Too bad it is not commerically available as some just do not make lube. -sgt.mike
Thank you! I don't make lube or gas checks. Some days I can't even pour a decent boolit! I'm pretty impressed by people that have mastered all these skills but I need to focus on making better boolits first, the rest will come later. I'd like to do my testing on this project with commercial lubes and checks, if possible. I'm even thinking about some commercial alloy.
Endowment Life Member NRA, Life Member TSRA, Member WACA, NRA Whittington Center, BBHC
Smokeless powder is a passing fad! -Steve Garbe
I hate rude behavior in a man. I won't tolerate it. -Woodrow F. Call, Lonesome Dove
Some of my favorite recipes start out with a handful of depleted counterbalance devices.
yeah,,,, heating stuff up in a pan is ridiculously hard.
figuring it out from scratch is a little harder.
sometimes you just gotta suck it up and do the leg work, having the failures and successes instead of following in another's wake.
this place used to be full of people willing to report the failures and rewards of trying stuff.
sometimes they got a little suggestion, sometimes applause, sometimes critique, but rarely did just throwing money at the problem fix it.
trying Glen's lube is what got me into figuring it out myself.
I'm sure I spent more making my own lubes.
I know I did when I could just swing by his house and get it without postage added in especially when I would buy 50 or 100 sticks at a time.
but since I basically finalized a recipe and got most of the ingredients for free it is easier to just make more when I need it.
I know this talk of lube seems inane to many reading this, but once you get to a certain point in your velocity search your gonna wonder if you can get that little bit more.
and that is when lube comes into play.
just like engine builder's.
you don't see too many guy's from the speed shop just buying regular 5-30 quaker state at the auto-zone.
I've made it to 2400 with some pretty remedial lube . I have about $8 in the 1st batch of just a little over 2 lbs I can't count the rounds down range with it. I may have to break down and make a 2nd batch next winter . Been almost 9 yr ,so the better part of 4k bullets have been lubed with it and 1000 or so PP. Pretty cheap fun. It all came from the grocery store too.
In the time of darkest defeat,our victory may be nearest. Wm. McKinley.
I was young and stupid then I'm older now. Me 1992 .
Richard Lee Hart 6/29/39-7/25/18
Without trial we cannot learn and grow . It is through our stuggles that we become stronger .
Brother I'm going to be Pythagerus , DiVinci , and Atlas all rolled into one soon .
I am not sure how I have missed this thread, but I found it now. I actually read through the whole thing because I wanted to glean any useful information. Did find some........but man is there a lot of trash to go through.
I have not seen anything regarding .22 cals. I did read one post early on that sounded like HV in the 22 is not hard to accomplish. Is this the case? I have only been loading it for the last month, and I am still not absolute on a just general load(although I do think I have it close). However, knowing that I will want more once the plinking load is complete, I am starting to tuck away info.
I would love to hear some insight on this, I've been digging around and have found some stuff so far.
Poured ~ 200 31-142C this morning for the BO. Tried a variation on pouring, per a suggestion, tap the sprue a couple times as it hardens - to make better bases. Also poured a bunch the normal way. Tapped, 25% rejects, normal - 11%. Normal had better weight distribution. Visually sorted both batches. Surprise! Most all had good bases, tapped has more sprue divits - not pimples - cut too early. Most of the culls were smiley faces, etc., not bad bases. I'll stick with the standard method.
Last outing I got 13 of 18 as good groups, need to solve the flier problem but for a plain base @ 2100 fps, not too bad. Got a nice hot splash on my trigger finger dumping more muffins into the pot - darn popper - wear those gloves all the time! Going to do 20# of 165 for the 40SW tomorrow.
I think Tim is going to do a moly lube test to answer the hydraulic question.
Anybody know what a screamer tag is in CBA match scoring?
Whatever!
I read that you were going to try this, but forgot to mention anything about it. I don't tap the sprue, but after I fill each cavity(all mine are just 2 cavity molds) I tap the bolt head on the handles. I keep my wooden stick in hand while pouring. I started doing this a long time ago when I was having trouble filling out some big 50 cal boolits. I'll lift the pour handle, fill a cavity, tap the bolt head a few times, then lift the handle, pour the next, and tap the bolt head. Then wait till it dries to cut the sprue.Originally Posted by popper
I cast mostly with Lee molds. I vary rarely have many rejects and I do inspect for quality. I also do this method with my RCBS 22 cal mold and I may have 3-5 rejects out of a couple hundred. It almost gets boring sorting through them because they all look the same. And when it comes to weighing them, the same holds true. I have yet to have a boolit weight spread over .7 grains and that is with gas check and powder coating included. Most, 90%, fall right in a +-.1gr of each other with a few on either side of that mark, and only 1 or 2 at the far ends of the range. One reason I mention this is because I am not doing anything I would call "special", except for keeping a good cadence and the tapping I do.
