Titan ReloadingADvertise hereRotoMetals2StainLess Steel Media
Inline FabricationGraf & SonsLee Precision

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 132

Thread: Hardness Matters

  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by btroj View Post
    Thanks for posting the other groups. I am with Bret in that the almost all horizontal dispersions makes it look like it could be a problem in how the gun was held or how it was sitting on the rest for some of the other groups.
    If we seem cynical or harsh it is because we have seen too many times where one group was a fluke, not a real proof of anything. If you can go out and repeat these results a couple more time it becomes far more believable.
    I am willing to agree however that extreme hardness is not needed at lower velocities and pressures. Every gun and load combo will have a hardness it wants with that bullet.

    As for Bass's comment that hardness only matters when it does- I agree entirely. Hardness is just another variable in shooting. It is no more, or less, important than factors like diameter, pressure, velocity, lube, bullet fit, etc. When you are at a point in load development where a simple increase or decrease in hardness makes "the difference" then it matters, if that change does not improve things then it obviously didn't matter. We can only find out if hardness matters in our gun/load situation by finding out thru testing. Bass is simply stating that the assumptions made about hardness are not always right, not always wrong, but they are always an assumption. Hope I explained that well Bass.

    Brad
    Good read on that. Shooting off a rest, in itself, takes lot's a rounds to be good at. For myself, the trigger finger with a revolver can cause a horizontal spread.
    Rossi M92 Lever Action
    Taurus 669
    Kel-Tec P-3AT
    http://357shooter.blogspot.com/

  2. #42
    Boolit Master


    Larry Gibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, Arizona
    Posts
    15,800
    "no rules"

    "NOT based on scientific suppostition"

    Not hardly. There are the laws of physics and ballistics is based on proven scientific facts, not "supposition". There are reasons that accurate loads are accurate and inaccurate ones aren't. If we understand the reasons (laws, rules, principles, guidlines, suppositions, etc.) why the accurate loads are accurate and induce those reasons by following proven laws, rules, principles, guidlines, suppositions, etc. into other loads we will produce accurate loads from the get go.

    There are loads that will shoot well in any rifle or handgun that is capable of reasonable condition and accuracy. Granted they may not be the most accurate possible for that rifle/handgun but they will shoot well if not very well. Those loads do this because they are loaded following the basics of the , rules, principles, guidlines, suppositions, etc. that govern loading cast bullets for rifles and handguns. To say otherwise is to disregard any knowledge gained. Yes, there are things yet to be learned. Perhaps insinuating that we should disregard what we have learned because we haven't learned everything is somewhat counter productive to me.

    There are differing opinions on this but I think if we closely examine the loading/casting procedures used and advise given by those who disagree we find that they fall within the laws, rules, principles, guidlines, suppositions, etc. that the rest of us understand and follow.

    Larry Gibson
    Last edited by Larry Gibson; 03-06-2011 at 11:57 AM.

  3. #43
    Boolit Master
    btroj's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Nebraska's oldest city
    Posts
    12,431
    I agree to a point Larry. What bothers me is the idea that A lube or A hardness or A bullet design is THE answer. Every situation or gun is an individual. What works very well in one may not work in another. When shooting cast we introduce lots more variables than the jacketed crowd has to deal with. these variables make it far more difficult to say for certain that a certain load combination will always be best. Exceptions to the rule do exist.
    Do we disregard all we have learned? No way, but we also need to remember to not be constrained by what others have said can't work. If we all followed the conventional wisdom none of us would be shooting cast bullets in microgroove rifling beyond 1600 fps and then only with rock hard bullets.
    I only ask that people keep an open mind regarding load development. Do not be constrained by "rules". Starting within conventional ideas is good, but when that does not work it is time to look outside the box.
    Sadly, there is much more to be learned regarding internal ballistics and not just dealing with cast. We think we know what is happening but can anyone state for a fact that they KNOW what happens when we pull the trigger? When a bullet enters the forcing cone of a revolver? We can assume and form opinions based upon observations but that is all. I do not mean to reduce the importance of this type of information or data gathering. Observation is a key skill in learning.
    We have many new casters and shooter on this site. They have minds that are wide open, or I hope they do. I don't want them to feel that only a certain set of parameters will work. I want them to be open to all ideas. They should listen to all the various dissenting opinions here. We have numerous frequent posters who have vastly differing opinions on what works best. Following the advice of only one person can lead you down a road to either success or utter failure. Listen to all and learn by doing. Assume nothing, try your loads in your gun and find out. That is the way to learn.
    Rules can either be a starting point or a limit. I view them as a starting point.

