weighing cast boolits

[williamwaco]

I mostly cast for rifles and I weigh all of my boolits, big and small. I then separate into weight groups usually plus or minus .1 or .2 gr. I weigh before lubing and seating gas checks. The lightest and heavy boolits, out of the norm, go back to the pot. I also weigh all of my cases after preping and sort into groups. I do this because I like to and to ensure that I make the best ammo possible. Waste of time? Maybe, but if I did'nt do it I would waste time doing something else.

Larry

That is the best reason I have ever heard for all the various unnecessary things we all do. And we ALL do something like that. We all have habits that others think are silly. Each to his own little obsession.

That is what makes life interesting AND that is frequently the spark that discovers something that really DOES help.

[HORNET]

Weighing before lubing lets you get out the real heavies (where your grip relaxed a bit) and the light ones (where you missed that unfilled band or the mold wasn't quite up to operating temperature). Paying attention to results while doing it will let you see how consistent your technique is so that you can improve it. Set your keep/reject limits depending on anticipated usage, +/-0.1 for rifle match, +/- 0.3 for rifle hunting loads, +/-0.5 for pistol, whatever works for your needs.
C.W. Rowland weighed his before and after lubing and shot some REALLY NICE groups.

[cbrick]

Whenever I have a casting question now, the first thing I think of is:

"What would they have done when casting boolits over a campfire 125 years ago?"

I can't see how today we could do anything worse than what worked for them long ago.

I can think of a few things right off the top of my head. The demands placed on the bullet today as opposed to 125 years ago such as pressure and velocity. Taking advantage of far better tolerances of the firearms and far superior brass of today as opposed to 125 years ago. Typically longer ranges with handguns today would also make a better quality bullet more important today.

Rick

[I'll Make Mine]

Accuracy was there as well, as movie's like Winchester '73 confirm.

Ummm.

You do know that was fiction, right?

Yes, I've seen (on History Channel's More Extreme Marksmen) a demo of shooting a .22 through the hole in a washer, as was said to have been done with a Winchester on the set of the movie (would have been a .32-20, at the smallest, giving virtually no margin inside the washer, based on the size of the stamp over the hole). With modern ammunition and an extremely experienced exhibition shooter in both cases.

No, not impossible in 1873, but the average cowboy who cast his own lead was lucky to hit a full size door at twenty feet with a revolver, and might take three or four shots to hit a sitting rabbit at twenty-five yards with a rifle. Our standard of marksmanship, on average, is light years ahead of what was expected, on average, 140 years ago.

[HangFireW8]

is it better to weigh after casting or after sizing when sorting for defcts etc etc.

It's not so much the sizing as the lubing that confuses the issue. An underweight boolit might pick up more lube than a correct boolit, and the additional lube might bring it closer to ideal weight, enough that you pass it through the weight test.

Sizing in itself is a defect sorting exercise. If it goes through harder or easier than the rest, it gets recycled.

I weigh stuff "sometimes". If I see a lot of boolits rejected with bubbles on the bottom and sides, I can count on there being some with bubbles (voids) inside. I could weigh them to find the good ones, but at that point I usually reject the whole batch, and go back to my casting notes and try to figure out what went wrong. I make notes of weather, temp, alloy, swirl, casting technique, breaks taken, cool-offs, hinge lubing, bullplate, what worked and what didn't. I have too many molds to remember what works best for each.

HF

[RobsTV]

Ummm.

You do know that was fiction, right?

Yes, I've seen (on History Channel's More Extreme Marksmen) a demo of shooting a .22 through the hole in a washer, as was said to have been done with a Winchester on the set of the movie (would have been a .32-20, at the smallest, giving virtually no margin inside the washer, based on the size of the stamp over the hole). With modern ammunition and an extremely experienced exhibition shooter in both cases.

No, not impossible in 1873, but the average cowboy who cast his own lead was lucky to hit a full size door at twenty feet with a revolver, and might take three or four shots to hit a sitting rabbit at twenty-five yards with a rifle. Our standard of marksmanship, on average, is light years ahead of what was expected, on average, 140 years ago.

Thought I saw this as "confirmed" by Mythbusters as well?
And even though fiction, it was supposed to be the best shooter at the time, not the average shooter, or even a great shooter.

While I was not around in the late 1800's, I think you may be mistaken about accuracy back then.

found this info using google:
Winchester in their 1875 catalog, their 1873 (.44) was effective and accurate to 500-600 yards.

More than 1 shot needed for Rabbits at 25 yards?
As an inexperienced below average shooter here, with less than a year of shooting casually, and 51 year old eyes, the original 1873 Winchester 38-40 I have loaded with Goex 3F and cast boolit, can easily hit a squirrel's head at 50 yards with 1 shot, using stock gun with its iron sights (from a sand bag). 1" groups at 50 yards is normal. I would expect an experienced young shooter could do that at 100 yards.

