Traditional Muzzleloading Association
Shooting Traditional Firearms and Weapons => General Interest => Topic started by: j-houser on April 17, 2014, 12:24:02 AM
-
I need to cast some round balls for shooting but I am out of the batch of lead that I worked up the load with. I have pure lead, tin and antimony. After 1 1/2 hour of looking I cant find the alloying formula or timprature for casting it. Any help would be very much appreciated. Trying for a 10 to 11 bhn after aging a few weeks. Any help would be appreciated.
JH
-
Ballistically and accuracy wise it probably won't make any noticeable difference if you use soft lead or a lead alloy, much less some "exact" formula. Just mix a bit of tin and/or antimony hardened lead (not unalloyed antimony since it's melting point is waay above the melting temp of lead and they are difficult to alloy for the home caster.
-
Thanks for the advice and you are probably right ( do you need any antimony for free). But I am quire due to have spent at least 70 hours trying to get a finicky 1850 yaeger to live up to what it was made to do. I think I am about 90 percent there and am leery about changing what got me this far. This is where the hardness of the lead comes in.
My limited thought process and wonting to stay around bhn 11 is based on the following. I am using a very tight pillow ticking patch that makes me uneasy about deforming a pure lead ball upon loading. They didnt group as tight.
At bhn 12, the patch is printing on the ball when pulled it at the end of hunting season. My thought is that if I go to a much harder ball, it will be harder to load and may be imposable to reload hunting conditions where I can not punch out the bbl. Last hunting season it took all my strength to slowly reload with a buck looking at me. ( got the deer) Dont know if I could have done it at a bhn or 18.
Any help due to my very limited knowledge and your experience and knowledge is much appreciated.
-
PM sent.
-
I have 100 grams of antimony coming in from ebay. After learning about the complexity of using it to alloy the pure lead I have, I dont need it. I need your address to send you the antimony.
Uncle Russ is the one that told me to use a bhn of 10, 11 or 12 for accuracy last year. Due to my time restraints, I do not wish to experiment and cast up balls that age harden past the bhn 12 by next hunting season. I have a passion for hunting with this rifle and am concerned about a higher bhn and the extra force that it would be need for the pillow ticking to engrave into the ball upon loading. I am thinking of using the pure lead and alloy it with wheel weights to come up close to the bhn 11 but I do not know the percentage of wheel weights to use. Any help would be appreciated.
-
WW runs at about 10/11 so just use it straight.
-
Hi j-houser :Doh!
Still yet, you are dead right in looking for that "just right" hardness, a simple thing that is all to often overlooked for real precision shooting of PRB.
Insofar as how many wheel weights to use in order to increase the hardness of pure lead, in any measurable, or incremental way is, IMHO, a hit and miss game as all modern day wheel weights have ungodly amounts of "who-knows-what" in them....although a lot, perhaps even most of that can be cleaned off in the dross, the hardness factor will actually vary from pot to pot.
There's not any easy answers in our search for the Holy Grail of absolutes in this sport we have chosen, and perhaps it's the journey to get as close as possible that makes the whole trip worthwhile.
Uncle Russ...
-
Have you considered something like 20-1 or 25-1 lead-tin.
-
I REALLY don't want to step on anyone's toes here! Everyone had their own ideas and experiences. I'm just going to tell you mine. So please bear with me as I toss out a few thoughts in no particular order.
WW metal - Forget it. Wheel weights aren't what they used to be. Some don't contain any lead and I suspect this will be the trend in the future now that the EPA has closed down the last lead smelting plant in the U.S. Bullets cast from wheel weights will vary in weight and hardness. Balls of different weights will affect the flight of a ball more than hardness. An interesting side note is that the stick-on wheel weights used on mag wheels appear to be pure lead at least for now.
The formula for Lymans #2 Alloy is 90% lead, 5% tin, 5% antimony. I think that is your original question but hear me out.
