Polymer coatings, wet versa dry.

[elmacgyver0]

I read a lot about how Hytec is applied wet versa PC applied dry.
Why doesn't anyone apply PC wet?
Or do they and I have missed it.

[Kosh75287]

You might enquire of a high(ish) volume PC'd bullet manufacturer, and see what THEIR thoughts are. Try Missouri Bullets. They're usually pretty good about replying to questions like yours (and mine, now).

[elmacgyver0]

You might enquire of a high(ish) volume PC'd bullet manufacturer, and see what THEIR thoughts are. Try Missouri Bullets. They're usually pretty good about replying to questions like yours (and mine, now).

I guess I don't understand what you are saying, I am asking about thoughts here on this forum not some commercial enterprise.
What do YOU think, that is what I am interested in.

[charlie b]

PC works with shake and bake well enough that there is no need to apply it wet. Powders are designed to be applied dry so it is not surprising they work well that way.

I did try to apply some HF white powder wet, simply because it did not do well with the shake and bake. Applied wet it did a little better, but, not good.

One last thing is that S&B PC is a one coat and done. The Hytec is more than one coat.

So, for me, S&B PC dry is simpler and a bit faster than the wet coatings.

[elmacgyver0]

So, what did you wet it with?
I did a bit of experimenting and had pretty good luck.
I am just wondering what others have tried and why haven't I heard about it.
The shake and bake works fine for me, but I am always looking to improve.

[elmacgyver0]

I hear that Hytek takes more than one coat and S&B is easier, so I am wondering why people are still using it.
Is it a lot cheaper? Somehow, I doubt it.
I also heard about something like BPM or BMP or whatever, what is up with that?
Although I haven't tried anything but PC, it seems the way to go.

[HI-TEK]

I hear that Hytek takes more than one coat and S&B is easier, so I am wondering why people are still using it.
Is it a lot cheaper? Somehow, I doubt it.
I also heard about something like BPM or BMP or whatever, what is up with that?
Although I haven't tried anything but PC, it seems the way to go.

elmacgyver0
Some people prefer to use Powder coatings.
What you heard is strictly not correct.
The only reason people coat with Hi-Tek twice, is to make product more "pretty" and provide more user appeal.
One coat of Hi-Tek for most applications will do the job, but not as pretty.

One Coat of Hi-Tek is about 0.8 to 0.9 thou of even film coating.
Powder coatings, depending on application method can vary from 3 thou to 8 thou in thickness around the alloy. This roughly equates using about 3 times more powder coating to obtain a single coat.

Electrostatic application of Powder coat cannot apply an even coating thickness, and powder coating cannot be applied efficiently twice with electrostatic coating.
Two coats of Hi-Tek is about 1.5 to 1.7 thou thick, and is very even, smooth and actually works.

In terms of cheaper or easier, most powder coating may appear cheaper, but from increased thicknesses used, it is difficult to compare costs, comparing total manufacturing costs. With considering extra work time required for Powder coating, and increased baking time required for powder coating. All adds to costs.

A rough cost for comparison requirements, 1 kilo Hi-Tek coats with two coats applied, covers about 160,000 to 180,000 casts or more.
Users of Hi-Tek, applying coating only once, can produce significantly more casts per kilo of Hi-Tek powder at very much faster rate.

For hobbyists, powder coating may appeal more, but high volume manufacturers do not use powder coating, as at best, it would at least cut production output rates by half , and would be very cost prohibitive.
Maximum output volume with minimum costs per daily production, with acceptable product is what is required.

[charlie b]

A small correction. Properly applied shake and bake PC is only 0.001-0.0015" thick. It can be thicker if the excess is not shaken off before being put in the oven. It is even enough to yield accurate long range bullets.

It may use more powder, but, for most of us getting 10,000 rounds per pound is good enough.

Production is a different matter. For production coatings Hi-Tek is the only way to go, IMHO.

PS when I tried to wet coat PC I used acetone as the carrier. If you are going to wet coat, get Hi-Tek.

[HI-TEK]

A small correction. Properly applied shake and bake PC is only 0.001-0.0015" thick. It can be thicker if the excess is not shaken off before being put in the oven. It is even enough to yield accurate long range bullets.

