Stock Rifle HV "HOW"

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

I'd like to start a conversation on how to shoot High Velocity castboolits in a stock rifle.
I believe there are some who'd like to talk about this.

[Ed_Shot]

Please define "High Velocity" so all are on the same sheet of music.

[popper]

I also assume you are stating normal 'stock' equipment and expecting jacketed (for caliber) fps plus MOA (100yrd) accuracy?

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

Please define "High Velocity" so all are on the same sheet of music.
High as feasibly possible.
Obviously higher than the typical (1600fps to 1900fps) published loads and up to the physical limits. Honestly I'm not smart enough to set the number, which I suspect will vary with caliber and other factors. This is more of a discussion of how to get there, not a actual number or range of numbers.

[Windwalker 45acp]

I'm just a pistol caster myself, but I look forward to learning how for when that time comes to cast for the o'l smoke poles.
Subscribed.

[vzerone]

Standard rifles such as your hunting rifle, including varmint rifle, AR's, and milsurp. Some because of extreme fast rifling twists are more difficult to load for and all have an alloy and pressure limitation.

Myself I'm looking definitely above 2000 fps. Those that load in the 1600 to 1800 fps bracket can get more velocity. Besides the alloy/presure limitations, some calibers have a velocity limitation that their cartridges aren't able to achieve even with j-words. That's not to say that can get higher velocity with lighter bullets then loaded by the factory standard. I'm sure many of you know that as the calibers out there that you can use pistol/revolver bullets or bullet weights in. An example would be shooting 38/357mag bullets in a 35 Rem.

[Victor N TN]

Being semi new to rifle casting except a little for black powder, I'm going to just sit by the side and watch this thread.

[geargnasher]

High as feasibly possible.
Obviously higher than the typical (1600fps to 1900fps) published loads and up to the physical limits. Honestly I'm not smart enough to set the number, which I suspect will vary with caliber and other factors. This is more of a discussion of how to get there, not a actual number or range of numbers.

Good description. I'd like to focus on what most of us can afford to work with....meaning military surplus and commercial sporting or battle rifles, rather than purpose-built bench rifles. How do you want to proceed with the discussion?

Gear

[Harter66]

Well I don't know if this counts but here goes .
7x6.8 mildcat
Carcano action
Montana Rifleman bbl 21" 1-8 twist
As with all things some things worked better than others. I did get to 2375 fps with a 142 gr 27-135 papered up to .285 with quarter dia groups . 10x ,H322 and 4198 all deliver useful groups and 2300-2350 . Only really significant as this is jacketed speeds for 130s.I really don't feel like I did any especially particular with this other than attention the as cast bullets .

Next up a 6.8 SPCII AR .
Same powders . With assorted jacketed factory loads the rifle delivered 2-2.5 inch best groups at 24-2600 fp with 115-120 gr loads with 120SST I readily got 2" groups without a lengthy work up with multiple powders .
For cast I used the NOE 279-124 FP weighing in at 129 gr from 75/25 WW - 1-20 and water dropped . These are also the 1st loads I had assembled with gas checks . The bullets were culled 1st by obvious defect then by full fill out . Using 4198 allowed me to reach 2150 with nominal accuracy for the rifle . Several issues have made themselves known the chamber neck is a minimum length so the nominal case lengths were in fact too long and caused release issues in the top loads . This also lead to some fouling caused by lube failure caused by undersizing at the case mouth . Because of the muzzle device being shouldered away from the muzzle I had crown fouling that also messed with the groups . I now have a clean muzzle, recut muzzle device and a 280 sizer for the gas checks over the original 278 which worked with the 270 x 277 bbl except for the case mouth abuse. It should be noted that the 6.8 Remington is rated for 62 kpsi and 2300 fps with jacketed 130 gr projectiles so even if I am unsuccessful in breaching 2300 fps ,I need 2200, I will be well into jacket speeds.
Attention to fill out and seating plus custom expanders and partial sizing of the cases contribute to accuracy. The SPCII chamber, or at least mine , is full in the shoulder resulting in a slight increase in capacity . I believe that with the uniform trimmed length will help with the lube loss and the sizeless checking won't hurt anything.

I guess just about any fool can run 222 and 223 well over 2500 with 50-70 gr bullets so I don't have anything to add to that .

I do intend to try a 6.5 mag and 257 Roberts looking for 3100 and 2700 in each with the same bullet a NOE 260-120 fp . Of course 2500 in either or both would be sufficient.

My successes in 30 cal have been limited. Getting the accuracy and and velocity curves to match up just hasn't happened yet. I can drive hard in lead free bbls or have little groups fast twist or slow there's just no bliss. It is possible that I've not given sufficient attention to the details .

[dubber123]

Fastest I have personally shot was a Ruger #1 in .375 H&H with a 300 gr. GC mold made by BRP. I would have to look up the alloy, but given the time frame, most likely heat treated WW at best. The gun wears a 2.5X Leupold HEAVY Duplex scope. Several groups in a row were in the 5/8" wide by 2.5" high range. Obvious vertical stringing in every group. Me? The often reported #1 stringing? The load? I dunno. Velocity was in the 2,650 fps range.

[Yodogsandman]

Breech seating tools, bump dies, optical comparators? Any tooling restrictions?

[btroj]

Breech seating? No.
Bump dies, why not?

I can give it a go with Dad's post 64 Mod 70 in 30-06.

I may see what I can get from the 375 H&H too. I have had it over 1800 with accuracy easily. Never gone faster with good results but have learned much since then.

My interest is a "shoot whatcha got" discussion. Dies and moulds are easily purchased or modified by most. Alloy, lube, and powder are the big topics I'm interested in.

[vzerone]

Fastest I have personally shot was a Ruger #1 in .375 H&H with a 300 gr. GC mold made by BRP. I would have to look up the alloy, but given the time frame, most likely heat treated WW at best. The gun wears a 2.5X Leupold HEAVY Duplex scope. Several groups in a row were in the 5/8" wide by 2.5" high range. Obvious vertical stringing in every group. Me? The often reported #1 stringing? The load? I dunno. Velocity was in the 2,650 fps range.

If your shoulder can bear some more testing set up a chronograph and look at your ES and SD. You may be having a lot of velocity variation. If you do your powder isn't burning just right yet. Could also be caused by inconsistent crimp if you're using one and also varying neck tension.

Sounds like a good candidate for 50/50 alloy water quenched.

[vzerone]

Well I don't know if this counts but here goes .
7x6.8 mildcat
Carcano action
Montana Rifleman bbl 21" 1-8 twist
As with all things some things worked better than others. I did get to 2375 fps with a 142 gr 27-135 papered up to .285 with quarter dia groups . 10x ,H322 and 4198 all deliver useful groups and 2300-2350 . Only really significant as this is jacketed speeds for 130s.I really don't feel like I did any especially particular with this other than attention the as cast bullets .

Next up a 6.8 SPCII AR .
Same powders . With assorted jacketed factory loads the rifle delivered 2-2.5 inch best groups at 24-2600 fp with 115-120 gr loads with 120SST I readily got 2" groups without a lengthy work up with multiple powders .
For cast I used the NOE 279-124 FP weighing in at 129 gr from 75/25 WW - 1-20 and water dropped . These are also the 1st loads I had assembled with gas checks . The bullets were culled 1st by obvious defect then by full fill out . Using 4198 allowed me to reach 2150 with nominal accuracy for the rifle . Several issues have made themselves known the chamber neck is a minimum length so the nominal case lengths were in fact too long and caused release issues in the top loads . This also lead to some fouling caused by lube failure caused by undersizing at the case mouth . Because of the muzzle device being shouldered away from the muzzle I had crown fouling that also messed with the groups . I now have a clean muzzle, recut muzzle device and a 280 sizer for the gas checks over the original 278 which worked with the 270 x 277 bbl except for the case mouth abuse. It should be noted that the 6.8 Remington is rated for 62 kpsi and 2300 fps with jacketed 130 gr projectiles so even if I am unsuccessful in breaching 2300 fps ,I need 2200, I will be well into jacket speeds.
Attention to fill out and seating plus custom expanders and partial sizing of the cases contribute to accuracy. The SPCII chamber, or at least mine , is full in the shoulder resulting in a slight increase in capacity . I believe that with the uniform trimmed length will help with the lube loss and the sizeless checking won't hurt anything.

I guess just about any fool can run 222 and 223 well over 2500 with 50-70 gr bullets so I don't have anything to add to that .

I do intend to try a 6.5 mag and 257 Roberts looking for 3100 and 2700 in each with the same bullet a NOE 260-120 fp . Of course 2500 in either or both would be sufficient.

My successes in 30 cal have been limited. Getting the accuracy and and velocity curves to match up just hasn't happened yet. I can drive hard in lead free bbls or have little groups fast twist or slow there's just no bliss. It is possible that I've not given sufficient attention to the details .

I feel you have done very well so far. Now if you can get the same groups as with paper with just alloy non wrapped you'd be humming pretty good.

That 6.5 Mag is going to be a problem because of the short throat I bet it has.

257 Roberts is a sweet cartridge.

[vzerone]

I agree with Btoj, lets keep it simple. Breech seating is a whole other ball game. It's specialized. Franklore is pretty good at it.

[shooter93]

If allowed here or if affordable to whomever is doing the testing first thing would be a truly custom made mold for your rifle with as perfect bullet fit as possible since fit is king. Then on to bump dies etc. if necessary. Alloy isn't quite as important I don't think as long as fit is right. Powder choices I would say should be on the slower side that let you reach your velocity. Using "factory" molds things become a bit more difficult but not impossible. There are classes for both factory and milsurp rifles in competition and some of those guys are doing pretty respectable work.

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

Good description. I'd like to focus on what most of us can afford to work with....meaning military surplus and commercial sporting or battle rifles, rather than purpose-built bench rifles. How do you want to proceed with the discussion?
Gear
To be honest, I'm not sure. Maybe some theory of boolit deformation ...When, where and how much is too much.



Breech seating tools, bump dies, optical comparators? Any tooling restrictions?
This is a discussion, not a competition. These are all interesting tools to discuss, as in, why are they used, what benefit do they offer. Also what can be done without these tools, that can nearly mimic their advantages.

[Windwalker 45acp]

breech seating tool..... I had to look that one up.

[geargnasher]

I'm going to throw out a statement for debate, just to see where everyone is in the HV game.

"Nose-bumping a bullet for HV shooting is a complete and utter waste of time".

Agree? Disagree? Why? (There's no substitute for experience here, so no WAGs please).

Gear

[Harter66]

I feel you have done very well so far. Now if you can get the same groups as with paper with just alloy non wrapped you'd be humming pretty good.

That 6.5 Mag is going to be a problem because of the short throat I bet it has.

257 Roberts is a sweet cartridge.

The 6.5 is a 264 WM it has sufficient throat dimensions. I won't buy a mould for it I'll stick with paper.

[shooter93]

I should stay out of this but I'd agree gear if you're bumping just the nose to make it bore ride. But you can "bump" the whole bullet to make a difference. I suppose here it's what is bumping and what is swaging. We weren't swaging "blank" cores etc. but we did change shape a fair amount as they came from a mold as well as increasing diameter a bit. This required a custom die and the truth is it would be as easy to make a mold but it was interesting to try. And understand this was quite awhile ago and I don't do much of this kind of thing anymore but it's interesting to read here about others experiments....well....until things go awry......smiles.

[btroj]

I suppose we should define "nose bumping". If you mean having the nose of the bullet "slug up" a bit on firing in order to fill the bore and engrave then I am all for it.
My feeling is that unless you shoot really hard alloys at really low pressure then the bullet IS going to be altered in shape by pressure. Hard alloy at low pressure isn't gonna give HV so it isn't relevant here.

I think the MP 30 sil is going to be my go to bullet for this. It is a design that will do what I think needs doing. Pain in the keister to cast at times but it shoots well enou to make it worth the hassle.

[btroj]

Shooter 93, I am here with you hoping that this doesn't go awry.

I pledge to to do my part to ensure it does not. I know for sure that gear, Run, and I can agree to disagree when/if the time comes. I have a feeling that JonB and Run will keep this on a tight leash too

[DeadWoodDan]

I'm interested in this also or just getting closer. So Lets recap what we know so far:
Must have correct boolit for rifle, "fit is King", how do we define this? I also have a post M70 believe to be made in the 70's. I just received some chamber casting alloy from Roto metals to attempt and find all dimensions possible to answer this question.
Must have correct alloy. Can we say Lyman#2
Must have correct lube. So much has been said and accomplished, as much as I liked making my own can we agree on 2500+ or another proven.

First chronograph will be coming so I'm all on board. Looking for every detail.

[geargnasher]

Nose bumping means a light swage in a die to change the shape to better fit the rifle's throat. Very common practice among some benchrest disciplines.

I suppose this could be an excuse for a challenge to make me get off my behind and actually put that pointy Accurate bullet of mine through it's paces in a bolt rifle and see where it poops out.

Gear

[popper]

IMHO 2500+ lube is a good 'standard'. PP, bump die, breach seating are not 'the usual' for casters so discussions may be less useful to the guy who just wants HV from his off the shelf rifle. Most of us don't have lathe, special tools or $ to spend on that stuff. Opinions?

[btroj]

Agree entirely popper.
Im interested in seeing what I can get with normal, everyday casting and loading tools.

[vzerone]

The 6.5 is a 264 WM it has sufficient throat dimensions. I won't buy a mould for it I'll stick with paper.

Just to give you some information. I know a bullet that may work in it and it's a 140 Saeco that's a bore rider. Just incase you change your mind.

[vzerone]

I feel anything you do to alter a bullet has a negative effect. Let me explain please. We are talking HV here. Little errors become major ones in the HV game. I don't think a nose can be bumped perfect. I'd much rather see a correct mould used for the situation.
I also think putting a lot of effort into changing gas checks (perfecting them) is a waste of time. Gas check get really distorted from the firing process. When they are squeezed down into the bore they rarely stay flat. Often when you recover bullets you see cupped gas checks or even more then cupped where there is a rather large dimple in the center. I'm talking concave not convex. I'll leave this post with a question. What do you all think caused that dimple?

[waco]

:popcorn:Watching with interest....

[JWT]

Interesting thread. I've got a 270 Steyr Mannlicher that I would like to push the envelope with a bit.

Subscribed.

[runfiverun]

http://www.accuratemolds.com/bullet_detail.php?bullet=31-165A-D.png

i put this in my 308 cases on top of 45.6 grs of 4831-sc for @2400 fps.
ww alloy water cut with soft lead 3-1.
0.5% tin added, dropped in a pail of water and sized to 310.
lubed with my moly complex lube.
simple as i can make it for ya.

[Windwalker 45acp]

If it were me, I would create a sub-forum for HV, where within it we could have all the various testing held:

1: straight off the shelf testing of: hunting rifles, milsurps, etc.
2: Modified class with nose bumping, etc
3: Super-modified with Breech seating tools, bump dies, optical comparators, etc

This way all of us can gain knowledge from each other on what works for each particular field of interest that we're in or have an inkling for. Me? The most I can see myself playing with is some WWII era milsurps, as is, squeezing whatever velocity that I can from them. I have no interest in tooling up, swapping barrels, etc, but.... that may change in some future point of my life. I'd still like to see the results from such testing and learning from it.

It doesn't have to be a competition, but friendly competitions often push us to strive harder to reach or even exceed our goals, caveat here would be that ego's would have to be checked at the door and no cheating. LOL, i've read this site about the time Odrama came into office and the one constant that i've seen is there's no egos....... ;)

Anyway, that's my basic look at it.

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

If it were me, I would create a sub-forum for HV, where within it we could have all the various testing held:

...snip
I respect your 'want' of some organization, but there is just not enough traffic to warrant sub-forums.

I am hoping for the general discussion of it here in this thread, and if there were a couple members or several who decide to take on some experimentation, I'd recommend starting a new thread, much like I did a year ago (see link below). While I did start that in my first SL68 lube thread (pre-SL68B), I decided to move that pursuit to it's own thread when I had some poor results and wanted more input, but I ended up getting discouraged and set aside the HV pursuit.
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?254730-HV-in-243-range-visit-1&highlight=


Or if you prefer to NOT start a new thread, feel free to post results in this thread, that is fine, I don't want to "herd" this conversation too much.

[Ed_Shot]

Agree entirely popper.
Im interested in seeing what I can get with normal, everyday casting and loading tools.

+1 on this for TASK and CONDITION now what is the STANDARD? Being fast doesn't get the job done. Are we looking for MOA...2MOA....3MOA....as good as you can do @ 1600 - 1880 fps....what?

[glockky]

Pretty sure they have already mentioned 2000+ fps/ 1 MOA

[btroj]

+1 on this for TASK and CONDITION now what is the STANDARD? Being fast doesn't get the job done. Are we looking for MOA...2MOA....3MOA....as good as you can do @ 1600 - 1880 fps....what?

The standard to me is dependant upon the rifle. If the rifle shoots 1.5 inches at 100 with jacketed then I would be very happy with that or even 2 inches with cast over 2K fps.

Push your cast loads and see how long you can keep reasonable, your definition, accuracy. Can you increase speed 300 fps and keep groups the same or maybe 50% larger?

This is somewhat less about the end result and more about the journey. The how is more important than the what.

[DeadWoodDan]

btroj's above statement makes a good point and starting point for me as a casual shooter wanting more, Thank you! I guess with that being said I can confirm with jacketed what my "baseline" is and proceed from there.

[popper]

Something not mentioned previously, what about rifle 'quality'? Not bashing manufacturers, just how concentric/consistent is bore, chamber, etc. How to measure, what is 'good' and 'bad'? Not talking 'fixes' here, just ' this is what I got, could it work'? Or, how good does a rifle need to be to get HV?

[vzerone]

Something not mentioned previously, what about rifle 'quality'? Not bashing manufacturers, just how concentric/consistent is bore, chamber, etc. How to measure, what is 'good' and 'bad'? Not talking 'fixes' here, just ' this is what I got, could it work'? Or, how good does a rifle need to be to get HV?

Here's a link that is a half decent rad to answer some of your questions.

http://www.sinclairintl.com/.aspx/lid=16572/GunTechdetail/Bullet-Concentricity-Related-Issues?&avad=avant&aid=34931&cm_mmc=affiliate-_-Itwine-_-Avantlink-_-Custom+Link

[dverna]

Popper, I see it this way. My personal accuracy "standard" is based on what the gun will do with good handloads using jacketed bullets. I expect more out of the .308 "sniper" rifle than I do from my old .30/30 M94.

If the rifle will not shoot jacketed bullets well, and I cannot find anything obvious that is causing it, I trade or sell it. The current quality of commercial rifles is so good that a "bad" rifle is rare. Spending the money to "blueprint" a rifle is not worth it to me. I have only had to dispose of one rifle that would not shoot for me - a .22 hornet Handi-Rifle.

[vzerone]

Popper, I see it this way. My personal accuracy "standard" is based on what the gun will do with good handloads using jacketed bullets. I expect more out of the .308 "sniper" rifle than I do from my old .30/30 M94.

If the rifle will not shoot jacketed bullets well, and I cannot find anything obvious that is causing it, I trade or sell it. The current quality of commercial rifles is so good that a "bad" rifle is rare. Spending the money to "blueprint" a rifle is not worth it to me. I have only had to dispose of one rifle that would not shoot for me - a .22 hornet Handi-Rifle.

You have a pretty good post. There are instances where a cast bullet will out shoot a j-word and that is because you can make a cast bullet fit in some instances a j-word doesn't fit. One example would be that you can't find a j-word with a diameter large enough for a particular bore you have that is over sized or very worn.

Honestly what popper is talking about is really splitting hairs and getting down to the super benchrest techniques. It depends on how far "you" want to go with it. Same as brass prep, do you want to turn necks, deburr flash holes, uniform flash holes, weigh or check cases for internal volume, and more?

[Hickok]

I'd like to start a conversation on how to shoot High Velocity castboolits in a stock rifle.
I believe there are some who'd like to talk about this.Jon good topic, I am very interested. I just pulled up a chair, and am eager to learn something!

[btroj]

Ah, but Hickok you will learn more from participation! Grab a rifle and some bullets for it and see what you can do. Don't pull up a chair here, pull up a chair at the shootng bench!
I see a group activity here. We can all discuss what we are trying and how it is working. We will all learn from each other.

[Hickok]

Btroj, I am in the process of working with a 700 Remington in .308 Winchester and cast boolit loads right now, powder coating and gaschecks, IMR 4895 powder, ACWW vs 50/50 COWW and pure lead. The weather is the big hold-up for me. May be awhile until I can get out to test some loads.

Really hoping this thread doesn't go.....:groner:

[ShooterAZ]

My experience was with a stock Remington 700 in 30-06, 1/10 twist. I had very good results with a low tin/low antimony alloy .5/1.5/98 (approx), a bullet with a good fitment to the throat (in my case the Lee C312-155, believe it or not!), and a slow powder. I used the now discontinued 3100 powder with very good results (under an inch at 100yds for 10 shots, benchrested). Lube was CR. I was able to get to the high 2200's fps before the accuracy started dropping off. After 2300 fps groups started really opening up.

[btroj]

Hickok, I am gonna be very interested to hear how the powder coating does. And I don't think this thread is going anywhere. Jon will keep a close eye on it.

Shooter, that is exactly what we are looking for! Was the bullet heat treated? Did you try an even slower powder, like RE 22?

[vzerone]

My experience was with a stock Remington 700 in 30-06, 1/10 twist. I had very good results with a low tin/low antimony alloy .5/1.5/98 (approx), a bullet with a good fitment to the throat (in my case the Lee C312-155, believe it or not!), and a slow powder. I used the now discontinued 3100 powder with very good results (under an inch at 100yds for 10 shots, benchrested). Lube was CR. I was able to get to the high 2200's fps before the accuracy started dropping off. After 2300 fps groups started really opening up.

I'd try a better lube not changing anything else see what happens. Try one of the soap lubes out there, they've been proven to HV. That 3100 powder is probably one of the best cast bullet powders ever and Accurate had to quit it.

[popper]

My personal accuracy "standard" is based on what the gun will do with good handloads using jacketed bullets. Generally agree but I've only slugged one rifle - 336 30/30. Shoots jacketed very well and some low fps cast but not fast cast. Reason - really loose in the middle of the barrel. Never done a pound cast of anything, don't know if the chamber is straight or not. This marlin is restricted to softer alloy and lower fps. It did very well @ 50 with the RD boolit unchecked, lubed with veggy oil using #2 hardened with sulfur over some leverE. Can't get it to do well with Cu enhanced at all. I've used LLA, veggy oil, Recluse and now PC rifle. PC is very reliable and I've pushed the 308W to 2800 fps using HF powder - PC threads. I do rotate the case 2x when seating rifle boolits with generic nose seater - it does help. I do Cu enhance all boolits now. I suppose I should get a real mic (dang Dad had a couple I didn't think of snagging before he moved) someday to replace my calipers and get a good balance scale - my elec. scale drifts too much to trickle.
Anyway, my previous post was aimed at what to check in 'what you got' to see if it is worth the lead & powder down range while chasing higher fps. Yes, a GOOD & PROPER mould helps a lot. IMHO it is easier to get jacketed fps from the larger cal. vs smaller - a matter of physics and QC.

