I finally have a question...

[Rooster]

...after lurking for soooo long.

I read a thread on scrounging lead (one of my favorites BTW) and the individual wondered about the purity of the alloy. Lead, Tin, and Antimony, in percentages I would assume. There was mention of a scratch testing, hardness gauges, and other Voodoo. Is this just an inexpensive way to guess at things? That in itself is reason enough for me but there must be some way of finding out just how pure a mix is. What does that cost anyways? How about a group buy for analysis? (j/k)

I guess I'm just a little confused as to all the guesswork involved with it. I would like to know the composition of my ingots, that would be great. A simple cross linked data base of the different %'s of each of the smeltings and some formulae for percentages of each component therein-OOH and a note area to put in the hardness data from the gauge at that percentage of component mix, er...but I digress.

I'll do a search and see what I can find. Just smack me lightly if I start to OCD.

[piwo]

Peace be the journey... casting is it's own reward.. When you get beautiful boolits drop from the mould... all the confusion is irrelevant. Yes there is much science and much you don’t comprehend quite yet.. But casting a perfect boolit brings a smile to your face no matter the science or the cost… and is that really all bad: an inexpensive smile?? What if you got that same smile 100 times in an hour or so... :drinks:

Actually, my background is in details and this stuff just kicks my &%^$*&. But what I said above in jest is not untrue.8-)

[leftiye]

Yo, bro Rooster, The only sure ways to know the actual composition of an alloy is to make it from known metals, or have a lab analize it. All of the metals available, except manufactured alloys sold by sporting goods suppliers (terracorp alloys for instance), are impure, or depleted, or just not made to a standard (wheelweights) and are only approximate as to composition. And gob only knows what the last guy did to it! We're all po folks, and can't afford a lab to analize our mixes. Guessing, however, costs nada, nuthin, zip. So we guess, experiment, and go our way. It all works anyway if you load it right. Sorry if I toned this in a flippant manner, it's true anyway. Good first question, and welcome to the board!

[Johnch]

A few weeks ago I bribed a local scrap yard to test some of my bulk mystery alloy with a case of beer

He gave me a print out of exactly what was in each bullet shaped ingot
But I normaly just fake it
If a alloy is X hard and produces a bullet in the right weight
I use it or ajust with added WW , pure lead or lino

While there I had him test some of Lino ingots they had , I ended up buying / trading for all they had

I gave them 268 lb of scrap range brass and $60 for 1400+ lb of lino and about 150 lb of WW

Johnch

[Bass Ackward]

[QUOTE=Rooster;183252I guess I'm just a little confused as to all the guesswork involved with it. I would like to know the composition of my ingots, that would be great. A simple cross linked data base of the different %'s of each of the smeltings and some formulae for percentages of each component therein-OOH and a note area to put in the hardness data from the gauge at that percentage of component mix, er...but I digress.[/QUOTE]


Rooster,

Well .... it all depends on just how important to you it is to know exactly whats in there.

There are a lot of methods from scratching to ring testing to melt temperature. And as you are around it long enough, you get so you think you can guess. And in the end, that's what it is. I even go so far as to smelt at least 5 batches at a time of anything. Then when I add metal I take a bar from each pile to average in for a larger, consistent quantity to use before I have to change loads.

My end goal anymore is consistency of hardness. 6 or below on my tester is considered for lack of a better word, "pure" no matter whats in it in what percentages. 6 BHN shoots like 6 BHN. Then the next test is how it casts. If it passes those two, up the pipe she goes with the proper smack behind it. The tester saves time and money in components that are ever increasing and cleaning stuff if you over pushed.

