Confused Newbee-Theories on Pressure vs. Hardness

[milrifle]

Newbee here and fairly new to casting (less than a year). I've been reading up on hardness and I'm finding contradictory information. On the LASC site, they have a chart of Maximum Chamber Pressures for various alloys and goes something like this:

Pure Lead - 13,000 psi
Wheel Weights - 25,000 psi
Lyman #2 - 35,000 psi
Water Quenched Wheel Weights - 48,000 psi
Oven Treated Wheel Weights - 55,000 psi

They also show a formula for calculating Minimum Chamber Pressure to obtain obturation. It is 1422 x BHN. So for a bullet with a Brinnell hardness of 12, the minimum chamber pressure needs to be 17,064 psi.

Then I read Richard Lee's "Modern Reloading" (And also the instructions for the Lee Hardness Tester) and see that the MAXIMUM chamber pressure for a bullet with a BHN of 12.1 is 15,536. That is well BELOW what the LASC site says is MINIMUM! Not to mention what LASC gives as max......

Obviously there is either an error or two different theories on this subject. I'd appreciate your input and discussion on this.

I read here that many are successful firing wheel weight bullets and even 50/50wheel weight/pure lead bullets in rifles up to 2000 fps, which could easily exceed 20,000 psi, which kinda blows Lee's theory. But again, I experienced some bullets flying so wildly off target, I have no other explaination than I exceed the pressure that my bullet could take. Of course, I don't know the pressure, but I'm guessing somewhere in the 20,000 psi range. This was air cooled wheel weights. Some lighter loads had been grouping 2-3" at 100 yds, then all of a sudden I was all over the board (but not on the paper) when I started shooting these.

So, you can see why I may be confused. I'm not so much looking for advice on alloys or loading, but curious about the theories of pressure vs. hardness and such. For instance, if your bullet is already .002 over groove diameter, isn't obturation a moot point?

[John Boy]

They also show a formula for calculating Minimum Chamber Pressure to obtain obturation. It is 1422 x BHN. So for a bullet with a Brinnell hardness of 12, the minimum chamber pressure needs to be 17,064 psi.

milrifle - the 1422 x Bhn IS the standard formula for MAXIMUM hardness to pressures.


It is 1422 x BHN. So for a bullet with a Brinnell hardness of 12, the minimum chamber pressure needs to be 17,064 psi. Note the word you used ... MINIMUM

[btroj]

I don't use the formula. I don't measure alloy hardness and I don't measure pressure.

I think this is more a general guideline than anything. It might tell you what might work butit isn't a guarantee.

I prefer to shoot more, measure less. Tis gives real world experience that guides me in deciding what will work. School of hard knocks has treated me well so far.

[lwknight]

So, you can see why I may be confused. I'm not so much looking for advice on alloys or loading, but curious about the theories of pressure vs. hardness and such. For instance, if your bullet is already .002 over groove diameter, isn't obturation a moot point?

I would submit for your consideration the possibility that higher pressures mean a faster launch. This would in turn spin the bullet up quicker than an alloy that is too soft can hold the rifling will skid the rifling.

[PuppetZ]

When I started, I too read the Lee book and took note of their little chart for chamber pressure vs BHN. Short answer is dont bother. I have ne mean to measure chamber pressure directly, can only guesstimate, but I can assure you I went waaaaayyyy over the recommended max with no problem. At some point, I wanted to see at what point I would run into trouble so I loaded some incrementaly powerfull loads for my 30-06. Loaded some C309-180-R over, up to 43Gn of H4895. According to lee for my 16-18 BHN boolit, I should not load anything over 20k -24k PSI. These were diffinitely NOT 25k PSI loads. They worked fine. SO I threw the chart out the window and got on with my life. For all I care, this chart was hardly worth the paper it was printed on.

