Powder Coated Bullets

  • 1.3K Views
  • Last Post 02 July 2021
4and1 posted this 24 June 2021

I have heard through the grapevine that a move is afoot to render powder coated bullets illegal in CBA matches. I don't understand this at all. I powder coat pistol bullets and rifle bullets. I do it for two reasons, one to prevent lead fouling in the barrel, and second to minimize the mess that conventional lubing leaves behind. I have cleaned some conventionally lubed rifles and pistols and the mess gets everywhere!

I try to make my rifles shoot as good as they can, and my findings are getting the right velocity that the gun likes, the same way you would normally. Most times, I find I'm right back in the same velocity range as people post in their match specs.  So where is the problem?

Powder coating takes longer from start to finish, and requires an oven to bake them.  A lot of effort, to keep a gun clean, but it seems it's worth it. 

Through a friend who no longer shoots in matches, told me once that a fellow tumbled his bullets in moly, like others did with jacketed bullets several years ago. I did that to jacketed bullets and it was MESSY, I quit quickly! But, he evidently shot quite well with them. Was that a problem?

So I find myself wondering why an effort may be coming to make these bullets illegal? And how many are doing it? I find more pistol guys doing it than rifle.

Attached Files

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
John Alexander posted this 24 June 2021

The CBA Board in its 2020 Annual meeting, which was held by email, discussed this issue over several days with 16 board members participating..

The concesus of the board was that cast bullets powder coated with polymer were allowed by out rules as many other things are that are not mentioneed (paper patching, teflon coating, moly coating, etc.). Of course any CBA member has the right to propose any rule change they want.  If we get a proposed rule change on this subject it will be published in the Fouling Shot and 30 days after publishing the board will discuss and vote on the proposal.  As of today no proposed rule change has been received.

John

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 25 June 2021

guess that grapevine just produced sour grapes ..

* I couldn't resist ...

Attached Files

Bud Hyett posted this 26 June 2021

We're here to see what improves cast bullets. That is part of our mission statement.

I've developed an inordinate desire to shoot Plain-Base, but welcome anyone to try the high-velocity route. I've not tried powder coating since I'd rather not be the pioneer.

Right now, Alice and I are rationing primers for matches through Fall 2022. Once I have "spare" primers, I intend to try the powder coated bullets. 

Farm boy from Illinois, living in the magical Pacific Northwest

Attached Files

shootcast posted this 27 June 2021

The biggest issue that I ‘m hearing as region 2 director is more of rule clarification. Although it is the intent of the CBA to experiment with all sorts of cast bullets our rules of competition are pretty foggy. Or so it seems. The against PC see it as a violation because PC is a very hard substance that covers the entire Bullet much the same as a jacketed Bullet. This allows much higher velocity without leading which equals less wind drift. If of course you can get them to shoot. They consider this coating a violation because our present rule talks about a gas check Bullet can only have a height of .10. The hard substance extends this. No exposed lead. 

The pro or for for see it as the next wave of cast Bullet shooting. Because  it has been said PC is legal we do have some experimenters working with it. Results do vary. Because our rules don’t mention it as illegal it is assumed or allowed the way I presently understand it. What I don’t understand is how if this is true we can now forbid it in Plain Base. We will need a lot of input from CBA members to help out on this issue. So please if you have any thoughts pro or con feel free to respond. 

 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • MarkinEllensburg
Tom Acheson posted this 27 June 2021

This came up at our match CBA yesterday. The group felt that PC is a jacketed modification of the bullet and is no longer a “pure cast bullet” and they definitely need to be prohibited in the PBB rifle category. The PB category is no different than the Unrestricted category with the exception of the bullet being used. It’s too late now….but…..

Several of us opined that the PBB rifle category should have been called Traditional Single Shot. And maybe those who dreamed-up the CBA categories considered that, who knows.

The 2008 NRA BPCR rifle rules include….

3.4 ..a single shot, originally made for black powder cartridges of US manufacture prior to 1896 and being typical of the era. Replicas thereof, regardless of origin of manufacture are permitted. It goes on to list possible rifles such as Ballard, Cole, Farrow, Maynard, Peabody, Remington Hepburn, Remington Rolling Block, Sharps, Springfield Trapdoor, Stevens No. 44….and others…they are allowed because they conform to the spirit of competition in form and function. Maximum weight of 15- pounds with scope.

No scope power limitation but it must have external adjustments.

 

The current NRA BPCR rifles rules are…

Any safe, original or modern production or custom variety, breech loading rifle designed as a single shot. Bolt action rifles are specifically not allowed. Original or modern muzzle loading rifles, with or without a sealed ignition are also allowed. Safe triggers are required. Electronic triggers and adjustable butt plates are prohibited.

