Gas checks on pre-made bullets

Status
Not open for further replies.

3Crows

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2018
Messages
2,211
Location
Kansas
Newb question despite my having reloaded off and on for years. But I have never dealt with gas checks of any sort. I want to start using them but I also have hundreds of Missouri Bullet Large Buffalo and Oregon Trail Laser Cast 405 grain bullets.

Is it possible to install gas checks on the above bullets or if not what suggested mold do I need to cast a 405 grain bullet for installing gas checks.

I am shooting .45-70 in four Marlin 1895 rifles. I have not had severe leading issues but still, leading happens to some degree despite mild loads no more than 1300 fps. Plus, I would like to step some of my loads up a notch.
 
Last edited:
It is not generally possible to seat gas checks on bullets that were not designed for them. If you are getting leading with your current bullets, you could try some soft gas checks or some sort of ballistic filler, like puff-lon. When I was loading for my 45-70, I used gas check bullets that I bought. I also used some plain base bullets with filler, with mixed results.
 
Pat Marlins makes dies to make gas checks. He makes a line of dies that makes gas checks for plain base bullets using aluminum drink cans.

I have dies for 32 caliber and 357 caliber gas checks. They are easy to make and install on the bullets. I have not pushed the velocity of the bullets yet to see if the plain base bullet gas checks do minimize leading. But, the testing is on the horizon.

I have used the aluminum plain base bullets gas checks as over powder wads and over shot wads in shot shell, mostly 32 H&R Mag shot shells. Great rat ammunition in a 2" Bond Arms 32 caliber barrel.

https://patmarlins.com/

Check out the plain base Checkmaker dies.

Pat Marlin has had some troubles getting material for his dies. I think things have improved some but investigate where he is on deliveries and adjust accordingly.
 
Pat makes great dies for making gas checks, but please remember the times we live in now and there maybe excess lead time needed.
 
For whatever it is worth, a certain degree of leading is normal, expected, and beneficial. A slight "frost" of lead in the bore is harmless at worst, and often functions to improve accuracy, at least if it is mild and does not build up beyond a certain point. I rarely have experienced a cast load that did not lead at all, and when I have, results were otherwise uninspiring.
 
For whatever it is worth, a certain degree of leading is normal, expected, and beneficial. A slight "frost" of lead in the bore is harmless at worst, and often functions to improve accuracy, at least if it is mild and does not build up beyond a certain point. I rarely have experienced a cast load that did not lead at all, and when I have, results were otherwise uninspiring.
I must admit, this is the first time I've ever heard that some leading could be beneficial. I am not refuting nor arguing your experiences, just showing my surprise.

I have had some loads that did not lead, but left what could only be explained as 'antimony wash'. That layer of ....whatever it is...did not interfere with accuracy.

When shooting 'pure' lead swaged HBWC with minimal target loads of very fast powder, I have still seen some very minor leading. It usually showed in the corners of the rifling, and never accumulated to any extent. It has never interfered with shooting, but I can't say it helped accuracy either. If I shot better after a few cylinders I ascribed it to 'warming up'.
When cleaning, a small number of patches would take it right out - no scrubbing.
But, it was recognizable as lead, even on the patch.

With the antimonial wash, the patches came out grey. No recognizable lead.

Different experiences certainly. I will pay closer attention when next shooting the SW M14.
 
For whatever it is worth, a certain degree of leading is normal, expected, and beneficial. A slight "frost" of lead in the bore is harmless at worst, and often functions to improve accuracy, at least if it is mild and does not build up beyond a certain point. I rarely have experienced a cast load that did not lead at all, and when I have, results were otherwise uninspiring.
lol well I am old enough to remember the clubhouse discussions about the benefits of copper fouling on long range accuracy and the holes in targets on both sides proving both sides were right so I won’t disagree. But I will keep cleaning my barrels with lead remover when I see any fouling. :)
 
lol well I am old enough to remember the clubhouse discussions about the benefits of copper fouling on long range accuracy and the holes in targets on both sides proving both sides were right so I won’t disagree. But I will keep cleaning my barrels with lead remover when I see any fouling. :)

What is your favorite lead remover?

To clear this up, I am not having significant leading. I do not think a bullet can be fired through a barrel without it either leaving behind lead or if copper plated then copper. Not sure about these brass or powder coated bullets as I have never dealt with them. I suppose the real consideration is if the accumulation continues to build or affect accuracy.

Partly my interest in the gas checks was to step my loads up a notch. At the 1200 to 1300 fps I am loading at now I do not see significant leading but I do see a smear when I look into the muzzle. I figure if I jump to 1500 fps then leading my become a problem thus the gas checks.
 
I used to put little cardboard disc under my bullets. It seemed to work but was a pinta.
 
What is your favorite lead remover?

To clear this up, I am not having significant leading. I do not think a bullet can be fired through a barrel without it either leaving behind lead or if copper plated then copper. Not sure about these brass or powder coated bullets as I have never dealt with them. I suppose the real consideration is if the accumulation continues to build or affect accuracy.

Partly my interest in the gas checks was to step my loads up a notch. At the 1200 to 1300 fps I am loading at now I do not see significant leading but I do see a smear when I look into the muzzle. I figure if I jump to 1500 fps then leading my become a problem thus the gas checks.
That seems to be the spot where traditional lube starts to transition to needing a swap for a different type. My dad always talked about slow and fast being easy because he had the lubes figured out but that 13-1800 being a pain. Wish I had lube experience to provide the right recomendation.
 
I must admit, this is the first time I've ever heard that some leading could be beneficial. I am not refuting nor arguing your experiences, just showing my surprise.

All the way back to my JROTC rifle team days, we were given “foulers” to shoot before we shot our targets for score.

