Experiment MiHec 44/444 Bullet Mold

[HollowPoint]

I know my experiment may very well be old news to many of you more experienced cast bullet guys but, I thought I'd post this any way just incase there are some other semi-novice bullet caster lurking about.

I recently broke down and bought a Lee Bullet Hardness Tester. I was curious as to the actual hardness of the bullets I've been casting. Mainly because I've been dealing with barrel leading of some form or another ever since I started casting a few year ago.

I also recently participated in a group buy of one of MiHec's 44/444 Cramer Style-Two Banger Hollow Point GC custom bullet mold.
I planned casting mainly with straight WW's. I'll be using these bullets mainly for hunting so I wanted a Hollow-Point-Bullet that wasn't going to have the Hollow Point Nose come apart on impact.

Regardless of the preferences of other hunters using their choice of bullet configured to their ideal alloy mix, BHN hardness, Grain weight, etc.; I'm looking for a Hollow Point bullet with a BHN of about 16-18 BHN at its base and 8-9 BHN at its tip.[smilie=1:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll stop right here for a moment to allow those who inevitably do; snicker, laugh, think of clever sarcastically derogatory remarks and such to go at it.:coffee:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, here's what I did. I cast some bullets with Straight Wheel Weight. By following the Lee Bullet Hardness instructions as closely as I could I proceeded to test the hardness of two Hollow Pointed bullets and two Solid bullets from the same mold at the same time.
As stated above, this may be old news to the elder bullet casters on this forum so, feel free to stay or leave. If you stay I may bore you to death; if you go you won't offend me.
As soon as the bullets came out of the mold I stood them vertically in a shallow pan of water. The depth of the water was up to the second Crimp Band on each bullet.
My rational was; if I water quench the lower part of the bullet and allow the upper half to more or less air cool/quench, it should give me two different BHN reading at either end.
It worked! But, not to the degree that I had hoped. I believe with a little more tinkering I may be able to get it to work the way I had hoped.
Since it was my first time using the Hardness Tester, my results are not what I would consider definitive by any stretch of the imagination. The microscope in particular is a difficult tool to master.

If any of you have a mind to, I invite you to try the same experiment with your cast bullets. Perhaps with your input we can fine tune this process and get the exact outcome were looking for in terms of bullet hardness at the tip and the butt end of our cast bullets.:drinks:

Below are the images with Corrected BHN numbers. The previous BHN numbers were not correct.

[hunter64]

Just wondering what the time interval was from when you casted them beauties till when you tested them? I know BHN numbers change with age so it would be interesting to see in a week what the numbers would be.

I don't have my mold yet, so I haven't tried this but I would think that a .44 Cal. round ball made out of pure lead would be about the right amount of pure lead that one would need for the nose of the bullet.

Just follow the directions of the guy that posted on you tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrPKivrETZs and after making the duplex bullet just heat treat it in the oven and that way the WW part of the bullet will heat treat to about 24-30 bhn and the pure lead nose will not heat treat at 6-8 bhn.

I wouldn't hesitate to do this with a metal mold but I am kind of leery using a brass mold with the Cramer pins in it.

[HollowPoint]

Greeting Hunter:

It was twenty five minutes tops before I tested the hardness of the bullets. That twenty five minutes was for the last bullet tested. The bullets tested before that were obviously done sooner.

I couldn't dampen my curiousity so I stayed up late last night tweeking the water levels of my experiment. Little by little I went shallower and shallower till I finally hit on the correct level of water for quenching.

On one of the images I provided I have an arrow pointed to the area that I estimated would be about where the "Partial Quench" water depth would give me the outcome I was looking for.

I found that in order to get the optimum BHN ( for my liking anyways) at the nose and Butt end of the bullet, the water level had to be at the midway point of second grease groove from the bottom. If some of you other casters have a mind to try this experiment, your results may vary a little.

In the end, the BHN measurements were landing inbetween the lines of the microscopes measuring lines so I marked the actual BHN numbers at the butt end were between 14.9 and 15.4. The Hollow Point end BHN also landed between the lines but it got me in the low 9.3 or 9.5.

