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

yodogsandman posted this 27 November 2016

Bob, thank you for starting this thread. It should prove to be a great discussion.

I won't be adding much but, will certainly follow along. I'll throw out my initial thoughts here, though.

So, static fit starts the bullet pointed straight into the barrel. Dynamic fit ensures that the bullet stays straight when subjected to the pressure, obturation, nose slump and twist.

I'm thinking of a bullet with a short fat nose that helps prevent slumping or pre-slumps the nose. With a long-ish tapered bore riding portion that would help align and would engrave the lands at least 50%. That along with a shorter tapered, gradual change up to full band diameters that fit the throat closely. The tapered “cones” would allow for some “wiggle room” for the bullet to “self center” during ignition and acceleration. One shallow lube groove should be enough with the newer lubes.

Attached Files

45 2.1 posted this 27 November 2016

yodogsandman wrote: Bob, thank you for starting this thread. It should prove to be a great discussion. It would be if it got some participation. So far I've gotten no answer to how to keep a Loverin or Barlow type bullet straight going into a tapered throat in a barrel.

I won't be adding much but, will certainly follow along. I'll throw out my initial thoughts here, though.

So, static fit starts the bullet pointed straight into the barrel. At rest.... Dynamic fit ensures that the bullet stays straight when subjected to the pressure, obturation, nose slump and twist. Basically......

I'm thinking of a bullet with a short fat nose that helps prevent slumping or pre-slumps the nose. With a long-ish tapered bore riding portion that would help align and would engrave the lands at least 50%. Actually the nose is the longest part. Actual bearing is close to 65%. That along with a shorter tapered, gradual change up to full band diameters that fit the throat closely. The tapered “cones” would allow for some “wiggle room” for the bullet to “self center” during ignition and acceleration. Close, but it actually doesn't work quite like that. Alignment doesn't happen all at once, but engages and aligns within a bullet length. One shallow lube groove should be enough with the newer lubes. If you will look, most of the well thought of lubes give “normal for the results that are posted” accuracy (1 to 2 MOA as normally posted here. Proper lube will leave bright shiny clean bores with little residue and better accuracy. You need a low viscosity lube to do that with an attendant larger lube groove for clean shooting.

Attached Files

yodogsandman posted this 28 November 2016

The Loverin and Barlow designs both seem to need to be jammed into the lands. I don't have that much experience with either of them. As far as lubes go, I've been just tumble lubing my rifle bullets with three coats of Ben's Liquid Lube after sizing. It seems to maintain proper bore condition and first shots are within the group. Haven't cleaned my barrels for at least the last year.

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 28 November 2016

45 2.1 wrote: yodogsandman wrote:With a long-ish tapered bore riding portion that would help align and would engrave the lands at least 50%.>Actually the nose is the longest part. Actual bearing is close to 65%. When you say 50 or 65% is that of the length of the bullet or something else? John

Attached Files

45 2.1 posted this 28 November 2016

John Alexander wrote: When you say 50 or 65% is that of the length of the bullet or something else? John We noted: ” that part of the bullet that bears on the lands and grooves” (bearing length)........... which is a percentage of the bullets total length.

Attached Files

mtngun posted this 28 November 2016

So far I've gotten no answer to how to keep a Loverin or Barlow type bullet straight going into a tapered throat in a barrel.

In fact, you received an answer in post #17.

So far the only significant specific advice you have offered in this thread is:

"The worst problem (along with too small ill fitting bullets) is shooting a too hard bullet. ... 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” Meanwhile, almost all serious CBA competitors use linotype.   Apparently those serious CBA competitors are fools?    Apparently we should ignore what has been proven to succeed in CBA competition and instead listen to some guy on the internet who never seems to post any hard data?  

If you are Tony Boyer or the equivalent, your word alone may be enough to warrant serious consideration :dude:    , but most of us have to supply shooting results and and other factual evidence if we expect to be taken seriously.    That includes you.

When we do post results, those results will be subject to interpretation.   When Joe posts the results of his 22cf's, sometimes my interpretation is different than Joe's, and what works for Joe's application may not work for my application, and so on and so forth -- but at least Joe has demonstrated that his methods are working at a certain level of performance in his application.   I respect that, and I enjoy reading about Joe's adventures.     Ditto for the other CBA members who post their results.  

I thought that was the general purpose of shooting forums?

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Maven
Nrut posted this 28 November 2016

mtngun, So I go back and read your post #17.. We are talking about two different rifles here.. You are using a custom chambered/throated rifle with a slow twist aftermarket barrel and I enjoy reading what you are doing.. Bob is using factory chambered rifles with OEM barrels.. See the difference? Personally my main interest is factory rifles so I would like to hear what Bob has to say..And I am sure many others would also..

Thank you..

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 28 November 2016

"So far I've gotten no answer to how to keep a Loverin or Barlow type bullet straight going into a tapered throat in a barrel."

If one use a Loverin style that correctly fits the case neck length and throat to the leade they go straight into the barrel. I aptly demonstrated that with the Lyman 311466 in 10, 12 and 14” twist .308Ws (5 separate rifles, 3 with factory barrels)and 3 different 10” twist 30-06s (one milsurp barrel and one factory M70 barrel). That was all shown and documented in the several RPM Threshold threads here and on CBF. I concur with Mtngun's assessment of the CBA match results. It is well proven and accepted that controlling the RPM is essential to obtaining the best and most consistent accuracy by every shooting discipline except some cast bullet shooters. Excellent observations Mtngun.

