quote:

Originally posted by Rusty:
As a member of HEHPBAPW (Hunters for the Ethical Hunting of Plastic Buckets and PlyWood) I must protest the shooting of PBs and PWBs while caged in your metal buffalo. All ballistic testing should use only free ranging ballistic gelaton or Dangerous Water Jugs.

x10

Rusty, you killjoy! A man should be free to shoot any medium he so chooses in the pursuit of maximum penetration and higher post counts!

HOO HA! You comedians are in rare form today. Rusty has given Jim some real competition in the "wit parade."

Now sing along with me to the tune of Chuck Berry's "Blueberry Hill" ...

I found my thrill
On Blackberry Hill ...

Next duel coming by special request:

.395/340-grain GSC FN copper at +2800 fps
vs.
.458/450-grain North Fork FP copper at 2550 fps

Shootawry's 500-grain Nytol dose: 30,000 mg of diphenhydramine/Benadryl.

50 mg of Benadryl per Extra Strength Nytol: 600 tablets

25 mg of Benadryl per regular strength Nytol: 1200 capsules

Adverse reactions to Nytol may be more severe in young children like shootawry, and include:
dizziness
inability to concentrate
nausea
nervousness
muscular weakness
impaired coordination
palpitations
blurred vision
assitude, er, uh, lassitude
excitement
diplopia (double vision, interpretation for shootawry)
hallucinations
seizures
constipation of bowels and brain
and more ...

That could certainly explain the exploits of shootaway, including his scope mounting skills, rifle cleaning skills, shooting skills, and general insanity.

Other side effects are dry mouth and urinary retention.
He may be ashamed of the drool bucket at the range, as well as wetting his pants in public. Could be why he is OD-ing on Benadryl?

I enjoy the Water Boarding tests.

Let them continue

jwp475,
You are obviously the polar opposite of shootawee: No assitude problem at all.

I'm thinking the IWB should have a posterior appendage in the form of a steel gong - tuned to a particular harmonic which would resonate for an extended period after being struck by an overpenetrating projectile.

quote:

Originally posted by Macifej:
I'm thinking the IWB should have a posterior appendage in the form of a steel gong - tuned to a particular harmonic which would resonate for an extended period after being struck by an overpenetrating projectile.

Good idea. However the IWBB is getting Texas Heart Shot in these tests. The terminal end is the head, I can stick 4 inches of wood behind the last bucket and then hang a gong on the end.
This could be a steel plate considerably larger than the IWBB cross section and it could be shaped like the silhouette of a buffalo bull skull.

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
HOO HA! You comedians are in rare form today. Rusty has given Jim some real competition in the "wit parade."

Rusty is the "Fair Chase" king when it comes to jugs. His philosophy on jug taking is akin to that regarding the cape buffalo - only when the tips begin to droop and they are well past breeding age. Gotta admire the guy for his standards!

You, Da Man, Jim!

Now we're shooting women? And how did I get that idea?
Whitworth is into shooting mediums and every palm reader I've seen is female.
Rusty wants us to shoot "jugs" and who has those?
I rest my case...and brain after that thought.

quote:

Originally posted by prof242:
Now we're shooting women? And how did I get that idea?
Whitworth is into shooting mediums and every palm reader I've seen is female.
Rusty wants us to shoot "jugs" and who has those?
I rest my case...and brain after that thought.

LOL!! Commedians a plenty here! That's funny!

For the record (and in Rusty's defense) he never said he shot wild or domestic jugs. He's more of a "catch and release" guy....

quote:

He's more of a "catch and release" guy....

There is never a "Slippery when Wet" Instant Graemlin when you really, really need one!

Macifej,

quote:

Some questions answered would take the data out of the "measuring a warm marshmellow with a ruler" category.

1) Precise dimensional specifications for ALL cases, bullets, and primers.

2) Precise dimensions of the chamber indicating freebore, bore form, tolerances, etc.

3) Loaded net case volume.

4) Statistical variances in THE powder used.

5) The actual shape of each type of bullet tested to include:

Bearing area, diameter in relation to measured bore, hardness, ductility, yield vs ultimate Ts of the bullet material, frictional Ce of the material, and of course the all important precision of manufacture....are they round etc?

