Early 44 Magnum factory bullets and cast handloads

[Char-Gar]

Recently I was gifted a minty box of very early Remington 44 Magnum ammo. This was the stuff around which the reputation of the 44 Mag was built. I fired the ammo and it gave good accuracy, full velocity and zero leading.

The load contained a 240 grain swaged bullet with a gas check swaged on the base. Shortly after Remington debuted the round, Winchester rushed to market it's version with the Super-X headstamp.

Recently I was re-reading a column about handloading the 44 Mag in the April 1960 issue of Gun's Magazine by Kent Bellah. Kent has tested the Rem-UMC and Super-X bullets for hardness and found they were 9 and 10 (Bhn.) respectively.

I just pass then on for historical information about the hardness of early factory bullets.

Almost instantly Elmer Keith adapted his 429421 to and pronounced they should be cast from 1-16 (tin to lead). This alloy yields 11 Bhn.

Ray Thompson jumped in with his gas check 414244 and after testing said they needed to be 1-20 (
Bhn. 10) to keep from collapsing at 44 Magnum pressure.

I just pass this on for historical information about the hardness of early cast bullets for the round, by folks who knew what they were doing.

Fast forward to 2013 when we have folks positing the need for bullets 2 or 3 times as hard as the early swaged and cast bullets to get good results from the 44 Magnum round.

[BruceB]

I've never owned (or borrowed) a hardness tester in all my 45+ years of casting.

I had PERFECT success on moose and bison with Thompson's 429244, cast from an alloy of 50% linotype/50% cable-sheathing lead. The sheathing lead was so soft that I treated it as pure lead, for my purposes.

The latter-day assumption that we NEED hard bullets has puzzled me, but the folks pushing this concept don't seem to listen to any contrary information, so I just smile, shake my head, and" keep on keeping on".

[MtGun44]

I get fine results with 8 BHN and up. Normally use air cooled wwts at about 12 BHN for ALL .44 and
.357 mag loads. I have never seen a need for GCs in any pistol loads. IME, too soft is not good at
impact, but will shoot well and not lead.

The one problem with the swaged Rem loads is that they BLEW UP when they hit anything. I have clear
memories of a sitting rabbit shot through the front shoulders with a swaged factory Rem .44 240 SWC at about
15 yds. Only the ears and a piece of skull top was attached to a hind paw 2" "rabbits foot" by a strip of
skin. It was amazing, the rest was just GONE and we never did that again. The collateral damage was a bit much.

Bill

[sixshot]

I agree about the craze going on with hard bullets. I always cast mine as soft as I can get away with & still get accuracy, a little leading doesn't bother me, I'm not going to shoot a lot of them when I'm hunting.
If I'm not shooting straight air cooled WW's then its usually a softnose cast (water quenched) or its a HP thats cast from 70/30 alloy (70% WW-30% pure lead, these have worked great at 1100-1150 fps on elk, moose, bison, etc.
This is a 4X4 muley buck I shot a few days ago with my 10 1/2" 44 maggie using a 240 gr Keith type HP from a MiHa mould that was cast from 70/30. Caught him in mid stride & he never took a step.
The load was 10 grs of Unique for about 1200 fps from the long barrel, pretty much a hot 44 special load in a magnum case. Complete penetration & you could tell it expanded great. More velocity is just more recoil.

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k3/6shot_01/6shot_01076/100_3601_zpsa4c5baae.jpg (http://s84.photobucket.com/user/6shot_01/media/6shot_01076/100_3601_zpsa4c5baae.jpg.html)

Dick

[M-Tecs]

I believe the hard cast craze came about for three reasons. The first had nothing to do with performance. In the early 70's the cast bullet makers started touting their bullets as "hard cast". This had more to do with the shipping damage than anything else. All of a sudden if it wasn't "hard cast" it would sell.

Second was impact performance. Some of the early HV loads didn't penetrate very well. A lot of the soft bullets penetrated very well at 1000 fps but not so much at 1400 or 1500 fps.

