Page 1 2 3 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
wheel weights
 Login/Join
 
Hivernant
posted
I'm sure I've asked this before but because I can never remember what I've asked you guys, I'll do it again.

I've always been told that the standard external wheelweights are a little too hard for casting muzzleloading balls as they will damage the rifling. however I keep thinking that the riflings are only touched by the patch. but perhaps they obturate or expand into the riflings anyway, I don't know.
so if that is the case and these types of wheel weights are too hard for riflings, what about smoothbores? smaller size ball or thinner patches maybe?

I've acquired a ton of this stuff.
 
Posts: 125 | Location: eden, utah | Registered: 07 January 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Booshway
Picture of roundball
posted Hide Post
I'm not an authority on anything but as long as the patch is between the lands and any projectile without being cut, seems like it should be fine.

Case in point, I experimented with some completely hard solid brass balls as a potential lead alternative and they were as accurate as could be, took a deer with one even using a once-fired brass ball I had caught in a rubber filled trap-box during load development.



Flintlock Rifles & Smoothbores
Hunt Like The Settlers
 
Posts: 1867 | Location: North Carolina | Registered: 28 January 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Factor
Picture of Hanshi
posted Hide Post
Wheel weights are nowhere near the hardness of barrel steel; they're just a little harder than soft lead. And as rb said, even brass can be fired from a ML bore. Yes, the ball never makes contact with the bore and it would make no difference even if it did. I prefer WWs for my smoothbore and will be trying some out in my rifles.


*Young guys should hang out with old guys; old guys know stuff.*
 
Posts: 3559 | Location: Maine (by way of Georgia then Va.) | Registered: 26 January 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Pilgrim
posted Hide Post
I try to use a ball and patch size that engraves the rifleing on the ball, without cutting the patch. I feel that it gives a better gas seal than just the patch riding in the rifleing. WW lead is hard enough that you may have to go down a little bit from the soft lead ball size to achieve that gas seal without cutting your patch since the rifleing may not engrave the ball. With a smooth bore the WW lead should work fine, once you find the proper diameter.
Mark
 
Posts: 68 | Location: Central Ohio | Registered: 31 August 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Booshway
posted Hide Post
I've used wheel weight lead for years in both my rifles and smoothbores. I don't get precise target accuracy, but they work just fine for plinking and hunting.


Know what you believe in. Fight for your beliefs. Never compromise away your rights.
 
Posts: 1296 | Location: Cherokee Land, Tenasi | Registered: 06 January 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Booshway
posted Hide Post
Round ball moulds are made and calibrated so to speech for pure lead. Wheel weights are not pure lead but rather a mixture of alloys. Since they are not pure lead, they will shrink less and being an alloy (mixture) they will also be harder than lead balls.

What takes place when using contaminated lead or say, wheel weights, the balls will be a smidgeon larger, and definitely harder. When these are loaded, they will be more difficult to start in the bore because they are just that smidgeon larger and harder so the patch has less room and a more difficult time indenting into the lead ball when being squeezed into the bore. The balls will also weight less than pure lead because the alloy actually weights less than the pure lead.

Some years back, I got some contaminated lead and made round balls out of it not knowing it was contaminated. My .526" lead round balls weigh 218 gr but these alloy balls weighed 215 gr. They were definitely more difficult to load and I got many jeers for having to use a 2"X2"X12" surveyor's hub to beat the short starter in order to start those much harder and larger balls into the bore.

I know many people have used wheel weights in their smooth bores and in this case, the difference isn't as noticeable. I believe it is because of the lack of rifling lands that put the main squeeze on the batch is lacking.

Some clubs don't want shooters to use wheel weight balls because they are harder on their clangers (not always made of the hardest or thickest steel) and because of the ball's hardness, they feel they can pose a ricochet hazard.

When using those contaminated balls and fighting to get them loaded, my accuracy did deteriorate at 100 yds but nothing noticeable at 25 or 50 yds.

Load fast and aim slow.
 