2 most important point in shooting cast in rifle are, IMHO, fit(.001-.002 over groove) and lube, not too hard so it got good flow property and can fill the nooks and cranny if needed. (mine is made out of equal part beeswax/petroleum gelly, with half a bottle of engine treatment(the stuff looked almost like honey, had the same consistency) and a dash of dexron 3 ATM fluid to adjust consistency, although you could use some other kind of clear oil. ATM fluid is quite stinky if you ask me.)

Hope that helped

[Tar Heel]

I prefer to shoot more, measure less.

Hear Hear! Suggest you not go for the PhD until ya complete grade school. Get to the basics (Elmer Keith) of alloys. Start casting and experimenting. You will be amazed at what works for you yet is poo-poo'd by the "experts." Read the older material available in the library and pubs made in the 70's and 80's when casting took off again. It's basic stuff but you will find the basics work well. Formula is for engineers and metallurgists and I would not waste too much time on specific alloy formulations if you don't understand fluxing basics. See what I mean?

Good alloys are Wheel Weights, Lyman #2, and heat treated versions of the previous two.

Have fun....cast a lot.

[milrifle]

John Boy,

I'm just repeating what I saw on the LASC site. They are the ones who said MINIMUM. Here is a link to the info I was referencing. It's about 1/3 way down on the right.

http://www.lasc.us/castbulletnotes.htm

[runfiverun]

take the 1422 and times it by the rpm theory and you come out at exactly the same number.
funny huh.

fit the boolit to the throat of the gun.
keep the launch under control.
use a good nuff lube.
the alloy hardness is there to combat skidding the lands.

there's your math equasion that works.

[Sonnypie]

It amazes me how many game animals I put on the table before all this BS became so well known....

[waksupi]

From your description in the first post, I would say your boolits are marginally sized, and should probably be .001 larger in diameter. As the barrel is heating up, the boolits are fitting looser, so there goes your accuracy.
Second problem could be that the design itself is not good for your firearm, not having a long enough bearing surface.
Worry about the basics first.

[MT Chambers]

There are so many variables that a chart like that is pretty much useless ie: barrel dia. vs bullet dia., barrel smoothness, gas check vs no gas check, seating depth, etc.

[milrifle]

Runfiverun - Please elaborate on the rpm theory.

Waksupi - barrel heat...hmmm...The hotter "bad" bullets were indeed fired after 50 to 75 rounds of other ammo on a hot afternoon. Barrel was pretty warm by that point. That may very well be part of the problem.

Tarheel - I AM an engineer :). Sorry, it's just in my blood to need to know the "why's".

All - I really appreciate your input. Keep 'em coming.

[MBTcustom]

Seems to me that your priorities are a little bass-ackard.
Hardness matters very little compared to fit of the boolit, and by fit, I mean .001-.002 over your slugged groove diameter.
You can indeed push WW alloy to 2000+ FPS and get good results. That is the true beauty of a gas check.
Observe this picture, it speaks volumes about the real use of a gas check:
http://i1120.photobucket.com/albums/l481/goodsteel/IMG_0959-1.jpg
Notice how the lead skidded, but the gas check just spun on the base while maintaining a perfect seal?
Observe also, how the gas check caught the stripping lead from the boolit and it is piled up under the edge? These were pretty accurate loads too, fired at 2150FPS if memory serves.
Boolit fit is king, lube is queen, hardness is your jack and boolit geometry is your ace in the hole.

[runfiverun]

milrifle:
i am NOT opening that can of worms again.
it's going on again on another thread at another websight.
but you can search the thread through larry gibsons posts [or threads he has started]
don't say i didn't warn you,, if you go look.

[btroj]

Run, you didn't open that can of worms but you DID pull it off the shelf and show it around!

I still say that experience, first hand experience, is far better Han any math formulas to find out what works.

Shoot a few hundred pounds of lead bullets and you quickly learn what happens when things go bad.

[Texantothecore]

The .001 to .002 over slugged rifling size is the absolute king of the formulas. If you get that right hardness doesn't matter too much. Most bullet casters do not know what their bhn is or how it changes from batch to batch.

