Second time out with .358 Winchester, with pc coated boolits. 50 yard group, 9 shots, .542 center to center, 100 meter group, 5 shots into 1.422. 245gr. Saeco boolit, 40.2gr. 4320. I am going to start a thread about this rifle and load over on the favorite cartridge forum and post pics. I cant recall what the velocity was with this same load and boolit greased, but I think it was over 2000 fps. Will chrono tomorrow, hopefully.
Cast Boolits, Where lead balloons go over....
I finally got a day free from "bothers", cool enough, no wind, no body else at the range.
I had planned to do most of the testing @ the 25 yard range, so I set up there first. Two main goals, testing PC boolits in 4 guns, 2 pistols, a revolver and one lever gun rifle. The GP-100 and the Rossi are both .357 magnums. The goal is to have one load that not only functions, but is also accurate. That goal was realized, but is off topic from this thread. Load for the 357's was the Lyman 168 SWC, 2400 powder, 12.7 , 13.4. Velocity was AV 1468 (12.7), from the Ruger Average 1468 for the 13.4. Rossi was Av 1687 for 12.7 and 1742 for the 13.4. Groups were acceptable for my old eyes and those awful buckhorn sights on the Rossi.
The CZ-75B in 9mm was checking a new lee 120 TC, NOT a TL design. I also have the same boolit in the TL configuration. All coated with HF-red.
The forth is my Bushy AR in .223.The Lyman boolit I tested is the one in the pic I posted. Problem is I simply ran out of daylight. It would have taken another ˝ hour to break down, move, and set up at the 100 yard range, our ranges are all separate. So I elected to test the .223 @ 25 yards, mostly to see the velocity, did they lead, and if they stabilized.
Results? Groups @ 25 yds, terrible! That rifle with jaxeted will put one on top of another @ 25y. Velocity was as expected for the powder charges and all boolits hit point first, nice round holes. Groups were round shaped, best was 1".
H-335 23.0 grains, Lyman 224462 coated, then gas checked with Hornady GC's, sized to .224.
AV 2896.5
ES 25.0
24.0 H-335
AV 2920
ES 65
25.0
AV 3092
ES 28.3
Bore was obviously in fired condition looked normally fouled. Clean-up was simple, dry patch showed no lead, patch soaked in eliminator bore solvent, (bore-tech inc.), came out black. One more saturated patch followed by a .223 bronze brush, then a bare patch showed more black carbon fouling, so I repeated the soaked patch followed by a dry patch. Bore sparkles, no lead to be found!
He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog.
You are his life, his love, his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart.
You owe it to him to be worthy of such devotion."
“At the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat”--Theodore Roosevelt
Originally Posted by snuffy
Something that puzzles the heck out of me is the, "WHY?' Why is it so hard to get cast lead bullets that are Powder Coated," to group at least equal to bullets of similar size, shape and weight as Paper-Patched bullets?(I'm talking about rifle bullets)
It's no easy task to get full power Paper-Patched bullets to give repeatable accuracy but according so some of the guys over in the Paper-Patching section, they're able to achieve this using basically the same type of cast bullets and the same alloys that some here are using. (So they say; I can't recall seeing any picture or video proof) I doubt that the cast bullets that the Paper-Patch guys are using are of any higher quality than the cast bullets that the Powder-Coat guys using.
For naked and lubed cast bullets, there's that rifling twist vs. RPM phenomenon that keeps us from being able to shoot those type of cast bullets at full power with repeatable accuracy. (I really can't wrap my head around this phenomenon)
The only difference with the Paper-Patched bullets is that they shed the Paper-Patch at the muzzle, allowing them to fly naked through the air; and this at full power and high RPMs.
Powder-Coated rifle bullets can be shot at full power and high RPMs with no leading but, with the exception of a couple of posts I've come across, very few guys (if any) are getting MOA or better accuracy at 100 yards or more. Why is that?????
I can only think of one reason why, but that reason is nothing that hasn't already been discussed; an unevenly applied layer or layers of Powder-Coat??? If the Powder-Coat is unevenly applied to the body of a rifle bullet, it would seem that it would get ironed flat when it squeezed through the bore.
