Lil'Gun for 45 Colt and 454 Casull

Do any of you use Lil'Gun for the Colt or Casull, and what are your likes and dislikes if any? I'm looking to load both of these calibers to their potential using hard cast bullets and would like to use one powder if possible.
Guns are 5.5" SS Bisley Blackhawk 45, and 7.5" SRH 454/45.
Any comments and advice will be appreciated. Thanks

While it is for 44 Magnum and not 45 Colt/454 Casull, I've used Lil'Gun with good results. My current Lil'Gun load for 44Mag is 23.5g over a bulk 240g JSP bullet. I've got 6shot groups out of my 7.5" SRH that were just a tick over 3/4" from a rest at 10yrds. A fellow RF member, Iron Mike Golf, uing my loads in my SRH, has netted groups around the 5/8" mark from a rest at 10 yards.

I do not use magnum primers for my loads nor have I ever seen any load data requiring them. I merely use Winchester LP although Remington 2.5s are listed on the Hodgdon site.

I used to use Lil' Gun in many of my revolvers. Since the issue of premature forcing cone erosion caused by Lil' Gun has surfaced, I have discontinued it's use in any of my revolvers. H110/W296 gives me similar velocities and better accuracy anyway. I suggest you Google "Lil' Gun in revolvers"

Thank you. Great feedback.

My opinion is that, unless you like to fire rapidly, you will be fine with Lil'Gun. I think a lot of the Lil'Gun issues may be overstated. I've been using it and have seen NO forcing cone erosion period. Does that mean it will never happen? No. But the following post by IOWEGAN over on the "other" Ruger forum offers the best explanation of all.

http://rugerforum.net/ruger-double-action/20875-forcing-cone-barrel-face-erosion-problem-maybe.html#post210077

That pretty much puts the issue to rest for me. Now I wonder how bad the forcing cone erosion is for those that shoot a lot of IMR 4227? 2400? 296/H110? As for the reports of the exceptionally rapid forcing cone erosion on the Freedom Arms, what exactly are the conditions? Did FA get a batch of barrels with suspect heat treating? How fast was the person firing? How good was powder combustion? Meaning did they use primers like a CCI 300 or did they use WLP or even CCI 350s? Did they have a good firm crimp to facilitate a thorough burn?

So based on what IOWEGAN had to say, we are all going to see eventual forcing cone erosion with magnum handgun powders. But the biggest thing we can do to greatly minimize it is to fire slowly. For example, I can take over a minute to fire a cylinder in my SRH. That surely is giving the barrel time to cool down between shots. If I were trying to fire my SRH as fast as Jerry Miculek then I think it is safe to assume that forcing cone erosion with any magnum powder will be greatly accelerated. Like IOWEGAN says, if you want to shoot full house loads, you gotta pay the piper.

My current powder lineup consists of 2400 for upper midrange power levels and Lil'Gun for top end loads. For light magnum, 44 Special, and "factory (240g and 1200fps) level" loadings, I am going to use Titegroup. Of course, the thriftyness of Titegroup (10g behind a 240g bullet for middle 1200fps velocities) is also another factor besides how well others Titegroup loadings have shot for me.

Once again, Lil'Gun is fine under slower controlled firing rates.

buck460XVR said:

I used to use Lil' Gun in many of my revolvers. Since the issue of premature forcing cone erosion caused by Lil' Gun has surfaced, I have discontinued it's use in any of my revolvers. H110/W296 gives me similar velocities and better accuracy anyway. I suggest you Google "Lil' Gun in revolvers"

Click to expand...

10X Same here :wink:

Also, the velocities that Hodgdon's printed don't jive with my chrono by a couple hundred fps in regard to the miraculous .357 data that convinced me to try a lb of it in the first place. I get better results with W296 in both .357 and .44 mags.....
Haven't bothered to try it in .45LC...

JMO, but I suspect doublebase 2400 makes just as much heat as LG...tighter SD/ES though...

I appreciate all the replies.

I've used it in the 45 Colt with the 45-270-SAA boolit (283 grains)...

I am getting just a tad shy of 1200 fps (chronographed) from a 5.5" Blackhawk...

It is a powder I now have, but it is not miracle worker, just another slow burner. It is about 2 grains faster than my lot of H-110...

Good-luck...BCB

I've shot Lil'Gun in my 45's & 454 and the performance relative to accuracy was very good. I found basically no difference in accuracy using H110, N-110, N-120, IMR-4227 & HS-6 than I did with Lil'Gun. They will all shoot under an inch at 25 yards when you find the "sweet" spot.

I no longer use Lil'Gun, as it does heat up the barrel significantly more so, than any other powders tried. I have noticed no forcing cone erosion but I'll just play it safe and use a powder that is a little "cooler".

