Powder coating always a good idea?

[waksupi]

For the sake of discussion, do we handicap ourselves by powder coating, before we test with a standard lube first? Leading shows us problems or potential problems, that may be hidden by powder coat. Without knowing the problems, how can the most accurate loads be developed?

[Finster101]

I can't really answer your question but all the guns I powder coat for I used conventional lube for before. Whether in a lube sizer or tumble lubed. I had no problem with lubed boolits at all. I started powder coating as an experiment and found I liked it better. For me it was faster and when handling the boolits afterwards much cleaner. I kept my two 450's for quite a while before deciding I just no longer needed them. I would not try to dissuade anyone from using conventional. It worked well for me but PC has become my preference.

[Dom]

I have traditionally lubed my cast bullets for 50 yrs. Now PC everything. Traditionally lubed bullets, even in a perfect fit will eventually leave a little lead in the bore. It will continue to build over time, even if slowly. At some point a through cleaning will be required. Since I started to PC this is a problem I have not had to deal with . I will say , the fastest I push any of my cast loads is 1800 fps. I will not go back. I can, if absolutely needed & PC powder became unavailable.

[waksupi]

You guys are missing the point of the question.

[Finster101]

I don't think I did since I used to run conventional lube before starting to PC. I ironed out the fitment with conventional and then used that same info for my PC.

[gumbo333]

Waksupi you could reverse your question and have something else to ponder. So many variables to consider not everyone will start at the same place. But you certainly brought up an item worth thinking about. But I don't cast, lube or PC. I buy my boolits either way and tumble the lubed in BLL. Works? Sized right with a correct powder either can be more accurate than me. What fun.

[mdi]

I normally think of PCing as just another "lube or jacket". I have PCed most of my cast bullets and I usually have both PC and lubed bullets available. Sometimes I'll use Carnauba Red or 45-4-10 lubed bullet, sometimes I'll use a PCed. Each has it's pros and cons, but I started with traditional lube and have pre-PC experience with all my cast. In other words, yes, I believe some potential "problems" may be hidden by coating, but I worked out most cast bullet "problems" before I started PCing...

[oley55]

To the OP's question, yes I suppose PC could temporarily mask a size issue but then maybe not. Way back when, I bought and tried commercially available hi-tek coated bullets and was surprised I got leading. I then tried BLL over the hi-tek and I still got leading. All of that was before I knew diddley squat about fitment.

As to accuracy (lubed or PC'd) I don't know how one would measure/address skipping the use of conventional lubes first. Since I shake n' bake, I know I do not have great control of the thickness of the coating from one batch to the next and would not expect the same consistency/accuracy results as my lubed bullets.

[mehavey]

Leading shows us problems or potential problems
that may be hidden by powder coat.If PC-ing prevents/results in no problems -- then there are no problems. 8-)
Turning the question around: Does lubing conventionally hide problems that a bare-naked bullet would reveal ?
(You get the picture)

That said . . . .

The only time I find PC-ing to be a problem is when I have a bore-rider that the PC builds up so much that the nose
no longer enters the bore......or a partitular ogive that when built up by PC forces deeper seating/missed crimp
groove/shorter-OAL than I want.

Then it's ALOX time... which has never failed me.

[bangerjim]

Use what works for you guns. I do. No more grease for me. Even with perfect fit, leading still happened....along with sticky boolits in the summer, exposed lead, and tons of smoke.

Now everything is clean, clear, and just as accurate as with old grease.

What is there left to discuss?

banger

[405grain]

In my humble opinion they're both equal. Traditional lubed boolits and powder coated boolits both have their advantages and problems. Lube can be messy and I've had to put in the work to find the right combinations to prevent leading. I've never experienced leading with any powder coated bullet, but the increase in diameter from powder coating and the hoops that I've had to jump through to address the problem have been many. On both of them you have to do the load development to search out the best accuracy for that gun and caliber. I've only been casting for 40 years so there's still a lot to learn, but from what I've seen PC and lubed shoot about the same. Neither of them are plug-n-play: you have to put in the time and energy to get the best results. Which one is better? Flip a coin. Use the one that you prefer. Or, if you prefer, use both. Casting, experimenting, trying new stuff, is all part of the adventure.

[kayala]

Not for me; but my case of PC not a very good idea is not related to accuracy but to simple fact that my 700 gr 500 S&W won't fit into cylinder when PC-ed.

