What alloy did Elmer Keith use

[beagle]

Been talking with another member off site about Elmer Keith and his shooting and we wondered what alloy he used.

Now, consider when he started casting and loading and think about the various lead sources available in that day and time.

No WWs, lino if available was used until it was worn completely out. Maybe lead/silver alloy from the silver mines in the area as it was at that time considered a by product of silver mining. I doubt if tin was available in Montana and Idaho in those days.

He makes reference to his father buying pigs of plumbers lead and kegs of black powder for his .45 Colt loads. He mentions making round balls from a .36 Navy mould to use in a sling shot from Babbitt off the box car bearings on the railroad.

From reading his books, Sixguns and Hell, I was there, there is only one reference that I can remember where he stated that he used 1:16 in slower loads and 1:15 in hotter loads.

From our discussions, we have about decided that anything he could find and melt and pour bullets was called lead.

Maybe this changed later on when he started writing for the gun rags and had deeper pockets but that's all I can recall from his writings that I have read.

Anybody that can enlighten us, chime in here.

Sometimes, I think we get too wrapped around the axle on the minor points of casting, worry too much about alloy and forget how much fun making bullets really is./beagle

[imashooter2]

I’ve heard the 16:1 too. Don’t recall the 15:1 reference. I have also heard that he disliked antimony in bullet alloy.

[Jniedbalski]

Most of the bp loads used pure or almost pure and tin. I have heard of 16/1 also. But I also think I have read of him using 20/1 or 30/1 but don’t remember where.

[Wayne Smith]

I remember reading that he melted down hundreds of 45-70 Government bullets to cast into his own. Did the Army use 16-1 or 20-1?

[zarrinvz24]

I was actually just looking at sixguns yesterday regarding this very question. I seem to recall that in the chapter entitled on bullets he makes mention that 16-1 is essential in allowing the bullet to expand on impact. This was in the updated 1963 reprint.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, I'm sure nearly anything that was available was called lead, melted and used to great effect.

The more things change the more they stay the same, we are discovering information that was previously commonly available - the alloy isn't anywhere nearly as important as the fit of the bullet to the individual firearm. With a good lube and the appropriately sized bullet, velocities once considered firmly in jacketed territory are possible. Many people don't know this but an effective Cataract surgery had been perfected in ancient Rome, with records available showing this surgery was performed at least as early as 29AD. With the fall of the Rome, much was forgotten, only to be 'discovered' nearly two thousand years later and presented as entirely new science.

[DonHowe]

Elmer considered 16-1 plenty hard for magnum revolvers.

[dverna]

I was never much of a fan of Mr. Keith because I have never wanted to hunt with a handgun.

But I do recall one of the "gurus" writing that to address leading he would shoot a jacketed bullet every few shots. Maybe Keith or Skelton?? Guys like them would be astonished at how far the process and lubes have come. I doubt they would trade for the "good old days". One nice thing about the "good old days", a shooter/caster/reloader can live there if they choose. No one cares what you are shooting until you kick their butt.

[beagle]

From my reading, government issued .45/70 of his day would have been of swaged pure lead. I know that a lot of the civil war .58 minie balls were swaged at least issued by the north. I've picked up both union and confederate bullets and round balls. Most confederate were cast. Most union swaged./beagle


I remember reading that he melted down hundreds of 45-70 Government bullets to cast into his own. Did the Army use 16-1 or 20-1?

[gwpercle]

I'm going to quote what Elmer Keith wrote in his 1936 reloading book " Sixgun Cartridges & Loads "
by the way ...it has been reprinted and available on-line (Amazon $9.95 paperback $18.95 hard cover) and an interesting read .
" For most revolver cartridges including all light and normal pressure loads there is no use having the bullets harder than 1 part tin to 20 parts lead. (1/20) Good for velocities up to 1,000 fps and hollow points .
For really heavy loads , over 1,000 fps w/ no HP , a 1 part tin to 15 parts lead is hard enough (1/15) . * see note below*
Auto-pistol bullets and heavy loads where penetration is desired 1 part tin to 10 parts lead (1/10) will suffice . "

*Note* At some point in time 1/15 mix may have been adjusted to 1 part tin to 16 parts lead (1/16) as I have seen this mix in print also .

