Powder coating the easy way

[TNMTBik3r]

These were not lubed. It sounds like there are a couple of simple ways to remove the lube though - bake as suggested by Dolomite or use acetone/thinner.

I wonder how much of a difference the lube would make if you tried to PC over?

I'm hoping to go shoot these tomorrow. Edited July 19, 2013 by jonathon1289

[Dolomite_supafly]

I have coated over Lee Alox and it seemed fine but I haven't reied over lube in a groove yet.

[TNMTBik3r]

Range report - was only able to shoot about 10 rounds today, but they worked great. No smoke (except the normal from TiteGroup powder). I was hoping to be able to load/shoot the .357/.358 bullets but my 9mm has a tight chamber and the couple of dummy rounds I created did not pass the plunk test. I was able to find some that measured .356 and shot, they appeared fully coated but the size did not increase.

 

Anyways, waiting on a sizer now (my neighbor said he has one I just have to get it) and will shoot up the rest. the 10 today were very accurate. 

 

 

[StPatrick]

If you place your lubed bullets on the screen and bake them at 200 degrees the lube will melt right off.

 

BTW, I have shot the powder coated bullets past 3,200 fps without any leading.

 

This seems like quite a leap forward for casters - I'm not one, but I find this really interesting, since 3200 FPS means you can shoot cast bullets at jacketed speeds*.  Have you fired enough shots yet to see what kind of residue is going to be left in the barrel, if any, at that speed and with a high volume of fire?

 

*Were a manufacturer to scale this up and perfect it at a mass-production level, range ammo would be insulated from fluctuations in the price of copper, and the process could, and should, be cheaper than making FMJ.  There would be far fewer manufacturing steps along with lower materials costs, assuming the EPA didn't factor in due to VOC emissions.

[itchytriggerfinger]

*Were a manufacturer to scale this up and perfect it at a mass-production level, range ammo would be insulated from fluctuations in the price of copper, and the process could, and should, be cheaper than making FMJ.  There would be far fewer manufacturing steps along with lower materials costs, assuming the EPA didn't factor in due to VOC emissions.

 

You could definitely make it much cheaper than FMJ, but do you think you could make it much cheaper than plated bullets (at current copper prices)? I'm new to this game so please forgive my ignorance, but it seems the plated bullets would be "cleaner" than the powder.  What are your findings? 

 

Believe me, I would like to see this work because it could save about $20 per 1000 for a guy like me who doesn't cast.

[StPatrick]

You could definitely make it much cheaper than FMJ, but do you think you could make it much cheaper than plated bullets (at current copper prices)? I'm new to this game so please forgive my ignorance, but it seems the plated bullets would be "cleaner" than the powder.  What are your findings? 

 

Believe me, I would like to see this work because it could save about $20 per 1000 for a guy like me who doesn't cast.

 

I don't have any findings - I've been following this thread out of general interest.  I think your point about plating makes sense, but that seems to be something used more for pistol (and .22lr) rather than rifle bullets from what little I know, and my interest in this case is directed towards rifles.  Obviously there's no market for pistol bullets that can handle 3200 fps.  Are there plated bullets that perform well at those speeds?  If there are, then whoever wanted to develop a process to powder coat cast bullets would have to beat the low costs involved with plating.  I think the equipment needed to capture and recycle the solvents involved would be very expensive on the front end, and then there's EPA compliance to factor in, so my bet is that the cost to coat as opposed to plating would have to be at least -5% / MM units (SWAG*) so the investment paid off quickly, at least for the big boys.  For smaller companies, their savings would have to be greater.  That's with the assumption that both reloaders and shooters of plinking ammo adopted the technology quickly.  A couple "This stuff crapped up may barrel" posts on the major firearms sites could derail that quickly.

 

*Scientific Wild-Assed Guess - the real number could be anything; 5% just seemed a reasonable jumping-off point.

