Ness Safety Bullet "Clone" with COW Filler

[longbow]

Well, it has been a while since I managed to get any shooting done!

I have taken some people out to the range to teach their kids to shoot but of course I didn't get much shooting in myself on those trips.

Anyway, last weekend I took my Lee Enfield No. 5 for an outing to the range and all I had loaded up were some Ness Safety Bullet "clones" loaded over IMR4227 with COW filler ~ so two things tested at once. Well, actually three. More on that later.

So about the boolits. When the group buy was put together for the Ness Safety Bullet:

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=126732

I wanted one for my .303 but I figured the HP pin was so long it wouldn't release well as a Cramer style and the boolit was a little heavier than I wanted. However, I was curious so I decided to make a new nose form with HP pin for my .303 pushout mould to test the HP pin.

It didn't take long to make a wadcutter (flat) nose form with big pin sticking out.

I fired up the lead pot, pre-heated the mould and cast. The boolits dropped out quite easily to my surprise!

Being smooth sided I knurled them to hold tumble lube, lubed them then looked for a load. I looked up the Ness articles posted by georgewxxx:

http://www.sodcity.com/gallery2/view_album.php?set_albumName=Moulds-etc

Thanks for that georgewxxx! Good information and great galleries!

They measure 0.305" on the nose bore rider and 0.313" on the body then 0.315" after knurling ~ puuurfect for my 0.315" throat, they just slide in.

I decided on a load of 22 grs. of IMR4227 but since these are PB boolits (no gas check shank on a pushout mould) I used COW filler over the powder to protect the boolit. One day I will make a PB gas check maker.

Boolits were cast, knurled, lubed, loaded and shot (well shot about a year after loading). They were not weight segregated and some had small casting defects. It is difficult to get good fillout with such a large HP pin and thin nose.

Accuracy ran around 1 1/2" to 2" at 50 yards so not stellar for the first outing but then again there has been no load work up and it turns out after re-reading the info that original tests gave best accuracy with lighter loads than I was using.

In any case, the three things I tested:

- Ness Safety Bullet "clone"
- COW filler load
- Filler packing over time

I didn't mention yet that after some discussion on a thread over a year ago about cereal fillers absorbing moisture and packing over time I said I would load rounds with COW filler and see what happened over a year.

I loaded 50 rounds last October and left them in the basement until June when I took five rounds out. put them in an open plastic bag then put them under a tree in my back yard. The bag was open to let them "breath" but not get wet. We had the wettest June on record and a wet July as well.

Last weekend I shot about 30 rounds from the basement group. The primers showed no signs of pressure, the loads were quite mild and no signs of COW left in the cartridges.

Tonight I pulled a boolit from the 5 that spent half a year in the basement then the summer outside and a boolit from the batch that spent almost a year in the basement.

One weighed 136.5 grs., the other weighed 137.0 grs.

The COW was packed but not hard in both, compression was approx. 0.30".

I used a wood screw to loosen the COW and dump slowly to get to the powder with the following results:

Round from the basement:

- 19.7 grs. COW with some powder mixed in (not a lot)
- 21.7 grs. IMR4227 (originally thrown with Lee scoops) with a small amount of COW mixed in (very small amount)

Round that spent the summer outside:

- 19.0 grs. COW with a few grs. of powder mixed in (less than above)
- 22.7 grs. IMR4227 (originally thrown with Lee scoops) with a very small amount of COW mixed in

So, I am a happy camper. I got to shoot, got okay accuracy and tested out the filler issue. In my view there was no "packing/caking" issue to worry about.

.303 Brit doesn't have a lot of shoulder so cereal filler does not worry me. I am now convinced that COW does not pack enough to worry about over time or when exposed to moisture/high humidity.

Not the most scientific approach but I am satisfied.

Also, since I know I have minute of milk jug accuracy the next trip will include milk jugs full of water! I want to see what these boolits do!

And here I was giving one of the group buy members a hard time for shooting targets instead of milk jugs then I did the same thing! In the end I passed on the group buy but I do have my home made mould which shows promise.

