Cast Bullet Accuracy-Two Points Of View

[joeb33050]

I read, almost daily, what's posted on the various cast-bullet-related forums, and think that I see two different views of how to achieve accuracy when shooting cast bullets.

One view holds that there are many variables in the cast bullet shooting business, and that selection of the selectable quantities or qualities of these variables within narrow limits is required to find accuracy. We can call this view the "small increment" view for ease of reference.
The variables include bullet hardness and weight and composition and dimensions, powder choice and charge weight, cartridge case make and dimensions and annealing and sizing diameter and expansion diameter, primer choice, action/barrel bedding/clearance, barrel vibration and harmonics and diameter and length and chamber dimensions and bore/land smoothness and crown, scope make and type and power and mounting, bench rest type and setup, and many more.
Selectable quantities or qualities are the those that are within the control of the shooter; so that powder choice and charge weight are (almost) always within the control of the shooter, while barrel diameter and chamber dimensions are infrequently within the control of the shooter for technical or financial or time reasons.
The "small increment" shooter believes that precise quantities or qualities of variables are necessary to achieve accuracy; powder charges measured to tenths of grains, precise bedding of actions, carefully cast and weighed and bumped/swaged bullets made of precise alloys, and so on.

The other point of view is that there are some clearcut rules for achieving accuracy with cast bullets, and that these rules are either known or knowable. Let us call this the "cookbook" view.
"Cookbook" guys point to the 30/06 IMR4895 300 meter load, 14.5 grains of IMR4227 in 32/40, 14 grains of Unique in 45/70, and the various current day commercial "target" loads for rifle and pistol that seem to work accurately in most guns across a wide spectrum.
These recipe guys cite broad bullet hardness/composition vs. velocity relationships, measure powder charges to the nearest half grain, believe that they see accuracy across a range of bullet dimensions and weights, powder choices, primer choices, seating depths and cartridge case variables.

I think that I see these two points of view in the posts in the various forums; these syntheses are approximations intended to differentiate between the two-not to be precise definitions.

Perhaps some of the argument we see is caused by these two differing world views, and perhaps if I'm right about the two views, we can at least begin to understand each other.

I can but won't put names to each; and am looking for comment.
joe brennan.

[Blammer]

I suppose I'm a Cooking Increment and a smallbook bullet shooter.

[monadnock#5]

Kurt Vonnegut called it the "Chrono Synclastic Infundibulum". The example he used was to imagine two young girls living in separate universes. In communicating with each other, they determined that the father of each was the smartest man in their own universe. When the two fathers got together however, they couldn't agree on anything, and fought bitterly with each other.

It used to bug me that you and BA, Felix, Larry Gibson et al, would occasionally get the Louisville Sluggers out and go after each other. I see now that out of these conflicts there has been some very good information generated. I like BA's thoughts on run out, and your Darr Lube recipe allowed me the use of a BB mold I hadn't used before for fear of trying to lube the boolits in a Lyman 450.

I would suggest taking up a collection towards the purchase of rosin bags emblazoned with the Cast Boolits Logo for the four of you previously mentioned.

I personally am a recipe guy. I believed it when "The Book" told me that it was the be all and end all, beyond which disaster awaits. I have a tough time thinking outside the box.

Keep up the good work Joe. And feel free to use me as a lightning rod when you feel the need. I may not be good for much, but I make a swell ground for free roaming static.

[Harpman]

I think your second view is true IF you use all the exact components suggested, once you change one component you end up having to follow view number one to get best accuracy...good example is bullet hardness. a bullet at 8BHN requires a different load setup than one at 18 bhn..and view number two might have been developed using 18.......this is just my observation, I noticed once I change one thing, everything changes..And, in general second view is always good, untill you get to the individual gun and want to fine tune the load for that guns specs.

[Ohio Rusty]

