Coating Shootout

  • 11K Views
  • Last Post 18 September 2016
mtngun posted this 07 April 2016

I've previously performed shooting comparisons of several different coatings in a 6x45 and in a 357 rifle, and those comparisons led me to settle on oil-based polyurethane, but disappointing performance with the urethane coated plain base in a 6BR is forcing me to try a little harder.

So this time I'll be doing some different kinds of comparison tests, trying to understand what characteristics make a good coating, and trying to understand how coated bullets fail. The shoot-out will include oil-based polyurethane, an electrostatic applied polyester powder coat, an electrostatic applied silicone powder coat, and zombie green hi-tek coating.

Today was my first time ESC'ing bullets, so I'm sure I have a lot to learn about it, but here is how I went about it.   First, I made fixture to hold the bullets base-up, because I'm going to be testing plain base bullets and I suspect that it is important that the base receive a good coat.    I used a 1/4” center drill to drill an array of holes in an aluminum plate.   The depth of the hole was chosen so that the coating would stop at the top lube groove, that way any “flash” would end up in the lube groove where it would do the least harm.

Using this base-up method, the base ends up getting a thicker coat than the rest of the bullet.  That's not necessarily a bad thing, though, depending on your favorite theory of how coatings work.   I believe coatings function similar to a gas check, protecting the base from melting and gas cutting, so I'm happy with the base receiving a thicker coating.

The silicone powder does not stick as well as polyester powder so my first batch of silicone powder coat turned out a little thin.   About that time I noticed that the air pressure was dropping down to 5 psi while spraying, so I adjusted the regulator up to the recommended 8 psi and sprayed a second batch, deliberately putting it on a little thicker.   This is that second batch.  

If the shooting results are black and white, I may be able to wrap up this shoot-out in one day.   But if the results are “muddled” then testing may drag on for a while.  We'll see.

I'm also performing an oven test to determine at what temperature the coatings “fail.”     I'm not sure if that's relevant to the shooting performance, but it might be.

Attached Files

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 18 September 2016

thanks mr. mtn.....getting harder not to get me some of that latest red stuff ... got some 400 yard gongs that might like to get acquainted with those red headed strangers ...

ken

Attached Files

mtngun posted this 18 September 2016

Trying a new-to-me hybrid PC.   The hope here is to find a PC that has the long, forgiving cure time of a hybrid PC, yet the prettier look of a polyester PC.    There aren't very many pretty hybrid coatings, plus hybrids tend to be thin and splotchy when applied by tumbling.  

Not as perfect as a sprayed-on polyester PC, but I like the appearance much better than the previous hybrid PC's that I have tried.    The single tumbled coat averaged 0.0013” thick and 0.0008” out-of-roundness.

Not much difference in group sizes but for what it is worth the 25 minute cure had the smallest mean radius.

The “s” on the cure times are a typo, obviously the cure times were meant to be minutes, not seconds.  :P

At the moment this fire-red hybrid coating is my first choice because I like the appearance,  and because its 25 - 30 minute cure time is forgiving, and compatible with heat treating if the need arises.

Attached Files

mtngun posted this 28 August 2016

http://www.castbulletassoc.org/view_post.php?post_id=97026>Another cure-time test cross posted from my 7BR thread.

Short version is that I tried a “copper hybrid” coating at different cure times.    Well, as you can see the so-called copper coating doesn't look like copper at all, it's butt ugly.    Hybrid coatings are generally only available in dull colors, so why use a dull hybrid coating instead of shiny polyester coating?   Because hybrid coatings can be much more tolerant of overcure than polyester, that's why.  :)

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8658/2914109407221fb8ff8fbb.jpg

Here's the cure time vs. accuracy chart.    25 - 30 minutes seems optimal for hybrid coatings.   That's convenient if you want to quench the bullets after curing.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8324/28669809304193b3987fab.jpg

This particular 115 gr. BB did not shoot well with any coating, but for what it is worth the hybrid coating shot at least as well as hi-tek.

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 24 July 2016

Wow! Excellent accuracy at very high velocities.

Such performance with lead bullets, both coated and uncoated, would have been unbelievable, at least by me, not long ago.

This is better accuracy than needed for almost any kind of hunting at velocity levels that would provide flat shooting and a lot of energy delivered at the target.  Bullet performance on game is another thing but probably can be achieved one way or another.