Third was lube issue. Some of the recommended hot loads in the 70's for 44Mag and 45 Colt drove dry lubed swaged bullets at insane velocities. I tried some of these recommend loads in my Contenders and Blackhawks. Dry lubed swaged bullets work great at 800 fps but the leading at 1500 fps is impressive.

[Char-Gar]

I get fine results with 8 BHN and up. Normally use air cooled wwts at about 12 BHN for ALL .44 and
.357 mag loads. I have never seen a need for GCs in any pistol loads. IME, too soft is not good at
impact, but will shoot well and not lead.

The one problem with the swaged Rem loads is that they BLEW UP when they hit anything. I have clear
memories of a sitting rabbit shot through the front shoulders with a swaged factory Rem .44 240 SWC at about
15 yds. Only the ears and a piece of skull top was attached to a hind paw 2" "rabbits foot" by a strip of
skin. It was amazing, the rest was just GONE and we never did that again. The collateral damage was a bit much.

Bill

In the same article Bellah reports of testing both the above mentioned Rem-UMC and Super-X loads by firing into "moist sand". Not the best test media, but it will stop the bullets pretty quick. Anyway..he reports the Super-X bullet expanded to .90" and the slightly harder Remington to .72" They both held together.

He also fired a handload "Jugular" bullet which expanding to 1.25 with lead shedding.

For the young shooters Lakeville Arms developed the Jugular bullet. It was pure lead swaged into a jacket metal cup. You could buy these made or dies to make them yourself. Speer introduced a clone in both HP and solid for the 357 and 44 Magnums. Last time I checked these were still in production. With the advent of the Speer clone, the Jugular went the way of the Doo-Doo bird.

[bhn22]

Yup, yup. Keith considered 1-16 as "hard cast" for solids, and 1-20 for hollowpoints, IIRC. My biggest problem in my area is a shortage of soft lead. I can find lino all day long, but soft lead? The recyclers won't sell lead to anyone for some reason.

[500MAG]

I agree about the craze going on with hard bullets. I always cast mine as soft as I can get away with & still get accuracy, a little leading doesn't bother me, I'm not going to shoot a lot of them when I'm hunting.
If I'm not shooting straight air cooled WW's then its usually a softnose cast (water quenched) or its a HP thats cast from 70/30 alloy (70% WW-30% pure lead, these have worked great at 1100-1150 fps on elk, moose, bison, etc.
This is a 4X4 muley buck I shot a few days ago with my 10 1/2" 44 maggie using a 240 gr Keith type HP from a MiHa mould that was cast from 70/30. Caught him in mid stride & he never took a step.
The load was 10 grs of Unique for about 1200 fps from the long barrel, pretty much a hot 44 special load in a magnum case. Complete penetration & you could tell it expanded great. More velocity is just more recoil.

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k3/6shot_01/6shot_01076/100_3601_zpsa4c5baae.jpg (http://s84.photobucket.com/user/6shot_01/media/6shot_01076/100_3601_zpsa4c5baae.jpg.html)

Dick

That's a real beauty. Thanks for sharing.

[paul h]

I also got suckered into the hardcast cult when I started casting for handguns, but tried air cooled wheel weights and found they performed as well or better so haven't dropped bullets into water for many years.

[shorty500M]

have used it all with good results as always alloy, temper, sizing and fit, lube choices,bullet style, load intensity and gun conditions all play factor in what is accurate and low to fouling free. for most fair to excellantly dimensions guns with typical production class barrels thouugh its hard to beat air cooled WW metal when it fits gun and is given most any lube. extremely hard, high antimony content bullets with the typical hard lubes are a salesmans choice because they stay shinyer longer, dont get dinged in shipping and the lube normally doessnt melt in hot warehouses. for extreme pressures beyond the typical average pressure of 36-40Kpsi , speeds way beyond 1400fps, extreme penetration etc. i will go to water coolled WW metal. my linotype stash hasnt seen any use iin years

[9.3X62AL]

I use an alloy much like BruceB's reported mix--92/6/2 is my "default" metal for plain-base and gas-check magnum revolver boolits. It does well with most plain-base and gas-check rifle applications, too.

