Powder coated mini balls

[Terry Schultz, 10057]

Has anyone tried powder coated mini balls in there musket and if so how did it work? I did a search and couldn?t find anything on the subject.

[Lou Lou Lou]

Dave Miller was testing that our this weekend

[Terry Schultz, 10057]

did he come to any conclusions about it?

[PoorJack]

did he come to any conclusions about it?

Not yet. Didn't get to the range this weekend. It's on the agenda for the next weekend. I have powder coated smoothbore balls, minies (Hogdon and Trashcans), Smith and Sharps bullets. All bulllets were weighed prior to coating to eliminate a variable from differing bullet weights per gun. All weights are within +-1gr within type. I was going to use my same powder charge and lube that I use in each gun in this test to see if powder coating affects accuracy.

[gemmer]

Not yet. Didn't get to the range this weekend. It's on the agenda for the next weekend. I have powder coated smoothbore balls, minies (Hogdon and Trashcans), Smith and Sharps bullets. All bulllets were weighed prior to coating to eliminate a variable from differing bullet weights per gun. All weights are within +-1gr within type. I was going to use my same powder charge and lube that I use in each gun in this test to see if powder coating affects accuracy.
What is the purpose of powder coating?

[Maillemaker]

With modern cartridge reloading, powder coating has become a thing for bullets as it seems to act very much like a copper plated bullet. It prevents leading and eliminates the need for lubricant. Bullet can still be sized after coating with little effect on the coating. I experimented with it with .45 ACP but figured if I am going to size the bullets anyway I may as well stick with Lee Alox tumble lubing which is much faster. Also I got better accuracy with unsized .45 ACP Lee Truncated Cone Tumble Lube Groove bullets with Alox vs. powder coating.

I'm not sure it would buy you much with a smoothbore musket, but would like to hear the results of the experiment.

Steve

[Terry Schultz, 10057]

Poorjack
Please let us know that the results are, thanks.

[PoorJack]

Ok so I got a chance to shoot some powder coated ammo today. The results were what I'd call inconclusive. I used the standard method of shake and bake coating with Harbor Freight Red left over from an experiment with my 45/70 years back. Bullets were washed in acetone, coated and baked. Bullets for certain rifles were sized before loading. Lube as noted.

#1- Smoothbore- utter and complete failure. I have a theory on this. My smoothbore mold casts at .685 and my bore is .690. The powder coating added about .003. The charge used is the same I use in competition- 60g 3f Swiss with one side of the ball dipped in lube. Here's the result-
9188

#2- my Smith. I have yet to get a good load for this gun, but this is looking promising. Bullet is a from a Rapine mold that closely resembles the Lyman. I didn't size the bullet. Charge was 25g 3f Swiss with 7gr COW filler. Lube was dip in beeswax/lard. One called flyer, but note the vertical stacking and the windage is really, really good.

9189

#3- Parker Hale Musketoon. Bullet was RCBS Hogdon, charge was 40gr 3f Swiss. There's essentially no change in how this load shot in this gun other than it hits about 2in low from my normal ammo. So while it does work, it's not providing any benefit other than shooting maybe a bit cleaner.

9190

#4- 62 Colt Contract (Colt Sig series). I have one load that will stack bullets into one hole with this gun, Rapine Trashcan with 40g 3f Swiss and Lens Lube. This group is with a bullet I've been trying to get to shoot in this gun- the RCBS Hogdon. Bullets were weighed to within 1gr of each other and sized to .579 after powder coating. Charge is 40g 3f Swiss. Bullet is in standard musket tube and dipped into beeswax/lard to only cover the large lube ring. I made up a fair size number of these as I was thinking of trying a 100yd group but a weird thing happened to preempt that. The group started with the bullet marked #1, then #2, then 3 more shots touching. This wasn't a fluke. The first group we shot did the same thing with 8 shots. First high and right, next lower and to the left, the rest a bit lower than the second shot. It did this twice with two different shooters. I'm going to experiment a bit more with this one in this gun.