I'm clearly a small increment guy, although most of what I know for smokeless powder shooting comes from my experience in the Blackpowder arts. I've been able to achieve excellent accuracy and consistent ignition due to testing the many variables that produce a convergent or divergent hole in the target with multiple shots. These variables have included pure cotton patching vs. cotton/linen patching vs. pure linen patching, the tightness of the weave, different lubes including pure bears grease, rendered deer and pheasant tallow, oils and fats with the addition of beeswax or soy wax, measuring and changing powder charges, 3F vs. 4F in the pan, hand knapped flint vs. English flint, etc. I've discovered in both smokeless and BP shooting, there are a set of variables that are right, and their results show down range, but they aren't absolute !! Sometimes other substitutions produce nearly identical results while some testing variables are clearly failures. One variable that stands out as a maker or breaker is having a prefectly filled out bullet base. Less than perfect produces less than perfect results. Although for some, this quest for perfection isn't something they strive for, they just want it to go bang, hit the paper somewhere and see that satisfying puff of dirt from the backstop. I'm like that some days where just the bang and the felt recoil are enough to fill the little satisfaction I need. Today during my casting session, I was in that 'strive for perfection' mood with every bullet that fell from the mould. I find the biggest variable that fails often is the human factor that gets thrown into the mix polluting the perfection equation no matter how well you cast your bullet.
Ohio Rusty

[OLPDon]

Joe:
Quite a well rounded view of the capabilities of a rifle/pistol to the cast Boolit.

The Cast Boolitier is a unique individual a person so to speak who seeks perfection, much as a juggler would seek to juggle 14 balls in a wind storm. Sometimes I think juggling would be easer. It would at least get you a free drink or two at a bar.

That brings us to the individual shooter and his satisfaction level what is good enough or adequate. For this shooter it has been long since I could out shoot my Rifle. Doping the wind learning to shoot on a steady condition was more then just saying " concentrate STUPID."

Enthusiasm has not left, it has change and a new challenge has been replaced. Now it has come with knowledge and understanding ( much what I was lacking in my youth). Just to have those 13 yr. old eyes back and have the understanding and patient of my older self (again youth wasted on the young). The challenge factor is a new with casting its not for all, just the factor of collecting wheel weights has exploration into the mix. I missed the dollar factor that too has changed, for the better I might add> thank you Eliz. NJ Fire Dept. Pension dollars a dream come true (like winning the Lottery).

To put it into simple terms its just plain challenging, enlightens, humbling, and FUN, ( at any speed) High velocity kill your shoulder (and I am sure I didn’t flinch speed) or shoot all day with just a few Dollars burned.

To add to this, the ability to share with those who understand (this forum)
My post may not be of value to MOA, but more for IDIM (I Did It Myself) Factor.

Don

[Char-Gar]

I will go with known or knowlable principals that lead to accuracy. We have to blend all of the variables into the principals and hence the principals become numerous with even more numerous sub-headings, qualifications and exceptions. None the less, there are known or knowable principals. This whole business is not magic, but physics.

I don't go as far as a "cookbook" as that term is commonly used, because each of us have our own ingrediants that go into our final product. A cookbook only works where there is uniformity of ingrediants from one cook to another, or the variety of the ingrediants won't make a difference in the outcome. With cast bullet shooting the difference in the ingrediants may very well make the difference in the outcome.

A cookbook load may get us into the ball park of good shooting, but there are still all of the qualificatons and exceptions that need to be tweaked for best accuracy to be realized in our rifles with our ingrediants.

So in which of the camps should I pitch my tent? Or maybe I need to pitch it between them. I truly don't know and am still very much in the learning mode.

One of the "challenges" to learning on this board is some of our "Yoda figures", are not consistant in their posts. Maybe it is all of those qualifications and exceptions at work, or maybe this really is magic, or maybe they really are not consistant.

[leftiye]

I'm not so keen on understanding reoladers as I am in understanding reloading. Nevertheless, I think we're all stuck with gathering all the "data" that we can find, and guestimating predictions from that. In otherwords we know whatever we know, and try to understand reality in view of that. So, I guess I'm a "Psychological" reloader.

[Maven]

All, Why limit "types"/styles to an either-or view? Better to think of it as a continuum with each style at the extremes, no? Additionally, I look at downrange/target results and try to adjust things when they're less impressive than I'd prefer. I.e., I can adjust powder type & charge* since I have a chrono.; brass prep & method of sizing; CB design and its "sized to" dimension (diameter); front v. rear cavity; OAL; bullet lube (not a factor since I limit my velocity to 1,700 - 1,800fps except for my .45-70 and SKS Type 56); rifle bedding (only 2 are bedded). Since I don't have a CB hardness tester, I don't agonize over BHN and use WW's + whatever range scrap I happen to find, although I try not to include large amounts of .22's and HBWC's. Bullet fit is the main thing for me, not primer type, headstamp and/or weight of brass, etc. My target and bbl. leading or its absence pretty much tell me what I need to know. Sorry to say, the biggest problem may be "operator error."

