First, this is an old thread and we have fired many more rounds since then
Second, the abrasive issue, is a non issue.
Third, the HT system is, and always has been exempt from the debate as it differs from powder coating.

__________________
it just needs more voltage

nice shooting sir.
you've obviously put some sweat into that load development.

did you use the same charge with your coated testing as your traditional or did you try to retune the load to the new variable?

IME, Ive gotten results ranging from similar to conventional to improved from load to load.

__________________
it just needs more voltage

It may just require some load tweaking or even a powder change. You are creating a totally diff bullet by coating it. I am sure one can develope a suitable 50yd accuracy load with coated. Your single test of one bullet in one gun isn't really conclusive. I have been coating for only a few months, but an IDPA world win says plenty accurate.
You are right though, accuracy is relevant to ones needs. I shoot IDPA, so only need 3" 25yd accuracy & both HT & PC will easily give me that in my guns, same as lead or jacketed. My better gun/loads will do 2" or a bit better at 25yds. The true test will be my scoped hunting rig in 44mag. I sight in for 100yds. The gun will do 3" off the bench with conventional lead/gc/lubed bullets. We'll see how that goes. Btw, splitting a playing card at 35' with a 45acp is a pretty easy trick, same for shooting stings or anything else.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

I saw that, but you miss my point. All that proves is that with that bullet weight, in that caliber, with that powder charge, the plain bullet is more accurate than the coated bullet. There's just not enough data there to come to a broad conclusion that all coated bullets will always be less accurate than all plain bullets across platforms.

If you switch powders, or sizing diameter, or calibers, and repeat your test you may or may not get the same results. You may very well be right but unless you can repeat those results with say a 230gr RN and W231, and a bunch of other variations, it's hard to come to the generalization that coated is less accurate. You only have a single data point.

For you, if you are stuck on that weight bullet, and that powder charge, and that caliber, in that sizing diameter, yeah then the plain bullets are the way to go.

Random one hole targets don't mean much to me, unless of course I can do it every time. I'm more interested in the aggregate. That's what I track. To each his own.

I think you're missing my answer or dont want to accept the results globally. If I can shoot one hole groups routinely as the pictures of other targets in my post indicate, and cut cards with one shot with a different bullet and different gun then we've eliminated the one gun, one load debate. The only side by side I did was the one I posted here and I did that because all my targets with 4 different guns yielded the same inaccuracy result. I fired several hundred rounds with different guns and different loads. As well I am one of many shooters of this ability doing this testing and they have the same results. To hopefully being you to the conclusion that is obvious, here are some of my other targets with all the identification you need, all with loads that are in my files of very successful loads. These targets pretty much blow that notion that because it's a coated bullet and not a wax lubed bullet, tweaking the load will make it punch one hole. Coated bullets are not *** accurate as wax lubed lead. Compare the Cowboy 45 target here with the one in my previous post. Some are better than others, but there was no consistency as I experience with lead lubed with wax.

PeaShooter,

Bullseye shooting is a dying competition compared to all the other ACTION SHOOTING competitions.

I love HI-TEK coatings, just clean everything and no waxy mess on dies, hands or anything else.

__________________
NRA Pistol/Rifle Inst. RSO

If that's what you like, good for you. I was and NRA tri state champion when I was in my early teens and to this day enjoy driving nails, cutting cards and 1,000 shoots with a .22 rifle so accuracy is important to me and that's Okay. A few years ago I enjoyed competitive steel target shooting and have my own steel rack no for fun. But you cant tell me that a more accurate bullet in any sport isn't an advantage.

And buy the way there's nothing HI-TEK about an epoxy coating; that's just a buzz word for suckers. The technical aspect of lead bullets is proper foundry recipes with a staff that isn't paid minimum wage and doesn't know squat about the science of quality lead bullets. I don't have a lead problem with lead bullets.

Haters gonna hate. I like accuracy too, no point in shooting in accurate ammo, but it is relevant. In my limited testing, pretty new to coated bullets, accuracy between my best lead loads & coated lead are so close as to not be able to reliably repeat & measure them. My best 9, 40 & 45 loads from my best guns will easily break 2" @ 25yds, iron sights benched. Short if ransom resting, most can't Match That shooting offhand. I can on good days, but trying to determine the 1/4" or so possible diff In Accuracy is diff. If it works for others, who are you really to tell them diff? If you hate it, no problem, I feel the same about TG, but telling others they have no idea what they are talking about is a bit narrow.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

Is this directed at me? Cuz I didn't tell anybody they didn't know what they were talking about; I may have said you're missing my point.