    Brad

  4. #44
    Boolit Master Char-Gar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Deep South Texas
    Posts
    11,412
    I will throw in with Larry. This stuff is science and not witchcraft, chance or karma. Follow the principals you get results. Ignore the principles, you get consequences.
    Disclaimer: The above is not holy writ. It is just my opinion based on my experience and knowledge. Your mileage may vary.

  5. #45
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    US, Wash, PA
    Posts
    4,867
    Larry, it depends on how you look at things.

    Whole problem with the argument for scientific facts is that there is no evidence to support that argument. After 300 years we still can't find the best bore diameter, the right cartridge, the right bullet, the right way to make a barrel, the best platform, a best load, twist rate, .... anything.

    This isn't a help post. This guy just wrote a novel of Science Fiction according to you. Except he has photos not only of success but results that lead up to that success. So, sorry Larry, Judge Gun wrote the verdict on THAT 454 and soft lead. How do you argue with success?

    The beauty of this board isn't the education for the masses. This board demonstrates, each and every day, problems with cast aren't because of laws, or lead, or even troublesome guns. Nope, problems with cast are from operators .... stereotyping AND NOT doing the things their gun requires for success.

    There are enough "law providers" for those that it helps. I see my role to provide "options, hope, and encouragement" with other possibilities when "the law" fails them. To make those who believe in "law" open their eyes, if they will.

    As a result I can tell you emphatically, there are many thousands of possible combinations to try with cast and some won't make sense. You gotta be flexible to succeed, but you gotta pull the trigger to know for sure.

    Changes will only make a difference when they do cause the law is written by THAT gun. Not somebody with a degree on the wall.
    Evaluate everything you read for safety and use common sense.

  6. #46
    Boolit Master
    btroj's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Nebraska's oldest city
    Posts
    12,431
    No, this isn't voodoo or which craft. I give you that. But it sure as heck isn't cookbook reloading either.
    If hard fast rules worked we would never have arguments about bullet hardness, best diameter, lubes, check or no check, powder choice,velocity, twist rate, whatever. These arguments take place because no one single answer exists. We need to find what works in our situation.

    Are the "rules" a good starting point? Absolutely. But they are not absolutes. Not every gun shoots best with the same load. This is because not all guns are the same. Not every cast bullet is the same. Variables. That is the wild card here. You must take the variables into account.

    I watch with great joy some heated discussions on this site. I do this because it demonstrates more than one way can work.

    Success is where you find it. I just want to find it in my gun, on my target.

    Brad

  7. #47
    Boolit Bub
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    25
    Bret4207:
    The horizontally distributed pattern in targets 1 and 4 was something I noticed right away. "Hmm". What 357Shooter said about the trigger finger is something I will be especially conscious of next trip to the range. I don't think I was pulling it but anything is possible. The other thing that baffled me was that one of the 11.0 Bhn boolits missed the target completely. I realize Iím not the greatest shot in the world but I was only 25 yards away!

    I agree with Larry's scientific approach. My problem is that I haven't the experience with cast boolits and therefore, don't know the effect of a small change in each variable. I've tried to keep all the variables that are within my control as close to each other as possible, varying only the alloy because a previous trip to the range showed boolits from that alloy shot better than the others I was shooting. On the surface it appears (to me) that the 12.5 hardness bullet is the answer but what I'm getting out of reading between the lines here is that you guys wouldn't expect this much variability across this narrow band of hardness. That's good. I'd prefer to have some latitude.

    btroj:
    Don't worry about sounding cynical or harsh. I'm searching for truth. If I were offended by something that someone said then I would be the one with the problem. My belief is that "Political Correctness" caters to the group with the problem.