By way of example, I returned from our range ~1hr. ago after testing a CBE design (195gr.) that is essentially a truncated cone version of Saeco's RG-4 except that it's nose is .304" whereas the RG-4 can be as small as .300". While the CBE bullet works well in my .30-06 (.311"), 7.62 x 54R (.311") and 7.65 x 53 Arg. Mau. (.313"), it was difficult to chamber in the .30-30 (.310") I tested today (Marlin 336, MG rifling, aperture sight). Was it inaccurate? Let me put it this way: It wasn't as accurate as the Saeco #315 (@ .310") that I also used today and Ly. #311466 (.310") that I've used in the past. The lube du jour was LBT Blue on the CBE's (only because I had an old tube of it handy and I was too lazy to melt some Felix Lube and pour it into my Ly. lube sizer) and Ly. Super Moly on the Saeco's. In either case, there was no leading and cases were partially FL sized. Powder was WC 820 @ 16gr., thrown.

In short, the above works for me and it's not in my nature to make a religion of things, but you may feel differently and that's perfectly OK as variety truly IS the spice of life.



*Maybe its me, but I haven't yet stumbled upon a real "dog" of a propellant. Some are better than others with respect to SD's and ES"s (also linked to CB weight), but I haven't found one that produced inaccurate results. OTOH, AA 5744 consistently gives low SD's & ES's with CB's. I just wish it was less expensive.

[JohnH]

Joe, I lean with Maven, why do we need to name different approaches to cast bullet accuracy? I'm willing to be bet there is prolly more crossover in techniques that folks use than the two styles described appear to allow. I'm also willing to bet that a great many are like myself, they show up and read, post some questions or experience then go back to reading and quitely shoot either in our backyard ranges or local ranges.

Practically all my bullet casting these days focuses on how to make the metal I got go the farthest. So while I could cast many thousands of boolits from linotype and gain a few hundred fps, I'm quite satisfied shooting at 1300-1600 fps, poking holes in paper and slamming a steel swinger, so I cast with a conglomeration of WW/Lead/Lino mixed at 50/50/50, while I will often top up the pot with miscasts from the last 5 years that are GOK metal (God Only Knows). Experimentation with various surplus and cannister powders and primers have decided what loads I shoot, the books be damned. The only requirement is that I can put the componenets in any case brand and get 2" at 75 yards with 15 of 20 going into 1 1/4", no weighing, or sorting for any but obvious defects, load and shoot.

I recently went on a prarie dog shoot, and was making reasonble hits out to 180 yards with a TC Encore 25-06 driving the RCBS 257120 at 1600 fps. Load is 18 grains of 5744 and Federals 210 Gold Match primer. I was hitting at 20-25% and that was with a 35 MPH wind at my back. (Knocked 'em over like bowling pins, but I find high velocity red bullets are the better tool for that job.) Cases were an conglomeration of RP 25-06 cases to reformed Winchester 270 cases (everybodys) to reformed LC 68 30-06 cases, to reformed 30-06 cases including some S&W's! No effort was made to seperate lots; load and shoot, devil be damned.

I came to this method by proving to myself that with the firearms I have, meticulous efforts for maximum accuracy cannot be supported by the groups that show up on the targets.

I've said all that to make this point.... It'd be my guess that the majority of your meticulous loaders are shooting guns that are highly tuned peices of equipment, while us GOK shooters are runnning untuned factory rifles and are out to simply enjoy making our guns go bang. Perhpas better said, I see two differnt kinds of shooters; those who are happy simply shooting, and those who are happy seeking "perfection". Our methods don't justify the ends, rather it is the ends we seek that drive the methods we use.

[44man]

I like the K.I.S.S. principal. Take a jacketed bullet (Horrors!) and work a load trying different powders until one load gives good groups. Twiddle with it a little and maybe gain or lose a little. Most bullets will give real good accuracy but once in a while a bullet just won't shoot. What is the first thing done? Pitch the bullet! Common sense.
Now take a guy that buys a mold. Sometimes the boolit just won't shoot no matter what is done but years are spent trying. Change hardness, lubes, primers, powders, diameters and on and on. To admit the boolit choice was wrong is contrary to a caster's thinking for some reason.
When I have a boolit that won't group with my normal load workup, I pitch it and try another. I am not going to waste a year on it.
Too much is made of Brinnel hardness when someone says it HAS to be 16 and 17 or 18 will not shoot. I have not seen a difference in a wide range of hardness until I get too soft for the velocity I want.
Casters are a varied lot with ten million theorys and suggestions but when it gets down to it, it is easier to work loads like you would for a jacketed bullet. When I increase charges and the groups slowly tighten, then start to open slowly once the accuracy point is reached, I know what load the boolit likes. If groups stay large for the entire load workup, the mold goes in the drawer, never to be used for that gun again. K.I.S.S.