But I gotta say, nobody accepted my results without proof and I posted it. All I see in your post is talk, talk is cheap and I have to ask, since it's so prevalent on many forums; are you one of Missouri Bullets plants who says everything is A OKay? So I dont believe you. Many award winning marksmen had the same results as I did but you're is totally different. Hummmm sounds like the words of a plant. Send me some bullets and I'll see for myself.

...and if you look carefully, you're the only one with the word hate in your post. We've been having a great conversation till you, the hater jumped in. Send me some bullets.

Keep the discussion objective and within the tone of this board, or it gets locked.

As the rules state-
and Happy Thanksgiving!

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

This is your attitude, you obviously hate the product, why I use the word, which Is Fine. No I am not a plant, but your statement is a bit finite w/o serious testing proof. "one hole" groups at 50ft off a bench, yeah I can do that with PC or ht coated in my better guns. Already told you what I can do at 25yds, believe, don't, I don't care. Send you bullets, why, you don't like the product. "out the window accuracy", we are talking maybe, maybe 1/2" diff in group size at 25yds, really? I think Forrest has posted some pretty respectable groups with coated bullets.
You are arguing your point from a BE shooter, fine, maybe a 1/2" diff at 25yds matters. To the IDPA or uspsa or steel shooter, doesn't matter, plenty accurate for anything that needs shot out to even 50yds.
I don't often post targets, doesn't really mean much as you have to trust that the poster shot in the manner stated & at the distance stated. When I get back to the range, I'll be happy to shoot some groups & post results. Again doesn't really matter though as few shooters can benefit from guilt edge accuracy diff you are talking about. A 2" group or 2.5" 25yd group offhand, just doesn't matter & that is my point to you. If it is acceptable to those that use it, who are you to tell them the product is krap? Just calling like I see it.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

I dont think you noticed post 105.

Just what are you getting so freaked out about; why are you putting all these bad words in my mouth? I have said nothing like you're saying I said so this obviously really makes you mad and it's probably best you stop posting about it. I'll get some bullets and do the same test. The bullets I fired in post 105 were not Missouri Bullets so I'm not here to trash anybody and the casters bullets I fired will remain my information. My issue is simply coated bullets aren't as accurate as lead and there's a string of prize winning shooters that will attest to that. You actually agree they aren't as accurate but state it's only a fraction of an inch; that's not good enough for me; if it is for you relax and be happy.

I'll get the bullets and shoot the same shots I did in post 105 and if it's good, my guy will be happy to know there is hope. Otherwise, coated bullets just might be flawed for a bullseye shooter...and I'm entitled to shoot bullseye in spite of your thinking it's old stuff and accuracy doesn't count; it does.

I've had improvements with coatings.
This one tightened up with it, at much higher velocities than it's traditional lubed best load.
its a plain based 30-06 hammering on along at 2700 FPS.
the old 150G flat point really woke up.

To be fair, it was a complete overhaul of the load, rather than trying to make a previously proven load work.

__________________
it just needs more voltage

In my limited testing, accuracy may be slightly less, very slightly, but I haven't tried coated in several calibers, diff bullets & powders or greater distances than 25yds. So jury is still out on the degree of accuracy up or down.
The one thing coating does is remove a lot of alloy & leading issues. Lubed/Lead bullets can be very finicky depending on caliber & vel/pressures. So what works in one may not work in another. But saying coating bullets "throws accuracy out the window" is just hyperbole, not backed up by many that shoot them. It's a matter of degree & one hole groups or splitting cards at 40-50ft just is not that big a deal, especially off a rest.
Btw, you did say exactly the things you said, reread your posts. i'm not upset, actually laugh at your posts because I know better & that doesn't change my point; accuracy is relevant to each shooter. Some guys are getting those fabulous one hole groups, me included, at 50' not a difficult nor a huge big deal. My brand new 1911/9mm, no load dev, stock 5# trigger, open sights at 50' off the bench, one ragged hole I could cover with a 50c piece. I was impressed, not at my shooting but in a new gun, no load dev, just put something together. The bullet, oh yeah, hand cast 160gr Ltc hi-tek coated over 3gr of WST, mixed brass. One ragged hole for 10rds, yeah pretty poor accuracy. Next time I'll keep the target, that one had some 40 groups sort of over lapping as the sights needed adjustment. Remember, brand new gun, first time out. Just keep in it real.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

I'm playing with a mid vel load for my 6.8. My best 5shot group at 100 is only about 3". Plain base, powder coat, water dropped ww alloy. I made some more test bullets up today, gonna try water dropping out of the PC oven, see if that gives me a bit tougher alloy. What alloy are you using for 2700fps? I'm only looking for 2000fps.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

If you're so happy with it, why do you keep scolding me about it and my evidence? Just be happy and stop posting. Your position on bullets getting more accurate at longer distances is interesting but then that's your prerogative.