[vzerone]

Generally agree but I've only slugged one rifle - 336 30/30. Shoots jacketed very well and some low fps cast but not fast cast. Reason - really loose in the middle of the barrel. Never done a pound cast of anything, don't know if the chamber is straight or not. This marlin is restricted to softer alloy and lower fps. It did very well @ 50 with the RD boolit unchecked, lubed with veggy oil using #2 hardened with sulfur over some leverE. Can't get it to do well with Cu enhanced at all. I've used LLA, veggy oil, Recluse and now PC rifle. PC is very reliable and I've pushed the 308W to 2800 fps using HF powder - PC threads. I do rotate the case 2x when seating rifle boolits with generic nose seater - it does help. I do Cu enhance all boolits now. I suppose I should get a real mic (dang Dad had a couple I didn't think of snagging before he moved) someday to replace my calipers and get a good balance scale - my elec. scale drifts too much to trickle.
Anyway, my previous post was aimed at what to check in 'what you got' to see if it is worth the lead & powder down range while chasing higher fps. Yes, a GOOD & PROPER mould helps a lot. IMHO it is easier to get jacketed fps from the larger cal. vs smaller - a matter of physics and QC.

popper I keep telling you to slug the rear of that barrel. It may just be tight at the threads and then loose till it gets to that tight section at the muzzle. That's and idea condition!!! That rifle may be a cast sleeper.

[ShooterAZ]

Shooter, that is exactly what we are looking for! Was the bullet heat treated? Did you try an even slower powder, like RE 22?
The boolit was WD and aged but not treated. I did try IMR4831, and the results were not nearly as good as the 3100. I do have some RE22 now...so I may have to give that a go.

[popper]

The only necks I turn are BO and that is to get all brass to fit. I do have PP uniformer, haven't done anything to flash holes, yet. I anneal every once in a while. Just Lee, Hornady & RCBS standard dies sets. So not really anything advanced. I only 'pushed the envelope' to test PC capability. And in the BO as I want near 30-30/x39 performance without GC. I'm cheap.
No, it's tight under all the stamping and sights. Slug almost slides back and forth in the middle.
I tested WD vs HT on some RD boolits by twisting til break. Difference was obvious under a loop - much more consistent HTd. Fast cooling creates alternating layers of different composition (%s). An effect called supercooling. Outside layer is always higher Sb as it's the first to cool.

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

Btroj, I am in the process of working with a 700 Remington in .308 Winchester and cast boolit loads right now, powder coating and gaschecks, IMR 4895 powder, ACWW vs 50/50 COWW and pure lead. The weather is the big hold-up for me. May be awhile until I can get out to test some loads.

Really hoping this thread doesn't go.....:groner:
Weather ... In WV ... I wish we had your weather ;-) it was -11ºF this morning in MN, so it'll be awhile before I'll brush the snow off the rifle benches at the range. Oh, no worries on this thread going anywhere.
================

I also plan to participate with my Pre '64 mod 70 in 30-06. It's been bedded now, I hope that solves the issues I had with it 2 years ago. I have some Mihec 30 Sil cast in 94-3-3 unsized/unlubed because I am not sure if I'll be heat treating them or not. There is a tiny bit of copper in the alloy (.25%) and this alloy tends to harden a few points harder in 6 months...and I'd like to see what that alloy will do without heat treating, but aged to 6 months, and should measure about 16 BHN, since that's what other aged boolits measured.

I suppose it'd be smart to cast some more of those boolits with a lower tin content alloy and then heat treat them, and let them age. By the time I get around to wanting a harder alloy for HV, they'll have aged some.

[geargnasher]

RX-22 is a good powder for heavier cast bullets in medium sized 30-cal cases (.308 Win/'06-ish) at very high velocity and responds really well to a little granulated buffer on top. It likes as short a jump to the rifling as possible in those applications, particularly if no buffer is used.

Regarding rifle quality, a lot of folks would be astonished to find out how well a Marlin lever action, an M1A, or an AR-10 can shoot with cast bullet loads carefully tuned to their liking. Look at some competition scores for cast bullets fired from un-modified military surplus rifles, very impressive groups are being shot from them on a regular basis. Jacketed bullets only set the benchmark for accuracy in rifles that they fit well and with loads carefully tailored, and only premium match bullets need be considered. Otherwise, it's probable that cast bullets will do better, albeit at slightly reduced velocities.

Gear

[vzerone]

RX-22 is a good powder for heavier cast bullets in medium sized 30-cal cases (.308 Win/'06-ish) at very high velocity and responds really well to a little granulated buffer on top. It likes as short a jump to the rifling as possible in those applications, particularly if no buffer is used.

Regarding rifle quality, a lot of folks would be astonished to find out how well a Marlin lever action, an M1A, or an AR-10 can shoot with cast bullet loads carefully tuned to their liking. Look at some competition scores for cast bullets fired from un-modified military surplus rifles, very impressive groups are being shot from them on a regular basis. Jacketed bullets only set the benchmark for accuracy in rifles that they fit well and with loads carefully tailored, and only premium match bullets need be considered. Otherwise, it's probable that cast bullets will do better, albeit at slightly reduced velocities.

Gear

More commonly known as RL22 right? I think 3100 if it was available would be the cat's meow IF they make it in the old formula.
The 308 doesn't respond real well to buffer if you're talking about it building pressure like what is done in the Swede. There are certain shoulder angles that make that work well.

[Hickok]

Jon, we had one day about a week ago it was in the minus digits, about -8 in the morning, but it has been fairly nice for this area. Right now we are getting snow, it is coming down sideways with the wind! As I have gotten older, I have become a "snow sissy." :oops: Yep, I have turned into a "winter wimp.":cry:

But you folks in MN get a lot more winter than we do!

Been casting a lot lately, getting ready for a trip to the range! Loading/casting for the .308 to develop a good accurate 200 yard deer load that also gives good expansion out to that range. Working with the Lee 309-200-R.

[MT Chambers]

The only way that I would try for higher vel. with cast bullets would be to work with paper patching.

[geargnasher]

More commonly known as RL22 right? I think 3100 if it was available would be the cat's meow IF they make it in the old formula.
The 308 doesn't respond real well to buffer if you're talking about it building pressure like what is done in the Swede. There are certain shoulder angles that make that work well.

Alliant "Reloder" 22. Lyman abbreviates that whole series of powders "RX" and it put me in the habit of doing the same.

Gear

[vzerone]

The only way that I would try for higher vel. with cast bullets would be to work with paper patching.


If you heard something before about cast at HV being near impossible to do dont believe it. You should at least try it. Who knows you may be hooked. There is so much to explore with cast rather then be stuck back at the BP velocities. Just my two cents.

[MT Gianni]

I take a bullet that fits my throat with louverin grooves, 311466 with a modified nose profile to the Saeco 315. A former member did it and is probably done doing any others. Set it as straight as I can in surplus 06 cases sorted by weight. Push it with a slow powder to nearly 2350 fps using a good lube for my climate. ACWW is all I need to do this in, accuracy runs about 1 3/4" to occasional 1" when my 61 yr old eyes cooperate. [5 shots @ 100 yards].
I can put the same bullet in a Savage 10 308 AC or WD with a similar slow powder and get 4"-6" groups. It doesn't fit the throat.

[Bjornb]

i put this in my 308 cases on top of 45.6 grs of 4831-sc for @2400 fps.
ww alloy water cut with soft lead 3-1.
0.5% tin added, dropped in a pail of water and sized to 310.
lubed with my moly complex lube.
simple as i can make it for ya.

I don't have Runfiverun's mould but I decided to give his powder charge a try in a Ruger GSR in 308 Win. I consider the rifle "stock"; it has been re-barreled with a 24" FN barrel donated by Love Life. Still a hunting rifle weighing less than 10 lbs., with a Zeiss Terra scope on it.

I loaded up 4 different bullets, 10 rounds of each: an LBT 150 spitzer in Monotype (had to try it; waste of expensive alloy), the MP 180 SIL in Linotype, the NOE 165 XCB cast from straight COWW (water dropped), and lastly the Accurate 31-165G cast from a COWW/Cu alloy, also water dropped. All the bullets except the LBT were aged longer than 12 months.

Cases were Lake City, unsorted, and I used WLR primers and White Label 2700+ lube. All bullets were sized to .310, as they were leftovers from the XCB project. Sizing to .311 would have fit this rifle's throat better; that's for the next project. All loads were charged with R5R's above load of 45.6 grains of H4831SC.

Here are the bullets used:
158249

The targets:
158251158253158255158257

I didn't quite achieve the advertised velocities, but at least it's a start. I'll continue to work with this rifle and cast bullets; the rifle is a solid 3/4" performer with jacketed and it should be possible to get her dialed in.

Since several members participating in this thread are firm believers in shooting softer alloys, I'll be casting up a number of bullet designs using wheel weights and range scrap just to try it out. I shot a lot of lino in the heavy bench rifles but what I'm really chasing is the perfect hunting load (cartridge/bullet/alloy/powder/lube) for my 30 cal rifles. Maybe I'll find what I'm looking for.

[Love Life]

That barrel is an awesome barrel. It's good to see it put back to use, BJornB. Off topic alert: Bjorn, my daughter says hi and that she got her new puppy!

[Hickok]

BJornb great post. I am really smiling looking at your results with the COWW. Can't wait for your next range test.

[chutesnreloads]

Been meaning to try this and this seems like a good place to motivate me to stick with it.
Going to see how far this can go on the cheap with these materials already on hand
Late '70's Savage 110 in 30-06 unmodified other than glass bedding
Lee 309-170F Lyman#2 Powder Coated
Lee push through sizer and Lee size and seat dies
This rifle has already surprised me how well it shoots this boolit with just LLA and 13 grains RedDot so....why not?

[swheeler]

Bjorn: thanks for the test, 2200 is nothing to sneeze at for hunting, especially if you can improve with a softer alloy. Just tweaking the loads could make a big accuracy difference for you, and the WW+Cu should take out any deer you happen upon.

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

Bjornb,
Great report. I look forward to more.
Jon

[Harter66]

Question?
How long is the bbl now ? You did say it was a 24" donor bbl .
Why not matching cases ? Accuracy is the goal with speed .
Why such different alloys ? It would seem that like alloys would show a direct bullet design comparison, no ?
There is a pretty wide load window here too . You're driving 180s as fast as 150s .
Not to belittle the effort but with 60-80 fps it seems pretty obvious to me why the groups are what they are . I worked a rifle once in 06' that with 150 gr jacketed would open groups from 5 touching to 6" from 2650 to 2740 and at 2690 it was still a 1.5 inch group. As an example only of velocity group failure .

[geargnasher]

Bjorn, I've tried and tried to do what you're going and never could get better results than that. I got plenty worse results, too, believe me! Please give up the diamond-hard bullet thing for a bit and focus on what you're wanting to do as a HUNTING load. That's what a lot of use who shoot bone-stock rifles at HV have found we HAD to do to get even passable accuracy. Linotype just doesn't seem to work well in normal twist at HV, or at least I don't know anyone who's made it work well and I can't make it work for that, either.

You can try a couple things that have worked for others: Size your bullets to scuff the freebore when chambered (snug fit!) and use an alloy about like air-cooled Taracorp Magnum (this will likely work with the NOE XCB bullet quite well), OR try the MP sil or LBT bullet and work up an alloy with about 2.5% antimony and less than 1% tin, water-quench them straight from a hot mould run at the light-frost temperature point or oven heat-treat it to around 20-22 BHN (three weeks to a month age time, heat treat temp somewhere around 380-400°F) and launch them with a powder in the 4350 burn rate area to 2250-2400 fps......there should be a sweet spot somewhere in there where the alloy and powder and barrel will all sing in tune.

I don't know if you do the oven heat-treat thing, but if you do, try installing your checks first and sizing to final diameter BEFORE you heat treat.

Water-quenched 50/50 alloy in .30 caliber at 2300 fps works REALLY well on deer and pigs, even it it hits bone. Highly recommended.

Gear

[Bjornb]

Question?
How long is the bbl now ? You did say it was a 24" donor bbl .
Why not matching cases ? Accuracy is the goal with speed .
Why such different alloys ? It would seem that like alloys would show a direct bullet design comparison, no ?
There is a pretty wide load window here too . You're driving 180s as fast as 150s .
Not to belittle the effort but with 60-80 fps it seems pretty obvious to me why the groups are what they are . I worked a rifle once in 06' that with 150 gr jacketed would open groups from 5 touching to 6" from 2650 to 2740 and at 2690 it was still a 1.5 inch group. As an example only of velocity group failure .

The barrel was 24" before, and it's 24" now. By a great stroke of luck the barrel threads fit the Ruger receiver and Goodsteel was able to install the barrel with very few modifications.
The cases were actually LC Match, reloaded about 20 times or so. My comment about "unsorted" referred to the different year stamps on the cases.
158344

I loaded and shot theses bullets, alloys and powder because I wanted to stick with the "theme", of the OP, which was basically "shoot what you have". Those who have followed the XCB project in other threads know that I can do match prepped brass, weight sorted bullets, heavy bench barrels etc. That was not what JonB was talking about here.
If you want to discuss test protocols feel free to do so, but I'll be shooting (for now) some miscellaneous bullets that I happen to have on the shelf; today I found a couple of hundred Accurate 31-165G (XCB truncated cone) cast from 50/50 water dropped back in August. They have been sized .310, not optimum, but I'll see how they do. Hopefully tomorrow.

[Bjornb]

I don't know if you do the oven heat-treat thing, but if you do, try installing your checks first and sizing to final diameter BEFORE you heat treat.

Water-quenched 50/50 alloy in .30 caliber at 2300 fps works REALLY well on deer and pigs, even it it hits bone. Highly recommended.

Gear

Haven't done a lot of heat treating; may give it a try.
There is no doubt that the softer the alloy, the better the terminal performance on game. The problem is always to find the perfect balance between speed, accuracy and alloy performance.
158345

[swheeler]

Nice looking rifle, man it's got a big honkin' barrel on it too!:-)

[vzerone]

Bjorn, I've tried and tried to do what you're going and never could get better results than that. I got plenty worse results, too, believe me! Please give up the diamond-hard bullet thing for a bit and focus on what you're wanting to do as a HUNTING load. That's what a lot of use who shoot bone-stock rifles at HV have found we HAD to do to get even passable accuracy. Linotype just doesn't seem to work well in normal twist at HV, or at least I don't know anyone who's made it work well and I can't make it work for that, either.

You can try a couple things that have worked for others: Size your bullets to scuff the freebore when chambered (snug fit!) and use an alloy about like air-cooled Taracorp Magnum (this will likely work with the NOE XCB bullet quite well), OR try the MP sil or LBT bullet and work up an alloy with about 2.5% antimony and less than 1% tin, water-quench them straight from a hot mould run at the light-frost temperature point or oven heat-treat it to around 20-22 BHN (three weeks to a month age time, heat treat temp somewhere around 380-400°F) and launch them with a powder in the 4350 burn rate area to 2250-2400 fps......there should be a sweet spot somewhere in there where the alloy and powder and barrel will all sing in tune.

I don't know if you do the oven heat-treat thing, but if you do, try installing your checks first and sizing to final diameter BEFORE you heat treat.

Water-quenched 50/50 alloy in .30 caliber at 2300 fps works REALLY well on deer and pigs, even it it hits bone. Highly recommended.

Gear

Geargnasher, I'm confused. In one sentence you say that you're about in the same place Bjorn is. I also take it that you wouldn't be satisfied with the groups that he got. In another sentence you are giving advice of a couple things to try. Well apparently they don't work because in the first sentence you said you are basically stuck.

I would agree with giving up the super hard alloy, but Bjorn since posted the reason he's using it. I feel that the water quenched 50/50 alloy would be a good one to try especially for hunting also. I believe if it was oven heat treated that it would be too hard for hunting. I also believe the MP Sil even out of the softer alloy as not so good a hunting bullet because it's too pointy. Now, on the other hand the hollow point version is impressive to say the least even with the alloy I just condemned for hunting use.

I don't agree with some things you said to try. One was if you were to oven heat treat to gas check them first. I don't believe in that basically because I do not believe in annealing gas checks and oven heat treating will do that. The other is I believe they won't be as tight grasping on the bullet after oven heat treating. I can't quite go along with a scuff the freebore either. I don't agree with the temperatures you gave for oven heat treat. I believe in a much higher temperature and have done so with good results.

You didn't mention lubes. I think for this kind of thing, that is HV, that your SL lubes and the "other guy's" soap lube are the best in this country.

Bjorn before I signed up didn't I read you wore the throat on your XCB rifle from using Linotype at HV? If that is correct why are you still employing Linotype and even harder Monotype?

Last I don't believe in casting bullet frosty, but I agree you don't have to be adding 2% tin to anything.

Bjorn unless the different years on those cases have a wide spread of different internal volumes I wouldn't be concerned with it. You want to make sure you ammo is loaded with the bullet straight. You want to make sure your cartridge centers the bullet to the center bore line. Truing the neck wall thickness can enhance that. Weight your bullets helps much, unless you are such a good caster that the weights are very consistent. The slow powders are good here as is buffer. Not Dacron. Dacron acts much different then buffer. I'm not a huge fan of COW either. Clean your barrel frequently, but don't over clean it. Depending on type of lube I'm not sold on the bore has to be seasoned with a lot of shots. A good lube, such as mentioned above, doesn't need that much seasoning.

[btroj]

Thanks for the report Bjorn. Nice shooting.
I understand fully shooting the bullets you have on hand, it sucks having to wait weeks for bullets to age enough to feel comfortable that they are giving reliable results.
I wonder how each bullet would respond if all cast from the same alloy? Just curious as you have some pretty different styles there.
Maybe in a month or so we will have weather conducive to shooting outdoors. Tomorrow it is looking like a high just over zero, hardly good group shooting weather. Until then I will keep watching.

[geargnasher]

Geargnasher, I'm confused. In one sentence you say that you're about in the same place Bjorn is. No. I said I tried (past tense) to so the same thing he's doing now (armor-piercing double-tough alloy) and I never could make it work. I also take it that you wouldn't be satisfied with the groups that he got. Depends on what one is trying to do. I wouldn't try to hunt with any of those alloys, though, except MAYBE the COWW. In another sentence you are giving advice of a couple things to try. Well apparently they don't work because in the first sentence you said you are basically stuck. Nope. Hopefully I explained that a little better for you this time.

I would agree with giving up the super hard alloy, but Bjorn since posted the reason he's using it. I feel that the water quenched 50/50 alloy would be a good one to try especially for hunting also. I believe if it was oven heat treated that it would be too hard for hunting. My recommendation to harden by whatever means to 20-22 is actually about right for the velocity range using low-antimony alloy. That's a little bit of hunting experience with that alloy talking, not "belief", but if there's one thing I know it's that we all have unique experiences with this sort of stuff that influence our opinions. Just because a bullet is heat treated in an oven doesn't mean it HAS to be maximum hardness like about 27 BHN from my 50/50 at 425F for a full hour then into ice water, one can get the same hardness as water-dropping from the mould if a lower heat treat temp is used. I also believe the MP Sil even out of the softer alloy as not so good a hunting bullet because it's too pointy. I really haven't seen that pointy or matters that much in .30-caliber, but I know others have better luck with cup points or WFN's like Ranch Dog bullets. Thing is, VELOCITY. We're pushing bullets faster than most people by a few hundred FPS and using a little more ductile alloy than most people would try, and when a soft, pointy, fast bullet whacks hide and meat it mushrooms a little no matter what the initial shape. Now, on the other hand the hollow point version is impressive to say the least even with the alloy I just condemned for hunting use.

I don't agree with some things you said to try. One was if you were to oven heat treat to gas check them first. I don't believe in that basically because I do not believe in annealing gas checks and oven heat treating will do that. The other is I believe they won't be as tight grasping on the bullet after oven heat treating. I've done it and it worked fine for me. I never had any checks come off or any other problem, again that's experience, not "belief", your mileage, and his, may vary, but I don't dispense advice based on things I haven't done myself. If you've had bad luck with it, please tell us about what you did and how it failed. I can't quite go along with a scuff the freebore either. Take that up with Lamar, he gets it done with .308 and .223 AR by doing just that. It's what I do in my .308 Bisley and it works purty good whether you agree or not. I don't agree with the temperatures you gave for oven heat treat. I believe in a much higher temperature and have done so with good results. Heat treat temperature is subjective, and depends on what you're trying to accomplish. For a softer hunting bullet, I recommend the lower temperature, but any slight traces of antimony, calcium, copper, arsenic, sulfur, ETC. will affect how a given "50/50" alloy will harden.

You didn't mention lubes. I think for this kind of thing, that is HV, that your SL lubes and the "other guy's" soap lube are the best in this country. Maybe, but Carnauba Red is tough to beat if you have enough pressure behind it and the ambient temperature isn't too low.


I gave Bjorn two different approaches that have both worked for me to get 23-2400 fps out of various .30-caliber factory rifles with MOA accuracy. It worked for me, it should work for him. His case prep, casting skills, and attention to detail are more than sufficient to get him there if he just decides to stick with one thing keep working at it incrementally until he finally gets the bullet fit and alloy and powder to work for him. You know, the grind and grind and grind until suddenly the lightbulb comes on and it forever changes the way you approach handloading for rifles.

Gear

[vzerone]

Geargnasher I've had no problems what so ever with the way I apply my gas checks, that is un-annealed, but can you prove your method is better? I'm shooting the groups I want are you?

My statement on the Sil ARE from hunting experiences. That HV velocity statement doesn't make a difference it's just like a HV FMJ j-word. This even follows all down the line to smaller calibers. I was astonished that 50/50 Mihec bullets with the same kind of nose profile as the 30 didn't do much damage at all.

Can you prove that ice water makes a difference? I think that's a head job myself.

When you said worked for you what size groups are you talking about? Were those groups without fliers?

In the other thread (that I started on rifling land force) you said you were stuck and the reason you were in the thread. Then you said "well that's the end of that".....but I came back and posted more on dies and you haven't been back to that thread anymore. So I quit posting in it.

[geargnasher]

Vzerone, do you own a hardness tester?

Gear

[vzerone]

Yes I do, but a rarely use it on the bullets that I cast/shoot because I have my method set in stone and it's a waste of time. I don't need to be testing them every time. I do test new alloys I pick up to insure, or at least give more a indication, as what they really are.

[TXGunNut]

I have a rifle that would be perfect for a project like this. It's a (recent mfg) Winchester M70 Super Grade in 30-06. Twist is 1-10 and it has been idle since I got into CB hunting as I'm not sure how to build a boolit and load that will outperform a 30-30. This beautiful rifle might go hunting again if I can get a boolit that will perform with hunting accuracy and good terminal performance at 2300 fps or so.