Had the CBA gone down the above route, smokeless powder would be allowed, as well as paper jacketed bullets, due to that bullet design being around before greasers. 

The peanut gallery signs off….

Tom

 

 

 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
Lee Guthrie posted this 29 June 2021

My interpretation of the Rules is one that many of you are NOT going to like.  I just re-read the match rules as posted on this website.  I am no longer a Director, so my opinion doesn't count, however, interpreting statutes, administrative rules, and contracts is what I have been trained to do and getting paid to do for almost 50 years.

I did not notice anything about plated bullets, so if they are permitted, then powder coating would not be any more offensive.  I strongly suspect that anyone attempting to shoot plated bullets in a match would be immediately disqualified.

"5:12  General -- All devices which may facilitate shooting and which are not mentioned in these rules, or are manifestly contrary to the intent of these Rules are prohibited."  If that applies to ammunition, then clearly PC is not allowed.  However, Chapter 5 is separate from Chapter 4 which regulates ammunition.  Therefore, it could be argued that it applies to everything other than ammunition.  So if powder coating gets past this section, it would have to be allowed under 4.1 which states that gas checks may NOT be used on plain based bullets, and if used on other cast bullets may not be more than 0.10" in height on GC bullets.  Because of this a powder coated bullet may not be used in plain based bullet competition, and may only be used on a GC bullet if it is no more than 0.10" in height from the base.  Since the term "gas check" as used in Chapter 4 is not limited to metallic gas checks it would be applicable to all materials.  Paper patched bullets would not be permissible at all in plain based, and would be limited to .010" in height on GC bullets.  What about poly wads under, but not attached to the bullet.  If Chapter 5 applies, then they would not be permissible.  If only Chapter 4 is applicable, then poly wads are probably ok for all bullets.

Accordingly, Powder Coating of bullets is not allowed under the resent Match Rules of CBA.  

 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • 2kbill
Bud Hyett posted this 29 June 2021

 Let's admit there is a problem and seek a go-forward solution rather than argue. I've spent forty years as a problem-solver in Production and IT, my first step was to get aa clear definition of the problem, then focus on the solution rather than the blame.

Vision: Incorporate powder-coated cast bullets into CBA competition.

Mission: Involve every shooter who competes and has an opinion. This would be an open forum for thirty days seeking input without action on any of this input. Spend sixty days discussing the positive input on suggestion remembering we are seeking a go-forward position, Then consolidate the input into brood categories, get UAS (Understand, Agree, Support) and submit for a rule change. 

Goal: Clarify the role of powder-coated bullets in competition. 

Objectives:

  • Get a narrator to monitor the input, negativity not encouraged
  • Define what the powder-coated bullet is to the point of consensus.
  • Clearly allow paper=patched bullets to be shot in Plain-base. (My thought)
  • See the proposal meets UAS (Understand, Agree, Support)

My thought is to allow powder-coated bullets in Unlimited Class, 

Farm boy from Illinois, living in the magical Pacific Northwest

Attached Files

45 2.1 posted this 29 June 2021

Here are some thoughts about the following...      The Cast Bullet Association's Nature and Purpose


The Cast Bullet Association is an organization of shooters who enjoy shooting cast lead bullets in rifles and handguns for competition, hunting, or informal target shooting. The Association's central purpose is to help shooters enjoy cast bullet shooting by:

  • Stimulating and encouraging experiments in casting and handloading cast bullets that will improve the design, accuracy and effectiveness of the ammunition and increase the satisfaction and enjoyment of shooters.

While this is a worthwhile objective, I've seen very little of what has been posted about improvements or different ways of doing things being incorporated. The Status Quo is the reaction to things other than what is proposed by the leaders. Things like you can't do that because very small groups or barn burner groups can't be done regularly and aren't done in competition often. The reaction is come to a match and show us. The oft noted comment I've seen is that there hasn't been any improvement in twenty years. .......... If you keep limiting what is available and keep doing the same thing as you're doing now, then you probably won't see improvement. There has been improvement , but you won't except it (without shooting in matches). OK, my little rant is over and I'll turn my back so you can shoot it full of arrows...AGAIN! 

 

 

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 30 June 2021

We can parse the rules as long as we want but we won’t get agreement, so it isn’t too helpful.

 

The CBA Board has been allowing polymer coated bullets for at least 30 years along with moly, paper, and other coatings. Polymer applied by the powder coating method has been allowed for ten or so. Apparently, nobody thought those things needed to be specifically stated as allowed in our rules and nobody thought they should be disallowed. Lots of other things are allowed that are not specifically mentioned in the rules.  It is pretty much impossible to write a set of rules that specifies everything – even future developments.