I'm going to get some MB bullets and shoot the exact same scenario and see how it comes out. Till then, just leave me alone: Okay? I really dont wasn't to post anymore till I get the test targets with MB Bullets cuz this conversation really started going bad when you started posting and I dont want the thread shut down so I can post the results.

So see you then....

early witches brew left over from whipping the PC minions.

10 pounds WW and a pound of lead free plumbing solder.
water quenched.
one of these days Ill spring for a legit alloy and see if I can't break the 3K mark

__________________
it just needs more voltage

10% tin is quite a bit. I thought baking at 400 with the PC might be softening my water dropped alloy, so my thought is water dropping right out of the oven would help??
I'm going to run some accuracy tests in several calibers. Probably at 25yds, 50' isn't telling enough of the story IMO. Then I'll post some pics & results to put the argument, if not to bed, at least bring it into reality.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

there are a good number of yesterdays between then and now.
Ill have to consult the lab notes to confirm the alloy. But then, it was a WAG mix anyhow and should be easily trumped by an alloy of better pedigree.

Sounds like your train of thought is on the same rails as my own. velocity results from acceleration, and that takes a lot of G's. Thus, too soft of a bullet distorts.
The bake probably does anneal the substrate. This might be at the root of peashooters gripe.

I do recall spraying them with water straight out of the bake in the interest of enhancing the final BHN.

__________________
it just needs more voltage

Some of the most in-accurate bullets I hav ever seen were cast and wax lubed..but then some of the most accurate were also the same. Don't know peashooter but he wants to defend his ideas and that is fine. At the same time he is using a pretty broad brush in saying that his ideas on hitech coatings is the only truth. I personally think that there are bullets of both persuasions that are equal in accuracy. I learned a long time ago that in shooting and reloading there is usually NO absolutes. I have also learned that even the best of shooters throws a flier every now and then. Just when everything is going great and I was shooting a good score in the 410 low 5 (or high 4) would pop up and my chance at a 100 turned into a 99. Same goes in Bullseye shooting or even just plinking. Sometimes.... it might just be those perfect loads or .....those imperfect nerves of steel!! Nah!! hadda be that ammo!!

LOL...I was going to post "how did this get so far off topic, coated v. uncoated" so lets be sure, what you've been talking about has nothing to do with what you call "peashooters gripe" as I have no gripe at all just a scientific comparison between coated and uncoated bullets performance. Aloy has nothing at all to do with it especially since the aloy of both types of bullet were exactly the same.

Just hold your horses, I'll get back with targets from the bullets you're defending. I hope it goes well.

A softer bullet at target vel should be fine, maybe even more accurate as you get a bit of obturation. Target loads are low pressure events anyway. The coating is just acting as a lube. You are right, baking too long at 400+ will soften the alloy, but shouldn't matter at target vel/pressures in handgun.
Lubed lead bullets can shoot great within their alloy & lube limits, for any given caliber/vel/pressures. So while I've been shooting conventional lead bullets for decades, trying something new & finding it works, sure why not. The only reason I looked at PC vs HT is for rifle use. I'm quite happy with HT for pistol loads, just easier to use.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

Guys there is no way to make a scientific comparison The coated and standard lubed bullets almost have to act differently. Hell's bells a difference in wax lubes quite often makes a difference..Sometimes a large one. And unconsciously we skew the results to support our suppositions or positions. Gonna shoot those things in a machine rest? I know that my bullets are different between PC and sized and lubed. Heck the baking changes the crystalline structure. Y'all might get a subjective comparison...not scientific. Look at it this way..a Hi Tech coating makes the bullet react to the bore in a different way...that is why they CAN be pushed to higher vels. Standard lubed works a different way. Push 'em both at the same pressure and velocity and they WILL react differently. Personally I like the idea of coatings..much cleaner and as far as a difference of maybe a half inch in accuracy.?? well, subconsciously, you can get the results you expect! And holding that firearm out at the end of yer hand?? Ain't none of us that good to do it the same exactly every time.
Well maybe..A short story. I got seriously into skeet. Not a bad shotgun pointer. I shot 26 99s in the 28 ga. Missed low six the last round in 18 of those scores. That thing up twixt my ears had me. We all deal with certain stresses the same way..After breaking my first hundred with the 28..I had 8 in a row. Shooting great scores with a handgun is really no different. It's more than 90% mental....with all equipment combined making up that last 10% or less. No reason to argue mine is bigger, smaller or better than yours.

