What is it... Ladle or Bottom pour?

[abcollector]

Okay, before I get too deep in this hobby, what is generally better- ladle poured bullets or furnace bottom pour?
Advantage/disadvantage of each?

Let's hear it! (or is there past threads that hash this out?

[freedom475]

I like both. But this subject is probably very much about opinion and preferance.

The books I've read and my opinion have lead me to the following:

Bottom pore is better because you don't have slag/flux/skim in your way.

Ladle is probably better because the swirling motion achieved as the lead goes into the mould helps with "fillout" of large or hard to fill out moulds. You don't have that annoying drip that so many bottom drip pots have either.

Personal opinion: ladle is just more fun for me, but I do a lot of bottom pore because of the convinience that my LEE 10lb gives me.

Good shooting and welcome aboard

[ktw]

I have always bottom poured, but picked up a ladle a while back to give it a try.

I found that for any kind of production bottom pour is the way to go, although with respect to quality, I get better boolits (easy fill-out and much lower percentage of rejects) with the ladle. I found it more difficult to fill multi-cavity molds with a ladle without spilling alloy into adjacent empty cavities. Probably a technique issue on my part.

Ladle if you need a few perfect bullets, particularly large rifle bullets in a single cavity mold.

Bottom pour for everything else.

-ktw

[454PB]

Yeah, this has been an ongoing debate for a long time. I think it's kinda like asking which is the best beer.

I ladle cast for the first 5 years or so, then went to bottom pour and never looked back.

[Morgan Astorbilt]

I ladle poured when starting reloading many years ago. This was because I used the kitchen gas range to melt my lead. Years later, when married, my wife, bless her heart, bought me a Lyman Moldmaster for my birthday(and to protect her new range), and I've only used the ladle when checking out a new mold or casting a pure lead bullet for slugging a barrel.
Morgan

[shooter575]

It is sorta like which is best,Ford or chevy. Most of my casting is for 300 gr up rounds. For that usage a dipper [to me] is the only way to go. On a good day I can cast 90% good minnes that way vs 40-50% pouring.This is using a Lee 20# pot
That said many using a high end casting pot get good results by pouring but at 200 bucks up for them vs the 39 dollar pot I use....[old prices]
If all I was going to cast were baby boolets I would consider the bottom pour.Matter of fact I have a 2nd 20 lb set up for doing just that.But of late it seems that I have become comfortable dipping and the speed thing is not much of a issue.
My .02 worth.

[Mauserman]

With me using a "hot plate" as a sourse of heat I have to use a ladle..... But when I hit the Lotto I'll have a bottom pouring fancy pot.... Or if I inherit one from some one that croaks.... Any you guys got one foot in the grave and the other on a banna peel? [smilie=1:[smilie=1: MM

[IcerUSA]

I use my Lee 20# bottom pour for everything but when I tried to pour into my new Gould Mould (Lyman Hollow Point) I could not get good fill out at the nose , I use a hot plate to keep things warmed up also so I usually get good boolits from the get-go but not with the HP mould , so I had a small soup ladle that I had picked up for casting small ingots and tried it out with the HP mould and wallah , good boolits , hmmmm .

I think it has to do with running the lead in an overflow method , just kepted(SP) pouring till the ladle was empty , heated the sprue plate real well and I think it keeps the lead inside the mould at a higher temp to aid in fill out as well and as the inside cools it pulls molten lead into the mould a I think that is why it made better boolits in the HP mould , but then again I could be blowing wind , just my observation with the HP mould .

Keith

[Sundogg1911]

Im suprised. This question sometimes brings some heated discussion. :twisted:
I like bottom pour myself. I find ladle casting to be very slow (at least for me)
I've always had good results with bottom pour, so I haven't really spent much time using a ladle. other people have different feelings about it. It really is like asking which beer is the best. (by the way.....that would be Corona [smilie=1: )

[fatnhappy]

I'm probably in the minority but I still ladle cast. I have nothing to compare my casting rates to. I'm not adverse to trying a bottom pour, just too cheap to buy one.


I'm going out on a serious limb here, but i must opine the best beer in the states is Sam Adams.

