And what alloy do you believe is most popular nation wide? I had a heated (yet polite) discussion with a dear friend of mine recently, in which he asserted that Lyman #2 and Linotype were far more commonly used than any other alloy nationwide. I disagreed, and asserted that I believed that wheel weights and perhaps hardball alloy (from the commercial casters) was certainly the most common in my opinion. He implied that my perspective would be different if I didn't hang around the castboolit site so much. Now, although I do have my opinion, I'm not above changing it if and when I ever become more educated, so I thought I would pose the question here and see what you fine ladies and gentleman's opinion is. What alloy would you say is far and away most used in the bullet casting disciplines as a whole, and what do you actually use. This is not to win an argument or anything. This is strictly to broaden my horizons. Thanks!!!
Simple question: what alloy do you use most?
- 5.9K Views
- Last Post 21 April 2016
I don't argue about it at all. I use the alloy suitable to the load pressure or vise versa as presented by Lee in Modern Reloading 2nd Edition. I find no reason to disagree or ignore Lee recommendations on relating load pressure in psi to alloy strength in psi. The related chapters in the book are presented well and with testing and deductive logic that verifies the study.
The addition of gas checks is more difficult to add to Lee's predictions as Lee's predictions are based on plain based bullets. Lee instructs individuals to evaluate for yourself how far past the alloy strength in psi a gas check will extend the usable strength of the alloy. Personally, I find that to be ~10%.
I have validated the Lee instructions for finding a load sweet spot based on the alloy strength and load pressure many times. It is easy to understand that people who haven't verified this on their own are influenced by a variety of charmers. The Lee plan has been 100% successful for me. Your results may vary.
Lyman #2 Alloy has been the first choice for cast hunting bullets for over 100 years. It is no big secret why. The 5% tin in #2 Alloy yields a superior range of ductility so #2 alloy does not fragment or splatter into meat through a wide range of hunting loads. The #2 alloy bullets, particularly with flat noses have a long history of retaining 100% weight and expanding double caliber when striking Deer size game with 1,000 foot pounds or more on impact.
Gary
Attached Files
I believe that 75 years ago Lyman #2 and Linotype were the most popular alloys to be had, because you could find/make the stuff so easily. That is not the case any longer. What I want to know is RIGHT NOW/2016, what do you think is the most popular, most used. and most consumed alloy across the board, and then tell me what you actually personally use most of. onondaga. I'm guessing you're throwing it in the ring with Lyman #2?
Attached Files
Goodsreel,
I use range scrap for indoor pistol and lino for all rifle shooting outdoors. (Small cal.'s) For handguns indoors I've recently switched over to the Miss. Bullet Co.'s bullets due to the quantity I'm shooting. I hate casting! Their 12 bhn for targets and their 18 bhn for max. loads. Most popular alloy? I'd probably say lino. But since it's getting harder to find scrap, I'd go with Lyman #2. You might give a call to one the metal suppliers and ask them. If you do let us know. I'd be interested. Pete
Attached Files
Excellent reply sir, just the sort of thing I want to know. Interesting you choose a Linotype for your rifle loads. BTW, happy new year my friends! Let's hope 2016 is even better than 2015!
Attached Files
Sir,
Here in the PNW, the largest tonnage has to be copper washed swaged pistol bullets as very few pistol shooters here cast. Then Cowboy shooters, various alloys, but mostly hard commercial stuff, 92/6/2. Plinkers that shoot anything that melts.
I shoot 1990's WW's and scrap plus 2% tin for everything but match rifle bullets, then I use Linotype or 1/2 Monotype and 1/2 WW's.
Ric
Attached Files
I believe the lowly wheel weight is king, but due to current poor quality and mixing with undesirables its loosing it grip with casters. Keep your old WW's apart from the newer stuff. I have some ingots (lifetime supply) of monotype I mix with old WW and a touch of tin. Frank C.
Attached Files
Sir,
Here in the PNW, the largest tonnage has to be copper washed swaged pistol bullets as very few pistol shooters here cast. Then Cowboy shooters, various alloys, but mostly hard commercial stuff, 92/6/2. Plinkers that shoot anything that melts.
I shoot 1990's WW's and scrap plus 2% tin for everything but match rifle bullets, then I use Linotype or 1/2 Monotype and 1/2 WW's.
RicThank you very much. All I'm interested in for this discussion is cast bullets. You mention WW, range scrap, Monotype, and Linotype. Which would you say you use more of? Lynotype for precision rifle: duly noted.
Attached Files
I believe the lowly wheel weight is king, but due to current poor quality and mixing with undesirables its loosing it grip with casters. Keep your old WW's apart from the newer stuff. I have some ingots (lifetime supply) of monotype I mix with old WW and a touch of tin. Frank C.
