Tungsten Powder

[Nav]

Has anyone experimented with increasing the density of your cast balls with adding tungsten powder to the molten lead? There are much better alternatives to the hottest melting, stable heavy metal, but nothing that’s economical.
I see a lot of potential problems with this, (mainly I don’t know if the powder will settle to the bottom of the mound as it cools), but if you could get it to uniformly cast in suspension it would increase the density significantly. It’s nearly double the density. Of course, I don’t want lopsided balls (who would?).

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Well the fist question is, why would you wish to do so? What is the patched round ball going to do better when It's heavier?

Having higher mass means that when fired the round ball will leave the muzzle at a lower muzzle velocity using our present loads. That means that the round ball's already poor ballistics will cause it to drop more as it flies to the target. This will mean we will need to increase our powder loads to compensate for the lower MV. OR, it means having to adjust the sights, but that eventually will mask the target.

Yet, the terminal ballistics on a pure lead round ball are fine.... we shoot the deer, and the deer flop over, or they walk a short distance, and they flop over. IF one wants to shoot farther at game or targets than 150 yards, that pretty much means changing the ballistic coefficient, which means changing the shape of the projectile to something conical. This includes an increase in mass OR, a reduction of caliber, IF one wants to avoid increasing the powder to compensate.

When a hunter thinks there is a penetration problem, adding some antimony will harden up the round ball, and lowering the mass, giving it higher MV at impact, and less deformity allowing it to go deeper. Of course the hunter could go smaller caliber, use a pure lead conical, and get both, better ballistics, and deeper penetration. My .50 shoots a 177 grain ball, and my .40 shoots a 200 grain conical. The .40 with the conical will reach out a tad farther than the .50 with a round ball.

LD

 

[Beaverman2]

Well the fist question is, why would you wish to do so? What is the patched round ball going to do better when It's heavier?

Having higher mass means that when fired the round ball will leave the muzzle at a lower muzzle velocity using our present loads. That means that the round ball's already poor ballistics will cause it to drop more as it flies to the target. This will mean we will need to increase our powder loads to compensate for the lower MV. OR, it means having to adjust the sights, but that eventually will mask the target.

Yet, the terminal ballistics on a pure lead round ball are fine.... we shoot the deer, and the deer flop over, or they walk a short distance, and they flop over. IF one wants to shoot farther at game or targets than 150 yards, that pretty much means changing the ballistic coefficient, which means changing the shape of the projectile to something conical. This includes an increase in mass OR, a reduction of caliber, IF one wants to avoid increasing the powder to compensate.

When a hunter thinks there is a penetration problem, adding some antimony will harden up the round ball, and lowering the mass, giving it higher MV at impact, and less deformity allowing it to go deeper. Of course the hunter could go smaller caliber, use a pure lead conical, and get both, better ballistics, and deeper penetration. My .50 shoots a 177 grain ball, and my .40 shoots a 200 grain conical. The .40 with the conical will reach out a tad farther than the .50 with a round ball.

LD

That was my first thought, why? I guess some folks just have to re-invent the wheel!

 

[user 31257]

I have no interest in adding tungsten to my cast balls but if there was a way to do it, I’d definitely add it to my jig heads.

 

[Nav]

I shoot rifles and shotguns in leagues and at competitions. I kill animals larger than a squirrel almost exclusively with a bow now. Terminal ballistics are irrelevant to me, and a lead, fifty caliber ball moving at a thousand feet per second is adequate for anything in North America hardened or not.

Yes, a round ball is not an ideal shape for a bullet. I am building a rifle that shoots round balls. The only variable that can be changed in terms of the projectile is the ball’s sectional density. I fully understand that the BC of the ball isn’t nearly all there is to it, but there IS something to it. A bullet with a higher ballistic coefficient will be more stable round or not, period.

I have three different diameter round balls, three different patching materials, and several lube recipes already in hand to find out what load will shoot best. I am looking to add sectional density to the mix. This is the why.

I intend to at least try to produce the kind of percision I’m accustomed to in my built, metallic cartridge, match guns. I know it can be done, because I see people shooting clover leafs with antique, replica rifles. Adding one more variable doesn’t seem like a big deal to me, but I guess it is to some people.

Obviously at “close” (BP) range. I don’t ask because I’m trying to increase my effective range through a higher BC ball. Though I disagree that a flat shooting load is necessarily “better”, even with iron sights. That said if I can get the percision I’m looking for I may put a Lyman tang sight on it and see what it can do,,,

I’m not trying to double the sectional density of lead by trying to cast an exotic and expensive osmium or iridium (or platinum or gold) ball. Im just trying to add enough gr to make a difference and boost the BC of a ball. Tungsten powder is affordable and readily available.

None of my ballistic software has round balls in the bullet models. Easy enough to figure out with labradar, a calculator, and a pencil once I start shooting and recording.

What I was wondering is if anyone had tried to cast using this powder as it probably will react differently in the lead than the lighter alloys normally used.

If no one has tried I will figure it out on my own. Thanks for the replies. Sorry if it’s such a stupid question it offended you.

