John Alexanders Request

  • 2.7K Views
  • Last Post 4 days ago
45 2.1 posted this 27 October 2016

My quote from another thread in bold blue: “Some of your assumptions about a proper bullet to use doing this have features that are holding you back in the accuracy department, but those are your choice.”

http://www.castbulletassoc.org/forum/view_user.php?id=6375>John Alexander wrote:

45 2.1 -- We only make progress with the open sharing of ideas. That is the real purpose of this forum. Why wait for a PM to reveal your knowledge to one person? We would all like to know. Please be a good citizen and contribute to the forum by starting a thread on the principles of cast bullet design for high velocity. We have a lot of open minded members here who would be interested in such a thread. “I'm a student of dynamic bullet fit instead of static bullet fit.... it makes a big difference. I've done this with one BR rifle and quite a few commercial and customs. If you're interested, you could PM me.”

That sounds interesting. Probably an excellent topic for another thread or at least a good definition of “dynamic bullet fit” for those not familiar with the term.

To avoid completely hijacking mtngun's thread please put your reply on one of the new threads that I hope you will start.

John

OK John, I'll try.... though it hasn't done the least bit of good so far.

I read here about bullet fit.... a static (in rest) fit where most people use a hard alloy and touch or jamb a bullet into the rifling throat. These bullets are Loverin design or a common two diameter Barlow design type..... basically a cylinder with a nose on it that may or may not touch the rifling. As an alternate, we have John Arditos cone in cone throat that achieved some progress. I've noted the records, group sizes and test results posted on this forum. You guys could do a lot better! How?..... Well we're going to discuss that (that is if you all can keep from telling me I'm full of BS and ruining the thread).

I want to hear WHY you think you can't do better and or some good discussion on why you want to do better. Remember, this is John's request.

Attached Files

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
RicinYakima posted this 27 October 2016

45, Well I'm a match shooter. So I want to shoot smaller groups than everybody I shoot against. I want to win. That is all. Ric

Attached Files

gnoahhh posted this 27 October 2016

Boy, wouldn't Dr. Mann, Niedner, and Harry Pope have a field day here!!

Attached Files

R. Dupraz posted this 27 October 2016

"I want to hear WHY you think you can't do better and or some good discussion on why you want to do better."     Lets see now.........Was it my first grade or second grade teacher who asked basically the same question? Except it wasn't about shooting.

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 27 October 2016

45 2.1, Let's get off on the right foot.  I have never heard any member of this forum say that they thought they couldn't do better. So I don't think you should expect an answer to such a question. 

Ric has given the obvious and perfect answer for competitors to your second question. As for everybody else, wanting to do better is the default position for normal people.

I am glad that you accepted my invitation to start your own thread and we are looking forward to what you have to offer and a lively and civil discussion of your ideas.

John

Attached Files

45 2.1 posted this 27 October 2016

John Alexander wrote: 45 2.1, Let's get off on the right foot.  I have never heard any member of this forum say that they thought they couldn't do better. So I don't think you should expect an answer to such a question. 

Ric has given the obvious and perfect answer for competitors to your second question. As for everybody else, wanting to do better is the default position for normal people.  Not everybody John........... some people are quite happy where they are at and say they don't need to.

I am glad that you accepted my invitation to start your own thread and we are looking forward to what you have to offer and a lively and civil discussion of your ideas.

John Three positive half insulted responses......... I hoped I would get at least one, but this has possibilities.

Now the first question..... just how do you all expect to get a cylinder into a tapered cone (the barrels throat) without moving it out of center and the exact same every time? That is what you are doing with a Loverin or Barlow two diameter bullet with limited guidance in your rifles. Ideas or conjecture welcome on the point.

Attached Files

45 2.1 posted this 27 October 2016

gnoahhh wrote: Boy, wouldn't Dr. Mann, Niedner, and Harry Pope have a field day here!! I've read all three plus some others with somewhat lesser qualifications. I would have to say that all would be amazed with the quality machining work and very tight tolerances possible now. After they listened to what I had to say, they wouldn't have a problem agreeing with me either. It remains to be seen how far the conversation will go.

Attached Files

Premod70 posted this 27 October 2016

This could be interesting, I'm still in the frame of mind that all efforts are wasted by the rifling in the barrel distorting the best of efforts.

