Home Forums Reloading Bullet Casting "Higher" Velocity Rifle: Lubed vs Powder

The LARGE majority of my cast shooting has been pistol / revolvers. .38 / .357, .44 Mag and .45ACP. My extent of shooting cast in rifles has been less than full power loads in a .30-30 and some mild plinking rounds in a .30-06 (1000 to ~1400fps). I am a recent convert to shake-n-bake (thanks to Yondering's many great posts and tutorials) but haven't played with powder in my rifles yet since I still have a bit of LBT lubed bullets on hand.

I would really like to start playing with some higher velocity loads in my .30-06 and a soon to be acquired .35 Whelen. Maybe try for somewhere between 2000-2300fps or thereabouts. I am mostly curious if you guys are seeing better accuracy in this velocity range with lube or powder (shake-n-bake; not investing in equipment). Or is this a "6 of one, half-dozen of another" scenario?

Obviously not going to be shooting the same volume with these two rifles as I do in my handguns so prep-speed isn't really a factor. I would rather start with the method that has the better chance of seeing results though--but I realize anything is possible or subject to change.

Haven't made it to Castboolits to do any research yet but figured I would see what you guys are having results with.

Thanks

Personally, I've found it a lot easier to get accuracy in rifle loads with powder coating; partly because it's so much easier to avoid leading, which robs accuracy. Some guys do successfully shoot full power rifle loads with traditional lube and good accuracy, but all the details need to be just right; powder coating is much more forgiving in comparison.

If you powder coat, you don't really need linotype or other high-antimony alloys. Try something like wheelweight alloy (~2% antimony, 0.5% tin) heat treated for hardness. I use this for full power loads in the 35 Whelen and several 30 cals including a semi-auto 308, with reasonably good (IMO) accuracy. If I can get 2-3 MOA with cast bullets at rifle velocity in a semi-auto, I'm satisfied.

I do recommend using gas checks in these loads, even with powder coating. The thin polymer coating is all you need in pistol loads, but doesn't do the job of a good copper gas check in high pressure rifle loads. Also, use regular jacketed bullet load data to select powders, don't use faster powders as so many cast bullet shooters do.

Re. research on castboolits - there is good info there, but there are so many members now, that there is a lot of bad info as well. It can be hard to sort through it all.

Good info, thanks for chiming in Yondering.

Well, I warmed up my NOE 311041 mold and dropped a few wheel weight bullets in prep for my effort here. Went ahead and did a dry tumble with them since I have several of these lubed with LBT on hand already. This was the first batch of bullets I had done without BBs. I noticed the powder went on much thinner and once out of the oven, had an odd "dimpled" texture...I really wouldn't call it "wrinkled". I went ahead and did a second coat after they had cooled and while coverage was better, the final finish was the same texture.

Previous attempts with BBs turned out much glossier and smoother. Same oven, same temp, same time in the oven, and same powder (Smoke4320's Glossy Jet Black). Only difference was no BBs and dumping on wire screen.

Any thoughts? No pics handy; I'll try to post some tonight.

I went ahead and sized/checked them and had one of those "stupid thoughts" that we guys tend to have while fiddling at the bench. I did a quick search and couldn't find any info but I know someone had to try it before.

In order to get the checks to seat on my bullets, I was using the gas check seat feature of my Saeco Lubrisizer just to get them on and square before running them through the push through sizer. While I was doing this, I had to ask, "why not just run them through the lubrisizer?" I'm already sizing these things...adding lube would add no additional time to the process...is this a no-no? Too much of a good thing? Stupid to even consider? It seems everything is one or the other...what happens when you combine the two?

There. That's my idiotic tinkerer question of the day.

The rough/dimpled texture with dry tumbling is normal and doesn't affect anything. If you're getting enough powder on there to completely wet out and leave a smooth finish that covers completely in one coat, it's probably too thick, IMO, and will give you trouble with bore rider bullets, seating gas checks, etc. It depends on your powder too though, I haven't tried the stuff you have.

If you aren't getting enough coverage with dry tumbling, make sure you're tumbling enough bullets at once, and really shaking it well, not just gently swirling them around. If you're only coating 20-30 bullets at a time, you won't get good coverage with this method.

