PC Velocity vs....everything else?

Wreck-n-Crew · January 28, 2015, 06:04 PM

I wonder how a PC bullet compares in velocity to a similar FMJ, Cast or Hi-Tek coated bullet? Has anyone chronographed these and compared them to similar rounds with same charge?

I am just guessing somewhere closer to FMJ or plated but have no clue!

Beagle333 · January 28, 2015, 06:47 PM

In my testing (and it agrees with others), it is a bit slower than regular lubed bullets. In my .45 SAA, it is only about 4 fps slower and in .357 loadings in the 12-1300 fps range, it can drop somewhere around 40-45 fps from regular lubed bullets. The current presumption is that it is more slippery and doesn't build as much back pressure as lead bullets and doesn't get as much initial kick. That is up to your individual interpretation though, as I know of no pressure testing that has been done. There is no concern over this small velocity drop in pistol bullets and many are still using it and testing to see what kind of effect it has on longer rifle shots.

Wreck-n-Crew · January 28, 2015, 09:00 PM

Quote:

The current presumption is that it is more slippery and doesn't build as much back pressure as lead bullets and doesn't get as much initial kick.

HMMM interesting. Made that suggestive comment to someone on a thread yesterday because his gun wouldn't Cycle using a full load of Clays. Low FPS which means low RE and I thought that the combination of the PC and a low RE powder might be causing it. It was a 9mm 124gr Pc over max charge Clays. Said recoil was real light. Figures huh?

Thanks!

oldpapps · January 29, 2015, 10:30 AM

I agree with Beagle333, less built up pressures.

My test was with the .44 mag.

Lubed lead - Missouri Bullet - .44 E Keith - .430/240 grain/18 Brinell.

Coated lead - Lyman 429241 - My hard mix lead (don't have a tester, every bit as hard as the 18 Brinell above), no gas check installed, actually bullet weight is 245 to 245.5 grains - sized to .430 both before and after coating with HF RED.

The weapon - S&W Model 29-2 6 1/2 inch.

The load - 17.5 grains of 2400, (what I call a) medium role crimp, CCI 300 Standard LP primers, Star brass.

Velocities at 10 feet.

The readings. The lead loading is an average of (well) over 15 test samples. The coated loading was only 12 test samples (15 samples are my standard for good statical results.)

Lubed lead - 1294.1 FPS
Coated lead - 1096.333 FPS (the first 6 gave an average of 1112 FPS, thus I ran a second 6 to confirm)

That is 198 FPS slower. With the lead loads I get no leading and perceived pressures are acceptable. With the coated loads I get no anything less a few puffs of powder ash and perceived pressures are less than those with the lead loads. I believe that I could up the charge with the coated lead and equal and exceed the velocities of the lubed lead loads. But, I'm happy with what I'm getting with the Missouri Bullet lubed lead bullets.

Standard disclaimers, safe in my weapon/s the way I load with my components. May not be safe in yours, the way you do it with your stuff. This is for information only, not loading data.

Load with care,

OSOK

January 28, 2015, 06:04 PM	#1
Wreck-n-Crew Senior Member Join Date: March 8, 2013 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,820	PC Velocity vs....everything else? I wonder how a PC bullet compares in velocity to a similar FMJ, Cast or Hi-Tek coated bullet? Has anyone chronographed these and compared them to similar rounds with same charge? I am just guessing somewhere closer to FMJ or plated but have no clue! __________________ If you ever have to use a firearm, *you don't get to pick the scenario!*

January 28, 2015, 06:47 PM	#2
Beagle333 Senior Member Join Date: January 7, 2012 Location: Auburn, AL. Posts: 2,332	In my testing (and it agrees with others), it is a bit slower than regular lubed bullets. In my .45 SAA, it is only about 4 fps slower and in .357 loadings in the 12-1300 fps range, it can drop somewhere around 40-45 fps from regular lubed bullets. The current presumption is that it is more slippery and doesn't build as much back pressure as lead bullets and doesn't get as much initial kick. That is up to your individual interpretation though, as I know of no pressure testing that has been done. There is no concern over this small velocity drop in pistol bullets and many are still using it and testing to see what kind of effect it has on longer rifle shots. __________________ . . . Have a Colt and a smile.

January 29, 2015, 10:30 AM	#4
oldpapps Senior Member Join Date: September 22, 2011 Location: Middle America Posts: 518	I agree with Beagle333, less built up pressures. My test was with the .44 mag. Lubed lead - Missouri Bullet - .44 E Keith - .430/240 grain/18 Brinell. Coated lead - Lyman 429241 - My hard mix lead (don't have a tester, every bit as hard as the 18 Brinell above), no gas check installed, actually bullet weight is 245 to 245.5 grains - sized to .430 both before and after coating with HF RED. The weapon - S&W Model 29-2 6 1/2 inch. The load - 17.5 grains of 2400, (what I call a) medium role crimp, CCI 300 Standard LP primers, Star brass. Velocities at 10 feet. The readings. The lead loading is an average of (well) over 15 test samples. The coated loading was only 12 test samples (15 samples are my standard for good statical results.) Lubed lead - 1294.1 FPS Coated lead - 1096.333 FPS (the first 6 gave an average of 1112 FPS, thus I ran a second 6 to confirm) That is 198 FPS slower. With the lead loads I get no leading and perceived pressures are acceptable. With the coated loads I get no anything less a few puffs of powder ash and perceived pressures are less than those with the lead loads. I believe that I could up the charge with the coated lead and equal and exceed the velocities of the lubed lead loads. But, I'm happy with what I'm getting with the Missouri Bullet lubed lead bullets. Standard disclaimers, safe in my weapon/s the way I load with my components. May not be safe in yours, the way you do it with your stuff. This is for information only, not loading data. Load with care, OSOK Last edited by oldpapps; January 29, 2015 at 12:47 PM.