[vzerone]

I have a rifle that would be perfect for a project like this. It's a (recent mfg) Winchester M70 Super Grade in 30-06. Twist is 1-10 and it has been idle since I got into CB hunting as I'm not sure how to build a boolit and load that will outperform a 30-30. This beautiful rifle might go hunting again if I can get a boolit that will perform with hunting accuracy and good terminal performance at 2300 fps or so.

Well I can tell you that you don't need that much velocity to have really good performance inside the deer's body. Honestly I don't load my hunting loads that fast unless I'm going to shoot longer distances. They would be too destructive. You can do a balancing act with bullet alloys and degrees of hardening and it's a pain in the butt.

[btroj]

What happened to posting how YOU do it instead of telling others why they are all wrong?

This thread has taken a wrong turn towards just another HV thread gone bad.

[TXGunNut]

Thanks for starting this thread, JonB. I hope everyone behaves as in the past this subject has gotten a bit heated at times. I know that techniques that work for others may not work for me and also know that what works for me may not work in everyone's rifles. Looking forward to some spirited discussions and some range (and field) testing, not arguments or name-calling.
Last year I was able to push a good-fitting RD boolit (360-230) to 2200ps in my 35 Whelen using a HT 50/50 alloy. I HT'd the boolits after sizing and before installing GC's to keep from annealing the GC's and work-softening the boolits. I know this adds a few steps but it was worth it. I used BAC but I suspect 2500+ may be a better lube to push the envelope on this project. I've detailed my target and field-testing elsewhere so won't bore anyone with it here.
Case prep is a given; it's important for any accuracy pursuit but has little to do with this project any more than any other project, IMHO.
I'll be focusing on alloy, HT methods, throat fit, sizing and lube. I'm thinking powder will also be critical but suspect that a general class of powders and their pressure curve characteristics may be more important than a specific powder.
This is going to be fun. Started a couple of other projects today but will give serious consideration to starting a HV CB 30-06 project as well.

[35 shooter]

As to annealing checks and accuracy, i can only speak for my rifle and my brothers(both 35 whelens).
I heat my homeade .014" amerimax al. checks in an oven for 1 hr. @500*(not true annealing as that takes more heat) and let air dry.
They definitly size on both tighter than not heat treating and groups are more accurate.
They group better than hornady copper checks in both rifles with every boolit we use at 2200fps.

[TXGunNut]

Well I can tell you that you don't need that much velocity to have really good performance inside the deer's body. Honestly I don't load my hunting loads that fast unless I'm going to shoot longer distances. They would be too destructive. You can do a balancing act with bullet alloys and degrees of hardening and it's a pain in the butt.

I'm well aware of what it takes to have good performance inside a deer's body, it has little to do with the subject at hand. It just so happens that I'm more interested in performance inside a large hog's body but that is a bit outside of this thread's focus as well. I want to figure out how to make my 30-06 shoot like a 30-06 with cast boolits instead of a 30-30....not that there's anything wrong with a 30-30, of course.

[Bjornb]

What happened to posting how YOU do it instead of telling others why they are all wrong?

This thread has taken a wrong turn towards just another HV thread gone bad.

Amen.

[vzerone]

What happened to posting how YOU do it instead of telling others why they are all wrong?

This thread has taken a wrong turn towards just another HV thread gone bad.

Think about what I said btroj. By saying I don't agree with annealing gas checks isn't that in a way saying I shoot gas checks as they are? I did say how I heat treat them when I do it. In that other thread I did say how I was sizing the case. I told bjorn what I would do. In a way I told him I wouldn't use the hard alloys hes using. I also told Txgunner that I wouldn't want my velocity real high for hunting.

So let's have a summary. What you want is for me to post a recipe for instance guaranteed succeed for HV and clover leaf groups? Is that it? If anything I think you turned the thread to a sour note, not me.

[vzerone]

Second though since some aren't satisfied with my replies I'm dropping out. I don't want the thread go downhill because of anything I've done or said.

[btroj]

I'm done. If I want this I can go beyond......

[onceabull]

btroj: well spoken & accurate.... Onceabull

[Bjornb]

I think everybody just need to take a deep breath here. Let this thread be one where the ACTUAL RESULTS rule the day. Sure, giving and receiving advice is fine, but there are very few members on this forum who know in detail how ANOTHER member's rifle will shoot under all circumstances.

So keep the tips coming, but don't get bogged down in minutiae. Remember the targets never lie.

[btroj]

I agree Bjorn.
I want to know what others are doing and what they found did or did not work. Sometimes the failures teach us more than the successes. I have had some results in the past the defied what I considered logical but like you said, the targets don't lie. Still not sure why I went down that road but it lead me where it did.
I may not follow exactly what someone else did but it can certainly lead me to make some changes in what I'm trying next.
I need to not only fit what my rifle wants but what fits with how I do things. We all have a loading and casting style. I am not going to change my entire mindset just because someone else does it different.

I won't be actually shooting until it gets warmer here. Cold weather and heavy clothes aren't conducive to good shooting by me. I will also be trying some carnauba red and I have had poor results in cold barrels with it in the past. If I shoot below 50 degrees I introduce a variable that is easily avoid much of the year when using CR.

[mfraser264]

My higher velocity results are by using a .30 XCB brass mold from NOE, casting straight Linotype, sized to .310 with gas check, Special Red lube, AA 2230 in the 23 gain range, Savage Axis Heavy barrel fire lapped, Boyd's stock, mil suplus brass. From drop results at 200 yards 2100-2300 fps. Have turned in several 1 1/4" 5 shot groups. Seating OAL of 2.608. Rifling is 1:10. I did set the seating die so there is no head space.

Search for the .30 XCB Project, greatly appreciate the effort these folks put into that project and also for sharing the information. Working on sizing more of these bullets to load up a few more hundred for the warmer shooting weather.

[whisler]

Please guys, let's keep this discussion going in the direction that the OP intended. I say that for the sake of us newbies to rifles with cast boolits.

I have yet to cast my first rifle boolit, but I have a Winchester 30-06 that I would like to learn to shoot like a 30-06. I'm retired and far from rich so I won't be building any custom rifles.This Winny is as good as it is likely to get for me.

I'll likely cut my teeth on my Spanish Mauser in .308 at lower velocities, but want to learn as much about HV as possible for my later pursuits with the 30-06. So please, help me out!

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

I did start this thread as a discussion...and hoped some would post some range reports. Many of us have winter to contend with, and I know I won't/can't benchrest shoot for a month or so ...El Nino willing :) but plan to this Spring. I think we are still on track. We have some character's here for sure and if we can keep things on a positive suggestion based comments in regards to other's range reports and/or stated techniques, then we'll be fine. Some of us are more familiar with certain aspects than others and many of us(like myself) are at 'square one' of shooting cast at HV. Just a simple thing to keep in mind, we are all friends of the cast boolit, and we should be friends with each other...and should respect each other even when we disagree. OK?
Jon

[popper]

158387
300BO AR plain base (31-142C), chronyd 2112 avg. 100 yds. 2 at the right are 150gr Hornady SP, my loads. Past 140gr jacketed fps. Lee die set, mixed brass with no special treatment. Isocore H.T. with some Cu added. Custom barrel only to get 1:10.
158388
308W AR 170gr GC (31-165C) isocore upped to 4% Sb, Cu added (annealed), H.T. chronyd ~2700, 24". RCBS dies, no special prep. All PCd. Pretty close to max jacketed fps. There you go. Don't have a '06 so that's all I can do. Working to be a better shot.

[Harter66]

Well since I have played the Devils advocate......... :)

In nearly all of my rifles I shoot an alloy of 75/25 WW and lead tamper seals which appears to be 1/20 but has or aquires some copper from the copper wire for seal function. Almost all are also water quenched from the mould. My all purpose lube is 18 oz paraffin, 14 oz generic vasoline and 3 tbsp STP, modified Darrs lube.

32 Remington.
M14 Remington 22" bbl .320 x .312 .
323-175 R2 Lee modified to plain base and sized .323.
Winchester 32 Remington brass unsorted ,it's hard to weigh lot with only 20 cases .
IMR 4350 32.0 gr . Speer data for 32 Winchester with 170 gr sp says 35-37 gr for 1822 -1944 fps . This is universally recommended data for 32 Remington.
CCI standard LRP.

With a typical field sitting 3 point rest and/or "limb under the fore arm" rest this load and rifle produced 3" 100 yd groups . Since the last factory ammo was produced in 1964 and I have yet to find a pointed 170 .321 bullet so there is no jacketed proformance to compare . This load produced 2100 to 2130 fps via my 1st F1 Chrony at 4050 ft MSL at temperatures from 75-90F degrees .
So says my notes from the spring and late summer of 2008 .
I consider this a valid entry as it gives hunting accuracy, meets the 1000 @ 100 Nv requirements and exceeds 2100 fps and published data for a sister cartridge.
I don't have group pictures but I believe Onceabull may have witnessed groups from the above loads at 2012 NCBS .

I currently have been working an AR 15 in 6.8 Remington SPCII.
The unfired bbl slugged .277x.270 .
Above alloy and lube .
NOE 279-124 FP . True weight 129 gr pre lube and check.
Sized 278 in Buckshot push through sizer with Hornady checks .
CCI 41 primers
FC brass from FC 115 FMJ factory ammo .

This rifle was received as a kit from Blackthorne products and assembled on a 1st generation Aero precision lower reciever as an AR 15 A2 . Factory loads were fired for break in and sight adjustment and achieved 3" best groups . This is a 16" M4 bbl with 1-11 twist rate . Best jacketed groups were reached with a Hornady 120SST over RL 10X at 2250 fps +25 -33 for 5 shot load development groups . These hovered around 2.25 inches . Data means zip w/o a base line right ?
To meet the Nv requirements I have to obtain 2200 fps with the NOE Bullet .
Speeds up to 2375 were obtained using RL 10X, 2310 with H322 and 2290 with H4198. There was an abrupt failure of accuracy. After some research the bbl was scrubbed and free float for end parts were aquired . The A2 sight/gas block was replaced by an aluminum low profile gas block and the GI fore end and delta ring were replaced . It was discovered that the muzzle device had caused crown fouling . The A2 flash hider was left off on reassembly . Loads were reshot with RL 10X start loads and the NOE Bullet . Again no pics . I'm not done with this either . These loads delivered 2138-2180 and 5 shot groups under 2 inches . According to data provided by a load program these loads will be in the mid 40 kpsi range . I will add that these are the 1st gas checked bullets I've used ....ever . I can't believe how much easier it made load development with "the wrong powders". Before the modifications the H4198 showed the most promise for 2200 fps and groups under 1.5 . The cold weather dropped in an stalled the load work.
I should also add that the rifle as it stands today has an invested dollar value $510 less the scope which is about as inexpensive as a 2" AR comes based on my rediculously tiny amount of experience with the platform.

[geargnasher]

Ahhh, the .30-'06. I'll tell you guys how I got one of the very last Winchester M70 Classics from New Haven to shoot. First I copper plated the outside of some resized case necks until I could load a throat-diameter bullet with only about a thousandth total case neck/chamber neck clearance. I cast some Lee 312-185 bullets (my bore was like .3015" brand-new) out of some 2% antimony/.25% tin assayed range scrap and water-quenched them. They ended up about 18 BHN after a couple of months. My cases had been fire-formed using the Scotch tape technique to center the heads in the chamber and make concentric, true brass. I worked out a sizing setup to give me exactly .0015" interference fit of the sized bullets into the neck, and put no crimp on the mouth. The load was worked up from a jacketed starting load of a neat little powder Winchester makes called WW780 Supreme. I used BPI compacting buffer at about 10% compression after sifting into the cases with a Lee powder dipper and powder funnel. I seated the bullets so the nose got faint shiny marks on the nose from the lands and the first driving band got evenly marked all the way around by the taper of the throat. I'm not sure I ever got the load tuned as well as I could have (needed to experiment with alloys more) but I quit at around 2500 fps when groups got past 6". It was plenty good for hunting at 1.5" and 2200 fps, which is borderline too fast for that soft of a bullet.

The rifle and same bullet cast of air-cooled WW + 2% tin and loaded in un-plated cases, well fireformed, would group the same 1.5" at 100 yards for five, ten, or as many as you wanted to shoot, any day of the year, from 20 to 107 degrees using Felix lube and a below-starting jacketed load of H4350 powder. That was my deer load for quite a few years and it did the job, though I always thought it would have done a lot better if the bullet had a small cup point. Better than a .30-30? Not by much, but a little. I finally traded that rifle off and if I were to do it again, I'd probably start with a bullet around 200 grains that had a tapered nose and a lot of bearing surface.

I also paper-patched for that rifle using custom bullets of my own design and it was deadly accurate at insane speeds....with regular brass. I think NOE stocks a copy of the NRA paper patch bullet design, and if you want to really get the mostest out of an '06 bolt-action for long-range hunting with cast bullets, THAT would be the way to get-er-dun with minimum fuss.

Gear

[35 shooter]

35 whelen...tc encore with 28" pro hunter bbl.
Hornady 35 whelen cases
Partial full length size in rcbs dies
trimmed length .002" over minimum
Noe 360230 (230 gr.) sized .360 and seated to barely engage rifling
ww alloy ht'd @ 460* for 1 hr. and water dropped
Ben's Red lube or 3 coats of BLL (Ben's Liquid Lube) works equally well.
Sage's .010 half hard al. checks

54 gr. imr4350 powder @ 2200 fps.
Shoots 1" and better @ 100 yds. with weighed boolits and up to 1.5" sometimes if unweighed.
Very nice "high speed for me hunting load".

Boolits weren't weighed for this group, but 4 of them darn sure must have been close lol.158395

Hunting season will be over here in a couple of weeks and i want to try this boolit with a load of 3031 that worked well with the noe 360200 gr. rcbs clone at between 24 and 2500 fps.
I know that's a pretty fast powder for the application, but my notes say it was doing very well with that 200 gr. boolit.
Also want to try aa4350...we'll see!

Nobody blows a perfectly good clover leaf group like i do.

[TXGunNut]

I worked out a sizing setup to give me exactly .0015" interference fit of the sized bullets into the neck, and put no crimp on the mouth. -Gear

Can you elaborate on your thinking and your technique? I think that is one of the keys to our goal.

[TXGunNut]

I'm done. If I want this I can go beyond......

I hope you'll reconsider. This thread will benefit from your input.

[tomme boy]

The main thing to get this done is ATTENTION to DETAILS. Everything has to be done exactly the same every single time you do it. Your alloy has to be the same, your heat needs to be the same every pour, your cadence of pours, amount of lead on top of the mould, sorting defects, sorting into weights, brass prep. And the nut behind the gun.

[geargnasher]

I worked out a sizing setup to give me exactly .0015" interference fit of the sized bullets into the neck, and put no crimp on the mouth. -Gear

Can you elaborate on your thinking and your technique? I think that is one of the keys to our goal.

Well, I doubt that would apply to anyone but me, ever, and hopefully not again. You see, copper is soft. Try sizing soft copper-coated case necks without sticking the case or ripping the plating off. Short version is I used brass shim stock and a .358 Winchester form/trim die to size the necks down just enough to hold the bullets. All that PITA is why I traded that rifle off.

Ok, in general, I have found through a lot of experimenting that "bullet pull", or how hard the case neck grips the bullet, needs to be the same every time or you'll have flyers out of the group from the necks that aren't the same as the rest of them. I don't use any sort of crimp unless the magazine mechanism and/or recoil of the rifle demands it, or in some rare but definite instances when I'm trying to bump the powder ignition speed up a bit (300 Blackout is a good example of when I crimp case mouths firmly). Why don't I use crimp unless absolutely necessary? I don't really know, maybe I'm just lazy or maybe I've done it six ways from Sunday and MOST of the time crimping case mouths on bolt-action rifles doesn't seem to help anything, so I don't bother because I'm lazy. I've also found through a lot of trial and error that somewhere between .0015" and .0020" of "interference fit" between bullet and case neck gives me the best accuracy, most of the time, in most of my rifles from 6.5mm to 35 caliber. Also, this little bit won't crush soft-ish bullets when you seat them. Occasionally I have to size the case mouths down a touch more than that so the bullets stay put, but that depends on the rifle and caliber. How do I do this? I buy and often modify bullet sizing dies that make the bullets the size I want them, generally just a few "tenths" smaller than throat entrance diameter. Different alloys at different tempers spring back differently, so I have like eight 30-caliber bullet sizing dies, each sanded to a slightly different size. Once I have my bullets where I want them, I size the necks using any number of neck bushing dies, honed-out FL sizing dies, collet sizing dies (Lee's collet dies are extremely handy for precision case neck sizing to just the size you want without having to buy $50 or more in neck bushings for a single caliber). Here I like to put the neck about a thousandth or two smaller than finished size, and use an RCBS cast bullet neck expanding die or modified Lyman M die (spud modded to blend the step into a very gentle taper) to bring the case neck up to my desired final ID, plus add just enough bellmouth so a Hornady gas check on my sized bullets will sit about 3/4 of it's height down in the mouth when I place the bullet there by hand for seating.

Notice I don't use any FL factory dies or drag-o-matic expander buttons. Factory dies size the necks WAY too small and the expander buttons yank the necks every which way but straight. That right there is a major cause of accurate velocity limitations with cast bullets, most people are using regular old jacketed bullet dies and maybe a Lyman M die to blow the necks back up, or maybe a Lee Universal bellmouthing die, and their necks are crooked, off center, and neck tension varies like crazy. Jacketed bullets don't care about this stuff so much, but cast bullets really do.

That's the way I do it and the tools I tend to use. There are lots and lots of different ways to accomplish the same thing, but hopefully you get the point about not overworking your necks with conventional reloading dies, the need to find a way to get your bullets the size your rifle likes, and using whatever tools work for you that will put your case necks consistently at the diameter needed to hold the bullets with something like 1.5 thousandths "tension".

Gear

[Love Life]

A bushing sizer lets you set how much sizing you do to the neck (which will allow you to pick and choose how much tension is on the bullet). Or you can use a standard sizing die, BUT use a custom expander to also set your neck tension. Custom expanders are actually pretty cheap too.

[TXGunNut]

Notice I don't use any FL factory dies or drag-o-matic expander buttons. Factory dies size the necks WAY too small and the expander buttons yank the necks every which way but straight. -Gear

Thanks, seems I need to re-think my sizing procedure. Using RCBS Cowboy dies was a real eye-opener because they don't size the necks much and don't have an expander button. Only problem I may have is that I generally have more than one rifle chambered for a given cartridge but for the purposes of this project I should dedicate a lot of cases. I'm also seriously considering an annealer to help keep my neck tension uniform, have seen what happens when necks get work-hardened.

[glockky]

How does everyone feel about using the NOE expander buttons?

$6 a piece and lots of size options.

[Love Life]

As long as they expand the neck, I don't see why they wouldn't work. An expanding mandrel is just a piece of metal of a certain diameter that opens up a hole to a certain diameter.

I have seen a couple ways to measure neck tension. There are gauges that will measure pull, gauges to measure seating pressure, pin gauges to measure case neck ID. There is also the "feel" method, lol. Consistency rules the day here, as it does in just about anything where you want repeatability of a result.

Then you have shoulder bumping to keep from over working your brass AND it keeps the brass body formed to the chamber and just sizes the neck and bumps the shoulder back however much you need to get the rd to chamber.

ETA- Using the dies to the best of their capability, and being consistent should go a long way towards achieving "HV" in stock rifles. "HV" essentially having a wandering meaning, what it means to me is the cast bullet must near match the speed and accuracy of a jacketed match bullet for me to consider it a success. Those are my parameters, I haven't met them, so I keep my 308 boolit pretty slow around 2200 FPS in my 2112 built rifle.

Before I bow out here, I'd once again like to preach consistency. Consistency in all that you do. You will be rewarded.

[Hickok]

I like my L.E. Wilson neck bushing dies, in-line seaters and arbor press. Have used them for years for my jacketed loads. But, it would be a pretty good cash layout to switch over to them, if a person didn't already have them.

I use a Redding Neck Bushing sizing die for my .257 WM and it works great, give me good low bullet run-out. The Lee collet dies have worked extremely well also for me.

I really hate pulling a sized case back over a neck expander button. It really works the brass, and sometimes it can move the shoulder/datum line. But for some cartridges you have no choice.

I agree with Geargnasher about the .002" neck tension. This is what I set up for with jacketed bullets in my neck bushing dies. Just never tried them yet with cast boolits. I have a Wilson neck bushing die for my .308's, and sounds like a good option to try with my cast boolits.

[JWT]

Gear,

Would adding a small crimp serve to create a more consistent neck tension? My thinking is that if the neck tension is set very low then minor variations will be harder to control. If a slight crimp is added then minor variations in neck thickness and degree of brass annealing will be washed out by the tension of the crimp. For single shot rifle use or benchrest I think annealing, neck turning, reaming, and lower neck tension would provide for better accuracy.

[geargnasher]

I only occasionally anneal brass, so I don't have much experience to share on how that relates to consistent neck tension or accuracy. I've seen annealed necks shoot WORSE on several occasions, and I've had to deliberately work-harden necks sometimes to get them to have enough spring to do the job.

A few years ago a very accomplished IHMSA member wrote about a very, very lengthy and involved test with .357 Magnum bullet pull vs crimp, no crimp. What he found is crimp had no effect on velocity or accuracy, but neck tension DID. I don't think crimping rifle rounds will add any consistency to bullet pull, but I haven't tested it directly with a mechanical pull gauge of some sort. Really, one can just go shoot loads both ways and see, but if the crimped rounds shoot better, is it because of more consistent bullet pull, or is it because of more resistance amping up the powder ignition and making the whole burn better and more consistent shot to shot?

Gear

[popper]

drag-o-matic expander buttons Agree but the BO is pretty close to straight wall IMHO. NOE expanders work great but case needs to be pretty close to a standard trim length to work correctly. I'm still using the Lee flare tool and 'feel', I know, extra step. I suppose I need to get a flash hole tool and test.
In 308W I just remove the bell. I'm finding the BO needs a good hard crimp (FCD), using H110, jacketed or cast. IMHO it's the good consistent burn.
In my earlier testing 1:7 BO carbine, Iso/Pb vs Iso - the 50/50 mix couldn't take the 1700+ fps very well and needed to be sized larger. I only had 4227 at the time and it didn't do well at lighter loads - lots of vertical stringing, unburned powder. I'll swag it and say the weaker alloy needs more 'swage/friction' with the same load so the base is 'good' and flat. These are slick sided boolits with no L.G. to collapse. Only nose slump, base deformation and stripping to worry about. I'll try to test the 50/50 in 1:10 this summer.

[35 shooter]

Crimp has been mentioned here and is something i'll be trying again on one load in a couple of weeks or so.

