Best cast boolit for a 1-12 TW 308 AR10

[fastfire]

Just got a new Criterion barrel looking for an accurate boolit for this that will feed well.
I will be ES Powder coating the boolits.
Your favorites?
I have a shoot in Nevada next month and am going to have to work up a load before then.

Thanks

[MBTcustom]

MiHec30 Sil. 173gr.
Use 50/50 +2% WD, 4895 and dacron.

Size .311.

[cbrick]

MiHec30 Sil. 173gr.
Use 50/50 +2% WD, 4895 and dacron. Size .311.

Tim recently sent John some of those very boolits for his AR to test for cycling. They did and he discovered that his AR will chamber these boolits unsized at .312". He has ordered the Miha mold and I've talked him into getting a Star .312" die (I don't have one) to better fill the throat. Hopefully he will have the die by the time the mold arrives.

I don't know if he's tried 4895 in that rifle but I'll ask him. Tim, what kind of groups where you getting with 4895 and what charge?

Rick

[fastfire]

Thanks, Tim. I inquired about the mold to Mihec. I have at other times asked about the availability of a couple other molds, not in stock! I have read about the quality of his molds but it's very discouraging when you have to wait up to a year. I do not have the patience for that. If this mold is not available I will be looking for another mold.

Dave

[popper]

What kind of shoot? What kind of accuracy? Seems like the more pointy nose feeds well but I use the 31-165C for PC. H335 gives better groups than 4895 in my LR-308.

[MBTcustom]

I like 4895 in the 308. Probably because it gives such awesome accuracy with jacketed. I confess im still trying to get my M1A to shoot better than 3MOA with cast, but with that rifle, feeding is #1 and accuracy is #2.
I mentioned 4895 just as a place to start because even reduced it cycles the action well.
The m1a will eat almost anything, but I was thinking an impingment system like the 10 wouldnt like the faster powders much, and with a 1-12, the OP could get away with that almost at minimum jacketed loads.
As for me, im having to reduce my loads quite a bit because of the 10 twist.
YMMV.

[fastfire]

What kind of shoot? What kind of accuracy? Seems like the more pointy nose feeds well but I use the 31-165C for PC. H335 gives better groups than 4895 in my LR-308.


Who is the mold maker for the 31-165C?
I haven't been to this shoot before but maybe some that are going can chime in.
They will be shooting steel and paper and I think there is a 2x4 shoot also, it's a cast boolit shoot.

[winelover]

Started working with my AR-10 and cast, most of this Winter and Spring. My starting point was Bruce "B" thread on cast in the M1A. I had to extrapolate data, but in general, the information applies.

My Armalite is very picky when it comes to feeding cast, 100% of the time. Any meplat, larger than the RCBS silhouette boolit, hangs up on the feed ramp. Believe me, I tried many designs, complements of Rick and a few other members.Currently, my best feeding boolit is NOE's 311365. I'm looking forward to working with Miha's 30 cal.(lighter version) silhouette. Mold is on the way from Slovenia.

Powders I've tried are SR4795, AA5744, Varget and AA4350. SR4759 and AA5744 will not maintain accuracy with charges necessary to reliably cycle the action. Varget was better but still not getting the accuracy I'm seeking.

AA4350 will cycle the action, 100%, at velocities as low as 1600 fps. I am currently getting sub 1 1/2" groups, with 8 out of 10 (311365) boolits. The other two shots are opening the group to 3-4 inches. I'm striving to get rid of these flyers, but running out of variables to change. Just might have to realize that this is the best this boolit design will do.

I do not have any 4895 in my powder stash. These days, powders are in short supply so I'm limited in what I can try. Duplex loads have been suggested, but I'm not going that route, nor the way of fillers.

Hopefully, Mi-hecs silhouette boolit will be the answer. I have his 30 caliber "hunting boolit" and it is accurate but alas, it will not feed in my AR.

Winelover

[cbrick]

I have 4895 that you can try.

Rick

[winelover]

I have 4895 that you can try.

Rick


Is there any powder that you don't have?:shock:


Winelover

[fastfire]

I have the NOE's 311365 and 1/2 lb of 4895 I will try that first.
Haven't here back from Mihec yet.

[DR Owl Creek]

MiHec30 Sil. 173gr.
Use 50/50 +2% WD, 4895 and dacron.

Size .311.


I've read a lot of good reports on the MiHec 30 Sil mould, but it is currently out of stock. I thought about sending a PM to 45 2.1 to see if there is any interest in doing a rerun, or possibly starting a thread on the Group Buy Discussion forum myself.

