Bismuth in a lead recipe
 

Can you change out from lead to bismuth in a reload recipe?

no.

What's the difference in them? I'm not a engineer so I need a basic reason.

http://www.hodgdonreloading.com/relo...reloading-data


Matching Shot Type and Size to Reloading Data

It is easy to assume that all shot types can be reloaded similarly; after all, they look the same – being round balls of metal. However, in loading shotgun shells, this assumption cannot be further from the truth.

The two characteristics of shot that change reloading data are shot hardness and density.

Shot hardness has a direct effect on chamber pressure. Softer shot produces lower pressure; harder shot raises chamber pressure dramatically. The softest shot type is lead. The hardest shot types are steel and tungsten. Bismuth falls between lead and steel. This is the primary reason that lead shot reloading data can never be used with any other type of shot.

Shot density affects how much room in the shell case the shot charge will take up. To try to simplify shot density, think of it this way:

A coffee cup of steel shot weighs less than a coffee cup of bismuth shot
A coffee cup of bismuth shot weighs less than a coffee cup of lead shot
A coffee cup of tungsten shot is heavier than all the others

Just remember, in shotshell reloading the reload data must be specific to the type of shot being used. Hodgdon reloading data meets this requirement.

Thank you for breaking that down. Fully understand now.

Swapping bismuth for lead does not concern me. See this thread:

http://parkerguns.org/forums/showthr...&highlight=Wsf

I tested the same load twice: one test with 1.25 oz of bismuth and one test with 1.25 oz of lead. All else the same. I was not surprised when the velocity and pressure data were essentially the same for both loads.

What’s heavier? 1.25 oz of bismuth or 1.25 oz lead?

The difference in volume is easily accommodated with less fiber wad in the shot cup.

-Victor

Fine and dandy, for the 10 in a low pressure load. Squeeze it into a 20 or 28 gauge loading it to standard velocity and pressure for modern loads for say an automatic and this may not be true. A 20 gauge barrel in a vintage gun never approaches the thickness of a 12 or 10. The question was a general one, not specifying gauge, velocity, or pressure of the load to switch from lead to bismuth.

So why monkey with it when bismuth loading data is readily available? Bismuth is harder but weighs less, so there will be more shot in the column to reach the same weight thus probably requiring a new deeper shot cup wad in the smaller gauge so now one has changed not only the shot thus hardness, but also the wad used. It will not require a filler in the shot cup but will take up more room. So we are not using the original lead data.

But if one insists, they could always send it off for testing like you did.

Great info Victor -- thank you for sharing. There is so much misinformation out there that gets passed on from one person to another without anyone actually testing its veracity. That's why I really enjoyed the series of articles, "Finding Out For Myself" by Sherman Bell in DGJ. He dispels many of they myths we have taken as facts for years.

Question: when the testing lab tests a load for pressure does their test gun have a choke or is it cylinder bore? I would assume it's cylinder bore which brings up the issue of how soft vs hard shot gets squeezed as the shot column enters the choke area of the barrel. Again, I am assuming, that steel or bismuth, being harder than lead isn't so easily squeezed down to the smaller diameter and thus would cause higher pressure than the softer lead.

I don't agree that the pressure difference (if any) can be attributed to the volume of the shot column. As you say, and ounce of lead weighs the same as an ounce of bismuth -- so what difference could it make? The only difference is hardness and the shot column's resistance to the squeezing down at the choke.

Another myth probably but I've heard you should not shoot steel shot through a full choke because you could ring the barrel just ahead of the choke constriction. I am sure someone has tested this, I just haven't seen the results.

Sorry about that.

16 gauge 1 once load in a Chedite 2 3/4 hul.
I have found A bismuth recipe for Remington that I like. It's 1200 fps with 8500 psi. Only problem is I'm only getting one reload out of Remington hull before it splits.
I searched around and cheddite hulls get good reviews. Only problem is in my 16 gauge manual from BP is all their chedite recipes for one once are fairly hot. And no I don't want to shoot less than one once.