Putting lube on them doesn't hurt anything, if you want to do it. I don't normally, because I size in push-through Lee dies, which is faster and sizes straighter. I have lubed coated bullets to see what it does though. The only effect I observed was that it can help prevent lube grooves from collapsing in high pressure loads with softer alloy, like a hunting bullet where you want it a little softer for expansion.

I don't believe its going on too thick. With one coat I still get a few little light spots where you can see the lead through the finish. And I am only adding 0.001-0.002" to the diameter. And that seems to be just enough to keep me from snapping gas checks in place by hand. Probably the only (and biggest) aggravation for me in this whole ordeal.

Went and checked my powder order with Smoke4320 (member on Castboolits). Its RAL 9005 Jet Black...he just buys in bulk, factory direct, and sells to the members.




Definitely doing more that 30 at a time...closer to double that or maybe a bit more. Obviously depends on the bullet size too. I have been doing about 80 or so of the little Lee .38 cal 105gr bullets in one tub. And just enough powder to try and lightly coat what is in the tub.

And DEFINITELY not being gentle with the swirling. I have broken a few tubs while swirling and shaking. The wife absolutely LOVES it when that happens in the kitchen.



Interesting...good notes to file in the memory banks. Thanks.

Sounds like you're getting the right coverage then; that's about what I get with one coat of dry tumble - a smooth thin glossy coat with a few bare spots. For pistol bullets, I often just shoot them that way. The second coat always leaves a bit rougher appearance for me, no matter how thick it is. Some colors wet out better than others though, and every one I've tried acts a little different.

If you're close to breaking the plastic tubs, you're doing that part right! Here's a tip - before shaking, put the tub in a gallon ziploc bag and close it up. That keeps all the powder dust contained and out of your lungs. I keep the tubs in their own bags all the time now. (I don't mix colors any more; coating strength seems to be lower when they are mixed.)

I routinely load my heavy-ish (180-200gr.) .30 cast hunting loads to 2000-2200fps in .30-06 and .30-40, and 1900±fps in .30-30/.303Savage, and I have never heat treated a bullet or utilized a "hard" alloy, and have never gone the PC'ing route.

Bhn I strive for = 12-14. Lube = the same 50/50 lube I've been using for 47 years. Accuracy without leading is the norm. Variables that I chase in that regard involve seating depth, powder choice/charges, and bullet shape and fit. Of those variables, the most important is bullet shape and fit - custom tailored to each individual gun. I size to throat diameter, ignore groove diameter, and make sure the bore riding portion is a sweet fit for bore diameter (top of the lands). For Loverin-style bullets, and spitzer or semi-pointed style bullets, it's throat diameter + swaging the noses in a die that makes them conform to the included angle of the leade in those rifles I re-throated with a 1½º included angle reamer. A bit of a bother? Sure, but it's attention to details like that that spell the difference between startling accuracy and "average" cast bullet accuracy.

I have nothing against PC'ing. Exploring new paths is what prevents our hobby from stagnating. I choose not to pursue it for it adds another variable to my "details" that I just don't want to deal with.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that PC'ing isn't a necessity when chasing high-er velocity, nor is hard alloy or water quenching. What is necessary is painstaking attention to details (and a squeaky clean bore to start with).

The best accuracy I've ever had with a cast bullet was an air cooled ww bullet so 12-14 bhn lubed with LBT blue and launched at 2000 fps from my 350 Rigby.

That said, I don't consider 1800-2200 fps as higher velocity from cast bullets in rifles, I consider that the sweet spot for cast from rifles.

To me, higher velocities from rifles means jacketed bullet velocities i.e. 2400-2700 fps. Which I could see as a potential advantage in shooting targets and longer ranges. But for use on game, I still think the sweet spot for terminal performance with cast is 1800-2000 fps.

Thanks for the info Gnoahhh and 458 Lott. Its appreciated. Looks like I will be experimenting with both techniques since I already have some lubed on hand...and I did some PC'ed last week. Still going to pick up a new mold for the .30-06, been thinking along the lines of a 311299 (NOE copy). Not sure what I am going to do for the Whelen yet. Been looking though.

