308 Winchester Load for CB

[Sendaro]

Have bought a Lyman mold 311332 GC two cavaty mold. It throws a bullet that when lubed and the GC applied weighs in at 194.5 grains. Lyman states it is a 180 grain bullet, but they also used to produce a 311334 that is nearly a dead ringer for the 311332. I really don't have a problem with the finial weight but would like to start out with a powder that is suitable for accuracy with this bullet in a 308 Winchester ( 1 in 12 twist barrel). To start with I tried the Lyman hand book accuracy load of 5744 at 21.0 grains. This produce 4 1/2" groups at 100 yards. The rifle that this is being test fired in has a Hart barrel and will shoot sub 1/2 MOA all day with jacketed bullets. The cast boolits test fired are inspected by eye and weighed to within + or - 0.2 grains, and sized to .309. The next powder I tried was Unique at 11.0, 12.0, 13.0, 13.5, and 14.5 grains. The 13.0 and 13.5 grain loads produed the smallest groups, but there was vertical in them. The avg. was about 1.5 to 2.0 inchs at 100 yds. However at 200 yards there was clearly two grouping to the same load that were vertical. I'd get 2 shots touching high and three shots touching about 3" lower. The chronograph showed this in the spread of velocity. So I'm looking for a powder that has proved to be of the best burning rate for CB with GC at around 1400 to 1600 fps. Anyone have any suggestions based on their first hand experince with a powder that should burn clean and have a low shot to shot spread in velocity?
Thanks, Sendaro

[cbrick]

I use SR4759 in my single shot 308 1 in 12 twist,

19 gr
Standard rifle primer
RCBS 180 @183 gr

ES 28
AV 1800
SD 9

Air cooled CWW +2% Sn.

Powder Valley currently has 1 pounders of SR4759 in stock.

Rick

[Sendaro]

cbrick,
Thanks! I have some SR4759 and I'll give it a try. Have used it with CB breech seating in my Stevens 44 and 44 1/2 in 32-40. I hear that they are going to stop making it.
Sendaro

[cbrick]

That's what Hodgdon says. I use that powder in about 6 different cartridges, was down to about 4 pounds of it so I bought two more 8 pounders. I'll be good for quite some time but if you like it get it while the getting is good.

Rick

[kweidner]

I like the h335 myself.

[Sendaro]

kweidner, What do you like about it and what boolit/ charge are you using? What kind of accuracy/velocity are you getting?
Sendaro

[Larry Gibson]

Sendaro

What alloy are you using? AC'd, WQ'd or HT'd?

Are you looking just for best accuracy or do you have a velocity level in mind also?

Larry Gibson

[Sendaro]

Larry,

I have two goals for the load that I seek. #1 is accuracy and #2 is to maintain it at distances 200 yards and beyond. I do believe that it should be above 1500 fps though. It is not for hunting but rather for the enjoyment of shooting at distance. I also know that there are boolits that heavier and maybe better for that than what I have at present, but this is what I have to work with at this point.

Thanks, Sendaro

[AZ-JIM]

Not to be a party pooper, I would suggest skipping the 4759 as it is being discontinued along with some other IMR powders. I would look at a burn rate chart and pick one either side of the 4759 and work up carefully from there, that is assuming thats the powder you are set on.

az-jim

[sundog]

My best CB accuracy in a 12 twist .308 bolt gun has been with the RCBS 30-180-SP and 5744.

[Larry Gibson]

Is a shame about 4759 as it is an excellent powder but AZ-JIM is correct. I'm going to suggest 3031, RL7 or H4895 powders. Start at 22 gr with the 3031 and RL7 and 24 gr with the H4895. Use a Dacron filler.

That bullet should work quite well. Assuming a good alloy of at least 15 BHN. I suggest the bullets be sized to .311(I've found .311 to be the best sizing for most .30 cals if the bullet drops that size or larger) unless your rifle has a very tight match chamber and throat? A good softer lube is also suggested with GCs being firmly seated prior to crimping. You probably know all this but I'm just throwing it out.

Larry Gibson

[Bullshop]

In a 308 Win and several rifle cartridges I have found favor with Alliant Steel. The reason is that Alliant Steel is about the same burn rate as Alliant 2400 which is widely accepted for use with cast in rifle loads.
The shortfall with 2400 is that its small kernel extruded type powder takes up too little case volume so may have position ignition issues.
The Alliant Steel is a very lofty flake type powder so gives a much better load density with the same charge weight. As a rule flake powders are easier to ignite than extruded powders especially at the reduced pressures we normally work at with cast boolits.
On the negative side Alliant Steel powder must be weighed for each charge and not just thrown. Because it it such a lofty flake powder it meters poorly so can have too large a variation from charge to charge.
In the 308 a load I am using is 20 gn weighed with cast boolits from about 200 to 220gn. Velocities depending on boolit weight are very consistent at about 2000 fps with extreme spreads in the mid teens.
Until recently I had only shot this load to 500 yards. Accuracy at that range was in the 2MOA area.
More recently I have been shooting even farther and accuracy seems to hold up. I say seems to hold up because I haven't yet set targets at the longer ranges 800 to 1000 to record actual groups just informal plinking at rocks and such. Still once the range is found and dialed in the load seems to stay right with the program. At 850 yards shooting over my PU hood a bowling ball size target is well in the game.
Not being a formal target shooter or competitor I don't know if that is good enough for formal target shooting but it sure keeps me amused. It also keeps the feathered chicken thieves that haunt the rock bluffs at that range from my house at bay as well.

[tygar]

Sendaro

What alloy are you using? AC'd, WQ'd or HT'd?

Are you looking just for best accuracy or do you have a velocity level in mind also?

Larry Gibson

Larry, would a even slower twist (e.g. 14) provide even better long range accuracy than the 12 & would it allow more speed?
Thanks
Tom

[Larry Gibson]

Larry, would a even slower twist (e.g. 14) provide even better long range accuracy than the 12 & would it allow more speed?
Thanks
Tom

Yes it would. I'm pushing naked cast bullets of 124 - 180 gr to 2500 - 2750 fps with at least 2 moa or less consistent accuracy (10 shot groups at 100, 200 and 300 yards) out of my 27.5" barreled .308W with 14" twist. In very limited testing the 311299 was shooting 2 moa at 2400+ fps.

Larry Gibson

[popper]

H4895 or 2400 (filler) has worked for me at that fps in 30/30 1:10. Unique did the same for me, funny groups.

[Sendaro]

Thanks to all that have responded to my questions. There is much information there for me to ponder over, and I will.
I have not been using a GC seater. I have one but it did appear to be necessary to use it as I could apply the GC by hand and just give the boolit a sharp rap on the bench before running it into the luber/sizer. To be honest I was a little worride about distorting the boolit using the GC seater with too much pressure. I have the cast the boolits a little softer than #2 alloy.

Thanks, Sendaro

[frnkeore]

Sendro,

The following is the top, 2013 National CBA, finishers loading data for 308's in Production (rethroating allowed) and Hunter (no throating). For production, they still use the factory .310 diameter Ball seat but, the leade angle can be changed. So note that the bands on the bullets fit the ball seat in both classes at size for size. NO fillers are used in any of these loads, CBA allows them but, Lyman does not think they are safe! (for Larry :) ) Also, note that they all are using straight Lino. Personally, I don't think the bullets need to be that hard but, that's is the 1st and second place data. Since yours is a custom barrel, you need to find out what size the ball seat or freebore is and size to it.


Production Class

Lino, Eagan MX4ARD 217 gr

.3008/.310, nose/base

26.0, N 130, 1725 fps

210m

.9, 100 yd, 1.62, 200 yd, ave of four, 5 shot groups
------------------------------------------

.301/.310, nose/base

Lino, 311299, 192 gr

28.5, Varget , 1900 fps

Primer F210m

1.3, 100 yd, 1.55, 200 yd, ave of four, 5 shot groups

-----------------------------------------------

Hunter Class

Lino, RCBS,180 SP, 178 gr

.302/.310, nose/base

4227, 21.0 gr, 1740 fps

Primer, F210m

1.3, 100 yd, 2.8, 200 yd, Ave of four, 5 shot groups

[Sendaro]

SUNDOG,

How much 5744 are you using and what primer?

Thanks, Sendaro

[GabbyM]

21 grains of 5744 is a pretty light load. Bout four to six more grains may get things going. I have run 27.0 under a 180 grain similar bullet in my 30-06. If you move to the slower powders and more of it your recoil will increase for any given velocity. 5744 in my 06 is very soft shooting.

[Sendaro]

Larry,
I believe it is near a #2 on the soft side. I guess that you may call it Scrapalloy.

What do you recommend for lube at the speeds you are shooting at?

Sendaro

[HARRYMPOPE]

Can't argue with proven match loads.many who claim smaller groups and better loads often live close to matches but refuse to enter.what does that mean?:........that they can't do it reliably

Good data frnkeore

[cbrick]

Looked for this picture yesterday when I replied to this thread & couldn't find it. This is from the load data in post #2, @ 150 meters on the 1/2 size turkey. 5 shot group, scoped from the bench. The rifle is a TCR 83 break open, double set trigger 308, 1 in 12 twist.

95701

Rick

[Sendaro]

Rick,
I plan to give that load a try. Weather here is so bad I don't even want to travel the 1/2 mile over to our shooting house to test fire. Have 4 benchrest indoors (shoot through windows) and a 200 yard range there. It's got it all, but the weather just plain sucks! Maybe in a few days things will let up a bit. Till then I'm in my shop assembeling test loads and prep-ing cases.

Sendaro

[Larry Gibson]

Larry,
I believe it is near a #2 on the soft side. I guess that you may call it Scrapalloy.

What do you recommend for lube at the speeds you are shooting at?

