If at first you don't succeed...

[Elkins45]

So I wanted to make a paper patched boolit for 30 caliber that could be used without having to squeeze down one that was already too big for the bore, then patch and squeeze again. I tried drilling out a Lee 7mm mould that was generously donated by chboats, but I was stupid and didn't try to control the nose configuration. Original thread here: http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=83170

The resultant wadcutters had to be seated too deeply in order to chamber. So I dropped $20 on another mould and tried again, this time using a homemade depth stop. The result is this:

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm35/elkins_pix/DSC_4535.jpg

Much better! Loaded in a rebarreled 98 Mauser in .308, here's my first set of results patching with copier paper over 10 grains of Blue Dot:

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm35/elkins_pix/DSC_4538.jpg

This just may have some promise!

[303Guy]

That does seem to have promise. I might just try that with my Lee mold.

Those holes are showing some yaw which would indicate the patch isn't coming of uniformly. Increasing the powder charge should improve things. From what I've seen in my guns, the primer needs to show at least some flattening to get the patch to fragment at the muzzle. Faster powders seem to be harder to get the balance between patch fragmentation and boolit upset at the case mouth/chamber end gap.

Since you're using copier paper (printer paper), you might try a shorter 'tail' and fold crimp instead of twising the tail. Can't say there will be a difference in results but with the right rolling pad it's easier and looks good too.

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo327/303Guy/RollCrimpedTail.jpg (This one was dry wrapped with tail dampened with glue).

The tail is rolled and crimped with the back of the thumb nail - real easy when the paper is damp or wet but not necessary.

This is the rolling pad I use for wet patching. It's a piece of hard packing foam I found. Works real well - the best I've come across.

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo327/303Guy/MVC-720F.jpg

Looking forward to more testing!

[chboats]

That looks like a big improvement over the first try. Live and learn. The first mould went to a good cause.

Carl

[zuke]

Look's good, keep us well posted ,Please!

[JIMinPHX]

The next time you drill out a mold like that, you might want to try drilling a few thousandths undersize, then running a reamer down the hole at a slow spindle speed with plenty of oil. It will probably give you a much better finish on the aluminum chamber.

[montana_charlie]

Those holes are showing some yaw which would indicate the patch isn't coming of uniformly. Increasing the powder charge should improve things. From what I've seen in my guns, the primer needs to show at least some flattening to get the patch to fragment at the muzzle. Faster powders seem to be harder to get the balance between patch fragmentation and boolit upset at the case mouth/chamber end gap.
I know that we are somewhat segregated as BP and SP paper patchers, but paper is paper.

If the patch does not try to adhere to the bullet, and if it's sliced through by the rifling, the ribbons of paper should peel away (like a banana) as the package hits the air outside the muzzle. Those 'ribbons' constitute 'confetti'.
The paper will act that way even if the the bullet is only traveling a few hundred feet per second...like B-B gun velocities.

I can't imagine any application where it's necessary to 'explode' the paper into dust to get a clean bullet leaving the muzzle.

However, paper that is too thick, will not be cut all the way through...and can come off in ragged 'postage stamp'-like pieces that might tug on the bullet as they unwind.
Perhaps that situation would make a case for turning paper into 'dandruff'.

CM

[303Guy]

Exactly as montana_charlie says.

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo327/303Guy/untitled-5.jpg http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo327/303Guy/MVC-597F.jpg
http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo327/303Guy/MVC-605F.jpg

These are progressively increasing loads. The last one cut into ribbons.

The next load up disintegrated the patch.

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo327/303Guy/MVC-620F.jpg

Somewhere in the L/H pile of cloth fragments are patch fragments - hard to make out in the pic.

That's the advantage of having a 'test tube'.:roll:

P.S. I think we are missing out on a lot of wisdom from the BP folks - they're the paper patch experts! We should follow their posts.:Fire:

[rhbrink]

OK question? I have yet to see any paper, confetti, or fragments. This is loading from mild a light load of 5744 to a starter load for jacket bullets of 4350. The light loads don't keyhole untill the 4th or 5th round at which point I stop and mine lead for a while.

I'm doing this in a Mosin with a .314 groove using a Lyman 311299 that I size to .308 wrap with notebook paper then size to .316 as large as I can go without creating too much tension in the chamber when chambering. I am not sizing the case just adding a slight bell to seat the paper without tearing.

The lands in this barrel look good but the grooves out toward the muzzle are severily pitted, don't have any lapping compound available in my neck of the woods I'm sure that some lapping would help. Been thinking about maybe ording a .302 sizer and then wrapping that to .316 and going that route. Haven't tried the case filler yet which would be easy enough to do.

Any ideas? By the way this rifle will shoot jacket .312 bullets into 2" groups at 100 yards sometimes less.

I haven't failed just now know 9499 ways that won't work.

Richard

[303Guy]

It sounds like your patches are failing. I've had that in a rust pitted bore and a bore with a fine sandpaper finish. The pitted bore works with less powder while the sandpaper bore took a few fire-lapping rounds to get the patch through without failing.

You might try a thicker paper - printer paper is what I'm using. Also apply a little lube to the patch (you probably are since you are sizing them).

In the absence of lapping compound, do you anything with a mild abrasive in it? Kitchen cleaner, abrasive toothpaste, anything?

You say the muzzle end of the bore is rust pitted. What is the crown like? It won't have any bearing on patch failure but is likely not going to help with accuracy. I tend to chop off the last bit of barrel and re-crown when there is evidence of bore wear or rusting. Seems to work.

[rhbrink]

Thanks for the reply 303Guy I have cut the barrel and recrowned twice hoping to get back to some good rifling now down to 18.25 inches. I did pick up some valve grinding compound at the local auto supply seems awfully course, also have some Flintz it's a crome polish that benchrest shooters sometimes use, and some kitchen cleaners didn't think about that. I can't use printer paper makes the nose too big to chamber. Also have tried applying lube to the patch, LLA, and some Redding case lube no difference.
I was just thinking maybe if I could size the boolit down to maybe .302 then paperpatch the .302 boolit would ride the lands and keep lead for grinding in the bottom of the grooves. Just a thought appreciate the help, thanks.

Richard

[montana_charlie]

I don't think this would be classified as 'wisdom'...more like 'logical thinking'.

I listen to you guys talk about 'resizing', and I just bite my tongue so I don't start any (more) arguments. But, here we are talking about paper being shredded, or not being shredded, and I feel this might be worth considering.

Take pdawg's habit, for example. He sizes a GG bullet to a bit over bore diameter, then he patches it up to his desired groove diameter. That seems like a reasonable plan, to me, when shooting smokeless.

But, many of you SP guys size a package twice. You take a groove diameter bullet and size it down to bore diameter...then you wrap it up to over groove...then you size it down to groove.
(I know that what I'm calling 'groove' is actually one or two thousandths over. Just call it 'bore' and 'groove' for simplicity.)

Let's plug in some numbers, just to get a better image of what I'm getting at.

Start with a .309" bullet, and size it down to .300".
Now wrap it with 'printer paper' to .312" and size that down to .309"

When you wrapped on the paper, you added .012", then you reduced that total by .003" to get your desired diameter.

What is the current diameter of that bullet inside the paper? It was .300", and it got reduced to .297" during the second sizing. The 'package' is now .309", the patch thickness is .0055", and the bullet is .003" under 'bore'.

If the bullet is only .297" the rifling can't touch it.
It won't bump up because the paper is already tight in the groove diameter.
That means the lands can't cut all the way to the bullet's surface...the inner layer of the patch will not be sliced into ribbons...and it will come off as a 'postage stamp'.

And...while you're wondering if the lands can reach the bullet to cut paper, is the depth of your rifling .0055" or more?
It it's not, it can't get all the way through the paper to begin with. With a patch that thick, the bullet will get sized down even more under 'paper pressure' as it goes up the barrel.

The bullet pdawg shoots is bigger than 'bore'...so the lands CAN make contact with it.

I think you can still size down a patched bullet after it's wrapped (if you really want to), but the paper has to be thin enough that the bullet doesn't get reduced below bore diameter.
When the lands can't reach to the bullet, it's like a paper cutter where the blade can't reach the base. The paper doesn't get cut.

But, I think pdawg's method makes more sense, when it comes to getting confetti from the muzzle...and PP accuracy hinges on getting the paper properly separated from the bullet.

