Why no progress in Accuracy

  • 24K Views
  • Last Post 09 April 2016
billglaze posted this 18 May 2014

The header above is kind of a misleading statement, but I had to have a title.  To get into it:  I took note, interestedly, in Joe Brennan's work about group sizes over the last 20 or so years; he noted that we're not shooting any smaller groups now, than we were then.  (At least, that's at least one of the thrusts I got out of it.) So, recently I happened upon a copy of Maj. Geo. Nonte's book on Handloading.  It was interesting reading, kind of a later version of Phil Sharpe's book, (in fact, Maj. Nonte mentions Mr. Sharpe favorably) and I was caught by the publishing date. (Early 1970'S)  Reading Maj. Nonte's chapter about bullet casting, I was struck that we are today doing those same things, and talking about the same problems, etc. etc. An example: when I was first casting bullets, (1952, yep, just a little while ago) it was a given, according to Sharpe's book, that the bullet should be .003 over groove diameter.  The way he wrote about it, it was a figure graven in stone; not even open to question.  However, Maj. Nonte states that the bullet should be sized “no more than .0015” larger than groove diameter."  Which, at that earlier time frame, would signal a real sea-change.  Now, it's accepted as fact as, at least, a good starting point. The point I am getting to is simply this:  What has happened in those last 30 years or so, that means we should be shooting measurably better?  From Nonte's writing to now, I haven't noted any quantum leap forward in barrel technology, firearms, etc.  Many new, different powders, but that, it seems to me, is just a tiny step.  And, we're still shooting our same alloys, of course.  That's what we do:  make some kind of lead alloy into projectiles. I guess I'm trying to solve a mystery/problem that may not have a solution.  And, I have to admit I'm having a good time doing what I've always done; the frustration is simple:  I'm just not getting better at what I'm doing.  But, I'm going to keep doing it as long as I enjoy it.  Hope springs Eternal, it's said.

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. My fate is not entirely in Gods hands, if I have a weapon in mine.

Attached Files

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
John Alexander posted this 18 May 2014

Several things could be proposed as possible reasons why there hasn't been noticeable improvement in cast bullet technology as measured by better shooting in the established CBA rifle classes.  Here are some possibilities that come to mind:

  1. We have hit a natural limit as to how accurately cast bullets can be shot.  "Everything's up to date in Kansas City.  We've gone about as fur as we can go."

  2. Many cast bullet shooters are satisfied with how well we can shoot cast bullets.  Practical accuracy is good enough. That's a perfectly valid position but not one that leads to improvement.

  3. Maybe too many cast bullet shooters think the road to improvement is to just do what we have been doing but do it more precisely. Just keep turning the crank ever more uniformly instead of looking for a longer crank handle.  

  4.  We don't do much real experimenting. What experimenting we do are things like trying to see if minute changes in powder charges will improve accuracy or which primer may give an edge. This is well plowed ground and while it may improve an individual load it won't lead to new knowledge about shooting better.

Just some random thoughts. John   

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 18 May 2014

John hit something in #4 that is correct. We accept what shoots accurately in one firearm or even most firearms to be a rule for all firearms. That brings us to the difference in sizing that Sharpe and Nonte specify.

Let's take a rifle for instance; neither Sharpe nor Nonte quantify their sizing recommendation with the wide variation in throat size, lengths and shapes. Thus they give a sizing that works well in all but probably only best in some. A throat consist mainly of 3 aspects; the diameter and angle of the entry from the chamber mouth into the next aspect - the freebore. The diameter and length of the freebore and is it parallel or tapered to the next aspect - the leade. The angle of the leade (front edge of the rifling) must be considered.

Thus when it is said a .003 or .015 sizing is best is that to some “average” throat dimension or one in specific. Accuracy improvement can not improve beyond a certain point, with cast bullets especially, unless all things are considered. A blanket sizing of .015 or .003 over groove diameter will only work up to a point.

Additionally the rules for many matches such as the military rifle matches work against any real improvement in accuracy past a certain point simply because those rules pertaining to the rifles and sights themselves are limiting.

Then also, unfortunately, there are many myths that are taken as face in casting, loading and shooting cast bullets. Adequate scientific testing is seldom done. What works with one rifle, bullet mould, alloy or load technique is most often assumed to work with all w/o realistic, scientific and complete testing.

Worst of all the laws of physics and ballistics are often ignored under the belief that anything can be done by only a few and only some have that knowledge and that ability.

LMG

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

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 19 May 2014

I would like to comment on two of the above thoughts:

1: We are approaching the limit of cast lead based bullets for the physical strength of the material. If you would just let us make bullets on our lathes from turned copper alloys, we could do better.   2: The principle of the Military Rifle Matches to see how well we can make the original rifles shoot. Yes, it is cheap (more than 4 million US Model 03 and 03A3 were made) and with original barrels (more than 12 million barrels were made, and there are many new ones still around). That is the fun of it all! Any one can take a military rifle to a match and shoot. Groups are getting smaller and scores higher, not because we are using new match barrels, but we are learning what it takes to make the original rifles shoot.   The cutting edge of cast bullet shooting is in Military Rifle, not standard benchrest.   FWIW, Ric

Attached Files

LWesthoff posted this 19 May 2014

Gotta agree 100% with Ric. Have to confess, tho, that I don't think I'd be interested in making copper alloy bullets on a lathe, even if I HAD a lathe.

Wes

Attached Files

badgeredd posted this 19 May 2014

billglaze wrote:Many new, different powders, but that, it seems to me, is just a tiny step.  And, we're still shooting our same alloys, of course.  That's what we do:  make some kind of lead alloy into projectiles...................Hope springs Eternal, it's said. I mentioned something a while back that I and others in a small group of cast bullet shooters have been experimenting with for 3 or 4 years in regards to our bullet alloy. I didn't get many responses to my post so I dropped the idea as far as posting is concerned.

It is my belief that our bullet alloy is a limiting factor in the quest for extremely good accuracy. Our typical scrap lead alloys are rather weak when it comes to their ability to withstand the pressures of the internal ballistics which in turn affects the external ballistics we can achieve. Townsend Whelen as a Lieutenant wrote about using high copper content casting alloys in the early 1900s and remarked that the 30-06 benefited from such alloys, but also commented on the difficulty of maintaining a homogeneous alloy during casting due to the tendency of the copper to separate from the other metals in the alloy.

We have been working with a babbit in our alloys that has improved out accuracy. We"ve used types #2, 3 and 11 babbits to see if we can improve the tensile strength of our alloys. In my experiments, I've seen an improvement in my accuracy using the babbit to incorporate a small percentage of copper into my bullet alloy. I haven't used all certified metals to make a bullet alloy which I believe would be an improvement in my results.

I have tried to the best of my ability to achieve a “balanced” alloy by calculating the Sn, Sb, and Cu content to get the Cu+Sb to equal the Sn as nearly as I can. I've seen my groups shrink by 15 to 25% by using said alloys as compared to the more traditional scrap alloys. To myself, it is apparent that all other things being equal, our alloy IS the weak link in the quest for excellent accuracy at higher pressures and velocity.