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

45 2.1 posted this 29 November 2016

mtngun wrote: Meanwhile, almost all serious CBA competitors use linotype.   Apparently those serious CBA competitors are fools?    Apparently we should ignore what has been proven to succeed in CBA competition and instead listen to some guy on the internet who never seems to post any hard data? All those people, including you, chose what they wanted to shoot and in what they shot it in. We've seen your groups also. Several people here have stated if you can shoot under MOA, you'll win a lot of matches. If that is the level of performance you seek, then you are about there. On the other hand, I've sought how to make commercial rifles do better than what you've shown. I found out how to do that and have taught others how to do so.... and they posted pictures... only to be called liars and frauds (among other things). I don't need a bench rifle to do what you've shown. how about proving the rifle will shoot under 1/2 MOA with lead like it should be able to do?

BTW, thanks Nrut for speaking up.

When we do post results, those results will be subject to interpretation........... but at least Joe has demonstrated that his methods are working at a certain level of performance in his application.  He got the results for the components he chose. Pick the right stuff and one can do a lot better.

I thought that was the general purpose of shooting forums? That in itself is a matter of conjecture all depending on the person.

Attached Files

45 2.1 posted this 29 November 2016

LMG wrote: "So far I've gotten no answer to how to keep a Loverin or Barlow type bullet straight going into a tapered throat in a barrel."

If one use a Loverin style that correctly fits the case neck length and throat to the leade they go straight into the barrel. I aptly demonstrated that with the Lyman 311466 in 10, 12 and 14” twist .308Ws (5 separate rifles, 3 with factory barrels)and 3 different 10” twist 30-06s (one milsurp barrel and one factory M70 barrel). That was all shown and documented in the several RPM Threshold threads here and on CBF. I concur with Mtngun's assessment of the CBA match results. It is well proven and accepted that controlling the RPM is essential to obtaining the best and most consistent accuracy by every shooting discipline except some cast bullet shooters. Excellent observations Mtngun.

LMG I've seen your assertions from your RPMth and have been less than enthralled with the testing besides telling you yours isn't the only way and was done long before you tried. I'm not a fan of “usable accuracy of 1.5 to 2 MOA” as you have shown either. Heck, most of the semi-auto military rifles will do that with loads that are close to full power for them. No one so far has duplicated your test as a blind test, so that does speak for more testing from others not attached to you.

Attached Files

45 2.1 posted this 29 November 2016

While we are trying to have a discussion, who of you can shoot under 3/4 MOA with a rifle you would carry in the field to hunt with. The object is to get you to think about what it takes to do better than you are doing.... not play follow the leader or exhibit one-upmans-ship.

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 29 November 2016

45 2.1 wrote: While we are trying to have a discussion, who of you can shoot under 3/4 MOA with a rifle you would carry in the field to hunt with. The object is to get you to think about what it takes to do better than you are doing.... not play follow the leader or exhibit one-upmans-ship. Be quite nice if, for once, you could just show us with posted examples of such accuracy along with the details just how you shoot 3/4 MOA with a field rifle?  Also kindly post the results of the “blind tests” that verify your results.  Numerous shooters have/are verifying the RPM Threshold all the time.  Several shooters have found that 2900 - 3100+ fps is obtainable while maintaining 2 moa accuracy or less over extended range with a ternary cast bullet.  Not blind testing at all, they went at it with eyes wide open.  I understand why you were less “enthralled” with my previous testing as you fail to comprehend the reason for the test and fail to understand the results.  You fail to understand comparative analysis testing which is why you criticize Mtngun's groups and the factual data he extrapolated from CBA stats.  It's also why you fail to understand the comparative analysis I conducted in the RPM Threshold tests.      Since you always just want to consider just group size here's a thread on goodsteel's forum about 200 yard MOA accuracy.  It may help you understand in CBA competition you shoot for score as often as for group.  The OPs demonstration in that thread showing his 10 shot groups at 200 yards were close to moa but his score wasn't that good is another example of just that.  I also, just a couple days ago, shot 4 consecutive 10 shot practice strings using the culled bullets out of a current cast lot of bullets for score on the CBA official target.  The group moa average for all 4 strings was 1.196.  Again that is with 10 shot groups for the 40 shots total.  I showed the OP the targets I shot with about the same group size but with the better score and explained the problems he was having.  You might take a gander there to see the actual results posted with no “one-upmanship” claims.......just facts.  You then might consider posting some of your own such targets to demonstrate where we might improve.    You might also inform us as to the need for 3/4 moa rifle for hunting in the field (assuming you refer to game such as deer, elk, pigs, etc.)?  I've killed a lot of deer, a few elk and some pigs over the years with cast bullets and never found 1.5 - 2 moa capability any handicap on such animals or the need for 3/4 moa.   btw; I do have a couple sporter rifles and a couple  that will shoot 3/4 moa with a limited number of shots. Are you talking 2, 3, 5 or 10 shot groups for moa measurement?   Just asking for the sake of the “discussion".   LMG 

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 29 November 2016

Let us not forget that LMG is the guy that can produce anything he says, “on demand". Except at CBA matches.

Sorry guys, I'm bored today :)

Frank

Attached Files

pat i. posted this 29 November 2016

Also let us not forget that this isn't Cast Boolits so play nice.

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 29 November 2016

frnkeore wrote: Let us not forget that LMG is the guy that can produce anything he says, “on demand". Except at CBA matches.

Sorry guys, I'm bored today :)

Frank Hello Frank, wondered when you'd show up with your continual personal criticism of me. 

