tumbling with buckshot

[Lloyd Smale]

just gave it a try. I have a Frankfort arsenal tumbler that I never used for anything so it got the call. What I did was put about an inch of #4 buckshot in the bottom. this buck was cast out of air cooled ww. I put 6 tablespoons of black from buckshot in it. It took about a half hour before the all appeared coated perfectly. For a while you get little dots that look like there not covered. I know this is much longer but I have other loading chores to do while there tumbling. That and I did 4 batches 2 with gas checks and two without so I had to size and seat gas checks and size both styles afterward so you keep busy enough. They seem to have came out with a bit better coverage then I was getting with the plastic dish and shaking and swirling. Where the sizer wipes seems to also be a bit thicker because I don't get that translucent looking driving bands on the bullets. there as black as the rest of the bullet. I water dropped these out of the oven. I wanted to get some bullets to compare accuracy with the softer ones I did yesterday. Now running them through the star took some EFFORT. Especially the ones I didn't gas check that only got sized after coating. I think this is the way I will go from now on. I think the buckshot being harder then the plastic bbs pounds that coating onto the bullet a bit better and gives better and more even coverage. One other big advantage to me. Before I had to handle all the coated bullets with tweezers. Now I could pick them up with my fingers and the coating didn't come off. One other thing kind of cool is I guess when I get bored I can throw the buckshot in the oven and will have coated buck. I don't know if it would act a bit like buffered shot or not but if I guy was loading buck using cards and paper wads it would probably reduce leading in the barrel.

[Echd]

The thing to bear in mind is that powder coating is typically applied with electrostatic force used in some measure. The PC guns that some use are an example of that- by charging the "target" you coat it evenly by spraying a thin amount of oppositely charged powder, which is attracted to it as a matter of course. This results in an even coat.

Plastic BBs and/or #5 containers are an extension of this. The charge is acquired through the action of the BBs moving against the walls of the container, rather than the electrical socket in this case. This is why they coat so well. Using BBs in a tumbler, it takes literally less than 45 seconds to get a good coat on everything.

The lead shot may well be "pounding" it on there, but it sounds like it is putting on a very large and thick coating as well- I have never experienced PC bullets that were particularly difficult to run through a sizer unless the bullets were very oversize to begin with. Due to the bullets also being as dense as the lead in the shot, I also don't know that they are being agitated in the same manner as the lighter BBs would. I don't know what this will do for your accuracy. There is only one way to find out, and that is to shoot them.

That said, based on the information you have provided, I do not think that lead shot is the best choice for this, although it may work through brute force (especially if you said it took over 30 minutes!). You might also try upping the amount of powder- maybe you only have a little in the tumbler? I also think this forgoes the great benefits of the electrical application that plastic on plastic on lead gets us. Also, while we are not precisely utilizing a fluid bed with ziploc containers or tumblers, I think that the agitation afford by the BBs does provide a similar effect when watching it in action- which this probably does not get quite as well if at all.

I would actually be curious if you wouldn't achieve the same or better results with no lead shot in the tub at all. Or smaller lead shot, or even bb gun bbs.

In all fairness, though, if it works it's all moot. My only real concern would how thick exactly the PC is going on, and why are they so hard to size? Normally coated bullets are easier to size than their bare cousins.

[Spector]

Like he said shoot them. Then keep us posted. There are methods said not to work or be inferior by one person only to be a successful method for another person.

I try to keep an open mind and have thought about trying my old Vibra-Shine tumbler to apply some PC. If this works well for you I will be much more inclined to try it. Someone has adapted a bucket to use on a vibratory tumbler.

My friend used to apply NECO moly-coating using the impact method in a rotary tumbler. I like the idea of the unbaked PC being durable enough to pick up with fingers apparently not affecting the coating in any substantial way.

I have been trying to get very thin uniform PC coats on my 38 and 45 caliber pistol boolits. Others seem to prefer thick coatings as they get sized back down anyway. Curious to see how this tumbler method continues to develop and of course the overall accuracy of both pistol/revolver and rifle boolits. And just for me I'd rather PC than pan lube.

I am pretty happy with my method as it is now, but always willing to learn new ways. All of us want accuracy with no leading and minimal bore cleanup necessary with PC although that is already being accomplished with some conventional lubes.

I do like the easy no stick storage of PCed boolits even when they are coated and just dumped into peanut butter jars. I like the fact that heat from a hot automobile trunk or glove compartment does not affect the PC coating as it can affect conventional lubes. I like that there are no PC coatings for winter and others for summer use. And I have to admit ''some'' of the colors I see are absolutely beautiful.

Mike

[jmort]

"I try to keep an open mind..."

Makes complete sense. This process, invented by Ebner Glocken with BBs, and improved by hanleyfan with Airsoft BBs, will continue to evolve. Let's see how this works out with soft buckshot in a tumbler. Seems like you will really be adding to the diameter, but other benefits described like picking up with fingers and not disturbing the powder may be worth any downside.

