Real Accuracy (2 moa or less) with Coated Rifle Bullets at 1800 fps or greater.

[Russel Nash]

Let me posit a theory...maybe I mentioned this already???

this coming from my "do you believe boolits obturate?" Thread from a year or two ago.

One of the posters in that thread had posted pics of his boolits he had fired into a snow bank and recovered.

Let's say his as cast but yet to be fired boolit was 2 inches long. The boolit recovered from the snow bank was visibly shorter say maybe 1.75 inches long. (I am just using those numbers because they are nice and round).

So obviously there is some "plasticity" with lead or lead alloys. That boolit look like it squished down like a marshmallow.

What if this same plasticity in lead causes the boolit to flex in flight...basically, to whip.

You can see this in slow motion video of arrows in flight.

So for you guys who are trying to go with a dead soft lead boolit covered by powder coating, I suppose you are actually working backwards, against your desired result as the OP initially set out for this thread.

Probably even moreso with longer and skinnier boolit designs as I would think they would flex more.

Anyway...just a theory. I don't come here to cast boolits as often as I used to, and with my foggy memory, I might have already suggested this.

[fredj338]

I guess it's fun to try and change the parameters which cast bullets have operated under for 100+ years, but other than fun why bother ? I always thought shooting cast was designed to be inexpensive, accurate fun not building a reactor. With all this dropping in water (dangerous) baking in ovens (lead fumes in food is no good) and coating with substances, the effect of which is unknown, it seems to this old dummy that the prize is not worth the quest. If I want to shoot a 180 gr .308 bullet at 2900 fps, I load up any of my 4 300 H&Hs with TSXs and RL25. It's accurate and kills very well. If a dueling tree or a 300 yard gong is out there, a plain old Lyman #2 .311 gas checked wheel weight bullet at 1500 fps is cheap, easy and effective from a 308 to 300RUM.

All reminds me if the Man of LaMancha......

Even at 59, my mind remains open to new things. Research coated bullets, then you won't make statements that make you look foolish.
No lead fumes from heating bullets to 400deg, but I use a separate conv oven anyway.
water dropping bullets offers zero danger, it's a solid going into a liquid.
the point for me is finding a bullet I can shoot for a penny in my gas guns. So no gc, just adds cost. If PC works, 2" or better at 100, then I am there. So far hi-trek at rifle vel a failure.

[MBTcustom]

Exactly! I went out today even considering the wind gusts to take some measurements that are a good example of this. Shooting my 300 Blackout (which is not a cartridge known for sub moa accuracy to begin with) with jacketed 125 grain speer TNT bullets with exact same load as the cast boolits, Mihec 311410 cast with the same data I have posted in this tread before, and the same load at 200 yards. It takes a while for you to hear the "whack" at these speeds, and distance. I think with this boolit/load combo 200 yards is its limit for small to small/medium game such as a white tail or black-tail deer. Definitely not bench rest quality groups lol, but good for its intended purpose. I still need to try copper gas checks and do some more work on the load, but I just pulled out 20 from the lot of 500 I made several months ago to get out of the house, and see if my other results were a fluke. Nope, not a fluke. Worse conditions today, but shot a little better than last time. Had to re sight the gun for some reason. Temperature changes, and getting beat around in a safe guess.

Attachment 148002Attachment 148003Attachment 148004 These are in order of jacketed with same load, brass ect, cast at 100 yards, then 200 yards cast. BTW, this is the first, and only 5 shots I have ever taken with this gun at 200 yards.Please be gentle on me

You did very well to go and shoot at longer ranges instead of assuming the loads would provide the same MOA as they did at close range.
What you have demonstrated is a classic example of non-linear group expansion and it plagues cast bullet shooters.
Don't be embarrassed about it! Kudos for actually posting your targets!
So what you do now is set up shop at the 200 yard line and start figuring out what the gun needs to pull it together, then move to 300 and so forth. The further you get from the muzzle of the rifle, the more predictable the next 100 yard increment will be.