I did not control the test parameters. We supplied bullets for a comparative test of a variety of commercially available brands and the final results were made available to us. Additionally, we asked them to do a comparison of two variants of a bullet we were working with at the time.

In SA, as a manufacturer, we are not allowed to mention brand names in comparisons of product. Journalists may do so in articles they write but that is about it. So, the results I posted were of commercially available competitor's bullets (the descriptions should tell you what brands they were) and our FNs. All were fired from the same test barrel with the same make of primer, propellant, case and other controlled conditions.

"Precise dimensional specifications for ALL cases, bullets, and primers" If you had this information, how would it change the outcome of the test results?

RIP and Gerard,

I am surprised there was such a difference in the shattering of water buckets between the smaller meplat brass bullet and the larger meplat GS. Small diff in velocity not likely to be a threshold effect.

For the un-initiated in water boarding, the shattering of the buckets closely corresponds through pure dumb luck, to instant death on small to medium sized game animals up to weight of 6 x 6 american elk and 3 year old american bison. (Extensive experience here, ie hundreds of kills).

Your opinions would be appriciated.

Macifej,

"I have often wondered about a truck mounted Bushmaster III in 35 Oerlikon...or maybe some follow-on to the A-10 with the same gun....Lots-a-range.... Big Grin"

The 30 x 173 mm Bushmaster 2 is the largest caliber that can be stuffed inside a Bradley turret. Gunner is very close to breech but it is do-able. Upgrade not pursued due to adoption of M881 APFSDS 25mm. Proved to be surprisingly effective on secondary targets in last Gulf War. 30 x 173mm is a great round though. Twice HE shell weight as 25mm.

Andy

Andy - Yes, yes, yes, but I wanna see a flying cas platform with a 35mm Oerlikon Bushmaster III.

Maybe a big ass drone with one in each wing root. Bombs and rockets and all that stuff is cool but there is no substitute for a big flying gun. Both the Germans and Russians discovered this quite a while back.

Andy - on the .395" FN...the article RIP tested is old hat...there is a newer much improved design which will likely be more effective.

Thanks guys,

I enjoyed these tests a lot.

Would love to do the same with my 500 Jeff once its finished.

Had a good

Andy,
I was surprised by the 2800 fps versus 2700 fps difference in entry bucket shatter too.
Maybe it is a threshold for this make of bucket. They are a bit flimsy compared to 5-gallon "Homer Buckets." a real shocker!!!

"Irregardless"
that first bucket is the biggest resistor in the series circuit of the IWBB bullet shocker.

More shooting looking for 2800 fps shatter versus lower velocity splatter should confirm if so.

Jay,
Stop apologizing for the "low-tech" first-generation S&H FN.
They work. Proof again of your material choice for solids.
Confirms Rich's frozen wet sandbag results.

Jakkals,
We have waterboarded Andre's 550-grain Copper Cup Point. You might find that with a search ... and I might too for comparison. That was a 500 Jeffery bullet shot from my .510 JAB.

I plan on doing the .510/570-grain GSC copper FN, at 2400 to 2450 fps (and more, later, using the 500 Mbogo of course) to compare it to IWBB, for bison calibration purposes. That is the best game penetrator of my personal experience.

That one GSC FN from the .510 JAB did 8 feet of bison bull from rump to throat, twice, once while it was alive and on its feet, and once after death, lying on its side on the ground. Both exited, not recovered. That was an 1830-pound animal after it bled out.

You will be able to reproduce that load easily with a 500 Jeffery, especially since you might be in the same country as GSC more often than I am, so supply of the proper "turned copper parts" should not be so problematic. Enjoy Dubai. Go shoot the "Flying Rifle" and show us how it is done.

https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/...=447109997#447109997

That was with the 3-boards-per-rumen setup of the IWBB. Also had an entry port that was covered with two layers of truck tire innertube stretched across the entry hole, but I have since given up on fake animal hide as unnecessary.

This is what the 3-board setup did with a .510/550-grain copper cup point at 2306 fps MV:

quote:

Originally posted by Macifej:
...Some questions answered would take the data out of the "measuring a warm marshmellow with a ruler" category.

1) Precise dimensional specifications for ALL cases, bullets, and primers.

2) Precise dimensions of the chamber indicating freebore, bore form, tolerances, etc.

3) Loaded net case volume.

4) Statistical variances in THE powder used.