On a plain or flat based rifle bullet, I can see how accuracy might be affected if the Powder-Coat was uneven on one side of the bullet's trailing edge as apposed to the opposite edge. The Lands in the rifling might be smearing rearward just enough of that excess PC to create a slight elongation on one side of the bullet's tail.
About the only way to try to get around this is to design a rifle bullet that will not be as prone to being affected by the Powder-Coat being applied unevenly. I picture in my mind, a " Smooth-Walled Rebated-Boat-Tail" design of some sort. I've seen computer generated slow motion video of what happens at the transition point of a bullet as it goes from internal-ballistics to external-ballistics. On a flat based bullet, the slightest imperfection at the outer edges of the base of the bullet causes an immediate yaw effect as it leaves the barrel.
I'm thinking that with a Rebated-Boat-Tail, it might be possible to mitigate some of that yaw effect as the bullet leaves the barrel.
I guess the only way to find out is to try it. I have a bunch of metal scraps in my scrap box. I'll see what I can come up with.
HollowPoint
As far as the even coating issue goes...
In theory, you could take 20 or 30 of your cast boolits, weigh them on your scale preferably the more digits to the right of the decimal point. Record the weight of each boolit. Calculate an average weight and standard deviation.
Then powder coat them and do whatever it is that is your normal routine before you would
Normally load them.
Weigh each one again. Calculate a standard deviation.
In theory if the second standard deviation is larger then the first, then the "variability" of your boolits just went up.
As far as the coating being UNevenly applied, I don't know how you could measure the boolit's spinning out of balance condition.
Russel; if the boolit is spinning out of balance, wouldn't that manifest itself in a keyhole entry pattern?
Other than with ultra-high-speed video recording, I don't know either. I don't know anyone with that kind of video equipment who'd be willing to help out. My point was to try a different bullet design with Powder-Coating in mind in order to eliminate the "Uneven Powder-Coat" theory as a the culprit or at least a variable that influences accuracy; or the lack thereof.
I've come up with a excruciatingly slow way of applying my Powder-Coat as evenly as possible. It involves mechanically rotating an individual cast rifle bullet slowly enough to get an even Coat of Powder 360 degrees around the bullet. I wouldn't want to do this with all of my PC'd bullets but in the interest of eliminating variables, I can't see any other way around it.
HollowPoint
It depends on how out of balance it is.
I think what I am referring to is called "gryroscopic precession". I learned about the concept back when I was learning to fly little Cessnas.
According to this link, it is also called "coning motion". I guess that would be pronounced "cone-ing motion":
http://www.exteriorballistics.com/eb...ned/4th/46.cfm
Here is a pic:
The thrown football on its wobbly path is a good analogy.
It is also known as "nutation" and here are a few related pics:
http://images.google.com/search?q=Nu...&start=0&sa=N#
This guy in his 13 minute video calls it "bullet yaw":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKbbu...e_gdata_player
Darn, that made my head hurt!
HP, don't draw any conclusions from my limited test. Only QC I did was to visually inspect the .224 boolits, then powder coat them. I did NOT weigh them while loading. I have some left, I will take the rifle with me next time, fire it at 100yds. Getting cast .223 boolits to shoot is problematic anytime, so adding another variable is hardly helpful. BESIDES handling those little pills is frustrating, to say nothing of casting them.
I just finished sizing and GC the .308 boolits. Those I WILL weigh , they were visually inspected after casting.
On the other hand, the .357 boolits worked real well in both the GP-100 and the Rossi. Those long 168's had to be seated with the case over the front driving band in order to work though the action of the M-92 Rossi copy. Those were powder coated by the same tumble powder coating as the others.
He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog.
You are his life, his love, his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart.
You owe it to him to be worthy of such devotion."
“At the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat”--Theodore Roosevelt
The bullet has to be angled at least slightly upward.
Once it exits the barrel, gravity is pulling down on it and causing it to drop.
Here is a pic from Hornady's website:
So the bullet is angled slightly upward with respect to the relative wind...kind of like angle of attack when it comes to a wing flying through the air.
