BHN and accuracy

[BJung]

I read the thread Hardness Matters but didn't see my answer.

I cast my .38 and .45 acp bullets with the softest range lead available and save .40S&W bullets for the harder lead range lead among ingots I cast. Has anyone done a test comparing an accuracy load with different cast bullets with different BHN? How much variance would I expect before accuracy changes for the worse? I tend to let my ingots age and segregate them by hardness for different calibers. Can I get away with taking the large pieces of range scrap with some hardcast bullets added in, casting my TC 9mm and 40cal TC bullets and expect decent accuracy?

[BLAHUT]

I shoot pure lead in all my loads. Only shoot at a mild load. 45/70, 45/60 at 1200 FPS. Shoot faster need harder lead..

[megasupermagnum]

I have, but only in revolvers. The most recent I can recall was in 327 federal, comparing a 137gr SWC with water quenched range lead, to soft 20:1 alloy. I only fired 14 rounds of each, but I did not measure any difference in accuracy. The caveat is that particular load I've fine tuned. I've got the bullet size and lube dialed in just right. I've got the seating plug diameter dialed. I've got the powder dialed. I even twice tested a bunch of primers in that load and got that dialed. Also that was at 40 yards with wrist rested, not true bench rested shots. I was testing the soft alloy for hunting accuracy and was happy to find no loss. I even took it out a few days later and put one through a deer.

That's not a bad idea for a test though, I should stretch that out to 100 yards and do a proper benched 25 shot average of each.

[centershot]

BHN vs accuracy, is a hard bullet more accurate than a soft one? E. H. Harrison of the NRA thought so and stated such in the NRA's Cast Bullet Handbook. He said that the best target accuracy is achieved by using linotype alloy for target wadcutters. While I agree that lino makes wonderful WC's, today we know you don't need lino to make accurate target bullets. Or hunting bullets. The hardness of a cast bullet is only one factor in the search for an accurate load.

[Shopdog]

"The hardness of a cast bullet is only one factor.... snip"

Couldn't have said it any better. Generally,and this has to be well fleshed out... you want to go with the softest bullet that gets the job done. Just jumping into the deep end of hardness "can" cause more problems. Think of it like neck tension..... more isn't better,it's simply a test point. But,it's easier to compare one vs another. Alloy and any subsequent "hardening"....you need to figure out how to make your this vs that,more simple. If you have a low node acc load, "build" off that,adding a little toughness. You want to see where it breaks down,and stay just above that. Good luck with your project.

[deces]

The Lee reloading manual has many pages dedicated cast boolits, Lee clearly writes about measuring bhn for pressure limits for optimum accuracy in load development when used with their bhn tester.

[Larry Gibson]

The Lee reloading manual has many pages dedicated cast boolits, Lee clearly writes about measuring bhn for pressure limits for optimum accuracy in load development when used with their bhn tester.

Lee's formula uses a constant based on the plastic deformation of pure lead. If binary, ternary or quadra alloys are used then constant is wrong, and, thus, the conclusion based on the formula is wrong. This has been proven over and over again on this forum for many years now. Lee's formula is a dog that won't hunt.....

[popper]

Hardness doesn't matter, toughness does. Hardness is measured by a useable tool, toughness is more difficult to measure.

[405grain]

The advent of powder coating has really thrown a curve ball into the hardness/accuracy equation. With PC you can use a softer alloy, and the polymer jacket will take the rifling. Where this is most apparent is with hollow point pistol bullets. Softer alloy means better expansion, but to get that expansion you need speed. Normally using a really soft alloy at higher speeds isn't conductive to the best accuracy, but PC changed that. Just one more variable when thinking about BHN and it's effects on accuracy & performance.

[TurnipEaterDown]

Lee's formula uses a constant based on the plastic deformation of pure lead. If binary, ternary or quadra alloys are used then constant is wrong, and, thus, the conclusion based on the formula is wrong. This has been proven over and over again on this forum for many years now. Lee's formula is a dog that won't hunt.....

