Conventional wisdom on bullet sizing.....

[Harry O]

The conventional wisdom on bullet sizing is to slug the bore and size the bullet 0.001" larger. I did that for many years. Sometimes I got accurate loads. Sometimes not. I have begun to suspect that CW is wrong.

It started when I was trying to shoot some cast 9mm bullets in a Browning Hi-Power. No accuracy and they were starting to tumble by 25 yards. Someone suggested increasing the bullet diameter. I happened to have every size between 0,355" and 0.359" (and as cast was nearly 0.360") so I did. The largest bullet would still fit the chamber and EVERY 0.001" larger was more accurate than the last one. And by the largest one, the bullets had stopped tumbling. The cartridge looked strange with a large bullet in front with the case necked down at the base of the bullet, but they shot.

I had similar experiences with a revolver (larger bullets were more accurate). It was not quite as "clean" a test than with the Browning. I did not have as many sizes to try. The accuracy plateaued before I got to "as cast", but it never went down.

Now, I am wondering about a couple of rifles in 30-40 Krag. I have been shooting a 0.310" bullet in them for some time (with pretty good results), but for various reasons, I tried some 0.312" bullets in one of them. Accuracy was definitely better. I checked and found I could get up to 0.314" (which is about "as cast") to chamber in one of them, 0.313" in the other. I already have a 0.313" sizer and have ordered a 0.314" luber/sizer to try.

I am beginning to wonder if using the largest bullet that will chamber is the key to accuracy? What say you here?

Of course, there are always exceptions. I have a Ruger 44-40 Vaquero that will not chamber anything over 0.427", but the bore is 0.430". I have to use soft swaged Hornady cup-base bullets to get any accuracy in that one.

[RugerFan]

Harry,
Concerning your "Ruger 44-40 Vaquero that will not chamber anything over 0.427". If you'd like to try a different route, make a cerrosafe casting of a cylinder chamber. You may find that: a) You have narrow throats which can be opened up, or b) You need a bullet with a short front band. I have a .41 mag SBHH that won't chamber bullets with a front band any longer than .080" (.100 is more common). You can design a bullet mold at mountainmolds.com to your front band specs.

[NVcurmudgeon]

Harry O, this is very early days for me with my newly aquired Krag. It is originally a rifle according to a Springfield web site. Now it is a 22" carbine, looking remarkably like the NRA sporterized Krags. Groove diameter is .309", so it looks like we have the range of Krag groove diameters almost covered between us. I did shoot some .312" diameter Lyman 311284 booolits with good results, though I could feel tight chambering. Now that I am sizing to nominal .310" (actual .3107") chambering is freer and accuracy is even better. I have read over the years that groove dia. in US Krags can run from .308" to .317". So far,the conventinal wisdom seems to be wrking well for me. BTW the 311284 feels like the nose is about .001" less than groove dia. when a boolit is inserted backwards into the muzzle. I have a 314299 Lyman that casts .303" X .314". This has been the foundation of very accurate loads in my .30/06 Springfield and .303 British No. 4 rifle. The 314299 nose does not slip easily into the muzzle of the Krag, but engraves heavily. I think I'll try some of these sized .310" in the Krag and see if the nose will ride straighter than does the 311284. There's always something else to try!

[Buckshot]

...............Groove plus a couple thou is good. So is sizing a thousandth less then the throat. But I do believe there are some rifles and possibly pistols that are out of bounds, where that doesn't work. I'm not going to expend a lot of brain power looking for examples beyond the M95 Steyr straightpulls in 8x56R. I don't have one in the original 8x50R so I can't comment on those.

These rifles in 8x56R take a very streamlined FLGC, with a boat tail and .329" diameter. The lands in the barrel (of the 2 specimens I have) are .316". I've heard of others being similar. The grooves on one is .332" and .330" on the other. So the FLGC slug engraves .008" on one and .006" in the other.

Early on, after slugging the barrel and discovering the .332" grooves I made myself a .332" push through die. I had bought a .338" RCBS mould from Deputy Al which dropped slugs at .340". I lube-sized them to .338" then ran them up through the .332" die. I was a bit concerned about chambering but the carbine handled it just fine.

After some experimental loadings I was getting what I thought was pretty decent accuracy for the carbine. Once after a range session it had been leaning against the reloading bench a couple days, and I had some slugs lube sized to .338" in a container. I thought I'd do a quick and dirty test to see what the throat was like. I pulled the bolt, and with the muzzle on a piece of wood I dropped one of those in and tapped it forward a bit.

When I looked at the boolit, there were just rifling marks. I figured it'd stopped against the beginning of the throat. But nope, it'd dropped right on down to the leade! I'd already had to open up the seater die to seat slugs at .332" and so now I had to open it up further for the .338" ones. I figured the throat couldn't be TOO much bigger and this larger sizing might make an improvement. Fired case's would take a .338" slug. I had to make a new M die plug.

So now the .316" lands would be engraving .011" each. Yeow! Plus the boolit would be .003" over the groove diameter. Being mindfull of possible pressure increases, I used a load which had proved mild before and loaded 20 of'em. Next range day they shot point forward, and not wild but the groups were much larger. No signs of pressure trouble.

Subsequent shooting the following week with loads using 4198 were up in the area of shooting I'd done with the .332" slugs. Groups remained larger then with the .332" slugs. Over a couple weeks I tried a couple other powders but nothing showed any improvement.

I can't really point to the amount over the groove diameter as being the culprit because of the skinny bore (relative to the groove). Could have been just too much engraving going on. That lead HAS to go somewhere and where ever it was extruding too might have been the issue. Had the lands been something like .324" for a more common .004" engraving, (with a .332" groove) the fatter slug might have shot as well or better.

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

[swheeler]

I think you mean a .332 " groove

[Harry O]

Harry,
Concerning your "Ruger 44-40 Vaquero that will not chamber anything over 0.427". If you'd like to try a different route, make a cerrosafe casting of a cylinder chamber.

I already did. Originally, the chambers were tight, the throats were 0.424" and the bore was 0.430". The stock 0.427" bullet had to squeeze down 0.003" and then open up 0.006" all within one bullet length. No wonder it was not accurate!

I sent it back to Ruger twice. The first time they replaced the cylinder with another one that was "out of spec". The second time they sent it back unchanged saying that it met their tolerance standards and if I wanted something different, I should see a "custom gunsmith".

A nearby gunsmith had a standard 44-40 reamer and opened up the tight chambers so standard factory cartridges could chamber without pushing them. He also used a .44 Special throat reamer to open up the throats to match the barrel. Replacing the barrel with one properly sized and/or opening up the neck of the chamber would have cost more than I wanted to spend.

Accuracy is still not "target", but it shoots groups 1/3 the size of what it was when I got it from Ruger.

[Harry O]

Harry O, this is very early days for me with my newly aquired Krag. It is originally a rifle according to a Springfield web site. Now it is a 22" carbine, looking remarkably like the NRA sporterized Krags. Groove diameter is .309", so it looks like we have the range of Krag groove diameters almost covered between us.

Looks like your groove diameter and mine are the same. My Krag likes the Lee 303B bullet best (so far). It is supposed to be for the .303 British, but the bore riding portion is too small for that. It is 0.300". It just rattles around in the Ross bore. That fits pretty good in the Krag, though.

The neck of the Krag is large, like most of the military rifles I have, so I can just chamber a 0.314" bullet in it. That is also the "as cast" size for it. I will try lubing/sizing some at that size, but may back off to 0.313" if it is irritating to chamber. Like I said, the ones sized at 0.312" were a little more accurate than the ones I have been shooting for some time ( at 0.310"). It should be an interesting test.

