Are Norinco Toks better made?

They make good stuff overall. I have not shot one of their Tokarervs but my Norc 1911 is a superb gun. I would expect no less for a Norc Tokarev.

Pico

View the original article here

Is .22 LR or WMR the better pair for a .410 combination gun?

I'm intrigued by the idea of combination guns and the Savage Model 42 recently caught my eye. It seems like an excellent choice for occasional small-game hunting and regular backyard fun that's accessible to the whole family.

The question is whether the .410 is better paired with classic .22 LR or the zippy .22 WMR.

As for personal needs, I almost exclusively shoot centerfire at the moment. My only shotgun is a 12-gauge and the only .22 in our house is my wife's Rascal in .22 LR. I've thought about picking up either a .22 LR or a .410 for myself over the years and this could be both. (It is also "either" as these are still functional firearms even if you have just one type of ammo on hand.) On the other hand, it might be nice to have something in .22 WMR. I hadn't given this caliber much thought in the past but if I was going to buy a .410 for novelty anyway, why not have the extra novelty of a .22 magnum attached to it? This could be the double odd duck in my collection.

As for hunting, I'm especially curious to hear from those with experience. How do you contrast .22 LR and .22 WMR on various types of prey and how does that contrast change when you have the .410 option easily at hand?

View the original article here

Why hasn't the 460 Rowland caught on better?

IMO, the best option were the excellent Dan Wesson revolvers chambered for it that were discontinued. Since CZ bought Dan Wesson they've made the unfortunate decision to stop revolver production altogether, and most recently, the fire at the DW plant has put an end to 1911 production as well, for the time being.

With the DW revolvers you could shoot any of the .45 auto pistol rounds. When it comes to the great hypothetical question of which handgun should I carry in Griz territory, the correct response is always, none. But, if you're gonna carry a handgun in Griz country for self protection, the DW in .460 Rowland made a lot of sense to me personally, and then you had all of the other practical shooting ability with the other cartridges which of course included the .45 ACP.

View the original article here

Dipping makes better bullets that a bottom pour pot but why?

Boolit Master Join DateMar 2011Posts943

In my experience...

Big bullets, 500g and above, to be "competition quality" with extremely small weight variations need to be ladle poured. Smaller bullets, plinking bullets, handgun bullets....no advantage to ladle pouring.

Dozens upon dozens of folks have proved this "theory" time and time again by ladling a large number of +500g bullets and bottom pouring the same, then weighing and sorting all. The ladle pour bullets ALWAYS have less weight varience. I've not seen, read or experienced with my own testing anything to challenge this result.

I cast sinkers both ways. The bottom pour sinkers seem to drowned the worm a little faster then the ladle poured. Either way, the fish dont seem to care.

If you're happy when you shoot 'em, clap your hands;
If you're happy when you shoot 'em, clap your hands;
If your happy when you shoot 'em,
Top or bottom poured will do 'em,
If you're happy when you shoot 'em, clap your hands.

Last edited by PbHurler; 04-04-2013 at 07:29 AM.

lead alloy is the same
the temperature is the same
the mold is the same and at the same operating temperature
the only thing that is different is the hole in the ladle and the bottom pour pot

Lyman dipper hole size is .185 dia.
Magma hole size is .086 dia. from their web site instructions on cleaning
Lyman mag 20 mine is .115 dia. but i have drilled this one oversize

my speculation at this time is that the bottom pour pot manufacturers do not want a large hole because it may splash with the faster moving more volume flowing alloy from a larger size hole so they use a smaller hole.

and i think that the hole size is why the ladle with the larger hole size work better because they fill the mold faster with more pressure on the metal which would force the alloy against the sides of the mold, it would also mean that less air would be introduced into the mold when the alloy is being poured because of the larger faster fill

i plan to enlarge the hole on my mag 20 to the .185 dia size but i will have to make up a new valve rod as mine will not go any lower unless i move the op handle slot upwards

any comments are welcome and please add the hole sizes of your equipment

Please proof your claim with actual evidense please!

Actual shot strings with actual pics and actual measurements that state that boolit form and veight is the same.

Until then your ramblings are pure manure for the field (at least to me!).

So are you up to the task?
Will you back your claim with actual facts?
Best if you let another shooter do the proofing.
He wont know wich boolits he shoots in what cases he will reload.

