A different idea on alloys

[Bret4207]

I was re-re-re-re-re-reading Handloaders Cast Bullet Annual last night while my bride softly snored next to me. I read an article by John Zamenack (whatever happened to him?) on accurate handgun loads. He described the realtionship between alloy hardness and obturation in a very common sense manner. To paraphrase- He used 2 alloys, a heat treated WW and straight lino. The HTWW tested harder than the lino, but he found he got higher pressures with the HTWW than the lino because although the lino was softer it wasn't as ductile as the HTWW and thus the HTWW obtruated more with magnum type loads. I know this has been discussed here before, but I never saw it explained quite so well. This goes along with why we can use HTWW at higher velocities and still get mushrooming in game, whereas the truly "hard" alloys like lino tend to either bore through with no expansion or break up if the antimony content is too high. The ductility of the HTWW allows both obturation and expansion. Finding the balance point between pressure and obturation is the tricky part, but I thought the theory was expalined quite well.

I wish Handloader would bring out more compilations of their cast boolit articles.

[45 2.1]

If you cut WW with pure lead, you can get the "Hard" alloy by water dropping AND ductility/expansion also. This is THE solution to casting soft nose boolits. If you go 1/2 and 1/2 you will get about 18 BHN water dropped and the thing expands nicely with 30 cal boolits at 1800 fps. Vary the percentage around and get more or less of the same and can be tailored to handgun boolits nicely also.

[Dutch4122]

Another mix I've seen recommended (by Glen Fryxell) is 8 lbs. W/W with 2 lbs. pure lead and a couple ounces of tin. Supposed to have a BHN of around 11 and is less brittle, more malleable. Or, 50/50 Lyman #2 and pure lead is supposed to come out the same, BHN 11.

I've wondered what BHN this mix would water quench using my WW alloy as I already get a BHN of 22 when water quenching straight WW.

On my "to do" list for magnum pistol loads.

[Bass Ackward]

I know this has been discussed here before, but I never saw it explained quite so well.

I wish Handloader would bring out more compilations of their cast boolit articles.


Bret,

Let see. You get someone who rights for a living writting an entire artical and you compare it to one of our .... converstaions using one or two paragraph blurbs? Getting a little picky are we? :grin:

Why do you think you always read Felix talking toughness with bullet mixes? And why lino is so widely used in the benchrest comps if HTWW is so cheap? Hardness is hardness. Toughness will follow along to a point, but chemical composition can produce the same or better strength without the hardness. Oh that's right! You already read that in a great .... artical so no sence rehashing it here. :grin:

Remind me of my mother ............

[porkchop bob]

. . . And why lino is so widely used in the benchrest comps if HTWW is so cheap? . . .
IMHO, target shooters want to limit or eliminate as many variables as possible. The use of a certified lino alloy instead of a WW alloy is one such step. As the target is most often paper, I am sure this group of shooters are not overly concerned about how the bullet reacts when it hits the target.
Bob

[Bret4207]

Bass, I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. I'm just pointing out an interesting thing I happened to find. If that rubs you the wrong way, so be it. I also am not saying HTWW is THE answer for anything in particular, just that I can see from what he said the WHY of how things work out sometimes.

You remind me of my son.

[Dale53]

John Zamaneck was a rather bright fellow and he was just getting up to speed as a respected writer when he suddenly died of a heart attack (I believe). I think that he was only about fifty. Dern shame.

At any rate, the article was thought provoking and provided value for those of us who both cast and hunt with cast bullets.

Dale53

[Pepe Ray]

To all interested posters'
Sometime in the early '80's,I purchased from the NRA book sales, a publication titled Cast Bullets ,compiled and partially written by Col. E.H. Harrison USA (ret).
The book is paper covered, 8.5"x11", 3/8"thick. Comprised of published articals from the American Rifleman and many letters from readers like you. Some of the more noted authorities were Al Dinan, Guy Lautard, Ed Breland, Charles E. Harris, Dennis Marshall, Wm. C. Davis Jr., Robert N Sears, Frank Marshall Jr. and many others.
One of the questions asked and answered was pertaining to a method of measureing Brinell hardness at home with ordinary equipment.
The instructions were clear, concise, and I'm astounded that none of you have noted that either the publication or the technique existed.
I admit to being distracted from my hobbies by family illness during the past few years but, I believe I've seen it offered for sale within the past few years.
What gives? Pepe Ray
__________________
The way is ONLY through HIM.