[Char-Gar]

None of these charts and mumbers are the results of comprehensive lab testing and data. They are all SWAG (subjective will a## guess) opinions. Any wonder they will not agree?

Solution is to ignore then all......

[Char-Gar]

The .001 to .002 over slugged rifling size is the absolute king of the formulas. If you get that right hardness doesn't matter too much. Most bullet casters do not know what their bhn is or how it changes from batch to batch.

Nope..not right!

1. Size of rifle chamber throat trumps groove diameter.
2. Hardness does matter a bunch.
3. Casters can know enough about the Bhn of their alloy to make it a useful tool.
4. Casters can know how to change the Bhn of their alloy from batch to batch.

[9.3X62AL]

If someone wants to re-start the RPM Theory, I'll start the popcorn.

[milrifle]

Goodsteel,

You say I can get into the 2000 fps neighborhood with a gas checked bullet that is .001-.002 over groove diameter. Is this air cooled or water quenched or heat treated or....?

Thanks,

milrifle

[canyon-ghost]

Okay, milrifle, one more little thing about lead: it does make a difference what diameter bullet we're talking about. A 22 Hornet will usuallly fire a wheelweight bullet way over 1800 fps, maybe not with the best accuracy but it will. Whereas, a larger caliber might deform the bullet quicker. This would also be effected by the barrel length and type of powder.

There is no penalty for leading a barrel and having to scrub on it for a week. It's not something you want to do but, not the end of the world or the barrel.

Rifle bullets usually need to be water quenched unless they're fired in the subsonic or near velocity. Be careful with it, you want the water bucket a couple steps away from a pot of 800 degree lead and a towel to wipe the bottom of the mold so a drop doesn't hit the lead.

[runfiverun]

try water dropping ww alloy with some tin in it.
some meaning about 0.5-1.0%
then shoot them,there's your baseline load.
now make a change at a time.
don't water drop.
another lube.
more/less powder.
stop when you are happy with the velocity/accuracy.

[MBTcustom]

You say I can get into the 2000 fps neighborhood with a gas checked bullet that is .001-.002 over groove diameter. Is this air cooled or water quenched or heat treated or....?

That's just dropping them on a wet rag.
Now I will say that hardening up the alloy makes it a little easier to find the sweet spot, but for the most part, sub 2000FPS is as easy as falling off a log with an annealed copper gas check. I mean, since I learned what really causes leading, I decided that I want to spend my time finding the softest boolit that I can run in my rifle without leading, rather than the hardest. I find that while hardness is a useful tool (like Char-Gar says) it is way over used, and kind of counterproductive to a hunting load. I was always taught that if you got leading in your barrel, then the boolits weren't hard enough. Well that just isn't true. In fact, you can get a lot more milage out of tweeking the size, lube, shape, and speed of the boolit than you can with hardness alone.
The difference between linotype and WW alloy is very negligible as far as the blazing hot gasses that cut around an undersized boolit is concerned. If you are shooting an undersized boolit (groove diameter) and are getting leading, then harder alloy is not going to help you much. Unless of course, the problem was that the necks of your brass were sizing down your boolit too small. In which case, the harder boolit will not be smooshed so easily, and you will be happy knowing that a harder boolit solved all your problems.
I'm not saying that hardness is a useless variable. All I'm saying is that it should be the icing on the cake and tailored to the purpose it is intended for.
A skilled booliteer can run pure lead in his guns if he tips his hat that way, and there's a lot more bragging rights for that feller than somebody who uses boolit hardness as a crutch to avoid learning a few simple particulars of the sport.
(I also want to mention that none of what I just wrote was intended as an attack on Char-Gar or anyone else. Just giving the 'ol soap box a little love.)

[canyon-ghost]

I'm not saying that hardness is a useless variable. All I'm saying is that it should be the icing on the cake and tailored to the purpose it is intended for.
A skilled booliteer can run pure lead in his guns if he tips his hat that way, and there's a lot more bragging rights for that feller than somebody who uses boolit hardness as a crutch to avoid learning a few simple particulars of the sport.


That's a pretty good way of stating it, bravo!

[Tar Heel]

Tarheel - I AM an engineer :). Sorry, it's just in my blood to need to know the "why's".

Figured as much. Takes one to know one and hence this reply.

The "science" quoted in forums like this and in the shooting circles at large, is not really science. It is basic mathematical "proof" that A requires B for C to occur. While A and B are factual, C may be a tried and true condition or a theoretical condition.

Regardless of the mathematics, alloy composition, casting temperatures, alloy hardness, bore size variance in thousandths of inches, and others, the variance induced by factors which are uncontrollable to us have more impact on shot placement than all the others combined.

I contend that while these discursive pursuits are fun and we all have the chance to use some rather large words like Euclidean Geometry, we are arguing issues to the point of absurdity since basic marksmanship fundamentals will have more impact on accuracy than all of the aforementioned variables.

Ergo....shoot more and ponder less. You may, like me, discover that a lot of "experts" have published malarkey - not science. To provide two examples:

1. Cast bullet gas checks should not protrude below the case neck (into the case unsupported). The bullets that do will be problematic.

After having experimented with this claim, I have shot about one thousand cast bullets with gas-checks in a 375-JDJ. The bullets are all seated with their gas checks below the neck and actually at the base of the shoulder ogive. I can castrate flies with these loads.

2. Plain-based bullets should never be fired in a barrel with magna-porting. They will spew lead, lose 1/3 the bullet weight, deform their bases, get swaged twice...etc...etc

Malarkey. I've got cast 340gr PB bullets moving out of a 14" 411-JDJ with magn-porting at 2000 fps. They do not lead the barrel and they OUT-SHOOT their gas-checked cousins.

I contend that we all have fun and discuss away. I also contend that the assorted and multiple variables that you can't control, will have more of an impact than the ones you can control, and while our accuracy/velocity will be affected by them, it will be less of a combined impact than poor marksmanship or shooting technique.

Goodsteel's comments are pretty right on the spot although I can't really agree with the pure lead comment (based on my shooting). Sounds like he shoots a lot.

Ergo....shoot more and ponder less.

[MBTcustom]

I can't really agree with the pure lead comment (based on my shooting). Sounds like he shoots a lot.
I don't shoot near as much as some. I do ponder a lot. I am, in all things, a seeker of truth, of fact, and indisputable wisdom. Call it my mission in life. I love cast boolits with a passion because it reminds me so much of life and the struggle in it.
Just like life, there are many misconceptions thrown about, based on twisted facts, lazy publishers, and folks who want an easy way through rather than a true way. If they need to dumb down the facts to get an answer that they are comfortable with, then so be it.
Unfortunately, after several generations of this kind of thinking, you find yourself in a wilderness of information, and hardly any of it is true, or totally true.
For life, I use the Holy Bible as a guide to find the way that makes sense of all the facts that I know, and put that information to use to make me an effective person by not wasting energy and time trying to make it so that I don't have to offend anyone or discipline myself.
With casting, I have found that its the same way.....but fun!
Here on cast boolits, the thing I like the most is that many people have gotten together to find truth and fact no matter the cost. Low and behold, there is a right way to do things, there is science and indisputable fact!
After reading the forums every day for a long time, I find that there is a creed that emerges. It always works, and when it is strayed from, problems emerge. Its like clockwork.
Now, that I have bored you with my philosophy, I can tell you that it is possible to shoot pure lead boolits to 2600 FPS with no leading, but there is only one way that I know of to do it. Wrap it in paper, plastic, or copper!

[Defcon-One]

I do not have Lee's book, so I don't know what it said, but since nobody mentioned this, I'll jump in.

Be really careful about stating Pressures without a baseline tag, like PSI or CUP.

You said PSI (Pounds Per Square Inch) for the LASC info. but for Lee info. you gave no tag. Could it be that the LEE numbers are in CUP (Copper Unit of Pressure)? They still use both.

That could be ONE reason why they appear so different to you. Just something to watch for and think about because they ARE NOT interchangeable!


One last note: There are no hard rules in this. As others have said experiment a bit and do what works. The rules are basically to keep you out of trouble until you figure out what works best for you in your guns!

[Tar Heel]

I can tell you that it is possible to shoot pure lead boolits to 2600 FPS with no leading, but there is only one way that I know of to do it. Wrap it in paper, plastic, or copper!

Still chuckling....;)

[milrifle]

Defcon-one,

Lee's figures were in psi as well.

[Bob Krack]

In spite of my respect for Richard Lee's work and writings, the majority of the LASC site articles are shooting scripture to me.

Glenn (Glen E. Fryxell) and CBRick (Rick Kelter) are true bearers of knowledge.

Had I only the three above to ask a single question of casting, I'm afraid it would be - Glenn first, Rick second, and Richard third.

We have here on the Cast Boolits site, an inordinate array of knowledge. Your question probably was directed towards the appropriate group.

Unless Glenn or Rick steps in here, i guess you'll have to follow your gut on who here is giving you the very best answer.

Good luck,

Bob

PS- I personally give much less priority to the hardness aspect of the alloy than to the fit, fit, and fit.

[Char-Gar]

I did not own Lee book, but some fellow on this site thought it was holy writ and send me a copy to enlighten me. I appreciate the gift and though, but afte reading it came away with no sense of sublime knowledge.

I know Glen Fryxell pretty well and in spite of the fact that he is a scientist (organic chemist), he does not delve deeply into science or math. He is a shooter first and always and reports and writes about his experience on the range. He knows as much or more about cast bullets in sixguns as anybody alive, but he will tell you he is still learning as are we all.

When folks cite others as the autority for their opinion, that tells me that don't have the experience to weight and evaluate that opinion. The only things you can know for certain, is that which you proven to yourself by time on the range burning powder and hurling lead.

With the growth of this board to mammoth numbers, the perponderance of the folks are repeating the opinions and experience of others. This is why there is some much contridictory information here.

[DrCaveman]

milrifle

I also have been casting for less than a year, having been self-taught using the Lee manual alone. After sweating over the details of pressure vs hardness based on the formulas in the book, I joined this forum to try to get to the bottom of it. I began a thread much like this one.

The replies I received ran fairly wide in their details, but the one consistent answer was that noone (gun mfgr, lab scientist, well-seasoned caster, gun writer, etc) can tell YOU exactly what will work with YOUR gun and YOUR load.

The other very consistent response was that hardness matters far less than fit. Some focused on groove fit, others focused more on throats. Since I was asking specifically about revolver loads, cylinder fit also came heavily into play.

So I slugged my barrels and a few cylinders, learning that my guns were pretty well within the "typical" range (in my case meaning that my calipers measured .358 +/- .0005 or so) for the two 357's I was loading for. Being that I dont own a micrometer I was still a little afraid that I may run into problems, since I still overestimated the sensitivity of these variables. I went ahead and tried some full-bore plain-based Magnum loads with whatever alloy I was using (which measured about 15 bhn, air cooled wheel weights with a little 50/50 solder thrown in). Shot great, no leading, and I was baffled because I had grossly exceeded the supposed maximum pressure for that hardness.

Since then I have basically ignored the alloy, and focused more on other aspects like proper casting techniques (to ensure uniform boolit diameter and crisp bases), lube adjustment (helping accuracy and bore condition), and load development (finding the harmonics of your barrel). I tried water dropping some rifle and 357 boolits... no noticeable change in accuracy performance. Tried gas checks, and while they shot quite well, I was able to get the same accuracy with plain based (albeit at lower velocities).

The other factor that really surprised me was boolit geometry. I thought that my first (and long time favorite) mould, the Lee TL 358-158 was the cat's meow until I got an ideal 358429, and without changing any other variables (except of course the powder charge) my accuracy went way up. This then led me to refine my loads for the lee boolit and things once again evened out. Back to further refinement of the Keith boolit, and it once again took the top spot.

I ramble on like this so you may realize that while there can be much benefit to pondering and tinkering with aspects of your cartridges, hardness seems in my experience to pretty much be the least effective one to dwell upon.

As others have said here, shoot lots, take notes, and be consistent.

Last comment: ever since I started recycling my boolits (catcher buckets, boxes, range scrap), I have completely lost track of the contents of most of my general use ingots. No ill effects, and things have actually improved tremendously.

[Char-Gar]

Many years ago, I quit sweating the alloys, and now just use two for both rifle and handgun.

1. Air cooled WW (with a smidge of tin) with about 11 Bhn. for plain base handgun bullets up to about 1,300 fps, which is about everything. With a gas check you can go higher.

This alloy also is just fine for rifle loads (gas check) up to about 1.8 fps.

2. Lyman No 2 or something equivalent about 15 Bhn for full snort magnum handgun and rifle loads over 1.8 fps.

That is it for me an alloys. That leave me to concentrate on bullet fit, bullet design, bullet lubricant, power and charge weight.

Some folks tend to make this cast bullet shooting far more complex than necessary.

[Tar Heel]

Many years ago, I quit sweating the alloys, and now just use two for both rifle and handgun.

Some folks tend to make this cast bullet shooting far more complex than necessary.

Bingo.

[milrifle]

Guys,

I hope you all realize how much I appreaciate everyone's advice.

Thank You!

[btroj]

Bingo.

Agree entirely. I know some will disagree but I consider shooting cast a bit of an art. Do it enough and you can just tell what will or won't work. Not always but pretty darn close.
Experience can't be replaced with formulas in this realm.

True knowledge will always come from the casting, loading, and shooting bench.

[MBTcustom]

I would agree with you totally Char-gar, but I am coming from a hunting stand point. Lyman #2 is a very simple, expensive way to get good, quick results from rifle loads, but they are just too hard to make a really effective hunting boolit. Matter of fact, my rifle alloy is 3.5% SB and 2.8% Sn and I still think its too hard to hunt with.
Shooting soft alloys is a major part of the sport for me because I am not a target shooter predominately. I shoot them quite often, but that is not the thrust of my efforts.
Like I said, if I could shoot pure lead at 2600 FPS accurately, I would. Its the holy grail in my mind, but I realize that most folks are not bent my way.
I respect your opinion, but we are coming from two different places.
Its all good.

[popper]

Can't resist to throw the science in here. It's called the poison's ratio. Squeeze a rod length wise and it grows in diameter, once it's elastic limit is exceeded. Some call it obturation, SAAMI calls it bump up. Elastic limit is measured in pound force, psi is pound-force/square in. So obviously the psi changes for caliber, for the same alloy - same force. The time-force curve behind and in front of the CB determine the bump-up and where/when it occurs. It is not just a matter of the 'book' pressure value. Stripping or shearing by the rifling is more complicated but involves the same factors. I suspect the 'formula' was derived empirically, a 'fudge factor' is used to correlate psi, fps, bhn, alloy. So we test and experiment and get our own 'fudge factor' Simple, right? If it were a real equation, we could use it like the ballistic equation and eliminate a lot of testing.

[MBTcustom]

I was trying to explain this to a guy that wanted to shoot a bore diameter boolit in a 30 caliber rifle, made if soft lead. He said it worked good for his 45+ caliber BP rifles, so why not the 30? I told him (not sure if I am right or not) that I didn't think that the smaller diameter boolit would obturate as effectively as the larger diameter boolit given the same alloy because:
A. it doesn't have the inertia that it needs to provide the opposing force.
and B. the %age that the boolit needs to expand to fill the rifling is greater on the 30 than the 45.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on that one popper.

[Char-Gar]

Can't resist to throw the science in here. It's called the poison's ratio. Squeeze a rod length wise and it grows in diameter, once it's elastic limit is exceeded. Some call it obturation, SAAMI calls it bump up. Elastic limit is measured in pound force, psi is pound-force/square in. So obviously the psi changes for caliber, for the same alloy - same force. The time-force curve behind and in front of the CB determine the bump-up and where/when it occurs. It is not just a matter of the 'book' pressure value. Stripping or shearing by the rifling is more complicated but involves the same factors. I suspect the 'formula' was derived empirically, a 'fudge factor' is used to correlate psi, fps, bhn, alloy. So we test and experiment and get our own 'fudge factor' Simple, right? If it were a real equation, we could use it like the ballistic equation and eliminate a lot of testing.

So you are saying, the formulas talked about in the OP are not worth spit to the average bullet caster/reloader. That would be my opinion as well.

[41mag]

milrifle,

While I have been loading my own ammo for the better part of my life, 99% or it has been J-words, loaded for both rifle and handguns. My experience with lead at an early age left me with a VERY sour taste and I felt why bother with that headach when I can simply grab up a box of bullets with a known powder charge and within an hour or so be ready for hunting.

This all said, I was presented with a Raging Bull in 454 from my dear friend as a Christmas present. He had come into some spare change due to some gas well drilling on one of his properties and simply wanted to share. While I was excited about it I also realized that the cost of shooting it was going to be a major factor for me, and was the main reason I didn't already have one. None the less I scoured the web and found a deal here and there on components, and finally started to load my own, as there was no way I was paying $30+ per box of only 20-25 rounds. This was probably around 4-5 years ago. It didn't take me long to run through my 500 260 gr JHP's working up loads and practicing with it. So I decided to give some cast a try. I picked up some Cast Performance 265gr WFNGC's and went right on with loading and shooting. I found they shot VERY well and didn't lead up my barrel one bit. However at $30+ per box plus shipping, it didn't take long to figure out that I could pour my own and save some serious cash.

I read everything I could find on this site and others on loading cast for this particular caliber. I read and studied alloys, and formulas, and lubes and you name it I bookmarked it, printed it or what ever to look over it again and again. What I ended up doing was getting information overload. I had a bucket of WW, and a Lee 4-20 already so I picked out a couple of Lee molds, and after another month or so of asking questions here of members who had posted data I was interested in I finally poured up my first batch.

Not knowing whether to shoot quenched or air cooled I did a hundred of each. Also not knowing what lube would work or not, I made up some Felix lube and did half with it and the other half with Alox. I have to honestly say that the feeling I had when I ran the first 5 rounds through the Bull was not a good one at all. All I could think of was the past experience where I literally had strings of lead hanging out the muzzle after only 4 rounds. It took me over a week of scrubbing to get it out and those were only mild loads in my 41 mag.

The first rounds through the Bull were perfect. I had one small streak of lead in the barrel and after a member here told me to run a patch soaked with Alox through the barrel after a good cleaning to somewhat condition it, I have never had any since. I have run the Lee 300 RFGC up to just over 1700fps using the 45/45/10 version of tumble lube. My alloy has been WW, and the large iso core, and neither of them shed a bit of lead in my bore.

After just over a year of shooting the daylights out of that revolver I have spread out and like the others have said, I concentrate on the fit, and lube. I am now working on softening up my alloys in order to concentrate on the HP's I have been pouring form the MP molds. It has take a bit of trial and error, but I noted what I was adding, and changed only the alloy. So far I think I have gotten a handle on using what alloy I have the most of, which sucks if used straight for HP's, to pour up and utilize it for the best performance from my revolvers. The next step is to try out the MP version 45 270 SAA, with the small HP in the Bull at various velocities to see just how much I can get it up to before things start to go south.

Like you I was very confused about a lot of this until I finally just started to pour bullets and see how they did in my revolvers. Now that I have a decent handle on them, my next move will be into my Contenders and bumping up the velocities into the 1800 - 2200fps range IF I can get it.

I can only say that if you study to much it can be detrimental, and that really only putting the lead down range will bring out the answers your really looking for.

[Tar Heel]

Ditto on the above from 41mag.