[Harpman]

I'm in the camp JohnH noted...I bought about 5 books on reloading, but actually learned more right here on this forum and a couple others, go out in the backyard and test it....I know everything you guys say on here is true cuz its on the internet. [smilie=1:

[shooter93]

I think the two different schools are no different than when using Jacketed bullets. It all hinges on your accuracy criteria. lead or jacketed if you want the maximum accuracy....ie the smallest groups then you approach the firearm that way. You build it with accuracy in mind from the start, barrels, action, fitting etc as well as controlling all components as much as possible. That's how you shoot world record groups. Hunting guns or military rifles with either type bullet are different entirely and we deal with what we have and get accecptable results for the task at hnd. I shoot both schools very extensively and the "match" gun will always shoot better than a hunting gun and very small differences in components and even lubes can make a difference. Shoot a rail gun sometime to test loads or theories and it's readily apparent that they do. Neither school is right and neither school is wrong....just different schools.

[shooter93]

And I should also add...Joe Bernnan is EXTREMELY knowledgable of the subject of cast bullets. Many of my personal experiments yeild completely different results than his but I'm not and would not argue with his results....mine are just simply different. There are so many varibles involved with shooting that little is truly concrete. I do believe however that there is two definate and different approaches to "accuracy" shooting.

[sundog]

Two. ONLY two? Humph. How boring (pun intended).

[Bass Ackward]

Two. ONLY two? Humph. How boring (pun intended).


I agree with Corky.

One guy once told me I was full of crap with all my theories. (This happen fairly frequently by the way. :grin:) I asked how he formulated that opinion and he said, he didn't have to do or understand any of that crap to shoot cast bullets. And he believed that because his velocity ceiling was all that he could produce, therefore that was as high as anyone could go. From his point of view, a lot of what is posted here would be BS. Bliss through ignorance.

The sum total of what we are about and where we come from is driven by our experiences. If we have had to solve problems for what ever reason, then we will be pretty good at telling you how "WE" corrected it. That's the whole problem with advancing cast knowledge. It's easy to tell someone what should be done or how to do it, but it's the things that crop up in his situation that matter most.

Very simply, this board is here to advance information toward successful usage of cast. The Problem with that? Smooth seas do not a good mariner make. When you read how to do what you want successfully, how many will break away and try new things if they don't have to?

Guys complain here that deep discussions on important topics have disappeared and that everything is on the basic level. My point is that the irony of this board is that we may be dumbing down the next generation of cast shooters by removing their learning curve.

The last thing that we need to do is try to pigeon hole accuracy now. Besides, in order to categorize a thing, you would have to define a thing. Want to try to reach consensus on THAT !!!! Good luck :grin:

[44man]

Won't happen because everything we do IS important for final accuracy and velocity tweaking. What I tried to say was we need to know why one boolit will shoot and another that looks almost the same, weighs the same, is the same diameter, won't shoot no matter what.
Normal load workup can find that bad boolit so time and effort is not wasted on it.
Once the right boolit is found, then some small difference in alloy or lube or powder charge will not make it shoot much worse then the ideal. The right boolit can be shot with a full charge of slow powder or a light load of 231 with great accuracy.
Now is when everything else we do is important to find the best accuracy and see how fast we can make it shoot without leading, etc.
I will not spend years changing the alloy of the bad boolit by .0005% of tin or antimony, casting a ton with every batch a different alloy for testing. I will not work in 1/10 gr powder charges to make it shoot. I will not change the throat on my gun for it. Because in the end, nothing is gained. I will admit that my gun just doesn't like that boolit! It is time to move on and I want to find out fast that it is the wrong boolit.
I suppose I have it easier because I make my own molds and if a boolit doesn't work, it doesn't hurt to strip the mold and use parts for another, or just throw it in the drawer because it just might shoot in another gun.
Some fellows read that a boolit is good, buy the mold and it won't shoot in thier gun. They are reluctant to forget it and forge ahead and will work with that boolit foever. Nothing we suggest can help them much.

[black44hawk]

I love this philosophizing on my favorite hobby. Add one more vote to "incremental." Afterall, isn't a good load just a sum of its parts?