Hardness is .... everything .... to me these days. 20-1 @ 8 BHN is pretty much the same as 50/50 WW and pure @ 8 BHN. 8 BHN is 8 BHN as far as pressure goes, but each has an advantage. 20-1 is easier to brush out if you lead and you can shoot it right out of the mold. 50/50 WW / pure will HT harden. But you can tell visually what you are working with there unless you add a little tin for castability to the 50/50. Then freshly molded, it can be more difficult if you were to lazy to label up front. (Guilty)

Tin depleted lino will measure @ 18 - 20. A few years back, a lot of guys found out, WW with 1% tin added to give it some color, poured into lino molds and water dropped, and aged for one year, rang and measured @18 - 20 BHN. It looks and measures just like depleted lino. Problem was that guys paid lino prices for what has normally been free around these parts. And the harder it was, the more they paid assuming tin content was higher.

So you can never be sure what you have from a value standpoint. From a working point of view or a safety standpoint, a hardness tester is invaluable if you HT.

HTing WW can easily produce 35 BHN. Working up a safe max load in the spring (cool) with freshly HTed, 35 BHN bullets only to reload and try it again in August (hot) when they have softened to 24 BHN "could" be a problem. And a scratch test ain't goinna cut it there. Plus, different batches will soften at different rates. With PB becoming more pronounced with GC prices, a tester is even more valuable unless you want to keep velocity down, but I like options.

I have seen 6 month old WW at 20 BHN. One reason why I oven HT just before I need it (more PB work these days) and all my high pressure, cast stuff is done in bolt actions ONLY cause accidents can happen. If you have one gun, in one caliber, it can be very easy to keep straight. But as you feel the urge to branch out, you can't be 100% sure and thus safe.

If you don't shoot where HTed bullets are necessary, then you don't really NEED a tester. Just trial and error work fine. In fact, trial and error works as long as you start low and come up. Just study the costs and you will find out how fast a tester would pay for itself in your case. For me, it was in about three years calculated in components costs at that time, 6 months for Quickload.

Between Quickload and a hardness tester, I seldom need more than two to three loads to get an accurate one if someone hands me a free can of powder. And Quickload maintains the records so I don't forget.

[Iceman]

:Fire: Be very carefull cleaning scrap lead, especially wheelweights, as there are many different contaminants included. The makers of WW don't care about castability or wear on a pistol/rifles bore. Make sure it is CLEAN before you make any boolits from it. Flux often. You will be surprised how much dirt and grit will come up to the surface, every time it is fluxed. Old lead pipe is an excellent source of soft lead if it can be found. My Browning BPCR, Winchester 1886, MacMillan Sharps, and many other old rifles never saw ANY WW go down their bores. My raceguns and revolvers (41) never saw any WW either. I was a commercial caster and only used alloy from a reputable smelter, thereby guaranteeing quality and repeatability from batch to batch. There is also the question of time; I really enjoy casting, especially large rifle bullets, it is such a soul satisfying pastime for me it never gets boring. However, the time spent gathering, cleaning, smelting and experimenting with scrap is time wasted, to me. Time that I could be at the range enjoying my labours, especially in competition. But, to each his own.
In my humble opinion.

Bryan the Iceman

POW's, MIA's, you are not forgotten

[felix]

Iceman, you are doing it the most correct way for production of very fine boolits. On the other end of the spectrum is where I personally get my kicks. Like "what do I have now?". "Let's go shoot and find out" is my attitude of late, say last 10 years or so. Barrel wear? Time is far too short for me to worry about that. Besides, it is fun to measure the growth of the throat relative to various leads/loads, powders, case sizes, etc. Shooting competitive style is for guys and gals with plenty of energy and financing remaining. ... felix

[montana_charlie]

I would like to know the composition of my ingots, that would be great.
If you are not buying certified metals, you can get a good start on knowing what you have by being selective when scrounging.
If you (for example) only buy X-ray lab shielding, you can figure your basic metal is pretty close to pure lead. Then add tin in the amount you need.

If you require antimony, then wheelweights are the most available source. While they are not all identical, overall they will yeild a fairly standard alloy which you can use straight, or add to other carefully salvaged metals.