I have had a question on this for a while now.

I completely understand the statement made about there being an incorrect assumption on material properties in the LEE formula, and how this changes with alloy composition.

What I would like to understand is: (1) is the formula is valid for lead (having used properties for lead), and (2) if the correct material property values for alloy compositions were available (recognized: not easy w/ variable compositions), would the formula work when bullets were made of alloyed lead?

My thoughts always go to permanent distortion (bending) of the base from combustion pressure, and buckling of the column interior to the lube groove(s). The reduced OD "column" interior to the lube groove acts as a connecting rod between what is effectively a piston (base band) and the body, and would be susceptible to buckling. Granted that any potential for column buckling of this section interior to the lube groove has to be considered in light of the lube becoming pressurized in the groove and acting as support that would also resist the buckling (lube pressure being reduced as lube is stripped in the trip down the bore).

Distortion in either of these manners could easily lead to base perpendicularity issue(s) as the bullet leaves the muzzle, and therefore I think it is meaningful to understand the material properties and section attributes of the projectile in relation to chamber pressure.
For these reasons, I think it is important that bases be thick, lube grooves be shallow & placed as far forward as possible, if chamber pressure is to be increased as far as possible to gain performance.

[Tripplebeards]

I have done ladder tests on four different alloy hardness boolits in my Ruger 77/44 bolt action 44 mag rifle. All gas checked and powder coated. My best groups with 15.4 BH was at 1750 fps. My best groups from 7.5BH alloy came at 1600 fps. Didn’t really have a tight enough group with the two other alloys that shot under MOA so I don’t record them. I had to do some accuracy mods to get the best groups out of the rifle first. I had to bed the action, float the barrel, lighten the trigger, and add an a 14x optic that I wouldn’t normally hunt with. The scope has been changed out to a 3-9 since. My gun wasn’t shooting better than 2 MOA with my tighter load. The average was 4 to 6 MOA till I bedded it and floated the barrel. Then the same best grouping loads were shooting sub MOA. The worst groups were at largest 1.75 MOA. I also switched to a lee collet factory crimp which imo was the big answer. I never tried lighter loads in my 35 Rem 336 but can tell you 10.5 BH shoots in the same hole at 2100 fps. If I drop down to 7.5BH it opens up my groups to 2” at 100 yards. Without GCs I’m still experimenting…and trying not to get leading. The other two alloys l tried in my 77/44 were straight COWW and 50/50 pure and COWW mix. Neither shot MOA or better so I stayed with the two other alloys. Really didn’t make any sense to me at the time because it was my second try and gun loading for cast. But my alloy that was 7.5 bh shot best at 1600 fps and an alloy three times harder at 15.4 BH shot best at a 150 fps. Was using the Lyman devastator and H110 and lil gun powders. I know is if you switch alloy hardness in a given load the group size will definitely change.

[BJung]

It looks to me that the lower the bhn or softer the lead, the accuracy load requires a lower charge. Within the alloy, bhn is a combination of being malleable by using tin or hard by using antinomy. Then the caster can temper a bullet also. On threat I read by an African hunter was to find a load and then add lead until the group started to spread out. Thinking out-loud, maybe water drop such a bullet, de-temper the tip while the shank kept cold and gas check it. This is for a rifle bullet. Back to pistol bullets, I'll settle on the highest bhn from the same range scrap for the 40 and 9, and then load accordingly. I'll report on my findings at a later date.

[facetious]

Just for fun I cast a bunch of LBT OWC's from range scrap air cooling half and water dropping the other half. After more than enough time to age I loaded them both with my standard load. 15 gr's of 2400 and shot a 25 round group of each at 15 yd's.

The WD'ed ones gave a rounder and smaller group. WD'ed ones were more like AC'ed WW's.

[Larry Gibson]

I have had a question on this for a while now......................

What I would like to understand is: (1) is the formula is valid for lead (having used properties for lead), and (2) if the correct material property values for alloy compositions were available (recognized: not easy w/ variable compositions), would the formula work when bullets were made of alloyed lead?