[pdawg_shooter]

Done right, the paper patch bullet is almost always accurate as a jacketed bullet in the same firearm. Why fight bare bullets when it is so easy to get what you want with paper?

[felix]

44man, what you said is absolutely true. A boolit won't be a pure winner in that gun unless it holds its accuracy intended using a full 10 percent range of powder charge. That is my standard for any kind of projectile selected for that gun. ... felix

[sundog]

Identifying, understanding, and controlling variables and their relationships. Each instance is an individual of its own. Our best ally is a transferable skill learned through institutional knowledge and experience.

Results vary from, "Aha!", to "oops...."

[45nut]

Guys complain here that deep discussions on important topics have disappeared and that everything is on the basic level. My point is that the irony of this board is that we may be dumbing down the next generation of cast shooters by removing their learning curve.

Discussions such as this are welcomed actually, exploring the boundaries of shooting lead is certainly not taboo, recently discussions such as this have been examples of decorum and civil exchange and that is all we ask from the participants. Even the McCarthy bill discussion has been tread with thought before emotion although it could have easily degraded, such is not the case.
The forum does not want to dissuade thoughts and opinions until they start to resemble matches of offense and defense. I come here to relax myself, my first thoughts are not as a moderator, rather they are as a cast boolit enthusiast like you all. None of the staff wishes to be here to conquer and divide, we are all here as members of a board that discusses CB's and have the same interests as everyone else that logs in. I have been a visitor to many other boards once, maybe twice and never again because despite an interest I cannot abide the sparring nature of the board.
We are all here as brothers of the silver stream, civil wars have not benefited anyone. Civil discussion can and does produce results and are welcome.
I would think a poll of the membership would show we try to err on the side of stepping back and not of stamping out free thought. The staff rarely has anything to discuss anymore. I prefer it that way myself.

[Harpman]

:roll: deep huh.well, just dont go start using those big words and stuff. .the folks that miss that discussion should start the topics they want input on..so far what I been reading here is all very critical to good loads and should never be forgotten or glossed over.

[45 2.1]

Deep discussions? Hardly! Two camps of accuracy? Hardly! there has been a dearth of really good discussions for quite a while. Maybe since a couple of past members left for various reasons. I agree with Bass for once on this issue.

[BABore]

Come on "Sour Puss", tell us how you really feel.[smilie=1:

[45 2.1]

Come on "Sour Puss", tell us how you really feel.[smilie=1:


Hahahahaha, can't ya tell! I does seem that your not getting much if any imput from the old timers here.

[Buckshot]

Hahahahaha, can't ya tell! I does seem that your not getting much if any imput from the old timers here.

................Who are they? And if they're Old Timers here, is it incumbent upon them to post to a particular thread for some reason? It's like what, a job?

..............Buckshot

[MT Gianni]

Probably more than 2. I like chicken and rice but am continually fiddling with ingredients to improve it. I don't change chicken or rice or a 350 oven but spices revolve to improve. I use a book load for a reference but change primers, charge weights up or down a few grains if it is under the max. Sometimes it is all upon the gun. My rossi 92 will never be a bench rest gun and my loads for that reflect it. I lean towards a 429421 over a 429244 because I have a 4 cav. vs a single cavity. The gc shoots a little better but none lead and if I am shooting over 200 yards a different gun comes out of the safe anyway. I guess I adjust for the purpose of the gun and get bored when I find a load that the gun likes. Then its write it down, load up a bunch and work on something else. Gianni.

[joeb33050]

I posted the first on Sunday, 24 June 2007, on the CBA forum and the Cast Boolits forum. Today is Tuesday, 26 June, 2007; there are 4 responses on the CBA forum, and 27 responses on the Cast Boolits forum. If there are really 572 members of the CBA forum, 560 of them are the quietest folks in the land.
(Some of the Cast Boolits guys are gathering in the village, with sharp agricultural implements, and looking this way.)
Now I ask the question or pose the proposition for a reason, maybe a couple of reasons.

The "small increment" guys live (CB) life on a knfe edge, any smidgn of difference in anything throws off the whole business, so accuracy goes away.

The "cookbook" guys live (CB) life on a table, minor differences in most things in the accurate load recipe do not have great effects on accuracy.

Both the "small increment" and "cookbook" guys maintain that there is not ONE accuracy solution, but a family of solutions. I think most people believe this.

To me, the "small increment" guys, at high levels of accuracy, have a problem with the numbers of groups that must be shot to show a significant difference in two load recipes.

