1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Acceptable LSWC variation?

Discussion in 'Handloading and Reloading' started by ASCTLC, Mar 26, 2013.


    ASCTLC Well-Known Member

    I just received some 158 gr LSWC .358 from one of the more common mfrs. Just on a short sampling the variation is:

    .694" @ 160.1 grain
    .702" @ 164.3 grain
    all the way to one found at .713 @ 168.7 grain

    Majority seems to be from my sampling:
    60-70% are the 160.1 gr
    the rest at the 164.3 gr
    and just the one at 168.7 gr. Possibly a fluke in the batch but suspect I could find a few more in the box of 500.

    This is mainly for target and light hunting in .357 mag pistol and lever action. How would you quantify this variation for a bulk lead bullet for all around use, pretty poor, not too bad, average, actually decent, or what?

  2. ArchAngelCD

    ArchAngelCD Well-Known Member

    Such a wide variation from the stated weight would bother me... Who's bullets are they?
  3. Reefinmike

    Reefinmike Well-Known Member

    I personally would call for a refund or new product, a 10 grain variation is unacceptable. Not sure what casting method they are using, but the most variation I'll ever get when casting 158 and 230 grainers is .2gr

    ASCTLC Well-Known Member

    If I just grab 2 that look alike with minimal/no excess lube they weigh 161.1 and 163.5.

    Here's a pic of 2 extremes with excess lube removed so they only have it in the lube groove.

    I don't know if it matters or not but these are not their "match" grade but rather their "Standard Hard Cast"

    Like a clueless idjit, I threw that first 168 gr back in the bunch but it wasn't too hard to find another gross offender.


    Attached Files:

  5. choppinlow

    choppinlow Well-Known Member

    Not sure if it is just the picture, but the base on the right-side would bother me. I don't bother with any bullet that has deformed bases.
  6. mdi

    mdi Well-Known Member

    Length and weight can vary, but from your pic, one seems to not be filled out, and 8 grain difference would be enough for me not to use them without sorting/weighing each one...

    I'm not a handgun hunter and not a target master/competition shooter but I like to use the quality components. I like to know that my ammo/guns are more accurate than I am. I cast many of my own bullets, like 85%, and would not accept that much variation.:barf:
  7. ljnowell

    ljnowell Well-Known Member

    Wow. Curious to know where those came from. It almost looks like two different molds. The crimp grooves are nowhere near similar!
  8. Walkalong

    Walkalong Moderator

    Not only do they look like they came from different molds, they look poorly cast as well.
  9. rcmodel

    rcmodel Member in memoriam

    The one on the right has a big sprue cut-off bugger holding it up off the table.

    In all, I would not be a happy camper with those bullets at all.

  10. Bula

    Bula Well-Known Member

    You can get spoiled casting your own. These examples would have been thrown back in the pot. Those look beat up. Whether it's from the pour or banging around in the packing/sorting process. That much variance is probably fine for plinking and casual stuff. I'd not hunt with those. Not sure I'd be buying from them again.
  11. ASCTLC

    ASCTLC Well-Known Member

    The majority are somewhere between 161 gr to 164 gr. I can probably cull the extreme outliers but would question 3 gr difference for "standard" cast. I'm not sure what my expectation is supposed to be on that - not sure if maybe I should have found something mentioned on their website.
  12. choppinlow

    choppinlow Well-Known Member

    Weight variation aside, they look very poorly cast. Do you have the option to return or exchange? I would recommend that if it is an option and with the sort of problems you have you would be well justified in your request.
  13. ASCTLC

    ASCTLC Well-Known Member

    Believe it or not rc, that's not a sprue cutoff booger. it's actually flat on the bottom and has that little whateveryoudcallit only showing on the side of that bevel.

    Both bullets are laying flat on the little post-it note and I used my caliper edge to ensure the bottom of the bullets were on the same plane.

    I took another picture of an average bullet - I just reached in the box and grabbed one. It's basically what I got other than a number of extreme outliers.

    I'll contact the mfr and discuss with him. I believe I can return if not satisfied. I'll save speculation on that conversation until after I'm discussing with him.


    Attached Files:

  14. choppinlow

    choppinlow Well-Known Member

    If that is the average, then the lot is not acceptable.
  15. MikeS.

    MikeS. Well-Known Member

    I sure hope those aren't from Missouri Bullets. I just rec'd a 4,000 round order and haven't opened them up yet.
  16. kerreckt

    kerreckt Well-Known Member

    Not acceptable. If I cast those, they would be rejected and thrown back into the pot. You should send them back. If you accept these whomever you bought them from would think their work is good and never improve their method or process and continue to sell slipshod castings. Just my 2 cents worth.
  17. ljnowell

    ljnowell Well-Known Member

    Not even right to throw a manufacturers name out there on this thread. Let the OP contact whoever and then post the reael name of the company the, if they dont resolve. You should edit that out.
  18. Hondo 60

    Hondo 60 Well-Known Member

    I couldn't agree more.
    Those look terrible.

    If you purchased them, I'd expect them to be replaced.
  19. ASCTLC

    ASCTLC Well-Known Member

    Email sent. We'll see how they answer. I suspect return will be on my dime.

    I can get magnum capable pressure/velocity Power Bonds for .6 cents more but I'd like to get into some SWC if I can. We'll see what happens...

  20. Ty 357

    Ty 357 Well-Known Member

    Well whatever you do...don't open the box before posting.
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2013

Share This Page