Where there is a will, there is a won't

In my experience...

Big bullets, 500g and above, to be "competition quality" with extremely small weight variations need to be ladle poured. Smaller bullets, plinking bullets, handgun bullets....no advantage to ladle pouring.

Dozens upon dozens of folks have proved this "theory" time and time again by ladling a large number of +500g bullets and bottom pouring the same, then weighing and sorting all. The ladle pour bullets ALWAYS have less weight varience. I've not seen, read or experienced with my own testing anything to challenge this result.

May be so that the boolits has a smaller ES weight wise but i bet you $ for cents that they'll shoot the same if they measure the same.

Until the claim is proofed by the thread starter i'll declare a high BS rate on this

Where there is a will, there is a won't

Bottom pour: Lymans #3 manual states "when contaminents like dirt, ash, dross build up between wall of pot and melt, they will find their way to the bottom of pot and then out the spout into mould. This dirt will cause voids in bullets". I believe these contaminants can be caused by DIRTY LEAD and by too much stirring and fluxing. One old time caster here says he does not flux at all when casting...I may try not fluxing next time i use the bottom pour. I will drain and wash out pot before doing so.

Linotype lead: I would like to know the process of filling those old linotype machines...do they flux and stir lead before filling letter moulds free of voids? CLEAN Linotype lead may work better in bottom pour if left unfluxed and stirred.

Ladle: So far i like the ladle method best, but i will also get voids if any dross gets into ladle and mould. I make sure to dip my ladle deep and away from dross.

Montana bullet works cast custom bullets for customers using ladle method only. As written by April 2013 issue of Handloader magazine. Also Mike Venturino likes using Linotype lead when casting for his military surplus rifles.

From Wikipedia:

Linotype Casting section

The casting material is an alloy of lead (85%), antimony (11%), and tin (4%),[9] and produces a one-piece casting slug capable of 300,000 impressions before the casting begins to develop deformities and imperfections, and the type must be cast again.

The continuous heating of the molten alloy causes the tin and antimony in the mixture to rise to the top and oxidize along with other impurities into a substance called "dross" which has to be skimmed off. Excessive dross formation leads to the alloy softening as the proportion of lead increases. The mixture must then be assayed and tin and antimony added back (in the form of a specially proportioned alloy) to restore the original strength and properties of the alloy. In the later years of Linotype casting, it also became more and more evident that employee exposure to the elements of the alloy caused health risks. Lead easily evaporates form the molten mixture and enters the respiratory tract, and both lead and antimony have a tendency to be absorbed through the skin. Many operators and proof readers handled the slugs bare-handed.

Lloyd you know and I know that "Casting good bullets is all about technique". Some people will never be convinced of this.

I started with a bottom pour. I cast my first 100K before I ever tried a ladle. I did not start ladle pouring until I got into BPCR. I read and was told that ladle was the best way for BPCR so I have really worked at producing better bullets with ladle pouring but the best I can do is equal.

It is easier to have poor technique with a bottom pour but good technique produce equal bullets out of either method.

And yes I do check my BPCR bullets on a scale that goes to 0.01 of a grain.

Last edited by M-Tecs; 04-04-2013 at 08:58 PM.

Boolit Master Join DateFeb 2008LocationChugiak Alaska on the outskirts of AnchoragePosts386

I have tried several times to use a ladle as many folks say it is so much better. So far my failure rate using a ladle is upwards of 95%. It's probably me doing something wrong but if I had to use a ladle I would probably give up casting as that rate of failure really ticks me off. I get between 90 and 95% success rate using bottom pour depending on the mold. You would have a hard time convincing me 95% failure is better than 90+% success rate. And that doesn't count the production rate.

From Wikipedia:

Linotype Casting section

The casting material is an alloy of lead (85%), antimony (11%), and tin (4%),[9] and produces a one-piece casting slug capable of 300,000 impressions before the casting begins to develop deformities and imperfections, and the type must be cast again.