It may use more powder, but, for most of us getting 10,000 rounds per pound is good enough.

Production is a different matter. For production coatings Hi-Tek is the only way to go, IMHO.

PS when I tried to wet coat PC I used acetone as the carrier. If you are going to wet coat, get Hi-Tek.

charlie b
Thanks much for details. With powder coating type usage may be, I did not make things clear in my post, that I was trying to refer to, electrostatic coating method not shake and bake method.

I am aware, that Hi-Tek coated casts were successfully used at speeds around 3000ft/sec with Jacket accuracy, and Hi-Tek coated casts, non-gas checked, is used successfully at 2200-2500ft/sec.

There appeared a question being posed, about cost comparison between powder coating and Hi-Tek, and why would any one use Hi-Tek instead of powder coat..

If we use your figures of coating 10,000 rounds per pound of powder coat, if my math is correct, (please correct me if I am wrong) , the users of powder coat for shake and bake method, could be using some 7 to 8 times more powder coat, than would be used with Hi-Tek.

With using electrostatic application of powder coat, aside from getting uneven coats, the powder coat usage rates would be getting more towards 15 to 20 times more powder coat being used than Hi-Tek, as electrostatic application method produces high losses, with powder being over sprayed applied, that will not be used to coat casts, but ending up every where else, on walls, benches, floor, etc, etc.

A question was posed in respect to costs for use on each method, is the area that I was trying to make comparisons, and trying to reply about question on cost matters that was asked.

Again, based on your supplied details of powder coat coverage, and if my math's is correct, shake and bake use of powder coat may be using 8 times more powder coat than Hi-Tek.
Electrostatic powder coat application is indicating, and appears to be using at minimum 15 times more powder coat than Hi-Tek use.
If costs are the main consideration in selecting powder coat, I did not have a clear understanding or details of actual usages of Powder coat versus Hi-Tek, and
you have provided details now for consideration.

I have no details of Powder use using wet Powder coat application method, so working out costs comparisons cannot be done with shake Powder coating method, or Hi-Tek coating method.

Please understand, I am not knocking powder coat at all, and, for those who use it, and if it works for them, and user is satisfied, it is all good. No complaints from me.

[elmacgyver0]

The cost is not really an issue (too much) with me. I may have to try the Hy-Tek.
I was really just curious why I haven't heard about anybody coating PC in a solvent.
I figured there must be a downside to it since I am not aware of any posts about it.
I have had excellent results with the Shake and Bake method, but I am always open to a better way to skin a cat.

[HI-TEK]

The cost is not really an issue (too much) with me. I may have to try the Hy-Tek.
I was really just curious why I haven't heard about anybody coating PC in a solvent.
I figured there must be a downside to it since I am not aware of any posts about it.
I have had excellent results with the Shake and Bake method, but I am always open to a better way to skin a cat.

PC that is sold, and used for powder coating, the components do not dissolve well in solvent, and from what I had been advised is, that there seems to be an agglomeration of suspended particles that is contained in PC, and wet coat method may give a granular type rough finish. Again, if this is not correct, please advise. I have seen wet coat method produce coated casts, but with the casts after bake, some were stuck together. When stuck ones were separated, there was obvious removal of baked coating on one or both coated casts. and they had to be re-melted as they could not be re-coated.
Shake and bake may be OK, and, as I said, if it works for you, great..

[elmacgyver0]

I guess nobody here has ever tried it.
That's fine.
At some point in the future, I may start a new thread, posting my findings if I do decide to carry this further.
As I said, the S&B works fine, so I may not pursue it any further.
After spending a half day cleaning all the lead deposits out of my new $2000 plus (accessories included) suppressor, I am looking to mitigate that without buying J-Words.

[charlie b]

Hi-Tek,

Thanks. You are correct that Hi-tek is better for volume producers, especially those who need to see a profit on their work.

As a hobby user the S&B method of PC works so well that most of us prefer it to other methods.

Wet coating with PC just does not work as well. I've tried it and won't mess with it again.

