Bullet Diameter & GC Use in This 357

[Bass Ackward]

Here is a test of a new bullet I designed (140 GC) in this 8 shot 627 that seems to prefer bore diameter slugs. This is the fourth bullet I have run this test on in this gun with the same trending results. Distance is 33 yards. (my porch range)

I posted these results because it was almost disbelieved that diameter had THIS much effect in another thread on sizing. Some folks feel they need to see a picture, so one is enclosed.

It is apparent that this gun prefers .3575 slugs as this is the fifth design tested including the 358156, Lee 358 RF, Penn 125 TC, and a 180 grainer of my design. These were 12BHN slugs. The pattern dispersion gets dramatically worse the harder you go. Water dropped and you can't hold paper.

Since this gun has .3595 throats, PB use is severely restricted for long string use unless 20-1 is used. Anything hard limits load use forcing premature cleaning as soon as accuracy was affected from leading.

This post is an advocate for individual gun testing and the effect of diameter "in this gun". If you can't choke, PB use can be severely limited.

Click on the target so it is legible.

[geargnasher]

Good post, Bass. You proved quite eloquently that each gun is a law unto itself. You didn't prove that "softer is better than hard" except for that gun, and someone less experienced might have drawn the conclusion, prematurely, that it was. That's why I argue with folks who insist that 22 bhn boolits are the only way to make a revolver accurate, and also argue with those that say super hard boolits have no place in revolvers. It all depends on the gun, your tools and skills, and what you're trying to accomplish.

Gear

[btroj]

Great post Bass. Shows that each gun has a personality. Find what the gun wants and you will make it happy. It is this search for "what is right" that makes shooting cast a challenge. This is also what many of us find interesting and fun.

This is the best example I have seen that shows how one gun can break all the rules.

Keep it up Bass, we need more info like this.

Brad

[NHlever]

I have a 6" Ruger Security Six that is like that. The chamber throats are a snug fit on a .358 gage pin, but it always shoots noticably better with .357 cast bullets. I don't know if it has something to do with how well the chambers actually line up with the bore, or not. Every now, and then I get that gun out, and play with it, but I haven't reached any conclusions yet.

[45 2.1]

It is apparent that this gun prefers .3575 slugs as this is the fifth design tested including the 358156, Lee 358 RF, Penn 125 TC, and a 180 grainer of my design. These were 12BHN slugs. The pattern dispersion gets dramatically worse the harder you go. Water dropped and you can't hold paper.

Do you see the pattern?????????????? Try softer yet with a malleable alloy.

[geargnasher]

Great post Bass. Shows that each gun has a personality. Find what the gun wants and you will make it happy. It is this search for "what is right" that makes shooting cast a challenge. This is also what many of us find interesting and fun.

This is the best example I have seen that shows how one gun can break all the rules.

Keep it up Bass, we need more info like this.

Brad

I like the way you put that. Each gun does have unique personality. Sometimes a gun needs a little firelapping therapy or some machine counseling to make it more cast boolit friendly, but most of the time we just have to spend the time to get to know it's likes and dislikes, and what it takes to make it happy.

Gear

[runfiverun]

45 has a point also.
change the powder speed, a faster powder might want a harder aloy or the one you have.
or cut the ww's with pure.....and a softer alloy may be the correct one.

i do totally agree with the it don't gotta be oversized.
correct sized is fine with me. slip fit, whatever you wanna call it.
if the cylinders line up and the nose fits the forcing cone i doubt the cylinder throats do much more than fill the area from case mouth to cylinder gap.
if things are a smooth transition fron case to cyl throat to forcing cone then fitting to the cyl is more important.

[357shooter]

Love the test.

Even softer might group even better as someone mentioned.

Did you try any OAL tweaks to see the effect? Could be tough with a shorter bullet. Were any of the other designs that liked the smaller diameter 158 grain or heavier/longer?

Last question, is the design more SWC style or more "bullet in the throat" style? OAL changes seem to have different effects depending. So does changing the diameter.

[Bass Ackward]

Boy this is a tough crowd. But it also gives me more to think about.

Few key words in the first post were test, new, and 20-1. (8BHN)

Those were the first bullets from a virgin mold and the first load with the charge was picked by Quickload (100% burn rate in a 4" barrel) to produce 1050 fps. That was 6.5 grains of Unique. I got 1065 avg fps. I am limited for 1100 fps by the range that this gun will be used on and this load is for that purpose.

So I don't know what you guys think, but I can live with that accuracy as a first attempt.

I designed that bullet to .... not be finicky and work with multiple powders and velocity levels in shorter barrels.

20-1 is 8 BHN. That is my favorite soft mix (easy and reproducible to make) and I just live with the limitations it will give me.

Big point here is that hardness and even design make a huge difference AT TIMES. Most people won't spend the extra money on multiple sizers to make things work and simply swap molds until they find something that works and never ask why. Sizers are sure cheaper than most molds. With the other bullet designs tested more extensively, this gun is a poor performer with .3585 or up. No powder speed or charge has made a difference. Yet the gun is still fairly accurate if you live within it's means.

THAT was the point I was trying to make.

Then somebody asks .... why? (love that guy) ( :grin: ) I have a "general" guess as I have several of these Smiths and all tend to the same explanation.

Smith & Wesson has been in the business for quite a few years and they did a lot of research for their product. At the time that they made decisions on things like forcing cone and leade angles and wide rifling (50% of the hole) were developed, SOFT lead was the norm because barrel steels then couldn't handle the antimony. Cartridges of that era were of lower pressure generally. So I have always had success with softer lead in Smiths.

If you look at bullet designs (Lyman and RCBS) from that era, they tend to have narrower bands to make lead displacement easier. Elmer was the wild card designer of the bunch.

AS the gun breaks in (wears) I suspect I will acquire more flexibility but the rifling will always be a disaster. The Lee 358 RF is a total disaster in this gun.

So we look at today, Smith went to this angled rifling style. The rifling are still 50% of the pipe wide across the top, BUT ..... then tapers into the groove displacing even MORE lead. (raises pressure) (Guess what the cardinal sin is for PB?)A guess is that the balance has flipped to maybe 40 / 60 ratio, but that is just a guess not an actual calculation.

I hate this rifling because it does tend to force you softer, but it also fails with softer mixes at lower velocities cause it strips sooner too. Essentially the worst of all worlds. Thus it limits you and I don't like to be limited by something. I want the right to do that myself. :grin:

After multple new Smiths (9) with both rifling styles, that's my theory anyway. So now I buy (custom shop) broached (old style rifling) when possible.

Rugers on the other hand came along in the antimony age of higher pressure calibers. They decided on different rifling and forcing cone angles. Wonder what trends for bullet design and hardness we see in those guns? :grin:

[Bret4207]

Excellent Bass! Just excellent. This post covers so much of cast shooting, the variables, the rule that there are few rules, the gun being the final judge of our thoughts and opinions. And that's the first I've read of the S+W rifling description put as you have. Very interesting.

You've found one of those odd combinations that wants a bore diameter boolit. That's rare in itself IME, but seems more common in revolvers than rifles IME.

[runfiverun]

i gotta figure out how to get the wife [and a few from other forums] to read this thread.
i coulda saved a lot of talking as to why i got sizers in 309,310,311,313 and 314.
and 356,357,358,360
but only one in 224,285 and 323.
and why i have a 379 sizer for my .375.

[Bass Ackward]

This governs everything. Take bullet design. Let's look at the .429215 vs the 429244. Same bullet really, just wider drive bands. So if a guy is shooting the .429215 and the bands aren't holding and he does nothing to alter that, then he believes the .429244 is a better bullet.

Another guy needs a softer bullet really with a 429244 but he doesn't know this and he tries his same hardness in a 429215 and he says wow what a design.

Then you get a guy running full bore and he is shooting heavy, rock hard and when he gets accuracy he believes he is matching twist rate. So if he shoots a bullet 100 grains lighter, like a 429215, he believes that there is no way to get accuracy at the same velocity because his twist rate combo will be wrong.

We focus on patterns. Those patterns work until they don't. (There is another rule for shooting. If it makes a difference, it does. If it don't it don't.) Fight the battle that needs fought. Problem is that you can't see the battle unfold unless you are back aways and not bogged down in the fight.

Example: One guy wrote that he tested not cleaning his primer pockets and it made no difference, so I tried it. He was right. For awhile anyway. Later I built up enough carbon that my primer wouldn't seat and my firing pin had to push it forward until it would resist enough to go off. This showed up as worse accuracy, wider ES and thus erratic ignition. So I analyzed the problem and decided I needed a heavier replacement spring which I bought and installed. Worked for awhile and then I started to have headspace and indexing issues with the cylinder.

All because I quit cleaning my primer pockets.

The secret to cast is stepping back and looking at the big picture. Looking at what you have in all regards and understanding "THAT" gun. This comes from slugging right on up. Analyzing your entire gun. Then you can pretty much determine what is valid to change or lap from a mechanical standpoint, or what you may want to just do so that what you have works accurately enough to give you satisfaction.

Problem with this board is taking things in segments. That causes folks to focus on details that may or not matter to "their" Professor Gun. In military terms, it makes them react and have the view of privates. They need to be generals up on the hill watching the battle unfold and only then, make adjustments.

We can't always express that in a post. Why? Because it can be said in so many different ways that has to be thought of as a piece of the puzzle, and not a cure all or factual solution. There are no facts in shooting. And this board is a giant puzzle that must be put together.

Look how long an experienced gunman like Bret has been reading my stuff for a decade, and he believes this to be a great thread because it has now clicked for what I have been saying for years about the mechanics of a gun. No offense to Brett, that is just the disadvantage of how this works. Any there are many who don't get this still.

Cast doesn't require anything from us ---------- unless it does. When it does, the old routines eventually fail us and we sell the gun because we can't climb the hill and take the general's view. We make guestimates on problems that are often wrong instead of listening to Professor Gun and his assistant, Professor Target. We let others / big names influence us. If Elmer got 5000 fps out of pure lead, then by golly, we should be able too. Ehhhhhhh, thanks for playing.

Elmer had different conditions to deal with. Or not. If we face the same obstacles, then Elmer's advice works and we consider him for sainthood. If not, then we want to burn him in effigy.

Sizing helps me climb the hill with different designs for hardness or working velocity ranges. (IN THAT GUN) Once I know the gun and where it is in it's life cycle, I can make decisions (adjustments) to make things work accurately sooner. If I can't, then the gun goes down the road. But most of the time, the problem is me, my stubbornness and unwillingness to change, my focus on details, and not the big picture. Let Professor Gun teach the class, and you will NEVER answer the test incorrectly. If you want to follow the advice of someone else, then you may end up with problems.

Fight the battles that need fought.

Brett, glad that clicked for you. I wish that I wrote better. I am what I am, it is what it is. Hope that it has the effect on somebody else which is why I continue to post.

[Echo]

DAMN! I

LOVE

this forum!

[runfiverun]

generally trying something different will point you in the right direction.
not getting accuracy?
alloy change? waterdrop them ww's, better ? no.
try softer..
nothing... more bearing surface then,
still nothing....try a harder alloy with that.
slow them down, use a slower powder, push em a bit harder, use a faster powder. but up the charge a bit.....
okay then, they must be too small.

i find it much easier to just have 3 different designs around for the cals i like to shoot.
a swc a rnfp and a t/c, if one of them don't shoot well, in the usual diameters, then the gun has issues.

[Bret4207]

Bass, one of the problems I've found over the years here and elsewhere is getting the idea I'm trying to convey across to the guy reading it. You've probably said what I read before, but like you noted, it clicked for me this time. I've had the same experience trying to get an idea across to others before- I end up saying the same thing 6 ways from Sunday and suddenly the guy says, "Oh! NOW I get it!".

You're right about the "segments" too. But how else can we take a complete noob who's just starting and the guy with a few years under his belt and the guy with 30 years of casting and answer all their questions without working in segments? There's a guy wandering around out there right now that wrote what he considered THE book on cast and he won't consider speeds over 1800 or so or anything in a handgun. So far no one has written as good an overall book on cast shooting as Mattern did, but his info is very dated. So I don't know if anyone will ever be able to be the General up on the hill watching the battle and seeing the big picture and putting it in words we can all get the first or second go round.

[9.3X62AL]

One hell of a fine thread, gents. Don't stop now, and Bass is really into the essences and esoterics.

[Charlie Two Tracks]

I've read this twice and it still seems to be Greek to me. I've been around (age wise) long enough to realize that answers are there........ I just have to let them sink into this thick skull! One thing I really don't understand is the fact that the boolit is smaller than the throats in this revolver. I would think (with limited knowledge) that this would casuse leading in the throats. I had this problem earlier with one of MY revolvers. I'm going to read this again in a bit and see if I understand more. Thanks for posting "in depth" information.

[Bass Ackward]

One hell of a fine thread, gents. Don't stop now, and Bass is really into the essences and esoterics.


Ran me right to the dictionary with that one. :grin:


I suppose that this thread will have people running for other reasons. But it will be available to search as some become ready.

We always hear to match hardness to the pressure. That is just a common statement across the board that is just the very first step in the overall equation that may have hardness and diameter fighting each other to the negative.

In the view from the top of the hill, it is just the beginning of the process where size, hardness, lube and design interact to either work under what are possible less than perfect conditions to achieve what it is the reloader wants to accomplish.

And how to adjust a design a little if a design isn't acting in a manner that you are happy with before you chuck it up to failure.

It can be a key to if you want to tweak performance to do just a little bit better also.

[btroj]

I suppose ignorance is bliss for me. I have no idea heat twist rate any of my guns have. I have only slugged one of them. I have a few powders I tend to go to and somehow things seem to work out.
I will say, however, that I am a continual tester. I don't stop looking for a better load until find something that will work for my situation.sometimes this is easy, sometimes it is a real pain. But I never view it as work, it is all part of the learning process. In reality I am likely doing the same as Bass just looking at it from a different point of view.
I am not we'd to any one design. I have my personal preferences and my ideas on why some shoot better than others but can't say I have ever looked at bearing surface, etc as a factor.

I see the big problem with nooks as being the lack of willingness to take the time it takes to learn the ways of cast. Cast shooting is not cookbook reloading. There is no magic load or magic bullet. Why do all these "must have powder" threads have so many answers? Because so many can and do work. The only way to success, in my opinion, is the school of hard knocks. Go find what works for YOU. Might be way different than what works for me. Test, test, test. There is only so much you can learn by reading, at some point you have to DO.

This is a great thread. It shows that what goes against all the rules can work. Proves to me that there are no rules in cast shooting. Each gun has a set of conditions it works well with. Stay within those parameters and all is well, step outside of them and you have troubles. The learning part is finding what those parameters are for that gun. And you only learn that by shooting and working with that gun. Assume nothing.

Brad

[357shooter]

From a big picture viewpoint, narrowing down and looking at design is a great discussion all in itself. Or maybe two discussions.

1) How to get the most out of a design in a given gun. That includes how do make it work as well as how to make it work better. That by itself include size, OAL, alloy, charge, powder selection and probably some other things too.

2) What design gives the best results in a given gun. No matter what, some work "better" than others, or maybe I'm wrong about that. If the goal is accuracy at 100 yards, what works best. If the goal is to hunt for "a critter", what works best. If the goal is... The list could be long, or as short as, what works best for several things.

I'm guilty of jumping midstream into a thread and assuming that because someone included the "accuracy" it relates to "25 yards off a rest with a revolver and measured by calipers. And that a 1.25 inch group trumps the 1.50 inch group" and is clearly most accurate. Many folks probably couldn't care less about the 1/4 inch and consider them equally accurate.

Then looking at the bigger picture, were the test bullets from the same casting session? Did something change that produced misleading results? The list goes on...

The thread had me thinking. Maybe it's related, maybe I went into the weeds,

oops, meeting. ttyl

[Bass Ackward]

The results were valid enough for me to consider them so. Why? Because the gun considered them valid as it has every other bullet design tested. Check out Professor Target in the first post.

That is the main point for every subject you will ever read or discuss on this board. Every discussion here from mixes to designs to lube is based upon experience.

The only way to know for sure .... is to test. And before you give up on the mold or the gun, go through a complete battery of testing to see what works whether it is logical or not. It saves money in the long run.

Good guns are easy. Smooth seas, a good sailor, do not make.

[357shooter]

Professor Target, that is a great term and says a lot. It trumps lots of theories and speculation.

Nothing like getting all sizing dies and testing 1 mould with each size, and each size with 3 or 4 alloys and of course several powders.

It takes time. But then you know what works.

[Bret4207]

IMO this is a game of generalities. We deal with general overall trends, good and bad. Then we try and apply those trends, or what we think they are to individual guns, cases, alloys, loads, etc. Sometimes those generalities bear out and sometime they don't, Bass found a gun/load combo that is outside the norm. Or at least, it appears that way.

IMO the important thing is that we take note of the results, add them to the generalities file and see if they ever fit into something we're with. Maybe someone will be able to link this case with another that will give up some new theories.

[btroj]

This is why I dislike posts about must have powders, The load, found The answer, etc.

There is no one answer in shooting cast. Not ever.

If you don't like to experiment and test the shooting cast is most likely not for you. Not to say that many people don't buy commercial and get decent results from them but they are not casters. Being a caster is a state of mind. It is the idea that you want, no MUST , know how to solve problems. It is the need to tinker with loads, alloys, lube, et. It is the ultimate quest for knowledge in shooting.
Being a caster is also the ability to stick with what is working even in the face of sometimes brutal opposition to your ideas. It is the ability to go against all reason when something is working. It is the idea that rules are meant to be broken, or ignored all together.

I have seen some pretty heated discussions on this sight. We have people with VERY different ideas on many topics. Look at alloy hardness. We have soft bullet and hard bullet proponents. One side will never win because both are getting the results they want. How much better can it get?

This is a great thread mostly because it shows how a free thinker went against all the rules, and won.

Brad

[Bass Ackward]

This is a great thread mostly because it shows how a free thinker went against all the rules, and won. Brad



Free thinker? no,no,no, .... well maybe. Alzheimer's makes every thought a new idea.

Lets not give to much credit here. I perform this test with all guns and designs. It is simply a part of my ritual because I have the option to do so. That little GC on the back did not give me the freedom to perform that trial. I did perform that with PB.

What the GC does do is allow me to USE what I have found long term until the gun alters its preferences as it breaks in. Or not.

Let's remember, Lyman has ALWAYS recommended bore sized bullets as far back as I can remember reading.

[btroj]

But you did fight the "hard is better" crowd. You also went with a bullet smaller than I would have even thought of.

You made me think about a couple of trouble guns I have. I might be sizing too big, not too small. Something I will be looking at.

You are a free thinker because you went against so many of the so called rules. In my book, that is to be admired.

Brad

[MT Gianni]

Bass, it would be interesting to measure if there is any mis-alignment in the cylinders to bore. I would think that Smith hit it right in that Dept. with this gun. If not perhaps soft allows the boolits to turn a corner easier and become realigned.

[Bass Ackward]

But you did fight the "hard is better" crowd. You also went with a bullet smaller than I would have even thought of.

You made me think about a couple of trouble guns I have. I might be sizing too big, not too small. Something I will be looking at.

You are a free thinker because you went against so many of the so called rules. In my book, that is to be admired.

Brad


I don't fight any technique. They are all good as long as they work. If they don't, then I am against them. The whole point here is letting the gun teach you.

This was a knock down, drag out, WWF Smack down with a 627 S&W. And I either do it my way and spay patterns or do what the gun wants and then feel better about life.

I don't doubt that this gun has alignment issues. But it is not alone. Every new Smith I have owned with the angled rifling has had LOWER limits than my other guns. Not a rule, just my unfortunate trend.

One might conclude that the more difficult it is for a bullet to enter a bore, (rifling height / width / cone angle / hardness / diameter / etc) the larger the factor of misalignment becomes. That has been my results so far.

Will the gun clean up and shoot in so that other things work? Well, if you believe others here, they would say no. Sometimes they are right, sometimes I am.

My options are to sell .... or to do what it wants. (listen to Professor Gun)

I find myself bass ackward again. Col Whelen was credited with saying only accurate guns are interesting. Rifles ok, but handguns? Right now this 627 is still teaching me, so I find it interesting. Good guns are for shooting. Other guns are for L E A R N I N G. :grin:

Shooting an easy gun is satisfying. Conquering a stubborn piece? PRICELESS!!!

Now I can move on to stage 2. Correct or proper gun break in. See I don't want to break in or worse lap in a gun badly by forcing it to shoot poorly until it does. I want this gun to develop good habits first. So I will shoot this load a couple more times and if I am satisfied, then I will load and shoot the hell out of this gun and let the wear occur slowly. Then once I am sure things are coming around, I might expedite the break in by fire lapping. Just depends. I will revist hardness, diameter, bullet designs again over time to see if and when it is ready.

This less than 1100 fps load is really all I need right now for THIS gun, so I will probably just shoot this, and shoot this. You get the idea.

But see how one subject leads to another subject? Started out with diameter, then went to GCs, to barrel styles, then to designs, then to alignment and now break in. Gotta be up on the hill to see what's happening in the valley.

[btroj]

Makes me glad I own good old Ruger simple revolvers. No problems with them........

[geargnasher]

There are some lessons guns teach that make me drop the class in the middle of the semester, like when they are dimensionally challenged or have really rough rifling cuts. That's when I take the on-line short course in firelapping or other techniques to get the platform up to speed. THEN, when I have a somewhat decent platform upon which to continue load development, I proceed. Some guns are just wrong for cast (and they'll tell you so quite clearly) and need to be brought up to speed as a first step. But regardless, I try known-good loads in a new gun and make the usual short gamut of diagnostic adjustments just to confirm or dispose of my preconceived notions, notions which are based upon what my measuring tools tell me. Sometimes I'm surprised, but not often.

Gear

[Charlie Two Tracks]

btroj: Sometimes that statement is right. Sometimes not. I have three Rugers and I bought an SP-101 two years ago. It was all messed up. You could shoot jacketed with it but not lead. The BC gap was .010 on four throats and .011 on the other. I sent it back and Ruger replaced the barrel, cylinder, crane and parts in the trigger assembly. About the only thing that remanins is the frame with the serial number. After waiting over two months, I got it back in great shape. Shoots quite well and I couldn't be happier. One of those things I guess. If I'm not wrong (and I sure can be) this post is trying to tell me that there are few blanket statements reguarding my revolver except for the fact that it will go "bang" when the trigger is pulled. IMO

[Bass Ackward]

If I'm not wrong (and I sure can be) this post is trying to tell me that there are few blanket statements reguarding my revolver except for the fact that it will go "bang" when the trigger is pulled. IMO


Ding!

[btroj]

My Ruger statement was entirely sarcasm. It is pretty obvious from posts on this site that people have just as much trouble with Ruger products too.