 

The Board reaffirmed their intention to continue allowing powder coated bullets at the last Annual Meeting. Of course, this isn't some kind of final edict. (Few things are.) The Board may decide that it should clarify rule 4.1 to list what is allowed for coating and what isn’t, or it may not.

 

What the Board is required to do is consider any proposed rule change submitted by any member along with the reasons the rule should be adopted.  As members know, a rule change will be published in the Fouling Shot for at least 30 days before a board vote is allowed for the board members to receive all the comments that members choose to make.

 

John

 

Attached Files

45 2.1 posted this 30 June 2021

 

  As members know, a rule change will be published in the Fouling Shot for at least 30 days before a board vote is allowed for the board members to receive all the comments that members choose to make.

 

John

 

Keep in mind that delivery of the Fouling Shot is a problem now a days. I got my copy of a mentioned FS two months after it was noted as received here in a post. The USPS is not what it was.......................

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 30 June 2021

45 2.1

The Board always waits considerably longer than the 30 day mimimum because of the well known delay.  Of course if the delay is two months someone could miss the chance to comment. If a two month dalay isn't a rare event we need to wait even longer. Have other members had sucy delays?

The sad fact is that the board almost never receive feedback from members on proposed rule changes.  Dynamic apathy at work?

John 

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 30 June 2021

John, Rule changes usually effect very small numbers of match shooters, who are a small number of the total CBA members. So apathy may not be the right word, but indifference may be the one. I have never heard of anyone complaining about not have a chance to discuss rule changes because of the time limit. Ric

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
John Alexander posted this 30 June 2021

Ric, 

As usual you are probably right.  We have better luck with participation in the bitching after the vote sometimes.  

John

Attached Files

Tom Acheson posted this 30 June 2021

Might be a difficult question to answer, but….how many or what % of the CBA membership actively participates in the CBA outdoor benchrest match program? My guess but probably a pretty small number. These are the only individuals who would have “skin in the game” on this subject. Could be hard to screen out respondents who don’t participate but just want to insert an opinion.

Tom

Attached Files

2kbill posted this 30 June 2021

Agree very closely with what Lee Guthrie wrote above - I was the lone dissenter in the initial board discussion on this subject and I regret not doing a better job in presenting the case against continuing the current official CBA board position.  PC jacketed, plated or metallic copper jackets change the game to something else, something that many of us don't share an interest in.  If there is sufficient interest, Section 16 provides the instruction for setting up a new class.  If this is truly a breakthrough, it will catch fire just in time to replace the old and infirm as we "Leave the Range".

Now for a little levity:

Federal Ammo calls their loaded ammo with PC bullets "Total Synthetic Jacket", you can find them available now, just no 210M primers!

 

For 30 cal, you can buy 250 cast PC bullets for 40 Dollars American, run them through the bump or swage die matching your rifle, and not have to slave over a hot toaster oven.  Pay no attention to the looks from your class mates, or for extra enjoyment shoot in plain base!

 

 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
MarkinEllensburg posted this 01 July 2021

Currently there are 5 members using PC in competition. A new category or several seems overkill at this point. Perhaps in the future. The current issue seems to be the misunderstanding of the BOD's interpretation that PC is within the rules. It seems some folks want it specifically written and others want it banned. MY guess is that the later is not going to happen. At least two of the five compete at Spokane Rifle Club matches. Feedback I have revived from there is frankly too many rules made the single shot org no fun.

MY personal opinion is that I want to see wholesale improvement in cast bullet accuracy. So far PC hasn't been the answer but sometimes it works. I don't have time to do it so I'll not be on the cutting edge of experimentation of that. The current disruptions in components have me chasing to find a powder that is available that performs even remotely close to Varget in my heavy rifle.

Attached Files

Tom Acheson posted this 01 July 2021

Just a side thought that the "too many rules" comment reminded me of. 

Back a couple years when Jim Scearcy was setting up the groundhog and coyote postal fun events on this website, one of the things he focused on was "we will not have a ton of parsing, minuscule rules, we'll keep it simple".

There are two considerations to organized shooting competitions (and other organized activities). First, boundaries of some kind are needed. Second, the details of those boundaries oftentimes result in some participants looking for "sneak holes" to try to get an edge so they can be the "winner".

Too often I've run into shooters I knew who used to shoot in events that I shot in but had drifted off to other shooting interests. I asked why. The answer too often was that "the event had become an equipment race". An organization trying to increase membership and participation needs to find a way to have potential new participants see the activity as FUN, not a lawyer infested pile of paricipation requirements..

There are no easy answers.

Tom

Attached Files

lotech posted this 01 July 2021

There's a fair number of obsessive people and winning is everything to them; loopholes are very important to these participants. The equipment race often dooms what should be simple competitive events. Enjoyment of the sport becomes quite secondary. Look at benchrest competition today. Is it thriving?