My thoughts always go to permanent distortion (bending) of the base from combustion pressure, and buckling of the column interior to the lube groove(s). The reduced OD "column" interior to the lube groove acts as a connecting rod between what is effectively a piston (base band) and the body, and would be susceptible to buckling. Granted that any potential for column buckling of this section interior to the lube groove has to be considered in light of the lube becoming pressurized in the groove and acting as support that would also resist the buckling (lube pressure being reduced as lube is stripped in the trip down the bore).

Distortion in either of these manners could easily lead to base perpendicularity issue(s) as the bullet leaves the muzzle, and therefore I think it is meaningful to understand the material properties and section attributes of the projectile in relation to chamber pressure.
For these reasons, I think it is important that bases be thick, lube grooves be shallow & placed as far forward as possible, if chamber pressure is to be increased as far as possible to gain performance.

Not being a mathematician, it appears to me if the constant in Lee's formula is adjusted to represent the actual point of plastic deformation of the alloy being used then the results should be valid.

The problem with the OP's question, like so many we get on this forum, is there are so many other variables the questions really can't be answered.

The OP asks; "Has anyone done a test comparing an accuracy load with different cast bullets with different BHN?". Probably, but the results would only apply to that bullet, that load and that firearm.

"How much variance would I expect before accuracy changes for the worse?" Only the OP and his handguns and loads can answer that. Are we capable of accuracy testing with such handguns to actually see a subtle change in "accuracy"?

"I tend to let my ingots age and segregate them by hardness for different calibers. Can I get away with taking the large pieces of range scrap with some hardcast bullets added in, casting my TC 9mm and 40cal TC bullets and expect decent accuracy?" Is there really any way a reasonable guess can be made not knowing the alloy compositions of his "range scrap", the "hardcast" bullets or what his idea of "accuracy" is. Can he get away with it.....probably. Will it give decent accuracy.....again, only he can answer that.

Also as alluded too, BHN is only one half of the equation. Malleability is the other half [earlier referred to a "toughness"].

This is not intended, by any means to be critical of the OP and his questions. Just and simple explanation why his and many similar questions can't be truely given a hard and fast answer. There are just too many variables for a simple answer.

[blackthorn]

"I tend to let my ingots age and segregate them by hardness for different calibers. Can I get away with taking the large pieces of range scrap with some hardcast bullets added in, casting my TC 9mm and 40cal TC bullets and expect decent accuracy?" Is there really any way a reasonable guess can be made not knowing the alloy compositions of his "range scrap", the "hardcast" bullets or what his idea of "accuracy" is. Can he get away with it.....probably. Will it give decent accuracy.....again, only he can answer that.

Another question as an add-on to Larry's----"I tend to let my ingots age and segregate them by hardness for different calibers."---Is the OP aging the ingots to test and then picking which BHN to use? Or, does he expect the bullets cast to be the same BHN as the ingot? If the answer is yes to the second point, he is likely to be badly disappointed.

[Shopdog]

Just yappin;

For years now,have used torque wrenches in lieu of the factory handles on my 3 Lyman 450's. Actually,have used 3 different styles of them.... dial type,beam style,and then the clicker type. With truly custom reamed TP's that are much longer/supportive than either Lyman,or RCBS.

It has been an eye opener... the beam type wrench in use will; absolutely repeat on the #'s of when a batch is tested. The numbers mean nothing by themselves,.... meaning it's based on the leverage ratio that the 3/8" socket gets Tigged on the handle. Yes,you can still use the factory handle. Just sayin the #'s are going to be based on this "moment" arm.

But "laws have mercy" is it accurate for checking toughness/malleability from batch to batch. AND within a batch but there's not enough space to explain that one.....

Then,after that batches #'s are recorded and checked against previous,known values....well,we definitely ain't in Kansas anymore.

"Hardness".... on an upcoming piece of equipment,am going with a whole different approach. There's a name for the apparatus,which escapes me.... but it is used in industry for such tests. Basically twin vertical ground N polished rods. On it is a weighted carriage that gets pulled up,hooked to a cheap index style bow release aid. The bullet is in whatever you deem necessary... meaning the bullet doesn't have to just,"sit there". Like the TP's spoken of above.. in this application there's a socket for the bullet to sit in.... before the weight hits it. In this way,by altering the socket height,how much bullet is supported... you can test noses or bases.

So sorta,kinda;
Impact=hardness

Applied force(torque wrench)=toughness

[megasupermagnum]

The problem I have with the Lee formula is that it doesn't even seem close to reality. They came up with the formula by shooting bullets into a swimming pool and looking at them. I'm not sure what they saw, but it hasn't matched up to what I've seen. A good example is a soft alloy such as 20:1 is claimed to have a BHN of 10. I think it often tests a little lower, but we will say it is 10. According to the Lee formula, at about 12,500 psi we should start seeing deformed bullets with 20:1 alloy, which is just crazy. You will start to see your bullets deforming at a certain point, and I've seen it happen in the 30,000-40,000 psi range. By that I mean you will start to see you lube grooves start to collapse or bullet noes deform or "slump".

Here is the real issue with the formula, it depends on the bullet design. If you shoot a hardened steel screw at 10,000 psi, it will be deformed. It's all about support. Most bullet designs are designed to be supported as well as possible. On the other extreme is some bullet designs that are designed intentionally to deform. You can find a number of such with blackpowder guns such as a hollow based bullet, or even something like a TC Maxiball. Even more extreme is a hollow based shotgun slug. Look below at this slug on the right which was fired with a moderate load, probalby only 9,000-10,000 psi, maybe 1150 fps, nothing crazy. That was with an alloy about 13BHN, something Lee says will handle 16,588 psi. Sure looks heavily deformed to me (which is a good thing, that is why they shoot so good). The left slug is as-cast.

The Lee max pressure formula does not offer anything of value to the cast bullet shooter.

https://i.ibb.co/b3dtDvs/20210903-202747.jpg (https://ibb.co/b3dtDvs)

[BJung]

deleted

[BJung]

Just for fun I cast a bunch of LBT OWC's from range scrap air cooling half and water dropping the other half. After more than enough time to age I loaded them both with my standard load. 15 gr's of 2400 and shot a 25 round group of each at 15 yd's.

The WD'ed ones gave a rounder and smaller group. WD'ed ones were more like AC'ed WW's.

I am curious to know if the difference in groups was significant. What were they?

[BJung]

Yes, I let my ingots age and segregate them by hardness. I had a stack of ingots that were a year old were able to be scratched by an HB pencil and were among the hardest ingots I tested. They sat in my garage for a year and had tarnished. I used these to cast 40-170gr TC bullets and PCd them. They are being aged. By the end of next year (I have other tests to do) I'll shoot some of these and shoot some of these that are heated and water dropped. My target .38 and .45 bullets are made from cores with the jackets still intact. I am looking for a consistency in alloy composition. My worse range lead the small pieces left after the dirt and debri is removed. I make My brother makes fishing weights out of those. I was at first thinking that a certain bhn bullet made a more accurate bullet for a certain caliber. Now I am thinking that this can depend on charge weight.

[BJung]

Just yappin;

For years now,have used torque wrenches in lieu of the factory handles on my 3 Lyman 450's. Actually,have used 3 different styles of them.... dial type,beam style,and then the clicker type. With truly custom reamed TP's that are much longer/supportive than either Lyman,or RCBS.

It has been an eye opener... the beam type wrench in use will; absolutely repeat on the #'s of when a batch is tested. The numbers mean nothing by themselves,.... meaning it's based on the leverage ratio that the 3/8" socket gets Tigged on the handle. Yes,you can still use the factory handle. Just sayin the #'s are going to be based on this "moment" arm.

But "laws have mercy" is it accurate for checking toughness/malleability from batch to batch. AND within a batch but there's not enough space to explain that one.....