I'm well aware of trajectory, how it's represented as a curve. But I don't buy into the theory that a bullet flies with it's nose in the air. If it did/does, it would hit a target making a slot or keyhole, instead we see nice round holes. I confess to be real dumb where it comes to higher math. I failed even basic algebra, they let me pass anyway. If those boys have cooked up some fancy equation to say that, I'd say check your math and try again. Those scribblings make no sense to me.The bullet has to be angled at least slightly upward.
Once it exits the barrel, gravity is pulling down on it and causing it to drop.
Here is a pic from Hornady's website:
So the bullet is angled slightly upward with respect to the relative wind...kind of like angle of attack when it comes to a wing flying through the air.
Powder coating is still in it's infancy. The trick will be in perfecting the application technique to result in a more even application of the coating. I agree that one of the problems is the uneven coating, thicker on one side that the other. An out-of-balance boolit just isn't going to fly straight.
I'm going to try sizing and gas checking before coating, then sizing again after. At least with rifle boolits. The gas checks go on real hard with the coating on the GC shank. It's very difficult to get them on straight. I also considered leaving them off. I don't have a seater, so it's a **** shoot to get them on square. I might be giving buckshot a call---,,,.
He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog.
You are his life, his love, his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart.
You owe it to him to be worthy of such devotion."
“At the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat”--Theodore Roosevelt
I can see the reasoning here but I can't see how picking bullets of equal weight will help if the Powder-Coat is unevenly applied. Non-concentric bullets that all weigh the same are still non-concentric bullets. Although, in an odd way, it still makes sense to do this just in the interest of removing another potential variable.
HollowPoint
Couldn't a cast bullet of same weight as every other cast bullet (size and shape equal) still be "a out of balance" bullet with small (micro) pockets of imperfections such a trapped air, making them less than aerodynamically stable, at least on a minimal basis? Or would something such as that be statistically insignificant as well as those being unbalanced by uneven PC?
As soon as someone figures out how to keep track of specific boolits through the process of coating and baking, I will do that. Any marking will be covered up. If you're talking about just one boolit, forget it! Not on my bucket list!!
I don't think that with pistol boolits it makes all that much difference. I've never heard of anybody checking pistol ammo,(like 9mm or even 45's), for how concentric they are. As in run-out.
I'm going to cast some more .308 boolits, this time from my hard-ER mix about 18 BHN. Even before I test the ones I made from range lead. Reason? It's not my mold, it has to be returned soon. Maybe cast some more of the present rang lead first. If something works, I may buy my own mold. I have several Lee molds that are similar, might try some of those.
He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog.
You are his life, his love, his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart.
You owe it to him to be worthy of such devotion."
“At the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat”--Theodore Roosevelt
What's frustrating to me is the fact that no one has been able to pin point the reason or reasons why we have such a hard time getting cast lead bullets to shoot accurately at full-power velocities.
If we have the following scenario; A Paper-Patcher, a Powder-Coater and an As-Cast Bullet-Shooter, all shooting rifle bullets of the same alloy, dropped from the same mold and weight-sorted and shot out of the same gun; all attempting to get their bullets to shoot MOA or better at hundred yards and at velocities equivalent to jacketed full power rounds, (2200 FPS and above) here's basically what we get.
Paper-Patchers claim to be able to do it; with some work of course. Once the Paper-Patch is shed at the muzzle, their bullets are flying naked through the air so that the "Rifling-Twist vs. RPM" hypothesis seems to no longer apply. (and no leading)
Powder-Coaters can achieve the higher velocities with no leading but, also with no repeatable accuracy. And this is accomplished by retaining the synthetic Powder-Coat-Jacket from the muzzle to the target. And somehow, the "Rifling-Twist vs. RPM" hypothesis now does seem to apply for no other reason than we can't seem to come up an other explanation.
As-Cast Bullet-Shooters, unless they use the hardest alloys, are generally relegated to shooting at velocities of less than 2200 FPS in order to get good repeatable accuracy; and when the "Rifling-Twist vs. RPM" threshold is reached, it essentially becomes an exercise in futility.
On the face of it, it would seem that Powder-Coating should offer the higher probability of getting those cast bullets to shoot faster and with more accuracy. The fact that, thus far it has not, tells me that it's most likely caused by a domino effect of one probable-cause effecting another.