Thank you sir, which would you say you use most of?
Monotype is noted for rifle use.
Attached Files
For the record, I would like to say that I use clip on wheel weights with very specific ammount of tin added which creates an alloy that is nearly identical to Lyman #2 cut 50-50 with pure lead, or 95/2.5/2.5. This covers nearly all my needs including the high velocity stuff of 2700FPS+. I call it “House” alloy because I use it for everything.
I have cast with #2 exactly once, and Linotype two or three times. The rest of my life it has been Pure lead, COWW, or something made from it.
Attached Files
Difficult to know what is most commonly used (and without a good BHN tester, I doubt if anyone really knows exactly what they use, themselves). I've long settled on a close approximation of “Hardball", quenched from the mould for everything, with no regard for PSI or FPS - and I'm never surprised or disappointed in its performance in any regard.
Attached Files
My guess is that wheel weights or wheel weights with some range scrap thrown in is the most common.
I use straight wheel weights collected at various time all over at least ten years ago for 90% of my shooting. I have never seen the need to add tin and am shall we say -- thrifty. I sometimes use linotype or softer alloy for special purposes.
Except for Plain Base shooters who use 20-30 to one, virtually all CBA benchrest competitors use linotype but they are a small minority of CBA members and a much smaller percentage of cast bullet shooters.
John
Attached Files
For my personal use, I have two alloys that I use more than any other. For handguns, be it revolver or semi auto, I use COWW + 2%. I shoot IHMSA silhouette and my XP100s digest only a certified Hardball alloy 92-6-2.
On the occasions that I hunt with cast I do sometimes mix a little pure lead with my COWW depending on the particular cartridge I'm loading and may or may not water quench.
Attached Files
My guess is that wheel weights or wheel weights with some range scrap thrown in is the most common.
I use straight wheel weights collected at various time all over at least ten years ago for 90% of my shooting. I have never seen the need to add tin and am shall we say -- thrifty. I sometimes use linotype or softer alloy for special purposes.
Except for Plain Base shooters who use 20-30 to one, virtually all CBA benchrest competitors use linotype but they are a small minority of CBA members and a much smaller percentage of cast bullet shooters.
John
This is my current opinion exactly John. For the record, I have had more analysis of COWW done than anyone I know (mainly because for a time I had access to a calibrated XRF testing machine, and took great advantage of that opportunity to pin down whether COWW alloy was consistent, and what exactly is in it) and in case anyone is interested, I found that if you smelt in 200lb batches, the content is very consistent at 2.3-2.6% antimony, and less than .05% various other elements including tin. I have smelted COWW from all over the country, some new, and some old, and I am very confident in my findings. Not only because my batches are nearly always 2.5% antimony 0% tin, but because when I re-calibrate my alloy calculator to this, I can very accurately call my shot when mixing House alloy from COWW, and getting the resultant batch to test correctly with the XRF. I have extensively tested this. BTW, if you levelize the tin and antimony in the COWW alloy so that it's about 95.2/2.4/2.4 give or take, you get a very versatile alloy that air cools at 14BHN, and water quenches at 24-25, and heat treat's to 27BHN (or just cast hot and frosty and the water quenched bullets will measure 27BHN) This alloy is extremely consistent, and I can cast very very accurately with it. Anyway, back to the discussion.
Attached Files
Just to let you guys in on what started this whole line of questions, my friend was explaining to me that Lyman molds cast undersized with common alloys, because they are cut for Linotype and Lyman #2 which drops larger than COWW or House alloy. He explained that the reason why they still do this, is because the vast majority of the people buying Lyman molds cast with Lyman #2 or Linotype. I am very skeptical that this is true which is why I am asking those who are oriented towards competition for their esteemed opinion on this subject. Very hard to say one way or the other, but I know what the answer to this question would be on the “other” cast bullet site and it need not be asked there.
CBA is a whole different ball of wax. I figured if there were a majority of shooters who run Linotype and #2 predominately, they would be found right here. Thank you gentlemen!
Attached Files
For 10 years I shot WWs. Then I moved on to 2 parts WWs and 1 part lino for a number of years. Quality control with this type of alloy has become nearly nonexistant as WWs have deteriorated the last few years. This past month I have cast 4,000 bullets for 2016. These are all made of commercial 92/6/2. In the future I will only use home made alloys for my handguns or for casual rifle shooting.
Attached Files
Didn't your friend suggest you check the match results over here on CBA to see what was being used? Wouldn't that would give you a much broader result/answer from cast bullet shooters rather than a poll from the few who actually read the forum and the even fewer who actually post?