CM

[rhbrink]

Good point there montana charlie I would prefer not to size down the second time, as it is now if I don't size the second time I can't load the shell without the neck being too tight in the chamber. And I have tried thinner patches to no avail. I did size to .308 then wrapped with notebook paper and tried to load then without sizing the brass, too tight, when I pulled the boolits the patches were torn around the base of the boolit. Kindof have a problem as I see it.
As for paper being shredded I think that mine is vaperized in the bore, don't know for sure what is happening but I can smell burnt paper when the wind is blowing back into my face, and have never seen a trace of paper anywhere in the area of shooting.
I'll pull some boolits and check what the diameters are after the second sizing might give me a clue.
Thanks Richard

[303Guy]

I'm glad you've joined this discussion, montana_charlie. You have a lot of wisdom to share.

On the question of the rifling being deep enough to cut through the patch, I'd say no it isn't and it doesn't in any of my rifles but then none of my rifles are large bore BP guns. From my own observations, the patch will swage the core down as it enters the bore, then it wears through due to lateral pressure between the core and bore. I have a pic which shows this effect quite well if one knows what to look for. For me, I have the boolit in my hand so I can study it properly. I'll just explain whats on the pic.

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo327/303Guy/MVC-722F-1.jpg

The rifling driving edge has cut through the patch end 'skidded' into the rifling groove impression. One can make out that the boolit core has been swaged down to less than bore size. The core measures .300 across the bore impressions and .318 accross the groove impressions but the patch has actually worn through in the grooves and that .318 is the groove diameter. The rifle has a bore diameter of .304

Here another boolit has developed a bulge which wore through the patch and contacted the bore.

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo327/303Guy/Patchfailure2.jpg

It's in the ringed area. Again it's hard to see in a pic.

In all cases the non-driving side has not cut through the patch.

Then again, I'm using soft alloy. Things might be quite different for a hard alloy.

This is a harder alloy and the groove impression is sharper and skidding is greater.

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo327/303Guy/Two-GroovePP30grAR220957grBran.jpg (Got the colour right!)

This one did not wear through the drive face.

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo327/303Guy/MVC-687F.jpg

This what the bore looks like in my two-groove. The same one that fired the above boolits. It's very accurate with j-words.

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo327/303Guy/MVC-463F.jpg

[rhbrink]

I sure hope that Elkins45 isn't mad cause we hi-jacked his thread rather severly.
The boolits that I had sized .308 wrapped with notebook paper then sized again to .316 measured .308 on the driving bands so they didn't size down anymore these measure out about 21 -22 on a BHN scale.
303Guy I sure would like to capture one of my boolits just to see what they look like. Also on pulling some that were patched too tight I have noticed a few places where the patch was torn in the gerenral area where your bulge is. This was on top of the driving band do you think that something like that would cause your bulge?

[303Guy]

On sizing a boolit patched with printer paper - depending on how much the patch is sized, the core does not size down meaning the paper is compressable enough to absorb quite a bit of sizing. In my case, only the seating section sized this way.

There are just so many variables with paper patching, it's going to take years to figure it all out! (Years of fun, I hope).

[6.5 mike]

6.5 cruise missle, drops at .268, 2 wraps tracing paper, sized back to .268. Lee 130 gr 7m/m, drops at .2865, 2 wraps tracing , now .2915, no size. lee 170 fn, drops .3095, 2 wraps tracing paper, now .3145 fits 7.7 jap no size. Lee 185, drops at .3115, sized to .309, 2 wraps tracing paper, no size, fits 2 303 savages. Lee 200gr, drop at .3095, 2 wraps tracing paper , sized to .309 for hiwall 30-40 krag, also sized to .311 for 03A3. Lee 175 gr, drops .324, 2 wraps tracing paper, sized to .326 for 3 8 m/m's. Lee 300 gr ( pistol boolit), drops at .452, 2 wraps lined notebook paper, sized to .459, for fireforming 45-70 brass. Lee 405 gr, drops at .455, 2 wraps tracing paper, sized to .459 for 45-70. And I have some others I haven't tried yet. As you can see you don't always have to size twice. Except for the 7.7 jap & the 6.5 I have shot all of these with good results & always get confetti. I try not to size any more than I have to.