    I'm looking forward to shooting this boolit some more.
    Patriot to the Concept of a Nation that Owes its Greatness to the Liberties its People Demand

  8. #48
    Perma - Banned


    Bret4207's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    St Lawrence Valley, NY
    Posts
    12,931
    I have to latch onto one word Chargar used- principles. I like that a whole lot better than "rules". There are principles that apply to reloading in general and some that apply more to cast than jacketed and vice versa. There are also some exclusively applying to cast. Then there are the variables and that's where the art of this comes into play. It's not witchcraft ( although I'd be willing to try the belly button lint from a goddess as filler if someone says it'll help!) but there is an art or a degree of flexibility required to get some guns to shoot right. That's the difficult part and the part that takes this out side the cookbook/science area. Lets face it, we can probably all give a load with jacketed for a 308 that will result in groups under 1.5" in the vast majority if guns. We can also give general guidelines for cast loads that will shoot under 4" in the same 308. It's when the guy wants to do that 1.5" at 2500 that the art comes in.

    I wish it was science. We can't even get people to agree on terms, how do you make science out of something when "hard" means anything from 14 to 35 Bhn? When we can't even agree on what constitutes the throat or what to call it? When we can't nail down just what perfect fit is? In the end the variables might be able to be put on a spread sheet and over a 5 years period we might be able to recognize principles leading to good shooting, but they sure aren't LAWS.

  9. #49
    Boolit Master
    btroj's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Nebraska's oldest city
    Posts
    12,431
    I agree entirely on the "art" of casting and shooting cast. Some of it comes down to a feel, something you can't put into words but you just sense something is happening or needs to be done. This is where experience pays off.

    The terms like hard, throat, etc are where I have problems with the idea that this is all cookbook. Wo writes the book? Who determines what different terms mean?

    There are basic principles we should all be able to agree on, most of the time. In general terms certain things will generally lead to success or failure.

    It is when you want to push the envelope, good luck defining that, that it gets into the grey areas. This is where the years of experience and ability to observe and "feel" what is going on comes into play. This is the art or shooting cast.

    Brad

  10. #50
    Banned

    44man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    22,707
    Quote Originally Posted by btroj View Post
    I agree entirely on the "art" of casting and shooting cast. Some of it comes down to a feel, something you can't put into words but you just sense something is happening or needs to be done. This is where experience pays off.

    The terms like hard, throat, etc are where I have problems with the idea that this is all cookbook. Wo writes the book? Who determines what different terms mean?

    There are basic principles we should all be able to agree on, most of the time. In general terms certain things will generally lead to success or failure.

    It is when you want to push the envelope, good luck defining that, that it gets into the grey areas. This is where the years of experience and ability to observe and "feel" what is going on comes into play. This is the art or shooting cast.

    Brad
    Nicely said! ART and EXPERIENCE rather then science. It takes an old timer seconds to figure what is wrong but a new fella will be baffled. It really is hard to help a new caster.

  11. #51
    Boolit Master


    Larry Gibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, Arizona
    Posts
    15,800
    Charger indeed nailed it. It is principles indeed. Obviously some think that by rules, principles, science, etc. that it means there is only one way to do things; one lube, one design of bullet etc. That is not correct. There are many ways to "find the best bore diameter, select the right cartridge for the intended use, the right bullet for the intended use, the right way to make a barrel, the best platform, a best load or select a twist rate". With any of those you can go very wrong very quickly by stepping outside the "rules, principles, laws of physics and ballistics".

    Select the wrong bore diameter, put it into the wrong cartridge, shoot it in a poorly made barrel in a loosely bedded action with a powder that gives inconsistent ignition in a twist that is to slow to stabilize the bullet and guess what? Inaccuracy will follow. Throw in a lube that doesn't do the job and the design of the bullet (to long for the twist) and you just make things worse. Conversely if we follow the rules, principles and laws of physics and ballistics we can come up with accurate loads very quickly without any real problems.

