Tumble Lube versus Powder Coat in revolver calibers.

[rintinglen]

I am starting a program of testing the accuracy of the same boolits when tumble lubed as opposed to powder coated. I am going to use the 327, the 38 and the 44 special to test, simply because I have 50 new cases of each, and accurate revolvers to try them in. ( I could add 32-20: I've a bunch of new brass, but neither of my 32-20 revolvers has proven to be very accurate in the past.) I am going to cast up a hundred bullets of each, visually sort, and then load up 25 after powder coating and 25 after tumble lubing in old BLL. Each boolit will be loaded into new brass from the same lot. The 38 will be Winchester, while the 327 and the 44 Special will both be Star Line. The 38 will be the MP Mold version of the 358-429 HP, ~158 grains. The 44 Special will be the MP 432-423 210 grain boolit and the 327 will be the 314-640 100 grain HP. I will not be weight sorting boolits or weighing charges, but will be loading each cartridge with normal, reasonable care.

I will fire five five shot groups from revolvers of known accuracy at 25 yards, each group on a new target. I will alternate, firing five shots of TL boolited ammo, then 5 of the PC boolits. I will measure the groups and see if I can determine if powder coating or tumble lubing is more accurate for me.

Today, I tried to run a test of the 38 ammo, but ran into a few snags. The lighting conditions were affecting my shooting. We had scattered high clouds and when the sky cleared, my shots were going high. When the sun went behind a cloud, my shots went lower. And my bags were sliding on the bench initially. I had to move over to an older, more weather beaten, bench to resolve that problem. Consequently. I only ended up with 4 groups each, not five, and there was vertical stringing present in some groups that I am sure was the result of changes in the lighting. So I will have to reshoot this test. Just at a glance, I don't see a significant difference. However, this battle has just begun and I suspect any resulting difference will be in millimeters, not inches. It will keep me busy for the next month or so.

[reedap1]

Looking forward to your test results. Thanks for tackling the subject.

Paul

[dverna]

You have identified an issue that will make the test challenging. In the old days, we tested loads using a Ransom rest.

One suggestion to consider. If you cannot mount a scope, would it be possible to jury rig a way to mount a red dot sight?

[LAGS]

I have been PCing Boolits both by Electro Static and Shake and Bake methods for years.
I actually like both methods better than doing the Tumble Lubed..
I never did a Accuracy comparison test.
But just offhand, the PC Boolits seem to be a little more accurate the way I was shooting.
Plus it might be just me.
But shooting PC Boolits seemed to keep the barrel cleaner.

[Silvercreek Farmer]

Looking forward to the results! Absent a Ransom rest, if you can set up a tent over your shooting position it might help. Any notes on barrel fouling and cylinder rotation would be helpful. My SP101 hated even a light coat of LLA. Couldn’t even get through 100 rounds before the cylinder started to drag. An old Taurus was good for 500+ rounds. Go figure. ATF did help a bit, but it was PC that really cleared things up.

[GregLaROCHE]

LLA works great for my 6.5 GCed Swede. I found it too difficult to keep them standing up when baking with PC. I tumble them and let them dry overnight, then size them adding the gas checks and tumble them again. I haven’t been shooting that round recently, but when I start again, I plan to try the 50/50 mix with Johnson Paste wax. Maybe add a bit of mineral spirits, if I think it is needed.

[405grain]

rintinglen: may I suggest a 3rd option for you're testing. In your quest to determine which gives better accuracy: PC or tumble lubed, you've overlooked a possible method which may, or may not, possess an advantage: powder coated and tumble lubed. Just to see what will happen, try some loads with PC bullets that have a coating of tumble lube on them. They could be awful, work great, or be no different from more standard loads, but on one will know if it isn't tried out. Push the envelope. Go into that uncharted territory. Discover those things that are unknown to all others!

[Charlie Horse]

I couldn't detect any accuracy difference between these two loads, but I did notice that the bore stays noticably cleaner with the PC'ed loads. Leads me to believe other factors, like boolit design, play a bigger role.