Keep it up.

John 

Attached Files

mtngun posted this 24 July 2016

That's great accuracy for a lever action, Myflatline. :cool:

I'm going to cross-post the following from my 30BR thread because it is as much a coating test as a 30BR test:

All of today's bullets were cast with reclaimed shot and oven treated.   The uncoated bullets were treated at 470F, while the coated bullets were quenched after their 400F cure, hence the difference in BHN.  FYI the BHN numbers are using the 10mm/150kg homemade tester.   I also tested the same samples with the 4mm/60 pound homemade tester and it gave 33 BHN for the 470F bullets and 27 BHN for the 400F bullets.   For the time being I'll assume that the 10mm test is more reliable.

The hybrid coating was applied in a tumbler.   I didn't measure the thickness but based on past experience it's typically 0.0003” - 0.0004” per coat.    As you can see this particular powder goes on thin and spotchy when tumbled.    It looks ratty but I'm more concerned with how it shoots.

Based on my previous cure time tests, I cured the single coat for 30 minutes.  

The first coat of the 2-coat bullet was cured for 15 minutes, then the second coat was cured for 30 minutes.   That means the first coat received a total of 45 minutes cure time.   The hybrid coating seems tolerant of long cure times so that makes it appealing for multiple coats and/or for bullets that will be quenched after curing.

I may have posted this information before but after minimal nose sizing the bullet is seated with only the GC in the neck, due to the long gentle 1 degree throat.    I would prefer to seat it a wee bit deeper but that may require a longer bullet.   BTW if the bullet looks crooked that's because it is, because there's not enough bullet inside the case to hold it straight.  :D   However, it straightens itself out when chambered.

    All of today's loads used 36.7 gr. WC844, HVR lube, and a CCI #41 primer.   However, I'm using a different jug of WC844 than last time, so that may explain today's higher velocities.

Accuracy from best to worst: -- 1.26” 1-coat hybrid -- 1.31” 2-coat hybrid -- 1.40” no coating

Velocity from highest to lowest.   Coated bullets usually increase velocity due to higher engraving pressure. -- 2925 fps 2-coat hybrid -- 2914 fps 1-coat hybrid -- 2886 fps no coating

Velocity standard deviation from lowest to highest.   Coatings usually reduce velocity variation due to higher engraving pressure. -- .49% 2-coat hybrid -- .52% 1-coat hybrid -- .73% no coating

Average extreme spread for 10 shots, from lowest to highest.   -- 43 fps 2-coat hybrid -- 45 fps 1-coat hybrid -- 70 fps no coating

Conclusions: -- velocities were higher than I intended, but that's OK because it still shot decent. :) -- as with previous tests of coated vs. uncoated GC bullets, the coated bullet was a tiny bit more accurate but the difference was not statistically significant.    Maybe if you tested 1000 rounds each you could prove a difference. :D -- if nothing else the hybrid coating makes the powder burn better and reduces velocity variation. -- one thin coating works as well as 2 coats, even if the single splotchy coat looks like hell. -- In general, I'm pleased with the consistency of this combination, but I believe the barrel is capable of doing much better if I can find the right combination.   The barrel hasn't even lost its MOA virginity yet. :D

Things To Try Next Time: -- heavier bullets, both GC and PB. -- I'm inclined to stick with 1 thin coat of hybrid for GC bullets.    It may help a tiny bit and definitely does not hurt. -- different powders.

Attached Files

Myflatline posted this 23 July 2016

Here is a 100 yard target for the 35 

Attached Files

Myflatline posted this 21 July 2016

I believe the targets I posted are at the 50 yard mark. That is my test and development distance. I have backed the 35 off to 100 and had very acceptable groups. Will see if I can find pictures

Attached Files

35Whelen posted this 21 July 2016

Myflatline wrote: Gentlemen, I do not want to cause issues with my postings.  We are somewhat at apples and oranges in bullet style and caliber.  I cast and coat mainly 35 and 44 caliber bullets.  I personally have not tried to push to the upper limits.  When working with the 35, I stopped at @ 1750 fps with a sub 1” group.   At what range did you shoot the groups you show with your 35 and 44?