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
Lee Guthrie posted this 01 July 2021

Guess it really won't make a difference "until someone loses an eye."  depressed

Match rules as presently written clearly do not allow PC, paper patching, HyTek, plating, etc.

BOD say, O shucks we're here to have fun so just play nice, only a few people are doing it and they haven't shown that it gives them a leg up.  (i.e., we haven't hit any icebergs yet)

What happens when (probably should say IF)  a NT winner used powder coated bullets?  You don't suppose someone who lost out would contest the results.  (I mean, no one has ever levied any challenges at a match in the past, right?)

Oh, and as far as infestations of lawyers goes, it's a dirty job, but when the kids are constantly squabbling about who's right, someone has to be an adult. 134

With something that is easy to either enforce or fix, why not just say either "yes you can" or "no you cannot".   IF there is an issue with potential "new" records and arguments about this technology not being available when the old records were set, just make coated bullets have their own records if they break an existing group or score record.  Is anyone that shoots coated going to be upset that a potential record they might shoot be identified as being in a "coated" designation?  (NOT a different class)  That would be an "inclusive" move to bring in new shooters, and not a restrictive one.

 

 

Attached Files

Tom Acheson posted this 01 July 2021

Separate set of records for a distinct bullet? Maybe like major league baseball as had been postulated?Separate records for steroid use or not....for records with X long season and Y long season. They probably never made the change but it was talked about a lot.

Sometimes these kinds of issues result in people breaking off and starting their own new organization.

Never a dull moment....

Tom

(no title)

Attached Files

Shuz posted this 01 July 2021

I've been playing around with powder coated boolits for about a year now. My groups and my scores have not improved, in fact they are not as good as they used to be! However, I have saved money on boolit lube, and I no longer worry about how hard my alloy is. Perhaps my shooting skill has diminished as I age, and so far, it sure hasn't been helped by powder coating!

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
  • John Carlson
pat i. posted this 02 July 2021

No dog in this fight since I dont shoot matches anymore but I'm sure the same concerns were raised about throating, bumping, scope power, and a bunch of other things. Things that actually were proven to increase accuracy. I've seen no reports or experienced an improvement with coated bullets, in fact in my case powder coated made accuracy worse. With that said personally I dont like the idea of it in cast bullets matches but if someone else wanted to shoot them and I was on the next bench I wouldnt feel they had an unfair advantage. If I had to push a patch or two through the bore to control fouling a little more than the coated bullet shooter it really ain't no big deal.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • MarkinEllensburg
  • John Alexander
John Alexander posted this 02 July 2021

Always good to have a little sarcasm to make a hard problem seem easy and to liven up the discussion.

 

H.L Menckin said for every complicated and hard problem there is always somebody with a simple straight-forward solution -- and they are always wrong.

I'm sure the Board would be happy to have someone take on the job of writing the perfect and infallible set of rules that would take into consideration all future new developments and all the  ideas that shooters will  think up in the future. Such a set of rules would never need to be clarified or modified -- any volunteers?

Of course, any lawyer would recognize that no rule writing body in history has ever been able to do that with civil or criminal law and thus we have to have courts , judges, and juries to make them workable, and sometimes new laws that modify, or even reverse, previous laws.

Seriously, I suspect that since PC coated bullets have become an issue, unlike all the other dozen or so bullet coatings that have been tried over the last forty years, the Board will want to clarify 4.1 at the annual meeting. I don't know what the board will do, but I do know they will carefully consider all the new information since last year as well as member input and try to do what is best for the CBA. 

Board positions are often open and anybody willing to work has an excellent chance of getting one of these plum jobs.  Campainging is seldom necessary for some reason.

Of course, no matter what the Board does, some won't agree.  I know how that feels since past boards have rejected some of my excellents ideas. But I, and many others, have had to suck it up. A  very few others have taken their ball and gone home.  Being in the minority ain't fun but you can't win them all. 

John

Attached Files

Little Debbie posted this 02 July 2021

Though I’ve only been shooting CBA bench rest for about a year I’ve experimented with powder coat and abandoned it a couple years ago. Some people I shoot matches with use powder coat and I’m fine with it. If someone figures out how to make it work, I’ll jump back on the band wagon. Too many rules or rules to satisfy a loud minority or a fanatic will usually destroy an activity.

There is a structure in place in CBA to deal with this or any other rule question . If they should make a decision the group should happily support it and move on.

I’m wondering if tumble lubing is a problem, same principal isn’t it?

Attached Files

Categories
Search
Popular Tags
This Weeks High Earners
Hot Topics
Close