I think that the way forward in understanding cast bullet accuracy lies with one of these approaches-Maven the Mediator notwithstanding. And I'm always interested in moving forward. Or sitting back and having a beer.

Neither set of guys has shown any interest in demonstrating WHY they believe as they do, nobody is showing their groups.

It occurs to me that we can shoot rockets to the moon, that the rules and science and knowledge and cause-and-effect are now-have been-figured out. And it occurs to me that shooting cast bullets accurately ain't quite as hard as shooting a rocket to the moon.

So who wants to tell us about what they did and what happened accuracy-wise that supports their position? It's show and tell time!

(Are those Cast Boolit guys coming up the hill?)
joe brennan

[leftiye]

Firstly, I want a budget like NASA's, then I'll have it all down in a reference volume in a few centuries! Then you'll all hate me cause there won't be any problems to figure out anymore.

[porkchop bob]

Good afternoon, Joe.

IMO, the folks that wrote the cookbooks we use did a lot of the "small increment" development. When I work up a load, I load 25 of each batch to be able to see how they shoot. Once I determine which one gives me the best results, I load 500 and put then in the can for the next trip to the range. I try to keep as few variables as possible. Most of my shooting is with the S&W 625 using moon clips and the Marlin Guide Gun in 45-70. The guns shoot better than I do. The cookbook or small increment methods to my opinion are the two sides of a coin. Once I have a load worked up, it becomes my cookbook for the next time I load that caliber.

Good luck with your quest,

Bob

[sundog]

Leftiye, even the ground maintenance portion, or some such, of the NASA budget would be okay. It's the TIME ting that's sooooo precious.

[Maven]

What Maven, "the mediator" does [attempting] to achieve accuracy* in rifles:

Melt "alloy," which is increasingly a Heinz 57 Varieties mixture as WW's are hard to get in my neck of the woods.

Cast and inspect bullets. Any flawed CB's are reserved for foulers. The remainder go back into the furnace. I'll weigh them only to determine a benchmark for a particular mold and/or for a match.

Size, add GC's and lube CB's. The diameter has been established by slugging the bore. However, lately I'm finding that my .30-06 is a bit happier with .311" v. .310" CB's. Also, at the velocity I seek (was going to say "aim for," but thought better of it!), I tend to agree with Joe that lube brand/type really doesn't matter. Rarely-never do I heat-treat even with WW + range scrap mixtures and rarely do I get leading. I let my CB's age harden mostly because I'm too lazy to size them immediately.

Case prep. I inspect them deburr and "uniform" the primer pockets , but really don't think it has any effect @ 100yds. Occasionally I'll turn necks in the same manner that Joe does (pix on CBA site), but I can't demonstrate that it has any positive effect. OAL is checked on new and/or 1x-fired range pick-ups. I'll anneal after re-forming (e.g., .30-06 -> 7.65 x 53 mm) or after ~6 - 10 firings. I'll weigh them if for a match or to establish a mean wt. for say Rem. v. Win. v. LC brass.

Case sizing. This can be controversial, e.g., FL v. partial neck sizing v. neck sizing in a neck die (Have you checked the run-out in these?) v. neck sizing in a collet die v. sizing without the expander ball. In short, I use the Lee collet dies whenever possible; partial neck sizing in those cals. for which I have no collet die; and FL sizing minus the expander ball for range pick-ups. I use the M-die to expand & flare the necks after sizing in almost all instances: 2 of my collet dies don't require it. Btw, in my .45-70, I often use a Lee Loader to neck size the brass and continue to do so until the loaded rounds become difficult to chamber in my Marlin #336.

Powder selection. I don't think anyone within 30mi. of my home sells powder anymore. Ergo, mail order, especially milsurp powder, is both appealing and necessary. For the milsurps, a chronograph is absolutely necessary as the lot no's. and characteristics of the powder vary so widely. Then again, as IMR 7383 demonstrates, it's unclear what exactly the stuff is or even what its good for. In all cases, efficient burning (low ES & SD; cleanliness of fired rounds, etc.) and down-range performance dictate which ones to use ...or avoid. As I said in my earlier post on this topic, I really haven't run across too many powders that gave terrible results with CB's, although "Surplus .30-06" (once sold through River Valley Ordnance) certainly comes close.