[MtGun44]

Well, I don't think that the dead soft 240gr Rem factory GCs that we were shooting in 1966 would
expand nicely in sand. That blowup on a rabbit wasn't the only example, tried one on an armadillo,
too. No eating that one. Stopped shooting small game with .44 Mag factory, did some slow handloads
that worked fine, but mostly went to my .22 Ruger std auto.

Bill

[sixshot]

I too shot some of that early factory stuff in the 60's & it was hot ammo, I only used it long enought to find a bullet mould & a lube sizer & that wasn't easy back then.
The Gibson's Discount Center I worked at in Texas sold those Speer jacketed slugs for $2.67 per hundred...but, I was only making $1.45 per hour, part time to supplement my "great" Air Force pay!

Dick

[btroj]

My range scrap works very well in my handguns and many rifles. BHn 14 or so and it just works.

Keith thought 10-1 WAS hard cast!

[williamwaco]

Recently I was re-reading a column about handloading the 44 Mag in the April 1960 issue of Gun's Magazine by Kent Bellah. Kent has tested the Rem-UMC and Super-X bullets for hardness and found they were 9 and 10 (Bhn.) respectively.




HA!

A BLAST FROM THE PAST.

Kent was a lifetime buddy of my father. He took all my family's baby pictures and lots of school photos.

He taught me to reload rifles and handguns and to cast bullets.
I can't think of a single thing he ever taught me that turned out to be wrong.

He was a big fan of the .44 magnum. He had both the S&W and the Ruger before they were "officially" announced.
His favorite bullet alloy was 20/1 ( 10 BNH ). He favored Keith bullets in all revolver loads and 2400 powder in all magnum handgun loads. He always said the .44 magnum was the first handgun ever made that was powerful enough to hunt deer. ( He was a strong believer that kills must be humane. He wanted the deer to fall like it had been hit by a bolt of lightening. )

At that time, Revolvers were the only thing interesting to real handgun shooters. The only semi auto handgun I ever saw in his office was a Colt Commander. I tried to buy it but he wouldn't let me have it. He thought it was only suitable for military and police work.

By that time, he was a heart patient and was quite restricted in his activities. He had an informal group of about 6 teenagers who did most of his testing for him. I was one of them. I was about 15/16 at that time and just obsessed with shooting and loading.

He sold me my first .44 Magnum - the above mentioned Ruger. My first .44 mold, a 2 cavity 429422. That is still my favorite .44 caliber bullet.

Oh yes! Almost forgot. He also taught me to NEVER believe anything any "gun hack" wrote about in a review of any product. He said they got paid by the word and they got paid to review the products that advertiser advertised in the magazine. No good reviews means no advertisements, no products to review, no articles, no words, no pay check. That is every bit as true today as it was then.

[bob208]

in my .44 loads I used a 429421 keith mold in hp with gaschecks. they were air cooled wheel weights. I shot a lot of them a few people I loaded for also used them. they dropped some deer a bunch of ground hogs and a big bull that went wild and started tearing up things. I lent that mold to a police chef that must have cast a 5 year supply of bullets with it before he gave it back.

