25-20 powder coated bullets

[FISH4BUGS]

I bought a bunch of 25-20 items (moulds, dies, cast bullets that have been pc'd, Lathesmith sizer die), etc.
I really don't have any experience with pc bullets.
I am an old fashioned cast/sized/lubed kinda guy.
I wonder if it is worth resizing these in the Star and inserting the lube?
The guy I got all this from said he could never get his 25-20 to shoot.
I will be experimenting with a 1924 made Savage Sporter (gifted to me - that's how I got into 25-20) and a 1921 made Winchester 92.
Thoughts?
Ideas?
Sources of reloading data?

[cwtebay]

I am definitely following this thread!
My youngest son and friends will go through 500+ rounds in an afternoon!

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[garandsrus]

There should be no need to add lube. Load a few and try them out!

[Traffer]

By all means try some of the powder coated bullets. There is a reason that the vast majority of casters have gone to powder coat. It is easier, cleaner, cheaper, and the bullets perform better than lubed bullets. (in almost every situation)

[Mk42gunner]

I would at least try the powder coated ones first. Why lube if you don't have to?

I would make sure the size is appropriate for my rifles though, no sense trying to get a too small projectile to group.

Lyman's fiftieth ed. loading manual has data for the .25-20, and I'm pretty sure their fourth ed. cast bullet handbook has some to.

Robert

[FISH4BUGS]

Just fired 20 factory rounds (10 in each gun) to get a baseline for comparison. 50 yards about 4" groups with bad eyes. The German silver front sight on the Savage is almost impossible to see. I may have to scope it to really get to how well it can/can't shoot.
The 92 was a treat to shoot. Better 3" at 50 yards but still not great on either one.
I think i just need to admit that my eyes are not what they used to be.
I hate drilling and tapping an original 1924 Savage Sporter but hey....we aren't talking a Holland and Holland here.
The 92 is refinished (parkerized and they did a great job - no buffing and all letters/numbers are sharp) so the collector's value is gone there. It is just a shooter and a great one at that!
Just something about 25-20 that I think is kind of neat. I have some 800 brass (both original and formed from 32-20) and bullets, plus an assortment of moulds including a hollow point. That should keep me interested in 25-20 for a while.

[hporter]

You might make a few folks envious by stating that you have 800 pieces of brass. (Ha ha) They are not easy to find.

My 23B came with this aperture sight on it.



I saw the exact same sight as mine on eBay a month or two ago, but the fellow wanted $125 for it. I don't know if that is a fair price or not, but then - they aren't making them anymore. I suppose it would be a cheaper option than paying a gunsmith for a D/T job and then buying the scope and rings (assuming aperture sights are compatible with your vision).

I was looking for the screws that hold the aperture sight on. One of my screws was the proper one, and one not. I lucked out and found the proper screw last month. So if you find a sight, make sure it has the screws as the thread is not one easily found today.

The thread below is where I learned about the screw threads, and it discussed sight options for these rifles. It might be helpful to you.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...-20-Rear-Sight

And here is a graphic showing some of the Savage sights that I found somewhere in the past.



My 23C in 32-20 came with a front sight, a blank in the rear sight position and scope bases. I managed to find an original rear sight for it on eBay a few months ago. But I haven't installed the rear sight yet. Here are the scope bases on my rifle. The scope is a monstrosity on this little rifle. I just pulled it off an AR to check whether the rings were compatible with the scope bases.



Hope you find a sighting solution that works for you.

[FISH4BUGS]

Great info. Thanks.
Sorry about the 800 brass. I got a bunch with the rest of the 25-20 goodies and bought a bunch from Grumpa (I think that was his name - he listed in the case reforming area and sold a bunch to me before he passed away).
https://castboolits.gunloads.com/sho...ge)-has-passed
I am one of those silly people that thinks they never has enough brass or components.....no matter how many in stock.
I think I just have to admit that it is time for me to scope my rifles. My eyes are just not what they used to be.
I think those aperture sights would be great if my eyes would be better.
The only thing is that I really want to keep the Savage pristine and original. Not sure why but I just hate altering old guns. It's not like it is a pre-64 Winchester or anything.
Maybe it is the collector in me that wants them original.....but then, at some point, you want something that WORKS the way you want it, not just a collector's piece.
Decisions....decisions.....

