Swaging Spent Bullets?

[OLDGOLDANDBLUE]

Being down to my last thousand bullets, and finding out it was going to take me a few months to get more, I decided to be creative. I built a sand trap and reclaimed said bullets. Over 90% seemed to be in good shape. I then purchased a CH4D 9 mm swaging die and, after an ultrasonic cleaning, bumped them back up to size. I have fired about 500 rounds with no problems, other than my automatic didn't seem to like the rounder nose. I solved that problem by reducing the OAL slightly.
I realize that I may be excessively polishing the inside of my barrel if the bullets have sand inclusions in them, but after 500 rounds I can discern no difference in the barrel or its accuracy. I have also purchased a new barrel. Yes it was easier to get a new barrel than bullets. Interestingly, it was about the same cost as a thousand bullets. So for every thousand reclaimed bullets, I can afford to buy a new barrel. Any shooting over that amount and I am saving a lot of money on bullets.
I have searched the internet and see no mention of others doing this. Just in case I am a complete idiot, I thought I would solicit your views.

[tekarra]

Welcome aboard. Presumably you are shooting lead bullets. Ultrasonic cleaning will help a lot in removing sand as long as it removes the lube. Hope you are checking the cleaned bullets carefully.

[OLDGOLDANDBLUE]

I am using copper jacketed bullets

I , probably, should have tumbled them to a high shine, but they are for practice at 25 to 30 yds. I still see some rifling marks on them and don't expect them to be marksman quality. I mainly wanted to make them as concentric as possible.

[JohnKSa]

Seems like you're already aware of most of the potential negatives associated with this practice.

I can think of two more. The reclaimed bullets will probably not be as accurate since the fired/reclaimed/resized bullets are probably not balanced as well as a new one would be. Also, if you do the resize process repeatedly, it seems like there may be some risk of having the jackets separate from the lead core since copper and lead react very differently to being bumped up and down in size. I guess there's some potential for that to happen in the bore, but my gut says it's not very likely--more likely they will come apart on impact or during the resizing process.

[Bake]

For many years, I have just melt them down, and recast them.

[OLDGOLDANDBLUE]

Thanks for your response. I have thought of that, but until I reclaim the next batch I won't know. I screen each bullet for flaws in the jacket , before and after swaging.

[OLDGOLDANDBLUE]

I thought about doing that Bake, but it was an experiment on my part and it is also a lot faster.
Another benefit of doing this is I have reduced the reloading cost of each cartridge to under 5 cents. Just thought I'd throw that in.

[buck460XVR]

Seeing how Gilding metal and lead have different elasticity, I too would have a concern about jacket/core separation after repeated resizing. Since you claimed the bullets still showed the indentation of rifling marks, would continued resizing make them longer after a while? What was the cost of the die itself?

[dahermit]

I can think of two more. The reclaimed bullets will probably not be as accurate since the fired/reclaimed/resized bullets are probably not balanced as well as a new one would be.

It would seem logical to me that the swaging process would shape/redistribute the lead cores back to where they should be. I have not seen his swaging dies, but swaging is how the bullets were made in the first place.

Also, if you do the resize process repeatedly, it seems like there may be some risk of having the jackets separate from the lead core since copper and lead react very differently to being bumped up and down in size. I guess there's some potential for that to happen in the bore, but my gut says it's not very likely--more likely they will come apart on impact or during the resizing process.

Unless the jackets have been tinned and the cores added when molten, the only bond is mechanical (the shape of the jacket). When Speer "Hot Cores" first came out, I stood one on end, put a knife blade on the point and drove it through the bullet length wise to see if the "Hot Cores" actually adhered to the jackets. I found that the cores just dropped from the jackets when the mechanical lock was gone...so much for cores "bonded" to jackets. In this guys case, if the jackets curve over the top of the core, I do not see any problem. If there is some consideration I have overlooked, please post back here again...I have an open mind.

[OLDGOLDANDBLUE]

CH4D 105 swaging die, $125.00
Link http://www.ch4d.com/?com=catalog&view=product&alias=105

[OLDGOLDANDBLUE]

I assume from the lack of additional response, that everyone here feels that while it may not be the ideal way of doing things, it is at least an acceptable way of salvaging bullets. That as long as one is reasonably cautious in selecting the bullets to be swaged, there should be no glaring safety concerns.

