Gas check questions on pistol bullets

[Wasalmonslayer]

Hello all

I have been shooting stricktly plain base and now want to step into higher velocity pistol for my 357 and 44 mag.
I use gator checks on my few gas checked rifle loads and they work great with my noe molds.
My new molds are also noe and I am wondering about the slip on non biting aluminum and copper checks.
They seem to be quite a bit cheaper.
My thought is if they work decent it would save a couple bucks.
I read lots of stories about checks falling off and wrecking accuracy is this true are these style of checks just sub par!

I always seat my checks on my star or my custom honed lee sizers then lube in my star or lachmiller.

Thanks in advance for your knowledge!

 

[Barn]

I have used over 10,000 aluminum gas checks. I am very happy with the aluminum check that I have used. The most important consideration is the check thickness.

T = gas check thickness
GC = gas check shank diameter
SD = sizing diameter

GC + 2*T > SD

 

[KHornet]

Both work well if they fit right. That said, I prefer Gator Checks.

 

[Pistolero]

Running max velocities with .357 and .44 mag without GCs for decades. IMO, GCs are
entirely unnecessary for ordinary pistol cartridges. Perhaps needed for rifle cartridges
in pistols (.30-30 in Contender or similar), I don't have such things. But revolvers
with max loads work absolutely fine without GCs in my experience.

 

[Winelover]

Running max velocities with .357 and .44 mag without GCs for decades. IMO, GCs are
entirely unnecessary for ordinary pistol cartridges. Perhaps needed for rifle cartridges
in pistols (.30-30 in Contender or similar), I don't have such things. But revolvers
with max loads work absolutely fine without GCs in my experience.

Yep....what he said......PB bullets also work fine in pistol caliber carbines.

 

[Rick]

Perhaps it depends on what you consider max velocity/pressure in the 357. I haven't tried PB in my 357, not to sure I want to with 190 gr bullet at 1550 fps from a 9 inch barrel.

 

[Wasalmonslayer]

Good morning guys

I have a couple pistols I am wanting to try softer bullets that are gas checked for hunting purpose.
This is like a little crutch to keep leading from rearing up.
I shoot a lot of 12-1300 stuff plain base but I stiffen up my lead the down side is expansion starts to disappear and the bullets get brittle.
I am not going to shoot pure lead but as soft as I can.
I am also going to run these loads in a couple rifles.

Thanks for all the info

 

[Pistolero]

I load full power loads in .357 or .44 with as low as 8 BHN range scrap. I find that
the idea that "hard alloy is necessary to prevent leading" has no firm basis in fact.

Good fit, good design, good lube and you can successfully shoot very soft alloys with accuracy
and no leading.

For example.





Both of those are hot loads. Zero leading, good accy and I have
no doubt that they will expand. Actually, I imagine that 8 BHN is
probably a bit too soft to hold together well in hunting applications,
but this was just to see whether I could use range scrap for full
power loads, and was not intended as a quest for a hunting load.

Perhaps some guns may not perform this way, but running these loads
in a 586 or Ruger Security Six gets the same results. No leading, great
accuracy at full power. .44 Mags show the same results, Super BH, and
various S&W guns. By "max loads" I mean normal maximum pressure
loads published in the loading manuals, and with normal weight bullets
which are commonly used. I have not loaded over 170 or so in .357 or
about 270 in .44 Mag, so cannot tell you if things change there. But that
16.3 of H110 load is listed by Hodgdon at well over 1500 fps in their pressure
barrel. Have not chronoed it in my revolvers.

Bill

 

[KHornet]

I tend to go along with Pistolero, Winelover, and Elmer Kieth. Have a couple of GC molds for 357 and 44, and am not sure I have ever loaded them in a handgun. I do recall loading some 357 GCs for my 94 Win 357, but saw no difference frankly in the performance between them and plain base of like weight.

 

[RBHarter]

I've only turned in about 1400 from a 45 Colts carbine but 50/50 WW / 1-20 and water dropped with H110 and a 454424 killed hogs fine with 2" 50 yd groups. No checks . I've done 3" 100 yd groups with 4350 and a plain base 323-175 2R @2100 in a 32 Remington w/o checks . I have no idea what the pressures are but the plan was for 21-23,000 psi for the Colts according to the book. And the 32 was over 30,000 and well under 42,000 the 4350 burned clean which takes 30k and the load data for 32 Winchester Special maxes out at 45,000 .

 

[Winelover]

Forty years ago, when I first started casting, I bought all gas checked RCBS pistol moulds. Didn't know any better and gas checks were cheap and available. Since then, I have gravitated to multi cavity moulds by custom makers that combine PB and GC options. Usually, I'll get one cavity GCed. I have tested both and find that the GC is not necessary for my application and alloy. Handgun or carbine hunting doesn't require super fast velocities. In fact, it can be a hindrance, I have recorded quicker kills and easier tracking with less velocity.

 

[Rick]

Bill and K,

Won't argue with bill's results or groups "for what he was doing" without the checks BUT . . .

Add over 30 grains of bullet weight.
Add significantly to the velocity.
Stretch that 25 yard range out to 200 meters.

Think I will stick with the checks in my 357.

I too shoot many maybe most handgun rounds without a check & have had Erik remove the check shank on some of my handgun molds, even one rifle mold. I'm not trying to discourage PB in handguns but there is top end and there is top end. Depends on what your trying to do. That checks are not needed in handguns is not an across the board statement.