[7br]

I always thought the reason a person used linotype was for ease of casting. Less voids, better fill out, etc.

[Bret4207]

Pepe- The NRA Cast Bullets book has been mentioned several times in the past, both here, at Aimoo and Shooters ( our old sites). There's also a Cast Bullets Supplement thats in demand by many of us here. It's rather hard to find and out of print last I knew. If you go back in the archives here far enough you'll find many references to Col EH Harrisons work at the NRA. He knew his stuff.

7BR- Lino has all the qualities you mentioned plus it has a higher tensile/sheer strength than say ww, so it is less prone to strip in the rifling at similar pressures/velocities. Or so goes the current theory.

[felix]

Lino is probably the best (for us) compromise between toughness and hardness. However, lino, or any formulation with a lower melting point, can get us into trouble when casting for the smaller boolits, like 22s. It freezes too fast, and it makes for a lighter boolit. If a 22 caliber boolit lot was made where 90 percent of the individuals were within a tenth of a grain of one another, then the heat applied to the pot and the mold were considered perfect for that one session. However, if a boolit is too light for the length, then the accuracy will deteriote if the twist is a little slow, or the cross winds a little too snappy, or both. ... felix

[Dale53]

My experience with lino and .22's and .25's has been different than yours. Frankly, I used lino with the small bullets simply because of its casting excellence. When I first started using small bullets (225415, 225438, and 257420) I had been told that they were too hard to cast, won't work, etc. All of that was so much malarkey. The small bullets looked fine and worked better.

My TC Contender .221 Fireball (10") with 4.0 grs of Unique shoots 1/2" groups at 50 yards when I do my part (in good conditions). My Marlin 94 in .25/20 will shoot ten ring at 50 yards all day long with squirrel load (4.0 Unique), medium load (11.0 grs of RL-7) and heavy load (compressed 14.5 grs of RL-7). Do not use the heavy load in a weak actioned rifle. It chrono's just under 2200 fps but is safe in my rifle. Now, admittedly, I don't get many "x's" with the .25/20 but ten ring on the NRA Fifty yard target is pretty dern good for a lever gun in my opinion.

Since the lino worked so well the first time I used it with the small bullets, I have continued thru the years to use lino with these bullets. They are so small, that they don't much cut into my supply of linotype (get a lot of bullets out of a pound).

The two flat nose bullets are MUCH better killers than standard RN .22's on squirrels. I normally shoot for the head but sometimes the little fellers just will not give you a head shot. At those times, the flat nose is a Godsend. Takes them right out of the trees on a lung shot without much damaged meat.

Dale53

[Bass Ackward]

Bass, I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. I'm just pointing out an interesting thing I happened to find. If that rubs you the wrong way, so be it. I also am not saying HTWW is THE answer for anything in particular, just that I can see from what he said the WHY of how things work out sometimes.

You remind me of my son.


Bret,

JOKE: Funny Ha,ha. Catch the smilies.

[felix]

Dale, no argument. I like a much slower pace in casting, and while doing so it is difficult for me to keep the temps up to snuff. Adding some bismuth adds much needed weight when there is a significant amount of tin in the mix. In other words, modified WW is the answer for me. Accuracy standard for me is shotgun shells showing up at different angles and somewhat incognito at 100-120 yards. In other words, they do have a fightin' chance, but that's about all. ... felix

[Larry Gibson]

Pepe- The NRA Cast Bullets book has been mentioned several times in the past, both here, at Aimoo and Shooters ( our old sites). There's also a Cast Bullets Supplement thats in demand by many of us here. It's rather hard to find and out of print last I knew. If you go back in the archives here far enough you'll find many references to Col EH Harrisons work at the NRA. He knew his stuff........


Tpr.Bret

Harris shot a lot of cast bullets and was about the only one writing about it fairly consistantly back then. I've had the NRA Cast bullets book and the supplimant for years and have read and reread them I don't know how many times. At one time I took the information as gospel but have since come to disagree with several things Harris says.

The classic (also somewhat of an urban legand with cast bullet shooters. is: " Don't shoot cast bullets in semi-auto rifles as they lead up the gas system". Well read Harris carefully and you'll find he only shot one semi-auto rifle with cast bullets. That was an M1. After 500 or so rounds without cleaning the gas piston leaded up enough to cause a change of zero, or so he reported and gave his negative report. Was there any follow up or testing in other M1s or other semi-autos? No there wasn't, Harris just reported that cast bullets weren't very useable in gas guns. Everyone believed it! And because it was published in the Rifleman and is said over and over, ad nauseum, and everyone still believes it.