9191

[Terry Schultz, 10057]

Poorjack
Thanks for the results. On the musket did you have any problems loading the last bullet compared to the first one? I was just wondering if one could get threw an entire Skirmish with using powder coated bullets or would it become progressively difficult to load a musket?

[ChrisWBR]

Poor Jack,
So, I'm curious. It seems you lubed the bullets after powder coating? I was under the impression that powder coating was to take the place of lubing the bullet? It does in modern cartridge ammo I believe. Wonder if leaving the lube off would make a difference? And, if it would increase or decrease fouling?
Chris

[PoorJack]

Poor Jack,
So, I'm curious. It seems you lubed the bullets after powder coating? I was under the impression that powder coating was to take the place of lubing the bullet? It does in modern cartridge ammo I believe. Wonder if leaving the lube off would make a difference? And, if it would increase or decrease fouling?
Chris

What I was looking for first was if there was any accuracy benefit. Given the results with lube in modern ammo, I did cut back a bit on the lube for musket rounds. So far, the guns seemed to run a bit cleaner, but I'd have to shoot more to make a decision. I'd like to try a string with no lube at all and see what happens.

The group that really has my attention was from the Smith. Virtually no change in windage, just vertical stringing. Any ideas?

[John Holland]

As an interesting side note, the smooth bore shooters who are powder coating use no additional lube of any type.

[Jim_Burgess_2078V]

This discussion seems to center on the effect, if any, of powder coating on accuracy. Some seem to think powder coating can be used as a substitute for lube to prevent leading. That misses the main purpose of lube in black powder firearms which is actually to keep powder fouling soft and from building up to the point where it adversely affects accuracy. Powder coating might provide a thin layer to increase the diameter of a bullet which can potentially help accuracy but it does nothing to keep the powder fouling soft. You still need to lube those bullets or else your gun will eventually get fouled and the next relay will be delayed while your gun is cleared off the line.

Lube was not originally used in s
moothbore muskets and they were always getting fouled but they also used an undersize ball to compensate for the fouling. The army did not expect smoothbore muskets to be accurate; their effectiveness came from a high volume of concentrated fire delivered by a line formation. Our expectations are a little different today.

Jim Burgess, 15th CVI

[ChrisWBR]

As an interesting side note, the smooth bore shooters who are powder coating use no additional lube of any type.

Yes, I thought the main purpose of powder coating was to eliminate the need for applied lube. That is what the modern cartridge shooters use it for. I've seen reports of elimination of leading and a slight velocity increase, but not sure I've seen any real notes about improved accuracy with the modern shooters reports.

[Maillemaker]

My understanding is that in modern firearms, powder coating has a similar effect as copper plating. It prevents leading of the barrel by preventing contact of the lead core of the bullet with the barrel.

I agree that the primary function of "lube" in black powder arms is not as a lubricant at all, but as an fouling softener. In fact it is probably a misnomer to refer to it as "lubricant".

I would expect that powder coating will bump up the diameter of the round ball by about .005" or so. But, unlike "knurling", the increased diameter is not very deformable, so you may run into trouble as fouling builds up in the bore.

I'm personally skeptical of any benefit to powder coating black powder bullets in our context, especially smoothbore. But, I welcome the experiments.

One of the neat things about powder coating is you can size the bullet after PC and it doesn't harm the coating. It just squoooshes it down.

Steve

[bobanderson]

As an interesting side note, the smooth bore shooters who are powder coating use no additional lube of any type.

I've been shooting my smoothbore with no lube of any kind for the last two seasons. I found out that alox just turned into a hard coke-like residue that didn't help anything. With the right powder, Goex Old Eynsford 3f, I can shoot 15-20 consecutive shots without fouling out.

[PoorJack]

As an interesting side note, the smooth bore shooters who are powder coating use no additional lube of any type.

I measured my smoothbore powder coated balls and the diameter was inconsistent v as cast. I'm thinking that may have had an effect on accuracy. I normally shoot as cast, sprue still on, with just a dip in musket lube on one side towards powder. Shoots very, very well in my gun.