Then,after that batches #'s are recorded and checked against previous,known values....well,we definitely ain't in Kansas anymore.

"Hardness".... on an upcoming piece of equipment,am going with a whole different approach. There's a name for the apparatus,which escapes me.... but it is used in industry for such tests. Basically twin vertical ground N polished rods. On it is a weighted carriage that gets pulled up,hooked to a cheap index style bow release aid. The bullet is in whatever you deem necessary... meaning the bullet doesn't have to just,"sit there". Like the TP's spoken of above.. in this application there's a socket for the bullet to sit in.... before the weight hits it. In this way,by altering the socket height,how much bullet is supported... you can test noses or bases.

So sorta,kinda;
Impact=hardness

Applied force(torque wrench)=toughness

Are you referring to placing a dent in your unknown alloy compared to a pure piece of lead and then comparing the two indentations to determine bhn?

[Shopdog]

Firstly,have never tried to establish a relationship between the torque required to yield,with any scale...BHN,or otherwise. That's what I was trying to say. Instead,it's just a simple way... for me,to keep tabs on how this batch compares with previous. I keep pretty durn good notes going back almost 50 years,so that's where the dope goes...in notes.

There's a few other aspects,and more yet that I haven't "needed". Once the yield number on a particular batch is known,and there aren't any surprises.... then,I go with the clicker style where you can set the wrench to "click" at a predetermined point below the yield number.

Very easy to "see" this during use...and is uber repeatable. Which never fails to bring a grin BTW. But,I'm sure as HECK not a technical writer,and that's OK. It would be very easy to make one and calibrate it. Don't get "married" to any specific lever arm ratio... try several distances from the hinge point. What you're looking for is,having the beam style go to the bullet,or samples yield very close to the center of the range on the wrenches scale. And,consider where a clicker style "likes" to be if you're using one later.

I have a stoopid $$$ dial type,analog but has tracking pointers,and it's just not as convenient as a decent beam style. Something about the longer handle on the beam type? So easy to actually feel the bullets yield. I'd guess,with careful handling...we see about a 5# +- sensitivity....

Like so many gages in the shop,or handloading....think of them as comparators vs absolute numbers.

[Shopdog]

I'm old,and generally try to keep a smile going so am reluctant to start talking about certain aspects of precision cast,equipment and shooting. Got a dz or more rigs that could be called game changers,accuracy wise.

The GC,and all things considered about them is crucial for building HV bughole shooting varmint rigs. A cpl volumes could be written about just nose forming alone,but want to keep this about GC's.

One aspect of the whole TW(torque wrench) setup is for the "setting" or seating of checks. Generally,I don't size body's on bore riders(WAY more precision is used than a stupid push through die),only using OUR, custom H&I dies to seat GC,and come up as little as practical on the bttm drive band. Trying for 1/2 the band or less. One reason is this is a guide diameter for other ops,later....

Even though the GC is initially "set" square on a small jewelry C frame press,which uses it's own little baby dies. Really these are just caliber specific,turned "cups". It's only after you are 100% satisfied with this step,that the bullet goes to a 450. Then it's clickety click,and presto....GC gets seated and crimped. Each has the same(with the confines of that tools accuracy),pressure.

There's right much more to it. Just trying to show how,or where the click style comes in the process. In use,it's lightyears faster than any method I've used? Bullet goes from C frame,to 450... pull handle,done.

Forget lube...forget swaged,or bumped noses,spinning,knurling,or any of that stuff...this is about the bullet base. Along with this is the leade in on the H die itself.

Folks want numbers...or reams of stats,I get it. But that ain't what's going to happen from me. Rather,make several parts(H dies),or one and modify.... then walk out the shop door and shoot groups. Not the way folks want to hear but IME....IS,the fast lane.
Good luck with your project.