My original 1858 Remington new army .44 cap and ball revolver can easily hit 8" targets all day long at 75 feet (two handed standing), using BP and cast round balls. At 20 feet forget the door, as the doorknob is a goner.

And don't forget the 45-70 trap door, which was accurate enough in late 1800's to hit targets at 600 yards, and had a required minimum expected accuracy of 4" at 100 yards and 11" at 300 yards, way back then. (I hope to test my 1884 Springfield with cast 405gr HB and BP this weekend). A very skilled marksman back in 1879 could hit a standard military target 2500 yards (more than a mile) away. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/843705/posts Again, this was using old technology, not today's gear.

But the point I was making was not about the shooter, it was about the cast boolits used that were made with the equipment back then was still adequate to get any job done.

With today's much better components, such as molds, boolit design and weight choices, alloys, boolit lube, BHN testers, temperature measurement and control, calipers, pots, gas cheks, scales, flux, simple cleanliness, etc, as well as powder advancements with dozens of choices, it would seem that even many of our rejects would have to shoot as good or better than many of the normal boolits they hand cast 125 years ago.

So if the above poor accuracy of "couldn't hit a door at 20 feet, and 3 shots at 25 yards to hit a rabbit", then that confirms how well our boolits are today. With modern guns and powders, our rejects are still probably much better than what they used to win the west. Good enough for military work back then, good enough for casual recreational shooters today. Unless you are in a serious competition, where you need 1/2 moa accuracy, stop wasting time looking for slightly defective rejects and shoot 'em.

[44man]

Thought I saw this as "confirmed" by Mythbusters as well?
And even though fiction, it was supposed to be the best shooter at the time, not the average shooter, or even a great shooter.

More than 1 shot needed for Rabbits at 25 yards?
As an inexperienced below average shooter here, with less than a year of shooting casually, and 51 year old eyes, the original 1873 Winchester 38-40 I have loaded with BP and cast boolit, can easily hit a squirrel's head at 50 yards with 1 shot, using stock gun with its iron sights (from a sand bag). 1" groups at 50 yards is normal. I would expect an experienced shooter could do that at 100 yards.

My original 1858 Remington new army .44 cap and ball revolver can easily hit 8" targets all day long at 75 feet using BP and cast round balls.

And don't forget the 45-70 trap door, which was accurate enough in late 1800's to hit targets at 600 yards, and had a required minimum expected accuracy of 4" at 100 yards and 11" at 300 yards, way back then. (I hope to test my 1884 Springfield with cast 405gr HB and BP this weekend). A very skilled marksman back in 1879 could hit a standard military target 2500 yards (more than a mile) away. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/843705/posts Again, this was using old technology, not today's gear.

But the point I was making was not about the shooter, it was about the cast boolits used that were made with the equipment back then was still adequate to get any job done.

With today's much better components, such as molds, boolit design and weight choices, alloys, boolit lube, BHN testers, temperature measurement and control, calipers, pots, gas cheks, scales, flux, simple cleanliness, etc, as well as powder advancements with dozens of choices, it would seem that even many of our rejects would have to shoot as good or better than many of the normal boolits they hand cast 125 years ago.

So if the above poor accuracy of couldn't hit a door at 25 feet, and 3 shots at 25 yards to hit a rabbit, then that confirms how well our boolits are today. With modern guns and powders, our rejects are still probably much better than what they used to win the west.

I have to agree. I have shot too many old guns clear to the civil war that were tack drivers. Then the flintlocks from before that.
We have not advanced with accuracy that much and many ideas today are wrong. Most due to the higher pressures. It is all different but the old stuff was deadly accurate, it is because we have to do things different today.
Did a buffalo hunter cast poor boolits over a fire? Not on your life. He was as advanced as we are today. Did flaked flint cut better then steel? You better believe it.
Are we smarter today? Not by a long shot.
Not a single one of us here can ever do what they did back then.
Not a single one of us can make stuff by hand like they did then.
Personally, I feel real stupid. I have tried. I made many rifles from wood I cut and planks I bought. I made brass parts, etc. But I could never make a rifle barrel in my garage or cast brass or make a lock. I can not make a file by hand, I can't make a boolit or round ball mold by hand in a vise. I make chisels and stuff. My life was spent doing stuff by hand but I do not hold a candle to to the old timers that came to this country.
So sad that those that buy factory stuff today do not know how to do for themselves and complain. They get a water leak and call a plumber but the old timers made water work for them.
Build a building next to a stream by hand with axes and hand tools, then make a water wheel to power the home made tools. to rifle barrels, etc. Make every single tool you need.
Then life was short so things had to be done soon.
Today we waste time at this machine without doing for ourselves. We think we are smart. The real smart find out how dumb they really are, that is where I am. Turn off the electric and see where your at.