A simple cross linked data base of the different %'s of each of the smeltings and some formulae for percentages of each component therein-OOH and a note area to put in the hardness data from the gauge at that percentage of component mix, er...but I digress.
This page has much of what you desire... http://www.lasc.us/CastBulletNotes.htm
CM

[cbrick]

Make sure it is CLEAN before you make any boolits from it. Flux often. You will be surprised how much dirt and grit will come up to the surface, every time it is fluxed. My Browning BPCR, Winchester 1886, MacMillan Sharps, and many other old rifles never saw ANY WW go down their bores. My raceguns and revolvers (41) never saw any WW either. In my humble opinion. Bryan the Iceman

POW's, MIA's, you are not forgotten

hhmmm . . . another "old wives tale" spread??

Between many long range handgun barrels & many, many thousands of rounds over many years that have seen NOTHING but wheel weight alloy the bores are in far better condition than one would believe. One FA 357 in particular has 8-10,000 WW rounds through it and the bore looks nearly new. The forcing cone is starting to show some wear but the revolver is still a 40x40 shooter. An XP-100 in 7mm BR that has seen nothing but WW and Winchester 748 finaly had enough throat erosion to start seating the bullets out a little further, rifling is pristine.

Fluxing is important. I flux well when I melt down wheel weights into ingots. When using the ingots to cast I get very little to no dirt, I flux to return dross to the alloy.

The following is a quote from Dennis Marshal, NRA technical staff in the NRA cast bullet book.

Metallurgically or otherwise, there is no justifiable disadvantage to using wheel weights for cast bullets.

Rick

[Bass Ackward]

hhmmm . . . another "old wives tale" spread??

The following is a quote from Dennis Marshal, NRA technical staff in the NRA cast bullet book.

Metallurgically or otherwise, there is no justifiable disadvantage to using wheel weights for cast bullets.

Rick


Rick,

Just because a person doesn't observe a thing, doesn't mean it doesn't occur.

Antimony is a harder metal and more abrasive than lead. So increasing the antimony content has to be increasing the polishing factor of lead.

Want another one to chue on that I can attest to? ACWW creates more throat wear than WDWW.

[dubber123]

Bass, I'd like to hear your thoughts on why the water dropped bullets wear less. Is it only noticeable in rifles? I have put close to 20,000 .45 acp's out of a 1911 in tha last few years, and all were air cooled. The bore actually looks better than new to me. I am just getting into 30 cal. rifle casting, so I'd like to know. Thanks.

[cbrick]

Rick, Just because a person doesn't observe a thing, doesn't mean it doesn't occur.

Well, how many additional thousands of rounds fired would it take to disprove this old wives tale then?


Antimony is a harder metal and more abrasive than lead. So increasing the antimony content has to be increasing the polishing factor of lead.

Well, how many additional thousands of rounds fired would it take to disprove this old wives tale then? How many rounds fired without appreciable rifling wear before any minute, if any at all, wear by antimony simply wouldn't matter? What you are saying is one of those things that sounds perfectly, completely, totally logical but just doesn't pan out in the real world.

Wheel weight alloy is an excellent bullet alloy. The more people that think otherwise is a good thing, that many more wheel weights for me :-D.


Want another one to chue on that I can attest to? ACWW creates more throat wear than WDWW.

Too soft an alloy with higher velocity rounds does increase forcing cone wear in revolvers. My own testing concurs with Freedom Arms on this. Accepting this as true it would follow that rifle or single shot throats would be similair. Even so, most throat wear in a closed action is from the powder burning, in particular higher charges of ball powder, not from bullet wear whether cast antimony bullets or those funny looking brown things.

My nickels worth :-D.

Rick

[TAWILDCATT]

Rooster:Handloader has 3 books {bullet making annual +annual2+special]
annual 2 has complete directions for what you want.actually these books should be in every casters library.

[Rooster]

Wow, thanks everyone. I wasn't expecting such quick, comprehensive responses (and so many too). This board is truly amazing! Thanks Charlie for that link, I'm book marking it as soon as I get done with this thank you letter.