[montana_charlie]

On the question of the rifling being deep enough to cut through the patch, I'd say no it isn't and it doesn't in any of my rifles but then none of my rifles are large bore BP guns.
Don't let the erstwhile 'buffalo gun' affect your thinking on this subject.

My 45/90 bore diameter is .450" and the groove diameter is .458" (nominal values).
Your garden variety 30-06 has a bore of .300" and a groove of .308" (nominal values).

Both guns have rifling .004" deep.
Both guns can only cut through a .004" thickness of paper.

Not all rifling is .004", but it's fairly common. Rifling which is deeper or shallower is usually still close enough to that depth to make a reasonably thin paper a good choice.

The 'bulge' which protrudes through the paper on the side of a bullet can only be poking through a spot where the paper got unintentionally (and mysteriously) 'disappeared' somehow.

As for the lands 'wearing through' the paper...
If we were to depend on our rifling working it's way through the patch by 'abrasion', we would probably also have to tailor barrel length to patch thickness...or vice-versa.

If the rifling in a given barrel does not have a sharp edge capable of cutting the patch, I suspect it's not a good candidate for paper patching.

CM

[303Guy]

... on pulling some that were patched too tight I have noticed a few places where the patch was torn in the gerenral area where your bulge is.The bulges appear where the are creases in the casting, indicating a softer metal at that point and they don't always break through the paper. I've just done some tests with a different alloy and different patching technique and the bulges did not appear. That in itself does not prove anything but the boolits I've been testing can be pulled out by hand. That still doesn't mean the patch isn't tearing on firing as it leaves the case mouth. It's the pattern that coincides with casting creases and ripples that makes me think is not the patch tearing. (I use the ugly castings for testing).


If the rifling in a given barrel does not have a sharp edge capable of cutting the patch, I suspect it's not a good candidate for paper patching.Mmmm....

Well ...... Most of my rifle bores are somewhat compromized. My 25-303 however does have sharp rifling and it does not cut through the patch - not all the way, anyhow. That's at reduced loads (can't capture full power boolits intact).

Is it somehow possible that the rules change from small bores to big bores?

Ummm... [smilie=1: Can we persuade Elkins45 that all this is all relevant to his thread?:mrgreen: This thread has started me thinking onto a whole new line of testing - it gave me an idea that was previously missing.:-)

[montana_charlie]

Is it somehow possible that the rules change from small bores to big bores?
I don't think the rules change, but there may be a difference in how much effect a particular 'rule' has on small, and large, bullets.

In both applications, it's important that the patch come away from the bullet cleanly as it exits the muzzle.
If a third of the patch is going to fall to the ground as a 'postage stamp', it can be presumed to impart some degree of instability to the departing slug.
The basic 'rule' remains unchanged.

But, if the weight of the 500-grain bullet is a thousand times heavier than the (say) .5-grain paper chunk, the effect may be barely noticeable...and only at longer ranges.
If the 'stamp' is 1/500th of the bullet weight (say 150-grain bullet & .3-grain paper), it seems there would be more of a 'deflection'...especially if that .30 caliber was traveling twice as fast as the BPCR bullet.

So, while the rule remained the same, it's effect may be different in the two applications. That would make it seem that the .30 caliber guy would try even harder to assure that 'confetti' gets produced.

Of course, this all depends on the degree of 'perfection' required.
If a guy is developing a load at 100 yards that he wants to also be useful at 1000, he makes everything as perfect as possible.

If his requirement is a bullet that won't lead his bore; moving at a desired velocity; which will (reliably) hit a pie plate at deer hunting range; it doesn't really matter how big the paper pieces on the ground are...as long as the deer drops dead.

CM

[303Guy]

That makes sense. Another possible difference is the length to diameter ratio of the boolits. In my case, the bore tend to taper toward the muzzle and the rifling gets sharper. Also, the leade angle is quite shallow on my rifles and the well used ones are very shallow indeed. I can see how a sharp, 45° leade would cut the patch cleanly (or even as shallow as 15°). Am I correct in saying that the larger bore rifles do not use bore-ride boolits? I have no choice but to use a bore-ride if I want an expanding boolit for hunting. A boolit base protruding past the shoulder gets deformed if the boolit is too soft - at least, that's what I've found but something else could have caused the deformation. With my two-groove, I've found that base cupping stops if the bore-ride is free to expand in the bore i.e the patch removed from the nose and the nose waxed.