This is not a myth. Because in steel shot one is using shot two or three times larger to get the same killing power as lead. Thus if one liked BBs for geese, they now skip BBB and go to T which at 40 yards delivers 12.5 foot pounds of energy which approaches but does not quite reach the 13.8 of lead.

T steel is .020 which is approaching #4 buck of .024. When the full choke compresses the steel pellets which do not give any you can get bridging of shot, shot that is not going anywhere as they touch each other and the barrel may ring or split, especially if it is an older gun not designed for steel shot. The barrels that are designed for steel and have the thickness of a small water pipe will not ring or split.

The rule is for steel if one wants a full choke pattern, shoot modified because the pellets do not deform as lead does and the pattern will be denser.

"I don't agree that the pressure difference (if any) can be attributed to the volume of the shot column."

This statement could not be more wrong , especially when dealing with loads that are close to max pressure . It can get dangerous really quick.

In the case of Victors' loads he increased the column height in the lead loads with 2 16ga ocs cards to make the load crimp well . Now take the same lead load with extra filler and substitute bismuth and have it tested and the pressure of that will be greater than the original bismuth load .

I doubt it -- show me some data to support your claim. IMHO The filler would change the pressure only because the entire payload is slightly heavier but the volume being greater due to filler has very little effect. It's the weight of the payload that makes the most difference.

Try just light weight filler and no shot at all -- put a bunch in, try different amounts -- you'll see very little difference.

Not trying to argue . There is plenty of data on the Hodgdon site you can compare for yourself .

Because Bismuth and Lead are close to the same density and hardness , as say Lead and steel . There may not be big difference , but there is difference . Enough difference that when you are shooting these loads in guns that require low pressure ammo it can easily put the load over pressure for said gun.



Better yet call the people that do the actual ballistic testing . I'm sure they can explain better than I can.

The next time you are not trying to argue you might try not starting the conversation with: "your statement could not be more wrong." That's a harsh and unsupported statement. At least you seem to have changed your position and are talking density and hardness now instead of length; which if you had read my original statement in context you would find that now you are agreeing with me. That's great--thank you!

Have a Happy Thanksgiving,

Ron

Ron , Certainly didn't mean to offend you . Just want everybody to stay safe. But I will stick to what I said , a taller or "longer" load column will increase pressure every time , more surface area friction in the hull .

Hope you and yours have a Happy Thanksgiving also.

Mark

Mark, I am sure your intentions are good -- but you are incorrect and spreading misinformation when you state that a longer load column (in and by itself) "will increase pressure every time." That statement is simply not true and can easily be refuted by this simple example: Take a known safe 12 gauge load with 1 1/8 oz of shot. Measure the length of the load column -- lets say it's 1" (for example, I didn't measure it). Some of the space in the hull is taken up by the plastic wad. Replace that plastic wad with a thin over powder wad and fill up the rest of the hull with a light weight material, like rice. That rice will be much lighter than the lead and the "load column" (the rice) will be much longer (maybe 2x longer) because you replaced the length of plastic wad with rice.

I guarantee you with 100% certainty that the longer yet lighter load column of rice will produce significantly less pressure than the shorter, heavier load column of lead.

It's the weight of the load column and to a lesser extent the compressibility of the payload that determines the pressure of a given powder charge. It has virtually nothing to do with the length of the payload. That's why Victor's comments are spot on:

"I tested the same load twice: one test with 1.25 oz of bismuth and one test with 1.25 oz of lead. All else the same. I was not surprised when the velocity and pressure data were essentially the same for both loads.

What’s heavier? 1.25 oz of bismuth or 1.25 oz lead?"

Again right from the Hodgdon web site .

Matching Shot Type and Size to Reloading Data

It is easy to assume that all shot types can be reloaded similarly; after all, they look the same – being round balls of metal. However, in loading shotgun shells, this assumption cannot be further from the truth.

The two characteristics of shot that change reloading data are shot hardness and density.