Case charging. I used to weigh each charge, but since I've been using WC 820, I just use a Lyman pistol powder measure + different "rotors" to charge my cases. However, with the extruded powders, e.g., IMR 7383 and IMR 5010 especially (huge kernels that don't measure well), I have to weigh. Ditto for match ammo. The thrown v. measured charge argument is very much like the "less filling - tastes great "brewhaha" IMHO. I once loaded my .243Win. at the range with a Lee Loader and "Surplus .30-06" charged via a dipper and put 10 jacketed bullets into a nickle-sized red dot @ 100yds (witnessed). My thrown WC 820 charges do about as well.

Equipment. Other than a chrono., a good front rest or at least one with different front bags (to accomodate different forestocks) helps, as does a stiff rear bag. Don't underestimate how greatly forestock-to-front bag fit can affect downrange performance. (Don't ask how I know this!) Wind flags too, but you can cobble these up from sharpened re-bar and surveyors tape. I try not to complicate things and like to keep the number of trips from my car [trunk] to the shooting bench to a minimum.

Target inspection. 2 or 3 m.o.a. is the standard I use for "as issued" milsurp rifles and ~half that for my 'scoped rifles. By firing any/all of them over a period of time, you begin to get a sense of how they will perform. By saving targets and loading data, you're ready to critically evaluate the results. E.g., when your 1-2 m.o.a., starts throwing CB's into 4 "- 6" groups, you know there's a problem that needs addressing (and solving!). My .243Win. usually shoots into 1.2 - 1.4 m.o.a. with Ly. #245496 (87gr. Loverin), but when I tried Lyman's 95gr. bore rider and RCBS' 105gr. clone of it, the results were terrible, i.e., patterns not groups.

Operator error/the nut behind the trigger. If you've been watching golf or baseball lately, e.g., the travails of the Yankees, you can't help but realize that atheletic ability/performance is quite variable. So it is with shooters: Some days you can do no wrong. Others? Well, you get the idea....

What have I left out?



*1 m.o.a. or better for 'scoped rifles; 2 - 3 m.o.a. for open sighted rifles. Although not mentioned, 5 shots touching @ 25yds. is the standard for my pistols (all open sighted).

[44man]

Joe, I have posted many, many groups but you are right, there are only a few guys that have ever done that. I have complained about it when they talk a good load but show a 25 yd group with a big bore, others never post groups they claim.
A few have shown fantastic groups at 100 yd's with their rifles and I am proud of them. Some groups have been a little worse but they still did good and I appreciate seeing them. Those that NEVER show what they do should join in. We are not critical about them, we want to see them.
Yes, this is the best site there is with the smartest shooters in the country. I am humbled with the knowledge some have.

[Boomer Mikey]

I do things much as Maven does; I don't use anything but an "M" die type expander along with partial FL sizing for most loads but I use concentricity as a guide to help me find the best case prep/loading method for each application. I do all the case prep - uniforming even with cowboy loads. I check neck wall thickness during setup and case prep but I don't turn necks unless there is a serious issue or it becomes obvious that a slight cleanup would offer great benefits. I don't heat treat bullets and run everything with 50/50 Lino/WW and I don't size/lube bullets until I need them or load them. For general use at 100 yards and less I don't bother weighing and sorting everything but I will for long range, match, and silhouette loads. I weigh all large kernel powder charges and all charges over 45 grains and I'm finding that in many cases I no longer size bullets smaller than they fall out of the molds unless they won't chamber and use the largest sizing dies available or make my own "oversize" dies (thanks Buckshot!).

I use many "cookbook" loads to get me in the ballpark and fine tune from there but I must find a 10% range of loads that show potential to consider a combination eliminating those "twitchy" loads that only work when the moon is new at 73.5 degrees and I'll typically choose a load in the middle of an acceptable powder charge range in the interest of consistency.

I recently purchased Load From A Disk and I'm surprised at how many of my "pet" loads are recommended optimum load densities. I plan to take advantage of this feature for future load development.

I'm constantly amazed each and every day I spend on this site by the amount of knowledge available here and by the people openly willing to help others. I continue to learn something here every day (even things I didn't want to know).

Boomer :Fire:

[Idaho Sharpshooter]

how many of you anneal and FL size all brass after each firing? I am finding out that the top 8-10% of the BPCRS guys do so. Steve Brooks and MLV tipped me off. Since I started that regimen I have just about eliminated split case necks...and one of my 38-90 cases got that treatment at the range 23 times last week. I am now testing my 308 benchrest rifle, and early results support that theory. Brass does work harden...

Rich
DRSS

[Bass Ackward]

Neither set of guys has shown any interest in demonstrating WHY they believe as they do, nobody is showing their groups.