If I do, is anyone else out there interested in joining me?

Dave

Psalm 27: 1-3

[popper]

Fatfire - it's an accurate mould. Profile is almost a 168 Amax (with nose cut back) which shoots great for me. Like the 31-165B but grooveless. Look in Dverna's accuracy thread in PC, I posted some targets @ 50 & 100 for the 31-165B GC'd & PC'd. I shot the 'C' sans check @ 1750 fps using 2400 from the 308. Same from the BO, 4227. I'm not a good shot so you should get better results. Haven't shot the 'C' with GC from the 308 yet, have to anneal some checks. I did mess with the lips on the 308 factory steel mags to get cycling with the RD 311170, which has a larger meplat. I think my Pmags will work, Gen3 M4 mags work in the BO. I may tinker with the feed ramps a bit; the mag has to sit high enough to miss the flat parts. I will reduce the width of the triangular piece between the ramps. Should make feed easier and not risk bending the nose. Think I'm going to sell the 4x 31-165B and design a BO boolit. PC for me all the way. B & C both keep the GC in the neck, but they are 165ish, not 180.
This shows the scuffing from the feed ramps. PC isn't bad, HiTek got scraped. They cycle fine through the 300BO also.
103511

[Larry Gibson]

Might also consider NOE's offering.

Larry Gibson

103507

[tomme boy]

I had the Mihec SIL mold. Hope you get a good one. I sold mine after a month of torturing myself with it. It was the absolute worst casting mold I have ever had. You had to letterly beat it to get the bullets out of the middle cavities. I was not the only one. It held onto just one side. Part of the problem was a bad design of the lube grove. Too square and too deep. If they all released, half would break in half at the lube grove. Sorting them was a major pain. I had countless flyers and some that never made it to the target. Probably from a crack I missed at the lube section.

I gave up as there are a bunch of others that shoot much better.

[MBTcustom]

I had the Mihec SIL mold. Hope you get a good one. I sold mine after a month of torturing myself with it. It was the absolute worst casting mold I have ever had. You had to letterly beat it to get the bullets out of the middle cavities. I was not the only one. It held onto just one side. Part of the problem was a bad design of the lube grove. Too square and too deep. If they all released, half would break in half at the lube grove. Sorting them was a major pain. I had countless flyers and some that never made it to the target. Probably from a crack I missed at the lube section.

I gave up as there are a bunch of others that shoot much better.

I got mine from geargnasher, and he had similar problems to what you describe. MiHec replaced it, but he was so thouroughly disgusted with it that he passed it to me unused.
So far, it dropps perfectly from the mold, and my only issue with it is the GC shank is still too large. No problem for me though, and really just requires a little more attention. From what gear describes, it is better than the original.
I have shot this boolit with 3031, duplex 867, 4895, and unique. Accuracy is fair to middlin (my own loads no doubt) but it has a little bitty tip and feeds which is the first hurtle with a semi auto.
I settled on 4895 as a good place to set up shop for a while (if I can find any more of it that is!).

[Blammer]

These work well for me in my AR 10

http://noebulletmolds.com/NV/product_info.php?cPath=30&products_id=258

http://noebulletmolds.com/NV/product_info.php?cPath=30&products_id=470

[cbrick]

I'm striving to get rid of these flyers, but running out of variables to change. Winelover

hehe . . . You still have many things to test/try.

Rick

[DR Owl Creek]

Might also consider NOE's offering.

Larry Gibson

103507


There's a lot I like about the NOE 180 gr K-31. It's about the weight and length I wanted. I like that there's no scraper groove, and how the driving band tapers into the nose. The bore-riding nose, however, only measures .296", and I need at least .301".

Do you know of any other designs with a similar profile to the K-31, possibly with a little more bearing surface, and a total length of only about 1.110"? That length would allow me to seat the bullet to magazine length, and not have the base of the gas check stick out below the bottom of the case neck.

I already have the NOE 311 175 gr (SAECO #315) GC, and the NOE 180 gr 311041 GC, but I haven't had the chance to try them yet, so I can't offer any insight on how they will work.

I'm also in the Group Buy for the NOE 190 gr 311332 Gc. Al has already ordered the tooling, so these could be available in a couple of weeks or so, if anyone else would like to order one.

Thanks

Dave

Luke 22: 35-36

[Blammer]

NOE 311 155gr is good

http://noebulletmolds.com/NV/product_info.php?cPath=30&products_id=258

but the 312299 looks kinda like what you want

http://noebulletmolds.com/NV/product_info.php?cPath=30&products_id=381

[tomme boy]

312299 will stick too far into the case for the 308 case. I would be worried that the check would come off while the action is cycling.

