with. If they are larger there is no need to obdurate to form a seal. The seal is already there.

No.. it won't raise pressures, but that is another thread.

The autopistol operates by different rules. I have shot lots and lots of linotype bullets in the 45 ACP with no leading. The autopistol has no long throat (cylinder) that requires sealing to prevent gas blow by. The bullet is introduce directly into the rifling and as long as the bullets is at least barrel groove diamter, all the world is rosie.

The rifle, the sixgun and the autopistol each have their own rules and can't be lumped into one bundle. What works in one won't necessarily work in the other.

Now to the fellow who shoots lino type bullets through his sixgun in very stiff loads with no leading , I would say... drop the velocity to below 1,000 fps with the same sixgun and bullets, check the barrel, come back and then let's talk some more.

Now if somebody is shooting Lintotype at below 1000 fps in sixgun and not getting leading, you need to check your alloy, it may have started life as Linotype, been sold or given you as linotype, but has been cooked to many times and now is something else. Repeat with foundry fresh Linotype and you will see the difference.

I have fired hundreds of thousands of cast bullets through handguns of all kinds and no evel of leading is not acceptable to me. I would have to go back and do some serious addition but the number of rounds is probalby around a half million.

In sixgun loads up to 1.1K fps, I use air cool wheel weight metal.

In sixgun loads above 1.1k fps, I use good ol Lyman No. 2. This alloy will take any kinds of pressure and velocity you can muster in a sixgun.

I don't use straight Linotype in sixguns as it it so precious and I want to husband my stash for critical rifle applications.

[454PB]

A little side bar here.....

I hadn't heard the story about George Nonte dying in a reloading room fire, so I did a Google search. What I found is that he was involved (in innocent ways) in some of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Kennedy assassination. I was surprised to read any of this, but then....it is the internet.

[w30wcf]

R. Dupraz,

In answer to your question
if the bullet fits the grooves, why does the bullet need to bump-up anywhere other than out the muzzle?

The bullet needs to put pressure against the side of the barrel to seal against gas cutting. A bullet too hard to do that even it is over the groove diameter will gas cut as in the example Chargar gave.

w30wcf

[R. Dupraz]

Charger:

You have basically restated my post except for a couple of points. If you read my previous post, you apparently missed the part about the revolver chamber throats. Surprisingly enough a pressure gun is conspicuously absent in my loading-gun room so I can't speak to that. Suppose I could look in some books and find info on that.

However, I can say that low pressure linotype bullets will work and shoot fine in a revolver. One example comes to mind. I once had a Mod. 57 S&W .41 mag. Both full power Keith style semi-wadcutters and full solid wadcutters at low velocity were used. Both bullets shot good groups with no leading when cast from linotype. Still have the molds. Of course without a lab analysis, can't say wheather they were "foundry type" or not . But the metal came from a newspaper and I guess that's good enough for me. However this is only one example without having fired nearly the number or rounds that you have.

So, in keeping with the original poster's question regarding the suitability of using type metal for cast bullets, the simple fact is in my experience, it works fine. Providing that a proper lube is used and the bullet is throat, groove size or larger. No orbturation required.

[Char-Gar]

Mr Dupraz... I did read your post and mine was not a response to it.

I have stated my experience and understanding, and you have stated your experience and understanding, so let's let the shooters come to their own conclusions through their own experiences. They can then interpret their experience any way they want.

Best wishes and good shooting.

[Ricochet]

Ric... I think we both were reacting to words rather than trying to understand the content. I know it was the word "unsupported" that got my goat.
Yeah. It was "gone to seed" that got mine. :lol:

[leftiye]

So, which one of you is unable to walk unsupported, and which one has gone to seed? I've got both of them problems.

[Ricochet]

I think I most resemble "gone to seed." :lol:

I could use a little support here and there.

[floodgate]

454PB:

I hadn't heard that about Nonte - who was one of my favorite writers back then. But I do recall that J. Bushnell Smith perished in a fire in his reloading room, back in the '40
's, I think. He was one of the great experimenters of that period.

floodgate

[454PB]

Yes, Nonte was always one of my favorites, that's why I'd like to know how he died. I still have a bunch of his old articles stored.

[Nickle]

454PB:

I hadn't heard that about Nonte - who was one of my favorite writers back then. But I do recall that J. Bushnell Smith perished in a fire in his reloading room, back in the '40
's, I think. He was one of the great experimenters of that period.

floodgate

He (Smith) was from the next town over from me.