 

[ZUG]

 

[TreeMan]

You’re thinking too hard Mr. Nav. Pure lead has worked since cavemen first starting harvesting dinosaurs with matchlocks.

 

[SDSmlf]

Has anyone experimented with increasing the density of your cast balls with adding tungsten powder to the molten lead? There are much better alternatives to the hottest melting, stable heavy metal, but nothing that’s economical.
I see a lot of potential problems with this, (mainly I don’t know if the powder will settle to the bottom of the mound as it cools), but if you could get it to uniformly cast in suspension it would increase the density significantly. It’s nearly double the density. Of course, I don’t want lopsided balls (who would?).

Well, you could also include gold in your experimentation, as both tungsten and gold have near the same density (19.3g/cm^3). And if you can find some, try osmium (22.59g/cm^3), nearly double the weight of lead if you are looking really looking to step things up. Me, I would either bump up a caliber size or use a conical. Please report back on how your testing goes.

 

[64Springer]

Adding sildenafil to the lead could produce a much harder alloy.

But you'd need to use your newly cast balls within four hours.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I shoot rifles and shotguns in leagues and at competitions. I kill animals larger than a squirrel almost exclusively with a bow now. Terminal ballistics are irrelevant to me, and a lead, fifty caliber ball moving at a thousand feet per second is adequate for anything in North America hardened or not.

Yes, a round ball is not an ideal shape for a bullet. I am building a rifle that shoots round balls. The only variable that can be changed in terms of the projectile is the ball’s sectional density. I fully understand that the BC of the ball isn’t nearly all there is to it, but there IS something to it. A bullet with a higher ballistic coefficient will be more stable round or not, period.

I have three different diameter round balls, three different patching materials, and several lube recipes already in hand to find out what load will shoot best. I am looking to add sectional density to the mix. This is the why.

I intend to at least try to produce the kind of percision I’m accustomed to in my built, metallic cartridge, match guns. I know it can be done, because I see people shooting clover leafs with antique, replica rifles. Adding one more variable doesn’t seem like a big deal to me, but I guess it is to some people.

Obviously at “close” (BP) range. I don’t ask because I’m trying to increase my effective range through a higher BC ball. Though I disagree that a flat shooting load is necessarily “better”, even with iron sights. That said if I can get the percision I’m looking for I may put a Lyman tang sight on it and see what it can do,,,

I’m not trying to double the sectional density of lead by trying to cast an exotic and expensive osmium or iridium (or platinum or gold) ball. Im just trying to add enough gr to make a difference and boost the BC of a ball. Tungsten powder is affordable and readily available.

None of my ballistic software has round balls in the bullet models. Easy enough to figure out with labradar, a calculator, and a pencil once I start shooting and recording.

What I was wondering is if anyone had tried to cast using this powder as it probably will react differently in the lead than the lighter alloys normally used.

If no one has tried I will figure it out on my own. Thanks for the replies. Sorry if it’s such a stupid question it offended you.

It's not a stupid question, and it's not offensive. You think that you will get more consistency with accuracy by increasing the mass of the ball by adding tungsten..., OK that's a new Idea to me, so what I wrote doesn't apply, period, since I wasn't trying to solve an accuracy question. No chaffing here, and now that I understand you, that's an interesting proposition. I would then, think your hypothesis "I see a lot of potential problems with this, (mainly I don’t know if the powder will settle to the bottom of the mound as it cools), but if you could get it to uniformly cast in suspension it would increase the density significantly. It’s nearly double the density. Of course, I don’t want lopsided balls then is your true problem. While the balls from the mold wouldn't be lopsided..., only a small shift from uniform dispersion as you point out, would cause problems. On the other hand, if the tungsten uniformly pooled at the bottom of the ball, the sprue point would indicate where that pooling was centered, so if you could align that perpendicular to the flight path, wouldn't that still work?

LD

 

[Nav]

That’s fair, I overthink things.
@Loyalist Dave you are now picking up what I’m putting down. Just trying to figure out how I can mould a higher BC ball and achieve more percision out of a flintlock. Nothing more.

Will it be a little slower with a steeper parabola? Yes, but I don’t think this will be an extreme extent. I may be slower with a few inches more drop, but if I can figure out how to mould them with the powder consistently through the sphere they may have a noticeably higher BC.

I get it if no one has tried this or thinks it worth their time, but it’s worth a try, at least to me. Who knows? I may make the first advance in round balls in a couple of centuries…

Or, it may be a waste of time, but I’ll try and report my results.

 

[HSmithTX]

Don't know, never tried it, but I think you'll have to figure out how to alloy it so that it's distributed evenly and don't know for sure but I am pretty sure this isn't possible? I know for a fact small pieces of carbide will settle in the bottom of a steel casting, so I assume tungsten will settle in lead as well. I would also assume that this will happen in the pot before you can cast the first ball. My mind goes to a duplex ball, or a coated ball, to try to marry the two materials. This again leads my brain to how will you get it evenly distributed? If it isn't evenly distributed the accuracy will be poor or worse.