[PoorJack]

My understanding is that in modern firearms, powder coating has a similar effect as copper plating. It prevents leading of the barrel by preventing contact of the lead core of the bullet with the barrel.

I agree that the primary function of "lube" in black powder arms is not as a lubricant at all, but as an fouling softener. In fact it is probably a misnomer to refer to it as "lubricant".

I would expect that powder coating will bump up the diameter of the round ball by about .005" or so. But, unlike "knurling", the increased diameter is not very deformable, so you may run into trouble as fouling builds up in the bore.

I'm personally skeptical of any benefit to powder coating black powder bullets in our context, especially smoothbore. But, I welcome the experiments.

One of the neat things about powder coating is you can size the bullet after PC and it doesn't harm the coating. It just squoooshes it down.

Steve


Yup, it does "bump" up the diameter on the bullets but it's no consistent. I measured the diameter on several bullets at several places to check and it varied as much as .006 so sizing was in order.

I was skeptical about powder coating for what we do and at this point, I think only one, maybe two, of my guns might benefit from it.

[Stefan]

I hear about this powder coating phenomenon that seems to be gaining some popularity among smooth bore musket shooters and now it is being tried in rifled muskets.

We of course already compromise on historical authenticity in many areas, such as using plastic loading tubes instead of paper cartridges, but it is usually done for a very practical reason ? like not setting fire to the grass on the range. Otherwise we use real black powder and not substitutes, even though it might burn similarly and is cleaner in some ways. I think most of us like to do it that way because that is how it was done in the civil war. So I am curious about the justification for using powder coating, which was definitely not available in the eighteen hundreds?

Please don?t misunderstand. I am not calling for a ban or anything like that. I don?t shoot smoothbore musket so I really don?t care, but I am interested in the rational for introducing more modern technology in Skirmishing because I want to understand the general thinking in the organization about the trade-offs between historical authenticity and gaining a competitive edge.

[PoorJack]

Please don?t misunderstand. I am not calling for a ban or anything like that. I don?t shoot smoothbore musket so I really don?t care, but I am interested in the rational for introducing more modern technology in Skirmishing because I want to understand the general thinking in the organization about the trade-offs between historical authenticity and gaining a competitive edge.

We ARE a competitive shooting organization that just happens to shoot 19th century arms. If you don't want to glass bed, do trigger jobs, size bullets or do load development, then by all means have at it. I'm always looking for a technique to make my guns that much more capable. I gave up reenacting years ago.

[Maillemaker]

but I am interested in the rational for introducing more modern technology in Skirmishing because I want to understand the general thinking in the organization about the trade-offs between historical authenticity and gaining a competitive edge.

It's a valid concern. One of the criticisms I have heard for years about the N-SSA from Living History circles is, "Fantasy guns shooting fantasy bullets."

I don't think any of the projectiles I currently use in N-SSA competition match a historical design, or, in the case of round ball in my smooth bore, are loaded the way they would have been historically (paper patched). Edit: Well, except now for my Sharps. I shoot a historical projectile in it.

The RCBS-Hogdgon, with its massive grease groove, has no historical counterpart that I am aware of. Likewise, the Moose Wilkinson does not look like the actual historical Wilkinson bullet. Smoothbore round balls were not wrapped in aluminum foil, knurled with files, nor dipped in lube historically. Common N-SSA legal ammunition is so far removed from historical ammunition that at this point powder coating, while perhaps a bridge to far for some people, is not a big deal to me. Still, our bullets function, in general, with the same principles as period ammunition. Expanding balls still expand. Compression bullets still compress. Smoothbore round balls had mechanisms to consume windage. I think we are still there in spirit.

The good news is the N-SSA is changing and using period ammunition is becoming more and more viable. Of course some people have always shot a conical expanding ball bullet that closely approximates historical ones. A couple of years ago the rules got changed so that you can use US 1855 and 1862 style paper cartridges, where the bullet is removed from the paper prior to shooting. And just recently the rules have been changed so you can now use combustible cartridges in revolvers, utilizing the different styles of authentic heeled bullets now available from places like Eras Gone Bullet Molds.

