The mold I use gives me boolits of .360 at this temperature (740F)
Does the PC have greater adhesion? I doubt it.
I will soon make another post with deficiencies in PC adhesion in these boolits.
Without a doubt, the high temperature accelerates the production of boolits, and I begin to have fewer wrinkles faster.
I think member BNE, who has ready access to lab grade XRF equipment, ran an experiment with a very hot pot of alloy where he continually skimmed off the surface as crud formed, but never returned it to the melt or reduced it back in. Analyzing what was left in the pot, serially over many hours, he found the alloy content never varied significantly: the proportions of Pb to Sb to Sn stayed the same.
So I tend to wait to the end of a casting session to reduce oxides back into castable metal, and am confident that any bad bullets cast are my own doggone fault, not the alloy’s.
I love these threads where people argue over the right way to cast.
Person 1 - I do XYZ process and it works so it's the only way to do it.
Person 2 - No way! I do ABC process and it works, so it's the only way to do it!
Person 3 - You're both idiots. I do QWERTY and it works so obviously you're both doing it wrong and are clueless.
LOL....I totally agree.Originally Posted by reddog81
That's why I made the link post to lasc.us
The author, Glenn E. Fryxell, has a Ph.D. in ORGANIC Chemistry with 21 patents and NUMEROUS articles and publications.
No one posting here has his expertise yet claim to know more about lead and casting, DESPITE what he wrote on lead and casting, including fluxing!!!!
I just sit back and read the obstinate posts and laugh.
Psalms 91
The difficult thing is to argue with technical/bibliographical knowledge the reason for each thing. Then each one adjusts to what they have.
For example, do frosty bullets have a smaller diameter? my MP mold drop to 359, so that doesn't influence me.
I don't have a lab for metals, so I can only weigh and measure. The weight has not changed with the two temperatures, the way I make PCs has not changed, the only thing left to do is try it in the range.
The posts that I pay the most attention to are those that justify what they do with a textbook behind them.
This was what i meant.
It's like when someone gives an opinion about surgery in my case.
6 years of medicine, 5 years of first specialty, two of second specialty, and after that 14 years of experience. And someone asks me something that I read on Google...
Like I said, LMBOThis was what i meant.
It's like when someone gives an opinion about surgery in my case.
6 years of medicine, 5 years of first specialty, two of second specialty, and after that 14 years of experience. And someone asks me something that I read on Google...
Psalms 91
I don't use a thermometer and all my metals were bought second or third hand and are a hodgepodge of alloys. I use a cheap Lee casting pot. I shoot small groups with handguns at 50 yards and metal targets at 100Y and it works out for me. As long as I'm getting good fill out on the bullets they shoot well. I occasionally stir my pot with a wooden stick but don't really get too worked up about fluxing. It would seem to me that there can be wide variations in the process with little change in the end results. Having correctly sized bullets makes 100% more difference in my experiences than any tweaks I could do to the casting process.
The problem is, in his LASC section on fluxing Fryzell seemingly contradicts himself.
As mentioned, if one has a method that works for them and meets their needs then all is well. Many things in this game of casting bullets can be done using various methods and/or different techniques. Those methods/techniques can change, morph or be entirely new dependent on new developments in the industry. Fryxell's work, like many others is certainly an important work. However, it is not the gospel of bullet casting.
Larry Gibson
“Deficient observation is merely a form of ignorance and responsible for the many morbid notions and foolish ideas prevailing.”
― Nikola Tesla
You can't make a statement that he contradicts himself, without pointing out said contradiction. Then revert back to if a method works, then all is well, while also making a blanket statement about methods and techniques changing. What techniques developed that changes the chemical reaction to lead and lead alloys to which his publication is no longer sound or valid? What are his "seemingly" contradictions?
Psalms 91
More Slugs
First of all, it's not for you to say what I can't make a statement on.
I'm not going to research all of Fryxell's writing for you. In one of his writings he says beeswax is not a reductant and the a couple paragraphs later says it is as flux. You can find it for yourself if you want to. I posted the quotations once and was threatened with a ban if I continued. As I said in the above post. Fryxells writings are important works. However, they are not gospel. Many things have evolved, morphed and/or changed since his writings. I never said his writings were wrong.
Larry Gibson
“Deficient observation is merely a form of ignorance and responsible for the many morbid notions and foolish ideas prevailing.”
― Nikola Tesla
"First of all, it's not for you to say what I can't make a statement on."
Of course we can make any statement that we want, yet it doesn't eradicate any truths.
I meant it in regards to your own words, by simply meaning if you're going to say someone did something, in this case being contradictory, then back it up with proof.
That's like me calling someone a liar, and leaving the statement at that, but not backing it up with proof about what they lied about.