The continuous heating of the molten alloy causes the tin and antimony in the mixture to rise to the top and oxidize along with other impurities into a substance called "dross" which has to be skimmed off. Excessive dross formation leads to the alloy softening as the proportion of lead increases. The mixture must then be assayed and tin and antimony added back (in the form of a specially proportioned alloy) to restore the original strength and properties of the alloy. In the later years of Linotype casting, it also became more and more evident that employee exposure to the elements of the alloy caused health risks. Lead easily evaporates form the molten mixture and enters the respiratory tract, and both lead and antimony have a tendency to be absorbed through the skin. Many operators and proof readers handled the slugs bare-handed.

This quote from Wikipedia is garbage. The statement that lead easily evaporates is an old wives tale and not based upon science. The temperature at which evaporation starts is just over 3000*F. Check engineering and chemistry references, not Wikipedia for facts.

This quote from Wikipedia is garbage. The statement that lead easily evaporates is an old wives tale and not based upon science. The temperature at which evaporation starts is just over 3000*F. Check engineering and chemistry references, not Wikipedia for facts.So dross is not made up of tin? Wiki never stated that it evaporates. They said the dross is skimmed off top. What is dross (scientificaly)?

Last edited by detox; Yesterday at 04:37 AM.

I found the true meaning of dross:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dross

If you do not flux enough the ladle will carry more tin as it will separate as you cast.

If you do not flux enough the ladle will carry more tin as it will separate as you cast.I notice the shiney tin forms on outside of ladle. I use a small pea size piece of beeswax or parafin to put dross/tin back into the melt when using ladle.

"Lead easily evaporates form the molten mixture and enters the respiratory tract."
"Wiki never stated that it evaporates."

This sounds contrary to me.

Lafaun

Don't blame me, I voted for the American, again!

"Lead easily evaporates form the molten mixture and enters the respiratory tract."
"Wiki never stated that it evaporates."

This sounds contrary to me.

Lafaun

Exactly.

Many of the facts presented by Wikipedia are as accurate and factual as those found in the National Enquirer.

One advantage to bottom pour is you need to flux alot less and fluxing if overdone can add contaminants to your lead. Could be why some have problems with bottom pour casting, they just have a habbit of fluxing alot more then whats nessisary. Also id bet a dime to a dollar that most of the cheerleaders for ladle casting that claim they make better bullets and have even tested it are guys that have ladle casted for years because they were told it makes better bullets. Then they take a bottom pour pot and cast a couple days with it and compare bullets. Not a real fair comparison. Many dont understand that you have to adjust feed pressure and temperature when going from a light bullet to a 500 grain bullet. Temperature is probably even more critical with a bottom pour. Then factor in your casting those bullets about twice as fast and youll see where your technique is so critical. With a ladle its tough to speed up and with a bottom pour its touch to slow down and be consistant. I think it comes down more to what way you like to do it. Ive done it both ways and youll never convince me that theres spit differnce between bullet quality if you do it both ways RIGHT. Just another wifes tail like bullets need to bump up, or bullets sized nose first outshoot bullets sized base first, that one guy wrote about years ago and now everyone takes it as bible.

You may not post new threadsYou may not post repliesYou may not post attachmentsYou may not edit your postsForum Rules

Abbreviations used in Reloading
Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt"

View the original article here

Is bigger Bigger better?

Boolit Mold Join DateJan 2013Posts13

I have a savage 110 in 308 win my wife wants to take hunting this year I have two molds that I was thinking about using a lee 150 flat nose of the lee 180 grn round nose. The shots we will take are around 200 yards. The question is which would do better? The 150 going 2000fps of the 180 going 1700? I need to keep recoil Down for her (5'2 115lbs) would the metplate really be that much better or would the extra weight be better should I use a shallow cup hollow point in the 180? The alloy is 75% coww and 25% pure water dropped. Thanks a ton

either will work well, use the one she can shoot better.

In my experience, when shooting cast going to a heavier boolit will usually give a bit better accuracy and of course hit harder. Going to a slower powder can help to mitigate felt recoil as well as it gives more of a push than a smack.

I use a 200 gr in my 308 it has a shallow cup. I shot a black bear with it last spring. It's running around 1600 fps and the recoil is mild.

Dont pee down my back and tell me its raining.

Boolit Mold Join DateJan 2013Posts13

We went to the range and I loaded up 50 180 grn and 20 each of the 150 fn and 155 pointed all moving around 1900-2000fps a 5 shot group of the 180s at 50 yards was around an inch with vertical stringing. Though the wind was blowing around 30-40 mph and I was shooting fast so I'm not worried. However shooting a milk jug with the 150 flat nose was pretty awesome Ashley (my wife) wanted to shoot them all for the explosive effect. Now will ww alloy like this expand at that velocity or will a shallow cup be needed?