Eras Gone has really revolutionized the market by providing people the opportunity to cast extremely close copies of historical bullet designs. I myself have switched to using the Eras Gone Richmond Sharps bullet in competition. I love the long heel as the bullet is far less likely to come away from the cartridge than with the Pedersoli "ringtail" bullet I was using previously, and it's a great shooter. Eras Gone also produces a historically-accurate Smith bullet. And a variety of historical revolver bullet designs.

Of course, accuracy is king in our game, and so people are going to shoot that which gives them the best accuracy within the rules.

Steve

[Hal]

I could see powder coating as a means of increasing diameter without having to buy a larger (and possibly custom) mould.

I don't see it as a substitute for lube. Yeah, if you shoot cast bullets in your 1911A1, then powder coating might get you out of lubing them. But as someone said earlier, for black powder, the "Lube" is for softening the fouling, to allow easier loading and easier cleaning. I see guys having to POUND balls down their barrel, then use a brush to get hard fouling out of their bore after the relay. Hey, whatever works for them, but I prefer to patch out soft fouling and MUCH prefer to load a ball past soft fouling. But that's just me.

[John Holland]

The N-SSA, its Executive Board, the Board Of Directors, and a Committee comprised of some of the best historians available in Civil War Arms, Ammunition, and Uniforms, successfully established a "Traditional Match" which was specifically created to embrace "Historic Civil War Authenticity and Shooting" in its purest form. This "Traditional Match" was designed to encourage the Re-enacting Community to finally have the desire to join the N-SSA, because they would now be able to compete on the terms they decried when they spoke so derisively about the N-SSA. In two years, we did not attract even one single re-enactor to shoot the Traditional Match in authentic uniforms, traditional paper wrapped ammunition, and with muskets that had no sight modifications whatsoever. I am of the belief that the re-enacting community would rather sit back and complain about us rather than step up to the plate and shoot authentically.

[Southron Sr.]

Dear John:

I learned long ago that re-enactors are basically "actors" and to them, their muskets are "noise making and smoke producing props," nothing more.

Around 25 years ago, I invited dozen re-enactors to a "live fire" shoot. I made up around 300 rounds of ammo for the shoot. This was to be in conjunction with a SCV picnic held on a farm two dozen or so miles outside of Savannah. At the time, I was recruiting for the 1st Georgia, N-SSA. I figured I might get a few recruits out of those re-enactors.

I erected a target frame at 50 yards and we hung clay pots on the frame. I gathered every one around and gave them a course on how to safely load and fire rifle-musket N-SSA style. Then I passed out 10 rounds per man.

I lined them up on the firing line, had them load and "come to the ready." Then I blew a whistle to start the "event."

Minie Balls went everywhere, most did not fly into the frame but over it, around it and under it, but with just a few pots being broken.

When the "event" was over, we cleared their muskets and I invited everyone to go down range to check on the pots they had fired at.

Everyone walked down range, but nobody stopped at the target frame. Our "backstop" was a forest and everyone walked into the forest-mesmerized by the Minie's that hit the trunks of the trees and left a big bullet hole in the trunks. Low hanging branches had also been cut by the Minies. Like I said, the re-enactors were amazed and astounded by what the Minies had done to the forest.

I walked back to the firing and one of the re-enactors, just back from the forest, was holding his musket at arms length, his hands trembling as if he were holding a live rattle snake and exclaiming to himself: "OH MY GOD!" "THESE ARE REAL GUNS!"

Nope, we didn't get any recruits. My theory is that maybe only one out of 25-30 re-enactors would want to join the N-SSA.

I like re-enactors, love going to re-enactments and enjoy watching them. I think that re-enactors and re-enactments are wonderful. I have been invited to join several re-enactment units, but due to a mis-spent youth in a brutal Southern military academy, have no desire to ever again march.

So, salute re-enactors for what they do, but realize they are more into history and pageantry than marksmanship.

[Maillemaker]

Steve I thought we still couldn't use the paper cartridges in revolvers?