Posts: 1726 | Location: Pacific Northwest | Registered: 08 March 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Booshway
posted Hide Post
White Finger, did you ever measure the difference in thousandths? I've got a bunch of wheel weight lead and I've been thinking about using some in my 24 ga. northwest gun. My barrel is a bit snug with a .562 ball and a thin patch so I just had Larry Callahan make me a mold for .557, thinking I could use a thicker patch, and also have some room for less contraction with the wheel weights. Weather hasn't been what I want for sitting outside running ball so as of now it's all theory.
 
Posts: 507 | Registered: 14 August 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Booshway
Picture of captchee
posted Hide Post
I use WW in both Rifle and smooth bore . i also have shot brass balls as Rb stated .
yes WW are a little lighter and depending on the alloy can shrink less . but if you are shooting say a 54 cal and used to loading a 530 ball , the WW will load no harder then a .535.
if however your shooting a .535 and then load WW , you may have an issue with hard loading . so normally i reduce my ball size by one mould to compensate
 
Posts: 687 | Location: Payette ,Idaho | Registered: 23 November 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Booshway
posted Hide Post
In that case I'm guessing I should be fine with .557s in my 24 gauge.
 
Posts: 507 | Registered: 14 August 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Booshway
posted Hide Post
Scoundrel, yes, I did measure the balls but that was back in the late 1980's so have long forgotten what the measurements were.

I used the balls but made darn sure I never made that mistake again. I didn't like having to beat on the short starter just to get the balls started. I couldn't hit the ball starter hard enough with my bare hand so used a surveying hub.

Sorry to be of so little help.

Load fast and aim slow.
 
Posts: 1726 | Location: Pacific Northwest | Registered: 08 March 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Factor
Picture of Hanshi
posted Hide Post
WWs work just fine for the most part. My Lee mold casts a nice .600" 330 grain ball from dead soft lead. When I use WWs (and hardened slightly with a tad of linotype) the balls come out of the mold some .605" and about 5 grains lighter. My smoothbore has a tight bore and it's difficult to load patched .600" lead balls and nigh impossible to patch the .605" WW balls.

I ordered a .590" Tanner mold and these differ even less than the .600" ball. The .590" ball are easily patched with the same patches I use in my rifles. A bonus is that the .605" WW ball do very well for bare ball loading and shooting. One normally doesn't need the same tight ball/patch fit as is used in rifles.


*Young guys should hang out with old guys; old guys know stuff.*
 
Posts: 3559 | Location: Maine (by way of Georgia then Va.) | Registered: 26 January 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Hivernant
posted Hide Post
well thanks guys, that sounds a whole lot less scary than I imagined. I think I'll keep them seperate and do some 'spermentin. otherwise into the ruger blackhawk they go.
 
Posts: 125 | Location: eden, utah | Registered: 07 January 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Booshway
Picture of Pilgrim
posted Hide Post
I'm surprised nobody mentioned patch thickness here, especially for rifled guns. If the WW balls are .005" larger in diameter, as Hanshi measured, it would seem to me that one could compensate by using a patch that was .0025" thinner. They do make patches in various thicknesses, no? This is of course just my opinion.


"Any day you wake up on the right side of the dirt is a good day"
 
Posts: 428 | Location: Northwestern California | Registered: 05 May 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Booshway
posted Hide Post
The owner of the tire shop I trade at is an avid modern pistol shooter. He casts his own bullets. He also, naturally, has access to a lot of wheel weights for melting and use. He tells me that, these days, you cannot tell what kind, or hardness, of lead a weight might be just by looking at style. They can be anything and are never pure lead. Meaning, might be OK for modern hard bullets but not for ml. I'll qualify: IMHO
 
Posts: 1487 | Location: Mountain Home, Arkansas | Registered: 08 October 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Greenhorn
posted Hide Post
First I will say howdy on my first reply here. I have been reading on these forums for a long time.