You continually show up following most any post I make to just criticize me.  For just one example you had real heartburn that in my previously posted tests I was not using official CBA targets ergo you claimed the results were invalid.  Please show me where you criticize Mtngun for not using official CBA targets considering you posted in that thread? How about all the others who use other than CBA targets and post results on this forum?  You can't show that because you haven't claimed anyone else's results were invalid simply because they used any different target than an official CBA target.    Fact is I have been shooting “on demand” at CBA matches.  I won the Arizona State CBA military rifle match this year and then followed it up with a win in the next match.  I also have been shooting the CBA BR matches and will be shooting a match on 18 December.  Thus I think my CBA “credibility” is established.  Whatever "credibility” is and how it does or doesn't influence actual test results is a puzzle (are only CBA competitors knowledgeable about cast bullet shooting?).  But since you and others seem to think that's the case I'd say I'm somewhat established as a CBA competitor.    Also you can go to havasusportsman.com to se the scores of the local prone match, they have started posting them.  Note on the scores that the others are shooting F class while I still shoot NRA NM/Palma style with no rest and iron sights.  On a previous forum I have showed you my NRA HP short and long range classification (Master).  Thus I think my shooting credibility is well established.   I also spent 30 years in Special Forces, a great deal of which was as a light and heavy weapons NCO.  I trained thousands of soldiers worldwide in marksmanship including long range target interdiction (that's sniper training if you don't comprehend).  Training deploying soldiers to Iraq in marksmanship (they exceeded even the highest expected standards on every range and in Iraq) was part of what earned me a Bronze Star.    I can indeed “produce on demand” 2 moa accuracy or less at 2600 - 2950 fps with cast bullets to 300 yards as I stated. Actually I've been producing sub moa to 1.5 moa on demand with the 30 XCB bullet.  I've proved that numerous times the last several years.  You just make up too many excuses to come see it done.  However, 2 moa does not cut it for either CBA military rifle or BR matches.  Perhaps if you'd have shot any CBA matches you'd understand that.    So, pray tell, since you are so bored why don't you tell us of your own CBA “credibility" experience and expertise to justify your continued personal criticism of me?  You seem able to provide that personal criticism “on demand” so please back it up with something factual.  Pat is correct; this is not CBF.  My impression is factual reporting of results is desired here.  The interpretations of those results is what is open for discussion.  I offered an answer to a question and now two of you want to get personal about it.  There's no need for that.  If you can prove me wrong about what I stated reference the 311466 then please do so, I would welcome that discussion.  I can show numerous 10 shot moa or less groups shot at 100 yards with the 311466 out of a factory S&L barrel at 2300 - 2600 fps. if you'd like to see them?   LMG    

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 29 November 2016

LMG says: "Fact is I have been shooting “on demand” at CBA matches.  I won the Arizona State CBA military rifle match this year and then followed it up with a win in the next match.  I also have been shooting the CBA BR matches and will be shooting a match on 18 December.  Thus I think my CBA “credibility” is established.  Whatever that is and how it does or doesn't influence actual test results."

Please show us the 3000 fps, CBA match results and how the 3000 fps groups are “linear” at 200 yards in registered CBA matches. Or haven't you entered matches, because the accuracy is lacking?

I shoot cast bullets in competition all year long. Go to ASSRA's and ISSA's forums and check out my match results. I do shoot CBA matches in the winter months and starting in January, I'll be a CBA member, so you'll be able to see my results posted in either Roseburgs or Eugene, OR matches. 

I'm not going to say that you haven't won a “Military” match but, There are absolutly no published data to support that. I will say that, although you have the equipment to shoot in the Hvy class, you have not produced any 3000 fps results in it. My winter match results haven't be published in CBA results, because I wasn't a member, here is a picture of of the score board at a Roseburg match.

Have a great day, in the AZ sun,

Frank

Attached Files

yodogsandman posted this 29 November 2016

When you're all done qualifying each other, how about teaching me something? I hate it when all my heroes are bickering amongst themselves!

I have 3 old military Mausers that I've bubba'd up and I get 3/4” MOA with jacketed bullets in THEM. Heck, I don't even own a neck sizing die! What can I do, to do that same thing with cast bullets, huh? What can I take away from the cast bullet NASCAR races and apply it to my ol' family station wagon?

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 29 November 2016

yodogsandman wrote: When you're all done qualifying each other, how about teaching me something? I hate it when all my heroes are bickering amongst themselves!

I have 3 old military Mausers that I've bubba'd up and I get 3/4” MOA with jacketed bullets in THEM. Heck, I don't even own a neck sizing die! What can I do, to do that same thing with cast bullets, huh? What can I take away from the cast bullet NASCAR races and apply it to my ol' family station wagon?
Ahhhhh.....something to actually discuss...... Get the NOE equivalent of the Lyman 323471 mould.  Cast the bullets of a good alloy such as #2 though COWWs with 2% tin added will do well also.  WQ the bullets out of the mould to harden them or HT them.   Use a good quality NRA 50/50 lube or 2500+.   Slug or chamber cast to get the dimension of the throat which should be long in your milsurp barrels.  Size the bullets so they are a tight slip fit in the throat.  Use Hornady crimp on GCs or quality aluminum if they are a tight fit on the GC shank.  The base of the cast bullet should be flat.  If a slight sprue exists it should be cut off before seating the GCs.  The GCs should be seated firmly and flatly against the bullets base.  I use a .225 H&I die for seating the GCs with the Lyman GC seater on my 450 lubrasizer.  After seating the GCs they are then sized and lubed in the 450.    Get a neck sizing die.  The Redding's are excellent.  If you don't want to NS then I suggest the RCBS X die.  You can FL size then and the ammo will be good for all 3 rifles.  Case life will also be excellent (I quit testing after 30 sizings and firings using 5 cases with my X die).  Also a 32 M die will be needed for cast bullet loading.  I prefer the M die over the Lee because the M die inside sizes the entire neck.  I get much more concentric loads with the M die.   Seat the bullets so the front drive band is slightly engraver by the leade.  The base of the GC will be at the base of the case neck.  Yes that does leave some lube grooves exposed but I've not found that to be a problem as I carry the extra rounds in plastic ammo boxes.  The rounds in the magazine are well protected from dust and dirt.  As to the load I prefer to use 4895 with a Dacron filler.  I've found 30 - 32 gr to be an excellent load (exact amount depends on flavor of 4895)   I use standard LR primers, mostly WLRs but occasionally CCI 200s.   That should get you started.  There are other bullet designs that work well also but the 323471 is a proven winner.  It also is a Loverin BTW that loaded as described will enter the rifling straight.   LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

45 2.1 posted this 29 November 2016

I would have to agree with Frank.... totally boring when Larry is involved selling his stuff....... of course, he could show how he does it with a stock military Mauser and cast.

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 29 November 2016

Basiclly, you have to do the same thing to your rifle that NASCAR teams do to there cars,Jack up the gas cap and replace everything else.

For rifles, you keep the action and replace the rest, bbl, trig and stock. That doesn't do it, because you still need the crew chief, you and the load. 

The above is simplified but basic. For production and milsurp, the basic first step is a well fitting, bore rider at about 1600 fps. Develope a good load and from there, explore others things. It will be very hard to get higher velocity and 10 shot groups will be harder. Even with the best equip because of heat and harmonics of the light barrels.  I know that's not the answer you wanted bit, that's why those NASCAR guy's spend millions of dollars!!! 

Frank Edited to make since. It was originally sent from my new “Smart"? phone.

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 29 November 2016

45 2.1 wrote: I would have to agree with Frank.... totally boring when Larry is involved selling his stuff....... of course, he could show how he does it with a stock military Mauser and cast.Read post #39. Substitute 4350, 4831, RL19 or RL22 for the 4895 and dacron filler. Frank will have to agree as he has used 323471 at 2200 -2300  fps as an example himself.  There is a simple reason the 323471 and some other designs perform well at higher velocity.  Does 45 2.1 know why? LMG 

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

yodogsandman posted this 29 November 2016

Thanks Larry, all good advice but, guess I should have mentioned that of the 3 rifles, one is a 22” 6.5x55, M38 Swedish Mauser, one is a 16 1/2” 7.62x51, 1-12 twist FR-8 large ring Mauser and one is a 22” VZ-24 Mauser 98 1 -12 twist Douglas barrel 35 Whelen. With jacketed, the 6.5 shoots 140 gr at 2550 FPS, the 7.62x51 with a 165gr at 2530 FPS and the 35 Whelen with 250gr at 2490 FPS. I'd like similar velocities in cast bullets with that level of accuracy, too.

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 29 November 2016

LMG wrote: 45 2.1 wrote: I would have to agree with Frank.... totally boring when Larry is involved selling his stuff....... of course, he could show how he does it with a stock military Mauser and cast.Read post #39. Substitute 4350, 4831, RL19 or RL22 for the 4895 and dacron filler. Frank will have to agree as he has used 323471 at 2200 -2300  fps as an example himself.  There is a simple reason the 323471 and some other designs perform well at higher velocity.  Does 45 2.1 know why? LMG  I did use the 323471 in my M48, BO, 8x57, @ 2160 (165K rpm), with a as new barrel in. Bedded action and floated barrel. I used WC852 but, only got 2",  5 shot grouping, using '06 brass. Frank

Attached Files

45 2.1 posted this 29 November 2016

Larry.... there is a difference in meaning between Tell and Show.... perhaps you know what it is? Yodog is wanting something that shoots as good as his jacketed loads (which by the way is very possible, provided you do things correctly). With your “reasonable accuracy” assertions, I somehow doubt he will get it.

Also, this thread is about a request made from John Alexander to me, which I am trying to accomplish. Anything other than that should not be here. START YOUR OWN THREAD and stay out of this one if you can't discuss the subject of the thread!

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 29 November 2016

yodogsandman wrote: Thanks Larry, all good advice but, guess I should have mentioned that of the 3 rifles, one is a 22” 6.5x55, M38 Swedish Mauser, one is a 16 1/2” 7.62x51, 1-12 twist FR-8 large ring Mauser and one is a 22” VZ-24 Mauser 98 1 -12 twist Douglas barrel 35 Whelen. With jacketed, the 6.5 shoots 140 gr at 2550 FPS, the 7.62x51 with a 165gr at 2530 FPS and the 35 Whelen with 250gr at 2490 FPS. I'd like similar velocities in cast bullets with that level of accuracy, too.
My bad, I assumed you were saying they were 8x57s...........   LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 29 November 2016

45 2.1 wrote: Larry.... there is a difference in meaning between Tell and Show.... perhaps you know what it is? Yodog is wanting something that shoots as good as his jacketed loads (which by the way is very possible, provided you do things correctly). With your “reasonable accuracy” assertions, I somehow doubt he will get it.

Also, this thread is about a request made from John Alexander to me, which I am trying to accomplish. Anything other than that should not be here. START YOUR OWN THREAD and stay out of this one if you can't discuss the subject of the thread!
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. That is from your post #1; a quote from John Alexander.  I posted about shooting the 311466 accurately at HV based on a question asked in this thread.  That was discussing the topic as the 311466 has many design concepts for HV cast bullet shooting which IS THE TOPIC ask for.  I also commented on the relevance to shooting cast bullets at HV as proffered by Mtngun regarding the probable relevance of slower twists and controlling the RPM.   