I have tried a number of other cast bullets in the Krag, but the Lee is the one that it likes the best. I also have a Ruger No. 3 in 30-40 Krag. It has a slightly tighter chamber. It also likes a different bullet. I will work on the Krag first before getting back to the Ruger.

[44man]

CW is not wrong. That is only the starting point for a lot of guns. You may find a gun likes a larger boolit. But in most cases, hardly any gun will shoot a smaller one.
For the revolvers with smaller throats then the bore, they just will not shoot unless you use dead soft boolits or hollow base boolits. These cause another whole bunch of problems like bad leading, deformed boolits, only good for low velocity, etc. The only solution is to open the throats.

[Sky C.]

Gentlemen-

I know many years have passed and much more experimentation has been done since the days of Mr. Keith & Mr. Sharpe, but I find it a puzzlement that they had done extensive experimentation with CB's and had come to the conclusion that bullets being of diameters greater than .001" over groove dimensions were less accurate. Both gentlemen seemed quite methodical in their experimentation and observations so I wonder why today we find differently? Is this attributable to other variables such as relation between throats and barrel dimensions or do you believe they simply missed the mark in their day?

Best regards-

Sky C.

[stocker]

Sky: I've wondered that myself and concluded that the answer may be in the hardness/nature of the metal used. Possibly some obturation occuring? Rifling in common use at the time (cut as opposed to buttoned?), depth of rifling? Sometimes I find that different barrels seem to be a law unto themselves and simply have a preference for a certain sizing.

[slughammer]

The neck of the Krag is large, like most of the military rifles I have, so I can just chamber a 0.314" bullet in it.


Even if it chambers, some guns have a sharp transition from the chamber neck into the throat.

I'd do a pound slug of the chamber neck and throat to see the transition and measure the diameters.

[Four Fingers of Death]

I always try unsized and tumble lubed first. If this works you just shortcut through a lot of work

[NVcurmudgeon]

Sky C. and Stocker, I don't remember which alloys Phil Sharpe used, but Elmer Keith wrote a lot about tin/lead alloys. Nowadays most of us seem to be using wheelweights. Could it be that the presence or absence of antimony makes the difference?

[Lloyd Smale]

my thoughts go toward not only bullet metals being harder but in most cases machining tolerances are better. I was preached to for many years and believed that you needed to use the softest bullet that wouldnt lead in your gun to get the best accuracy. A bullet needs to bump up into the bore. My buddy AL and I have tested hundreds of loads in handguns on the bench not shooting tin cans and have found in just about every case from the .38 specials to the .500 linebaughs that a harder bullet will 9 times out of 10 outshoot a softer one and sometimes dramaticaly. They may have helped in an old gun that is out of spec but just think what your asking a bullet to do. Deform once going through the chamber and then rattle down a bore till it deforms enough to grab the rifleing.
Good luck getting any alloy to shoot like that. What has consistantly worked for us is first making sure your throats are right and you have a good barrel. Throats can be opened for 30 bucks so theres no excuse for not doing that. If your barrel is rough lap it that may cost you about 3 bucks in compound and bullets. Make sure you have a good forcing cone most rugers can stand to be recut as a matter of fact most production guns can. Then cast a bullet of 14 to 19 bhn size to about 1 to 2 thousands over grove diameter Lube with a quality soft lube and ill about be a dime to a dollar that i can make any handgun shoot unless its so out of alignment that its peeling lead. Tell me you can cast to hard of a bullet for a handgun and ill laugh. If hard bullets are failing to shoot well its because something in your gun is out of spec and mashing a soft bullet down through the mistakes may look a little better on paper it aint curing the problem. The old thoughts on bullets bumping up is a throw back to black powder days. Black powder explodes instead of smokeless the burns slowly. Black powder would give those old bullets that were cast from pure a good kick in the ass that would bump them up. Think about it another way. Take a look at the 45acp for example. Do you see the factorys loading jacketed bullets that are 5 thousands over grove diameter. No they size them at .451 Do you think a jacketed bullet is going to bump up easier then a hard cast bullet, I doubt it. Moral of the story is get your gun right first they start your load development instead of fighting problems that are easily fixed.

[44man]

Lloyd, WONDERFUL!

[Harry O]

I certainly did not intend to question Keith or Sharpe (or Mr. Smale, for that matter). I think we are talking about two different things, though.

Many of my guns are ex-military or military-type. They all have "generous" chambers. For example, my Krag, Springfield, and Garands have loose chambers (but not bad barrels -- one of the Garands shows only *one* one the bore erosion gage). When I am sizing a fired case, I can tell if a commercial Browning in the caliber or the Garand fired the case by the difference in effort it takes to size them back. Likewise, my 1911's and Browning Hi-Power were never in the military, but they are military pattern and also have loose chambers.

In at least some of these guns (the ones I have tested), it appears that larger is better. My theory (at least so far) is that it is more important to have a bullet start straight in the neck/throat area (by being as large as possible there) than it is to have the minimum size over groove diameter. I have seen some evidence of that, but will do some more testing before I declare it is true. In addition, nothing I said has anything to do with jacketed bullets. Anyone who is stupid enough to shoot an oversize jacketed bullet in ANY gun deserves whatever happens to them and/or their guns.

One the other hand, the largest bullet I can fit into my S&W K-38 Masterpiece just happens to be 0.001" more than the groove size. Of course, I could scrap the barrels of each and every one of my ex-military or military-pattern guns and replace them with a custom barrel/chambering that is "correct", but I don't feel that is respectful of their service (not counting the excessive cost).

If someone was insulted by my post, I apologize. I was just trying to find a reason for my tests and see if anyone had similar experiences.

[versifier]

Harry, if everyone that made sense had to apologize, we'd be "Meathaeds On Parade" or the US Congress instead of Cast Boolits. :razz: Furthermore, anyone who would be insulted by a well written and logically developed post like you wrote probably would be better off with the Meatheads. :rolleyes: The beauty of this forum is the wealth of different experiences that its many members bring together and share. My rule is only apologize for being an idiot (which you are obviously not!). I don't agree with everything I read here, but it all makes me THINK, sometimes in new and unexpected directions. We make observations, form opinions, then figure out ways to test them out and ask if anyone else has been down the same road to maybe save a few steps. Then all of us learn from it together. E pluribus unum. (It made sense 2500 years ago and still does today.)Sermon over, violin back in case. :violin:

[carpetman]

HarryO---You could probably question Mr Sharpe or Keith and perhaps bring up valid questions. Starmetal,well now that's another story.

[Four Fingers of Death]

Even though things change and old ways of doing things are no longer required or appropriate, some things just linger on:

1) Putting your headlights on when on a big trip to stop battery overcharging, not needed since ww1 days when voltage regulators were introduced.
2) Slamming the cross piece (I can't remember what it was called) into a beer keg to make it bite in, not needed since Stainless kegs with rubber or nylon bungs replaced wooden kegs when I was a young boy, I'm almost 58 now.
3)The expression 'lock and load' applies to the lockwork of flintlock and percussion black power guns.
4) We identify crooks off the warrant when they come to jail, by confirming their number, date of birth, sentence details, etc, even though there is a computer generated image provided with these details right in front of us.

There are heaps of these old chesnuts but my mind has just gone to mud and I can't think of any more at the moment.