[itchytriggerfinger]

I think you're right about the epa crap.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

*Were a manufacturer to scale this up and perfect it at a mass-production level, range ammo would be insulated from fluctuations in the price of copper, and the process could, and should, be cheaper than making FMJ.  There would be far fewer manufacturing steps along with lower materials costs, assuming the EPA didn't factor in due to VOC emissions.

 

Though the application technology might be different for this company's product, the end result seems similar, though the pictures look somewhat "smoother surface" than the amateur powder coating pictures. Am not being critical, merely making an observation--

 

https://www.blackbulletsinternational.com/Product_Store.html

 

The price per 1000 on these, on 125gn 9mm, looks in the same ballpark as soft lead plated 124gn Rainier bullets, but a little cheaper. That's not to say that some other company couldn't shave the price more and still stay in biz.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[itchytriggerfinger]

I've noticed the same thing about Rainier vs BBI vs Bayou Bullets.  They are all in the same ballbark, and from what I gather, all perform about the same.  The benefit for BBI and Bayou is they are fully insulated from the fluctuation in copper prices.

[Worriedman]

BBI is a local Tennessee operation, and the Owner is a really great guy.

[Superman]

Figured I would bump this up with my experience.

 

I started powder coating last weekend. I started with 7.62x39 no gas checks, not water dropped, just powder coated clip-on WW lead. I dont have a chronograph yet, need to get one, but I would say they are around 2000fps no leading in the barrel at all. Then I moved on to 9mm shot thru a Glock 17 with factory barrel. Again no leading at all. I dont know about yall, but I am sold on the powder coat. Next up is .223 for the AR and maybe some heavy subsonics for the AK.

[timthetoolman]

Any accuracy reports of the PC bullets yet?  We have a mold on the way so we can roll up some black out rounds and I am curious how its going to go.

[Dolomite_supafly]

Which mold? There are some out there that are miserably innaccurate, the Lee 230 "Blackout" grain is one. I am going to revisit it now that I am powder coating but others have reported they are still inaccurate.

 

With a decent bullet I have found that adding a few thousandths worth of powder coating to the bullet tightens up the accuracy. I suspect it is more about increasing the size than the powder coating.

[Luke E.]

Which mold? There are some out there that are miserably innaccurate, the Lee 230 "Blackout" grain is one. I am going to revisit it now that I am powder coating but others have reported they are still inaccurate.

 

With a decent bullet I have found that adding a few thousandths worth of powder coating to the bullet tightens up the accuracy. I suspect it is more about increasing the size than the powder coating.

 

It is the 155gr Lee AK mold you spoke so highly of last time we talked. I'm not a psychic and i'm not guessing, Tim and I cast together. We've both been on the hunt for one for a while now and he finally found one in stock. 

[Dolomite_supafly]

I really like 155 Lee. It works great for supersonic, espcially powder coated.

[timthetoolman]

Well it's here.  And I am already tired of buying M80 pulls to feed this Blackout.  Time to fire up the pot and see what happens. Then fire up the toaster over for a go at this whole powder coating business.  We've been getting damn nice groups with the M80 projectiles, but i'd like to get the cost per round down to plink worthy prices.

[Guest skbcl98]

I found this thread to be very helpful. But I am having problems.
It seams that the powder only takes so much lacquer then the rest is excess, it seams that when I tumble there are spots that show through from where bullets bounce off each other. Is that from too much lacquer or dumping too soon. I jadsome rough ones today but not until I started to shake them on the screen. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

[Guest skbcl98]

Well I just cooked another batch set the timer for 12 min and walked away cane back and over half of 175 were flat! f%#* LOL the ones that didn't flatten looked like they had small bubbles?

[Superman]

Ditch the lacquer. Tumble them dry and throw them in the oven. Dolo is tumbling his in a brass tumbler, might try that. I am having good luck just using a bowl. Shake them around a little, dump them on a screen, shake out the excess powder, and put them in the oven. My bullets will melt with the oven temp set on 400, think I have my oven set on about 375.