One thing I did learn from this thread is that I need to pay more attention to detail/consistency.
It might pay to think of the saying.... "Pushing the envelope"
This thread fits this definition; but doesn't 'own' it so to speak.
Whenever you "push the envelope" everything matters. Not just what you 'feel' like you want to pursue. Your fliers or accuracy just may be bothered by something else! You can turn over every piece of straw in the hen house looking for that weasel and he may be in the barn laughing at you!
Fall and winter I have tested lube. Most testing has been for what I tag 'subtle fliers'. I should have done this years ago. Three very accurate guns and loads have been used. Each is capable of 1/2" groups at 85 yards. Each gun/load combination has a 'pushing the envelope' facet for one reason or another. For an example One is a super accurate Savage .32-20 and the load is a plain base flat point at 1300fps. Pushing the envelope???? Yeah right!! The lube groove holds way too much lube... so my lube has to handle that without cold starts or 'lube purges'. After all it is my Blue Grouse load and has to be able to make 50 yard head shots every time. Cold start, 1st shot or 2nd... 40F or -10F below zero. This is pushing the envelope for a lube! And that's not all..... Where the Blue Grouse are best we have had wolves around. So I've got another load along always in a nickel plated case that is a full power gascheck HP for a wolf. This load and the grouse load have to use the same lube... and not just any ol' lube you grab either! (ask me how I know) I can shoot either load in any order back and forth in any temp with cold start or no... and have two 1/2"groups at 85 yards with the full power load's group 3/4" higher. It took lube formulation to accomplish this and it wasn't bought down the street!
I have read the term 'core group' here somewhere. It referred to 8 shots in 1" and a couple slightly out as an example... Now if the shooter felt confident in his performance then the two out fit my definition of 'subtle fliers'. I always used to blamed my casting for them. After six months of 'subtle flier' tests...... Well......Better put more importance on the lube! My 'bad' castings shoot better than I thought!
Eutectic
Tapping the mold like that is an old old trick that even the NRA Castbullet Book mentioned. It's suppose to make any air void surface out of the cavities.
Another trick is to turn your mold upside down immediately after pouring the sprue, but the timing has to be just right that the melted allog doesn't fall out. This method definitely makes a good flat base. If you cast well normally you don't have to do any of those "tricks".
Truer words couldn't be spoken Eutectic. I know two of the lubes you tested in cold weather because my one of them was my cousins.
In my early cast shooting days I use to think that Javelina was the the cat's meow until I started pushing the "envelope".
I know many members here are loyal to other member's products, and that is okay, but when you're pushing the envelope there are very few lubes that are up to snuff for it. I remember a good while back Larry Gibson did a lube test and I really feel it was bias. I was also shocked to hear him claim that LBT Blue isn't any better then any other lube. Nothing could be further from the truth on that. In order to really test lube you have to have a very good load that is extremely accurate to test with. One might condemn a lube when all along it's their bullet or load that is at fault.
Get Runfiverun to post on this. He has done and it's more then likely he's the one that made that statement. If you remember his posts his little girl shot an outstanding, and verified, small group from a seven twist AR15 at HV in the neighborhood of 2800 fps.
Total variation of about 0.5 gr. Not a large sampling. Normal was about 0.3 gr. If I don't go shooting tomorrow I'll try again.
Whatever!
That's not bad popper, that .3 is much better.
I had a thought a minute ago that may sound simple, but it sounded logical in my head.......
I hear a lot of talk about doing this and that to the brass, the gun, particular loading techniques, etc. All are solid as far as reducing group size. But the thought was, I don't do ANY of that and I get sub MOA from my factory gun with jacketed. So, the ONLY difference is the projectile. At least, it is the only thing that separates a known good load/high velocity from what your trying to achieve with another kind of projectile. Of course, I am assuming that you would use the same kind of powder for both. When I try my hand at it I'll be doing that. I get good results with H4895 and jacketed bullets.
Maybe just me, but I think I would put all my focus on the boolit. Again, I know it sounds simple, but I would focus on things like how the boolit is different than the jacketed, and how these differences effect each one.