How much do labs charge anyhoo? Wouldn't you just need to know Sb/Sn as the rest is probably Pb? I'm pretty much in the best guessing game camp and that really hasn't dampened the enthusiasm of it all, and it is less expensive to boot.

I'll look into getting the books 'Catt thank you for putting me on the path.

On the barrel erosion, I thought that the cast boolits would not wear the barrel out. Is this an incorrect assumption? Is it because of abrasive inclusions in the melt like sand or does the alloy wear the steel? One question leads to many it seems, once again.

[carpetman]

Rooster---My old Lyman 44th edition had a blurb about barrel wear using cast bullets and it was part of my decision to take up casting. It described a test where two identical barrels in 30-06 were fired round per round---one using cast and the other jacketed. When the jacketed barrel was worn out the cast barrel showed no measurable wear. It also asked the question how many .22 rimfires have you seen shot out and cast bullet is what they use? Velocity wears barrels---cast usually shot at slower velocity. Pressure is reduced with cast. Your question about exact composistion to me is like try to make this rocket science. Do you worry about the composistion of jacketed bullets and BHN and whatever else? Probably not. Get you some wheelweights and do some shooting.

[Bass Ackward]

Wheel weight alloy is an excellent bullet alloy. The more people that think otherwise is a good thing, that many more wheel weights for me :-D.



Too soft an alloy with higher velocity rounds does increase forcing cone wear in revolvers. My own testing concurs with Freedom Arms on this. Accepting this as true it would follow that rifle or single shot throats would be similar. Even so, most throat wear in a closed action is from the powder burning, in particular higher charges of ball powder, not from bullet wear whether cast antimony bullets or those funny looking brown things.

My nickels worth :-D.

Rick


Rick,

You are spot on. handguns don't get more wear because pressures are lower.

The powder is what roughs up the bore and the lead polishes it away. The more obturation you have or the farther out into the bore your powder burns the more wear you get. I have quit shooting lead in my 223 as 200 rounds had me setting the barrel back and re-chambering. My Whelen's throat has moved more than .125 on 800 rounds but remains as is. Case design has a big effect too. Straight sided cases with sharper shoulders that encourage the powder to burn in the case and longer necks cool the burn.

The more obturation a bullet exhibits the wider the polishing effect. The better quality lubes you shoot and the more GCs you shoot, the harder the bullets for the pressure you are running, better off you are.

dubber,

Did that take care of it?

[MakeMineA10mm]

The two guys above are providing some GOOOOOOD information that takes most years to learn/realize/experience, if ever. Of course, it is a little on the technical side, and there's a lot more "in-between the lines" that fills out the causes.

To simplify it somewhat, I'll just add that if you shoot mostly revolvers or semi-auto pistols (in other words, not hand-rifles, like Contenders or XP-100s) using traditional handgun cartridges, you'll find the wear and tear issue on your handguns with virtually ANY lead-alloy cast bullet to be next to nil compared to what jacketed bullets would do under the same circumstances.

As far as your original question, I would say, after 30 years of casting, that it's only very recently that I've decided that there is no sense in fretting about what exact alloy you've got. 90+% of my cast bullets are shot out of handguns, and as long as I stick to 12-14 bhn or lower along with velocities of 1300fps or lower, all is good. Doesn't matter what the alloy really is, or what powder I'm using, etc. Individual load's vagaries of accuracy almost always have to do with seating, sizing diameter, and variation of powder charge, and never the alloy or the particular powder being used. YMMV.

[cbrick]

Straight sided cases with sharper shoulders that encourage the powder to burn in the case and longer necks cool the burn.

Bass, with this I couldn't agree more. Small capacity cases such as the 6mm BR, 22 BR etc are severe throat burners and considerably more so with max loads of ball powders.

Where we disagree is on the effect of antimony in bullet alloys. Before I smartened up and stopped using lino on steel targets I shot many, many thousands of lino bullets with no appreciable rifling wear and lino has 12% antimony, wheel weight has 3-4%.

