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?
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
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.