Here is my thought on it all in general. I think that when guys decided to use jacketed projectiles they were looking to up the speed over that of the lead. *yea, I know, brilliant thought there newton.....* Anyways, they might have tried a few different things to improve the lead, but how much did they try.........but more important what did they not try?
To honestly believe that they tried everything has to be the most optimistic thing I have ever heard. Now, they might have tried just about all they could, with what they had, at that time. But the point of this, is the pursuit was left alone after just figuring they found the cure in jackets. I'll agree that since then many have come along and worked on it, but its hard to focus on something all the while having a solution staring you in the face - in this situation it would be the jacketed bullet.
So for me, its not about my loading technique(unless cast boolits dictate otherwise - flaring mouth and such), or my gun, or anything else. I know, it sounds dumb and too simple of an approach, but its what I will do when I pursue this. Technology has come a long way since they developed the jacketed bullet. There may be something out there that lets us take our cast boolits and shoot them like jacketed.......except without the jacket.I bet if you would have told a person less than 100 years ago that they could pick up a device and instantly communicate to someone on the other side of the world.....without any wires.......they would have thought you were insane. It was even longer than that when they figured out the copper jacketed bullet, at least we now believe that lead boolits can perform near copper ones....or does doubt hold us back?
Let's talk case prep. Sorting brass to same lots, sorting to internal volume ( is far better then weighing cases), de-burring the flash hole, truing neck thickness up, trim all same length, uniforming primer pocket, uniforming flash holes, and more. On a standard rifle most of those don't show up as they would on a full hilt match rifle. Then you have to be a super shooter to notice it. I'd say the most important things to do to a case for the standard rifle is fitment of the case in the chamber, re-sizing with minimum case work ( I use bushing dies or neck sizing bushing dies only), getting the neck at the proper inside diameter for your size of cast bullet, minimum belling of the case mouth. Then you want to make sure you seat the bullet straight and it's concentric to the center line. You need to start that wood rod (remember that?) as straight as possible lined up to the hole (the throat/bore).I had a thought a minute ago that may sound simple, but it sounded logical in my head.......
I hear a lot of talk about doing this and that to the brass, the gun, particular loading techniques, etc. All are solid as far as reducing group size. But the thought was, I don't do ANY of that and I get sub MOA from my factory gun with jacketed. So, the ONLY difference is the projectile. Newton may I politely tell you that is were you are wrong. The reason is the jacketed bullet is much stronger, harder, and tougher then the cast bullet. Think of pounding a steel rod into a tighter hole for it and at an angle. Then thing of the rod being made of wood. The wood will be chewed up before it straightens itself out. At least, it is the only thing that separates a known good load/high velocity from what your trying to achieve with another kind of projectile. Of course, I am assuming that you would use the same kind of powder for both. When I try my hand at it I'll be doing that. I get good results with H4895 and jacketed bullets.
Maybe just me, but I think I would put all my focus on the boolit. Again, I know it sounds simple, but I would focus on things like how the boolit is different than the jacketed, and how these differences effect each one. There is nothing at all wrong with focusing on the the bullet "alot".
Here is my thought on it all in general. I think that when guys decided to use jacketed projectiles they were looking to up the speed over that of the lead. *yea, I know, brilliant thought there newton.....* Anyways, they might have tried a few different things to improve the lead, but how much did they try.........but more important what did they not try?
To honestly believe that they tried everything has to be the most optimistic thing I have ever heard. Now, they might have tried just about all they could, with what they had, at that time. But the point of this, is the pursuit was left alone after just figuring they found the cure in jackets. I'll agree that since then many have come along and worked on it, but its hard to focus on something all the while having a solution staring you in the face - in this situation it would be the jacketed bullet. Tried and knowing what you are doing are two different things. Now if you tried something a known superb caster and cast bullet shooter told or showed is different.
So for me, its not about my loading technique(unless cast boolits dictate otherwise - flaring mouth and such), or my gun, or anything else. I know, it sounds dumb and too simple of an approach, but its what I will do when I pursue this. Technology has come a long way since they developed the jacketed bullet. There may be something out there that lets us take our cast boolits and shoot them like jacketed.......except without the jacket.