Well summarized skeet. Kinda what I've been saying. The idea you can just plug the diff bullet into your reg load & then say it won't shoot is just not realistic. Not any diff than buying diff cast/lubed bullets & expecting identical results, then calling those bullets krap because you can't get them to shoot without some tweaking.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

I call "scientifically" loading two types of bullets in the exact same brass, with the exact same primer, with the exact same load to the exact tenth of a grain, loaded in the same press with the same die settings with the same gun, securely held on a Caldwell rest, pointed at the exact same part of the target through an iris so both sights and the target is in perfect focus. I'm a pretty good shot; qualified expert in pistol and small bore and given who I made these shots, I doubt there would be much difference if I used a Ransom Rest. I have absolutely no skin in this testing so your accusation that I am skewing the results are totally without merit. If you want to test our skills, come over with your best shooting gun, one bullet and a playing card. We'll hang them from a board in mid air, each fire one shot at 35' and see which card is cut. So there may be a tiny bit of human error but believe be, for myself, I'm trying to get the performance information I need to decide if I want to use these coated bullets. If there is any evidence or skewing here it would be the rage waged against my results for which I posted actual evidence. That tells me you have a bias which is why I mentioned a Missouri Bullets plant to degrade the facts. But I'm going to make this fair and get some MB samples and use ALL the same criteria and see if I found a new bullet supplier or stick with my lead/wax bullets; fair enough? In your post you admit that there is a difference and that difference could be less accuracy so why beat me up for saying the same thing?

Hold your horses, the targets will come shortly after I get the bullets.

I shot a LOT of ****** bullets...shotgun shells too, no doubt. as an old lady used to tell me...It weren'tn't my fault.

What some keep missing in this saga is you can NOT expect to change any bullet in a given load & have identical results. I've switched bullet lubes, same bullet & alloy, & gotten fliers & larger groups. So I would certainly not expect to plug & play with the same bullet coated. It may work fine or need an adjustment in powder, oal or even a primer change. You may need to completely rebuild your fav load with a change to coated, but to say they won't shoot, ridiculous. It's a simple idea to comprehend if you understand reloading & the variables involved. If you just can't wrap your head around that, I don't know what else to say. Any "scientific" study takes variables into account.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

Actually I could care less about YOUR results. Because they are 2 different bullets physically you can't get a scientific comparison. I didn't accuse you of skewing anything. I merely meant that it is human nature to unconsciously do so..meaning we get the results we are looking for. I do care about my results. Many years ago I developed some loads that worked well for me. I still load the same ones and...they still work for me. If I make new loads in different calibers I load them for me. You do understand that little saying?? YMMV. Now go load and shoot what works for you... as we do understand..you are a very good shot. Be proud of your accomplishments.

it would seem to me that the results would automatically favor the wax lube variant as that is likely where the load was developed in the first place ... optimum for traditional, not so much for coated.
a double optimum for each would take into account the variation in dynamics.

__________________
it just needs more voltage

So you're saying the exact same bullet coated v. wax lube will change it's performance from one hole to a 4" group with wildly different positions and that's what you'd expect?

Gaijin already probed he can get coated to shoot. His 50 YARD group, extrapolated out, far better than any pics of 50 foot groups I've seen. Nope, not scientific, but seeing is believing, well for most.
Coated Bullet Accuracy...

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

Since these are not MY words, I don't even understand the question??????
What I know, my exact bullet I cast, coated or lubed, shoots to the same poi. So far, I can't find any appreciable accuracy diff at a mere 50'. I see a slight drop off with one load in one gun, maybe 1/4" @ a much better 25 yard distance. So clarify your question, happy to answer it. If you just want joust, sorry not interested.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

[QUOTE=PeeShooter;138815871]So you're saying the exact same bullet coated v. wax lube will change it's performance from one hole to a 4" group with wildly different positions and that's what you'd expect?[/QUOTE

What I think he was saying if we change any variable in the equation and you expect the same results there is something wrong with your thinking. I'd love to change from one bullet to another and get the same grouping. It usually doesn't happen though. and if it does the sun earth moon and stars all came into alignment! When you change the boolit in any manner the odds are it will shoot differently. I have a cast 429 303 spire point boolit Shoots great with a hard blue lube I happen to use in the Star. Use the same sizing die with SPS soft lube and the same load shoots terrible groups. Lower the speed a bit and it shoots about as well as with the hard lube. If you expect the same accuracy with the same load with coated versus wax based lubes...as Scooby Doo said...Rots of Ruck. I have about 200 of that same boolit ready for powder coating. We'll see how it works..but I WILL expect to have to work up a different load to make it shoot. It'll have almost no chance of shooting as well with the same load. Apples and apples aren't always able to be compared

