I have always wondered that LB,  if shooting Smokless or BP if the bullet was a .001 or so over groove dia why would it matter.

If the alloy is good enough to fill the mould with crisp edges,when casting,  I don't think it would/will matter.

Now if you were shooting BP and wanted a smaller dia bullet to upset into the groves that might make a difference on how hard it was, but not what made it hard, I reckon.

Paul,   Yes it matters. IMHO here's why;   I shoot a lot of what I'll call "mixed lead". I've used a number of different lubes and had varying success with them. There are several of Charlie's that I'm settled in on that provide no leading at all. None. I can shoot as many shots as I like, NO leading. BUT with mixed lead I have to be careful. I have a large supply of clean wheelweight metal that I'm determined not to waste. At a 50/50 mix with Pure lead/WW's I have an acceptable hardness but I get leading irregardless of what lube I use. At 60/40 lead/WW I get no leading with the chosen lubes. I've experimented with the mix and 60/40 is the balance point for the desired hardness and no leading. Something in the WW's melts at a lower temperature and causes trouble. The addition of extra lead eliminates that. Don't know what it is, don't really care. The rifle shoots outstandingly well with the proper mix. The upshot is that I've probably got 1500 lbs of the clean WW ingots. The amount of pure lead I have to buy is minimized greatly. I don't buy tin, it's expensive and I don't need it. The ww's help the mix to cast very well and the weight of the bullets is within a couple grains of what the normal lead tin weight would be for a mold. So......For me it matters. Not in the accuracy department but with regards to leading. I get equal accuracy and I don't buy tin .  John B

I guess I'm less sure of that. Angus shot extremely well when he shot with us, won a lot of bench matches and was a force to be dealt with in that regard. He shot literally tens of thousands of rounds in practice. For two seasons he shot linotype only and said he couldn't tell any difference in accuracy. Hard to seat but accurate. For myself, the 50/50 bullets shot well, perhaps not as well as softer and I realize that could be different in another rifle. Wheelweights themselves shoot well and are quite ductile.

I don't think you will........I've tried for 15 years.  If you'll hit your sprue with a wet sponge you'll find the tearing to be much minimized and weight distribution to be extremely good.

dale;
       Sorry, I did post the formulas wrong--I meant to say with a mixture of about 60 % WW  and 40% "pure' lead and a very slight amount of tin [about 1/2 pound per 20 pound mix]--I get no barrel leading and I can't see any loss in accuracy as opposed to using 25/1 lead-tin.  I have found that at times I must use more lead, probably due to the ever changing composition of the WW.  I use the weight of the bullet as my guide--I add as much lead as needed to get as close as possible in weight [WW--Lead-Tin] as the 25/1 alloy would be--altho the alloy can never produce as heavy a bullet as the 25/1 alloy.  leadball

stevens52;
               Actually I don't think the tin does anything--I should quit wasting it because of the price. I wish someone else would run a test on this WW alloy versus straight lead-tin to see if they might possibly get the same results. It seems to me that there are a lot of variables in shooting lead bullets more important than where or not the bullet has a little WW in its composition.   leadball

We might be able to get FITZ the younger to run a molecular test on the bullets/alloy in question.  He mentioned on his last trip to Charlie's that he would be willing to work it in.  How about it, Bob Fitz, if you're seeing this, do you think your son might still be willing to test some alloy for us?

Froggie

In answer to leadball's comment earlier about what tin does...I've been told that a small amount of tin helps the alloy flow and fill out the mould better...make a more consistent and sharper-edged bullet.  If you are using WW that already has a fair amount of tin in it, that requirement should be fulfilled.  The problem is that you don't know WHAT is in WW alloy from one batch (or even 1 weight) to the next.  I figure as badly as I shoot I don't want to introduce any new variables into the equation! 