[Lloyd Smale]

I had no intention of ruffling any feathers here. Im the last one that would cause trouble. I wouldnt begin to question the knowlege here on casting for rifles because my knowlege in that area is pretty basic. It just that that old bump up to bore thing in a handgun has allways got my goat. Sure Elmer used 30to1 but Id about bet its because thats what he could get ahold of. ALot of the knowlege that is passed on on alot of the fourms is passed on by arm chair experts. This fourm is the exception. Ive picked up some good info on here. When i first started casting and shooting cast bullets i bought into all the old theroys too. But over the years looking at load data and accuacy testing it just didnt add up. I then went to my buddy AL who has shot more handguns and cast bullets then anybody ive ever known and who keeps pretty meticulus records not like my scribled on a piece of paper stuff and we went through hundreds of pages of loading data for im sure over a hundred differernt handguns with unteen different loads and bullets and found very few cases where a bullet softer then ww shot better then a harder bullet. This was even in out of spec colts, rugers and smiths. Im not saying it never happened but 9 times out of ten the harder a bullet was the better it shot. Now i have a couple wrenches to throw in there. I throughly believe that if your looking for accuracy (again im talking handguns as I know didily about rifles) you need to get your hardness from proper alloying. I have never had real good luck with water dropped bullets. I would imagine that the reason is that its about impossible to keep the temp of every bullet the same when it hits the water so hardness is going to vary from bullet to bullet. Another thing ive seen with water dropped bullets is fractures. Now this goes against what some people preach too. Some will tell you that lynotype bullet are more brittle but we slammed lynotype bullet into just about every type of penetration media and at handgun velocitys we never seen them fail. Cant say the same for water dropped ww. There was a half a dozen cases just at the last linebaugh seminar that i attended of noses breaking right off of swcs that were water dropped. Tell you what i learned from shooting. If my gun is right and i want to test for accuracy what i do is cast a bullet first out of 5050 ww/lyno and shoot it. Another alloy may do a little better but if that bullet wont shoot like that its time to shelf the mold for that gun. Some people may ask who the hell is Lloyd Smale and who is he to question the wisdom of some of the old school casters but ill tell you one thing any info i pass on on here comes from spitting lead out of a barrel and from no where else. Sorry for the rant and getting so far off topic. Must be the quitting smoking thing aint had one in 5 day!!!!

[Bass Ackward]

1. Sure Elmer used 30to1 but Id about bet its because thats what he could get ahold of. When i first started casting and shooting cast bullets i bought into all the old theroys too.

2. We went through hundreds of pages of loading data for im sure over a hundred differernt handguns with unteen different loads and bullets and found very few cases where a bullet softer then ww shot better then a harder bullet.

3. I have never had real good luck with water dropped bullets. I would imagine that the reason is that its about impossible to keep the temp of every bullet the same when it hits the water so hardness is going to vary from bullet to bullet. Another thing ive seen with water dropped bullets is fractures. Now this goes against what some people preach too.

4. Some will tell you that lynotype bullet are more brittle but we slammed lynotype bullet into just about every type of penetration media and at handgun velocitys we never seen them fail. Cant say the same for water dropped ww. There was a half a dozen cases just at the last linebaugh seminar that i attended of noses breaking right off of swcs that were water dropped.

5. Tell you what i learned from shooting. If my gun is right and i want to test for accuracy what i do is cast a bullet first out of 5050 ww/lyno and shoot it. Another alloy may do a little better but if that bullet wont shoot like that its time to shelf the mold for that gun.


Lloyd,

Keep an open mind as I don't want to ruffle feathers either. Let me tell you why we talk the way we do.

1. Most of Elmer's writings about sizing were written abstractly to compose material. And in the same book "Six Guns" Elmer talks about sizing with different calibers and he was no different than us. He didn't get consistent until he got his specially made Smiths that he limited himself to .001 over bore. But in another section of the same book he said it was perfectly fine to size up to .003 or .004 larger for 44s and 45s without adverse results. So he was all over the place too.

He used 16-1 and eventually 10-1 only because they refused to shoot antimony back in those days because it wore out their guns. 10-1 was as hard as it was practical to get. Back in their day, WW had a much higher antimony content. So high, that it wore out their guns really quick. Even in the 60s it was still 9%. There were so many WW smelters that there was no standard either. So every thing was a different hardness. It wasn't till about 1980 that consolidation took place in that industry and we went to the "two" smelters we have today. And they have cheapened the mix so far that straight WW is only 2 - 3%. So now two guys can pretty much talk apples to apples about results. Couldn't happen before unless you used one of the blends like lino.

2. Absolutely! Sure. And shooting jacketed is much more accurate than cast as a general statement. Don't let me lose you here. If you simply want to load and shoot, then always go for the hardest bullet you can get. Let me state this another way. Handguns are no different than rifles. The lower the rifling height, the harder the bullet has to be to go fast at high pressures. Or stated another way, a GC is more accurate than a PB. Or this lube is more accurate than that. All of these arguments arise because of bullet hardness. A hard bullet .... minimizes the need to ask .... why? Most cast bullet issues we discuss really relate to problems that we create. Even Lyman gave up in their 47th Edition and used lino for 44s. Everything else used their standard No 2. Ask yourself why?

3. Most folks don't realize that if you have to size when you lubricate, a WDWW bullet will get just as soft or softer than an air cooled bullet in the part that matters most ..... where it contacts the bore / rifling. If it is soft there, it might as well be soft everywhere. If it touches even a tiny wheeny bit, you go soft in that spot.

4. Lino is not brittle at handgun velocities, but I was surprised about your WDWW info. I see it all the time in rifles with a chunk missing here or there. Makes sence really. If you run antimony, you have to have tin to keep it ductile. At least lino is 6% tin.

5. Keep on telling us. I agree with everything you say in principal. If I had to guess, I would say that you are a shooter first and reload just to shoot in your area of interest. You only have to start asking .... "why" and over coming obstacles when you can't get or refuse to pay for Lino and have to make do with something else. Some people will tell you, you have to have hard bullets to shoot over 2000 fps in a rifle too. Not true, but you CAN find many more combinations that work with a hard bullet because it is more forgiving there too. Same, same. We have fun doing the impossible sometimes. As an old TV series once said, Life should be judged, not on the destination but the journey itself, Grasshopper.

Thanks Lloyd for your post.

[44man]

Thats one point that has not been thought of, what was the rifling depth of Elmer's old guns? It seems as if all modern guns have shallower rifling for jacketed, were the old lead boolit guns cut deeper?
I have no problems with water dropped hard boolits not shooting. WW metal will cause some leading no matter what I do with it, even in my BPCR. By making it harder, the leading goes away. Mr. Ferguson says that water dropped boolits should be sized within 1/2 hour. I never size, just use an oversized die or cookie cutter to remove excess lube.
If I have boolit that needs to be sized, I do it quickly after casting before the lead starts to approach it's hardness.
The only reason I water drop is that it makes casting easier and I don't have to spread them all over a towel, wait for some to cool and put them in a box.
In over 50 years of making boolits, hard ones always shot better.