Edd

P.S. I have been working with a relatively low copper content of 0.1 to 0.25% Cu content.

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 19 May 2014

Edd,

I think you are looking in the right place: better alloy to drive bullets faster and reduce wind drift. Harder bullets should also let you reduce diameter and increase sectional density. (32 schutezen of 20/1, 30 rifle of Lyman #2, 7MM in linotype are the norms now.)

Fifteen years or so ago I was given a lot of high-speed babbit metal. To make it usable, it ended up being 5% of the alloy because of the Cu problems of fill out. It makes a very good pistol alloy of about 18 BHn for 45 and 38 WC's. I have more if you would like to try some out.

Ric

Attached Files

onondaga posted this 19 May 2014

Statistical analysis routinely used on this forum does not recognize excellent results of the few talented loaders and shooters that are super performers as statistically significant. That is why “No Progress” is falsely accepted as a verified normal.

Fortunately, the driving minds behind statistics are not the super performers in the sport. The super performers couldn't care less about statistics, they just load and shoot. The copiers use statistics to rationalize their own failure and make false analogies excluding super performance as statistically insignificant.

Taking a  group of super performers and analyzing their success is mathematically a failure also. They aren't normal and applying statistical analysis results toward the norm shooters from the super performers is ineffective because the norm shooters lack ability to win and statistics just aren't going to help the norm group at all.

I actually dislike statistics being reported on this forum altogether and ignore posts with statistics. I don't believe it is productive in any way whatsoever to improve accuracy.

Bench and position style tutorials would be a lot more productive. The top shooters are past internal and external ballistics, who has the better bullet, and earn ranking with style.

Gary

http://s30.photobucket.com/user/rhymeswithwhat/media/creedmore_zpsdd697f07.jpg.html>

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 19 May 2014

Gary,

Are you saying shooting is an art form and not a science?

Ric

Attached Files

onondaga posted this 19 May 2014

http://www.castbulletassoc.org/view_user.php?id=50>RicinYakima

 Absolutely, with the caveat I expressed about super performers being past internal, external ballistics and being settled on their bullet.  All I see left is the artistry and I regard every shot called a flier as not a flier, they are a result.

Gary

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 19 May 2014

Well, Gary, we agree. If statisticians want to track something, it should be smallest 200 yard ten shot group for the last ten years. Ric

Attached Files

Brodie posted this 19 May 2014

Count me in as agreeing with Gary as well. There are applied areas of science in shooting, Metalurgy, Physics, Math, Chemistry, Engineering,  but putting them all together to hit a target is a whole other thing. I also find long winded discussions about statistics boring and generally without substance.  For the most part we rarely produce enough data for the statistics to be relevant .  I for one am not going to waste components by shooting a thousand ten shot groups to test one load.  If that is your personal joy have at it and more power to you.  But when it is all said and done you have only shown what works for your particular rifle, load, stock, sight, trigger squeeze and personal method of shooting .  It helps me very little . Brodie.

B.E.Brickey

Attached Files

R. Dupraz posted this 19 May 2014

Gary , RicinYakama, Old Coot :   Best posts I've see in a long time.        Can't add a thing except for these:         Gary:       “Bench and position style tutorials would be a lot more productive”         Old Coot:      “  But when it is all said and done you have only shown what works for your particular rifle, load, stock, sight, trigger squeeze and personal method of shooting .  It helps me very little" .     And it cuts both ways, what may not work for you might for me. I  have seen this more than once both in the BPCR and with the game we play. So the only all encompassing statement that can be made is that you need a case, a primer, some powder and a bullet.  Oh, yes, and something to shoot all that in or out of.                

Attached Files

muley posted this 20 May 2014

Ya'all, each time we fire a shot from a particular rifle or pistol, wouldn't that be

considered a progression in accuracy?

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 20 May 2014

i wonder if the breech-seater/single shot guys have improved accuracy over the past 20 years. must be boring shooting all those 0.6 moa groups.

i keep trying to join but can't figure out their web site. i think you have to be a member to join ... ??


hey gary ... i got up to get a drink of water, checked in on cba chatter; now laughing so hard i can't get back to sleep ... thanks ...

ken

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 20 May 2014

14 years

RicinYakima posted this 20 May 2014

Joe,

Very interesting! It appears that we have reached the level of capabilities of the cast lead bullet. Now we are only competing on individual skills in holding the rifle, firing the rifle and reading the wind. Thank you Joe!

Ric

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 20 May 2014

   I like, several other poster, can agree wholeheartedly with MOST of what has been said.

  I agree with Gary that what happens at the target obviously has a heck of a lot to do with what is going on at the shooting line and in the shooters physical ability, and especially what is going on in the shooter's head.  So it makes sense to devote a major effort to improving the performance of the nut behind the buttplate.   I also agree with Ric that accuracy for the military classes is still improving.  This is also true for the other newer classes (Unrestricted Pistol and Hunting Rifle).  Almost all the new records are being set in these three classes. Shooting old military rifles is a great game and the most dynamic area of CBA competition.  I urge anybody with an old military rifle to give it a try.   We eventually will see if and when improvement in the three newer classes levels off (or at least slows to a crawl) but in the military classes and hunting rifle classes the level of scores and groups will almost certainly never equal the best accuracy that is possible with cast bullets because, for good reason, in both classes we have written the rules to outlaw several of the practices that allow a higher level of accuracy.  If we didn't limit the equipment this way and everybody was shooting unrestricted rifles it would be boring and our competitive program would die an early death.  But how well the best shooters are doing in the classes that don't limit equipment is where we can see if we are improving the ultimate cast bullet accuracy.   I also agree that there is a degree of art to cast bullet shooting.  However, I would argue that there is also, a good portion of the scientific approach applied, or there should be if we seriously expect to improve cast bullet accuracy.   In the first CBA national match where groups were reported (1978) the benchrest class was won with a grand aggregate of 1.216”.  They were using custom rifles with Shilen barrels capable of quarter inch groups with jacketed bullets. Now, using similar rifles, it takes a grand aggregate of about half that size to win.  That improvement didn't happen because of the efforts of mystics or by shooters so talented that they could ignore and reject the laws of physics and mathematics as some kind of elite fooling around.  It happened because folks like Franklin Mann, John Ardito, Ken Mollohan, Larry Jennings, David Lee, Ed Doonan and several others approached cast bullet shooting as something that could be improved by disciplined experimentation and testing.  They probably wouldn't have call themselves scientists but they used the scientific method and yes they had a grasp of practical statistics which is needed to perform valid experiments.   The shooters mentioned above are all dead and we now have very few using their methods to improve cast bullet technology.  Our very best shooters have been able to consistently shoot ten shot groups at 200 yards of about 1.5 inches in decent conditions for at least the last 15 years.  But they are not getting any better and it doesn't take any kind of complicated statistical analysis to see it.   Maybe we don't care but that is another discussion not the one that billglaze started this thread with.   John

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 20 May 2014

RicinYakima wrote: Joe,

Very interesting! It appears that we have reached the level of capabilities of the cast lead bullet. Now we are only competing on individual skills in holding the rifle, firing the rifle and reading the wind. Thank you Joe!