Meanwhile, back to hardness, I have been told that antimony and black powder don't mix if accuracy is your goal...since all WW seems to have at least some antimony in the alloy, that would be another reason to avoid it if you are shooting BP, even to get a desired hardness. 

I guess I was more than a little lucky a few years ago when I came into a large quantity of relatively pure lead and was able to buy and trade into sufficient pure tin to make a bunch of alloy for the next few years of shooting...but I'm not too sure what I will do when it's gone.  Maybe that's what they mean about "when there is no quality of life." 

IT'S SPRING IN CENTRAL VA!!  I am now planning forays to the range so I can take full advantage.  


Froggie

1st: I melted down about 50 pounds of wheel weights yesterday. Upon dumping the ignots a few broke open revealing a strange grainluar texture that reminded me of limestone. This was a general mix of wheel weight aloy.
Will this affect my bullets?
2nd. I found  10 pounds of lead pipe at the junk yard.
I plan to melt it down and test the hardness.
Have any of you ever used lead pipe to make casrt bullets?
What other metals are  in lead pipe ?

Maybe I missed something, but trying to save some $ by using WW instead of using good pure lead/tin mix seems to miss the point of trying to get the most accurate loads we can develop. I look at all that I have invested in the rifle and the necessities we need, that is a good chunk of change. Why skimp on the quality of our bullets. Uniformity is so important in the quality of our bullets.
Bob

Swifty
What you just experienced is why I don't use any alloy that contains antimony. Whay you are looking at is the grain structure of the alloy. Antimony when used in persentages such as wheel weights, Linotype or Monotype make the alloy to brittle for the kind of shooting we do.
40 Rod

Tinis used in the alloy to help fill out the mould. Pure lead doesn't cast very well. Personally I use Lino-type and lead. When my alloy has been brought up to temp(750deg), I add a 24 inch length of 50/50(lead-Tin)solder. Any more tin in the mix is a waste ot expensive tin. The suggestion of cooling the sprue with a damp sponge really does give perfect bases. Watch how much you cool the sprue plate. I have warped a couple using this method. When filling my pot to make my alloy, I add 6 pounds of lead and 5 pounds of lino-type intil the pot is full. That is pretty close to Lyman #2 alloy.

Joeb,

  I see it's your day to pick an argument with me.

  When I'm on the ASSRA Forum I think in terms of SS Schuetzen rifles. Now if you want to argue CBA and MV's that can, and do, approach 2400 fps, then I'll go along with you. But, as far as Schuetzen goes I'll stand behind what I said.

  Why don't you start a thread on here asking the Schuetzen shooters what alloy they use. Now I don't mean the Shilouette shooters, or the CBA shooters, hunters or the plinker/tin can shooters, but the Schuetzen shooters who are looking for the best target accuracy they can get.

  Alloys...... Again you're picking at nits. Your correct in that Lino & WW's can't be said to be one composition or another. WW's have changed compostion at least three times in my life that I know of, and who knows what it is in foreign countries. Lino can be any composition since unless you buy virgin material what you're getting is what the print shops are getting rid of. You're right in the fact that most of the Lead we use in Schuetzen shooting is not 100% pure. But then not even X-Ray Lead is. There will always be SOME impurities. The "pig" Lead, or pipe, most of us use will run at about a minimum of about 98% pure, with most running 99+%. The Tin we use will mostly be as pure as standard refinery techniques allow. If you think we are way off base and only trying to impress the novice, when we say we're using 1-20, 1-25, etc., then you'd really be down on the old timers who felt that you had to change the Tin/Lead ratio by as little as one...... i.e. - 1-20, 1-21, 1-22, etc....... in order to find the best alloy in for their rifle.

  You make the claim you can shoot WW bullets as accurately, and breech seat them ALMOST as easily as pure Lead. As for the accuracy...... I assume you've looked at the ASSRA records I've posted on here. From your own talk you aren't able to come even close to any of these scores/groups. In fact you insult those who can shoot sub MOA practically on demand by saying it's not possible. Just because YOU can't do it. As others must wonder....... your WW's aren't doing all that well, are they? As for the breech seating end of things I fail to see what that has to do with accuracy. In a properly throated barrel I can seat Lino bullets as easily as pure Lead. Doesn't make them more accurate.

