velocity

[runfiverun]

o.k.

so what do you guys call velocity? high velocity in rifles?
1800 fps?
2000 fps? 2200fps?

or do you just look for accuracy with what you got and call it good?

[TRM]

High velocity woud be 2200 fps plus, But accuracy is the goal at what ever speed.

[Bass Ackward]

o.k.

so what do you guys call velocity? high velocity in rifles?
1800 fps?
2000 fps? 2200fps?

or do you just look for accuracy with what you got and call it good?


R5R,

Your question is hard to answer because it also involves an accuracy judgement. It is also is personally difficult to answer because it asks me to define the level where problems are encountered.

My rifles are sporting outfits used afield. If my rifle shoots 1 1/2" with jacketed at a certain velocity level, and I can reproduce that velocity and accuracy with a cast boolit that can perform to the same standard, then I have what I consider to be an accurate load. And results must be comparrable. In other words, the load is judged on it's effectiveness, not on the material of the slug.

I have had good to excellent results .... replacing jacketed slug usage up to 3000 fps for certain purposes and I have failed with others. So the real answer is that high velocity is caliber specific and purpose defined and limited by my knowledge and equipment. Not the slug material.

Accuracy is where I find / make it and the effort required establishes the practicality of that load. The velocity level is what it is depending on whether I succedded or failed.

[felix]

I use BA's reasoning, with the added emphasis on the target size and distance. Target must be HIT 80 PERCENT of time. Depending on caliber/bore, the targets range from the brass portion of a shotgun shell at 120 yards to normal sized beer cans up to 200. Minimum velocity would always be quesstimated 1800 fps. ... felix

[runfiverun]

the accuracy part is kindof an answer E. none of the above.. i just look for accuracy and let the
velocity be what it is..

[Larry Gibson]

runfiverun

As we see "high velocity" can mean different velocity levels to different shooters. The cartridge's velocity level is what determines "high velocity" to me. My basic criteria is that HV cast bullet loads will approach the same velocities as their equivelent jacketed bullet counterpart (by weight) or equal that jacketed bullet velocity. For example; some consider 2000 fps with cast bullets as high velocity in the 6.5 Swede. I do not. The 6.5 Swede is capable of 2600+ fps with 140 gr jacketed bullets. I would consider a 140 gr cast bullet load as HV in the Swede if it was upwards of 2400+ fps. In magnum rifle cartridges with jacketed bullets over 2800 fps I would consider HV to be in the 2500+ fps range with comparable cast bullets.

With many cartridges like handgun cartridges in rifles or the .30 Carbine, 30-30, .32 Special, etc. it is easy to equal jacketed bullet velocity and accuracy with cast bullets. All cartridges like those that equal their jacketed bullet counterparts I consider HV.

However, as we know in many other cartridges we can equal the velocity of jacketed bullets with cast bullets up through 3,000 fps or perhaps beyond. Getting equivelent jacketed bullet accuracy with cast bullets at such HV is another story. I consider 2300-2400 up through 2600 fps to be a practical HV range. We can get "acceptable" accuracy within that range with the right compnants and loading techniques. With some barrel twists that range of HV is attainable with most quality cast bullets. With other barrel twists it requires specially designed bullets and loading techniques.

Best accuracy with most bottle necked rifle cartridges comes in what I consider to be medium velocity range; 1600-2200 fps.

Larry Gibson

[jhalcott]

If you push any 45-70 to 2200 fps you are in the very high velocity range. If you do it with a .44 magnum you need a new chrono. I feel that accuracy is MOST important and speed least. I KNOW a slow bullet will kill a deer ,while a much faster one MIGHT miss it.

[Shuz]

I strive for accuracy within the range of 1700 to 2200 fps from various rifles using cast boolits.
I strive for accuracy with the .44 magnum within the range of 1000 to 1200 fps, also using cast boolits. I'm happy to say....Eureaka!

[jonk]

I have never mastered beating 2000fps without leading. 50/50, Felix, LLA, whatever. And most of the time I don't get past 1800. This is with gas checks and 1/1000 over bore diameter.

Those who do are better at this than I.

Fortunately, I get excellant accuracy out of a number of guns at 2000fps or slower.

[Papa smurf]

High velocity to me is that witch my accuracy goes away. Many come into things come into play, boolet weight ,size shape, seating depth,ect. Most of my accuracy comes in around 1200fps and leaves after 1700fps. Again thats with my boolet,weights,size,ect.

[RU shooter]

I guess I'm in the minority here,HV to me with cast is 1800+ for 30 cal. which is what i mainly shoot Also I dont hunt with cast only shoot paper,So accuracy is first and foremost, I dont much care what the vel. is as long as all 10 rds will hold the 10 ring at 100 or 200 yds .I just dont need anymore than 1800 fps. for either of those ranges.

[waksupi]

Caliber may have a little to do with it. In my .358 Wins, I avereage around 2180 fps. I have a .30 bore that shoots well at 2350 fps, and had a .223 that did quite well at 2650 fps.

No leading.

[runfiverun]

figured after this weeks testing with 4831 , rl-19 , imr 4350 , and imr 3031...
that i should input on my own poll...
i went with 2200 +
as this seems to be where things start to change , tried primers, e.s. went bad.
changed seating depth , groups went wild.
sped up vel's. got a lead star bbl heated quickly.
changed again and could only hold accuracy for 4 shots, then had to cool down bbl..
then 4 more.....
guess lube change is next.........................

but 2200 is what i am going to call the high vel cut-off..

[Larry Gibson]

Runfiverun

Slower powders didn't work, different primers didn't work, change of OAL didn't work....want to bet a change of lube won't work either? But lets see now; 2200 fps with 12" twist....well golly...that's 132,000 RPM! Want to guess what the problem is? I just completed the next test of the RPM test with 311291 in the 10" twist barrel and tried all the things you did and a couple more. Guess what?????

Larry Gibson

[Bass Ackward]

Just because a design is a factory design doesn't make it a good design for anything other than the strength it can hold and the resulting velocity that occurs for that slug.

My guess is that you can't get that weak bore ride design with only about 55% to 60% to shoot for squat. Did I win? I just went to the Lyman Catalog. If your 311291 looks like the picture in Lyman's current catalog, then I can bet you are pulling out your hair. :grin: Did I ever tell you that I hate bore ride designs? Increasing hardness has only a minor improving effect when there isn't enough bearing area (bullet design) to hold it. Lube will only help if the bullet is strong enough to hold it.

The fact of the shooting world is that we need pressure to create velocity and we need RPMs to stabilize. But you still must learn what it takes and then do the steps it takes to maximise everything or you will fall victim to these monsters at a lower levels than someone else. Accurate shooting is a total sum game where everything has an effect. So the RPM chart / theory / zone is still really a gauge of the reloader's knowledge, his desire or ability to load good ammo, and the quality of his launching equipment. But accurate HV can still be done. And the only zone I need is called a target. Cast can be cruel. You either are getting it done, or you ain't.

[runfiverun]

bass,
that is why i pointed out the cut off [for me any way] where i did, i am not using the lyman.
but i am using the rcbs. design [ya big diff]
and this is where you gotta find that one mold to fit just your rifle,the one lube that works.
etc...
i did find it intresting that i am at that velocity where everyboby says go to lbt blue and it will
cut your groups in half.
well i guess we will see......cause i know backing down 2 gr powder will do it too..

[45 2.1]

Just because a design is a factory design doesn't make it a good design for anything other than the strength it can hold and the resulting velocity that occurs for that slug.

My guess is that you can't get that weak bore ride design with only about 55% to 60% to shoot for squat. Did I win? I just went to the Lyman Catalog. If your 311291 looks like the picture in Lyman's current catalog, then I can bet you are pulling out your hair. :grin: Did I ever tell you that I hate bore ride designs? Increasing hardness has only a minor improving effect when there isn't enough bearing area (bullet design) to hold it. Lube will only help if the bullet is strong enough to hold it.

The fact of the shooting world is that we need pressure to create velocity and we need RPMs to stabilize. But you still must learn what it takes and then do the steps it takes to maximise everything or you will fall victim to these monsters at a lower levels than someone else. Accurate shooting is a total sum game where everything has an effect. So the RPM chart / theory / zone is still really a gauge of the reloader's knowledge, his desire or ability to load good ammo, and the quality of his launching equipment. But accurate HV can still be done. And the only zone I need is called a target. Cast can be cruel. You either are getting it done, or you ain't.

All very well and good, as far as presented. To go further, you will need to change your thinking and adapt. All the material to do this has been presented on this site several times, but few seem to be paying attention...........................

[Larry Gibson]

"So the RPM chart / theory / zone is still really a gauge of the reloader's knowledge"

This has some merit if the "knowledge is that a regular cast bullet like 311291 is subject to the RPM threshold regardles of the "sum game where everything has an effect". I notice you had to go to Lyman's catalog to see what 311291 looks like, obviously you don't have the mould and/or haven't worked with this cast bullet in a long time. Perhaps before you make such statements about others "knowledge" you should get some first hand "knowledge" yourself. I'll suggest again you get a 311291 mould and show us how you can make it shoot accurately at 2400-2500 fps out of your wife's 10" twist '06.

To tell a shooter or insinuate to a shooter that his "knowledge" is lacking because he is trying to do something you haven't done is not very productive. In fact it is rather insultive to many of us. Bass, I'll tell you not not to waste your time and pull your own hair out with 311291. All the "knowledge" and "total sum game" are not going to make a regular designed cast bullet like 311291 shoot very accurately above the RPM threshold. Runfiverun is discovering it, everyone else has discovered it and my continuing tests are continuing to prove it. You are not going to get any better accuracy than we do with that bullet, or a like bullet, at 2400-2500 fps.

You tell/insinuate they can buy a custom mould of custom design and do well above the RPM threshold. However if that is how you "change your thinking and adapt then of what good is that answer to someone who wants to know why his 311291 won't shoot accuratel at 2400-2500 fps out of his '06. Buying a new mould is not the answer to his question. The answer is that 311291 will not shoot well above a certain level because of RPM. All of the anal things like lube change, case change, primer change, neck tension change, seating depth change, etc. ad nauseum are not going to change that fact, i.e. 311291 is not going to shoot accurately at 2400-2500 fps and RPM is the reason why. The reason is RPM affects the bullet in flight and the others do not. The only way to get 311291 to shoot more accurately at 2400-2500 fps (or above the RPM threshold) is to lower the RPM. This is done with a new barrel of slower twist. Telling the shooter to get a new barrel for his '06 probably isn't the right answer either.

The point is telling the new shooter to do all sorts of anal things that won't make 311291 shoot more accurately at 2400-2500 fps (or us older ones who happen to be quite knowledgeable also) doesn't help that new shooter at all. In fact it only frustrates him and makes him think he is stupid. Further belittling him with such comments as 45 2.1 makes is also counter productive. Especially when those who make those comments haven't accomplished what they say can be done.

Those who continue giving such answers ignore the reality of the question and the reality of fact. 45 2.1 continuously tells us "All the material to do this has been presented on this site several times". Well talk is cheap and he has been asked several times to show us how to make 311291 shoot accurately at 2400-2500 fps out of a 10" twist. The fact is he hasn't shown us and he won't show us because 311291 will not shoot accurately at 2400-2500 fps regardless of "all the material that has been presented before" or what he does to it.

But then I'm not one of the self appointed resident experts here. I've only been shooting 311291 and other such bullets through a numerous calibers for many years. I haven't been able to get any of them to shoot accurately beyond the RPM threshold regardless of the anal things I've done. I have gotten custom bullets and those of Lovern design to shoot accurately above the RPM threshold though. I guess my failure with regular cast bullets is why I'm no expert. Fact is 99.99999999999999% of the cast bullet shooters haven't gotten regular cast bullets to shoot accurately above the RPM threshold either. Want to guess who the 0.00000000000001% of cast bullet shooters who say it can be done are? If better accuracy (or equal accuracy) can be done with 311291 or any other regular cast bullet of any caliber above the RPM threshold than in or below it then please, 45 2.1 or Bass, do it, show us and put us out of our misery. Heck, I'd settle for consistant 2" groups at 100 yards with 311291 at 2400-2500 fps out of a 10" twist barrel.

Larry Gibson

[45 2.1]

I'll suggest again you get a 311291 mould and show us how you can make it shoot accurately at 2400-2500 fps out of your wife's 10" twist '06. Larry, really, thats your pursuit. If you really want to do that, change your alloy to one that is suitable. The boolit itself is lube capacity deficient, it requires a much better lube than the one your trying to make do. But you have said you'll be testing for that, so go do it and find out for yourself. Enough of your confrontations on threads about your idea.

To tell a shooter or insinuate to a shooter that his "knowledge" is lacking because he is trying to do something you haven't is very productive. In fact it is rather insultive to many of us. Bass, I'll tell you not not to waste your time and pull your own hair out with 311291. All the "knowledge" and "total sum game" are not going to make a regular designed cast bullet like 311291 shoot very accurately above the RPM threshold. Runfiverun is discovering it, everyone else has discovered it and my continuing tests are continuing to prove it. When you finally find out how, and there are several ways already posted, you'll wonder why you hadn't tried it already. Really, your choice of how to do something is your own. If your choice doesn't work, try another until you succede.

You can buy a custom mould of custom design and do well above the RPM threshold. However if that is how you "change your thinking and adapt then of what good is that answer to someone who wants to know why his 311291 won't shoot accuratel at 2400-2500 fps out of his '06. Buying a new mould is not the answer to his question. The answer is that 311291 will not shoot well above a certain level because of RPM. All of the anal things like lube change, case change, primer change, neck tension change, seating depth cahnage, etc. ad nauseum are not going to change that. The reason is RPM affects the bullet in flight and the others do not. The only way to get 311291 to shoot more accurately at 2400-2500 fps (or above the RPM threshold) is to lower the RPM. This is done with a new barrel of slower twist. Telling the shooter to get a new barrel for his '06 probably isn't the right answer either. Well, the last sentence is correct at least.

The point is telling the new shooter to do all sorts of anal things that won't make 311291 shoot more accurately at 2400-2500 fps (or us older ones who happen to be quite knowledgeable also) doesn't help that new shooter at all. In fact it only frustrates him and makes him think he is stupid. Further belittling him with such comments as 45 2.1 makes is also counter productive. Especially when those who make those comments haven't accomplished what they say can be done. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean others haven't. Sour grapes don't do you any service Larry.

Those who continue giving such answers ignore the reality of the question and the reality of fact. 45 2.1 continuously tells us "All the material to do this has been presented on this site several times". Well talk is cheap and he has been asked several times to show us how to make 311291 shoot accurately at 2400-2500 fps out of a 10" twist. The fact is he hasn't shown us and he won't show us because 311291 will not shoot accurately at 2400-2500 fps regardless of "all the material that has been presented before" or what he does to it. I don't do more than this because is is out there in print (as are many other things of benefit and detriment) and I don't really want to put up with your verbage on the subject. You can find out for yourself by reading if you want to or not. I believe you were the one complaining about nobody reading your prose.

But then I'm not one of the self appointed resident experts here. I've only been shooting 311291 and other such bullets through a numerous calibers for many years. I haven't been able to get any of them to shoot accurately beyond the RPM threshold regardless of the anal things I've done. Fact is 99.99999999999999% of the cast bullet shooters haven't either. Want to guess who the 0.00000000000001% of cast bullet shooters who say it can be done are? If better accuracy (or equal accuracy) can be done with 311291 or any other regular cast bullet of any caliber above the RPM threshold than in or below it then please, 45 2.1 or Bass, do it, show us and put us out of our misery. You have been shown and told, you called it lies and BS. What exactly do you expect from someone you directly insult? Heck, I'd settle for consistant 2" groups at 100 yards with 311291 at 2400-2500 fps out of a 10" twist barrel. Thats what you and others already do. If you want better, you will have to be less insulting and ask for help, provided you can get someone who can do it to help you now.

[Larry Gibson]

45 2.1

"You have been shown and told"

Kindly tell us where you've shown us how you shoot 311291 accurately at 2400-2500 fps? Show us the consistant 2" groups because that is not what we do, we do worse.

If you can't then perhaps it is"lies and BS". I've said I could be wrong, would be nice if you could show me and everyone else where I'm wrong.

Larry Gibson

[45 2.1]

45 2.1

"You have been shown and told"

Kindly tell us where you've shown us how you shoot 311291 accurately at 2400-2500 fps? Show us the consistant 2" groups because that is not what we do, we do worse.

If you can't then perhaps it is"lies and BS". I've said I could be wrong, would be nice if you could show me and everyone else where I'm wrong.

Larry Gibson

BABore has posted some very nice sub inch groups in the 2300 to 2400 fps range with the 338 Mag and 375 Mag and told you the procedure, enough to get you on the right track. pdawg_shooter has shown how he got very nice groups within your prescribed velocity range with paper patched normal everyday molds. Bass has tried to help you and put up with a lot from you. You plainly don't believe any of us. Not too many of us have digital cameras and the want to post articles on the site either. Cudos to the ones that do and Special Thanks to the ones who have put up the articles on Castpics. Your insiduations aside, why don't you just leave it alone. If you want to shoot the 291 thats fine, but everyone really doesn't want to do your trial, there are a lot more interesting things to do besides listen to you. I really don't think any of us who have done this are going to help you any now, i'm certainly not.

[Bass Ackward]

You tell/insinuate they can buy a custom mould of custom design and do well above the RPM threshold. However if that is how you "change your thinking and adapt then of what good is that answer to someone who wants to know why his 311291 won't shoot accuratel at 2400-2500 fps out of his '06.Larry Gibson


Larry,

Still an unbeliever huh?

Well here is a test that you can't mess up. And this test works on the slow end or the fast end of the RPM curve.

Take 5 shells and hollow point the nose by hand. That will make those bullets different weight and really unbalance them. If it's RPMs as you think, then accuracy should really REALLY go to pot over your .... more perfectly molded bullets that aren't doing so well. I mean your group size should REALLY expand because you are truely ruining your bullets.

So you are going to shoot 10 shots total. Just 10.

Think of it, a slightly lighter bullet should even have more velocity and even more RPMs so this JUST HAS pure RPM disaster written all over it. If they shoot better, then can't be RPMS.

Then report back the group sizes of before mutilation and after.

[Larry Gibson]

45 2.1

Those groups were not with 10" twists and they did not produce them consistantly. I also get nice 2" groups at 2300 fps out of my .375 but that's not a 311291 out of a 10" twist is it?

If you've not really taken your football and gone home let me ask you this; you say " The boolit itself is lube capacity deficient, it requires a much better lube than the one your trying to make do." If that is the case then it would shoot inaccurately at 2400 fps regardless of the RPM wouldn't it.

How then do we explain why at 2400 fps from the 10" twist barrel the groups are 5" +/-, at 2400 fps in the 12" twist the groups are 3" +/- and at 2400 fps in the 14" twist the groups are 2" +/-?

The 12 and 14" twist barrels are even longer than the 10" barrel so wouldn't the 311291 be even more "lube capacity deficient" and less accurate. Yet that is not the case. The only difference is RPM. The 10" barrel at 2400 fps is 172,900 RPM, the 12" barrel at 2400 fps is 144,000 RPM (just above the RPM threshold) and the 14" barrel is 123,500 RPM (well within the RPM threshold). The only difference is RPM.

Wouldn't a reasonably intelligent person observe that and understand that RPM is the difference?

Larry Gibson

BTW; I have indeed tried different lubes, those that are recommended here including LBT Blue, and the results were exactly the same. If you don't want to listen to my "trial" (test?) you don't have to. You don't have to respond either. You also can "just leave it alone". Some just talk the talk and some of us also walk the walk.

[Larry Gibson]

Bass

I shoot HPs all the time. I also HP my own by hand (Forster tool). The RPM threshold effects HP bullets the same. I have already unbalanced bullets for you and ran that test. You fail to believe or understand the results of that test. Besides every one knows that bullet tip damage has only a little effect on accuracy. Ralf and I already discussed this, where were you?

"That will make those bullets different weight and really unbalance them"

For crying out loud Bass, we all know that different weights of bullets hit in different places. That's why we weigh them, remember? HP's bullets that are done correctly don't unbalance bullets either. You shoot HP cast bullets and know that.

I've already run one of your tests for you that you said would prove it was RPM or not. That test emphatically proved it was RPM. You then reneged. What makes anyone here think you won't renege again.

I think you should walk the walk as you talk the talk enough. Run your own test. While you're at it why don't you get a 311291, cast your own "perfectly molded bullets" and conduct the test I've asked you to do many, many times. I've run yours how about running mine?

"more perfectly molded bullets that aren't doing so well"as you say about my bullets. So cast your own 311291s and lets see you walk the walk.

Larry Gibson

[45 2.1]

Wouldn't a reasonably intelligent person observe that and understand that RPM is the difference? Not when several people using different methodologies have no problem and a lot better results. Your left in the dirt on that.

BTW; I have indeed tried different lubes, those that are recommended here including LBT Blue, and the results were exactly the same. If you don't want to listen to my "trial" (test?) you don't have to. You don't have to respond either. You also can "just leave it alone". Some just talk the talk and some of us also walk the walk. I just love it when your trying to be cute. It adds so much when you copy.

[BABore]

45 2.1

Those groups were not with 10" twists and they did not produce them consistantly. I also get nice 2" groups at 2300 fps out of my .375 but that's not a 311291 out of a 10" twist is it?

If you've not really taken your football and gone home let me ask you this; you say " The boolit itself is lube capacity deficient, it requires a much better lube than the one your trying to make do." If that is the case then it would shoot inaccurately at 2400 fps regardless of the RPM wouldn't it.

How then do we explain why at 2400 fps from the 10" twist barrel the groups are 5" +/-, at 2400 fps in the 12" twist the groups are 3" +/- and at 2400 fps in the 14" twist the groups are 2" +/-?

The 12 and 14" twist barrels are even longer than the 10" barrel so wouldn't the 311291 be even more "lube capacity deficient" and less accurate. Yet that is not the case. The only difference is RPM. The 10" barrel at 2400 fps is 172,900 RPM, the 12" barrel at 2400 fps is 144,000 RPM (just above the RPM threshold) and the 14" barrel is 123,500 RPM (well within the RPM threshold). The only difference is RPM.

Wouldn't a reasonably intelligent person observe that and understand that RPM is the difference?

Larry Gibson

BTW; I have indeed tried different lubes, those that are recommended here including LBT Blue, and the results were exactly the same. If you don't want to listen to my "trial" (test?) you don't have to. You don't have to respond either. You also can "just leave it alone". Some just talk the talk and some of us also walk the walk.


Maybe you should pay closer attention to what others post. My 375 H&H does indeed have a 1 in 12 twist, but I would be very embarrassed if the best it would do at 2,300 fps is 2". Mine will consistently do below 3/4" and usually around 1/2" at that speed. (see pic #1)

As far as my 338 WM, it does have a 1 in 10 twist as bought from Bullberry and measured my me. It does just fine at 2,200-2,400 fps with 5744 as the other three pics show. The last pic is 15 shots fired with 30 seconds between shots. It's a shade over an inch and technically (3) 5-shot groups, just alot faster.

Incidently, both guns are shooting bullets cast from custom molds that precisely match the guns internals. All other variables have been tested and tailored to operate at the HV desired. This is how I learned to do it. As I've only been casting for four years, that's still makes me a newbie compared to your 30+ years of experience. I guess I've been doing it all wrong and should still be twiddeling away another 26 years with regular bullets.

[Tiger]

Larry

My my you sure get pushed to side of road and dirt in the face. Those groups by BaBore sure proof in the pudding. He summed it up good too with you can only get so much from factory mold Larry. Then you must move beyond.

I think your statement about tried different lubes something wrong. Those targets that I posted with 6.5x47 that were much different from one another was to show the change lube makes. There should have been much difference in your test between the hard lube and 50/50 lube.

Ralf

[Tiger]

What happened Leftiye. He kaput

Ralf

[45 2.1]

He summed it up good too with you can only get so much from factory mold Larry. Then you must move beyond. Ralf

Ralf-
There isn't a thing wrong with factory molds, provided that they fit the gun. Lyman loves to change style and dimensions when they cut a new cherry or resharpen one at times as is evidenced when a lineup of older cherry cuts are shown. GLL has some nice lineups like that. The 311291s i've measured run 0.297" to 0.302" on the nose and 0.308" to 0.314" on the body. Hardly a uniform mold number to be playing with. In Larrys case, it looks like his mold doesn't fit properely and that is what is causeing most of his problems with accuracy, among other things.

[Larry Gibson]

Excuse me BABore, try a calculator and chronograph next time. The 375 with 12" twist at 2300 is 138,000 RPM - still with in the RPM threshold. So just what exactly is your point here? You come up with something that is as I say it can be and say; "there, ah ha....you're wrong". I'm not wrong and it's obvious who's face has the dirt on it.

And BTW I'm talking 10 shot groups of 2" with my M70 .375 with a 2.5X scope, not the 3 shot groups with your .375 (paaaaleeeeaaassseee don't tell us that was with iron sights!). That Voodoo lube must be some magic potion; with 36 gr of 5744 and a 10 gr lighter bullet I only get 1860 fps in My M70 .375 with 24" barrel. With 2 more gr of powder and 10 more gr of bullet you pick up 440 fps...WOW, that's real magic! Are you sure that's not closer to 1900-2000 fps?

Regards the .338; if you are pushing 2400 fps with it using 5744 then you are pushing 60,000 psi. That would indeed be impressive. However, you don't list the load nor the bullet or even do you say what the actual chronographed velocity is. You are using a chronograph aren't you? Or are you computing velocity the same way as with the .375? Those are good groups by the way for 3 shots and even the 15 shot one is pretty darn good. I'll bet they are inside the RPM threshold too.

No, there is no dirt in my face nor am I left in the dirt. You three (four now that leftiye is on board) self styled experts need to get your facts straight before posting. At least you should run a comparable test, post load data and chronographed velocities before trying to tell me I'm wrong. You should make sure you're right first. I've many a 3 shot group at actual high velocity that are that good. I've a whole lot more that were that good but not near at the velocity I thought they were. We are talking consistant accuracy here folks at 2400-2500 fps at 172,900 - 180,000 RPM or at least consistantly above the RPM threshold which is +140,000 RPM. Also go back and read what I've written. I've stated numerous times the RPM threshold can be pushed with a regular cast bullet. Not by much though but that does mean slightly above the top end of the RPM threshold which is 140,000 RPM.

BABore, kindly show us your stuff that is actually above the RPM threshold.

Larry Gibson

[leftiye]

Tiger,
Ya! My computer Kaput for last two weeks. I do want to warn all of you that you're wasting your time though. Those who won't learn, won't learn.

[runfiverun]

and all this is helping me how??????
nice to see you back leftiye..

[Larry Gibson]

leftiye

Always good to hear from you!

"Those who won't learn, won't learn"

Smartest thing you've said yet.

Larry Gibson

[Bass Ackward]

Well, if the standard is to answer a question for a guy with a 30-06 that asks the question:

Why won't the 311291 shoot in my gun at higher velocities?

We simply have a difference of opinion of how to answer it.

1. We can say it's RPMs.

2. Or we can say bullet fit isn't maximised and the slug design isn't strong enough to hold or endure what you are subjecting it to as a result. If you are already at the top hardness for lead, you have reached your peak level in dimensions and chances for fit and you need to change designs or live with your limits.

From those two answers #1 is very abrupt and only partially true as hollow pointing will show. RPM's basically says, your $hit outta luck bubba. It is a negative answer in that it implies there is no hope.

Statement 2 may not be enough information for him not to make more mistakes in mold choices, but it does give him an idea of what to ask or do as a next step if he wants to continue. It is the reason the hardness to pressure chart was developed. The poorer bullet fit is, the more important this becomes. But when bullet fit is correct, often you can do more with softer lead at times. I used to advocate softer mixes and the failure of the hardness chart until I realized that if not properly understood, then harder bullets will be easier for most to obtain accuracy with.

As cast shooters, we "need" to speculate why something doesn't work exactly. We need to to be able to alter conditions and try again and without speculation we don't know how to solve the dilemma. Problem is that there is always exceptions to anything. But, developing failure (RPM)indexes, play to human emotion as misery loves company, they do nothing to advance the sport.

Bullet design, and that also includes bullet fit (more important for rifles) is the most basic secret of shooting cast well at any velocity, at any RPM level. Anymore, I often take for this for granted as some of the fun is trying to make everything work. Now I believe that there are better throat shapes and dimensions for different cartridge applications that also alter how difficult or critical bullet fit really is, but in real life most people have to live with what they have already. As a result of living with what we have, bullet fit is the least understood and the least discussed subject on the board and probably the main contributor to poor accuracy at all RPM levels as accuracy begins there. Then as Larry likes to point out, going faster just causes more issues and you can call it what you want.

[BABore]

Regards the .338; if you are pushing 2400 fps with it using 5744 then you are pushing 60,000 psi. That would indeed be impressive. However, you don't list the load nor the bullet or even do you say what the actual chronographed velocity is. You are using a chronograph aren't you? Or are you computing velocity the same way as with the .375? Those are good groups by the way for 3 shots and even the 15 shot one is pretty darn good. I'll bet they are inside the RPM threshold too.

Larry Gibson


I kindly refer you to an inquiry I made to Accurate Arms;

Bruce,

We suggest between 35 and 45grains.

Regards

Johan Loubser
Ballistician
Western/Accurate Powders
Tel: 1800 497 1007 or (406) 234 04 22

Part of Western Powders -- Miles City Montana

For all Sales, Marketing, Pricing Distribution and related issues, please call toll free 800-497-1007.

To ensure a continuous record per subject/issue, please use the "REPLY" function.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Allways begin loading from the minimum "START charge and carefully develop loads by increasing in small increments of 2% towards the Maximum load.

Western Powders Inc. disclaims all possible liability for damages including, actual, incidental and consequential, resulting from usage of the information or advice contained in this message.

Use the data and advice at your own risk, and with extreme caution.

We also request that you visit our website at www.accuratepowder.com for more comprehensive information.

DISCLAIMER:

This communication is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient,

(i) please do not read or disclose to others, (ii) please notify the sender by reply mail, and (iii) please

delete this communication from your system. Failure to follow this process may be unlawful. Thank you for your cooperation.


-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@filemonster.isdn.net [mailto:nobody@filemonster.isdn.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 10:26 AM
To: johan@ramshot.com
Subject: Ask A Tech



Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by

() on Wednesday, February 01, 2006 at 11:26:23

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Caliber: 338 Winchester Mag

Propellant: XMR5744

Grain_1: 225 gr

Bullet_type1: Lead FNGC

Make: Thompson Center

Model: Encore

Barrel_Length: 26

select7: Hunting Target Plinking

Question: Could you suggest a min/max for my cast lead 225 gr FNGC bullet using XMP5744. Also would any of your other propellents be suitable if the desired velocity was in the 2,000 to 2,500 fps range?

Submit: Submit

Even at 45 grains, the load is nowhere near 60,000 psi. I've found similar accuracy points at 38, 40, 43, and 45 grains. The boolit is a 225 gr GC. Beyond that I'm afraid you wouldn't understand as it's not a "Regular" boolit.

[leftiye]

I've had two weeks off to forget all that I could about this subject. What remains is that the issue should have been dead when Bass (and a host of others since) wrote that the whole issue of an RPM (then) barrier was disproven by the continuing and multiple examples of people shooting accurately above the prescribed limits.

I concur with him that there is nothing one can do about rpms. While it may have some effect, in my mind it only constitutes a kind of a statistical datum as to the velocity where many fail in achieving accuracy.

As to Run5run's question, I feel that anything over 2000 fps qualifies as fast. I have loads and rifles that don't shoot well even at that speed. Also that most of the higher velocities than this with accuracy are indicative of superior rifles, boolit designs, and loading techniques. This excepting paper patched loads maybe.

[357maximum]

The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.


It is a futile endeavor, like mud-wrestling with a pig — it is a waste of time because you cannot win and the pig actually enjoys it.

Everyone must choose their own limits of what can and cannot be done, personally I would rather go with results over theory anyday, and throw limits away totally until someone or something proves to me that I cannot fly.

[Ricochet]

I know I can fly. For a little bit. I'm working on the landings, though.

[felix]

Yeah, Proverbs 18 says it all, and, very directly verse 2. ... felix

[357maximum]

Yeah, Proverbs 18 says it all, and, very directly verse 2. ... felix

Felix..I do not believe truer words have ever been spoken on this forum...good on you.:drinks:

[Larry Gibson]

BABore

Your only guessing at velocity then and pressure also. Try a chronograph. And I might add what about your .375 still being in the RPM threshold and shooting well? Isn't that just as I've said it should be able to do ("best accuracy will be in or below the RPM threshold")? Or are we just going to ignore the facts of this issue again. This is the same as 45 2.1 ignores the fact that merely by lowering RPM into the RPM threshold we do get very good accuracy with 311291 at 2400 fps.

Larry Gibson

[45 2.1]

BABore

Your only guessing at velocity then and pressure also. Try a chronograph. And I might add what about your .375 still being in the RPM threshold and shooting well? Isn't that just as I've said it should be able to do ("best accuracy will be in or below the RPM threshold")? Or are we just going to ignore the facts of this issue again. This is the same as 45 2.1 ignores the fact that merely by lowering RPM into the RPM threshold we do get very good accuracy with 311291 at 2400 fps.

Larry Gibson

Your done Larry, at least have the decency to admit it. Your crowing about 2 MOA groups doesn't help you at all. BABore showed his groups, lets see yours beat his................

[Larry Gibson]

Bass

You to are ignoring the facts also. As I've demonstrated (the continuing RPM test further demonstrates it) #2 is not correct because merely by lowering RPM into the RPM threshold we do get very good accuracy with 311291 at 2400 fps. The 311291 or any other regular designed cast bullet has not "reached your peak level in dimensions and chances for fit". Those bullets just have reached there optimum chance for accuracy because of RPM. Thus you are correct when you say, "RPM's basically says, your $hit outta luck bubba" which is the case with a 10" twist if the shooter wants high velocity.

"As cast shooters, we "need" to speculate why something doesn't work exactly. We need to to be able to alter conditions and try again and without speculation we don't know how to solve the dilemma. Problem is that there is always exceptions to anything. But, developing failure (RPM)indexes, play to human emotion as misery loves company, they do nothing to advance the sport."

Speculation needs to lead us in the right direction so that we may "advance the sport". Understanding the real reason why something can't be done using the bullet and rifle we have does not lead to "human misery". Understanding why something can't be done does not lead to "developing failure". What it leads to and hastens the process of is to actually solving the dilemma and advancing the sport.

You and the other 3 do not understand the question I am answering and that the RPM threshold answers. So lets put this issue into the two perspectives that I've continuously attempted to make you understand. Let's separate them into what is the question and what isn't the question.

The question is;why doesn't a bullet such as 311291 shoot accurately at high velocity out of faster twists.

The question is not; what can we do to obtain accuracy at high velocity out of faster twists.

The answer to the question is RPM. The facts of actual testing continue to prove it.

The answer to what the question is not are all the other things mentioned, i. e., a custom bullet design, a new barrel with a slower twist, etc.

So Bass, you are correct, it is RPM and it is rather abrupt to tell the shooter he can do all the things to such a bullet as 311291 he wants until the cows come home (or the pigs fly) and it still is not going to shoot accurately out of his 10" twist rifle at high velocity.

We, as in all of us, are also correct that a change of bullet specifically designed for that cartridge and correct fit or a different barrel may get that shooter some pretty decent accuracy with a cast bullet at high velocity. The easiest (most expensive too) is to get a slower twist barrel to lower the RPMs of cast bullets back into the RPM threshold at the velocity he desires. Then our intrepid shooter can shoot most any cast bullet, not just a specially designed bullet with very good accuracy at high velocity.

See how really understanding the problem gives us the right solutions. It has absolutely nothing to do with "play to human emotion as misery loves company" or "developing failure (RPM)indexes". It has to do with understanding the problem, solving it and then truly "advancing the sport".

It is unfortunate that a few have brow beat this issue to the point where most are very tired of it and we now have quippy little posts and religious connotations. I am very tired of it. I will continue the tests and send the results (when completed) to those who care. The facts are there. We can, in fact, shoot 311291 quite accurately at high velocity (an actual chronographed 2400-2500 fps). We can not do it out of 10" twist barrels. We may approach that velocity with 12" twist barrels with accuracy. However, we can quite easily shoot 311291 and most any cast bullet quite accurately with 14" twist barrels at 2400-2500+ fps.

There is indeed a RPM threshold that applies to most all regular cast bullets regardless of caliber. If we want to shoot cast bullets with accuracy at high velocity (close to equal jacketed bullet velocities) the easiest way is to keep the bullets in or below the RPM threshold of 125-140,000 RPM. This is best done with a 14" or slower twist barrel.

If we want to shoot cast bullets out of rifles with faster twist barrels then understanding the RPM threshold allows us to go beyond that threshold. We can use specially designed cast bullets out of fast twist (7-10" twists) at high velocity (that HV being relative to the twist). It also takes a bit of tweaking of the loads but it can be done but only with those cast bullets that fit that particular cartridge and barrel.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

45 2.1

I'm not done by a long shot. Perhaps you'd have the "decency" to answer my question why accuracy is obtained by simply lowering the RPM? Lets see BABore chronograph his loads and shoot some honest ones at 2400-2500+ fps second. My groups will be included in the test results. However here is a tid bit just for you (shows what a "decent" fellow I am, eh).

The first 5 shot group is 311291 at 2409 fps (that's actually chronographed) and is .88". The second 10 shot group is "only" 1.5" (9 shots in .9") with the 311291 at 2411 fps. Guess it's not worth "crowing" about so lets see yours.

Larry Gibson

[Tiger]

Larry

Unless you can shoot those bullets you speak of out of two rifles one 14 twist the other 10 at high velocity up into the sky and then fall into large pool of shallow water that you can retrieve them and we see pictures of both I will not believe that it is rpm alone.

Ralf

[45 2.1]

I'm not done by a long shot. So you say.....Perhaps you'd have the "decency" to answer my question why accuracy is obtained by simply lowering the RPM. Lets see BABore chronograph his loads and shoot some honest ones at 2400-2500+ fps second. My groups will be included in the test results. However here is a tid bit just for you (shows what a "decent" fellow I am, eh). Plagarizing doesn't help you out here, something else might instead of a rabid defense of a premise.

The first 5 shot group is 311291 at 2409 fps (that's actually chronographed) and is .88". The second 10 shot group is "only" 1.5" (9 shots in .9") with the 311291 at 2411 fps. Guess it's not worth "crowing" about so lets see yours. You seem to have a problem in reading other peoples responses, i've already said I don't have a digital camera to take pictures with. And NO, your effort at a group is noteworhty, but still inferior to what BABore posted.

[Larry Gibson]

45 2.1

You can scan the targets, it does not require a digital camera. If you don't have a scanner then you've probably friends that do. Also any commercial "copy" place will do it for a nominal fee. One of your friends probably has a digital camera also.

Inferior....well maybe so as my 5 and 10 shot groups weren't as small as his 3 shot groups. Perhaps I could just pick out the 3 closest shots......give us a break! You ask for targets and they are delivered. My targets are at an actual 2400+ fps, not a guessed at velocity. You don't think their better? Is that your self imposed expert opinion? Let's see; more shots at a faster and confirmed velocity and yet not as good? Maybe you'd better take another look. Your excuse at not posting targets is pretty lame. But then you've not answered any questions either, that's pretty lame also.

BTW; quoting someone is not "plaguerizing". You do have a dictionary to look that word up don't you or are you going to cop out with a "I don't have one" excuse. You have a dictionary on your computor or are you going to cop out with "I don't have one" also. Now that would be pretty lame!

Your snippy barbs don't cut it. They are seen for what they are. You can't discuss the facts so you attempt to baffle with BS.

Larry Gibson

[357maximum]

Larry

whats the RPM on this

35/06 @ 2740 actual fps in a 1 in 11 twist...an old custom barreled rem 700 made well before me. This load in this gun will do this all day long ...almost boring. I seriously ain't a math scholar..so whats the RPM...serious question.

[45 2.1]

Your actually quite funny today Larry. Bravado and all. I'm not the one out to prove a premise, you are. You still haven't done that.

[Larry Gibson]

357Maximum

The RPM is 179,400. That is nicely done. What is the bullet....serious question?

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

45 2.1

I am proving the premise. You are the one trying to disprove it. You still haven't done that. Just more Baffling BS to avoid answering a question or posting what you say you can do.

Larry Gibson

[357maximum]

357Maximum

The RPM is 179,400. That is nicely done. What is the bullet....serious question?

Larry Gibson


Larry it is a custom clone of the .360X220 that was done as a lee group buy awhile back that 45 2.1 designed. Alloy is 50%ww/ and 50% pure waterdropped right from the mold, and testing about 19-21 BHN after 1week. Gaschecked and sized right out of the soapy water bucket, and then lubed in an oversized H&I die on one of my old lyman 45's with a softened with alox 350 version of my orange voodoo lube.

[45 2.1]

45 2.1

I am proving the premise. You are the one trying to disprove it. You still haven't done that. Just more Baffling BS to avoid answering a question or posting what you say you can do.

Larry Gibson

357 maximum just shot your premise all to h*ll along with others. Explain just how they didn't do it now.

[Larry Gibson]

Folks

357Maximum has just given us an example of exactly what I said in my last post to Bass regarding the 2 questions and how we may exceed the RPM threshold. I said; "We, as in all of us, are also correct that a change of bullet specifically designed for that cartridge and correct fit or a different barrel may get that shooter some pretty decent accuracy with a cast bullet at high velocity........We can use specially designed cast bullets out of fast twist (7-10" twists) at high velocity (that HV being relative to the twist). It also takes a bit of tweaking of the loads but it can be done but only with those cast bullets that fit that particular cartridge and barrel"

357Maximum replied to my question (what was the bullet) with; "Larry it is a custom clone of the .360X220 that was done as a lee group buy awhile back that 45 2.1 designed. Alloy is 50%ww/ and 50% pure waterdropped right from the mold, and testing about 19-21 BHN after 1week. Gaschecked and sized right out of the soapy water bucket, and then lubed in an oversized H&I die on one of my old lyman 45's with a softened with alox 350 version of my orange voodoo lube."

Now that is what we are talking about! 357Maximum has used a custom bullet (light weight for caliber with short nose that fits well inside the long neck of the cartridge case), tweaked the alloy, hardened the bullet, tweaked the sizing, lube and is using a slow powder at or close to 100% loading density. That is how you push the RPM threshold just as I said it could be done.

Kudo's to 357Maximum and many thanks for helping me prove this point.

Larry Gibson

45 2.1; that ridiculous statement in your last post gives perfect credence to the fact that you fail to read and comprehend what is written. 357Maximums example is, in fact, a perfect example of exactly what I've been saying. It is all your arguments that have been shot to h*ll by his example.

The other 3 self appointed experts should pay closer attention also.

[Larry Gibson]

Larry it is a custom clone of the .360X220 that was done as a lee group buy awhile back that 45 2.1 designed. Alloy is 50%ww/ and 50% pure waterdropped right from the mold, and testing about 19-21 BHN after 1week. Gaschecked and sized right out of the soapy water bucket, and then lubed in an oversized H&I die on one of my old lyman 45's with a softened with alox 350 version of my orange voodoo lube.

Very well done! Can you tell us if you've tried other cast bullets from regularly available moulds like lyman and RCBS moulds? If so how did they fair? Again, outstanding accuracy from you and what is obviousl a very nice rifle.

Larry Gibson

[357maximum]

Very well done! Can you tell us if you've tried other cast bullets from regularly available moulds like lyman and RCBS moulds? If so how did they fair? Again, outstanding accuracy from you and what is obviousl a very nice rifle.

Larry Gibson

Larry it will do the same with the rcbs 35-200, as well as a few other off the shelf lyman designs....


BTW that .360-220 boolit was actually designed for the 35rem in a marlin levergun,but it really works well in a few others which does include my buddies old rem700 marked 35/06 in the barrel. If I could locate them I have some pretty neat targets for the 358win in a 14twist round here somewhere in the chaos. I have also had huge success pushing the envelope with the rcbs 165gr silh boolit from 30/06 and .308 winnies in both 12 and 10 twists that do not fall into your "theories". I have also seen some other "stupid" rhings that should not work....like 3K with a 300mag using a 165gr loverin type boolit....your theory has some holes in it in my book, but thanks for the compliments nonetheless.

In general I use a fairly "bendy and compressible (mallable)" alloy and shove it into the lands and light a big ol fire under its @$$ until I find a powder that works...not really rocket science on my part...I just listen intently when someone that knows their $&!& tells me something.....I go into any rifle project with an open mind without any preconcieved notions......ignorance will help you in the long run....


The only reason I butted into this "discussion" is beacause I hate it when someone knows their results before they do the testing. That is how we get no tox waterfowl laws and no lead zones to save a few ugly birds......the results should come after the experiments not before.....anything less is irresponsible in my opinion.

[357maximum]

Here is the target from post #48 above with data removed to ease my mind. This was a CAST ONLY load substituting a similar weight j-word could be all sorts of bad.

[Larry Gibson]

357Maximum

Thanks for the input, looks like your doing the right things. My testing is complete, it is the write up that is taking the time. There are alwyas exceptions to any rule and perhaps your rifle is one of them. I'll thank you again for a providing concise data. I've shot the 35-200 and Lymans 358315 and 3589 out of a 12" twist .35 whelen, The 3589 shot well up through 2400 fps (144,000 RPM) then started losing accuracy. That was pretty much max pressure for the 3589 (288 gr fully dressed). The RCBS would shoot quite well up through 2550 fps (153,000 RPM) and I never took it any higher as that was 100% loading density with old 4831. The lyman 358315 mould would not drop any alloy at over .357" so it did not fair well over 1900 fps. Perhaps the RPM threshold is higher for larger caliber bullets(?) . hhhmmmmm...more testing to do! Thanks again.

Larry Gibson

[Tiger]

Larry

This is part of your first post in your RPM thread.

So this is what we now know now about the same loads in the 3 different twists; the time pressure curve is the same, the acceleration is the same and the BCs remain the same. Let’s now take a look at the results on target. After all what we are looking at in conducting this test is the accuracy at higher velocity and why that accuracy goes bad. Graph #4 shows us the group sizes vs pressure. Whoa there! Something is amiss….if the time pressure curves are the same, the acceleration the same and the BCs are the same; then if the groups get larger as we increase velocity shouldn’t the groups get larger by proportionally the same amount? [Note; by “proportional amount” is an amount to compare the accuracy of each twist to each other. The proportional amount of increase is found by dividing the increased group size by the smallest group with each rifle.] However, what we see is that the groups do not get proportionally larger as velocity increases. The inaccuracy of the 10” twist increases 5.38 while the inaccuracy of the 12” twist increases 3.14 and 14” twist increases 2.08. Hmmmmmm……pressure curve is the same, deformation of the bullet from acceleration is the same then why doesn’t inaccuracy increase the same? Especially since graph #4 shows the group size vs pressure. But wait…there’s more (sorry, just couldn’t resist!). Doesn’t every one say that it is pressure that destroys accuracy? We do see that accuracy with all three twists is decreasing with the increase of pressure. If pressure was the only reason for the decrease in inaccuracy then the inaccuracy should be proportional and it isn’t. We also see inaccuracy increases much more with the 10” twist than either the 12 or 14” twists. We also see the 12” twist’s inaccuracy to increase more rapidly than the 14”s inaccuracy. Again, if it was pressure that increased the inaccuracy then why doesn’t the inaccuracy of all three twists increase equally as the pressure increases? It seems there is something other than pressure adversely affecting accuracy and to a much greater extent.

Okay, let’s look at it one more way just to be fair. Graph #5 compares accuracy to velocity. Something wrong here again….that dreadful 10” twist is once again being more inaccurate by a greater proportional amount than either the 12 or 14” twists. How can this be? We know the acceleration is the same; the BCs are the same so the deformation of the bullet is the same yet the 10” twists inaccuracy is disproportional to the 12 and 14” twists. It should be the same amount of inaccuracy, right? The lines for each twist should be linear right? Yet the proportional inaccuracy are not the same between the twists nor are the lines linear. Have we missed something? Is there another game afoot? We’ve a good handle on the internal ballistics. We know about the terminal ballistics as the groups are self revealing. But have we really looked hard at the external ballistics (the bullets flight)? We know the bullets are stable, we know the BCs are getting smaller telling us there is some deformation from the acceleration. We know the 10” twist had the highest BC at the highest pressure and velocity so why isn’t it as accurate as the 12 and 14” twists?

Let us look at graph #6. It is a comparison of group sizes vs RPM. Note the very, very obvious adverse affect that the increasing RPM has on the accuracy of the 10” twist. That red line really climbs up there! Also note that area of RPM where the majority of accurate groups fall; it is in or below the RPM threshold. Also note that in or at the top end of the RPM threshold is where accuracy begins to deteriorate.

The tests with H4831SC seemed to be headed the same way but were inconclusive as top velocity was only 2287 fps with 100% loading density. The 10” twist velocity was 1928 fps through 2287 fps with groups running from 2.4” to 3.3”. RPM was 138,900 to 164,700. Conversely the 14” twist went from 1906 fps to 2265 fps. Groups ran .95” to 2.2”. RPM was 98,000 to 116,600. The highest peak pressure was 39,600 psi.M43. Thus I couldn’t get into a high enough pressure/RPM range with all three twists to make any comparison.

I am not going to conclude that there is an RPM threshold as the test is not complete. I shall wait until I conclude the test before giving a firm conclusion.

Chapter 3 will be to see how I can improve on and perhaps push the threshold with 311291 in all 3 twists. I have some cast of linotype (that’s pretty hard stuff). I have them weighed to a +/- ½ gr. I weighed them “dressed” for summer (that’s with just the GC on, not fully “dressed” with lube too). I plan on using Varget and RL15. Probably won’t get around to testing those until May.

Larry Gibson

To be continued:

You don't have to conclude test as 357maxium and others have concluded for you. You have called these exceptions. Lot of exceptions there Larry hey. No Larry those exception just told and showed you that it can be done when things right like they should be. 357 even show you with not so hard alloy. Come on Larry throw in towel your theory is finished. In fact I do not think I will go out and shoot a hand full small 6.5 groups. Waste of my time now I see.

So those who wish to shoot high velocity with accuracy pay attention to people like 45 2.1 Bass and 357 man.

Ralf

[Larry Gibson]

Ralf

I said; "Chapter 3 will be to see how I can improve on and perhaps push the threshold with 311291" in that first post. That is to address question 1. (refer back to my last post to BASS for the question 1 & 2)

Your point answers question 2, as does 357Maximums example, as does what I've continuously said.

Neither you, Bass, 45 2.1 or leftiye have answered question 1. I have.

Larry Gibson

[357maximum]

Rule #1 for shooting cast at J-word velocities in rifles or handrifles


= try it and keep trying it until you get what you want, and what your rifle wants.....it is that simple folks....you do not need charts/graphs/ and powerpoint presentations to make it work. Get the right boolit in the right alloy with the right components and assemble them with the right handloading tools and teqhniques...and tadaaa. This is not David Copperfield $*&! folks.


And to answer the original question...I believe anything that matches upper j-word velocities for a given round is high velocity for cast....it will vary by caliber designation.


I currently am running 2300 with a 357maximum in a 15 inch gun with 170 to 200 grain boolits...is they high velocity cast? In this caliber I would say yes....but it only counts if you can CONSISTANTLY do it at ACCURATE LEVELS......THATS ALL I HAVE TO SAY ON THE MATTER.

[Larry Gibson]

357Maximums statement; "Get the right boolit in the right alloy with the right components and assemble them with the right handloading tools and teqhniques...and tadaaa" answers question 2 very nicely. That's the way it's done folks.

Larry Gibson

[leftiye]

Larry,
I can't see how a custom boolit mold, or a custom design can be said to negate results. They're just another cast boolit, complete with lube grooves. Better? yes: The point was that it can be done with cast; no mention was made of disallowing any boolit design, or mold maker - they're all cast boolits. The point was, and is, It can be done if you do your part in creating an excellent load.

However, I'd be quite happy to restrict your results to the 311291. Actually, maybe that is the correct answer.

[Tiger]

Hallo leftiye it is good to see you back from your holidays.
Laryr remind of old American tv show Bewitched. He remind me of Darrens boss. First he all against Darren ideas then customer like idea so boss switch sides. Larry also changes and makes up rules as he goes along. The fact he not challenge 357maximum because he has no leg to stand on. I was all for shoot the tight groups without flyer now not worth the time. Oh do not get me wrong I will still develop cast loads for my new 6.5x47 Lapua until I get to where I want with it. But Larry discourage me from posting pictures of groups. He always find some thing wrong. Maybe even dust on camera lenses hey.

Ralf

[Larry Gibson]

leftiye

I'll defer to Bass on this one as he described his LBT bullet once and why it made the difference. It is a light for caliber weight, has a long bearing surface, small minimal number of lube grooves, short nose with no bore riding part, bearing surface runs to begining of short nose ogive with no shoulder, fits in neck of cartridge case with GC not below case neck and the ogive bumps the leade of the rifling. There's probably a couple other reasons than I'm remebering here but you get the idea. Maybe Bass would add a few more(?).

This is why Bass has had success with it in his '06. It is why I've had success with it in my '06. It is why I've had success with it im my M70 as it has the longer throat and allows seating the bullet in a .308 case as mentioned. It is why the shorter Lovern designed bullets are more successfula at HV than regular bore riders. It is why I'm having very good success with 311466 in all three .308 rifles of different twists. It is why I've had such good results with 266455 in the 6.5 Swede that I've traded off all other 6.5 moulds. I think there are some other designs that may work as well as they fit the above criteria for the most part. One is the GB C312-150-WFN which I'm thinking will push the RPM threshold in .31 cal rifles with their 9.5" twists (7.62x54R and 7.65 Argentine in particular though it might be a good candidate for a .303 with a tight bore of.311/.312). The designs that fit the criteria are really few and far between.

"The point was that it can be done with cast; no mention was made of disallowing any boolit design, or mold maker - they're all cast boolits"

Not so; I have consistantly referred to regular cast bullets in reference to the adverse affect of the RPM threshold. I have always allowed that specially designed custom bullets such as the LBT from custom mould makers and short light for caliber Loverns are the way to push the RPM threshold successfully.


larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

Ralf

You're being rediculous again, please get back on track.

Larry Gibson

[45 2.1]

Larry, your making yourself look ridiculous backcrawling like that. You been made, admit it and go on. If you knew the rest of the story, you would turn quite red indeed.

[45nut]

Lots of folks are not exactly showing their best here. It appears to me, and I imagine many others that some posters are clearly not about helping prove/ disprove anything but only in shredding others.
It sure doesn't provide anything to the pursuit of knowledge in cast, but certainly exposes many other things when a number of posts are only entered to disparage others.

[Larry Gibson]

45nut

Thank you

Perhaps I was a little short with 45 2.1 in that last message. I do wish we could stick to facts as presented by what is actually accomplished with cast bullets through actual tests and measurements of those results. Bass's, leftie's and 357Maximum's last posts posts have lead to some interesting discussion and clarification of answers. I apologize for letting 45 2.1 and Ralf pi** me off. I shall stick to the factual presentation of facts concerning cast bullets. Always helps to have a little reminder. Again, thank you.

Larry Gibson

[runfiverun]

refering to post 65 , larrys final paragraph.
i have never seen nor read him say any different then that. what i believe him to have said
is that a regular boolit in an average rifle will not be as accurate over a certain rpm level,
you may get a bit more, you may not, probably won't.
and is testing his theory the best he can with what he has....

seems like a reasonable explanation of why boolit x isn't working, if it is followed by ; these are the things that you need to look at that may help you get more velocity..

ralf you make me laugh, the way you express some of your sentences :] not at you..

my take on it..........R5R

[Bass Ackward]

Bass

You to are ignoring the facts also. Larry Gibson


Larry,

You are absolutely correct. I am ignoring facts. That is exactly the point. Because RPMs is the tool we create to provide stability. We can have a smooth bore that exhibits inaccuracy just like high RPMs by the way. I can show you a bad target and you couldn't tell me if that was shot with a smooth bore or high RPMs. Both act very much the same as they have to travel through air.

Every single cause for inaccuracy in the shooting world from leading in a handgun load, to patterning a shotgun load, right up through today's jacketed burners can be narrowed down to stability. Once you give up, call it RPMs. Although that may get you some strange looks at a shotgun or handgun range.

RPM effect as you choose to call it means something is WRONG. Paper patching proved that. And as a reloader, I will work to fix it.

As for the board, for every failure, guys will look up to you and hold you in high esteem as they don't understand what's going wrong. Trouble is that you have to go to sleep at night hoping that they don't succeed.

While I on the other hand, hope that they do. Freedom. Throw off those RPM chains. :grin:

[Bass Ackward]

One more thing about the 154 LBT bullet. When I told Veral was I was getting, he told me that he was surprised that I was getting good accuracy at high velocity with that slug because he cut that mold for low velocity work. That's why the 154 grain weight instead of 160 and it came off the smaller GC groove. His standard weight is 160 grains.

Veral added that that slug would always be vulnerable to lube and lower potential performance because of this. And that if I wanted a better HV slug, I would need the 160 grain with the full length shank.

I now design all my bullets this way if I have the weight to do so and it doesn't negatively impact the balance I want. Cause I believe he is correct. Just as in the days of clean out grooves, bore fouling is the real problem with cast in rifles. The wider check groove does nothing to prevent fouling, but it will remove more of it from the slug that produces it leaving a more uniform bore from slug to slug.

Most factory designs suffer from this even if fit is perfect and are victims of this negative. Take one of his HV designs and mold it hard and you can shoot them just exaclty like jacketed and someone will have to show you it's actually lead. :grin:

[Tiger]

Bass

I try to say this about the fouling long ago in the rpm thread but nobody say anything. They think Hey he is a crazy German what does he know.

You got my interest with saying going heavy slug while all along everyone say go shorter slug which essentially lighter slug.

Maybe you encourage me to keep shooting and showing targets. Larry sure do not.

Larry mention a normal or regular cast bullet. I think he mean further said one from a factory mold. To me a regular or normal cast bullet is one cast from any mold that is gas check or no gas check. One that is not normal to me would be one maybe with copper rings or special gas check or body of special alloy. I see no difference between custom mold and factory except then bullet is prefitted with custom mold to some degree that you have made calculations for ahead time.

Ralf

[Larry Gibson]

Bass

Regards your two last posts.

Post #1; You're still stuck inside the bore. The smooth bore will not stabilize the bullets and they will tumble. RPM does create stability. However the amount of RPM required for stability in the twists we are talking about is not anywhere near the RPM threshold. The RPM threshold references exessive RPM during flight that adversely affects that flight of a cast bullet. It has nothing at all to do with the inital stability of the bullet. The "fact" is as I've mentioned it numerous times to you; the defects to the bllets are made before shooting and during accelleration. The affect of the RPM threshold on cast bullets occurs during flight. It is a simple concept and not difficult to understand. Get your thinking out of the bore and into what is happening during flight of the bullet. As to PP'd and jacketed bullets; all bullets are adversly effected by RPM, it's why we shoot groups instead of all bullets going into one hole. Hornady manuals have a very good section on this with some nice pictures for visualization. PP'ng is no guarentee of accuracy nor is using a jacketed bullet, even at high velocity. The PP keeps the bullet supported in the barrel and lessons the defects caused by accelleration as compared to a unpatched bullet which obturates, sets back and is cut/engraved by rifling. The jacketed bullet must be concentric in jacket thiknes and other things to be accurate also. You are once again getting into comparisons of things other than (tops, planes, trains and automobiles seem the favorite) rather than paying attention to what cast bullets do during flight. Pay attention to the cast bullet during flight and what is really happening to it and you will grasp the concept.

You're also still stuck on the idea that the RPM threshold is a "limit" and if we accept that idea we will never get around it. Apparently everyone but you and probably the other 3 understand this is not what I am saying and this is not the facts of the matter. You demonstrate in the second post that you do understand this as you add discussion to my post about exactly how certain designs get through or around the RPM threshold. Yet you continue to harp on this. Bass I have, and have others, got good/excellent accuracy well beyond the RPM threshold. You go to lengths discussing the custom bulets (" I now design all my bullets this way" to quote you) and loading techniques required to get through or around the RPM threshold. I agree with you and others agree with you. The fact still remains that a regular cast bullet is subject to the RPM threshold. If it/they were not then you, 45 2.1, leftiye and Ralf could very easily show us how to shoot 311291 (or any similar regular cast bullet) accurately at 2400+ fps out of a 10" twist barrel. None of you have shown us that. Those bullets are subject to the RPM threshold and will not shoot very accurately at that RPM level. You know it, you understand it so all you've got to do is grasp the concept.

Post #2; thank you for the second post adding your comments to mine regarding leftiye's question. Kudo's to leftiye for a good question that was pertinant and has led us to expressing in detail the type of cast bullet needed to push through, or get around the RPM threshold.

Larry Gibson

[9.3X62AL]

I think very highly of all the contributors on this thread, and have learned a great deal from you all over the years. It pains me to see members trying to shred one another over "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" types of questions. A little perspective here, folks.

[Tiger]

Larry

You said you would like see someone shoot HV with bullets from regular factory mold. Now here I do think there is some limit or specification. Let me explain. You said 2400 fps plus. I think rifling twist should be considered here. To get over 2400 fps with twist of 7 and 8 is more achievement then one of 10 or more. Don't you.

Ralf

[Larry Gibson]

Ralf

Again, please read what is said, you're quoting out of context. I said; "2400+ fps out of a 10" twist barrel". Isn't what I actually said "considering rifling twist?

This thread is about "velocity" and what we think "high velocity" is in relation to cast bullets right? Thus it depends on one's definition of "high velocity". If you go back to the beginning of this thread and read what my definition is you'll see I consider high velocity with the 6.5 Swede to be in the 2200-2500 fps range because jacketed bullet velocities are 2400-2700 fps (160-130 gr bullets). So to answer your question; yes it is difficult to get accuracy at 2400+ fps out of a 7 or 8" twist barrel at 2400+ fps. Now don't pull a Bass on me here and say I'm saying you can't get accuracy at those velocities out of those twists at 2400+ fps. I've always said with reference to the RPM threshold that the best accuracy will be in or below the RPM threshold.

Kindly post all the targets you want. Just don't excuse flyers and expect not to be called on it.

By regular design I mean a cast rifle bullet of "older accepted" design. These generally have a long bore riding nose or sharp ogive on a long nose, large deep lube grooves, sometimes a scrape groove and a bearing surface of 60% or less of bullet length. They may be factory produced or made by custom mould makers. The light for caliber Lovern designs are known for accuracy at high velocity (as I mentioned in past posts) and are/were standard factory moulds.

Larry Gibson

[45 2.1]

Bass Regards your two last posts.

Post #1; You're still stuck inside the bore. The smooth bore will not stabilize the bullets and they will tumble. RPM does create stability. However the amount of RPM required for stability in the twists we are talking about is not anywhere near the RPM threshold. The RPM threshold references exessive RPM during flight that adversely affects that flight of a cast bullet. It has nothing at all to do with the inital stability of the bullet. The "fact" is as I've mentioned it numerous times to you; the defects to the bllets are made before shooting and during accelleration. The affect of the RPM threshold on cast bullets occurs during flight. It is a simple concept and not difficult to understand. Get your thinking out of the bore and into what is happening during flight of the bullet. As to PP'd and jacketed bullets; all bullets are adversly effected by RPM, it's why we shoot groups instead of all bullets going into one hole. Hornady manuals have a very good section on this with some nice pictures for visualization. PP'ng is no guarentee of accuracy nor is using a jacketed bullet, even at high velocity. The PP keeps the bullet supported in the barrel and lessons the defects caused by accelleration as compared to a unpatched bullet which obturates, sets back and is cut/engraved by rifling. The jacketed bullet must be concentric in jacket thiknes and other things to be accurate also. You are once again getting into comparisons of things other than (tops, planes, trains and automobiles seem the favorite) rather than paying attention to what cast bullets do during flight. Pay attention to the cast bullet during flight and what is really happening to it and you will grasp the concept.

You're also still stuck on the idea that the RPM threshold is a "limit" and if we accept that idea we will never get around it. Apparently everyone but you and probably the other 3 understand this is not what I am saying and this is not the facts of the matter. You demonstrate in the second post that you do understand this as you add discussion to my post about exactly how certain designs get through or around the RPM threshold. Yet you continue to harp on this. Bass I have, and have others, got good/excellent accuracy well beyond the RPM threshold. You go to lengths discussing the custom bulets (" I now design all my bullets this way" to quote you) and loading techniques required to get through or around the RPM threshold. I agree with you and others agree with you. The fact still remains that a regular cast bullet is subject to the RPM threshold. If it/they were not then you, 45 2.1, leftiye and Ralf could very easily show us how to shoot 311291 (or any similar regular cast bullet) accurately at 2400+ fps out of a 10" twist barrel. None of you have shown us that. Those bullets are subject to the RPM threshold and will not shoot very accurately at that RPM level. You know it, you understand it so all you've got to do is grasp the concept.

Post #2; thank you for the second post adding your comments to mine regarding leftiye's question. Kudo's to leftiye for a good question that was pertinant and has led us to expressing in detail the type of cast bullet needed to push through, or get around the RPM threshold.

Response:
All comments relate to the parts of Larrys post that are in blue.

You keep refering to a "regular cast boolit" in your posts and also say "all bullets are adversly effected by RPM". So, just why do you think there is a difference in factory molds versus custom molds? Why not nail it down and tell everyone exactly, in detail, why a "regular cast boolit" is different. You have expanded your explaination of what a "regular cast boolit" is in the above post. How about stateing ,for the record, why those designs are affected outside the barrel.

The fact still remains that a regular cast bullet is subject to the RPM threshold. If so, then just why would a boolit cast from a custom mold be any different keeping in mind that you said "all bullets are adversly effected by RPM" and you refered only to external balistics in describing this in previous threads.

The PP keeps the bullet supported in the barrel and lessons the defects caused by accelleration as compared to a unpatched bullet which obturates, sets back and is cut/engraved by rifling. Patched boolits have the same basic dimensions or they wouldn't fit in the barrel. They also undergo obturation, set back and are cut/engraved by the rifling. I know this from looking at close to a thousand recovered slugs to see the effects for myself. The effects were made while in the barrel via internal ballistics. When they exit the barrel, they look much the same as a "regular cast boolit" as mine were cast from normal factory molds.

Pay attention to the cast bullet during flight and what is really happening to it and you will grasp the concept. Interestingly enough, very few people have access to military tracking radar which would be necessary to really know what is happening to it. Do you have this access or are you interpolating data from the Oehler unit assuming you know what is going on over a very short time of flight.

[Tiger]

Okay Larry we go for velocity this thread. If good then we have side benefit of very high rpm. Let me get to work.

Ralf

[joeb33050]

Patched boolits have the same basic dimensions or they wouldn't fit in the barrel. They also undergo obturation, set back and are cut/engraved by the rifling. I know this from looking at close to a thousand recovered slugs to see the effects for myself. The effects were made while in the barrel via internal ballistics. When they exit the barrel, they look much the same as a "regular cast boolit" as mine were cast from normal factory molds.

It's many years since I did any paper patching, but I thought the object was to have a bullet with no rifling marks. I/we took/made SMALLER THAN BORE BY .001"/.002" bullets and paper patched them. Ex: 45/70 bullet at .449", then paper patched. The paper was to take the rifling, leave the bullet shortly after the muzzle, bullet to have no rifling marks. I don't recall ever looking at a recovered bullet, they'd go 2' or more into the berm.
Have I got this wrong?
Thanks;
joe b.

[leftiye]

"The point was that it can be done with cast; no mention was made of disallowing any boolit design, or mold maker - they're all cast boolits"

Not so; I have consistantly referred to regular cast bullets in reference to the adverse affect of the RPM threshold. I have always allowed that specially designed custom bullets such as the LBT from custom mould makers and short light for caliber Loverns are the way to push the RPM threshold successfully. larry Gibson

Nobody anywhere gave you the prerogative to define what point was being made. Nobody anywhere was referring to your tests. I was referring to the point being made by the rest of us. The RPM Threshold is irrelevant in this instance except to be disproven.

The point is that it can be done with cast; no mention is made of disallowing any boolit design, or mold maker - they're all cast boolits" Still are.

[45 2.1]

Patched boolits have the same basic dimensions or they wouldn't fit in the barrel. They also undergo obturation, set back and are cut/engraved by the rifling. I know this from looking at close to a thousand recovered slugs to see the effects for myself. The effects were made while in the barrel via internal ballistics. When they exit the barrel, they look much the same as a "regular cast boolit" as mine were cast from normal factory molds.

It's many years since I did any paper patching, but I thought the object was to have a bullet with no rifling marks. I/we took/made SMALLER THAN BORE BY .001"/.002" bullets and paper patched them. Ex: 45/70 bullet at .449", then paper patched. The paper was to take the rifling, leave the bullet shortly after the muzzle, bullet to have no rifling marks. I don't recall ever looking at a recovered bullet, they'd go 2' or more into the berm.
Have I got this wrong? Yes, all alloys that will obturate will expand into the paper and leave rifling marks, obturate and set back. Whitworth shot steel slugs with paper patch and blackpowder while testing for the British government. Any slug that is hard enough to not slug up will need to be smaller than the bore and need enough paper coverage to take up any "windage" so the patch stays intact.

[Larry Gibson]

leftiye

Ok, here is the complete quote from your last post;

Larry,
I can't see how a custom boolit mold, or a custom design can be said to negate results. They're just another cast boolit, complete with lube grooves. Better? yes: The point was that it can be done with cast; no mention was made of disallowing any boolit design, or mold maker - they're all cast boolits. The point was, and is, It can be done if you do your part in creating an excellent load.



The post was directed to me and that gives me perogative to comment. You made the statement that you couldn't see how a custom boolit mold, or a custom design can be said to negate results. I clarified that for you and Bass has added further clarification. If you don't like our answer then that's your "perogative". It must have really upset you when I gave you kudo's. Prunes may be the solution to your problem:-)

Larry Gibson

[Bass Ackward]

Pay attention to the cast bullet during flight and what is really happening to it and you will grasp the concept.

Larry Gibson



Larry,

They sell different powders because different powders have different RPM effects? Come on. If the shooting world was simply RPMS for accuracy or inaccuracy, we would have one powder listed for each caliber in reloading manuals. That powder would be the one that produces the HIGHEST velocity for that bullet weight. And that ain't the way life is.

When I launch cast well, they fly well. When I work up my load so that barrel harmonics releases them at the same point in the oscillation cycle, they go where they are supposed to go. That's why I can reach the same accuracy at high velocity as I do down low once everything is correct. That works from 0 RPM to 206,000. Rpm has absolutely minimal effects on properly launched slugs. The only person that has to worry about RPMS is the guy doing something wrong and ends up experiencing the effects. He thinks it's RPMS, but ALL damage was done in the bore. Otherwise, no cast bullet could fly accurately.

This is a sum total game. Lead does cause low frequency, wide movement vibration compared to jacketed's high freq, short movement vibration. The reason you foul is not from a rough spot in the bore, but the bore moving away from a straight line moving slug first one way and then the other as the barrel changes directions and begins moving the other way. What happens in a free floated (uncontrolled) barrel is an outta round slug or loss of seal. People may think they have a crappy barrel, but it is really vibration.

100% of cast bullet damage occurs before exit. It's still three forces Larry or we would just sell one powder.


Ralf,

Yes. Lube is a fouling up until it is used up as much as it holds. That is the balance. And that is why lube makes a difference to your RPM number which is to say the point that you either need a harder bullet or to change to a slower powder. Lube is non-compressible and it will size down your slugs above a certain speed much as any tire will hydroplane on a wet road. You can increase the hydroplane effect by going faster or having more hydraulic stuff to move. Cold weather will increase viscosity more on HV loads for this reason. That is why taller rifling helps and shorter rifling shows RPM like effects before it should. Or to say another way, microgroove requires a harder bullet than taller styles. A sizing slug in essence lowers rifling height and begins the RPM looking process.

[Larry Gibson]

Bass

Back to the old; "well I shoot 'em good so if you don't then it's because you "lanch" them badly.

"That works from 0 RPM to 206,000. Rpm has absolutely minimal effects on properly launched slugs."

So walk the walk. Show is how well you launch 311291s out of your wife's '06 with 10" twist at 2400+ fps. Once again you claim you can do it, so do it. You can't post facts here so you thump on your own chest and accuse me of not being able to shoot. Is that really the best you can come up with?

And you still don't grasp the concept. I never said bullets were damaged in flight, did I. That is another off the wall fabrication on your part. I have always said the damage was all done during casting, loading and during acceleration now haven't I. I have always said it was the adverse affect that RPM has at a certain level on the defects created during casting, loading and during acceleration, now haven't I. You are still stuck in the bore. We are discussing what happens during the flight of the bullet. Your false statements about what I say are seen for what they are.

Tests have proven that a change in powder (including your favorite RL19) does not produce any better accuracy. Measurements of the bullets flight indicate no less damage to bullet with a slow burning powder. Tests have proven that increasing pressure (nodes) on the barrel doesn't produce any change for the better in accuracy over a free floated barrel. Now those tests were conducted with the same 10" twist rifle as the other tests with the same bullets, the same alloy (all cast from the same batch actually) and the same load. That being 311291 at 2400+ fps. Now I'm not saying that using a slower powder always does not help. However I am saying that if the alloy is hard enough (18+ BHN) then a change from a medium to a slower burning powder does not lesson the damage to the bullet during obturation. With alloys softer than 15 BHN the use of the slower burning powder is benificial. Nor am I saying that pressure on a barrel won't always make an improvement. Some barrels do have defects and pressure will help accuracy with cast and jacketed bullets. What I am saying is that with the same load at 2400+ fps pressure on the barrel produced no improvement in accuracy.

So once again why don't you just load up some 311291s to 2400+ fps and show us how it is done. You still haven't answered the question as to why the same load shoots better in a 12" twist and even much better in the 14" twist than in the 10" twist. The difference there was the 12" twist had a lower RPM than did the 10" twis and groups aren't bad. The 14" twist moved that 2400+ fps load back down into the RPM threshold and it shot the old 311291 very well. You do recall those last two targets I posted....oh that's right, I can't shoot (launch) well so they can't be right. Would you like to tell us why the 14" twist shoots the 311291 that well at 2400+ fps and the 10" twist doesn't?

Oh and by the way just in case that was a challenge; I'll gladly have a shooting contest with you any day to see who shoot (launches) well.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

Folks

These 4 keep coming up with this off the wall stuff. I keep answering them. They don't like the facts so they ignore the answers. They also won't show us how they can do it. How many times have they been asked them to show us how they can shoot a 311291 accurately at 2400+ fps out of a 10" twist barrel? None of them have.

It all reminds me of a fellow some years back who told me a 10" twist .308 would always shoot faster than a 12" twist .308 even with equal length barrels. I asked him why. He replied that in the 10" twist barrel the bullet was actually traveling farther. His reasoning was; take a string and wrapped it around a .30" dowel for 22" with one wrap in 10" marking the string at the beginning of the wrap and at the end of the wrap. Then wrap another string around the same dowel only with one turn in 12" for the same 22" marking the beginning and the end of the wrap. Then compare the lengths of the two strings between the marks and the 10" wrap string is the longer string, not by much but still longer. I asked him , yes the 10" string was slightly longer than the 12" string but how does that make the bullet go faster. He looked at me serious as hell and said, the bullet in the 10" twist travels farther and so it has a longer barrel! Folks, how do you reason with that kind of logic?

So here we have a continual stream of nodes, tops, plains, trains and automobiles. How does one reason with that? I guess one doesn't so I'll just sticke to what cast bullets do in flight. Good day.

Larry Gibson

[leftiye]

Like I said.......

[Bass Ackward]

Bass

Back to the old; "well I shoot 'em good so if you don't then it's because you "lanch" them badly.


You still haven't answered the question as to why the same load shoots better in a 12" twist and even much better in the 14" twist than in the 10" twist. The difference there was the 12" twist had a lower RPM than did the 10" twis and groups aren't bad. The 14" twist moved that 2400+ fps load back down into the RPM threshold and it shot the old 311291 very well. You do recall those last two targets I posted....oh that's right, I can't shoot (launch) well so they can't be right. Would you like to tell us why the 14" twist shoots the 311291 that well at 2400+ fps and the 10" twist doesn't?

Oh and by the way just in case that was a challenge; I'll gladly have a shooting contest with you any day to see who shoot (launches) well.

Larry Gibson


Larry,

I get so confused. You must be a democrat. You said the same thing as statement #1. You said a custom mold in a lighter configuration, blah, blah, blah. You acknowledged that things can be made right and work. So you have to realize that things are NOT right with the 311291. So from that I draw the conclusion that you do understand. What I don't understand is how you can want to tell someone that it's RPMs.

As to twist rate I told you, you proved that RPMs existed. How many times must I say that. But why does it affect one bullet design more than another is the point you should be searching. It afirms what the old timers always said, spin no faster than you needed to stabilize. Now that you have shot in the zone, the zone is at different velocities for these twists, please tell us which twist rate was the most accurate at 130,000 RPMs? The one at the lowest velocity? OR the one at the highest velocity?

I never said that you prooved RPMS was all powerful. You see I have a single high velocity load that shoot 2"or 1" simply by altering bedding pressure. Now, which load is affected by RPMs? The answer is neither. You are looking at a 2" high velocity group and saying that it doesn't equal the low velocity group because of RPMs. But YOU DON"T know that! You are just guessing because you did a few twist rate experiments and went from 10" groups down to 4 or what ever the figures were, and then you gave up. And that's a personal problem. :grin:

This testing has clouded your judgement as much as a teenager discovering cocaine for the first time believing it unlocked the secrets of the universe for him. And you do not use that position consistently. You admit there is a recepie for success with custom molds. Well what is the difference between telling someone his 311284 won't shoot in his rifle because it doesn't fit properly in the zone but when someone goes up in velocity, we have to keep our mouth shut and call it RPMs? That's why I said learning how to shoot HV helps your LV work even more. You can be shooting 1 1/2" groups at 100 in the zone and still be a victim of RPMs. You just don't realize it or are satisfied and don't care that you could be doing better. HV doesn't give you that option does it? :grin:

And I am not the brightest bulb on the tree, but I ain't no dummy either. What your testing has REALLY proven to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that I never want to shoot a 311291. Why waste my time? Is there a merrit badge for this or something? But I knew that about factory bore rides already. Why do you think that the 311291 is generally recommended over the 311284? That's right, less nose weight, so less need for nose fit. But better ain't good enough is it? :grin:

Want to shoot like my wife at 2400 fps? Wife's deer load now is only 2100 fps actually using ACWW and 28.5 grains of RL 7 with a tuft of dacron using my 165 grain design. IT's a solid incher. I had to go to dacron cause where we moved her stand, she has a lot of down hill shooting. Point made though. OK. Stop your testing. Quit wasting your money. Send me one of your guns, your dies and some brass and about $60 cash to cover my expenses and the return shipping. I will do it in your own rifle, set everything up for you, and then send it back with instructions. I'll even work with you if you want to design a mold for it later so you can do it yourself. Can't beat that offer with a stick. :grin:

[BABore]

Well said!:drinks:

Been thinking the same thing myself lately.[smilie=1:

[Larry Gibson]

Bass Ackward

I get so confused. You must be a democrat. You said the same thing as statement #1. You said a custom mold in a lighter configuration, blah, blah, blah. You acknowledged that things can be made right and work. So you have to realize that things are NOT right with the 311291. So from that I draw the conclusion that you do understand. What I don't understand is how you can want to tell someone that it's RPMs.

I'll ignore the personal insult (democrat thing - I thought we weren't supposed to discuss politics or religion on this forum?). Things are not right with most any regular cast bullet above the RPM threshold. That is the point.B]

As to twist rate I told you, you proved that RPMs existed. How many times must I say that. But why does it affect one bullet design more than another is the point you should be searching. It afirms what the old timers always said, spin no faster than you needed to stabilize.

[B]And you say I'm confused; we all know RPM exist Bass. It's the adverse affect of RPM on regular cast bullets at a certain level referred to as the RPM threshold that is the question. Just how many times must you keep up with the same drival before comprehending that?

Now that you have shot in the zone, the zone is at different velocities for these twists, please tell us which twist rate was the most accurate at 130,000 RPMs? The one at the lowest velocity? OR the one at the highest velocity?

All other things being equal and given twists of from 7 to 14" they all can be just as accurate as long as the velocity gives them 130,000 RPM.

I never said that you prooved RPMS was all powerful. You see I have a single high velocity load that shoot 2"or 1" simply by altering bedding pressure. Now, which load is affected by RPMs? The answer is neither. You are looking at a 2" high velocity group and saying that it doesn't equal the low velocity group because of RPMs. But YOU DON"T know that! You are just guessing because you did a few twist rate experiments and went from 10" groups down to 4 or what ever the figures were, and then you gave up. And that's a personal problem. :grin:

And I have said your load is with a custom bullet (a single load). I have said that is the way to do it how many times? Just how many accurate loads at 2400+ fps do you have with regular cast bullets out of that 10" twist '06 regardless of barrel pressure....none, right?

And I do know that Bass, I am not like some here who bring a lot of hypothetical essoteric ideas (tops, trains, planes and automobiles) and claim them as proof. I take cast bullets (the one(s) in question) and shoot them, test them while measuring the internal and external ballistics. I present the facts as they are, not as some of you want them to be. I am looking at many, many consistant 2" groups (mostly 4-5" groups with the 10" twist and regular cast bullats at 2400+ fps) I've shot during this test. So far I have fired over 500 shots in this one experiment/test and will shoot about that many more before it is finished. That is not " "a few" nor is it "giving up". Just how many shots have you fired in any test where you have measured everything that I am measuring. Your attempt to belittle my marksmanship is seen for what it is and now you attempt to belittle my test as "a few" and "quitting". You really need to get a sense of reality about you bass and quit the childish tit for tat BS.

I'll ignore the "personal problem" insult.

This testing has clouded your judgement as much as a teenager discovering cocaine for the first time believing it unlocked the secrets of the universe for him. And you do not use that position consistently. You admit there is a recepie for success with custom molds. Well what is the difference between telling someone his 311284 won't shoot in his rifle because it doesn't fit properly in the zone but when someone goes up in velocity, we have to keep our mouth shut and call it RPMs? That's why I said learning how to shoot HV helps your LV work even more. You can be shooting 1 1/2" groups at 100 in the zone and still be a victim of RPMs. You just don't realize it or are satisfied and don't care that you could be doing better. HV doesn't give you that option does it? :grin:

"There you go with another unintelligent euphanism regarding drugs. It would be nice if you could stick to cast bullet facts. There is nothing wrong with telling someone 311284 (another regular cast bullet) won't shoot as accurately at at high velcoity. The point to this is it is not because it "doesn't fit properly in the zone" (not sure what "the zone" is), the point is that bullet nor any other regular cast bullet won't shoot accurately at high velocity in 10" twists is because of RPMs and the shooter should be told that. You and the 3 others here are the ones saying not to tell the shooter that. You and the other 3 are the ones that lead the shooter to believe if he does all sorts of essoteric stuff he just may get good accuracy at HV. Then when the shooter doesn't (he never will) get good accuracy at high velocity you belittle them with accusations of poor reloading, casting or 45 2.1s favorite, "those of us who know can do, those who don't can't". What kind of garbage is that to do to a shooter who is wanting to learn. The point is the shooter will not get accuracy at high velocity, the reason is RPM, and he should be told that up front. Then we should lead the shooter to the riight way to get accuracy at HV if he really wants to. You, and the other 3, just can't understand or can't comprehend the difference.

And I am not the brightest bulb on the tree, but I ain't no dummy either. What your testing has REALLY proven to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that I never want to shoot a 311291. Why waste my time? Is there a merrit badge for this or something? But I knew that about factory bore rides already. Why do you think that the 311291 is generally recommended over the 311284? That's right, less nose weight, so less need for nose fit. But better ain't good enough is it? :grin:

Well just how many shooters ask for help on this forum about shooting high velocity with the LBT bullet? How many shooters ask for help on this forum about shooting high velocity with the 311291? How many shooters ask for help on this forum about shooting high velocity with regular Lyman, RCBS, Lee, Saeco, Hoch, etc. regular cast bullet designs? So you don't care to shoot 311291 now...no one really cares. Most of us would rather help all the ones that do and further the knowledge of cast bullet shooting. So you don't want to shoot 311291 or any other regular cast bullet, then let us that do get on with our testing and understanding. You want to take your football and go home...then go.

Want to shoot like my wife at 2400 fps? Wife's deer load now is only 2100 fps actually using ACWW and 28.5 grains of RL 7 with a tuft of dacron using my 165 grain design. IT's a solid incher. I had to go to dacron cause where we moved her stand, she has a lot of down hill shooting. Point made though. OK. Stop your testing. Quit wasting your money. Send me one of your guns, your dies and some brass and about $60 cash to cover my expenses and the return shipping. I will do it in your own rifle, set everything up for you, and then send it back with instructions. I'll even work with you if you want to design a mold for it later so you can do it yourself. Can't beat that offer with a stick. :grin:[/QUOTE]

Why don't you show us how to shoot 311291, oops you're tired of that one, so ok 311284 at 2400+ fps with 1" accuracy out of your wifes '06? You know why you don't...because you can't and neither can we. The load you're now using is 150,000 RPM, just above the RPM threshold. It also is not considered "high velocity" for an '06 by the majority of us.I do believe I have said many times the RPM threshold can be pushed with a few shots (with good accuracy. Then you have to clean the barrel or accuacy suffers because of all the things such as fouling that you and everyone else knows about. So you do what I and everyone else does so what. What happened to that 1" 2500+ fps load......oh yeah, it only works on 80+ degree days! Nice to know you've backed the loads down where consistant accuracy is attainable for a hunting load.

There is no need to take up your offer. The insinuated insult of my reloading and marksmanship abilities will be ignored. I do very well without your obvious expertise. Why don't you just show us how it's done with your own rifle and reloading equipment? We couldn't beat that with a stick!;-)

Ya know Bass, we've gone through this drival of yours I don't know how many times. Why don't you just put up or shut up. That applies to the other 3 as well. Show us how to consistantly (that means multiple 5 shot groups or at least a 10 shot group) shoot a regular cast bullet at high velocity above the RPM threshold with equal or better accuracy than in or below the RPM threshold. Until you can show us that your drival is just more tops, planes, trains and automobiles and now perhaps string wrapped around a dowel.

Larry Gibson.

[Tiger]

Larry say Well just how many shooters ask for help on this forum about shooting high velocity with the LBT bullet?

Maybe I can answer that. Look how many buy from the group buy the custom Lee molds. These are not exactly factory molds.

Larry just what different about custom mold. Before I go on I think I do pretty good with bore rider bullet in my 6.5x47 Lapua. That bore rider has much more bore riding nose then the 311261. The big difference I see with custom mold is get diameter one wants. But any way look like you try throw something else in kettle. First it is rpm, now you throw in non factory mold. Pretty soon we have to shoot factory mold bullet certain alloy certain lube and so forth all specified by Larry.

Okay I shut and go shoot some more. Oh one more thing. I am going to borrow the original Saeco mold from friend that we make copy of so that when I shoot more then one small group you don't say that I had my mold made special.

Ralf

[45 2.1]

Larry does seem to be heating up pretty good. Its time for Larry to take a breather and cool off. Maybe a vacation without internet would do him some good. We wouldn't want him to blow a gasket at his age, now would we. :mrgreen:

Maybe a moderator could cool his offensive language down some to.

[9.3X62AL]

Energy applied here should generate light, not heat. We're all striving for the same goal--improved ballistic performance and greater consistency. Tearing at and antagonizing one another serves no valid purpose, and runs counter to board regulations. If this was a soccer pitch, I'd be reaching for a yellow card presently.

[Larry Gibson]

Ralf

Do your research before you stick your foot into your mouth. Most of the GB moulds are copies of regular mould desiggns. They are not "custom" either, they are made by Lee (at his mould making factory BTW) just like his other moulds.

Besides Ralf (you are one of the other "3" I mentioned who have trouble understanding or comprehending) while many say 'custom" mould they actually mean "custom designed" bullet in a mould. I have always said "regular cast bullet" and have on numerous occasions defigned that. Look back a few posts to the ones where I answer leftiye (read it this time) and you will find that. I also have described what is meant by "custom design" in those posts. You notice I also credit a "regualr cast bullet" design as being capable of high velocity accuracy, the light for caliber Loverns. Now take your foot out of your mouth, go back to those posts and read them this time.

Kind of silly to tell me not to say your mould was special made when you just admitted that is what it will be, isn't it? But as mentioned; custom or special, as long as the mould is a copy of a regular design (as defined in previous posts) you will not get good groups with it at high velocity (also defined for you in a previous post). If the mould is good I expect to see some decent groups at 1500 - 1800 fps or so. Not at high velocity though.

Larry Gibson

[357maximum]

Energy applied here should generate light, not heat. .

AL...without your permission or your blessing....I will use that quote one day, thanks.:drinks:

[Tiger]

Okay then Larry I use the mold friend made. It is any ways pretty much exact copy. The Saeco bullet fit my barrel very well why I chose it. So this make things easier for me then I do not have to borrow original mold.

Ralf

[Larry Gibson]

Ralf

Please show us what you can do with that mould in your 6.5. I give you credit, you at least are working at it with actual tests. Thank you, I look forward to seeing your results.

Larry Gibson

[Tiger]

Ralf

Please show us what you can do with that mould in your 6.5. I give you credit, you at least are working at it with actual tests. Thank you, I look forward to seeing your results.

Larry Gibson

Thank you Larry. See we get along just some differences.

Ralf

[joeb33050]

Patched boolits have the same basic dimensions or they wouldn't fit in the barrel. They also undergo obturation, set back and are cut/engraved by the rifling. I know this from looking at close to a thousand recovered slugs to see the effects for myself. The effects were made while in the barrel via internal ballistics. When they exit the barrel, they look much the same as a "regular cast boolit" as mine were cast from normal factory molds.

It's many years since I did any paper patching, but I thought the object was to have a bullet with no rifling marks. I/we took/made SMALLER THAN BORE BY .001"/.002" bullets and paper patched them. Ex: 45/70 bullet at .449", then paper patched. The paper was to take the rifling, leave the bullet shortly after the muzzle, bullet to have no rifling marks. I don't recall ever looking at a recovered bullet, they'd go 2' or more into the berm.
Have I got this wrong? Yes, all alloys that will obturate will expand into the paper and leave rifling marks, obturate and set back. Whitworth shot steel slugs with paper patch and blackpowder while testing for the British government. Any slug that is hard enough to not slug up will need to be smaller than the bore and need enough paper coverage to take up any "windage" so the patch stays intact.
It appears that I was wrong. How could that be???? Well, it had to happen.
Thanks;
joe b.

[Larry Gibson]

Joe

Seems to be a contradiction there but I don't think so. The "that will" seems to clarify it it for me;

"Yes, all alloys that will obturate will expand into the paper and leave rifling marks, obturate and set back."

Then one sentence later;

"Any slug that is hard enough to not slug up will need to be smaller than the bore and need enough paper coverage to take up any "windage" so the patch stays intact."

I'm not going to get into a discussion of which is correct but the PP boys tell me it's the second statement. They say the first applies to old time methods of PPing, especially as recommended for the Sharps. They say it applies to soft alloys. I'm just pointing out the contradiction as pointed out to me. I don't think they saw the "that will". Please don't shoot the messenger.

A point also brought to my attention is that with bullets of the second type there isn't any rifling marks impressed onto the bullet. They are protected from the harmfull effects of the rifling during accelleration and totall supported by the patching. It is the reason higher velocities are possible with given alloys when PP'd. Again don't shoot the messenger, I'm just passing along info from a couple who don't want in this fray.

Larry Gibson

[45 2.1]

Joe-

I highly recommend you don't believe anyone here. Try it yourself (in a rifled arm of course) and dig out the slug, better yet several slugs and see if you see rifling marks on the slug. Keep in mind that traditional PP slugs used a soft lead tin alloy of not harder than 20:1. Give it several tries and report what you find. Nothing is better than personnal experience when trying to find out something.

[leftiye]

Good on ya Joe (post 99) It happens to all of us sooner or later - having to admit being wrong that is (except Larry). P.S He's wrong about the paper patched thing too. If a paper patched boolit is .001" over bore diameter as many recommend, it will most certainly show rifling marks.

[Larry Gibson]

Leftiye

You really should try the prunes;-)

Larry Gibson

[runfiverun]

john barsness has a nice article in rifle magazine
has i bit to do with twist rates.........with j-words.
ain't gonna quote him.................but larry would be quite interested, nothing he don't already know.
but it is nice to see it in print, and how he came to his conclusions.

[joeb33050]

Joe-

I highly recommend you don't believe anyone here. Try it yourself (in a rifled arm of course) and dig out the slug, better yet several slugs and see if you see rifling marks on the slug. Keep in mind that traditional PP slugs used a soft lead tin alloy of not harder than 20:1. Give it several tries and report what you find. Nothing is better than personnal experience when trying to find out something.

I'm not good at believing anyone. Went to the Wyoming Scheutzen Union site and asked the question. Got the same answer with pictures. So there's agreement among a few folks. The more votes, maybe the closer to the truth.
joe b.

[Bass Ackward]

Larry,

Challenge accepted. And that is a cheaper alternative.

I can still do 2400 fps with the 311466. That's a factory mold. And you can do that with 28,000 psi.

I can only get 2100 fps out of my 311284. That's getting up there at about 42,000.

Notice how pressure is the killer. But it is under bore size and outta round, so it is limited.

You want me to zing a 311291 accurately out of a 10 twist? OK. Send me the mold. I'll give it a whirl.

Quickload already says that the load to do it is around 47-48 grains of RL15 with a pistol primer. Pressure is about 33,000. Yea. I can do this. Send the mold.

[leftiye]

Speaking of pressure, has any one else noticed how the graphs in Larry's tests "prove" that accuracy goes south at about 35000 psi (IIRC)? Almost identical graphs as his rpm graphs. The RPM version is no harder to disprove than this one is - the answer is "Are there people doing it (getting accuracy) at higher pressures OR RPMS?"

Reminds me of a video game that I saw a kid playing. One of them first person shooter games. The bad guy was charging the player, the player shot him right between the eyes, splattered his brains all over the wall, the bad guy shrugged and said it didn't happen? You eat the prunes Larry.

[Larry Gibson]

Bass

I'm out of town for a couple weeks again, back in North Carolina. Have to wait until I get home.

"I can still do 2400 fps with the 311466. That's a factory mold. And you can do that with 28,000 psi."

Yes, I believe that's the one of the Lovern designs I said one could do it with. I even posted a side by side comparison photo of one along side your LBT bullet on the other thread. I also have mentioned in this thread several times (at least once in resonce to you and a couple in respnse to leftiye and Ralf) of 311466 as being one of the factory designs that could do it. Remember?

It's nice to see that leftiye is finally bothering to fine tooth comb the actual test results to see what he can come up with. Perhaps he may learn something while he is at it. leftiye, yes the accuracy does begin to go south at around the same pressure. Not exactly a new concept. We all know what high pressure and high accelleration can do to a cast bullet inside the bore. That's where you also appear to be stuck. That graph show the bullets were pretty much equally damged at about the same pressure regardless of the twist. Nothing new there. If he would bother to take a close look he would also see that the degree of accuracy loss is higher in the 10" twist than in the 12 or 14" twis. Also the 12" twist barrel has a higher accuracy loss than the 14" barrel. Now if he would come outside the bore and consider what is happening to the bullet in flight that will lead him to the group size vs RPM graph. You might notice the much greater disportional accuracy loss of the 10" barrel to the 12 and 14" barrels. at the same RPM aboe the RPM threshold. You might also notice that the 14" twist maintains the same accuracy at 2400+ fps as the 10" twist barrel had at 2000 fps. This is because at 2400-2500+ RPM the 14" twist still is within the RPM threshold. The 10 and 12" twists are above the RPM threshold at 2400-2500+ fps and their respective group sizes show the accuracy loss due to RPM.

Keep looking leftiye, you might just catch on yet.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

Bass

Had time to think it over. OK I'll send the mould. However let's remember this whole test I've run has been to estiblish if there is an RPM threshold and how it effects regular cast bullets. The first part of that test involved 311291 in the .308 Win using 3 different twists. The test used a standard medium powder running velocities in each twist from 1700 up through 2500+ fps. The test then shifted to test specific individual things that are regarded as "accuracy enhancing". These were tested in the 10" twist to determine if any increase in accuracy could be noted. A single load producing 2400+ fps was selected to test each.

This test has not been to develop the most accurate load for that bullet in any of those twists. This test is about a regular cast being able to shoot as accurate or more accurately above the RPM threshold at HV/high RPM (170-180,000) than that bullet does in or below theRPM threshold (125-140,000 RPM). The point is the challenge for you (if you accept) is to shoot that bulet with equal accuracy at 2400+ fps as that bullet shoots in the 1800-1950 fps range.

With that understanding when you recieve the mould I don't want to hear anything about the mould not producing bullets capable of 1 moa accuracy. It is an old well used mould. It does produce good bullets though as a couple of the groups I've posted attest and the groups fired in the 12 and particularly the 14" twist barrel also attest. Just get on with the test. If the bullets produce 2 moa accuracy at 1800 fps then you should be able (so you claim) to produce that same accuracy or better at 2400+ fps.

Cast the bullets of any alloy, use any lube, use any GC, size them as you will. Then run a test (assuming your wife's 10" twist '06) as I did using a good medium burning powder shooting at least 5 shot groups running the velocity from 1700 fps up through 2500 fps. This will establish the base accuracy of that bullet in your rifle in and below the RPM threshold. Then use any accuracy enhancing technique you can to shoot the same accuracy with that bullet as it shoots in or below the RPM threshold. I have been using 10 shot groups in my continued test to demonstrate consistant accuracy in testing the accuracy enhancing things we do. It would be nise to see 10 shot groups during this portion of your test also. A chronograph must be used to record actual velocities, not quickloads guestimate.

If you really accept this challenge then email me your address and I'll mail the mould to yo when I return home. Emailing your address will constitute agreement to run the test as described. You will have a lot of freedom and discretion to test any method you want to improve accuracy, the door is open.

Larry Gibson

[Bass Ackward]

Added: Yes I do accept. I will treat it gently. It had to be " THAT " mold so that when you get it back, you will not believe that I altered it to fit better or any other trick. It will return exactly as you send it. My test will be with thee 10 twists that each have a different form of throat and rifling that affects fit differently. So I may get it to shoot in none, one or all three. I will do two, 5 shot groups. The ten shots is a gimick that has to do with if a load fouls, not if it shoots accurately. Shoot every rifle ever built 100,000 shot in that group and all rifles, calibers, barrel weights, action types will shoot the same size group.


Your post above says it all as far as I am concerned.

1. You KNOW that there is a difference in bullet designs as you point that out above.

2. You know how important bullet fit is as you have described in this thread and mentioned designs that do. Cause you know soft lead will deform until it is supported by steel. So does copper and that causes problems too.

3. You understand how that when a charge goes off, the back of the bullet starts forward before the nose which is why you get obturation. So " ALL " damage begins at the base of the bullet making it "the steering wheel of the bullet". Thus making pressure the alpha and the omega. And that the more weight that you put in front of that slug, the more you increase inertia and weaken the slug. So in effect we might drivelize, (new word: drivilize: to speak drivileez as there is no facts or proof in shooting) that filling a worn throat with a perfectly designed and fitted bullet that is too heavy for the case capacity maximises what you have, but that simply isn't good enough and can't be used to justify RPMs. That's why 22s do better RPMs than 30s that do better than 45s. Or that fitting a slug .015 over bore to have to maintain alignment that takes 3 hours to size down after the charge goes off affects the base that's just trying to survive so it won't cause tipping or keyholing. Call these the Carlina Syndrom.

4. You understand how pressure affects all the above and therefore how hardness and lube interact to maintain a semblance of what you molded and to cover your / our errors. And that the faster you push that base forward (faster powder) amplifies the damage. Twist rate impedes forward motion and the worse the angle, the more pressure is going to impact you just as if you were using faster powder or more bullet weight. And the lower rifling height you use allows even more damage if the angle is too steep, ruining launch. And how poor the lube affects this process too especially if it acts like fouling and sizes down your slug effectively lowering rifling height as velocity increases.

5. And if you can't win fair in life, dog gone it, cheat and hollow point. That defeats inaccuracy by using air to stabilize tipping from pressure problems faster so all three forces have far less effect.

But you know all of this, because YOU understand and accept it every day. Either that, or you DON'T shoot high velocity or low velocity as well as you could be. Every man deserves to be remembered for what he wants and RPMs, on this board, will be forever tagged to you.

I / we DON"T have to do things incorrectly. And I can and will tell others how not to. I have always said, "All experimentation stops when satisfaction is achieved." Now I will add, "or failure is accepted." Live damage free or die! That "SHOULD BE" Cast Boolit's logo.

And now that says it all for me. You think, as well as many others, that this has been a negative set of threads. I disagree there too. All education is worthwhile. Education does not always open the eyes of everyone by the end of the course. It lasts a lifetime. There is always tomorrow. The board owes you a debt of gratitude and so do I. High velocity puts it all together and helping me clearify my understanding of what to avoid is what will move me ahead and help me help others as I am better able to pass along .... drivel.

That's why I am here. :grin:

[leftiye]

Shrugged and said it didn't happen. Faster twists deform boolits more. Yes, Larry, "In the barrel."

There are a multitude of other factors just like this in reloading, while in the barrel, and while in flight that you ignore that totally pollute your test. And whenever someone mentions one or more of them you just shrug (reads - no answer, It didn't happen). You have to control the variables, not ignore them. As long as they're out there they leave your test proving nothing.

[Larry Gibson]

Yes leftiye, some things are just plain ignored simply because there really isn't much to about them. Like how much farther at 100 yards a bullet travels that hits 3" to the left. We've been through all of your hypothesis before. I pay attention to to those things that do matter. I'm measuring the affect on accuracy (in this case a regular cast bullet at high velocity/high RPM) of those things that we can pay attention to. In other words I am actually conducting tests, I am not just hypothesising about cause and effect. That is "controlling the variables. Hypothisizing about them does not.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

Bass

Thank you for accepting the offer/challenge. I see in the PM that we still disagree on 10 shot groups. You say 10 shot groups demonstrate fouling not accuracy. I'm assuming you are cleaning between every 5 shot group then. That's not convenient but in this case that's ok with me except that if you find one load that appears to be "the one". Then please shoot a minimum of four 5 shot groups to demonstrate consistancy. Clean between groups if you want. If the load is not repeatable it is not consistant and then only an anomoly.

We for the most part are in agreement with your last post.

Larry Gibson

[Tiger]

hallo Larry,

So you say test is rpm/pressure. Would you say your rifle with 10 twist has same bore dimensions as you other 12 and 14 twist. Probably not. Would you say that different powders with different burn rates could make some change on bullet deformation. Probably you say yes. Larry there are so many variable that can affect out come of the test in just powders alone. Any way how can you be so sure in determining if the accuracy decline is caused by pressure or by rpm.

I agree much with Bass on no 10 shot group because of fouling. I say this because like before I have said fouling is one reason accuracy declines. To get to higher velocity you need more powder. With more powder there is more fouling. With the increase bullet speed in your bore there is maybe even more alloy fouling.

If bullet is not terrible unbalance or have voids how is higher rpm going to affect it outside the barrel. If in in other word comes out of muzzle in near perfect condition. Only thing I can thing of is that twist is terrible wrong for bullet weight or length.

Ralf
I am playing with other rifles at moment if you wonder what happen to 6.5x47 test.

[Larry Gibson]

Ralf

So you say test is rpm/pressure.

No, the test is to determine the adverse effect RPM has on regular cast bullets.

Would you say your rifle with 10 twist has same bore dimensions as you other 12 and 14 twist. Probably not.

The groove dimension and bore dimensions are within .0003 as near as I can measure the lead slugs with a .0001" micrometer (regular and blade). The rifling twist is obviously different. What you keep forgetting is that I measure the bullets efficiency in flight. I am measuring a number of things (quite extensive actually) with the Oehler M43 Personal Ballistics Laboritory regarding the internal ballistics and the external ballistics of the tested bullets. For a complete list of what I am measuring refer back the the 2 RPM test threads. At the same pressure velocities the same (given the statisical correction between 24", 26" and 27.5" barrel lengths. I also measure the BCs of the bullets. At the same pressures and the same velocities the BCs are also the same. That means there is no practical difference on the bullets flight that the minute differences in barrel dimensions and rifling twists cause.

Would you say that different powders with different burn rates could make some change on bullet deformation.

With some softer alloys that is correct. However in this case , with this alloy (linotype) there was not a change in deformation to the bullet when using Varget, IMR4350 or H4831SC (3 progressively slower burning powders) compared to the same bullet loaded over H4895. All 311291 bullets of linotype gave the exact same BCs at 2350-2400+ fps even though the pressure was less with the slower powders. Also when cross referrenced with the alloy of 15-18 BHN we also find the same BCs. That tells us that with an alloy of 18 BHN or harder there is no difference in obturation during accelleration between a medium burning powdr such as 4895/ RL15 and a slow burning powder such as 4831/ RL19.

Probably you say yes.

Quite frankly I was surprised by this finding as it had been my long held belief that the slower powders would give less obturation and thus a higher BC. It did not. Such is the nature of testing with actual measurements; it provides proof that some times our hypothisis just doesn't work out. Now, after the test and the factual proof, I say no.

Larry there are so many variable that can affect out come of the test in just powders alone. Any way how can you be so sure in determining if the accuracy decline is caused by pressure or by rpm.

I can be sure by isolating each thing that we can control and taking accurate measurements of the effect (or no effect) that the one isolated thing measured has. In the case of powders as previously discussed; with a bullet cast of hard alloy the use of a slow burning powder instead of a medium burning powder provides no less obturation at high velocity. That is based on the measured test results. BTW; Not only did using a slower burning powder at 2350-2400+ fps not reduce any obturation of the bullet during accelleration but it also provided for no increase in accuracy over the medium burning powder at such velocity/RPM.

I agree much with Bass on no 10 shot group because of fouling. I say this because like before I have said fouling is one reason accuracy declines. To get to higher velocity you need more powder. With more powder there is more fouling. With the increase bullet speed in your bore there is maybe even more alloy fouling.

I don't disagree which is why I concented to the use of 5 shot groups with an apparent cleaning in between. However I do disagree with it based on the fact that we are looking for consistant accuracy. Consistant means to be able to give that accuracy regardless of the conditions. A hunter wanting such a load to practice with does not want to clean his barrel every 5 shots. A shooter who wants such a load for perhaps long range matches can not stop and clean his barrel 3 times in the middle of a 20 shot string for record. There are numerous other examples. I have also mentioned numerous times that for a big game load where no more than 5 shots is fired without cleaning the barrel it may be prudent. However for general use a load that only maintains 1.5 moa accuracy for 5 shots and then opens up to a consistant 4-5 moa if more shots are fired is not a consistant 1.5 moa load. It is a consitant 4-5 moa load. That is my belief. Obviously Bass, you and perhaps others believe differently. That is ok too.

If bullet is not terrible unbalance or have voids how is higher rpm going to affect it outside the barrel. If in in other word comes out of muzzle in near perfect condition. Only thing I can thing of is that twist is terrible wrong for bullet weight or length.

We have discussed the answer to this in many posts in numerous threads. If you've not got a grasp of the concept by now then you should go back to at least the beginings of threads RPM test Chaper 1 and RPM test chapter 2 and read what I say. The concept is well expalined there.

I am playing with other rifles at moment if you wonder what happen to 6.5x47 test.

That's ok, I'm playing with a couple others also, at least when I'm home.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

Shrugged and said it didn't happen. Faster twists deform boolits more. Yes, Larry, "In the barrel."

There are a multitude of other factors just like this in reloading, while in the barrel, and while in flight that you ignore that totally pollute your test. And whenever someone mentions one or more of them you just shrug (reads - no answer, It didn't happen). You have to control the variables, not ignore them. As long as they're out there they leave your test proving nothing.

Leftiye

The test is not complete nor have I posted (except for excerpes in my last post to Ralf) any of the subsequent results. I do control the variables, I isolate them and test them with precise measured results. Other than b*tch and complain what do you do to make such judgement based on incomplete knowledge? You have no patience, wait for the rest of the test results before you make judgements on the tests validity and the results. The prunes will help relieve what ails you:-)

Larry Gibson

[Tiger]

First let me thank carpetman for sending me private message pointing out I don't put ? after my sentences that ask question. Thank you Carpetman.

Larry

Lino type is not cure all or all that good. I think some of more knowledge cast shooters here know that. For one is it too brittle. For another I do not thing it bump up as good as another alloy comprised of different metals. I think too it puts more burden on you lube. Further I think sometime it more capable of leading your bore. I do not even think it is all that good to harden up another alloy. Now that I realize you use this I think maybe you better try alloy 45 2.1 use or maybe just little harder.

On your barrels. Number of groove make big difference in some cases. Like Bass say depth of groove also play major point. I would like to see test done with 10 with different number of grooves and at different groove depths. I bet we see difference.

Ralf

[runfiverun]

ralf.
i conducted one of larry/bass's tests different rifle,boolit,& lube the hardness was near the same , done differently [i don't know 45 2.1's mix]
but it was nice to notice that we all shot very similar groups with very different set-up's.
and to me re-peatability without cleaning every 4-5 shots is everything.
some of the events i shoot in are timed [ten shots off-hand in 2 minutes] there is just no way to stop and clean every 5 shots.
nevermind between relays,or target re-setting.
maybe that is why i shoot ten shot groups, and work my loads so that i don't clean my bbl
just push a wet patch through the bbl at the end of each set.

and also an overstabilized boolit/bullet will have a tendency to fly with it's nose
pointing upward.
my last round of tests [since larry mentioned this] showed that slowr powder had
better groups than fast powder did at the same velocities...........[lower pressure]

lube will be the next variable [just recieved some soft lube to try y-day, then lbt blue.
then lars's c-red.]
one variable at a time eh? guess thats how you do it

[Larry Gibson]

Ralf

As to the use of linotype. It has been used for many, many years for HV loads When you heat treat bullets (oven or WQ) most often the BHN is as hard or harder than linotype. Also recall that the initial test was done with an alloy equivelent to Lyman's #2. There was no difference in measured performance between the 3. It all has to do with the basic fit of the bulet in the throat. All thre rifles have match throats that are pretty much dimensionally the same. Doesn't really matter what you, I, 45 2.1 "thinks". The measured performance showed there was no difference and the linotype performed as expected.

If it was linotype then explain why accuracy, with the same loads at the same velocity and the same pressure, is always better in the 12 and 14" twists than in the 10" twists. The answer why the same bullets always shoot more accurately in the 12 and 14" twist barrels with the same load at the same velocity and at the same pressure is because the RPMs are lower. It has nothing to do with the alloy as long as it is a good alloy and has a BHN of over 18.

Leftiye claims I "ignore" things; I don't. I measur them to see if there really is an effect. the use of lintype vs an alloy fo 18 BHN shows no difference. Accuracy is very good with the #2 alloy and linotype 311291s out of the 14" twist barrel at 2400+ fps. The RPM with that load in the 14" twist is back down in the lower end of the RPM threshold. That is a fact, that tells me something. I think i is you and the other 3 that are ignoring something; the facts!. So it doesn't matter what you think, the facts speak for themselves and tell us what is really so. It is the facts that I really prefer to believe.

A test with 10 different barrels....well my test has shown no difference in accuracy between 3 barrels with regular cast bullets at high velocity. I have so far fired over 500 shots out of those 3 barrels taking carefull measurements of internal and external ballistics. I have been comparing the actual measured results instead of "thinking" about what they might be. A test of 10 barrels might be interesting, have at it.

Larry Gibson

[leftiye]

So you're not ignoring the fact that faster twists deform boolits more than slower twists do? I don't recall an answer to this from post # 111. And all of the different possible problems with linotype that Tiger mentioned that you just conveniently didn't respond to? You didn't ignore them? Correction on THE FACTS - it should read YOUR FACTS, there's a difference.

So, once again we'll try to understand. I'd appreciate an answer finally as to just how a boolit that is flying point on (your words) manages to destroy accuracy due to centrifugal force alone? Without yawing or wobbling or anything that is, and without the effects of air resistance on a boolit that must be OTHER than point on before air resistance can deflect it? Is it magic, maybe? You ignored this one before when I asked it, you may remember.

Oh, I remember, It has to do with your special definition of stability, as long as it doesn't show up in reduced B.C.s it's stable, and until it goes haywire out of control, it's still stable. All of the lesser yawing, flying in spirals, wobbling, settling down etc. you somehow forgot to mention. Just as deflection of the boolit from muzzle blast wasn't controlled for (generally held to be the main cause or one of the main causes of inaccuracy). In fact you argued that boolits don't settle down. Did you notice that the Sierra people saw the decreased ballistic coefficients when the rpms were TOO LOW, not when they were in your rpm zone? Rpms stabilize boolits.

This does go on to include all of those other variables that affect accuracy, and probably cause the results that you're trying to attribute to rpms, that you didn't control for in your test. But you don't ignore them either? When someone challenges your test platform you don't triumph by dodging the question. You either answer the question, the issues, or you're dead meat (you just lost, that is). Ignoring the questions never proved anything. Shrugging, and gargling at opponents only works for politicians. There have been numerous instances where a fatal issue was presented to you, and you just ignored it (it didn't happen?).

[Larry Gibson]

Leftiye

So you're not ignoring the fact that faster twists deform boolits more than slower twists do? I don't recall an answer to this from post # 111. And all of the different possible problems with linotype that Tiger mentioned that you just conveniently didn't respond to? You didn't ignore them? Correction on THE FACTS - it should read YOUR FACTS, there's a difference.

The fact is, as stated in a couple posts, that with bullets of 18 BHN or harder there is no measureable or discernable evidence that the faster twist deforms the bullet more than the slower twist up through 2500+ fps. I'm not ignoring that fact. I tested for it and found the answer.

So, once again we'll try to understand. I'd appreciate an answer finally as to just how a boolit that is flying point on (your words) manages to destroy accuracy due to centrifugal force alone? Without yawing or wobbling or anything that is, and without the effects of air resistance on a boolit that must be OTHER than point on before air resistance can deflect it? Is it magic, maybe? You ignored this one before when I asked it, you may remember.

You really like to beat a dead horse. The centrifugal force of RPM at a certain level causes the bullet, while still traveling point forward, to rotae around it's axis of flight in a spiral manner. Once again I have profided an answer. Just because you don't like the answer does not mean I do not answer.

Oh, I remember, It has to do with your special definition of stability, as long as it doesn't show up in reduced B.C.s it's stable, and until it goes haywire out of control, it's still stable. All of the lesser yawing, flying in spirals, wobbling, settling down etc. you somehow forgot to mention. Just as deflection of the boolit from muzzle blast wasn't controlled for (generally held to be the main cause or one of the main causes of inaccuracy). In fact you argued that boolits don't settle down. Did you notice that the Sierra people saw the decreased ballistic coefficients when the rpms were TOO LOW, not when they were in your rpm zone? Rpms stabilize boolits.

What shows up in the BCs is that all the bullets from all 3 twists are of equal stability at equal velocity and pressures. The accuacy is different above the RPM threshold of the 3 twists. The RPM is also different. The corollary is the higher the RPM at a given velocity/pressure the worse the accuracy.

This does go on to include all of those other variables that affect accuracy, and probably cause the results that you're trying to attribute to rpms, that you didn't control for in your test. But you don't ignore them either? When someone challenges your test platform you don't triumph by dodging the question. You either answer the question, the issues, or you're dead meat (you just lost, that is). Ignoring the questions never proved anything. Shrugging, and gargling at opponents only works for politicians. There have been numerous instances where a fatal issue was presented to you, and you just ignored it (it didn't happen?).

I have always answered the question. You don't like the answer. So you ignore the answer and continue with the same questions. This is not a win/lose argument. This is a test so that we may learn. Many of us are learning. You seem stuck with "winning". Not that kind of game. Try objectively looking at what is discussed and the facts. "Fatal issues, gargling, shrugging, triumph..." Sounds like an obsessive problem, the prunes may solve your problem.

Larry Gibson

[45 2.1]

Speaking of pressure, has any one else noticed how the graphs in Larry's tests "prove" that accuracy goes south at about 35000 psi (IIRC)? Almost identical graphs as his rpm graphs.

Yep, i've noticed that also. Its very strange that this would happen, it seems as if Larry's alloy is causing the so called "RPM" effect. Of course it couldn't be as Larry has taken everything into account (or not depending on what you think about it). Funny it isn't happening to others who use different alloys though, isn't it.

Just because someone responds to anothers post doesn't mean it is an answer (even if he thinks its so).

[Tiger]

Larry,

Those good groups shot by 357Maximum and BaBore I believe were shot with alloy that was not lino type.

I try to tell Larry this but he does not listen. Going to lino type to try cure bullet problem for first step is elementary mistake.

Larry you commented 357Maximum on his good shooting. Time to ask him what his alloy is and maybe you try it.

Ralf

[357maximum]

Re-Read post #52

The launch pressures need to agree with the alloy....in order to get linotype to do what I am doing you would need about 80,000 psi...I am not man enough to shoot that gun 8-)

[BABore]

Yep, Lino runs around 22 Bhn. 50% WW and 50% PB, heat treated, runs around 20-22 Bhn. Do they shoot the same? Not even close. Go figure.

I switched from OHTWW (28-30 bhn) to OHT 50/50 WW-Pb (22 bhn) to be able to shoot at HV more accurately. Lowering the antimony eliminated the grey antimonial wash that was fouling my bbl.

[leftiye]

Larry, from this non answer everyone can see that you've never answered any of these questions. None of these "answers" answers the question asked, nor deals with the specifics mentioned. I believe that while your "answers" provide some "interesting" material, everyone can see that they beg the questions asked (or open up further areas where you've "taken liberties"). Intriguingly enough, these are in some cases better "answers" than what we usually get. Again, the standard for defending a study is that you answer the question specifically and with a compelling argument. Otherwise, the standard is that you lose.

There is a vast difference between not liking the answer and feeling that the subject has been changed and the question begged.

[leftiye]

You really like to beat a dead horse. The centrifugal force of RPM at a certain level causes the bullet, while still traveling point forward, to rotae around it's axis of flight in a spiral manner. Once again I have profided an answer. Just because you don't like the answer does not mean I do not answer. Larry Gibson

So, How does centrifugal force cause the boolit to rotate around its axis of flight? in a spiral manner? Is it from here magic? Or is there a force acting to cause the spiral?

The common knowledge says that the boolit point yaws out of the line of flight, and that air resistance causes it to deflect. Further that as the boolit yaws and rotates (part of yawing) this deflection progresses to be applied in a circular manner causing a spiral flight path.

As we can see here, this is not a case of not liking your answer, but that your answer is inadequate. This is because your answer is illogical and non functional. If the rest of your theory is based on this, AND IT IS! - you've got a problem.

[leftiye]

Yep, i've noticed that also. Its very strange that this would happen, it seems as if Larry's alloy is causing the so called "RPM" effect. Of course it couldn't be as Larry has taken everything into account (or not depending on what you think about it). Funny it isn't happening to others who use different alloys though, isn't it. 45 2.

I think my guess is that Larry used a boolit and load that he knew ahead of time would do what he wanted to have happen. The boolit wasn't satisfactory for high velocity (as he's stated elsewhere in this thread), and the load is so marginal that it goes out of control past 100 yards (is barely to be called stable at that velocity before 100 yards, is probly too deformed).

[BABore]

I think my guess is that Larry used a boolit and load that he knew ahead of time would do what he wanted to have happen. The boolit wasn't satisfactory for high velocity (as he's stated elsewhere in this thread), and the load is so marginal that it goes out of control past 100 yards (is barely to be called stable at that velocity before 100 yards, is probly too deformed).

Nooooo! Say it ain't so. :shock:

[Larry Gibson]

The test has been run so far with two alloys, not one so you two are wrong there. So let me get this right...I rigged the results because I knew linotype would shoot bad, right? Well then how come it shoots "bad" in the 10" twist, pretyy good in the 12" twistand quite good in the 14" twist all with the same alloy at the same 2400+ fps and with the same pressure. I guess I'm a lot better than I thought I was to pick an alloy that shoots bad in only one twist! Leftiye and BABore, you two sure do come up with some rediculous ideas.

Typical lawyer BS; you can make your point with facts so you ridicule and attack the witness. Sorry guys, everyone else sees through this.

Larry Gibson

[leftiye]

No, Larry, it wasn't about alloy, nor linotype. Maybe some prunes?

[carpetman]

Tiger---You are welcome for the private message. Pointing out that you never use a question mark (?) would make it seem like I think I'm an English teacher. Really,more than pointing out--I had a question. I didn't know if German keyboards had question marks? I'm pretty sure there are some punctuations that are different.

[Larry Gibson]

Ralf

Ok, let’s talk about why linotype alloy was chosen for the second part of this test. Once again this test is not about developing the most accurate load. This part of the test is about isolating variables and measuring the effect, if any, a particular variable has on accuracy of a regular cast bullet at 2400+ fps with a high RPM. Some of the major variables most often associated with accuracy enhancement at high velocity are; powder burning rate, primers, nodes, lubes and alloy.

It has been conceded for years that a harder alloy is necessary for accuracy at high velocity and pressure to minimize the excessive obturation during acceleration. To argue otherwise here is to go back on what is common knowledge and what you and the others have been whining about through the discussion on this topic. I switched from #2 alloy to linotype to measure if there was a change with that harder alloy in obturation and a subsequent improvement in accuracy. There was not. That variable (excessive obturation) was then eliminated. With that variable eliminated I then proceeded to isolate and test the other variables one variable at a time. The choice of linotype was not to develop a “most accurate load” (which you all continue to forget is not the purpose here) but was used to isolate a variable.

You, leftiye and BABore not only do not read what I am saying and doing but you fail to read what you are saying. You are pi**in’ and moaning about “variables”, that I don’t isolate them and don’t control them. Then when I do isolate them and accurately measure the effect on accuracy you then start pi**in’ and moaning about that. Note that I again said the “effect on accuracy” and not “develop the most accurate load”. You 3 can’t make up your minds. You can’t stick with the facts and you’ve already made up your minds and are still grasping at straws. The 3 of you need to quit pi**in’ and moaning and just pay attention to the facts. As I’ve said, the test is not done yet and you’ve not seen the results or even what was done and how it was measured yet here the 3 of you are incessantly pi**in' and moaning about something of which you do not even know yet.

The 3 of you come up with one thing after another to whine about. When I present the facts you don’t even mention those but simply ignore them and then move on to another whine or as in the case of leftiye continue to pi** and moan about the same thing. Trouble is you’ve whined about so many things you’re now getting caught up in your own whines. I am eliminating variable and testing them one at a time to determine if there is any effect on accuracy of a regular cast bullet when fired at 2400+ fps at high RPM. Obviously none of you are aware of exactly how tests like this are conducted, how I am progressing to eliminate variables or the capabilities of the M43 to accurately measure the internal ballistic and external changes. Now, that is why I am using linotype. You are all so far just guessing, making assumptions and pi**in' into the wind. Please move on to your, leftiye and BABore’s next whine.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

Leftiye

I've answered your questions, everyone sees that. You do not need to like or agree with the answer. Everyone is tired of your incessant whining about that, move on.

Larry Gibson

[Tiger]

Larry say

Ok, let’s talk about why linotype alloy was chosen for the second part of this test. Once again this test is not about developing the most accurate load. This part of the test is about isolating variables and measuring the effect, if any, a particular variable has on accuracy of a regular cast bullet at 2400+ fps with a high RPM. Some of the major variables most often associated with accuracy enhancement at high velocity are; powder burning rate, primers, nodes, lubes and alloy.

Larry we tired too. Bottom line more then just one or two members can shoot high velocity high rpm with accuracy. Apparently you can not. If you can stop the bs and post the targets. Forget the variables and your run around in the same circles excuses. Just post the targets and say nothing about how to do it like you say 45 2.1 does. Shoot 2400 fps or over with lino type and post the targets. Say no more. Just give velocity measure group.

You are pitbull in this fight too so please stop accusing others of whining.

Ralf

[Larry Gibson]

Ralf

Stick to the question and wait for the tests to be posted. How many times must you be told. I am not going to post anything further piece meal so the 3 or 4 of you can pick it apart out of context. I really haven't seen any proof that any members (you 4 in particular) shoot regular cast bullets with consistant accuracy above the RPM threshold at 2400-2500+ fps (10" twist .30 cal being discussed here). 357Maximum was doing what I said needed to be done and he is apparently is successful. BABore's were a guestimate of velocity. Like I've also told you I deal with facts not guestimates. None of you others have shown any of us that you can shoot as accurately above the RPM threshold with a regular cast bullet as you can shoot down in or below the RPM threshold. That is the question here which you continuously forget and carry on with your whining. I continuously remind you and the others of what the question is to obviously no avail.

BTW; I have posted a sub moa 5 shot group and a 1.5 moa 10 shot groups shot with 311291 (cast of linotype) at 2400+ fps in this thread or the RPM test thread. Oh yeah, you ignored those too!. They were shot with the 14" twist and are that good simply because the RPM was lowered back down into the RPM threshold. The same load in the 10" twist runs 4-5 moa. You and the other 3 still haven't answered how that can be. Instead all of you have ignored that too! I really don't expect an answer because to answer it correctly would mean you understand the concept. Since you've not answered it's obvious where your level of understanding still is.

Larry Gibson

[leftiye]

So 357 Max is able to shoot high velocity, (and nobody else is - you say). It is still being done then? If it can be done, then there is no rpm barrier. That has been said from before when your test thing started. It is still the logical destruction of your idea, and it is still inescapable (to any honest person). This is obviously where your level of understanding fails.

[leftiye]

What shows up in the BCs is that all the bullets from all 3 twists are of equal stability at equal velocity and pressures. The accuacy is different above the RPM threshold of the 3 twists. The RPM is also different. The corollary is the higher the RPM at a given velocity/pressure the worse the accuracy. L.G.

You still haven't gotten from the magical spiral flight path due to centrifugal force to having any clue how this happens. Unequal stability is necessary if you are going to get unequal accuracy. Your own description of rpms causing inaccuracy says this - that the centrifugal force "unstabilizes" the boolit, and that this causes the inaccuracy. More inaccuracy requires more instability. Don't you think?

I DO NOT agree with your contention that unchanged B.C.s indicate equal stability. Your own logic says - unequal stability equals different accuracy. AND VICE VERSA. I have been laying this on you in one form or another since the first page of your rpm thread. You have answered, but you've never yet explained how inaccuracy results from rpms and centrifugal force if stability is equal between the different twists, pressures, and velocities (which same is in no way possible regardless of ballistic coefficient - stability would inescapably vary). It is obvious that B.C.s do not measure the "different degrees of stability" as you call it - that occur before total instabiity is reached. Ignoring this instability that comes in under the wire with the chronograph also says that the other commonly held causes of inaccuracy are left invisible in your test. Yes, you did control those variables, you dissappeared them!

It is inescapable that the B.C.s are inadequate to indicate stability to be unaffected if the accuracy/ inaccuracy is related to stability, and the accuracy varies. I tried to calculate how much instability was possible before ballistic coefficient was changed, but you didn't want anything that might possibly prove you wrong to happen. That's another of your ways of "controlling variables?" Oh well, here tis anyway.

That's all BEFORE we involve ourselves with the effects that deflection from action against the air has upon the instability during flight. See that Larry? - "during flight." Another variable that you conveniently have never responded to when asked, and have not controlled for in any manner.

[Tiger]

Ralf

Stick to the question and wait for the tests to be posted. How many times must you be told. I am not going to post anything further piece meal so the 3 or 4 of you can pick it apart out of context. I really haven't seen any proof that any members (you 4 in particular) shoot regular cast bullets with consistant accuracy above the RPM threshold at 2400-2500+ fps (10" twist .30 cal being discussed here). 357Maximum was doing what I said needed to be done and he is apparently is successful. BABore's were a guestimate of velocity. Like I've also told you I deal with facts not guestimates. None of you others have shown any of us that you can shoot as accurately above the RPM threshold with a regular cast bullet as you can shoot down in or below the RPM threshold. That is the question here which you continuously forget and carry on with your whining. I continuously remind you and the others of what the question is to obviously no avail.

BTW; I have posted a sub moa 5 shot group and a 1.5 moa 10 shot groups shot with 311291 (cast of linotype) at 2400+ fps in this thread or the RPM test thread. Oh yeah, you ignored those too!. They were shot with the 14" twist and are that good simply because the RPM was lowered back down into the RPM threshold. The same load in the 10" twist runs 4-5 moa. You and the other 3 still haven't answered how that can be. Instead all of you have ignored that too! I really don't expect an answer because to answer it correctly would mean you understand the concept. Since you've not answered it's obvious where your level of understanding still is.

Larry Gibson


Larry

I will answer your 10 twist question. Simple you can not do it. I believe you will have egg on your face when Bass does it with your mold. There are more then 357Maximum shooting high velocity high rpm here. Myself Bass 45 2.1 Babore and others that have not spoken up.

Ralf

[Larry Gibson]

Ralf

Thank you for the well thought out, researched and documented yet totally nonsensical answer to that question.

However, you didn’t quite answer the question. The question was why does the same load with 311291 at 2400+ fps shoot sub moa to 1.5 moa (5 and 10 shot groups) out of a 14" twist barrel and only 4-5 moa out of the 10" twist barrel?

By "you can not do it" if you mean for some reason I just can't shoot a 10" twist rifle that accurately I'd ask you to consider how ridiculous that is considering the accuracy already demonstrated. If however you are once again referring to "developing an accurate load" by saying "you can not do it" I'll remind you again that is not what the test is about nor what I am attempting to do by the test.

Yes, there are more than you, Bass, 357Maximum, 45 2.1, Babore and others shooting cast bullets at high velocity and high RPM. I too am shooting cast bullets including regular cast bullets at high velocity and high RPM with very good accuracy. Again you're simply not paying attention. This test is not about shooting cast bullets at high velocity or high RPM. That Ralf, is pretty easy to do.

This test is also not about developing the most accurate load for my 10" twist rifle. This test is about determining why accuracy goes south with regular cast bullets around a certain velocity level which vary with certain cartridges. That means I am testing to determine if there is a RPM threshold and what variables we can do that may enhance accuracy at high velocity/high RPM. Regular cast bullets shoot more accurately in or below that RPM threshold. The question I am answering is why. There is nothing there about developing the most accurate load for my 10" twist rifle. You seem to have real difficulty understanding that as you are back harping and whining about something that is not part of this test. You do nothing to further the answering of the question by continuing to go off on tangents. I am tired of wasting my time on your tangents. Kindly either understand the question I am answering and ask pertinent questions or quit wasting my time.

Larry Gibson

[Tiger]

Larry

Everyone tired of your bs. Let me ask you a question. In the Alloy thread in cast bullet section how come everyone there talk about blending lino type and none of them shoot straight lino type? <--(carpetman notice question mark :) ) You talk about every one else not getting it while all along it is you not getting it Larry hey.

Ralf

[Larry Gibson]

Ralf

To answer your question; because straight linotype is hard to find, expensive and not need (as proved by my test). If you mix it with lead or WWs you get softer alloys and/or the equivelent of #2 alloy. At the velocities most cast bullets are shot at those alloys work quite nicely. Also if you are depending on any "bumping up" then a much softer alloy is needed. At high velocity the alloy must be able to withstand the accelleration curve or to much obturation will result with the attendant loss of accuracy. I used linotype to stop unwanted obturation during accelleration. That was to "control" that variable.

And talk going off on tangents; just where in that thread (alloy) do you find any mention of wanting an alloy for shooting at high velocity and high RPM? You don't Ralf. Also note in that thread the question is about making linotype similar to WW+ 2 % tin. They also discuss #2 alloy.

Maybe they only see you coming up with this kind of BS out of that thread!

Peraps it is your BS they are tired of and that of the other 3. I don't see any of them in that "alloy" discussion talking shooting cast bullets at high velocity and high RPM with WWs + 2% tin. So once again Ralf you've gone off on a non-sensical tangent that is just more BS and is wasting our time.

Larry Gibson

[leftiye]

Larry, Ralf is right. You switched horses on him. His observation wasn't about your test. It was about what is wrong about linotype for high velocity. He outlined this in post #117. You changed it in your reply and only answered that at bhn 18 there was no difference in something or the other between linotype and #2 alloy. I have seen all of Ralf's other observations about linotype here on this board by some other very knowledgeable shooters. Beyond this - if you want to shoot at high velocity with accuracy these alloys most likely would be beneficial to you. See BaBore's comments on 50/50 WW/pure in post #125.

Please (both of you) refrain from going down the bs, prunes, insults and etc road. That is an even higher level of fallacy. Before you attack me on this, I will if you will.

[Larry Gibson]

Leftiye

The question to Ralf was about the test and why the 14" twist barrel shoots so much better with the same load as 10" twist barrel. Ralf switched horses and went off on the tangent about linotype. There is nothing in the thread "alloy" about linotype being wring for high velocity.

With regards to that the use of linotype for high velocity loads has been the excepted rule for longer than any of you have been around, much less casting bullets. I've seen no definitive tests from any of you to prove that to be otherwise. But again, to you too who constantly forgets what my test is about; it doesn't matter if linotype is not the best alloy. I am not trying to develop the most accurate load. The accuracy is comparative. How many times do you and Ralf have to be told this. I AM NOT TRYING TO DEVLOPE THE MOST ACCURATE LOAD FOR THE 10" TWIST RIFLE!!!!!!! Not being insulting just trying to help you understand.

You've got a deal on your offer.

Larry Gibson

[Tiger]

Larry

Again simple. First all rifles of the same caliber do not take the exact same load. Next you haven't found the load that shoots best in the 10 twist. You can not say accuracy goes bad in a 10 twist because it doesn't shoot the same load that shoots good accuracy in the 14 twist. Last I don't think you can do it but I bet Bass can.

Ralf

[Larry Gibson]

Ok Ralf, if you say so.

Larry Gibson

[leftiye]

Leftiye

The question to Ralf was about the test and why the 14" twist barrel shoots so much better with the same load as 10" twist barrel. Ralf switched horses and went off on the tangent about linotype. There is nothing in the thread "alloy" about linotype being wring for high velocity.

With regards to that the use of linotype for high velocity loads has been the excepted rule for longer than any of you have been around, much less casting bullets. I've seen no definitive tests from any of you to prove that to be otherwise. But again, to you too who constantly forgets what my test is about; it doesn't matter if linotype is not the best alloy. I am not trying to develop the most accurate load. The accuracy is comparative. How many times do you and Ralf have to be told this. I AM NOT TRYING TO DEVLOPE THE MOST ACCURATE LOAD FOR THE 10" TWIST RIFLE!!!!!!! Not being insulting just trying to help you understand.

You've got a deal on your offer.

Larry Gibson

How many times do I and Ralf have to be told this? As many times as you choose to waste all of our times telling us this. This thread is (at least not originally) not about your test. Nor was Ralf's post which pre dated yours, so the subject matter is his choice, not yours. We all know you tend to answer everything in relation to your test (it makes it easier to ignore the conceptual content of the things said to you), but not everything is in context of your test, though you would as in this case, benefit from applying some improvements to your test. The point is also that these things may not now be in your test, but if they were you would be in a better position to shoot high velocity acceptably. Also even if something is not in your test, it should be recognized that it can reflect upon the validity of your test. If even possibly by being omitted, or maybe still affecting your test. You seem to contest everything, even when it is to your loss. This one would have helped you.

If you're going to argue his information, you have to address his information, not what you want to talk about. No one cares that linotype was the standard 40 years ago. It still has the lacks that Ralf said it does.

[waksupi]

Ok. Al has mentioned it. I have mentioned it. It's time for some of you guys to use a bit lighter tone in dealing with each other. You guys have chased each other from topic to topic, and are beyond being amusing.

I believe this conversation has went far beyond the scope of the original post.

[Larry Gibson]

Ok leftiye, if you say so.

Larry Gibson

[357maximum]

yall know there is an ignore this person spot in your user cp right?....it works

[carpetman]

Tiger--Very good you are using question mark(?), was starting to think your solution was dont ask questions.

[9.3X62AL]

This is over with. If this conduct flows to other threads, look forward to yellow cards and red cards, sports fans.