[Lloyd Smale]

heres my thoughts on it. Does it heip to run harder alloys. Yes for some purposes. If i were going after moose, bufffalo or something dangerous and large id want a hard bullet. Id want to leave no doubt on the table that the bullet would break a shoulder bone and still penetrate staight into the vitals. I would not trust a 10bhn bullet to do that. Also ive done alot of experiementing with both accuracy and penetration and a harder bullet usually penetrates better and in 90 percent of the guns ive owned and shot a harder bullet shoots better too. I should say though that im talking 18-20 bhb not 30 bhn. Sure back in the day elmer and others used lead/tin alloys but i would guess that mostly they used them because thats what they had. Im sure if Elmer had a 2 ton stash of lineotype he would have no doubt found the same and used slightly harder alloys. Remember back then linotype was USED by printers. It wasnt just something sitting in the back of a print shop that a small offer would buy. Pure lead and tin were readily available and cheaper. Remember too that Elmer wasnt rolling in money. Most people werent. Most people back then were far from what we here are. They couldnt afford to go out and buy a ton of lead, 300lbs of powder and cases of primers. they couldnt afford to sit down and shoot 500 rounds in a day testing differnt alloys. Casters of those days did it because they couldnt afford bullets not because it was a hobby or because they knew they could make a better bullet then a factory one. Bottom line is most could afford or didnt have access to good factory bullets. Also back in those days most of the guns they fooled with were colts and smiths with questionable manufacturing dimentions. I think if Elmer was alive today hed have loved the 475s and 500s. I think he would have found that there are powders even better then his beloved 2400, and that lead tin alloys while they have there place are better suited to low to mid range loads on animals under 500 lbs.

[Char-Gar]

Linotype was a common casting alloy back in the day. I bought it from a local printer in 1960 and direct from the a foundry (Sterling Type Metal) in Houston in Houston in 1963 for 15 cents a pound which made it quite affordable.

The common recipe, which goes way before my time, for Lyman 2 was Linotype, was Lynotype, pig lead and 50-50 solder. I mixed allot of it and still do.

The point being Keith knew about Linotype and it was available and reasonable priced in he wanted to use it. However hard alloys like Linotype and no. 2 were considered rifle alloys with the possible exception of the 45 acp. I cast many 45 acp bullets from both alloys in the early 60's and also some SAECO/Cramer 12s for the 357 Magnum.

[Airman Basic]

Odd question, I know, but I have an embarrassment of riches here. Got several 1000 pounds of old Linotype metal from my newspaper days. No soft lead at all. Is there a heat treatment method that works in reverse? Can one soften this stuff somehow?

[44man]

I use WW's in the .44 for everything and like a heavier boolit. Reason is softer gives me some fliers and I don't like them at 100 yards.
Back in 56 I had to buy factory loads to get the brass, HOT stuff and they lacked penetration. It was easy to catch them in a few gallon jugs of water. We could not hunt deer with them at the time so we never knew. We looked in wonder at the explosive results but once we could hunt deer, it turns out to be wrong. You also need penetration no matter how much bone is hit and you need energy placed.
Yeah, I also shot a rabbit and only got the back legs, the rest was gone!

[rintinglen]

It is also interesting to note that in the 1890 Ideal No. 4 manual reprinted in the 1953 Lyman No. 39 manual, John Barlow made the following comment:

"If a harder bullet is desired, add more tin; one part tin to 16 of lead will be found hard enough for the hardest bullet, but this must be decided by the shooter himself."

That said, I have put a great many hard-cast boolits down range with complete satisfaction for target shooting, and my estimate is that harder boolits generally shoot better--if they fit the gun correctly. If they don't, they'll lead the bore as well as any softer alloy you care to try, and better than a soft boolit that does fit.

[waksupi]

Odd question, I know, but I have an embarrassment of riches here. Got several 1000 pounds of old Linotype metal from my newspaper days. No soft lead at all. Is there a heat treatment method that works in reverse? Can one soften this stuff somehow?

I would suggest figuring out an equitable trade, and trade for some alloy.

[Char-Gar]

Airman Basic.

Linotype metal was developed about the same time as the Linotype press (1886) and is very rich in antimony which contracts when hot and expands when cool. This enables the small cast letters to fill our very nicely.

Linotype casts wonderful bullets for this reason. Being quite hard/brittle it can shatter on impact if pushed fast enough. Antimony crystals do not join the lead but are in suspension and can be abrasive to barrel metal.