  Obviously from your comments not only to me but others only your opinions apply here and no one else should offer anything, hardly keeping the forum “an open sharing of ideas” as John stated.  So be it, thus with no further comments by you or Frank directed to me I shall bow out.   LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

yodogsandman posted this 29 November 2016

Larry, I wish you'd stay, we'll all lose out without your opinions. Some things, maybe only you can answer.

Like the 30XCB. You've proved it's use in twists down to 1 in 10 for HV. Why is it so different than the Loverin design?

Frank, I've been using that speed range of powders. You seem to avoid the ball powders like H414, W760 or WC860. Is there a reason for it?

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 29 November 2016

I use what ever powder works. Note the WC852 in the 8x57. That load was a full on HP load, as powerfull as the original jacked loads.

WWAAAYYYYY to much recoil for me. I'm older, smarter and my body can't take it anymore. Not to mention that I tore my rotor cuff, 20 years ago with my 45/70 and had to get that fixed 5 years ago.

So, for me, I like accurate rifles w/low recoil that are inexpensive to shoot (13 - 15gr powder and no GC's) but, I do shoot mostly ball powders in the #9 - 296 speed range. Velocity isn't needed to make small groups.

Today, I like small cases and high BC PB bullets.

Frank

Attached Files

Nrut posted this 29 November 2016

Back on track: Low viscosity lubes.. 45 2.1, Are there any low viscosity commercial lubes that meet your standards for hi-vel? If not what is your formula for such a lube? What are the operating temps for your lube? I shoot rifle only in +25 to +80*F temps is why I ask..

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 29 November 2016

yodogsandman wrote: Larry, I wish you'd stay, we'll all lose out without your opinions. Some things, maybe only you can answer.

Like the 30XCB. You've proved it's use in twists down to 1 in 10 for HV. Why is it so different than the Loverin design?


The 30 XCB has several of the same attributes that several Loverin designs have (not all of them though).  The Loverins are mostly designs from yesteryear when we didn't have the efficient modern lubes we've had the last 50 years or so.  All of the older Loverin designs carry way too much lube and have a scraper groove.  Neither that much lube is needed with modern lubes at HV nor is the scraper groove needed.    The 30 XCB has 3 smaller lube grooves .008 deep and .030 wide.  They have been shot extensively with 2500+ and 2700+ lubes up through 3200 fps with no leading and excellent accuracy.  The shallower lube grooves also provide a larger diameter and shorter column of the bullet inside the lube groove which provides greater bullet strength during acceleration.  Both the 30 XCB and the 311466 have maximum bearing surface from the base of the case neck to the leade with the bullet diameter fitting the chamber throat.  Finally, with both bullets having 65+5 bearing surface the nose ogive tapers to the point.  There is not really much of any “bore riding" part of the nose.    LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

45 2.1 posted this 01 December 2016

Nrut wrote: Back on track: Low viscosity lubes.. 45 2.1, Are there any low viscosity commercial lubes that meet your standards for hi-vel? No, not for HV........ but Lymans Black Powder Gold is excellent in the 45-70. When I started in the late 60's I used the Lyman black stick lube (often refered to as their banana lube after the old Scheutzen lubes. Great lube and quite accurate, but it was dropped by Lyman in favor of the new NRA lube (which I think is very poor). LBT Blue is a pretty fair lube for HV, but has some quirks.

If not what is your formula for such a lube? The problem with duplicating mine is that 357 Maximum made part of it. What he made he called “Purple Lube” at the time. He wanted some of my bullets and I traded him a lifetime supply of his lube for my bullets. The problem with his lube (for me at least) was that it was stiff and tacky AND was at a lot higher viscosity than I wanted. I used to use the Old NRA formula of equal parts by volume of Vaseline, beeswax and paraffin which was an excellent low viscosity high accuracy lube.... that is until the Vaseline turned from the old yellowish tacky greasy form to the newer stiff stuff. A large batch made from the newer Vaseline was unsatisfactory as far as accuracy, so I mixed the old NRA batch equal parts with the purple lube (which cured both problems). If you want to try cutting any of several stiffer high viscosity lubes down, I would mix them equal parts with the old NRA lube and see what happens........

What are the operating temps for your lube? So far, Ive used it from -10 to 110 degrees F. I test rifles  and their loadings in all climate and temperature conditions to see what needs to be improved and have been doing so for the last 30 some odd years. I shoot rifle only in +25 to +80*F temps is why I ask..

Attached Files

Nrut posted this 01 December 2016

Didn't realized they changed the vaseline formula.. What next, genetically modified beeswax? I have one container of vaseline I bought back in 2014 maybe it is the old formula.. Was going to make 357 maximum's “666” lube with it when I ran out of the lube I have..   Think I will continue to use the same lube I am now and pay more attention to lube related problems at the target and figure out where to go from there.. Thinking I am using to much lube with some bullets in some rifles..

Thanks for your reply

Attached Files

Geargnasher posted this 1 weeks ago

I'm very sorry to see this thread die in the usual way.  Perhaps after nearly two year's rest my little nudge can move it forward?