[fastfire]

The 4895, Hodgden or IMR that has been talked about here have nearly the same burn rates, does it matter which one?

[DR Owl Creek]

NOE 311 155gr is good

http://noebulletmolds.com/NV/product_info.php?cPath=30&products_id=258

but the 312299 looks kinda like what you want

http://noebulletmolds.com/NV/product_info.php?cPath=30&products_id=381

I like the 311155. I was really waiting for Al to rerun the 314155, though, because I wanted to use it for a 7.62x39mm project. I also thought I could size it down to .311" and try it in my 308s too.

I seriously thought about the 311299 for awhile, but was concerned about it being too long to keep the gas check within the case neck. I had the same concerns with the 311331 and the 311365 too.

Dave

[DR Owl Creek]

312299 will stick too far into the case for the 308 case. I would be worried that the check would come off while the action is cycling.

My concern with keeping the gas check within the case neck has to do with what happens at the moment of ignition, when the case and neck expand to allow the release of the bullet, but before it starts moving. With the gas check back in the shoulder area, leaving the bare sides of the bullet exposed to the hot gases, it seems like you could get gas cutting on the shank of the bullet before it even started moving. That's why I was looking for a bullet design that wasn't much longer than 1.110".

Dave

[DR Owl Creek]

The 4895, Hodgden or IMR that has been talked about here have nearly the same burn rates, does it matter which one?


I've been looking for H4895 for awhile too. That's the powder I wanted to start with. At this point, I'd be very happy finding some IMR-4895.

The Hodgdon 2013 Annual Manual has a good article about the differences and similarities between H4895 and IMR-4895. It seems like H4895 is slightly faster than IMR-4895, and slightly bulkier too. On Hodgdon's Burn Rate chart, H4895 is # 87 and IMR-4895 is # 89. As far as bulk density:

Bulk Density:
H4895 910 +/-15g/L
IMR-4895 919+/-20g/L

It seems like as far as bulk density, H4895 might be a slightly better choice for cast bullet loads.

Dave

[Larry Gibson]

I prefer the H4895 over IMR because of the lot to lot consistency, it is less temp sensitive (an Extreme powder), has smaller kernels so it meters through powder measures more accurately and it gives greater load density (it is less bulky than the IMR). Other than that you won't find a nickel's worth of difference between the two. I have shot a lot of both and will use which ever one I can get these days.

Larry Gibson

[cbrick]

I've burned up more than a few 8 pounders of 4895 and the vast majority of it was Hodgdon for the reasons Larry mentioned. It's also a great powder in the small cases like the TCU cartridges and ya can get more of it in the case than the IMR.

Rick

[DR Owl Creek]

I prefer the H4895 over IMR because of the lot to lot consistency, it is less temp sensitive (an Extreme powder), has smaller kernels so it meters through powder measures more accurately and it gives greater load density (it is less bulky than the IMR). Other than that you won't find a nickel's worth of difference between the two. I have shot a lot of both and will use which ever one I can get these days.

Larry Gibson


Larry & Rick

Could current lots (as of 2013) be that much different than what you have??

The article I referred to in the Hodgdon 2013 Annual Manual, "IMR-4895 Versus H-4895" by James Tarr (pp. 58-64) had a bulk density chart (p. 60) showing the bulk densisty of H-4895 as 910 +/-15g/L, and the bulk density of IMR-4895 as 919 +/-20g/L. The article went on to say "...The same charge weight of H-4895 provided slightly more volume (the powder stack was perhaps 1/16 inch taller inside the case) than IMR-4895..." (p. 64)

Propellant Profiles, Fifth Edition, by Wolfe Publishing Co., Prescott, AZ (2008) also has articles on H-4895 (pp.189-191) and IMR-4895 (p. 265). The bulk densities shown for H-4895 are 905 g/L, which is a little lighter than what was shown by Hodgdon. Judging by the photo of the steel can of H-4895, it had to be pretty old.

I don't have any personal experience comparing H-4895 to IMR-4895, so I can't offer any more.

Dave

[cbrick]

I should have dug out the very old loading notes, it's been a lot of years since I was loading the 6 6.5 & 7TCU's but that's what memory is telling me. I would also have to get the 8 pound can of H4895 that I have but I think it's the plastic jug. The 8 pounds of IMR 4198 that I had out a couple of days ago is the old metal can.