To my way of thinking, that's close enough to the 8-9 at the nose and 16 to 18 at the butt BHN's that I was hoping for. I settle for that; and it's not nearly as much work as the complex "Soft-Nose-Bullet" casting that the bulletsmith on YouTube displayed. (although I'd like to try that with one of my 30 cal. rifle bullets. I believe that might put out some outstanding performance)

All of this having been tried, I'm still not completely convinced with these numbers; although I will settle for them.
I've read that these cast bullets can be "Work-Softened." That is, after you've put them through the hardening process, if you then put them through your sizer dies then some of that hardness you'd achieved at the surface of the bullet is then lost. So, if you test hardness before and after sizing you may come up with different numbers.
Oh well; If nothing else I think I've learned a few things. And, I'm happy with the results.

Insidently, for those who are new to this site, if you were straining to make out the details of the images I provided, just click on those images and you will get a serparat window with larger images.
Unfortunately my inexperience with posting images lead me to post them in random order so it may be a bit confusing.

Hunter64, thank you for that YouTube link. That was pretty interesting. I've read about and heard of other people's methods of trying to make softpoints and they weren't nearly as well thought out as the YouTube guy's method.

HollowPoint

[MtGun44]

Very interesting post and experiments.

Are you aware that the hardness of lead alloys, esp with antimony change very substantially
over a time period of a week or a few weeks? They get harder after the quenching ONLY
after they have had time to age, days to weeks depending on the alloy and heating and
cooling conditions.

Bill

[HollowPoint]

Greetings MtGun:

To answer your question; yes I was aware of that information. In fact, I set aside enough bullets from that casting session so that I could test one bullet at the end of each week this month.

I was kind of curious about that as well. If the BHN changes as substantially as you elude to and my cast bullets are to be used for hunting purposes, it may turn out that I'll have to use the bullets within a week or so before they morf into something harder than I need.

Something else I have to test is the performance of these bullets while they are at their optimum state of hardness.
I have some vacation time coming up at the end of this month. If all goes well I may have some slightly more definitive information about how these bullets work for me.
I'd like to run them across my chronograph as well. I bought a chronograph a couple of years ago and have never used. It's still in the box. Go figure.

If there's enough interest in the hardness numbers by the end of this month and maybe the performance of these bullets, I'll post them.

Take care sir. Happy shooting.
HollowPoint

[MtGun44]

Please do post the results. We are always gathering new information from
various sources. I have a rough idea what I THINK will happen, but I would like
to know what will ACTUALLY happen in this case, esp with someone else doing
all the work ! ;-)

My guess is that the base will continue to get harder, and likely, the nose will
too, but to a lesser degree.

I think the one fly in the ointment is likely to be that even soft versions of
antimonial alloys like WWTs are pretty brittle, so they may expand, but will
likely still break off.

HOWEVER ----- As I stated above, just because I THINK I know, doesn't mean
a whole heck of a lot. I have never heard of differential heat treating boolits like
this (doesn't mean a whole lot either, I'm sure there is lots and lots of stuff I never
heard of !) but it may work well.

Shooting into wet pack or water jugs will tell the story.

Thanks for posting, experimenting is fun.

Bill

[Groo]

Groo here
I might ask if you could air cool your blend also as the base being solid will cool
slower than the hollow point causing the same condition you are doing with water.?????
Also air cooling will cause the hole mix to be softer.

[HollowPoint]

Greetings Groo:

What you are saying are my sentiments as well. From what I have read on the subject of Air Quenching and Water Quenching, I thought that if I Air Quenched I would maybe get the opposite effect with respect to bullet hardening.

What I mean is, when I Water Quenched the lower portion of my bullets, regardless of the larger mass at the bottom of my bullets, they cooled much, much quicker that the tips with the lesser amount of mass.

I deliberately didn't air cool any of them because to my way of thinking (maybe incorrect thinking)
the tips that had less mass would tend to cool down quicker than the bases which had more mass.
This would give me a hardening effect opposite of what I was attempting to achieve. Meaning, a higher BHN at the tip and lower at the base.
If this turned out to be the case, then even the hardening that takes place over time would still give me the opposite results than I was looking to get.

The one thing that does seem to be a repeatable phenomenon is that no matter how well thought out anyones experiments are, the results can vary from bullet to bullet.

All I was trying to do was make some sense of some the general bullet casting lore that I've read here and there since trying my hand at bullet casting.

For the most part, it seems to be working for me. I think I'm on the right track to finding a way to manipulate the hardness levels of my cast bullets.