I've always gotten best results from pure lead when using a PRB in a rifle. Play with the other variables like patch thickness, lube, powder. Using pure lead takes out most of one variable, the bullet weight/hardness. I also weigh the lead balls on a grain scale. Anything that varies beyond about 0.3 grain goes back in the pot. An air void or bit of dross off to one side of center in a ball will cause it to fly erratically because it's out of balance not to mention that a lighter ball will fly faster.
When it comes to lubes, check out Dutch Schoultz's "dry patch" formula. It really makes a difference by taking out another variable, the amount and slickness of the patch lube.
When it comes to how tight a patch/ball should be there are some who claim "the tighter the better" and others who claim superb accuracy from a combo they can run down the bore with two fingers on the ramrod. Given the differences in bores they may both be correct although I tend to doubt the two-fingers crowd. Their idea of "superb" may be different than mine. My experience has been somewhere in the middle. I seem to get best accuracy from a patch/ball that requires firm pressure to force it down the barrel but never having to "pile drive" it down the bore with repeated thumps. Grasp the rod about 6" above the muzzle and push firmly. I've never broken a rod while loading and that 6" Rule is why. Also avoid bouncing the rod off the ball once seated. This will tend to crush the powder under the ball and result in differing burn rates. The finer the powder granules, the faster they burn.
Here's another controversy. Wiping the bore between shots. Benchrest shooters do. Some folks don't. Who do you think gets the best accuracy? I wet a patch, squeeze most of the liquid out, and make one pass down and back out. The idea here is to have as close to the same amount of fouling in the bore as possible for each shot.
I've gone pretty far afield from the hardness of lead but let me prattle on just a bit more. Do all of your load development from a solid rest on a bench. The idea is to see what the rifle is capable of, not how good an offhand shooter you are. Accurate shooting is all about consistency. You will always be the least consistent factor in the mix.
Storm
-
I might be stepping on toes. There is a place, Rotometals, they sell a number of different alloys.
They are on the pricey side. I have not ordered any thing from them, as of yet. I have a supply, at
this time.
LeeRoy
-
Thanks Leeroy. Was about to post this and I seen your post. Will look up Rotometals. Might take care of a lot of the guess work
Thanks for all the help. All the information and experience from TMA members and hours at the range is what has got the rifle to what I think could be at 90% of its potential. Thanks for all the perspectives variables listed above. This helps me out a lot in problem solving.
The pure lead I used earlier on gave me a known hardness but did not shoot as tight, I may go back and see if I can get it to work. I have considered using the 5 percent tin alloy to pure, for what I think is a bhn of 10. I am not sure how much it softens over time and I wish to cast enough PRB so that I have some left over for hunting season. These knowns would also help eliminate the previous problem of inconstancy in wheel weights and much more so with range lead that .
I have worked up a number of accuracy loads on modern rifles and only two muzzle loaders. I know that some modern cartridge rifles will shoot about anything with fair accuracy and some are finicky as heck and only allow very little room for variation to achieve a good accurate load. This 60 cal, 1 in 42 with .012 round bottom deep rifling and .590 mold is also finicky as heck. This is why I am leery of variation from the load I have now. If I miss or wound a deer at my current max shooting range of a known distance of 125 yards, I wont to know that it was my fault, not the gun. If I can get the PRB cast to my current accuracy load of around 11 to 12 bhn, I am looking forward to going to the range and experimenting with other variables without wondering if a variation in the BHN had any influence.
Any perspective or thought on what I perceive might work would be very much appreciated.
I think the lyman #2 at 5% tin and 5% antimony and pure lead gives me two known that I should be able to work with hopefully for years to come. If I alloy equal amounts pure lead and #2 , I think it would be 2.5 tin and 2.5 antimony that would age out to between 16 bhn and 5 bhn. I speculate that it may be somewhere around a bhn of 10.5. Does anyone know of a chart that list BHN of different lead alloys?? Do I need to add some tin to the mix to bring the alloy up to the original 5% tin?
-
As far as I know, lead/tin alloys do not age harden/soften. Quenching does nothing to it.
