casting tool info.

Lumpy Grits · Post by **Lumpy Grits** » Sat Oct 18, 2003 9:42 pm

Can any of you long time bullet casters tell me the advanage and disavanage of using a lead "dipper", like Lyman sells. To a "ladle" like the #1 Rowell ? I just started casting for may Shiloh in the last few months and still learning the ups and downs of this hobby, thou I have been reloading for over 35 years. Thank you for your time, "Lumpy Grits"

Rich Siegel · Post by **Rich Siegel** » Sun Oct 19, 2003 8:54 am

I think the purpose of a dipper or ladle is to get the lead into a mold as fast as possible so that the lead fills out the entire bullet cavity before it starts to cool. You get extremely poor bullets, with voids and creases, if you dribble lead into a mold, even a hot mold. So, the more lead pouring into the mold, the better.

I'm also a believer in the messy casting method. I pour enough lead, fast enough, that I get excess lead over the spur cutter, not just a little puddle at the mold mouth. I think it's important to have force behind the lead pouring into the mold to fill out the entire bullet, the base and lube groves. I want a steady, full stream of lead forcing it's way into the mold. I even hold the ladle an inch or two above the mold to get pressure in the pouring lead.

With that in mind, I don't see a difference between a ladle and a dipper. I use an RCBS dipper but I'd also like to find a large ladle to use. Just stay away from the small dippers, like Lee sells. They don't hold enough lead.

Lumpy Grits · Post by **Lumpy Grits** » Sun Oct 19, 2003 10:27 am

I thank you for your time. What I was looking for was the differance in the two items in use, the pros & cons etc. I have been useing the Lyman dipper with very good bullets being made in both my Lyman and Steve Brooks molds. FYI, Steve includes some very good tips on casting with his molds.

Lumpy Grits · Post by **Lumpy Grits** » Sun Oct 19, 2003 10:28 am

I thank you for your time. What I was looking for was the differance in the two items in use, the pros & cons etc. I have been useing the Lyman dipper with very good bullets being made in both my Lyman and Steve Brooks molds. FYI, Steve includes some very good tips on casting with his molds.

Lumpy Grits · Post by **Lumpy Grits** » Sun Oct 19, 2003 10:35 am

Sorry for the double tap..........I am much safer with my sharps in my hands than a "mouse"

Omaha Poke · Post by **Omaha Poke** » Sun Oct 19, 2003 3:34 pm

Grits, I used a Lyman dipper for years, and it worked OK. Then I found the Rowell Bottom pour ladles and believe me, the difference in the quality as well as the quantity of bullets you can produce with the Rowell is dramatic! Part of the reason for this is that whenever you dip into the pot with the Lyman style of dipper and then pour into the mould, some of the oxidized metal that you pick up when lifting the dipper from the pot, also goes into the mould. This is because the molten metal and the oxidized metal both exit the small hole in the dipper at the same time. This forms small to large voids in the bullet it self.

With the Rowell ladle, the metal flows from the bottom of the ladle, not the side. You therefore get the hottest metal, without the oxidized metal, flowing into the mould.

I found that I was getting a complete mould fill with the Rowell, had nice sharp corners on the bases of base pour moulds, and few to none of the oxidized metal inclusions that you get from the smaller , side pour, Lyman type of dipper.

I have a 1 or 1 1/2# Rowell for general casting which is great for my heavy bullets, and a 3# Rowell for filling ingots.

If this is any indication, I have been told by many other BP shooters at a number of matches that I cast some of the most perfect bullets that they have ever seen. Their words, not mine. I do know that I am able to cast very consistant bullets, by weight and also by size and conformity with this method. Hope this helps, Omaha

Lumpy Grits · Post by **Lumpy Grits** » Sun Oct 19, 2003 5:34 pm

Thanks for your detailed reply!!! My last question (maybe?) is; do you have more control in pourinng with the Ladle (#1 rowell) than with the dipper? If this is the case, then Monday I will order a #1 rowell ladle.

Omaha Poke · Post by **Omaha Poke** » Sun Oct 19, 2003 7:12 pm

Lumpy, unequivocally, YES!!!!!!!!!!! I just poured 100 rds of 570 Paul Jones Mould, Smerker AA bullet in less than an hour. I was rejecting the ones that I could see did not have a perfect base before opening the mould. With experience you will be able to do this, and save yourself a lot of time when trying to weigh them and examine them before lubing.

These rejected bullets were due to poor casting technique on my part. What with my buffalo hunt, and having to get caught up on work around the house, I haven't cast for about 1 1/2 months. Cast a lot, and stay in practice. It is just like shooting, the more you do of either, the better you do!! Randy

Lee Stone · Post by **Lee Stone** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 7:47 am

Bless Randy's heart;

I sent in an order to Antimony Man for a # 2 ladle after reading Randy's posts. I have been intending to get one for some time, but had sort of forgotten about it until this thread re-awakened my poor old mind. Pouring from the bottom of the ladle via that tube to the spout just makes sense. The melt will be hotter (as in not from the surface and exposed to the air) and any inclusions will be floating on the surface and will not go into the mould, just as Randy pointed out. I opted for the # 2 because some of the .50 cal bullets are pretty big and I am hoping the extra melt the # 2 holds will help keep the temp up through-out the pour.

MikeT · Post by **MikeT** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 5:17 pm

Omaha Poke,
"rejected bullets were due to poor casting technique on my part". Could you please enlighten the rest of us about how not to use the Rowell ladle?
The reson I ask is that I will try mine [#1] the next time I cast, and if you could provide some guidance to reduce the learning cure, I would be a happy caster.
Keep on hav'n fun!
MikeT

Omaha Poke · Post by **Omaha Poke** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 6:32 pm

Mike, you opened a real can of worms there!!

To me, poor casting technique on my part starts off with not being consistant with every pour. I will try to describe the way that I cast bullets, but I warn you, I have never tried to write this down before from start to finish. As a matter of fact, I am going to think on it tonight, make an outline, and try to post it under the heading of "Trying to Cast Perfect Bullets" tomorrow. There are so many things that you learn by trial and error over the years, that most of them are utilized without even realizing that you are doing it.

I will try to visualize what I would like to do with each pour that I make, and then post that, as well as what goes wrong, and why I know that I haven't made a good bullet, even before the mould is opened.

I hope I can make it semi-literate, and not too confusing. Randy

Pitspitr · Post by **Pitspitr** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 9:13 am

Ok, I haven't shown my ignorance in a while so I guess it's time again.

I've often read here that bottom pour lead pots don't work well. Now I'm reading that bottom pour ladels work better than side pour ladles. Can someone explain why that is and how the mechanism of the bottom pour ladle works?

Lee Stone · Post by **Lee Stone** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 10:24 am

I haven't gotten mine yet, so I can only guess, but it sure makes sense to me. Here is a page on Antimony Man's web site with a descriptive drawing of how the ladle works:

http://www.theantimonyman.com/ladles.htm

You can see that when you pour into the mould the lead will come from the bottom of the ladle full where the lead is the hottest. Also, if there are any inclusions in that ladle full, the inclusions will be floating on the surface and so cannot get into the mould to cause voids. I have really had not problems with my side pour Lyman ladle, but for only about $20.00 I figure it is worth a try, so I ordered one of the # 1s (changed my order from a # 2 on the suggestion of The Antimony Man).

Pitspitr · Post by **Pitspitr** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:43 am

Hi Lee
Thanks for your reply. The part about the impurities and the hotest lead makes sense to me too, but I still don't understand why the bottom pour furnaces don't work equally as well. I'm not questioning the fact that they don't, I just am trying to understand why.

Lee Stone · Post by **Lee Stone** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 12:31 pm

You know, I haven't figured it out either. But, it is true. I know from my own experience. My bottom pour pot does just fine for pistol sized bullets. But when I try to cast 400gr or above, I get a lot more rejects than I am used to. When I got a dipper pot and started using a ladle, my reject rate fell drastically. The bigger bullets just fill out better from a ladle. Now one would think that from a bottom pour pot with all inclusions floating clear on top and the lead coming from the bottom of the pot where it is the hottest that the large bullets would form well, but they don't. That is not nearly as well as pouring from a ladle.

I am sure there is someone around who could explain this, but for me, my bottom pour pot is now relegated to pouring pistol bullets and for mixing alloys because it is easier for me to fill my ingot moulds from it than from my dipper pot. So now I cast my rifle bullets from my Waage pot, keep my Lyman Mag 20 Dipper as back-up and my bottom pour for pistol bullets and mixing alloy.

Shiloh Rifle Forums

casting tool info.

casting tool info.

Rich (casting tool info.)

Rich (casting tool info.)

Omaha's reply