Sendaro

An alloy of softer than #2 May or may not shoot well at your desired level of 1400 - 1600 fps. If it has a decent balance of antimony to tin to lead then it may. Note in the record loads frnkeore posted they all were using linotype. I agree with frnkeore that an alloy that hard is not necessary but the alloy must be consistent in quality of content and castability. Wish frnkeore would pay more attention to what I say about when to use fillers, especially why to use them......he would not be so confused then:(. I would not necessarily recommend a filler with any of the powders used in those record loads when used in bench rest matches.

I do recommend a Dacron filler for use with the powders I recommended which are different from those used in the record loads. Note all the velocities of theose record loads are higher than you desire. Thus the powders I recommended with a Dacron filler to give proper ignition and burn efficiency at the lower velocities/pressures you desire will be as good with your softer cast bullets than the comparable and faster burning powders used in those record loads used with the much harder linotype cast bullets at higher velocity and pressures. That makes a difference that apparently frnkeore isn't aware of. Also note none of the record bullet designs have a scraper groove as does your 311332 cast bullet. That scraper groove is a point of weakness with a softer alloy and fast burning powders pushing it above 1400 fps. So basically with your bullet design using the softer unknown alloy at the lower velocity and pressures you desire means different requirements.

To answer the specific question I recommend a softer lube such as the NRA 50/50 lubes. Not all are equal BTW but Lar's at LsStuff.com is very good. I use that and Lar's 2500+ at the higher velocities I shoot. Here's a recent 10 shot group (100 yards) I fired at HV from my .308W Palma rifle.....not the stuff of record books but it isn't to shabby. (Sorry frnkeore, no filler used either:() I recommend the same lube for your intended velocities also.

Larry Gibson

95876

[guicksylver]

+1 on the H335 & RL7

[guicksylver]

Larry I believe you once said that the 311466 was your "go to" boolit.

I've had a love affair with this design for quite some time but haven't been able to achieve the results
you so in the picture.

Any suggestions on loads for the 30-06 in the 1400 - 1800 FPS range ?

I get close but nothing really great, I've used Red Dot, Universal and 2400.

I have 4759, RL7, H4895, IMR 4895, H335, AA2520, 4198, 700x,3031, 231, 296, 4064, Tite Group and probably one or two others.

Dan S.

[Larry Gibson]

Dan

I would suggest the 2400 or the 44759 using a Dacron filler for an all around load. If just bench shooting and you can preposition the powder via loading or lifting the muzzle then the filler may not be needed. You want a gentle push on the bullet yet need a powder that will igniter easily and burn efficiently at the lower psi for that velocity range with the 160 (+?-) gr bullet. The filler (Dacron 3/4 gr +/-) will let those powders do that with that bullet. 4227 and 4198 are potential other powders also.

I suggest a good alloy for consistent bullets. COWWs + 2% tin is good if made in decent sized batches. Linotype with 20 - 30% lead is another that I use. At those velocities I would AC the bullets 7 - 10 days before doing anything with them. I do not weigh sort but do a very critical visual inspection. Once when initially cast I inspect for obvious defect and then as I'm seating the GCs I am very critical; any defect (fillout, wrinkles or holes) of even the slightest and the bullet is rejected. All the driving bands must be clean and square with sharp filled out edges. The sprue must be smoothly cut off w/o a gouged out hole.

The GCs are 1st seated with a .311 H&I die in the 450 and then push sized in a .311 sized for final crimp and bullet sizing if any.

The GC'd and sized bullets are then lubed in the .311 H&I die. I use quality NRA lubes of 50/50 but also find 2500+ to be as good (recommend Lar's at LsStuff.com). I fill all the grooves of the 311466 except the scraper groove. I run the bullet in the 450 for initial lube and then again to make sure the grooves are completely filled. I prefer the softer lubes as I want the lube purged as quick as possible on launch to avoid any unbalancing of the bullet a partial purge may cause.

Fire formed and NS'd cases are used. I use a .31 M die BTW and do not crimp. Seat the bullet so the front edge of the front driving band just kisses the leade.

And of course you must "hold hard and shoot straight":-D

Larry Gibson

[guicksylver]

Larry Thank you, I do most ( really all) of what you have suggested.
Mine are 3 parts COWW to 1part Lino.
I weight sort (habit)
Lubed W 50-50.
I have not tried the filler W 2400 but I will,
I have also not tried 4759 but again will,
It wants to shoot, but so far has not been consistent.
The RO Just loves it when I raise the barrel as you suggested.
It works but makes everyone nervous
.
Thanks so much. Dan S.

[Bullshop]

Using Alliant Steel with about the same burn rate as 2400 there is no need for filler as the powder has enough bulk to adequately fill the case for good ignition. Also being a flake powder it ignites more easily than an extruded powder as is 2400.
Folks seem reluctant to try new powders or something they dont already have on hand.
I am the same way but I am glad I tried Alliant Steel in place of 2400. I have both on hand but save the 2400 for small bore small case cartridges.

[Larry Gibson]

I have not tried Alliant Steel but if Bullshop recommends it, it may very well be a good alternative.....while keeping the RO from getting ulcers........

Larry Gibson

[frnkeore]

Wish frnkeore would pay more attention to what I say about when to use fillers, especially why to use them......he would not be so confused then. I would not necessarily recommend a filler with any of the powders used in those record loads when used in bench rest matches.

These are your recommendations in your filler sticky:

I almost always use the dacron filler in rifle cases with the slower “fast” burning powders (4227, 4759, 5744, 4198, etc. with lighter medium weight bullets for the cartridge; i.e. 140 - 165 gr bullets in .30/.31 cals of 30-30 through '06 case capacity), the medium burning powders (RL7, 3031, 4895, etc.) up through the slow burning powders (RL19, AA4350, H4831SC, RL22, 3100, etc.) that give around 80% or less loading density under medium to heavy weight bullets for the cartridge; i.e. 170 - 220+ gr bullets in .30/.31 cals.

None of the loads that I posted are close to 80%

Please tell us just how the scraper groove weakens the bullet, since it's depth is less than the lube grooves and the bore riding nose is supported by the lands inside the barrel and outside the barrel it's greater diameter makes it stronger than the lube grooves?

guicksylver,
A standard match winning '06 load is 20 - 21 gr of 4759, no filler, of course. Pistol primers generally work better with 4759 because it is a uncoated easy to ignite powder. I usually engrave the front band more than Larry does but, I'm a match shooter not a hunter.

Make sure that the GC's are seated all the way down and that there is no bump from the sprue plate on the base. Use a crimp on type GC, I've had the Lyman GC's hit my chronograph so, I know they don't always stay on.

Spin the bullets in good light and if the bands don't look the same all the way around, it won't shoot.

Frank

[frnkeore]

One other thing, I pan lube my bullets first before doing any sizing, the lube isn't compressable and will help with holding the bands w/o distortion when sizing, it of course takes less pressure to size because of the reduced friction.

One other thing of help with the factory 308 chambers, is to make cases out of '06. The factory and military chamber neck, tapers from .346 to .344, way to big! Commerial cases have a neck thickess of ~.015. That will give you a loaded diameter of .340 with a .310 bullet. If you size '06 brass, it will help fill that extra space plus, give you slightly less capacity (a good thing). Remember that a bullet that starts crooked, will get worse the farther it gets from the case neck.

Frank

[guicksylver]

Frank......As I said I've had a love affair with this boolit.
Consequently I pay particular attention to their quality,right after casting I inspect them with a magnifying glass to make sure the bands are full AND square,
then weight sort.
I also seat them so they are engraved.
I will try your recipe with both LRP and LPP.

Again I have gotten good results but not great and I know this boolit is
capable of more than what I have gotten out of it.

Really appreciate every ones input.

As an aside this type boolits with multiple bands are easy to check for missed irregularities after sizing
as variations in band widths show up easily.

[Wayne S]

Since there are several mentions of "going to try" the "poly filler" how do you that use it deal with the last few "curly's" that are left sticking out around the seated bullet ??

[tygar]

Since there are several mentions of "going to try" the "poly filler" how do you that use it deal with the last few "curly's" that are left sticking out around the seated bullet ??

That's a good question.

[Larry Gibson]

frnkeore

Wish frnkeore would pay more attention to what I say about when to use fillers, especially why to use them......he would not be so confused then I would not necessarily recommend a filler with any of the powders used in those record loads when used in bench rest matches..

if you really paid attention you would note that the 3 cast bullets in the loads you posted are; 217 gr, 192 gr and 178 gr. So noting those bullet weights what part of...........

I almost always use the dacron filler in rifle cases with the slower “fast” burning powders (4227, 4759, 5744, 4198, etc. with lighter medium weight bullets for the cartridge; i.e. 140 - 165 gr bullets in .30/.31 cals of 30-30 through '06 case capacity), the medium burning powders (RL7, 3031, 4895, etc.) up through the slow burning powders (RL19, AA4350, H4831SC, RL22, 3100, etc.) that give around 80% or less loading density under medium to heavy weight bullets for the cartridge; i.e. 170 - 220+ gr bullets in .30/.31 cals.

None of the loads that I posted are close to 80%

......do you not understand? The bullet is too heavy for the 4227 and I give an exception ("almost always" is not "always" in case you don't understand that one either) of the prepositioning of the powder through loading technique or raising the muzzle in benchrest shooting. Prepositioning the powder and using a heavy enough cast bullet for proper powder ignition and efficient powder burn provide the "almost" exception.

Please tell us just how the scraper groove weakens the bullet, since it's depth is less than the lube grooves and the bore riding nose is supported by the lands inside the barrel and outside the barrel it's greater diameter makes it stronger than the lube grooves?