  So Joe, when you're on here why don't you give us your experiences in Schuetzen shooting? You seem to have all the answers, so I'm sure all of us would like to hear them, rather than the antagonistic approach you seem to prefer.

  The CBA is an excellent organization. I belong to it and consider many of it's officers/ members as friends. But..... They play a whole different ball game with many rules not even applicable to ASSRA, ISSA, or WSU rules. I wouldn't think of doing what you do here and go on a CBA Forum and tell them because I can do so and so in Schuetzen that they are doing it all wrong and need to ....... as Steve Garbe says..... follow the one true way.

PETE

We used to travel around a lot, I haven't remembered all the matches.
I forgot Fairfax, my wife and I went there ?twice?. She did well,  and I think I remember winning a group match.
Match placement doesn't have to mean what you think it means. It took me a while to catch on to Ken Hall at Western New York. Ken threw better targets than I turned in in the trash can. He never spoke about it, but my theory is that he wanted to encourage newcomers and found winning sort of boring after a while.
joe b.

Joeb,

  Well...... SEE!... You have shot Schuetzen! And you can talk about it.  Keep it up!

  As for re-entries. I'll have to agree with you and Jim on that. But, I also agree with Jim in that re-entries are the bread and butter of SS shooting. Without them most clubs wouldn't be able to survive long unless they really charged big bucks for each match.

  But if you will look at the message on the ASSRA records you will also see that many of the records were set in single entry matches, and only at the annual shoot. So there is plenty of room for practically a full days shooting for those who feel that you should stand up to the line, and if your gun isn't sighted in correctly, or you can't read the conditions, then you're out of luck for the year, or that match.

  I think a lot of people would disagree with us on this, because who wants to drive xxxx number of miles to shoot one or two matches and then go home. Most people who go to a match want to have a full day, or two, full of shooting as many different matches as they would like.

  Like you I prefer shooting the offhand matches, altho I'll never scare even a fairly decent shooter. As Pope, I believe it was, said..... "Bench proves the gun, offhand proves the man!". BUT..... I'll take my hat off to anyone who can shoot a 250 with iron sights at 200 yds.

Jim,

  I WAS playing nice!  If I was really pi__ed off I wouldnt have been so kind in the wording I used.

PETE
'

Joe 
Not to pick a fight but what did they put wheel weights on in the 1890s. I can't think of a horse strong enough to pull a buggy fast enough so that it would need wheel weights.

40 Rod

40 Rod,

  Still getting a chuckle out of your reference to WW's and wagon wheels. 

  It got me to wondering about another aspect of the differences between CBA and SS shooting.

  Namely gas checks. The only reference to them that I could find in the reprints of Shooting & Fishing was in the Nov. 27, 1902 issue. In an article titled "Gleanings From U.S. Ordnace Report" there is a section on gas checks. Without quoting the whole section it says.....

  "Experiments have been conducted from time to time in preceding years with metal and other wads placed in the rear of the bullet with a view to decreasing erosion." (looking for a solution to erosion and the bullet jacket material used at the time.)
  "................ That decided upon was an inverted cup of medium density copper, .02 inch thick, pinned to the base of the bullet."

  The govt. found that they weren't suitable for Krag MV's, but did continue experimenting with them for a while in an effort to see what results could be gotten in guns of all calibers.

  My Ideal Handbooks only go back to #27 (1925-26) and they show gas checks and moulds available at that time.

  Out of curiosity does anyone have a more definite idea of when gas checks were introduced? I would assume Ideal put them out first so if someone had a handbook that didn't list them, and then the next one that did, we could get some idea as to when they became available.

PETE