Sub MOA at 50 and 100 may not mean sub MOA at 200, but sub MOA at 200 almost certainly means the same or better at 50 and 100. Personally, I don't trust my bullets accuracy any further than I have tested them and personally witnessed consistent results. I apply this philosophy to jacketed loads as well.

[MostlyOnThePaper]

My take on this thread is this.

Very very few people who are the most dedicated cast bullst aficionados are doing with the OP requests with ANY cast projectile. Lubed or PC

A large number of do-ers who HAVE done it have given up posting results or much of anything else over here due to not wanting to hear why their results are invalid for X reason. This used to be a great place to learn, now not as much.

[Jupiter7]

A large number of do-ers who HAVE done it have given up posting results or much of anything else over here due to not wanting to hear why their results are invalid for X reason. This used to be a great place to learn, now not as much.

Once I proved it to myself, it's up to others to decide their level of involvement. I occasionally post results, not all successes either. My current results trump any I ever had with lube&lead. I still load jacketed for match loads and longer range in rifles. For the naysayers, I challenge you to do the work and prove us wrong.

[xacex]

Once I proved it to myself, it's up to others to decide their level of involvement. I occasionally post results, not all successes either. My current results trump any I ever had with lube&lead. I still load jacketed for match loads and longer range in rifles. For the naysayers, I challenge you to do the work and prove us wrong.

Unfortunately, we have not got to the accuracy level of bench-rest shooters using lube. The problem lies in the fact those shooters have not picked it up where we have met this challenge, and improved upon the success that as been shown. This method is only as good as the people using it. It is not "magic." You have hacks like myself who go okay this is as good as what we have accomplished with standard lube, and stop there. Until you or I's skill level improves, or some of the competitive shooters pick it up I am afraid that this is the end of the road for accuracy with powder coat. We have seen sub MOA groups in this thread, but frankly there are not many sub MOA cast shooters in this pool. Maybe if there was money involved things would be different, but it is only the hobbyist who have picked this up.

[crackers]

The first sentence of the OP tells me 'goodbye' - I'm wasting my time. I just go shoot.

[Russel Nash]

The first sentence of the OP tells me 'goodbye' - I'm wasting my time. I just go shoot.

Yep, pretty much.

Reloading just in general especially for rifle is one of those things that I look at and ask:


"How anal retentive does one want to be?"



Do I want to flashole deburr every case?

Do I want to clean and uniform primer pockets?

Do I want to weigh my cases, set an average and only use cases that are plus or minus X grains?

Do I want to do the same exact thing with my boolits?

Do I want to buy this contraption:



To check for bullet concentricity?

Do I want to turn case necks?

Do I want to anneal cases?

In my opinion, I would rather shoot and have just so-so accuracy. All those things mentioned above sound like chores to me.

And like that old saying by Stalin goes, "quantity is a quality in itself".

I'd rather have fun blasting/plinking ammo in bulk.

Also, in my mind, all the steps mentioned above seem to result in the law of diminishing returns. The more time and effort you sink into brass/boolit/loaded tound prep, yields even less and less measurable results.

[MBTcustom]

Not everyone is concerned with accuracy. That's cool! I've certainly done my fair share of blasting in my time, and I love it dearly. However, plinking isn't much fun if you can't hit what your shooting at. Careful load development followed by an absolutely glorious expenditure of precise ammo is one of the supreme pleasures of life in my opinion. But on the other hand, haphazardly spraying the berm and missing your mark 75% of the time because the rifle is less accurate than I am is what makes me want to wrap a gun around a tree.
For me, the time spent learning to make ammo that shoots better than I do is absolutely necessary in order to make sure that I continue to shoot better than I did last year.

[Motor]

Russel Nash. I tried to quote your last post but it's tuff to navigate on fone. I totally agree with the post though. I thought of taking up the challenge and working up a sub 2MOA load which actually I believe I already have, but why? Why bother going through the trouble of range visits and photos and all the rest just so I could post it. I'm sorry it's just not worth the hassle.

Motor

[xacex]

Not everyone is concerned with accuracy. That's cool! I've certainly done my fair share of blasting in my time, and I love it dearly. However, plinking isn't much fun if you can't hit what your shooting at. Careful load development followed by an absolutely glorious expenditure of precise ammo is one of the supreme pleasures of life in my opinion. But on the other hand, haphazardly spraying the berm and missing your mark 75% of the time because the rifle is less accurate than I am is what makes me want to wrap a gun around a tree.
For me, the time spent learning to make ammo that shoots better than I do is absolutely necessary in order to make sure that I continue to shoot better than I did last year.

My skill improves every year, as does my loading practices, but there are some in here that are well beyond what my level is, and I would like to see some of them work with this. I need to bug Starmetal into trying it with the 6.5. Just assuming there will be no consistency is no longer a valid excuse. Like you if I am not hitting the broadside of a barn I move on, but out of the gate this showed promise with rifle loads, and has been proven successful with pistol loads. Just like the argument about using cast boolits vs jacketed only those who put in the effort will ever achieve exceptional results. If that means using fancy do-dads to make that happen so be it. Maybe I will be that anal retentive in the future, but right now I am enjoying making the small improvements and seeing results. I have a 6.5 Grendel, and a boolit for it I would like to try. It is a real accurate rifle, and cartridge. Still need a sizer to make it happen. That one has produced groups in the teens for 5 shots in the past for me. When I am working on that combo you bet I will be anal retentive. I expect it will produce MOA performance to 200 yards without to much fuss.

[P Flados]

Accuracy does mean a lot to me. However, realism for me is probably not 2 MOA.

I shoot Contenders mostly.

My Dan Wesson 357 max silhouette special is the other gun I shoot regularly.

In recent years, I have only a couple of J word loads able to consistently get close to 3 MOA.

It is frustrating given the Contender reputation and given that not long after I started shooting (nearly 40 years ago) I shot less than 2 MOA with a couple of rifles without much work.

However, some of my ASBB PC boolits shoot as good as the best boolit loads I have been able to work up. I really want 2 MOA, but given my guns, I will probably happy to be reliably less than 4 MOA. If I get below 2 MOA it will be a real achievement.

[dverna]

Imagine my surprise when this old thread I started almost 2 years ago popped back up!!!!

Like most reloaders, I want less expensive ammunition that performs at least as well as factory ammunition even for "blasting". For serious shooting, where very little ammo is used, it should be better - or why bother?

Casting, for most of us, is not a "calling". It is a way to produce less expensive bullets --- but they still need to perform! For a smaller subset, it is part of being self sufficient, and there is an even smaller group that are anal about it. BTW, it is these anal types who do most of the work and who we learn the most from.

It has been almost two years since this thread was started. It appears that coated bullets have generally been unsuccessful at meeting the criteria. I find it hard to believe that our "anal" brothers have not tried coated bullets. I wonder if any of the cast benchrest shooters read this forum and converted to coated bullets to gain a competitive advantage. If not, that is telling.....

Although there are good reasons to use coated bullets for cast pistol bullets, it would appear that if a newbie were to start into cast rifle bullets, and was looking for velocity with accuracy, he/she would have an easier time with one of the good traditional lubes.

Goodsteel makes an excellent point. Our 2 moa goal at 100 yards does not mean we have a 2 moa load at all ranges. This seems more true with cast bullets than with jacketed bullets. At 250 yards, it could well be a pattern instead of a group!

I disagree with some who have basically said, "It is not worth the effort" to produce accurate ammunition. The real issue is, even with all the effort, can a coated bullet meet the velocity and accuracy goals proposed? Is it repeatable, and is it possible for others to replicate?

One last thing. If you are satisfied with a 4 moa load that is OK. It meets your needs. It does not mean it will meet the needs of others. The others are not wrong or "anal" because their needs are different. Developing a load to shoot varmints at 200 yards is different than hunting in the bush at less than 75 yards.


Don Verna

[xacex]

In content with letting letting this thread get buried. The OP has offered nothing but negative remarks to those who have actually worked on this and been successful at meeting his goals. Good-by...

