If I had some of these, would I pack the hollow base with lube or leave it empty?
chuck40219
Printable View
If I had some of these, would I pack the hollow base with lube or leave it empty?
chuck40219
Hi. Leave it empty. Ed
I use that boolit in my muzzle loader with a sabot in my 50cal side lock. Dose a job on a deer.
That mold works fine if ya file the tit off of the base plug and convert it to a flat base boolit - can use any kind of wad under it then.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck40219
LEE will sell the spare parts cheap if ya want to use it both ways.
The HB was put there in 1873 to move the center of gravity forwards and aid stability.
So that LEE mold is an EXACT copy of the original - I kinda doubt that.......................Quote:
Originally Posted by 17nut
but anyway I clipped a few thou off of the nose as well ....whatever .... it shoots pretty good.
1873 is a looooooong time ago
Not an exact copy but an excellent mold for trapdoors left just the way it is
This also works and is "excellent" ---335 grain LEE and 410 grain LEE - both of em shoot good - no signs of instability caused by lack of the hole in the rear endQuote:
Originally Posted by Mark Daiute
nose modified cuz the rounded nose fit inside the primer pocket - proly safe - but my magazine gun - my fingers - my choice - others can take the other side of that bet and I hope they win it
Attachment 242423
they both the same calibre - camera played a trick and gave us an optical delusion
ps by removing the hole at the back - they can be shot with any kind of wad without fussing about do we fill it with lube or can we use a wad etc - just sayin..................................
An "excellent mold for trapdoors".....indeed it is......Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Daiute
It was designed by Spence Wolf to be as close to the M1873 bullet as possible with a cast bullet. The originals were swaged. The hollow base is actually called a "dished cavity" in the originals and as stated in the 1874 manual; "There is a dished cavity in the base of the bullet, sufficient to bring it to its proper weight without affecting its general form." Thus the "dish" is there to maintain the weight and external dimensions.
Thus the size of the "dish" varied with the alloy used as did with the number of "cannelures"......3 "cannelures" being the most common. The dish cavity was never intended to expand ala" the Minie" bullet. It was intended that the bullet would obturate to fill the bore/groove dimensions. That was found wanting as the 405 bullet, even with the full 70 gr rifle load, did not have the mass to obturate consistently. That's why the M1882 500 gr bullet with it's heavier mass over the 70 gr BP charge was developed and a 16-1 alloy settled on. The original M1873 bullet (405 gr) was swaged of a 12-1 alloy.
I shoot the Lee 405 HB bullet at 1350 fps out of my H&R Officers model out to 1000 yards. The trajectory is well regulated to the M1879 "R" rear sight using the old "point eight rule" for the OM.
Attachment 242435Attachment 242436
The military bullets were always made harder than some might think desirable for the simple reason of resistance to damage in handling..........its also a general requirement of military bullets to shoot thru a certain thickness of hardwood at distance,and soft bullets wont meet this requirement.
I had an H&R Officer’s Model. With 70gr. loads, it was a real thumper off the bench. My original ‘88Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Gibson
likes the 500 gr bullet with just enough crimp to take the flare out of the case mouth.
That Officer's Model was intended to shoot the carbine load of 55 grains of 2Fg, or 3Fg if you are so inclined. The recoil is greatly reduced using the 405 grain boolit.Quote:
Originally Posted by varsity07840
The several original OMs I've seen with '79 rear sights had the rifle rear sight. I have not seen in any old literature where the 45-55 carbine load was "intended" for use with OMs. What i have seen was the "point eight rule" for sight adjustment of the '79 rear sight on them. That was used with the 45-70 rifle load.
The use of lighter carbine level loads was recommended because of the recoil in later years as bench rest shooting came in vogue. If you're used to shooting any rifle of some recoil (.308# or larger cartridge) then shooting an OM standing, kneeling or sitting with rifle loads presents little more, if any, recoil. Even off the bench if a proper position (high for recoiling rifles) is used then the recoil is not objectionable, to me anyway.
Larry can you describe the "point eight rule"? Maybe in another thread?
Tx, 30cf
Due to the shorter sight radius of the OM the range regulation was not correct with the "R" or "C" M1879 rear sight range settings. The "point eight rule" applies to OMs with the M1879 "R" rear sight when the 45-70 service rifle cartridge with 405 gr bullet was used.
It is simple; take 8 tenths of the range to the target as the sight range setting. Example; if the target is at 400 yards then 8 tenths of 400 = 320 yards. Set the rear sight elevation at 320 yards and you will hit at 400 yards.