A stupid question?
- Thread starter Sid
- Start date
chris in va
New member
The bullet weight is the same but OAL may be different, so typically I back off 10% from max and work up to be on the safe side.
It shouldn't.
LCN is just "Lead Conical Nose." As opposed to Round Nose. The nose ogive (shape) is just more elliptical, rather than oval. This may effect the C.O.L. however (generally, elliptical will have a longer OAL than oval). Starting -10% from max and working up is always prudent.
Side note: It's been my experience that TiteGroup seems to run hot and tend to lead barrels. My experience comes from 38/44 Special & light 357 Mag loads - not 9mm. To the point where I don't load lead slugs with TG under them any more.
And it has also been my experience that lead bullets in 9mm in general tends to lead barrels; and tend to be inaccurate to boot (I suspect large barrel diameters). So I quit loading lead in 9mm entirely.
Your mileage may vary.
LCN is just "Lead Conical Nose." As opposed to Round Nose. The nose ogive (shape) is just more elliptical, rather than oval. This may effect the C.O.L. however (generally, elliptical will have a longer OAL than oval). Starting -10% from max and working up is always prudent.
Side note: It's been my experience that TiteGroup seems to run hot and tend to lead barrels. My experience comes from 38/44 Special & light 357 Mag loads - not 9mm. To the point where I don't load lead slugs with TG under them any more.
And it has also been my experience that lead bullets in 9mm in general tends to lead barrels; and tend to be inaccurate to boot (I suspect large barrel diameters). So I quit loading lead in 9mm entirely.
Your mileage may vary.
Good advice on the lead Nick. I've shied away from TG for lead for that exact reason. It gets your barrel very hot, very quickly. That amount of heat hitting the back of non-gaschecked lead projectile is looking for trouble IMO.
There are too many other good powders that can be used to better affect with lead.
I've had much better luck shooting plated 9mm over TG. (though BE-86 has become my favorite)
There are too many other good powders that can be used to better affect with lead.
I've had much better luck shooting plated 9mm over TG. (though BE-86 has become my favorite)
Now that I think of it, these may actually be cone shaped; as opposed to elliptical, as I mentioned. But my original point remains. "LCN" is an odd term. More often Truncated Cone (TC) tends to be the more common term. And all that's assuming I've got it straight.
TiteGroup: I bought 4 pounds on line untested. My intended purpose was for light target/competition rounds for 38 Special.
Turns out, TG runs much slower than I expected. Although it clearly falls in the family of "fast" pistol powders, it's really quite slow for a fast powder. I find it similar in burn rate with AA#2 and Red Dot.
Anyway, that left me scrambling to find a purpose for four pounds of powder. That's when I ran into the leading problems, as I boosted the charge up to where it ran clean. I finally gave up and switched to plated.
I have since came up with good range worthy rounds using TiteGroup - all plated. For 38 Special; 357 Magnum; 44 Special; and 45 ACP. On a good note: TG runs consistent with good chronograph results. And it meters really well. It's a fine powder that's dense - and those are always good characteristics for metering well.
MarkGlazer
New member
Nick C S, I'm going to have to beg to differ with you as it pertains to the use of Titegroup and leading. My first powder was TG for 9mm (115 gr bullet) and I never experienced leading. Yes, it is snappy and high on the Powder Burn chart as you noted but if you load at mid-point you shouldn't see anything other than the usual specs of lead when cleaning.
These days I run Longshot because it isn't snappy and have much better control and accuracy with it. Obviously everyone has their preferences and needs to test the gamete of powder offerings to see what works best for them and the particular firearm.
Respectfully,
These days I run Longshot because it isn't snappy and have much better control and accuracy with it. Obviously everyone has their preferences and needs to test the gamete of powder offerings to see what works best for them and the particular firearm.
Respectfully,
sawdustdad
New member
Just curious how the hardness of the bullet may affect leading. It is my understanding that light loads require a softer lead bullet to properly obturate the bore to reduce blowby gas which contributes to leading. If you shoot hard cast bullets with low charges you'd probably have more leading issue than if you used a heavier charge that was sufficient to deform the bullet into the barrel's grooves more completely.
