Re: Starting Loads for Lee 230 gr. Cast Bullets?
Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 10:59 am
You can tumble them in powder coating powder too. I have done a lot using that method. Total cost was under $50 including the oven. Without an over it is less than $20.
*******WARNING*******
There are several separate compilations of 842 powder, SMP and WC being the most common from what I have seen. And each version is vastly different as far as what is safe. I have and decided to use SMP842 for this testing. I have a lot of experience with this powder and feel comfortable.
DO NOT USE THIS LOAD DATA FOR ANY OTHER VERSION OF 842!
And if you do decide to use this load data with SMP842 use proper hand loading techniques and start low.
I tumbled them using the "piglet method" except I used Klean Strip brand lacquer thinner rather than acetone. The results are amazing because the powder coating is ONLY sticking to the bullets and not the plastic bucket when using lacquer thinner. You can also pour off the essentially clean lacquer thinner after the bullets have been coated. It also uses about 1/3 less powder to do the same coating, no doubt because I am not coating the bucket, too. I am using powder from Powder By The Pound to coat. The powder I use is the polyester TGIC 400 degree powder. Harbor Freight powder tends to be very finicky and it does not work as well as the PBTP powder. HF powder will work but it isn't as easy as PBTP powder.
I did NOT use any type of lube. I did NOT use gas checks.
I was sent some 22 caliber cast bullets to try. They are ~45 and ~48 grains. I coated the heavier ones with a base color, red, and the lighter ones with a metallic paint, copper. I was going to push these HARD to see where the standard color fails and where the metallic fails.
They were coated at the same time and baked at the same time. I then sized them all to the same size, .224". They do NOT have gas checks and have a shank to accept gas checks.
I loaded them in surplus LC brass that are virgin, as in never been shot before. I am using SMP 842 with each bullet's powder charged being weighed individually. I loaded two each with the same amount of powder using each bullet. I have a total of 20 shots to be fired with each bullet weight and each charge weight having two rounds identical.
I shot them out of a Savage with a factory 9 twist barrel that is 22" long.
I chronographed each shot and between each two shots I inspected the bore for anything odd.
I was expecting the velocities to start around 2,900 fps and get to about 3,300 fps. If these things are going to fail this is going to do it. Afterwards I am going to load more and shoot them into water jugs to see how they perform.
Pictures
I feel these are too heavily coated and the next batch I will use about 1/2 the amount of powder.
So I was able to chronograph and actually push these powder coated bullets to the limit. After that I shot one into water to see how they perform. I used a Savage bolt action with a 22" barrel that has a 9 twist.
The velocities are averages of two shots. There are two separate compilations of 842 powder, SMP and WC. And each version is vastly different. I do not want to publish data for SMP842 and have someone mistaken the data for WC842. Each list is the same load data with the only variation is the bullet itself.
Heavy using SMP842 and base color
3,132 fps (I think something was funky with this result, I stepped away from the chronograph and continued)
2,818 fps (cleaned fine with no lead)
3,192 fps (cleaned fine with no lead)
3,331 fps (cleaned fine with no lead)
3,486 fps (hard to patch and lead came out on the patch)
Lightweight using SMP842 and metallic powder
3,051 fps (cleaned fine with no lead)
2,983 fps (cleaned fine with no lead)
3,293 fps (started getting resistance with the patch but no lead on the patch)
3,247 fps (hard to patch and lead came out on the patch)
3,489 fps (hard to patch and lead came out on the patch)
What is really surprising is even after the bore had lead the second patch came out nearly clean. The third patch could have been used again it was so clean. At no time did I see any powder coating powder or plastic on the patches. When the patch met resistance and lead came out the second patch went down the bore smoothly with less resistance.
I would feel safe pushing the red to 3,200 fps. Even though it was clean at 3,300 fps I like to give myself a bit of latitude in case something does go wrong. I don't think the copper worked as well as the red.
I also shot one of the red bullets into the water jugs. The bullet weighed 48.7 before and 21.9 afterwards so it lost 1/2 its weight in the water. It passed through 2 jugs and sprinkled the third with pieces.
If anyone is interested I can also detail my method of tumble coating and baking bullets.
Ask if you have any questions.
*******WARNING*******
There are several separate compilations of 842 powder, SMP and WC being the most common from what I have seen. And each version is vastly different as far as what is safe. I have and decided to use SMP842 for this testing. I have a lot of experience with this powder and feel comfortable.
DO NOT USE THIS LOAD DATA FOR ANY OTHER VERSION OF 842!
And if you do decide to use this load data with SMP842 use proper hand loading techniques and start low.
I tumbled them using the "piglet method" except I used Klean Strip brand lacquer thinner rather than acetone. The results are amazing because the powder coating is ONLY sticking to the bullets and not the plastic bucket when using lacquer thinner. You can also pour off the essentially clean lacquer thinner after the bullets have been coated. It also uses about 1/3 less powder to do the same coating, no doubt because I am not coating the bucket, too. I am using powder from Powder By The Pound to coat. The powder I use is the polyester TGIC 400 degree powder. Harbor Freight powder tends to be very finicky and it does not work as well as the PBTP powder. HF powder will work but it isn't as easy as PBTP powder.
I did NOT use any type of lube. I did NOT use gas checks.
I was sent some 22 caliber cast bullets to try. They are ~45 and ~48 grains. I coated the heavier ones with a base color, red, and the lighter ones with a metallic paint, copper. I was going to push these HARD to see where the standard color fails and where the metallic fails.
They were coated at the same time and baked at the same time. I then sized them all to the same size, .224". They do NOT have gas checks and have a shank to accept gas checks.
I loaded them in surplus LC brass that are virgin, as in never been shot before. I am using SMP 842 with each bullet's powder charged being weighed individually. I loaded two each with the same amount of powder using each bullet. I have a total of 20 shots to be fired with each bullet weight and each charge weight having two rounds identical.
I shot them out of a Savage with a factory 9 twist barrel that is 22" long.
I chronographed each shot and between each two shots I inspected the bore for anything odd.
I was expecting the velocities to start around 2,900 fps and get to about 3,300 fps. If these things are going to fail this is going to do it. Afterwards I am going to load more and shoot them into water jugs to see how they perform.
Pictures
I feel these are too heavily coated and the next batch I will use about 1/2 the amount of powder.
So I was able to chronograph and actually push these powder coated bullets to the limit. After that I shot one into water to see how they perform. I used a Savage bolt action with a 22" barrel that has a 9 twist.
The velocities are averages of two shots. There are two separate compilations of 842 powder, SMP and WC. And each version is vastly different. I do not want to publish data for SMP842 and have someone mistaken the data for WC842. Each list is the same load data with the only variation is the bullet itself.
Heavy using SMP842 and base color
3,132 fps (I think something was funky with this result, I stepped away from the chronograph and continued)
2,818 fps (cleaned fine with no lead)
3,192 fps (cleaned fine with no lead)
3,331 fps (cleaned fine with no lead)
3,486 fps (hard to patch and lead came out on the patch)
Lightweight using SMP842 and metallic powder
3,051 fps (cleaned fine with no lead)
2,983 fps (cleaned fine with no lead)
3,293 fps (started getting resistance with the patch but no lead on the patch)
3,247 fps (hard to patch and lead came out on the patch)
3,489 fps (hard to patch and lead came out on the patch)
What is really surprising is even after the bore had lead the second patch came out nearly clean. The third patch could have been used again it was so clean. At no time did I see any powder coating powder or plastic on the patches. When the patch met resistance and lead came out the second patch went down the bore smoothly with less resistance.
I would feel safe pushing the red to 3,200 fps. Even though it was clean at 3,300 fps I like to give myself a bit of latitude in case something does go wrong. I don't think the copper worked as well as the red.
I also shot one of the red bullets into the water jugs. The bullet weighed 48.7 before and 21.9 afterwards so it lost 1/2 its weight in the water. It passed through 2 jugs and sprinkled the third with pieces.
If anyone is interested I can also detail my method of tumble coating and baking bullets.
Ask if you have any questions.