A couple of years ago i worked up a load in the whelen with a 200 gr. boolit and 3031 powder. According to lyman i was somewhere between 24 and 2500 fps.(didn't chrono at the time).
My load notes show that load was avg. moa @ 100 yds.

I tried that load last summer and was surprised to get 2 and 3" groups @ 100 yds. I didn't use a crimp as i don't with any of my other loads.
Anyway, when i got back from the range i looked back at my notes more carefully. Lol in the upper right hand margin of the page was a small print note that says "use a hard crimp with lee factory crimp die" with that load.

It seems if your going to keep load notes it pays to read them carefully?
I'll be trying that load again in a couple of weeks and see what happens with the crimp again.

This thread has me fired up to get back to the shooting range!!

[swheeler]

Geargnasher, I'm confused. In one sentence you say that you're about in the same place Bjorn is. I also take it that you wouldn't be satisfied with the groups that he got. In another sentence you are giving advice of a couple things to try. Well apparently they don't work because in the first sentence you said you are basically stuck.

I would agree with giving up the super hard alloy, but Bjorn since posted the reason he's using it. I feel that the water quenched 50/50 alloy would be a good one to try especially for hunting also. I believe if it was oven heat treated that it would be too hard for hunting. I also believe the MP Sil even out of the softer alloy as not so good a hunting bullet because it's too pointy. Now, on the other hand the hollow point version is impressive to say the least even with the alloy I just condemned for hunting use.

I don't agree with some things you said to try. One was if you were to oven heat treat to gas check them first. I don't believe in that basically because I do not believe in annealing gas checks and oven heat treating will do that. The other is I believe they won't be as tight grasping on the bullet after oven heat treating. I can't quite go along with a scuff the freebore either. I don't agree with the temperatures you gave for oven heat treat. I believe in a much higher temperature and have done so with good results.

You didn't mention lubes. I think for this kind of thing, that is HV, that your SL lubes and the "other guy's" soap lube are the best in this country.

Bjorn before I signed up didn't I read you wore the throat on your XCB rifle from using Linotype at HV? If that is correct why are you still employing Linotype and even harder Monotype?

Last I don't believe in casting bullet frosty, but I agree you don't have to be adding 2% tin to anything.

Bjorn unless the different years on those cases have a wide spread of different internal volumes I wouldn't be concerned with it. You want to make sure you ammo is loaded with the bullet straight. You want to make sure your cartridge centers the bullet to the center bore line. Truing the neck wall thickness can enhance that. Weight your bullets helps much, unless you are such a good caster that the weights are very consistent. The slow powders are good here as is buffer. Not Dacron. Dacron acts much different then buffer. I'm not a huge fan of COW either. Clean your barrel frequently, but don't over clean it. Depending on type of lube I'm not sold on the bore has to be seasoned with a lot of shots. A good lube, such as mentioned above, doesn't need that much seasoning.



I think you will find it takes 700+ degrees F to anneal gilding metal. I have shot 6.5 bullets(266-469) oven heat treated bullets, treated with the gas check installed, through 3/16 steel at 100 yards, made little Hersheys Kisses, the gas check with very base of the bullet still attached was laying on the ground in front of the target. I'm not certain if 450+/- will even draw back the temper of a gilding metal check, but definitely not annealed.

[geargnasher]

Interesting, Scot. I haven't messed with annealed checks much but that stands to reason since it takes close to 700°F to begin drawing the hardness out of brass. I rarely need to heat treat bullets higher than 400°F. There was some concern among the powder-coating crowd that coating over checks and baking would ruin the checks, but I don't see that being a problem either at PC curing temperatures.

Gear

[swheeler]

It won't affect them, my 50/50 is treated at 435* F for one hour then dropped in to tap water. I don't believe it has any affect on the grip with the base of a bullet either. I do use annealed checks in some applications, they are put into a piece of 3/4 black pipe, a cigarette paper added and both ends capped, then thrown in the wood stove to anneal all night. There are times when the spring back in the check destroys case neck tension and accuracy degrades, annealing brings it back, and this can be seen in ES over a chronograph.

[popper]

spring back in the check destroys case neck tension and accuracy degrades Agree, IMHO it happens during boolit seating.

[Doc Highwall]

This is why I anneal all my gas checks to prevent spring back.

[Hickok]

Swheeler can you explain the cigarette paper for me.

What you fellas are saying is the GC after sizing, springs back slightly, above the desired boolit diameter we are sizing for, say .310" for .30 caliber. So in effect the GC may be .3105", while the boolit is .3100". Then upon seating the boolit into the case neck, the GC has a tighter pressure against the inside of the case neck, while the boolit may be loose, or have less tension due to a slightly smaller diameter.

Am I getting this right?

[popper]

Yes, it's even worse on newly annealed necks which won't spring back on the Pb. Ever have to punch the GC out of the neck when pulling boolits? May not make a lot of difference for softer alloys that will bump up. Paper in the pipe uses all the oxygen so it doesn't oxidize the Cu. I just hit them with the MAPP torch till they change color. I'll try the pipe when I smelt the next batch.

[swheeler]

Swheeler can you explain the cigarette paper for me.

What you fellas are saying is the GC after sizing, springs back slightly, above the desired boolit diameter we are sizing for, say .310" for .30 caliber. So in effect the GC may be .3105", while the boolit is .3100". Then upon seating the boolit into the case neck, the GC has a tighter pressure against the inside of the case neck, while the boolit may be loose, or have less tension due to a slightly smaller diameter.

Am I getting this right?

Yes you have it correct. As popper says the paper uses up the o2, thus preventing your gas checks from scaling up. I used to do them on the range in a frying pan but they get black scale on them.

[Doc Highwall]

I don't have a easy way to heat the gas checks in a piece of pipe so I just use a propane torch and dump the gas checks into some Lemi Shine then rinse and let dry.

[Hickok]

Thanks Popper and Swheeler for the explanation. Now I have a grip on it!:-)

[TXGunNut]

After looking through six pages, only seen coupla folks (2-5) provide methods and results.
And no clear definition of High Velocity (yes it would be calibre or even case volume specific to a degree).
The saving grace so far is the annealing gas checks even though Btroj and Bjornb seem to provide information that sticks out as helpful to me.
Having way more than one 30-06 I have one or two that will not shoot jacketed yet I can get great accuracy from cast approaching almost what I consider HV, which is a good bit higher than what some consider HV.
Good thread even though three fourths is really unrelated in my opinion. Thank you gentlemen for your time.


Good points, Mike. Let's set some goals. Velocity? Accuracy? Other parameters? No sense in setting out on a trip without knowing our destination or what our mode of transportation may be. I suspect my goals are a bit lower than several folks here, I figure I'll learn more if the group's goals are higher than mine so I'll keep my personal goals to myself.

[runfiverun]

okay so what's considered normal?
1800 seems to be a pretty reasonable speed for most to be able to reach accuracy with.

is 2,000 pushing things?
or the numbers Bjorn put up [which are lower than what I get with Remington cases and a 30" barrel] 2200 ish.
thing get difficult right about there [with an off the shelf rifle] and you have to start searching for answers.
what is going to help this thread immensely is participation I gave the load that works for me and other particulars.
Bjorn shot fair groups using a completely different set of tools and load combination using my powder combination.
a little dialing it in and his groups would surely shrink, they aren't off that much and the consistency is there.
look at the holes.
maybe he needs more powder [shrug, or a slightly faster one] with this combination.
but for a starting load over 2200 fps that is pretty encouraging.
it for sure didn't have a bunch of holes scattered all over the place and a pile of oblong holes showing poor stabilization.

[btroj]

High velocity is what each person makes of it. Push your personal envelope. See how fast you can get accuracy, your definition, and then see if you can push the envelope farther.

It isn't a competition but rather a chance to see what YOU can do with your rifle. What is your limit? What can you do to push that limit.

[geargnasher]

I'm a stickler for 1 MOA or better at any range. Reasons are twofold, it's a personal challenge to load that well and also to shoot that a sporting rifle that well, ten shots, and the other is an accurate rifle/load gives confidence in the field where one needs all the confidence they can muster at the "moment of truth". I tend to discount flyers, but if they occur consistently, say one in ten, that's too much for hunting. I disagree that 3.5 moa is good enough for 200 yard hunting, that's a pie plate. Couple that with my questionable ability to hit a pie plate from field positions in the first place, stack the tolerances, and next thing you know it may or may not be good enough past 100 yards. Like others have said, just my own take on it.

Anyone who's pushed the envelope a little with cast bullets using conventional loading techniques will note pretty much the same point at which groups start to dramatically open up. Apologies to Sgt Mike (I do agree with you) but it must be at least mentioned: Enter the elephant in the room.....what some propose to be an RPM threshold of the bullet. 140K rpm seems to be about the point which most people start having problems. HV, to me, means going past that accuracy/velocity "barrier" as I'll call it. We know where it is, it's easy to find in just about any rifle, and it does seem to correspond to RPM. I think we can all agree on what is "normal" velocity for a given rifle with cast bullets and what is "high velocity" based on that alone. Seem like a good enough definition of HV? When you really spin up a bullet fast, balance becomes paramount or good groups go out the window. There's more to it than twist rate, though, because simply slowing down the bullet's rotation at "high velocity" doesn't return the groups to what they were at lower velocity and same low RPM. Bottom line is the faster you push the bullet, the more forces work against launching a balanced bullet. Lowering RPM can mitigate the imbalance somewhat, but is not the full solution to maintaining fine groups at long range at significantly elevated velocity...only launching a bullet that is balanced in the first place can do that, then it doesn't matter how fast we shoot them, or how fast we spin them, they will group together well. HOW we manage to accomplish the launch of a balanced bullet is really what I think this thread is about. In STOCK rifles. I don't see too many stock 14-twist .30 caliber rifles with 30" barrels out there, maybe I shop at the wrong places?

SO you must get the bullet from the case to the bore straight so the lube groove shanks and nose are concentric with the bore and the base is square, and we must get it out of the muzzle without further damaging it. Tough to do past a certain point because of the forces involved with achieving HV. Let's talk about the methods we use to accomplish these tasks.

We already discussed bullet pull and I for one learned something about check annealing. What else?

Gear

[Bjornb]

My Ruger GSR w/FN barrel (1:12 twist) hit the wall with the softer alloys (aged COWW, water dropped) right on cue at 2350 fps. That's with the LC Match cases, WLR primers and no further match prep. Groups went to 2-2.5 MOA and trended larger. The powder used, H4831SC, is one I consider ideal for this application; I have used it extensively while shooting the XCB rifles and it always gave good accuracy and decent velocity.

Groups from the above shooting will be posted Sunday; should have some time in the evening.

I'll shoot this rifle one more time, this time with a lot more care: Lapua cases, CCI BR2 primers, Lyman#2 bullets sized to the rifle's throat (.311 gives near perfect fit). That should give an indication as to how much the XCB/bench rest type approach really matters. The goal is to achieve 2500 fps, which is a little faster than most shooters normally get in a 1:12 twist.

On a side note here: Btroj's XCB rifle, which I purchased from him a while back, has a 1:12 Krieger barrel. This rifle shoots MOA groups effortlessly with cast bullets at 2500 fps, and both Btroj and myself shot 2 MOA groups at 2700 fps. So a long barrel of top quality, tight match chamber and meticulous loading is certainly capable of pushing past the RPM threshold.

[geargnasher]

Mike, do you want to discuss techniques for successful HV cast shooting or sit around and argue about silly definitions? Tell ya what, I'm going to leave that up to YOU and all the other people who know so much more about this stuff than I do. I'm outta here.

Gear

[vzerone]

sgt.mike,

Post a link to that original 1903 Springfield (remember you said 1903 Springfield and that means the military battle rifle) and it better not be to a special target model. From the few searches I did the original first 1903 Springfield had a 24 inch barrel and it had a very stupid rod bayonet. Note we're talking "that was issued".

Now back on track. I say anyone can use any rifle they want for HV...why the arguing? I know it says Stock rifle, but hey I'm not one that's going to say "Oh no no, you can't use that, it's a special built rifle". It is fun though to see what can be done with original milsurps and being many of us have gotten older and eyes worse far as I'm concerned you can scope your old milsurps. Of course the commercial "stock" rifles were made for scoping.

It's interesting how you all have jumped on the "anneal your gas checks" like a chicken on a June Bug. Going to tell you that's not utopia for HV shooting. The standard gas check doesn't spring back the amount of a brick mortar joint and besides the little amount it does the elasticity in the case neck springs back to grab the bullet. Besides neck tension or bullet pull isn't a very long occurrence. Almost all my ES's are single digit and SD's of very low single digits....without annealed checks. If that gives you confidence then by all means use them. I'm not jumping off the bridge.

One of the most important things is a very well cast bullet. If it's not cast well it's going to be a hard ball game to win. Just as Geargnasher said it's not rpm ruining everything. After all rpm rarely affects j-words shot at very HV. We all know that the cast bullet has to get started straight and it's not as tough as the j-word to be able to do that without a lot of help. Well cast just doesn't mean all filled out and with no voids, it's mean that plus very little weight variation between bullets. It's better found using a ladle. You can get very close with a bottom pour furnace. Bullet weight can vary (and size) by different temperatures. I think the theory or threshold should be called well cast bullet/started straight/right pressure range for the alloy/right powder theory. Oh you could add more to that, but rpm only affects an unbalanced bullet or one that started crooked and exits the muzzle crooked. I've read on this forum where runfiveruns daughter shot some impressive witnessed and measured groups with a 7 twist AR15 at HV. So apparently runfiverun, or his daughter got all their marbles lined up in that great feat.

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

I'd like to start a conversation on how to shoot High Velocity castboolits in a stock rifle.
I believe there are some who'd like to talk about this.




Please define "High Velocity" so all are on the same sheet of music.
High as feasibly possible.
Obviously higher than the typical (1600fps to 1900fps) published loads and up to the physical limits. Honestly I'm not smart enough to set the number, which I suspect will vary with caliber and other factors. This is more of a discussion of how to get there, not a actual number or range of numbers.




Breech seating tools, bump dies, optical comparators? Any tooling restrictions?
This is a discussion, not a competition. These are all interesting tools to discuss, as in, why are they used, what benefit do they offer. Also what can be done without these tools, that can nearly mimic their advantages.


I respect your 'want' of some organization, but there is just not enough traffic to warrant sub-forums.

I am hoping for the general discussion of it here in this thread, and if there were a couple members or several who decide to take on some experimentation, I'd recommend starting a new thread, much like I did a year ago (see link below). While I did start that in my first SL68 lube thread (pre-SL68B), I decided to move that pursuit to it's own thread when I had some poor results and wanted more input, but I ended up getting discouraged and set aside the HV pursuit.
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?254730-HV-in-243-range-visit-1&highlight=


Or if you prefer to NOT start a new thread, feel free to post results in this thread, that is fine, I don't want to "herd" this conversation too much.


I did start this thread as a discussion...and hoped some would post some range reports. Many of us have winter to contend with, and I know I won't/can't benchrest shoot for a month or so ...El Nino willing :) but plan to this Spring. I think we are still on track. We have some character's here for sure and if we can keep things on a positive suggestion based comments in regards to other's range reports and/or stated techniques, then we'll be fine. Some of us are more familiar with certain aspects than others and many of us(like myself) are at 'square one' of shooting cast at HV. Just a simple thing to keep in mind, we are all friends of the cast boolit, and we should be friends with each other...and should respect each other even when we disagree. OK?
Jon
============================

After looking through six pages, only seen coupla folks (2-5) provide methods and results.
And no clear definition of High Velocity (yes it would be calibre or even case volume specific to a degree).
...snip


That was not not the intent of my questions or recommendations Gear. Understand that if ya'll and the other participants and the OP define what is what. then its not apples and oranges comparison. I'm not defining the parameters period I just want to know what is what because then that makes me pick the right rifle out of the gun safe as I have 10 to 14 twist in the safe, some original barrels, some re-barrel, each one has a different length.
So hence is why I am make recommendations to what TXGuntNut stated.


SO is it legal in this thread for me to pull out the original Stock palma 1903 30-06 1-14 twist 30" barrel as manufacture in the 1930s ???????? or will somebody cry foul???????????

If so I can start a different thread with a as issue Palma rifle, far far away from you as it really seems to offend you an that is really not my intentions at all.

I’m just actually wanting to get along, and not have what just happened happen

Mike,
Maybe when you read through the whole thread, you glanced over my posts, as I believe they will answer your questions.

Highlights from quotes above:

"I'd like to start a conversation" This is a conversation.

"Obviously higher than the typical (1600fps to 1900fps) published loads and up to the physical limits"

"This is a discussion, not a competition"

"I am hoping for the general discussion of it here in this thread, and if there were a couple members or several who decide to take on some experimentation"

"I did start this thread as a discussion...and hoped some would post some range reports"

"Some of us are more familiar with certain aspects than others and many of us(like myself) are at 'square one' of shooting cast at HV."

I assume the above highlights answer your concerns?

Now to precisely address your comment about "Stock".
We've had a few threads about HV using rifle/s that are specifically designed and built with HV cast boolits in mind, and to be honest, if someone here wants to post some discussion and/or a range report, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but it really doesn't fit the theme, does it? If you were to ask me for a suggestion, as to which of your rifles, you'd like to explore...I'd suggest one that may be the biggest challenge, but also not a problem child.

I didn't really want to post the following "out loud", because I didn't want to "steer it", that rarely works, letting a thread steer itself tends to have the best chance at the best results...but I suppose that may be like playing the lottery...anyway, here is my thoughts "out loud".
>What I was dreaming of when I started this thread, was a kind of comprehensive mentor/protege type of thing. First some discussion then hopefully some posting range results, then more discussion. Those posting a range result would be the owner of their own goals. If 2600fps is OK or not ...or if 3 moa is OK or not... I like 10 shot groups, maybe others don't. I do like to call a flier, if I'm confident it was from the shooter(me). Yes the groups should be repeatable, but again, I'll leave that to each shooter to define as how repeatable.

Whether I define a set of rules, or leave it open, as I am...everyone spectating, will draw their own conclusion/opinion about each shooter...So I figure I will keep this easy. This thread is a learning project, if you feel you don't have any learning to do, please stick around and 'teach'. That was my goal anyway. To those posting range reports, the Key would be to keeping as complete details as possible, and be willing to hear suggestions toward improvement.

[JWT]

I would suggest that you shoot what you have. If it's a completely stock gun say so, if it's had modifications then report that. I believe that as the number of experimenters reporting in increase that trends will begin to emerge.

Sgt. Mike brings up good points regarding the content of report out postings. Any report out should include enough information to allow for duplication of the experiment (scientific method). To that end I would suggest including the following in reports:


Gun

Make and model
Barrel material, length, twist rate, bore and land measurements
Chamber and throat information if available
Customizations in barrel, bedding, and chamber
Sights


Boolit

Mold make and number
Alloy
Lube
Heat treating
Gas checks
Age
Hardness and how measured


Brass and Load Assembly

Brass maker
Sizing details (full, neck, etc)
Trim length
Neck expansion
Any alterations to neck thickness (turning/reaming)



Powder type and quantity
Buffers
Seating die type
Crimp


Shooting Conditions

Temperature
Wind
Bench, prone, offhand


Target Results

Distance
Velocity and how measured
Group (number of shots and size)



Pictures of the boolit and target should be included where possible.

I will be dedicating a Steyr Mannlicher Model 1950 Bolt Action in 270 with a 1:9 twist to this experiment. I have fired many tens of thousands of rounds of lead in handguns but I am just starting with lead in rifles.

To all of the more experienced members that are involved please be patient with us newer guys. You have laid a foundation that the rest of us can and want to build on.

[vzerone]

Challenging Rifle why yes I do have one Jon thank you for the response, the 1903a3, not 100% as issue been restocked in a fiberglass Winchester model 70 stock, but the barrel is the original 1942 RA barrel.
10 shots with called fliers, 3 MOA, over 1900 fps /2600 fps.
Most of my methods have already been covered thus far in couple of other threads such as Casting methods by controlling the Mold and alloy temperature by obtaining a "tempo" or rhythm this aids in consistency. This is regardless of alloy one must monitor the process to establish the best temperature at the pot. The only way I have to check this is by visual inspection of fillout, length, and wt.

A straight push through sizer versus the Lyman/RCBS type seems thus far to give a more consistent sizing which for the above mentioned rifle which has a larger than normal throat and bore .310 works the best thus far in that rifle.

Lube I use 2700plus, checks are not annealed but rather uniformed in thickness.

once the weather warms up I have to re-shoot two different alloys again wheel weight water quenched versus Lino.
The last set of groups caused a anomaly which blew out on the fourth firing of that load and setup at 2575 average velocity.
Hope that helps. Again Thank you

That rifle you mentioned is great for this. I don't care about a stock change out. Shucks you can even glass bed it for that matter in my opinion.

Maybe some folks don't have a stock rifle, be hard to imagine, but possible. BTW I consider varmint rifles stock too.

[Frank46]

Ok, here is my 2 cents worth. Some cast bullet shooters in the schutzen game use barrels made by Ron Smith and the rifling starts out slow and steadily progresses till at some point you have a full value twist. The name is on the tip of my tounge as to what they call this method. Gain twist. Frank

[Hickok]

Guys, I want to contribute to this about my results with .308 Winchester. But right now in the higher elevations of WV, it looks like little Switzerland. We have had some minus degree temps. and the snow is still coming down! It may be awhile until I can get off-road and out into the woods to shoot! Some of you are probably in the same situation.

These pics are right behind my house.

158710158711

[nekshot]

I really appreciate threads like this but for me I have nothing to bring. I can get good results under 1800 fps from most of my cast shooting guns but when I try get over 2000 things open up too much for my liking and when I do get a decent shooting load one day it very seldom is repeatable. I simply gave up trying to go over 1800fps and have soothed my soul knowing this gun will shoot jacketed real good on any given day. I am not a loser, I simply have chosen to enjoy casting with in the realm of my ability. But I am always looking to learn and maybe I'll get over 2000 fps with repeatability some day.

[vzerone]

Guys let me say this and many aren't going to like it. There is NO single thing you can do to magically turn your cast shooting into a HV accuracy small group shoot. I know many are looking/waiting for that. An example would be if I said "weigh your bullets and you'll be guaranteed to shoot those very small groups at HV" just isn't going to happen. It's a combination of everything you do from casting your bullets to loading them and also your shooting ability.

A way to approach this is to shoot and then just change one thing at a time and see what it causes. Don't ever change more then one thing at time because then you don't know which thing caused a change.

[Maven]

Well said, vz!

[vzerone]

Thank you Maven. Here's another thing that I'm positive almost all don't think about. Finesse......some have it, most don't. An example of that is you watch me reload and shoot a very good group at HV. Then you reload doing the things you watched me do, but it doesn't work out for you. That's finesse.

[Bjornb]

Yeah I know what you mean. Been trying to finesse my 6,5 Swede for several months.....just can't seem to get it together. Got the range all lined up, 312 yards as prescribed. It's a beauty, bought from Larry Gibson, so the rifle should already be trained. Cruise Missile bullet, buffer, it's all there. Just lacking the finesse........

[Love Life]

The steps of the scientific method are to:


Ask a Question.
Do Background Research.
Construct a Hypothesis.
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment.
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion.
Communicate Your Results



How to achieve goals:
Specific
Measurable
Attainable
Realistic
Timely


This is how I approached the subject.

I.P. check, can a brotha' get an I.P. check? I believe a currently banned member is here under a different name.

[swheeler]

The steps of the scientific method are to:


Ask a Question.
Do Background Research.
Construct a Hypothesis.
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment.
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion.
Communicate Your Results



How to achieve goals:
Specific
Measurable
Attainable
Realistic
Timely


This is how I approached the subject.

I.P. check, can a brotha' get an I.P. check? I believe a currently banned member is here under a different name.

WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:eek: Say it ain't so.

[vzerone]

Read this:

vzerone (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/member.php?42615-vzerone)
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/images/statusicon/user-invisible.png
Boolit Master Join DateDec 2015Posts338


http://castboolits.gunloads.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by geargnasher http://castboolits.gunloads.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?p=3498777#post3498777)
I mean the concept of making a bullet that basically fits 90% into the throat eliminates all but one real full-diameter bearing band, the loss was by design.

What are you doing to deal with excess neck clearance?

Gear



Geargnasher I learned how to do it off the same two guys you tried to learn it from. You know who they are.

On you're bullet we're discussing here, I've see the diagram of it. Here's what I think. That's a long gas check shank. I assume it has a thin coat of lube on it from lubing/sizing. I don't see much contact from the bullet in the case neck, mainly the check at the rear and perhaps little of the bearing ban at the mouth. Contrary to many beliefs if that bullet does get bumped up it's not really happening until it's in the bore. I don't believe it's immediate in the throat. I see all kind of misalignment with that design and I also have to wonder how often the gas check comes off the bullet. Think about it. If it bumps up in the bore, the lube on that exposed portion of the shank keeps it from fully obturating and that gas check is all by itself on the back end.

**Maybe you three will be smart enough to understand it. It's post #127 in the thread How Much Force A Bullet Exerts Against The Rifling.

[TXGunNut]

OK everyone is really hung up on the hunting aspect so for MOA lets say 2-3 MOA, or do we need to go a little looser because really at most deer hunting here (Arkansas) is under 200 yards so would 3.5moa be a fair acceptable accuracy level. Understand I am proposing not driving, I feel that the OP should settle the answer on MOA.- Sgt Mike

I've been thinking about that, maybe this shouldn't be about hunting. Maybe we should pursue velocity for velocity's sake and leave it at that. Unless the distance is well over what I normally shoot velocities above about 2000fps are not necessary for my hunting loads. My personal accuracy goal is generally 1.5MOA, mainly because I'm simply not a 1MOA shooter and/or reloader. I think 3.5MOA is a reasonable goal. When accuracy begins to deteriorate at high velocities it does so in a big way. Chasing smaller groups may be a distraction.

[TXGunNut]

I like your report format, JWT. I've lost many hours of range and loading bench time to poor record keeping over the years.

I'll be casting boolits for this project at my next casting session and would like some input on alloy and hardness. I'll be shooting a stock (OK, I'll probably glass bed it) Winchester (FN) Super Grade in 30-06. I think I have the XCB mould stuck around here somewhere. I have COWW, SOWW, 20-1 alloy available, a fair bit of hard lead shot and a dwindling supply of tin on hand.
Assuming fit is very good and I have the optimal sizing die what be would my ideal alloy and should I HT my boolits?

[TXGunNut]

Thanks. I studied Goodsteel's post and learned that my technique is definitely lacking. I'll stick with oven HT'ing for now, I think water dropping is only effective if the time from the moment the pour hits the mould until the boolit hits the water is exactly the same, every time. I know I can't do that at this point so I'll do the oven method. Just pulled a second batch of boolits out of the oven (for a different project) tonight, it's amazing how the process changes the way boolits look, feel and even sound when handled.

I need to buy some tin for my hunting alloys, may go ahead and have them ship me some #2 in the interest of consistency in this project. Just realized I need to fire my project rifle to get some fired brass to help with ordering a collet die and inserts. Need to slug it as well so I can give an accurate report.

[Doc Highwall]

I have been reading this and I don't care if someone puts a custom barrel on their gun and glass beds it, if the twist is the same as the factory rifle, what difference does it really make? All they really have is hopefully a concentric chamber and a little tighter neck to cut down on over working the case neck.

They still have to set the dies up correctly and cast and size good bullets.

Alloy and lube are going to affect this and that is going to make a larger difference along with powder selection.

[vzerone]

yes heat treat them and then WQ some and shoot against each other in each of your alloys, try each one establish a bench mark at a lower velocity.
Casting methods will play a large role and will be the first.......
give Goodsteels post (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?269912-Consistency-applied) a once over and then a re-read as it is like drinking from a fire hydrant the concept is simple make the best bullet you can within your ability and then try to make them better each casting session. next is size the bullet the absolute minimum, But it must fit the throat. you will see many say it must be concerntric to the bore oh heaven yes it helps... Try different lubes...

But make only one change at a time i.e lube. I suspect that you will find a even chance with Lyman #2 in the alloy dept.

neck turning--- I do do it but ONLY barely enough to make the bullet tension even.
use the same headstamp if possiable. pick a trim length and uniform the cases the idea is to make each case the same for the Bullet tension to be equal in neck thickness and length. it is minuate part that will play in latter priority one should be the diving into the casting techniques
dont expect perfection off the bat just keep plugging away at it (casting techniques) and improve.

Look on here for the online (lead) calculator. keep good notes

sgt.mike,

I hate to burst yours and Goodsteels bubble, but consistent casting is .3 grains or less variation.

[popper]

My BO target post#94 shows what a slightly bad base will do at HV, these are plain base. The bases were PCd and IMHO, the flyers are caused by irregularities in the coating on the base edge. First shots (?) were after shooting a lot of jacketed and not cleaning after last shoot. Different 'groups' are me, which I'm working on improving. I've loaded some more with uncoated and well inspected bases to validate my hypothesis. I think the 308 target shows the same effect, Hornady checks (annealed) put on with Lee push through, plus me. I do not sort cases or boolits by weight. I visually checked all loaded rounds for concentrically. BO is about at the threshold, 308 is way over. All are Heat treated for 1 hr then into cold water. Lets talk alloy. I started (308W) with #2, then H.T., Roto high Sb alloy, added sulfur, added Cu - group size kept decreasing, # flyers did also. I've only tested 308W with H4895 & H335. BO is H110. PSI should be ~ 50K psi for both rifles. We assume all the boolit 'damage' is done in the barrel. Both boolits are my mods to the 31-165A, sans lube groove. I must assume that base damage/imperfection is the only cause.

[vzerone]

popper....50k is really pushing them!

[Hannibal]

The steps of the scientific method are to:


Ask a Question.
Do Background Research.
Construct a Hypothesis.
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment.
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion.
Communicate Your Results



How to achieve goals:
Specific
Measurable
Attainable
Realistic
Timely


This is how I approached the subject.

I.P. check, can a brotha' get an I.P. check? I believe a currently banned member is here under a different name.


WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:eek: Say it ain't so.

GASP!!!! Blasphemy, indeed !!!!

Can't get the Purple font to work.

[Hickok]

Maybe some of you have already tried and know the answer to this, can aluminum gas-checks be pushed as fast as cupper checks with good accuracy? Not the thin pop can checks, but thick aluminum comparable to copper checks.

I would tend to think cupper gc's would be better, but I haven't tried it yet.

[popper]

50k is really pushing them - from Hornady manual, I don't have a way of measuring but adjusted down due to cast. I think Bjornb learned that Cu makes an improvement, as I have found but not the only way.
base damage/imperfection - I am making the assumption that once fully into the rifling/bore, excluding gas cutting, stripping, nothing can happen to the boolit to damage it - the pressure wave in the barrel is flat. I also assume the barrels were cut to SAAMI spec tolerances, no attempt by me to design the boolit to match throat, etc. Not arguing either way on that issue. IMHO, straight Pb/Sb/Sn alloy doesn't make HV easy.
From a comment posted here, I am going to try a new casting trick, hitting the sprue before solid & then cut to see if it makes a difference in quality of cast. Kind of a swage on the boolit to reduce fillout/void possible problems.

[vzerone]

Maybe some of you have already tried and know the answer to this, can aluminum gas-checks be pushed as fast as cupper checks with good accuracy? Not the thin pop can checks, but thick aluminum comparable to copper checks.

I would tend to think cupper gc's would be better, but I haven't tried it yet.

My findings don't agree with sgt.mike's findings at all. I've done extensive testing with aluminum checks and have found they are the equal to copper and factory checks. In many instances my aluminum checks gave better accuracy then the copper and factory checks. One thing with a homemade check you can tailor the fit to fit your bullet shank exactly.

Now as far as losing checks...just not happening with mine. I can't count the number of bullets I've recovered in the back stop that still had the aluminum checks on them and in some instances that's even after having passed through 1 inch oak.

Something not mentioned is that I have different thicknesses of stock material for different caliber range. For example the .014 flashing really isn't making the correct thickness of check for 7mm and up.

I've also done extensive testing of different materials for checks. This included mild steel, various types of aluminum with varying degrees of temper, all the way to even plastics. I even tested using different cup depths. I've been known to make gas checks from large primers for 22 caliber. In every instance I found aluminum and copper to be the best and the normal depth to be the best. I thought a tougher material and full depth (cover the whole bullet shank) would have been the best, but it was not. I even shot powder coated checks as I have much aluminum that is coated. They performed very well. I don't find any unusual fouling from the various check material in my bore ever.

Hope that helps.

[35 shooter]

Maybe some of you have already tried and know the answer to this, can aluminum gas-checks be pushed as fast as cupper checks with good accuracy? Not the thin pop can checks, but thick aluminum comparable to copper checks.

I would tend to think cupper gc's would be better, but I haven't tried it yet.
I have to agree with vzerone on this as my al. checks are more accurate than hornady copper checks in my rifle.
I also agree with the extensive testing part. You have to find the right thickness and also hardness of al. Not just to match shank dia., but to also eliminate springback.

For example i had to heat treat my .014" flashing to get it size on tight and eliminate springback, but Sage's Outdoors .010" half hard al. checks are supposed to be the same hardness as hornady copper and size on super tight just as they are.
In the case of .010" Sage checks i can't get them off after sizing with a pair of pliers without tearing the shank up.

.012" lith plate sizes on and shoots super accurate and can't be pulled off my 35 cal boolits without tearing up the shank either, but can be hard to find.

I,ve used al. and lith plate to 2600 fps. in the whelen with equal or better accuracy than copper...past that speed i digress for now...that's as far as i've tested it.

It may take a bit of experimenting with al., but that's just "fun time" at the range and worth it to me in the end.
Of course i can only speak for MY rifle.

[GabbyM]

Way I read Sgt.Mike's post. Was the aluminum checks were failing at a lower velocity than copper. Which also fails at some speed.

[vzerone]

Way I read Sgt.Mike's post. Was the aluminum checks were failing at a lower velocity than copper. Which also fails at some speed.

I didn't read it that way. I'll give an example of a test I done. I was really pushing a 30 caliber rifle at j-word high velocities with a regular alloy of 50/50 WQ. I was getting key holing I had them going so fast. I though, hey, maybe my aluminum checks aren't up to snuff for this kind of thing. So reloaded with Hornady checks. Got the same thing....the same exact thing. I don't believe aluminum gas check inferior to any other metals for what we are doing. They are a heck of a lot cheaper to make and shoot too!

[35 shooter]

Way I read Sgt.Mike's post. Was the aluminum checks were failing at a lower velocity than copper. Which also fails at some speed.
That may well be too, which is why i said i digress past 2600 fps. Lol that's as fast as i've pushed al. or lith checks.

Sgt. Mike ,Larry, and Bjorn have pushed much further in speed than i have.
I certainly respect their results.

I do know that al. checks can shoot well past the 2000 to 2200 fps. mark that many seemed to think was their limit in the past though.

It does take a tight fitting al. check to do it though, if they're coming off in flight...forget it!

[vzerone]

I'm not condemning any check material, unless it's real unappropriated, for use. I'm also not trying to get any of you to do what I do. You use what you like best. I'm just reporting my findings.

sgt.mike I don't know of anyone personally that counts their fliers. You don't have to reiterate they way you add your groups up.

[vzerone]

Reading else where on the forum there is a post on Wilke Checks. Something was said in the article that I believe pertains to this thread and getting accuracy. Here's what it said:

“There are no bad cast bullets, just bad bullet casters.”
That relates to quality control as well. If you can’t
get 1.5 MOA at 2,700 fps, chances are you are shooting bullets
that should have been tossed back in the pot.

[vzerone]

You members ought to take a look at that Wilkes Check PDF file that was posted on the forum here recently. I apologize for not getting the thread as I'm lazy sometimes. It has some interesting information about bullet weight, cast bullet versus j-word friction wise, and neck pull as we'll call tension. Basically boils down to cast bullets don't have as much friction going up the bore as do j-words and the lighter weight cast bullets don't offer enough resistance for the powder to burn properly specifically the slower powders. The heavier bullet help a lot as does more neck pull. It was funny they didn't mention crimp at all.

[Hannibal]

I believe this has all gone on long enough.

If you do not possess a rifle with a barrel of consistent bore diameter, groove diameter, and twist rate then it really does not matter what else you attempt to stuff into it. The results will be sporadic at best.

And likewise, if you DO possess a rifle with a tight action and wearing a barrel of the aforementioned criteria, none of that matters if you try to feed asymmetric bullets, loaded into asymmetric cases and expect symmetrical results, That is . . . . folly. To be polite about it.

Ignorance is the simple inability to understand something while stupidity is the inability to benefit or profit from experience.

Experiment and profit from those experiments.

And if you do possess information as to how to correct for asymmetrical bullets/cases/barrels then PLEASE do divulge these secrets upon the unknowing masses, for it would appear that this has perplexed ballisticians since the dawn of the firearms age.

[GabbyM]

My idea on high velocity in my 30-06 rifle is simple and not world changing. I am looking to just get close to the original 03 ballistics of the pre 06 military round. The 03 used a 220 grain jacketed bullet at 2,300 fps. I'd like to see 2,200 fps with a 220 grain cast lead bullet. I already shoot the Lyman 311299 at over 2,000 fps. Have the Lyman 311672 in 160 grain weight that runs well at 2,400 fps.

Had this mold almost a year but not had time to work with it. I shoot a 150 grain cast boolit in my 30-30 M94 over 26.0 grains of Rx7. Not clocked it but figure over 2100 fps. I can aim at the cap of a gallon milk jug at 150 yards and hit the jug center. Will need to use a harder alloy than the BHN #9 I load the 30-30 with. Just a given with the ten twist rate 30-06. But if I can run the 220 grain as fast as my 30-30 shoots a 150 grain. Then I've achieved greatly increased power. Even if I only find happy at 1,950 fps a 220 gr flat nose will swat anything on our continent. My grandson shot some over 42 grains of AA 4064 this summer. Group was under palm size at 80 yards prone. 50 round box. By the book that's 2200 to 2300 fps. But I did not witness as had work to do. You won't be doing that with any little 308 Win. Just my opinion but. 30-06 will give you all you can get from a 30 caliber. Cast or jacketed. This bullet at 2,000 fps has around half the wind drift as a M-193 ball round. As does the 311299. Last time we were out shooting the AR carbine at our 325 yard gong. We were holding over 36 inches into a 25 mph cross wind. My cast bullet 30-06 Is now mounted with a new 3x9 scope with an elevation dial. After I get this big 220gr bullet worked up. I'll pay the $80 to have a dial calibrated to it's trajectory.

Bullets life started with a Lyman 311284 drawing. I placed the nose of an RCBS 30-180-FP onto it. Then removed the front scrapper grove and reduced the grease grove depth. As suggested by Larry Gibson and to the thought process of the Goodsteel XCB project of making a tough bullet. It's a thumper for sure as the 311284 has always been. he old bullet did not like velocity above 1800 or less. Larry thought that was because of the front scrapper grove and the deep lube groves. Bending bullet fault. so far it works. One fellow here on the board bought one from Accurate and is shooting in an M1 with good results. If all we get is 1,950fps with no flyers it's a big dog hitter. Any faster is just gravy. I'll be thrilled with 30-40 ballistics from my 30-06.

Plan is to lube with LARS 2400 then tumble lube in BLL one thin coat.
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=134641&d=1426964408

[Hannibal]

I believe this has all gone on long enough.

If you do not possess a rifle with a barrel of consistent bore diameter, groove diameter, and twist rate then it really does not matter what else you attempt to stuff into it. The results will be sporadic at best.

And likewise, if you DO possess a rifle with a tight action and wearing a barrel of the aforementioned criteria, none of that matters if you try to feed asymmetric bullets, loaded into asymmetric cases and expect symmetrical results, That is . . . . folly. To be polite about it.

Ignorance is the simple inability to understand something while stupidity is the inability to benefit or profit from experience.

Experiment and profit from those experiments.

And if you do possess information as to how to correct for asymmetrical bullets/cases/barrels then PLEASE do divulge these secrets upon the unknowing masses, for it would appear that this has perplexed ballisticians since the dawn of the firearms age.

"When you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer.
Superstition is your way."

What is your Bore dimension? How did you measure it?
What is your groove dimension? How did you measure it?
What is your twist rate? How did you measure it?
Are the above measurements consistent along the entire bore length? How do you know?
YES. This is important.
This are basic measurements for high-school introductory machinist's course grads.

[Hannibal]

Have you checked your rifle at 100 yds?

Over 3 days?

And you want to evaluate cast?

How do you plan to proceed with no base line?

[Hickok]

I brought up the Aluminum vs copper GC, because I have shot both up to about 1800-1900 fps and see no difference at that speed. But we are going past that common ( for most of us ) limit. One thing I did read about on Aluminum gas checks, was gas cutting of the GC in some AR/300 BLK rifles as the check passed the gas port in the barrel of pistol-length gas systems and hot pistol powders, but probably doesn't pertain to this discussion.

[Maven]

No horse in this race, but am nonetheless interested in the topic. To that end, look at this thread, especially Freightman's post (#13): http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?37187-WILK-gas-checks Those GC's, though a PITA to use, do deliver the goods.

[vzerone]

I brought up the Aluminum vs copper GC, because I have shot both up to about 1800-1900 fps and see no difference at that speed. But we are going past that common ( for most of us ) limit. One thing I did read about on Aluminum gas checks, was gas cutting of the GC in some AR/300 BLK rifles as the check passed the gas port in the barrel of pistol-length gas systems and hot pistol powders, but probably doesn't pertain to this discussion.

There are a tremendous amount of myths out there on AR's. One of the first ones was that you can't shoot cast from that because of the type of gas system. Simply not true. The aluminum gas check getting gas cut is another fallacy.

[vzerone]

No horse in this race, but am nonetheless interested in the topic. To that end, look at this thread, especially Freightman's post (#13): http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?37187-WILK-gas-checks Those GC's, though a PITA to use, do deliver the goods.

Maven I agree with you 100%. That was one of the reason I pressed for everyone to read that article. That article right there proves that the bullet's travel down the rifled bore is the culprit to a lot of bad things that is happening to the bullet. That's why I started that other thread about the force of the bullet against the land walls, groove wall, rifling walls...which ever you wish to call them. Question again is what?

For those that read that, did you all notice the part if you make the punch hole through the center of the gas check too small that the nose of the bullet breaks off from recoil? Hmmmmmmm.....didn't say anything about any part of the bullet breaking from rifling torque.

[TXGunNut]

I'm not condemning any check material, unless it's real unappropriated, for use. I'm also not trying to get any of you to do what I do. You use what you like best. I'm just reporting my findings.

sgt.mike I don't know of anyone personally that counts their fliers. You don't have to reiterate they way you add your groups up.

I think the best thing about a forum on this subject is that we benefit from the experiences of others when they differ from our own. Finding out why their results differ is where the learning starts.
In my book uncalled fliers count. If the sights were properly aligned when the shot broke and everything else seemed right then something went wrong, most likely the boolit. Since we're talking about making better boolits I think it's important to find out why those fliers happen, not ignore them.

[vzerone]

I think the best thing about a forum on this subject is that we benefit from the experiences of others when they differ from our own. Finding out why their results differ is where the learning starts.
In my book uncalled fliers count. If the sights were properly aligned when the shot broke and everything else seemed right then something went wrong, most likely the boolit. Since we're talking about making better boolits I think it's important to find out why those fliers happen, not ignore them.


How would explain it with match j-word bullets?

[popper]

I think it's important to find out why those fliers happen, not ignore them. - totally agree, discounting them,i.e., measuring non-flier groups shows the 'potential' while the 'fliers' show the 'problem'.

What is your Bore dimension? How did you measure it?
What is your groove dimension? How did you measure it?
What is your twist rate? How did you measure it?
Are the above measurements consistent along the entire bore length? How do you know?
YES. This is important. The reason for my question/statement on how 'good' is the rifle. How does the average caster/shooter evaluate a rifle for 'quality'? Push a tight patch through and feel for 'looseness'? Other ideas?
Goodsteel's bit on the shrinking dia. of shot boolits (CBA site) doesn't account for dia. shrinkage of a twisted rod at alloy failure point. And posssibly the loss of GC downrange?

[Maven]

Another possibility is paper patching a la E.H. Harrison in the NRA publication, "Cast Bullets" (1982 edition). That would eliminate machining the dies to produce the Wilk checks, the ever-so-fussy placement of them in a mold, and the CB's weakness if the hole through the GC's center is too small. The two relevant articles are "Paper Patched Bullets Come of Age" and "Paper Patched Bullets Work in .300 Magnum." Btw, the custom bullet designs were based on Lyman #'s 311332 and -334, but were cast @ .301" so they could be PP'd up. I'll bet several other spire point CB designs would also work, especially if great care was taken to concentrically size them to .301" or even .302"

[vzerone]

Another possibility is paper patching a la E.H. Harrison in the NRA publication, "Cast Bullets" (1982 edition). That would eliminate machining the dies to produce the Wilk checks, the ever-so-fussy placement of them in a mold, and the CB's weakness if the hole through the GC's center is too small. The two relevant articles are "Paper Patched Bullets Come of Age" and "Paper Patched Bullets Work in .300 Magnum." Btw, the custom bullet designs were based on Lyman #'s 311332 and -334, but were cast @ .301" so they could be PP'd up. I'll bet several other spire point CB designs would also work, especially if great care was taken to concentrically size them to .301" or even .302"

Maven, if there is one thing I detest (LOL) it's paper patching. I have a friend that claims it's easy and fairly fast, but when I offered to send him my bullets and he would patch them and I would pay him, he declined.

That article was just explaining what would happen if you made the hole too small in the Wilke's check. It doesn't happen when they are the proper size which they gave a percentage formula for. If you noticed the checks the hole wasn't anymore deeper then a grease groove.

You also have easier seating and easier chambering in sense you don't have to worry about ripping the paper...with the Wilke's check. They went on to say that you could, or should I said he, put the checks in the mold fairly fast with his fingers and not much slower then normal casting. I'm a little leary on that. Sure would be nice if Hornady manufactured Wilkes checks.

So that brings me back to what's happening to the surface of the bullet from the rifling that's not with the paper patch and Wilkes check?

[Maven]

"So that brings me back to what's happening to the surface of the bullet from the rifling that's not with the paper patch and Wilkes check?"

I don't know, but the entire CB, paper patched, gas checked, or Wilk checked isn't in contact with the bore, is it?

[vzerone]

"So that brings me back to what's happening to the surface of the bullet from the rifling that's not with the paper patch and Wilkes check?"

I don't know, but the entire CB, paper patched, gas checked, or Wilk checked isn't in contact with the bore, is it?

Maven on the paper patch the paper is between the bore and bullet as we know, but with the Wilkes check the entire bullet except for the bands that have check are in total contact with it. With either method the rifling groove is transferred to the bullet so it still has a purchase on the bullet.

Say we claim it's frictional heat. Paper is a good insulator of that. The check bands aren't. So if it's fictional heat then why don't we see any evidence of that examining recovered bullets that are fairly undamaged? Or say the heat softens the surface of the bullet. Then why don't we see rifling skip, major rifle skip that is? We are talking in rifles here not revolvers where you do see the skip when the bullet enters the rifling of the barrel after jumping from the cylinder into it.

This has been one of the things bothering me for years. It's not the rpm as that only acts upon defects in the bullet and if the bullet wasn't started straight or exited straight.

[TXGunNut]

How would explain it with match j-word bullets?


Have very little experience with or interest in these things you speak of, I rarely shoot or load any type of j-word bullets anymore. ;-)

[vzerone]

Have very little experience with or interest in these things you speak of, I rarely shoot or load any type of j-word bullets anymore. ;-)

Tx, I rarely shoot the j-words anymore and only for special testing I may be involved with at the time. I do have experience with them. I'll tell you this, part of what is going on with the j-words is some of what is going on with the paper patch and Wilkes gas checks.

[vzerone]

I agree with you Popper on the fliers they are part of the group good bad or indifferant in my opinion.

On the shrinkage of the Bullet Dia that Goodsteel mentions I concour with him. As there is no evidence of gas cutting on his, another member (yes I know whom the member is and will let him announce his own observations), and Larry Gibson. These fine gentlemen are at 2900 fps for this test.
I spent several hours at Goodsteel's today we spoke of different ways to validate this occurrence. Harder alloys was discussed, we both agreed that "we" should stick with the originally noted alloy. Larry Gibson was the first one to note it with him losing gas check and hitting his screen at 3000 fps. Goodsteel was the first to actually find it by capturing the bullet. The question I have is with the faster twist is will we be hitting that as well along with overspin and precession which we are attempting to overcome by better casting and more attention to detail.
Is the shrinking of the bullet the cause of the fliers or is it badly casted bullets that look fine to us visually. Just food for thought.
Hydraulics

All I can say sgt.mike is that two recovered bullets (and I might add with different results) does not prove a theory. Nor does "one" gas check coming off prove Larry Gibson's theories.

[TXGunNut]

Tx, I rarely shoot the j-words anymore and only for special testing I may be involved with at the time. I do have experience with them. I'll tell you this, part of what is going on with the j-words is some of what is going on with the paper patch and Wilkes gas checks.

Quite possibly. I've found some rifles are very sensitive to changes in bag and hand positions, mag tube issues, bedding issues, fouling and even temperature changes among other things. For purposes of this project I'll assume all these possibilities were checked. Sometimes rechecking all these possibilities will explain an occasional flier. I'm by no means an expert, just looking for answers I can use.

[vzerone]

Quite possibly. I've found some rifles are very sensitive to changes in bag and hand positions, mag tube issues, bedding issues, fouling and even temperature changes among other things. For purposes of this project I'll assume all these possibilities were checked. Sometimes rechecking all these possibilities will explain an occasional flier. I'm by no means an expert, just looking for answers I can use.

TX,

You couldn't be more right. I find the Garand finicky on how it's held or sand bagged. There are many more. There's a very high possibility that fliers are from what you just posted.

[NYBushBro]

I'll be thrilled with 30-40 ballistics from my 30-06.

Plan is to lube with LARS 2400 then tumble lube in BLL one thin coat.
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=134641&d=1426964408

Ditto.

[Bjornb]

Range day today, cold and sunny. 43 degrees is cold down here in SoFla. I didn't last very long, but I managed to shoot a few strings with the Ruger GSR rifle with the 1:12 FN barrel. Today I had changed a few things: I used Lapua Palma brass (small rifle primers). Cases were virgin, full length sized and chamfered. Primers were Remington Bench Rest 7 1/2. All bullets were NOE 165 XCB, alloy was linotype.

Today I used two ball powders, LeveRevolution and H-414. The LvR loads were taken from Larry Gibson's excellent writeup on the NOE forum where he tests velocities in 10 and 12 twist rifles (remember Larry?)

After shooting a bunch of loads in my heavy XCB rifle (tested cast bullets coated with liquid moly), I shot these groups with the Ruger (5 bore conditioning shot were fired first):
159048159049159050159051

As you can see, accuracy was good right up to 2500 FPS, anything above started to scatter. The H-414 loads didn't shoot well at all; I'm including them to show the speeds reached.

So in my rifle the linotype bullets certainly trumps the softer alloys, no doubt about that.

I'll probably be taking a break from this forum; the banning of two good friends has certainly put a damper on my interest in Cast Boolits.
I have learned a lot here, and corresponded with a bunch of high quality people, and I wish all of you the best of luck in your shooting.

[vzerone]

Range day today, cold and sunny. 43 degrees is cold down here in SoFla. I didn't last very long, but I managed to shoot a few strings with the Ruger GSR rifle with the 1:12 FN barrel. Today I had changed a few things: I used Lapua Palma brass (small rifle primers). Cases were virgin, full length sized and chamfered. Primers were Remington Bench Rest 7 1/2. All bullets were NOE 165 XCB, alloy was linotype.

Today I used two ball powders, LeveRevolution and H-414. The LvR loads were taken from Larry Gibson's excellent writeup on the NOE forum where he tests velocities in 10 and 12 twist rifles (remember Larry?)

After shooting a bunch of loads in my heavy XCB rifle (tested cast bullets coated with liquid moly), I shot these groups with the Ruger (5 bore conditioning shot were fired first):
159048159049159050159051

As you can see, accuracy was good right up to 2500 FPS, anything above started to scatter. The H-414 loads didn't shoot well at all; I'm including them to show the speeds reached.

So in my rifle the linotype bullets certainly trumps the softer alloys, no doubt about that.

I'll probably be taking a break from this forum; the banning of two good friends has certainly put a damper on my interest in Cast Boolits.
I have learned a lot here, and corresponded with a bunch of high quality people, and I wish all of you the best of luck in your shooting.

bjorn, nice shooting. I never liked H414 with j-words or cast.

Hate to see that you're not going to be on much.

[popper]

The shrinking dia. theory if hydraulic lube force is interesting but also consider the GC boolit hitting the bore. Like a drill bit that grabs when almost through the metal, different twist force. Also the inertia of the nose stretching the boolit, friction difference. I PC and although no lube in the groove, #2 does OK until fps is high enough to strip.

[runfiverun]

those are match jackets and not always match cores.
and even smaller J-4 [22 cal] jackets will sometimes vary in weight by about .2grs. [the jackets weight is in the 15gr range]
the factory's do not weight sort everything they do.
but I have/do, and you will find those occasional jackets or swaged cores that just do not measure up.
sorting the core-jacket weights and adding them together for a final finished weight before making the bullet usually gives you the most consistent results.
but you have to look for those anomalies in the jacket or the core and not use them.

[TXGunNut]

Very interesting results, Bjornb. LVR results are pretty impressive, show lots of promise. Thanks for taking the time for photos and posting your results.

[vzerone]

I agree with you Popper on the fliers they are part of the group good bad or indifferant in my opinion.

On the shrinkage of the Bullet Dia that Goodsteel mentions I concour with him. As there is no evidence of gas cutting on his, another member (yes I know whom the member is and will let him announce his own observations), and Larry Gibson. These fine gentlemen are at 2900 fps for this test.
I spent several hours at Goodsteel's today we spoke of different ways to validate this occurrence. Harder alloys was discussed, we both agreed that "we" should stick with the originally noted alloy. Larry Gibson was the first one to note it.Goodsteel was on the quest to document it by capturing the bullet in the sawdust box. The question I have is with the faster twist is will we be hitting that as well along with overspin and precession which we are attempting to overcome by better casting and more attention to detail. Or will that issue be at the same velocity or a lower velocity as the slower twist .
Is the shrinking of the bullet the cause of the fliers or is it badly casted bullets that look fine to us visually. Just food for thought.
Hydraulics

Here is a picture of a section of Goodsteel's bullet on the CBA forum. You said there was no gas cutting. Remember I was not able to see the rest, or the whole, of the bullet, but you had better take a look at the section I cropped. That, sir, is gas cutting.

http://i1318.photobucket.com/albums/t643/vincentz1/Gas%20Cut_zpsslbcrvta.jpg

[vzerone]

Same with Larry Gibson's bullet, which I also can't see the whole of the bullet. There's two gas cuts on this if you can find them. One of them looks just like Goodsteel's.

http://i1318.photobucket.com/albums/t643/vincentz1/Gas%20Cut%20a_zpseujcayzi.jpg

[popper]

they go fuzzy when trying to enlarge but I would expect cutting from small boolits - he could lube with canola oil to verify. Dip the boolit and wipe excess of the GC, load & shoot. Works to 2700 in 308W, no leading. As it doesn't fill the L.G., no hydraulic pressure. IMO it's alloy plastic failure and limits HV success. I understand wanting to stay with a standard alloy BUT?

[vzerone]

they go fuzzy when trying to enlarge but I would expect cutting from small boolits - he could lube with canola oil to verify. Dip the boolit and wipe excess of the GC, load & shoot. Works to 2700 in 308W, no leading. As it doesn't fill the L.G., no hydraulic pressure. IMO it's alloy plastic failure and limits HV success. I understand wanting to stay with a standard alloy BUT?

On the first bullet on the bottom of the groove is a little like tear or like the letter L fell over to the right...that's it for that one. On the second pic
the same tear or L fell over except this time up on top. You can clearly see them on the pics that are on here before enlarging. Also on that second bullet that deep horizontal groove may be a gas cut too, but the other two are definitely.

[popper]

Vzerone - my concern/question - Tim thinks the incomprehensible lube film(?) is shrinking/stretching the boolit. My thought is different BUT it doesn't make any difference if the alloy is 'shrunk' going down the bore, accuracy can't be good, GC comes off, etc. Does that force an fps/pressure limit on the alloys we normally use? Or is it a lube limit? combination? Does a 'plastic' coating help or hurt? I don't know but would like to find out. His test definitely shows us something is going on that we (I) didn't know before, that is problematic.

[vzerone]

Vzerone - my concern/question - Tim thinks the incomprehensible lube film(?) is shrinking/stretching the boolit. My thought is different BUT it doesn't make any difference if the alloy is 'shrunk' going down the bore, accuracy can't be good, GC comes off, etc. Does that force an fps/pressure limit on the alloys we normally use? Or is it a lube limit? combination? Does a 'plastic' coating help or hurt? I don't know but would like to find out. His test definitely shows us something is going on that we (I) didn't know before, that is problematic.

popper....again one test does not prove a thing. When he fires and collects many bullets and they all exhibit that, then and only then is he getting anywhere. Let me say I've been at the same velocities they have (and more) and I'm not losing gas checks. I don't believe Larry Gibson's gas check showed melted soldered alloy on the inside bottom of it from either powder combustion heat or friction heat. Here's a very easy to understand explanation of that. Have you ever recovered rifle bullets that still had lube in the grooves? I'm sure you have as many of us have. You must definitely find lube in revolver/pistol recovered bullets. How does that lube stay there if Larry Gibson claims the combustion heat or frictional heat melted the alloy, but lube doesn't get totally melted away. Grant you I do find many bullets that don't have lube on them too. The time period that the bullet is exposed to the heat is in the micro seconds. I know many of tired of this old time explanation (me too) but the old thing about run your finger through a candle flame slow then repeat it fast sure is the truth.

I think you had about as good explanation of why that gas check shank was smaller as anyone. Like I said I'd have to see that on dozens of bullets not just one. That's the problem with these self proclaimed experts....one test is proof for them.

[popper]

Don't remember Larry saying combustion or frictional heat melting Pb. Pressure heat! Tim has the rig to do the testing, I don't.

[vzerone]

Don't remember Larry saying combustion or frictional heat melting Pb. Pressure heat! Tim has the rig to do the testing, I don't.

It's been said and I'm not going to scour through many post on three forums to find it again. Pressure heat sounds plausible.

Larry Gibson also stated on the CBA forum that his recovered bullets showed gas cutting:
LMG
CBA Member


Joined: Sat Nov 23rd, 2013
Location: Lake Havasu City, Arizona USA
Posts: 193
Status:
Online
Inspecting the lands and grooves we see evidence of several things occurring during the internal ballistics. Let us reiterate these bullets were pushed to 2900 fps with a pressure of 50,000 psi.

Here we see an example of some gas cutting on the edge of the rear drive band in front of the GC of the bullet.

***I'm not copying and posting the bullet picture. Heres the link: http://castbulletassoc.org/forum/view_topic.php?id=12453&forum_id=63&page=5

[TXGunNut]

Let me say I've been at the same velocities they have (and more) and I'm not losing gas checks.-vzerone

Care to explain your theories on that? Sounds like to me that will be one of the keys to attaining HV with acceptable accuracy. Dunno what to think about lead melting before lube other than to say maybe lube and lead react differently to heat. I think they're using 2700+, care to share your HV lube preference?

[vzerone]

Let me say I've been at the same velocities they have (and more) and I'm not losing gas checks.-vzerone

Care to explain your theories on that? Sounds like to me that will be one of the keys to attaining HV with acceptable accuracy. Dunno what to think about lead melting before lube other than to say maybe lube and lead react differently to heat. I think they're using 2700+, care to share your HV lube preference?

If you are asking why I'm not losing checks then I'll direct towards that. One is I make my own checks and they fit my bullets precisely. Of course it would be very difficult to produce checks with an edge like Hornady and I wish I could, but my checks fit very tight. I use a check seater. I've mentioned before I find them in the backstop dirt even after they've passed through my wood backer board.

I'm also a be advocate of shotshell buffer. This product does a lot of things. It provides a cushion start when the powder gases slam that bullet. It insulates it from the powder heat. It keeps the bore clean. There are some other things I won't go into at this time. I edited to add that the buffer also seals the gas from getting around the gas check.

I try to use the slowest burning powder I can that will get me the results I want which is the velocity I want. There are times I'll use faster powders because I can't get enough slower powder in the case.

These things alone are enough to get you HV shooting with accuracy. As I mentioned in an earlier post there is no single magic procedure.

[TXGunNut]

Good tips, thanks. Is there a lube that's working especially well for you?

[Love Life]

Would a soap lube work well for this application?

[vzerone]

Something interesting about lube. I know you guys keep hearing mention that Wilke's Check article on the forum recently. Well what was interesting is they covered the lube they used for those very HV test and it was LBT Blue. Okay so what's interesting? I know of some people that had that lube analyzed and although they didn't get the total description it was soap based. I like and use the soap lubes. I've read the articles on this forum in past on making soap lubes and all through the multi-million thread on this forum called the Extreme Lube thread. LOL The three Amigos came up with some good lubes. I believe Runfiverun was part of that. From what I hear Geargnasher's SL-68 series of lubes are very good. It's easier to make too. Interesting too in that Wilkes article is that they did try Alox lubes and they failed. They were good to a certain point, but after that the quit working. I know some have said that Javelina will go a long ways, but I never found that using it. Jon the moderator here has made soap lube too if I'm correct. I think you all should at least try a soap lube and a known good one. Remember it's not the magical one thing that will turn your cast shooting into a match competition winner, but it sure will help especially in keeping your bore lead free.

[vzerone]

Mike, do you want to discuss techniques for successful HV cast shooting or sit around and argue about silly definitions? Tell ya what, I'm going to leave that up to YOU and all the other people who know so much more about this stuff than I do. I'm outta here.

Gear

I'm saying the same thing. You guys can learn all you want to know about HV shooting from sgt.mike. I'm outta here too. Thanks for the heads up Geargnasher.

[popper]

We (I) have been thinking that boolits are always under compression when fired. Tim's test got me to wondering, maybe tension (shrinking dia.) plays a part too. If you look at his pic. closely you also see alloy sheared off the front band sticking to the leading edge of the rear band - I've seen it before and it is stuck good - sometimes. The 30XCB L.G. is 0.006 deep but the rifling doesn't even come close to touching the bottom of the groove. Is the boolit acting like silly putty, shrinking,and reducing the contact with the lands, causing stripping earlier? Or nose band and GC only good traction in the barrel? He is to use moly lube and repeat to check for hydraulic action. Interesting - maybe we don't know all we think we do?
edit: I ESPC for rifle so no lube problem, also never see evidence of a lost GC - never have been able to recover a rifle boolit - I did try once - no boolit, no GC.

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

I should have replied to this post sooner, but didn't because what I'm about to say is seemingly common sense to me and figured everyone else would just already know.

JWT makes a nice list of what to document for HV, for the beginner(like me)...whether online in a report or just on paper at the time of loading and shooting. Not necessarily if you are successful, although it is good for repeat-ability, but mostly for troubleshooting the problem/s you may encounter. I've loaded some preliminary rounds 30-06...not quite to HV, but to the edge. I may not shoot them for a month or so, due to weather...If I didn't document the small details, I would have never remember them all.


I would suggest that you shoot what you have. If it's a completely stock gun say so, if it's had modifications then report that. I believe that as the number of experimenters reporting in increase that trends will begin to emerge.

Sgt. Mike brings up good points regarding the content of report out postings. Any report out should include enough information to allow for duplication of the experiment (scientific method). To that end I would suggest including the following in reports:


Gun

Make and model
Barrel material, length, twist rate, bore and land measurements
Chamber and throat information if available
Customizations in barrel, bedding, and chamber
Sights


Boolit

Mold make and number
Alloy
Lube
Heat treating
Gas checks
Age
Hardness and how measured


Brass and Load Assembly

Brass maker
Sizing details (full, neck, etc)
Trim length
Neck expansion
Any alterations to neck thickness (turning/reaming)



Powder type and quantity
Buffers
Seating die type
Crimp


Shooting Conditions

Temperature
Wind
Bench, prone, offhand


Target Results

Distance
Velocity and how measured
Group (number of shots and size)



Pictures of the boolit and target should be included where possible.

I will be dedicating a Steyr Mannlicher Model 1950 Bolt Action in 270 with a 1:9 twist to this experiment. I have fired many tens of thousands of rounds of lead in handguns but I am just starting with lead in rifles.

To all of the more experienced members that are involved please be patient with us newer guys. You have laid a foundation that the rest of us can and want to build on.

There are those who come and go from this thread (and website), that's fine I guess, we have 40,000 members, I'm sure there is a couple members here that aren't commenting in this thread that have some HV experience.

:castmine:

[TXGunNut]

Too bad it is not commerically available as some just do not make lube. -sgt.mike

Thank you! I don't make lube or gas checks. Some days I can't even pour a decent boolit! I'm pretty impressed by people that have mastered all these skills but I need to focus on making better boolits first, the rest will come later. I'd like to do my testing on this project with commercial lubes and checks, if possible. I'm even thinking about some commercial alloy.

[runfiverun]

yeah,,,, heating stuff up in a pan is ridiculously hard.

figuring it out from scratch is a little harder.
sometimes you just gotta suck it up and do the leg work, having the failures and successes instead of following in another's wake.
this place used to be full of people willing to report the failures and rewards of trying stuff.
sometimes they got a little suggestion, sometimes applause, sometimes critique, but rarely did just throwing money at the problem fix it.

[runfiverun]

trying Glen's lube is what got me into figuring it out myself.

[runfiverun]

I'm sure I spent more making my own lubes.
I know I did when I could just swing by his house and get it without postage added in especially when I would buy 50 or 100 sticks at a time.
but since I basically finalized a recipe and got most of the ingredients for free it is easier to just make more when I need it.

I know this talk of lube seems inane to many reading this, but once you get to a certain point in your velocity search your gonna wonder if you can get that little bit more.
and that is when lube comes into play.
just like engine builder's.
you don't see too many guy's from the speed shop just buying regular 5-30 quaker state at the auto-zone.

[Harter66]

I've made it to 2400 with some pretty remedial lube . I have about $8 in the 1st batch of just a little over 2 lbs I can't count the rounds down range with it. I may have to break down and make a 2nd batch next winter . Been almost 9 yr ,so the better part of 4k bullets have been lubed with it and 1000 or so PP. Pretty cheap fun. It all came from the grocery store too.

[newton]

I am not sure how I have missed this thread, but I found it now. I actually read through the whole thing because I wanted to glean any useful information. Did find some........but man is there a lot of trash to go through.


I have not seen anything regarding .22 cals. I did read one post early on that sounded like HV in the 22 is not hard to accomplish. Is this the case? I have only been loading it for the last month, and I am still not absolute on a just general load(although I do think I have it close). However, knowing that I will want more once the plinking load is complete, I am starting to tuck away info.

I would love to hear some insight on this, I've been digging around and have found some stuff so far.

[popper]

Poured ~ 200 31-142C this morning for the BO. Tried a variation on pouring, per a suggestion, tap the sprue a couple times as it hardens - to make better bases. Also poured a bunch the normal way. Tapped, 25% rejects, normal - 11%. Normal had better weight distribution. Visually sorted both batches. Surprise! Most all had good bases, tapped has more sprue divits - not pimples - cut too early. Most of the culls were smiley faces, etc., not bad bases. I'll stick with the standard method.
Last outing I got 13 of 18 as good groups, need to solve the flier problem but for a plain base @ 2100 fps, not too bad. Got a nice hot splash on my trigger finger dumping more muffins into the pot - darn popper - wear those gloves all the time! Going to do 20# of 165 for the 40SW tomorrow.
I think Tim is going to do a moly lube test to answer the hydraulic question.
Anybody know what a screamer tag is in CBA match scoring?

[newton]

Poured ~ 200 31-142C this morning for the BO. Tried a variation on pouring, per a suggestion, tap the sprue a couple times as it hardens - to make better bases. Also poured a bunch the normal way. Tapped, 25% rejects, normal - 11%. Normal had better weight distribution. Visually sorted both batches. Surprise! Most all had good bases, tapped has more sprue divits - not pimples - cut too early. Most of the culls were smiley faces, etc., not bad bases. I'll stick with the standard method.
Last outing I got 13 of 18 as good groups, need to solve the flier problem but for a plain base @ 2100 fps, not too bad. Got a nice hot splash on my trigger finger dumping more muffins into the pot - darn popper - wear those gloves all the time! Going to do 20# of 165 for the 40SW tomorrow.
I think Tim is going to do a moly lube test to answer the hydraulic question.
Anybody know what a screamer tag is in CBA match scoring?

I read that you were going to try this, but forgot to mention anything about it. I don't tap the sprue, but after I fill each cavity(all mine are just 2 cavity molds) I tap the bolt head on the handles. I keep my wooden stick in hand while pouring. I started doing this a long time ago when I was having trouble filling out some big 50 cal boolits. I'll lift the pour handle, fill a cavity, tap the bolt head a few times, then lift the handle, pour the next, and tap the bolt head. Then wait till it dries to cut the sprue.

I cast mostly with Lee molds. I vary rarely have many rejects and I do inspect for quality. I also do this method with my RCBS 22 cal mold and I may have 3-5 rejects out of a couple hundred. It almost gets boring sorting through them because they all look the same. And when it comes to weighing them, the same holds true. I have yet to have a boolit weight spread over .7 grains and that is with gas check and powder coating included. Most, 90%, fall right in a +-.1gr of each other with a few on either side of that mark, and only 1 or 2 at the far ends of the range. One reason I mention this is because I am not doing anything I would call "special", except for keeping a good cadence and the tapping I do.

One thing I did learn from this thread is that I need to pay more attention to detail/consistency.

[Eutectic]

I take my hat off to anybody doing lube, and for the record my comments are not against a person doing their own lube.
Id rather let Glenn handle that and I focus else where such as casting and other steps

edit to add
I figured it up one day I would actually spend more than just using Glenn products. Just made more sense to me

It might pay to think of the saying.... "Pushing the envelope"

This thread fits this definition; but doesn't 'own' it so to speak.

Whenever you "push the envelope" everything matters. Not just what you 'feel' like you want to pursue. Your fliers or accuracy just may be bothered by something else! You can turn over every piece of straw in the hen house looking for that weasel and he may be in the barn laughing at you!

Fall and winter I have tested lube. Most testing has been for what I tag 'subtle fliers'. I should have done this years ago. Three very accurate guns and loads have been used. Each is capable of 1/2" groups at 85 yards. Each gun/load combination has a 'pushing the envelope' facet for one reason or another. For an example One is a super accurate Savage .32-20 and the load is a plain base flat point at 1300fps. Pushing the envelope???? Yeah right!! The lube groove holds way too much lube... so my lube has to handle that without cold starts or 'lube purges'. After all it is my Blue Grouse load and has to be able to make 50 yard head shots every time. Cold start, 1st shot or 2nd... 40F or -10F below zero. This is pushing the envelope for a lube! And that's not all..... Where the Blue Grouse are best we have had wolves around. So I've got another load along always in a nickel plated case that is a full power gascheck HP for a wolf. This load and the grouse load have to use the same lube... and not just any ol' lube you grab either! (ask me how I know) I can shoot either load in any order back and forth in any temp with cold start or no... and have two 1/2"groups at 85 yards with the full power load's group 3/4" higher. It took lube formulation to accomplish this and it wasn't bought down the street!

I have read the term 'core group' here somewhere. It referred to 8 shots in 1" and a couple slightly out as an example... Now if the shooter felt confident in his performance then the two out fit my definition of 'subtle fliers'. I always used to blamed my casting for them. After six months of 'subtle flier' tests...... Well......Better put more importance on the lube! My 'bad' castings shoot better than I thought!

Eutectic

[vzerone]

I had not thought of tapping the sprue during cooling Popper, interesting.
In your normal method what was your variation, just curious.

Tapping the mold like that is an old old trick that even the NRA Castbullet Book mentioned. It's suppose to make any air void surface out of the cavities.

Another trick is to turn your mold upside down immediately after pouring the sprue, but the timing has to be just right that the melted allog doesn't fall out. This method definitely makes a good flat base. If you cast well normally you don't have to do any of those "tricks".

[vzerone]

It might pay to think of the saying.... "Pushing the envelope"

This thread fits this definition; but doesn't 'own' it so to speak.

Whenever you "push the envelope" everything matters. Not just what you 'feel' like you want to pursue. Your fliers or accuracy just may be bothered by something else! You can turn over every piece of straw in the hen house looking for that weasel and he may be in the barn laughing at you!

Fall and winter I have tested lube. Most testing has been for what I tag 'subtle fliers'. I should have done this years ago. Three very accurate guns and loads have been used. Each is capable of 1/2" groups at 85 yards. Each gun/load combination has a 'pushing the envelope' facet for one reason or another. For an example One is a super accurate Savage .32-20 and the load is a plain base flat point at 1300fps. Pushing the envelope???? Yeah right!! The lube groove holds way too much lube... so my lube has to handle that without cold starts or 'lube purges'. After all it is my Blue Grouse load and has to be able to make 50 yard head shots every time. Cold start, 1st shot or 2nd... 40F or -10F below zero. This is pushing the envelope for a lube! And that's not all..... Where the Blue Grouse are best we have had wolves around. So I've got another load along always in a nickel plated case that is a full power gascheck HP for a wolf. This load and the grouse load have to use the same lube... and not just any ol' lube you grab either! (ask me how I know) I can shoot either load in any order back and forth in any temp with cold start or no... and have two 1/2"groups at 85 yards with the full power load's group 3/4" higher. It took lube formulation to accomplish this and it wasn't bought down the street!

I have read the term 'core group' here somewhere. It referred to 8 shots in 1" and a couple slightly out as an example... Now if the shooter felt confident in his performance then the two out fit my definition of 'subtle fliers'. I always used to blamed my casting for them. After six months of 'subtle flier' tests...... Well......Better put more importance on the lube! My 'bad' castings shoot better than I thought!

Eutectic

Truer words couldn't be spoken Eutectic. I know two of the lubes you tested in cold weather because my one of them was my cousins.

In my early cast shooting days I use to think that Javelina was the the cat's meow until I started pushing the "envelope".

I know many members here are loyal to other member's products, and that is okay, but when you're pushing the envelope there are very few lubes that are up to snuff for it. I remember a good while back Larry Gibson did a lube test and I really feel it was bias. I was also shocked to hear him claim that LBT Blue isn't any better then any other lube. Nothing could be further from the truth on that. In order to really test lube you have to have a very good load that is extremely accurate to test with. One might condemn a lube when all along it's their bullet or load that is at fault.

[vzerone]

I am not sure how I have missed this thread, but I found it now. I actually read through the whole thing because I wanted to glean any useful information. Did find some........but man is there a lot of trash to go through.


I have not seen anything regarding .22 cals. I did read one post early on that sounded like HV in the 22 is not hard to accomplish. Is this the case? I have only been loading it for the last month, and I am still not absolute on a just general load(although I do think I have it close). However, knowing that I will want more once the plinking load is complete, I am starting to tuck away info.

I would love to hear some insight on this, I've been digging around and have found some stuff so far.

Get Runfiverun to post on this. He has done and it's more then likely he's the one that made that statement. If you remember his posts his little girl shot an outstanding, and verified, small group from a seven twist AR15 at HV in the neighborhood of 2800 fps.

[popper]

Total variation of about 0.5 gr. Not a large sampling. Normal was about 0.3 gr. If I don't go shooting tomorrow I'll try again.

[vzerone]

Total variation of about 0.5 gr. Not a large sampling. Normal was about 0.3 gr. If I don't go shooting tomorrow I'll try again.

That's not bad popper, that .3 is much better.

[newton]

I had a thought a minute ago that may sound simple, but it sounded logical in my head.......

I hear a lot of talk about doing this and that to the brass, the gun, particular loading techniques, etc. All are solid as far as reducing group size. But the thought was, I don't do ANY of that and I get sub MOA from my factory gun with jacketed. So, the ONLY difference is the projectile. At least, it is the only thing that separates a known good load/high velocity from what your trying to achieve with another kind of projectile. Of course, I am assuming that you would use the same kind of powder for both. When I try my hand at it I'll be doing that. I get good results with H4895 and jacketed bullets.

Maybe just me, but I think I would put all my focus on the boolit. Again, I know it sounds simple, but I would focus on things like how the boolit is different than the jacketed, and how these differences effect each one.

Here is my thought on it all in general. I think that when guys decided to use jacketed projectiles they were looking to up the speed over that of the lead. *yea, I know, brilliant thought there newton.....* Anyways, they might have tried a few different things to improve the lead, but how much did they try.........but more important what did they not try?

To honestly believe that they tried everything has to be the most optimistic thing I have ever heard. Now, they might have tried just about all they could, with what they had, at that time. But the point of this, is the pursuit was left alone after just figuring they found the cure in jackets. I'll agree that since then many have come along and worked on it, but its hard to focus on something all the while having a solution staring you in the face - in this situation it would be the jacketed bullet.

So for me, its not about my loading technique(unless cast boolits dictate otherwise - flaring mouth and such), or my gun, or anything else. I know, it sounds dumb and too simple of an approach, but its what I will do when I pursue this. Technology has come a long way since they developed the jacketed bullet. There may be something out there that lets us take our cast boolits and shoot them like jacketed.......except without the jacket. :) I bet if you would have told a person less than 100 years ago that they could pick up a device and instantly communicate to someone on the other side of the world.....without any wires.......they would have thought you were insane. It was even longer than that when they figured out the copper jacketed bullet, at least we now believe that lead boolits can perform near copper ones....or does doubt hold us back?

[vzerone]

I had a thought a minute ago that may sound simple, but it sounded logical in my head.......

I hear a lot of talk about doing this and that to the brass, the gun, particular loading techniques, etc. All are solid as far as reducing group size. But the thought was, I don't do ANY of that and I get sub MOA from my factory gun with jacketed. So, the ONLY difference is the projectile. Newton may I politely tell you that is were you are wrong. The reason is the jacketed bullet is much stronger, harder, and tougher then the cast bullet. Think of pounding a steel rod into a tighter hole for it and at an angle. Then thing of the rod being made of wood. The wood will be chewed up before it straightens itself out. At least, it is the only thing that separates a known good load/high velocity from what your trying to achieve with another kind of projectile. Of course, I am assuming that you would use the same kind of powder for both. When I try my hand at it I'll be doing that. I get good results with H4895 and jacketed bullets.

Maybe just me, but I think I would put all my focus on the boolit. Again, I know it sounds simple, but I would focus on things like how the boolit is different than the jacketed, and how these differences effect each one. There is nothing at all wrong with focusing on the the bullet "alot".

Here is my thought on it all in general. I think that when guys decided to use jacketed projectiles they were looking to up the speed over that of the lead. *yea, I know, brilliant thought there newton.....* Anyways, they might have tried a few different things to improve the lead, but how much did they try.........but more important what did they not try?

To honestly believe that they tried everything has to be the most optimistic thing I have ever heard. Now, they might have tried just about all they could, with what they had, at that time. But the point of this, is the pursuit was left alone after just figuring they found the cure in jackets. I'll agree that since then many have come along and worked on it, but its hard to focus on something all the while having a solution staring you in the face - in this situation it would be the jacketed bullet. Tried and knowing what you are doing are two different things. Now if you tried something a known superb caster and cast bullet shooter told or showed is different.

So for me, its not about my loading technique(unless cast boolits dictate otherwise - flaring mouth and such), or my gun, or anything else. I know, it sounds dumb and too simple of an approach, but its what I will do when I pursue this. Technology has come a long way since they developed the jacketed bullet. There may be something out there that lets us take our cast boolits and shoot them like jacketed.......except without the jacket. :) I bet if you would have told a person less than 100 years ago that they could pick up a device and instantly communicate to someone on the other side of the world.....without any wires.......they would have thought you were insane. There was one guy (possibly more) that you could have told and he wouldn't have thought you were crazy but gave you ideas on how to do it and that was Tesla. It was even longer than that when they figured out the copper jacketed bullet, at least we now believe that lead boolits can perform near copper ones....or does doubt hold us back?

Let's talk case prep. Sorting brass to same lots, sorting to internal volume ( is far better then weighing cases), de-burring the flash hole, truing neck thickness up, trim all same length, uniforming primer pocket, uniforming flash holes, and more. On a standard rifle most of those don't show up as they would on a full hilt match rifle. Then you have to be a super shooter to notice it. I'd say the most important things to do to a case for the standard rifle is fitment of the case in the chamber, re-sizing with minimum case work ( I use bushing dies or neck sizing bushing dies only), getting the neck at the proper inside diameter for your size of cast bullet, minimum belling of the case mouth. Then you want to make sure you seat the bullet straight and it's concentric to the center line. You need to start that wood rod (remember that?) as straight as possible lined up to the hole (the throat/bore).

[Harter66]

I have a couple of rifles that know the difference of a couple of gr of case weight 1 in fact has been known to shoot separate groups far separated with 20 rounds of mixed brass and the identical load. Some steps I would question for Joe's hunting rig . Flash holes are high on that list. I've never dial indicated any of my ammo and I have no doubt that it is possible to get 1 out of square . But how far out can it be if you have in an 06 for example and 80% or neck only sized case and a bore ride touching the lands ? It simply can't be off centered any farther than half the distance of the lands.
I know there are zero nothing tolerance match guns out the that would show up the .001 off line of a 173 gr VLD. I'm pretty sure that my 65 Savage that thrives on LC 43 and 4350 under a 200 gr spire point gouged out of a Lee mould by an experimenter with a $29 Ning Po drill press doesn't. I expect it to better it's current accuracy with a change to a better quality bullet from a better quality mould and even slower powders.

The focus should be on making the best bullets we can but also on finding the best fit . It is no doubt why the very 1st cast bullets I gas checked for a 6.8 SPCII AR shoot jacketed speeds and groups with no other changes beyond charge weight. The same was true of a very low miles 222 and a 223 . But take a sloped out 8x57 that's closer to 338 x57 and it's not going to work the same way . I have 2 7mms that sling Loverin bullets at 289 all over and sideways over Unique . They need 285 and 286 at the muzzle but that's 26" from the 288 part in 1 of them .
There are always going to be tried and true means that won't work in a whole pile of rifles .
Harder to go faster is another great example of what doesn't work in every rifle .
Twist ......there's a bucket of snakes for about 18 mechanical reasons (I didn't actually count but I've read the threads and seen results.


Would it be ok if we steered this thread back to :
Bubba Yugo 98
8x57 1-9
PMC brass
Wolf LRMP
48 gr of 747 surplus
323-202 from 27/73 battery strap/pure water dropped in my 3rd nephew in laws kegerator
Lee rgb dies with a wiz bang in line seater
My bbl is 325x316 and needed 328 to fill the neck
I sized these 327 at first but found as cast at 329 worked better .
My phone app pop ding speed gun says 2556-2578 fps for 10 rounds .
I'm using gas checks made by hammering .218 copper utility ground wire to a width of 345 and a 310 base punch a mabob from Wile E Coyote machine works .

Here's my groups at 316 ft 7 in from the muzzle. It was 90 degrees and 114% humidity.
. .
. . .
. 0 . I. 1. 2. 3. 4. I

I pulled that middle 1 a little but there was a gator chasing my sister and she bumped my stool when she run by.

[runfiverun]

well you gotta remember jacketed bullets come along right about the same time that using antimony in lead started becoming common.
that's when the term hard cast come about [to denote the use of antimony in a lead alloy]
there was also a big step forward in black powder technology right when smokeless come along.
how often do you hear about brown powder?

[vzerone]

well you gotta remember jacketed bullets come along right about the same time that using antimony in lead started becoming common.
that's when the term hard cast come about [to denote the use of antimony in a lead alloy]
there was also a big step forward in black powder technology right when smokeless come along.
how often do you hear about brown powder?

Pretty interesting stuff. I've heard of the Brown powder and some others. They were high tech better performing powders of the BP line development right before smokeless took a foothold. Would have been very interesting indeed to see where that stuff would have ended up if smokeless didn't come along.

[newton]

vzerone, I gladly accept anyone telling me anything. Its a free country :)

But with all due respect, you told me I was wrong, then proceeded to say the exact thing that I was saying. The boolit/bullet, projectile, is the difference. If I do the exact same case prep, loading technique, and powder/primer - then all that's left is the projectile.

If I find one jacketed bullet, at a certain weight, and find a load that it shoots well with - I can generally take another bullet in the same weight range and get "decent" accuracy with a little bit of load development(powder charge and OAL). I do not change the way I prep my cases. As I said before, I do not prep my cases other than the standard stuff. No special or costly tools in my reloading bench.

I still say focus on the boolit. Different ways of doing things to it - aside from adding a jacket of course. That's what they did, and then left the cast boolit to lay. The guys who wanted HV were not of the mindset we are. They didn't have jacketed bullets, so they didn't say "we need to find a way to make the lead boolit shoot HV without a jacket". They said, "hey, lets put a jacket on this thing so we can shoot it faster" - end of story.

Most people would say that what is being discussed here is insane - doing something that can be(and already has been) accomplished easy one way, yet trying to find another way of doing it.

I for one am all for it. But kind of like the original intent of the thread(in my opinion) was for "stock rifle", I think we need to focus on how to accomplish this HV with common tools.

[newton]

One question I have is this, is it true that .22's are easier to push to near jacketed velocity? And if so, why?

[vzerone]

vzerone, I gladly accept anyone telling me anything. Its a free country :)

But with all due respect, you told me I was wrong, then proceeded to say the exact thing that I was saying. The boolit/bullet, projectile, is the difference. If I do the exact same case prep, loading technique, and powder/primer - then all that's left is the projectile.

If I find one jacketed bullet, at a certain weight, and find a load that it shoots well with - I can generally take another bullet in the same weight range and get "decent" accuracy with a little bit of load development(powder charge and OAL). I do not change the way I prep my cases. As I said before, I do not prep my cases other than the standard stuff. No special or costly tools in my reloading bench.

I still say focus on the boolit. Different ways of doing things to it - aside from adding a jacket of course. That's what they did, and then left the cast boolit to lay. The guys who wanted HV were not of the mindset we are. They didn't have jacketed bullets, so they didn't say "we need to find a way to make the lead boolit shoot HV without a jacket". They said, "hey, lets put a jacket on this thing so we can shoot it faster" - end of story.

Most people would say that what is being discussed here is insane - doing something that can be(and already has been) accomplished easy one way, yet trying to find another way of doing it.

I for one am all for it. But kind of like the original intent of the thread(in my opinion) was for "stock rifle", I think we need to focus on how to accomplish this HV with common tools.

Newton I guess it all came out wrong. What I'm trying to say is that you have to get the cast bullet straighter inline with the centerline of the bore while the cartridge is resting there in the chamber. The jacketed you don't (but you should if you can).

On your question about pushing the .22 caliber cast to jacketed velocity being easier then the larger calibers is because there is less pressure on bullet because it occupies less square inches. Take a .224 diameter bullet. It's square area in inches is .0394. If you have a peak pressure of 50,000 psi then the pressure on the base of that .224 bullet is 1970 pounds. A bullet diameter of .308 it would be 3775 pounds. A .358 bullet it would be 5350 pounds. A .458 bullet would be 8235 pounds.

On this forum as far as which method of HV came first it's the one being talked about right now. So here is a little list (meaning not all the ways) of HV: Using normal alloys in standard rifles with the faster twists, using very hard alloys (like Linotype) in extremely slow twists barrels, using paper patched bullets, and using copper bearing band bullets. Like I said those aren't all the ways.

[runfiverun]

or as Paco Kelly likes to say a smaller cylinder is stronger than a big one.
I think it has something to do with everything being closer to the center.

[Harter66]

Mechanically that doesn't work .

50,000 psi , that is pounds per square inch isn't it ? That means a column 1x1 inches by whatever it takes to get 50,000 lbs on the 1 inch by 1 inch square . In this case it is pushing in 360 degrees of 3 axis until something moves . The fact that it is a cylinder has no bearing on the load . I would agree that the presume reduction is more stable in a smaller CALIBER than a larger . The physical pressure load doesn't care if a 308 case is necked down to 22 or blown straight to 45 with a case full of 3031 the 22 could go 4200 fps but the 45 will be at only a little more than half that. Witness a 200 psi steam line ,a pin hole cuts things off and seals them up while an open 1 inch line is a high pressure washer line .
An engine cylinder/ piston will still build some compression with a spark plug out but it becomes negligible with the head off.
It's why you can put 27 gr of Unique under a 500 gr load in a2 3/4 12 ga and get 14-15,000 psi load but put it in a 45 120 500 and I'd bet you're looking at more like 50 kpsi .

Mathematically you might be able to prove the theory but mechanically it doesn't hold up.

[geargnasher]

or as Paco Kelly likes to say a smaller cylinder is stronger than a big one.
I think it has something to do with everything being closer to the center.

This is the explanation you guys are looking for with the .22s.

Gear

[newton]

Yes, it takes a smaller amount to move the lighter boolit, but we are only talking a little less.

Everything being close to the center does help I believe, but I only think its a part. What is interesting about the center thing is that lead, being heavier, has that central mass. The smaller the bullet, the closer to center. It would be interesting to break down a 30 caliber jacketed bullet and a 22 caliber one to compare the percentage of copper vs lead in each one.

Of course, EVERYTHING is a part of the equation so I guess you cannot discount the pressure or the center thing.

My theory is this. The smaller calibers can be pushed to jacketed velocities easier because there is less surface area. How I see it, gas cutting is our biggest enemy, one of the biggest advantages with copper jackets and why paper patching works so well. We combat this with lube, but lube is a double edge sword. On one hand not enough lube will allow the gases to deform the boolit, and on the other hand too much can cause stability issues from the time the boolit leaves the muzzle to the time it gets to the target.

Whats easier, to make new lube types or make new molds? Of course, lube. What do we humans have the tendency to do? Go the easy route.

Here is what I purpose. One of two things.

1. Take a known lube and stick with it. Then, have molds made with varying depths of lube grooves until you find the spot that the boolit has used all the lube at the moment it leaves the barrel. LMKO yea right! I know, it sounds near impossible finding that spot, and more so to have the funds to have that many molds done.

2. Find a way to loose the lube, and seal off the gasses at the rear of the boolit. Maybe you cannot loose ALL of the lube, but the less you have the less there is to come off during the flight and disrupt it.

When I get around to it my path will be #2. I will have a mold made, or make one myself that has 0 lube grooves. I will lightly powder coat it, but focus on sealing the gases at the rear. The perfect solution would be a "gas seal" that was not attached to the boolit like we do with normal gas checks(yet I would still have one on the boolit), but instead cleanly depart from the boolit base after exit. Kind of like a backwards sabot.

Ok, I'll give away my idea if someone promises to let me have some when they make them. It would be a plastic upside down sabot which would be attached to the base of the boolit in one little spot right at the centerline. I would hope that the spin or initial pressure would break this spot but they would stay together till the end of the muzzle, at which the boolit goes on and the plastic falls off.

Well, that's my theory and idea I will work toward. Who knows how long it will take till I get going on the idea, but I will eventually.

[vzerone]

Yes, it takes a smaller amount to move the lighter boolit, but we are only talking a little less.

Everything being close to the center does help I believe, but I only think its a part. What is interesting about the center thing is that lead, being heavier, has that central mass. The smaller the bullet, the closer to center. It would be interesting to break down a 30 caliber jacketed bullet and a 22 caliber one to compare the percentage of copper vs lead in each one.

Of course, EVERYTHING is a part of the equation so I guess you cannot discount the pressure or the center thing.

My theory is this. The smaller calibers can be pushed to jacketed velocities easier because there is less surface area. How I see it, gas cutting is our biggest enemy, one of the biggest advantages with copper jackets and why paper patching works so well. We combat this with lube, but lube is a double edge sword. On one hand not enough lube will allow the gases to deform the boolit, and on the other hand too much can cause stability issues from the time the boolit leaves the muzzle to the time it gets to the target.

Whats easier, to make new lube types or make new molds? Of course, lube. What do we humans have the tendency to do? Go the easy route.

Here is what I purpose. One of two things.

1. Take a known lube and stick with it. Then, have molds made with varying depths of lube grooves until you find the spot that the boolit has used all the lube at the moment it leaves the barrel. LMKO yea right! I know, it sounds near impossible finding that spot, and more so to have the funds to have that many molds done.

2. Find a way to loose the lube, and seal off the gasses at the rear of the boolit. Maybe you cannot loose ALL of the lube, but the less you have the less there is to come off during the flight and disrupt it.

When I get around to it my path will be #2. I will have a mold made, or make one myself that has 0 lube grooves. I will lightly powder coat it, but focus on sealing the gases at the rear. The perfect solution would be a "gas seal" that was not attached to the boolit like we do with normal gas checks(yet I would still have one on the boolit), but instead cleanly depart from the boolit base after exit. Kind of like a backwards sabot.

Ok, I'll give away my idea if someone promises to let me have some when they make them. It would be a plastic upside down sabot which would be attached to the base of the boolit in one little spot right at the centerline. I would hope that the spin or initial pressure would break this spot but they would stay together till the end of the muzzle, at which the boolit goes on and the plastic falls off.

Well, that's my theory and idea I will work toward. Who knows how long it will take till I get going on the idea, but I will eventually.

We are getting way off track and splitting hairs over physics. The laws of physics are set and you can't change them. The PSI is what it is. Many can't grasp that if you have 50,000 PSI in the chamber that it's not 50,000 PSI on the bullet base because rarely are we shooting a bullet that has a base area of exactly one square inch.

Newton I'll never buy the idea that one of the things lube does is seals. It just isn't strong enough. There are no set rules that you have to use all the lube up just when the bullets exits the muzzle. If you're worried about gas cutting even when there is a gas check on the bullet, then put polythene discs under the bullet if the neck length permits you or if it doesn't use shot shell buffer. That stuff seals.

Geargnasher good to see you back.

Let's get back on track on what to do to get accuracy at HV with what ever rifle you're using and the standard rifling twists or faster. Newton asked about the 22 caliber bullets and I pointed out the pressure. Another thing I didn't mention is the 22 caliber bullet doesn't have as much area around it's circumference as a larger bullet to stand up to the rotational forces from the rifling. I've been thinking about the forces the rifling puts on the bullet or seen another way the forces the bullet puts on the rifling. I want you guys to ponder this: Do you think maybe Micro-Groove rifling may be better? I can't think of many rifles that have used it besides the Marlins and most all the cartridges they have chambered using that type of groove are not what I consider HV. I'm honestly thinking of having a barrel made with Micro-Groove in a 308 or 30-06 chambering and see what happens when you push cast bullets through it at HV.

[newton]

We are getting way off track and splitting hairs over physics. The laws of physics are set and you can't change them. The PSI is what it is. Many can't grasp that if you have 50,000 PSI in the chamber that it's not 50,000 PSI on the bullet base because rarely are we shooting a bullet that has a base area of exactly one square inch.

Newton I'll never buy the idea that one of the things lube does is seals. It just isn't strong enough. There are no set rules that you have to use all the lube up just when the bullets exits the muzzle. If you're worried about gas cutting even when there is a gas check on the bullet, then put polythene discs under the bullet if the neck length permits you or if it doesn't use shot shell buffer. That stuff seals.

Geargnasher good to see you back.

Let's get back on track on what to do to get accuracy at HV with what ever rifle you're using and the standard rifling twists or faster. Newton asked about the 22 caliber bullets and I pointed out the pressure. Another thing I didn't mention is the 22 caliber bullet doesn't have as much area around it's circumference as a larger bullet to stand up to the rotational forces from the rifling. I've been thinking about the forces the rifling puts on the bullet or seen another way the forces the bullet puts on the rifling. I want you guys to ponder this: Do you think maybe Micro-Groove rifling may be better? I can't think of many rifles that have used it besides the Marlins and most all the cartridges they have chambered using that type of groove are not what I consider HV. I'm honestly thinking of having a barrel made with Micro-Groove in a 308 or 30-06 chambering and see what happens when you push cast bullets through it at HV.

If you don't buy that, then I am not sure what to think. Lube, liquid of one thing or another, is the absolute best sealant there is. Ever heard of hydraulics? The main way man has come up with to lift heavy objects, other than mechanical block and tackle, is to use "lube". The way it can resist the pressures(PSI) involved is by sealing/being unable to compress. It does not work alone of course, but it is the key to heavy pressures. But.....you have to have a "cap" on the other end that can resist the same amount of pressure being put on the opposite end.

This is the main thing that your not seeing to my point. The fact that it does not do the job well enough, because of all other things involved - mainly no "cap" on the other end of the boolit to help the lube seal - is the main reason why I believe gas cutting is our biggest enemy. Why do paper patched boolits work so well? Is it because the people who paper patch do excessive, above and beyond, case prep, loading techniques, etc? No, its because it resists gas cutting.

The problem with poly disks is that they will be deformed, and unless you can manage a way for them to come off at the barrel, they will do just as much damage to the boolit flight stability as loose lube and gas cuts in the lead do. Also, you have to have a way to ensure they seal completely. Honestly, this is where I will start with my theory, but it won't be a simple disk. I do not think they will work like that.

The problem with buffers, and reaching HV, is pressures. They would work, but chamber pressures cannot handle it. Buffers and fillers have already been proven to work with reduced loads to achieve accuracy without the use of lube at all. Buffers and fillers work in the ENTIRE case. Come up with something that works on the boolit alone and you'll have a winner.

[newton]

I personally do not think that the boolit casters of old did not try every type of loading technique, load charge, boolit type, case prep, and barrel/rifling type to achieve HV. I think they did try it. But in the end figured out that if you want to shoot the lead that fast then you need to protect it some how. Lead boolits do not have any trouble with griping the rifling themselves, the issue comes when the micro voids allow the gasses to erode away in the weakest point. The weakest point is where these abrupt changes in geometry inside the barrel are.

[vzerone]

If you don't buy that, then I am not sure what to think. Lube, liquid of one thing or another, is the absolute best sealant there is. Ever heard of hydraulics? The main way man has come up with to lift heavy objects, other than mechanical block and tackle, is to use "lube". The way it can resist the pressures(PSI) involved is by sealing/being unable to compress. It does not work alone of course, but it is the key to heavy pressures. But.....you have to have a "cap" on the other end that can resist the same amount of pressure being put on the opposite end.

This is the main thing that your not seeing to my point. The fact that it does not do the job well enough, because of all other things involved - mainly no "cap" on the other end of the boolit to help the lube seal - is the main reason why I believe gas cutting is our biggest enemy. Why do paper patched boolits work so well? Is it because the people who paper patch do excessive, above and beyond, case prep, loading techniques, etc? No, its because it resists gas cutting.

The problem with poly disks is that they will be deformed, and unless you can manage a way for them to come off at the barrel, they will do just as much damage to the boolit flight stability as loose lube and gas cuts in the lead do. Also, you have to have a way to ensure they seal completely. Honestly, this is where I will start with my theory, but it won't be a simple disk. I do not think they will work like that.

The problem with buffers, and reaching HV, is pressures. They would work, but chamber pressures cannot handle it. Buffers and fillers have already been proven to work with reduced loads to achieve accuracy without the use of lube at all. Buffers and fillers work in the ENTIRE case. Come up with something that works on the boolit alone and you'll have a winner.

Zinc base washer. Your hydraulic statement doesn't make sense. If the seals leak they are useless. Now don't you dare say the same with cast bullets LOL. I'm not going to discuss plastic wad or buffer with you because it's easy to see you don't know a lot about them and that's not an insult. There are different kind of shot shell buffers. One of them is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay different then all the others and if used incorrectly can get you into a heap of trouble.

I believe the bullet gripping the rifling is the problem. Another way of saying is something changes to the surface of the bullet. Far as the gripping I mentioned in that previous sentence I mean you don't see signs of it stripping on well intact recovered bullets. Something else is going on and that's exactly what copper bearing bearing and paper patching prevent from happening. But what? This is why I think Micro Groove rifling might be better at HV because it has different grip on the bullet all around it's circumference whereas 4 groove or 6 groove rifling doesn't.

You can bet your bankroll the old timers tried everything. Not a lot is new under the sun in the firearms world.

Oh about your statement of them shooting lead and figuring out they needed to protect it to go faster, don't forget the step inbetween lead and jacketed bullets where they tried harder alloys then just the pure lead they were using.

[Yodogsandman]

Wonder when COWW's started to become prevalent for casting. It would be well after the time that jacketed began to be used. Before that, base hardening materials must have been used, tough to find and acquire for the masses.

[vzerone]

Wonder when COWW's started to become prevalent for casting. It would be well after the time that jacketed began to be used. Before that, base hardening materials must have been used, tough to find and acquire for the masses.

Just a quick search on Google shows COW came along around 1897.

[newton]

Well I won't argue my thinking, just put it out there. Since the thread is about stock rifles, special micro groove barrels don't fit the profile, but would be interesting to see regardless.

The whole point I make is that the boolit seals do leak. Ever wonder why different molds have different amount of grooves? To provide the "cap". Each one acts as a cap on the lube inside. Kind of like a piston. problem with it all is each ring can only handle so much pressure before it gives way. Lube, unable to compress, just moves to wherever there is room. In theory one hopes it helps buffer the lead from the gasses, but it can only up to a point.

Hardening elements we add help with increasing the rings(bands) strength. It is for sure, and well proven way, to drive a boolit faster. But it reaches its limits just like other things and has its downsides also.

Just to test a theory, someone could tape on a used paper towel tube to the end of the barrel. Get three or four. Mark which side is up/down and tape them on the same way each shot. Swap out after each shot. Then compare the lube splatter points. I bet you'll see they don't all match. And that lube coming off at different points effects the spin/trajectory of the boolit. You can only get a glimpse of what happens in the first foot of travel, but you'll get the idea.

To see the effects of gas cutting we have to trap the boolits. I sure wish I could find the absolute best way to do that. If you do that, you can start comparing the gas cutting on the different shots. You could also examine the rifling at that point.

Maybe that's what I'll start working on myself. There has got to be a better way than we have done before.

[runfiverun]

snow is the best way to trap boolits there is.
next to that oiled sawdust or crumb rubber.
I'd prefer the sawdust myself, but got plenty of snow, only problem is getting the stopped boolits back before someone else does.

newton think about the closer to center of mass comment a little longer, it will start to make sense when you think about the progression down the barrel and when it's free on it's way to the target.

Vince:
microgroove or LEE [5R] type rifling is easily found in other than marlin rifles.
the 7.7 jap barrels use the LEE type rifling which they copied from the LEE-Metford rifles.[douglas also make 5-R barrels I have one on my 7X57 ICL]
rounded rifling causes less damage to the bullets/boolits exterior which is great when using jacketed since they stay together better on game.
my icl is an accurate rifle with jacketed but pretty limited in boolit use.
I mostly use them to snipe grouse when up hunting and worked a load to coincide pretty closely with my cross hairs [set for my jacketed load] at 25yds for obvious reasons.

[newton]

I guess when I look at this thread I think of how the average caster can get HV with stock rifle and standard loading tools/technique.

I I hear you 5R5. I do indeed believe the center of mass has a lot, or is pivotal(pun) to the whole idea. Hence when anything imbalances outside that center you get unstable flight. The bigger the boolit, the more area to become unstable. My thoughts are on how to stop/cure that issue. The bigger the boolit, the more lube, the more chance for that lube to cause irratic flight. Same for the gas cutting/displacement of the lead on the sides of the boolit.

Perfect casting, perfect loading, and perfect barrel harmonics are only good for a perfect boolit ride on the bore. I think the whole issue is what the gases do to the boolit. Thereby causing that center mass to not be the true center of rotation. Each firing will effect the boolit in different ways.

If it was a matter of all the rest it could be done very easy and very repeatable, but we don't see that. It may sound dumb or illogical, but we need to think about things that have not been thought of before. I think it would be easy if we knew without a single doubt what exactly is happening, but so far all I know and have heard is just some good theories.

[newton]

How much snow does it take? We have not had much at all this year, but if we get a bunch I'll pile it up and try.

[newton]

Maybe a liquid with a certain viscosity is the key.

[newton]

Anyone ever tried big blocks of styrofoam?

[runfiverun]

let's talk about that gas thing and powder timing, it's one of my favorite subjects.

[geargnasher]

First let me try to save Newton some trouble, then we can get on. You wanna discarding upside-down sabot? Easy. Put a gas check upside-down behind the normal one and load them so that they can't fall down inside the case. Want a stable plastic wad? Ask about the buffer Vince mentioned, or better yet read the 300 yard Swede milk jug thread and talk to Vince about it afterwards via PM.

Lube CAN and I think usually does make a hydro-dynamic seal between bullet and bore. R5R found this thing he calls "lube smear" and "relax point" that occurs when pressure drops off and the bullet relaxes, causing a lube dump in the bore. "Running out of lube" is a myth when the fact is the lube thins too much for the surface speed and both the seal is lost so gas-cutting causes some lead deposits in the muzzle end of the bore, plus the hydro-dynamic lube film is lost and there's some abrasion going on. He and I both played with lubes so much that we know how much of what at what pressure, velocity point in the bore, pressure point in the bore, etc. each ingredient of a lube performs and how to balance the waxes, metal soaps, friction modifiers, and lubricating oils NOT TO MENTION ALLOY AND POWDER to keep a consistent film strength, film thickness, and dynamic viscosity matching the acceleration rate for the whole trip through the bore. What's the conclusion? Lube matters a whole, whole bunch BUT you can't take it's importance out of the context of the system. Why do we fuss with case prep and bullet fit and alloy and ignition or burn curves so much more to get not quite as good results as paper patch? Because the consistency of bore condition, fragility of the bullet's obturation (finished off on the micro-level by LUBE), and relative weakness of the driving band/land interface at HV need so much more help and attention to detail to get to the same level as paper jackets with grease-groove bullets.

So that brings us back to the important stuff with regular grease-groove bullets, a regular old rifle that I can buy new off the rack at a sporting goods store, and common lead alloys. The whole deal is put a well-balanced bullet into the bore straight and send it up the pipe with the exact same "barrel time" each shot without wearing out the land engraves.

The challenges are getting a soft, slippery lead slug to present the exact same working load to the powder each shot for the whole length of the barrel (any tiny variance in anything will affect the slip-stop of the bullet and thus change barrel time and harmonics), and to get that same soft, slippery lead slug hammered through a small, twisty hole without it becoming all wongo about the bore axis and flying off into never-never land at muzzle exit when the rotational velocity starts getting high.

Lemme break it down some more and repeat myself: Start the bullet straight, provide a consistent, safe runway for it, and push it the same way every time and you'll have a rifle that will amaze you.

NOW, on to how to do all that without a jacket. You can start the discussion from the aspect of how a good HV load functions, or from the aspect of how to craft the ammunition that delivers excellent HV accuracy. They of course are the same thing, but one is the why and the other is the how. You guys figure out how you want to go about it and I'll interject my own meandering experiences on the subject from time to time, provided the noise level in the peanut gallery remains as low as it has recently become.

Gear

[vzerone]

Newton I don't think those empty paper towel tubes would stay on the muzzle in one piece, but I think you knew that huh? LOL I did like your idea of styrofoam though. I remember Lowes sells 1 inch thick sheets of them and I'm wondering how many layers I'd have to stack to shoot them at distance. I'll have to see how much they cost now. Wow! I tell you, in my younger days I was trail bike riding with my friend up in the Colorado mountains and we rode up to this old long deserted mine. Can't remember if it was gold or silver, but one of the buildings had these styrofoam sheets inside that were like 10 inches thick and 5x8 feet. Haven't thought about those since back then till you just mentioned shooting into styrofoam. No I'm not driving out there with a flatbed to pick them up, but I sure wish I had them here now. I'm going to give your idea good though and maybe experiment. Thanks for the idea.

[vzerone]

Geargnasher what do you think about my idea of a Micro Groove barrel in 308 or 30-06 and really pushing HV? Do you think it would be better or worse then regular rifling? Have you ever pushed light 30 caliber bullets through your Micro Groove Marlin 30-30's?

[geargnasher]

Micro-Groove the way Marlin did it is the best rifling for cast bullets ever. More than twice the torque-bearing surface in a 12-groove at 3 thousandths vs. 4-groove at 4 thousandths depth. Plus the broached rifling is more consistent than cut rifling. MG rifling got a bad rap with casters because Lyman folks don't understand what makes a cast bullet shoot straight and didn't make bullets that fit the different requirements it has. Michael Reamy understands, though. I shoot plain-base light bullets in mine but not fast. Throat starts to lead if they don't reach out and obturate the bore within a few thousandths of movement, so they have to be at least 120 grains in one of my guns and the other with the newish throat can take 100-grainers.

Wanna make a MG Marlin really shoot? Load the fattest bullet that will chamber and use one that has very little un-supported nose, make your brass a close fit in the chamber, get your neck tension uniform, and then tweak your lube. Lube performance is absolutely vital to accuracy in a MG levergun.

Gear

[Cowboy_Dan]

let's talk about that gas thing and powder timing, it's one of my favorite subjects.

Powder timing is something I need to learn more about before I start pushing the envelope with my Mosin this shooting season. And by start, I mean basically from zero.

The pound cast I did shows that it has a very long lead. It starts abruptly at the end of the neck and extends more than a half inch to beyond the end of the slug. At that point, the lands have only risen to .3105 and they measure .3023 in the barrel. Sometimes I wonder if this area is merely errosion from wartime use and the lands rise quickly somewhere beyond the end of the slug. However, the lead groove mics at .3133 for its whole length and the barrel slug is .3130.

I think in the case of my rifle, I need a boolit with a long bearing surface to fill as much of the lead as I can and to give it a gentle push with a slow for velocity level powder as it slowly becomes fully engraved. I plan to begin by using my NOE 314466 to reach the 1800-2000 level and step it up until I can't find any way to keep accuracy. At that point I am left with the Lee 312-185 or a Herter's clone of the 314299. Not sure which one is a better choice.

Sorry for rambling the whole post, I really want to learn more about powder timing and if my asumptions above are reasonable.

[newton]

Ok, I'm in for powder timing. I'm not in a place to do work of my own at this time so there is not much else I can contribute, but I'll sit and soak. :)

I had a chance, and still might, to get one of those big blocks you speak of. I live out by a lake and I suppose a lot of it was used for boat docks.

Just a curiousity question here, I guess I would have to go back and reread the prior threads, but has anyone achieved this HV completely and with repeatable results? As in, right now go to loading bench and load some HV ammo, then step out and shoot a group with complete confidence of where and how big the group will be?

what would be cool is a sticky of such data. Only HV load and range results. All other comments(like this one) would not be allowed.

[Bjornb]

Ok, I'm in for powder timing. I'm not in a place to do work of my own at this time so there is not much else I can contribute, but I'll sit and soak. :)

I had a chance, and still might, to get one of those big blocks you speak of. I live out by a lake and I suppose a lot of it was used for boat docks.

Just a curiousity question here, I guess I would have to go back and reread the prior threads, but has anyone achieved this HV completely and with repeatable results? As in, right now go to loading bench and load some HV ammo, then step out and shoot a group with complete confidence of where and how big the group will be?

what would be cool is a sticky of such data. Only HV load and range results. All other comments(like this one) would not be allowed.

Yes sir, such threads exist. Example: http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?252332-Testing-the-30XCB/page41

Many pages of specific loads, shot in several different rifles, complete with target and chrono data.

[runfiverun]

I posted my load for the 308 earlier in the thread.
Bjorn took and used it and was shooting groups in the 2" area with boolits on the opposite end of the spectrum in fitment and alloy than I specified..
which leaves him a lot of room for improvement in both velocity and accuracy but would be an encouraging first go at this for anybody else to follow.
I'm waiting on a report from someone else using the same load and a boolit design closer to mine, in another make of 308 rifle.

[vzerone]

Micro-Groove the way Marlin did it is the best rifling for cast bullets ever. More than twice the torque-bearing surface in a 12-groove at 3 thousandths vs. 4-groove at 4 thousandths depth. Plus the broached rifling is more consistent than cut rifling. MG rifling got a bad rap with casters because Lyman folks don't understand what makes a cast bullet shoot straight and didn't make bullets that fit the different requirements it has. Michael Reamy understands, though. I shoot plain-base light bullets in mine but not fast. Throat starts to lead if they don't reach out and obturate the bore within a few thousandths of movement, so they have to be at least 120 grains in one of my guns and the other with the newish throat can take 100-grainers.

Wanna make a MG Marlin really shoot? Load the fattest bullet that will chamber and use one that has very little un-supported nose, make your brass a close fit in the chamber, get your neck tension uniform, and then tweak your lube. Lube performance is absolutely vital to accuracy in a MG levergun.

Gear

Geargnasher,

So you seem to be in agreement with my Micro Groove idea. I was talking to few people about cannons. Let's take the Naval cannons for example. I've looked at a lot of cannon barrel and notice, in relation to the bore size, that rifling in them is basically Micro-Groove. I asked those I was talking to why. None came up with any ideas. I would like to know why they use such small groove in such huge bores.

[vzerone]

Yes sir, such threads exist. Example: http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?252332-Testing-the-30XCB/page41

Many pages of specific loads, shot in several different rifles, complete with target and chrono data.

Bjorn look at the attached PDF of the CBA match records. I would categorize the XCB rifles in the heavy or unrestricted class. Although you fellows are doing okay you're no ways near being competitive with those CBA members. There is much work yet to be done.

http://www.castbulletassoc.org/nationalrecord/natrecord.pdf

[popper]

So what are the calibers and fps for those records?