 

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/73808-powder-coating-the-super-duper-easy-way/

 

ETA-I used Crown brand lacquer thinner at first and didnt get good coverage, borrowed a partial can of KleenStrip brand from my Dad. Worked much better.

Edited December 24, 2013 by Superman

[Guest wrenchmonkey]

Hey guys, I happened upon this thread while goofing off on the internet. I know you've all moved onto using laquer thinner, but just in case anybody is still considering acetone. DON'T DO IT.

Acetone+lead=lead acetate which is BAD news. If you get it on your skin, you'll absorb lead right into your skin. Common knowledge among suppressor shooters, but not so common elsewhere. Stay away from mixing lead and acetone, unless you have a really good reason, and know exactly what you're doing.

OP mentioned already having suffered lead poisoning. Acetone+lead is an express ticket to the same! Be careful!

[Dolomite_supafly]

Yes, lead acetate is some nasty stuff. That is why I tell anyone who is considering using it as a dip for their suppressor to ensure they can take it to a hazardous materials recycling center. Most major cities will take lead acetate and some will do it for free if in small quanties. You must take extreme caution when handling lead acetate and never dump it out onto the ground or into a storm drain as it can easily contaminate ground water. It will absorb through the skin and cross the blood/brain barrier quite easily. So it is best to avoid any potential exposure to lead acetate.

 

Now with that being said acetone does not react with elemental metals, such as lead. It takes some sort of acid, not acetone, to create lead acetate from lead. Just because they sound the same does not make them the same. Again, acetone will not react with lead to create lead acetate because acetone is not an acid.

 

When lead is exposed to hydrogen peroxide and acids such as vinegar ("the dip" in the suppressor world) it will yield lead acetate. But combining lead with acetone will not result in a reaction that creates lead acetate.

 

And just so everyone knows there is a much easier, and better, way to coat your bullets.

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/73808-powder-coating-the-super-duper-easy-way/

 

Just to reiterate, combining acetone and lead does not create lead acetate.

[JWC]

Acetone for cleaning stickers off, tumbler for powder coating👍

[Guest ChrisCBR]

Yes, lead acetate is some nasty stuff. That is why I tell anyone who is considering using it as a dip for their suppressor to ensure they can take it to a hazardous materials recycling center. Most major cities will take lead acetate and some will do it for free if in small quanties. You must take extreme caution when handling lead acetate and never dump it out onto the ground or into a storm drain as it can easily contaminate ground water. It will absorb through the skin and cross the blood/brain barrier quite easily. So it is best to avoid any potential exposure to lead acetate.

 

Now with that being said acetone does not react with elemental metals, such as lead. It takes some sort of acid, not acetone, to create lead acetate from lead. Just because they sound the same does not make them the same. Again, acetone will not react with lead to create lead acetate because acetone is not an acid.

 

When lead is exposed to hydrogen peroxide and acids such as vinegar ("the dip" in the suppressor world) it will yield lead acetate. But combining lead with acetone will not result in a reaction that creates lead acetate.

 

And just so everyone knows there is a much easier, and better, way to coat your bullets.

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/73808-powder-coating-the-super-duper-easy-way/

 

Just to reiterate, combining acetone and lead does not create lead acetate.

So, you switched to the dry tumble method?  Why was that?  I get so so results with the DT but coverage is never as good as with the lacquer thinner method...

[Dolomite_supafly]

So, you switched to the dry tumble method?  Why was that?  I get so so results with the DT but coverage is never as good as with the lacquer thinner method...

I am getting the best results using the DT method. I have tried every single method for coating and DT works best with the powder I use. Goo that the lacquer thinner method works for you, it worked for me too but it was not as easy as the DT method.

[Jct1911]

Another vote for the Dry tumble method. I do the air soft BB's with the powder. Haven't conventionally lubed a boolit in at least 6months. All my pistol boolits are now coated and have started with the rifles(30-30 first). I did try the piglet method about 18months ago and it was never "pretty" but functional.