Do you know, Nick, what Brinell hardness your bullets were that caused the leading with Titegroup? (which, BTW, I have yet to try, though I do have a couple lbs on hand)
On the burn rate chart, Titegroup looks similar to Bullseye.
I used to run moly coated lead 9mms 125's on top of 4.0 grains of TiteGroup at 1.135" going about 1,180 fps and it leaded the heck out of the barrel, and my blood lead level went up to 25 after 2 years. Cast lead is even worse. I switched to Bayous and it dropped back down to 8 in 4 months, about 1,500 rounds a month in competition. But lead is easy to clean out using the old Bullseye recipe of half and half white vinegar and household strength hydrogen peroxide. Pour it in the barrel, let it fizz for a while, then pour it out. Won't hurt stainless, be careful with blued barrels.
After the match,
after the lead cocktail
After the match,
after the lead cocktail
"...the use of Titegroup and leading..." Powder used has nothing to do with leading. Leading is caused by trying to drive a cast bullet too fast.
The Hodgdon LCN data will do nicely for a cast RN. The weight matters, but not the shape of the bullet.
"..."LCN" is an odd term. More often Truncated Cone (TC)..." Yeah. And 'TC' sounds better. Been using 'em(121 grains) for eons out of my Inglis. Feed like hot dam.
The Hodgdon LCN data will do nicely for a cast RN. The weight matters, but not the shape of the bullet.
"..."LCN" is an odd term. More often Truncated Cone (TC)..." Yeah. And 'TC' sounds better. Been using 'em(121 grains) for eons out of my Inglis. Feed like hot dam.
I don't know if TiteGroup leads barrels. I'm just sharing my perception/experience. I've run no scientific studies.
Yes. 12 and 18. Both for 38 Special. Both for 45 ACP. 18 only for 44 Special and 357 Mag. The 38 and 357's have firelapped barrels. The 44 and 45's don't. The 38 & 45's have little leading problems with other propellants (Nitro 100; VV N310; Bullseye; W231/HP-38; AA#2; & Unique); and bullet hardness doesn't seem to matter much either. The 44 and 357's are problematic with other propellants. In the case of the 44 (629 Classic 5" - shooting Special loads); I think the bore is just scruffy. In case of the 357's (686's - 3" & 4"), I just think 357 Mag tends to lead up - unless you hit everything just right (correct bullet size; perfect obturation/hardness; smooth bore; etc.). More hassle than it's worth - I'll just run plated and jacketed.
It's not. Not even close. At least not in any application where I've used TG. TG runs quite a bit slower than other "fast" propellants - except maybe AA#2. In fact, if it was any slower, I'd categorize it as an intermediate burn rate propellant. It's the slowest "fast" powder I've ever used.
Yes. 12 and 18. Both for 38 Special. Both for 45 ACP. 18 only for 44 Special and 357 Mag. The 38 and 357's have firelapped barrels. The 44 and 45's don't. The 38 & 45's have little leading problems with other propellants (Nitro 100; VV N310; Bullseye; W231/HP-38; AA#2; & Unique); and bullet hardness doesn't seem to matter much either. The 44 and 357's are problematic with other propellants. In the case of the 44 (629 Classic 5" - shooting Special loads); I think the bore is just scruffy. In case of the 357's (686's - 3" & 4"), I just think 357 Mag tends to lead up - unless you hit everything just right (correct bullet size; perfect obturation/hardness; smooth bore; etc.). More hassle than it's worth - I'll just run plated and jacketed.
It's not. Not even close. At least not in any application where I've used TG. TG runs quite a bit slower than other "fast" propellants - except maybe AA#2. In fact, if it was any slower, I'd categorize it as an intermediate burn rate propellant. It's the slowest "fast" powder I've ever used.
TrentWilson
Moderator
I've run Tite Group in my 38s for a while now and have yet to have an issue with leading. It's been used for 105gr Truncated(excellent load with 2.5gr of clays), 148gr penn wadcutter, 158gr penn truncated, and a bunch of lead that the old man had left over from years past. It is a hot powder, better for jacketed(especially with such low charges), but do some testing and you'll find it might not lead up for you.