The rules have just recently changed to allow them.


The N-SSA, its Executive Board, the Board Of Directors, and a Committee comprised of some of the best historians available in Civil War Arms, Ammunition, and Uniforms, successfully established a "Traditional Match" which was specifically created to embrace "Historic Civil War Authenticity and Shooting" in its purest form. This "Traditional Match" was designed to encourage the Re-enacting Community to finally have the desire to join the N-SSA, because they would now be able to compete on the terms they decried when they spoke so derisively about the N-SSA. In two years, we did not attract even one single re-enactor to shoot the Traditional Match in authentic uniforms, traditional paper wrapped ammunition, and with muskets that had no sight modifications whatsoever.

I applauded the Traditional Match concept, but it was so limited in scope that it was no surprise to me that not many people participated. As I understood it, it was only for special matches and only at Fort Shenandoah. If you don't shoot at the Fort, or even if you did if you didn't have an authentic-minded team to shoot it on, it didn't do much for you, even if you were inclined. I also think that limiting the sights to "unmodified" at usual N-SSA distances and targets was a non-starter. My Pedersoli P53 with unmodified sights and the deepest hold in the V I could see still shot several inches high. In my opinion, it would be futile trying to do N-SSA competition with such a gun. Not to mention that I'd have to buy an untouched gun and leave it untouched just for the special matches. So, I'm not sure you can point to the failure of the Traditional Match to draw people in for much. But, I agree that the reenacting group is probably not ever going to be a gold mine for new recruits. I'm sure, thanks to the internet, that 95% of reenactors already know about the N-SSA and would be doing it if they were interested in competition shooting.

Fortunately, since then, the rules have slowly evolved over time, and now you can use US-style paper cartridges anywhere, combustible revolver cartridges, and of course nothing ever was stopping people from having authentic clothing. That way those who want to do it can, and to whatever degree of authenticity suits them, anywhere, at any time. And you can be competitive at it, too. The best load for my Pedersoli P58 that I have found is an RCBS-500M minie ball with 60 grains 2F powder behind it. Essentially, the service load for the gun. I don't shoot it much because I have cheaper guns to shoot that shoot just as good.

Steve

[Stefan]

I appreciate the responses to my question. Just to clarify, I can be as competitive as anyone and I will use anything to gain an edge that is allowed by the rules. I know that the ammo for the original smoothbores was just a plain round ball, but it still doesn't bother me if a skirmisher uses two files to roughen up the surface. Files were available in the civil war so it is not out of the question that someone could have tried that, even if it maybe is unlikely that it ever happened. The shape of the lead projectiles for other guns may not be exact copies of the originals, but as Steve pointed out, the basic technology is the same. Our lubes may not always have the exact chemical composition as was used in the 19th century, but it looks and works the same way with real black powder, so who cares. If we were living in the 1800s, and we wanted to improve accuracy these are things we could have tinkered with.

It is when you introduce a completely new technology that didn't exist until a 100 years later that I pause. I could see allowing black powder substitutes before I would feel comfortable with powder coating. I would love to be able to use an optical Aimpoint sight or similar. That would give my aging eyes a competitive edge, but then we would definitely deserve being accused of using "fantasy guns". So to the extent that we are an educational organization I think we need to think some more about what the rules should allow. (Again I don't shoot SB musket so I don't care what you folks do right now).

About the recruitment aspect, I don't think we should worry about what reenactors think but I agree that we should treat each other with respect. (We have plenty of common enemies). From what I have gathered, the average reenactor is probably as proficient at target shooting as the average civil war infantry man was, so from a living history point of view there is nothing that needs improvement there, so to speak.

Skirmishing/target shooting is a whole different game, so I don't think it makes sense to look among reenactors for people who are also competitive shooters. The number of people who have ever been introduced to marksmanship training, have enjoyed it and continued with it as a hobby is really very small. The country has a lot of gun owners, but extremely few people who are proficient at off-hand shooting. But it is that small group we need to focus on if we are looking for recruits: a person who is proud of their marksmanship skills and wants to challenge themselves with the extra complications of using outdated gun technologies. It is very unlikely that we will find that person at a reenactment. (Southron Sr's story is a good case in point). In fact I think it could even be counterproductive to ask a reenactor, who has never been taught to shoot, to try to hit a clay pigeon at 50 yards. He is most likely going to feel embarrassed and react by going away and saying "it is a silly game anyway".