Of course, these are all over-simplified generalities.
As long as bullet casting has been practiced, you'd think that the solutions to this dilemma would have been discovered by now. And since Powder-Coating, "Is In It's Infancy," as some have stated, this adds another "Domino" to the "Domino Effect" I eluded to.
I've gotten my K31 to shoot repeatable 1 1/2" groups at two hundred yards shooting As-Cast and lubed bullets. I've posted pictures of my groups before in order to prove this to be true. The down side to this was that my bullets were only flying at the 1500-1600 FPS range. I dream of shooting my cast rifle bullets at full power and full velocity; and with the same or better accuracy as I shoot my jacketed reloads.
The fact that I can get 1 1/2" groups at 200 yards tells me that this same rifle should be able to shoot PCd bullets just as good if not better. The thing that eludes me is, why I cannot.
HollowPoint
1825 fps. SD11. 12.5 grains Promo or unique
Just my own experience with a .30-06 bolt action with different types of factory ammo was that some of the heavier bullets grouped better MOA-wise at 200 yards than they did at 100 yards.
I guess the bullets needed time to settle down.
As far as benchmarks go...1 MOA at 100 yards...one inch basically... is a pretty good hurdle for any rifle utilizing factory or jacketed bullets.
Me? Personally? I still have not opened my Harbor Freight ES PC gun.
And I still need to buy some hollow point moulds and a Lee push through sizer (since I sold off my Star earlier in the year).
Sighhh...
Not enough time in the day.
HollowPoint wrote:
I remember way back when I started a thread here that was titled something like "Do you believe bullets obturate?"What's frustrating to me is the fact that no one has been able to pin point the reason or reasons why we have such a hard time getting cast lead bullets to shoot accurately at full-power velocities.
Well...I got my behind handed to me in that thread.
Somebody posted a pic of a boolit they had fired into a snow bank or snow drift and they later recovered the boolit. He placed it next to a sized but still not loaded boolit. It was pretty evidedent that the fired boolit had shrunk down or squished down in length.
Sooo...okay... If it is reasonable to ASSume boolits squish down upon firing, then could it be reasonable that boolits expand up in diameter while in flight?
That video I posted above says that bullets spin at up to 200,000 RPM's. Could that much centrifigual force make a boolit distort in diameter?
Under the stresses of supersonic flight, could a lead boolit actually bend?
We have all seen or heard about cheap jacketed .223 bullets that tear themselves apart about 50 yards from the muzzle...because they are spinning too fast.
Also...
At what point does a boolit leaving the muzzle at 1,800 fps transition back down through the sound barrier?
Yeah, I think you're right...we are over thinking this.
The thing to do...most likely is to cast a bunch of boolits consistently . Size them, powder coat them, put on gas checks, maybe size them again.
And....THEN weigh them. Figure out an average and then set an upper and lower limit.
If you are looking at a 165 grain average, then stay within + or - 0.2 grains. Anything that is 165.3 and above OR 164.7 and less gets tossed back into the melting pot.
You load up the keepers.
EDIT: in short, how anal retentive do you want to be with your casting and reloading?
I've heard of benchrest and/or F class guys weighing their brass, same process like I mentioned above with selecting a "happy medium" and rejecting the other pieces of brass that don't fit in that "window" of how many plus or minus tenth or hundreth of a grain from that happy medium.
Me? Personally? if I ever do get to that point of casting and powder coating rifle bullets, if it groups better than an AK47 with say Wolf steel cased ammo at 100 yards, then I would be happy with that.
Otherwise, what's the point?
In my opinion...
Last edited by Russel Nash; 08-30-2014 at 09:09 PM.
Back in the day we used to call that issue having the bullet "going to sleep" - I had a friend with a 300 win mag bench gun (metallic pink no less)
and his groups at 100 yards were worse than the same loads at 200 yards. 2 moa at 100 and 1 moa at 200 essentially.
je suis charlie
It is better to live one day as a LION than a dozen days as a Sheep.
Thomas Jefferson Quotations:
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Posting Permissions
| 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 |
Reply With Quote