"And it has also been my experience that lead bullets in 9mm in general tends to lead barrels; and tend to be inaccurate to boot (I suspect large barrel diameters). So I quit loading lead in 9mm entirely."
I think you're quite right. I load for three 9MM pistols and I almost exclusively shoot my home cast bullets. I slugged the bores and mixed a proper alloy so that bullets cast out at .359" which I size to .358". Literally no or at worst very minimal leading which usually one swipe with a Lewis lead remover removes the slight traces entirely. I shoot my home cast bullets in all my handguns and in my rifles as well. Properly sized bullets usually will not lead at all. Again, if any, it's minimal and easily removed.
Paul B.
I think you're quite right. I load for three 9MM pistols and I almost exclusively shoot my home cast bullets. I slugged the bores and mixed a proper alloy so that bullets cast out at .359" which I size to .358". Literally no or at worst very minimal leading which usually one swipe with a Lewis lead remover removes the slight traces entirely. I shoot my home cast bullets in all my handguns and in my rifles as well. Properly sized bullets usually will not lead at all. Again, if any, it's minimal and easily removed.
Paul B.
I have to wonder if many of the commercial cast bullets are really much harder than they need to be? I've been shooting cast bullets since mid August 1954 (No that's not a typo.) and have tried commercial bullets when I got a .44 Mag. Ruger Blackhawk. They were harder than an IRS auditor's heart and leaded like hell anywhere from the starting loads to the max load, Elmer's 22.0 gr. of H2400. I certainly was glad when my mold finally came in. I note that Elmer's alloy was a 16/1 mix of lead and tin. That had to be quite soft considering what is coming from commercial suppliers these days.
These days I've been shooting the .347 Mag. a lot, a 158 gr. gas check bullet over 14.0 gr. of A2400. Probably not the hottest load going but my gun likes it.
A few years back one of my students in the Hunter Ed class I was teaching and I got to talking and he said he had a bunch of lead he wanted to get rid of. I asked how much and he said to follow him home and haul it away. Turned out there was 100 pounds of sheet lead, two full five gallon buckets of raw wheel weights plus about 50 to 60 pound of cleaned wheel weights. His wife didn't like the smell when he cleaned the weights. I ran a bunch of bullets for the .357 and lubed,sized and checked them. One of my friends from Hunter Ed, another instructor asked if I'd load up a box of .357s for him so I said OK. I warned him that the bullets were probably too soft for the .357 and that if they leaded, bring the gun over and I'd clean the lead out.
Long story short he calls back in a few days and said they were them most accurate loads he'd ever run through his gun and no leading.
Ok, so I loaded up a box and shot them off at the range and they were some of the best groups that gun ever did and again, no leading. I'd checked those bullets for hardness with my LBT tester and they read 8 on the BHN scale. That's almost pure lead which runs 5 on my tester. I'm thinking fine for revolvers but what will they do in a semi-auto. makes me wonder what the BHN level old Elmer's bullets were????
First order of business is get the big sheet of pure into ingots and the raw weights done as well. See if I can make up a mix that'll be compatible for rifle and handgun.
Paul B.
These days I've been shooting the .347 Mag. a lot, a 158 gr. gas check bullet over 14.0 gr. of A2400. Probably not the hottest load going but my gun likes it.
A few years back one of my students in the Hunter Ed class I was teaching and I got to talking and he said he had a bunch of lead he wanted to get rid of. I asked how much and he said to follow him home and haul it away. Turned out there was 100 pounds of sheet lead, two full five gallon buckets of raw wheel weights plus about 50 to 60 pound of cleaned wheel weights. His wife didn't like the smell when he cleaned the weights. I ran a bunch of bullets for the .357 and lubed,sized and checked them. One of my friends from Hunter Ed, another instructor asked if I'd load up a box of .357s for him so I said OK. I warned him that the bullets were probably too soft for the .357 and that if they leaded, bring the gun over and I'd clean the lead out.Long story short he calls back in a few days and said they were them most accurate loads he'd ever run through his gun and no leading.
Ok, so I loaded up a box and shot them off at the range and they were some of the best groups that gun ever did and again, no leading. I'd checked those bullets for hardness with my LBT tester and they read 8 on the BHN scale. That's almost pure lead which runs 5 on my tester. I'm thinking fine for revolvers but what will they do in a semi-auto. makes me wonder what the BHN level old Elmer's bullets were???? First order of business is get the big sheet of pure into ingots and the raw weights done as well. See if I can make up a mix that'll be compatible for rifle and handgun.
Paul B.
To me CN is conical nose, lwith a conical ogive that comes to a sharp point. That does not appear to be what Hodgdon means, as I don't see the TC for truncated cone (technically a conical frustrum ogive). If they mean truncated cone, they should say that, IMHO.
There was a time when that was true, but no longer. Alan Jones spells it out in this article. I also got a earful of caution from a Speer tech a couple of weeks ago when he pointed out their 125 grain Gold Dot, which has a heavy plated jacket that is a little softer than a cup and core jacket, has a starting load that is a little over the maximum load for some jacketed bullets the same weight. It's construction and required seating depth and weight that combine to determine charge weight.
9×45 said:
There was a time when that was true, but no longer. Alan Jones spells it out in this article. I also got a earful of caution from a Speer tech a couple of weeks ago when he pointed out their 125 grain Gold Dot, which has a heavy plated jacket that is a little softer than a cup and core jacket, has a starting load that is a little over the maximum load for some jacketed bullets the same weight. It's construction and required seating depth and weight that combine to determine charge weight.
I typically use 124/125 grain bullets for my 9mm. I have used other weights but I have better results with the 124/125 gr bullets. Lately I have been shooting a heavy plated conical flat point or a poly coated RN for my range bullets. My powder of choice for a range load is TiteGroup and I load to the lower end of the recommended charge.
My 45 performs better with a slower burning pistol powder. Unique, Universal, HS-6, and HP-38 all perform better with my 45 than in my 9mm.
I find that faster burning powders perform better at their lower end of their recommended charges. The faster burning powders also have a smaller window where they perform well. Faster burning powders also work better for the smaller calibers. Slower burning powder generally work better at the upper end of their powder range and have a wider window of better performance. There are exceptions but this is just a generalization.
My 45 performs better with a slower burning pistol powder. Unique, Universal, HS-6, and HP-38 all perform better with my 45 than in my 9mm.
I find that faster burning powders perform better at their lower end of their recommended charges. The faster burning powders also have a smaller window where they perform well. Faster burning powders also work better for the smaller calibers. Slower burning powder generally work better at the upper end of their powder range and have a wider window of better performance. There are exceptions but this is just a generalization.
I haven't loaded for 9mm for years. Although I have found when looking for a good load combination I start with the bullet. I find the bullet for the pourpose. For example Hunting, target, varmint, or plink... Of course in your case a 9mm bullet that won't lead up.
The weight can also be a issue when choosing powder especially with lead boolets. You might want to look for a powder for less velocity with the weight of your bullet.
Try reading the Technical facts. Go to ( Missouri Bullet Co. sight. Go to products, and select Technical and read the Hardness Opt. Bullets.
After I choose the bullet then I look for the powder. One of the most challenging issues for me is to remember to wright down the powder and carry it with me. So when I happen to find it on a shelf I won't grab the wrong one. There are a lot of powders out there but the supply's aren't always good.
I hope I helped
The weight can also be a issue when choosing powder especially with lead boolets. You might want to look for a powder for less velocity with the weight of your bullet.
Try reading the Technical facts. Go to ( Missouri Bullet Co. sight. Go to products, and select Technical and read the Hardness Opt. Bullets.
After I choose the bullet then I look for the powder. One of the most challenging issues for me is to remember to wright down the powder and carry it with me. So when I happen to find it on a shelf I won't grab the wrong one. There are a lot of powders out there but the supply's aren't always good.
I hope I helped