Attached Files

mtngun posted this 28 June 2016

ALMOND HYBRID EPOXY-POLYESTER: . Today's batch came out 0.0005” thick -- that is definitely too thin and I expected the thin coating to result in fliers, which it did.    Also the out-of-roundness was a not-so-great 0.0006".

Normally I would apply two coats of Hybrid Epoxy to reach the desired 0.001” thickness, but two coats would make the cure time experiment much more complicated. :(

Today's groups were so poor to be of much use.   Until better data becomes available I'm going to assume that this powder prefers to be cured for 25 - 40 minutes.

Attached Files

mtngun posted this 28 June 2016

Retesting some of the cure times from post #114, just to see if the trends are repeatable.

DURABLE WET GLOSS BLACK:   as in post #114, today's batch was coated by tumbling.   It came out 0.0011” thick and 0.0005” out-of-round.    All bullets were from the same casting session and tumbled at the same time.   Cure time was the only variable.

Well, for some reason today's Durable Black did not want to shoot as well as post #114's Durable Black.   Today's data was too noisy to prove much. :(

I don't why today's Durable Black bullets shot poorly.   Coating thickness was nearly the same as last time.    Also, today's velocities were lower than post #114's, 2622 fps vs. 2705 fps.    Usually lower velocity means either a softer BHN or a softer coating.    Yet today's bullets were cast with the same alloy as post #114, and I'm not aware of any reason the coating might be softer ?   It's a mystery. 

Nonetheless based on the data we have so far -- noisy though it may be -- it looks like the ideal cure time for this particular powder is 12 to 20 minutes.

Attached Files

mtngun posted this 20 June 2016

Today we did a cure time shootout for powder coat.

The usual 75 gr. bevel base, 26.3 gr. WC844, Rotometals reclaimed shot.   I didn't verify the BHN of each and every batch of cured bullets because there were so many batches, but I did measure one Durable Black bullet (12.3 BHN) and one Almond Hybrid bullet (13.1 BHN). 

Coating was applied in a tumbler.   Only one coat.  The Durable Black averaged 0.001” thick, while the Almond Hybrid averaged 0.0007” thick.    All the Durable Black bullets were tumbled at the same time, and all the Almond Hybrid bullets were tumbled at the same time.   The only variable was the cure time.

Only one 10-shot group was shot for each cure time, and as always "one good group is not enough to prove that a load is good, but one bad group may be enough to prove that a load is bad."   

Attached Files

mtngun posted this 09 June 2016

OU812 wrote: I do not have a clue, but sometimes I get lucky and discover a load that shoots very well in one rifle.

...Sometimes that's the way I feel, too.  :D

Attached Files

OU812 posted this 08 June 2016

My Bad...I hate it when I respond to a tread without reading and understanding it fully. OK I went back and reread...I understand it a little better now (no gas check and nearly the same alloy).

Gas check would help with softer alloy, but you have probably been there and done that.

I do not have a clue, but sometimes I get lucky and discover a load that shoots verywell in one rifle. This will have me thinking a know everything...NOT!

...

...

Attached Files

mtngun posted this 08 June 2016

OU812 wrote: I noticed as alloy got softer groups improved...try softer.

I would skip the HIGH TEK coating and try less waxy lube...does your lube method allow lubing just one or two grooves.

I learn more from big changes than from small.

Keep an open mind and make changes...less lube will work.Thanks for reading my thread and thinking about my fussy load, OU812.   :)

So far in this barrel/load I have tried 11 BHN, 12 BHN, and 13 BHN on the softer side, not to mention 20 - 26 BHN on the hard side.   In a 6x45 I tried as soft as 8 BHN with coated plain base bullets.   (The 6x45 was also very fussy about coated plain base BHN, preferring 11 BHN at 2500 fps.   I never tried 14 BHN in it.)

Without coating, a plain base bullet would not hit the target at 2700 fps.   Coating is not optional.

I haven't tried leaving some grooves empty in this particular barrel, but I've tried it in several other barrels and it never showed the slightest advantage.    See http://www.mountainmolds.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=507>this experiment, for example.    That's not to say that it might not be worth trying again as time allows.

I'll be trying a few Eagan-type bullets soon, that only have the one itty bitty lube groove.   It will have a GC though, and a long bore riding nose, so it's a different animal.

Thanks again for your suggestions.   I'm enjoying your 223 threads.  :)

Attached Files

OU812 posted this 08 June 2016

I noticed as alloy got softer groups improved...try softer. Seems smaller calibers can use softer alloy with higher pressures. 