My efforts may just be a sort of "Reinventing of the wheel," so to speak but, I've learned more from actually doing it myself than reading someone elses successes and failures.

I've read of more experienced bullet casters successfully calibrating the hardness of thier bullets but, most if not all were refering to the harness of the entire bullet. I can't recall reading of successfull attempt at achieving a hard cast bullet base and a soft point/hollowpoint on the same bullet.

There's alot of pretty sharp cookies on this forum and this it probably old news to them but, for me, it's all new; and now that I've tried it for myself, it makes a little more sense.

HollowPoint

[mroliver77]

Paco Kelly makes a soft point by water quenching his boolits then standing them in shallow water and heating the nose with a torch thereby annealing the nose to a softer state. I have been going to try this but never have gotten to it.
One thing I have found is if your tin and antimony are the same percentage say 90/5/5 or 92/4/4 the alloy is more malleable or tougher if you will and will hold together better.
Your idea is great, keep us posted on results.
Jay

[HollowPoint]

It's been seven days since I did my "Partially Water Quenched" cast bullets test with my new MiHec 44/444 bullets.

During that time I learned a couple more things that are important to the relevence of this experiment.
The first is; I mis-read the measuring device (microscope) provided with my new Lee Lead Hardness Tester. It turns out that each of the smaller lines on the Ruler are the equivalent of two lines.

I've included a sample of that "Microscope Ruler" in one of the following images. Anyways, my original results have now been corrected.

I took two random samples of 7 day old bullets. Two from the Fully Water Quenched pile and two from the Partially Water Quenched pile.

Also, I got a chance to do some bumming around out in the desert yesterday so I took my Puma Model 92 along. I shot some of these bullets just to see how they performed after hardening for seven days.

Took an uphill shot at a cottontail rabbit that happened to stop directly in front of a stand of saghuaro cactus; one cactus right behind the other spaced about three feet apart.

I shot right over the top of him and into the cactus.
My bullet went right through the first two cactus and lodged in the third. These cactus were all about 12 inches in diameter.

It took a while to get my bullet out of the third cactus. When I finally got it out it was exactly as I had feared. The Hollow Point had completely broken off leaving only the bottom portion of the bullet in tact. I'll post a picture of it later.

These Are The 7 Day Old Bullets And Their Corresponding BHN's

http://www.members.cox.net/gestright/ruler.jpg http://www.members.cox.net/gestright/fwq.jpghttp://www.members.cox.net/gestright/pwq.jpg

[HollowPoint]

It's been 14 days since I cast this batch of bullets. I wanted to continue my BHN measurements every weekend for a month just to see the degree at which these bullets hardened over time.

To be honest, I didn't see all that much difference between the BHN measurements I took the day I cast these bullets and then again seven days later.

I'll admit there is enough hardening going on to tell the difference but, not nearly as much as I had expected.:???:

I'm thinking that if these BHN measurements were being taken in a strictly controlled environment the numbers I've been coming up with would be more substantial. As it is, any number of factors may be infuencing these BHN number; not the least of which is the Far-From-Perfect-Person that's actually taking the measurments.

Since no one I know of casts, stores, measures BHN's and loads their bullets in a strictly controlled scientific environment, perhaps the slight differences and similarities in the BHN numbers still hold a little relevance in our individual ordinary casting and shooting routines.

[454PB]

I've done some testing that was directed at determining the effect of time on the hardening process. Mine was done on fully quenched boolits, rather than partial. I used both straight wheelweight alloy, and an alloy of 75% pure lead and 25% monotype.

From the day of casting, I did periodic hardness tests for 18 months. I began with tests weekly, then monthly.

Since your methods are so different, there's probably little that will end the same. I personally doubt you can attain the full advantage of heat treatment using your methods, and consistancy will be extremely difficult. However, it appears your goal has been reached.

I found that full hardness is reached between 3 weeks and a full year. They then begin to resoften slightly. I also found that the hardening is not just on the surface, it goes in at least 1/3 of the boolit diameter (maybe deeper, but that's a far as I tested).

Please keep us posted on your experiments.

[TDC]

I'm very interested in all the experiments and methods attempting to find the ideal alloy and HP shape for hunting boolits. we never know when some new revelation will be made and you may be the one to find it.