If you are interested in handloading the Reprinted manual is affordable and an interesting glimpse back into history ...and you might learn something to boot !
Gary

[44MAG#1]

He also recommended sizing his 44 caliber bullet to .429". His 1-16 alloy was what he used in the loads that Whites Labs tested for the 44 Magnum. That info he stated many times.

[cp1969]

Elmer also wrote that he used harder alloys (10:1?) for the .45 ACP because of its shallower rifling.

Never any mention of antimony that I remember. Just lead and tin.

[Green Frog]

Just a random observation, but we often hear about the difficulty of getting pure antimony to melt into a lead alloy... this may explain Mr Keith’s (and others’) reticence to use it.

Apropos of nothing, when I was actively engaged in the Schuetzen game it was stated as an article of faith that one had to use a binary alloy of lead and tin with no antimony if they wanted their rifles to shoot well. This was especially true when shooting black powder loads. Oddly enough, with those mild target loads the commonly used ratios ranged from about 20-1 to 30 or eve 40-1. I read that 25-1 was a good place to start and never saw the need to change.

Froggie

[farmbif]

box car bearing babbit--now that sounds like a great source of alloy.

[AndyC]

From the Fryxell book:


Remember, Elmer Keith used the Lyman 429421 cast of 16-1 with a BHN of about 11 for the .44 Magnum. What is surprising is that today is all these newcomers that get all hot and lathered worrying over whether their 20 BHN bullets are too soft!?!

http://www.lasc.us/Fryxell_Book_Chapter_3_alloySelectionMetallurgy.ht m

[Stockcarver]

Interesting read. I have a lot of lead that came from a large Pulp Mill (Think extremely corrosive process chemicals to dissolve the wood fiber) and have a truck load of pipe lead. Came from the mill when it was shut down in 1994. This lead is fairly soft.

Also a few hundred pounds of premium Diesel Bearing Babbitt that came from a near by paper mill. Along with pure tin. The Babbitt was used in casting bearings for some of the larger slow turning machinery in the mill. Bearings for the large steam heated rolls in the paper dryers for instance. 5 foot diameter by 15 feet long steam headed dryer "cans", maybe a hundred or so in the dryer sections.

So I am set for mixing lead alloys. The Diesel Bearing Babbitt contains silver, I have the composition of the Babbitt in my notes in the shop.

Anyone used Babbitt in bullets? Think I will try some when I have another casting session.

[cwlongshot]

Yup. I got a few ingots. There is many different hardnesses even of babblit it is not just one. Mine happened to be very hard babit and on my LBT scale nearly maxed it out.

I was told to basically treat it as tin...

So far all I have used it for is my .390 balls I shoot in my .410's. Makes a very hard ball even sit 50/50.

CW

[beagle]

Think you guys missed the point of the thread. This was probably in the 20s. Keith as a teenager and probably knew little or nothing about alloying lead. Lead in any form was probably scarce in that part of the country in those times and tin was probably unknown.
Lead in any form was scarce. Probably pig lead, lead pipe from watering systems, maybe lino from the local printing establishments.
What I'm saying that Keith did pretty darn well teaching himself how to cast, figuring out how to get alloy to make well filled out, accurate bullets.
Now, I've read a bunch on alloying and have worked my way through the process. My first bullets were made in 1958. 311291s made from lead soldiers, battery connections, some of dad's pyramid sinkers from ocean fishing, some "mystery metal" found along the railroad and some scraps of cable sheathing the telephone company left behind. All this was fed into the melt at various times and it made bullets. Bullets that shot fairly accurate in my old DCM Springfield.
I have a feeling that many of the old timers on here started the same way.
The gist of my intentions with the thread is that I think we get too hung up on making harder alloys when they're not needed for general shooting. The hit and miss method used by Keith and many of us produced shootable bullets that were accurate enough for our needs. I think we're scaring some of the new guys to death with this alloy business when for their purposes it's not necessary.
Let's help each other and the newbies make good bullets that are accurate, teach them how to cull and get good fill out and enjoy the sport. Elmer did. Leave the nitpicking alloying to the "experts" and those that really need hard bullets./beagle