I would skip the HIGH TEK coating and try less waxy lube...does your lube method allow lubing just one or two grooves. Keep an open mind and make changes...less lube will work in smaller calibers.

I learn more from big changes than from small.

.....

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 08 June 2016

although we all strive for the 1 inch group ( the americfan way, y know ) ...

we should remember that 3 inch groups at 2700 fps with ( almost ) plain base cast is very usable and to my mind ....astounding !

of course it would be even more impressive if you could shoot a few targets with basically the same load ... but with the old school waxy lube instead of ” plastic ” protection .

i haven't used a gas check for 15 years, and so view your progress with extra fervor ....geepers i might be able to break 1400 fps some day using your techniques ... and although i am mostly a plinker guy, ... plain base cast at high velocity might be desireable in survivalist scenarios .

3 moa is excellent compared to the 4 to 6 moa i attained with my gi garand ....and that accuracy held back a lot of nasty people 70 years ago ... thank you for your efforts ... ken

Attached Files

mtngun posted this 08 June 2016

Today's goal was to try to duplicate the results with Hi-Tek & BHN 14 in posts #103 (average 1.73")  and #47 (average 2.26").

Also, we looked around for another alloy that would also be 14 BHN, and came up with some 30 year old ingots of  20% lino / 80% WW.   So we tested that alloy with Hi-Tek, too.

Groups are numbered in the order that they were shot.   All of today's loads used the 75 gr. bevel base, Hi-Tek coating, HVR lube, and WC844 powder.   All of the new batches of Hi-Tek were cured at 365F for 20 minutes -- an experimental departure from my previous routine of 350F for 30 minutes.    The powder charge was tweaked slightly from group to group in an attempt to maintain my self-imposed velocity window of 2700 - 2750 fps -- easier said than done when the extreme spread is sometimes 200 fps. :X

Groups #1, 3, 4, & 5.    What I call “Roto #2", my second purchase of reclaimed shot from Rotometals.    0.0011” thick Hi-Tek, 0.0006” out-of-round.    I did not have any leftover bullets to verify the BHN, but this alloy usually runs 14.    Average group = 1.63"

Groups #2, 6, 7, & 8.    20% lino, 80% clip-on wheelweight.    I must have accidentally given it an extra coat because this batch came out 0.0015” thick and 0.0005” out-of-round.    BHN of a cured bullet verified at 13.8.   Average group = 2.44"

Group #9.    The Roto #2 batch left over from post #47.    "going nowhere."  :D  :D  :D   

Attached Files

45 2.1 posted this 05 June 2016

Yeah, a reaction................ Accuracy comes when you get several items working together, not just one or two. Alloy is one of the top items... along with hardness thereof. If you can duplicate results, then you should learn something from it.

Attached Files

stevebarrett posted this 05 June 2016

I have also found gas checks can make things worse. I made up some .38 Specials using nominal 158gr semi-wadcutters sized to .357 in a Saeco lubrisizer. The bullets were lead with 5% tin and either 5% or 11% antimony. I used four different charges of 2.8-3.4 Nobel 3, and shot paired targets with the only difference being the presence or absence of brass gas checks. The revolver was fixed in a Ransom rest. Velocities were mostly 6-700fps. Using OnTarget to measure groups sizes, in every pair the gas checks gave a larger group, which was highly significant when the results were pooled ”€œ p = 0.00026. Similar to the above, I also tried out dental wax gas checks in a 9mm Luger with Lee 356-125-2R  bullets not designed for gas checks - likewise lead with 5% tin and 5, 7, 9 or 11% antimony and a constant 4.6gr HP38; unsized. Pooling the final results of 180 shots with, and 180 without, dental wax gas checks, the results were again better without gas checks ”€œ p = 0.00000014. I know gas checks are mostly advocated for rifle cartridges, but I figured that if I shot enough handgun rounds I might discover a slight advantage. Finding gas checks gave worse results did come as a surprise.

Attached Files

mtngun posted this 05 June 2016

Ken Campbell Iowa wrote: mr. mtn. ::

ok, initiation is over ...

you made the team .

welcome to cast bullets ... ( g ) ...

kenHa ha ha  :D  :D  :D

Attached Files

Show More Posts
Close