    A lot of confusion here between what makes accuracy and how to apply those things that make accuracy. The rules, principles, laws of physics and the laws of ballistics are pretty well known. They apply to cast bullets also. For example of a "rule"; if the twist isn't compatable with the bullet and velocity then inaccuracy will result regardles of the lube, sizing, alloy, powder, primer or GC used, etc. That is pretty hard and fast regardless of what some may think. Conversely there is no "rule" that says only one type of lube will work. The rule there is (if we are using a lubed bullet) a lube must be used. Some rules can also have exceptions such as seating bullets below the case neck. Most often inaccuracy will result but there are some instances where it can be done successfully. They are, however, the exception rather than the general "rule".

    BTW; there is indeed all sorts of evidence to support scientific facts. Surprisingly if Bass would read many of his own past posts on numerous topics he would find he argues for many of, if not most, of those scientific arguments. It is in the application of the "arguments" where the confusion appears to be.

    Larry Gibson

    It is science, not art. We may be "artful" in our own techniques how we apply that science but if we vary from the princilpes of the science we suffer the consequence as Charger says.

  12. #52
    Boolit Master Char-Gar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Deep South Texas
    Posts
    11,412
    Quote Originally Posted by btroj View Post
    No, this isn't voodoo or which craft. I give you that. But it sure as heck isn't cookbook reloading either.
    If hard fast rules worked we would never have arguments about bullet hardness, best diameter, lubes, check or no check, powder choice,velocity, twist rate, whatever. These arguments take place because no one single answer exists. We need to find what works in our situation.

    I watch with great joy some heated discussions on this site. I do this because it demonstrates more than one way can work.

    Brad
    Brad, I have also watched some pissing matches on this site over the years, although I have never found it be a joyful experience. The heat generated far exceeds any small amount of light produced. Well, to be honest, I should say there is considerable light, if a fellow knows who to believe. The new fellow have no idea who knows what he is talking about and who is blowing smoke.

    IMHO, the root cause of these events are more rooted in human personality than empirical shooting experience.

    1. Some folks just want their posts to be taken as gospel and get their hackles up if somebody challenges any part of their posts.

    2. Folks get into defending their position and dig themselves in deeper into their bunkers.

    3. Different folks have different expectations an definitions of what is going on in their shooting world.

    4. Folks tend to talk about their successes and tout that as their norm. Their failures are dismissed as having a bad day.

    5. Folks seem to have an inbred chip that tells them.."My way just must be the best way, because it is my way."

    6. There is also a copious amount of BS, distortions and outright lies that are posted here as well.

    In the end, all of this heat says far more about human nature, than it does about there being different ways to make cast bullets shoot well. I will stick to my guns, that there are principals that must be followed if success is to be found. There is some running room within the principals for individuals to play around and still get good results. But, ignore the principals, do the polar opposite, and tell me you are having tack driving accuracy, and I will refer you to No. 6 above.

    The you is generic and not individual.
    Disclaimer: The above is not holy writ. It is just my opinion based on my experience and knowledge. Your mileage may vary.

  13. #53
    Boolit Master
    btroj's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Nebraska's oldest city
    Posts
    12,431
    I agree entirely on No. 6 above.
    Perhaps that is why I am skeptical of one group meaning much. Until it can be repeated over time it is not proof of anything.
    The heated discussions can get to the point of silliness. I just think it is interesting that people with such vastly differing views both seem to have success. It means they are either broke No. 6 or they found different ways to get results.
    No. 4 is as important as No. 6. I want to see and hear of your failures as much as your success. Failure often teaches far more than anything else.

    I hope to never be seen as no 1 or No 2. I try my best to keep an open mind. I have learned to take what many here say and use it as a guide but certainly not as gospel.

    I certainly take no offense to anything said here. In the end I think we are on the same side, at least to a large degree.

    Fit, good lube, an appropriate powder and charge, and good technique are all important in any good load. After that it is up to the user to figure out what is happening. That is where the art comes is. I don't call that a science because I don't think we can always say that if A happens, do B. That would be great but it isn't reality yet.

    Brad

  14. #54
    Perma - Banned


    Bret4207's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    St Lawrence Valley, NY
    Posts
    12,931
    Quote Originally Posted by Chargar View Post
    Brad, I have also watched some pissing matches on this site over the years, although I have never found it be a joyful experience. The heat generated far exceeds any small amount of light produced. Well, to be honest, I should say there is considerable light, if a fellow knows who to believe. The new fellow have no idea who knows what he is talking about and who is blowing smoke.

    IMHO, the root cause of these events are more rooted in human personality than empirical shooting experience.

    1. Some folks just want their posts to be taken as gospel and get their hackles up if somebody challenges any part of their posts.

    2. Folks get into defending their position and dig themselves in deeper into their bunkers.

    3. Different folks have different expectations an definitions of what is going on in their shooting world.

    4. Folks tend to talk about their successes and tout that as their norm. Their failures are dismissed as having a bad day.

    5. Folks seem to have an inbred chip that tells them.."My way just must be the best way, because it is my way."

    6. There is also a copious amount of BS, distortions and outright lies that are posted here as well.

    In the end, all of this heat says far more about human nature, than it does about there being different ways to make cast bullets shoot well. I will stick to my guns, that there are principals that must be followed if success is to be found. There is some running room within the principals for individuals to play around and still get good results. But, ignore the principals, do the polar opposite, and tell me you are having tack driving accuracy, and I will refer you to No. 6 above.

    The you is generic and not individual.

    Lotta truth in all that Charles. If there's one thing I've learned here it's that putting things in terms of absolutes generally ends up with me eating a big supper of crow, with egg on my face and both feet in my mouth up to the hip! But people come here looking for cookbook recipes for easy cast success. There's a learning curve to this, one that never ends. People try to help, to get around the questioners pre-conceived notions and the answerers own notions is the hard part. Maybe instead of rules we should stick with principals and instead of art we should use the term flexible thinking.

  15. #55
    Banned

    44man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    22,707
    A lot of truth has been said here. That is why suggestions only are important. Everyone must pass on experiences or we are lost in bickering because nothing works for everyone or in every gun.
    I have too many boolits I can't get to shoot. I have had guns I could not get to shoot. Trying to get accuracy with home made shotgun slugs has been a bust even when I try everything ever said about them. I am still trying to get a Marlin .44 to shoot.
    I try EVERYTHING posted here if it is about what I shoot or do. I have some rules that I have to follow but it is not science, nothing can be put on paper so the rules work for everyone. One would be that the GG's MUST be such and such size, shape and depth or a million other TRUTHS that just don't pan out. Another is that one GG must be left empty, well if it works for you, how can it work for everyone? If that is scientific proof it is funny, the Genie was just let out of the bottle!
    Another would be that a boolit has to have 7.3254 gr rear of center or it will not shoot. Don't you fellas also not know a FP will go unstable past 50 yards?
    Everyone has pet theories and truths they follow but not a single person can show what they do will work with every gun, boolit, powder, primer, lube or alloy. Things we are all blessed with that are all so different you really need a Genie!
    Tell and show your experiences because it might help someone---IF THEY TRY IT and nothing says it will work for them but it just might.
    Just don't sit there and tell everyone that the front drive band or the rear drive band must be a certain width or the angle of the GG's just has to be such and such or the boolit only shoots with 7.137 gr of Unique and will fail with 7.5 gr.
    Those are personal theories, none is based on scientific fact.
    Think of the fun if every one of our guns was based on the science of Greenhill or you gun will not group unless the ES and SD is less then 1!
    I will wait forever for someone to explain the principals of cast boolits!

  16. #56
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    US, Wash, PA
    Posts
    4,867
    I think it's hilarious. The SAME gun isn't even the same through it's shooting cycle.

    The truth is that any gun including the most accurate rifle in the world can be a 4" shooter when it fouls from enough shots no matter what bullet material is used. That's why they clean often.

    So what you have with any gun is an operating range from clean to fouled with the number of rounds determined by what YOU are doing and the gun. Why even POI most likely will change.

    Now some of those things may shoot from clean to moderately fouled. Some loads can be developed to go from moderately fouled to the end of the shooting range so that they shoot better on the back end over fouling.

    The more uniform the gun is and more it is broken in, makes for wider fouling windows or higher round counts between cleanings.

    In fact, a smart fella has loads developed both ways so that he can make use of his gun no matter where it is in this cycle unless he only needs a few shots between cleaning.

    The science is that anything can be made to work someplace in the cycle. And anything can spray slugs in another. This order may even be switched if the gun is going in another direction. Older guns are smooth when clean and go rough with fouling. New guns tend to be rough and technically smooth as they foul.

    No single technique, primer, or anything else works the whole time even in the same gun little alone in somebody else's.

    That's the joke. Repetition. Doing the same thing until it fails.

    All you have to do is methodically try enough combinations in the bore condition window area you need to shoot (how many rounds before you want to clean). Key word there is try. Not think, not read, try. I'll do what ever is necessary if I want to. Or I'll quit and clean.

    The man who shoots cool (slow) and the man that shoots low velocity, have the widest amount of possible combinations to make work and the widest round count windows before the RPM monster grabs him. And yes the RPM monster comes to you even if you are below the zone. When you foul enough that the lead can't hold or load balance changes, your accuracy game is done.

    As you speed up firing rate or shoot longer strings, the fouling monster arrives sooner and technique can become more critical. And still the gun may limit you sooner than mine or someone elses as .... science says it should. The guys that don't understand this scream for 10 round shot groups.

    Fouling drives the train that hits us all. Some experienced people never get it as you see comments from barrel break-in to accuracy moderate accuracy levels cause they shoot in ways that brings on the RPM monster faster. And they cry BS when somebody else makes a claim. not so really, but it is for them because they make it so.

    And that ladies and gentlemen is why you got copper.

    Why do guys have the opinions they have? Because guys have their set bag of things they are willing to try before they give up and restart their round count clock. Or they lower their accuracy expectations and cry foul if you claim other wise. Who's right? We all probably are. But inflexibility is a cross that we all eventually bear.

    The science of banging ones head off the wall comes when we look for theories when accuracy leaves. In a way, it's the "misery loves company" syndrome.

    Again why we have copper. Copper allows less POI and accuracy change over it's fouling cycles which is "normally" wider than lead especially if you push.

    The sooner a rookie learns this, the more flexible they will be. And the happier too. Or not/
    Evaluate everything you read for safety and use common sense.

  17. #57
    Boolit Master Char-Gar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Deep South Texas
    Posts
    11,412
    Bass.. I gave your post above a very careful read. I had a hard time coming up with the jist of what you are driving out. Mostly, it seems disconnected. But, the impression I get, is a cast bullet shooter, just keeps trying different combination until he find one that works that day. The next day, that may or may not work, and so forth.

    If you are saying, what it seems you are saying, then why the heck are we working at trying to solve the puzzles anyway. It would seem, you feel the efforts to be hilarious and without merit.

    If that is the substance I respectfully disagree. It I have your post wrong, the please try again and give me your thinking in a way I can understand.
    Disclaimer: The above is not holy writ. It is just my opinion based on my experience and knowledge. Your mileage may vary.

  18. #58
    Boolit Master


    Larry Gibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, Arizona
    Posts
    15,800
    Bass

    You refer to "the science" or some such several times. If you are defining science here I have to disagree with what I percieve, with some difficulty, your definition. "Trying" different things is not science, it is research. It can be done methodically so a reasonable result will be found or it can be done in a very limited (as in accepting one 5 shot group as "accurate") or it can be done in a helter skelter fashion (as in changing several things at one time). One is reliable (the methodical) and the other (helter skelter) isn't. Neither are science, they are only research.