[Tim357]

Think you guys missed the point of the thread. This was probably in the 20s. Keith as a teenager and probably knew little or nothing about alloying lead. Lead in any form was probably scarce in that part of the country in those times and tin was probably unknown.
Lead in any form was scarce. Probably pig lead, lead pipe from watering systems, maybe lino from the local printing establishments.
What I'm saying that Keith did pretty darn well teaching himself how to cast, figuring out how to get alloy to make well filled out, accurate bullets.
Now, I've read a bunch on alloying and have worked my way through the process. My first bullets were made in 1958. 311291s made from lead soldiers, battery connections, some of dad's pyramid sinkers from ocean fishing, some "mystery metal" found along the railroad and some scraps of cable sheathing the telephone company left behind. All this was fed into the melt at various times and it made bullets. Bullets that shot fairly accurate in my old DCM Springfield.
I have a feeling that many of the old timers on here started the same way.
The gist of my intentions with the thread is that I think we get too hung up on making harder alloys when they're not needed for general shooting. The hit and miss method used by Keith and many of us produced shootable bullets that were accurate enough for our needs. I think we're scaring some of the new guys to death with this alloy business when for their purposes it's not necessary.
Let's help each other and the newbies make good bullets that are accurate, teach them how to cull and get good fill out and enjoy the sport. Elmer did. Leave the nitpicking alloying to the "experts" and those that really need hard bullets./beagle

You're not wrong, sir.

[cwlongshot]

Think you guys missed the point of the thread. This was probably in the 20s. Keith as a teenager and probably knew little or nothing about alloying lead. Lead in any form was probably scarce in that part of the country in those times and tin was probably unknown.
Lead in any form was scarce. Probably pig lead, lead pipe from watering systems, maybe lino from the local printing establishments.
What I'm saying that Keith did pretty darn well teaching himself how to cast, figuring out how to get alloy to make well filled out, accurate bullets.
Now, I've read a bunch on alloying and have worked my way through the process. My first bullets were made in 1958. 311291s made from lead soldiers, battery connections, some of dad's pyramid sinkers from ocean fishing, some "mystery metal" found along the railroad and some scraps of cable sheathing the telephone company left behind. All this was fed into the melt at various times and it made bullets. Bullets that shot fairly accurate in my old DCM Springfield.
I have a feeling that many of the old timers on here started the same way.
The gist of my intentions with the thread is that I think we get too hung up on making harder alloys when they're not needed for general shooting. The hit and miss method used by Keith and many of us produced shootable bullets that were accurate enough for our needs. I think we're scaring some of the new guys to death with this alloy business when for their purposes it's not necessary.
Let's help each other and the newbies make good bullets that are accurate, teach them how to cull and get good fill out and enjoy the sport. Elmer did. Leave the nitpicking alloying to the "experts" and those that really need hard bullets./beagle
I agree. This becomes even more relevant when one powder coats. Powder coat allows higher velocities before leading is a worry. Properly applied even past DOUBLE velocities one once became concerned he may get leading.

CW

[MT Gianni]

Elmers early years in Winston, MT put him 18 miles E of one of the largest refineries in the Nation. American Smelting & Refining out of East Helena. Lead would have been a by product of much of the mining in the area that still goes on today.I am not suggesting that things fell off of the production belt, but access to buy 25 lbs would have been easy.

I also think in Elmers times, tin cans were sealed with tin heavy solder and toothpaste tubes were tin. WW may have been available, but they were used until the clips wore off, rather than just once. I also think as a small ranch holder he was too busy to scrounge and was ok buying a few hundred pounds.

[Harter66]

Are you trying to say "read the book" and "read the stickies" isn't the best answer there is ?

When I started here , after reading 100 plus threads trying to figure out why I had a clean breach , clean muzzle with a lovely lube star and 12" of lead in-between them , I really needed some help and got the "read the stickies" line . About 10 laps cured it and opened the 06' muzzle up to .299×.306 the breech would still take .310 and shoot it clean . I remember saying something like I don't think it's sizing I'm up to .313 .
Darn roll stamps and dovetails , or maybe just a barrel shot with a lot of super heavies . I was also told that the twist rate I had just measured from both ends 3-4 times was wrong .........