458 Lott, agree with what you are saying on the velocities and what constitutes as 'higher.' Until now I had only played with cast in rifles at velocities below ~1500fps. I mentioned my goal was somewhere around 2000-2300fps. I know that it isn't what most people think of when it comes to "high" velocity cast shooting where people are trying to duplicate jacketed speeds but it is "higher" than what I have done up to now, which is why I put that word in quotation marks.

If I can get 2000fps (+/- 100fps) with good accuracy, I will definitely be happy.

I was addressing the OP's use of the term "higher velocity" and "2000-2300fps" in his opening post.

Sneaking up on higher velocities than that usually mean harder alloys, and that's not good in a hunting bullet although great accuracy is certainly do-able. One thing I never tried is paper patching soft bullets for high velocity hunting (at least 2400-2600fps, which to me is really high velocity ). If I felt a need to work up cast hunting loads at "high" velocity, I would definitely explore that option. Almost a half century of lead shooting has never found me needing to go fast, so maybe it's moot.

gnoahh, nobody said PC is a necessity. What I have said is that it makes high velocity accuracy easier to achieve.

That "painstaking attention to detail" becomes much less important, and a squeaky clean bore is not necessary to start with, when using powder coated bullets. The things you know lubed cast bullets are not necessarily true for coated bullets, and a lot of those critical little details can be pretty much ignored.

I routinely shoot full power 308 cast bullets around 2600 fps, with no more special attention to detail than I put in my high volume pistol bullets, other than water quenching for hardness after coating. I can run the same bullets in multiple rifles without changing anything, and expect good accuracy from all of the without worrying about lead angles, fitting the nose perfectly, or any of that.

I get all that. Sounds a hoot.

Permit me to make an analogy. PC'ing versus traditional approach is analogous to shooting inline muzzleloaders versus traditional ones. If one's goal is to merely shoot as efficiently as possible, with the least muss and fuss, and without having to deal with pesky details (which stimulate the imagination and challenge the intellect), added to a need to extend one's hunting time without regard to the tradition and spirit of why there is a muzzleloader season in the first place --- then an inline is right up your alley. If, on the other hand, you revel in the traditions and accept the challenge of "old timey" ML shooting, and are stimulated by the chance to conquer the details/nuances of managing an antiquated system, then a 19th century side lock gun is for you. Same difference with powder coating versus traditional approaches to cast bullet usage.

If I wanted such trouble free shooting that PC'ing provides, I would just buy jacketed bullets and be done with it, and avoid even firing up the lead pot. For me, it's not a matter of cost/time savings or efficiency. (God knows it's just the opposite- the money I spent on casting gear, molds, lead, etc. over the years would have bought me a hellacious pile of jacketed bullets.) Rather, it's the chance to experiment, which adds an unlimited vista to the whole world of rifle loony-ness. If the making/usage of cast bullets devolved to something as simple as merely filling molds, coating/baking the results, and then treating the bullets as if they were jacketed ones, I might as well start voting Democrat too.

Some of us like to produce our cast bullets with the minimal amount of effort, and hence PC is appealing. I've cast, lubed and sized well over 1000# of ww's and anything I can do to make bullets as good in less time is appealing to me. I simply don't much time for the hobby so want to get as much done in a limited amount of time.

And that's fine. I'm not trying to be a contrarian - it's all good.

I'm a fussbudget when it comes to cast bullets. I don't mind spending an entire evening creating 100 bullets, then sorting/weighing/inspecting them, meticulously orienting them in the sizing die (Saeco) exactly the same each time (aided by a tiny dimple in the mold cavity that creates a tiny dimple on the cast bullet), then patiently swaging the noses in a custom die in the arbor press to form a taper that perfectly matches the leade of the rifle bore (both cut with the same reamer) - and end up with maybe 40 "usable" bullets. Then a range session during which said bullets are loaded in the same case for each shot, at the bench, again oriented via the dimple on the nose, and the case itself oriented in the chamber exactly the same each time. Takes a while to fire a ten shot group. But, all that work is rewarded with groups that would cause 1/2 the keyboard jockeys here on the 'Fire to accuse me of cheating.

