gnoahhh i do not under stand dose the smaller cal lead more than a larger one with the tumble lube ? pm me if you want just looking for knowledge at your convenience if you want thank you
In a word, no. But there's so much to take into consideration on this topic that'll take us beyond the scope of the OP's quest to break into the cast shooting game as easily/cheaply as he can. Tumble lube runs out of steam, so to speak, long before the elasticity boundaries of a given lead alloy are breached.
The whole topic of PC'ed bullets versus traditionally lubed bullets has been chewed over ad infinitum all over the internet. Adherents in both camps have pluses and minuses on their side. It boils down to individual goals/end uses/philosophies. On a personal level, there's so much I have yet to explore in the world of traditional lubed bullets that I fear I'll run out of time before scratching all those itches let alone add a whole 'nother dimension to it all by adding PC'ing to the mix. Besides, I don't mind the mess (what mess?) and prefer to not accept lessened accuracy (such as that may be).
I wonder how many here are CBA members and are following some groundbreaking experiments by a member, conducted with no lube or PC at all. Kind of eye opening and certainly food for thought- little or no leading with decent accuracy. Calls up the old debate over what really is the function of lube/coating on a bullet.
Now if y'all will excuse me, I need to get back to loading a sack full of .22 K-Hornets with (un-PC'ed) cast bullets for my first range session this weekend since undergoing house arrest two months ago! Lyman 225438's at 1600 fps. If time permits I have an accumulation of .30-06's to put through my Springfield M1903A1 National Match too. NOE 309-169 (Elco) spitzers (NRA formula lube) over 20 grains SR-4759- real x-ring killers- and 180 RN's out of an ancient NEI mold + 18 grains SR-4759, 1400 fps or thereabouts and the bane of paper targets across the land!
