Hi All,

Just wondering if I'm on the right track.

I've been using an RCBS bottom pour pot for a while now and was wondering if there might be alternate/better ways to use it.

At the moment I've been using RCBS and LBT molds, and mostly recovered lead from the range.
The lead is cleaned and fluxed often before being put into ingots.
Projectiles using this lead and air cooled runs to 14BRN, the same lead when water cooled is 22BRN.
I've tried several different combinations of pouring the lead.
Mold held against the spout.
Short drop to mold.
Longer drop to mold.
Slower pour.
Fast pour.
Added more tin to the mix.
Temperature, I vary up and down to no avail, use a thermometer.
Tried using "Mold Prep", which seemed to leave a coating on the inside of the mold, I've removed this and still had the same results.

Depending on the calibre I'm pouring, I vary the above until I get a reasonable projectile, but I rarely get what I would consider a great projectile.

The sorts of defects are,
Not filled out fully.
Wrinkles.
Inclusions.
Mottled exterior, sometimes one side only.
Frosted, sometimes one side only.

A friend has suggested several things might be the cause.
The metal I'm using may have some contamination. So I have purchased some commercial lead, the same as used by a local projectile manufacturer. It tests at 23BRN and gives reasonable results in the bottom pour, but not always great.
Changed flux, I used to use a commercial version from Buffalo Arms, this leaves a lot of black crap on everything, have now converted to bees wax.
I've emptied my pot and have tried cleaning it using a wire brush, but it has persistent reappearance of a white powdery scum and brown coating.

Recently I purchased a Lyman electric pot to see if there was any difference when ladle pouring.

I've been able to get lots (Few rejects)of beautiful projectiles from all molds with this pot and the commercial lead using a dipper.

It's a much more messy and slower method but it works, which proves the molds and lead are ok

I will now try again using the cleaned bottom pour and commercial lead and try to get that working.

Any suggestions?

Thanks

nearly all of the competitors use the dipper method. It gives a more consistent cast. The pressure varies in a bottom pour pot as the amount of alloy decreases.

If you are using fluxed range lead the alloy should be fine. Pouring lead from the bottom should work great if your temperature & timing is correct.

Ladle pouring works great also. I find the bullet weight varies less most the time.

I have done it both ways. I think I get fewer rejects with the dipper but it is slower and messier. With the bottom pouring I use a short drop (use the rest that came with the pot), not too fast or slow (subjective) and move from cavity to cavity without stopping flow. I use 2 molds, letting one cool a bit while I fill the other, alternating back and forth. Once I get things running smoothly I usually can produce a lot of good bullets. I try to not let the pot get below about 1/2-1/3 full and I use a big Lyman pot(20# I believe).
I think you just have to work out your own technique and use good molds.
C.G.B.

A few specific answers, if I may:

Wrinkles are caused by too cold a mould.

Inclusions are caused by impurities in the melt.

Bullets not filled out properly typically is one of two things: a mould that doesn't like to cast without a coating of some kind, or alloy with less than the necessary amount of tin. This would be very possible using range lead, as there is no way to determine what all is in the mix.

I would suggest these things using the bottom pour pot:

Make sure the mould is hot. A very hot mould will fill well with the right alloy, but may produce a frosty looking bullet. That is cosmetic only and will not affect bullet performance.

Smoke the mould cavities. The greasy smoke from beeswax works fine, but I typically use a propane wand like is sold for starting charcoal.

Limit the amount of "fall" from the pot to about 1/2" if you can. This will limit the amount of cooling the alloy gets.

Flux well, and flux any time you add metal to the melt.

Practice, practice, practice.

Finally, have fun. There is no greater pleasure than shooting a one hole group with bullets you poured yourself!

quote:

Smoke the mould cavities. The greasy smoke from beeswax works fine, but I typically use a propane wand like is sold for starting charcoal.

Speak to this if you would. I have more moulds than I care to count & have never smoked one. I do hear this said though in many different places. Could you tell us more?

LAH, I have been casting since 1980, so I have absolutely no idea where I got that tip from. It may have been out of the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook, maybe from the NRA Book of Bullet Casting, or some article in Handloader or Rifle magazine. I simply don't remember.

All I can tell you is that it works. For some reason, the carbon seems to help the bullet metal flow into the cavities and fill the cavities without wrinkling.

The only moulds I have that typically don't "require" smoking are the original Hensley and Gibbs moulds. The new MP mould I received a couple of weeks ago was throwing wrinkled bullets with an alloy of 20:1; I smoked the cavities and the projectiles' quality improved significantly.

I hope this helps. Try smoking a mould. You can always scrub it off with soap and water if you don't like the results. Just be sure to take proper care of the blocks once they have been exposed to water. They will rust almost before your eyes!

Thanks Doubless. I've never tried it that I remember. I have a mould with which I cast a 230 grain 41 bullet which won't cast the sharp edge on the driving bands without when using low tin alloy. Maybe smoking will help.

Here's the bullet. Note the front driving band doesn't have that sharp edge.

Good looking bullet. I am a 41 freak. Whose mould is that?

Try the smoke; I bet it cures that rounded front edge...