Ric Ric;

I don't believe that we can't get more accuracy from cast bullets.

I do believe that meticulous attention to detail ain't going to get us there. We've had years f that.

I don't believe that bench rest shooting skill is the answer-because many of us can shoot <.5” 5 shot 100 yard groups on demand with jacketed-it ain't the shooter's skill.

I don't believe in “super performers” in either shooting or reloading or both. If they exist, they're not shooting in competition. There aren't any mystery men out there who can shoot and know the secrets of reloading for < .5” groups. f there are, please raise your hands! See! 

I do believe that the trick/path/secret may revolve around the bullet, a swaged hard bullet, maybe a zinc bullet, maybe a mostly-antimony bullet; I don't know.

I do believe that there are very few CB shooters who are interested in the search.

 

 

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 20 May 2014

Joe, Please re-read my statement: “cast lead bullet". I think the next major step, a 25% reduction in 200 yard 10 shot group size, will be with bullets with less, maybe much less, lead than 50%.     We will need a material that is better than our present lead alloys to make bullets with better center of form, center of mass and shaped the same as it comes out the barrel as it starts in the chamber. We do not have nearly enough strength in the crystalline structure of our bullets to prevent deformation.    

The problem is that home cast-able metals, other than lead, are light, lighter or lightest. Seriously, a tin and antimony alloy with enough depleted uranium to add mass, like the Air Force A-10's use, may have to be the next step.    

The guy that was the head of Frankfort Arsenal's match ammunition program from about 1925 through 1955 wrote in The American Rifleman that 80% of accuracy/precision was the bullet. Everything else a handloader does is a minor factor and consistence is the best you can hope for.       We are at the point money, scientific methodology, money, time, money, facilities, money and more money are needed. I need a Pew, Ford Foundation or MacArthur grant for a couple of million to start work, it can't be too long in coming cause I'm old now!    

Ric

Attached Files

LWesthoff posted this 20 May 2014

I'm kind of inclined to agree with joeb (don't do that very often). There's a strong possibility that we're about as far as we can go with lead-tin-antimony cast bullets. However, I am NOT interested in going to swaged bullets or mostly antimony bullets, and we tried zinc bullets in handguns quite a few years ago - and that fad didn't last very long at all.

I'm well aware that the jacketed bullet/rail gun guys have been responsible for a lot of improvements in firearm accuracy through the years. However, my own personal search is to become the best cast bullet shooter I can possibly be, and I hope I'm not there yet. I shoot cast a) because I can afford it, and b) because I kind of enjoy making my own bullets. I shoot Issue Military, and Production Rifle, because there's no “equipment race” involved; mostly, the winner has learned to shoot better than the rest of us.

I certainly have no objection to anybody pursuing the swaged or lathe turned or whatever bullet for greater accuracy, but if they do, they won't be competing in the CAST BULOLET ASSOCIATION matches with me. I'll still be trying to learn how to shoot cast bullets the best I possibly can, and as I said before, I hope I'm not there yet!

Wes

Attached Files

onondaga posted this 21 May 2014

http://castbulletassoc.org/view_user.php?id=50>RicinYakima

If there is an RFP (request for proposal) from the Feds, DOD, etc, related to these goals with a commercial viability let me know. I am a retired successful Grant Writer!

Gary

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 21 May 2014

mayhaps we should do a test by swaging some bullets from scratch ... ( perfect lead bullets, right ? ) to test against molded lead bullets to see if bullet quality is a ( the ) major problem ??

i should mention that about 1984 or so this was brought up to the cba and was not received well ( g ) ... the thinking was that you couldn't swage hi-B bullets anyway, and if you could it wouldn't be fair to the 11 % who shot competitively. so nothing came of it ... except that for a few years a swaged ” plinker ” bullet was commercially produced (? ZERO ? ACME ? ) ... called the schuetzenplinker or some such ... was acknowledged ..it was generically shaped, would shoot about 2 moa in a deer rifle ... but was very consistent ..

always wondered how it would have done as a 165 gr, 0.312 body, 0.301 nose of about 10B alloy ...


when i had my cnc shop i made some jiffy swages in 7mm and 0.430 ... these simple/basic units had a top forming and flat bottom punch, and a body chamber ... all of 6061 aluminum. hey !! i could form 15 B alloy !! very slowly, lean on the press handle about 30 seconds, let lead creep at it's own pace. ... dake manual press.


the idea is to not obsolete molds, but to see if those cantankerous castings are keeping us from that majic 1 moa in our lead shootin' deer rifles. all in the interest of pure science ... of course ... heck we could even keep statistics ... ( g ) .

ken

oh, i just read my new fouling shot ... a guy used a straight sided ( no grooves ) bullet to slay a deer ... hmmm .

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 21 May 2014

Oh no Gary, those people want reports and you have to make something work. I want one of the non-profits where it only has to sound like a worthwhile project! Ric

Attached Files

onondaga posted this 21 May 2014

http://castbulletassoc.org/view_user.php?id=50>RicinYakima

That sounds like an SBIR grant..small business innovation research grant. I have won those too. They start at .2 to .5 million dollars. Yes, project reports and economic projections need to be done. Projects like that need a grant writer, a statistician and a researcher and at least one of those needs experience in the SBIR program to be considered. I have been there.

Gary

Attached Files

rjmeyer314 posted this 21 May 2014

One answer to why we're not getting better is that we've reached the limits of the technology. Cast bullets don't seem to be getting better. On the other hand, the bench rest shooters, working primarily with commercial swaged bullets, do seem to be getting better groups. The bench rest rifle designs are getting better, the commercial bullets are getting better, the cartridge designs are getting better. The problem is I can't afford $40-$100 (or more) per hundred bullets and do much shooting.

Attached Files

onondaga posted this 21 May 2014

An old friend of mine has patents for sintered alloy injection molding in dentistry for Dental crown making. I wonder if anyone has experimented with sintered alloy bullets other than the frangible commercial indoor range ammo type?

Gary

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 21 May 2014

Now we are going to need John's and the E Boards opinion on weather injection moulding is considered casting.

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 22 May 2014

RicinYakima wrote: Now we are going to need John's and the E Boards opinion on weather injection moulding is considered casting.

I think we should follow the auto racing industry's lead and wait until somebody has perfected making bullets by sintered injection molding that are a threat to way the bullet gods intended us to do it and then outlaw it.  How else can we discourage improvement.

John

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 22 May 2014

Several posters have stated that they believe we have reached the limits of CB accuracy because our soft bullets limit us.  I wonder if we have reached the limits of the technology or it only seems that way because we have stopped experimenting with new approaches.  If we aren't trying new things it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy that “we have gone about as fur as we can go.” It is common now to hear that because cast bullets are softer than jacketed bullets we have reached our limits.  If we keep repeating that, the conventional wisdom demon will infect our brains and we will begin to believe it whether it is true or not.

At least some (and probably most) of our top competitive shooters aren't experimenting with anything new but only take advantage of the techniques developed by others and do the same thing year after year -- and do that very well.  With few exceptions none of our good shooters are publishing anything they have found new -- if they are even looking for anything new. This situation ensures that no progress will be made.