I don’t think I have ever started a match with a clean bore.
 
Last edited:
What is your favorite lead remover?

To clear this up, I am not having significant leading. I do not think a bullet can be fired through a barrel without it either leaving behind lead or if copper plated then copper. Not sure about these brass or powder coated bullets as I have never dealt with them. I suppose the real consideration is if the accumulation continues to build or affect accuracy.

Partly my interest in the gas checks was to step my loads up a notch. At the 1200 to 1300 fps I am loading at now I do not see significant leading but I do see a smear when I look into the muzzle. I figure if I jump to 1500 fps then leading my become a problem thus the gas checks.

I use the Lewis lead cleaning system works great and easy. The units are sold by Brownells now.

https://www.brownells.com/gun-clean...-remover-handle-sku516500001-21587-46108.aspx

I shoot to reload and cast bullets, so I am always cleaning a gun almost everyday.

61217CDA-82C6-4326-A8C3-9600C655C9E4.jpeg
 
What is your favorite lead remover?

To clear this up, I am not having significant leading. I do not think a bullet can be fired through a barrel without it either leaving behind lead or if copper plated then copper. Not sure about these brass or powder coated bullets as I have never dealt with them. I suppose the real consideration is if the accumulation continues to build or affect accuracy.

Partly my interest in the gas checks was to step my loads up a notch. At the 1200 to 1300 fps I am loading at now I do not see significant leading but I do see a smear when I look into the muzzle. I figure if I jump to 1500 fps then leading my become a problem thus the gas checks.
I’m partial to Shooter’s Choice lead remover. Just a dab on a patch and a couple of scrubs with a brass brush and the leads gone. Shooter’s Choice copper remover works good too but Sweet’s is better. Stinks but it works.
 
All the way back to my JROTC rifle team days, we were given “fowlers” to shoot before we shot our targets for score.

I don’t think I have ever started a match with a clean bore.
What you were doing was getting the bore to a consistent surface. You didn't want to start shooting for score with a clean bore, then have the surface of the bore change from shot to shot.

Sure, it was fouled (perhaps not fowled) to a surface that should have remained relatively stable. It may not have helped with accuracy, but it certainly helped with consistency.
 
With regard to slight leading improving accuracy, I believe it is comparable to (though not as significant as) "dressing" the bore with .22 LR. It is normal, after cleaning, for a .22 to go a bit wild, only settling down after a few shots have been fired. I believe that, during the first few shots, the bullet encounters a slightly different situation each time. That is, the first bullet "sees" a perfectly clean bore with a hint of oil, the next bullet sees a dry bore with a bit of powder and wax fouling, etc. and so impacts are inconsistent. Eventually the bore reaches some sort of equilibrium, with the passage of each bullet leaving behind essentially the same circumstances it encountered.

In an accurate .22 rifle, the results are obvious. In a run-of-the-mill revolver, it can be much less so, to the point that it generally goes unnoticed, if it is happening at all. Top end and/or custom revolvers, scoped and shot from sandbags, have convinced me that it is true, though. It doesn't happen with every gun or every load, but I have shot some supremely accurate combos that absolutely had to have a cylinder or two downrange, and a slight bit of leading and lube in the bore, before they would really go to work.
 
With regard to slight leading improving accuracy, I believe it is comparable to (though not as significant as) "dressing" the bore with .22 LR. It is normal, after cleaning, for a .22 to go a bit wild, only settling down after a few shots have been fired. I believe that, during the first few shots, the bullet encounters a slightly different situation each time. That is, the first bullet "sees" a perfectly clean bore with a hint of oil, the next bullet sees a dry bore with a bit of powder and wax fouling, etc. and so impacts are inconsistent. Eventually the bore reaches some sort of equilibrium, with the passage of each bullet leaving behind essentially the same circumstances it encountered.

In an accurate .22 rifle, the results are obvious. In a run-of-the-mill revolver, it can be much less so, to the point that it generally goes unnoticed, if it is happening at all. Top end and/or custom revolvers, scoped and shot from sandbags, have convinced me that it is true, though. It doesn't happen with every gun or every load, but I have shot some supremely accurate combos that absolutely had to have a cylinder or two downrange, and a slight bit of leading and lube in the bore, before they would really go to work.
When I do any testing I shoot 3 rounds first to make sure tests are not effected by cold bore or oil shots. I shoot mostly stainless barrels so I don't oil, but it's a standard process for me. Lead, copper, or piwdercoat I do the same thing every time.
 
What you were doing was getting the bore to a consistent surface. You didn't want to start shooting for score with a clean bore, then have the surface of the bore change from shot to shot.

Sure, it was fouled (perhaps not fowled) to a surface that should have remained relatively stable. It may not have helped with accuracy, but it certainly helped with consistency.

There are many that follow a nothing down the bore but bullets camp, of course you can’t have a load that builds up a lot of deposits either…

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-barrel-cleaning-guide.19/download&version=19
 
There are many that follow a nothing down the bore but bullets camp,

I am one of the adherents to that message, particularly with low velocity lead.

I was shooting 97-99s with my Finn M39 and my handloads. Sub 2" 10 round 100 yard groups.

I got a wild hair, scrubbed the bore. There had been 2000+ rounds down the bore with no cleaning, and no buildup. Not so much as a dry patch down the bore.

It's taking me over a year to get it back to some semblance of what it was. I've fired more than 1000 rounds, and I'm finally shooting 94-96 targets.

I'm never cleaning the bore of that Sako Finn again.
 
I love this thing started bore scoping jet engines over 40 years ago and now it's so much easier. But if you don't want to clean forever stay away.

CDA3FA90-1812-40EE-AD81-4F606720A897.jpeg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top