Bottom pour pots no good?

[AmishWarlord]

I saw this on another board wile looking for Lee REAL 50-250 info.

"If you're using a 'bottom pour' electric pot....THAT AIN'T WORTH A HOOT 'N HELL for delivering good bullets! If you want to pour decent bullets aka round balls, conicals, etc. use a ladle! Bottom pour pots have a tendency to deliver 'voids' in the process of pouring so coming from one that has cast literally thousands upon thousands of bullets ranging from weights of 500 to 720 grs. and being able to hold +/-5/10 gr."

Any truth to bottom pour pots inherently casting inferior boolits to ladles? Or is this just a case of the novice castor being tempted to cast faster and not giving his castings the attention that slower casting with a ladle would do. Imagine a novice reloader, loading on a Dillion 550 making inferior loads than a novice loading on a single stage press.

[Finster101]

Seems a lot of people on here have no problem with them. I think it is just preference.

[shredder]

I don't buy into the statement that you can't get good boolits from a bottom pour. I can, and I weigh each one. If boolits that weigh within .5 of a grain of each other is reason to say "THAT AIN'T WORTH A HOOT 'N HELL" then show me how much better you can do it. Maybe we can all learn something. Each to their own.

[theperfessor]

I love a bottom pour, but I don't cast anything over 300 grs or so. Some folks have trouble getting a high enough flow rate from some BP pots to fill a 400-500+ gr bullet. Others don't seem to have that problem. Ultimately it's all about getting the metal in the mold and the air out of the mold fast enough that you don't get wrinkles or cold laps. Keeping a mold hotter will help.

[jonas302]

Can't believe everything you see on the Internet I pour the reals with bottom pour pot never seemed to have problem

[Echd]

I pour 500s with my Lee bottom pour and it does fine.

I guess if you had a problem with lead flow you could open up the nozzle a bit but I never had that problem. They CAN get a little plugged with crud though, and that does occasionally need to be cleaned out.

I think like all things it's mainly preference. I don't really like ladling.

[Frozone]

I saw this on another board..........

It was on the internet - It Must be true!

[Le Loup Solitaire]

I have always produced good bullets with my bottom pours for many years and with ladles as well. Some folks still believe that the world is flat and they keep talking about it even though you show them a globe...and/but they keep talking about it. LLS

[BruceB]

The quote in the original post sounds like it might be from a blackpowder shooter. This would imply that his experience lies mostly with pure lead or very soft alloys. Why this should matter, I don't know.... I've cast MANY pure-lead and very soft bullets from my bottom-pour pot without trouble.

As for his "thousands upon thousands"... my total is now well-over 1/2 MILLION bullets of all sorts, ranging from 55 grains to 888 (.50BMG), and all of them are just fine, thank you. Individual moulds or bullet styles may demand different techniques, but given their requirements, all will perform well and throw good bullets. I've never yet used a brass mould, but that's the only type I haven't used.

As for speed, my 2-cavity moulds will give me 400-500 bullets per hour, and four cavities will double that figure..... GOOD bullets.

Sour grapes, maybe....?

[LubeckTech]

I get good bullets from my Lee bottom pour pots and would buy another one then I wear this one out.
Maybe I'm doing some thing wrong!!!

[RCE1]

I like a ladle for big bullets in single cavity moulds. Found I got much better extreme spreads when sorted by weight. For multiple cavities, I like a bottom pour. I have a Waage pot for dipping and an RCBS bottom pour for everything else. If I was casting for competition, I'd most likely go back to dipping and just cast out of a single cavity.

[Boyscout]

I don't know why but my 30 cal Lee moulds like to be filled with a ladle. My 44 Cal moulds like the bottom pour pot. Experiment around. I weigh my rifle and .44 bullets now and I am pleased by the narrow spread in weight using both methods depending on the bullet.