[220]

Shot a few loads yesterday that I think will do it.
Rifle: Zastava M70 375H&H
Boolit: NOE 278-275-FN-GC cast from 2-2-96 as a HP and coated with HiTek Bronze liquid.
Last 2 loads tested averaged 1802FPS and 1837FPS.
Only 3 shot groups but the 1802fps load went 0.96"and 0.98" at 50y 1.52" at 100y
1837fps load went 0.85" at 50y and 0.82" at 100y
Only 3 shot groups as I said but every one under 2moa and over 1800fps I would expect 5 shot groups to open a little but should average very close to being under 2moa
The rifle average 1.25moa with Federal blue box ammo for 3 shots.

Tried 9 different loads in 45/70 with NOE 460-405-RF cast from the same alloy again as a HP with HiTek liquid bronze.
Once again 7 of the 9 were under 2moa for 3 shot groups but velocity only peaked at 1546FPS. The 1546FPS group was actually the best of the day at 0.8moa and the last load tested without any cleaning since prior to the first shots of the day.

[220]

Had a look at my load records and I had tested one of the H&H loads previously, no velocity recorded but did have a group size.
5 x 3 shot groups at over 1800fps with every one under 2moa for a combined average of 1.58moa I would say Ive done it.
5 x 3 is probably a better representation of the true accuracy than a single 5 shot group. Interesting that both loads actually shot better at 100y than 50y, only a small sample I will admit but at this stage it doesn't look like increasing the range from 50 to 100y has resulted in groups opening any more than you would expect for the increased range.
What we are really happy about is these are a fairly soft boolit designed for hunting, cast from 2-2-96 so around 12BHN, maybe to soft as a HP at 1800+fps but a bit of field testing will soon confirm this.
Need to do a bit more testing at longer range but it looks like we have a combination that should be effective on deer close to 200y which was our goal all along. No more than + or - 2" from muzzle to 150y and still hitting with around 1500ft/lbs energy.
crappy pic I know but left hand group is the last H&H load at 100y, target is a ISSF air pistol target, white patch is covering the 10 ring but for a reference the 9 ring is 1.1"

[pmer]

What are cast boolit bench shooters getting for group size anyways?

[pmer]

Yep, pretty much.

Reloading just in general especially for rifle is one of those things that I look at and ask:


"How anal retentive does one want to be?"



Do I want to flashole deburr every case?

Do I want to clean and uniform primer pockets?

Do I want to weigh my cases, set an average and only use cases that are plus or minus X grains?

Do I want to do the same exact thing with my boolits?

Do I want to buy this contraption:



To check for bullet concentricity?

Do I want to turn case necks?

Do I want to anneal cases?

In my opinion, I would rather shoot and have just so-so accuracy. All those things mentioned above sound like chores to me.

And like that old saying by Stalin goes, "quantity is a quality in itself".

I'd rather have fun blasting/plinking ammo in bulk.

Also, in my mind, all the steps mentioned above seem to result in the law of diminishing returns. The more time and effort you sink into brass/boolit/loaded tound prep, yields even less and less measurable results.

When I had the High Power and Long Range bug I would do all of this for 600 yards and beyond. But it's a points game. When I used my 6.5-284 as a deer rifle minute of deer was no trouble! One way around some of those steps is to buy the top shelf brass.

[dverna]

220,

Very well done!!!

Thanks for posting

Don

[209jones]

As to accuracy with the benchresters and cast boolits, take a look at the CBA matches and the ASSRA matches, 10 shots @ 100 @ 1moa is very doable, with peep sights, also doable @ 200. 2moa is out of the running with them. Haven't seen anything on this site that gets anywhere near that, or anywhere else that talks about PC bullet accuracy. If those guys could get that accuracy with some extra speed to combat wind, they'd take it in a heartbeat. 2moa at 100 is not what I would expect or accept from my stuff except with a bigbore. These days, with normal iron hunting sites, I would accept that, but not with a peep or a scope.
Haven't seen anything yet, to convince me, that investing in a special mould for it, is worth the money or the effort to work it up on a rifle.