There is no way that any of us can afford to remove the antimony from Linotype. All we can do is dilute the content through adding lead. This stuff is wonderful for making other alloys.

As stated there are plenty of folks who will trade you softer bullet metals for your linotype.

[Char-Gar]

It is also interesting to note that in the 1890 Ideal No. 4 manual reprinted in the 1953 Lyman No. 39 manual, John Barlow made the following comment:

"If a harder bullet is desired, add more tin; one part tin to 16 of lead will be found hard enough for the hardest bullet, but this must be decided by the shooter himself."


That said, I have put a great many hard-cast boolits down range with complete satisfaction for target shooting, and my estimate is that harder boolits generally shoot better--if they fit the gun correctly. If they don't, they'll lead the bore as well as any softer alloy you care to try, and better than a soft boolit that does fit.

As we have discussed on this forum many times over the years, "hard" is a relative term when it comes to cast bullets and has no real standard definition. What was hard in Barlow's day, Keith's day and our day is quite different.

There are some discussions/quarrels of which I have grown very tired and the hard bullet issue is one of them. I merely posted the historical information on the 44 Mag bullets because I ran across it and it failed to stick in my memory banks when I read it the first time 50 years ago. I though others might like the factoid as well.

[sixshot]

I think we're all pretty much in agreement that a harder cast slug usually shoots more accurate than a softer one. I'm willing to sacrafice a bit of that accuracy at sixgun distances when hunting.
I think in the little Montana & Idaho towns where Elmer lived it would be much easier to find lead than linotype, not many printing shops close by in those days.
Having such a large amount of linotype will make it easy for you to do some swapping, there's plenty of guys that would be willing to trade pure for type.
Hardness can definitely be a factor when whacking big game with cast & especially with a jacketed slug. You always want penetration, along with placement.

Dick

[M-Tecs]

I think we're all pretty much in agreement that a harder cast slug usually shoots more accurate than a softer one.
I have had more issues with too hard of bullets than too soft of bullets. Soft bullets may still give good accuracy with undersize throats and oversize bores.


I think in the little Montana & Idaho towns where Elmer lived it would be much easier to find lead than linotype, not many printing shops close by in those days.

Almost every small town had a newspaper. That was the print shop. My small town still used type set until the mid-70’s for the newspaper. From 1969 until the mid-70’s I got all my linotype from the newspaper.

[9.3X62AL]

I appreciate reading about the 44 Magnum tech of the 1950s--thank you for bringing it up, Char-Gar. I wasn't involved with the 44 Magnum until the mid-1980s, so it had a 30 year advantage on me, and had come a good distance by the time it and I crossed paths. I enjoy the caliber greatly, but I think Mr. Keith was quite correct when he said "1200 FPS is all you need" with his #429421 boolit. At such intensities, it is manageable in the S&W N-frame by most handgunners. Amp those loads up to the 1400 FPS level, and a Redhawk or Anaconda makes more sense.

I arrive at the 92/6/2 formula in a number of ways, usually by blending type metal of some sort with unalloyed lead. Foundry type (I'm almost out of this, and its passage will go unmourned) cut 6/1 lead/foundry gives BHn 14-15, which corresponds to 92/6/2 hardness. Monotype cut 3/1 gives similar results. Linotype 1/1 with lead is the most common way to blend the stuff.

[azrednek]

My first experience with 44 Mag was in 1971. My shooting bud just bought a 44 Blackhawk and a box of Western Auto branded ammo all on his Western Auto credit card. After the second cylinder was shot the barrel was leaded so badly we could barely see the rifling. Apx 2-3 weeks later the same box of ammo though another friend's Hawes 44 mag leaded up the bore but no where near as bad as my friend's Blackhawk. I could be mistaken but I believe the Western Auto ammo was made by Federal. I swore off lead ammo of any sort for years after that.