And Bill, about the 8 BHN alloy and no leading. I did extensive BHN testing in my 357, in fact that testing lasted for 1 1/2 years. I wasn't looking for leading because that revolver with that load doesn't lead. I was looking for accuracy at 200 meters. Using components all from the same lot numbers, lead, powder, primers, brass. I varied the BHN via heat treating using a BHN range from 12 up to 30 and repeated tests over and over to be sure no one test was an odd ball. That load (posted above) in that revolver shot it's best groups with 18 BHN bullets. Go harder and groups opened up, go softer and groups opened up. Bottom line . . . 8 BHN alloy is also not an across the board accurate statement.

.

 

[Wasalmonslayer]

Wow!
Now you guys have me rethinking my quest.
I am kind of stuck with a gas check design right for the moment because that is what I ordered.
But I can always ship them to Eric and have the gas check base removed.
Thats easy!
I am going to have to chew on this a while now!

Oh and I mean hot loads as in upper end book loads nothing dangerous or over book.
I just want the knock down umf.
When I hunt I believe in clean kills with good shot placement and enough power to do the job even if the shot changes during ignition. Any that hunt have experienced this and it just happens. I preffer to have more than I need not just enough.
I am a very ethical person I do not believe in spray and pray that it falls down.

The molds in the conversation are the noe 360 180 wfn and the
noe 432 265 rd molds.

Thanks for the great info
Max

 

[Pistolero]

Rick,

I was not at all trying to claim that 8 BHN is any sort of a "best choice" for ANYTHING whatsoever.
In fact, it is probably a bit too soft for hunting loads, although it may work
OK. It does work well for low velocity .38 Spl HP loads from a short bbl revolver, but
would no doubt blow up at magnum velocities with HPts, maybe even with solids.

My only point in the experiment was to see if I needed to add alloying materials to my range scrap
when I loaded full power loads for .357 or .44 Mag with various plain base designs. All I am claiming is that soft alloys
can be reasonably accurate at ordinary handgun ranges, like 25-50 yds with normal maximum loads from loading manuals
with standard plain base bullet designs. This is just to counter the standard old wives tale that "hard alloys or
gas checks are required for magnum handgun loads, especially with softer alloys" which I find to be untrue.

I have absolutely no doubt that handgun competitors like yourself who have done serious testing, as you
refer to, know a LOT more about what is optimum for accuracy, especially at longer ranges. If I was going
to try to shoot silhouette, I would note your results with great interest, and follow them exactly. However, my
eyes will no longer support competitive shooting at those ranges with handguns, so I have missed my
opportunity.

I am sure that there are a lot of loads which will shoot fine at 25 yds but are not much use at 200 yds.
Actually, at our range we are not permitted to shoot pistols on our longer ranges........ have to set the
rules for the average idiot who literally cannot hit the berm at 200 yds with a pistol.

Bill

 

[9.3X62AL]

Most of my rifle mould designs are of gas-check form; most of my handgun mould designs are plain-based. That said, I shoot a WHOLE LOT of Lymans #358156 and #429244 in my 357/44 MagRevs. The Ruger 45 Colt BisHawk sees its share of #454490, too. These designs have their place--for me, I lean toward the gas check once velocities get into the 1200-1300 FPS Zip Code, handgun or rifle. They do drive cost-per-shot through the roof, though--at close to 4 cents each you need to be judicious about their use. If they have a "drawback", cost would be it.

 

[KHornet]

Good thread and good discussion. I am at a point in my life where Thanks to Ben, when I order a 2 cav mold, one will be GC the other PB for all of my rifle molds, from 224 thru 325's. I believe I can shoot PB rifle bullets somewhere in the 1400 range or so, but choose rather to stay in the 1000 range or under. Cheap and fun, and 50 yds. The GC's from the same mold, I intend to shoot between 1600 and 2200 the majority of the time, with maybe once in awhile going up to 2400 or so. It has been a long long time since I bought a handgun mold, but if I decided that I could not live without a new handgun mold, it would be plain base. Then again, I do not consider myself as anything more than a mediocre hand gun shot to start out with!

 

[Rick]

I'm just trying to make the point (like with Ian on tin in the other thread) that one size doesn't fit all. Not many other than Bret and myself that have tried harder for longer to break the "hardcast" old wives tale. In many cases harder is not only not needed but can be a detriment. Other than cost I don't think checks are a detriment but it is true that quite often they aren't needed.

 

[RicinYakima]

I have three gas checked pistol moulds: 358156 HP for fast loads in 357, 311419 (88 grain FP) and 311316 HP. When cast from 1/20 expansion is excellent, accuracy is excellent and leading is not a problem. The '156 is for a Martini SS in 357 Mag, the '316 is for the 32/20 M53 and the '419 is for the Tokarov that goes 1650 f/s. For plinking loads, I just leave the gas check off.

 

[Brad]

Checks aren't always required but can be beneficial. Like Rick said I view them, other than cost, as never worse then neutral in effect on a load.
I have a few moulds for handguns that use a check and those bullets are used exclusively for max loads where longer range accuracy is the goal. I also heat treat a softer alloy to around 18 BHn as I, like Rick, find that to be about ideal in some handgun loads.

As a very wise man liked to say, it only matters when it does.

 

[9.3X62AL]

And I thought I was the only mid-caliber nutbar that ran #311419 uber-fast in 7.62 x 25. In my CZ-52 it is VERY accurate to 1700 FPS, shoots very flat, and JACKS UP varmints with malice aforethought--spreads jackrabbits right out for Purina Coyote Chow.