[Iwsbull]

Love the powdercoated bullets as it allows me to run a softer bullet at higher velocities. I figure if it leaded when lubed and didn’t when coated that solved a problem as long as the accuracy is there.

[W.R.Buchanan]

For the sake of discussion, do we handicap ourselves by powder coating, before we test with a standard lube first? Leading shows us problems or potential problems, that may be hidden by powder coat. Without knowing the problems, how can the most accurate loads be developed?

I am not one who looks for "THE" most accurate load for any gun. I am looking for the load that provides "Acceptable Accuracy" with the least amount of downside.

This is especially true with my Glock Pistols which can prove to be problematic with lead boolits unless great care is taken to insure that the leading is minor if not non existent. With Power Coating it is NON EXISTENT! Period!

I was talking to Brian Pearce about this at SHOT a couple of years ago. He told me that he had not gotten the best accuracy with PC'd Boolits. I asked him what the difference was, and he told me 1/4" at 100 yards between Lubed Lead and PC'd. I said Really? Most people couldn't shoot that well in the first place and he laughed.

Then I said most people who cast boolits have experienced Leading of barrels. My S&W 696 had less than 50 rounds thru it when I got it and the previous owner sold it because it leaded the barrel so badly in the first 50 rounds, that he couldn't figure it out, so he sold it. Took me about 10 minutes to clean the lead out of the barrel. And I have fired lubed boolits in it that actually fit the barrel and not had any problems, however I REALLY don't have any problems with leading with PC'd Boolits in that gun, and they shoot right to the sights. And pushing a piece of paper towel thru the barrel after shooting a hundred or so thru it only removes the powder residue from the last shot because nothing else is left in there! Each shot cleans up after the previous shot, and the bore is bright and polished.

In my Marlin 1894 CB .44 it is more of the same. As far as Accuracy? I see no difference and maybe the PC'd Boolits are better because every shot is going thru a clean barrel?

I don't see Being Handicapped by only shooting PC'd versus Lubed to see "IF" there are problems,,, because with PC there aren't any problems, so why go looking for something that is not there. If there are problems,,, They are problems with the Lubed boolits not the PC'd ones.

As far as accuracy? The 1/4" difference between Lubed and PC'd, If it even exists ???, is not something I'm going to worry about.

Nothing I shoot will ever know the difference.

Randy

[nhyrum]

I did a small test a few years back with the Lee 180 tc in 10mm. Same load, just one batch was lubed and sized to 401, and the powder coated bullets sized to 401 before coating. All loaded in the same batch, the lubed bullets were about 25 fps slower, but the ES and SD were much smaller. I didn't test accuracy, just chrono numbers. I probably should have loaded up about 50 of each and testing accuracy too. I'm not saying that's a concrete difference between the two that's universal. That was my alloy, in that bullet, in my gun.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[fredj338]

Accuracy requirements vary quite a bit. I have pretty much abandoned conv lubes for PC in handguns. Rifles, yet TBD. In my G20, hands down the PC were more accurate.

[David2011]

Like most, I shot conveniently lubed boolits in every gun for which I now PC. I would consider that to be sufficient testing. I’ve seen no downside to PC. In my competition pistols I wouldn’t care if lubed lead boolits were marginally more accurate. I shoot USPSA and steel plate so the accuracy requirements are less stringent than for bullseye. The benefits of PC are that the feed ramp and surrounding area stay clean and the targets remain visible. Accuracy is meaningless when I have to estimate where the center of the target is and the clock is running. At one big match my last four shots were completely obscured by smoke, “aimed” by pointing between the targets on either side. Fortunately, they all landed in the A and C zones.

[charlie b]

I started casting with conventional lubes. When deciding on whether to PC I did some testing. 308Win. Lee 180gn. Fired many groups with conventional lube, a few hundred rounds. Then I used PC. Sized the same the PC bullets gave slightly better accuracy. Probably due to the bullet having a bore riding nose section. The PC gave it a closer fit to bore.

Later I acquired the XCB mold and shot those with conventional lube (about 100 rounds) and then PC. I could see no difference between the two in accuracy. Both were seated to jam into the lands the same amount (slightly different OAL). Both sized the same dia. Both were gas checked.

FWIW, these were all 2" or less at 100yd, depending on the powder charge (and me :) ). Best 5rnd groups were less than an inch. Average was less than 1.5".

Bottom line is, if you want to use PC bullets, then just load them and shoot. If they are as accurate as you want then you're done. If you switch back to lube you may discover 'problems', like an alloy that is too soft or a sizing issue that doesn't affect the PC bullet.

[Bigslug]

Full disclosure, I really don't know diddly about PC, but I think the proper way to think of this is that you are dealing with two different processes, and the way forward is to work on perfecting which ever process you are using. If that process isn't getting it done, maybe consider the other.

Leading or poor accuracy can be a sign of dimensional issues in the gun, but really, the best way to catch those is with pin gauges, bore slugging, pound casts of your chamber and throat, and measurements of your fired cases. If fit truly is king, the tools and processes used to study and improve it are your way forward.

As to PC vs. conventional for attempting "Benchrest" quality accuracy:

Conventional lube - the goal is to have some of it ablate in the bore, and the rest get jettisoned by centrifugal force on exit, or failing that, have it stay on evenly for balance.

Tumble lube - will probably mostly ablate in the bore and with the advent of stuff like BLL and 45/45/10, will be pretty evenly applied. I suppose some folks might lie awake at night wondering if it's thicker on the "downhill" side of the bullet that was laying against the wax paper as it dried.

Powder coat - as I understand it, it's basically electro-static application of paint, followed by baking on to make a plastic shell. Since it doesn't ablate in the bore or at the muzzle, putting some thought into ensuring that application is of uniform thickness might be prudent.

A bullet leaves the gun rotating around its center of shape, and will end up rotating around its center of mass. Ideally the two are the same, but we all know it's not a perfect world. Making sure the two are as close as possible through making sure your components are concentric and the gun centers the round up in the bore is what you're trying for.

And to more specifically answer your question of "how can the most accurate loads be developed?", you might try jacketed. I do not mean this sarcastically - the robots do a good job, and the manufacturing process doesn't suffer from clamshell molds, bullets being dropped, rolled around against each other, etc...

[Charlie Horse]

For me it is not always a good idea.
Why????
Because I have guns that are more accurate with lubed Boolits than PC'd boolits.
That's why.

And I like the simplicity of tumble lubing.
Handgun barrels are easy to de-lead, if that becomes an issue. That's why they make brushes.

[Charlie Horse]

What Would John Moses Browning Do? ;)

Ha. I thought I was the only one who said that to myself.

[sundog]

For the sake of discussion, do we handicap ourselves by powder coating, before we test with a standard lube first? Leading shows us problems or potential problems, that may be hidden by powder coat. Without knowing the problems, how can the most accurate loads be developed?

Ric, 'always' (or 'never') is a word which should be applied with great discretion. I 'assume' that a correct answer could be a "briefs or boxers" kind of thing where a meaningful response might be: Depends. :mrgreen:

Empirical evidence can be a great trump card. For example, I have fired thousands of rounds in military bolt matches (same 'as issued' 03A3 and several different loobed boolits) and found stuff that works very well for me. I PC now and results are still as good as ever - in this application.

One great advantage of PC is that large quantities of a particular boolit can be prepared and stored long term with no detrimental effect such as loob drying, flaking or cracking. Cast and prep in the winter for two to three years worth of good shooting.

I now PC just about all of my handgun boolits. It's cleaner and the results are the same or better, and a couple of undersized molds are now usable.

I still have and use my loobsizers using my favorite FWFL, tried and liked Ben's Red for a couple of things, 45/45/10, and BLL (as well as couple different loobs for BP). I even have a setup for Orange Magic - gets mighty warm here in the summer and sometimes a hard loob is appropriate. Getting there is half the fun. The other half is taking full advantage of the results.

[tmanbuckhunter]

I can't answer your question in the order that you asked it, but I can answer it backwards. I started PCing a few years ago, and had guns that I found shot better with a traditionally lubrisized bullet vs their PC'd counterparts after starting with a PC bullet first, and then later testing traditionally lubrisized. Now keep in mind, the accuracy was still "acceptable", but I like to split hairs. Not only that, it's just faster for me personally to lubrisize than to sit there and shake and bake, fight with standing them up, and all that crap. When I started out casting I was shooting a lot of 30 caliber and 32 caliber catridges. These days it's rare if I grab anything, even a rifle, under 40 caliber, and thus the benefits of PC for me are even less.

[Winger Ed.]

Powder coating is just a fad and will fade away like moly coating did.:kidding:

[Shuz]

[QUOTE=sundog;5327006]Ric, 'always' (or 'never') is a word which should be applied with great discretion. I 'assume' that a correct answer could be a "briefs or boxers" kind of thing where a meaningful response might be: Depends

Now.. Corky, that was really funny!

[white eagle]

My test with cast boolits never start with traditional lubing since I don't load them anymore
when I cast I pc and do my tests any problem I run into will have those parameters in the start

[johnho]

I only started PC'ing in my 40's. No matter what I did I couldn't stop them from leading. Those are the only ones I PC. No need to spend more time than needed, I still needed to size them and PC is just one more step as nothing else leads up for me. But they are purty.

[reddog81]

Which problems are we talking about? Undersized bullets causing leading and not being as accurate as possible?

I would say that you should either slug your barrel, measure your throat or otherwise figure out what bullet will best for you. I size all my bullets to .357 for 9mm, .453 for semi auto 45 ACP, .358 or .359 for .38 special, and .311 for 300BLK or .30-06. This works well for me PC or lubed.

[376Steyr]

Powder coating is just a fad and will fade away like moly coating did.:kidding:
And then we can get rid of this silly newfangled ALOX and beeswax and go back to beef tallow and bear grease! :p

[45DUDE]

You need to have a good gun and the ability to bench pistol 1 1/2'' or better 10 shots at 25 -50 yards to tell the difference unless you have a Ransom Rest.:-| . Do people win bullseye matches with powder coated? I have almost given up on some molds but learned to try a different powder or speed before I sent it down the road.

[reedap1]

To comment and try to reply to the OP question:

For the sake of discussion, do we handicap ourselves by powder coating, before we test with a standard lube first? Leading shows us problems or potential problems, that may be hidden by powder coat. Without knowing the problems, how can the most accurate loads be developed?

First I think we have to make some assumptions:

1) The bullet is appropriate weight and design for the intended cartridge...ie. we are not trying something "experimental" like a long 100-grain bullet in a .223.

2) The bullet that we cast is a well-formed, sharp-edged, uniform (no voids) composition, with a flat smooth parallel base of an appropriately hard alloy for the intended shooting requirement.

3)The bullet is PC coated or traditionally lubricated in a reasonable amount of time from the casting session as we know that alloy hardness changes over time

With those points in mind, I really think we are talking about a fundamental difference in bullet production, accuracy loading, and two different worlds now that PC has been around for a number of years. I think in many cases what we have learned with traditional lubing does not apply to PC. We are seeing some "rules" develop for PC'ed bullets such as oversizing has a negative effect and the fact that we are starting to see molds being produced that are smaller in diameter than traditionally cut to allow for the increased thickness of PC. I know that the next mold I have made will fit this requirement...how much smaller is still to be determined but I think PC adds about 1-2 thousand to diameter depending on the powder, the number of coats, etc. We have always known that "fit is king" no matter what type of bullet is being made. PC (depending on powder) appears to have a higher lubricity factory and we know that it produces almost no smoke and generally does not deposit in the bore and build up like lead will.

So in response to the original question, I think we are making an assumption that we are hiding accuracy issues with a bullet by powder coating. In my mind, I don't think we can make that assumption without doing extensive testing of traditional bullet testing and PC coating the same bullet. I have just moved into the PC world, will stay there going forward, and will experiment with accuracy techniques (size, PC type, etc) within that world to find a load combo that meets my requirements and just stay in that world due to the advantages of PC. I think the cast bullet world is in transition and we will see a "transformation" into almost 100% PC in the future as more adopt the technique and experiment with accuracy techniques. Thanks for the opportunity to ramble my thoughts.

[johnho]

I guess if you size before you PC then an undersized mold would make sense. I size after I PC so this does nothing. I get the exact same diameter after I PC and size as I get with a normal sized lead bullet.

[sundog]

I guess if you size before you PC then an undersized mold would make sense. I size after I PC so this does nothing. I get the exact same diameter after I PC and size as I get with a normal sized lead bullet.

That may be okay if the boolit is round to begin with.

[PAndy]

I can't think of a way to know which method delivers more accuracy with your loads and guns unless you try both. As others have noted, even if there is a small difference one way or the other, it may not make a difference depending on your shooting activities. Try both have fun.

[johnho]

That may be okay if the boolit is round to begin with.

After sizing the bullet is perfectly round. PC doesn't prevent the bullet from being sized to shape.