Attached Files

.22-10-45 posted this 28 October 2016

Some of the early Ideal 311467 Lovern designs had tapered driving bands. My biggest breakthru in accuracy in my 1-14” twist,Shilen barrled sharps-Borchardt .22 Hornet was when I made up a tapered sizing die to size 1st. band to match leade angle of chamber. 1st. band fully engraved when chambered. I was able to equal best match jacketed bullet accuracy at 100yds.  Although I am not shooting at high velocity.  Now with a paper-patched slick from a Tom Ballard adjustable .22 mould, accuracy demanded charges well up into..and in some cases max. loads of H4227.  I never did chrono. these loads.

Attached Files

45 2.1 posted this 29 October 2016

22 Hornets are interesting provided they don't have oversize chambers like some do. What was your best match jacketed accuracy? Friends who have the Browning micro hunter in the 22 Hornet are getting some very nice groups with them from a custom BRP (now out of business) mold.

Attached Files

.22-10-45 posted this 29 October 2016

I specified min. match chamber..done by Ed Shilen himself in spare time. Best jacketed accuracy was in the .3"'s at 100yds.

Attached Files

Premod70 posted this 29 October 2016

.22-10-45 wrote: Some of the early Ideal 311467 Lovern designs had tapered driving bands. My biggest breakthru in accuracy in my 1-14” twist,Shilen barrled sharps-Borchardt .22 Hornet was when I made up a tapered sizing die to size 1st. band to match leade angle of chamber. 1st. band fully engraved when chambered. I was able to equal best match jacketed bullet accuracy at 100yds.  Although I am not shooting at high velocity.  Now with a paper-patched slick from a Tom Ballard adjustable .22 mould, accuracy demanded charges well up into..and in some cases max. loads of H4227.  I never did chrono. these loads.What was the leade angle and was the front band “engaged” to the full depth of the groove. I'm thinking the purpose of the front band engagement was to both center the front of the bullet as well as to give full support of the bullet's front as it travels down the bore, please advise if otherwise.

Attached Files

Eutectic posted this 29 October 2016

Bob, I have tried two diameter and have several. 311467 does work well, and would be a #1 pick in an unmodified rifle. I have had the best results with the cone-in-cone using Eagan bullets.

I think we can do better because the breach seat bullet boys can wax my butt any day. I can only beat them on firepower. If it were not for the CBA fixed ammo rule there would be a lot of breach seating.

So how can I improve what I am doing?

Steve

Attached Files

.22-10-45 posted this 29 October 2016

I don't have my notes with me, but i believe the leade angle was 3deg./side..as at the time, I did not know much about cast bullet shooting and the use of shallower angles..then too..I had planned on shooting jacketed and followed Shilens advice. The tapered sizer I made fits my Lyman 45 sizer..I can adjust dia. of front band as well as length of taper sizing with the adjusting screw stop on sizer. I usually size front band to .224 dia. (groove dia.) the rest of bullet body is sized to .226". Yes, centering of bullet in throat before firing was the idea behind this..it is just about as close to breech-seating as the old time (and modern) Schuetzen shooters employed as I can get using fixed ammunition.

Attached Files

45 2.1 posted this 29 October 2016

Eutectic wrote: Bob, I have tried two diameter and have several. 311467 does work well, and would be a #1 pick in an unmodified rifle. I have had the best results with the cone-in-cone using Eagan bullets.

I think we can do better because the breach seat bullet boys can wax my butt any day. I can only beat them on firepower. If it were not for the CBA fixed ammo rule there would be a lot of breach seating.

So how can I improve what I am doing?

Steve It's going to be hard to out do the breech seating guys.... because the bullet is already in the bore straight when it is fired, that is precluding them deforming a bullet upon seating. Just what class do you shoot in? There are ways for all the classes to get down in the small little group area (production also). Loverins (the original design) usually fail when pushed past about 2,200 fps in terms of small groups. Any bullet that doesn't start straight will also. Most of the well put together single shots will get down in the 0.3 to 0.5 MOA range (with fixed ammunition) if you shoot them at low velocity with the proper fit and bullet temper. I've shot a couple of the Browning Hunter ('85 single shots) rifles off the bench at 100 yards that will do that with the Marbles tang sight they come with. The worst problem (along with too small ill fitting bullets) is shooting a too hard bullet. A tapered bullet is another good trick also. Use an alloy with 2% antimony and 0.25% tin and heat treat them (for anything other than low velocity) for the hardness you want for your loads pressure. That is the short course which leaves a lot of questions unanswered and those are really important. It all depends on what you are trying to do as to what you do and pick to use. More discussion!!!!!!!!!!!