[Lloyd Smale]

#1 some very good points and some good info. One thing i want to say. I never said it was bad to size over one or two thousands. Just not nessisary in a gun set up properly and at least in a properly set up gun you can go to big to where it will effect accuracy and remember through all my statements im talking bench rest accuracy not standing on your two feet shooting at a target. A good portion of people never have shot there guns off a bench except to sight them in. Youd be surprised at how many people whos names you know well that have told me there guns shoots great and i ask them what kind of groups it will shoot at 50 yards and they kind of look at you dumb and say i can hit a can all the time out there. They have no clue what really works in there guns. Hell i shoot ppc with guys that have never benched there guns or worked up a load and wonder why i outshoot them!
#2 I dont agree with you here. Just about without exception with enough load developement my best loads with be with cast bullets. Granted some of these loads are gas checked bullets and you will get an occasional gun that refuses to shoot cast but then ill go back to the fact that something aint right. Fix it and it will shoot.
#3 i agree with you but some will argue and say the hardness is all the way through. Im not a scientist so i will go neutral on this
#4 Ive got documentation to back it we have pages of penetration tests and the only bullets that have failed are first soft bullets but there expected to upset and when they do they stop penentrating and water dropped bullets and even more so swcs that are water dropped. they will shear off noses. Its seems like the gradual nose of an lfn helps some but ive seen them fail too. I pm you a couple experiences that i dont want to say here.
#5 had to laugh at this one. My friends all tell me i shoot so i can cast more bullets. Ive been accused of causing the elevation above sea level to change in my neighborhood because of the thousands of bullets on shelves in the barn. I have to agree on the lynotpye. Its getting tough to find. Ive got about 1500 lbs left and using it for alloying i figure in about 3 or 4 years ill be done. Ive exausted all my local sources and dont know what ill do. Ive got a **** pile of tin but i hate to have to buy antimony and its a pain in the but to flux in. Oven heat treating or water dropping is probably going to have to do someday. I have done a little experiementing with adding a bit more tin then usually to ww and water dropping them and it seems to help. I guess ill cross those paths when the time comes. Thats the great thing about this hobby you never stop learning. Ive had begining casters figure out somethings that i havent and have had neighbors stop by that didnt even cast and just watching figure out things that would help and i could never put a dollar amount valuable info ive picked up off this forum and one or two others.
#6 IVE GOT TO RETIRE FROM THIS POST AND GO AND CAST SOME BULLETS!!

[JohnH]

Lloyd, A bit off topic, but Congratulations on 5 days without smoking!!!!!! I quit 3 1/2 years ago and feel better all the time. I was a 3 pack a day burner, if I can do it you can too. Keep up the good work and again, Congratulations!!!!

[StarMetal]

Boy isn't that the truth about water quenching 44man? You bullets certainly do cool faster and get organized in one place. I've found to that the water quench ones don't get damaged as much from bumping another bullet like in the towel method. One time I was casting so fast that some of my towel dropped bullets had the cloth texture pressed into them because they were apparently still fairly soft. I only towel quench (how's that for a new word/technique?) when I want soft bullets.

Joe

[Bass Ackward]

Lloyd and 44,

Don't misunderstand me here. Jacketed bullets shoot the most accurately for the general public. How do I know that? Because reloaders represent less than 2% of the shooting public. Casters represent less than 5% of reloaders. That's a very small fraternity. It's because of the "stuff" that you "have to fix". If others felt that it was worth while or that cast bullets were superior, then cast would have a bigger market share. So while you find cast more accurate at your chosen BHN level, this would be just like me telling you that 10 BHN is more accurate yet. Understand? That is because I have found the right combination ("fixed" enough stuff) that I can shoot 10 BHN fairly well. Now I am NOT trying to say that the next world record will be set using 10 BHN bullets. Big difference. But I don't want to pay for lino either.

That was the point to the PB vs GC comment. All a gas check does is allow you to shoot a softer mix and get the same accuracy level OR .... to have more options available with a wider selections of powder choices to find an accurate load that shoots better than the rest. If you have 20 accurate loads to chose from, chances are one will be more accurate than the rest. A guy with a soft bullet might work hard to find one. Maybe his one is better than your 20, but odds are against him. Understand? And that is why jacketed gives you the most freedom to find an accurate load.

Water dropping or hardening is not the same process as chemically altering the mix. Lino is hard because of how much tin and antimony it has in it. You can size lino all day long as much as you want and it will still be 22 BHN until the tin starts to burn out of the mix. Used lino is usually about 18 BHN if it isn't refreshed. Lino won't heat treat. BUT Lino .... WILL heat treat if you add a touch of arsnic to it also. If you do harden lino to 35 BHN by heat treating it, when you size it, it WILL soften back to 22 BHN. Any mix that can be hardened by heat treatment will soften to it's origional air cooled hardness level what ever that hardness level is.

Any metalurgist will tell you that if you size 30 minutes after a quench or 24 hours later when it is hard, either way, 14 days later the sized portions will be the EXACT same hardness anyway. So make life easy on yourself and size 30 minutes after the quench. Results are the same. The secret is really to size as little as possible!

If you can shoot water dropped bullets without any problems then you either are sizing very little and have taller rifling than the portion that was softened .... OR .... you really could be shooting air cooled in the first place without seeing any leading or accuracy loss anyway.

A water dropped bullet get's hard through and through. Only disturbing the molecules after the quench causes it to soften or not to harden as much. If you size down a water dropped bullet from .284 to .264, the whole bullet elongates and all molecules are disturbed and so it will soften clear through. If you try and size a .430 bullet to .429, then you only alter the skin where it was moved and only that portion softens. IF you just .... lube a .429 bullet in a .431 sizer and the bullet is NOT perfectly centered to where one side rubs the body of the die, the skin on that side will STILL soften because you disturbed the process. But if your rifling is tall enough, your bore condition smooth enough and your lube good enough not to lead at that velocity level, you will NEVER NOTICE and think water dropping is the best thing since sliced bread.

[felix]

Always use the largest diameter than can be chambered with about 0.001 total neck clearance remaining, which should be indicated by zero magic marker scrape off of the neck upon 100 percent cartridge seating. Size the boolits down another thousands after several strings of firing and see if accuracy remains or improves. Somewhere in that sizing area will allow a 50 shot string without needing improvement. ... felix

[44man]

I find only one problem with gas checked boolits. I use a lot of them because some of my moulds are cut for them. If I use WW or softer, I still get the leading and a little less accuracy. It seems that my guns and boolits still shoot the best with harder alloys even with gas checks. In fact a hard PB boolit with no gas check, shoots the same as one with a gas check. I am finding a PB is just as good and will not bother with the extra work of cutting cherries for a gas check.
When I remove the excess lube with a sizer, the only place the the boolit touches is an extremely fine line at the mould parting line. It barely removes the mark on the boolit from the parting line, in fact I can still see the line.
I have some commercial moulds that the boolit needs to be sized a little to fit. Even though it touches on one side of the boolit, they shoot extremely well. I really can't say that a soft spot on a boolit causes any problems. If I start out with a hard alloy, I get no leading or loss of accuracy with a sized boolit versus one that did not have to be sized.
I wonder if it is worth the trouble worrying about a soft spot on a boolit. I have cast boolits and due to work, did not size for months and didn't notice any change in the way they shot. Before I started to really measure the tin and antimony I mix, I would just guess because I never had pure metals. I can't see any change! My old boolits shoot as good as my newer ones. I have no idea what was in the mix. Once the leading stops and the accuracy increases, there seems to be quite a range in the alloy from that point on. A little softer one time compared to a little harder another time has not caused me any problems as long as I exceed the too soft boolit.

[Lloyd Smale]

gas checks theres a whole other post. Do they increase accuracy? I dont know. How do you tell a gas checked bullet is a totally differnent bullet then the same bullet as a plain base. Have I had better luck with gas checked bullets? probably id have to say without doing alot of research that there usually a little easier to get to shoot well in the average gun. Do they all shoot well NO! Just as all plain based bullets dont. Do the prevent leading NO. Do they help prevent leading yup. I learned a lesson once trying to push lyman devestators cast out of 30 to1 out of a 44 mag at about 1400 fps a box of them plugged the rifleing up solid. The fact that they do help with leading probably contributes to the fact they tend to be al little more accurate. Biggest problem with gas checks is that they have gottin to fricken expensive and there a pain in the but to install and add alot of time to bullet making. John thanks for the support on the smoking thing. Ive probably made a few enemys on the fourms venting in the last couple days. Dont worry guys its almost over and ill go back to my meak mild manner self.

