All lead verses jacketed bullets - Page 2

briandg · April 20, 2012, 03:24 PM

Kraig, I never questioned your 76 powder manual that didn't contain the warning about lead. It was present in the late 80s for at least the catalog I read it in.

I think I covered everything in your post in the two posts I made.

There is a thing to remember; formulas change, and information changes. Current 296 is probably different in at least a few subtle areas from the 70s formulation. Current data by the distributor has no cast 357.

One thing I have always tried to remember when choosing loads is that cherry picking what I want to load out of the hundreds of sources available is a bad idea, and that if there is an "official" manual by the people who make the bullet maker or powder maker, that is where I will go.

kraigwy · April 20, 2012, 03:40 PM

Quote:

anyone has ever earned a PhD in physics and done their research on "reloading."

I have degrees in Accounting and Police Admin, does that count?

Seriously if you want to really get down and dirty in the science of reloading department, find a copy of Phil Sharps "Complete Guide to Reloading". Whelen has a good reloading book also, "Why Not Load Your Own"

The above to are great but the best for the phyics of the subject is J.R. Mattern, "Handloading Ammunition".

Before you get into the three above books, be sure you study a few of the modern reloading manuals or you'll get lost. These would be the Masters level books on reloading and ammunition.

Don't forget Gen Hatchers. Not so much for reloading, but for the science of ammunition.

Now if you want to get down to the Nitty Gritty, on the Doctorate Level, find a copy of "The bullet's flight from powder to target" by Dr. Franklin Weston Mann (inventer of the Mann Accuracy Device, still used by our army today to test ammunition).

briandg · April 20, 2012, 06:27 PM

I've got the sharp's manual, and a few other bibles from that time. Hatcher's pistol book, howe's gunsmithing omnibus, etc.

They make me realize how simple we have it. Howes books had chapters dedicated to making your own tools. I can't imagine filing steel bar stock into a checkering tool and then heat treating it on my own, when I can pick up an entire set of them from brownells for about the price of the bar stock and a few hours worth of minimum wage.

Edward429451 · April 21, 2012, 01:15 PM

I believe that you're over thinking this for all practical purposes. That h-110/296 shouldn't be reduced much if at all in the data is a well known characteristic of the powder and in no way contraindicates the use of lead boolits with it.

briandg · April 21, 2012, 04:23 PM

I keep going over the same old thing and it keeps getting ignored.

Hodgdon doesn't approve of it, or they would publish the data. They are the legal distributors.

The fact that it works doesn't make it legit. A hard cast bullet, IMO, isn't going to be a lot different from a jacketed bullet, so the concern probably isn't about them. But lead bullets vary wildly. Therea are people who will put a mushy 125 grain lead bullet in a cartridge, and then reduce the charge by 10% or more to avoid leading, because they don't know better or ignore the warnings, and a blowup is practically inevitable.

I don't care what people believe or do personally, but when some vague piece of advice is repeated often enough, it will be remembered, but all that will be remembered is that "you can use lead bullets with 296" and none of the other caveats will be remembered. Then otis, the village idiot blows up his pistol using bullets he made out of salvaged plumbers lead.

Rather than having everyone who walks away from this thread remembering nothing but "you can use 110/296 with lead bullets," they should also remember

"THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE 110/296 DO NOT SUPPORT LOADING LEAD WITH THESE TWO POWDERS."

There is a reason they don't provide load data for lead with these powders. Some people who have used lead with these powders, or fooled around with it in other ways, have had catastrophic failures.

So, everyone reading this thread, take this for what it's worth.

You've been told a dozen times that you can load lead bullets with this stuff, and you can find data all over the internet for it.

THE MAKERS OF THE POWDER DON'T WANT YOU TO, OR THEY WOULD PROVIDE YOU WITH THE INFORMATION TO DO SO.

You can find that on the internet too.

Edward429451 · April 22, 2012, 10:25 AM

So it's not a given to use hardcast in 44 Mags? I thought it was.

I heard you that time. Anyone who puts soft boolits in a 44 Mag is the village idiot. I can agree with that.

Prof Young · April 22, 2012, 11:02 AM

Loaders:
I'm shooting Suter's Choice hard cast bullets.
And yea, the tables don't show an H110 charge for them. I've shot a couple hundred without incident BUT had a dangerous squib at the range yesterday and will be taking apart the last 100 or so and heading back to the books looking for load data with hard cast bullets.
Lots to learn here. It never occurred to me that changing type of bullet, not weight, would make that much difference. But it makes sense. Think I'll read through all the "How to" parts of my reloading book again.

Live well BE SAFE!
Prof Young

briandg · April 22, 2012, 04:49 PM

Edward,hodgdon supplies cast data for 44magnum only In 325 and higher grain bullets.
Kin the case of the heavy lead, I am. thinking that the mass of the heavy bullet is going to allow pressure to build regardless of forcing cone resistance.

I think that in most cases, hard cast can be used, but experimenting with this picky quirky powder isn't a good idea.

I suggest that when picking loads, there should be two first checks. The site of the powder maker, and the site of the bullet maker. If there are limitations you will learn them there

briandg · April 22, 2012, 04:55 PM

Prof young, there are so many variables in a cartridge load, and then we fire them in different guns. Even changing primers can make big differences.

It's rare that switching out components will cause problems with normal loads. 296 is a special case. In a lot of cass you can use lead and jacketed bullets interchangeably.

April 22, 2012, 11:02 AM	#32
Prof Young Senior Member Join Date: August 21, 2007 Location: Illinois - down state Posts: 2,404	Taking apart 100 rounds. Loaders: I'm shooting Suter's Choice hard cast bullets. And yea, the tables don't show an H110 charge for them. I've shot a couple hundred without incident BUT had a dangerous squib at the range yesterday and will be taking apart the last 100 or so and heading back to the books looking for load data with hard cast bullets. Lots to learn here. It never occurred to me that changing type of bullet, not weight, would make that much difference. But it makes sense. Think I'll read through all the "How to" parts of my reloading book again. Live well BE SAFE! Prof Young

April 20, 2012, 03:24 PM	#26
briandg Senior Member Join Date: May 4, 2010 Posts: 5,468	Kraig, I never questioned your 76 powder manual that didn't contain the warning about lead. It was present in the late 80s for at least the catalog I read it in. I think I covered everything in your post in the two posts I made. There is a thing to remember; formulas change, and information changes. Current 296 is probably different in at least a few subtle areas from the 70s formulation. Current data by the distributor has no cast 357. One thing I have always tried to remember when choosing loads is that cherry picking what I want to load out of the hundreds of sources available is a bad idea, and that if there is an "official" manual by the people who make the bullet maker or powder maker, that is where I will go.

April 20, 2012, 06:27 PM	#28
briandg Senior Member Join Date: May 4, 2010 Posts: 5,468	I've got the sharp's manual, and a few other bibles from that time. Hatcher's pistol book, howe's gunsmithing omnibus, etc. They make me realize how simple we have it. Howes books had chapters dedicated to making your own tools. I can't imagine filing steel bar stock into a checkering tool and then heat treating it on my own, when I can pick up an entire set of them from brownells for about the price of the bar stock and a few hours worth of minimum wage.

April 21, 2012, 01:15 PM	#29
Edward429451 Junior member Join Date: November 12, 2000 Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado Posts: 9,494	I believe that you're over thinking this for all practical purposes. That h-110/296 shouldn't be reduced much if at all in the data is a well known characteristic of the powder and in no way contraindicates the use of lead boolits with it.

April 21, 2012, 04:23 PM	#30
briandg Senior Member Join Date: May 4, 2010 Posts: 5,468	I keep going over the same old thing and it keeps getting ignored. Hodgdon doesn't approve of it, or they would publish the data. They are the legal distributors. The fact that it works doesn't make it legit. A hard cast bullet, IMO, isn't going to be a lot different from a jacketed bullet, so the concern probably isn't about them. But lead bullets vary wildly. Therea are people who will put a mushy 125 grain lead bullet in a cartridge, and then reduce the charge by 10% or more to avoid leading, because they don't know better or ignore the warnings, and a blowup is practically inevitable. I don't care what people believe or do personally, but when some vague piece of advice is repeated often enough, it will be remembered, but all that will be remembered is that "you can use lead bullets with 296" and none of the other caveats will be remembered. Then otis, the village idiot blows up his pistol using bullets he made out of salvaged plumbers lead. Rather than having everyone who walks away from this thread remembering nothing but "you can use 110/296 with lead bullets," they should also remember "THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE 110/296 DO NOT SUPPORT LOADING LEAD WITH THESE TWO POWDERS." There is a reason they don't provide load data for lead with these powders. Some people who have used lead with these powders, or fooled around with it in other ways, have had catastrophic failures. So, everyone reading this thread, take this for what it's worth. You've been told a dozen times that you can load lead bullets with this stuff, and you can find data all over the internet for it. THE MAKERS OF THE POWDER DON'T WANT YOU TO, OR THEY WOULD PROVIDE YOU WITH THE INFORMATION TO DO SO. You can find that on the internet too.

April 22, 2012, 10:25 AM	#31
Edward429451 Junior member Join Date: November 12, 2000 Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado Posts: 9,494	So it's not a given to use hardcast in 44 Mags? I thought it was. I heard you that time. Anyone who puts soft boolits in a 44 Mag is the village idiot. I can agree with that.

April 22, 2012, 04:49 PM	#33
briandg Senior Member Join Date: May 4, 2010 Posts: 5,468	Edward,hodgdon supplies cast data for 44magnum only In 325 and higher grain bullets. Kin the case of the heavy lead, I am. thinking that the mass of the heavy bullet is going to allow pressure to build regardless of forcing cone resistance. I think that in most cases, hard cast can be used, but experimenting with this picky quirky powder isn't a good idea. I suggest that when picking loads, there should be two first checks. The site of the powder maker, and the site of the bullet maker. If there are limitations you will learn them there

April 22, 2012, 04:55 PM	#34
briandg Senior Member Join Date: May 4, 2010 Posts: 5,468	Prof young, there are so many variables in a cartridge load, and then we fire them in different guns. Even changing primers can make big differences. It's rare that switching out components will cause problems with normal loads. 296 is a special case. In a lot of cass you can use lead and jacketed bullets interchangeably.