Would not advise tumbling cast reloads. . .

[TexasSeaRay]

I was thinking about the discussion over tumbling loaded/reloaded rounds and while I remember doing my "scientific" comparison under strict controlled conditions, there was one thing I had not done.

I hadn't tumbled reloads in which I'd used cast bullets.

My first thought was that it shouldn't make any difference. Lead is hard enough to withstand any tumbler media.

Or is it?

So, I did a little experiment. I loaded up some 38 Special, 158 gr LRN rounds. I tumbled some of them, didn't tumble the rest.

The tumbled rounds came out cool looking, sort of. I tumble in two stages--Stage One is six hours with treated walnut (my own concoction of polish, mineral spirits and fiber-based shop towels to help "polish and shine" the brass). Stage Two is six hours in untreated walknut with a clean paper shop towel torn into four pieces and tossed in to finish the "shining" process.

I use a Thumler's Tumbler, and at the end of this brass cleaning process, the inside of the brass is as shiny as the new/never-fired brass you buy online or at gun shows.

But, that's twelve hours of tumbling a soft metal (lead) in an abrasive compound (walnut). What happened is that when I put the calipers on the bullets, instead of .358, I was getting .357 to .3575. I was losing a very slight bit of lead.

So how'd they shoot? See for yourself. The first pic is of the TUMBLED reloads, shot at 50 feet, handheld. Group is a lot looser than I like.



This group was also fired at 50 feet, handheld, but is getting more to my liking.



Don't think I'll bother tumbling any reloads where I use lead bullets . . .

Jeff

 

[Sevens]

TSR, this is just a veiled attempt to show off your shooting skills and groups again!

I guess the proof is in the pudding... but wouldn't the part of the bullet inside the case mouth be protected from any trouble? Perhaps the difference in group size was due to erratic bullet weight rather than the diameter of the lead which is outside the case mouth?

In any case, the experiment you did the first time is the one that hits home with me. That it's safe, and in my opinion, that's what matters.

Hell, if I'm doing my process properly, I've got no reason to tumble loaded rounds anyway. Still, I like these controlled experiments. Beats opinions any day.

 

[TexasSeaRay]

but wouldn't the part of the bullet inside the case mouth be protected from any trouble? Perhaps the difference in group size was due to erratic bullet weight rather than the diameter of the lead which is outside the case mouth?

DUH!!! (Slapping myself upside my thick Texas skull)

You're right--the lubed part of the bullet IS protected by the casing, and therefore the caliper readings on the exposed part of the bullet make this experiment nil.

Now the question is why the "tumbled" group was more erratic and spread out than the untumbled group?

I did notice that the bullet had changed color, from the normal "silver-greyish" of a lead bullet, to an almost black, very dark green color. The bullets were also slick, as in slippery, compared to normal (untumbled) bullets.

Don't know that ANY of that would've made a dang bit of difference.

However, I just stepped out to my shop and checked the tag on my box of 158 LRN cast bullets. These were cast by a fellow that, according to my notes, we were trying out as a source for cheap cast bullets for our IPSC club. These bullets were bought in 1990, and according to my notes, we (the IPSC club) were not impressed.

May be the reason these bullets have hung around in my bullet cabinet under the reloading bench all these years. . . Yet, one group shot okay (untumbled) and the other (tumbled) didn't.

Think I'm just gonna chalk it up to poorly cast bullets.

Jeff

 

[Hawg]

Why would you want to tumble loaded rounds? Just curious.

 

[Sevens]

Same reason you'd tumble empty brass-- to shine them up, or to remove excess lube from the brass or whatever. The original intent of the discussion was never really that tumbling loaded rounds was a "necessary" activity, just whether or not it was safe or had any ill-effects. TSR is doing this experimenting as much for the knowledge as anything.

No, you really don't have to tumble loaded ammo.

 

[FM12]

Jeff: Clearly those bullets are defective. You need to ship them, freight paid, to me so I can dispose of them for you!

(I'm all about helping fellow forum members! You can go ahead and ship the Dillon press with the bullets!)

Ken

 

[Hawg]

Dingy brass doesn't bother me. It shoots just as good as the pretty stuff but then I load a lot of bp cartridges and you can tumble them for a year and they won't get shiny.

 

[Sevens]

I can't say dingy brass bothers me much either. But bright, shiny brass is gorgeous, and I certainly prefer it.

 

[Nail Shooter]

Don't have a clue why anyone would tumble loaded rounds for twelve HOURS. The brass should be cleaned before the reloading process begins.

Tumble for twelve MINUTES just before you box up your completed rounds.

