Wax Wads in the 357 Magnum

[flintlok]

Of late I found that I tend to get lousy accuracy and precision with hard cast store bought lead bullets. I have seen some exceptions with guns such as my Colt Pythons and Diamondbacks however I found no such accuracy and precision with other firearms at all. The hard cast bullets simply don’t upset enough to expand the bullet’s base and grab the bore’s lands and groove. The Python and Diamondback barrels are choked by two points and that would account for the better performance. I’ve always gotten good accuracy with my cast soft lead bullets but my velocities were limited to 850 fps otherwise the barrel would lead up. I should note that the cast bullets were size to a thousandth of an inch over bore diameter,

I tried wax wads with hard cast bullets in rifles driving the velocities to 1800 fps. I found that I had no leading issues whatsoever however the accuracy and precision were poor. The bullets wouldn’t group and were all over the target.

I decided to try soft lead bullets cast from ¼ spent range lead and ¾ soft lead and drive them at magnum velocities. I used the range lead for it's tin content. These bullets will shed lead at velocities over 850 fps. I wanted the bullet’s base to upset on firing so that I could get good accuracy so I didn’t go with gas checks. I opted to use wax wads. I have a press mount pin and punch set that I bought from Buffalo Arms and I had bought sheet wax used for modeling. I pressed out the wads for this project.

I loaded .357 inch diameter 165 grain soft lead Keith style bullets into 357 Magnum cartridges to a velocity 1250 fps according to the loading manual for revolvers. I lubed and size the bullets and placed a 1/16 inch wax disk under the bullet and a thin cardboard/stiff paper disc under the wax. I have includes a photo of the assembled bullet and a wax wad as well as a paper disk below.



I fired the cartridges out of my 357 Magnum S&W Model 27 revolver and my Winchester 1873 rifle. I got a palm size group with the revolver at 30 yards and at the same distance with the rifle, the bullet holes were generally touching each other if I held the rifle tight. I had several fliers but I know that me walking the iron sights off. The recoil was stiff. My brother had accompanied me to the range and he also brought some factory loads. There was no significant difference in the noise and recoil between my loads and the factory loads.

I found that there was no discernable leading at all. The Winchester barrel was squeaky clean after two patches with cleaning solvent, literally, they second patched was making a squeaking noise as I drew it through the bore. The final and third patch was an oiled patch and it was clean when it exited the bore. The revolver cleaned up was just as easily. There was no discernable leading in the forcing cone or on the cylinder face or in the bore and the gun was clean after a few patches. I’m really happy with this loading combination where I can get magnum performance and accuracy with soft lead bullets.

[Ray7756]

Hi Flinty im probably missing something but why dont you size the bullets to a larger dia and use gas checks ????
That way they fill the rifling and the gas checs stop the bases melting and leading the barrel

Cheers
Ray

[flintlok]

The bullet diameter is really determined by the mold. If I try to size the bullet to .359 the smooth sizing doesn't go all around the bullet. I tried press swaging when sizing once by pressing harder on the bullet however the accuracy was off. As for gas checks, I used those in the past and I will use them in the future however at the magnum pistol velocities I've gotten mixed results. I've found that the best groups with pistol rounds for me has always been with soft lead bullets. I understand the concept of blow by and I could easily stop that just with paper wad that I use. I've bought commercial cartridges that just use still paper wads. I was trying to achieve what I had with soft lead bullets and the higher velocities with consistent results. In reality this is just another form of the copper gas check. I do like the easy clean up.

[Ray7756]

The bullet diameter is really determined by the mold. If I try to size the bullet to .359 the smooth sizing doesn't go all around the bullet. I tried press swaging when sizing once by pressing harder on the bullet however the accuracy was off. As for gas checks, I used those in the past and I will use them in the future however at the magnum pistol velocities I've gotten mixed results. I've found that the best groups with pistol rounds for me has always been with soft lead bullets. I understand the concept of blow by and I could easily stop that just with paper wad that I use. I've bought commercial cartridges that just use still paper wads. I was trying to achieve what I had with soft lead bullets and the higher velocities with consistent results. In reality this is just another form of the copper gas check. I do like the easy clean up.