Oh, I also found out that these flat nosed boolits do not feed from a Lee Enfield magazine (or not mine anyway)! Single load only.

Longbow

[35remington]

Nice report, but I have to wonder:

What does COW do that dacron does not do better and more safely? No caking and no "funneling" effect, as well as no chance of absorbing moisture.

[Wayne Smith]

I have posted this before but it applies here also. I have had (created) the opportunity on two separate occasions to test the waterproof qualities of my ammo. Twice I have dumped my 44-40 BP brass into the ceramic bead/soapy water mix and run the vibratory cleaner, one time overnight, only to find, when I took them out, a loaded round. This is my standard 44-40 load using the Lee crimp die. On both occasions those rounds fired and the shots landed in the group with the other, dry loads. I stopped worrying about moisture getting into my ammo.

[blackthorn]

I think I would be more concerned with the effect of moisture that was in the COW filler when/before it was put into the case, rather than moisture being absorbed after the round was completed and set aside.

[longbow]

One of my goals when I started using filler was to protect PB boolits (no gas check). The granular fillers seem to do that very well. Another was to be able to use slow powders at low loading density ~ granular filler takes that back to 100% loading density.

I certainly wouldn't argue that shotgun buffer might be a better choice. It has all the benefit of the filler behind the boolit with no moisture/caking issues.

With faster powders like IMR4227 the filler isn't needed for ignition but with slower powders it can be a benefit that way as well as protecting the boolit. I don't think Dacron would help that way.

Also, I may well be wrong but I don't think Dacron will help seal gases behind the boolit. Its purpose as I understand it is to keep powder against the primer.

I should try the Dacron puff filler as well for comparison. I have not done that yet. One day.

As for safety, fillers of any kind seem to open up all sorts of conversations and opinions. I have read more of problems using fluffy fillers incorrectly (tamping them down as a wad) than I have about using granular fillers. In fact I have articles written on the use of granular fillers that I copied from .303british.com and surplusrifle.com and elsewhere that discuss safe load work up and improved ballistics and performance.

I have seen posts on this site regarding safe use of puffy fillers and some very good ones by Larry Gibson.

So far I have used COW filler with powders ranging from Unique to IMR4320 under cast boolits in my .303's with no problems.

The main problem I read about is when an air space is left between the filler/wad and the bullet base, and that seems to apply universally to any type of filler ~ fluffy or wad like.

From my point of view granular fillers offer:

- protection for the boolit (better bore sealing especially with no gas check)
- space filler to help with ignition/pressure with slow powders
- provides 100% loading density so no double charge can occur (fluffy fillers do not prevent this)
- lead clean up behind the boolit ~ it seems difficult to lead a barrel when using granular filler

Not trying to convert you. I am happy using the COW filler some are not. Different strokes.

I probably should have separated the Ness Safety Bullet "clone" results from the filler issue but until I kill a few milk jugs there wasn't a lot to report on the boolit performance.

Next outing I will lighten the powder charge by 3 or 4 grs. and check accuracy against the first batch. I may also try some fillerless loads for comparison as well.

I have a boolit trap I made so will try to recover some boolits but with the large HP I suspect there won't be much to recover! It will be fun though shooting through a milk jug then into the boolit trap.

Longbow

[35remington]

I'm not trying to convert you either, just pointing out that dacron is worth a try.

Fluffy fillers prevent double charges just fine. If there is a double charge, you can't get the filler in. I didn't understand your point here. If airspace is a problem even if the case is double charged because the powder charges are extremely small, there is room to add filler of any type.

In this case, then, filler type would not matter and is no advantage for either.

Dacron prevents gas cutting too, so leading is reduced. Recover some fired bullets sometime that have been used over dacron, as I have. Bore sealing is excellent. When gascutting is reduced, so is leading.

!00 percent loading density. Lower increases with pressure due to very very light weight and much easier compressibility than COW upon firing.

Given that a gascheck bullet gives best results at gascheck velocities, filler or no, I see the use of COW as a wash with plainbase bullets in terms of bullet base protection.