Nail

 

[W. C. Quantrill]

Nail, I'm with you, 12 hours is way much overkill. Logically, brass is cleaned before loading. Then you use a towel to wipe down the loads to make certain that there is not any lube left on the cartridge that will cause denting etc.

My take on tumbling after loading is that it is an unnecessarily unsafe practice.

 

[Master Blaster]

I usually tumble my brass for 1.5 to 2.0 hours, in treated corn cob only. My dillon 500 is a vibratory tumbler, the thumblers you use is a rotary drum right?
12 hours in the tumbler, it wouldnt surprise me if those tumbled bullets lost 5-10% of their weight. The bearing surface of the bullet that engages the rifling should be protected by the case since its seated inside. Another possibility is that the powder you used actually broke down a bit suffering a change in granule size, or losing some of its coating. Folks who tumble loaded rounds (not me because I use carbide dies and no lube) will use clean plain media, and a tablespoon of mineral spirits and tumble for 5-10 minutes.

JMHO YMMV

 

[clayking]

I use a Thumler's Tumbler, and at the end of this brass cleaning process, the inside of the brass is as shiny as the new/never-fired brass you buy online or at gun shows.

Well, call me confused. If your tumbling loaded brass how do you know that the inside of the brass is so shiny? So, I presume that you tumble your brass for 12 hours and then the loaded brass for another 12 hours?..................ck

 

[azredhawk44]

Well, call me confused. If your tumbling loaded brass how do you know that the inside of the brass is so shiny? So, I presume that you tumble your brass for 12 hours and then the loaded brass for another 12 hours?..................ck

Ditto.

Sounds to me like loaded rounds were tumbled for 6hrs on stage one, then 6 more hours on stage 2.

How'd the inside get clean?

 

[TexasSeaRay]

Sigh.

A. I'm doing the "tumbling loaded rounds" as a continuation of proving/disproving a lot of BS myths that are out there--namely that the powder gets somehow "transformed" and that shooting pressures change dangerously.

I had a long discussion with a chemist at Accurate powders who gave me lab-speak as to why such myths exist--especially the powder "grinding itself down or changing shape." He absolutely agreed that the lawyers put the "do not tumble loaded ammo" warnings out as a CYA measure.

Did a post a while back explaining a controlled "experiment" I did with loaded ammo in the tumbler. Took extreme closeup photographs with a 100mm macro lens of a batch of powder prior to reloading. Loaded rounds from sample batch, saving almost half of sample batch.

Tumbled (rotating tumbler) for twelve hours. No reason for twelve hours except that it just happened to be a good arbitrary number. After tumbling was complete, pulled random bullets, photographed "tumbled" powder with same 100mm macro lens and compared photos. Could not tell one smidgen of difference.

Shot tumbled bullets and untumbled bullets through chrono. No difference in average velocity.

I'm not much of one for myths. I prefer facts. In the flying world, there are a number of old wives' tales. Same in the boating world. Some of them are harmless, others--if believed and followed--can get you hurt in an emergency situation if you pay heed to them.

In the shooting and reloading world, we have our own myths. I'm just amusing myself taking a look at some of them.

B. I use a Thumler's Tumbler rotary tumbler. It takes longer than a vibratory tumbler to clean brass. I also operate it on a timer. Normally I clean my brass in two stages:

Stage One is dirty/fired brass in tumbler with ground walnut treated with NuFinish car wax and mineral spirits. I tear up a heavy paper shop paper towel (Scot's "rag in a box" you get at Lowe's) and toss it in the tumbler and set the timer for six hours.

State Two is taking the brass out, emptying the tumbler of the treated walnut, then replacing the brass and filling three-fourths full with untreated walnut. I toss in some pieces of old red auto shop rags. With the rotating tumbler, this helps polish and shine the exterior of the brass even further.

At the end of the process, my EMPTY UNLOADED brass often looks as shiny and clean on the inside as it does on the outside.

Don't have the slightest damn idea what it looks like on the inside after its been loaded, although when I have pulled bullets after having tumbled loaded rounds on occasion, it is still shiny. So I guess not too much of that "coating" is rubbing off.

So does shiny like-new brass shoot any better? Don't know, but doubt it.

But one thing it does is allow me to inspect it easier for flaws. Second thing it does is run smooth in my dies with less wear. Third thing it does is load and feed like a dream in all my firearms.

Just the way I do it. I enjoy reloading probably more than I do shooting these days, and this is just a part of my reloading routine.

Jeff

 

[Shane Tuttle]

Nail, I'm with you, 12 hours is way much overkill. Logically, brass is cleaned before loading. Then you use a towel to wipe down the loads to make certain that there is not any lube left on the cartridge that will cause denting etc.
My take on tumbling after loading is that it is an unnecessarily unsafe practice.