Attached Files

.22-10-45 posted this 29 October 2016

I agree on bullets being too hard. I am using a mix of Streotype metal and pure lead with a hardness about like Lyman #2. I tried straight Streotype and got patterns..with everything except the early 49gr. Ideal 225415..for some reason, the hardness didn't hurt accuracy on this one. When I first started shooting cast in this hornet, I tried just about every mould I could get my hands on..including a nice Eagan. Nothing was really consistant..this was before the tapered sizer die. I happened across an old original Ideal 22636 that dropped a 60gr. bullet..probably for the old .22-15-60 Stevens. I chucked some of these up in a bench lathe and faced off to 50grs. On some, I turned a gas-check shank. These prooved to be the most accurate bullets to date. I sent off samples to Fred Leeth at Pioneer Products and he made a couple of beautiful nose pour moulds in both plain-base and gas check. Now heres the funny part..for pure accuracy..not velocity, the difference between the gas check version and the plain-base bullet is .3 gr. the G.C. needing the heaver charge. This is with H4227. I have been playing with Vhtavouri N110..burns alot cleaner and has a slight accuracy edge over H4227..but can't seem to get accuracy with the plain base bullet with this powder?? I am going to have to start chronographing.

Attached Files

mtngun posted this 30 October 2016

45 2.1 wrote: Now the first question..... just how do you all expect to get a cylinder into a tapered cone (the barrels throat) without moving it out of center and the exact same every time? That is what you are doing with a Loverin or Barlow two diameter bullet with limited guidance in your rifles. Ideas or conjecture welcome on the point. Well, I have never been a fan of the 2-diameter bullet.

As you know, the Ardito method is tapered cone into a matching tapered cone.

Even a 1-diameter bullet into a tapered cone can be consistent if the neck is a snug fit in the chamber (and concentric with bore).   From high school geometry, only 2 points are required to define a straight line.    If the base of bullet is positioned by snug fit in the neck, while the nose of bullet is positioned by snug fit in the freebore & leade, there's your 2 points.   

Some people believe that freebore is desirable when using 1-diameter bullets.   The theory is that if the bullet is a snug fit in the freebore and if the freebore is concentric with the bore, then the bullet should be off to a straight start.

Initial alignment is critical.   But a bullet may start out perfectly aligned and perfectly balanced yet not exit the muzzle that way.

Attached Files

45 2.1 posted this 30 October 2016

mtngun wrote: Even a 1-diameter bullet into a tapered cone can be consistent if the neck is a snug fit in the chamber (and concentric with bore).    Theory and actual results are not always the same. What are the actual clearances between your loaded neck diameter and the chamber neck? Look at your groups and explain the results of your shooting. The answer is there if you know what to look at.  

  Initial alignment is critical.   But a bullet may start out perfectly aligned and perfectly balanced yet not exit the muzzle that way.  Now ain't that just the truth! Static and dynamic fit are not the same. Look at the shape and size of grouping and see what it says. Another big thing is what the bullet shows at longer range. Testing at 300 to 400 yards shows things not apparent at 100 yards. Yes, I know.... most all say they use a twist just sufficient to stabilize the bullet..........

Attached Files

OU812 posted this 31 October 2016

Bore Riders

A gas check that is seated consistently square and undistorted helps bullet leave muzzle much like jacketed. The Lee sizers work pretty good if not reducing band diameter too much.

Softer 10-13 bhn birdshot alloy works better than harder alloys...for my needs any way. Gas checks seem to grip softer alloy better. Your chroni will thank you.

Velocites under 1900fps creates less fowling (Tite Group powder).

A snug fitting bullet that is seated “inline” is important. NECO gauge works very good for checking.

Turn the case necks slightly for close chamber neck clearance. My Lapua 223 brass has a thicker neck wall than Remington or Winchester brass.

Jam first band into rifling when chambered.

...

Attached Files

.22-10-45 posted this 31 October 2016

1+ on seating gas-check square. I had Corbin make up a reloading press type swaging die set with nose punches to fit my various cast bullet nose profiles. I.D. of swage dies are .225” & .226” dia. I size bullet dia. .001” smaller than swage die & bump up. I can take an Eagan MX3 & using a round nosed punch have it come out looking for all the world like a Rem. .22 rimfire yellow jacket bullet. I have found swagind the Saeco #22 using a tapered flat nose (matched nose profile of Lyman 225415), I can equal best jacketed match bullet accuracy in a Ruger No.1 .222 Rem. (7/16") at 100yds. The base is perfectly flat and square to bullet body. Bullets are lubed before swaging to support lube grooves.

Attached Files

harleyrock posted this 03 November 2016

Following

Lifetime NRA since 1956, NRA Benefactor, USN Member, CBA Member

Attached Files

Show More Posts
Close