[Kraschenbirn]

Been casting, off & on, for 40+ years and got my first bottom-pour (a Saeco 24) in the mid-1970s. When that pot died, about three years ago, I went to a 20# Lyman that I use for casting everything from 125 gr. 38s to 440 gr. RNFPs for my .45-70s. I admit, that I don't bother weighing my handgun boolits but I do weigh random samples from every run of what I cast for my CF rifles and, honestly, don't believe I'd get any more consistent results going back to pouring from a ladle. I get more weight variance between boolits dropped from different cavities of a multi-cavity mould than I do, boolit-to-boolit, from one of the SC moulds I use for my big-bores.

Bill

[Recluse]

I like a bottom pour, but I also ladle cast more often than I bottom pour--especially for larger boolits and long/skinny boolits. But it also depends on the molds. I ladle cast with the aluminum molds (large boolits/skinny boolits), but can get similarly excellent results bottom-pouring with the steel molds.

Pouring is a technique and a technique is a tool. I always come back to "Use the right tool for the job at hand that gives YOU the best results." What may work best for me might not for you, but at the end of the day, all that matters is the result.

:coffee:

[fishhawk]

I guess it just boils down to the mold will tell you what it prefers. My .562 RB casts better with ladle than bottom pour, to just out and out say a absolute about boolit casting is either operator error or arrogance IMOP

[williamwaco]

I saw this on another board wile looking for Lee REAL 50-250 info.

"If you're using a 'bottom pour' electric pot....THAT AIN'T WORTH A HOOT 'N HELL for delivering good bullets! If you want to pour decent bullets aka round balls, conicals, etc. use a ladle! Bottom pour pots have a tendency to deliver 'voids' in the process of pouring so coming from one that has cast literally thousands upon thousands of bullets ranging from weights of 500 to 720 grs. and being able to hold +/-5/10 gr."

Any truth to bottom pour pots inherently casting inferior boolits to ladles? Or is this just a case of the novice castor being tempted to cast faster and not giving his castings the attention that slower casting with a ladle would do. Imagine a novice reloader, loading on a Dillion 550 making inferior loads than a novice loading on a single stage press.



I find that there are three types of people giving advice in the web:

1) There are people who have read a little about casting bullets and think they know it all.
2) There are people who have read a lot about casting bullets and are sure they know it all.

3) There are people who have actually cast a lot of bullets and actually loaded and shot them.

The advice you get on this board is type 3 advice ( Well, most of the time. )

You are getting type 3 advice on this post.

.

[Old Caster]

I agree with RCE1. If I was casting big bullets for long range accuracy I wouldn't think of using my bottom pour, but when I am shooting Bullseye and still need exceptional accuracy I do use a bottom pour. Go to any BPCR match and talk to the top shooters and see if they bottom or ladle. That will give the answer. It completely depends on what you are casting for.

[engineer401]

My bottom pour pot usually works well for my 22, 38 and 40 caliber bullets. I've owned some Lyman 38 molds that preferred ladle pour. I still haven't decided whether to prefer bottom pour or ladle pour. It seems to rely on my mood that day. I haven't seen any difference in quality or consistency between the two methods.

[Awsar]

mine works good after following advice from forum members on how to make it better. pours great and im not half as good as most of the folks here :)

[Bullshop]

I offer a challange to the person that made the claim or any other person that might agree with him.
Let us use the same mold to each cast some boolits. I will bottom pour and he can dip.
Get a third person to shoot each of our offerings and see if dipping prooves more accurate.
Along with our castings we should each include a token amount of $ to be divided between the shooter for his time and the one that produced the most accurate casting. That might help clear this up, BS walks.

[FAsmus]

I have this to offer the membership;

One of the things I do is long range shooting with single shot rifles. This involves casting long heavy bullets.

When I need to cast for this activity I try hard for consistency in all procedures. In order to check my work at the pot I keep an electronic scale next to the casting pad and weigh each bullet as it drops from the mold.

As you may imagine I have tried various techniques at this game. The winner is ladle-pour by the Wosika method, using his pressure-wave procedure. No other way fills the mold as consistently as this method.

My typical 44 caliber bullets weigh around 495 grains. I am able to keep these long heavies within +/- 0.5 grain for as long as I care to stand at the pot.

I bow the the fellows with multi-cavity tools and their thousands of bullets; they have their hungry short guns to feed. For the long range game there is no substitute for pressure-wave casting and a scale close by.

Good evening,
Forrest

[Old Caster]

FAsmus it sounds like you have also done this before and tried the methods. You are 100% correct in your methods. All it takes is talking to the top shooters at the BPCR matches and 1000 yard matches and they are more than willing to tell you how to mold big bullets properly.


Quote from Bullshop; " I offer a challange to the person that made the claim or any other person that might agree with him.
Let us use the same mold to each cast some boolits. I will bottom pour and he can dip.
Get a third person to shoot each of our offerings and see if dipping prooves more accurate.
Along with our castings we should each include a token amount of $ to be divided between the shooter for his time and the one that produced the most accurate casting. That might help clear this up, BS walks. "


Bullshop, all you have to do is show up at Raton for the long range matches and prove your mettle because Mike Venturino who made this claim and also told you in a post that ladle casting is better will be there. What is holding you back. What do you mean at the end of your post where it says Bullshop walks. I am sure you didn't mean anything else because the rules say that you shouldn't even allude to something with partial letters.

[John Allen]

I use a bottom pour for 90 percent of my casting. I only use a ladle method for my large bullets of 400 grains or more.

[Bullshop]

Old Caster
I never said I was a good shot only that I can make boolits by bottom pouring that will shoot as well as anyone with a ladle. I stand by my challange.
There seems to be a clyque of folks here that think if you dont do the RATONE then you aint squat. I think differently than that and know full well that there are many folks involved with shooting boolits that never feel the need to prove themselves. There are also many that just simply cant afford to travel to some of the shoots scattered about the country but know a thing or two about shooting boolits.
I understand that you shoot there with some folks that have made a name for themselves shooting or writing about shooting but that in itself wont mean that because they say so that quality boolits cant be cast by bottom pour. Its what they believe thats all not absolutely fact. Like anything else if a person spends enough time at it you will learn.
I will give you this that the learning part may be easier with a ladle than with a bottom pour but still if a person will stay with it long enough they can learn to do as well with either.

[FLINTNFIRE]

And I would say Bullshop is right there are a lot of shooters and casters who do not have the time , money or the need to go to any matches , and who know how well they shoot or their bullets shoot , bottom poured or dipped , I have a lyman dipper that sits unused and has for years , bottom pots are fine , if it trips your trigger to dip then dip , but if you want to pour then pour , why belittle someone elses way of casting claiming that your way is the best , still going to pour mine , big bullets and slugs also, so to the original poster , a bottom pot is good .

[DaveInFloweryBranchGA]

Here's my thoughts on the matter: Use whichever method gives you personally the best boolits that meets your demand. Who cares what the method is. If you need a bottom pour and a six cavity mold to get the quantity you need and you can crank them out that way, then you're set. If you only need a few, very large boolits and you get the best ones using a dipper, then groove on with it.

Long as you're getting what you need and you're happy, who cares about the opines of what the young folks these days call "haters" of your methods?

[rhadamanthos12]

I use a lee 20lb bottom pour for all the cast stuff I do, for my heavy bullets (405gr and 500gr) the more I have in the pot the faster the flow is (physics and fluid dynamics are the cause). I find that i can't fill the heavy's like i want to when the pot is about 1/10th of its capacity, besides that I think it turns out nice bullets.

[Old Caster]

What an interesting phenomenon that the people who bottom pour and consequently make better big bullets, don’t enter big competitions, but the ones who make worse bullets by ladle somehow do enter and still win. Probably because the bottom pour guys don't enter.

Maybe you can get hold of Mike, and school him on what is best because while being a very prolific BPCR shooter and writer and coming close, he hasn’t quite won the really big one. ----yet---

[williamwaco]

I offer a challange to the person that made the claim or any other person that might agree with him.
Let us use the same mold to each cast some boolits. I will bottom pour and he can dip.
Get a third person to shoot each of our offerings and see if dipping prooves more accurate.
Along with our castings we should each include a token amount of $ to be divided between the shooter for his time and the one that produced the most accurate casting. That might help clear this up, BS walks.


Obviously my opinion is not unbiased. I have done the above but I played all three parts.

I don't have the opportunity to shoot long range but My rifle shooting is a TC Contender .30-30 with a 23" heavy barrel and a Winchester 1885 .38-55.

With the .38-55 bullet, I get better consistency with the ladle.
With the .30-30 bullet, I get better consistency with the pot.

You can see actual weight results here:

http://reloadingtips.com/pages/bottom-pour-vs-ladle-weight.htm

This is a small test and is not really statistically significant. I didn't pursue it because I cannot tell any difference in accuracy between bullets varying +/- 0.5gr and those varying as much as 2.0 grains. The answer to the question in my use is that it doesn't matter.

Bullets from either method produce groups at 200 yards from slightly less than one inch to around four inches.
averaging around 2.5 inches.

[Bullshop]

Old Caster
You sure seem to be sucking up to Mr Venturino for some reason. Why is his opinion worth so much more than any other? In my collection of handloader and rifle magazins I remember reading an article by Mr Venturino about hunting Africa with a Sharps in I think 40/70 or some such. As I recall what he had to say about using BP in those rifles left some folks kinda woundering about his opinion. If I remember correctly he said dont do it its bad stuff just a mess and not worth the trouble. Well that was his opinion and he was entitled to it after all he is a gun writer.
You also for some reason seem to be hung up on the snobbery of shooting at Raton and seem to enjoy trying to belittle anyone that for a multitude of reasons does not go there to compete. Go ahead and take jabs at people less fortunate than yourself that from pay day to pay day dont have two nickles left to rub together. I guess being poor of money makes a person poor at everything like casting or shooting you suppose?
You seem to want to talk the talk but you have not accepted my challange! Seem like to me a put up or shut up kinda deally. There hows that for a jab, not so nice comming back is it?

[FAsmus]

Gentlemen;

The tread has opened somewhat into discussion about which method is better. That is good since that is the subject that originated the exchange.

I would like to say - allow me to mention that the subject is ladle vs bottom pour for quality bullets. NOT who is the best shot with his individual production.

I propose that we restrict ourselves to comparison of the bullets themselves. That is, perfect fill-out and consistent weight.

I have gone on record as saying that my heavy 490 grain 44s are cast at +/- 0.5 grain and pretty much flawless fill-outs. If I care to weigh small-bore 30 caliber bullets the tolerance goes to +/- 0.2 grain.

I compare the Wosicka pressure-wave fill to the other ladle technique of ladle-in-the-sprue-hole & turn for the fill. The turn and fill is good but the pressure-fill will give an additional + 1 grain per bullet more weight than any other method (and with the same exact alloy!). This results with a nearly perfect run of bullets at the mean weight for as long as I care to stand there and cast.

So, I have said it. You fellows who have some kind of program to promote - go ahead. But really,
for credibility tell us what standards you use for bullet quality.

Good evening,
Forrest

[Chill Wills]

While do not really want to get between either side, you both are doing fine on your own, I would offer what could be called another data point.

I do shoot BPCR and BPTR competitively and have for a while. I cast an unholy amount of bullets in the 400 to 600 grain range for myself and others.

My long time shooting partner (Woody) is a bottom pour guy and I dip for these large bullets. I use the bottom pour sometimes for multi -cavity pistol bullets. We have talked about this over the years and think that very good bullets can be made either way. Woody thinks he might return a few more rejects to the pot he would not otherwise have too if he were using s a dipper but still he prefers to bottom pour his match bullets.