Bearing area, diameter in relation to measured bore, ...

Jay -- EXTERNAL ballastics, son... doesn't make a nit if it was launched from a smoothbore aircannon, EXTERNAL... measurements of cases... bullocks, you aren't doing internal ballastics tests...

it is
WATER
being
HIT
by a
BULLET

WTF primer makes zero difference, if it goes over the chrono inside an acceptable standard deviation

Jeffe,
Consider Jay properly chastised for nit picking.
Any opinions on whether the IWBB should have three slices of plywood or two for each rumen of the IWBB?

Jeffe...Internal Ballistics Bubba!!

You don't read too well but that's par for course round these parts....

Unless Gerard is holding out on us, those test results are pure speculation end of story. I don't care whose bullets were tested or how. There are no controls in the data - even a junior high statistics class could see that.

Let me help you out here Jeff....go back and read the part of the thread where Gerard attempts to justify the superiority of a particular material and shape with some half assed testing he hired out to who knows whom. I bet the boys at Barnes and Hornady were shaking there heads too when they read that.

The testing RIP did PROVES Gerards data is junk as I inferred and you missed.

More??

Enough of the Internal "Bubba Ballistics."

Back to the Terminal "Bubba Ballistics":

I think the two-board rumen gives better resolving power. If I ever get a failure to stop within 10 of the 2-board rumens, I shall add the third board.

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
Enough of the Internal "Bubba Ballistics."

Back to the Terminal "Bubba Ballistics":

I think the two-board rumen gives better resolving power. If I ever get a failure to stop within 10 of the 2-board rumens, I shall add the third board.

If you get a failure to stop, then you have way more pentration than you will ever need.

I think you should add 2 Cups of Orange Metamucil to each bucket of water.

Some rapid stirring will yield a medium with a consistancy not unlike some shooters internal cranial gelatin....

quote:

more pentration than you will ever need

Probably already past that point....but ya never know if you have to shoot through a tree to get to your dangerous water bucket...

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RIP:
Back to the Terminal "Bubba Ballistics":

If you get a failure to stop, then you have way more pentration than you will ever need.

You got that right!!!

So, for adequate resistance AND resolving power: thicknesses of layers will be about 8" of water and 1" of plywood and 1" of plastic and air per 10" rumen. 10 rumens.

I'll pack the Citrusel in the head end of the IWBB in that terminal 4" compartment in a 1-gallon freezer bag mixed with enough water to give a gooey consistency to simulate buffalo brains, just shy of a steel gong hanging on the end, shaped like a buffalo skull, Bison bison of course. In the Texas Heart Shot path, a bison is bigger than a cape buffalo.

I'll have to get pictures in the blackberry patch for sure with that setup.
Bubba out.

quote:

I'll pack the Citrusel in the head end of the IWBB in that terminal 4" compartment in a 1-gallon freezer bag mixed with enough water to give a gooey consistency to simulate buffalo brains,

RIP

If might get a tad expensive blowing up citrusel. A cheaper alternative that would work just as well would be to get a large bag of dry dog food, put some in a 1 gallon bag with a little flour and soak it overnight. The critters in the berry patch will appreciate it.

Jay,
As you say: "You don't read too well but that's par for course round these parts...." Your quotes below refer:

quote:

those test results are pure speculation end of story. I don't care whose bullets were tested or how. There are no controls in the data - even a junior high statistics class could see that.

quote:

go back and read the part of the thread where Gerard attempts to justify the superiority of a particular material and shape with some half assed testing he hired out to who knows whom.

I stated very clearly that the testing was not done at GSC's request. Which part of the following did you not understand?:

"I did not control the test parameters. We supplied bullets for a comparative test of a variety of commercially available brands and the final results were made available to us."
and
"So, the results I posted were of commercially available competitor's bullets (the descriptions should tell you what brands they were) and our FNs. All were fired from the same test barrel with the same make of primer, propellant, case and other controlled conditions."

So I did not hire out the testing to anyone, we were asked for bullets to add to the comparative test they wished to do. As you do not know who Somchem is, here is some more information about this "who knows whom" company who did the "half assed" testing and made the results available to us.