Shot hardness has a direct effect on chamber pressure. Softer shot produces lower pressure; harder shot raises chamber pressure dramatically. The softest shot type is lead. The hardest shot types are steel and tungsten. Bismuth falls between lead and steel. This is the primary reason that lead shot reloading data can never be used with any other type of shot.

Shot density affects how much room in the shell case the shot charge will take up. To try to simplify shot density, think of it this way:

A coffee cup of steel shot weighs less than a coffee cup of bismuth shot
A coffee cup of bismuth shot weighs less than a coffee cup of lead shot
A coffee cup of tungsten shot is heavier than all the others

Just remember, in shotshell reloading the reload data must be specific to the type of shot being used. Hodgdon reloading data meets this requirement.

These guys are ballistic experts .

What you are suggesting is unsafe I and hope no else follows your practice .

Believe what you want . 1 data sample will not tell what might happen in the next load .

Mark

You just agreed with me again: “ The two characteristics of shot that change reloading data are shot hardness and density.” No mention of length of payload. You might consider giving up reloading and taking up bowling.

Ron , your a funny guy. You win.

Good day.

You are a wise man

Thanks.

This discussion points out the fact that there is a real dearth of good interior ballistics information available to the reloader. I am pretty sure that the powder and ammunition manufactures know a lot but it certainly is not in their best interest to share. This makes me want to put together my own test setup and get after it
C.G.B.

That’s what Sherman Bell did and dispelled many long held myths

Yes he did and, as far as I know, still does. I wish he lived next door, I would love to have access to some of his toys. Unfortunately in the 'information' world the guy that tells the first lie usually wins. Once a myth gets entrenched it is very hard to kill. Where I worked before I retired there was a saying above the door. Paraphrasing, it said "One properly conducted experiment is worth more than all the expert opinions in the world".
C.G.B.

One of these would be fun to play with...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uP6Alb6V17U

I'll be dam he mention that shot column height came change pressure in the shell.

Think I'll sell my bowling equipment and go back to reloading.

Pretty sure Bell had Tom Armbrust do his actual pressure testing. Bell provided the loads and designed the procedures for the testing, and wrote the articles.

I've had Tom test loads for me over the years since the series of articles was published.

SRH

You may be right, I don't have the entire series, just a couple. In this one, however, he seems to have done the testing himself. He shows his test equipment and describes how he conducted the tests.

Of course it can change the pressure -- it could go up if the the column consists of lead -- you increase the height of the lead, you also increase the weight. It could also go down if, like in my example, you used rice instead of lead -- a load of rice could be twice as tall as a load of lead and the pressure will go down because the weight of the load of rice is less. But you said: "a taller or "longer" load column will increase pressure every time" -- it's the EVERY TIME that makes your statement wrong. A taller or longer load column doesn't increase pressure every time.

The nice thing about bowling is that you don't have to know how to read. It's a great sport that way.

"The nice thing about bowling is that you don't have to know how to read. It's a great sport that way.":rotf::rotf:

I take it you do alot bowling.


Yes , when using the same weight of different shot types . Everything else in the load being the same pressure will change . Sometimes alot. Doing that is a guessing game, a chance I'm not willing to take without test data .


Carry on with out me.

Mark

Yes, I remember those pics, Ron. I have the entire series, and need to get them out and reread them all this winter to refresh my memory. I had some correspondence back then with Bell, by letter, and he always impressed me as being both thorough and courteous. I should reread those letters at the same time.

Best, SRH

My example of using bismuth in lead data published data 22.5 gr 800x 1oz shot AA hull w209 p 1215 FPS 6500 Lup. Load number 2 22.5 800x 1 1/8 oz shot waa12 wad 1200fps 7100 lup I put 1 oz bismuth in the 2 nd load the waa 12 wad accommodates the 15 percent increase in volume which is about 9 pellets the crimp is perfect. I may be playing with danger ,I have been shooting this load for decades , very soft recoil. Disclaimer this is my personal load and I certainly do not suggest that anyone uses this data . Just adding to the mix . Thanks don