FWIW, a wet application of PC will not change how it works through a suppressor. It will still be the same polymer coating.

[elmacgyver0]

One more thing I will say.
If anyone tries this, let the bullets dry before baking.
If you don't little bubbles will form all over the bullets.
I was using Eastwood Lime Green and they really did look Zombified.
I still plan to shoot them, but I imagine the accuracy will not be all that great.

I don't know about bullets, but I do see a potential for coating gun parts with an air brush and then baking.
The Lime Green did dissolve completely in the solvent and gave a very smooth finish.

[HI-TEK]

I guess nobody here has ever tried it.
That's fine.
At some point in the future, I may start a new thread, posting my findings if I do decide to carry this further.
As I said, the S&B works fine, so I may not pursue it any further.
After spending a half day cleaning all the lead deposits out of my new $2000 plus (accessories included) suppressor, I am looking to mitigate that without buying J-Words.

elmacgyver0
Why are you having to clean Lead deposits in gun and suppressor.
If it is being caused by what you are coating or doing, may be it is time to reassess all.
You should not be getting deposits left in gun, no deposits in compensators or suppressors.

[GregLaROCHE]

I have wondered to myself, if mixing acetone with PC powder, would give you something like nail polish. You could then paint it on, but why? It would cost more and add a lot to the process. Shake and bake works fine for me.

[ioon44]

I started out coating bullets with PC powder and then found Hi-Tek and never went back to PC.

As far as deposits in compensators or suppressors a lot it is carbon from the gun powder and even jacked bullets with an open lead base will leave deposits in compensators.

[sierra1911]

Wet application of PC was discussed at length almost a decade ago. See the sticky for Piglet method:

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/sho...-Piglet-Method

[elmacgyver0]

elmacgyver0
Why are you having to clean Lead deposits in gun and suppressor.
If it is being caused by what you are coating or doing, may be it is time to reassess all.
You should not be getting deposits left in gun, no deposits in compensators or suppressors.

I never said I was getting lead deposits from shooting PCed cast bullets through the suppressor.
I got got the deposits from shooting LUBED bullets.
I have a quantity of lubed bullets that I want to use up, which I will as they work very well and cause NO leading in the barrel.
The problem is with atomized lead that condenses on the suppressor baffles.
That is the reason, not really, for switching to a polymer coating, which I was in the process of doing long before I even considered a suppressor.
Once, again, my lubed bullets shoot with NO LEADING in my barrels.
It is the cooling down process the suppressor does to the super-hot gasses in the suppressor.
Lead gets melted and vaporized by the heat of powder combustion and no bullet lube will stop that.
You normally don't realize this as most people never shoot lubed bullets thru a suppressor.
I will not again, but sometimes you have to find out for yourself to better know what happens so you can make rational decisions later.

[HI-TEK]

I never said I was getting lead deposits from shooting PCed cast bullets through the suppressor.
I got got the deposits from shooting LUBED bullets.
I have a quantity of lubed bullets that I want to use up, which I will as they work very well and cause NO leading in the barrel.
The problem is with atomized lead that condenses on the suppressor baffles.
That is the reason, not really, for switching to a polymer coating, which I was in the process of doing long before I even considered a suppressor.
Once, again, my lubed bullets shoot with NO LEADING in my barrels.
It is the cooling down process the suppressor does to the super-hot gasses in the suppressor.
Lead gets melted and vaporized by the heat of powder combustion and no bullet lube will stop that.
You normally don't realize this as most people never shoot lubed bullets thru a suppressor.
I will not again, but sometimes you have to find out for yourself to better know what happens so you can make rational decisions later.

elmacgyver0
Thank you for reply. Now I understand things better.

The interesting thing is, that Hi-Tek coating has been on the market for over 30 years, and was independently tested by an environmental engineering testing company, to measure & determine the atomized Lead emissions produced by Hi-Tek coated casts.
In the certified report, the results showed, that Hi-Tek coating produced very similar atomized Lead as compared to jacketed ammo.
There seems to be many coatings and lubricants being available out there, and, as far as I am aware, no other lube or coating has such lead reduction ability or certification.