I bow to more experience but had to ask

Cheers
Ray

[flintlok]

I've been playing with “paper” gas checks for my Winchester Model 73 rifle in 357 Magnum as well and 357 handgun loads. I used waxed wads and paper gas checks that I punched out with a press mounted tool that I purchased from Buffalo Arms.

I have a Lyman 9 mm mould for 120 grain round nose bullet plain base bullet that will drop bullets at 0.354 inch if I’m to believe my calipers. The barrel of my Browning High Power 9mm pistol slugs in at 0.356 inch. I’m unlikely to get any accuracy from such bullets when use to prepared loads for my Browning. However I wanted to experiment with paper gas checks without the wax wads. I cast several hundred bullets of ever so soft lead to the point where I was mixing a half a pound of hard cast with 9 and a half pounds of melted lead drain pipe and flashing. The lead was soft enough that I could easily dig my finger nails into it. It’s at these times that I wish I had a Brinell Hardness test kit. I should note that I use a soft wax lube concoction that I mixed up with grease and beeswax.

I loaded the undersized soft lead bullets to a velocity of 1100 fps (near max load with Winchester 231) from the loading manual data and over a period of several days I tried to find a happy medium where the bullets would expand enough on firing from chamber pressure so that I could develop an accurate load. The groups did significantly improve giving 6 inch or so group at 30 yards at the near max charge however I know could do better so I’ve ordered another mold from a different manufacturer that will drop bullets at 0.358 diameter. I can size those bullets down as needed.

What I did learn with the paper gas checks is that I could drive the soft lead undersized bullets at 1100 fps and have no leading. The paper cards held together nicely and they could be easily recovered at 8 feet or so forward of the firing line. I’m beginning to fall in love with the paper gas checks as I can drive soft lead 9mm bullets to the near max loading velocities without leading issues. Now all I need is a proper sized lead bullet and I’m in “business”.


The 9mm barrel from my Browning High Power. This is after firing 120 rounds or so of soft lead bullets and before cleaning. The lands and grooves look clean and there’s no leading to speak of:



The 0.010 inch cards from fired rounds. The top 5 darken wads show the side of the wads that faced the powder charge and the lower 5 wads show the side that was towards the bullet. The paper gas checks held together nicely:



The soft lead bullet. You can see the side of the bullet where I dug my finger nail into to illustrate the softness of the lead.

[Bushdog]

Flintsy - interesting post.
I used to use a Lyman 120 gn round nose in my GP35 (years ago when I was trusted to own such an evil weapon). We were always told to cast hard for auto's to prevent feeding issues, which is what I did (66/33 lead/linotype) - did you have any problems with function using those butter-soft bullets?

[flintlok]

No function issues at all due to the bullets. I did try some very light loads that cycled fine in the High Power but shot cycled in my Sig 226. The near max loads cycled perfectly in the Beretta M9, the Sig, and the High Power. I prefer shooting light loads in the High Power as its and older design and I don't want to beat it to death with heavy powered loads.

[Bushdog]

Interesting.

I had reasonably good luck with hard bullets in the past - looked at my old pistol reloading file and 2.5" - 4" groups at 25 yds seem normal from 9mm and hard cast lead (I used to test loads from a rested position, and check velocities with a chronograph) - that's something I notice you don't seem to favour - can I ask why not?

[robg]

with the pb bullets shoot as cast see if accuracy improves with larger bullet.try a different lube.if all else fails a gas check works.

[flintlok]

I never bother casting for 9mm loads in the past. I always used jacketed bullets. Several years ago I acquired loads of commercial hard cast 9 mm bullets. A fellow died and I inherited them. I've loaded thousands of them and none of them ever shot anywhere near as well as the jacketed bullets. I still have thousands of them loaded however I decided to play around with casting 9's. I cast thousands of 38's using soft lead bullets and I've always gotten exceptional accuracy with those rounds. I did however find lead deposits on the forcing cone and on the cylinder faces of the my revolvers. I also used my own soft cast in my 45 ACP and still I had exceptional accuracy. I would easily get tea cup size groups at 25 yards all day long if I did my part. I sized bullets to bore diameter or one thousandth over bore diameter on my soft cast bullets. All of the accuracy went to crap after I started to use hard cast 38's and 357's in other firearms than in my Colt revolvers (Pythons and Diamondbacks). Since I generally shoot Colts and they shot hard cast fine, I never really cared and it didn't make all that much difference. Now I started to shoot the 9's and other revolvers more frequently with the commercial hard cast and I'm not pleased at all with their accuracy. I decided the see what's possible with these pistols using soft cast bullets and ever higher velocities. What I found is that the bullet fit is more important than the cast material and just about anything paper, plastic, or metal "gas checks" will stop leading but not necessarily provide accuracy. The soft cast bullet don't seem to "bump" or upset enough on firing to give consistent accuracy. The other thing about the 9 mm guns is that the bore diameters are al over the place so the idea that a 0.355 sized bullet in a 9 with consistently shoot accurately as the loading manual imply is a fallacy.