[megasupermagnum]

All I can say for certain is that if I had started coating from the beginning, I would never be where I am now. People seem to have the opinion that leading is in itself a problem. No, leading is a symptom. By coating, assuming you do it right, you have eliminated the possibility of leading. You can shoot an undersized bullet, and it won't lead. It won't shoot great, but it wont lead, and you would never know it was undersized. You could shoot a pure lead bullet, and it wouldn't lead. If it were a really strong cartridge, it probably wont shoot good, but you would never know it was too soft if it was coated.

Of course you could keep tweaking things until you get the accuracy you want, but you are flying blind. Most of us can figure out some of this, simply because we learned these things shooting lubed bullets. If you never learned that, you have no frame of reference. You'd end up shooting hardball alloy bullets sized to jacketed bullet diameters, and what happens, happens.

So I think the answer to your question is that the more experienced you are, the more you can deduct based on results on target. The less experienced you are, the more you are going to be handicapped by coating. Despite coating being a barrier that completely stops leading, it is not structural at all like a copper jacket, and all the nuances of a cast bullet still apply. You still need decently strong alloys to stand up to higher pressure. You still need gas checks for higher velocities. You still need to have the sizing so that the bullets are aligned in the throat and bore.

At the end of the day, I have yet to see the rifle shooters going for best accuracy to get that with coating. Even in pistols, I've not been able to get a coated bullet to match the accuracy of a lubed bullet. You can argue all you want of what you "need" or how great anything is, but to directly answer your question, "Do we handicap ourselves by powder coating, before we test with a standard lube first?", I'd have to say that yes, we are handicapping ourselves in regards to accuracy. If you are ok with 3 MOA rifle accuracy, or don't care to shoot pistols past 15 yards, that's fine, but why are you even on this forum?

[charlie b]

Just an FYI. My rifle bullets shoot less than 1.5MOA powder coated. About the same as what I got with lubed bullets.

[zymguy]

never say always , ever

[Finster101]

I think Ric is just trolling us. :kidding::kidding::kidding:

[megasupermagnum]

Just an FYI. My rifle bullets shoot less than 1.5MOA powder coated. About the same as what I got with lubed bullets.

And I don't doubt you one bit, but the guys like Larry Gibson, Waksupi, Dan Lynch (Mountain molds), and others that actually push a cartridge all universally use lube. Yes I realize Waksupi uses coating sometimes. Dan's Mountain molds forum had a ton of great info on his testing, and it is a shame it is now gone. These are guys who truly are getting great accuracy at extreme speeds of 2500 fps, 2600 fps, sometimes past 3000 fps. Once you get to those levels, tons of factors matter. Even in your case, who's to say that if you worked with a lubed bullet, you couldn't cut your groups down? You might be happy with that accuracy, I'm happy when I get that level of accuracy, but the question as asked was are you handicapping yourself with coating? I believe the answer is yes, even if you are fine with that handicap.

[mehavey]

Looking at the above, I don't doubt that the small group of UES (Unquestioned El Supremmo's)
can/have worked absolute magic w/ conventional lube/bullet/loading techniques
(Key word is "magic")

But I would venture that for 99-44/100th of the cast population, PC solves -- and
solves very well -- an incredible number of challenges that might not otherwise
be available to them.

(The art of "GoodEnough" is oft times the most difficult to acquire in all of human expedience)
:bigsmyl2:

[charlie b]

Well, I got the same accuracy lubed and PC'd so I guess I am happy with it. Velocity with PC is not an issue. I can drive the bullets as fast as I want without leading. But, velocity with a 'fast' twist means accuracy drops off at a lower velocity, regardless of coating or lube.

I am really close to consistent MOA accuracy, with PC. Comparing to the CBA bench rest match results I am not that far off from lubed stuff. I also noticed a couple of competitors using PC now.

I know that others are more accurate with lubed, especially in dedicated cast rifles. Custom barrels, slower twist, etc. I am happy the way my factory rifle is performing. Sometimes I wonder if I would have better results with PC if I had a custom barrel made up for it, 1-12 or 1-14 twist, maybe in .30BR to optimize case capacity for 100 and 200yd targets.

Yes, Larry and others do really well with lubed. Truth is, if I had a good lubesizer I'd probably use conventional lubed bullets as well and never would have gone to PC. One of these days I may even buy one. But, for now I am still chasing that "MOA every group" goal with PC. :)

[waksupi]

I think Ric is just trolling us. :kidding::kidding::kidding:

Well, yes and no. I did want to kick in people's brain cells to see what came out. So far I have found the conversation interesting. Just look at it as a cabin fever preventative!