The loads I found to be accurate with Lil'Gun were: 45 Colt having a 6" barrel - 18.0 grains of Lil'Gun using a 300 grain LFN bullet with the WLP primer gave 1,090fps and 19.0 grains of Lil'Gun behind a 260 grain LFN bullet with the WLP primer zipped along at 1,143fps.

The 454 having a 6" barrel - 29.0 grains of Lil'Gun behind a 300 grain LFN bullet and the WLP primer (I'm using cut down 460 Smith brass) runs at 1,505fps and the 260 grain LFN bullet in front of 33.0 grains of Lil'Gun using the WLP primer coasts along at 1,572fps.

7p's
thanks for your reply

20 grains of Lil gun and a mag primer gives me 1236 fps with a 300g Lazercast FP and 1187 fps with the Hornady 300 g XTP. These are out of a 5 1/2" barrel.

7p's said:

I'll just play it safe and use a powder that is a little "cooler".

Click to expand...

I've read everything I can on the issue, and this is what I've decided.

If it was some miracle powder offering substantial gains I might think harder about trying it, but at this point I see no reason to change from WW296/H110, and the other powders I've been using.

Donaldjr1969 said:

My opinion is that, unless you like to fire rapidly, you will be fine with Lil'Gun. I think a lot of the Lil'Gun issues may be overstated.


Meaning did they use primers like a CCI 300 or did they use WLP or even CCI 350s? Did they have a good firm crimp to facilitate a thorough burn?

Click to expand...

The only gun/caliber that I know for CERTAIN experiences pre-mature barrel erosion with Lil Gun powder is the FA 454 Casull. The issues are not overstated and I have the barrels to prove it.I cannot speak of any others, as I have not used the powder in any others. I know of a barrel that had erosion in as few as 50 rounds, and it was not "rapid fired". Since I can only speak of 454's, the large pistol primers mentioned as possibilities would not apply. All of mine were and are fired with Remington 7 1/2 benchrest.

Use it if you want to..it is your gun. In fact, pay the shipping and I will give you a couple cans of Lil Gun.

Dan

dougader said:

7p's said:

I'll just play it safe and use a powder that is a little "cooler".

Click to expand...

I've read everything I can on the issue, and this is what I've decided.

If it was some miracle powder offering substantial gains I might think harder about trying it, but at this point I see no reason to change from WW296/H110, and the other powders I've been using.

Click to expand...

My sentiments too. And FWIW, I found LG gets kinda "erratic" when near max pressure. Too spooky for me, I'll stick with W296 for full tilt loads.. :wink:

BIgMuddy said:

Donaldjr1969 said:

My opinion is that, unless you like to fire rapidly, you will be fine with Lil'Gun. I think a lot of the Lil'Gun issues may be overstated.


Meaning did they use primers like a CCI 300 or did they use WLP or even CCI 350s? Did they have a good firm crimp to facilitate a thorough burn?

Click to expand...

The only gun/caliber that I know for CERTAIN experiences pre-mature barrel erosion with Lil Gun powder is the FA 454 Casull. The issues are not overstated and I have the barrels to prove it.I cannot speak of any others, as I have not used the powder in any others. I know of a barrel that had erosion in as few as 50 rounds, and it was not "rapid fired". Since I can only speak of 454's, the large pistol primers mentioned as possibilities would not apply. All of mine were and are fired with Remington 7 1/2 benchrest.

Use it if you want to..it is your gun. In fact, pay the shipping and I will give you a couple cans of Lil Gun.

Dan

Click to expand...

Dan, first off I thank you for the offer of Lil'Gun, but I still have a lot left as I also shoot a lot of 2400 and Titegroup through my 44.

When I am referring to a lot of erosion issues being overstated, I was09 excluding the Freedom Arms issues from that statement. As I said before, just why were the FA barrels eroding so fast? What were the specific grades of steel used? Were they 4140 Chrome-Moly steels or 416 grade stainless? After all, doesn't the 4140 machine easier and thus suffer from flame cutting of the forcing cone face faster than stainless? And if it were stainless used in the FA barrels, could they have been out of spec? I only ask this because why does excessive erosion from Lil'Gun only seem to be verifiable in FA revolvers? If Lil'Gun erosion is really only a verifiable issue with FA, then I am of the opinion that there may be a metallurgical issue here. And that is nothing against Bob Baker and FA at all! His vendor for his barrel steels could have made a mistake. Were the barrel blanks properly heat treated? Did the material delivered match the specs on the certs to the letter? Being a former manufacturing employee, we have received even simple things like fasteners that did not meet specs.

Now with regards to other calibers and makes, that is where I believe that many erosion issues may be overstated. There will always be some erosion in that area whether one shoots factory ammo, Trail Boss, Titegroup, 2400, IMR4227, H110, Lil'Gun, etc. And assuming that the cylinder does not have any timing issues and that the cylinder is perfectly parallel to the barrel face, erosion will mostly, but not always, be equally distributed and should eventually self limit. Let's face it. Even after 100 rounds of factory ammo, the barrel face will not look NIB...