I think if you do check the match results you will seldom find COWWs listed. There is a reason for that. Yes, I agree, as does your friend, that at the current time the use of WWs is a very popular alloy to use for generic cast bullet shooting. It was not that way 35 - 40 years back as more linotype and pure lead along with plumbers solder was readily available. The reason for the shift to COWWs was they became more available than linotype and plumber's solder because print shops that used linotype closed or changed to other methods. The use of PVC piping has drastically reduced the need and availability of plumbers solder.
Worst is the campaign to eliminate the greatest WMD threat against mankind....i.e. lead is having a profound effect on the availability and cost of lead. With lead alloy COWWs now the successful target for elimination we will see a real shift to everyone mixing or buying pre-mixed ternary alloys for casting. I see no other inexpensive product in abundance to take either the now almost defunct linotype/plumbers lead and COWWs place. That leaves us with 3 choices; buy pre-mixed alloys, mix our own alloys and quit casting bullets.
I think many of us will chose mixing our own alloys. I also think the larger majority of casters will quit casting. A large number did quit casting when the cheap and readily available alloys became less available, the COWW thing hadn't caught on and jacketed bullets were far less expensive, especially milsurp bullets/ammo. For those of us who continue casting we will not have much choice but to mix our own alloys.
Another thing to consider is the larger majority of cast bullet shooters do not cast their own. They use commercial cast bullets either to load their own or as commercially loaded in ammunition. Yes I know that is a hard pill to swallow but it is a fact. The fact to that is the alloy commercial casters use is seldom COWWs. If they do use COWWs they use it to mix an alloy more similar to #2 alloy or harder.
All I'm saying, and I believe your friend says the same, is that COWWs, while a common alloy used today, was not when Lyman set it's “standard” as #2 alloy when it redesigned all it's moulds back 35 years ago. And I agree with your friend, the vast majority of cast bullet shooters do not use COWWs as the alloy alone. They use an alloy mix that uses COWWs (as do you and as does Lyman in one of their recipe's for #2 alloy). Given that fact Lyman moulds will cast undersize with COWWs.
How much undersize COWWs cast and whether it poses a problem for the shooter depends on how finicky he is. The majority of cast bullet shooters do believe that sizing cast bullets to .001 over the groove diameter is “best” because that's what all the books and magazine writers say......and after all they are the accepted “experts” whether we few agree or not. Thus the majority of cast bullet shooters read Lyman's, RCBS's or other manuals and do they tell them to use COWWs? No they don't, they tell them to use #2 alloy or linotype or an already similar mixed alloy. Don't think so? read the manuals....read the magazine articles.....read the CBA match results (readily available to you as a member).
Anyways you mostly use your “house” alloy” right? So is it pure COWWs? No it's not. It is far closer to #2 alloy than COWW in BHN hardness, HT ability and castability. So, dare I say it, you prove your friends point.
LMG
Concealment is not cover.........
Attached Files
Didn't your friend suggest you check the match results over here on CBA to see what was being used? Wouldn't that would give you a much broader result/answer from cast bullet shooters rather than a poll from the few who actually read the forum and the even fewer who actually post?
I think if you do check the match results you will seldom find COWWs listed. There is a reason for that. Yes, I agree, as does your friend, that at the current time the use of WWs is a very popular alloy to use for generic cast bullet shooting. It was not that way 35 - 40 years back as more linotype and pure lead along with plumbers solder was readily available. The reason for the shift to COWWs was they became more available than linotype and plumber's solder because print shops that used linotype closed or changed to other methods. The use of PVC piping has drastically reduced the need and availability of plumbers solder.
Worst is the campaign to eliminate the greatest WMD threat against mankind....i.e. lead is having a profound effect on the availability and cost of lead. With lead alloy COWWs now the successful target for elimination we will see a real shift to everyone mixing or buying pre-mixed ternary alloys for casting. I see no other inexpensive product in abundance to take either the now almost defunct linotype/plumbers lead and COWWs place. That leaves us with 3 choices; buy pre-mixed alloys, mix our own alloys and quit casting bullets.
I think many of us will chose mixing our own alloys. I also think the larger majority of casters will quit casting. A large number did quit casting when the cheap and readily available alloys became less available, the COWW thing hadn't caught on and jacketed bullets were far less expensive, especially milsurp bullets/ammo. For those of us who continue casting we will not have much choice but to mix our own alloys.
Another thing to consider is the larger majority of cast bullet shooters do not cast their own. They use commercial cast bullets either to load their own or as commercially loaded in ammunition. Yes I know that is a hard pill to swallow but it is a fact. The fact to that is the alloy commercial casters use is seldom COWWs. If they do use COWWs they use it to mix an alloy more similar to #2 alloy or harder.
All I'm saying, and I believe your friend says the same, is that COWWs, while a common alloy used today, was not when Lyman set it's “standard” as #2 alloy when it redesigned all it's moulds back 35 years ago. And I agree with your friend, the vast majority of cast bullet shooters do not use COWWs as the alloy alone. They use an alloy mix that uses COWWs (as do you and as does Lyman in one of their recipe's for #2 alloy). Given that fact Lyman moulds will cast undersize with COWWs.
How much undersize COWWs cast and whether it poses a problem for the shooter depends on how finicky he is. The majority of cast bullet shooters do believe that sizing cast bullets to .001 over the groove diameter is “best” because that's what all the books and magazine writers say......and after all they are the accepted “experts” whether we few agree or not. Thus the majority of cast bullet shooters read Lyman's, RCBS's or other manuals and do they tell them to use COWWs? No they don't, they tell them to use #2 alloy or linotype or an already similar mixed alloy. Don't think so? read the manuals....read the magazine articles.....read the CBA match results (readily available to you as a member).
Anyways you mostly use your “house” alloy” right? So is it pure COWWs? No it's not. It is far closer to #2 alloy than COWW in BHN hardness, HT ability and castability. So, dare I say it, you prove your friends point.
LMG
LOL! You know you're the fellow I was talking to. I would think that even though matches were shot with these high alloys, the amount of lead actually expended in pursuit of these disciplines would pale in comparison with the commercial casters, and all the fellows shooting COWW across the country. Even if I counted every shot recorded in CBA history, the total tonage of lead would be a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to what is expended every year on a national level for all calibers and disciplines.
Your opinion was that the vast majority of casters buy or make Lyman#2 alloy to cast with. This has not been my experience at all. I have met many casters in the past few years and with one exception, they all shoot COWW and save the premium alloys specifically for shooting rifle as precisely as possible. The one fellow I know who buys foundry #2 and casts pistol bullets from it, just started casting last year for his 500S&W. I've asked him why he doesn't use less expensive alloy, and he said that he likes the shinier bullets and they are still incredibly cheap compared to the jacketed bullets he was using in his pistol. I just shrugged and said “whatever nukes your chili-dog buddy". I know that #2, Linotype, and Monotype are very commonly used alloys, but you're the first person I have ever heard say that they comprised the vast majority of the alloy that is being shot every day nationwide. I respectfully disagree with your opinion, but I would like to change my opinion of I am wrong. Why not ask the people who shoot competition, or next to those who do? I figure even if these good people do not personally use high priced alloys, they would have a better handle on what's normally being used than I do. So far, I'm noticing that each person commenting uses COWW predominately (especially in pistols which drink the majority of the lead in this country) with Linotype and #2 being relegated to rifle only.
Attached Files
Goodsteel, I will have to side with LMG. While I am certain that the majority private casters use whatever alloy is cheapest to make that will still do the required job I firmly believe that the majority of cast bullets SHOT in this county come from commercial casters. Commercial cast alloys are much harder than others due to customer demand for harder and harder alloys. By far most people FIRMLY believe that leading is due to too soft bullets. They do not understand about bullet fit, pressure requirements or any thing else, but are completely sold on the idea that lead won't shoot like jacketed because it is “softer", not because it didn't fit.
Myself I use a combination of COWW and range scrap and or linotype depending on what I want it to do. For hunting I use Lyman #2 from Roto Metals. I used to make my own, but no more of it than I shoot there is just no point in going to the bother. Brodie
B.E.Brickey
Attached Files
For a sort while I was using inexpensive isotope lead in my CPA 32-20, testing 25-1 via my Cabine Tree. On a whim ordered up certified foundry 25-1 and the difference in casting, breech seating and grouping was remarkable. I feel a tad bit of shame at running that mongrel stuff down my Shilen lapped and gauged barrel :(
Since moving up to linotype in my modified military 1917 grouping has gotten more consistent. Just say'n.
Match Director
Attached Files
Categories
- All Categories
- General Polls
- Contact Us w/ Forum Issues
- Welcome to The Cast Bullet Association Forum
- General
- Bullet Casting
-
Guns and Shooting
- AR Platform
- TC Contenders & Other Single Shot Handguns
- Shotguns
- Informal Matches & Other Shooting Events
- Gunsmithing Tips
- Gun Cleaning & Maintenance
- Optics
- Benchrest Cast Bullet Shooting
- Military Bench Rest Cast Bullet Shooting
- Silhouette Shooting
- Postal Match Cast Bullet Shooting
- Factory Guns
- Black Powder Cartridge
- Hand Guns
- Lever Guns
- Single Shot Rifles
- Bolt Action Rifles
- Military Surplus Rifles
- Plinkers Hollow
- Muzzleloaders
- Hunting
- Reloading
- Buy, Sell or Trade
- Other Information & Reference