[williamwaco]

I have to agree. I have shot too many old guns clear to the civil war that were tack drivers. Then the flintlocks from before that.
We have not advanced with accuracy that much and many ideas today are wrong. Most due to the higher pressures. It is all different but the old stuff was deadly accurate, it is because we have to do things different today.
Did a buffalo hunter cast poor boolits over a fire? Not on your life. He was as advanced as we are today. Did flaked flint cut better then steel? You better believe it.
Are we smarter today? Not by a long shot.
Not a single one of us here can ever do what they did back then.
Not a single one of us can make stuff by hand like they did then.
Personally, I feel real stupid. I have tried. I made many rifles from wood I cut and planks I bought. I made brass parts, etc. But I could never make a rifle barrel in my garage or cast brass or make a lock. I can not make a file by hand, I can't make a boolit or round ball mold by hand in a vise. I make chisels and stuff. My life was spent doing stuff by hand but I do not hold a candle to to the old timers that came to this country.
So sad that those that buy factory stuff today do not know how to do for themselves and complain. They get a water leak and call a plumber but the old timers made water work for them.
Build a building next to a stream by hand with axes and hand tools, then make a water wheel to power the home made tools. to rifle barrels, etc. Make every single tool you need.
Then life was short so things had to be done soon.
Today we waste time at this machine without doing for ourselves. We think we are smart. The real smart find out how dumb they really are, that is where I am. Turn off the electric and see where your at.

Ditto.

When I was a kid - (1940s) we watched our grandfathers practicing with their favorite rifles from the 1880s and 1890's

They frequently practiced by tack or nail driving contests where the object was to drive a nail into a log by hitting the head of the nail before the misses ate away the log and the nail fell out or an off center hit knocked it out of the log.

These contests were usually at 15 to 20 yards. At that distance, I could barely see the nail head even with 10 year old eyes.

These same grandfathers frequently fed their family's with these same rifles by shooting squirrels out of pecan and oak trees at up to 50 yards. My great grandfather's diary contains several entries about going hunting with his son and getting five or six squirrels.

And don't forget the turkey shoots. I have participated in them in my lifetime. They were banned around 1960. The turkey was buried in a hole in the ground with only its head protruding above a heavy steel plate arranged so it was impossible to hit the ground in front of the plate and have the bullet skid under it. This target was about the size of a golf ball. The shooter was required to hit it with the first shot at 100 yards - off hand with iron sights. About one in ten succeeded.

That said, I have personally missed rabbits at 25 yards with a rifle but only with the first shot. Funny, I never got a second shot. I guess the rabbit didn't understand the rules.

Don't rely on my memory, read about the target matches in the late 1800's especially Harry M Pope. ( Not the member here ) ( No slur intended, our Harry M Pope might be just as good as the original. )

[old beekeeper]

I have been casting for years, have a very accurate scale, which I use for powder measurements, not bullets. At one time I weighed my bullets, but after testing with different weights in the same bullet, different batches of ww boolits, I found that a bullet would have to be over 4 or 5 grains higher of lower to be a flyer, so I stopped wasting my time. I do not size, unless I am using a gas check, just use 45/45/10 and lube in a zip lock bag, and go shoot. I have 3 rifles that I shoot, all Marlins, an 1894 in 357 one in 44 Mag and a 336 in 35 magnum....as you can see, I love my lever guns. They shoot great and I have found that if I pay close attention to my molds, and cast with care, I never have a bullet that is more than one or one and a half grains off one way or the other so if there is any difference in their point of impact, it is offset by my 75 year old eyes and arthritic limbs. May be different to the young whippersnappers out there, but for me, at my age, time is too precious to waste weighing bullets. I had to put scopes on the three of them so I could see a target beyond 25 yards, that confounded front sight kept jumping all around and the rear peep sight kept getting smaller and fuzzier. I still get good groups now, that I have solved the sight thing, so pour, lube, shoot, that's my motto.

[cajun shooter]

I'll Make Mine, You need to do some reading and watching the history channel.
The accuracy that was shot in the 1800's was excellent and shooters set records out to 1000 yards.
A man by the name of POPE shot targets that are still hard to duplicate.
The Civil war had snipers who had the good Springfields with the barrels that had rifling that killed from hundreds of yards. These shots were not luck but intended.
Find a copy of the Winchester catalog from the 1880's and you will see some very nice proof of what I say.
There was a young woman by the name of Annie Oakley that put many men to shame.
Another name that comes to mind was Thistlewaite.

[40Super]

How far was that Civil War shot that a union soldier took to kill that one general? Wasn't it something like a 1/2 mile/

[HangFireW8]

I think the difference between then and now is that a now man of modest means and scarce free time can accomplish great accuracy, but then or now, determination and perseverence is required.

HF

[44man]

How far was that Civil War shot that a union soldier took to kill that one general? Wasn't it something like a 1/2 mile/

That shot was made by Billy Dixon in 1874. It was 1,538 yards using a .50-90.

[Artful]

I used to use two scales to weight after sight reject and before lubing/sizing
- below lightest setting - rejects
- between two scale settings - practice
- over heaviest setting - match

that was back when I shot sillywett