-
Fortunately, all my WW are the old kind that I acquired in the 1970s when I use to cast a lot of pistol bullets. They were harder than lead but still soft enough to expand impressively in HP versions. I rarely cast bullets anymore but maintain a couple hundred pounds of WW in my basement. I prefer WW cast ball for my smoothbore over lead. For rifles I still much prefer soft lead.
-
You have WW lead that a man could trust trust. However, now and probably sometime before we stopped manufacture our own lead, I don't trust it. I have heard that in extreme cases, some current WW do not even have lead in it.
Thanks all the help
-
i agree with stormrider51 - it's all in the shooting process. i use prb's, dutch dry lube, and a moist moose milk patch up/down the tube between shots.
-
Thanks for the information. I hope my search for knowledge doesnt offend anyone. As a perfectionist in the area of marksmanship and refining the individual gun, I also agree with Stormrider,s approach to solving the problem. However, to solve a specific problems, knowledge alone isn't enough. Its UNDERSTANDING the knowledge allows us to manipulate the elements of the problem. Also, my specific goal is for consistent clean humane shots on deer out to 125 yards with a .60 cal. jaeger.
With that in mind, can you help me out with the advantage or disadvantages in the moose mild and dry patch lube. How do you get a even coating of the dry patch lube. Maybe I could go back to pure lead if I had another mold made for .585 instead of the .590/.015 patch. This may allow the patch to fill the rifling up with out worrying about pressure deforming a round ball any while loading. I understand that each person has their preferences, usually based on experience.
Previously I used water soluble oil for patches but had a 3 week old charge that was weak when fired. Lucky for the deer that it was only at 20 yards instead of 75. I have some pure mink oil that supposedly will help but I havent got to try yet???. I have been swabbing the bore between shots with a black powder solvent . Not sure what the plus or minus is on this ???
I am can not afford to be thin skinned with problem solving, so any perspective is much appreciated.
OPINIONS
For U. S. A. - God, Country and USMC
For Hunting - Black Powder, and Saint Hubert
-
I might be stepping on toes. There is a place, Rotometals, they sell a number of different alloys.
They are on the pricey side. I have not ordered any thing from them, as of yet. I have a supply, at
this time.
LeeRoy
Rotometals is an ok outfit from the dealings I've had with them. Imagine 60# in a USPS box, had to carry it out from the PO for the lady. lol
-
Dutch Schoultz spent many years exploring the potential accuracy of the muzzleloading rifle. He is, I believe, in his 80's now. He offers a package of very useful information at Black Powder Rifle Accuracy System (http://www.blackpowderrifleaccuracy.com/index.html). It only costs $19.95 and will be one of the best investments you ever make. Respect for Dutch is why many of us refer to his "dry patch system" but we don't explain what it is. Contact him. He's a great guy.
Concerning deforming the ball on loading. The important thing isn't to avoid deforming the ball. It's deforming it the same amount each time. Consider this, I can shoot a round ball or a Minie in an appropriate rifle and get equally good accuracy. The ball is round but the face of the Minie is almost flat. So while shape of the bullet matters in terms of ballistic coefficient, etc each bullet of that shape will perform like another of that shape. So if I deform round balls the same amount in loading each time I'll get the same performance. Just to keep things interesting, the ball will be deformed again when the powder charge kicks it in the backside and inertia + friction resists it moving. How much? Not much but the ball does get shorter and fatter.
So the trick is to deform the nose of the ball the same amount each time. An overly tight patch/ball combo that requires you to drive it down the bore using the ramrod like a piston is actually okay provided you can whack it the same number of times with the same amount of force for each shot. Slug gun shooters do it all the time. Blackpowder Slug Guns – Precision Paper Punching Machinery (http://www.blackpowdermag.com/featured-articles/blackpowder-slug-guns-precision-paper-punching-machinery.php)
What works better for us is a PRB combo that is tight but not so tight that we have to resort to brute strength to get it seated on the powder. The face of the ramrod should never leave the face of the ball. That includes when it is seated. Never bounce the ramrod off the ball.