[montana_charlie]

Im suprised. This question sometimes brings some heated discussion.
Once you've been a couple of food fights over this question...where hot lead is the food...you learn how easy it is to get burned. I think we have decided to respectfully disagree on what's 'best'...unless some fool comes around belittling guys 'on the other side' of his opinion.
CM

[Lloyd Smale]

I like bottom pour. can you make better bullets with it? No. But in my opinion for 95 percent of casting just as good bullets as can be made with a ladle and twice the production

[Marshal Kane]

Sometimes the method of casting is determined by the mould. Have several revolver bullets that just love ladle casting whereas most of my pistol bullets can be cast very nicely with bottom pour. Have fewer rejects ladle casting my big (.40+ caliber) revolver bullets but when I tried bottom pouring them, the reject rate went up. Ladle casting is tedious work and no matter how careful I try to be, lead spatters on the equipment is a given. Sure don't get the production that I do with bottom pour but there is some satisfaction in seeing all the detail on the ladle cast bullets as they drop from the mould.

IME, have had less problems with dross when ladle casting as much of the dross appears to settle near the bottom of my pot. I flux and stir religiously yet the dross seems reluctant to rise to the top of my pot where it can be skimmed off.

[Morgan Astorbilt]

I almost forgot. I DO ladle pour cannon balls from salmon sinker molds, for the cannons and mortar I've made. The largest is my 3/4 scale six pounder, with a 48" 2-5/8" bore. Takes a 3-1/4lb. lead ball, or a beer can filled with concrete. I also use tennis balls, but some of them burst from the pressure. The smaller one, and the Coehorn mortar, have a 2-3/16" bore, and used to take frozen orange juice cans filled with plaster or concrete, but I can't find them any more. The mortar can really launch an aerial bomb.
Morgan

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa159/pgfaini/CANNON-2.jpg

[abcollector]

Hey fellows, thanks for the replies.
I guess I will eventually get one of each as the listed advantages/disadvantages make sense. One thing I did think of while reading the replies what that most if not all bottom pour pots require power where as using a ladle doesn't necessarily require power. Be good to have each as an option.

[montana_charlie]

Since abcollector has posted his thanks, I guess this thread has done it's duty in answering his question.
Now, I would like to bring attention to this statement...

Sure don't get the production that I do with bottom pour but there is some satisfaction in seeing all the detail on the ladle cast bullets as they drop from the mould.
What I am about to say is not directed at Marshal Kane...just at the philosophy behind his words.

Every now and then, guys post pictures of their bullets. I guess it's safe to assume the poster wouldn't have chosen that (or those) particular example(s) unless his best work was being represented.

Now, I know that some bullets are destined to be plinkers from the time the pot is turned on to heat. But there are plenty of guys who (either) complain because their groups are too big...or brag about groups shot at short range that are (actually) not impressive at all.

I am taking this opportunity to say something that's been on my chest for awhile, but this way I don't have to disparage some guy's freshly-posted picture.

Gentlemen, some of you don't have a clear notion of what constitutes a well-cast bullet. Whether dumped from a dipper, or flushed through a drain-hole...a fair percentage of the bullets that get put up for our viewing pleasure wouldn't stay solid long enough to reach room temperature -- if they were mine.

It takes some serious tongue biting to keep from pointing out rounded corners on base and driving bands, nicks-dimples-and squiggles in the surface, and just generally 'muddy-looking' bullets.

My advice to those who fall in the 'no clear notion' category is this...
Look at your mould with a magnifying glass. Notice how all of it's surfaces are shaped and textured. If your bullet doesn't mirror that mould exactly...it may be worth shooting, but it's not worth bragging about.

Thank you for your kind attention...
CM

[tn gun runner]

I bottom pour 90% of my bullets .. but for my benchrest gun ladle pour is the only way to go my groups are alot smaller..
http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z195/dukeboy51/32-40ruger.jpg
http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z195/dukeboy51/win40-60may.jpg
the ruger is 32-40 x 200gr , the highwall is 40-60 maynard x 400gr both shoot under 2' at 200 yds

[largecaliberman]

Okay, before I get too deep in this hobby, what is generally better- ladle poured bullets or furnace bottom pour?
Advantage/disadvantage of each?