[PoorJack]

I appreciate the responses to my question. Just to clarify, I can be as competitive as anyone and I will use anything to gain an edge that is allowed by the rules......... If we were living in the 1800s, and we wanted to improve accuracy these are things we could have tinkered with.


So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're against glasses for those of us suffering from old eyes? They're pretty modern and quantum leaps over what was available then.



It is when you introduce a completely new technology that didn't exist until a 100 years later that I pause.

Before you throw the baby out with the bathwater, make sure you really know what was actually available back then. Case in point, rimfire cartridges as we know them today were around starting with Flobert in 1845.


So to the extent that we are an educational organization I think we need to think some more about what the rules should allow. (Again I don't shoot SB musket so I don't care what you folks do right now).


If you want to go the traditional route, by all means have at it IF it's within the rules. As for "educational" part, I really really wish our organization actually believed it. There are a large number who don't care, they just want to compete and they use the 501 status as a smoke screen for their shooting entertainment. I've talked to them, they are more numerous in the N-SSA than you would think. Just look at what happened recently with our Instructor project. If you want to know what the rules actually allow, take time to read them, they're posted on the main website.



Skirmishing/target shooting is a whole different game, so I don't think it makes sense to look among reenactors for people who are also competitive shooters. The number of people who have ever been introduced to marksmanship training, have enjoyed it and continued with it as a hobby is really very small. The country has a lot of gun owners, but extremely few people who are proficient at off-hand shooting. But it is that small group we need to focus on if we are looking for recruits: a person who is proud of their marksmanship skills and wants to challenge themselves with the extra complications of using outdated gun technologies. It is very unlikely that we will find that person at a reenactment. (Southron Sr's story is a good case in point). In fact I think it could even be counterproductive to ask a reenactor, who has never been taught to shoot, to try to hit a clay pigeon at 50 yards. He is most likely going to feel embarrassed and react by going away and saying "it is a silly game anyway".

I spent quite a bit of time last summer teaching kids to shoot muskets offhand. The "cracker challenge" was the same target aspect as a pigeon at 50yd. Over the summer, of the nearly 80 kids I worked with, I got all but 3 to where they could hit a cracker hanging on a wire at 25yd offhand meaning if we had a 50yd range, they would have been hitting more pigeons than many skirmishers. And yes, I AM a NRA Certified Muzzleloading Instructor as are a number of my fellow skirmishers of like mind. We ARE actively engaged in looking to expand our instructional efforts at this time. YES it is very rewarding to help people improve their shooting skills. I just wish the N-SSA took the education mission seriously.

As for reenactors, I was one AND I've always been a competitive shooter and have either dabbled in or heavily competed in 3Gun, IDPA, USPSA, IPSC, NRA HP, and IMHSA. My favorite though of all time is Skirmishing. I think writing off reenactors is wrong. Many may not be interested in actual marksmanship or competition, but if you don't ask, they'll never know. Of the reenactors I've met, I'll tell them how accurate a musket can be with a little bit of load development and show them pictures of groups I've shot and move from there to the competition aspect. If they don't want to play, fine, but they now know there are people out here who take these guns seriously and know how to make them every bit as accurate as a modern gun. The real problem facing the N-SSA is lack of growth. We are the "where's Waldo" of shooting sports. Nearly everybody I've told about the N-SSA have never heard of us and think we're a bunch of reenactors.

Powder Coating- I'm still going to experiment cause it's pretty cheap to try. If you don't want to play, then don't. So far, it looks to be useful only in certain limited applications (see my Smith group) and I will work on that some more to get it figured out.

[Terry Schultz, 10057]

PoorJack
Did you ever find out how long you can fire a musket using a coated mini-ball before the musket gets fowled out and you are not able to reload it? Or does in never get fowled?

[Ibgreen]

I played around with powder coating for my Spencer rifle. I found the process to powder coat was a pain in the rear. I also unfortunately used harbor freight yellow that apparently is the worst powder to use. I saw no improvement over lubed lead. I would surmise that the inability of powder coating to soften BP residue to be counterproductive to use in NSSA.

[Terry Schultz, 10057]

That is good to know but in all fariness I have rarely purchased anything from Harbor Freight that wooked well or was of high quality.

[PoorJack]

PoorJack
Did you ever find out how long you can fire a musket using a coated mini-ball before the musket gets fowled out and you are not able to reload it? Or does in never get fowled?

I experimented with coating minies to see if there was an effect on accuracy. My current load with the Rapine Trashcan can shoot one hole groups at 50yds. For the initial experiment, I coated a number of the types I have to see if there was any change in accuracy. The results weren't encouraging with minies.

Musket fouling- I'll say this, if your musket fouls out, something is very, very wrong with your load. It might be accurate for 10 shots, but if the Scout project did anything for me personally, it drove home the point that a properly developed and balanced load can be shot until you run out of ammo, time or shoulder without appreciable loss of accuracy. On one gun I counted over 50 shots straight and with the last ones the kid was cutting the chains on the gong at 50yds with the musket. So, many have their favorite lubes, but to me, if the accuracy isn't there or it fouls out after 10 or so shots, it's not the right lube. Once I find a good accurate load, the next step of the development process is to see how long it can shoot before fouling out.

[PoorJack]

I played around with powder coating for my Spencer rifle. I found the process to powder coat was a pain in the rear. I also unfortunately used harbor freight yellow that apparently is the worst powder to use. I saw no improvement over lubed lead. I would surmise that the inability of powder coating to soften BP residue to be counterproductive to use in NSSA.

In the centerfire world, HF yellow is widely known to be inadequate. The idea with black powder is NOT to soften fouling, it just won't do it. I was looking to see if that extra couple thousands on the bullet would make a change in accuracy or if a load was prone to occasional flyers, to reduce that tendency. Loads that were accurate will get further investigation.

FWIW- I "social distanced" at the range yesterday with some more coated Smith ammo. I tweaked the load that had that interesting vertical string and got some decent results. Pix will be posted later.

[PoorJack]

Ok, here's the second test with powder coated bullets in my Smith. Group is somewhat better. Same 385 Rapine but only change was seating depth. Group became more circular. Fouling wasn't changed much but that wasn't the object. My Rapine mold drops at .518 and my barrel is .518 and so far with normal cast bullets, groups can be erratic. Sometimes it'll shoot bugholes, other times, much larger than this. The bullet with the powder coat is about .521. So I'm thinking the bullet must be about 3thou over barrel size, which I think is the solution, or use powder coat to make up that size. In addition, the only change from the first test in this experiment between the first pic and this one is seating depth.
9313

[snapcap14]

Any testing on Sharps and the Henry W/ powder coat? With Powder coating would it matter if you used hard lead or pure Lead? both, Powder coating would make for a harder surface.

[Terry Schultz, 10057]

I shoot coated bullets out of my 1873 for Cowboy all the time and they work great but I am using smokeless not Black powder. I don't know if N-SSA will allow them in the Lever action rifle category.

[Lou Lou Lou]

CW

I believe Glenn experimented with powder coat for his henry rounds. He is on FB

[snapcap14]

CW

I believe Glenn experimented with powder coat for his henry rounds. He is on FB
Yeaw talked to Glenn Last season. Don't remember if hard or soft he was using w the henry. I do know they must be lubed.
I don't Do FB anymore.
May see you at Springtown?? We are moving to my place upstate by beginning of July, so it no drought be or last trip to Springtown for awhile.

[Lou Lou Lou]

All three Springtown skirmishes conflict with New England Skirmishes. Wish we could do something about that.