Time? What's time to a pig?

I don't shoot pistols but a couple times a year anymore, so concern over time constraints for making buckets of pistol bullets at a time are a moot point for me. There was a time when I shot competitively and I was casting small buckets full of .38 wadcutters every week. Believe it or not I started out with a single cavity mold, and very quickly switched to a gang mold. Even then I don't know that PC'ing would have saved time appreciably because I was zipping them through a Star sizer/luber as fast as I could pick them up. I certainly saved the time they would've spent sitting in an oven curing.

Ive ran cast soft nose to 2,900 in 22(46gr.) and 35 caliber(250gr) to 2,500 and have shot hogs with both. Bullets were heat treated as they fell from the mould.

Getting hunting accuracy isnt difficult.

Getting equivalent accuracy, velocity and terminal performance as your best jacketed bullet load isn't always possible without some juggling.

One has to decide if they want to juggle or not.

Truth be told, if I were gonna go for lead bullets in .30-06 at factory velocity to hunting I would go the paper patch route with really soft bullets. Splattermatic.

The lead core impressions from dental x-rays of yore and the lead containers they were disposed in make awesome rifle softnose material; it wont heat treat, registers about 15 Bhn and is extremely ductile, being a lead/tin/silver alloy.

It would make great PP material at jacketed impact speeds, even with flatnoses.

My short time fooling with PCing did not convince me to swap over. I will add though the only powder I used was the HF red.
I got zero leading out of the various guns,calibers and cartridges I tried it in.
My findings, size is still king. I tried them as cast, then powder coated. Then I sized, powder coated and loaded. Then sized,coated and sized again.
Groups were of so so average from everything. But we're not up to what I experienced withe naked lubed bullets. The double sized coated gave the best groups for me.
All of the guns were proven cast bullet shooters with proven loads.

I ha e been advised if I went with one of the now known better powders I may find happiness with PC.

I have two lube sizers and enough bees wax to last me for a lonnnggg while. Same with my alloys, I have enough that I don't spend weekends chasing lead anymore.

I cull pretty hard. Some say it is not necessary. It is just to easy to recycle them. And why add any more problems to the mix by accepting a sub grade flawed projectile. What would you do if you bought a box of jacketed bullets and the were full of dents and wrinkles. I do my final culling when I do my sizing and lubing.
I have been casting for quite a while, close to 20 years now, a short term by some. I don't know everything, but I try to learn something every casting session.
I like the smell of my lube to the funky hot plastic odor I get from PCing.
It is a tool to be put in the tool box so to speak. It may work ok across the board, kinds of like a crescent wrench or a vice grip. It works at times in certain situations, but then a box end or line wrench would be the proper tool.
I did not find it to be the holy grail some folks would lead me to believe

Those that holler on a regular basis about leading may find it to be the answer, but it may just be covering up an under lying problem wether it be a bore,throat,size,alloy etc issue.

I ran a test of sorts for me several years back, before PCing was ever heard of. In two specific guns I ran a whole season of matches with NO bore cleaning to speak of. A dry patch and maybe a nylon chamber brush to clean out lube build up when chambering became harder than normal. Round count was over 3000 per gun. Three different designs and weights were used. Speeds were from 900fps to 2600fps. Accuracy stayed as normal through the season. Zero leading was observed, my alloy is not hard, softer than the Lyman alloy by a fair bit.

I tinkered with the PCing on the same lines. Once again I will say a better grade of powder may have had better results. 3-500 rounds into one of thes guns and I was getting black and red crap out of the bore with the dry patch. Accuracy showed it as well, several unexplained flyers. I abandoned it after that.

I have not given up on PCing, it just isn't at the top of my list of things to work on after having spent a fair amount of time testing and getting naked bullets to shoot. Almost like starting over.

You pretty much said it all right there. Your post is sorta the equivalent of someone saying they tried Lazer Cast bullets and got leading, so cast bullets don't work for them.

It gets repeated over and over that the HF powders don't work as well, but people still try to use them to be cheap, and then conclude PC doesn't do it for them.