[rintinglen]

Well, the limiting factor for me is the amount of new brass that I have. I am set with 327 and 44 special, but while I have many thousands of 38 casings, I only had about 80 unfired 38 casings. My 44 loads will be shot with a scoped revolver, but I am no fan of optics on handguns and I don't own any others that have scopes.

@dverna--I used to belong to a club that had a ransom rest you could rent and I have used one in the past, but I never could bring myself to spend that kind of money for something I was not going to use often enough. Plus, I justify not using one by telling myself that it doesn't matter how accurate a cartridge if l I can't shoot it well. (A 69 year old man kidding himself.)

[schutzen-jager]

jmho - i have never found any benefits at all for powder coating over alox tumble lube in both performance and + convenience of use - my club has a Ransom rest + adapters for S&W wheel guns + 1911 models - i kept test conditions as closely controlled as possible -

[charlie b]

I have found little difference in PC vs tumble lube (with TL grooves) vs conventional lube (conventional grooves). I use 45-45-10 for my TL.

Proper conditions (plain base less than 1300fps) in .357mag and .45acp showed same accuracy in all of them. Barrels showed no leading and all were easy to clean.

I have only limited comparison with lube and PC in my .308. TL seems to not do as well at higher speeds. Conventional lube is probably a bit more accurate, but, I can't confirm or deny absolutely. I do know I can get close to and sometimes less than MOA with PC and gas checked rifle bullets. Depends more on my bullet quality control than PC or lube. Now that I have my techniques more controlled I should probably do another comparison test. But lube is so messy

[rintinglen]

rintinglen: may I suggest a 3rd option for you're testing. In your quest to determine which gives better accuracy: PC or tumble lubed, you've overlooked a possible method which may, or may not, possess an advantage: powder coated and tumble lubed. Just to see what will happen, try some loads with PC bullets that have a coating of tumble lube on them. They could be awful, work great, or be no different from more standard loads, but on one will know if it isn't tried out. Push the envelope. Go into that uncharted territory. Discover those things that are unknown to all others!

That is a bus I will never ride. I don't need to make a tuna and jelly sandwich to know I won't like it. If I want to spend more time making ammo for my handguns, I can go to my Lyman 450's or LAM and dink around to my hearts content. To me, tumble lube allows me to produce hundreds of useable boolits quickly. I have been using it for something in excess of 35 years, IIRC. Until the willful destruction of our economy by our elected idiots to prevent the spread of COVID, I have been in the habit of shooting thousands of rounds every year. And though I am now retired and have more time, while working I did not have the luxury of time for shaking, standing up with tweezers and baking boolits 50-100 at a time. I do it now when I am in a hurry to try a handful of boolits, but for mass production it doesn't work. To combine both is silly.

Wednesday I did finish my testing of the 38, and will post the numbers later, but that there is no statistically significant difference in PC and TL coated .38 boolits in my Colt Officers Model I am willing to state.

I ran into a problem with the 44 Special test. I had intended to use the SBH Hunter, which is my only scoped revolver, but I was getting terrible results with it. I discovered, halfway through the test, that the rear ring was loose and was allowing the recoil to bounce the scope around, resulting in 4-5 inch groups.

[405grain]

rintinglen: I have a different agenda. I don't cast in large volumes, but instead try to cast for the best accuracy. I have tried swirl lubing powder coated rifle bullets, and it cut my group size in half. To each his own: if you're happy doing it the way you have been, then don't change. The whole principle of casting is to enjoy the process. For me, if someone told me that doing something differently might make bullets more accurate, I'd try it just to find out. Like you, I have been casting for for many decades. Your story about the scope mount brought back a memory: Thirty years ago I was hunting with a pre-64 model 70 in 30-06, and for some reason I suddenly couldn't hit a darned thing with it. Half the deer season went by before I found out the scope mount had worked loose.

[Dom]

I contacted Lee & asked them what was the max velocity they recommended for their tunable lube. They, Lee said, 1100 fps.

[mehavey]

Easily 2,500fps w/ simple matching alloy hardness to the task at hand.
https://castboolits.gunloads.com/sho...=1#post4472544

PC for conventional ogives
Lee ALOX (thin coat) for anything approaching bore riding conditions

(Noted that we're talking revolvers.
But case still applies as to ALOX effectiveness)