[hporter]

No worries on the brass. Winchester made a factory run in the summer of 2020 and I managed to buy 250 cases. That will hopefully last me the rest of my life.

I know you have been counseled by men far wiser than myself not to modify your rifle. But if you can't see well enough to shoot it, something must be done. Life is too short not to enjoy and explore our great hobby to its fullest. And the more "modified" rifles there are out there will just make the clean unmodified examples worth that much more for those that own them.

I guess I am not far behind you, sight wise. I get aggravated shooting revolvers when I get to choose whether I can see the sights, or the target. With my prescription shooting glasses, the target is crystal clear, but the sights on the revolver are blurry. With clear shooting glasses the sights are crystal clear but the target is a blurry blob. Thankfully I can still use aperture sights OK - especially with the Merit adapter on my shooting glasses.

[Wayne Smith]

Last November I had each eye operated on - new lenses , the best I could buy, and now I can see without glasses since I was 9yrs. old. I had cataracts on each eye and I was very nearsighted and they fixed my nearsightedness and my glaucoma as well. In one operation they fixed my eyes very well. If you have cataracts consider these operations. I now have 20-20 vision in each eye. I can shoot open sights better than I could my whole life.

[Finster101]

I shoot almost exclusively PC boolits anymore. In fact, I sold all my lube sizers and dies. I just use push though sizers now. I think you will have zero problems with the PC boolits provided they are sized the way you need them. If not, then run them through the star but you should not need to fill the lube groove, just get the proper diameter.

[Jim22]

I would concentrate on more than a new receiver sight for - the Savage at least. It sounds like you're having trouble seeing the silver front sight. My eyesight went to heck when I was in my mid forties. I thought for a while that I needed to scope every gun. Lately I have discovered I can see a small brass front sight just fine if I look through a peep with a smallish aperture. Even removing the insert so I have a 'Ghost' sight makes the front sight sharper. I have settled on a 1/16" gold bead. I am now 74 years old and my eyes have not gotten better and I have not had surgery.

I can shoot 2" to 2 1/2" groups at 50 yards with my Marlin 1894C with the sights I mentioned. I call that good enough.

Jim

[Three44s]

I would figure out how to install a front peep and try that.

Three44s

[cwtebay]

You might make a few folks envious by stating that you have 800 pieces of brass. (Ha ha) They are not easy to find.

My 23B came with this aperture sight on it.



I saw the exact same sight as mine on eBay a month or two ago, but the fellow wanted $125 for it. I don't know if that is a fair price or not, but then - they aren't making them anymore. I suppose it would be a cheaper option than paying a gunsmith for a D/T job and then buying the scope and rings (assuming aperture sights are compatible with your vision).

I was looking for the screws that hold the aperture sight on. One of my screws was the proper one, and one not. I lucked out and found the proper screw last month. So if you find a sight, make sure it has the screws as the thread is not one easily found today.

The thread below is where I learned about the screw threads, and it discussed sight options for these rifles. It might be helpful to you.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...-20-Rear-Sight

And here is a graphic showing some of the Savage sights that I found somewhere in the past.



My 23C in 32-20 came with a front sight, a blank in the rear sight position and scope bases. I managed to find an original rear sight for it on eBay a few months ago. But I haven't installed the rear sight yet. Here are the scope bases on my rifle. The scope is a monstrosity on this little rifle. I just pulled it off an AR to check whether the rings were compatible with the scope bases.



Hope you find a sighting solution that works for you.

Do you use something on your stock comb to align your eye? I'm not being condescending - I just don't see how I could get a sight picture with that?

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[hporter]

Do you use something on your stock comb to align your eye? I'm not being condescending - I just don't see how I could get a sight picture with that?

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

If you are talking about the scope mounted in the photo of the 23C, I mentioned in my post that I just pulled the scope off one of my AR's to see if the scope rings would fit the bases on the rifle. It was just a test to see if the rings worked - and they did.

I still intend to knock out the blank in place of the rear sight and put original irons on it again.

[hporter]

Wow - just looked on eBay while drinking my morning coffee.

They have a Savage model 10 aperture sight with no screws for $220 Buy it Now.
They have a Redfield 70G with no aperture insert and no screws at $49.95 in an ongoing auction.

And the one that really attracted my attention was a Redfield 80-CH aperture, still in the original box marked for Savage 23's and the seller said they had the screws with it. It was $175 Buy it Now.

Guess I should have jumped on the one I saw a few months back for $125!

[rockrat]

Try the PC boolits and add some that have been run thru the lubrisizer and lube added. I had a 35 Whelen that shot the lubed PC boolits better than the plain PC boolits

[FISH4BUGS]

Try the PC boolits and add some that have been run thru the lubrisizer and lube added. I had a 35 Whelen that shot the lubed PC boolits better than the plain PC boolits

I have plenty of the PC bullets. This one will be a long term experiment. But will have some fun along the way.

[Bent Ramrod]

If you have a lathe with a milling fixture, you can cobble up a base to fit the two iron-sight screw holes on top of the receiver that will hold one of those light scopes with the clamp-on mounts.

I made one for my 23C to hold one of those skinny old Weaver scopes with the little grub screw adjustments. Even though the metal has no finish, I didn’t want to drill it fulla holes. The base looks pretty amateurish, but it has held up well through a lot of shooting, despite being held on by only those two little screws.

I’d like to see some statistics on a) The “vast majority” of boolit casters that have switched over to powder coating; and b) The targets and chronograph data showing alleged “improvements” in accuracy and performance over the lubed variety. I do admit I haven’t checked the Powder Coating subforum in a while, but when I did, I found no hard data that showed either blistering velocities or tack-driving accuracy (or, ideally, both together) compared to the primitive lubed boolits used by the dwindling minority of holdouts like me, despite the march of Progress. I also see no indication that lubrisizer machines are now a drug on the market; a logical result of such a sea-change.

I have no particular brief against such novelties, and if I got some, I would certainly shoot them up, just as I have the moly-coated ones I’ve come across (no miracles there either, despite the advertisements), and the Henninger-Barnes driving band ones (another dead end, alas), but I wouldn’t use them in a match, or on a once-in-a-lifetime hunt, without seeing some targets or chrono numbers.

[FISH4BUGS]

If you have a lathe with a milling fixture, you can cobble up a base to fit the two iron-sight screw holes on top of the receiver that will hold one of those light scopes with the clamp-on mounts.

I made one for my 23C to hold one of those skinny old Weaver scopes with the little grub screw adjustments. Even though the metal has no finish, I didn’t want to drill it fulla holes. The base looks pretty amateurish, but it has held up well through a lot of shooting, despite being held on by only those two little screws.

I’d like to see some statistics on a) The “vast majority” of boolit casters that have switched over to powder coating; and b) The targets and chronograph data showing alleged “improvements” in accuracy and performance over the lubed variety. I do admit I haven’t checked the Powder Coating subforum in a while, but when I did, I found no hard data that showed either blistering velocities or tack-driving accuracy (or, ideally, both together) compared to the primitive lubed boolits used by the dwindling minority of holdouts like me, despite the march of Progress. I also see no indication that lubrisizer machines are now a drug on the market; a logical result of such a sea-change.

I have no particular brief against such novelties, and if I got some, I would certainly shoot them up, just as I have the moly-coated ones I’ve come across (no miracles there either, despite the advertisements), and the Henninger-Barnes driving band ones (another dead end, alas), but I wouldn’t use them in a match, or on a once-in-a-lifetime hunt, without seeing some targets or chrono numbers.

Interesting take on the PC bullets. I am not at all sure you are not absolutely correct in your observations.
Maybe that's why Star Sizers have a 2 year lead time. I still cast and size and lube the "old fashioned" way.
Our indoor range allows coated bullets but not lead.
No scientific proof - just opinions that they won't vaporize. I have asked for some proof but no one can seem to come up with it.