One of the old guys , might have been Beagle , Ben or the fella that did all the work pouring soft point and hard bases .......rather embarrassing I can't remember his name or handle now having met him in Winemucca and participated in his memorial ....
It was sure a different forum back then .

It was Bruce Bannister ......

[Stockcarver]

Think you guys missed the point of the thread. This was probably in the 20s. Keith as a teenager and probably knew little or nothing about alloying lead. Lead in any form was probably scarce in that part of the country in those times and tin was probably unknown.
Lead in any form was scarce. Probably pig lead, lead pipe from watering systems, maybe lino from the local printing establishments.
What I'm saying that Keith did pretty darn well teaching himself how to cast, figuring out how to get alloy to make well filled out, accurate bullets.
Now, I've read a bunch on alloying and have worked my way through the process. My first bullets were made in 1958. 311291s made from lead soldiers, battery connections, some of dad's pyramid sinkers from ocean fishing, some "mystery metal" found along the railroad and some scraps of cable sheathing the telephone company left behind. All this was fed into the melt at various times and it made bullets. Bullets that shot fairly accurate in my old DCM Springfield.
I have a feeling that many of the old timers on here started the same way.
The gist of my intentions with the thread is that I think we get too hung up on making harder alloys when they're not needed for general shooting. The hit and miss method used by Keith and many of us produced shootable bullets that were accurate enough for our needs. I think we're scaring some of the new guys to death with this alloy business when for their purposes it's not necessary.
Let's help each other and the newbies make good bullets that are accurate, teach them how to cull and get good fill out and enjoy the sport. Elmer did. Leave the nitpicking alloying to the "experts" and those that really need hard bullets./beagle

Naw I got the post perspective. I am an old dog and read just about everything Keith wrote when I was a kid. I did the same as he did, if it would melt and pour I made bullets.

My alloys are simple even today, just a little tin for ease in casting.

Simple tools! I cast a lot of sinkers and downrigger balls also, gas heat is faster. But I do have the big Lyman electric and a Lee for small bullet runs.

https://i.imgur.com/IHQyF2P.jpg?1

I have so much lead laying behind the shop that the darn stuff is disappearing under the leaf mold!

https://i.imgur.com/2S8UgLX.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/hXXJMPm.jpg

Sinker molds

https://i.imgur.com/HOd6Zly.jpg

[onelight]

I think Kieth had a pretty good idea of what he was putting together to make bullets , lead and tin were probably more available then than they are now lead was used for flashing and soldering plumbing and printing all kinds of things that would make us cringe now . and Keith was much involved with all manner of target shooters and gun enthusiasts those guys would have known exactly what they were putting together.

[beagle]

Another thing that I noticed about Keith's history is that he was pretty closely related to the newspaper industry in his younger years. Delivered papers via horseback and sold papers. Even worked for a while at a young man in a newspaper publishing facility. He would have had access to lino and probably used it. Lino at this time, was not probably the price that it is today. Re-reading Hell, I was There right now (covis keeps us old fellers in) and these facts have emerged./beagle

[Kosh75287]

I'm not sure what Mr. Keith's objection to antimony was. If I have too little tin in my lead mix, the lube grooves won't fill out well. When I DO have enough tin in the lead to fill out the molds, I can discern "swirls" in the melt, and get poor pouring. If I add even a little antimony, swirls go away, and I get good pouring and good bullets.

[Warhawk]

I was never much of a fan of Mr. Keith because I have never wanted to hunt with a handgun.

But I do recall one of the "gurus" writing that to address leading he would shoot a jacketed bullet every few shots. Maybe Keith or Skelton?? Guys like them would be astonished at how far the process and lubes have come. I doubt they would trade for the "good old days". One nice thing about the "good old days", a shooter/caster/reloader can live there if they choose. No one cares what you are shooting until you kick their butt.

You owe it to yourself to read some of Keith's work. He carried a handgun daily, but did not use it as a primary hunting gun. Keith was an elk hunter, and used big bore rifles. His Africa hunting alone is worth getting his autobiography HELL I WAS THERE.