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo327/303Guy/MVC-755F.jpghttp://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo327/303Guy/MVC-757F.jpg

The boolit base is flat apart from impact damage.

[montana_charlie]

You are starting to ask questions that I can't make logical guesses about.

I see length to diameter ratio as a factor in determining rifling twist rate, but I don't see a connection that affects paper patching decisions.

My leade angle is 1.5 degrees. I don't know what you consider to be 'steep' or 'shallow', but I have never heard of a 45 degree leade.

Even so, i don't see how a 45 degree leade angle would do a better (or worse) job of cutting the patch. I CAN see how a very steep leade might rumple the leading edge of a patch...causing failure due to the paper getting wadded up in the bore and disfiguring the bullet.

Bore riders?
Yes, there are some (GG) bore riders used in BPCR. But, I don't think the term has any function in BPCR paper patching. Most guys patch a small bullet up to bore diameter. So, the whole thing is a 'bore rider' until it's fired.
If you're talking about a dual diameter bullet, with an unpatched nose at bore diameter and a patched section reaching groove diameter, that describes my loading method.
But the bullet has straight sides, and the paper makes the 'second' diameter.

The idea of a shank patched to reach one diameter, and a patched nose reaching a smaller diameter is something I only saw mentioned once (in a BP vein) and no discussion ensued. It doesn't seem to generate widespread interest.

I have tried to mention each of your points to be polite, even though I admit to not being well-informed on them. Did I miss any?

CM

[303Guy]

Thank you for taking the trouble. :drinks:

You've given me plenty to think about and I think you have clarified some points. (If I am understanding things right).

I thought someone somewhere said a particular rifle had a 45° chamfer/lead from the chamber directly into the rifling? I'll have to double check that one! I must've read it wrong.:???:

[montana_charlie]

I thought someone somewhere said a particular rifle had a 45° chamfer/lead from the chamber directly into the rifling? I'll have to double check that one! I must've read it wrong.:???:You are probably being confused by the way some people use 'terminology'.

One of the terms which applies to chambers is 'leade'. It's an old word which denotes the tapered area where the rifling is cut away in a cone-shaped 'funnel' which shoehorns the bullet into the rifling.
The leade angle describes the ramp on each rifling land which takes the bullet from a chamber diameter (or groove diameter) zone into the constriction of the actual bore where the rifling has risen to full height.

This leade can be positioned right at the end of the chamber, or can be separated by some length of unrifled area (freebore) which puts the leade further ahead.
When the leade is separated from the chamber by a cylindrical freebore...it is simply a zone which is 'free of rifling' because the rifling was removed by the chambering reamer.

In some older guns, the terminus of the chamber (the space occupied by the case) was a low-angled 'funnel shape' which feeds into the leade.
In modern rifles, it is not uncommon for that terminating angle to be cut at 45 degrees.

But, that cut is best called the chamber step or chamber transition angle when necessary to speak of it as a unique feature. Normally, it is simply considered to be part of any freebore which may exist. If it is the long, gentle variety found in the older guns, it gets long enough to become a 'feature' in it's own right. In that case, it would not be unreasonable to call it a 'tapered freebore'.

Some people use the term 'lead' (an alternate spelling of 'leade') to identify this chamber step/transition angle.
That angle may be as shallow as 5 degrees, or as steep as 45.
A discussion revolving around the desirablity of various angles is probably where you got confused.

But the leade is a different part of the rifle's 'throat'.

CM

[303Guy]

Thanks again. Chambers and throats seem to have so much variation in design it is indeed confusing. But I've checked and as confused as I am, I haven't lost my memory!:mrgreen:

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=22241&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1273789064

This wasn't the original source - that was a drawing of such a chamber.

When I talk of bore-ride I'm refering to a two-diameter patched boolit patched all the way, meaning the nose section core is under bore diameter.

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo327/303Guy/MVC-658F.jpg Rifling impressions visible on nose section.

Some say the core should be bore plus .001 and this is the reason for my concerns. (This for the 303 Brit with its battle design throat and cordite erosion).