I like to be able to cast a bullet for the 9 at just about any reasonable hardness and shoot them without a fuss. To that point I've order a 9 mm mould that will drop a bullet at 0.358. I intend to use my 38 expander die to open the case mouth and seat the oversized bullet and use what ever hardness I please with the card stock gas checks to alleviate any leading issues. I can always size down if necessary. I'll probably use a card stock gas check in all of my future 357 and 38's loadings. It works like a top and it a minor extra step with great rewards. Cleaning the gun is a "snap" with the cards and there no leading anywhere. With wax wads I get higher velocities with softer lead loads and I like that.

I would have like using unsized over bored bullets in my 9 as dropped from my current mould however the mould drops the bullets at 0.354 to 0.355 inch depending where I measure the unsized bullet. I'm using a 357 H&I sizing die to lube the bullets so I am shooting the current 9's "as cast".

[Bushdog]

I was wondering why you don't seem to favour using a chronograph for definitive (or at least comparable) velocity data?

[flintlok]

I was wondering why you don't seem to favour using a chronograph for definitive (or at least comparable) velocity data?

I don't own a chrongraph. At hand gun distances I'm not sure that it would help much and I tend to use the loading data from published handbooks to guesstimate velocities. I've had some of my loads chronographed are the were no surprises as compared to the loading data

[Bushdog]

I see.
We always used to chrono test loads for pistols (mostly because we were interested to make sure they made "major" or "minor" power factors for IPSC type shooting). The Standard Deviation in velocities also tended to tell something of the consistency of the loads in question (but not always about its actual tested accuracy).

Have to admit I am surprised a man with as many guns as you has never felt the need to get a chronograph - I wouldn't be without mine these days.

[flintlok]

Yeah, I seem to have everything but a chronograph. I never considered very important for handguns and I been happy with my rifle loads as they are. I suppose I'll buy one in the future however it's not at the top of the list of things that I want. In this latest loading session I wanted to experiment with the load construction. I'm playing with the elements to bring everything together so my loads will shoot and give reasonable groups across the board with various guns in that caliber. I think I'm getting closer to where I want to be in all of this.

[flintlok]

This is getting closer to the Warner Brother's Road Runner cartoons where Wyle E Coyote keeps find new ways of getting the Road Runner with the help of stuff that he buys at the Acme product store.

Likewise I bought a 9 mm mould that drops bullets it seems closer to 0.359 diameter. Nominal 9 mm bullet sized is supposed to be 0.355 inch. I sized and lubed the bullets to 0.357 inch diameter. I tried 0.358 inch but dummy cartridges would chamber in my Browning High Power at that diameter. I brought my Beretta 92 FS to the range today and tried out the loads at 30 yards. They group nicely with a few flyers. That may of be due to me dropping the muzzle on discharge but you can see the general trend in the picture of the target that I've attached below. The black of the target is 5 and 1/4 inches in diameter. The grouping (less the flyers) is considerably smaller. Fine, now that I have the gun and load grouping I find that it's all shooting high with a six o'clock hold on the black. So it goes but I'm happy with group. The bullets weighs in at 122 grains or so. I use 50% hard cast melted bullets and 50% soft lead as a bullet casting alloy. The bullet style was round nose plain base and I used the 0.010 paper card at the base of the bullet and there was no leading. The load was 3.8 grains of Winchester 231. Once I knew where and how the gun was shooting I expended all ordnance on a 1/4 size steel silhouette at 27 yards. I love the sound of ringing steel.