    The science comes from the laws of physics and ballistics. There are rules to loading and casting bullets. There may be different techniques to accomplish a specific rule however. That is where many differences of opinion come into play. Just different ways to skin the cat is all. That the cat needs to be skinned is the rule, which knife you use or which is "best" is the opinion. A bullet must be spun at a certain RPM to be stabilized. That is the rule. By increasing/decreasing RPM we can minimally stabilize the bullet, stabilize the bullet or over stabilize the bullet. That is the technique. The point being there is a difference between science/the rules and technique. We can vary the technique but not the rules. Everything I've read that you posted regarding "let the gun be the judge" is based on manipulation of technique not breaking, bending or ignoring the science/rules.

    Larry Gibson

  19. #59
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    US, Wash, PA
    Posts
    4,867
    Speer researched accuracy with Unique in a 44 magnum and says accuracy is at 7 grains with a 240-250 bullet.

    Elmer says nope, it's 8.5.

    Then writers in the 80s and 90s come along and say 9.2.

    And the consensus on this board is 10 grains.

    Can somebody please tell me where the laws or science is in this situation? How does a man puff out his chest, let out a Tarzan yell, and then claim art or science got him accuracy at 9 grains when the whole world found accuracy at almost every level around him?

    What about the guy who hates Unique? Is this guy uneducated in science cause he couldn't get accuracy with Unique? What's the scientific advice? Unique works for everything and everybody unless it don't. Wish I could have passed test in school with answers like that.

    Accuracy can be found at any level with the right set of combinations based upon bore condition. Bore condition changes from heat and from fouling. If you develop anywhere along a guns operating cycle, then you can expect YOUR best accuracy when bore condition meets the point that it was developed in it's leading cycle.

    Many here dread any leading. Yet 22LRs shoot leaded all the time. In fact, you need to shoot a couple hundred rounds just to see how a batch is going to perform. That's generally around 1050 fps with pure lead.

    Do folks even know where their guns are the most accurate to begin development? Do they know at what operating states that their guns provide the WIDEST, accurate, operating round count? What hardness of lead works better at each state?

    Its kinda useless to want to shoot clean if the gun gives you 50 accurate rounds. Unless 50 rounds is all you need. Would that load be good for somebody else that burns through 500 a day? Does that have anything at all to do with load? Or science? Or physics?

    Not that anyone can predict yet. That's why I have to pull the trigger. Fouling, or the lack of it, is the load killer. (friction changer) Guns foul at different rates.

    Want it in scientific terms? Bore condition has a certain coefficient of friction. Friction changes how powder burns. Powder burning differently throws different pressures. Do your loads shoot differently if you put different powder charges in them? Mine do. Do they print at different places on the target? Mine do. That's why slower powders work better for lead. Each change is a smaller percentage change than with a faster powder.

    Just sit down with jacketed and shoot 20 rounds and clean. Do that five times and you will see an accuracy trend where accuracy is better with one series of groups than another. Might be the first. Might be the last. Then amplify and elongate that with lead.

    Some of my most accurate loads lead from a clean barrel. But they shoot like **** till they do. Others shoot clean up front and require more cleaning. Different techniques work better at different points. So, no rules.
    Last edited by Bass Ackward; 03-10-2011 at 10:09 AM.
    Evaluate everything you read for safety and use common sense.

  20. #60
    Banned

    44man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    22,707
    Seems like Larry and Bass agree with me and we think the same.
    So fellas can't we agree that beyond the "rules" there is no science involved?
    If it was science, every cast boolit made would shoot one hole groups from every gun, every time by just reading a formula!
    ****, that's funny!

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Abbreviations used in Reloading

BP Bronze Point IMR Improved Military Rifle PTD Pointed
BR Bench Rest M Magnum RN Round Nose
BT Boat Tail PL Power-Lokt SP Soft Point
C Compressed Charge PR Primer SPCL Soft Point "Core-Lokt"
HP Hollow Point PSPCL Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" C.O.L. Cartridge Overall Length
PSP Pointed Soft Point Spz Spitzer Point SBT Spitzer Boat Tail
LRN Lead Round Nose LWC Lead Wad Cutter LSWC Lead Semi Wad Cutter
GC Gas Check