Rick

[DR Owl Creek]

I should have dug out the very old loading notes, it's been a lot of years since I was loading the 6 6.5 & 7TCU's but that's what memory is telling me. I would also have to get the 8 pound can of H4895 that I have but I think it's the plastic jug. The 8 pounds of IMR 4198 that I had out a couple of days ago is the old metal can.

Rick


Rick,

I wasn't questioning you. I have a lot of respect for you, and what you've done. I just thought the lots might have changed significantly over time.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Dave

[tomme boy]

The H4895 seems to meter better also. Thats another reason to use it. If I have a choice, it will always be the H over the I.

[cbrick]

Dang, now I am gonna have to find the old notes. Better metering and less sensitivity to temp swings also has bells ringing in my head. Actually though I haven't looked into the difference in some time with Hodgdon owning both for the past few years I'd be kinda surprised if there is a difference in them today but Dr Owl posted info from Hodgdon 2013 Annual Manual so . . . Would be good to know.

Rick

[Larry Gibson]

"...The same charge weight of H-4895 provided slightly more volume (the powder stack was perhaps 1/16 inch taller inside the case) than IMR-4895..."

Based on my experience using both powders for 40+ years it appears either the author has it *** backwards or the printer transposed the "H" and "IMR". Not sure about new lots of either powder as I've not bought any of either for probably 5 years. So I just checked the difference with what I have. Using a fire formed WW Palma .308W case filled to the case mouth, tapped twice to settle and leveled off the powder weighed 54 gr with H4895 and 52 gr with IMR 4895. As I mentioned not a nickels worth of difference based on load density in larger cases such as the .308W or the '06 but in smaller cases such as the .223, 30-30 or 7.62x39 you can get about 1 gr more of H4895 in the case than with IMR4895. It does make a difference there.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

There's a lot I like about the NOE 180 gr K-31. It's about the weight and length I wanted. I like that there's no scraper groove, and how the driving band tapers into the nose. The bore-riding nose, however, only measures .296", and I need at least .301".


Dave

Luke 22: 35-36

With what alloy? Last I talked to Swede Nelson he said those NOE moulds were cut for COWWs. If so then that bullet cast of #2 alloy will probably have a .300 or. 301 nose.

Case in point; my MP 30-180 is cut for COWWs/lead at 50/50. Which when cast of that alloy the nose runs .299 - .300 and the drive bands at .309 - .310 with not very round bullets. When cast of a much harder alloy with Cu in it the bullets drop quite round with .300 noses and .311 drive bands. When cast of #2 alloy the brass mould is a PITA because the bullets fill out in the mould completely and I have to beat the mould to death to get them out.....(reason the previous owner sold it to me). When cast of #2 alloy the nose runs .303 and the drive bands are .314.....great for the .31s but that sucks in the intended .30 cals. Thus I only cast with the Cu alloy in that mould and it makes excellent .30 cal bullets for use in my .308Ws.

Thus the NOE 30-180, if cut for COWWs alloy, may very well drop the correct sized bullets you want if a #2 or similar alloy is used.

Larry Gibson

[DR Owl Creek]

With what alloy? Last I talked to Swede Nelson he said those NOE moulds were cut for COWWs. If so then that bullet cast of #2 alloy will probably have a .300 or. 301 nose.

Case in point; my MP 30-180 is cut for COWWs. Which when cast of that alloy the nose runs .299 - .300 and the drive bands at .309 - .310 with not very round bullets. When cast of a much harder alloy with Cu in it the bullets drop quite round with .300 noses and .311 drive bands. When cast of #2 alloy the brass mould is a PITA because the bullets fill out in the mould completely and I have to beat the mould to death to get them out.....(reason the previous owner sold it to me). When cast of #2 alloy the nose runs .303 and the drive bands are .314.....great for the .31s but that sucks in the intended .30 cals. Thus I only cast with the Cu alloy in that mould and it makes excellent .30 cal bullets for use in my .308Ws.

Thus the NOE 30-180, if cut for COWWs alloy, may very well drop the correct sized bullets you want if a #2 or similar alloy is used.

Larry Gibson

Hhhhmmmm... Interesting...

You're right, the NOE moulds are spec'd to drop at their nominal size with WW alloy. I plan on using a Cu enriched alloy for my 308 loads, so the size may be a little larger too.

The NOE K-31 is as close to what I want as anything I've found so far, except for the nose. If the nose was at least .3005" or so, it might be good-to-go.

Something to think about...

Dave

Romans 1: 22-32