If velocities are 1500 fps or less, dacron is worth a try. If velocities are more like 1800 fps, a gascheck would have been better for a bullet choice regardless of what filler lies beneath it. At some point bullet base deformation from granular fillers, especially the hard cereals, gets to be a concern and a gascheck bullet helps mitigate it to some degree.

At the higher velocities/pressures, the hard cereals start to deform the plainbase bullet more than protect it. Which is why you won't find good results at, say, 2200 fps with a plainbase despite the cereal "protection" of the bullet base.......because the cereal isn't "protecting" the plainbase bullet any more, but rather deforming it.

Everything has its limitations, dacron, COW, or otherwise. Beyond that it's gascheck time.

I"ve said enough. Longbow, it's a neat bullet and I hope that it gets some good results for you. Keep us posted.

[longbow]

35remington:

Okay, I guess I should try the Dacron before saying it can't prevent double charges. I had assumed because of its fluffy nature it would simply compress more. I suppose depending on powder volume if close to but less than 1/2 cartridge volume you are right ~ a double charge wouldn't overflow but also wouldn't leave room for Dacron. I stand corrected. If around 1/4 cartridge volume I am not sure but then that would be a lot of cereal filler so maybe not practical either.

As for adding granular filler I use a measure so if the measure of filler doesn't fit I know there is too much powder. I don't just trickle filler into a load to fill the cartridge.

I wasn't aware that the Dacron had any significant sealing effect and again shouldn't assume. I have not read (or don't remember) that as being a characteristic of Dacron filler. I will have to give it a go.

I have not hot rodded using COW so can't comment on the higher end velocities. What I can say is that with same load and boolit weight I have had as good or better results using COW than gas checks. These loads would be in the 1600 to 1800 FPS range (not chronographed but based on loading book info). I have not done multiple test for comparison though.

Since my pushout moulds do not allow gas check shank I have to shoot plain base or PB gas check (after I make a .30 cal PB gas check maker).

I have seen significant deformation of GC shank boolits loaded over COW and without GC on. The GC shank looked more like a boattail on recovered boolits. Accuracy wasn't good either. That was unsuccessful!

My "clone" isn't exact but close and has the giant hollow point.

I hope to have some more results of milk jug destruction soon along with some recovered boolits. I will post photos when I have them.

Hmmm, maybe I better pick up some Dacron too. I might as well add another test. Its all good fun to try and constant learning.

Longbow

[35remington]

I certainly won't promise that dacron will raise the velocity ceiling of plainbase bullets. About 1500 fps is it for me. But it might not be a bad idea to get those gaschecks going.

My results with high velocity COW haven't been good, so it's probably expected that I should prefer a gascheck for that speed to any kind of filler. I don't expect it to work as well as the gascheck, because it won't.

At the plainbase bullet speeds, I see no advantage of any other kind of filler over dacron. Granulated plastic is okay, but pricey and hard to get sometimes, and it is not safe with the very light loads because the filler does not get blown completely out of the case.

Will look forward to seeing more about your bullet. Even at such at range that it doesn't expand I bet it would work fine on varmints. Since that speed would probably be 900 fps or less that would have to be a pretty long shot.

I've wondered if decent accuracy is to be had due to the bullet's extreme shape and the compromises in aerodynamics that go along with it.

[longbow]

35remington:

Just got back in from fiberglassing my old truck ~ preservation not restoration!

If you haven't taken a read through the Ness info in the link I posted you should. It is a good read. What I found surprising was the concern Ness took to avoid ricochets and also to limit the range of the boolit. The destructive expansion could be had in other ways, and was, but his concern was shooting in populated areas and back in 1936 at that.

The accuracy he got seemed good but not great. Good enough though for the intended range of the design. He says it should not travel any further than buckshot and not as far as a .22 though there is no actual info on maximum range. If it loses stability and tumbles then that would certainly reduce maximum range.

I just kind of liked the idea and almost got in on the group buy but I have the 311410 HP on the way eventually so... I can't have them all!

I was hoping for some posted results on milk jugs or varmints from the Mihec produced mould but so far just a bit of paper punching. That one is a direct copy and gas check shank. It should perform very well.

In any case, I've got what I made so will carry on testing and report the results I get.

Longbow