There are several other things Harris wrote of that only ring true in the specific testing circumstances he writes about. Problem is they've also become "truisms" that everyone believes apply most of the time. My problem with his style is that he leads people to believe what he reports ALWAYS rings true. Not all is Harris' doing in those two publications either. The reprints of suggestions written in by lots of different folks is not believed as gospel by many as they are reprints from the American Rifleman so the must be true, right? There is lot's of good usefull info and reference material in there of which some is Harris' but it's a shame that lot's of old wives tales and witchcraft have come out of those two NRA publications.

Another classic is that one should slug the bore and all bullets must be sized to that diameter for best accuracy. Lyman is often quoted as the soursce for this and Harris repeats it. Actually he misquotes Lyman. Go back to early Lyman manuals and you'll find they really say to; "bullets of groove diameter or up to .003" over give the best accuraccy". And so it is. It is not what is the current "groove diameter" as fostered by Harris.

I like to hear what really works under what specific circumstances. Guess I'm a lot like BassAckwards and also appreciate follow up. There are a few truisms I've found that apply to most regular cast bullets when shot in common rifles. I generally reply with suggestions that are based on my own experience and having completed multiple tests of whatever the suggestion is so I know it works. Thus I can feel confident that if followed one may be reasonably successful with what I suggest. I have a couple specialized guns that I use some pretty essoteric cast bullet loading techniques with and am successful. But I have found those techniques not to show the same success with regular cast bullets in regular rifles. Thus I don't mention them. Remeber also there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Anyways Just some thoughts on those two publications.

Larry Gibson

[Dale53]

I was around when Harrison started his series. We must give credit to E.H Harrison for sparking the interest and giving us the techniques that work with most rifles (giving us at least reasonable success). He stated, and of course it is true, that some of his acquaintances got MUCH better results than he quoted. He sure inspired me and many of his techniques have been used by me, particularly with pistols and revolvers, with success for many years.

In other words, he pointed the way, and I was able to build on his basics.

I used to run into Bruce Hogdon at Vandalia, Ohio (ATA) and at the NRA Conventions and I thanked him for the cast bullet data in his reloading manual. He looked at me a bit ruefully, and stated that E.H. Harrison had spent every weekend with him for two years in his ballistic lab developing all of that data. He had all of the data and decided he might as well publish it in his manual. So, every weekend for two years for no pay and we got the information for nearly nothing. E.H. Harrison is one of my heros and will continue to be so (along with Elmer Keith, Townsend Whelen, and Jack O'Connor). We will not see their likes again.

Dale53

[TCLouis]

Dadburnit, I have never seen sech!
I did have two parts of a three part series they ran way back when and could never find the third part or some missing( missing in the Magazine) pages of the one section.

I keep saying there is a GOLD MINE creating CDs with articles from some of the older editions of all of these magazines. Heck, some years the gunzines have two or three articles worth reading and maybe even one worth keeping. At one time even "American Rifleman" had decent articles worth reading.

[MT Gianni]

The gold mine is how Handloader/Rifle see it also if you have noticed the price they want for their series on CD. Giani.

[Bret4207]

The was a copy of "Cast Bullets" on Ebay a few days ago. Might still be there.

Bass- Ok, got it now. Must have needed more coffee.

Larry- I agree Harrison didn't have everything right as we know it now, but overall he gave good info. I tend to disagree with his assessment of a well designed cast bullet. He didn't seem to care too much for Loverin designs, I've had good luck with them, as a for instance. He liked pointy boolits and I like flat noses if I can get them. Things like that wil always color our opinion. The book is still valuble and should be republished.

Boy you said a mouthfull when you mentioned sizng to groove diameter. I couldn't agree more. If groove diameter boolits were the answer the wouldn't be too many custom mould runs. Info like that tends to ride down through the decades for some reason. So we learn, forget and re-learn. At least it keeps us shooting!

[sundog]

Dale nice words for some of the 'names' of the trade. Another spot for some cast load info is Accurate, even though they taught their 5744 quite heavily. I refer to both Hodgdon and Accurate frequently. sundog