I shoot a lot of wheel weights cut with lead 50/50 or straight ww and I use twill, drill, and ticking for my patch material for the .50, .54, and .58. The drill patch I like the best in my round grooved bores because it is a little stiff but once you get the ball started with a short starter it cleans the fouling and seals the bore. Tough stuff with good accuracy.
I use the ww balls for our match shooting and I can’t tell any difference in the accuracy between them and the pure lead shooting the close ranges we shoot at our matches 25 to 75 yards.
The harder 50/50 balls don’t get smashed out of shape.
For hunting I use the pure lead balls.

Butch
 
Posts: 4 | Registered: 17 January 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Booshway
posted Hide Post
Have WW's always been the same? I've got buckets of them sitting around from when my Grandpop had a service station, most probably from the 1970's. Should these be a mix of metals or would they have been straight lead back then before all the environmental regs started coming into effect?
 
Posts: 429 | Location: Delmarva | Registered: 22 December 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Hivernant
posted Hide Post
OK, lot's of good opinions. now just thinking out loud here, is it possible to melt down and seperate the lead from the alloy? in a practical and easy way?
 
Posts: 125 | Location: eden, utah | Registered: 07 January 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Booshway
Picture of Pilgrim
posted Hide Post
I found this post on a bullet casting forum:

quote:
"Lead/antimony alloy drosses considerably. As your melt reaches liquidus temperature that silvery, lumpy, oatmeal looking stuff floating on top is antimony. Skimming it off seriously depletes the alloy; it needs to be fluxed back into the melt".

It is quite apparent that drosses indeed rises to the top, and that skimming them off will remove the parent metal from the melt. That is reinforced by this quote from the same link;

"Dross forms in a pot of molten metal by oxidation of the metal from exposure to heat, air, impurities, and dirt, and from running the alloy below its liquidus. As the metals melt, drosses (oxides of the metals) appear on the surface of the molten metal. They must be returned to the melt by fluxing, or else their removal as dross seriously depletes some of the important constituents of the alloy".

Certainly, there are industrial processes for refining lead and removing alloys that use methods and reactions that are not advisable for application at home. However, it is quite obvious that this method will work with equipment and methods any experienced bullet caster is familiar with.


What I get from this is that if you skim the dross from your lead pot, you will remove some of the tin/antimony alloy, leaving behing a higher percentage of pure lead. If you want harder bullets, then you need to flux the dross back in.


"Any day you wake up on the right side of the dirt is a good day"
 
Posts: 428 | Location: Northwestern California | Registered: 05 May 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Hivernant
posted Hide Post
well pilgrim that was very interesting.
not exactly sure what dross is or means, but my question seems plausible.

I thought the fluxing process was to bring out impurities. I'm using a commericial flux product, the name escapes me right now, but THAT puts the alloy back into the mix? so if i just melt what I have and scrape off the top, do you suppose that would serve both purposes?
 
Posts: 125 | Location: eden, utah | Registered: 07 January 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Booshway
posted Hide Post
Skimming the dross off the top of the alloy melt does remove a small portion of the alloys that are in the solution but it would take many, many times of trying to do this to render the alloy back to pure lead. That just isn't going to happen with the unsophisticated equipment that we are using.

If you want to use pure lead, then start with pure lead. If you want harder bullets, then by all means, use a harder alloy. that or make the alloy harder by adding the appropriate metals. Don't try to do this backwards, it just doesn't work.

The following is a hardness chart taken from CAST BULLET HANDBOOK, 3rd edition, Lyman, page 57.

ALLOY BHN
Lynotype 22
Lyman #2 15
10-1 11.5
Wheel weight 9
pure lead 5

The following is from a second source,
Wheel weight (heat treated) 29
Wheel weight (quenched) 22
Wheel weight 9

This shows why those shooters who are shooting cast bullets at much higher velocities use wheel weights and go to the trouble of hardening them by other means, quenching or heat treating.

Wheel weights made of lead alloys are coming to an end. The auto shops are no longer using them. The green laws, you know.

Load fast and aim slow.
 
Posts: 1726 | Location: Pacific Northwest | Registered: 08 March 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3  
 


2014 Historical Enterprises, LLC