From this page: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/g6/
G6-52 ARTILLERY SYSTEM
Denel has completed development of a new artillery system, the G6-52, and the system is currently undergoing extensive trials. The system is offered with the Somchem Modular Charge System (MCS) which can fire the Naschem M2000 Assegai system which includes the V-LAP projectile. With the V-LAP projectile, the system has a range of 67km and a rate of fire of eight rounds/minute. Multiple rounds (up to six) can be fired to simultaneously hit the same target using the ADS (Thales) AS2000 artillery target engagement system. Automated ammunition handling, fuze handling and ammunition inventory reduce crew workload.

The G6-52 turret is mounted on a Land Systems OMC 6x6 wheeled vehicle which has an off-road speed of nearly 70km/h and a range of 700km.

From this page: http://www.worldsecurity-index.com/details.php?id=2
Explosives and Pyrotechnic Ammunition - the combined businesses of Somchem and Swartklip Products, specialising in solid fuel propulsion systems for artillery, tactical rockets and missiles, warhead subsystems, propellants for small calibre ammunition and power cartridges and also civilian and military applications of energetic material. It is also a supplier of pyrotechnic and high explosive products for military, law enforcement and commercial use.

There is more at: http://www.somchem.co.za/rockets.html

The question now is: Are bronze/brass FN solids better than copper FN solids? You make your copies from brass/bronze as did/do some other bullet makers. Only Northfork and GSC FNs were/are made from copper.

1. Research the reports of failures experienced with brass/bronze and copper solids. You will see the score is brass/bronze = numerous. Copper = nil.

2. You maintain that brass/bronze is not harder on barrels than copper when it suits you. You also say that copper drive band bullets are softer on barrels when it suits you. You should make up your mind which it is. We know through testing which is easier on barrels and it is not brass/bronze.

3. Brass/bronze is cheaper, easier to machine and easier on tooling than copper. The finished product should be lower in price.

It may be a feature to some that you can go from the request for a new bullet to product delivered in a week. The way to do this is to short circuit the testing part: Range testing as well as field testing on game, thus lowering input cost. It also means that you have equipment sitting idle. Machine time on a surplus machine should be less costly than that of a machine running a backlog of projects. It surely cuts down on the input cost of the delivered product, which should further reduce the price.

I note that many of your posts here mention how many hundreds or thousands of bullets you need to make in a production run and how many you have made and have left to sell. "Get them quick before they run out and place your order quick so that you are not left out." Typical pressure selling.

Given these facts, I fail to see why one would pay $275 for a hundred brass/bronze bullets that are untried in the field, when the same caliber bullet can be had for $100 less per hundred, made from copper and proven on the toughest game on earth for more than a decade. However, the choice remains that of the buyer and, if your methods work to gather in the money, more power to you. Is it the American way? I hope not.

There is a reason why we make solids from copper and not brass/bronze. It is called research.

Make no mistake, I am not complaining about competition in the marketplace. Competition keeps an established manufacturer honest. One should be clear about some things though. An untried product, made more cheaply and from cheaper material, should come to market at a better price, not the other way around.

Feel free to reply one sentence at a time per post, it keeps the post count up and maybe you can beat the Frenchman to the "top poster" this month.

I apologise to the Forum for the tone of my post. Civility is a two way street and having language like "half assed", "having no controls" and "attempts to justify" thrown at me is sure to raise the temperature.

Two brass TCCI solids on elephant. And one copper North Fork.



I vote for copper.

Andy

Jay,
As you say: "You don't read too well but that's par for course round these parts...." Your quotes below refer:
quote:
those test results are pure speculation end of story. I don't care whose bullets were tested or how. There are no controls in the data - even a junior high statistics class could see that.
quote:
go back and read the part of the thread where Gerard attempts to justify the superiority of a particular material and shape with some half assed testing he hired out to who knows whom.


I stated very clearly that the testing was not done at GSC's request. Which part of the following did you not understand?:

"I did not control the test parameters. We supplied bullets for a comparative test of a variety of commercially available brands and the final results were made available to us."
and
"So, the results I posted were of commercially available competitor's bullets (the descriptions should tell you what brands they were) and our FNs. All were fired from the same test barrel with the same make of primer, propellant, case and other controlled conditions."

So I did not hire out the testing to anyone, we were asked for bullets to add to the comparative test they wished to do. As you do not know who Somchem is, here is some more information about this "who knows whom" company who did the "half assed" testing and made the results available to us.

From this page: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/g6/
G6-52 ARTILLERY SYSTEM
Denel has completed development of a new artillery system, the G6-52, and the system is currently undergoing extensive trials. The system is offered with the Somchem Modular Charge System (MCS) which can fire the Naschem M2000 Assegai system which includes the V-LAP projectile. With the V-LAP projectile, the system has a range of 67km and a rate of fire of eight rounds/minute. Multiple rounds (up to six) can be fired to simultaneously hit the same target using the ADS (Thales) AS2000 artillery target engagement system. Automated ammunition handling, fuze handling and ammunition inventory reduce crew workload.

The G6-52 turret is mounted on a Land Systems OMC 6x6 wheeled vehicle which has an off-road speed of nearly 70km/h and a range of 700km.

From this page: http://www.worldsecurity-index.com/details.php?id=2
Explosives and Pyrotechnic Ammunition - the combined businesses of Somchem and Swartklip Products, specialising in solid fuel propulsion systems for artillery, tactical rockets and missiles, warhead subsystems, propellants for small calibre ammunition and power cartridges and also civilian and military applications of energetic material. It is also a supplier of pyrotechnic and high explosive products for military, law enforcement and commercial use.

There is more at: http://www.somchem.co.za/rockets.html

Actually, most of us do know Somchen. Thanks for supplying the tangible references but quoting some material about military gun systems is just another of your now classic diversionary tactics. (remember the copper lunar lander post?) The reality here Gerard is that as far as most of us can see, you haven't done any real comprehensive testing – the kind that costs real money. The kind of money that no small bullet manufacturer can afford. What about all those claimed B.C.'s Gerard? Was your abacus on the fritz when you banged those out? The difference between us is that I don't do lab testing and don't derive any faux credibility from faux testing.

The question now is: Are bronze/brass FN solids better than copper FN solids? You make your copies from brass/bronze as did/do some other bullet makers. Only Northfork and GSC FNs were/are made from copper.

More disinformation - laughable. Copies? Please – I wouldn't copy anything you're doing cause it isn't that good. The primary design features that I'm using are patented Gerard by ME!! I own the patents. As I have told you and your numerous planted Stooges in the "marketplace" I don't and won't make driving band designs. You think it's slick and people wanna buy it – carry on, but I won't touch them. Want a list of the shortcomings of your brilliant design – ask your customers there are plenty.

1. Research the reports of failures experienced with brass/bronze and copper solids. You will see the score is brass/bronze = numerous. Copper = nil.

2. You maintain that brass/bronze is not harder on barrels than copper when it suits you. You also say that copper drive band bullets are softer on barrels when it suits you. You should make up your mind which it is. We know through testing which is easier on barrels and it is not brass/bronze.

3. Brass/bronze is cheaper, easier to machine and easier on tooling than copper. The finished product should be lower in price.

More BS that demonstrates your ignorance. I can and have made projectiles from all sorts of material. Unlike you, I'm not making parts on a Kudu powered lathe at the ends of the Earth. Tooling costs are insignificant and the difference in material cost from brass to bronze to copper in bulk isn't even a factor in pricing bullets. 22% delta this past Friday.

It may be a feature to some that you can go from the request for a new bullet to product delivered in a week. The way to do this is to short circuit the testing part: Range testing as well as field testing on game, thus lowering input cost. It also means that you have equipment sitting idle. Machine time on a surplus machine should be less costly than that of a machine running a backlog of projects. It surely cuts down on the input cost of the delivered product, which should further reduce the price.

Gerard you really should get out of your Hamlet sometime and see the world. There are tens of thousands of machines available to me locally at any given time all just a phone call away. Idle or not they have cost associated with their operation. Programming + machine time + material.

I note that many of your posts here mention how many hundreds or thousands of bullets you need to make in a production run and how many you have made and have left to sell. "Get them quick before they run out and place your order quick so that you are not left out." Typical pressure selling.

Don't confuse short run custom work with production work.

Given these facts, I fail to see why one would pay $275 for a hundred brass/bronze bullets that are untried in the field, when the same caliber bullet can be had for $100 less per hundred, made from copper and proven on the toughest game on earth for more than a decade. However, the choice remains that of the buyer and, if your methods work to gather in the money, more power to you. Is it the American way? I hope not.

Absolutely Pathetic Gerard......I make what people request on their time line and at a reasonable price. I don't need to pressure anyone as I don't need the income from my Bullet making activities to survive. As far as your business acumen goes – you are probably the worst business operator the bullet business has ever seen. You don't want me to list those examples Gerard do you??

There is a reason why we make solids from copper and not brass/bronze. It is called research.

Let's see the research big guy! You keep saying you've been doing it for years but I haven't seen any yet!! (Clue – shooting a baboon in your neighbors yard isn't research)

Make no mistake, I am not complaining about competition in the marketplace. Competition keeps an established manufacturer honest. One should be clear about some things though. An untried product, made more cheaply and from cheaper material, should come to market at a better price, not the other way around.

Feel free to reply one sentence at a time per post, it keeps the post count up and maybe you can beat the Frenchman to the "top poster" this month.

Where are all those posts Gerard? In the PF where they belong just like yours here....

I apologise to the Forum for the tone of my post. Civility is a two way

You should apologize for being a Hodad who can't handle pressure...

Try not to make it so obvious that you're a stalker and hang on my every word Gerard....

quote:

Originally posted by Andy:
Two brass TCCI solids on elephant. And one copper North Fork.



I vote for copper.

Andy

Andy:

Not fair to compare roundnose brass to FN copper.
A roundnose copper solid would be bent too.

As for GSC versus S&H:

OH SHIT!!!

Both good. Nice to have alternatives.

Copper solids need to be big and bad and kept down to 2400 to 2500 fps to negate expansion for best penetration. They are slightly shorter, and more stable for a given weight.

Brass solids can be driven faster if that helps anything: at higher velocity they will kill better and penetrate better than a copper FN of same weight and velocity, as a 0.300 SD seems to be stable enough for an FN in either brass or copper.

Hollowpoints: best as copper monos, yep.

Barnes makes Brass "Banded FN" solids. I wonder why?

Jim Manion,
Never mind the dog food. I'll stick to plywood and water. We are getting pretty weak witted here, trying to humor the metamucil idea of Macifej.
Was he making fun of me? Those buckets would hold Jello nicely. Cheap enough? Nah, that would require BB calibration and temperature control too, just not as consistent as the current IWBB at ambient temperatures.

RIP - no but you could use oatmeal if you can wait for it to inflate.

Maybe you wanna use styrofoam instead of plywood to help out Ol Gerard....

quote:

Copper solids need to be big and bad and kept down to 2400 to 2500 fps to negate expansion for best penetration. They are slightly shorter, and more stable for a given weight.

RIP,

The 465 grain TCCI RN were fired at 2,500 fps and the 450 grain NF at 2,550 fps.

All copper is not the same, nor is brass.



Pictured; 450 grain 458 Barnes so called FN. Tumbled in wood stop box at 2550 fps w 1-12 twist!

Free machining brass is cheap and is intended to machine easily. Look at a close up of its surface structure. The lead fragments just peels off the cutting blade leaving it clean.

North Forks copper was alot harder than Gerards. And was a pain to machine. Mike programmed his machine to interrupt the cutting so the copper would drop off the blade. Not everyone is so clever.

Your comment here is significant.

"They are slightly shorter, and more stable for a given weight."

That is a huge advantage to copper.

Still, Id rather have a non deforming brass than a deforming copper.

But you can make a non deforming copper, so why not?????

Repectfully, Andy

PS Difference in expansion in my picture was not RN vs FN, but difference between brain shot and molars! (Not a fair comparison).

quote:

But you can make a non deforming copper, so why not?????

Already done it many times and the only advantage is density +5% over brass. It machines about the same and leaves nice little fine chips like brass. There are literally hundreds of copper/brass/bronze alloys available off the shelf at various states of temper. The brainpower comes in knowing what to do with them...which alloy for which application, which temper, machining process, etc.

Mike at Northfork could have saved himself a lot of trouble by choosing a better alloy for his application. The cycle time would have been lower and the finish better while maintaining better precision.

Copper on the left with the same cutting speeds and resulting finish as the brass on the right. 5 percent heavier per volume and 20 - 25% more expensive material in bulk.

Andy - Not sure what you're referring to as far as "close up" but the brass I'm using is about 2.5% lead by weight. Not exactly something that you're gonna see in the machining process. You might see some subtle differences under a scope with various lead content.