[StarMetal]

I can't really add anything to the gas check thing except where Lloyd Smale talked about that problem he had with the 44 mag pushing those 30 to 1 lead bullets and filling the rifling up. I never do that, not that I haven't shot loads that lead, what I mean is I keep a close watch on my rifling and bore. If it starts leading bad after just a few shots I quit. No way I want to clean lead filled rifling. I can say this too. I've shot loads out of a rifle that used gaschecked bullet that gave alittle gray wash at the muzzle. This was without a filler. I tried the exact same load with a filler and it shot clean. The load shot good too. Had it have shot good and left that grey wash I wouldn't have been happy with it.

Joe

[44man]

Yup, find the boolit the gun likes, fit to the throat, cast hard and go shoot! Doesn't matter if there is a gas check or not.
Soft boolits and gas checks are fine for the little guns like the .38. But most of us are shooting bigger and more powerful stuff.

[Bass Ackward]

Soft boolits and gas checks are fine for the little guns like the .38. But most of us are shooting bigger and more powerful stuff.


44man,

I used to hold your same opinion. I went from high volume shooting to specialized loading and the accuracy game. Had to because of arthritis. So I played the 1" at 100 yard game. 44 Mag and scoped SBH. The easiest way "for me" to play it well was to shoot heavy bullets, hard as you could get them, use a GC and slow powder, full case loads. Deviate from anyone of those steps and life got complicated.

But it doesn't mean that accuracy is unatainable or accuracy can't be just as good. That is why I asked Lloyd if he was a shooter or a reloader. If someone is more concerned with shooting than the challenge of reloading, I say shoot as listed above. It's the second easiest way to success. The first easiest way is jacketed. When I got tired of the "ultimate accuracy" game, I experimented and branched out to the "practical accuracy" game. Accuracy for me was still attainable, but it required altered reloading techniques and steps to get there from what works with the hard, heavy, GC, full case pattern game.

That is why I said when you think tight case or consistent case grip is the most important thing, I say it all depends on how you choose to shoot. If you shoot soft, then that plays a mush lesser importance based upon my experience. Or I should say that other things become more important.

[Lloyd Smale]

I guess in that way im more of a shooter then a reloader. Ultimately the reason i cast and reaload is so i can sit on the hill side with a thousand rounds of ammo and blast the horizon or sit all day blasting steel. Or even sitting at the bench pokeing little groups on paper. I buy to many new guns that im constantly working up loads for to bother with every little detail. I know what works for me 99 percent of the time and i guess i just go there. Someday when i retire and can commit my entire days and weeks to shooting ill have to branch out some to keep from getting bored.
44man,

I used to hold your same opinion. I went from high volume shooting to specialized loading and the accuracy game. Had to because of arthritis. So I played the 1" at 100 yard game. 44 Mag and scoped SBH. The easiest way "for me" to play it well was to shoot heavy bullets, hard as you could get them, use a GC and slow powder, full case loads. Deviate from anyone of those steps and life got complicated.

But it doesn't mean that accuracy is unatainable or accuracy can't be just as good. That is why I asked Lloyd if he was a shooter or a reloader. If someone is more concerned with shooting than the challenge of reloading, I say shoot as listed above. It's the second easiest way to success. The first easiest way is jacketed. When I got tired of the "ultimate accuracy" game, I experimented and branched out to the "practical accuracy" game. Accuracy for me was still attainable, but it required altered reloading techniques and steps to get there from what works with the hard, heavy, GC, full case pattern game.

That is why I said when you think tight case or consistent case grip is the most important thing, I say it all depends on how you choose to shoot. If you shoot soft, then that plays a mush lesser importance based upon my experience. Or I should say that other things become more important.

[robertbank]

Well all this is interesting. For three to four years I casted for my ,45acp with wheelweights, air cooled and used a soft lube. I would come home from the range and clean the lead out of my barrels, always in the first 1/2" of the rifling. I have since gone to water quenching and a hard lube. Up until just recently I had experienced no leading in any of my 1911's. Well the Gremlins are back a bit again with some leading showing up but to be fair not much. I have come to the conclusion that it is all just witch craft pure and simple. Maybe the further North you go molecules align differently but I noticed a major change in the amount of leading that occurred in my guns after I swtched to water quenching and even after resizing I think they are harder than if I had left them alone.

NOw if I can comment on the bullet bump up thing. I don't believe for a minute handgun bullets bump up. I have examined a lot of my own shot bullets recovered after the snow melted. These bullets have gone through about four feet of snow and are otherwise as round as they left the barrel. I just see no evidence of bullet bump up. I also not that my Commercially bought lead bullets have bevel bases and they sure don't bump up to fit the bore.

The last bit I would like to add and you guys can jump on this if you want is I don't believe in the 77,1000 of a second the bullet is in the barrel of my .45acp that lead is melted off the base of the bullet. I know guys say this is a source of leading but I have taken a propane torch to a base of a bullet for a lot longer than 77/1000 of a second and could not make it melt. I know pressures inside the gun are much higher but....most leading I have observed in my guns appears to be from the bullet smearing lead into the rifling. Thoughts?


When it comes to casting for rifle I have no or little expereince so I am all ears.

Stay Safe
Stay Safe

[StarMetal]

Banks

I agree with you that bullets don't melt in the barrel. I'm convinced that the leading is from rubbing or say friction and the only way there is any possible melting I think is gas cutting along the sides of a bullet up to the grease groove.

On the bevel base, the bevel isn't suppose to bump up. If it did, bump up to what? a flatbase? That bevel is there to just ease loading.

I'm not so sure handgun bullets bump up either.

Joe

[44man]

Bass, I still think case tension is the most important item for accuracy. After spending much time and effort to get the most accurate load worked up, I found too many flyers and inconsistant groups. I got tired of putting 3 in the same ragged hole and then 3 out 4" to 6", or more. By a lot of experimenting and thousands of shots, I tracked it to the case itself. Now if I have a flyer, it is either me or just some other little thing because the worst ones I get now are only an inch or so out instead of 6".
You have to remember that I did all the preliminary work, all that was left was the brass.
I remember posting that 5 shots with real loose case tension and then 5 with tight tension did not change the separate group sizes to any extent but it changed the location of the groups by 10" or more. I know all of you have shot a bunch of shots at a target and had some clustered together nice and tight and then some others clustered somewhere else on the paper with those stray shots between the two clusters.
I can say one thing for sure; if your case tension runs all over the place, you are wasting time and will never prove a load. You might have found the most accurate boolit, powder and load but rejected it because you had a lousy group. Might be a good idea to re-check some of the loads that should have been accurate by sorting according to case tension.
My biggest problem now is to pick the best load. Changing the powder charge sometimes has almost no effect on group size and all groups look real good. Thats one reason I never shoot closer then 50 yd's and many times from 100 to 200 yd's.
You also have to remember that all of my loads are heavy hunting and long range ones. I never load just for target shooting.
I do shoot a lot of light plinking loads for fun and if I can hit a can at 25 yd's they are just fine. Light loads are not worth the accuracy effort for me, any old brass, powder or boolit that goes bang and rolls cans around the ground is good enough.