[TurnipEaterDown]

The problem I have with the Lee formula is that it doesn't even seem close to reality. They came up with the formula by shooting bullets into a swimming pool and looking at them. I'm not sure what they saw, but it hasn't matched up to what I've seen. A good example is a soft alloy such as 20:1 is claimed to have a BHN of 10. I think it often tests a little lower, but we will say it is 10. According to the Lee formula, at about 12,500 psi we should start seeing deformed bullets with 20:1 alloy, which is just crazy. You will start to see your bullets deforming at a certain point, and I've seen it happen in the 30,000-40,000 psi range. By that I mean you will start to see you lube grooves start to collapse or bullet noes deform or "slump".

Here is the real issue with the formula, it depends on the bullet design. If you shoot a hardened steel screw at 10,000 psi, it will be deformed. It's all about support. Most bullet designs are designed to be supported as well as possible. On the other extreme is some bullet designs that are designed intentionally to deform. You can find a number of such with blackpowder guns such as a hollow based bullet, or even something like a TC Maxiball. Even more extreme is a hollow based shotgun slug. Look below at this slug on the right which was fired with a moderate load, probalby only 9,000-10,000 psi, maybe 1150 fps, nothing crazy. That was with an alloy about 13BHN, something Lee says will handle 16,588 psi. Sure looks heavily deformed to me (which is a good thing, that is why they shoot so good). The left slug is as-cast.

The Lee max pressure formula does not offer anything of value to the cast bullet shooter.

https://i.ibb.co/b3dtDvs/20210903-202747.jpg (https://ibb.co/b3dtDvs)

In reading your reply MSM, I think you and I see this the same way: The design of the bullet affects the deformation of the physical elements / geometry of the bullet more so than simple chamber pressure, and making a comparison of chamber pressure to the alloy tensile strength is very likely to mislead.
However, if deformation in any particular manifestation produces undesirable characteristics in bullet shape as as it leaves the bore, accuracy will suffer. (Recognizing that Not all deformation is bad, which is one of your points.)

It is plainly evident that design of certain key elements of the bullet form dominates the consideration of a bullet being able to retain a form conducive to accuracy when subjected to a specified chamber pressure, if a person looks at an equation set to determine if a cantilever beam will fail under load: primary to the assessment is the distance from the load to the reaction point. i.e. Design matters.
This is what I was getting at w/ base band design, the OD of the reduced section of bullet body to the lube groove, etc. (Perhaps my approach in conveying wasn't the best for some readers, or any 1 particular reader.)

However, I think if two or more performance levels were sought, and the bullet design were IDENTICAL, and IF running a cast bullet load just shy of the yield point of the material is a good starting point for accuracy testing (may be more applicable to situations where obturation is not a primary performance aspect, such as a well fit bullet in a rifle bore w/ GC), then an understanding of the material property comparison may be helpful in determination of how much chamber pressure increase could be tolerated by alloy change.
It seems that where this approach would be most applicable would be a situation where a bullet is seated into the rifling (or close enough that initial pressure rise well before peak gets it there and begins the engraving process), and as pressures are increased in search of more velocity, stripping of the rifling occurs.

To strip the rifling, the bullet material must shear. Shear strength is a mechanical property with a relationship to tensile strength in metals.

While there are a lot of variables in comparing one load to another (pressure rise characteristics, peak and rate changes of pressure w/ burning rate & load density, etc. etc.) I think that a hint to what might be achievable in speeds (having a loose relationship to pressure) by changing the alloy of the bullet would be useful in achieving success quicker, if developing a different load from a known one and seeking a substantially different velocity level were sought.

I think I am probably struggling to get my point across as to how the concept of the LEE formula might prove useful, even if the direct application of it proves out to be a failure.

It is a funny thing perhaps, but years ago when I read the LEE work on this and attempted to apply it, my success rate at getting accuracy from cast bullets immediately improved.
Then, years later, I determined that other loads of mine which worked very well didn't follow what would be predicted by this work at all. (Great loads for a particular rifle coming just 3-5% charge shy of of a load cracking primers.)
I know (being one) that many times engineers develop empirical formulas that are grossly simplified models for predictions, and they do work well enough within predetermined boundaries where the assumption set is valid, so I pondered over this formula from Lee, and thought in which way it might be useful even if in direct application it is obviously flawed.