Good luck and welcome to a hobby that has kept me fascinated for about 50 years!
Storm
-
Never bounce the ramrod off the ball.
I know guys that do that, doesn't work for me, though.
-
Thanks Stormrider for all your insight. And also, all the other TMA members that have helped me out with knowledge, experience and fore teaching me and making me re think my perspective of muzzleloading. I also hope that I am not stepping on any ones toes with the following perspective. Its just my opinion based on some knowledge and some experience. You don’t have to agree, Its O.K. just think about it.
Will probably order Duches's package or contact him about this dry lube. I fully agree with uniform consistency from one load to the next. In my quest to tame this current finicky rifle, I have went somewhat over board. I use a circle template to file the sprue round. (Thought that tumbling balls in a tumbler would be good but not sure how many thousandths variation I would get). My starter and ramrod are both ground to match the radius of the .60 cal. ball. I do have to use two blows on the starter but push until the ball stops on a level charge of powder. The bbl is slightly choke bored for the first 2 inches but fairly easy on down. My thought is that the harder lead will have less variables when confronted with the human inability to load the exact same each time and its also part of my current accuracy load. However, I am not ruling out going back to pure lead.
I have been in numerous enjoyable debates about ballistic coefficient of projectiles. It makes for good conversation due to its many variables. In my attempt to understand this very complex set of variables, I perceive that the round ball is the least ballistic coefficient projectile. This is partially due to it having the minimum weight for the most atmospheric resistance (example, a 50 cal. round ball at 170 gr. has about the same air resistance as an extremely stable 50 cal. BMG has at 750 gr.). Also, a longer bullet is usually more stable than a shorter bullet in flight. This is some what due to the the tip of the bullet being more able to stay fixed center of the rotation. Since the round ball is shorter in length it is more apt to yaw off of the original center of rotation. The physics of the round ball has had some effect on why the conical projectile became very popular for long range shooting during and after the civil war. My perspective with my limited knowledge of ballistics is that IF a round ball starts to yaw off of its original center of rotation, any change of the air flowing over the ball that is not at its original sphere (primarily on the outer edge of rotation) will be effected to some degree by the same physics as a knuckle ball or a spit ball. Although the ball is spinning, the unbalance of air pressure over the ball will push the ball off of its course to some degree and probably increase the yaw even more. This unbalance of pressure compounds the further the ball goes down range. This is one of the reasons that I perceive that the current rifle I am working with, originally shot a one inch group at 30 yards and went out to 8 inches at 75yards. I understand that this is not the only variable effecting this 8 inch group. This jeager is not the only muzzleloader I have had the problem of minute of angle compounding unexceptionably. However, with you'll help, I can now depend on a 6 inch group at 125 yards with my old eyes and the help of a bunch of sand bags. Maybe even better when I go to the range and try some of the perspectives from TMA.
I hope I havent offended anyone. Having sensitive toes can get in the way of knowledge and understanding. Your perspective is welcome.
OPINIONS
Fore U.S.A. - God, Country and USMC
Fore Hunting - Black Powder and Saint Hubert
-
My toes are pretty much step-proof. :-) This hobby would be boring if there was one formula that works for every firearm and every shooter. The only rule I've ever found to apply across the board is "consistency", doing everything the same every time. Beyond that it's a matter of discovering what a given gun likes and performs best with. And if you ever think you have learned it all, try smoothbores. I spent most of my life ignoring them as uninteresting and inaccurate. When I recently started working with them I've discovered that I had to learn all over again.
Storm
-
I perceive that the round ball is the least ballistic coefficient projectile
Same here, yet the ballistics are subject to reliable prediction. Add to that traditional methods of ignition and what we have here is one heck of a good time...
-
If your Post office cannot handle the weight limits that the PO allows make a formal complaint. I hate when .gov complains of their own specs.
Want the money and benefits do the job NO excuses allowed.
Bitter yep annoyed yep, When they said I could not ship guns as a dealer more than one postmaster got remedial training, some got let go.
-
You have the best RB metal Pure lead needs nothing else