I'm involved with the new MiHec .50 378/400 grain Cramer design that has just been accepted for orders. We've settled on three sets and possibly a fourth set of reversible pin options with hollow points ranging from small to a huge 5 faceted design.

I've hunted for many years with a .44 mag and have taken many large bull elk and black bear with a .44 using cast hollow points. This year I have a new S&W 500. With the size of this new .50, those of us ordering will be looking forward to having several different wall thicknesses to experiment with as well as different alloys to test with each.

We hear a lot of theory here about cast HP's not being useful in a hunting boolit. My experience doesn't support much of that theory as I have seen more "dead in their tracks" kills on thick skinned, big boned bulls and bear with cast hollow points than I have with solid nose boolits. I like all the energy to be retained in the animal as I hate to chase a wounded one down into the bottom of the deepest and ruggedest canyons imaginable, then have to pack them out...

Keep up your experimentation and give us more reports.... Remember, many geniuses in the ancient world use to think the world was flat ...... theory many times is not fact.

:drinks:

[Lloyd Smale]

I have to wonder why your so against the bullet lossing its nose. It is the way a nos partition works and they been considered one of the best rifle bullets made for years. I shot a 1000 lb buffalo with a 44mag using the lyman devestator. The bullet went in behind the shoulder lost its nose and the base came out the oposite side. three of us were there and all had shot alot of bufflalo and all of us said it was the quickest kill weve seen on a bufflalo.In all realitiy a bullet that performs like that may be better then one that mushrooms and holds its nose. The fragments do alot of damage and the bullet losses its parachute nose that hampers penetration.

[hunter64]

Hollowpoint: What is the weight of the bullet that separated and lost it's nose?

I bet it is close to 230-240 grn's and that is what we normally use for shooting in the .44 Magnum. So as Lloyd said, there is still enough bullet to do some serious damage. Interesting thread.

[MtGun44]

I think you need a better test medium. Try firing into a stack of wet newspaper.

I think the woody stems of the cactus is pretty hard on the HP, esp when softened
intentionally.

You did seem to succeed in getting your differential hardness. Well done!

Bill

[HollowPoint]

Greeting Gentlmen:

After reading all your replies, I got to tell you; you all seem to make some good points. Points that seem to bare themselves out in just the short time I've been playing with little experiment.

Before tackling this experiment I seem to recall reading about bullets hardening over time, and then softening back up over time as well. I just didn't know how much they'd harden and soften or how long it would take.

Judging from the BHN tests I did with the few Solid bullets I cast during that same casting session, it seems like the .50 cal bullets mentioned above might very well be the perfect candidates for a "Partial Quench" testing.

I found that due to the greater mass of my .44 cal solid bullets, the BHN number for the bullet's nose and the bullet's butt were righ about where I had hoped my hollow points would be. Since the .50's have even greater mass still, they would more than likely be awsome performers as "Partially Quenched" hunting bullets. As it is, their diameter make them good hunting bullets aready. Imagine if the nose was just a little softer to make it a little more condusive to expansion.

I'm afraid that by making such statements I'm coming across sounding like I know more than I actually do. The fact is I'm very limited in regards knowledge about cast bullets. I'm speaking only from the small amount of experience I've had with this present experiment.

I also have a devestator mold that I bought just so that I could use for coyote hunting. On rare occasions I've had them come withing 5-10 yard from me without me seeing them till it was to late.
The scoped rifles I was using are great for longer shots but, hard as heck to find the target with them when the target's in so close.
The devestator bullets in my Kimber 45 worked perfectly and I've never had to track a wounded coyote yet. They've generally dropped where they stood.
Don't want to give the impression I'm some kind of super-duper coyote hunter with a .45. I've only gotten three with that pistol and load over the course of a few years.

I weighed what was left of the bullet I pulled from that missed-rabbit-shot before posting this reply. My powder scale says it weighs exactly 191.2 grains.
I was surprised that it would penetrate two and a half different cactus before lodging in one of the ribs of the third.

One of you guys mentioned Nosler Partitions. Here's something interesting; I noticed when I went to look at the entrance and exit holes of the various cactus stuck by my bullet that the first cactus had about a two inch diameter entrance wound. That two inch diameter appeared to be about five inches deep before tapering down and taking on the diameter of the tail end of the same bullet.