Otherwise it's just an ambiguous statement.
I didn't ask you to research his writings for me.
You are obviously quick to anger and have some emotional immaturity to say something out of context like that.
We're having, what I thought was, a mature conversation and I simply asked for you to expand upon your own statement.
I did find and read what you were trying to say he contradicted himself about, but you clearly did not read or comprehend it correctly, so allow me to clarify.
He made a clear point that a TRUE bullet metal flux must have ALL 3 abilities, which are to:
1. Remove
2. Reduce
3. Protect
He called beeswax a "flux" with quotation marks and explained the quotation marks by also adding:
(the quotation marks are being used here because these materials don’t form a fusible mass and hence don’t fully satisfy the formal definition of “flux”).
That formal definition would again be to 'remove', 'reduce' and 'protect'.
He then expands on it by saying beeswax only does 2 of the 3 abilities:
1. It can reduce "any oxidized tin present"
2. It protects "to form an excellent barrier layer"
Yet it does not "remove" impurities.
Therefore, there was no contradiction because he clearly pointed out that it's not a "flux", but since SO MANY people use the term "flux" incorrectly, he went with it in a general sense.
I also didn't say that you said his writings were wrong.
How did that get into your head?
I also didn't mention his works are gospel, as you stated on your own. Twice.
I merely pointed out the fact that he has a doctorate in organic chemistry, which unlike most people commenting, makes HIS writings VERY sound and truthful based on years of actual experiments with natural elements. Not because he's been casting bullets for a few decades or less.
You mentioned methods and techniques changing, which I didn't contest. I only, and still ask:
What techniques developed that changes the chemical reaction to lead and lead alloys to which his publication is no longer sound or valid?
You're only response was he contradicted himself, which I showed he did not, while providing zero facts in response to my question.
No doubt people have responded with "methods that work for them and meets their needs...".
But based on an experts publication about casting, they are wrong with their assumption that they are getting the best out of their castings just because their bullets look good or fly with accuracy.
So you, and anyone else, can argue that the way you cast is correct by not fluxing, or using something besides sawdust that doesn't truthfully flux (by definition).
But it doesn't change the facts and truths that he wrote about.
Perhaps this is why they say the truth hurts.
You don't like it hurting, then stop making it true!
So anyone can feel free to reply with a rebuttal.
But don't argue with me, because it takes 2 and I won't be responding.
Go argue with the Ph.D. that knows what he's talking about.
Psalms 91
I don't think so much detail is necessary, we can listen to everyone's opinions, and surely, we will learn something from all of them.
Maybe Larry wrote quickly, or he didn't mean exactly that, it doesn't really matter, let's try to make tolerance the best distributed good, not reason.
I agree and would like to, and can, do that.
Yet I just read the 'Fluxing Technique" sticky for the first time, and it appears this is who Larry has been, and is, as a person.
So the detail was ironically necessary.
Psalms 91
It was old feller's post I made my original post in reference to in this thread, particularly the first red highlighted statement. When the alloy is already in the pot and those who are dealing with the oxidized alloy that forms on the top of the alloy flux they are not trying to remove through "removing" any other metal impurities as that has probably already been done in the initial smelt. The fluxing when the alloy is already in the pot and in use is simply to "reduce" the oxidized portion of the alloy back into the melt. I did not say what I did was best, just mentioned what I did.
More Slugs
You don't know me and you have no idea how I am as a person. You speak of having a "mature conversation", yet you make personal attacks. I've made no such statements about you nor do I intend to. I am not "angry" about anything regarding this thread and that includes your personal comments. I did not call you a liar nor did I imply it. Conversely, you did imply that to me.
The part of Fryxell's writings you quote and refer to is not what I am referring to. There is another of his writings, which I quoted in another thread on the topic on this forum. I will attempt to locate that for you.
nueses5
No, I did not write to quickly and I did mean exactly what I said. Your comments are appreciated. and as you say it doesn't matter as beeswax, as are many other things, a good flux for the alloy that is already in use in the pot. However, the real crux of my post is seemingly missing from this further discussion. The crux, and point, of my post was that since the oxidized "slag" on top of the alloy is not separated antimony and/or tin from the alloy there is no need to laboriously flux the alloy in the pot. As I mentioned I only flux once at the beginning of casting with a pot full and add the sprues back in as I cast. It's just the technique I've found that works very well for me. That was posted strictly in reference to oldfeller's red highlighted first statement, as mentioned.
Last edited by Larry Gibson; 05-09-2024 at 09:28 AM.
Larry Gibson
“Deficient observation is merely a form of ignorance and responsible for the many morbid notions and foolish ideas prevailing.”