Something to think about relative to the argument that our soft bullets limit our accuracy is that 22 rimfire benchresters (and the folks making the ammunition) have achieved better accuracy with very soft (and also short and dumpy) bullets than CBA shooters can do with linotype or heat treated wheelweights -- as Ken has pointed out repeatedly.

Additionally the guys with the old fashion looking rifles and the funny little tools to press the bullet into the bore shoot as well as our best shooters using rifles similar to what the jacketed bullet benchresters use.  And CBA shooters with the modern rifles are generally using linotype bullets instead of the 20:1 or 30:1 bullets used by the guys that like ugly old rifles and obsolete scopes.

John

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 22 May 2014

John,

I follow these discussions, and I don't remember seeing the 22LR shooters were shooting 1.53” groups at 200 yards outdoors. (see Joe's post above)

Yes, until we who shoot bullets starting in a brass case can figure out a way to get them started into the bore as consistently as breach-seating, we will tail behind. That is where stronger, not harder, bullets will be required. If that transition can be solved, that one inch movement, then we will see a major improvement in group size.

IMVHO, Ric

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 23 May 2014

Alberts

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 23 May 2014

Another. I've got a box and a half, thinking about a test.

Attached Files

pat i. posted this 25 May 2014

I'm not the deep thinking type but firmly believe it's the bullet that's holding back accuracy progress. It's been known for years cast bullets are full of voids. Bumping helps but maybe sizing down and then bumping an 8 mm bullet to 30 caliber would produce a bullet balanced enough to see an improvement and might be worth trying.

Attached Files

jhalcott posted this 25 May 2014

Maybe I am in the minority here, BUT I do NOT NEED a nail hard bullet for HUNTING or plinking. I am NOT interested in the tiniest groups with MY guns for game or varmint shooting. I HAVE in the past used Alumalloy and copper babbet alloys to make cast bullets. They CAN be extremely accurate, but are like FMJ's on game. As I am retired, I can not afford the equipment to cast with alumalloy or copper babbet. NOR would I want to use such alloys on game. ZINC is a terrible waste of time to cast bullets with. TO hard on the equipment. We had to use oxyacetylene torches to keep the heat up enough. Sprue cutters had to be replaced regularly due to damage. Tiny groups are for paper targets to my way of thinking!:fire

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 25 May 2014

jhalcott wrote: Maybe I am in the minority here, BUT I do NOT NEED a nail hard bullet for HUNTING or plinking. I am NOT interested in the tiniest groups with MY guns for game or varmint shooting. I HAVE in the past used Alumalloy and copper babbet alloys to make cast bullets. They CAN be extremely accurate, but are like FMJ's on game. As I am retired, I can not afford the equipment to cast with alumalloy or copper babbet. NOR would I want to use such alloys on game. ZINC is a terrible waste of time to cast bullets with. TO hard on the equipment. We had to use oxyacetylene torches to keep the heat up enough. Sprue cutters had to be replaced regularly due to damage. Tiny groups are for paper targets to my way of thinking!:fire Ya got the muzzle loaders and the hunters and the pistol packers and the plinkers and the crazed military rifle shooters. And the accuracy seekers and the statisticians. Each is looking to have fun in his/her/it's chosen arena. There's few conversion attempts going on, most of us just watch the others and smile knowingly. Sometimes a head is shaken. So, we differ, and our goals and interests differ. So what. At least we aren't collecting stamps or golfing. Not every post or topic here is of interest to every reader. How boring that would be. (Keep in mind that the accuracy-seekers are the REAL cast bullet faithful.)  

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 25 May 2014

pat i. wrote: I'm not the deep thinking type but firmly believe it's the bullet that's holding back accuracy progress. It's been known for years cast bullets are full of voids. Bumping helps but maybe sizing down and then bumping an 8 mm bullet to 30 caliber would produce a bullet balanced enough to see an improvement and might be worth trying.Is it the bullet?Are the bullets full of voids? If so, the void percent is very constant, because the bullet weight doesn't vary much.Or is it the MV that cast bullets limit us to?If we could shoot a 6mm 65 grain bullet at ?3300 fps, would it be as accurate as jacketed?Or is the problem getting the bullet from the case neck to the rifling, the problem the SS guys solve by breech seating?Or is the inaccuracy caused by occasional flyers; flyers caused by???

Attached Files

pat i. posted this 25 May 2014

joeb33050 wrote: Is it the bullet?Are the bullets full of voids? If so, the void percent is very constant, because the bullet weight doesn't vary much.

Weight doesn't have to vary at all. It's where the voids and inclusiona are distributed throughout the bullet and I doubt they're in the same place every time. Jacketed bullet BR shooters use J4 jackets for their consistency. Take five equal weight military surplus pulls and five equal weight BR bullets made with J4 jackets and see which one shoots the smallest group. Until a way is found to get rid of voids, inclusions, out of roundness, and a host of other problems inherent to pouring molten lead into a mould we're probably stuck. Increasing velocity would just make matters worse as those of us that have tried can easily tell you. I shouldn't say stuck because when thought about realistically these things are shooting pretty well.   

As far as breech seating being the answer all it does is allow the SS shooters to equal the bolt guns not improve on them. The cast bullet's still the weak link.

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 25 May 2014

Guys, I read EVERY post on the CBA board. Just because I'm interested in what you are doing, doesn't mean I do it too. I haven't killed anything but varmint and vermin for more than 30, and don't plan on shooting anything else. I agree with Joe; as my Dad said “Every man has to kill his own snakes in his own way!"

Attached Files

Brodie posted this 25 May 2014

Pat i. Said; Weight doesn't have to vary at all. It's where the voids and inclusiona are distributed throughout the bullet and I doubt they're in the same place every time. Jacketed bullet BR shooters use J4 jackets for their consistency. Take five equal weight military surplus pulls and five equal weight BR bullets made with J4 jackets and see which one shoots the smallest group. Until a way is found to get rid of voids, inclusions, out of roundness, and a host of other problems inherent to pouring molten lead into a mould we're probably stuck. Increasing velocity would just make matters worse as those of us that have tried can easily tell you. I shouldn't say stuck because when thought about realistically these things are shooting pretty well.   

As far as breech seating being the answer all it does is allow the SS shooters to equal the bolt guns not improve on them. The cast bullet's still the weak link.

Maybe it is time for someone in the accuracy game to come up with a practical way to Vacuum Cast alloy lead bulletsl Brodie

B.E.Brickey

Attached Files

fa38 posted this 26 May 2014

Joe did you need more of the Schuetzen Plinkers for your test? I have had a couple of boxes in my basement for probably 20 years.

http://s1297.photobucket.com/user/MartinStenback/media/IMG_0035_zps77330d51.jpg.html> />

Attached Files

fa38 posted this 26 May 2014

It took awhile but I finally figured how to post a picture again.

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 26 May 2014

fa38 wrote: Joe did you need more of the Schuetzen Plinkers for your test? I have had a couple of boxes in my basement for probably 20 years.

http://s1297.photobucket.com/user/MartinStenback/media/IMG_0035_zps77330d51.jpg.html> />

Attached Files

fa38 posted this 26 May 2014

I do not have the original data. I sent you an email.

Attached Files

jhalcott posted this 28 May 2014

I certainly did NOT mean to offend any one, JUST stating MY preferences NOW. I played with the accuracy thing with both cast and jacketed years ago. Some where I got the idea that I was chasing my tail! HOW small a group does it take to kill a deer, a ground hog or even a prairie dog? I figured I'd only get ONE shot at a critter, so gave up on group shooting. OH YES, I did miss a few but hit way more and learned from each shot a little to help with the next.

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 28 May 2014

jhalcott wrote: I certainly did NOT mean to offend any one, JUST stating MY preferences NOW. I played with the accuracy thing with both cast and jacketed years ago. Some where I got the idea that I was chasing my tail! HOW small a group does it take to kill a deer, a ground hog or even a prairie dog? I figured I'd only get ONE shot at a critter, so gave up on group shooting. OH YES, I did miss a few but hit way more and learned from each shot a little to help with the next. I doubt that you offended anyone.  I think most people on this forum respect the opinion of others and your statements haven't been aggressive or offensive.

We have plinkers, hunters, blasters, muzzle loaders, shotgunners, old gun lovers, experimenters,  accuracy nuts and probably several other types on this forum and writing for the Fouling Shot.  And we need them all on the forum for lively conversations and we need them all in the CBA to contribute articles to the Fouling Shot from their perspective which makes the Fouling Shot an interesting magazine.  Keep your posts coming. John  

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 29 May 2014

I agree that the bullet strength is a limiting factor, but I wonder if it might be possible to identify where exactly the bullets are failing, and design around the weaknesses in order to trick the bullet into accurate flight? I authored a thread over on castboolits.com where I fired bullets into a bucket of sand at low speed in order to determine what sort of damage was being done to them. I found that most bullets had driving bands that allowed the riflings to smear fins into the lube grooves. I tested several bullets in this way in two different barrels, and there were two that were designed such that these fins were greatly reduced or eliminated. I wonder if it is possible to launch a projectile that is damaged more uniformly by the lands of the rifle, thus making it possible to get a better balanced bullet on exit from the rifle, thereby producing theoretically smaller groups?

As to Gearge C. Nonte's recommendation of .0015 over, vs. the previous recommendation of .003 oversize, I wonder if that mightn't boil down to a simple difference in alloy that the two men were accustomed to using? I've not read either of the books (although I love Nonte's Pistolsmithing), but that was a thought I had.

Attached Files

onondaga posted this 29 May 2014

http://www.castbulletassoc.org/view_user.php?id=8104>goodsteel

Smearing fins into lube grooves is an identifier of bullet alloy not corresponding to load pressure. This smearing is easily reduced greatly by following the Richard Lee alloy selection by load pressure method and also provides an alloy that otdurates at the load pressure to seal the bore with minimal smearing.

Ignoring these recommendations and using an alloy too soft or too hard results in increased smearing or increased shaving of bullets resulting in what you report with your recovered bullets. They were likely too soft for the load level and damaged beyond normal expectation.

Your selection to use smaller diameter bullets does not correlate to the most important area of fit for cast bullets, the chamber throat. Bullets sized at chamber throat diameter that chamber with a sliding fit to the throat when loading the firearm and then are sized by the barrel upon firing give me the best accuracy and a lot of others too. Starting from those factors of alloy selection and bullet fit is a sound reference for current accuracy levels. Smeared bullets are already at a significant disadvantage from where current accuracy enhancing efforts with alloy selection and bullet fit will lead.

Gary

Attached Files

Paul Pollard posted this 30 May 2014

This bullet is an LBT 258-100 SP cast of 25:1 lead/tin. It was sized and lubed to .257 and tapped through the barrel with a brass rod. Note that the untapered bullet (.257 from ogive to base) pushed metal into the grooves. The tapered bullet (.257 to .252 at the ogive) did not displace metal the same way.  This was not excess pressure, just tap, tap, tap with a plastic tipped mallet. Has anyone else experienced this? 

Attached Files

onondaga posted this 30 May 2014

http://www.castbulletassoc.org/view_user.php?id=216>Paul Pollard

That sounds and appears reasonable. My bullets are grooved much deeper when they fit the throat and the barrel sizes them by shooting. Neither bullet looks like it shows full difference between L to L and G to G differential and possibly neither filled the bore with your test method and alloy.

Soft pure lead generally shows better definition of the differential when slugging.

Which one of those shoots better for you Paul?

An old slug from a pure lead 50 cal round ball pounded through a greased .458 Win Mag barrel:

http://s30.photobucket.com/user/rhymeswithwhat/media/slug.jpg.html>

Attached Files

jhalcott posted this 30 May 2014

Perhaps those old shooters who seated the bullet into the rifling THEN put the case into the chamber were onto some thing. Bullet fit and correct bullet/bore alignment would insure better accuracy. Jamming a bullet into the case expecting perfect alignment seems to be wishfull thinking! The forces needed, though small, MUST have some effect. Breech seating MAY be one way to improve accuracy with a softer alloy.:0:

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 30 May 2014

Yes breech seating plain base bullets eliminates a lot of problems (and imposes some limitations) compared to fixed ammunition with gas checked bullets. But the best shooters using each method are both stuck at about the .5MOA level for five shot group aggregates.

It seems to me that there are probably some things yet to be tried with each method that might break the barrier, but most shooters with the best equipment and skills seem satisfied to just turn the crank and do what worked before. At least very few of them mention (or write) that they are experimenting except by varying the details to fine-tune their old methods. 

It is almost too obvious to bother saying it, but a breakthrough is NOT going to come until new ideas are tried and tested in well designed tests then published so others can build on what is learned. John

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 01 June 2014

This has been an interesting discussion. It also matches one of CBA's  goals -- to improve the technology of cast bullet shooting by encouraging experimentation. 

Maybe a way to further the discussion is to ask what factors should be looked into that might improve CB accuracy that we don't normally already work with?  What are we overlooking that could be examined without spending a lot of money? John

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 02 June 2014

Yes being able to shoot at low cost is still an aspect of CB shooting that I still appreciate as well.

I didn't mean to imply in my post above that any factors worth exploring  had to be done for little of no cost.  There MAY be things we ought to be looking into that wouldn't cost much, others might require some investment.  Most of us manage to “invest” in the things we think important.  It is often more a matter of priorities than total poverty keeping us from doing most things.

  John

Attached Files

jhalcott posted this 04 June 2014

Could our answer be in a different propellant? One that does NOT kick the bullet out the barrel but propels it at an ever increasing rate from ignition to ejection at the muzzle.

Attached Files

Duke M posted this 04 June 2014

I was on that “other” forum a couple of days ago where I was once again told how easy it is to shoot 10 shot, 100 yd. groups you can “cover with a dime” at 2,850 fps no less. Obviously we do need to spend more money on equipment. Such as higher resolution screens, faster hard drives, and more RAM. Anyone have a Canjar mouse for sale?

Duke

Attached Files

pat i. posted this 04 June 2014

Duke M wrote: I was on that “other” forum a couple of days ago where I was once again told how easy it is to shoot 10 shot, 100 yd. groups you can “cover with a dime” at 2,850 fps no less. Obviously we do need to spend more money on equipment. Such as higher resolution screens, faster hard drives, and more RAM. Anyone have a Canjar mouse for sale?

Duke LOL!! Exactly why I'm not on that “other” forum anymore. Being 6 feet tall just wasn't enough to keep my head above the bs and I don't do well on stilts.

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 04 June 2014

Duke M wrote: I was on that “other” forum a couple of days ago where I was once again told how easy it is to shoot 10 shot, 100 yd. groups you can “cover with a dime” at 2,850 fps no less. Obviously we do need to spend more money on equipment. Such as higher resolution screens, faster hard drives, and more RAM. Anyone have a Canjar mouse for sale?

Duke The guys that can do that are very consistent.  They consistently stay away from any matches or other ranges with witnesses. I sometimes wonder what they get out of such ravings.  Do you suppose that they think anybody believes them? John

Attached Files

pat i. posted this 04 June 2014

John Alexander wrote:  Do you suppose that they think anybody believes them? John Unfortunately John from what I've read a lot do. It's the guys that tell the truth that aren't paid attention to in certain places. I guess being honest isn't as exciting.

Attached Files

R. Dupraz posted this 04 June 2014

There's nothing like shoulder to shoulder competition to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Attached Files

LWesthoff posted this 04 June 2014

Heck, I can shoot 10 shot groups I can cover with a dime anytime I want to. First, I have to go some place where I can get 10 pennies for that dime. Sometimes, I can even keep a penny or two in my pocket.

Wes

Attached Files

muley posted this 05 June 2014

are the boys on the other forum shooting these dime size groups with jacketed bullets

or using cast bullets???

Attached Files

Duke M posted this 05 June 2014

Muley, the poster that caught my attention claimed 100 yd. 10 shot groups you can cover with a dime from a .222 shooting a Lyman 215415 HP at 2,850 fps. I'll just say it strains credulity and I wonder what new cast bullet shooters think when they finally attain 2 moa without leading and still feel like they are failing.

Duke

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 05 June 2014

Duke M wrote: Muley, the poster that caught my attention claimed 100 yd. 10 shot groups you can cover with a dime from a .222 shooting a Lyman 215415 HP at 2,850 fps. I'll just say it strains credulity and I wonder what new cast bullet shooters think when they finally attain 2 moa without leading and still feel like they are failing.

Duke Very good point Duke.

If we want more shooters to enjoy CB shooting maybe we should more often quote what real shooters actually shoot at matches especially in our the hunting rifle class.  Even good competitive shooters shoot some pretty modest groups with hunting rifles.

Publicly inviting the people with the dime sized groups to a match might also be a worthwhile way to give readers a hint that not everybody believes such junk without directly calling them a lier. Seems like I remember Pat doing that a couple of times.

John

Attached Files

pat i. posted this 05 June 2014

John Alexander wrote: Publicly inviting the people with the dime sized groups to a match might also be a worthwhile way to give readers a hint that not everybody believes such junk without directly calling them a lier. Seems like I remember Pat doing that a couple of times.

John That was the old diplomatic Pat John. Now I would just come right out and call them a liar. I don't have the patience for BSers anymore which is why my cast bullet internet forum activity is limited strictly to this site nowadays.

Attached Files

badgeredd posted this 05 June 2014

I'd like to read the posted thread mentioned but I can't seem to find it. I know there has been an influx of some very “talented” shooters as of late on the said forum. I find it very interesting how some people can become nearly instant experts in cast shooting in a matter of a few months or weeks or days. Did my tongue in cheek come through?

Edd

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 05 June 2014

I'm getting a kick out of the comments on the thread about 3000+ fps with a Lee CTL312-160-2R out of a 300 Weatherby. The guestimation of velocity, the guestimation of psi and the “Mark I eyeball” measurement of the group “off the target but on the target board” sure are exciting.

LMG

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

Attached Files

Ed Harris posted this 05 June 2014

I enjoy listening to the local gunshop braggarts talking about their 0.1” groups, and the look on their faces when I ask,

"Is that ONE shot or three?” Then they admit “Three!” proudly and I query farther, “Where did the OTHER two go?"

SILENCE!

I suggest, “Try shooting TEN consecutive shots on one target and bring that next time." No takers so far......

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

Attached Files

pat i. posted this 05 June 2014

Here's one of my favorites blasts from the past that was recently resurrected. Jacketed bullets this time I assume but in certain circles one never knows.

"Like my old .220 Swift, never shot to an inch at 100 yards but after the bullet went to sleep I shot 5 in 1/4” at 350 yards. I sighted at 350 and head shot chucks over 600 yards but could miss one at 100."

And you thought Lee Harvey Oswald was the only one with access to magic bullets. 

 

Attached Files

jhalcott posted this 05 June 2014

I used to be able to shoot 1 MOA 5 shot groups on demand with Jacketed bullets in several caliber guns. Even CAST bullets would go into an inch at 100 (often!) The trouble was/is getting consecutive MOA groups with cast. Since age and a pacemaker are now getting in the way, those MOA groups with ANY THING are getting hard to find. I find myself using jacketed ammo for varmints as it is easier to find good LONG range recipes for them. Long range is 200 yards PLUS out to about 500 yards. I guess I'm just getting lazier as I age. I hate to walk half a mile to find a MISS!

Attached Files

Duke M posted this 06 June 2014

badgeredd wrote: I'd like to read the posted thread mentioned but I can't seem to find it. I know there has been an influx of some very “talented” shooters as of late on the said forum. I find it very interesting how some people can become nearly instant experts in cast shooting in a matter of a few months or weeks or days. Did my tongue in cheek come through?

Edd
Edd, the thread is aiming past 3,000 fpspost  with the 300 Weatherby. The .222 post is #9.   Duke 

Attached Files

Duke M posted this 06 June 2014

My bad, not enough information and I'm getting pizza grease on the keys. It is under the Cast Boolits heading and is entitled Aiming past 3000 with the Weatherby 300 mag. Under that thread it is post number 9.

Duke

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 07 June 2014

Let's say it's the bullet.

If it's the bullet, the problem is either voids or softness/low velocity. 

If above is true, don't we need to find out if the problem is voids or hardness?

 A Voids fix is swaging.

A softness fix is ?zinc?.

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 07 June 2014

I think sticking with one factor or related factors at a time is a good idea if we are going to have a discussion that goes anywhere.  The bullet is an obvious place to start.   Let's all agree once and for all that dealing with wind, mirage, and bench techniques is important for winning matches. However, with the best unrestricted guns (even machine rest guns) on a calm, cool mornings the skilled shooters are still shooting CB groups several times larger than the same gun on the same day could shoot with JBs -- so we still do have work to do on the bullet/load issue.

"If it's the bullet, the problem is either voids or softness/low velocity"

Bullet design or bullet/throat design is related to the bullet and could be added to the list but it is probably better to save that that issue for later discussion and stick to the two above -- voids and low hardness.

A way to start the discussion might be to see what we already know about voids and hard bullets.

I don't know anything about voids and have never seen one but we have had shooters try hard bullets in competition (at least as hard as monotype and heat treated wheelweights.) Others have tried zink. If any of them are reading this, please let us know what you know. H.L. Yarborough did win the CBA national championship in unrestricted rifle class in 2007  using a thirty pound “pistol” with a 22 inch barrel shooting 108 grain monotype bullets at 2,750 fps. Pat Iffland has also shot some pretty hard HT wheelweight bullets as has Tom Gray I believe. Maybe some shooters who have tried bullets harder than linotype will comment. John

Attached Files

jhalcott posted this 09 June 2014

Other than PAPER targets , what good are projectiles that are hard as nails? I have tried alloys from straight lead to foundry metals, including Zinc! They could be quite accurate but were NOT effective for hunting! Maybe a fur hunter could find them usefull as they leave the fur in good shape. The critter MAY have to be tracked a good way before found. Look how good the Black Powder Cartridge competitors are doing at extreme range. NO gas check and restively soft alloys.

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 10 June 2014

You are right.  Hard lead alloys or zink don't make good hunting bullets but many cast bullet shooters' main interest is improving accuracy either for competition or just for their personal satisfaction.

Except for varmint shooters, hunters should be fairly well served and satisfied with 2 -3” groups which we already know how to get with conventional methods and a good rifle.  But some hunters enjoy trying to do better even though they don't need finer accuracy.

It may be possible to achieve better accuracy and higher velocity with a hard bullet body and a soft nose made by one of several methods that could satisfy even varmint hunters for use out to maybe 200 yards.  That would be an interesting project.

John

Attached Files

badgeredd posted this 11 June 2014

IMHO we need to accept that a bullet designed and cast for target shooting and super accuracy (by cast bullet standards) will not and in most cases can not be applied to the hunting environment. Some (and in my experience) if not most hunting bullets by design will have a lesser ballistic coefficient which in turn WILL affect the potential accuracy of its use as a target bullet.

I have been able to get good hunting accuracy at some pretty impressive velocities, but I have to admit the accuracy is generally in the 2 MOA realms out to 250 yards. In complete honesty, I have no desire for sub MOA groups on paper, but I still believe the key to “super” accuracy with a cast (not swaged) bullet is the alloy. To date I have not been able to come up with an alloy of similar to jacketed weight and dimension that will withstand peak pressures much in excess of 50,000 PSI.

To be a viable alloy for hunting (my main interest), I suspect that I personally have about reached MY limit for MY purposes. I suspect that the addition of small quantities of copper (less than .5%) to the alloy is about as high as one can go and still have a reasonably good alloy for my uses. In most cases, I have found that the copper content of .2 to .25% seems to be the most one can add and still have good casting traits as well as hunting bullet properties.

My next experiments will center around using a bit of bismuth added to the alloy, but I suspect it will not work well for myself, given my goals. I do expect the addition of bismuth to my low copper content alloys may well improve the hardness/strength of alloys for target shooting though.

In my mind (and limited experience), zinc does not work well because of its casting properties and (possibly) the lack of weight relative to the length of said castings as opposed to the same bullet using lead alloys.

My opinions and thoughts....

Edd

Attached Files

Trap4570 posted this 13 July 2014

For myself - there are many things involved in accuracy besides bullets. If everyone was shooting from machine rests without wind and changing light then the mechanical causes of accuracy could be addressed. Throw in the human element plus mother natures little tricks and the game changes.

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 13 December 2014

I agree with most of what has been said here. However, I am working constantly with 3 other cast bullet shooters to push the speed envelope, but do it for real. With proof. I have created the XCB rifle projects for this purpose specifically, and progress is being made. The XCB project encompasses rifles, a bullet design, breach seater, custom dies, machine rest, lube, you name it. We have obtained subMOA accuracy at 2800FPS and it has been very carefully documented both on the castboolit site and (since the BS got too deep to wade through) the NOE bullet mold forum site. I understand the frustration shown here, but we are candidly trying to push the envelope as far as it can be pushed and document the journey. As a gunsmith, I am merely part of the support team for the likes of BjornB and Larry Gibson. There is no BS with these gents.

Attached Files

pat i. posted this 13 December 2014

Goodsteel the writing testing and experimenting have become much more interesting since you guys distanced yourselves from the 3 or 4 experts that talk a lot but show a little. It's not frustration people feel when dealing with those type of guys it's called amazement and disgust.

What's the goal you guys are searching for? Do you have a velocity and acceptable aggregate group size that'll satisfy you? I harp about aggregates and will always mention them when someone posts a small group because one small group means absolutely nothing. Ed Doonan used to always tell people when they bragged about a single group “Now show me the groups before and after that one". I guess I picked up the torch.

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 14 December 2014

I couldn't agree more with Doonan's sentiments. I'm sure that everyone has their own goal, and I wouldn't dare be so bold as to state what it is for them, but I can say with absolute certainly that if we succeed in producing 5 10 shot strings of 1/2MOA at 3000FPS @100 yards, I would consider that cast bullet nirvana. I realize that's a very unrealistic goal, but a wise man once said: Pity not the man who set his goals too high and never reached them, but rather pity the man who set his goals too low and attained everything he ever desired. Alexander wept for there were no more worlds to conquer ya know. LOL! Really though, we just want to see how far we can push a cast lead bullet sans paper, full length gas check, or copper enhanced alloy (which are all very viable methods of attaining ludicrous speeds from cast projectiles). When Bjornb hit 2850 sub MOA, I almost had a fit I was so excited. The full engrave breach seater I designed for use with the XCB chamber and bullet is very very intriguing. I really don't know what is possible with that tool, but we will soon find out. I'm just glad to be part of this research team, even if most of what I contribute has to do with support via gunsmithing, design and fabrication. I can easily say this is the most rewarding fascinating and downright epic project I have ever been involved with. Between myself, Bjornb, Larry Gibson, and Sgt.mike, I hope to possibly make cast bullet history. If we don't, then it will still be fascinating. I'm learning everything I ever wanted to know about shooting through the XCB project.

Attached Files

pat i. posted this 14 December 2014

Good post. I've gone on quite a few of those cast bullet “Epic Quests For Fame and Fortune” and my only advice is to keep it in perspective so you guys don't burn yourself out like I did. Now I'm into muzzleloaders and don't give a damn if I hit the target or not. A heck of a lot more relaxing and better for my hairline.

Attached Files

muley posted this 14 December 2014

Gentlemen, keep up the good work. the people who question u or condemn you, do not

have the ambition or inquistive mind to enjoy the experimentation mentality.