My first thought is are you sure that a "wipe down" with a towel is more thorough than tumbling?
My second thought is do you ONLY shoot reloaded ammo? If not, I've got news for you. Manufacturers tumble their loaded ammo before boxing them up...

Quoted by Hawg:

Why would you want to tumble loaded rounds? Just curious.

TSR said it best that I agree on:

So does shiny like-new brass shoot any better? Don't know, but doubt it.

But one thing it does is allow me to inspect it easier for flaws. Second thing it does is run smooth in my dies with less wear. Third thing it does is load and feed like a dream in all my firearms.

Just the way I do it. I enjoy reloading probably more than I do shooting these days, and this is just a part of my reloading routine.

I don't think it's necessary by any means. But, I prefer to do it. Anyway, back to the subject at hand...

TSR,
Do you think you could pull a couple of bullets that have been tumbled and compare the weight to untumbled? Also, do you think the tumbled ones are no longer concentric? My thoughts are at that distance, maybe the uneven shape at a small amount would start to make a difference...

I did notice that the bullet had changed color, from the normal "silver-greyish" of a lead bullet, to an almost black, very dark green color. The bullets were also slick, as in slippery, compared to normal (untumbled) bullets.

This got me to thinking: I don't know if this will apply to the dynamics of bullet travel, but when I owned a boat I waxed the bottom thinking it would allow the boat to provide less resistance in the water at speed. However, quite a few veteran boaters claimed it does the opposite. If fact, they claim it's counterproductive. Seeing the tumbled bullets having a "slicker" surface, would this parallel to a flight of a bullet in air?

 

[SL1]

TexasSeaRay wrote:

"I did notice that the bullet had changed color, from the normal "silver-greyish" of a lead bullet, to an almost black, very dark green color. The bullets were also slick, as in slippery, compared to normal (untumbled) bullets."

Kind of makes me wonder if there was abrasive "polish" embeded in the lead. If so, you may end-up fire-lapping your bore unintentionally if you fire cast bullet reloads that were tumbled after being loaded.

Sl1

 

[freakshow10mm]

Ammunition manufactures tumble their loaded ammo.

Why 12 hours? That seems excessively long to me.

 

[WSM MAGNUM]

I agree 12 hours is too long. I think that would change a lead bullets ballistics. I think you need to change your media if you have to tumble that long.

 

[TexasSeaRay]

Sigh. Double Sigh. Triple Sigh.

I chose twelve hours as an arbitrary number--excessive that it may be--to see what effect the constant tumbling might have on powder/components.

In other words, it's an experiment, basically for my own amusement since I learned many moons ago to not place too much stock in old wives tales.

As far as length of time spent tumbling regular unloaded brass, I go with whatever works. Got a old friend who was one of our UDT instructors who gets brass from the Navy, cleans it up, de-primes it, removes any military crimps, then cleans it and makes deals with various police and military armorers.

He uses several portable cement mixers, a mixture of ground walnut modules with pecan shells that he ground to a literal dust. He tumbles his brass for twenty-four hours. Looks brand damn new when he's finsihed.

My tumbling times vary by how dirty the brass is and how long it's going to be before I reload it.

Jeff

 

[WSM MAGNUM]

Jeff, it is an interesting experiment you did. It seems that tumbling cast bullets for a long time changes lead bullets.
I don`t think there is anything wrong with tumbling live rounds that long, but your experiment shows that something changed. I was just saying that you should1nt have to tumble that long just to remove the lube. I will post an experiment that someone else did and posted on another forum. I think this is based on jacketed bullets though.



Back in 1998, rec.guns denizen Geoff Beneze decided to gather some real, rather than apocryphal, data on whether tumbling had a measurable effect on the powder in loaded rounds.

He loaded rounds with flake, (Unique), Ball (W748) and extruded (IMR 4064) powders. He chronographed and retained a baseline sample of each reload. He began "tumbling" (in Dillon vibratory cleaners) the rest.

He ran the "tumblers" 24/7 for **four weeks**. He removed a sample of each load at one-week intervals, and chronographed them along with rounds from the baseline control sample.

None of the "tumbled" ammunition was measurably different from the control group, even after sitting in the "tumbler" for four weeks (672 hours)!

He also examined the powder granuals under magnification, and could not see any difference in the visual appearance of the "tumbled" powder from the stuff in the can.

Does this mean that it's safe to tumble rifle rounds using extruded powders for long periods? I dunno.

Tumbling my 9x21, .40S&W, and .45ACP rounds for 10-15 minutes removes the lube for me. Not removing lube prior to firing is an actual safety issue.