― Nikola Tesla
Concerning the benefits of of a layer of kitty litter on top of your bottom pour pot I see several benefits:
*A layer of kitty litter keeps air away from the top surface of the melt, thus cutting down on oxidation.
*Kitty litter insulates the top surface of the pot, making it maintain its temperature better.
*Added freshly trimmed sprue material or new ingots to the pot gets a softer landing with less chance of splashing any material out of the pot.
*The delay when settling down past the litter gives any trapped condensation or moisture a chance to be driven off by pot heat before being submerged and causing a boiling action.
*Placing cold ingots on the lip of the pot and letting them warm up complements the use of kitty litter as wasted heat from "up top" is used to preheat your ingots.
*Your kitty litter gets dirty looking with protracted use, prompting you to periodically dump it out of a cooled pot taking any nasty residues out of the pot.
*If you powder coat and do put some powder coated bullets back into your pot, you will find the mostly intact poly skin wadded up in your kitty litter when you dump it.
*Ditto for gas checks or jackets or misc. other material that occasionally make their way into your bottom pour pot.
Kitty litter simply makes bottom pour casting easier, cleaner and more user friendly. A quarter inch to half inch of kitty litter does good things to make casting relatively more error proof.
Last edited by Oldfeller; 05-11-2024 at 10:57 AM.
All retired now, just growing tomatoes and building and shooting my guns.
Oldfeller's above post is excellent advise........
Larry Gibson
“Deficient observation is merely a form of ignorance and responsible for the many morbid notions and foolish ideas prevailing.”
― Nikola Tesla
Another possibly lost technique is using 2-3 layers of cheap cotton gloves. You buy these cheap cotton gloves by the dozen at Harbor Freight and you wear 2-3 layers of them when casting bullets and when handling a hot mold.
No joke, I don't hit my sprue plate with a stick, I run the mold hot and quick and I operate the sprue plate itself with my gloved fingers. And yes, I am talking about 2 cavity Lee molds with the stubby steel sprue plates.
Run your mold quick enough that finger pressure is enough to push the plate through the soft, just hardened sprue cut off.
Yep, you can feel a sensation of heat, but simply don't stay there long enough to get burned.
Using triple gloved fingers, I can run the mold very very quickly, to the point I also keep a water soaked rag nearby to touch the bottom of the mold to in case I speed myself up to the point of smearing lead across the top of the mold. Fast enough and too fast are pretty close to each other, and the water soaked rag helps keep the two apart during a long hot fast run.
I catch the cut sprue in my gloved hand and put it back into the pot gently. I catch the bullets in my hand and roll them into the towel to cool. I also use my fingers to gently tip the preheated ingots onto the kitty litter on top of the melt.
Visual inspection of freshly cast bullets is done while handling them between mold and towel. I put questionable ones in a separate area to detail inspect after they have cooled as you do not have time to oggle at them.
Yep, them frosty hot freshly cast bullets are my favorite ones .......
Amazingly, I haven't burned myself doing these tricks except once when I tore the outermost two layers of my stacked gloves accidentally on a sharp edged ingot flashing and then I grabbed on to a hot mold with only a single cotton glove layer between me and the hot aluminum.
Ouch !!!
Last edited by Oldfeller; 05-11-2024 at 11:42 AM.
All retired now, just growing tomatoes and building and shooting my guns.
Saw the Long Ranger once in a XXX movie - but I know what your point was.
If the your cast results are satisfactory for your purpose and they shoot well, you should be good to go. The argument could be made that sometimes too much is made of what the thermometer says. Like most of the old guys, I learned to cast without a thermometer. These days I have a thermometer in the pot every time I cast. The bullets I cast with a thermometer are no more accurate than what I used to cast pre thermometer. I get shiny bullets when I balance antimony and tin in my wheel weights and cast at a lower temperature. I get frosted bullets with wheel weights when I do not add the tin and need to cast hotter. Both shoot well.
Good luck with your cast.
Willie
Posting Permissions
| BP | Bronze Point | IMR | Improved Military Rifle | PTD | Pointed |
| BR | Bench Rest | M | Magnum | RN | Round Nose |
| BT | Boat Tail | PL | Power-Lokt | SP | Soft Point |
| C | Compressed Charge | PR | Primer | SPCL | Soft Point "Core-Lokt" |
| HP | Hollow Point | PSPCL | Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" | C.O.L. | Cartridge Overall Length |
| PSP | Pointed Soft Point | Spz | Spitzer Point | SBT | Spitzer Boat Tail |
| LRN | Lead Round Nose | LWC | Lead Wad Cutter | LSWC | Lead Semi Wad Cutter |
| GC | Gas Check |
Reply With Quote