[dahermit]

That as long as one is reasonably cautious in selecting the bullets to be swaged, there should be no glaring safety concerns.

In times of scarcity, one does what one must do.
I cannot envision any safety problems with what you are doing. Even with a loose core, the core should not be able to exit the barrel leaving the jacket behind...you may find however, separated cores and jackets in you backstop. What I do anticipate happening though, is due to the working and re-working the jackets will become work-hardened and more resistant to reforming. What the end result will be, I do not know. With a lead core in them, I do not know how practical it would be to try to anneal the jackets.

[Sport45]

I'd worry most about the ability to clean imbedded grit from the jackets and what it might be doing to my barrels.

[dahermit]

I'd worry most about the ability to clean embedded grit from the jackets and what it might be doing to my barrels.

That would be my only concern also. Also, contrary to his thought that the sand would "excessively polish", his barrel, it is more likely (almost certain, if sand were still there, embedded after sonic cleaning), the the sand would cause scratches down the barrel. Nevertheless, he stated that he had purchased another barrel just for that eventuallity...must be nice to be that rich.
In all, I am glad to be a bullet caster and not have to worry about sand in the recovered bullets...it would just float out as the recovered bullets melt.

[OLDGOLDANDBLUE]

The barrel in question has had many thousands of rounds put through it over the years. 10 to 20 thousand might be a low estimate. Since I buy jacketed bullets instead of casting them, I justified buying the new barrel ($130) with the cost savings. If I can shoot another 4 or 5 thousand rounds of salvaged bullets through that old barrel, I might just treat that old S&W 5906 to a new slide, I imagine it needs replaced also.

[Uncle Buck]

Interesting. I have picked up bullets that seem almost perfect from my backstop. Never thought about re-using them though.

Please keep this thread updated on how many times you re-use the bullets.

[OLDGOLDANDBLUE]

I have thought of getting a 5 gallon plastic bucket, filling it with sand, then cutting a piece of stall matting in a circle, placing it on top of the sand to keep the sand from coming out the bullet holes, screw on the lid. Lay it on its side for a target.
I would then take 10 bullets and just see how many times I could recover and shoot them. Just been a little lazy. You may have given me the spark to go do that.
If I find I can re-shoot the bullets multiple times, I will then try to devise a 4'x4' target filled with some type of ballistic gelatin that can be reused. This will negate the sand inclusion problem.

[Uncle Buck]

Heck, you may be on to a new cottage industry if they can be used multiple times.

I like the idea of the sand trap bucket... Now where did I put my lids?

[Sevens]

As I've inched a wee bit closer to being as old as some of you old coots () I've found so much joy from doing a -LOT- of revolver shooting. That joy is mostly related to the revolvers all on their own, but there's at least a tangible percentage that simply relates to the oodles of brass that does NOT end up spewed all over my range... that I must later bend down and pick up.

It's a glorious thing. It's probably another great reason why I enjoy my rimfire pistols so much, too.

The idea that I'm now going to have to pick up slugs, too, is making my head spin! Even still, I applaud you, OG&B for hatching an idea and giving it a go. Definitely sounds like it not only works for you, but it's given you a project and there's not likely many of us who handload and yet don't also really enjoy a new experimental project. It's kind of what most of us do anyway... experiment!

Just in case I am a complete idiot

Well, this is absolutely possible, perhaps you've got a significant other that would like to offer some opinions?! But I've seen no evidence of any such thing in this thread.

Sounds like a fun experiment.

[OLDGOLDANDBLUE]

My wife Knows I'm an idiot, she tells me that quiet loudly when she catches me using one of her sheets to collect brass spewing from my automatic.

[OLDGOLDANDBLUE]

I started to see how many times I could reswage and reshoot my 9mm bullets this weekend. It occurred to me that perhaps I could substitute the sand in my bullet trap with a material that was no more abrasive than the copper jackets to the barrel.
My main criteria was that it be cheap, readily available, and of no greater hardness than the copper jacket. Checking Moh's hardness scale, I found two materials that fit the criteria. Gypsum(Calcium sulfate/drywall) and lime(calcium carbonate). Both have a hardness in the range of 2 to 3. Copper is 3 on the Moh's scale. Inclusions found in the copper jacket after shooting should be no more abrasive to the barrel than the copper.
I thought that others on this site may have had some experience using this material.
Using sand made no difference to me since I had an old barrel, but any one with a fixed barrel(revolver) could have damaged their pistol doing this.
Please feel free to give me your views on this.