[Four Fingers of Death]

I wasn't disagreeing with you Lloyd, just remarking how old chesnuts persist.

[Lloyd Smale]

agreed for sure if we were worried about bases melting wed be casting with pure as it has a higher melting temp
Well all this is interesting. For three to four years I casted for my ,45acp with wheelweights, air cooled and used a soft lube. I would come home from the range and clean the lead out of my barrels, always in the first 1/2" of the rifling. I have since gone to water quenching and a hard lube. Up until just recently I had experienced no leading in any of my 1911's. Well the Gremlins are back a bit again with some leading showing up but to be fair not much. I have come to the conclusion that it is all just witch craft pure and simple. Maybe the further North you go molecules align differently but I noticed a major change in the amount of leading that occurred in my guns after I swtched to water quenching and even after resizing I think they are harder than if I had left them alone.

NOw if I can comment on the bullet bump up thing. I don't believe for a minute handgun bullets bump up. I have examined a lot of my own shot bullets recovered after the snow melted. These bullets have gone through about four feet of snow and are otherwise as round as they left the barrel. I just see no evidence of bullet bump up. I also not that my Commercially bought lead bullets have bevel bases and they sure don't bump up to fit the bore.

The last bit I would like to add and you guys can jump on this if you want is I don't believe in the 77,1000 of a second the bullet is in the barrel of my .45acp that lead is melted off the base of the bullet. I know guys say this is a source of leading but I have taken a propane torch to a base of a bullet for a lot longer than 77/1000 of a second and could not make it melt. I know pressures inside the gun are much higher but....most leading I have observed in my guns appears to be from the bullet smearing lead into the rifling. Thoughts?


When it comes to casting for rifle I have no or little expereince so I am all ears.

Stay Safe
Stay Safe

[Bass Ackward]

Thats one reason I never shoot closer then 50 yd's and many times from 100 to 200 yd's.



44man,

I wonder all the time just how many really good groups that I passed up. Not with just handguns. I even went to the option of building a mechanical rest and used indicators in .0001 to adjust it to take me out of the equasion.

We, I, changed my focus many times in this hobby. So maybe I just didn't stick it out long enough. Snap shooting at targets of opportunity was always my first love with a wheeler. And I don't get enough practice anymore to be good at that.

What I found in my short time at this quest about case neck tension is that you can't control it. Maybe your way will work for you. But it will always be a pain to load a box. Brass will change just sitting on the shelf. And it changes with each reloading. There are two methods that I had success with. Both require you to lower your velocity objective. One is to go to a faster powder that gives you good enough ignition with the case neck tension as it is that you don't have to rely on case tension using the bullet diameter you currently use.

Or .... to go to a much slower powder. Bump up bullet diameter to what seats in the case and go softer. This often requires a lighter bullet as seating depth can become a capacity problem so a round will chamber. Or use a two diameter bullet if you have the ability to make one, so much the better. The big bullet diameter pushes up against the cone in the throat upon firing and stays there until well after the brass has let go. Case neck tension importance eliminated. Ignition comes from the time the bullet takes to size.

RL7 has turned in some nice groups for me. 4198 worked well also, but was too bulky in the reduced case capacity. 4227 worked if I cut velocity some. Never tried 1680. IF you could make a bullet that only had the portion inside the case to be larger and still use the throat as a guide, you might still be able to operate in the same powder range you are currently. Just an idea. Makes shooting a handgun like a rifle basically.

[robertbank]

Starmetal

Just wanted to clarify my remark on the bevel base issue. I have been told that bullets bump up to seal the bore , obviously the bevel base bullets would have quite a chore to bump up enough to do so and as we both agree such is not the case or at least we haven't observed it happening. I am not even convinced gas cutting occurs in such a very short time the bullet is exposed to the gases. Your comment on friction and what I called lead smearing is probably closer to the issue but then others may have something to say on that and I comment only from observation and I do have older eyes.

I know I read somewhere to that commercial casters go with bevel bases because for what ever reason the bullets drop from the molds easier than if they were flat based. I have never observed a commercial operation so I really can't comment. I do know they make them easier to slide into the case though with proper belling to providing bevel bases seems to be a very thin reason to do so.

I still think it comes down to a little witch craft, spiced with hokus pokus, some luck and a great deal of skill to get it right.

Three things were put on this earth to drive men crazy, women, bullet casting and golf and darned if I don't enjoy all three. Thankfully, single malt scotch accompanied all three.

Stay safe

[44man]

I think the dirty burning powders also can contribute to leading. The dry residue left in the bore, instead of a lubed bore from the previous boolit, can rub off lead. Each shot then runs over the lead, packs it harder and removes more lead from the boolit. This is why the gas check was invented, to scrape the bore after the boolit deposited lead. It is just not a total solution. Any lead streaks left behind just gather more lead. The best to be hoped for is some kind of equilibrium.
The harder boolit has more resistance to the sudden twist imparted by the rifling and also reduces the rub off with it's harder surface.
Seems to me that if gas cutting was the total issue that the throat would be packed with lead because this is where the boolit fits the worst and has space around it. Especially with fast powder that is consumed in the chamber more. Once the boolit enters the bore, considering a slightly oversized boolit, the bore should be totally sealed. So if gas cutting is such an issue, why do I never find lead in the throats or packed on the forcing cone?
Let's look at it another way! Shoot a bunch of jacketed bullets and what do you find in the bore? COPPER! Did it burn off? Or did it RUB off? Now shoot some lead without cleaning out the copper and you will have WORSE leading because the copper has an affinity to the lead and removes more from the boolit with the rub effect.
Think of the moly coated bores and bullets that were supposed to be so good. They found that moly built up in the bore making it worse and it was the devil to remove. Then there are the plastic shotgun wads that leave plastic in the bores. It is FRICTION that deposites the plastic. I don't think there is a smoother bore out there then a shotgun bore but it still rubs off plastic and bare shotgun slugs are an abortion, if you want to see leading! No gas cutting there because of tight gas seals. It is not velocity, twist effect, gas cutting or rough bores that cause the leading with shotgun slugs, only friction and lead against steel. If you want to have fun, shoot bare slugs from a rifled shotgun bore. Takes a week to get the lead out!

[Harry O]

My opinion (and this is strictly an opinion) is that "obturation" is what happens with soft lead bullets that are stressed into the "plastic" range. That means they are undersized and the pressure developed by the burning powder is enough to permanently deform (in this case, expand it to reach the rifling) the bullet.

It should be noted that Keith was working primarily with DA S&W's and Colts. They learned long ago that the chambers, throats, and barrel had to be pretty sized together in order to get accuracy. Earlier Colts (particularly the SAA's) and current Rugers (particularly in "odd" calibers) are NOT properly sized and frequently have mismatched chambers, throats, and barrel.

BTW, after reading these posts, I went back to read actually what Keith and Sharpe said about sizing and find that they were more open than what I read in most articles today (or have heard here). Keith in particular said that he preferred 0.001" over groove size (but keep in mind he was working primarly with quality DA revolvers at that time), but he could go up to 0.003" oversize without any measurable decrease in accuracy. Sharpe was not as admant about 0.001" as the only way to go either. It seems that others have taken their work and "simplified" it to the point that 0.001" is the only way to go. Well, it might for properly sized chambers, throats, and barrel, but I am beginning to think that something different is needed for "ordinary" production guns.

I don't think there is any use to discuss it any more. All we are talking about is competing theories. I intend to run some controlled tests to see for myself. I have always felt that one test is worth a thousand theories.