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:
Good looking bullet. I am a 41 freak. Whose mould is that?

Try the smoke; I bet it cures that rounded front edge...

Walt Melander cut the mould.

And he is gone... a pity. I know what Walt was capable of doing. A gorgeous bullet.

Thanks. He cut several moulds for me while I was at Dry Creek. He did excellent work.

Smoking a mold is ok, just don't try dipping one--that little pinch between cheek and gum is hard to take.

I started out using a ladle. About 20 or so years later, I went to bottom pour. Never go back to the ladle. I even use a cheap Lee furnace and have been pleased with it. I hold the mold against the spout. On .22 cal this doesn't work so well as the sprue is so small I have to pick it off. Pressure decreases as the pot gets lower? Heavy as alloy is, who could tell?

quote:

Pressure decreases as the pot gets lower? Heavy as alloy is, who could tell?

Do you ever bother to weigh a cast bullet? If you do, assuming you have a decent scale, it will tell you in a hurry...

Doubless--How much weight differentiation are you suggesting?

In a rifle bullet, half a grain is all it takes to ruin a good group... most of the cast bullet shooters I know cull bullets to within .2 grain, as do I, unless I am casting for a muzzleloader. They are somewhat more forgiving.

Try it and find out...

So are you saying as a pot goes down you'll get .2 grain deviation or there will be .2 grain difference in bottom pour and ladle? BTW .2 grain on a 158 grain bullet is about .001% and you can tell that difference?
Thats some precision shooting if you can.

No; what I am saying is that as a pot goes down, weight variation will continue to widen from what a full pot allowed. That is why most serious casters use a ladle: there is the same amount of metal in each pour, and each bullet will be very close to the exact same weight if ladle poured.

I have seen bottom poured bullets vary as much as three to five grains over the course of a full pot. That is an accuracy killer in a rifle! If you want a really good group, weigh each bullet and segregate into lots that don't vary over .2 grain, then load and shoot each group separately.

I have limited casting experience and am very much in the learning stages myself. That said, as I sought advice on how to get started, both Ross Seyfried and Veral Smith advised me to use an open pot and a ladle for pouring. Both remarked that they could not get consistently-positive results from a bottom pour pot.

To me this rings of liquids can be compressed. Always thought they can't be is what makes my brakes work. BTW Woodhits, did Veral Smith give you any pointers on figuring your taxes?

I'm all for ladle pouring, not poured from the ladle into the mold, but with the spout down in the sprue hole, what some call pressure pouring. No oxides on the bullets and with the mold at the proper temp, exceptional consistency of weight. Let me weigh 10 bullets that only have the gascheck on them, no lube.

165.3
165.7
166.1
166.2
166.2
166.3
166.4
166.4
166.5
166.9

I'd let those who like to deal in statistics mess with those numbers, but such consistency yields moa groups at 2000fps out of a tight bored K31. Some of the difference seen above might be in the gaschecks.

Carpetman, your turn...

My turn? I had my turn, I said it rings of liquids be compressable which is contrary to hydraulics. I also say that even if there is a couple grains difference in weight that it is really such a small percentage of the weight of the bullet that it would be impossible to really know it caused a difference. In other words if all bullets weighed exactly the same, only one person around that will shoot one hole group everytime all day long. So if you are not shooting one hole groups and bullets all exact same weight---then something else is the cause. How would you know that something else wasn't the real cause and not the .001% of bullet weight variation? That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

quote:

My turn? I had my turn, I said it rings of liquids be compressable which is contrary to hydraulics. I also say that even if there is a couple grains difference in weight that it is really such a small percentage of the weight of the bullet that it would be impossible to really know it caused a difference. In other words if all bullets weighed exactly the same, only one person around that will shoot one hole group everytime all day long. So if you are not shooting one hole groups and bullets all exact same weight---then something else is the cause. How would you know that something else wasn't the real cause and not the .001% of bullet weight variation? That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

No, it rings of differences in pressure affecting just exactly how well the alloy fills the mould cavities, and even small variations will cause differences in weight, specifically because of the specific gravity of the alloy...

And I would call it eliminating variables. IF you know that all the bullets weigh the same, then in theory, if everything else is the same, the group should be one hole, as you alluded to. Do you not like shooting one hole groups?

If you eliminate the bullet, the next variable is either the powder, the case, or the primer, assuming your bench technique is solid.

Finally, you sound like one of those that says "Don't try to confuse me with facts; my mind is made up."


Carry on then. Just don't throw rocks at those of us that seek better than the status quo...

Doubless I certainly agree that a bullet that didn't fill out the mold will weigh less. This is a visual defect that doesn't require a scale to detect. You answered this already--mold not hot enough. Another flaw in the pressure decrease logic is that my furnace even 3/4 empty will have more alloy in it than my small ladle when it is full.

quote:

Another flaw in the pressure decrease logic is that my furnace even 3/4 empty will have more alloy in it than my small ladle when it is full.

I think you are missing the point: each time you pour, your pot level will continue to decrease, and that means there will be less pressure on the pour each time. With a ladle, assuming you dip the ladle full prior to each pour, there will be pretty much the exact same amount of metal in the ladle, which ensures the same pressure each pour. You can't do that with a level that is changing...

And finally, if you can see a .2 or .3 grain imperfection in a bullet you have far better eyes than I do! Frankly, I don't think you can do it, especially with the bigger bullets.

But I could be wrong...

By the same token that I can't see a .2 or .3 grain imperfection I frankly don't think you can notice that difference shooting them either. Since we are in the not believing one another--I have doubts about all your one hole groups. Really have you ever shot one?
You mentioned inclusions from impurities in the alloy. These impurities float to the top especially when you stir and flux and certainly don't come out the bottom of a bottom pour furnace. You might get them from a ladle.
The more pressure the better chance of fill out. On a ten pound furnace at half capacity you have 5 pounds of alloy. A 5 pound ladle would be a bear to cast with. BTW this would all be applicable if you could compress liquids.
Maybe you can, you seem amazing.

quote:

Since we are in the not believing one another--I have doubts about all your one hole groups. Really have you ever shot one?

And now you resort to insult, because I answer your questions... Thanks a lot. Your true character shows again...

You ever cast with a ladle? There is a "bar" on the bottom of the ladle that you use to scrape the top of the melt. In exposing shiny metal, you eliminate the inclusions you talk about. Oh, by the way: fluxing now and again helps too. But you probably don't do that either.

I am done. Some folks can't be reasoned with. You are one of them. I have seen you be a smart ass with your responses, be sarcastic, and a know it all as well. Now you are doing it here... Frankly, I don't have the time, and it isn't worth my effort. Welcome to my ignore list. You are in excellent company.

I guess he has trouble reading as another of his many flaws. I stated earlier I cast with a ladle for 20 years before going to a furnace. Bar on bottom of ladle? Never have seen that. Scrape away the top of the melt and particles can still get in a ladle---they wont be at the bottom of a bottom pour furnace. It's ok he doesn't believe I see .2 grain flaws (which I don't) but it's not ok me not to believe all his one hole groups---and he is not winning matches???

quote:

BTW Woodhits, did Veral Smith give you any pointers on figuring your taxes?

He did not and my accountant has no opinion on bottom pour vs. ladle casting.

Woodhits--Good come back. Glad you took my comment the way it was intended.

Hi All and thanks for the feedback.

After a couple of weeks of casting every day here's what I've found.

The ladle gives very consistent results irrespective of the lead used, almost no rejects with any of my molds once they reach the correct temperature, which is different for each of them.

Bottom pours furnaces do have a layer form on the bottom and this does get dragged out the spout.
I've confirmed this on 2 different bottom pour furnaces, it's like a dust and even after the furnace has been cleaned back to bright metal it still forms and adheres to the projectiles.
Even commercially purchased lead used by a local projectile manufacturer slowly collects this dust. I even tried lino type with the same result.
If I dipper from these pots while the dust is settled on the bottom and I'm in the middle of a run the projectiles are perfect and shiny, from the bottom pour they are mottled and often not filled out, same result with a Lee and a RCBS furnace.
it was interesting when a mate suggested running the lead out of the bottom pour into an ingot mold, you get the same dust discolouring the mold on the top of the pour, when dippering into the ingot mold the lead is clean and bright.

Anyway the bottom line is I'm getting great projectiles using a dipper and either lead.

quote:

Bottom pours furnaces do have a layer form on the bottom and this does get dragged out the spout.

Since this is happening you have made the correct choice using a ladle. Hope I never experience this.

Save that dust on the bottom of your bottom pour--it is either platnum or gold.

do what works for you, I have found ladle pouring is much slower than bottom pouring from a pot, and more tiring to boot.

dang! How did I ever overlook this tutorial by cp1?

All those guys in Schuetzen and CBA open shoulder to shoulder competition are ladling all these (at least the last 40) years and cp1 has the true answer.

My Jerry Barnett mold casts hundreds of good bullets on a good day for Schuetzen matches. 213gr and better than 95% in a .2gr spread.
I am so old fashioned. I drop them on a towel, refill the mold, pick up the bullet with 6" hemostats and examine the sprue. If it is nice and round, it goes into an 80 hole block base down. When I get a block full, I stop, reload the pot, and flux. Since I breech seat, I pan lube those bullets, and segregate them (in order cast) into plastic bullet boxes and shoot them in order.

Of course, you cannot cast like this unless you want sub-moa loads.

Rich

Buckbrush, I do ladle pistol bullets. I'm not good enough with a handgun to tell the difference. Bottom pour is much more convenient, but when guys on the benches on either side of you are shooting 5-shot groups under 1/2" at 100yds and 3/4" at 200 my best cast are barely good enough to keep up.

buckbrush,

try ladling and developing a 30-second between pours using just one cavity, and punch marking it somewhere on the ogive. Orient that bullet throughout the loading process, and see what that rifle is truly capable of. It might scare you how well it shoots.

Idaho Sharpshooter--Did you use those 213 grain Jerry Barnett mold bullets to take any of the many Boone&Crockett elk you have taken? Perhaps some pictures? Surely Boone&Crockett elk would be worthy of pictures. Would certainly show a benefit of ladle casting.