The only time I would be concerned is if the forcing cone started to lead up badly and/or the erosion went well past the barrel face, into the forcing cone itself, and towards the rifling. But if none of those occur and the accuracy is still great, then I am going to keep shooting everything...Lil'Gun included.

It may seem as if I am a Lil'Gun fanboy defending it regardless of its performance. Not really. I was doing some research on powders for full house loads and Lil'Gun came across and got good overall reviews. I was also well aware of the erosion issues before I even purchased it. Yet rather than the H110 that a buddy of mine shoots, I wanted to try Lil'Gun and to date, it has been spectacular with a 240g bulk JSP sitting atop 23.5g of the powder. Right now, I use 2400 and will be using Lil'Gun as well for most of my 240g LSWC loads and use Titegroup for most of my JSP loads. The lead bullets, purchased from a local caster, do not lead very much with 2400 and shouldn't either with Lil'Gun. But they are a bit too hard for Titegroup and leading is significant even after 4 cylinders.

In short, I do not think Lil'Gun in Rugers is any more detrimental to the forcing cone than is 2400, H110/W296, or IMR 4227.

Donald

Your thoughts on barrel steel occurred to me as well when all this started. All FA guns are stainless, but I too wondered if it was a difference in steel when my new gun eroded, and a friend's 20 year old gun with 1000's of rounds fired was not. That was before we figured out it was the powder. He always used nothing but FA bullets, and we thought that was the problem. My second barrel eroded and I too was using FA bullets that time. That is when we finally looked at the powder. Since then, yes I have seen an older gun (20+years) have the same problem, so I think the steel issue is a non-issue.

I have a theory but it is a theory and nothing more. I think it may be the extremely tight barrel cylinder gap on the FA guns that attributes to more erosion. The pressure of the gas that escapes at that point seems to me that it would be higher than a gun with more gap. Think of it when you put your thumb in the end of a garden hose. You have closed the gap in the end of that hose and increased the pressure of the water. Maybe it is the same with the escaping gas. It may be a combination of the tighter BC gap and the high pressure of the 454 round. Bob Baker did however tell me of a 357 model 83 that also had the erosion, but most people seem to run those guns at some pretty high pressure loads, because they can.

I have a way to test my theory, just not ready to do so. I have one of my FA guns that when the erosion started on the rear of the barrel, I had it polished out. I increased my BC gap to .006. The gun still shoots very well, and in most loads I lost about 50-75 fps. I have considered shooting some Lil Gun in it to see what it does. I plan to have that gun re-barreled at some point anyway, and may try it.

I DID also shoot some Lil Gun in a Ruger BH 41 mag, and noticed NO erosion at all. That was before I had the problems with my FA guns. I really believe it would work ok in some of my Rugers, but is is real expensive test if I am wrong. Easier to just use other powders at this point.

Dan

Dan, I too thought that maybe FA revolvers had a very tight B/C gap. If that is the case, then I am sure one will have faster than average erosion compared to a similar revolver even with Titegroup or Trail Boss.

I hear you about thinking it would be fine in Rugers but still not wanting to be wrong. It pretty much is along the pay to play line of thought. It is like when I added nitrous oxide to my previous car. Sure it will accelerate engine wear when using it. And if the install and setup is incorrect, one gets to see their engine go boom and spit parts on the roadway. But I accepted that risk when I installed the kit. Nothing ever did go wrong, by the way. But once again, I accepted the risk. Others obviously would not even consider it.

So for my SRH, I think it will work well. And since I shoot 3 times as much 2400 loads compared to Lil'Gun loads, I suspect the 2400 would be far more damaging than the Lil'Gun. Any erosion will take place faster with the slow burning magnum powders. But I have really taken a liking to Titegroup. Not so much to slow down erosion. Rather it is because it is a thrifty powder to use. With a max load of 10g for a 240g JSP, it still offers magnum level velocities w/o the muzzle blast or recoil of H110/W296/Lil'Gun boomers.

It's not bad powder, but it's never given me enough reason to switch from H110. Over the chrono it falls short of advertised speeds and the flame temp is a lot higher than 110 or 296. Granted, all magnum loads put wear on the forcing cone, but Lil'Gun seems to do it a tad faster. In terms of accuracy, it seems no better or worse than H110/W296.

I agree with Lee, except for the flame temperature/barrel heating issue. I've not seen any more heating caused by Lil"gun than any other slow burning ball powder used in 50K pressure loads. A poster on another forum talked to a Hodgdon representative and was told the flame temperatures are the same as HS-6, WW296, and H-110.

Here's a link to a similar discussion that includes pictures of my gun's forcing cones as well as another poster's.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=103941&page=3

According to Veral Smith, slow ball powders burn cooler than flake or stick varieties...

I don't feel LG lives up to all the hype it got when it came out, at least in my .357 and .44 mags...Chronos don't lie!

At any rate, I'll stick with W296.. :wink: