cast boolits handbook [Archive]

View Full Version : cast boolits handbook

Beekeeper

01-01-2009, 11:56 PM

waksupi

01-02-2009, 12:04 AM

I don't think it would be possible. I have a stack about 6" tall from the original shooters.com, containing many things I don't recall ever seeing on this board. The volumns would be encylopedic.
This board, is what you are suggesting. It is here.

runfiverun

01-02-2009, 02:22 AM

i don't think that others would wanna shoot some of the loads i have tried, in their guns.
and i ain't so sure about theirs in mine.

StrawHat

01-02-2009, 06:57 AM

The accumulated knowledge is available by using the search function. Kind of an interactive index. I ask it for info and it kicks out pages of references. After about the third thread I read, I forget what I was looking for and go off in another direction. Great fun and I learn a lot that way.

Seriously, it is all right here, stored somewhere in computerland, and available with very little effort.

I even read about loads I know I will never shoot and make notes to avoid them.

Bret4207

01-02-2009, 07:51 AM

missionary5155

01-02-2009, 07:57 AM

Good morning Survivalist Dad and greetings
Sounds like a great job to begin...
If we were trying to hide what we think what we have learned about Cast Bolits there would not be much info here to read.
I know of at least 5 individuals actively working on 12 gauge round ball that freely share there methods and succcesses and failures for ALL to READ. Then there are those who are working on 12 gauge Boolits. At least one is a REAL BUISNESS and other individuals.
Then there are the....... so if anyone here is trying to "keep quiet" and "hidden" boolit information they sure are going about it the wrong way.
God Bless you this New Year !

Boerrancher

01-02-2009, 10:04 AM

+1 to what Bret Said. There are just too many variables involved with cast boolits. When I post a photo of a nice group here, I always list the load data and as many details about the load as I can, even down to the type and thickness of the gas check. I do this so that it will give others a place to start, or spark and idea that may lead to an improvement.

Because of the information that is posted here I went from Minute of Paper Plate to sub minute of angle groups with cast boolits. The information is here, it just might take a bit of reading to find exactly what you are looking for.

Best wishes from the Boer Ranch,

Joe

Beekeeper

01-02-2009, 11:30 AM

longbow

01-02-2009, 01:16 PM

You might try the Cast Bullet Book by joeb33050 here:

http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/CB-BOOK/

and the reloader's reference by wiljen here:

http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=200180

Lots of good info to digest.

Longbow

Pepe Ray

01-02-2009, 02:20 PM

Boy!!
If I were ever tempted, this would be it. NC1,2,3,4,----NC

Boerrancher

01-02-2009, 07:55 PM

I have all of the load data books, Lyman ,Lee, hornady.

Most of the moulds I have are Lee and I like them but Lee doesn't have a cast boolit load data book for them

survivalists Dad

The reason why you won't find cast boolit data in the lee books is because John was smart enough to figure out that most cast boolits can be loaded with the same data as jacketed. The trick is proper alloy, sizing, and lube. Even in the Latest and greatest Lyman manual, I doubt you will see them recommending 30 gr of IMR 4064 on their 174 gr gas checked boolit out of a 30-30. I know my Lyman 46th Edition only lists what I consider to be pistol powders for cast boolits in a 30-30 and a max velocity of around 1700 fps. The reason why Lyman does this is because most anyone can obtain reasonable results with the loads they list. The Hornady book won't list cast loads as they want you to buy their Jacketed bullets not cast your own.

If you know the rules of hand loading, and how to read and understand the signs of pressure. Then working up a Load with cast boolits should be no different than doing it with jacketed, with the exception of knowing all of the little tips and tricks that make them shoot real well. Those tips and tricks are not found in manuals, they are found in the threads and posts of this sight. With out trying to sound rude, we can't hand you the perfect boolit and load data for your guns, because they are YOUR guns and even though they may be the same caliber, they are as different from my guns as you are from me or any other human.

As far as looking at loads posted with warnings and the like, If you have any experience at all as a hand loader you should be able to make a reasonable judgment as to whether a load is safe to shoot or not out of your rifle or hand gun. I shoot loads out of my 300 win mag that would destroy many rifles of that chambering. The load is 85.5 gr of AA3100 behind a 165 gr Sierra Game King. Warning if you have a 300 win Mag do not attempt this load. Anyone with reloading experience would look at that load and know that it is dangerous load. As the max load listed is like 77 to 78 grains.

Once again not trying to be rude but the information is here to get you started, and you have in your possession some of the best reloading data manuals there are. The best advice anyone can give is pick a boolit, primer and powder and start working up a load. There are lots of great people here who can answer any questions or solve any problems you have. You just have to ask is all. I have been shooting cast boolits and casting for over 30 years, started when I was 7 years old. It wasn't until I hooked up with these folks and drew on my past experiences that I went from Min of Paper plate to sub minute of angle groups with cast boolits.

These electronic pages took me from 1700 fps to 2500+ fps velocities with my 30 cals. It was not easy, and I have burnt a lot of powder and cast a lot of lead. In the last 6 months I have shot nearly a thousand rounds total out of my 30-06 and my 30-30 combined. I have posted some impressive groups but I had more total failures than I ever had successes in hand loading. What makes it worth while, is when you find that perfect combination of alloy, boolit wt and design, size, powder, and primer and it all comes together time after time trip after trip to the range.

It is as what has already been mentioned, part science, part knowledge and ability, and when it all comes together in that perfect load it is pure magic. The pride and satisfaction that comes from creating the perfect round for what ever application you wish to perform with your firearm is worth all of the time and trouble, whether it is going to be used for hunting or for a Saturday afternoon punching paper.

Best wishes from the Boer Ranch,

Joe

runfiverun

01-02-2009, 09:30 PM

what joe just said, is you gotta do the work.
it gets easier,sometimes.....
but each gun likes what it likes,some will shoot other boolits and loads acceptably well.
each one has a load that is most accurate,with the least amount of cleaning etc....
usually it's the one that takes the most prep and load time.

Bret4207

01-03-2009, 09:06 AM

I have all of the load data books, Lyman ,Lee, hornady.
I also have a lyman 314299 2 hole mould that Lyman says doesn't exist.
It is brand new ,in box, puirchased from Midway.
I have all of those things and still want to get some basic load data for sll of the calibers I have instead of having to dig out someones data that has the warning ( use at your own risk or for info only) Kind of makes you a little ( to share the pun) Gun shy.
Most of the moulds I have are Lee and I like them but Lee doesn't have a cast boolit load data book for them

survivalists Dad

The 314299 didn't exist until a few years ago so it's not in the older Lyman Manuals. Use data for the 311299 which is the parent of the 314299. The 314299 came about because everyone was hunting "fat" 311299's that would cast at .314 or so for the 303 Brit, 7.62 Rooshun, 7.65 Argie, etc.

On the Lee's- you don't need data for the exact boolit! All you need is a starting point and if you're shooting a M-N Rooshun with a 215 gr boolit (sized with lube and GC) for example you find a similar weight boolit in one of the manuals and start with that load data.

There is no way to get hard and fast data with home cast boolits. It just doesn't work that way. Yeah, there are some standard loads out there, you'll find them referenced often. As for specific loadings that guarantee results- nope, no such animal.

HORNET

01-03-2009, 12:07 PM

Actually, if you go downward on the main page for this site, there is a whole forum topic on CB favorite loads. The "cookbook" approach to loading cast may not always work perfectly, but it does provide a good starting point to work from.

mroliver77

01-03-2009, 12:08 PM

1Shirt

01-03-2009, 01:02 PM

Any day that goes by that you don't learn something is a day wasted. In addition, as the days go by you forget, so that is why it is important to go back, review, and relearn some of those things. Sometimes what you learned the first time didn't really sink in. Some of those senior moments happened when I was quite young, and part of the fun is the relearn process. Agree with the Lyman Cast manuals, and any others that you have or can get your hands on. Accumulated knowledge based on the experiance of others and trial and error on your part can impart great satisfaction when you achieve sucess.
1Shirt!:coffee:

Bret4207

01-03-2009, 07:03 PM

I believe it is time for a modern comprehensive cast boolit mmanual to come out. We recomend newbies to the Lyman CD manual and then unteach them alot of what is in it. I have learned lots from the internet and this site especially. Many prefer a book and I prefer multiple loading manuals when working up a load.
Mebbe I am naive but I think a decent explaination of alloy strength and boolit fit followed by loading tables for say WW, queched WW and Lino or possibly a range of hardnesses like brinnel 12, 18,25 &35 with rifle powders also including the traditional Lyman type loads of which I personally do use alot.
As to no load being specific for all guns, are not all loading manuals just guidlines and we work our own loads from it?
J

It would be great if we could do that. Even better would be a book outlining boolit fit and the various ways to determine fit, work around poor fit, overcome other mechanical problems and what to expect with poor fit. The loads them selves should include the caveat that they were produced with such and such an alloy, lube, bumped/not bumped, etc. It would be nice to see it come from a major manufacturer with pressure data and all the other bells and whistles. There are a couple books out there that outline one mans limited observations and experience. It would be great if a real company with professional ballisticians of the Phil Sharpe caliber would provide this info. I don't think it will ever be done.

I think there are far too many people who expect that they can duplicate the type of loading where a Brand A bullet, fired from Brand B brass, using Brand C powder and Brand D primer set to XXX OAL will almost always give give good results. IME cast is just the opposite- I can give you my load and it almost always needs work to get good groups. It's just the nature of the beast.

klw

01-03-2009, 07:16 PM

felix

01-03-2009, 07:41 PM

Yeah, Kenneth, the colonel went berserk when he heard that. The release he is talking about is over on castpics.net now. John (beagle) was the project guru. ... felix

klw

01-03-2009, 07:58 PM

Yeah, Kenneth, the colonel went berserk when he heard that. The release he is talking about is over on castpics.net now. John (beagle) was the project guru. ... felix

The Colonel is always berserk but if I was dying very slowly from cancer I probably would be too.

Didn't know that that stuff was there. Thanks! That's really neat.

A question. Decades ago Wolfe published a book of cartridge dimensions. It was quite literally a printout of cartridge case dimensions sorted three or four different ways. I bought one. Sorry I ever let it go because it was unique. If you had a cartridge you could measure the critical dimensions and then look it up and get a name. On really weird rounds this was the only way to find the original name. I've never seen anything else like this. And I've never seen this book again. Anybody have a copy?

felix

01-03-2009, 09:45 PM

Yep, no question about that! ... felix

cajun shooter

01-04-2009, 10:09 AM

KLW, Are you talking about the book that was written by Frank Barnes? in the 60's? I have the 3rd and 5th editions of those books and they are packed with info. The 5th shows a Bell brass co where you can buy brass for 404 Jeffery, 470 Nitro Express and 50-90 Sharps. What a Joy to look at and remember when I purchased them new from the Gun store that I was working at in Baton Rouge, La. in 71 They are titled Cartridges Of The World.

klw

01-04-2009, 10:13 AM

No the NRA, like Wolfe, printed a collection of articles and then several years later did a small update. But it has been too long for me to remember the details.

Beekeeper

01-04-2009, 11:20 AM

dromia

01-04-2009, 11:40 AM

There are members load data on Cast Pics, link at the bottom of the page.

Go clickon research and data on the left hand bar.

Then click on Cast members load data on the drop down menu.

Read and understand the disclaimer.

Wiljen looks after this most excellent site and is a wonderful cast boolit resource from the wisdom and experience of this boards members.

badgeredd

01-04-2009, 11:41 AM

After going red eyed looking at all the posts I read a sticky by Buckshot.
The sticky pointed to a site where Wiljen had compiled an awfull lot of cast reload data.
It provided me with the information I needed.
It is not complete but is a good starting place.
Thank you Buckshot and Wiljen!!
Now I have another question which I think will start another whirlwind.
I shoot a lot of 45 ACP. The boolits are shot bare bottom (no gas check).
I am new to cast in rifles , not new to reloading just cast.
If you can shoot cast in a pistol without a gas check can you do the same with a rifle?
If not ,why?
Nothing against gas checks just want to learn as much as I can about cast in rifles before I screw the pooch too bad.

survivalists Dad

I can give you a bit of my experience, FWIW. I'm not nearly as experienced as many here but I have found that a "pistol" lube doesn't seem to last in the longer rifle barrels. Second, one usually gets more velocity from a rifle so alloy hardness, fit, and lube all may need some modifying to work well in both.

My limited experience is with the 357 Magnum and the 44 Mag. I have handguns and rifles for both cartridges and so far I have had great results with the 357 Mag, as I had it loaded for my pistol, in the rifle. I increased the diameter of the 44 Mag ammo to fit the pistol better, and then got good results from the rifle too. The 44 velocity increased enough in the rifle that I had to also change my lube. I am assuming that the lube I had used previously for the 44 was BARELY adequate in the revolver and showed it's shortcomings in the rifle because of the increased velocity and additional barrel length.

At least this is my 2 cents worth.....

Edd

Boerrancher

01-04-2009, 01:02 PM

I have shot plain based boolits in rifles at some impressive velocities considering they were pistol rounds, but I never exceeded about 1800 fps and maintained good accuracy. For that I have had to jump up to boolits with gas checks. I have out of my 30-06 and 30-30 shot gas check designed boolits with out them. I did have a couple of shooting sessions with my 30-30 that I was running a bit over 1900 fps and shooting a 5 in group at 100 yds. I shot 20 rounds with no problems with leading. Somewhere between 21 and 30 it got nasty with lead.

That particular 30-30 with the proper boolit, lube and gas check will shoot sub MOA groups, with out leading up, so when I do shoot gas check designed boolits with out gas checks, I keep them around 1200 fps. This lower velocity saves a good deal of work from scrubbing the lead out, as my rifles don't lead up at that velocity.

Best wishes from the Boer Ranch,

Joe

runfiverun

01-04-2009, 01:25 PM

i have had problems going over 1400 with plain base boolits in most of my rifles.
with my 25-20 i have got good accuracy around 1600

Slowpoke

01-04-2009, 04:33 PM

Also I thought that someone here was trying to print a book based on all the posts here over the years. Wasn't that what Charles Hamilton was going ballistic over a year or two ago?

Actually I believe the Book KLW is thinking of is the one Joe Brennen did for the CBA, the Colonel accused Joe of mining his list's archives, totally bogas as far as I could tell at the time.

good luck

waksupi

01-04-2009, 04:39 PM

As far as I recall, Joe was collecting much of his information on this board.

Slowpoke

01-04-2009, 04:59 PM

I believe that was mostly for his second book.

And you notice he always ask's permission, because of his experience with the first.

good luck

klw

01-04-2009, 05:10 PM

Actually I believe the Book KLW is thinking of is the one Joe Brennen did for the CBA, the Colonel accused Joe of mining his list's archives, totally bogas as far as I could tell at the time.

good luck

So Joe did a book? Where can I get a copy?

wiljen

01-04-2009, 05:13 PM

At one point Joe had a list of all the contributors, it may have been omitted (by oversight) in later editions.

Available here http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/CB-BOOK/files/

dromia

01-04-2009, 05:17 PM

So Joe did a book? Where can I get a copy?

Links are here:

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=36337

Bret4207

01-04-2009, 07:05 PM

After going red eyed looking at all the posts I read a sticky by Buckshot.
The sticky pointed to a site where Wiljen had compiled an awfull lot of cast reload data.
It provided me with the information I needed.
It is not complete but is a good starting place.
Thank you Buckshot and Wiljen!!
Now I have another question which I think will start another whirlwind.
I shoot a lot of 45 ACP. The boolits are shot bare bottom (no gas check).
I am new to cast in rifles , not new to reloading just cast.
If you can shoot cast in a pistol without a gas check can you do the same with a rifle?
If not ,why?
Nothing against gas checks just want to learn as much as I can about cast in rifles before I screw the pooch too bad.

survivalists Dad

Yes. PB can be shot successfully in rifles. There will come a point, that varies in every different gun and load, where you start getting leading and/or poor grouping. At that point you either work on the load or try a GC design. The GC designs tend to handle the higher pressures and speeds better than PB in MOST cartridges. As I said in my other posts, there are no hard and fast rules or loads that ALWAYS work with cast. Start with the Lyman loads and work from there.

Bret4207

01-05-2009, 08:07 AM

Let me add that the Castpics site offers more some of the best info out there because it goes into the WHYS and HOWS the loads were developed. That's what you won't find at most other sites. It's a great resource.

mroliver77

01-05-2009, 08:18 AM

I shoot a nekid gc design boolit in my Mausers. It is a 32 spcial bollit that drops @.323 with my soft alloy. I load these without lubing the boolit but use a wax :cookie: under the boolit. A business called CF Ventures used to sell these and it works good in this aplication. Much better results than this bool;it conventionally lubed. Being kinda small for the throat I believe the cookie functions somewhat like a gascheck.
J

joeb33050

01-05-2009, 08:19 AM

At one point Joe had a list of all the contributors, it may have been omitted (by oversight) in later editions.

Available here http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/CB-BOOK/files/

There are two editions of the book, both include a list of every contributor.
The online free book site contains the second edition in .doc and .pdf, and a file of all additions and changes since the second edition was put to bed. This file is "ERRATA".
At some point I'll put an updated list of contributors in ERRATA, a big revision of which is under way.
joe b.

joeb33050

01-05-2009, 08:28 AM

The Colonel is always berserk but if I was dying very slowly from cancer I probably would be too.

Didn't know that that stuff was there. Thanks! That's really neat.

A question. Decades ago Wolfe published a book of cartridge dimensions. It was quite literally a printout of cartridge case dimensions sorted three or four different ways. I bought one. Sorry I ever let it go because it was unique. If you had a cartridge you could measure the critical dimensions and then look it up and get a name. On really weird rounds this was the only way to find the original name. I've never seen anything else like this. And I've never seen this book again. Anybody have a copy?

Ken Mollohan put together such a list of cartridges with dimensions. This list is in EXCEL, so it can be sorted any way you wish. It is in the online site, in ERRATA, named "EDITED ALL CASE DATA 111308.xls"
Here are directions to the site:
"Cast Bullets For Beginner And Expert", Second Edition, can be found and read online at: http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/CB-BOOK/
The book is in "FILES", the Table Of Contents is in "The Beginning"
joe b.

joeb33050

01-05-2009, 08:44 AM

Cast isn't quite like jacketed where you can get several "good" loads, like the classic 30 gr 3031 and a 170 gr SP in the 30-30. That load will shoot fairly well in most 30-30's. With cast the old rule of each gun being a law unto itself is magnified 100 times. Change alloy, seating depth, a different can of powder or lot of primers, trim your brass, change lubes, press a little harder or not as hard on the sizer handle... any of these and more can take a 1.5" at 100 yard group and turn it into a 7" pattern, or miss the paper entirely! Some folks like to say that cast requires a bit more finesse. I call it magic.

The best single source I know of for good cast loads are the Lyman manuals. The 3 Cast Bullet Manuals cover it all, from the late 40's/early 50's on up to the mid 70's. They need to issue another, but the good info is there. The primo source for info is right here, bar none. You can hit the CBA board, Accurate, Greybeard, 24 Hr CF, Beartooth, etc. and you still will find a general knowledge level a step or 5 below the knowledge here. The CBA board would be the 2nd best source.

While I agree it would be nice to have a huge data base at our disposal, the variations between guns and alloys and one guys idea of a clean barrel vs. anothers...the variables make it difficult. Start with the standard Lyman loads and go from there.

The above is not my experience. There are standard or cookbook loads for all cartridges, although I only know a few. The effects of the variations mentioned is minor to non-existant. Variation doesn't dominate, simplicity does.

Aside from working on the (damn) book, my hobby is getting a gun to shoot, then moving on to the next.
I'm currently working on a Competitor pistol in 30BR, and a Savage Striker in 308 Win.
The first day out with the Competitor, at 50 yards, 19 shots in ~1.4", 14 shots-different load- in 2.05"
The first day out with the Striker, 11/26/08, 2 10 shot 50 yard groups averaged 1.337", 3 10 shot groups averaged-different load-1.35"
Last time out with the Striker, 100 yard, five 5 shot groups averaged 1.96" (314299) and 2.15" (314299-the other cavity).
I believe that I or any reasonably competent reloader can shoot any gun well out of the chute, it's easy.
joe b.

runfiverun

01-05-2009, 12:06 PM

i have been delving into accurate powders lately and they seem to have a good bit of info on cast in their book as well as being able to call them on the phone or e-mail.
the lyman books are good starting points but for good cast loads you are at some point going to have to be abit adventurous.

Boomer Mikey

01-05-2009, 03:35 PM

The Art of Bullet Casting DVD collection is still available from Wolf Publishing.
http://www.riflemagazine.com/images/catalog/bma-cover1.gif

http://www.riflemagazine.com/catalog/detail.cfm?ProductID=809

This is a great set of articles including all the special issues.

Boomer :Fire:

Bret4207

01-05-2009, 03:57 PM

As I've made clear before Joe, I disagree with some of your findings and assessments. In your damaged base experiment for instance you determined from your limited testing that a damaged base made little difference while I looked at the same data and determined just the opposite. You keep forgetting you're starting with a lot of cast background to begin with and the average Joe off the street doesn't have that luxury. It's not "easy" for many people judging from what I read here daily. It's not rocket science either, but without having gone through the learning stage it can be a real bear for folks to figure out. "Cookbook" loads, such as 2.7 gr Bullseye and a 148 gr WC are great in a lot of guns, but not ALL guns and not with ALL boolits and the variations between reloaders, alloy and the other possible wrenches in the gears make all the difference. Yes, we can spell it all out for a guy and he can follow the written word to the letter. But if he's never seen a good boolit or run a mic to slug his throat or uses an alloy full of zinc he'll drive himself nuts trying to figure it out. We just had a guy realize his sprue plate was on backwards or upside down or something. Discounting variables and differing judgment of a result or situation as insignificant is silly.

I don't mean to be disagreeable, but if you want to tell me that your cast experience has been a trail of instant success from day one I would have to question your veracity.

alamogunr

01-06-2009, 11:37 AM

Ken Mollohan put together such a list of cartridges with dimensions. This list is in EXCEL, so it can be sorted any way you wish. It is in the online site, in ERRATA, named "EDITED ALL CASE DATA 111308.xls"
Here are directions to the site:
"Cast Bullets For Beginner And Expert", Second Edition, can be found and read online at: http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/CB-BOOK/
The book is in "FILES", the Table Of Contents is in "The Beginning"
joe b.

Joe, In looking over the Edited B sheets there are columns with headings that I have never heard of. Example: DWM No., Roth No., NAI Code, etc. Where might I find a definition for these terms?

On the Edited A sheet the column for "Primer" is not self explanitory. Is there an explanation similar to the explanation for "Case Type"? Most of us are familiar with Boxer and Berdan primers with sub categories of Large Rifle, Large Pistol, Small Rifle, and Magnum variation of each for Boxer type primers. For the common cartridges we are familiar with the designation seems to refer to the diameter of the primer regardless of construction(rifle or pistol). The primer codes that I am completely clueless on are associated with cartridges that I will never have occasion to investigate so this is somewhat a frivolous question anyway.

It may be that none of these terms have practical significance for me, but curiosity demands that I ask.

John

John

joeb33050

01-08-2009, 12:31 AM

I don't know.
DWM # is a sort of catalog #, I've checked some.
Roth # is, I think, Austrian Roth catalog #
NAI????????
Some of the primer entries are ???????????
This data needs some explanation and editing. Probably a caveat also.
Anyone want to take on part or all of the job?
joe b.

Joe, In looking over the Edited B sheets there are columns with headings that I have never heard of. Example: DWM No., Roth No., NAI Code, etc. Where might I find a definition for these terms?

On the Edited A sheet the column for "Primer" is not self explanitory. Is there an explanation similar to the explanation for "Case Type"? Most of us are familiar with Boxer and Berdan primers with sub categories of Large Rifle, Large Pistol, Small Rifle, and Magnum variation of each for Boxer type primers. For the common cartridges we are familiar with the designation seems to refer to the diameter of the primer regardless of construction(rifle or pistol). The primer codes that I am completely clueless on are associated with cartridges that I will never have occasion to investigate so this is somewhat a frivolous question anyway.

It may be that none of these terms have practical significance for me, but curiosity demands that I ask.

John

John

joeb33050

01-08-2009, 01:14 AM

Bret, you need to read the "3.5 Damaged Bullets" chapter again. Try it again, ask and I'll help you understand it.

You wrote: "I don't mean to be disagreeable, but if you want to tell me that your cast experience has been a trail of instant success from day one I would have to question your veracity."

What I did say was: "I believe that I or any reasonably competent reloader can shoot any gun well out of the chute, it's easy."
I do not think that a person with no casting or reloading experience can cast, load and shoot well.
I know that anyone can cast good bullets with a little practice; that using those bullets, that person can learn to reload with a little practice; and can use the ammunition to shoot reasonably small groups with a little practice.

There are a lot of books out there that explain, pretty well, how to cast, reload and shoot.
Anyone wanting to cast, reload and shoot should read a lot, and then get going.
Reasonably small groups are averages of under 2" for five 5 shot 100 yard groups. The rifles I'm talking about in this context are any 30 caliber or larger bolt action, modern non-military rifle, or single shot rifle, with telescopic or aperture iron sights.
Not that some military guns won't shoot, just that many won't and most have very poor sights.
Any 30-30, 30-06, 308, 300 magnum bolt gun is a fine place to start.

A novice attempting to get any 8mm military mauser with original stock and sights to shoot cast is operating with the deck stacked against him.

My purpose in writing my post was to say that the "minor variations = major inaccuracies" contention cited here so often is just not true, and serves only to artificially inflate the erudition of the writer ("I know a lot of secrets and you don't.") and alienate the reading novice.

So there.
joe b.

As I've made clear before Joe, I disagree with some of your findings and assessments. In your damaged base experiment for instance you determined from your limited testing that a damaged base made little difference while I looked at the same data and determined just the opposite. You keep forgetting you're starting with a lot of cast background to begin with and the average Joe off the street doesn't have that luxury. It's not "easy" for many people judging from what I read here daily. It's not rocket science either, but without having gone through the learning stage it can be a real bear for folks to figure out. "Cookbook" loads, such as 2.7 gr Bullseye and a 148 gr WC are great in a lot of guns, but not ALL guns and not with ALL boolits and the variations between reloaders, alloy and the other possible wrenches in the gears make all the difference. Yes, we can spell it all out for a guy and he can follow the written word to the letter. But if he's never seen a good boolit or run a mic to slug his throat or uses an alloy full of zinc he'll drive himself nuts trying to figure it out. We just had a guy realize his sprue plate was on backwards or upside down or something. Discounting variables and differing judgment of a result or situation as insignificant is silly.

I don't mean to be disagreeable, but if you want to tell me that your cast experience has been a trail of instant success from day one I would have to question your veracity.

joeb33050

01-08-2009, 01:39 AM

I read in a previous post about all the years of accumilated knowledge there is at cast boolits.
With all that knowledge there still is not a book or data base with all of the data collected and learned about loads for cast boolits only!
Why not?
Is it like in my occupation every man keeps it secret so he is the only one in the know?Or is it because it is so different with each shooter that no one knows what is needed beyond their own calibers?

I see stickies about just about everything else how about a sticky with a complete compilation of all available load data for cast boolits only!

survivalists Dad

I read this a lot, and decided that you're asking the wrong question. When I started reloading cast bullets, there were two families of powders, DuPont and Hercules. DuPont is now IMR, Hercules is Alliant. With the powders available we could and you can reload any cast bullet in any gun to perform well.
The 44 Magnum with 429421 and Unique or 2400 did well in 1960, and will do well now.

Today we have dozens more powders from Hodgden, Accurate, Vihtavouri and others. With enough time and money one could write a reloading manual including all appropriate powders, but we have neither-only isolated reports.

What the novice reloader needs is some loads with some powders that give good results. We've had these in the various reloading manuals since Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook of 1958.

If we prepare a list of 12 bullets and 12 powders for the 44 Magnum, starting and maximum loads, what do these 288 loads do for us?

If a person is starting out, 429421 with Unique and/or 2400 will do the job, and after he's got them working any improvement is going to be hard won and small.
We don't need more loads, we need a few well-tested and documented successful loads.
Any 30-30, 31141, 14.5 IMR4227, done.

More data ain't good, it's just confusing.
joe b.

Bret4207

01-08-2009, 08:16 AM

Bret, you need to read the "3.5 Damaged Bullets" chapter again. We don't have a disagreement, you have a reading comprehension problem. Try it again, ask and I'll help you understand it. You did a very limited test and found that damaged bases can lead to inaccurate grouping. What's not to comprehend Joe? Anyone who's been at this a while can tell of the group fired with "foulers" that was tighter than the "good 'uns". Are you suggesting no care needs to be taken in culling our boolits, that damaged boolits will always shoot as well as those made as near perfect as we can?

You wrote: "I don't mean to be disagreeable, but if you want to tell me that your cast experience has been a trail of instant success from day one I would have to question your veracity."

Of course you're being disagreeable, you're accusing me of being a liar.
I never said that "my cast experience has been a trail of instant success from day one". You wrote that, attributed it to me, and called me a liar. Aren't you a moderator? Write yourself a message discouraging that behavior!!I didn't call you a liar so don't get your panties in a knot. I wrote exactly what you read- No one I've ever met has enjoyed instant success with cast. There IS a learning curve and you do a great disservice to the noobs by implying that anyone who can't achieve success isn't quite up to snuff, not "reasonably competent". A big part of what we do here is help the beginners. Making them feel like idiots doesn't help. As for the Mod thing, yup, I'm still a Mod and still entitled to my opinion. You and I have butted heads before and if I see you making a statement I disagree with I'll say so. I'm not your "Yes Man". I think you find what you want to find in your experiments. There is over 100 years of observation and experimentation on the damaged bases issue for instance, and yet you discount it out of hand based on your limited testing. That's a little arrogant isn't it? I can appreciate what you're doing and the time and money you put into it, but I don't have to agree.

What I did say was: "I believe that I or any reasonably competent reloader can shoot any gun well out of the chute, it's easy."
I do not think that a person with no casting or reloading experience can cast, load and shoot well.
I know that anyone can cast good bullets with a little practice; that using those bullets, that person can learn to reload with a little practice; and can use the ammunition to shoot reasonably small groups with a little practice. Then you should have made that clear instead of saying "it's easy". For some folks, it isn't easy and we need to help them along, not discourage them.

There are a lot of books out there that explain, pretty well, how to cast, reload and shoot.
Anyone wanting to cast, reload and shoot should read a lot, and then get going.
Reasonably small groups are averages of under 2" for five 5 shot 100 yard groups. The rifles I'm talking about in this context are any 30 caliber or larger bolt action, modern non-military rifle, or single shot rifle, with telescopic or aperture iron sights.
Not that some military guns won't shoot, just that many won't and most have very poor sights.
Any 30-30, 30-06, 308, 300 magnum bolt gun is a fine place to start.

A novice attempting to get any 8mm military mauser with original stock and sights to shoot cast is operating with the deck stacked against him. And yet look at how many posts we have with guys wanting to shoot good groups from just that kind of rifle or a M-N or Lee Enfield. I thought it was "easy"?

My purpose in writing my post was to say that the "minor variations = major inaccuracies" contention cited here so often is just not true, and serves only to artificially inflate the erudition of the writer ("I know a lot of secrets and you don't.") and alienate the reading novice. And yet it's the minor variations that we keep hearing about people figuring out and suddenly getting good groups time after time after time. Must be we're lying or is there a secret we aren't being told? Sarcasm aside, comon' Joe! Sometimes something as simple as orienting the case and boolit will shave a half inch off a group. That's a pretty easy and minor thing, isn't it? And it's no secret, nothing we discuss here is kept secret! We thrive on dispelling the myths and exposing the secrets. That's what your book is all about isn't it? I'm just saying I don't agree with your major/minor theory and saying it's not true is wrong. Either you see what you want or aren't seeing it at all.

So there.
joe b.

As I wrote above there is well over 100 years of observation and experimentation on booilt accuracy and inaccuracy. One mans limited tests don't negate all that. Minor variations can cause major inaccuracies- run a boolit .002 undersize at medium to max loadings and tell me about the great accuracy you get. Seat a few gas checks crooked and show me the 1" groups at 100 yards. Shoot some 40 gr .225 caliber boolits with weight variations of 1.5 grs and show groupings as consistent as you get with variations under .75 gr. Better yet, do it over 1000 rounds and tell me it still makes no difference. We already know cast is more "picky" than jacketed, yet the jacketed benchrest shooters don't use damaged or out of balance bullets, they never would.

I realize I'm butting up against your ego Joe. Consider it a challenge, prove me wrong over a thousand rounds from 1 rifle with one boolit. I don't really expect you to do that, but I think you know what I'm saying.

joeb33050

01-08-2009, 10:04 AM

Bret wrote:"I think you find what you want to find in your experiments. There is over 100 years of observation and experimentation on the damaged bases issue for instance, and yet you discount it out of hand based on your limited testing. That's a little arrogant isn't it? "

3.5 DAMAGED BULLETS
One day in the summer of 2004, after casting some 311299 bullets, I emptied the container of bullets onto the concrete floor from a height of about 3 feet.
After saying the obligatory words I was ready to re-melt the bullets and start again, but then thought that these bullets gave me an opportunity to experiment.
I inspected and weighed the bullets, discarding any with casting defects or outlying weights, as I do with almost all my cast bullets. The acceptable dropped bullets had dents ranging from pretty bad to no dent at all. I rejected no bullet for a dent.
I was working with a M54 Winchester in 30 WCF at the time. I loaded the dropped bullets and undropped bullets with the same loads, and shot them for group at 100 yards. Here are the results.
GROUPS AVERAGE AVERAGE
SHOT GROUP, GROUP,
WITH DROPPED NOT
DATE POWDER CHARGE EACH BULLETS DROPPED
8/4/2004 AA#9 12.5 4 1.569" 1.650"
8/25/2004 SR4759 12 4 1.181" 1.613"
9/8/2004 IMR4227 14.5 5 1.060" 1.290"
11/3/2004 AA#9 12.5 4 0.913" 1.019"

If I'm testing two loads, I shoot load "A" first, then load "B". Then I wait about fifteen minutes, may clean the gun if that is part of the test, and then shoot load "B", then load "A". This takes the "clean" and "hot" bias out of the testing.
In each of the four tests, the dropped and dented bullets shot smaller average groups than did "perfect"= not dropped and dented bullets. I don't know what conclusions can be drawn from this experiment, other than that dents don't seem to radically degrade the accuracy of cast bullets.
To see if damaged bases affected accuracy, I took a box of 18 Hoch bullets for the 32/35 Maynard, and made one file pass across the bases at about 45 degrees. This filed a flat defect on the bases, readily seen.

2/23/05 12/IMR 4227, Rem 2 1/2, breech seated, multiple cases, Model 1882 Maynard No. 16 in 32/35, Iron Sights, Hot and plenty of mirage. 100 yards, 5-shot group with perfect base bullets, then 5-shot group with damaged base bullets-alternating for 3 groups each.
Group Sizes:
Perfect bases: 2.15", 2.20", 2.675" Avg 2.342".
Damaged Bases: 1.2", 2.975", 2.025" Avg. 2.067"
On a good day, with one case and going carefully, this rifle has made many groups under an inch, probably averaging about 1 1/2 inches. The Irons are harder to see than ever.

Ohaus 45-405 bullets, 434.5 +/-.5 grains, Darr lubed, 21.5 grains SR4759, Dacron wad, WLP primers, breech seated, 100 yards, five shot groups, C. Sharps 45/70 Model 1875, 30X STS, Muzzle Clamp/Anti-Cant device.

A set of bullets had the bases filed at a 45 degree angle for about half the thickness of the base band. Shot 3/2/05 to see the effect of damaged bases. Windy enough to blow empty plastic ammo boxes off the bench, 70 degrees, bright sun, plenty of mirage. Alternating perfect and damaged bases.

Group sizes:
Perfect bases: 2.1", 4.3", 2.05", 3" Avg. = 2.863"
Damaged bases: 3.35", 2.675", 3.95", 2.9" Avg. 3.219"
I thought there might be lead in the barrel, couldn't find any. I read through the notebook on this rifle last night. Many 10 shot 200 yard groups under 4", many 100 yard 5-shot groups under 2", some under 1", one measured .693"-all with this load. I've used the Wolf No-Grease-Groove bullet almost exclusively in this rifle since 1993. I don't know why I'm shooting such big groups in this damaged bullet testing-but here it is.
Maybe these damaged bases caused the larger groups.
3/23/05, nice and windy, with gusts, varying from bright sun to rain showers. About 84 degrees with excellent high humidity. Martini 30/30 bench rifle, Lyman 20X STS, Wolf No-Grease-Groove 213 grain bullets with two coats of Lee Liquid Alox, 12.5/AA#9, Remington 2 1/2 primers. One hundred yards, five-shot groups, one sighter, shoot two groups, clean.
Good bases 1.1", 1.6", 1.825" Average 1.508"
Filed bases, 45 degree at the edge 1.325", 1.65", 1.075" Average 1.35"
As an aside, I also tested 311299's from a "Beagled" mold, these averaged 1.069" for four groups with the same load.
The Wolf NGG bullet has always shot adequately if not as well as other bullets in this rifle, but sometimes leads about a foot up the barrel-hence the cleaning.
This is the third test.
It starts to look like we can say that damage to the edges of bullet bases doesn't radically affect accuracy.
3/22/06 308403, Darr Lubed, Rem 2 1/2 primers, one case, 7/Unique, 30WCF M54 Winchester, 30X STS, Sandbag bench rest (Hoppes). 85 degrees, very windy, clouds then clear, very hot in the sun. 100 yard five shot groups. 26 bullets had the bases filed at a 45 degree angle to make a defect about half way up the base band. Fired about 6 sighters and stopped. Next relay (15 minute relays) fired 1 fouler, 5 filed base, 5 good base. Next relay fired 1 fouler, 5 good base, 5 filed base. And so on, alternating the first group shot between filed bases and good bases.
Filed Bases 2 .375", .825", 2.4", 2.5", 2.4" Average 2.1"
Good bases 3.3", 2.55", 2.3", 2.2", 2.3" Average 2.53"
There are a lot of bullets tipping. Maybe need more powder or Dacron, I've used 7.5 grains/Unique and Dacron in the past.
This bullet generally shoots into about 1.5" averages at 100 yards. Maybe the wind, which will stop in July, when it gets REAL hot.
Again, I don't think that filed/damaged bases shoot better than good bases, the .825" group is a fluke.
3/29/06 308403, Darr with some beeswax lubed, WLP primers, 7.2/Unique weighed/dribbled, Dacron wad tamped down on powder, 30WCF M54 Winchester, 30X STS, Muzzle clamp/anti-cant device, flat bench rest. 79 degrees, slightly windy, clouds then clear, 100 yard five shot groups. 26 bullets had the bases filed at a 45 degree angle to make a defect about half way up the base band. Fired 6 sighters and stopped. Next relay (15 minute relays) fired 1 fouler, 5 filed base, 5 good base. Next relay fired 1 fouler, 5 good base, 5 filed base. And so on, alternating the first group shot between filed bases and good bases.
Filed Bases 2.55", 2.2", 1.5", 2.525", 2.85" Average 2.325"
Good bases 1.125", 1.325", 2.3", 1.275", 1.8" Average 1.565"
Most of the bullets are still tipping.
Finally, the damaged base bullets shoot larger groups than the good bases.
4/5/06 308403, Darr with some beeswax lubed, WLP primers, 8.0/Unique weighed/dribbled, Dacron wad tamped down on powder, 30WCF M54 Winchester, 30X STS, Muzzle clamp/anti-cant device, flat bench rest. 84 degrees, quite windy, clear, 100 yard five shot groups. 27 bullets had the bases filed at a 45 degree angle to make a defect about half way up the base band. Fired about 6 sighters and stopped. Next relay (15 minute relays) fired 1 fouler, 5 filed base, 5 good base, cleaned barrel with 2 patches and MM oil. Next relay fired 1 fouler, 5 good base, 5 filed base, cleaned barrel. And so on, alternating the first group shot between filed bases and good bases.
Filed Bases 2.2", 3.7", 1.95", 1.525", 1.275" Average 2.17"
Good bases 1.7", 2.0", 2.6", 1.825", 1.675" Average 1.96"
Maybe half of the bullets are still tipping.
Those shot 4/5/06 were from a lot that weighed 170.6 to 170.9 grains. I just filed the base of one out of that lot. It started at 170.8 grains. After filing it weighed 170.5 grains. The filing lost .3 grains.
4/12/06 308403 lubed with Darr + some beeswax. 11/AA#9, WLP primer, CF Ventures soft gas check, Martini 30/30 bench gun, 30X STS, muzzle clamp/anti-cant device, flat bench rest. Five shot 100 yard groups, 1 sighter and 2 groups per 15 minute relay. Bases on some bullets filed at ~45 degree angle ~ half way up the base band. It was 82 degrees and windy. How windy was it? My Gatorade plastic bottle cap blew off the bench, my gun case blew open(it was slightly open) and a set of sky screens with holder and tripod blew over twice. I have little experience with this bullet in this gun.
Six of 25 shots with both good and filed bases were tipping.
Good bases 2.725", 1.175", .625", 1.45", 1.7" Avg 1.535"
Filed bases 3.125, 2.675, 1.45", 3.45", 1.025" Avg. 2.345"
Summary to date
FILED GOOD
BASES BASES
3/22/06 2.1" 2.53"
3/29/06 2.325" 1.565"
4/5/06 2.17" 1.96"
4/12/06 2.345" 1.535"

Damaged Bullets, Distinction and Difference
After looking at forty groups fired, half with filed-base bullets and the other half with "good" = unfiled-base bullets, I've been assailed by a conclusion, to wit: Not all bullets with damaged = filed bases fly wildly to the target. The probability that any given bullet will land out of the group is greater shooting bullets with damaged bases.
I first thought that this was a distinction without a difference-it's starting to look like bullets with damaged bases make bigger groups than bullets with good bases. But I think that I see a difference.
All our bullets would go through the same hole, we think, if not for the differences that creep in amongst our loads. Differences in brass or bullet or powder or primer or bore condition or weather or any of the dozens of variables. These differences, some or most of us suspect, yield shots outside the group. And my assumption, shared, I think with others, is that if we assembled and shot a set of loads, all with a given difference, the groups would be larger than if that difference were not present. And we suspect that that is true because the differences make the bullets fly out of the group.
Now all bullets with damaged bases do not fly out of the group, some of them fly into very nice groups and others fly into nice four-shot groups with a flyer, or three shot groups with two flyers, or ....
Since the filed-base groups look to be larger, probably bullets with damaged bases make larger groups on average than do bullets with good bases. Think of two normal-looking overlapping distributions.
This is where I get stuck. A bullet with a forty-five degree filed surface for about half of the height of the base band should fly to a different place than an unfiled bullet. And with no specific orientation of the bullet with the bore, these filed-base bullets should make a "big" group. There are any number of folks who can explain why these bullets should make these big groups. They do make bigger groups, on average, I think. But, why are some filed-base groups smaller than good base groups? Why doesn't every filed-base bullet fly out of the group? Why is this a probabilistic process? If damaged bullet bases cause the bullet to fly out of the group, why doesn't every damaged base bullet fly out of the group?
A cartridge without a primer doesn't go off, and it doesn't go off every single time. There's no business about it doesn't go off 96% of the time, it doesn't go off.
If damaged bases cause bullets to fly erratically, then every bullet should fly erratically. Every bullet.
Perfect loads make one hole.
Real-world loads make groups with the greatest density of the shots in the center, and reduced numbers of shots as the distance from the center increases. Dense in the middle, density decreasing as the distance from the center increases.
Loads with an intentional defect oriented randomly should make groups that look like a doughnut, with maximum density at some distance from the center, diminishing both toward and away from the center. I don't think that they do.
So, I'll make a bunch of filed-base bullets and fire them at one aiming point. Maybe thirty or so. And I'll fire a set of good-base bullets at another aiming point.
I'm thinking that if I don't get a doughnuty looking group from the filed base bullets that maybe we need to re-think some of those explanations.

4/26/2006 M54 Winchester 30WCF, 30X STS, 12/AA#9, WLP primers, CF Ventures Soft Gas Check, 308403 lubed Darr + beeswax, muzzle clamp/anti-cant device and flat bench rest. 65 bullets had 45 degree filed bases to about half the height of the base band. A set of 18 cases had file marks put on the base and rim for orienting. A fouler was shot before each set of shots, at the center dot. Bullets were put in the cases with the filed bullet marks at 12, 3, 6 and 9 o'clock, four shots, and the cartridge was put in the chamber with the case base/rim mark at 12 o'clock. Then as precisely as I could put the bullet in the case and then the cartridge in the gun, bullets/filed bases were oriented each shot.
Four with filed bases, four perfect bullets, then four with filed bases and four perfect bullets; with a sighter comes to 17 shots per fifteen minute relay. 64 shots each with filed and perfect bases were made. All shot at 100 yards.
The weather varied from sunny to rain, still to very windy. In the still sunny conditions there was a lot of mirage, and biting horseflies about the size of robins. Lots of "damn"s and slapping body parts.
The damaged base group is 3 9/16" high by 4 11/16" wide, with no discernable pattern. The perfect base group is 2 7/8" wide by 2 1/2" high with the center shot out and outliers ~evenly distributed.

It is clear from the target that bullets with damaged bases do not shoot wildly, that many of the bullets cluster into a small group, and that the group/distribution is not doughnut shaped. This suggests that the mechanism decreasing accuracy is not one that operates every shot, but is probabilistic in nature.

More damaged bullets
To damage some bullets for testing I took 26 of the 5/6/07 cast Borton Darr bullets weighing from 183.4-183.6 grains and with a small round file filed away 1 grain worth of metal from the middle grease groove area. I weighed each bullet, filed away until the weight had dropped 1 grain. All Darr lubed.
Five groups of five shots at 100 yards each with perfect bullets and these damaged bullets was the plan.

Ten shots at 2 points of aim were enough for me. Bullets with a 1 grain hole filed in the side with a round file, at 100 yards, are not wildly inaccurate, 10 shots aimed at 2 points of aim were contained in an area 3" X 7", but there were no groups.
Now one grain is a lot, and is a sphere .088" in diameter. I suspect that this is larger than would be found in all but a very, very few cast bullets.

I then prepared sets of 30 WCF cartridges with 314299 bullets; one set with perfect bullets, a set with .2 grain filed off, and a set with .5 grain filed off. Here is a picture of 314299 bullets with .5 grain round-filed off.

Winchester M54. 30WCF, 30X Lyman STS
The load is:
314299 "No Dot", GC Alox lube, WLP, 12.5/AA#9, LOA 2.845"

"Perfect" bullets, Hard, cast 2/3/07, 199.4-200.2 gr., sized .309"

- 1/2 grain bullets, same as above but 1/2 grain filed off as shown

-.2 grain bullets, cast 3/9/07, 194.7-195.0 grains, sized .312"

On Wednesday, May 16, 2007 I shot these test "filed-side" bullets at 100 yards, 2 foulers and 2 5-shot groups per 15 minute relay, alternating between the 3 test loads. Groups measured to the nearest .025" with a plastic ruler with .1" increments.
Unfiled, "perfect" bullets: 1.4", 1.5" ,1.95" ,1.475" ,1.825" Avg. 1.63"
Bullets with .2 grain round-filed off the side: 2.2", 1.35", 1.2", 1.95", 1.275" Avg. 1.595"
Bullets with .5 grain round-filed off the side: .95", 2.75", 1.175", 3.15", 2.5" Avg. 2.105"
I'm a little surprised at the "perfect" bullet groups; the 412 5-shot groups I've tested with this rifle and many powders/several bullets have averaged 1.466".
This data and last weeks data suggests that variations in bullet weight may cause variations in accuracy; and that bullets with bubbles/holes may be less accurate than those without.
All going toward the "Weigh bullets" question.

I repeated the tests on 5/23/07 and 6/20/07. Here is a table showing the results of the here tests:

Perfect Filed .2 gr. Filed .5 gr.
5/16/2007 1.400 2.200 0.950
5/16/2007 1.500 1.350 2.750
5/16/2007 1.950 1.200 1.175
5/16/2007 1.475 1.950 3.150
5/16/2007 1.825 1.275 2.500
Average 1.630 1.595 2.105
% 100.0% 97.9% 129.1%
5/23/2007 1.300 0.900 1.750
5/23/2007 1.700 1.750 1.300
5/23/2007 2.000 1.300 1.250
5/23/2007 2.100 2.150 2.050
5/23/2007 1.800 2.050 1.150
Average 1.780 1.630 1.500
% 100.0% 91.6% 84.3%
6/20/2007 1.450 1.900 2.400
6/20/2007 1.950 1.975 2.050
6/20/2007 1.450 1.750 2.450
6/20/2007 2.350 1.350 2.425
6/20/2007 1.750 2.800 1.250
Average 1.790 1.955 2.115
% 100.0% 109.2% 118.2%
Grand
Average 1.733 1.727 1.907
% 100.0% 99.6% 110.0%

Group sizes were measured with a plastic ruler graduated in tenths of an inch.
Resolution of group size was to .025" increments. All three-place decimals were formatted for consistency and ease of reading.
These three sets of groups were shot on three different days under three different sets of conditions.
If the grand averages are an indication of the process, then there is no "real" difference in group size for groups shot with "perfect" bullets and bullets with .2 grain round-filed off; and there may not be a "real" difference in groups shot with perfect bullets and bullets with .5 grain round-filed off.
In order to confirm that there is a difference in accuracy between "perfect" and ".5 grain" bullets, with 90% confidence, 28 groups with each bullet would be required. For 95% confidence, 47 groups, each, would be required. Now these groups should be shot with bullets, powder, etc. from the same lots, under the same conditions. I'm not going to do it, and suggest that the results of this test can be summarized as follows:
"In gun/load/etc. systems with capability to shoot 100 yard groups averaging 1.75" or greater, filed grooves on the sides of the bullets of up to .5 grain simulating holes only slightly increase average group size."
Note: A lead sphere .05" in diameter weighs .2 grains, .a 07" diameter sphere weighs .5 grains. These are pretty big holes or bubbles to imagine in the bullets.

DAMAGED 22 RIMFIRE BULLETS
Here’s a picture of 22 RF bullets with .3 grain filed off.
Cartridges were prepared with .1 and .3 grains filed off with a triangular file.
On 6/27/2007, Model 12/15 BSA Martini, Lyman STS 30X, 50 yards, windy and starting to rain in fits.
Perfect, .1 grain filed, .3 grains filed ammunition.
This gun, like the rest, loves Eley Match ammunition.
I was going to file some Eley Match Red Box, I had the file in one hand and the first cartridge in the other, but a force stronger than I, (and I am enormously strong), kept me from touching that Eley cartridge with the file.
I was able to file the PMC Match Rifle, this ammunition works well in this gun.
Group sizes, leaded edge to leaded edge - .244", all in "
Perfect -.1 gr. -.3 gr.
.433 . 473 .353
.382 .564 .324
.439 1.294 .394
.419 .732 .546
.547 .443 .910
Avg. Avg. Avg.
.444 .699 .505
Here's the target:
As an aside, thirty cartridges had an average weight of 51.9 grains and a standard deviation of .228 grains.
Thirty empty cartridge cases had an average weight of 9.8 grains, and a standard deviation of .07 grains.

Bret4207

01-08-2009, 11:30 AM

[QUOTE=joeb33050;463929]Bret wrote:"I think you find what you want to find in your experiments. There is over 100 years of observation and experimentation on the damaged bases issue for instance, and yet you discount it out of hand based on your limited testing. That's a little arrogant isn't it? "

One of two things is true. Either Bret understands the chapter and misrepresents what it says intentionally, in which case he is a liar. Or he doesn't comprehend the chapter, has a reading comprehension problem. Mods- you can leave this, I'm not offended in the least. Joe has a right to his opinion since he feels I said that about him. Please leave it.

2/23/05 12/IMR 4227, Rem 2 1/2, breech seated, multiple cases, Model 1882 Maynard No. 16 in 32/35, Iron Sights, Hot and plenty of mirage. 100 yards, 5-shot group with perfect base bullets, then 5-shot group with damaged base bullets-alternating for 3 groups each.
Group Sizes:
Perfect bases: 2.15", 2.20", 2.675" Avg 2.342".
Damaged Bases: 1.2", 2.975", 2.025" Avg. 2.067"
On a good day, with one case and going carefully, this rifle has made many groups under an inch, probably averaging about 1 1/2 inches. The Irons are harder to see than ever.

Ohaus 45-405 bullets, 434.5 +/-.5 grains, Darr lubed, 21.5 grains SR4759, Dacron wad, WLP primers, breech seated, 100 yards, five shot groups, C. Sharps 45/70 Model 1875, 30X STS, Muzzle Clamp/Anti-Cant device.

A set of bullets had the bases filed at a 45 degree angle for about half the thickness of the base band. Shot 3/2/05 to see the effect of damaged bases. Windy enough to blow empty plastic ammo boxes off the bench, 70 degrees, bright sun, plenty of mirage. Alternating perfect and damaged bases.

Group sizes:
Perfect bases: 2.1", 4.3", 2.05", 3" Avg. = 2.863"
Damaged bases: 3.35", 2.675", 3.95", 2.9" Avg. 3.219"
I thought there might be lead in the barrel, couldn't find any. I read through the notebook on this rifle last night. Many 10 shot 200 yard groups under 4", many 100 yard 5-shot groups under 2", some under 1", one measured .693"-all with this load. I've used the Wolf No-Grease-Groove bullet almost exclusively in this rifle since 1993. I don't know why I'm shooting such big groups in this damaged bullet testing-but here it is.
Maybe these damaged bases caused the larger groups.
3/23/05, nice and windy, with gusts, varying from bright sun to rain showers. About 84 degrees with excellent high humidity. Martini 30/30 bench rifle, Lyman 20X STS, Wolf No-Grease-Groove 213 grain bullets with two coats of Lee Liquid Alox, 12.5/AA#9, Remington 2 1/2 primers. One hundred yards, five-shot groups, one sighter, shoot two groups, clean.
Good bases 1.1", 1.6", 1.825" Average 1.508"
Filed bases, 45 degree at the edge 1.325", 1.65", 1.075" Average 1.35"
As an aside, I also tested 311299's from a "Beagled" mold, these averaged 1.069" for four groups with the same load.

It starts to look like we can say that damage to the edges of bullet bases doesn't radically affect accuracy.
3/22/06 308403, Darr Lubed, Rem 2 1/2 primers, one case, 7/Unique, 30WCF M54 Winchester, 30X STS, Sandbag bench rest (Hoppes). 85 degrees, very windy, clouds then clear, very hot in the sun. 100 yard five shot groups. 26 bullets had the bases filed at a 45 degree angle to make a defect about half way up the base band. Fired about 6 sighters and stopped. Next relay (15 minute relays) fired 1 fouler, 5 filed base, 5 good base. Next relay fired 1 fouler, 5 good base, 5 filed base. And so on, alternating the first group shot between filed bases and good bases.
Filed Bases 2 .375", .825", 2.4", 2.5", 2.4" Average 2.1"
Good bases 3.3", 2.55", 2.3", 2.2", 2.3" Average 2.53"

Again, I don't think that filed/damaged bases shoot better than good bases, the .825" group is a fluke.

Filed Bases 2.55", 2.2", 1.5", 2.525", 2.85" Average 2.325"
Good bases 1.125", 1.325", 2.3", 1.275", 1.8" Average 1.565"
Most of the bullets are still tipping.
Finally, the damaged base bullets shoot larger groups than the good bases.
4/5/06 308403, Darr with some beeswax lubed, WLP primers, 8.0/Unique weighed/dribbled, Dacron wad tamped down on powder, 30WCF M54 Winchester, 30X STS, Muzzle clamp/anti-cant device, flat bench rest. 84 degrees, quite windy, clear, 100 yard five shot groups. 27 bullets had the bases filed at a 45 degree angle to make a defect about half way up the base band. Fired about 6 sighters and stopped. Next relay (15 minute relays) fired 1 fouler, 5 filed base, 5 good base, cleaned barrel with 2 patches and MM oil. Next relay fired 1 fouler, 5 good base, 5 filed base, cleaned barrel. And so on, alternating the first group shot between filed bases and good bases.
Filed Bases 2.2", 3.7", 1.95", 1.525", 1.275" Average 2.17"
Good bases 1.7", 2.0", 2.6", 1.825", 1.675" Average 1.96"
Maybe half of the bullets are still tipping.
Those shot 4/5/06 were from a lot that weighed 170.6 to 170.9 grains. I just filed the base of one out of that lot. It started at 170.8 grains. After filing it weighed 170.5 grains. The filing lost .3 grains.
4/12/06 308403 lubed with Darr + some beeswax. 11/AA#9, WLP primer, CF Ventures soft gas check, Martini 30/30 bench gun, 30X STS, muzzle clamp/anti-cant device, flat bench rest. Five shot 100 yard groups, 1 sighter and 2 groups per 15 minute relay. Bases on some bullets filed at ~45 degree angle ~ half way up the base band. It was 82 degrees and windy. How windy was it? My Gatorade plastic bottle cap blew off the bench, my gun case blew open(it was slightly open) and a set of sky screens with holder and tripod blew over twice. I have little experience with this bullet in this gun.
Six of 25 shots with both good and filed bases were tipping.
Good bases 2.725", 1.175", .625", 1.45", 1.7" Avg 1.535"
Filed bases 3.125, 2.675, 1.45", 3.45", 1.025" Avg. 2.345"
Summary to date
FILED GOOD
BASES BASES
3/22/06 2.1" 2.53"
3/29/06 2.325" 1.565"
4/5/06 2.17" 1.96"
4/12/06 2.345" 1.535"

Damaged Bullets, Distinction and Difference
After looking at forty groups fired, half with filed-base bullets and the other half with "good" = unfiled-base bullets, I've been assailed by a conclusion, to wit: Not all bullets with damaged = filed bases fly wildly to the target. The probability that any given bullet will land out of the group is greater shooting bullets with damaged bases.
I first thought that this was a distinction without a difference-it's starting to look like bullets with damaged bases make bigger groups than bullets with good bases. But I think that I see a difference.
All our bullets would go through the same hole, we think, if not for the differences that creep in amongst our loads. Differences in brass or bullet or powder or primer or bore condition or weather or any of the dozens of variables. These differences, some or most of us suspect, yield shots outside the group. And my assumption, shared, I think with others, is that if we assembled and shot a set of loads, all with a given difference, the groups would be larger than if that difference were not present. And we suspect that that is true because the differences make the bullets fly out of the group.
Now all bullets with damaged bases do not fly out of the group, some of them fly into very nice groups and others fly into nice four-shot groups with a flyer, or three shot groups with two flyers, or ....
Since the filed-base groups look to be larger, probably bullets with damaged bases make larger groups on average than do bullets with good bases. Think of two normal-looking overlapping distributions.
This is where I get stuck. A bullet with a forty-five degree filed surface for about half of the height of the base band should fly to a different place than an unfiled bullet. And with no specific orientation of the bullet with the bore, these filed-base bullets should make a "big" group. There are any number of folks who can explain why these bullets should make these big groups. They do make bigger groups, on average, I think. But, why are some filed-base groups smaller than good base groups? Why doesn't every filed-base bullet fly out of the group? Why is this a probabilistic process? If damaged bullet bases cause the bullet to fly out of the group, why doesn't every damaged base bullet fly out of the group?
A cartridge without a primer doesn't go off, and it doesn't go off every single time. There's no business about it doesn't go off 96% of the time, it doesn't go off.
If damaged bases cause bullets to fly erratically, then every bullet should fly erratically. Every bullet.
Perfect loads make one hole.
Real-world loads make groups with the greatest density of the shots in the center, and reduced numbers of shots as the distance from the center increases. Dense in the middle, density decreasing as the distance from the center increases.
Loads with an intentional defect oriented randomly should make groups that look like a doughnut, with maximum density at some distance from the center, diminishing both toward and away from the center. I don't think that they do.
So, I'll make a bunch of filed-base bullets and fire them at one aiming point. Maybe thirty or so. And I'll fire a set of good-base bullets at another aiming point.
I'm thinking that if I don't get a doughnuty looking group from the filed base bullets that maybe we need to re-think some of those explanations.

4/26/2006 M54 Winchester 30WCF, 30X STS, 12/AA#9, WLP primers, CF Ventures Soft Gas Check, 308403 lubed Darr + beeswax, muzzle clamp/anti-cant device and flat bench rest. 65 bullets had 45 degree filed bases to about half the height of the base band. A set of 18 cases had file marks put on the base and rim for orienting. A fouler was shot before each set of shots, at the center dot. Bullets were put in the cases with the filed bullet marks at 12, 3, 6 and 9 o'clock, four shots, and the cartridge was put in the chamber with the case base/rim mark at 12 o'clock. Then as precisely as I could put the bullet in the case and then the cartridge in the gun, bullets/filed bases were oriented each shot.
Four with filed bases, four perfect bullets, then four with filed bases and four perfect bullets; with a sighter comes to 17 shots per fifteen minute relay. 64 shots each with filed and perfect bases were made. All shot at 100 yards.
The weather varied from sunny to rain, still to very windy. In the still sunny conditions there was a lot of mirage, and biting horseflies about the size of robins. Lots of "damn"s and slapping body parts.
The damaged base group is 3 9/16" high by 4 11/16" wide, with no discernable pattern. The perfect base group is 2 7/8" wide by 2 1/2" high with the center shot out and outliers ~evenly distributed.

It is clear from the target that bullets with damaged bases do not shoot wildly, that many of the bullets cluster into a small group, and that the group/distribution is not doughnut shaped. This suggests that the mechanism decreasing accuracy is not one that operates every shot, but is probabilistic in nature.

More damaged bullets
To damage some bullets for testing I took 26 of the 5/6/07 cast Borton Darr bullets weighing from 183.4-183.6 grains and with a small round file filed away 1 grain worth of metal from the middle grease groove area. I weighed each bullet, filed away until the weight had dropped 1 grain. All Darr lubed.
Five groups of five shots at 100 yards each with perfect bullets and these damaged bullets was the plan.

Ten shots at 2 points of aim were enough for me. Bullets with a 1 grain hole filed in the side with a round file, at 100 yards, are not wildly inaccurate, 10 shots aimed at 2 points of aim were contained in an area 3" X 7", but there were no groups.
Now one grain is a lot, and is a sphere .088" in diameter. I suspect that this is larger than would be found in all but a very, very few cast bullets.

I then prepared sets of 30 WCF cartridges with 314299 bullets; one set with perfect bullets, a set with .2 grain filed off, and a set with .5 grain filed off. Here is a picture of 314299 bullets with .5 grain round-filed off.

Winchester M54. 30WCF, 30X Lyman STS
The load is:
314299 "No Dot", GC Alox lube, WLP, 12.5/AA#9, LOA 2.845"

"Perfect" bullets, Hard, cast 2/3/07, 199.4-200.2 gr., sized .309"

- 1/2 grain bullets, same as above but 1/2 grain filed off as shown

-.2 grain bullets, cast 3/9/07, 194.7-195.0 grains, sized .312"

On Wednesday, May 16, 2007 I shot these test "filed-side" bullets at 100 yards, 2 foulers and 2 5-shot groups per 15 minute relay, alternating between the 3 test loads. Groups measured to the nearest .025" with a plastic ruler with .1" increments.
Unfiled, "perfect" bullets: 1.4", 1.5" ,1.95" ,1.475" ,1.825" Avg. 1.63"
Bullets with .2 grain round-filed off the side: 2.2", 1.35", 1.2", 1.95", 1.275" Avg. 1.595"
Bullets with .5 grain round-filed off the side: .95", 2.75", 1.175", 3.15", 2.5" Avg. 2.105"
I'm a little surprised at the "perfect" bullet groups; the 412 5-shot groups I've tested with this rifle and many powders/several bullets have averaged 1.466".
This data and last weeks data suggests that variations in bullet weight may cause variations in accuracy; and that bullets with bubbles/holes may be less accurate than those without.
All going toward the "Weigh bullets" question.

I repeated the tests on 5/23/07 and 6/20/07. Here is a table showing the results of the here tests:

Perfect Filed .2 gr. Filed .5 gr.
5/16/2007 1.400 2.200 0.950
5/16/2007 1.500 1.350 2.750
5/16/2007 1.950 1.200 1.175
5/16/2007 1.475 1.950 3.150
5/16/2007 1.825 1.275 2.500
Average 1.630 1.595 2.105
% 100.0% 97.9% 129.1%
5/23/2007 1.300 0.900 1.750
5/23/2007 1.700 1.750 1.300
5/23/2007 2.000 1.300 1.250
5/23/2007 2.100 2.150 2.050
5/23/2007 1.800 2.050 1.150
Average 1.780 1.630 1.500
% 100.0% 91.6% 84.3%
6/20/2007 1.450 1.900 2.400
6/20/2007 1.950 1.975 2.050
6/20/2007 1.450 1.750 2.450
6/20/2007 2.350 1.350 2.425
6/20/2007 1.750 2.800 1.250
Average 1.790 1.955 2.115
% 100.0% 109.2% 118.2%
Grand
Average 1.733 1.727 1.907
% 100.0% 99.6% 110.0%

Group sizes were measured with a plastic ruler graduated in tenths of an inch.
Resolution of group size was to .025" increments. (QUOTE)

Yes Joe, you got some fine groups, some damaged did better than undamaged. Still, overall I see a trend that shows damaged bases don't shoot as consistently small groups as undamaged! The good ones are anomalies Joe! I'm looking at the info and I see groups on 2/23, 3/23, 3/22 and 5/16 for instance that ARE surprising, but overall damaged groups are larger than "perfect". Can you deny that? I found the filed noses really odd. Why would you get a smaller group with .2 a grain taken off than perfect or with half? Anomalies in a limited test! For all you know you pulled a shot in or balanced an unbalanced boolit! Overall damaged boolits did worse. If I'm reading it right roughly 1.885 vs 2.235 in favor of undamaged bases. That's using your average summary. Now maybe in a rifle that shoots 6" at 100 yards we never notice the difference, but maybe it shoots 6" because of all those little variables adding up.

I picked up on a term you're using- "radically degrade". Does a ding in a PB boolit mean you'll have 4 in ragged hole and one 4" out? Maybe yes, maybe no. Maybe you have a particularly forgiving load and barrel, maybe you'll pull one into the group instead of out of it, maybe the gust of wind down range will kick it in. It's all within the margin of error, but overall you will not gets consistently smaller groups using damaged boolits or bullets as you will with perfect ones. That reasoning goes against common sense, logic, physics, etc. I'm not a physics major or engineer, but I've watched enough arrows in flight to know the unbalanced ones wobble all over the place. I've shot enough groups to know my culls won't, as a rule, give me bragging groups. I decreased the run out in a loaded cartridge by .006 and seen a group shrink from 1.25" to just over a half inch. All those little variations add up Joe, and you gave an example yourself- On /3/23/05 you Beagled some 311299's and shot much smaller groups. Why? That little variation of a couple thousandths you got by Beagling, or so it appears.

Now here's a quote I love- "In order to confirm that there is a difference in accuracy between "perfect" and ".5 grain" bullets, with 90% confidence, 28 groups with each bullet would be required. For 95% confidence, 47 groups, each, would be required. Now these groups should be shot with bullets, powder, etc. from the same lots, under the same conditions. I'm not going to do it..." So, you've drawn your conclusion and that's all there is to it? In this case wouldn't words like "In my opinion", "it seems", "sometimes", "occasionally", "in my limited testing" make a more accurate statement about your findings?

I've made bold a few spots where you contradict you final conclusion and where you verify that the variables make a difference in group size among other things. I also had to edit quite a bit out due to length.

I'm sorry Joe, but if you intend to present this as irrefutable I'm not accepting it. Your own writing leads me to a different conclusion. It's just my opinion and I certainly don't expect you to agree or accept it, but it goes against common sense, logic and my own observations.

waksupi

01-08-2009, 12:17 PM

Brett, I will leave it at your request. However, I will tell interested parties, that personal attacks will not be tolerated here.

Larry Gibson

01-08-2009, 01:14 PM

Joe

Regards the dammaged bullet tests; "average group sizes" only are a good indicator but you should also look at something else. That is the largest group size. With one exception the damaged bullet loads had the larger group. If we are shooting bullets that are not consistent (have wrinkles or bubbles, etc.) how do we know when we will shoot that large group? Point is we don't.

You express " I'm a little surprised at the "perfect" bullet groups; the 412 5-shot groups I've tested with this rifle and many powders/several bullets have averaged 1.466". " Your surprise indicates that there might be something amiss with that group but if it's 1.63" is within the extreme spread (ES) of the 1.466" average group then nothing is amiss. If that is the case then it should not "surprise" you.

Perhaps the better method to measure dispersion within groups is to use the "mean radii" method.

This all has to do with random dispersion within a group. If we fire 100 shots into 1.66" I'm sure we could select numerous 10 shot groups out of that one 100 shot group that were well under 1 moa. It is very possible that we could have loaded and selected just those shots and then assumed we had a 1 moa or less load. Yet the fact is no matter how small a lessor sampling we choose or how we juggle the "average" that load is still only 1.66" capable. When looking at such "averages" we must also look at the ES and standard deviation (SD) to get a true picture of the loads capability.

We look at all 3 (average, ES and SD) when we chronograph velocities. The more shots in the string the more accurate the data will be. By accurate I mean that the data is relative to that lot of ammuntion or that load with those specific compnants. Most only look at the average velocity and perhaps the SD to determine if a 3 or 5 shot test string is a "good load". That is a mistake. One should also look at the ES and it's relation/ratio to the SD. Then a further sampling of a 20 shot string or 3 ten shot strings will then give a much better idea of the quality/consistency of that load.

I have many times observed shooters shoot a 3 shot cloverleaf and declare their rifle is super accurate with that load at such and such velocity. They come back to the range again with that rifle/load and can barely keep 3 shots in 1.5 to 2". They are perplexed. Well duh!

My point is, take a look at a couple other things before making a judgement on some cause and effect.

Larry Gibson

joeb33050

01-08-2009, 06:14 PM

This is becoming nonsense.
Back to the topic of interest to me.
I believe that:
It is reasonably easy for a limited experience caster-reloader-shooter to shoot reasonably good groups with cast in a reasonable gun.
Minor changes in many of the components of the shooting make little difference in accuracy.

I will write the "how to" for folks to critique/change, and start a thread here and on the CBA site. Perhaps it's my fault that this "how to" isn't written now.

In my Striker, that I've shot 7 times since buying it 11/19/08, yesterday five 5 shot 100 yard groups averaged 1.785" and 2.33", two loads and fiddling with a new scope, a Simmons 8-32 just bought for $75 from Natchez.
I shoot 3 foulers, 10, 10, and 5 for record , for each load. There are 9 foulers per set of groups. With the scope fiddling and parallax fiddling and reject foulers, the 8?? foulers for the first load shot into 3.25", the second 8? into 3". Where's the 9th? Maybe a double, but not on the paper.

I use a plastic ruler graduated in 1/10th of an inch. It is easy to interpolate to .025", thus for example a group might be 1.600 or 1.625 or 1.650 or 1.675 or 1.700. I find that this level of accuracy is sufficient for my shooting, and bet it is sufficient for yours. This isn't opinion, it's based on statistics and the quantity of groups needed to reliably differentiate between two loads.

Time to get to work.
joe b.

joeb33050

01-08-2009, 06:21 PM

Larry;
We've gone through this before. The ES is the "range", the range and SD are mathematically linked, ES doesn't tell anyone anything that SD doesn't tell. I know you don't like it, but it's true.

On average, for sets of five 5 shot groups, the largest will be twice the size of the smallest.

I/we don't shoot enough groups to see which load is "best" when there's a small difference. It's part of the problem.
joe b.

Joe

Regards the dammaged bullet tests; "average group sizes" only are a good indicator but you should also look at something else. That is the largest group size. With one exception the damaged bullet loads had the larger group. If we are shooting bullets that are not consistent (have wrinkles or bubbles, etc.) how do we know when we will shoot that large group? Point is we don't.

You express " I'm a little surprised at the "perfect" bullet groups; the 412 5-shot groups I've tested with this rifle and many powders/several bullets have averaged 1.466". " Your surprise indicates that there might be something amiss with that group but if it's 1.63" is within the extreme spread (ES) of the 1.466" average group then nothing is amiss. If that is the case then it should not "surprise" you.

Perhaps the better method to measure dispersion within groups is to use the "mean radii" method.

This all has to do with random dispersion within a group. If we fire 100 shots into 1.66" I'm sure we could select numerous 10 shot groups out of that one 100 shot group that were well under 1 moa. It is very possible that we could have loaded and selected just those shots and then assumed we had a 1 moa or less load. Yet the fact is no matter how small a lessor sampling we choose or how we juggle the "average" that load is still only 1.66" capable. When looking at such "averages" we must also look at the ES and standard deviation (SD) to get a true picture of the loads capability.

We look at all 3 (average, ES and SD) when we chronograph velocities. The more shots in the string the more accurate the data will be. By accurate I mean that the data is relative to that lot of ammuntion or that load with those specific compnants. Most only look at the average velocity and perhaps the SD to determine if a 3 or 5 shot test string is a "good load". That is a mistake. One should also look at the ES and it's relation/ratio to the SD. Then a further sampling of a 20 shot string or 3 ten shot strings will then give a much better idea of the quality/consistency of that load.

I have many times observed shooters shoot a 3 shot cloverleaf and declare their rifle is super accurate with that load at such and such velocity. They come back to the range again with that rifle/load and can barely keep 3 shots in 1.5 to 2". They are perplexed. Well duh!

My point is, take a look at a couple other things before making a judgement on some cause and effect.

Larry Gibson

Bret4207

01-09-2009, 08:10 AM

Larry Gibson

01-09-2009, 03:51 PM

joeb33050

"We've gone through this before. The ES is the "range", the range and SD are mathematically linked, ES doesn't tell anyone anything that SD doesn't tell. I know you don't like it, but it's true."

It's not a matter of whether I "like" it or not. The fact is there needs to be a proportional equivelence between the ES and SD. I have many times shot 10 shot groups with very good SDs but poor ES because one shot was way out of the norm. If you have a high ES with a low SD something is not right.

On average, for sets of five 5 shot groups, the largest will be twice the size of the smallest.

Well duh! Since the average means 50% of the groups will be larger and 50% of the groups should be smaller that only makes sense. My point was you were "surprised" that the average the day of the test was larger than the previous average. It should not have been surprising at all as that average still fell within the ES. That is why you should look at all indicators.

I/we don't shoot enough groups to see which load is "best" when there's a small difference. It's part of the problem.

I certainly agree with that. That was a major problem with several people on this forum not understanding that during the RPM threshold test I was not seeking "best" accuracy with those loads. I was seeking comparative accuracy the same as you are with your tests.

Three other things you might want to point out, as several on this forum apparently don't understand, is;

The smaller the caliber the greater effect a given defect will have.

The farther the defect is from the center of pressure the greater the affect will be.

The faster the twist or higher the RPM are the greater the affect is.

"It is reasonably easy for a limited experience caster-reloader-shooter to shoot reasonably good groups with cast in a reasonable gun.
Minor changes in many of the components of the shooting make little difference in accuracy."

I whole heartily concur with your assessment. I think too much credence is given to minor changes in componants which really have little if any adverse affect on the accuracy of most cast bullet loads. My testing has demonstrated, time after time, the exact same thing your tests have. Given a correct cast bullet design and casting for the intended gun and it's not too hard to load accurate loads. There are some rare exceptions mostly when a certain design of cast bullet just won't shoot in one particular gun.

My guess is that 99% of rifle cast bullet shooters load normal cast bullet loads with the accepted "book" recipe's and get satisfactory accuracy. Many of those don't really cast what most of us would consider "good" cast bullets. Yet they get good accuracy and are satisfied with what they are getting. It is, as Bret says, that if and when a bullet caster wants to develop futher then he must learn other things and deveop his casting technique better. I sometimes think many of us come to think we, here at this forum, are the "cast bullet world". Such is not the case, we are but a small part of the total number of shooters who cast and shoot "boolits".

Larry Gibson

joeb33050

01-10-2009, 12:18 PM

[QUOTE=
The "How to" has already been written Joe. It's right here in these pages at this site and at Castpics. Better yet, the noobs can ask for an explanation and get loads of help for their specific issue.[/QUOTE]

In the mid/late 90's I wrote a book about SS rifles and loading and shooting. The ASSRA were initially interested in printing it, but didn't. Time went by, I retired and we moved to FL. I got into the various SS and CB sites including the Colonel's. After a while I decided that the site members knew about CBs etc, collectively knew, and wrote on the forums; but that the info then disappeared into the past. I said that I would collect this collective knowledge so that it was available to all, in a book. Somewhere in here I caught himself in an untruth and was banned forever from the CB-L.
I added to the original book, "cookbook", wrote the new book, wrote about it, it drew interest from the CBA who printed it and gave it to all old and new members. The first edition was 100 pages.
I continued to search, wrote the second edition of ~500 pages, got help in figuring out the computer and printing details, and the second edition was printed, is available on CD and free on the site.
I kept on, looking for and saving more info, which is available free on the site and on the CD.
I know that one can search here for topics, also on other forums. But, searching is unwieldy, and just doesn't do the job for a lot of folks.
I'm talking here about how forums and people work and interact.
People want to be able to go somewhere, look up the topics of interest, and read them. I believe that that is why there are ~750 members on the book site.
I know essentially nothing about computers, but am here to tell you that the way this and other sites work does not meet the needs of many people. This is NOT a criticism of this site, other sites, forums, you, or the dreaded waksupi. This is my opinion, backed up by a lot of support.

Thus, I'll write the article/chapter, hopefully with the help of a lot of members.

Perhaps a suggestion is in order. People keep writing in asking if GC bulletrs can be shot without GCs. I see it here and on other forums. As a matter of forum architecture, couldn't there be a place where one could go, look at a list of topics, click on one and be transported to an EDITED set of posts? I don't know if its possible, but there you go.

For those who are interested, my effort since the getgo has been to collect information from others and put it together. I wrote a substantial part of the book generally because I couldn't get anyone else to write it. Don't act surprised at these data collection efforts, don't bother to mention data mining, don't worry about attribution-it's taken care of.
Now, on to the new article.
joe b.

9.3X62AL

01-10-2009, 12:38 PM

"DWM" = Deutsche Waffen und Munitionsfabriken, Karlsruhe, Germany. There are many references to "DWM" in Barnes' "Cartridges of the World". It was a HUGE producer of ammunition and related materials through WWII, and their old catalogs are wonderful references to European cartridge nomenclature. Many of these are online--do a Google search on "DWM ammunition", and you'll have an afternoon's worth of research at minimum.

Bret4207

01-11-2009, 09:41 AM

The "Stickys" here have much of what you seek Joe. I'll add a link here you might have missed and you can PM the author to see if you can use it. Christian for Israel has done a fine job laying out the basics, with photos.

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?t=271268

I would also suggest contacting GLL about some pics of what a really fine cast boolit should look like. Not only are his castings superb, but his photography is just outstanding. Glen Fryxel, who post as "Glen" here also has a vast number of articles with excellent photography available.

Just so we're clear Joe, I admire the work you're doing. It takes time, effort, perseverance and money to do. I applaud your efforts. I just take exception to something you print I know to be inaccurate, convoluted, a sometimes thing, open to interpretation or plain wrong. We're far past the days of Elmer and Phil and Earl where this was all black magic and expectations were low, where the guns and brass were iffy and "gilt edged accuracy" was a 2 1/2" group at 100 yards. There are no "cook book loads" once you get past the beginner stage and your expectations become equaling or bettering your factory jacketed loads. The tiny variations you discount as inconsequential need to be recognized and addressed.

With that in mind I think rather than the "cookbook" you're attempting to write in the other post, you might be better off attempting to establish a "Trouble Shooting" table of possible problems and solutions.