[OLDGOLDANDBLUE]

For those who are unfamiliar the original thread is here:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=530138

This is an ongoing experiment in reshooting already fired 9mm copper jacketed bullets. I promised I would keep it updated.

I am currently starting the 4th time in shooting and reshooting approx 1000 copper jacketed(Delta Precision) bullets. As with any experiment you modify the parameters as you go along. The original idea was to swage(re-manufacture) the existing bullet. The main problem I had with this process was that in trying to remove dings and dents. I occasionally ended up with a bullet that didn't want to chamber. Taking the cartridge apart and measuring the bullets, they were bumped up to .358- .359 range, instead of .356. A nuisance, probably caused by over pressure and expanding of the swaging die. Less pressure and a custom made nose plug 3/4 ogive( I was using a round nose plug) would have probably been ideal and solved the problem.
I modified my procedure and started just establishing concentricity by just passing the bullets through a .356 reducing die. It is faster and there was no problems with chambering after that. However, shooting the bullets reduces the size down to .354. I do not think this is a problem, my instinct tell me that as the bullet engages the rifling, the frictional force coupled with
the explosive force causes automatic re-swaging to barrel size.

Some observations:
1. As of yet, I have not had a jacket failure caused by reshaping the bullet or impact as the bullet passes through a layer of plyboard, stall matting, and sand. the only jacket failures were due to collision between the bullets in the sand. (It will have to happen eventually-jacket failure)
I fired 200 copper plated 45 cal bullets (just to see what would happen) and there was plating failure, but only where the base engaged the rifling. Repeated shooting would probably result in a copper tipped bullet with bare lead below the ogive.

2. I have not seen the number of multiple rifling marks on the bullets one would expect. Perhaps, the bullet is realigning it's self to the rifling as it is fired or being re-swaged by the explosive force.

3. The only negative to the bullets are that they are becoming somewhat sand blasted. It was expected.


Sorry but I haven't got around to the bucket experiment. It may be a Spring project now. I am becoming addicted to the idea of shooting my heavy caliber handguns at the price of 22 ammunition. So I will get to it.

Any criticism, advice, thoughts or suggestions are not only welcome, but hoped for.

[Valornor]

That's a really interesting idea. I am currently waiting on my Corbin Mega Might press. It never occurred to me that bullets might be able to be reswaged. I'll be following your results.

[Unclenick]

Fascinating experiment. I missed the first thread. Are you doing any accuracy comparisons? I'm also curious to learn if your seeing signs of the sand embedding particles in the copper or abrasive working on the bore. The Agricultural lime seemed like a good idea to me, but that may be just because I have some, so it's what I would choose.

The slight loss of bullet diameter may be due to the gilding metal work hardening. The lead won't do much of that.

I think you borrowed the letter "l" from 'ogival' to use in 'ogive', but that's really picking nits to fill your request for a criticism. Good job and an interesting idea. Please keep letting us know what happens?

[OLDGOLDANDBLUE]

So far no visual signs of damage to the barrel and any sign of sand in the bullets would be microscopic, as I have seen none visually. A lot of surface tarnish on the copper from laying in the wet sand for a month or so, is observed.
I should have used lime as a a backstop material it has about the same hardness a copper, and inclusions in bullets would have no more effect on the barrel than the copper jacket.
I could change it, but I'm making this experiment as tough as possible. I, also, don't tumble the bullets to polish them.
If this will work with abrasive sand, then I'll be sure it will work with a softer backstop medium.
As far as accuracy I am shooting at 25 to 30 yds. A minute of angle would be barely noticeable. This is definitely not target ammo and I am using it only for practice. I have shot a few with a pretty good dent in the point and they still punched a round hole in the target(No sign of wobbling), but this might not be true at a longer distance.
Sorry for the confusion, but the reduction in size .354 is the size after the bullet comes out of the barrel( think of it as slugging the barrel). I was initially trying to bump them up to .356.