[Char-Gar]

I think we're all pretty much in agreement that a harder cast slug usually shoots more accurate than a softer one. I'm willing to sacrafice a bit of that accuracy at sixgun distances when hunting.

Dick

I don't think the agreement is a wide spread as you may thing. I certainly don't hold that automatically harder is more accurate. There are to many variable factors to make such a blanket statement.

Keith took his bullet, cast 1-16, loaded to 44 Magnum velocities to a slaughterhouse and shot large bulls from every angle he could. He got all the penetration he wanted and then some, breaking large bones on it's way. A cast bullet of binary alloy (tin and lead) won't shatter, but will mash up and keep on going. If a bullet gets to hard it might shatter and then penetration will suffer.

[ddixie884]

I am not as learned as some, but I have found that COWW bullets can lose some or all of the nose to shattering. This is especially apparent with cast hollow points. Lead or binary or COWW mixed with lead and tin, less so. JMHO-YMMV...................................

[paul h]

It all depends on velocity, and media. I'll need to do some more testing to at what point things go kablooey with COWW's, but you'd be hardpressed to shatter either an air cooled or water quenched COWW at 1200 fps. I'm sure somewhere in the 1700+fps range a water quenched one will start shattering, depending on what it's shot into and air cooled will start sluffing off it's nose. This is for solid fp or rp bullets. HP's will definately loose their nose with COWW's somewhere in the 1000-1200 fps range, depending on what they are shot into.

[Char-Gar]

I am not as learned as some, but I have found that COWW bullets can lose some or all of the nose to shattering. This is especially apparent with cast hollow points. Lead or binary or COWW mixed with lead and tin, less so. JMHO-YMMV...................................

Cast hollow point bullets are famous for shattering/blowing off the nose, if the striking velocity is above a certain point. Of course the alloy also determines the effect at the point of impact. Keith and others were adamant these should not be used for big game. In this regard "big game" did not include deer.

In this regard a deer or lesser critter can be killed quite quickly with cast HP bullets. These bullets will fragment the nose creating secondary missiles which do much harm and the back solid section continues to penetrate to the vitals and often beyond.

[sixshot]

Didn't say that they were automatically more accurate, I said they usually are, and thats true...but not always. I rarely shoot "hard" bullets & very rarely shoot beyond 1200 fps & I've taken deer, elk, moose, bear, antelope, mountain lion & african game with a bullet thats usually straight WW alloy or even softer with some lead added. I have absolutely no use for a bullet beyond 15 BHN for my purposes, most times its about 11 BHN.

Dick

[Piedmont]

Cast hollow point bullets are famous for shattering/blowing off the nose, if the striking velocity is above a certain point. Of course the alloy also determines the effect at the point of impact. Keith and others were adamant these should not be used for big game. In this regard "big game" did not include deer.

In this regard a deer or lesser critter can be killed quite quickly with cast HP bullets. These bullets will fragment the nose creating secondary missiles which do much harm and the back solid section continues to penetrate to the vitals and often beyond.

I think the fragmenting and blowing off the nose is when guys use alloys with antimony in them. I've seen some pretty pictures of huge mushrooms with the lead/tin alloys. But if you use wheel weights you surely will blow off the nose.

I paid particular attention to Keith and hollowpoints the last time through much of the Keith stuff I have because Glen Fryxell made it seem like Elmer preferred them and that wasn't the way I remembered it. I found Keith basically wasn't interested in them at least in later years. I believe his thinking was he wanted one load that would handle anything and a HP limited his penetration options. He did suggest breaking bone was a good idea on deer and such. He also conceded the HP was good for varmints and defense loads.

[Piedmont]

The one problem with the swaged Rem loads is that they BLEW UP when they hit anything. I have clear
memories of a sitting rabbit shot through the front shoulders with a swaged factory Rem .44 240 SWC at about
15 yds. Only the ears and a piece of skull top was attached to a hind paw 2" "rabbits foot" by a strip of
skin. It was amazing, the rest was just GONE and we never did that again. The collateral damage was a bit much.