The other two cactus had .44 cal diameter entance and/or exit holes.


Well, that's it for now. I'll keep plucking away till the end of this month. I'm starting to get the feeling that cooking up a bullet with just the right amount of hardness and softness will mean that I'll have to cook up a batch two or three days before using them to go hunting with.
Any longer than that, (at least with straight WW's) and I'll either have to soften up my alloy just a bit or end up with bullets that are a bit harder than I want.

Thanks very much for the interest and encouragment.
HollowPoint

[yondering]

HollowPoint, I suggest you try mixing a little pure lead in with your ww alloy. I've done a few hollow point experiments myself, and find that straight WW alloy, even air cooled, is too brittle for good HP use. Adding pure lead increases ductility, and also makes the alloy softer for improved expansion. In my 45 ACP carbine I found that a 50/50 ww/pure mix was good for 800-900 fps loads, but was too soft for faster loads. I've settled on a 80/20 ww/pure mix (or 75/25, I'm not that precise) for hollow points in the 1000 to 1300 fps range. This alloy will still harden from water quenching, but your air cooled noses will be softer, and should end up in the range you are looking for.

For best consistency, you probably need to let the boolits age harden for at least a few weeks.

Mixing the right alloy is pretty easy. When smelting my lead, I pour it into the Lyman ingot mold, each ingot is about 1 lb. I put 3 ww ingots for every 1 pure lead ingot in the pot.

Edit: it doesn't have to be totally pure lead, the softer stick on wheel weights work fine. Just experiment a little till you get it right.

[HollowPoint]

It's been 21 days since these bullets were cast. I'm surprised at the randomness of the BHN numbers I've come up with this time around.

I mean, compared to those measurements taken at the 7 day and 14 day intervals. Compared to those other numbers, it almost seems that they've started softening.

I tested three random samples out of each box of bullets. One box for the Fully Quenched and one box for the Partially quenched.

An interesting side note is; at the time I initially cast these bullets, there was plenty of left-over alloy in the furnace. I cast these as ingots and dropped them directly into water to cool them for storage.
I marked those ingots with the BHN I measured at the time they were cast as well. Yesterday I check the hardness on them as well.
They measured a BHN of 19.3. Last weekend they were 17 BHN. I mention this because it seems that the greater the mass of the chunck of lead being cast, Water or Air Quenched, the greater the differences in the BHN measurements.
I know I'm not telling most of you something you hadn't already learned on your own. I guess I'm sorta thinking out loud here.
As far as the hardness of these bullets are concerned, so far, from one week to the next I'm seeing numbers that can differ by as much as 2.5 BHN on any given 7 day incriment.
Just about when it seems a pattern is developing, the following set of measurements throws a monkey-wrench into the works.
I realize that in order to get anything resembling definitive BHN numbers, a test such as this needs far tighter dicipline than I care to apply but, I was really hoping some semblance of hardening pattern would emerge.
I'm wondering too, what effect does ambient temperature have on the hardening or softening process. I mean; if were doing this experiments in cold climate rather than Arizona Summer-time climate would the numbers be different? If so, how much different?
If the temperature of the water that I used for quenching were Ice-Cold rather than Tape-Water cold, would that have made any difference?

So far the insights or answers I've come up with are very, very generalized. Anything even remotely difinitive only raises more questions.

One more week and this experiment will be done. Right now I'm begining to see it as not so much an experiement as an excercise in shattered illusions. The irony appears to be that even without anything definitive to report, it may still fall within the generally accepted bullet casting lore that's been put forth before any of us ever started casting bullets.

That's it for now gentlemen.
HollowPoint

[Wayne Smith]

As soon as the bullets came out of the mold I stood them vertically in a shallow pan of water. The depth of the water was up to the second Crimp Band on each bullet.


Here's my question - when I water drop I drop directly from the mold into the bucket of water. To arrange the boolit point up in a shallow pan will take time. It will be initially dropped from the mold and then arranged in the water. I doubt that the temperture of each boolit is exactly the same when each went into the water, at least as I am envisioning the process. If this is true you won't have equal hardening of the boolits. When you then test for hardness you do not have a consistent sample from which to test.

I'm guessing that this is why you are having problems finding a pattern in your results.