If there is any additional wear on the rifling because of antimony in the alloy it is so minor as to be completely insignificant. Thus my opinion that this is one of those "old wives tales" that sounds totally logical but just ain't so.

Rick

[Bass Ackward]

I can tell you this. If I polish a forcing cone with 600 grit it will leave little swirl patterns in the cone. I can shoot 50 rounds of 20-1 that has no antimony and I will still see the swirls in the metal as if I just dione the work.

If I fire 6 shots of the same load with ACWW and LLA, the swirls are totally gone and the cone (where the bullets touched of coarse) have the same smooth look as the glistening bore that was not touched.

[Molly]

... I would like to know the composition of my ingots, that would be great. A simple cross linked data base of the different %'s of each of the smeltings and some formulae for percentages of each component therein...

As others have pointed out, the big problem is not calculating the results of blending your alloys, it's being sure of what you have to blend in the first place. Alloys change with thermal history and degree of oxidation. Linotype operators customarily sent a small ingot to their supplier and got back a make-up alloy to restore the porper compositions. You might be able to work a deal like that if you find a cooperative smelter or printshop supplier.

Meanwhile, the Cast Bullet Association is offering a spreadsheet that will do a lot of the calculations for you. I'll try to attach a copy here. Wish me luck!

Nope. Wouldn't let me do it. Unacceptable file type, it said. You'll have to go the the CBA web site and download "KEN MOLLOHAN'S ALLOY BLENDING SPREADSHEET.xls"

[Rooster]

I'm not trying to make it Rocket Surgery, Honest! I just figured that if you knew what you had to begin with you could tune to a known benchmark and get more consistency. The vibe that I seem to be getting is try to maintain a reasonable BHN range and not worry about the exact composition, as that is hard to ascertain and the hardness is an easily measured quantity. Furthermore WW are close to ideal in their basic form and any analysis to find out their percent levels of base metals would just be adding unnessecary expense to the finished product.

Carpetman=I have read articles about barrel life compared to jacketed rounds but I can't ever recall having read one about barrel life on just cast boolits with low velocity(s).

Molly-Now that's what I'm talkin' bout! Off to see the spreadsheet now. Thanks!

You guys are the greatest, even if you don't all agree, I mean on every topic. Hmmm, that just didn't come out right did it? Sheesh, I better stop while I'm ahead. Goodnight all.

[Molly]

I have read articles about barrel life compared to jacketed rounds but I can't ever recall having read one about barrel life on just cast boolits with low velocity(s).

Do you think that could be because - to the very best of my knowledge - nobody has ever succeeded in wearing one out under those conditions. There are Scheutzen match rifles with soft steel barrels that have worn out several generations of marksmen, and are still shooting as well, or even better than ever.

[carpetman]

Rooster---The same manual(Lyman Manual)gave specific directions for making Lyman #2 with the bulk of the ingredient being wheelweights. To these wheelweights you add so much bar solder and so much pure lead and you come up with an EXACT. How could that be? You are taking an unknown(wheelweight) and adding to it and have an exact. When I first read that,in my mind I figured wheelweights were made from whatever they had that would melt. I have since heard that wheelweights are indeed more exact than that---but I still think if they come across something that melts it becomes a wheelweight. If it's a precision item,I missed that. So with that in mind I figured I'd make bullets with whatever melts and if it leads or causes other problems I'd adjust. It shot fine,so why I adjust? BHN testing,it might be easy? Once I have tested the BHN on exactly 12 more bullets,I'll be up to an even dozen I have tested. You mention not having read about barrel wear with cast bullets. I think Mollys answer was correct. I think Lymans question on how many .22 rimfire barrels have you seen that were shot out pretty much tells it all. Now Wills might be able to post a link that compares shooting out a barrel with cast bullets to wearing out a railroad track with a rubber mallet.