Bill

I doubt the bullet blew up. You're jumping to that conclusion because the varmint blew up. I used to shoot a lot of woodchucks and something I noticed was the smaller ones were more likely to have great big holes blown in them. If the bullet expands and the body is small enough it seems there is so much energy with proper loads that something has to give and the little body just sort of bursts. I guess it is probably a hydrostatic mechanism.

[MtGun44]

Perhaps you are right, we never recovered a boolit, of course. Sure disintegrated a
rabbit thoroughly!

Bill

[Thumbcocker]

I have always wondered if Linotype wasn't used so much in those days because of the hard crumbly composition of wheel weights then. I have read articles that distinguished between old and "new" wheel weights. Most towns of any size had a paper or print shop where one could get tired type metal. Just my random thoughts.

[9.3X62AL]

Oh, no two ways about it--44 Magnum bullets running either 1200 or 1400 FPS at the muzzle will do BAD THINGS to small critters, regardless of alloy or presence/absence of hollow-point. I have over time collected many more hits on jacks with the #429244 than with #429421, but that make little difference. Until muzzle speeds or contact velocities dropped under 900 FPS, jacks got jacked up comprehensively. I use 22 LR to 32 S&W Long if use as table fare is on deck for small game.

[williamwaco]

I have always wondered if Linotype wasn't used so much in those days because of the hard crumbly composition of wheel weights then. I have read articles that distinguished between old and "new" wheel weights. Most towns of any size had a paper or print shop where one could get tired type metal. Just my random thoughts.



In the '60s we would smelt up a pot of wheel weights, get them good and clean then cast a hand full of bullets. We would lay one on the garage floor and smack it with a hammer. If it flattened, we used that pot. If it broke or in some cases literally shattered, we cut it that pot 50/50 with scrap lead and tried again.

[308w]

I love the experience here on this forum, and I deferr to so many here who have much more hands on experience than me, I have not done any tests personally to see if harder alloys shoot a little better than the soft ones but, When Elmer invited Harold Croft out to his place and placed shots on a 4ft square piece of plywood at ranges to 700yds and also when he made the famous shot on the mule deer at 600, How much do you want to bet he was shooting his lead/tin alloys????
Thats way more accuracy than I have left in me and much more than I need for my enjoyment and shooting and hunting.

I'd love to be sitting on a couple thousand pounds of lino but I ain't, I've got several hundred pounds of coww's and when those are gone I see myself continuing this addiction with the lead/tin alloys. I think I will do just fine!!!!

[daniel lawecki]

I bought my cast boolits for 20yrs off of a old timer. He quit casting at a young age of 87yrs after he lost his leg. All boolits that he cast were wheel weights mix sometimes with range lead. I pick his brain many atime about casting & his lube. His bolits were second to none I use all his info plus yours on this site. My GP100 gets cleaned once a year down the bore oiled everytime it goes to the range. Its a SS gun the cyclinder is black on the outside and this gun still shoots one hole groups. Ther may never be a clear answer here but I do enjoy reading all posting on this wonderfull place we come to post. MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL OF YOU AND YOURS.

[Larry Gibson]

I prefer the GC'd versions of cast bullets for hunting as I cast them soft; 16-1, 20-1 and COWWs + 2% tin and mixed with lead at 50/50. These can be pushed to true magnum level handgun velocities of 1400+ fps out of 6" barreled revolvers (.357, .41 and .44 magnums) and give excellent expansion, especially when correctly HP'd.

For my FB's magnum level loads With FB'd cast bullets I prefer COWWs + 2% tin and sometimes then mix that with lead at 75/25. Either way they are plenty "hard" enough and shoot as well as I can anymore. For my low end and midrange loads I cast of recovered range lead with lead added and some tin for a 8 - 10 BHN.

Larry Gibson