[StarMetal]

44man,

I didn't want to imply that gascutting leaded the bore. All I was gettting after was that I believe while gascutting is going on, that it is the only time I think bullet alloy can be melted in bore. Gascutting is that high to start with gas pressure concentrated in one very small area on a bullet, usually a defect, trying to escape. Then again when I think about it, it may not even be melting, it may just be cutting from just high concentrated pressure, just like they use water to cut metal.

I too believe what leading we get in the bore is rubbed off. Your point about finding copper from jacketed bullets is a good one, it certainly isn't melting off.

Joe

[Char-Gar]

My working approach to cast bullets in rifles, is to use the largest bullet that will enter the throat without undue pressure and lead shaving. I start large with a dummy round and go down until one fits without undue pressure and lead shaving.

This makes certain the bullet is presented as straight into the barrel as possible. I don't worry much about goove diameter as long as the bullets is as large or larger. Land diameter and bullet nose diamter is of course another issue.

In the production of accurate ammo (cast or condom) for rifles, "straight" is the name of the game. Accurate rifles, will have chambers straight and 90 degrees to the breech face and dead straight with the bore.

In my 1954 Model 70 in 3-06, I can go no larger than .309. In my Savage and Remington .308s, .310 is the trick. The 03A3 and the 1917 Enfield require a .311 and the Krags take .312. I can use .313 -.314 in the Krags, if I turn the case necks.

Anyway..CW or not, this is where I am at in this point of my cast bullet shooting life.

[HORNET]

:hijack:
IIRC,
Back in the dark days of the '70's, some aerospace types in the PRK were making very expensive pistola barrels out of titanium. They found that they could push large quantities of soft factory-swaged plain based bullets at full throttle from a .357 without any leading. Probably lower coefficient of friction and the very low solderability of titanium. :bigsmyl2:

[44man]

Joe, gas cutting can and does happen with defects or undersize boolits. Like the rocket fuel that killed the space shuttle. But with a good fitting boolit I think rubbing off lead is the cause of most leading. This is where changing alloys and lubes can help. Powders can effect it too with real fast powders slamming too soft a boolit into the rifling with almost full velocity instead of a steady increasing push. If heavy leading is found right past the forcing cone, I will say the soft boolit is stripping before engaging the rifling. The rifling is actually cutting lead off the boolit.
There are just hundreds of things that have to come together at the same time and none of us has the answer. I profess to not knowing what it is! I can only relay my experience, not knowing if it is the total answer.
After all, thats why we are all here!
Your last post was a good one.

[Sky C.]

Especially for Harry O-

Harry- Going back a number of post in this thread - you noted you had not meant to give any offense. I assure you - If that was in any way in reference to my comments - there was none taken at all. I raised the question about the wisdom of Keith & Sharpe because their findings were in fact different than what is often cited today. As I racall - both did in fact recommend that it was not in accuracy's interest to shoot with bullets more than .001" oversize vs. groove dimensions. I believe it was Mr. Sharpe in reference to Krag rifles that noted larger bullets had been used successfully but attributed that in large part to the inconsistant barrels of the day (this is from memory - I'm on the road currently and with access to my library).

Anyhow - the point of my question was that I suspected there were other variables that bore on their findings and I was hoping someone may be able to shed light on those. There have been some excellent observations throughout this thread that at least help to identify the spectre of what those other variables may have been.

As always - I find this forum to be a rich resource. Thank you gentlemen!

Best regards-

Sky C.

[waksupi]

I am greatly enjoying from the posts on this subject. Please continue!

[45 2.1]

It always amazes me how people can take exactly the same materials and equipment and turn out with contrary results. Almost everything you do can be done another way to get the same results, its all in the technique.

[Lloyd Smale]

AINT IT GREAT! it would be pretty boring if everything was the same. Thats one good thing about this fourm over just about every other. The people here talk from real world experience very few armchair keyboard experts here!! One thing too you have to keep in mind. John Linebaugh once told me that every handgun is its own animal. He can take all the care in the world in building one and it still can be posessed by the devil. If you think about it were trying to be scientific about things that happen in a piece of equiptment that was designed before the automobile. Thats probably why there so many opinions on what works in them and most likely were all right and wrong to some degree.
It always amazes me how people can take exactly the same materials and equipment and turn out with contrary results. Almost everything you do can be done another way to get the same results, its all in the technique.

[44man]

Lloyd, how right you are. These posts just keep going and everyone comes in on them. I find a lot of things to try with my guns, some work and some don't. I learn a lot and hope to pass on some things too. I never stick tight to things I believe and go out of my way to test a lot of what is posted. I just wish a lot more of the guys would actually try some of the things posted by all of us instead of sticking to only one method. As you say, every gun is different and what has worked in the past with other guns can fall flat with another.
Everyone that has an opinion here is listened to by me, evaluated and tested. If it is something that just never worked in the past with any gun, I will say so, but if it works, I will also say so. We have to keep an open mind!
I go to other forums and they might get a new post once a week. It might get two or three comments and then just dies away. I never seem to learn anything new on them.
Thats why I like it here and why I like all of you, we grab on and shake the devil out of everything and thats GOOD.
45 2.1, yes there are other ways around some problems. One that comes to mind is testing 15 kinds of powder for a poor boolit or alloy to find one that works. I try to avoid stuff like that because of the cost. I always look for the easiest and cheapest way. I also don't believe anyone has to spend years to get a gun to shoot either, I don't believe in the "try this, if it doesn't work, try that and that and that syndrome either." I would rather cut it down to one or two things to try, not 200 because that just keeps a guy going in circles and wastes time and money.
The problem of even case tension is another problem that can be PARTIALLY solved by a powder change but if that powder is not accurate, or creates another problem, it is a dead end. A lot of guys say hot ignition is better for bad case tension, not so! A mag primer with a wide variation in case tension can turn your gun into a shotgun. Hot but SOFT ignition is better. Some say, "Tighten the crimp." No good either, crimp will not hold back a boolit. A heavier boolit? Yes, that can help but is not the final solution.
OK, I'm rambling, sorry.

[robertbank]

Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Like it here cause there is always something to try differently to solve a problem.

Stay Safe

[StarMetal]

Here are some other Einstein quotes:

You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created.

Man must cease attributing his problems to his environment, and learn again to exercise his will - his personal responsibility.

It's not than I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer.

In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity.

In the middle of a difficulty lies opportunity

Each of us is here for a brief sojourn; for what purpose he knows not, though he senses it. But without deeper reflection one knows from daily life that one exists for other people.


Joe

[Cherokee]

This has been very interesting. After 30 years of using Lyman's 5/5/90 alloy for everything, about 5 years ago I switched to 2/3/95 and oversize bullets, and haven't had to use my lead remover since. I don't load magnum level ammo. Just my 2 cents.

[44man]

I think there is shooting in Heaven! Why else do we do all this work and thinking? If there isn't, I'm coming back!

[KevMT]

"I think there is shooting in Heaven! Why else do we do all this work and thinking? If there isn't, I'm coming back!"

I can see it now. I'll be standing at the pot with my ladel in hand, when a very puzzled Jennifer Love Hewitt walks up to me and says, "There is a ghost here who is restless. He want's you to stop water quenching your wheel weights". :razz:

[StarMetal]

Here's one that Bullshop might say, He may say he "Baptizes" his bullets rather then water quenches them. [smilie=l:

Joe

[Lloyd Smale]

cant wait till God can tell me finally which is better a 3006 or a 270:holysheep

[Harry O]

My working approach to cast bullets in rifles, is to use the largest bullet that will enter the throat without undue pressure and lead shaving.