Hope that makes some sense in my limited ability to get to the "why" on my earlier post on topic, and thanks to you and Larry for your replies.

[Bigslug]

#1. Read the Glenn Fryxell sticky From Ingot to Target: https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?110213-From-Ingot-to-Target-A-Cast-Bullet-Guide-for-Handgunners

#2. You may find this helpful with your alloy sorting: https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?269789-Careful-Analysis-of-Segregated-Range-Scrap-Smelt&highlight=segregated+range+scrap

I like to think of the area you're playing in as similar to the first 50 years of aviation: If all you're trying to do is get airborne 300 feet off the ground at 100 mph, a few spruce boards covered with some high thread-count bedsheets will get it done. That's how I think of alloys for a .38 Special wadcutter and softball .45 ACP target load. If, on the other hand, you're power-diving a WWII fighter and closing in on mach 1, the number of engineering aspects you need to pay attention for your wings to stay attached start stacking up in a hurry. These are your higher pressure loads like the 9mm, .40, and toasty .38's

Here's the thing though. . .you can fly 300 feet off the ground at 100 mph in a P-51 Mustang with the flaps down and not stress anything. In other words, a little harder alloy optimized for slightly higher pressures will work fine in the lower intensity applications and you don't have to fret a bunch of different mixes. As to accuracy, my attitude is this: they're defensive category power-level handguns - all but the worst of them shoot far better than all but the best of us can shoot them, and for most of my shooting, I'm not trying to wring the max bullseye potential out of them anyway. Reliable function and a lead-free bore are my two main concerns, and if you have that, you have already laid some of the flagstones of consistency for the path to good accuracy anyway.

I'd probably advise you pursue it like this: If you're running a target bullet mold and have no intention of ever running that bullet above pokey Bullseye match speeds, by all means cast them out of your softer "Wright Brothers" metal. If, however, you may shoot some of that same bullet into the toastier territory of defense, hunting, varmint control, or falling plate targets, then taking the whole batch up to and including the wheelweight-ish BHN of about 12-14 won't hurt anything for your lighter loads. If you're seriously chasing the NRA Bullseye dragon, you'll have to pursue hardness for the individual gun (and will probably be doing so with store-bought alloy for sake of consistency anyway), but do so with the knowledge that it's probably better to be a little too hard and wrong, than too soft and wrong - provided you have good fit to begin with in either case.

[243winxb]

My 10 lb Lee pot gets 2" of Rotometal's Linotype bar. Target 45 acp to full house 44 mags. Accuracy is as it should be.

Tried near pure in 45 acp. The 200 gr lswc nose hung up on the feed ramp. Never ever happened in 1000s of rounds before.


Never tested BHN, except for my thumb nail. The target knows.

Test targets- https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?450809-S-amp-w-629-1-432-throats-doesn-t-want-to-shoot-well&p=5502276&viewfull=1#post5502276

[Bigslug]

Tried near pure in 45 acp. The 200 gr lswc nose hung up on the feed ramp. Never ever happened in 1000s of rounds before.


A good point this. . .

We ran Winchester's "Win Clean" (lead free primer) on our indoor range with no problems in our .40 caliber Glocks and are liking them fine in our new 9mm's, but our 1911's had some issues with them. The other "clean" aspect of the round is that instead of the jacket wrapping around the bullet from the nose rearward, leaving an exposed lead base, these jackets wrap around the lead core from the rear, isolating the base from the powder gasses, but leaving a soft lead blob of lead sticking out the front of the jacket.

In the .45's, this ammo would run fine for about three mags, then start hanging up. The nose of the bullet was leaving a smudge of lead at the 12:00 area of the chamber as it was nosing down, which grew until it hung up a following round. Scrub the chamber, and it was good for another three mags. The problem could have been rectified by a slightly different contour to the TC nose and jacket, but it did illustrate that a squishy, near-pure lead bullet may cause problems with the mechanics of feeding.