[HollowPoint]

Here's my question - when I water drop I drop directly from the mold into the bucket of water. To arrange the boolit point up in a shallow pan will take time. It will be initially dropped from the mold and then arranged in the water. I doubt that the temperture of each boolit is exactly the same when each went into the water, at least as I am envisioning the process. If this is true you won't have equal hardening of the boolits. When you then test for hardness you do not have a consistent sample from which to test.

I'm guessing that this is why you are having problems finding a pattern in your results.

Hi there Wayne; good of you to chime in.

I've never timed myself in the process of dropping the bullets from my mold then setting them right side up in a shallow pan of water.

Since I have everything setup within easy reach, if I had to guess I'd say it took less than a second to do. However, you could very well be right in your assumption.

If you are right, that would be perfectly OK with me because it would go a long way toward explaining a few things that I can't explain; given the short amount of time and the small number of cast bullets I've tested so far.

I think if this were a formal experiment being conducted in terms of a year or so and with several hundred cast bullets being tested over all, I suspect that even the -seemingly- random numbers I've encountered might begin to develop a pattern of some sort.

The funny thing is that the left over lead I've had from nearly all of my other casting sessions have been BHN tested and marked; then rechecked the following weekend. Depending on the alloy, they actually seem to have more of an indication of "Hardening Patterns" to them.

I don't know if it's because those left over billets are all water dropped as soon as they solidify in the billet pan or because they have much more mass than the individual bullets.

I've got one more weekend to go for the final BHN testing of my original batch of bullets. It will give me something to mull over while I'm sitting in my hunting stands I guess.

When all is said and done, I don't think that any game animal I might harvest will complain about my bullets being too hard or too soft. I think my obsession with having a lead cast hunting hollow point with a soft tip and a hard tail will continue even if this short informal experiment produces anything interesting or not.

Thanks for the input.
HollowPoint

[HollowPoint]

Well, It's been 28 days since I cast up these bullets. I've been testing for any differences of the BHN's of random samples every seven days for a month.

I was fully expecting my Hardness numbers to fall in line with most of what I've read about the subject of "Bullets Hardening over Time."

In the short time I've been conducting this experiment and with the few random samplings of bullets that I've checked the BHN's on, little in the way of definitive patterns were detected.

There were certain instances when I thought my cast bullets were hardening more or less on par with my expectations but, the following weekend when I'd test another few bullets, the BHN's I came up with would result in shattered illusions.

It looks as though the fully water quenched bullets gave a little bit more reliability in terms of measurable hardness differences.

The "Partially Water Quenched" bullets that I had such high hopes for, more often than not would give BHN numbers that (in the long run) seemed to defy logic.

So, what did I get out of this exercise in futility???

In a word; Experience.

Of all the folks that you know personally that cast their own bullets, how many of them have actually take the time to test for themselves to see if what they've read is true or not?

On this site alone, I've read the words of some Pretty-Knowledgeable bullet casters that really made alot of sense to me.

Without exception, eventually as I kept reading various threads on this forum, I'd come across a point of view or opinion from another Pretty-Knowledgeable bullet caster that seemed to contradict the logic or experience of the previous fellow.

That's just the way it is. The only way to be sure, is to test it for yourself.

Sometimes you find that the only way to get the results that they seem to swear by, is to do it exactly like they did it; same alloy, same ambient temperature, same time span, same pot temperature, same everything.

What are the chances of that???

This informal experiment has taught me that nothing I've read about bullet casting is written in stone. There are far too many variables to assume that any one specific answer to a casting question is all you need to know.

As far as "Partially Water Quenched" cast bullets are concerned, I think that was a success. I got two different BHN numbers at either end of my bullets. That's what I was shooting for.

I found that there are limitations to those BHN numbers but, with the right alloy, and if I use these bullets within a week of casting them, I still have a high probability that the BHN's will not have changed significantly to alter the performance I had hoped to gain in the first place.

The more I learn about bullet casting, the less I know about bullet casting.

Does this sound confusing?? Exactly!

HollowPoint

[hunter64]

I have successfully made a duplex bullet. Since it is a crammer Hollow Point mold that the pins stay in to make the HP I simply melted a pure lead .44 cal RB and poured the contents into the mold. Then I filled the rest of the cavity from the bottom pour melter filled with lino/WW and a bit of tin to help in the fill out. I rested the mold on top of the molten lead until the sprue on top was melted and I knew that the lead inside was melted and fused together. The top hp of the bullet measured a bhn number using the Lee kit of 6 bhn and the rest of the bullet measures 22 bhn.