That is exactly what I was asking about. I am coming around to that kind of thinking myself. I did not read it in any of the gun mags or reloading manuals, so I asked here. I have some 0.314" loaded up for my Krag. They seem to fit well and feed perfectly. Now to see if they shave lead, lead up, or are inaccurate. Should know in a couple of days or so.

[fourarmed]

On the topic of sizing away the hardness of the water quenched boolits, we know that a certain chamber pressure requires a certain minimum hardness or the bullet slumps, resulting in poor accuracy. Seems to me that softening the surface skin would be irrelevant. As long as the body of the bullet is still hard, the pressure requirement should be met.

[Bass Ackward]

On the topic of sizing away the hardness of the water quenched boolits, we know that a certain chamber pressure requires a certain minimum hardness or the bullet slumps, resulting in poor accuracy. Seems to me that softening the surface skin would be irrelevant. As long as the body of the bullet is still hard, the pressure requirement should be met.


Fourarmed,

There are two basic problems for lead. That which results from pressure. And that results from velocity. If your bullet needs to withstand pressure, then core hardness is important and you might not notice (or care about) surface softening by sizing WDWW. If your bullet is stripping upon entering the rifling, then surface hardening would be most important and you might notice better results from heat treatment after sizing. The only way to know for sure is to test. Once the question is answered for you, it is answered sufficiently in that gun / bullet design / load.

I have had 14 BHN to 60,000 psi with no bullet damage from pressure. Lube grooves were still there and where they were before it was fired. The same depth, etc. But I used a slow enough powder to allow the bullet to over come inertia before it peeked. So pressure alone does not destroy bullets, but it is the speed of that pressure that determines bullet hardness needs.

[carpetman]

Lloyd Smale----Which is better .270 or 30-06? Back in the 70's, I spoke to Mr.270 (Jack O'Connor) on the phone for about an hour. I regret that I didn't ask him his real opinion on this subject. I was an Air Force recruiter at the time and he was more interested in talking war stories and that is really where the conversation went. He did write someplace that when he first started writing nobody was writing about the .270---everyone was talking about the common rounds of the day. So he could write about the .270 and that was like unplowed ground so to speak and it did make him rich and famous. But have no doubt he was a 30-06 fan. Now to answer your questiion---the 30-06 hands down if you are choosing just one. You can get lighter bullets for a .270 than an 06 but neither one are a varmint gun using jacketed. Sure,either would work if shooting where you might just get one shot,like say at a coyote(would do more damage than a pelt hunter likes). But both by their blast and recoil would be more than I want for like a night of shooting jackrabbits. So to me,the lighter bullet for a .270 makes it a moot point. If I want lighter I go to a .22 centerfire and have pleasant shooting. The 06 has heavier bullets and that is better in a big game rifle in my books and in my books this is the catagory they fall into. If you need bigger---get a bigger bore---a faster .30 doesnt gain anything if the 06 is shooting through most animals. You hear mention of the .270 being a flatter shooter---but that happens way beyond what I consider hunting range. Both of them can be pleasant shooters using cast bullets,and are good for the jackrabbit shooting I mentioned. Big game shooting with cast---well the 30-06 is bigger. .Now the 25-06 and the .270---the .270 wins this, really the 25-06 doesnt make much sense to me---get a .257 Roberts.

[fourarmed]

Bass, it seems to me that this business of "stripping" would come not from velocity so much as acceleration - specifically angular acceleration. Slow powder limits that, as you point out.

I seem to recall both Col. Harrison and Veral Smith arguing (Harrison with math and physics, Veral with verbal abuse) that there was no such thing as stripping per se. Both, IIRC, blamed the leading caused by a too-soft bullet pushed too hard on gas cutting caused by circumferential compression of the lead in the grooves, which made a pathway for escaping gas.

Of course, whatever you call it, it is due to surface softness, as you say. I just think the word "stripping" is misleading as far as what apparently happens.

[robertbank]

How about "smearing" since it occurs to me that the bullet entering the rifling might be sliding across the rifling before the rifling takes and the boolit begins to spin.

Stay Safe

[44man]

I have recovered softer boolits that showed wider rifling marks then the width of the lands. The marks were like straight rifling would make and blended into the angled marks. I would say they entered the rifling, resisted the angle of the rifling and skidded before taking the twist. Hard boolits and jacketed bullets did not show this, the marks being angled and the same width of the lands. Hard to say if skidding would have a bad effect on accuracy but it sure will leave some lead behind.
Sounds as if some of those guys crawled into the bore to watch what happens to the boolit. I prefer to examine a fired boolit. I don't ever remember finding one with gas burn marks down the sides but I always shot boolits larger then bore size.
Then I have to think that a boolit that skidded and widened the groove, might just have created a gas path to make the leading worse.
Thats my next project for all of you; make a cast boolit with a super hard surface and softer insides. The first guy that says "jacketed" gets whipped with a wet noodle!

[felix]

44man is correct about the stripping. It happens with boolits which are too small in diameter and/or don't have any ability to withstand friction. Keep in mind that boolit hardness is not strongly correlated with shear strength. High antimony with no tin covering the antimony, on an elemantal basis, in improper percentage will shear easily. Lead/tin boolits do not shear easily. Toughness is a word that I tend to use often to indicate shear strength, even though toughness encompasses other properties as well. For example, a tough boolit won't be easily fragmented. Also, a tough boolit is not a rough boolit for the most part, as compared to a high antimony boolit with little tin which is very abrasive as BA says. Want to break in a gun? 1000 rounds of high speed, high antimony, low tin boolits will do an excellent job. ... felix

[Dye]

44 man
A lead cast bullet hard on the outside,soft on the inside, Simple leave them set out in the weather for 50 years or so. Ohio weather would be real good.

Be carefull Dye

[Bass Ackward]

Bass, it seems to me that this business of "stripping" would come not from velocity so much as acceleration - specifically angular acceleration. Of course, whatever you call it, it is due to surface softness, as you say. I just think the word "stripping" is misleading as far as what apparently happens.


Fourarmed,

Actually I think the cause we are telking about here is two different forces. I can see a rifle being subject to angular accelleration. A bullet starts from a dead stop and "may jump" a very small distance before it begins to over come inertia.

A handgun bullet travels down a freebore section untill it slams into a cone at greater velocity than a rifle bullet contacts the throat where deacceleration takes place. When Elmer said that Lyman ruined his bullet by cutting down on his front band, what he was really saying was that now Elmer had to use harder materials that he didn't want to use in his bullets to handle the same velocity / load.

Bullet design plays a tremendously large part in where a bullet hardness fails in a certain handgun at a particular velocity range. As does the mechanical condition and forcing cone wear into the bore. The more wear in this area, (lower rifling height) the harder your bullets need to be to withstand the stripping effect or what ever. Or .... you need a wider front band with closer to rifling angle to hold it. Or a harder bullet. Or a larger diameter bullet which when sized down by the cone now has a wide enough front band at that hardness. Or to cut powder burn rate speed / charge. All are steps we take to recover accuracy. All these steps dictate some different load conditions to over come other conditions that develop accordingly. Like bad or the other wxtreme, increased ignition.

All of these are why one guy swears by one bullet design and another says it is crap. They are each running at different load / shooting conditions without adjusting to the problem. Reloaders love to adjust. Shooters simply want results.

[44man]

Bass and Felix, very well said! I have nothing more to add as you both hit the nail on the head.
I told all of you this is the smartest forum!