Well frank, I've explained this numerous time and everyone seems to understand except you. For you, because I like you, I'll explain it again. Take two similar cast bullets, both bore riders, both have one lube groove and both are 180 gr. One has a scraper groove, the other doesn't. They are the Lyman 311332 and the NOE MP 311-180. If you compare them and consult with any engineer, especially a structural engineer, they will tell you the scraper groove is a weak point because it can not sustain the same weight of the nose under stress (acceleration) as can the other cast bullet (NOE MP 311-180) without the scraper groove. The smaller unsupported diameter (relation to lube groove diameter is not relevant) of the scraper groove in the cast bullet (311332) can collapse or slough to one side under the stress of acceleration allowing the nose to swage into the lands on one side. There is an explanation and photo of such (a 311284 I think) in the NRA Cast Bullet Handbook or Supplement. That is what makes the scraper groove a "potential" weak spot as compared to the NOE MP 311-180 which is a proven stronger bullet much better suitable for HV. Note the NOE MP 311-180 does not have the scraper groove. BTW; as you allude to in your next post the lube groove are supported if filled with lube which provides a certain amount of structural support to keep them from collapsing during acceleration up to a point. It's not rocket science and you should now understand(?).

One other small note regards "These are your recommendations in your filler sticky" obviously you overlooked the fact the sticky on fillers is not mine. That sticky was started by wgr and there is a lot of input by numerous forum members. I know you really, really want to come up with something to make me look bad, or at least you try often enough. Who knows, you just might. But I'm man enough to admit my mistakes. So keep looking but you shouldn't let your heartburn with me obscure the facts for you.....

As always, a pleasure chatting with you frank........

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

Since there are several mentions of "going to try" the "poly filler" how do you that use it deal with the last few "curly's" that are left sticking out around the seated bullet ??

If pushed down inside the neck completely the "curly's" shouldn't be there. If you look before setting the bullet into the flared case neck "curly" hanging out side the neck can be pushed in or snipped off if they bother you. For most rifles and shooting a small bit of "curly" doesn't harm any thing. Perhaps frank would disagree but I'm not talking bench rest shooting here or even load development.......just shooting........

Larry Gibson

[45 2.1]

As for what happens to a lead boolit when it's fired, the above posts don't even begin to relate accurately what happens. Two books: The Bullets Flight by Dr. Franklin Mann and any of the versions of LBT's books on Jacketed Velocity with Cast Bullets show and tell you about pressure distribution in a boolit. Should be required reading..................

Another good read is the NRA Cast Bullet Handbook or the Supplement to it. It shows many pictures of the different Lyman designs and what happens to them involving various load levels. They didn't seem to have a problem with scraper grooves, and since they are an acknowledged authority on cast bullets, I would think anyone disputing them would have to have some credentials, unlike what we've seen here. It really is a matter of using the right alloy strength with the right pressure level and intensity.

[Wayne S]

:groner:
WELL,
looks like it's time to break out the "measuring stick" and "pee Pole":takinWiz:

[kweidner]

kweidner, What do you like about it and what boolit/ charge are you using? What kind of accuracy/velocity are you getting?
Sendarol

I use the lee 155 2r over 20 grains of h335. Shoots MOA in 2 different rigs. Coated with HT gold AND felix lube. Haven't tried it with just ht yet cause I got to seat the gas check in my 450 anyway. Very pleasant shooting and very accurate.

[frnkeore]

l[/SIZE]arry gibson;2620622]

......do you not understand? The bullet is too heavy for the 4227 and I give an exception ("almost always" is not "always" in case you don't understand that one either) of the prepositioning of the powder through loading technique or raising the muzzle in benchrest shooting. Prepositioning the powder and using a heavy enough cast bullet for proper powder ignition and efficient powder burn provide the "almost" exception.

larry, ole buddy, I'm sorry that it's taken so long to get back to you but, I had to travel quite a ways to a gun show on Sat.

Yes, I do believe when we talk that people do learn a little something.

Now regarding your exception..... If you ever attended a cast bullet match, you would see that no one raises there rifles per, your instructions, most ranges do not allow that anyway because of safety and insurance reasons. So, I guess your exception is that is rather than use a filler with fast burning rifle powders (that isn't recommend by Lyman because of safety concerns) that a person should instead use a 166 gr, or heavier bullet.

The wording about medium and slow powders is still a bit confusing. Are you implying that you ALSO, don't need a filler if you use a 166 gr bullet, or heavier with those powders, such as the other two loads that I posted? Or is there another exception that I've missed?

Please tell us just how the scraper groove weakens the bullet, since it's depth is less than the lube grooves and the bore riding nose is supported by the lands inside the barrel and outside the barrel it's greater diameter makes it stronger than the lube grooves?

Well frank, I've explained this numerous time and everyone seems to understand except you. For you, because I like you, I'll explain it again. Take two similar cast bullets, both bore riders, both have one lube groove and both are 180 gr. One has a scraper groove, the other doesn't. They are the Lyman 311332 and the NOE MP 311-180. If you compare them and consult with any engineer, especially a structural engineer, they will tell you the scraper groove is a weak point because it can not sustain the same weight of the nose under stress (acceleration) as can the other cast bullet (NOE MP 311-180) without the scraper groove. The smaller unsupported diameter (relation to lube groove diameter is not relevant) of the scraper groove in the cast bullet (311332) can collapse or slough to one side under the stress of acceleration allowing the nose to swage into the lands on one side. There is an explanation and photo of such (a 311284 I think) in the NRA Cast Bullet Handbook or Supplement. That is what makes the scraper groove a "potential" weak spot as compared to the NOE MP 311-180 which is a proven stronger bullet much better suitable for HV. Note the NOE MP 311-180 does not have the scraper groove. BTW; as you allude to in your next post the lube groove are supported if filled with lube which provides a certain amount of structural support to keep them from collapsing during acceleration up to a point. It's not rocket science and you should now understand(?).

larry, I've seen that picture. The bullet is a 311413, fired with 18 gr of Unique, in a 308, I believe. Not quite the right powder for that velocity application. If you will take another look at that picture, you'll find that the spitzer nose is totally unsupported by the lands and that your NOE 180 would do the same thing if it were also unsupported with that same powder charge. In what testing did the NOE prove to be stronger? I would love to talk to your structional engineer that you converse with, could I get his phone #? I'm sure that he could set me straight on this matter. Lyman also advertizes that the 284 scraper groove can succesfully be used at HV (see below).

One other small note regards "These are your recommendations in your filler sticky" obviously you overlooked the fact the sticky on fillers is not mine. That sticky was started by wgr and there is a lot of input by numerous forum members. I know you really, really want to come up with something to make me look bad, or at least you try often enough. Who knows, you just might. But I'm man enough to admit my mistakes. So keep looking but you shouldn't let your heartburn with me obscure the facts for you.....

larry, you have made a mistake? Please tell us it what it was, as I have yet to read about it. Maybe the water you walk on has washed it away :)

So many question with so little time :(

As always, a pleasure chatting with you frank........

Larry Gibson

Your BBF,

Frank

96323

[Airman Basic]

Got a ton, well, a bunch anyway, of old H4831 cannon fodder from way back when. I use a primed 308 case like a Lee dipper, fill the case to the shoulder, top with an RCBS 180 grain cast, and shoot it. Don't have a chronograph, but they shoot pretty good.

[Larry Gibson]

Frank

Back in the day when I did attend and shoot in numerous cast bullet matches raising the muzzle was the common method of prepositioning the lighter charges of powder. A little research on that and you would have known what was/is recommended to preposition powder for best accuracy. What they do now on ranges has nothing to do with whether I've shot matches or not. Fact is I have but most of mine were high power matches not benchrest matches.

As to your not comprehending what I said in the sticky I simply suggest you read it more carefully. Most others have no problems comprehending what I said as evidenced in; http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?230290-More-proof-Dacron-works However, since you seem to have a comprehension problem I’ll explain it to you.

The heavier bullets have the mass which requires a higher pressure to get them moving. The slower they move the higher the psi rises. This causes the powder (at a certain load level) to ignite and burn efficiently. Conversely, lighter weight bullets, given the same powder, are moved down the barrel faster with less pressure. As the bullet moves down the barrel the volume the gas must fill gets larger and the pressure does not attain sufficient psi for the powder to burn efficiently. The trick is to balance the psi for efficient ignition and burn of the powder to the bullet weight. Using the dacron filler does this with the correctly chosen powders and bullet weights.

You are correct the bullet shown in the supplement was the 311413, not the 311284. And it does show as you mention the collapse of the bullet at the scraper groove. What I said was; “That scraper groove is a point of weakness with a softer alloy and fast burning powders pushing it above 1400 fps.” That example of the 311413 in the NRA CBH supports that. If the 311284 is cast of softer alloys and pushed hard with fast burning powders the same thing will happen at the scraper groove to some extent. The exact same thing will/is happen(ing) to the OP's 311332 cast bullets. The 311284 when cast of a harder alloy or HT’s is pushed by slower burning powders the collapse at the scraper groove won’t happen until much higher velocity/acceleration. The same exact thing can be done to the 311332 to shoot at higher velocity/acceleration. However, if you also read what the OP was doing with his 311332 bullet using the softer alloy with faster burning powders you will see your argument is lacking. what is happening to the op's 311332 is exactly what happened to the illustrated 311413. My answer to the OP was correct based on the criteria he set forth. The 311284 is a different bullet than the 311332 in case you didn't notice.

If you wish to discuss this (scraper grooves being a weak point) further why don't you start a thread about that topic?

BTW; you also failed to answer the previous question I asked of you; “which one(s) of those bullets used in the 3 records you posted have a scraper groove”?

Larry Gibson

[62chevy]

Okay let me see if I'm getting the idea of what is being said here. If I cast of boolit with dead soft lead then shoot it at 900 fps the scraper groove should hold up BUT if shot at 1600 fps the scraper groove will collapse. If the same boolit is cast with Lyman #2 then 1600 fps shouldn't be a problem. My problem is when to use a filler and when not to use a filler but when the time comes I will ask the question on fillers and powders. First, weather permitting, I need to slug then do a pound cast of my rifle. Tons of questions coming this spring from this old phart.

[Larry Gibson]

62chevy

You've got the basic idea. Be glad to help when you get to the filler use part.

Larry Gibson

[62chevy]

62chevy

You've got the basic idea. Be glad to help when you get to the filler use part.

Larry Gibson

Thanks Larry just have to wait for the weather to clear up as everything has to be done outside.

[frnkeore]

larry,
I think you need to read my posts and others with a little more objectivity and comprehension.

Sendaro says:

"Larry,
I believe it is near a #2 on the soft side. I guess that you may call it Scrapalloy."

One of the alloys that you recommend is 2% tin/98% WW with a hardness of 12 BHN, #2 is 15 BHN so, I would say that the alloy to be used has plenty of strength to with stand even 2000 fps with a scraper groove and a bore riding nose that is supported by the lands. If a bore rider isn't supported by the lands, it will distort regardless of whether it has a scraper or not. You still haven't gave me the number of your structural engineer so that I might consult with him directly on this matter.

larry says:

"Back in the day when I did attend and shoot in numerous cast bullet matches raising the muzzle was the common method of prepositioning the lighter charges of powder."

We now live in the modern age, larry. I've been shooting cast bullet matches since 1985 and haven't seen it done. If it is not done now, it didn't need to be done then either (what ever year that was), as what ever records existed then have been surpassed.

larry says:

"Fact is I have but most of mine were high power matches not benchrest matches."

We are concerned here with cast bullets, larry not High Power jacketed shooting. Keeping in mind the your above quote, just how many cast bullet BR matches (approx) have you shot in, what years and where were they?

larry says:

"You are correct the bullet shown in the supplement was the 311413, not the 311284. And it does show as you mention the collapse of the bullet at the scraper groove. What I said was; “That scraper groove is a point of weakness with a softer alloy and fast burning powders pushing it above 1400 fps.” That example of the 311413 in the NRA CBH supports that. If the 311284 is cast of softer alloys and pushed hard with fast burning powders the same thing will happen at the scraper groove to some extent. The exact same thing will/is happen(ing) to the OP's 311332 cast bullets."

Where did the OP state that his bullets are bent in any way. I don't believe he has recovered any bullet to see that. He was saying the his chronograph results supported the high and low impacts in his group.

Another point regarding scrapers, is that I used the 323471 resized to .322 in my 32/40 in CBA matches @ 2154 (34 gr 2520), producing groups from 1" down to .43 @ 100 yards at a hardness of 12.5 BHN!

Regarding my answer to your question about the match bullets (they are NOT records, just match winning scores), it matters NOT if a bullet has a scraper or not if, the bore riding nose is supported in the lands and is about 12 BNH or harder, no matter what safe load is used.


Your BFF,

Frank

[Larry Gibson]

My BFF

A lot of time on your hands up there with the weather we see.

One of the alloys that you recommend is 2% tin/98% WW with a hardness of 12 BHN, #2 is 15 BHN

Apparently your alloy ends up a lot softer than mine. I have posted numerous times that COWWs + 2% tin will have a BHN (yes I measure it) of 14 - 17 with 15 - 16 being the most common depending on the quality of the COWWs and after aging 7 - 10 days. If WQ'd or HT'd that alloy will have a BHN of 22 - 26 depending on the content of antimony in the COWWs. The OP (Sendaro) said he "guessed at the alloy and the hardness. A "guess" does not mean his alloy actually is the 15 BHN of #2 alloy.

We now live in the modern age, larry. I've been shooting cast bullet matches since 1985 and haven't seen it done. If it is not done now, it didn't need to be done then either (what ever year that was), as what ever records existed then have been surpassed.

Good to know you've been to 3 county fairs, 2 hay rides and a hog killin' and know everything there is to know. Guess we didn't "need" them M1903s, them M1s and those M14s back then so why is it you still shoot an 8x57 or the older guns you shoot.....where is the "need"? Yes the records have been surpassed and we surpassed a few set before us.....that's why the switch from the V target to the decimal but then that was before your time..........back in the time when lots of high power matches, especially on practice reduced NMC matches, were shot with cast bullets...........Some even still shoot cast in the military matches at Camp Perry.........

Where did the OP state that his bullets are bent in any way. I don't believe he has recovered any bullet to see that. He was saying the his chronograph results supported the high and low impacts in his group.

Yes, and he said he was not getting very good accuracy. With a soft alloy and the use of the fast burning powder he was using the collapse of the scraper groove can cause the inaccuracy. Better to use a slower burning powder with that design of bullet, just like the shooter used with the loads you posted.

Another point regarding scrapers, is that I used the 323471 resized to .322 in my 32/40 in CBA matches @ 2154 (34 gr 2520), producing groups from 1" down to .43 @ 100 yards at a hardness of 12.5 BHN!

The 323471 has a much shorter nose with less mass than the 311332. Thus the 311332 is more susceptible to scraper groove collapse. Also the 323471 has 55% bearing surface and the 311322 has only about 40% bearing surface. The nose diameter of your 323471 should run right at .318 - .320 which is considerably larger than the probable bore diameter of the 32-40 and thus the nose itself is engraved deeply by the lands and well supported. The OPs 311322 nose diameter will be smaller than bore diameter and not nearly as well supported. Also the powder you used (2520) is a lot slower burning than the Unique the OP was using. The time/pressure curve of you load was a lot slower than the load the OP used. The devil is in the details frank, but then you know all that because this is all just a test......BTW; a 32-40? That's so like last century.....oops, the century before last.........but what the hey, it's still a good cartridge.

Regarding your answer to my last question.....nice soft shoe routine but not the correct answer.......

I've again wasted too much time with you and these silly discussions.....so you win.......I've better things to do........

Larry Gibson

[frnkeore]

Apparently your alloy ends up a lot softer than mine. I have posted numerous times that COWWs + 2% tin will have a BHN (yes I measure it) of 14 - 17 with 15 - 16 being the most common depending on the quality of the COWWs and after aging 7 - 10 days. If WQ'd or HT'd that alloy will have a BHN of 22 - 26 depending on the content of antimony in the COWWs. The OP (Sendaro) said he "guessed at the alloy and the hardness. A "guess" does not mean his alloy actually is the 15 BHN of #2 alloy.

larry,
We have a serious matter of concern here! Apperently your hardness tester is way out of calibration or the WW and tin aren't what you think that they are!

#2 Lyman alloy is 15 BHN and 2% tin/WW can't be as hard as #2. HT not with standing. #2 is 5% tin, 5% Antimony and 90% lead. You don't have enough tin or antimony to get it to even 14 BHN.

I would be happy to Email you calulator that can help you with figuring alloy hardness.

Frank

[frnkeore]

larry says:

Yes, and he said he was not getting very good accuracy. With a soft alloy and the use of the fast burning powder he was using the collapse of the scraper groove can cause the inaccuracy. Better to use a slower burning powder with that design of bullet, just like the shooter used with the loads you posted.

I think we can safely say that you are making a assumption here. You do know what assume means?

If the bullet was bent, I believe the impacts would be more evenly distributed, rather than high and low. ES would be more likely to account for that.

Frank

[Larry Gibson]

I think we can safely say that you are making a assumption here. You do know what assume means?

Frank, 'tis not I that makes the assumptions here.....'tis you.

Larry said;

That bullet should work quite well. Assuming a good alloy of at least 15 BHN.

Where did Larry say the OPs bullet would not shoot well?

Larry said;

An alloy of softer than #2 May or may not shoot well at your desired level of 1400 - 1600 fps.

Where in that do you find that do you find "Larry said" the OPs bullet was bent and that was the reason for the inaccuracy? You assumed that frank, and your assumption was wrong.

Larry said;

Also note none of the record bullet designs have a scraper groove as does your 311332 cast bullet. That scraper groove is a point of weakness with a softer alloy and fast burning powders pushing it above 1400 fps.

In that you apparently made the assumption "Larry Said" the OPs bullets were bent and that was the reason for the inaccuracy. The scraper groove is a point of weakness with the softer alloy the OP used and the faster burning powder the OP used. All the examples you give to prove otherwise use slower burning powders and harder alloys. They prove what I said (read the quote frank) is correct. Your assumption, frank, was wrong.

You assume the OP's alloy had a BHN about like #2 alloy. The OP assumed it also but we do not know, do we? The OPs bullets may or may not have bent or collapsed at the scraper groove. Whether they did or not does not mean the scraper groove was not a point of weakness. Modern cast bullet designs for higher velocity and higher pressures do not have scraper grooves frank. There is a reason for that. The fact that we can shoot the older designs having scraper groove to somewhat higher velocity and pressures by using harder alloys and slower burning powders just proves my point.

As to your "serious matter of concern" perhaps you should reconsult your Lyman CBHs of which you delight in quoting. If you read carefully the metallurgy articles in CBHs #3 and #4 you may get a much better understanding of the relations of SB to SN when alloyed with Pb in regard to the percentages where hardness (BHN) is maximized. A balance of #5 Sn to 3 1/2 - 4% Sn forms a compound that hardens PB more than the sum of hardness of the individual elements. The additional 1 1/2% amount of antimony and tin above those percentages in #2 alloy do little to add to it's hardness because that additional amount is not in solution with the Pb. It is when a much larger % of antimony is added, such as in linotype, that we see a larger increase in BHN accompanied by brittleness because that excess antimony is also not in solution with the PB but is increasing the hardness in and of itself. A read of other metallurgy works may also help. Also you alloy calculator's answer is only a guess because, unless you have the alloy analyzed, you are inputting what you think the percentages are and thus the answer in BHN is based on guessed at data. To the contrary I measured the actually BHN w/o guessing (assuming as you do) what the element percentages were. And yes I do calibrate my BHN measuring device against certified pure PB and certified linotype. I also understand that COWWs are not always of the same composition which is why I give a BHN of 14 - 17 when 2% tin is added and the bullets are AC'd 7-10 days. You make an assumption on the content which is why you state equivocally the BHN should be 12. I suggest you actually mix some of that alloy with good COWWs and add 2% tin, let it AC and age for 7-10 days and then have the BHN measured on a calibrated device. I suggest that frank because, again, your assumption is wrong.

BTW; the suggestion of a different powder and Dacron filler that "Larry said" (actually advised to OP to use) would take care of the vertical stringing. You assumed something else frank, you assumed I did think the vertical string was caused by the large ES in fps and your assumption was wrong. The OP and everyone else understands what I said.....everyone except you.

And lastly speaking of Lyman's manuals; you copied and posted above the info on Lyman's 311281 out of the Lyman manual. Do you know how long that information has been printed by Lyman? Apparently not because it was well before; "We now live in the modern age, larry. I've been shooting cast bullet matches since 1985 and haven't seen it done. If it is not done now, it didn't need to be done then either (what ever year that was), as what ever records existed then have been surpassed." I would add that that very bullet was used by many shooters long before I started shooting cast bullets, was an excellent bullet then, was an excellent bullet when I used it in my M1903 in HP matches and is still and excellent bullet, eh? or you wouldn't be using it as an example, eh? Also I might mention the 32-40 was around a long time before you started setting the world on fire in '85. Perhaps all is not "surpassed"? There are many older cartridges and guns that have not been "surpassed" for what they were designed and used for.

frank said;

CBA allows them but, Lyman does not think they are safe!

Well frank, Lyman also says never make 6.5 Swede cases out of '06 cases! How many here do that?. Where do you find your 32-40 load in the Lyman manual? You don't do you frank.....because the fact is Lyman's manuals say a lot of things that many very safely do anyway. Lyman's manual give empirical percentages of lead, antimony and tin in several alloys but we know that the actual percentages vary somewhat +/- don't we frank? You are a great fan of CBA as you post there frequently (on the CBA forum), shoot in their matches and quote their records and scores here frequently. So which should we follow frank.....what Lyman says or CBA....which is "right" frank? You chastise me using one out of context CBA score (you made a wrong assumption on the results BTW) to prove I'm wrong about accuracy and linear/non-linear groups at 100 and 200 yards. Yet when Joeb ran a thread on the CBA forum showing all the record scores for the last 10+ years demonstrated almost perfect linear dispersion between 100 and 200 yards you did not disagree even though you posted on that thread. So which is it frank, Is CBA correct or Lyman?

So, frank, once again you've taken another thread off on a tangent simply because.....well, we all know why. I am now completely done with this thread frank. So if you want to discuss this further why don't you start your own thread instead of hijacking someone else's? Or you could PM me and we could discuss it there? Otherwise I'm done with you here.

Larry Gibson

[frnkeore]

We all know that larry can't abide by his "I'm done with it". And I don't want him to :)

The following larry says are copied and pasted, not typed by me.

larry says:

Where in that do you find that do you find "Larry said" the OPs bullet was bent and that was the reason for the inaccuracy? You assumed that frank, and your assumption was wrong.

larry says:

"You are correct the bullet shown in the supplement was the 311413, not the 311284. And it does show as you mention the collapse of the bullet at the scraper groove. What I said was; “That scraper groove is a point of weakness with a softer alloy and fast burning powders pushing it above 1400 fps.” That example of the 311413 in the NRA CBH supports that. If the 311284 is cast of softer alloys and pushed hard with fast burning powders the same thing will happen at the scraper groove to some extent. The exact same thing will/is happen(ing) to the OP's 311332 cast bullets."

Now regarding the more important issue, the hardness of 2% tin/98% WW. If you will do a little research or if you will call Roto Metals, one of this forums sponcers, you will find that the hardness of that alloy is 12 BHN. You may be confusing the alloy know as Hard Ball with 2% tin/98% WW. Hard Ball is 2% tin, 6% antimony, 92% lead (approx 16 BHN) . WW is only approx. .5% (or less) tin and approx. 3% antimony.

Regarding age hardening, here are the actually figures and you can't pick up but a maximum of .5 BHN :

96608

Frank
or as larry says, frank

[Larry Gibson]

frank

I'll be your huckleberry then......let's dance.......

Depending on the quality of the COWW batch the tin content may be .5%+, and the antimony may be 4%. That is from one of your favorite sources of reference; Lyman's CBH's both #3 & #4. You do quote from them often frank. The same Lyman manuals also give the BHN of COWWs as "9". So now you come up with Roto Metals and they say the BHN of COWW alloy is 12? And with less antimony than what Lyman shows? So frank, pray tell....which is correct?

Now if you'd bother to do a little reading of the metallurgy articles I mentioned earlier you might understand the relationship of Sb to Sn, how Sb and Sn form an alloy together (SnSb) and how that alloy benefits Pb when the SnSb is in solution in the correct %, especially as related to hardness of the alloy. You might also learn from the phase diagrams and discussions how the percentages of 2.5 -3 % Sn and 3-4% SB combine to go into solution in the Pb not allowing the SB to solidify separately from the Pb which is what we get most often with decent batches of COWWs + 2% tin. If you would bother to conduct your own tests instead of simply finding some one else to quote or reference (wonder who you got that method from?) you might have a better understanding and come up with a more consistent and correct answer.

So, frank, why don't you mix up those alloys, cast up some bullets, get a BHN tester (the Lee is not all that expensive) and test the BHN at intervals over 7 - 10 days. The actual BHN of a good batch of COWWs with 2% tin added just may surprise you. You may also be surprised how that alloy age hardens further over the next 7 - 10 days. Many very experienced casters here have done just that and they know the answer. You obvious don't and are grasping at whatever else someone else may say as some sort of support. So you quote Lyman and Roto Metals......which is correct on the BHN. Suggest you use the search engine on this forum and query how AC'd ternary alloys age harden. That topic has been discussed quite a few times and several comprehensive tests demonstrating such have been conducted by several members.

The little chart you post only references increases in Sb and does not reference an increase of SN to form SbSn. BTW frank (take a real close look) the chart only shows no increase in BHN with HT'd alloy. The chart does not show any BHN measurements of the alloy used w/o HT from day 1 through 104 days. Then again it is only with a Pb/Sb alloy and not a ternary alloy of Pb/Sb/Sn. To clarify that point which makes the difference let me quote from Lyman's #4 manual (a favorite of yours to quote from so it must be right, eh frank);

"The presence of a second dispersed phase within what was once a single phase alloy can have a strong effect upon the mechanical properties. If the dispersed second phase is stronger than the parent phase the two-phase mixture will be harder to deform simply because of the presence of the harder material. The presence of a harder second phase within the metal will also inhibit accommodation of slip within the parent phase causing an increase in the strength of the alloy. Even when the precipitated phase is weaker than the parent its presence provides additional grain boundaries that also act to strengthen the metal. Each of these effects contributes to precipitation hardening of the alloy due to the presence of a second phase.

Oops, you lost your step in the dance on that one frank. so let me help you; in lay terms it means the correct balance of SnSb in solution with Pb gives the alloy a strength greater than the sum of the parts. Cast some of your own bullets of such an alloy, let them age harden and then BHN test them and you will find out.....then you won't stumble when we dance.

So maybe now that your back in step......Frank, perhaps you’ve heard of Glen E. Fryxel? Here’s a little excerpt from his writings;

Multi-component alloys. Tin still improves castability by lowering viscosity and surface tension. Antimony hardens the alloy via precipitation. The tin also helps to alleviate brittleness by combining with the antimony to form an intermetallic adduct thereby improving the solubility, maintaining the hardness. Antimony also helps to reduce shrinkage as the alloy cools. The harder the alloy, the less it shrinks (lead shrinks 1.13%, linotype shrinks 0.65%). In molten lead alloys, tin and antimony react with one another to form an intermetallic compound (shorthand is “SbSn” to show the adduct between antimony, Sb, and tin, Sn). This does a number of things. First of all, SbSn is more soluble in lead than is Sb. In addition, both free Sb and Sn are soluble in SbSn, as is Pb, meaning that the formation of this phase serves to enhance the mixing of the alloy and limit phase segregation and precipitation. When Sb and Sn are present in roughly equal amounts, the alloy behaves as though it’s a pseudobinary system of SbSn in Pb. Electron micrographs of 94% Pb, 3% Sb and 3% Sn (an excellent bullet metal, very similar to WW alloys with 2% added tin) shows globular grains of lead rich solid solution, with an interdendritic pseudobinary eutectic of SnSb phase (for example see: the Metals Handbook: Volume 7, Atlas of Microstructutres of Industrial Alloys, page 304). Similar electron micrographs of linotype alloys show very thin dendrites of lead-rich solid solution, surrounded by a matrix of SnSb intermetallic phase, with much precipitated antimony rich solid solution (this precipitated phase is why linotype bullets are so brittle and tend to shear upon impact).

How these alloys are hardened depends on the composition. The malleability of lead-tin-antimony tertiary alloys depend heavily on composition, particularly on the tin/antimony ratio. When the concentrations of tin and antimony are equal, the alloy behaves as though it’s a binary system with “SnSb” as the diluent in the lead matrix. The phase behavior of SnSb is notably different than that of Sb -- both in terms of solubility and in terms of crystal morphology. Sb is highly crystalline and only soluble in Pb to the tune of 0.44% at room temperature. SnSb appears to be significantly more soluble in Pb and based on electron micrographs of chemically etched samples, significantly more amorphous. As mentioned before, the SnSb phase serves as a mixing agent, serving to help dissolve excess Sb (or Sn for that matter), and having greater solubility in the Pb matrix. This enhanced mixing, along with the reduced crystallinity means that the lead alloys with a 1:1 ratio of tin to antimony behave somewhat like simple binary lead-tin alloys, only harder (this is why Lyman #2 is 90% Pb, 5% Sb, 5% Sn). Hold this thought…

As the concentration of antimony increases over that of tin, at first the SnSb phase serves to dissolve the small amount of excess Sb. At higher Sb concentrations however the SnSb phase becomes saturated and a separate antimony phase begins to precipitate. At this point, the alloy begins to take on some of the brittleness properties of the binary lead-antimony alloys. As the antimony concentration increases, this brittleness becomes more pronounced. So those tertiary alloys which have 2 or 3 times as much antimony as tin (e.g. linotype, 12% Sb, 4% Sn) tend to be more brittle than those alloys of similar hardness with similar Sb and Sn levels. OK, here’s a subtle point, WW alloy (3% antimony, 0.3% tin) can fall prey to this issue as well, although not as severely since its not as hard. But by adding tin and making the alloy slightly harder, the alloy also becomes less brittle and more malleable due to the formation of SnSb and the elimination of the precipitated Sb phase. Thus, WW alloy with approximately 2% added tin makes an excellent bullet metal with hardness suitable for a variety of applications, and it still can be made harder through heat treating or water quenching. This can also be made using Lyman #2 mixed with an equal amount of pure lead.

In “Cast Bullets” by E. H. Harrison (NRA Publications) WW alloy +2% tin is listed as giving very good castability and a BHN of 13.6. My own measurements run more like a BHN of 11-12 (undoubtedly due to the variation in WW content), but this alloys does indeed cast very well."

frank, you say "when"........

Your Huckleberry

Larry Gibson

[runfiverun]

keep it civil.....

[Larry Gibson]

No one is being un-civil.......just having fun....

Another thread has me wondering though; on the alloy forum is a thread where some recent COWW was analyzed. If the percentages of tin and antimony in that are indicative of what's available today both frank and I both need to learn how to "dance" all over again........pretty poor percentages for what we used to have in COWWs and will pretty much negate what we knew about them...........

Larry Gibson

[runfiverun]

they have been steadily declining over the last decade or so.
it seemed like they knew a ban was coming and was/were just recycling everything [clip-on and stick-on] that came in, back into ww shapes.
the ww's coming in from china and india were/are of poor quality to begin with, they see/have no reason to adhere to anything other than a cost point and volume.
I have seen stick-on ww's with a bhn of 12 and clip-ons with a bhn of 8-9 when melted down and tested individually.
I just gave up looking for them after the last batch I received, and now pretty much stick to pounding the same two pieces of dirt over and over and digging what I can back out again before I go home.

[frnkeore]

larry,
You have proved my point almost exactly. I said that 2% tin/ 98% WW, had a hardess of 12 BHN. That was based on .25 tin and 3% antimony WW. That combination is :

2.25% tin

2.94% antimony

94.81 % lead

With a hardess of 12 BHN

In your Quote of Glen E. Fryxel, he does seem to agree with me.

In “Cast Bullets” by E. H. Harrison (NRA Publications) WW alloy +2% tin is listed as giving very good castability and a BHN of 13.6. My own measurements run more like a BHN of 11-12 (undoubtedly due to the variation in WW content), but this alloys does indeed cast very well."

Cast Bullets by E. H. Harrison was published in 1979 by compiling American Rifleman articles in the years between 1957 and 1979. It doesn't date the individule articles so, we can't say what date any article was written. I don't doubt that WW's may have had both more tin and antimony in that time period. As I have read many times, over the last 20 years that the tin and Antimony in WW's have been reduced and have no reason to doubt that and I'm sure that not everyone removes the stick on WW's when they melt a batch either. In all my sources, I have never seen WW as having more than .5% tin either.

My personal batch of 2% tin/WW was mixed approx. 1992 and measures 11.9 . The 32/40 - 323471 alloy is 5% tin/95% WW, as you saw, the hardess is a measured 12.7 BHN and that is what that alloy is supposed to be in the alloy mixture program that I offered (12.74). The program is still offered.



I can't speak for just what tin does in a matrix with antimony but, I do know that tin alloys age soften. Also your copied info doesn't support age hardening of 3 to 5 BHN in 7 - 10 days. It's a lot of reading so, please point it out if I missed it.

In my last post, did you see where you did, indeed say that the OP's bullets were distorting?

Frank

larry's BFF, frank

[cbrick]

Another thread has me wondering though; on the alloy forum is a thread where some recent COWW was analyzed. If the percentages of tin and antimony in that are indicative of what's available today both frank and I both need to learn how to "dance" all over again........pretty poor percentages for what we used to have in COWWs and will pretty much negate what we knew about them........... Larry Gibson

The test your referring to is actually the second such test done in the last couple of months. WW's were tested from both coasts and samples taken from at the least several years apart. The results are surprisingly close with all tests. With most any weights your likely to get these days a safe assumption is 2% Sb and 0.5% Sn.

Test results are in this sticky . . .

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?229666-Stick-On-WW-XrF-Data

Rick

[Larry Gibson]

frank

I'm not your research assistant so do the search for the thread about age hardening yourself and print it out yourself. It's there just find it. BTW; it's obvious you "can't speak for what tin does in a matrix with antimony" because your copied chart does not support your contention that an AC'd ternary alloy does not age harden. You bring up the dissent so it's up to you to prove the dissention.

In my last post, did you see where you did, indeed say that the OP's bullets were distorting?

And it very well may be, especially with the softer alloy and fast burning powder used at the psi it is used at. If some of the bullets are bending they will have a lower BC than the ones that don't bend/ collapse. Thus the bullets with the lower BC will slow down quicker and hit lower. That could also account for the vertical stringing. I have seen a lot of very nice groups at 100 yards shot with a lot higher ES than the OP's load had so vertical stinging is not all about the ES. Since you mention we have no recovered to bullets to look at your assumption is no better than mine because you can't prove some of the bullets didn't collapse or bend.

Your BHN of the COWWs is based on the assumption that the antimony content is only 2.94% (that's a pretty precise assumption given the great variance of COWWs quality isn't it......?). Your previous favorite reference, Lyman, says the antimony content of COWWs is 4%! So what is it then and why do you continually switch references? Can we really say it is 2.94%? Little absurd to try to be that precise isn't it? Lyman also says with 4% antimony the BHN is only 9 so what is it; the 9 Lyman says, the 12 Roto says it is, the 11 - 12 Fryxell says it is, the 13+ others say or the 14+ BHN I say if the batch of COWWs is a good one? The point is we don't know because, just as I've said in numerous posts on other threads, the quality and content of COWWs varies greatly across the country. And yes, the quality of COWWs has deteriorated in the last 15 - 20 years and more so the last 5 years. What we used to get isn't what we'll get today.

My personal batch of 2% tin/WW was mixed approx. 1992 and measures 11.9 . The 32/40 - 323471 alloy is 5% tin/95% WW, as you saw, the hardess is a measured 12.7 BHN

frank, I do not doubt that BHN of 12.7 with that alloy at all. The addition of 5% tin with a content of 3 - 4% antimony (probably what those COWWs had back in '92) will make the alloy softer because the amount of tin is not in balance with the amount of antimony. Thus had you just added 2% tin the BHN would probably be 14+ because the tin and antimony would be in better balance forming SbSn. When you do get a better understanding of the relationship of tin to animony in a ternary alloy you will understand, perhaps. Right now you are just making wrong assumptions on what is happening to the alloy.

All pretty much a moot point because COWWs of lead, antimony and some tin are on the way out and those we find today are generally not of the older composition. With newer COWWs it is probably best to just add the 2% tin and settle for a lower BHN or WQ/HT them for a higher BHN.

Your Huckleberry

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

The test your referring to is actually the second such test done in the last couple of months. WW's were tested from both coasts and samples taken from at the least several years apart. The results are surprisingly close with all tests. With most any weights your likely to get these days a safe assumption is 2% Sb and 0.5% Sn.

Test results are in this sticky . . .

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?229666-Stick-On-WW-XrF-Data

Rick

Rick

The test results in that sticky, unless I missed something, are for SOWWs not COWWs(?).

Larry Gibson

[tygar]

Rick

The test results in that sticky, unless I missed something, are for SOWWs not COWWs(?).

Larry Gibson

Hi guys, been watching this post & since it's morphed into a "lead" discussion, I thought I'd ask a question on some smelting/casting that has me perplexed. Not trying to hijack the thread but since this is a mix/bhn ? thought I'd ask.

I smelted some lead. Basically soft strips 1/8" by 3 to 5". On the Lee tester was about .080.

After fluxing I transferred m/l 15# into my Lee pourer to cast some with my new Mehec 45acp 230 mold. So long story short, in making the bullets it wasn't filling out well so added my pewter discs (about 8 per 6oz). Added about 8 or 10oz m/l, got good fill (or the mold got broke in) & cast about 50+ good ones.

Meanwhile I had smelted about 15+ #s of this lead & poured into molds.

Now you see I have bullets & ingots of the same metal with only about 1/2# tin added to 15 or up to 17#s lead.

All air cooled. Here's the problem. The bullets were .062 13.4 BHN & the ingots were off the Lee chart soft, measuring from .080 to .090. I measured ingots for 1/2# Lee to 2.5#s & all were in that range. Several bullets checked both on the flat & after filing a flat on the side & were consistent at .062.

Now dead soft at about 6 to 13.4 BHN on 8ozs of tin doesn't compute.

Any ideas?
Thanks
Tom

Oh Larry! What I was referring to on the new barrel, was do you think that a #5 contour on the 30" is good enough?

I thought the #4 I was using on the 22" would be to whippy.

[Larry Gibson]

Tygar

That #5 should do it. Might compare the dimensions with what is called a light Palma barrel. I think Shilen's site gives those dimensions(?). I wouldn't go any smaller in diameters than those. I prefer a medium Palma contour.

Larry Gibson

[cbrick]

In post #13 of that thread is a link to the first series of tests done mostly on CWW, some SWW and a piece of ballast. Nine samples in all that I sent to Tim (Goodsteel), he had them tested at work and then sent the samples off to BNE on the east coast & he tested them.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?229666-Stick-On-WW-XrF-Data This link that was made a sticky is on a different batch of SWW but the link is there to the original testing which is at this link.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?213625-First-time-using-sawdust

Rick

[frnkeore]

larry,
As I said before, your comprehension skills are lacking. Do your really believe that Fryxel is talking about the hardness of just WW's in the quote?

He actually says that Lymans mixture of 2% tin/98% WW were listed as 13.6 BHN WITH the tin ADDED to the WW NOT the WW alone and that HIS mixture of that same 2% tin/98% WW was only testing 11 - 12 BHN.

In your Quote of Glen E. Fryxel, he does seem to agree with me.

In “Cast Bullets” by E. H. Harrison (NRA Publications) WW alloy +2% tin is listed as giving very good castability and a BHN of 13.6. My own measurements run more like a BHN of 11-12 (undoubtedly due to the variation in WW content), but this alloys does indeed cast very well."

You also missed that my mixture of 2% tin/98% WW was measured by me at 11.9 BHN and that by mixing the same WW batch that I bought in '92 with 5% tin, it was again measured by me at 12.7 BHN.

It would seem that you've known for some time that WW are lacking in sn/sb content but, you are still recommending 2% tin added to WW for higher velocity loads, apparently still thinking that the alloy will test 16+ BHN, when even in 1979 and earlier, when WW were really WW's, it would only test at <14 BHN.

Frank

[cbrick]

My clip-on WW with 2% Sn added tests 11-12 BHN and has for years but I am using 800 pounds of clip-on's all blended together for a uniform lot. I add the 2% Sn to the casting pot when I add ingots. The only way I have ever gotten CWW +2% Sn to test 16-18 BHN is by oven heat treating, I gave up water dropping years ago in favor the consistency of the oven.

This alloy air cooled works well to 1900+ fps in all my rifles and all my handguns, no need to harden them. I've not tried for higher rifle velocity, these loads work well for my intended purpose.

According to all of the metals industry papers I've read in a Pb/Sb/Sn alloy the Sn should not exceed the Sb to avoid free Sn. According to the XrF testing done recently and posted on this site it is safe with todays CWW to assume 2% Sb thus the alloy that I've been using very successfully for many years . . . CWW +2% Sn air cooled.

Rick

[RoyEllis]

Rick

The test results in that sticky, unless I missed something, are for SOWWs not COWWs(?).

Larry Gibson
You're correct on that Larry, down that thread @#13 is link to the XRF test of clip on WW....go to post #115 on here for results http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?213625-First-time-using-sawdust/page6 some rather interesting alloy results shown.

[swheeler]

Sendro,

The following is the top, 2013 National CBA, finishers loading data for 308's in Production (rethroating allowed) and Hunter (no throating). For production, they still use the factory .310 diameter Ball seat but, the leade angle can be changed. So note that the bands on the bullets fit the ball seat in both classes at size for size. NO fillers are used in any of these loads, CBA allows them but, Lyman does not think they are safe! (for Larry :) ) Also, note that they all are using straight Lino. Personally, I don't think the bullets need to be that hard but, that's is the 1st and second place data. Since yours is a custom barrel, you need to find out what size the ball seat or freebore is and size to it.


Production Class

Lino, Eagan MX4ARD 217 gr

.3008/.310, nose/base

26.0, N 130, 1725 fps

210m

.9, 100 yd, 1.62, 200 yd, ave of four, 5 shot groups
------------------------------------------

.301/.310, nose/base

Lino, 311299, 192 gr

28.5, Varget , 1900 fps

Primer F210m

1.3, 100 yd, 1.55, 200 yd, ave of four, 5 shot groups

-----------------------------------------------

Hunter Class

Lino, RCBS,180 SP, 178 gr

.302/.310, nose/base

4227, 21.0 gr, 1740 fps

Primer, F210m

1.3, 100 yd, 2.8, 200 yd, Ave of four, 5 shot groups

Looks like they've got the velocity/rpm right, I wonder if they couldn't shrink those groups a bit with the use of a filler?;)

[RoyEllis]

Looks like they've got the velocity/rpm right, I wonder if they couldn't shrink those groups a bit with the use of a filler?;)
Ya ol pot stirrer!:drinks:

[swheeler]

Thanks Roy! I'll stir it but I won't smoke it:)

[frnkeore]

Looks like they've got the velocity/rpm right, I wonder if they couldn't shrink those groups a bit with the use of a filler?;)

That's a very good question and it is allowed. Competition rises the cream to the top. So, what do you think?

Since it is allowed, it could also be that they have used it and found that the groups opened up.

Anyway, all I know is that when the best accuracy is needed, no one seems to use it.

The matches are open to anyone that would like to compete.

Frank

[swheeler]

No personal experience with VVn130 but from what I have seen with Varget and 4227 I would think it could help, why don't you try it and let us know;)

[35 shooter]

swheeler all i know is, if my 35 whelen is not at least at 80% case fill with powders from4227 and up with a 200 gr. boolit, a tuft of dacron cuts groups in half. It hasn't failed yet.
I'm going to start load developement with heavier boolits this summer so i can't say about them yet as they may provide enough compression without it, we'll see when we get there but i'm betting the filler will be needed. Also get ultra clean powder burn in the bbl.
Tried tipping the bbl. up without the filler for each shot but it didn't shoot as well that way and the powder didn't burn near as clean. Don't know squat about competition shooting, just know what my rifle likes. I've watched it do it for a few thousand shots now with the fillers in place.
Thanks for all the great tips you write about Larry Gibson, you'll never know how much it has helped me!

BTW i did find one load the other day that shoots best with a filler with a copper check. Couldn't get al. checks to shoot with that load. Took the filler out and the al. shot pretty well like that. Different pressure or friction between the checks, who knows? Pays to experiment i guess. The al. did need the filler with a slower load tho.

[swheeler]

35 shooter you don't have to sell me on the dacron, probably use it in a dozen cartridges and many loads that is why I mentioned it.

[Larry Gibson]

There is no doubt that COWWs with the low % of Sn and Sb, even with the addition of 2% tin will not attain a 14 BHN. they also are p*ss poor at filling out moulds and is why we get so many complains of "undersized" cast bullets. I have said numerous times to all those with such complaints and others that all batches of COWWs are not the same, particularly these days. Numerous recent posts on this and many other threads bears that out. I have measured the BHN after aging of good batches of COWWs which obviously have a decent % of antimony.

I just happen to have a half bucket of COWWs from the late '70s (been hoarding it for "special" purposes) gathered in NE Oregon. I also have a bucket from western Washington that is mostly from the '90s. Additionally I have recently smelted some COWWs gathered from down here. Next month I will cast some bullets of each batch of COWWs with and w/o 2% tin added, track the age hardening from 1 hour through 10 days at 24 hour intervals and report the results. Oh, and to keep frank happy I also will "calibrate" (get an offset in reality) my Lee tester with the pure lead I got some time back from Bill Fergusson and the standard formula for comparison of indents in pure lead to other alloys to get the BHN.

Larry Gibson

[swheeler]

Larry is there a way to test pure lead with the Lee tester, it seems like when I did this years ago I got an indent of .098-.100 many times called Lee and they told me their tester couldn't read that soft a sample.

[MBTcustom]

Great idea Larry. If you would like me to corroborate the control sample with my hardness tester here, feel free to send me a testable piece and I'll post my readings as well. Also, there's something else that I might be able to help you with.
PM sent.

[swheeler]

You may have to reference off certified Linotype?

[MBTcustom]

The Lee system is a true brinell hardness test. It's only limitation is the scale on their microscope. All you need in order to take a true reading is a wayto accurately measure the larger indentation, and I have such a way at my disposal and I have no doubt Larry does too.

[GabbyM]

2:6 Taracorp Magnum alloy is just a BHN #15. Although you see it being sold in commercial cast bullets as a #16 as often as not and I've seen it listed as BHN#17 "hard cast". Just more truth in advertising.

I bought to alloy bars off Rotto Metals. #3 Babbitt tin and copper and Sb/Sn mostly antimony for Sb enrichment of whatever I have in needs. I have a Saeco hardness tester and of course a scale to weigh bullets cast from a known mold. Throw in a little guess work and come up with a good enough alloy. Pot on my turkey fryer holds eighty pounds. That's where the consistency comes in. Those bars of Sb are just for fine tuning. Trying to make 2:6 from pure Pb will just be a bunch of work for nothing. Just buy 2:6 alloy. I like the little bit of copper in that Babbitt. Cu hardens up the WW alloy almost for free. Heat treat really takes good also.
#3 Babbitt's not cheep but it's hard to find tin for free. Lead free solder has a little Cu in it also. Good source of bullet tin and easy to weigh out.

[swheeler]

The Lee system is a true brinell hardness test. It's only limitation is the scale on their microscope. All you need in order to take a true reading is a wayto accurately measure the larger indentation, and I have such a way at my disposal and I have no doubt Larry does too.

I guess I misunderstood Lee then, that was quite a few years ago. IIRC I was told that the stylus(ball) was of too small a diameter to reliablely test any alloy softer than approx 8HB.My microscope goes to .1. Maybe they have changed their mind? I do know that it was a great investment at 29.00

[swheeler]

As to answer Frank on the filler, my reasoning is that those loads are in the 20-25K psi range(I don't have quick load) and can't imagine them burning effieciently or completely at those pressures. I could be wrong just like the Lee BHN tester though, it happens;)

[tygar]

The Lee system is a true brinell hardness test. It's only limitation is the scale on their microscope. All you need in order to take a true reading is a wayto accurately measure the larger indentation, and I have such a way at my disposal and I have no doubt Larry does too.

Would you please pass it on.

I have been Lee testing some lead I've been smelting into ingots & it has been measuring .080 - .090+. The lee scale included doesn't go anywhere near that soft.

Without knowing it's just a WAG on how much Lino/mono etc to add to make a given alloy.

So, if you guys who have this stuff figured can assist us who don't, I'd appreciate it.
Thanks
Tom

[frnkeore]

This is the way that I've measure the BHN hardness of lead for 30 years. All it takes is a steel ball 5/8 - 1" in diameter, plus a known piece of pure lead of aprox. 1 lb. You need something to melt the pure lead in that has a flat bottom and leave the lead slug about 3/4 - 1" thick. The last thing you need is a dial or digital caliper that will read in at least .001 increments. This is all the equipment you need to make accurate BHN readings.

You press the ball between the pure lead slug and the alloy you want to use (I use a arbor press but, a vise works fine), the depth that you indent the two pieces isn't important as long as the dept of the indentation in the pure lead sample is less than 1/4 the diameter of the ball. Do 3 places on the samples (it doesn't matter if they are the same depth or diameter) and then carefully measure the diameter of the indents (not the depth) on both pieces making sure each set of indents are recorded together. It helps a lot to use a magifier when measuring the indents for accuracy. I use a Optivisor.

Next, divide the smaller diameter into the larger diameter of the matched indents. i.e. .28 / .25 = 1.12. you then square that number i.e. 1.12 squared = 1.2544. Then mulitply by 5 (the pure lead hardness) 5 x 1.2544 = 6.272 BHN. My reason for checking 3 indents, is because it averages out and measurement inaccuracys. One indent will get you well into the ball park if your careful measuring.

For those that might be concerned about this info coming from me and the accuracy of it. It can be found in Col. E. H. Harrisons book, Cast Bullets. That is were I first found it many years ago.

Frank

[frnkeore]

As to answer Frank on the filler, my reasoning is that those loads are in the 20-25K psi range(I don't have quick load) and can't imagine them burning effieciently or completely at those pressures. I could be wrong just like the Lee BHN tester though, it happens;)

As I have said in other posts, if the Dacron does impove grouping, it is just masking a unbalanced load. With just 12.5 gr of 296 in a 32/40, I can get 6 fps ES and a SD of 2.5.

In a resent test done last October, with my 33 ELCO Max, on Barry Darrs M43, over a 10 shot string, using 13.0 gr, AA #9 powder, I got 10 fps ES and a SD 3.0 at the match the next day, I shot 5 five shot groups with a average of .545 and the small group was .336.

No one that I shoot with uses Dacron!

Also,on page 77 of Cast Bullets, they talk about Dacron melting when used in revolvers.

Frank

[swheeler]

As I have said in other posts, if the Dacron does impove grouping, it is just masking a unbalanced load. With just 12.5 gr of 296 in a 32/40, I can get 6 fps ES and a SD of 2.5.

In a resent test done last October, with my 33 ELCO Max, on Barry Darrs M43, over a 10 shot string, using 13.0 gr, AA #9 powder, I got 10 fps ES and a SD 3.0 at the match the next day, I shot 5 five shot groups with a average of .545 and the small group was .336.

No one that I shoot with uses Dacron!

Also,on page 77 of Cast Bullets, they talk about Dacron melting when used in revolvers.

Frank

All I can say is amazingly low extreme spreads at those load densities, especially with those ball powders. My guess would be that the 28.5 gr Varget load would be a PSS, that is Position Sensitive Sooter;) But thanks for the 411 even if I don't own a 32/40.

[MBTcustom]

This is the way that I've measure the BHN hardness of lead for 30 years. All it takes is a steel ball 5/8 - 1" in diameter, plus a known piece of pure lead of aprox. 1 lb. You need something to melt the pure lead in that has a flat bottom and leave the lead slug about 3/4 - 1" thick. The last thing you need is a dial or digital caliper that will read in at least .001 increments. This is all the equipment you need to make accurate BHN readings.

You press the ball between the pure lead slug and the alloy you want to use (I use a arbor press but, a vise works fine), the depth that you indent the two pieces isn't important as long as the dept of the indentation in the pure lead sample is less than 1/4 the diameter of the ball. Do 3 places on the samples (it doesn't matter if they are the same depth or diameter) and then carefully measure the diameter of the indents (not the depth) on both pieces making sure each set of indents are recorded together. It helps a lot to use a magifier when measuring the indents for accuracy. I use a Optivisor.

Next, divide the smaller diameter into the larger diameter of the matched indents. i.e. .28 / .25 = 1.12. you then square that number i.e. 1.12 squared = 1.2544. Then mulitply by 5 (the pure lead hardness) 5 x 1.2544 = 6.272 BHN. My reason for checking 3 indents, is because it averages out and measurement inaccuracys. One indent will get you well into the ball park if your careful measuring.

For those that might be concerned about this info coming from me and the accuracy of it. It can be found in Col. E. H. Harrisons book, Cast Bullets. That is were I first found it many years ago.

Frank

Great information Frank!
Another way that you fellers with the Lee system can get the hardness of softer materials is to make the impression and before you look at it, put a tiny scratch through the middle of the indentation. Measure from that point to both sides of the indent and add the two measurements together.

[Larry Gibson]

Might be a revelation to many but the Lee scale for use with the microscope is derived from Harrison's formula that frank quotes. Make an indent in pure lead and another alloy, measure with the Lee scope per the instructions and you should come up with the same BHN as the Lee table gives.

Scribbling the line as per goodsteel is how I've measured the indent with the Lee scope since reading it on this forum some years ago.

Larry Gibson

[MBTcustom]

Might be a revelation to many but the Lee scale for use with the microscope is derived from Harrison's formula that frank quotes. Make an indent in pure lead and another alloy, measure with the Lee scope per the instructions and you should come up with the same BHN as the Lee table gives.

Scribbling the line as per goodsteel is how I've measured the indent with the Lee scope since reading it on this forum some years ago.

Larry Gibson

It was just too logical to be my original idea. [smilie=b:
Apparently there is still nothing new under the sun.
Someday, I'm going to dream up something that has never been thought of before that actually works better than anything anyone has thought up till now. On that day, you will all get to watch a fat guy jump 2 feet in the air and click his heels together. LOL!

[35 shooter]

goodsteel that reminded of something about Fred Bear. He got the credit for making a compressed wood arrow shaft called forge wood. But when i was reseaching how to make traditional wood bows, i read where they had found evidence all the way back to the Neolithic period where they would drill a hole in rock, heat it and drive an oversize wood shaft through it....voila..forge wood about 20'000 years, maybe more before Bear. Not saying Bear didn't think of it himself, but your right, sometimes it's hard to come up with something new!:grin:

[MBTcustom]

goodsteel that reminded of something about Fred Bear. He got the credit for making a compressed wood arrow shaft called forge wood. But when i was reseaching how to make traditional wood bows, i read where they had found evidence all the way back to the Neolithic period where they would drill a hole in rock, heat it and drive an oversize wood shaft through it....voila..forge wood about 20'000 years, maybe more before Bear. Not saying Bear didn't think of it himself, but your right, sometimes it's hard to come up with something new!:grin:

No kiddin? Huh.

"and so, the first boolit sizer was made by thag"

Wonder if that was the Lyman -4500 model sizer! LOL!

[facetious]

So easy a cave man could do it !

[swheeler]

This is the way that I've measure the BHN hardness of lead for 30 years. All it takes is a steel ball 5/8 - 1" in diameter, plus a known piece of pure lead of aprox. 1 lb. You need something to melt the pure lead in that has a flat bottom and leave the lead slug about 3/4 - 1" thick. The last thing you need is a dial or digital caliper that will read in at least .001 increments. This is all the equipment you need to make accurate BHN readings.

You press the ball between the pure lead slug and the alloy you want to use (I use a arbor press but, a vise works fine), the depth that you indent the two pieces isn't important as long as the dept of the indentation in the pure lead sample is less than 1/4 the diameter of the ball. Do 3 places on the samples (it doesn't matter if they are the same depth or diameter) and then carefully measure the diameter of the indents (not the depth) on both pieces making sure each set of indents are recorded together. It helps a lot to use a magifier when measuring the indents for accuracy. I use a Optivisor.

Next, divide the smaller diameter into the larger diameter of the matched indents. i.e. .28 / .25 = 1.12. you then square that number i.e. 1.12 squared = 1.2544. Then mulitply by 5 (the pure lead hardness) 5 x 1.2544 = 6.272 BHN. My reason for checking 3 indents, is because it averages out and measurement inaccuracys. One indent will get you well into the ball park if your careful measuring.

For those that might be concerned about this info coming from me and the accuracy of it. It can be found in Col. E. H. Harrisons book, Cast Bullets. That is were I first found it many years ago.

Frank

"as long as the dept of the indentation in the pure lead sample is less than 1/4 the diameter of the ball"

Frank can you tell me the reason for this statement?

[frnkeore]

It was the insructions given in the article. I'm assuming the reason for it, is so that there is no chance of lateral dispersion (give) of the lead behind the indent. It wasn't explained in the article.

Frank

[swheeler]

Hum, makes me wonder how well the 5/32"-.156"OD ball(mine actually measures .130") on the Lee tester will work for testing pure lead? Guess I will have to start researching for a standard for Brinnel tester stylus diameter/psi/dwell time, doesn't sound like the microscope is the limiting factor to getting an accurate reading with their system. Could be why I was told not reliable for testing alloy under an 8HB

[swheeler]

02-17-14

Scot,
It is not calibrated to work with pure lead. It is too soft.

Tech Service

Lee Precision, Inc.
4275 Highway U
Hartford, WI 53027
phone: 262-673-3075

[swheeler]

^^^^^^^ This is the Email I recieved from Lee Precision today