Experience tells me I know what I know. I rarely get identical results changing to a diff bullet shape within a given weight & even diff bullet lube can throw fliers. IMO, shooting for precision at any distance under 50' isn't telling me much. So 50' is a min. True accuracy testing requires greater distance to really show accuracy.
I used to Ransom rest my 1911s out to 50yds. This is truelly a test of a gun & loads accuracy. A "one hole" group at 50' can easily be 2-3" a 75', if things start coming apart. Reason you shoot a playing card on edge at 35' is it's easier than 50', much easier. So yes, changing things in a given load can require tweaking for optimum accuracy. Not understanding this is not understanding handloading.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

That's funny; I've been reloading for more than 40 years and Have never had that problem. See we can all learn something even after more then 40 years experience. To my guns a 200 grain bullet is a 200 grain bullet no matter what shape it is and I'll prove it:

I cut this one at 25 yds; not a clean cut because of the round nose but it was cut with a 200 grain bullet.


These cards were cut with a 200 grain LSWC so it's easy to cut it clean through. So maybe there's something wrong with your guns that you have these strange anomalies.


Now I have to agree I would expect there to be some difference between a wax lubed lead bullet and an epoxy coated lead bullet with no wax lube. My hunch is that epoxy or whatever coating material is being used is no where near as good a lubricant as wax and there's where the wild shots come from. Because if you look at some of my targets, it appears that it might have had the opportunity to have a tight group but then a wild shot or so shows up; I dont know. Maybe I'll talk to some people and see about firing some lead with no wax to test this possibility and get their advice as to how many can safely be fired with no lubricant.

I'm still puzzled by the claim that you can get a tighter group at 50 yds then at 50'. Maybe you dont understand how it works: it's like light passing through a hole, the further you take a piece of paper from that hole, the bigger the circle of light is that hits it. SO not being a mathematician, if I have a 1" group at 50 feet you might have a 3" or more group at 50 yds. And if that be true, your claim that accuracy can not be determined at 50 feet is ridiculous because there is still the same relative group no matter how far the shot is. So that being said, to have someone post a one hole shot at 50 yds means essentially that that same person could shoot a one hold shoot with 5 or 6 rounds hardly any bigger than the diameter of the bullet. So fellows it's all relative and given the facts of this distance thing, there's no way in Hell that target was fired at 50 yds with a 1 hole group from a handgun; no way.

Now given those principals, I being one to challenge himself took on a 1,000 yard target with a Ruger, 10/22 with a mighty scope on it. Now the ballistics on that are; zeroed at 100 yards there's an additional 108" drop at 1,000 yds and a 1 MPH cross wind moves the bullet 4 feet sideways. I was able to hit a 22" target 5 out of 10 shots fired hand held but resting on a bench guessing at the 108" drop and waiting for the wind to die down. So if I'm capable of that, 50' is a reach out and touch so lets leave shooter error out when a group isn't real tight out of the debate.

Oh and speaking of 22's, this one was cut at 50' with peep sights and a 22:


When I was 12 I would practice by cutting targets in half at 50' so I've always been a natural; it's fun.

So I'm looking forward to trying out those coated Missouri Bullets when they come; no doubt the holidays will delay delivery some...and maybe I will have a target with NO lubrication and see if it more resembles the coated bullets. Something about coated bullets robs the shooter of accuracy, just like some of you have said and I'm real curious what that might be. Now try and understand that I'm on a quest to try and find out what's going on here, it has nothing at all to do with whose bullets are better than anothers; the only ones doing that are some of you guys and especially the one posting that phony target. I mean if it isn't true, it isn't worth anything to anybody because it wont be reproducible by anybody else...multiple 50 yd shots with one hole with no aim point. That means that the first shot first shot had to be the aim point for the rest of the shots which means you sights are so perfectly aligned that you could actually aim at that first shot and hit it even though a 45 caliber hole can hardly be seen 50 yards away. That's called psychic shooting; that shooter should be able to knock the head off a pin at 50' with one shot; that shooter should quit their job and start shooting for one of the gun manufacturers.

Your reading comprehension is far worse than your knowledge on reloading. Never said any of the things you are stating. Since you can't seem to leave this alone I will.
Btw, since you are a claimed BE shooter, you would know that the record 50yd, 20 shot group is under 3", offhand. So saying someone can not shoot 5 shots, off a bench, into a sim size group is beyond laughable.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO