Cast Bullet Association Blog Rss Feedhttp://castbulletassoc.org/blog/Rss2_.aspxRss 2.0 for the user blogs.en-usFri, 25 Sep 2026 12:10:27 GMTCast Bullet Associationchefreiss@gmail.com(Cast Bullet Association)info@morganids.com (Richard Morgan)360Designing Your Own Bulletshttp://castbulletassoc.org/blog/article/2021/1/224/designing-your-own-bullets Excerpt from Fouling Shot 268, Nov-Dec 2020 - By Steve Hurst, Tucker, GAFor many years the process of making bullet molds used a cutter called a cherry. You made the cherry in the shape of the bulle....
Excerpt from Fouling Shot 268, Nov-Dec 2020 - By Steve Hurst, Tucker, GA

For many years the process of making bullet molds used a cutter called a cherry. You made the cherry in the shape of the bullet. The mold blocks were then closed around the spinning cherry and the mold cavity cut was a replica of the cherry. As each mold was cut, the cherry wore a little. The cherry had to be sharpened periodically, the cavity and the bullets it produced got smaller and smaller until the cherry was useless. Then a new cherry was made, it might not be quite the same, sometimes this was intentional and sometimes it was just a different machinist. The same mold ordered next year might be very different in both size and design.

Since the cherry wore with use, the common practice was to make the cherry as large as possible. The cherry would last longer, but the large bullets had to be sized. This was rationalized as being good so the bullets could be sized to the correct diameter. Unfortunately most lubricator sizers did an inferior job due to poor alignment, and early sizing dies were improperly designed. Sizing always damages a bullet and the poor quality of lubricator sizers made this worse. This was demonstrated many times, but the constraints of the manufacturing process prevented any solution.

The design of commercial molds had to fit all firearms and be useable with any alloy. Bullet bodies were usually oversize and bullet noses undersize. Loading manuals were not much help, they instructed to size bullets to the standard groove diameter, measuring this was seldom mentioned. Recommended loads were frequently far too heavy. The result was the general belief that cast bullets were inaccurate; this was not true.

Accurate shooting with cast bullets had been going on for years by Schuetzen competitors using custom bullets carefully breach seated in special rifles. This type of shooting was of little help or interest to the millions of commercial rifle owners. A few individuals, through experimentation or just luck, of a good fit between a commercial mold and a rifle were able to develop accurate loads. These loads and rifles were highly coveted and the information on the load development jealously guarded. Shooting matches had money prizes, no sense helping the competition.

Colonel Harrison changed all this with his articles in the American Rifleman in the 1960's. He showed correct dimensioned cast bullets of proper alloy could be exceptionally accurate with appropriate loads. Elmer Keith did the same for revolvers, increasing the power and accuracy and giving birth to truly accurate, powerful handguns. Now the correct dimensions for cast bullets were known. The problem was the dimensions were different for each firearm.

The cherry machining process was still the only one available. Custom mold makers like Hensley and Gibbs had multiple cherries for the same bullet, you could order a specified diameter. Some mold makers would produce a custom cherry, but this was expensive. Custom molds were therefore costly, but the advantage of bullets cast very close to the desired diameter or of special design to fit the gun was worth the cost for shooters wanting maximum accuracy.

Mass-produced bullet molds were greatly improved by the knowledge of the correct dimensions and modern machining methods. However, they still could not provide perfect fit for an individual gun. If a mass-produced mold happens to be correct for your rifle or pistol, you may get superb accuracy. For shooters having guns with non­standard dimensions, mass produced molds do not work.

Lathe boring provided a way to make custom molds without a cherry. The greater problem was lathe boring required a good machinist to translate the design into a mold cavity, especially for the accurate replica needed for multiple cavity molds.

Computer assisted machining (CAM) has now solved this problem. Now molds can have the exact design and size to give maximum accuracy and velocity potential in any firearm. The size limitations on CAM lathe boring still exist, but CAM can also produce cherries much more exactly and inexpensively. Even small diameter cast bullets have benefited.

The problem now is you the consumer are the designer. You can greatly benefit from the new technology,

but you can also make mistakes. With freedom comes responsibility, you can easily order a bullet which will not fit or will not be accurate.

First: Think! What do you want the bullet to do?

Design decisions have multiple effects some very different and frequently opposite each other. Meplat size influences terminal effect on game, ballistic coefficient and long-range stability. A big meplat gives good knockdown on game but will limit range and maybe stability. Seating depth affects powder space and velocity. You may want shallow seating for maximum powder capacity/velocity, but this can limit engraved length, which may limit velocity. More or larger lube grooves can increase accuracy and velocity potential, but will reduce engraved length, which will limit accuracy and velocity. You must balance the competing factors.

Then: Measure! You cannot have a custom mold made unless you know the dimensions of the gun. If you plan to use the bullet in several guns of the same caliber, the dimensions of the bullet must fit all the guns. This may mean a compromise in accuracy or performance to gain utility.

You must know: The bore and groove diameter of the barrel, type of rifling and the rifling twist. The rifling twist will set a limit on the length and thus weight of the bullet. If you want the bullet to fit in the magazine this may limit the nose length. Measurement must be made at the front and rear of the barrel which may be different. The type of throat and exact measurements must be known.

In a pistol you need to consider the maximum overall length, seating depth in the cartridge and throat length. In a revolver you need the chamber dimensions, chamber lead, ball seat diameter plus the cylinder length measurement.

You should consider: Will it fit in the magazine? Will it stabilize with the twist rate? Will it fit in the cylinder of a revolver? Will it seat so deep in the case the case bulges and will not chamber? Will it feed in a semi auto? Will the base extend into the powder space below the case neck? Will it fit in a dirty gun? Do you need a gas check? A crimp groove? Where should the crimp groove be located?

Some other considerations: shape of the lube grooves, number of lube grooves, depth of lube grooves, lube groove ahead of the gas check or gas check against the base band, plain or bevel base, equal diameter bands or a tapered bullet, nose type secant ogive, tangent ogive with or without a seating shoulder.

Choose your alloy: To get the exact size in a mold, you must specify the alloy. All bullet alloys shrink on cooling. Alloys vary by the amount of shrinkage. Linotype shrinks little, pure lead shrinks more, other alloys are in between. The mold maker needs to know which alloy you will use, the cavity size will be adjusted to give close to the final cast

diameter you specify.

Last: Listen to the experts. Most mold makers are shooters, they know what works. They also get feedback on designs. There is a good chance an existing proven design will do what you want. Slightly modifying a proven design to fit your gun is often the easiest (and safest) method.

Finally, there is still variation! CNC machining is very good but not perfect. Bullet size will also vary with alloy temperature and mold temperature. Different alloy composition will give different sizes and different weights even if the hardness is identical. Do not expect perfection, specifying diameters ± 0.0005 and weight ± 1 grain is not possible. Variations in an individual casting run are larger than this.

It is possible to get a mold made which casts bullets which do not need sizing. This makes using liquid lubricants possible and will save time and expense. However, a change to a different alloy may give bullets undersize for the gun, a sure recipe for poor shooting. As-cast bullets vary slightly in diameter, if you need exact diameter, get a mold which casts slightly larger and size to the desired diameter. Sizing die diameters can be easily varied and will produce a more consistent diameter.

Final control rests with you. It is a wonderful time to be a cast bullet shooter, it is now easy and inexpensive to have a custom bullet mold made. Before most of us had to dream, now we can realize our ideas, but the dream now must face reality. With any authority comes responsibility.









]]>Tue, 26 Jan 2021 02:20:51 GMThttp://castbulletassoc.org/blog/article/2021/1/224/designing-your-own-bullets.32 S&W Long load with 311008http://castbulletassoc.org/blog/article/2021/1/222/.32-s&w-long-load-with-311008 The following is an excerpt from the CBA forum by Larry Gibson. 32 S&WL; 311008 115 gr SWC; Bullseye & Unique PSI TestA fellow CBF member, JoeJames, who is an aficionado of the 32 S&....
The following is an excerpt from the CBA forum by Larry Gibson.



32 S&WL; 311008 115 gr SWC; Bullseye & Unique PSI Test

A fellow CBF member, JoeJames, who is an aficionado of the 32 S&WL offered up a sufficient quantity of 311008 bullets for a comprehensive test of Alliant’s Bullseye and Unique powders. The nominal weight is 115 gr but Joes’, cast of COWW + 2% tin, weighed in at 116 gr fully dressed…..close enough for government work…… His bullets were sized at .312 and lubed with 50/50 lube.

I used my 10” barreled TC Contender barrel for the pressure and velocity testing. I lose about 200 fps when the same loads are fired in my 3” M30 S&WL and a bit over 100 fps when they are fired in my 6 ½” Ruger SS 32 H&R. The Oehler M43 PBL was set up at the local range. Bench position used with sandbag rests. The Contender barrel has an old TC 2.5X scope on it, not the best but sufficient for testing purposes.



The Thomspon Center Contender rigged to the pressure testing equipmnet.

Pressure and chronograph testing



The temperature during the test ran from 77 to 82 degrees. Humidity was26% and the barometric pressure was 29.82. Target is at 50 yards.

There is little current data available using 115 gr cast bullets in the 32 S&WL. The last really relevant data was found in the Lyman #3 CBH. As you can see from the pressure measurement data of this test it appears the Lyman data for their listed max load of Bullseye is somewhat mild while their max load listed for Unique is a bit heavy, especially for use in older weaker break top revolvers and those having “pot metal” solid frames.

Thus, JoeJames and I had settled incremental testing of both Bullseye (2.3, 2.5, 2.8 and 3.0 gr) and Unique (2.5, 2.8, 3.0, 3.3, 3.5 and 3.8 gr). Both powders are of Alliant manufacture. I used a Lee powder thrower as it throws both powders evenly. Thrown powder charges were set using an Ohaus 10-0-5 scale. Ten rounds of each increment was loaded for testing.

Cases were R-P 32 S&WLs loaded on Hornady dies. Primers were Winchester WSPs for all charges. A mid range charge was selected for each powder and was also tested using CCI 500 primers. The 311008s were seated to an OAL of 1.257 and a slight roll crimp was applied just under the front drive band.


Accuracy of all the loads except the 3.8 gr load of Unique was 2” or less at 50 yards. That’s about the best I can do these days off sand bags. The 3.8 gr Unique load with its high psi obviously obturated the bullet more in the longer 32 H&R chamber giving some leading in the throat and first couple inches of barrel. May have been some gas cutting going on also. The 50 yard group opened up to about 5”.

Here is the test data for each powder:

Bullseye Powder

Increment…..Vel……SD….......ES……psi(M43)….SD………ES

2.3 gr……….863 fps…7 fps…..20 fps….14,900……600…......1,800

2.5 gr……….908 fps…14 fps....36 fps….15,900…...1,500……4,400

2.5 gr……….902 fps…10 fps…35 fps….15,300……500……..1,800…..CCI 500 primers

2.8 gr……….977 fps…..7 fps….22 fps….17,800……400…….1,200

3.0 gr……….1028 fps...12 fps…43 fps….20,300……700…….1,900

Unique Powder

Increment…..Vel……SD….......ES……psi(M43)….SD………ES

2.5 gr………849 fps…21 fps…..69 fps….13,600…...600……..1,900

2.8 gr………886 fps…19 fps…..54 fps….14,100……500…….1,400

2.8 gr………886 fps…22 fps…..61 fps….14,500……900…….2,500….CCI 500 primers

3.0 gr………951 fps…18 fps…..55 fps….16,300……800…….2,400

3.3 gr……...1010 fps…15 fps….41 fps….18,000…...1,100…...3,400

3.5 gr……...1062 fps…15 fps….47 fps….21,400…...1,500…...4,200….max Lyman CBH #3

3.8 gr……...1134 fps…10 fps….30 fps….24,700……1,100…..3,900

Now, please, before complaining about “hot rodding” or “over loading” the 32 S&WL cartridge understand that I am not recommending anyone load any of these charges. Given the wide discrepancy in quality and strength available in 32 S&WL revolvers each must make up their own mind what they deem “safe” in the revolver they have. The choice is theirs if they have 115 +/- cast bullets and wish to load Bullseye or Unique. For my own M30 S&W (pictured) I have loaded 12 rounds each using the remaining 311008s of Bullseye (2.8 gr) and Unique (3.3 gr) to chronograph and test for accuracy and POI at 25 yards. I deem those loads as entirely safe in my M30 as previously test 32 S&W (which is proclaimed to be safe in all 32 S&WLs) because they do not exceed the highest 32 S&W psi measured [18,900 psi] in the same test gun. I will edit this post and post the chronographed velocities when I get them.



ABOVE: The Smith & Wesson .32 S&W Long with rounds carrying Lyman's 311008. RIGHT: The 311008.

]]>Tue, 12 Jan 2021 01:13:59 GMThttp://castbulletassoc.org/blog/article/2021/1/222/.32-s&w-long-load-with-311008