[PoorJack]

Let's put the powder coat thing to rest. It will NOT help with fouling. That's a function of lube and type/grade of powder. IIRC, it's against N-SSA rules to use powder coated bullets. I was experimenting with my Smith just for grins. I saw no change in fouling in any gun I tried this in be it musket or carbine. I have shot them in guns with smokeless and yes, they are good for that but you also still have to lube and size the bullets.

[Maillemaker]

Let's put the powder coat thing to rest. It will NOT help with fouling. That's a function of lube and type/grade of powder. IIRC, it's against N-SSA rules to use powder coated bullets. I was experimenting with my Smith just for grins. I saw no change in fouling in any gun I tried this in be it musket or carbine. I have shot them in guns with smokeless and yes, they are good for that but you also still have to lube and size the bullets.

Naturally there would be no benefit to black powder fouling, but there would almost certainly be protection against leading.

I thought powder coating was allowed? I scanned through the rules but didn't find anything.

Steve

[snapcap14]

Let's put the powder coat thing to rest. It will NOT help with fouling. That's a function of lube and type/grade of powder. IIRC, it's against N-SSA rules to use powder coated bullets. I was experimenting with my Smith just for grins. I saw no change in fouling in any gun I tried this in be it musket or carbine. I have shot them in guns with smokeless and yes, they are good for that but you also still have to lube and size the bullets.
Rules against use of powder coated bullets in N-SSA. But there are guys using them. What am I missing?

[P.Altland]

Naturally there would be no benefit to black powder fouling, but there would almost certainly be protection against leading.

I thought powder coating was allowed? I scanned through the rules but didn't find anything.

Steve

Funny you say that when it was approved under the guise of being a lube. From the January 2019 BOD minutes:

?Inspector Shaw stated that at the August 2018 Board meeting an issue came up in question about powder coating projectiles. The decision to allow powder coating was defeated. The Board has never ruled which type or brand of lube could be used or the method of applying any lube to the projectile in use. Wayne Shaw moved to rescind the previous action taken at the August 2018 Board meeting regarding powder coating. Motion passed?

[Maillemaker]

Thanks Paul, I thought I remembered something about it.


Wayne Shaw moved to rescind the previous action taken at the August 2018 Board meeting regarding powder coating. Motion passed?

So what was the previous action taken that was reversed? I'm not clear - is powder coating currently allowed being considered a "lube"? I think it was originally banned, and now allowed, is that right?

Steve

[P.Altland]

Thanks Paul, I thought I remembered something about it.



So what was the previous action taken that was reversed? I'm not clear - is powder coating currently allowed being considered a "lube"? I think it was originally banned, and now allowed, is that right?

Steve

The motion to allow use was not approved at the Aug. 2018 BOD meeting. At the January 2019 meeting it was argued that it?s a ?lube? and the rules never dictated types or brands of lube allowed therefor it should be allowed. Previous action of not approving was reversed. There is nothing specific in the rules for powder coatings because it?s just a ?lube? or so it was argued.

[Maillemaker]

Thanks Paul. That is what had jangled around in my addled brain.

Steve

[PoorJack]

The motion to allow use was not approved at the Aug. 2018 BOD meeting. At the January 2019 meeting it was argued that it?s a ?lube? and the rules never dictated types or brands of lube allowed therefor it should be allowed. Previous action of not approving was reversed. There is nothing specific in the rules for powder coatings because it?s just a ?lube? or so it was argued.

To my mind, there's no way it's a lube. I'd think of it as a coating or "plating". Regardless, I experimented a bit with it and results were mixed at best. It didn't improve groups enough for me to even consider going forward in any way with it nor did it help in fouling. I've found fouling control to be more a function of type of powder, charge level, bullet weight, and type of actual lube. Light bullets with a powder like regular Goex or Schuetzen will have more fouling and require a different lube than a heavier bullet with Old E or Swiss. My thought is a heavier bullet will aid in a more complete combustion of the charge leaving less residue (fouling). So if powder coating has been ruled ok by the poobahs, well then ok, but I'm not going to waste much time with it as I saw little to no benefit. Time, powder and lead are better spent getting the load tuned and practicing.