I have a couple of rifles that know the difference of a couple of gr of case weight 1 in fact has been known to shoot separate groups far separated with 20 rounds of mixed brass and the identical load. Some steps I would question for Joe's hunting rig . Flash holes are high on that list. I've never dial indicated any of my ammo and I have no doubt that it is possible to get 1 out of square . But how far out can it be if you have in an 06 for example and 80% or neck only sized case and a bore ride touching the lands ? It simply can't be off centered any farther than half the distance of the lands.
I know there are zero nothing tolerance match guns out the that would show up the .001 off line of a 173 gr VLD. I'm pretty sure that my 65 Savage that thrives on LC 43 and 4350 under a 200 gr spire point gouged out of a Lee mould by an experimenter with a $29 Ning Po drill press doesn't. I expect it to better it's current accuracy with a change to a better quality bullet from a better quality mould and even slower powders.
The focus should be on making the best bullets we can but also on finding the best fit . It is no doubt why the very 1st cast bullets I gas checked for a 6.8 SPCII AR shoot jacketed speeds and groups with no other changes beyond charge weight. The same was true of a very low miles 222 and a 223 . But take a sloped out 8x57 that's closer to 338 x57 and it's not going to work the same way . I have 2 7mms that sling Loverin bullets at 289 all over and sideways over Unique . They need 285 and 286 at the muzzle but that's 26" from the 288 part in 1 of them .
There are always going to be tried and true means that won't work in a whole pile of rifles .
Harder to go faster is another great example of what doesn't work in every rifle .
Twist ......there's a bucket of snakes for about 18 mechanical reasons (I didn't actually count but I've read the threads and seen results.
Would it be ok if we steered this thread back to :
Bubba Yugo 98
8x57 1-9
PMC brass
Wolf LRMP
48 gr of 747 surplus
323-202 from 27/73 battery strap/pure water dropped in my 3rd nephew in laws kegerator
Lee rgb dies with a wiz bang in line seater
My bbl is 325x316 and needed 328 to fill the neck
I sized these 327 at first but found as cast at 329 worked better .
My phone app pop ding speed gun says 2556-2578 fps for 10 rounds .
I'm using gas checks made by hammering .218 copper utility ground wire to a width of 345 and a 310 base punch a mabob from Wile E Coyote machine works .
Here's my groups at 316 ft 7 in from the muzzle. It was 90 degrees and 114% humidity.
. .
. . .
. 0 . I. 1. 2. 3. 4. I
I pulled that middle 1 a little but there was a gator chasing my sister and she bumped my stool when she run by.
In the time of darkest defeat,our victory may be nearest. Wm. McKinley.
I was young and stupid then I'm older now. Me 1992 .
Richard Lee Hart 6/29/39-7/25/18
Without trial we cannot learn and grow . It is through our stuggles that we become stronger .
Brother I'm going to be Pythagerus , DiVinci , and Atlas all rolled into one soon .
well you gotta remember jacketed bullets come along right about the same time that using antimony in lead started becoming common.
that's when the term hard cast come about [to denote the use of antimony in a lead alloy]
there was also a big step forward in black powder technology right when smokeless come along.
how often do you hear about brown powder?
Pretty interesting stuff. I've heard of the Brown powder and some others. They were high tech better performing powders of the BP line development right before smokeless took a foothold. Would have been very interesting indeed to see where that stuff would have ended up if smokeless didn't come along.
vzerone, I gladly accept anyone telling me anything. Its a free country
But with all due respect, you told me I was wrong, then proceeded to say the exact thing that I was saying. The boolit/bullet, projectile, is the difference. If I do the exact same case prep, loading technique, and powder/primer - then all that's left is the projectile.
If I find one jacketed bullet, at a certain weight, and find a load that it shoots well with - I can generally take another bullet in the same weight range and get "decent" accuracy with a little bit of load development(powder charge and OAL). I do not change the way I prep my cases. As I said before, I do not prep my cases other than the standard stuff. No special or costly tools in my reloading bench.
I still say focus on the boolit. Different ways of doing things to it - aside from adding a jacket of course. That's what they did, and then left the cast boolit to lay. The guys who wanted HV were not of the mindset we are. They didn't have jacketed bullets, so they didn't say "we need to find a way to make the lead boolit shoot HV without a jacket". They said, "hey, lets put a jacket on this thing so we can shoot it faster" - end of story.
Most people would say that what is being discussed here is insane - doing something that can be(and already has been) accomplished easy one way, yet trying to find another way of doing it.
I for one am all for it. But kind of like the original intent of the thread(in my opinion) was for "stock rifle", I think we need to focus on how to accomplish this HV with common tools.
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