Here is a demo of how it is done other than this guy uses a normal non-hp mold http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrPKivrETZs

I am going to try and get to the range this weekend to give them a try from my .444 Marlin at 100 yards into telephone books and I will post some pictures of the results. The ultimate goal is to have a bullet that holds up well to high speed and pressure of the .444 and also have the nose mushroom just like a nosler partition. Mind you even if you have the nose blown off you still have about 230 gn or .44 cal bullet doing its business at 2200 fps.

[HollowPoint]

Greetings Mr. Hunter:

One of the other guys that replied to my posts gave me this same link. I think it's a pretty cool idea.

I have a hollow pointed Lyman 311291 mold on the way that I thought I'd try that "soft-point" method on.

All of my present bullet molds are made of either brass or aluminum. I'm not sure if this process will have adverse effects on this type of metal or not but, I just didn't want to risk it.

The mold I have coming is made of iron similar to the mold pictured on the YouTube clip.

In the near future I'll be trying out a method that will require me to make a custom hollow point pin that is actually connected to a heating element. That element is adjustable for heat up to 800-and-something degrees.

If I can get it to work on my incoming rifle mold, perhaps I can also get it to work on my brass and aluminum molds as well. Hopefully, if it works, it will cut down on the actual time it takes to cast this type of soft-point; wether its a solid or a hollow point.

What I'm thinking of is actually really only conducive to single cavity soft-pointed hollow point-type bullet molds but, if I can get it to work on one type of mold, maybe I can come up with a way to make it work on a double or multiple cavity mold.

I realize that anything I come up with has more than likely already been tried by any number of far more experienced bullet casters but, in my search for information on the subject, I haven't come up with any success stories. Maybe I'll get lucky and get it to work.


I don't know why I'm so obsessed with coming up with a cast lead hollow point that rivals the best of the "Jacketed" hollow points. Maybe it's because I had so much good luck with the "Jacketed" hollow points before coming over to the cast bullet community.

Incidently, I found that in order to get the best hunting performance with the "Partially Water Quenched" hollow points I've been experimenting with is for me to mix the alloy to a BHN of 9 or so.
The quench produced a bullet with a nose that stayed basically the same and lower end of the bullet generally hardened to a 12BHN or there-abouts. In my guns, this combination gave me good performance and no leading.

I had read and heard some information to the effect that the softer the alloy, the minimal the effect of hardening in the water quenching process. If this is true, then that may mean that with the process explained by that YouTube guy, a person could -in theory- water quench the whole bullet and still achieve the soft point and hard base outcome they were hoping for because the pure lead at the nose of the bullet would not harden to the degree as the base of the bullet. I think.

I'm afraid I've started to ramble on.
I'll end it here and wish you good fortune in your quest for the ideal soft-point.
HollowPoint

[45 2.1]

I had read and heard some information to the effect that the softer the alloy, the minimal the effect of hardening in the water quenching process. If this is true, then that may mean that with the process explained by that YouTube guy, a person could -in theory- water quench the whole bullet and still achieve the soft point and hard base outcome they were hoping for because the pure lead at the nose of the bullet would not harden to the degree as the base of the bullet. I think.
HollowPoint

A friend of mine and I tried out this boolit last weekend. He had cast some out of aircooled 50%WW/50%Pb and they were two days old. We lubed/GC'd them and loaded in 44 Mag with 17.1 gr. of 2400 (a warmish load BTW), then tried them in a Redhawk and Marlin.
Chrono results were 1300 fps Redhawk and 1550 fps Marlin. Expansion left a permanent cavity about 6" deep you could put your fist in and penetration was about a foot into wet clay. Pretty good results for a 297 gr. boolit out of the 44 Mag.

[HollowPoint]

("Chrono results were 1300 fps Redhawk and 1550 fps Marlin. Expansion left a permanent cavity about 6" deep you could put your fist in and penetration was about a foot into wet clay. Pretty good results for a 297 gr. boolit out of the 44 Mag.")

Greetings 45 .21:

That's what I'm talking about.

HollowPoint