[dannyd]

Handloading Ammunition by J.R. Mattern pages 94 and 95 look about the same a any casting manual today. It was printed in 1926 probably when Mr. Keith may have gotten some of has information.

[Bent Ramrod]

Keith was in his mid twenties when he was introduced to the readership of Outdoor Life by the editor, Chauncey Thomas. Keith and Thomas had corresponded for quite a while before that on gun and loading matters, especially on loading for Sharps rifles and Colt revolvers. He corresponded with Ed McGivern and other leading lights of shooting and hunting of the time starting before WWI, and was a born, instinctive experimenter. He knew what he was doing, no doubt.

I recall one of his columns in Guns magazine warned against the use of wheel weights, not because of the antimony content, but because of the possibility of getting dirt and grit into the boolits, to the detriment of the cases, barrels and chambers.

I’d heard that story about his stash of 16:1 boolit alloy, only the version I heard was that it was a gift from Winchester, rather than Springfield Armory.

[farmbif]

in the 1920's I would think there would have been quite a bit of knowledge about lead and tin. one of the last remaining shot to towers in the us,
the Dubuque Iowa shot tower and smelter was built in 1856, there were at least several before it.

[Don Purcell]

Keith either knew the big shooter's of the day or corresponded with them. Once Elmer got something that worked for him he didn't deviate from it. He didn't shoot his handguns all that much compared to folks here. On average he only put around two cylinder full a week through his carry .44's, like he said just to keep his hand in. For magnum handguns he said no SOFTER than 16-1. I know Elmer shot my friend Kent Lomont's cast bullets when he was in business and I had too and Kent's bullets were much harder than that. In Kent's flyer he stated he sized to .429 which was also Elmer's preferred size. I have to admit I have never fired 16-1 Keith .44's sized to .429 with 22 grains of 2400. I loaded straight wheel weight bullets sized .429 with 2400 and had to pound the cases out of my Smith and Wesson 29's. When I took the same bullets and heat treated them they just slipped right out. I have some 16-1 purchased from Roto Metals for my Sharps rifles and will make up some exact Keith loads and see what happens. My Model 29's are at least 40 years old with my 8 3/8's was given to me for Christmas in 1974. Both of those have .432-.433 throats, Elmer's were comparable. Guess I went a long way around the barn, sorry.

[44MAG#1]

Don Purcell, thanks for a level headed view of Elmer Keith. I sent him bullets too in the last year or so before he had the stroke. In his later years he shot handguns and other guns very little. No need to. EXCEPT when some company sent him a gun to test and even then he didn't shoot the snot out of it.
I shot some of Kent's bullets too. Still have the letters where he commented on them.
I corresponded with Elmer Keith until I started calling on the phone him maybe on the average 3 times a year just to be able to talk with him. Many people will shoot much, much, much more than he did in the last many years of his life. As far as casting anything I would say he cast very, very little in the last several years of his life. No need to. People sent him bullets and he shot them with whatever alloy they were. The bullets I sent him were straight wheelweights
Thanks again for the levelness presented..

[Don Purcell]

44MAG#1, thanks. I have tried to email you but for some reason mine won't send from this site however I CAN recieve them, go figure. Have relation in Tennessee near Radcliff and Elizabethtown and would be nice to connect and compare notes. Sure miss both those guys.

[44MAG#1]

Don Pucell, if you are talking about those two towns in Kentucky they are close to 300 miles from me.

[Don Purcell]

Dang. OK.

[smithnframe]

I doubt Elmer would have liked powder coating!

[Rainier]

Ha ha ha! Always someone who wants to stir the pot - popcorn at the ready :popcorn:

[cwlongshot]

YUP... Put the stick down there feller. ;)

CW

[Lloyd Smale]

he used alot of 16-1. i knew a guy that was sort of friend of his. He said he asked him one day toward the end of his life why he didnt use ww's. He said because there just wasnt many of them when he was young and tin wasnt all that expensive then. He said he never changed because he had enough alloy and would have to work up loads again. makes sense. there just wasnt the cars there are now and in those days ww's were all reused and lineotype was used by printers and you sure didnt find it at the scrap dealer.