First of all, I'd like to address in my own way some of the questions asked by 45 2.1.  Why do I think I am where I am and not doing better?  Because I haven't mastered the launch....specifically the first half-inch of bullet travel, in every one of my rifles.  With some I have come close, based on results, but many still challenge me.  Working out powder type, the necessities (and non-criticals) of case preparation, general fitness of the rifle, bullet lube, and a few other details such as working with the vibrations of the rifle and shooting/resting positions are relatively easy, but job number one with fixed ammunition is to get the bullet into the bore with its center of form concentric with its center of mass, and that seems to be the rub with myself and almost everyone attempting to improve accuracy.

Two-diameter bullets fail on several levels.  The first is that they are woefully under-supported by the interior of the barrel when fired.  The "bore-riding" noses depend upon the tops of the lands to keep the nose centered in the barrel, and that supporting surface area is very, very small when considering the form of almost any modern rifle barrel having very wide grooves and narrow lands.  Once the forces which always try to turn the bullet any way but straight exceed the ability of the alloy to resist, the lands will sink into the bullet nose and allow the nose to turn into the side of the barrel...thus it won't "come out the muzzle straight" as someone mentioned previously.  I have recovered numerous bullets whose bore-diameter noses have turned to the limit of groove depth on one side only, scarcely having touched the land on the opposite side, and they did not shoot well.   The second failure mode of a two-diameter bullet is in the rifle's tapered throat, where due to the dissonance of shapes there is very little of the cylindrical "body diameter" of the bullet actually being supported by the throat when it is fired, so the bullet easily collapses into one side or the other of the throat rather than swaging straight into it.  A cylinder being forced into a conical orifice will tend to gimble, not a condition conducive to getting the bullet into the bore straight.  Some will say that wide grooves, such as two-groove Springfield '03s or even the nearly equal groove-land ratio of some rifles like the military Swedish Mausers, will better support a bore-riding nose, and that may be the case at moderate velocities when using very hard alloy, but it is most certainly NOT the case when one attempts to push near the jacketed bullet velocities for the cartridge.  One reason wider lands do not solve the problem of keeping the bullet straight at high velocity is that wider lands create more stress on the driving portion of the bullet by requiring more metal to be displaced than narrower lands would.  Reducing the stresses of jacket deformation is why narrower lands have become the standard, and the cast bullet is no different....maybe even more critically affected by wide lands because the diameter is typically larger to fully obturate the bore against gas loss.  More metal displaced = more engraving resistance = more powder gas force on the base.....which = distortion (riveting and/or bending of the part of the bullet not yet safely moved into the parallel portion of the barrel where it can be fully supported).  I worked for several years on a theory that bringing loaded chamber neck clearance to near zero, and in one case actually zero, would cure all the ills of crooked bullet starts into the throat, but for reasons which still elude me it never proved to be the full answer to alignment in my own testing.

For my purposes at least, cone-in-cone doesn't work very well either, except when there is adequate room for alloy to displace in a uniform manner, and the bullet is contained almost entirely in the throat (just the gas check in the case mouth and a minimum of nose protruding past the throat to only be supported by the tops of the lands.  This method of fitment is impossible in most instances without modifying the rifle's throat to a form it won't maintain anyway as it wears.  A Loverin-style bullet, with multiple, narrow driving bands, usually stair-stepped into a crude taper from bore diameter to throat entrance diameter or larger can shoot very well, but typically lack the necessary bearing surface to withstand the forces of being launched at near full-potential velocities for the cartridge...they erode, leak gas, and accuracy suffers. Conical, smooth bullet noses can actually work extremely well in rifles having new throats composed of a series of parallel portions and abrupt tapers, such as in a typical .308 Winchester chamber, provided the forward-most full bearing surface is carefully sized to closely fit the freebore diameter.  I think there's a lesson to be learned there.

Much of my interest involves getting the nearest to jacketed bullet velocities as I can from cast bullets, in "rifles I'd carry in the field to hunt with".  I do not compete for absolute minimum group size, but I do consider ten shots into one minute-of-angle to be minimum acceptable, and I require bullets be made of an alloy suitable for humanely killing game at the velocities I am able to achieve.  Others may desire the smallest groups for paper or steel with all else being secondary. 

So this brings me to a question identical to one asked more recently on another thread in this section, the answer to which I believe will greatly improve my shooting and anyone else's:  How do we fit a bullet to a rifle in such way that it has the highest tendency to go straight?  I have had the most success in worn rifles using bullets that have three principle attributes:  Very little unsupported nose length, a series of tapers which generally match, but DO NOT exactly mimic the shape of the rifle's throat, and driving bands which are neither too narrow to handle the rifling torque without leaking on the trailing edge nor too wide to easily deform without causing undue stress/deformation of the rearmost portion of the bullet before it is safely pushed into the throat.  I believe that a slight mis-match of bullet nose angles to throat angles, allowing a gradual rather than abrupt increase in engraving resistance, is key to getting a bullet straight into the barrel, but do not fully understand exactly where contact needs to happen first and last to best align the bullet dynamically.  Any specific input on that would be greatly appreciated.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • John Alexander
OU812 posted this 1 weeks ago

Swaging helps.

For a 30 caliber factory rifle I would squeeze down an oversize bore riding bullet to smaller diameter to make fit. You can custom order an oversized bore rider mould from Accurate. Then you will need a swaging die machined and honed to size entire bullet to good snug fit in freebore and rifling. You will need a lathe, couple of reamers and sand paper. Die is mounted in Rockchucker press. I made a matching top punch to remove bullet from die.

Linotype casts easily and shoots good in 30 caliber. Especially longer and heavier bore riders.