Shooting cast bullets is about having fun and doing things however you like.

I know how well his rifles shoot and he like to show me the test targets, sometimes just little bug holes for a group. Bottom poured bullets can shoot and like Bullshop said it just depends on the skill of the operator and experience is king.

On the other hand, I check each bullet as I cast and almost never return one back to the casting pot. I do not check or weight bullets beyond that anymore. I just shoot what I cast and consider other aspects of my shooting game more worthy of my time.

I can tell you one fact that is for sure, if you ask the ten best BPCR match riflemen in America how they do this or that or CAST bullets, you will get a little different answer from everyone.

There are a lot of right ways to do something.

Bullshop, I know you were NOT in any way taking a shot at the guys that go to Raton …. No confusion here, but since it came up, 99 + + + % of the riflemen you are shoulder to shoulder with at a Raton match are the very best, nicest, most helpful guys and gals you could ever be with. But, of course they are. They are honest Americans that like to shoot cast bullets in rifles.

I hope I am not butting in. Michael Rix

[BruceB]

Not to throw any gasoline on the coals,here....

The reason that I bottom-pour is simply that that it WORKS for me.

I don't shoot at Raton, or Quigley, or any other of the heavy-bullet venues. My sole indicators of bullet quality are the results I derive from my micrometer/caliper and my scale. Nor have I compared any ladled bullets with those from my RCBS bottom-pour pot, because I DO NOT USE A LADLE for anything..

Those results in weight and diameter indicate that my circa-400-grain bullets, such as NEI 421-390 and RCBS 416-350 have an average MAXIMUM weight spread of right around one grain (meaning: from lightest to heaviest) and my 500-grain bullets such as Lyman 457124 average the same MAXIMUM spread... one grain. Diameters are equally-consistent.

There is nothing magical about either technique. I have spent enough years in follow-the-leader target-shooting circles to look with great suspicion on "what all the winners do." (HE wears purple tights to shoot winning scores; maybe *I* should try purple tights to see if they help ME!")

Good bullets are good bullets, regardless of how they were created.

Comparing equipment is a futile effort, because , just maybe, the guy who wears purple tights IS SIMPLY A BETTER SHOT!

[Bullshop]

I thought the standard of quality we were talking about was accuracy at the target. If bottom pouring can produce accuracy equal to ladle pouring then by that standard how is one method better than another.
It is not difficult to keep weight spreads very close to .5gn with bottom pouring even in a large cavity like the Lyman 45 Postell. It will require close attention to flow rate but that is why it is adjustable. It will also require close attention to alloy temp as the temp will change as the pot empties.
Also a consideration with bottom pouring is turbulence in the cavity or more correctly how to minimize it to avoid air pockets. Turbulance and temp control are also things that must be dealt with in ladel casting as well so not unique to one typ casting.

[badboyparamedic]

I bottom pour everything from 55gr 224 to 1oz Lee key drive slugs. I have found on the slugs I have to increase the amount of lead in the pot and adjust the pot to pour faster. This is using a Lee 20 lb pot.

[Old Caster]

No one said large bottom pour bullets aren't good. I just said ladle are better. When ladle casting there is never a varience as the pressure on the pour is identical in height every time and the possibility of crud building up in the channel where the lead comes out is way less because the ladle is always moved and hit on the side of the pot to keep it clean. That is why a bottom pour will have a tendancy to clog over time unless the lead is racing through. When it races through it will bring the crud with it and deposit it in the bullet and you won't know it. The reason the best long range heavy bullet shooters ladle cast is because many decided that it didn't matter and consequently experimented and quickly found out that it isn't as good. Unless you have a good rifle, good mold, and are able to shoot at long distances to verify what is best, how are you going to know? Bullshop, quit being jealous of other's money or success. That is embarrassing.

[Bullshop]

OC
From your description of the use of a bottom pour pot I perceive that you quit the learning process before you mastered it.
Another indication of the others you mention, in your words "because many decided that it didn't matter and consequently experimented and quickly found out that it isn't as good"
Quickly being the key word in that statment. As I said earlier it may take more time to learn but it can be learned if one does not quit trying.
Jealously!!! Really? Success!!! Really?
When I was in school my guidance counsler told me of what his idea of success is and it didnt jibe with mine.
The world view and apparently yours of success is the aquisition of wealth. The Biblical view of success and my view is the belief in Christ. Those are clearly opposite views as there are many scripture verses that warn against persuing the world view. What you have mistaken for jealously is actually pitty and sorrow for so many folks that put the distractions of the world at the head of their list for worship.
I will tell you honestly that there was a time when I wanted to do just what you told me I should do that is to travel and compete. What I saw of the top shooters at those shoots is that to get there they had to make it a life priority before all else. That frightened me and brought to mind what a brother once told me, ""show me where you spend most of your time and I will show you your first love""
My first love has to be Jesus and if sacrificing a chance to be a top BPCR shooter at those matches is what it cost then that is what I must do to be a """SUCCESS"""!!!
I am now sorry I got involved in this discussion and I appologise to you if I may have been rude.
If it will make you feel better about it I will say that you are right on all counts, accept success!

[williamwaco]

I thought the standard of quality we were talking about was accuracy at the target. If bottom pouring can produce accuracy equal to ladle pouring then by that standard how is one method better than another.
It is not difficult to keep weight spreads very close to .5gn with bottom pouring even in a large cavity like the Lyman 45 Postell. It will require close attention to flow rate but that is why it is adjustable. It will also require close attention to alloy temp as the temp will change as the pot empties.
Also a consideration with bottom pouring is turbulence in the cavity or more correctly how to minimize it to avoid air pockets. Turbulance and temp control are also things that must be dealt with in ladel casting as well so not unique to one typ casting.

In my opinion no other standard matters!

[rsrocket1]

No one said large bottom pour bullets aren't good.

I think someone did actually say that

ORIGINAL POST:


"If you're using a 'bottom pour' electric pot....THAT AIN'T WORTH A HOOT 'N HELL for delivering good bullets!
:-?

To the OP:
The Lee 4-20 is great for general purpose casting (most of us) and works absolute wonders with the Lee 6 cavity molds and a PID if you decide to make one. For those who want to shoot out a gnat's eye with a cast boolit, they are probably into special techniques anyway and won't cast with scrap weights found on the side of the street, the back of a berm or from the bottom of an abandoned sailboat so the bottom pour pot is N/A anyway.

[largom]

The finale judge of this debate is the target, however the handloaders skill in loading cast boolits comes into play also as well as their markmanship.

Larry

[Old Caster]

Bullshop quote; "If it will make you feel better about it I will say that you are right on all counts, accept success! "

I have accepted success. What I don’t get is the heretical view you hold that if a person has acquired wealth they somehow haven’t invited Christ into their life. Remember Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Job, David……..we don’t have room here for all the wealthy righteous people in the Bible. It depends on how you get the wealth and what you do with it after you have it.

Somehow doing what Mike Venturino did for his career doesn’t seem like a wrong thing to do, plus I doubt if he is very wealthy.

What does my wealth or lack thereof have to do with whether ladle casting will supply one with a better made bullet. Experience casting you ask? I was drafted into the Army after college in 1965 and was chosen to be on the AMU Bullseye team. My job was to cast 38 and 45 bullets for our matches and shoot them along with my team members. The AMU taught me all the ropes and believe me they knew what they were doing. The bottom line is that bottom pouring is fine for most bullets but if you want the best of the best, learn to ladle cast and use the method suggested by FAsmus above in post 31. It is a proven method used by all of the BPCR master shooters that I know. -- Bill --

[Bullshop]

I must be expressing myself poorly. What I get from the very words of Jesus is that having wealth is a major distraction from following him. There are many scriptures warning of those distractions and of how they will make it much more dificult to (be successful). I personaly do not want to add to the difficulty.
I would like to relate something to you that would in a way have something to do with your chalange to me about going to Raton to see how I stack up to the big dogs. I responded with " I never said I was a good shot" and that would be part of that chalange. I did one time have a chance to shoot at the Quiggley match and had great fun. While there I met some of my bullet customers. One of them a man by the name of Steve Witt. Steve was using my bullets and lube as well in a Shiloh 45/70. While on the off hand target his fireing pin broke and he had to run to the Shiloh booth for a repair. He was out of his rotation for four shots so scored zeros for those shots. Those were the only zeros he had for the match. In the end he finished in third place but he was only one point behind first place. The reason he got third was that he was tied for second but ties were decided by off hand hits. Steve had 4 zeros on the off hand target but the other fella he tied with had less zeros on that target so he got second and Steve got third.
The thing is that Steve was only one hit behind first place but had four less shots to do it with.
I am telling this story to show that my boolits made by bottom pour have been to maybe not the meca but to quite a big match and faired quite well against all commers. Steve went on to win some other big matches using my bullets as well so that has to account for something.
If you were to be fair you would recant what you said in the beginning that good bullets can not be made with a bottom pour which if you had not said we would never have had this disagrement.

[Old Caster]

Bullshop, I am happy to hear that your bullets were used successfully in matches. I never said that good bullets can't be made by bottom pour but only that ladle cast were superior judged by not only my experience but by the top shooters in the nation. We will let the reading group decide which they want to do after reading ours and others posts. If any of the people reading these posts are shooting or want to shoot in BPCR, talk to the people that are doing well because they obviously know what they are doing whether it is casting or loading those kinds of cartridges. Ask everything because this is what these events are all about.

I would say that wealth certainly can have its distractions from moral and righteous living but it is easy to see people like Kurt Warner and Tim Tebo who have a lot of money and still keep themselves on the straight and narrow and even professing Christ as the Savior when doing so is not at all popular in their venue. -- Bill --

[DaveInFloweryBranchGA]

Bullshop and Old Caster,

While I agree with both of you that both methods can create excellent boolits, I lean towards the bottom pour methodology. But I didn't make this particular post to talk about casting.

Instead, I wanted to make a statement of the observation I made reading the discussion between the two of you. When one of you mentioned Jesus Christ, the discussion continued, but in a much more civilized tone and improved. I could feel or sense both of you subjugating yourselves to his will and desire for peace between his followers. You both continued to disagree and continued to defend your side and beliefs, but you both were kinder and spoke better to the other.

In this day of many horrible and un-Godly things in our news, communication medias, society and such, it is heartening to see a couple of men who are both tough as nails, but have been gentled by Christ. It gives me great hope.

Thank the Lord Jesus for himself and all the good he's done us,

Dave

[DxieLandMan]

I have a bottom pour melter and have no trouble at all with it.

[Bullshop]

Ah-men
Well I did have to ask him for help!

[montana_charlie]

I have a bottom pour melter and have no trouble at all with it.
Me, too.
But, I only cast with a dipper.

For me, that handle on the side is just to 'flush the pot' when I want it empty.

CM

[odicoilius]

Bullet molds can be finicky but it all boils down to casting technique. Sometimes a slower pour will result in more consistent bullets other times, the mold likes to be "rammed" full. Been using a Lee bottom-pour for years and can't complain. Would be nice, however to have a flow limiting adjustment like on some of the high-end pots,but you can get used to what each mold needs. Rather pay $60 bucks for a melter than $200 any day! Have had my Lee pot for almost 30 years and it still works great(touch wood).

[Wal']

Each to his own I guess, some will get better results with a ladle other's will use the bottom pour.

The end result is all that count's.