Good morning
All things equal I always go to the flat nose design. My favorite is the RCBS 180 grain FNGC. Has the extra weight for great penetration and that flat nose makes a solid "Thwack" every time. I also cast for hunting with 50-50 so have always had good expansion.
For practice I use straight WW. For hunting I use the 50-50 ( WW- range scrap) mix as out of my caliber .30's it shoots the same.
I would consider using your 180 RN but I would either file the nose flat or drill it. Have shot too many critters with RN designs that did not do a good job unless the shoulder was contacted.. then it does not matter. Shoulders will expand most any boolit design unless cast too hard which will shatter.
Mike in Peru

Last edited by missionary5155; Yesterday at 08:29 AM.

"Come unto Me, all you who labor and are heavy burdened, and I will give you rest." Matthew 11:28
Impacted while hot small lava bomb Projectile found out in the desert.

The important thing is HOW WELL DID Ashley do with these loads?? How far will you be shooting at deer with them? They may do fine for under 100 yards,but miss a Moose at 200! I've used straight COWW alloy at 2000 fps in the 7-08 to take deer. I find a FN to work much better than a RN on deer. BOTH will kill them, but the FN SEEMS to shock them more. The RN seems to drill thru and doesn't shock them. I've used bulllets as light as 135 to 175 grains in the 7mm's . In the 30 calibers, I've used from 125 to 200+ grain bullets. Nearly all were gas checked and some did require a 2nd shot. I have often used a FN top punch to reform the nose of RN bullets for better(TO ME) field results. drilling a HP or grinding a FN on the nose MAY be a better solution. It IS possible to BEND a long bullet by compressing the nose,destroying accuracy potential.

Boolit Mold Join DateJan 2013Posts13

with the 180 grn i shot a group of 5 at 138 yards that you could cover with a silver dollar, though i think i might spend some money and get the RCBS 180 flat nose, for both effects, as a hunter we need to show the animals we hunt with some respect,

i feel sorry for everyone else my wife wont leave the range unless ALL the ammo is shot up, weather it is 8mm or 50 BMG

Boolit Master Join DateDec 2009LocationQuilcene, WashingtonPosts860

From my observations in my terminal ballistics tests with the 30 caliber, not only is the 150 adequate, you could also reduce the muzzle velocity a bit (to 1800) to make her felt recoil more comfortable if you keep shots under 200 (preferably under 150). If your goal is to make her successful and a permanent shooting enthusiast partner, it might be worth considering.

You haven't said what you're hunting or where. There's limitations and it sounds like you're pushing them. 200 yds., 150 gr., 1900 fps? What are you shooting? Standing broadside only?

Boolit Master Join DateDec 2009LocationQuilcene, WashingtonPosts860

One of the things that colors my opinions is that I have been hunting deer exclusively with muzzleloaders and patched round ball for decades. With that in mind, I have come to have the opinion that high velocity is overrated if you are using a soft lead expanding projectile. If your 30 cal projectile expands to 45 cal (my 45 PRB), your minimum terminal velocity is only about 1100 fps to do a fine job (avoiding Texas heart shots, of course, with apologies to my Texan friends).

So when my wife says I am heartless, does that mean I dont poop?
Cause I can prove that wrong.

I came into this world kicking, screaming, and covered in someone elses blood. I plan to go out the same way.

Boolit Mold Join DateJan 2013Posts13

we will be hunting on my private property where we can get a 500 yard shot if we choose, i choose the 200 yard distance so that we would have enough umph to do what we need, as for the how the deer will be standing that i do not know, all of our deer (kentucky) are around 150 on the big side

thanks again for the help

Either should work. My plan would be to put a sims recoil pad on it for her, even if its just a slip on. They are worth it imo. It made a major difference for my wife shooting full power .270 loads. Her tendency to flinch on recoil was drasticly reduced. The spot where the buttplate rests can be a bit more sensitive for ladies.

You may not post new threadsYou may not post repliesYou may not post attachmentsYou may not edit your postsForum Rules

Abbreviations used in Reloading
Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt"

View the original article here