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 1 weeks ago

Geargnasher ..... any post that i have to read 2 or 3 times and it just keeps getting better ........ i rate   *real good* ...

i am now going into the 5th reading and still getting seeds of inspiration from your ideas ...

thank you .... ken

Attached Files

45 2.1 posted this 1 weeks ago

First of all, I'd like to address in my own way some of the questions asked by 45 2.1.  Why do I think I am where I am and not doing better?  Because I haven't mastered the launch....specifically the first half-inch of bullet travel..............   I see you've listened some, but missed some of the other stuff. Most people destroy any chance of real accuracy by the choices and components they choose....and the method they load by.

I believe that a slight mis-match of bullet nose angles to throat angles, allowing a gradual rather than abrupt increase in engraving resistance, is key to getting a bullet straight into the barrel, but do not fully understand exactly where contact needs to happen first and last to best align the bullet dynamically.  Any specific input on that would be greatly appreciated. Remember that it is NOT any specific thing, but a number of things you have to do right.... then things happen that wouldn't otherwise. It is NOT an art, but it is science that produces extreme accuracy.

Attached Files

Ed Harris posted this 6 days ago

Geeeesh...  I just read through this thread and thought I was on the wrong forum...

I agree with Ardito's concept of tapered bullet fitting tapered throat and my Accurate designs of cast bullets attempt to fit factory chambers, like this one for the .30-30.

John used very hard alloys because he shot high pressure loads at high velocity, and that's what it took to win. 

I used to shoot competition, but haven't for years and have no desire to.

With the cost of replacement barrels and gunsmithing work, I cannot justify spending thousands for rifles which can't do anything else but shoot off a bench.  I sold all of my competition gear.

My current interests are shooting cowboy rifles, classic revolvers and military bolt rifles for fun and sharing basic knowledge with those who are interested.  I'll leave the prolonged mental masturbatory exchanges to those who find it satisfying, I do not.

If you guys can be civil and chill a bit I might come back to see what else you have written, but I've had enough for now.

73 de KE4SKY In Home Mix We Trust From the Home of Ed's Red in "Almost Heaven" West Virginia

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 6 days ago

 Very interesting discussion of the various approaches to getting a CB started straight. 

I think it is worthwhile to try to think through the pros and cons of what may be happening at the start. 

The first of CBA four principle objectives as stated in our "Nature and Purpose" is to improve the design, accuracy, and effectiveness of CB ammunition.  I believe this type of discussion can further that objective.

Besides avoiding any snarky or self serving posts, I hope this conversation can pick up again supported by the results of firing tests.

To keep things manageable we should state our objectives as gearnasher has.  Writing about the best match winning accuracy, with no consideration of power or hunting effectiveness  will results in a somewhat different discussion.  It is probably impossible to have everything with one approach.

John

 

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 6 days ago

i think it is quite normal to "" argue "" when forecasting how cast bullet are supposed to behave ... probably necessary in fact ...

.... but remember that those casterated bullets also have an opinion ....

.... also, it is allowed to pull our own hair out ....but not allowed to pull the other debaters' hair out ...

...except the cast bullet has special allowances and can pull anybody's hair at any time ...  probably explains why the smarty pants bullet usually wins these discussions ...   or maybe it isn't listening to the debaters ...

ken

Attached Files

Geargnasher posted this 6 days ago

OU812:  Your methods may work for your purposes but after 20 years of fooling around with the method you describe, it does not work for mine.  Bullets cast from linotype alloy tend to slough material off on the driving side of the engraves when fired at high speeds through barrels with typical rifling twists, and further, linotype alloy is an unsuitable bullet material for hunting deer-sized game.  The tight fit of a long, bore-riding nose is not practical for a field rifle, and virtually impossible in an auto-loading rifle, not to mention how the shape hamstrings velocity unless the bullet is cast from a more malleable alloy and matched to a powder which will bump it from behind in such a way that much of the bore-riding portion flows to fill the grooves....an action that is difficult to do consistently or predictably without the tough skin of a paper or resin jacket to help keep the front of the nose centered on the land tops while the bumping is taking place.

45 2.1:  Would a very specific example be more helpful?

Attached Files

OU812 posted this 6 days ago

Gearnasher has the highest post count at Boolits. Seems witty but no help.frown

Attached Files

Scearcy posted this 6 days ago

Geargnasher I found your original post to be one of the more interesting I have read in a long while. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

I have shot CB competition for a long time and I have lost interest in purpose built rifles  and bumping dies which are unavailable to the majority of our membership.

If I managed to see past my own biases I thought your preferred (if I can call it that) bullet design sounded more than a little like a modified Loverin design. One of my all time favorite bullets is the Saeco 315 with its stepped taper and short nose. My most successful match loads have come from the Ardito school of thought. That said, I no longer throat rifles and my bump die "machinist" has left this life may he RIP.

Given my low tech leanings I have never found Lino to be very useful for me. Some of my best friends will use nothing but lino, however.

Lately I have been shooting a 243 Winchester exclusively. I recommend this exercise for those who want to make the most of a very limited array of twist rates and bullets choice.

Cheers

Jim

Attached Files

45 2.1 posted this 6 days ago

Geargnasher said:  45 2.1:  Would a very specific example be more helpful?

 

If you gave sufficient detail...probably!

Attached Files

45 2.1 posted this 6 days ago

Geargnasher said:

 

 The tight fit of a long, bore-riding nose is not practical for a field rifle, and virtually impossible in an auto-loading rifle, not to mention how the shape hamstrings velocity unless the bullet is cast from a more malleable alloy and matched to a powder which will bump it from behind in such a way that much of the bore-riding portion flows to fill the grooves............


