- Joined
- Mar 13, 2020
- Messages
- 7,471
- Reaction score
- 20,924
- Location
- On the Border in Idaho looking at BC
now this has possibilities!
-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Tungsten Powder
- Thread starter Nav
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
leadhoarder
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2020
- Messages
- 992
- Reaction score
- 1,654
You would probably get some increased penetration at the cost of expansion. Soft lead kills well. I am not sure I would want to get away from that as tungsten is very hard and likely to not deform.
ROA457
36 Cl.
You do realise that you still need to cast a billet to stage, but like casting a 50cal ball and putting it in a 45 cal die. The excess lead is forced out of the vent hole
steak
32 Cal
Uhmm... I'll let someone else bag this one, got my trophy 44years ago and she's the all time record ... but this one sports a nice rack
Again, I’m not interested in it for hunting. I’m interested in increasing the BC to improve precision and most likely range with a heavier charge. Maybe it will work, and maybe it won’t, but I’m going to experiment and report my results. I now have all the stuff.
The powder say's it's 5 microns. That is VERY fine. W is actually a lighter element than PB. It simply arranges itself much more densely than PB. I have a few different things in mind to try, but I talked to the industrial engineer where I buy my lead, and he thought that I might have a better chance of even dispersion of the powder if I cast at a greater % of the W than the lead. A tungsten powder ball in a lead matrix rather than the other way around.
I get my lead at a commercial casting plant in 25lb triple ingots for $40. The tungsten is $66 per pound. Super costly, won't alloy, but much cheaper than other denser-than-lead metals. I will get fewer balls per pound as well. This would be expensive match ammo to hit an X, not for plinking or hunting.
I think almost all the concerns/problems are valid with the exception that increasing the density will not make a difference. I come from the dark side (PRS with 2023 technology) of shooting where we all shoot ray-gun looking chassis rifles with big Mil turret scopes using aerodynamic VLDs. We're all chasing high BC in smaller/lighter bullets. Small is good. Light is not. We shoot, what we call, "heavies". Basically the heaviest bullet we can get in six or six point five millimeter, wildcat cartridge. I shoot a 6mm Lapua with a 107gr VLD. We use rifles as tight as 6.5 twist to stabilize these long bullets. Basically building rifles with as much spin in the barrel as we can get before the jacket flies apart. There are no myths, only maths.
Increasing density to significantly improve ballistic coefficient is easily proven on paper, or even easier if you have a ballistic solver that allows for custom bullets. Take any bullet with a constant drag coefficient (same size and shape), and play with the weight. You will see how much weight matters immediately. Density is the only thing we (or soon to be "we") can play with on a certain caliber round ball. The bigger calibers balls fly further because of the weight of the projectile even though they're larger and create even more drag. Increasing weight without increasing drag will make a significant difference IF I can cast it uniformly. I am probably the wrong (ignorant) person to be doing this because I've never cast a thing in my life, but the theory is perfectly and demonstrably sound. QED. It also may look really good on paper and turn out to be manure.
If I can't cast the powder uniformly that will be that, and I'll let you all know. I doubt I'll be able to tell visually. I haven't thought of a good way to test it except to clip off and file the sprue and then roll it down a hallway, next to a swaged ball, to see if it rolls straight. Obviously the denser one will decelerate slower and roll farther. Then maybe mark it with a sharpie and spin it to try and see how much and how fast it precess'? This isn't very scientific. If anyone can think of a better way pre-shooting it I'm open. After that the groups from an Eagle Rest on a paper target won't lie. This is where it's most likely to fall down, and many can say, "I told you so"!
The powder say's it's 5 microns. That is VERY fine. W is actually a lighter element than PB. It simply arranges itself much more densely than PB. I have a few different things in mind to try, but I talked to the industrial engineer where I buy my lead, and he thought that I might have a better chance of even dispersion of the powder if I cast at a greater % of the W than the lead. A tungsten powder ball in a lead matrix rather than the other way around.
I get my lead at a commercial casting plant in 25lb triple ingots for $40. The tungsten is $66 per pound. Super costly, won't alloy, but much cheaper than other denser-than-lead metals. I will get fewer balls per pound as well. This would be expensive match ammo to hit an X, not for plinking or hunting.
I think almost all the concerns/problems are valid with the exception that increasing the density will not make a difference. I come from the dark side (PRS with 2023 technology) of shooting where we all shoot ray-gun looking chassis rifles with big Mil turret scopes using aerodynamic VLDs. We're all chasing high BC in smaller/lighter bullets. Small is good. Light is not. We shoot, what we call, "heavies". Basically the heaviest bullet we can get in six or six point five millimeter, wildcat cartridge. I shoot a 6mm Lapua with a 107gr VLD. We use rifles as tight as 6.5 twist to stabilize these long bullets. Basically building rifles with as much spin in the barrel as we can get before the jacket flies apart. There are no myths, only maths.
Increasing density to significantly improve ballistic coefficient is easily proven on paper, or even easier if you have a ballistic solver that allows for custom bullets. Take any bullet with a constant drag coefficient (same size and shape), and play with the weight. You will see how much weight matters immediately. Density is the only thing we (or soon to be "we") can play with on a certain caliber round ball. The bigger calibers balls fly further because of the weight of the projectile even though they're larger and create even more drag. Increasing weight without increasing drag will make a significant difference IF I can cast it uniformly. I am probably the wrong (ignorant) person to be doing this because I've never cast a thing in my life, but the theory is perfectly and demonstrably sound. QED. It also may look really good on paper and turn out to be manure.
If I can't cast the powder uniformly that will be that, and I'll let you all know. I doubt I'll be able to tell visually. I haven't thought of a good way to test it except to clip off and file the sprue and then roll it down a hallway, next to a swaged ball, to see if it rolls straight. Obviously the denser one will decelerate slower and roll farther. Then maybe mark it with a sharpie and spin it to try and see how much and how fast it precess'? This isn't very scientific. If anyone can think of a better way pre-shooting it I'm open. After that the groups from an Eagle Rest on a paper target won't lie. This is where it's most likely to fall down, and many can say, "I told you so"!