[Lloyd Smale]

the coating is not overly thick. As a matter of fact before cooking the coating looks thinner then it id coming out of the plastic dish. I think what it is is that the bullet is actually coated vs being dusted with powder. that's why it doesn't fall off when you handle it. It passed the hammer test with flying colars and I just shot 30 of the ones without a gas check out of the beo and the barrel looked whistle clean. I did try the tumbler with some of the plastic bbs but got kind of poor coverage. There proabably coated but the colar is very thin in places and again your going to have to use tweezers to handle them and even falling over on the pan seems to effect the finish some. I even dropped some of the tumbled ones on the cement floor and bent over and picked them up with my fingers and they were fine.

[jmort]

"The coating is not overly thick."


​I don't doubt it, I was just reading into the comment about sizing resistance. This may be the way to go, as handling the bullets, or not, has always been the biggest time sink. It is one of the great benefits, it seems, for Hi Tek, which I have never tried. I like a dry process. Soft lead "BBs" in a tumbler may be the ticket. I assume that is a vibratory tumbler and not a rotary tumbler you are using.

[Lloyd Smale]

yes it was a cheap Frankfort arseonal vibrating cleaner that I had on the shelf for a spare.

[Lloyd Smale]

well I did another 20lbs of 501s today. I did half gas checked and half without checks. The ones without I did the glad container shake and swirl. As a matter of fact I did it twice. The gas checked bullets went in the tumbler with buckshot for 20 minutes. The glad container bullets were splotchy black with lots of spots with very little pigment. they were shinny all over though even after sizing. The tumbled bullets looked a lot better. Real good black coverage and even after sizing you couldn't see through the finish on the driving bands. I handled all the bullets I shook with tweezers and the tumbled ones with my fingers. Even the 20 or so that fell over looked as good as the ones standing. In all reality I wouldn't probably even have to stand them up but if you just dump them some touch and stick together. I think I'm going to stick to this method for now on. I was told the lack of pigment areas are just fine but the tumbled bullets sure do look better.

[sparkeyu]

tried it today with some #7 shot I had and it came out kinda splotchy do you think it may have to do with the graphite on the shot? had to vibrate and bake twice ,will try again now that the shot is covered.

[Rattlesnake Charlie]

Has anyone actually patterned some PC'd buckshot against some of the same alloy buckshot that is just naked or maybe rolled in graphite?

I'm always interested in improving buckshot performance.

[jmort]

This may be a great advancement. I am going to try it after I move to a bigger and better place here in the Ozarks with a shooting range on site. I will follow this closely as it sure would be nice just to pick up the bullets and avoid tweezers/pliers. Seems like the #7 birdshot may be too small, and it appears #4 buckshot works. Assuming this is the next advancement, there has to be an optimum lead ball size. It may be #4 buckshot.

[Lloyd Smale]

don't know if its the graphite causing your problem but I will say this. the first batch I did came out spotchy. I let the Frankfort arsenal vibrating tumbler go for about 5 minutes. the bullets look pretty much covered but had tiny little dots on them. Finished product look splotchy like the ones I did in the glad container. I then put them in for a full 15-20 minutes and they came out with a 100 percent coverage. Even after sizing you couldn't see through the finish on the driving bands. Now like I said it could be three things. Maybe the coating on your shot. Maybe the small shoot doesn't work as good as the #4 buck (which is water dropped ww) and maybe you didn't run the tumbler long enough or your tumbler has less agitation and needs to run longer. I don't think you could run it to long. make sure too you put enough powder in the tumbler. I put about double what I do in the glad container. Remember toot that the first time your not only coating your bullets but the shot too. What worked good for me was enough powder so that I can actually see powder in the bottom of the bowl that is loose and not on the buckshot.
tried it today with some #7 shot I had and it came out kinda splotchy do you think it may have to do with the graphite on the shot? had to vibrate and bake twice ,will try again now that the shot is covered.

[Lloyd Smale]

id be curious myself. Coated buck would surely look cool and possibly the coating would act kind of like adding buffer. Another thought I had was would it allow you to run your buck with cards and paper wads vs a plastic one that doesn't allow as many pellets and still not lead the barrel?
Has anyone actually patterned some PC'd buckshot against some of the same alloy buckshot that is just naked or maybe rolled in graphite?

I'm always interested in improving buckshot performance.

[runfiverun]

I'd run a gas seal and a cardboard disc.
with one on top if the crimp doesn't look right.

[Lloyd Smale]

id be curious to see if something like BB shot or even smaller would work better or worse. I did about 400 .40 180tn lees today and it seemed to work as well on them as it did the bigger bullets. What a pain putting them on the pan and making sure there not touching. took longer then cooking them.

[Lloyd Smale]

tried some 00. It seemed to work just as well.

[Lloyd Smale]

have to take that back. The OO did as well on 50 cal bullets but the 40s and 38s came out better with the #4 and like I said the #4 did as well on the big ones so I think id stick to the #4. Kind of makes sense when you look at smokes plastic bbs that are closer to #4 size.