The virtually impossible part above is wrong. What you stated is basically what is done in a dynamic bullet design. You have witnessed it yourself.  BTDT and it works fine in those auto loading rifles as well as many others.

Attached Files

Geargnasher posted this 6 days ago

Jim, it sounds like there are several of us on this thread who are leaning more toward "low tech" these days.  Sometimes it's more interesting to learn how to make a factory-built rifle to shoot straight than to become immersed in an equipment race.  I have two, heavy benchrest rifles built for my own amusement and edification, but they are test mules for my wild ideas and once it became apparent that heavy barrels and custom, match chambers with immaculately prepared brass only have an advantage in the last few percent, I pretty much quit shooting them.  It's also been my experience that selection of alloy, powder, and bullet fit are the areas which do the most for the least regarding accuracy, provided the rifle is put together well enough in the first place.  In those areas, I still have a lot to learn, which is why I'm here.

Attached Files

JeffinNZ posted this 5 days ago

Gas checks seem to grip softer alloy better. Your chroni will thank you.
I agree.  I shoot 40-1 from my .30-30 at over 1700fps and with commercial GCs get very good accuracy.  With a home made aluminium GC the accuracy drops of.  The gilding metal GC gives the soft alloy more bite on the rifling IMHO.

Cheers from New Zealand

Attached Files

Geargnasher posted this 5 days ago

45 2.1 wrote The virtually impossible part above is wrong. What you stated is basically what is done in a dynamic bullet design. You have witnessed it yourself.  BTDT and it works fine in those auto loading rifles as well as many others.

Yes, but I was referring to the linotype/long parallel nose/jam fit thing in the autos which will not work with certain actions (the AR-10 comes to mind), not the method used with an extrudible alloy and a multi-tapered nose which is intentionally bumped to fit as it engraves by means of the powder pressure.   If I could work out the bump-fit thing with other bullet designs (like two-diameter sillywet bullets) to have a similar metamorphosis while maintaining concentricity I'd be quite happy, but the poor dynamic alignment due to lack of support in the throat, not the bumping, is the biggest problem getting those to shoot according to the uneven deformities of recovered bullets.  Are you able to get bullets like the RCBS 30-180 to shoot well at more than the typical speeds in a rifle having a throat such as a SAAMI-spec. .30-'06?

Attached Files

45 2.1 posted this 5 days ago

Geargnasher wrote:

             Yes, but I was referring to the linotype/long parallel nose/jam fit thing in the autos which will not work with certain actions (the AR-10 comes to mind), not the method used with an extrudible alloy The alloy is extrudible only in the sense it will expand on impart...... but it can be hard and non extrudible also. and a multi-tapered nose which is intentionally bumped to fit this may be where you didn't listen, but it doesn't bump, it swages down.... typically, there is 90% bearing with proper alloy and load. as it engraves by means of the powder pressure.  ............................  Are you able to get bullets like the RCBS 30-180 to shoot well at more than the typical speeds in a rifle having a throat such as a SAAMI-spec. .30-'06? Only if they fit properly... which they don't in normal 30 caliber American bores (they are undersize). You can do that in a couple of the European tight bored rifles however.

Attached Files

Geargnasher posted this 5 days ago

this may be where you didn't listen, but it doesn't bump, it swages down.... typically, there is 90% bearing with proper alloy and load. 

Hmm.  I never read that before.  What I get sometimes, right when groups start to get good, is swelling in front of the as-cast full bearing surface, where metal flows out to fill the full groove depth.  if this swelling isn't uniform all the way around the bullet, I don't get good groups.  There is much more bearing surface and rifling marks further forward on the tapered nose of a recovered, fired bullet compared to a bullet which is tapped through the rifle from the breech end with a brass rod.  How else can I explain that metal movement except for plastic flow initiated by pressure on the base, resisted by the as-cast bearing surface resisting being swaged through the taper of the throat? 

Attached Files

45 2.1 posted this 5 days ago

About 45% of the rear of the bullet swages down and the bullet foreshortens, the rest has the lands displace the material into the grooves..... they don't bump much if at all as the pressure in the front of the bullet is a lot lower. Verified by recovered bullets from long range testing. Veral Smith has a pressure distribution illustration of base to nose pressures in his book.... look it up.

Attached Files

Geargnasher posted this 5 days ago

It's not much, but enough to observe clearly when hitting 19 bhn, heat-treated, low-antimony alloy with 45-50K psi loads.  I take it that when working up pressure you tend to toughen your alloy before this happens?  What puzzles me is in a couple of instances the groups shrink right when the bump starts to happen, IF it happens uniformly.  If not, the groups turn to wild patterns.

Attached Files

45 2.1 posted this 5 days ago

Geargnasher wrote:  It's not much, but enough to observe clearly when hitting 19 bhn, heat-treated, low-antimony alloy with 45-50K psi loads.  I take it that when working up pressure you tend to toughen your alloy before this happens?  What puzzles me is in a couple of instances the groups shrink right when the bump starts to happen, IF it happens uniformly.  If not, the groups turn to wild patterns.

 

I don't toughen the alloy, just heat treat it to lino hardness..... good to about 47K. Keep the alloy constituents low and heat treat what little is there. It gives a tough skin and allows expansion.

 

Attached Files

OU812 posted this 5 days ago

Gearnasher has the highest post count at Boolits. Seems witty but no help.frown

Gearnasher,

    I apologize for the comment above and I welcome your knowledge...thanks.smile 

Attached Files

Geargnasher posted this 4 days ago

45 2.1, thank you very much, that's exactly what I wanted to know. 

Attached Files

Close