The only way I am aware of to get tungsten into a ball is to matrix it in plastic, like the TSS shot. If I could buy a 54, 58, 62 etc ball made out of TSS I would try it pronto. Why not I say.

 

[64Springer]

Don't know, never tried it, but I think you'll have to figure out how to alloy it so that it's distributed evenly and don't know for sure but I am pretty sure this isn't possible? I know for a fact small pieces of carbide will settle in the bottom of a steel casting, so I assume tungsten will settle in lead as well. I would also assume that this will happen in the pot before you can cast the first ball. My mind goes to a duplex ball, or a coated ball, to try to marry the two materials. This again leads my brain to how will you get it evenly distributed? If it isn't evenly distributed the accuracy will be poor or worse.

The only way I am aware of to get tungsten into a ball is to matrix it in plastic, like the TSS shot. If I could buy a 54, 58, 62 etc ball made out of TSS I would try it pronto. Why not I say.

Which is why I could never wrap my head around those colorful powder coated bullets that are the rage right now.

 

[user 31257]

Things with a density lower than lead and a higher melting point float to the top of the pot, would it stand to reason that tungsten with a higher density and way way higher melting point would just sink to the bottom? Somehow you’d have to distribute it through the molten lead kind of uniformly.
Maybe if you could take small tungsten beads and put them in the mold cavity and then flow molten lead into it to fill the spaces? It might work if the beads and mold were hot enough?

 

[#BPBReloadingFFL]

Which is why I could never wrap my head around those colorful powder coated bullets that are the rage right now.

Powder coat, tell you what- they are clean loading and shooting !

 

[Nav]

The tungsten is literally in a powdered form. I think that if I stir it and keep it in suspension there is a good chance that the lead would solidify before it settles.

Has anyone dipped their mold in water to get the lead to congeal faster? I can’t imagine it would significantly harden a soft metal like lead…, but I don’t know.

 

[Nav]

I did not mean to cause controversy with my first post. My area of expertise is percision rifle, metallic cartridges. I’m new to BP/flintlock.

In what I’m used to competing with the bullets have gotten longer and heavier in the last twenty years so now we have the VLDs with stupid BCs for the weight. We can’t do that with round ball, so the only way to push the envelope of percision in the projectile is to alloy the lead with something heavier.

I don’t shoot the highest BC 6mms. They’re too expensive for .01 more BC. I shoot SMKs for much less, and I do alright. That said, if I can add 20-30gr to the same diameter round ball that’s markedly significant. I just am new to casting as well and I know there are masters in here.

Truely, thanks for the responses, and shared concerns. They’re legit, and this may not work out, but I am going to try a couple of processes I have in mind and we’ll see. Perhaps the old ways are best (as is often the case) but who wouldn’t want a .2 or .3 gain in BC if it can be had on the cheap? What’s one or even two hundred fps worth for that @ 150 yards? Your hold over goes from 10” to 12”? This seems like a good trade to me, and if it can produce even a few more impacts per match wouldn’t that be worth it for $10/oz?
Review on Amazon: Yep, it’s tungsten Check out this Amazon review of Tungsten Powder | High Density | Over 99.9% Purity | 1.0 lb | Perfect for Adding Weight to Anything: Golf Clubs, Fly Tying, Pinewood Derby Cars

 

[Felix the Cat]

Hmm.. tungsten in a lead matrix...?

Sounds to me something similar to a lead lap! not sure I want to throw these down my barrel that many times!

Yeah tank fin shot is made from Tungsten.. but this never touches the bore surface! Don't forget the energy formula is 1/2 M V squared! In other words it is the velocity that carries most of the energy, not the mass!

 

[user 34300]

Tungsten in a plastic matrix has been done for waterfowl shot. The density is good enough. I wish someone would make ML balls this way.

The ITX balls are much to hard to be practical in a rifle.

I do not think tungsten will alloy with lead. The melting points are too different. Making a sintered product might produce a shootable ball. Since it would not be an alloy you will have a frangible ball witch is no good for hunting.

 

[Nav]

Very true, but I’m not interested in terminal ballistics or energy. I’m “killing” a paper or steel target. I care about impacts, the ballistic coefficient, the ball flying straight, and the repeatability. Again, the tungsten is not pellets or granuals, it’s powdered. Even so, it has a markedly higher hardness than lead. Barrel wear could certainly be an issue. My 6x47L barrels last about 1,800 rounds, which isn’t much when the standard course of fire is 200 rounds per match. I go through two barrels per season on average, and we treat barrels much like brass. They‘re expendables. I have not read that’s an issue with a properly maintained BP barrel. Perhaps I’m creating an issue here by introducing a harder metal? So, maybe there are more drawbacks than the easily discernible ones.

It doesn’t sound like anyone has tried improving the ball.

I think I should try both a little and a lot. It may be that a high percentage of tungsten would emulsify better in molten lead than a little? When you alloy for hardness how do you keep the tin from pooling at the top of the crucible/mound? Do you stir it right before pouring?