Let's hear it! (or is there past threads that hash this out?

BOTTOM POUR
Bottom pour is cleaner, and faster.:castmine:

[Bret4207]

Ladle. Bottom pours are for sissies, at least they are until I can afford a good one. I do not want another Lee Drip-o-matic. I think an RCBS might be fun to try. I still won't toss my ladle. I think even a confirmed BP man would need a ladle.

BTW- Sam Adams Oktoberfest, on tap, is THE best beer.

[brshooter]

Bottom pour with a Magna Engineering Master Caster, a 90 lb. pot, 230 VAC. Use mostly for the two 45-70 405 gr. 5 cavity molds. They use up the lead real fast. Have a gas pot next to it to melt lead for the electric bottom pour. Saves me time and speeds up the time refilling the electric pot anf getting it up to temp.

[Marshal Kane]

. . . Look at your mould with a magnifying glass. Notice how all of it's surfaces are shaped and textured. If your bullet doesn't mirror that mould exactly...it may be worth shooting, but it's not worth bragging about. CM
My thoughts exactly. If the bullet doesn't mirror the mould, the results will appear on the target. Bottom pour with my big revolver bullet moulds tend to leave rounded corners in the crimp and lube groove whereas with ladle cast they come out sharp. Perhaps it's due to the slight air gap between the bottom pour spout to the mould cooling the alloy ever so slightly as it flows into the mould that causes this to happen. The ladle provides direct contact with the mould. BTW, I wear a jewelers bino magnifier when inspecting bullets. Leaves both hands free to handle the bullets and besides, my old eyes need all the help they can get at this stage.

[Marshal Kane]

Hey fellows, thanks for the replies.
I guess I will eventually get one of each as the listed advantages/disadvantages make sense. One thing I did think of while reading the replies what that most if not all bottom pour pots require power where as using a ladle doesn't necessarily require power. Be good to have each as an option.
First, the good news. I ladle cast from a bottom pour pot so as long as you have working room in the pot for the ladle, you won't need a second pot. Second, the bad news. Not BAD really. ALL pots, bottom pour or ladle, need power. Not necessarily electricity but power of some sort. Alloy will not flow in the solid state. Best wishes with your cast bullets.:-D

[Bret4207]

My thoughts exactly. If the bullet doesn't mirror the mould, the results will appear on the target. Bottom pour with my big revolver bullet moulds tend to leave rounded corners in the crimp and lube groove whereas with ladle cast they come out sharp. Perhaps it's due to the slight air gap between the bottom pour spout to the mould cooling the alloy ever so slightly as it flows into the mould that causes this to happen. The ladle provides direct contact with the mould. BTW, I wear a jewelers bino magnifier when inspecting bullets. Leaves both hands free to handle the bullets and besides, my old eyes need all the help they can get at this stage.

I agree that some of the examples of cast boolits I've seen, even in the glossy mags, were not what I would show off. I like frosted boolits as they tend to fill out much better for me. I also find some moulds require an air gap drop, others need sprue hole to ladle contact, some do fine as long as the alloy drops anywhere near the sprue hole. WRITE DOWN what each mould seems to like. It saves time.

[abcollector]

Marshal Kane-

Second, the bad news. Not BAD really. ALL pots, bottom pour or ladle, need power. Not necessarily electricity but power of some sort. Alloy will not flow in the solid state.

I agree BUT gas (propane) is a little more of a guarantee that you can count on provided you've done your part in keeping the tank full. And you can still get a tank filled when the town is without power. But I guess it is a natural resource and subject to drying up :(.

[MT Gianni]

Marshal Kane-


I agree BUT gas (propane) is a little more of a guarantee that you can count on provided you've done your part in keeping the tank full. And you can still get a tank filled when the town is without power. But I guess it is a natural resource and subject to drying up :(.

If you run out of propane there is always coal, buffalo chips and wood. Most of us will be busy when the power is out trying to keep things running around the house. Gianni