It occurs to me that we can shoot rockets to the moon, that the rules and science and knowledge and cause-and-effect are now-have been-figured out. And it occurs to me that shooting cast bullets accurately ain't quite as hard as shooting a rocket to the moon.

So who wants to tell us about what they did and what happened accuracy-wise that supports their position? It's show and tell time!

joe brennan


Is there really a best way?

The biggest rule violator I have is a 311284 that is outta round and UNDER bore size. Right out of the mold that bullet is .3075 to .3085. Heat treated and run at low pressure with 20 grains of 4759 in a 30-06 throat that can chamber a .311 bullet, that load will shoot sub MOA all day long out of a sporter weight rifle.

What skill did I use to find this technique? An accident. I had two 311284 molds and grabbed this one by mistake. Made up a pile of bullets and had to use them. The other mold throws a bullet that will clean up at .311 and this small one will shoot rings around it and almost anything else you want to see.

That is until I load a 154 LBT spitzer with 56 grains of RL19 sized .309 in that same rifle. Shoot rock hard with that and you have another pie plate killer on your hands. Soften them to ACWW and you get a holer. That's 2600 fps. Ain't I just a brilliant guy finding that load? Nope, a poor HT on a batch. Accident again.

SO should I champion hard bullets for low velocity and soft for high? Or should I champion under bore sized bullets? Well if I did, I would have missed out on a 92 Winchester 44 Mag that will shoot MOA, but .... only with .435 bullets in a .430 bore. How did I find that? An accident. Dad was loading for me and grabbed the wrong box of bullets that were lubed with LLA and waiting to be sized. Why were they lubed with LLA? Because they were to be sized from .435 down to .430 and I didn't want them galling up my sizer die and each bullet being a different size. Total accident? Huh uh, that's skill baby! :grin:

Oh, by the way, they are 280 grain Keiths and won't stabilize in a 38 twist either. Oppps. Violated that one also.

Should I fall on my sword for hard bullets at low pressures? Sure worked for that 311284 above? The most accurate load for 38 Specials I ever saw was the 358156 made from lino type (22 BHN) with 6 grains of Unique sized .358. That's +P territory but only about 20,000 psi. Works in every 38 Special I ever saw if you size to throats. That includes the most accurate pistol I ever owned. A Charter Arms snubbie.

Tried properly sized, ROCK hard 358156s in my new to me 357 and it was a pie plate killer at 25 yards. This 357 leads up the butt!!! It was that way when I bought it too. Want to guess why the guy sold it?

But soften those 358156s down to ACWW and use 12.5 grains of 2400 and it a holer. Was that my expertise and logical deduction? Nope, grabbed bullets from the wrong box that hadn't been HT yet. Ooops!

So can I draw conclusions from all of this? Any of this? Sad to say, but I am probably the biggest screw up on this board. Some screwy things work, and .... some don't.

The guy that is at a disadvantage using cast is the guy who looks for "one way" or a "best method" and forms a pattern. Cause that person becomes satisfied.

When satisfaction sets in, all experimentation stops.

[leftiye]

Course if ya read between the lines.......... It is knowhow. It is probly the case that you need to know the different approaches, and have the ability to guess when to try another tack. Not so hard really, when one model doesn't work (how hard is that to know?), think about it a bit, and see if another approach might not do better.

[TAWILDCATT]

what did he say I dont understand any one here.I learned the hard way.there was no one to teach me.fill the case with pulled gov 06 powder put bullet in and fire it.used a 73 win in 32.20.never noticed the unburned powder that fell on the floor.whoose guess some did not burn.filled 8mm mauser with bulk shotgun powder 220 gr lead bullet shot in 1918 mauser hammered bolt open big batch of little holes in target.must have melted bullet.learned to load in 1945.38acp in 1905 colt.modern bond tool and mold.still have them.now I load 38 spec 2.7 gr 700x and lyman wadcutter.3.6gr of 700x 200 gr sswc in 1911.and one load I swear by 311291 with 13 gr red dot in 1906 sprin made in 1913.common sence it the answer.and yrs of experiance.I found a lot of the experts wern't.and as yrs go by the answeres change as more knowledge is gained.:coffee: :Fire: :coffee:

[PAT303]

All I know is cast boolit shooting isn't big in Australia and when I started out all I got was laughter,now with help from everyone on this board I can outshoot most of them and I'm the one laughing.When it comes to accuracy it the score that counts,weather paper or game.That is how I judge it and you should always listen to what people say,even if you don't agree.Even idiots have to be right once in there lives