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 16 December 2014

pat i. wrote: Good post. I've gone on quite a few of those cast bullet “Epic Quests For Fame and Fortune” and my only advice is to keep it in perspective so you guys don't burn yourself out like I did. Now I'm into muzzleloaders and don't give a damn if I hit the target or not. A heck of a lot more relaxing and better for my hairline. Lucky you! I started out burning BP, and I intend to end up right back there (although, I'm going to be reproducing Pope's experiments and duplexing with a false muzzle etc etc. LOL!) I will try to keep things in perspective. Right now it feels like prospecting for gold. Had a few dry claims (you never know if you don't dig) and now it's like I'm following a vein of gold. It's hard work, but the rewards make it worth it. The team we have is a good one. We are each committed to the hilt, and each are putting in our very best expertise in our own area, and we each are committed to reality, truth, and above all TRANSPARENCY and we each have skill sets that are sharply honed to the task. I am hoping that will carry us a very long ways. 

Thanks for the kind words Muley. 

Attached Files

DR Owl Creek posted this 16 December 2014

Tim,   The things that you, Bjorn, Larry, Mike, and others are doing is what keeps the sport/hobby interesting. That's why these threads draw so much attention. Keep it up.   Dave

Attached Files

45 2.1 posted this 21 August 2015

John Alexander wrote: Several things could be proposed as possible reasons why there hasn't been noticeable improvement in cast bullet technology as measured by better shooting in the established CBA rifle classes.  Here are some possibilities that come to mind:

  1. We have hit a natural limit as to how accurately cast bullets can be shot.  "Everything's up to date in Kansas City.  We've gone about as fur as we can go."

No, I don't believe so from what I've seen.

  1. Many cast bullet shooters are satisfied with how well we can shoot cast bullets.  Practical accuracy is good enough. That's a perfectly valid position but not one that leads to improvement.

How very true, and the large majority will never try harder to do so either.

  1. Maybe too many cast bullet shooters think the road to improvement is to just do what we have been doing but do it more precisely. Just keep turning the crank ever more uniformly instead of looking for a longer crank handle. 

I see this everywhere. There are several ways to do things. The past masters have written what it takes.... sadly very few people understood what they meant.

  1.  We don't do much real experimenting. What experimenting we do are things like trying to see if minute changes in powder charges will improve accuracy or which primer may give an edge. This is well plowed ground and while it may improve an individual load it won't lead to new knowledge about shooting better.

Copying gets you little improvement. Different methodology can get you some superior results. Most things “graven in stone” now are what is holding most back. That different methodology is what most, here and elsewhere, fight vehemently against. These folks want to see you do it in competition.... not learn how to do it.

Just some random thoughts. John   

Attached Files

billglaze posted this 21 August 2015

Several things are going on in my head, about now, and for a long time. First:  Even if I were able to completely and exactly copy a record holder, I would , at the best, equal his work, not better it.  IF I could exactly copy; patently, an impossibility on the face of it.So the thing is to find some combination(s) or innovation(s) that improve on performance, meaning (in my case,) accuracy: meanwhile trying to sort the wheat from the chaff, idea-wise.  Also, looking at operations that some folks say aren't helpful, others say are essential.  Try to sort out the dichotomy; go ahead, I just dare you! Like many of us here, I look at all ideas.  I do not scoff at anyone's input or ideas; I feel that they wouldn't post if it didn't work for them. The operative words are “for them.”  A great many of these things I have already tried without their working for me; however, if it seems feasible I re-visit some of them; a mixed bag has resulted, some helpful, some not so much. joeb, Duane, ric, you, John, have been all very helpful with thought starters.  You and your inputs have also been helpful  in that they seem to keep me from getting discouraged, and keep me hopeful of a dramatic improvement somewhere along the line.  Hasn't happened yet, but still........... Most important of all, at least for me:  Still hanging in there, and having FUN!  (Most important of all!) Bill

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. My fate is not entirely in Gods hands, if I have a weapon in mine.

Attached Files

muley posted this 22 August 2015

I agree with billglaze, we must enjoy our endeavor to improve our shooting and try different variables. for some people the end goal is too time consuming,and to much work to cast, weigh{ if needed} size , bump, load, and then shoot and keep a record of results so we don"t have to duplicate the load that didn"t work. Maney of the cast shooters also do not  want to shoot matches, because they believe they are not good enough to compete with the so-called top shooters. I would hope that these shooters would come to a match and find out that THEY are good shooters. We all have a competitive spirit within each of us, so I ask them to give it a try. The elusive small group shows up sometime for everyone, but we all usually shoot average groups. thanks for considering my ramblings.

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 22 August 2015

I feel like I am making progress slowly but surely. Nothing wild and crazy you understand, but these groups were fired at a 100 yard target.  Speed was 2650 fps chronographed.  Rifle was my 1909 Argentine Mauser chambered in 30XCB. Bullet was my own design from NOE called the 30XCB Alloy was my own “House” alloy that is basically Lyman #2 cut 50/50 with pure lead and the bullets were water dropped.  Powder used was Leverevolution. 

Attached Files

pondercat posted this 22 August 2015

Billglaze, You phrased your thoughts most eloquently.  I for one, as a new member of CBA can, and I do, appreciate that you, and I know others here do as well, take everyone's input seriously because it is often our personal experience(s) and thus personal and important to us.  I, myself, learn things all the time from novices.  It is often through eyes and thoughts of those who are not so close to the problem or project at hand that new and fresh perspectives come about and with those new perspectives ideas for innovation are spawned. Sometimes we simply need the “eyes of a child” so to speak to get us back on track. . . and still keep it fun! Terry   

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 22 August 2015

goodsteel,

Great groups and at very interesting velocities.  Keep the groups and the information coming.

John

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 22 August 2015

Just fooling around John, just fooling around. I actually don't get much time at the range to work up loads. My 1909 Argentine is a twitch barrel rifle, so I screwed in a Brux precision barrel and did some quick load workup (a couple months ago). So far, LvR has been the most surprising powder in both 30 and 35XCB. Very nice powder for HV cast. I just hope they don't discontinue it.

Attached Files

muley posted this 22 August 2015

goodsteel, nice groups. what grains of powder and bullet weight?

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 22 August 2015

I'd have to look at my notes for the powder charge, but the 30XCB bullet is about 165 grains depending on alloy used.

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 23 August 2015

twitch barrel rifle . eh ? hey i got a couple of those myself ...

i think that twitch incorporated must have made the barrel on my ruger 3 45-70 .. it does seem to twitch even before i pull the trigger ...

ken

Attached Files

pondercat posted this 30 August 2015

Hell, I don't even need a twitch barrel.  I twitch enough myself without one! :D  guess that makes me a twitch handed shooter. . .? .>

Seriously though Goodsteel,  that is some fantastic shooting.  I really am interested in seeing your future results.  Thanks!   Terry

Attached Files

MarkinEllensburg posted this 09 April 2016

Although I have enjoyed reading this thread I do not agree with the premise. I remember back when my Dad set a new CBA 100yd heavy rifle small group at just below .5” A record that stood for years. Look what the record is now. In my mind a considerable improvement over my Dad's record. I'm sure most here will agree that both groups were simply amazing. What does not show in the record books is the day my dad shot his record he shot one nearly as good at 200 yards however it had vertical stringing due to his inability at the time to deal with mirage. Something he never had issues with before that he knew of. That match taught him lots. My point is that less than 1/2 MOA accuracy is possible and has been achieved. If only we can figure out what each shooter and caster was doing right that made it happen. That is the real challenge.

Attached Files

Close