WidenersInline FabricationADvertise hereRotoMetals2
Lee PrecisionRepackboxTitan Reloading

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 52

Thread: How loose is to loose?

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Bent Ramrod View Post
    As mentioned, your setup looks to be for groove-diameter patched boolits. Martinibelgian and the late Montana Charlie have done more published work on that variant of paper patching than most of the rest of us. Such boolits have to be seated in the case as deeply as grease groove boolits in order to chamber the cartridge. Check out their experiments and results on this forum, and also on the Shiloh and Historic Shooting sites.

    For target accuracy, depending on the nose shape, the hardness of the bore diameter paper-patched boolit needs to walk the wire between soft enough to slug up into the rifling upon firing, and hard enough to keep the nose from slumping off center while it does so. Somewhere in the bhn 8-12 range, about 16/1 lead/tin, is a good place to start. If you can swage lead that hard, make up a batch, and then, as Brent suggests, size the resultant slugs down into the 0.443” + or - range for your bore diameter experiments.

    You may find it easier to just get a mould of the correct diameter. I haven’t done any .45 boolits, but bringing a 0.314” cast boolit down to 0.308” for one of my finicky .30 caliber rifles takes three dies; 0.002” reduction per die, if I don’t want a mangled lead banana for a final boolit shape. You will need some lubricant on the lead for this, which, of course, will have to be removed with solvent before patching.

    I second Lead Pot’s comment that pounds-per-ream weight is useless for our purposes. Take your micrometer into the paper store and look for thicknesses in the 0.0015”-0.002” range. I use the Dutch Schoultz technique that he used to measure cloth for muzzleloader patching; no “feather touch” on the mike thimble; turn it down until it won’t go no more! That’s your paper thickness, as compressed into the rifling lands. I’ve had the best results with Tracing or Vellum paper, and what obsolete Erasible Bond typing paper I’ve been able to scrounge. Whatever it is, it should be translucent, relatively brittle and crackly compared to the usual opaque white printer paper.

    A smooth, “hydraulic” push, neither too easy nor too hard, should be what you notice when shoving the patched boolit through the barrel with your cleaning rod. You should see the mark of the tops of the rifling lands on the paper when the boolit comes out of the barrel.

    Good stuff indeed thanks.

    I can't swage lead that hard, I tried and it cost me dearly, those dies do go with a bang when they crack...Mr Corbin was only too happy to make me a bigger one once he stopped chuckling at me. However that one is for my muzzle loader so it will handle 1:16 although I tend to use 1:10 in that.

    Yes what you say they is just what I'm doing, I'm seating them quite deeply in the case...and so far they seem to work ok, I've just made some more to try over the weekend.

    That's what grabbed me, your explanation of how the bullet should feel when pushed through the bore with a cleaning rod...that's perfect.

    I just told RFD that I have a .441 mold that is surplus so I am now planning on getting that opened up to .443 and go from there. It actually measures .433 at the base and is slightly tapered going by my dodgy digital cailpers so I may give that a go as is first before getting it modified.
    Don't follow me, I'm lost too!

  2. #22
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,517
    Gellot,
    I used to swage with Corbin presses and dies. I had some from each of them. They didn't know anything about paperpatching for BPCRs but they made great stuff, and I was able to swage 16:1 bullets as heavy as 550 grs with them. It was not a lot fun, but it worked. If you have a 441 mould, you are close and could use that for making cores.

    But in the end, you can cast bullets that shoot as well or better than your swaged ones and moulds cost much less and are delivered much faster (and are easier to use by a bunch). I sold all of my swaging gear at a profit and never looked back.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by BrentD View Post
    Gellot,
    I used to swage with Corbin presses and dies. I had some from each of them. They didn't know anything about paperpatching for BPCRs but they made great stuff, and I was able to swage 16:1 bullets as heavy as 550 grs with them. It was not a lot fun, but it worked. If you have a 441 mould, you are close and could use that for making cores.

    But in the end, you can cast bullets that shoot as well or better than your swaged ones and moulds cost much less and are delivered much faster (and are easier to use by a bunch). I sold all of my swaging gear at a profit and never looked back.

    That's quite nice to read, I did get that impression after an hour on the phone to them..well Dave about a core mold they made me that wouldn't drop a core it was so badly made...looked as though they'd used a broken cutter on it. However, he did make me one that works perfectly and I'm pleased about that as postage backwards and forwards across the pond gets expensive.

    I fully intend to try this mold I have that came free with a rifle I bought from a guy...it's a lovely mold too...I may get it opened up but I'll try it first and see how it shoots.

    I'm just reading an article that rfd kindly sent me...and it seems to be advocating parallel bullets not tapered...I thought the original Sharps bullets were tapered?
    Don't follow me, I'm lost too!

  4. #24
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	3e3b10.jpg 
Views:	9 
Size:	35.4 KB 
ID:	250076

    Just in case those kind folks who gave some great advice on this thought I'd forgotten and moved on, here's a short follow up.

    I managed to get to the range yesterday and try some new loads with the .433 boolit at 100M.

    I only had made seven cartridges just to see how they went so just left the sights where they were after adjusting a very low 5 (not shown), then the high 8 and then the five stringing L to R.

    Shot from the prone position using the sling as per MLAIC completion rules.

    I admit I'm not in full rifle shooting form so was not exactly expecting much but was pleasantly surprised non the less. I think with a bit of work on my part as I'm a bit rusty after spending most of the year pistol shooting, they will be just dandy.

    90 grains of Swiss No.4, CCI Magnum primer, newsprint OP wad and two .O30 veg fibre wads. The paper is Esleeck 100% cotton rag content and the boolit is a C. Higginbottom flat base .443" cast to give a reading of 4 on the SAECO scale.

    I was shooting my Ballard 45-90. The cartridge, well bullet just engages the rifling so a gentle push as described here. I guess I could go up a little on the slick but that's maybe something for later.

    Have 1, 2 & 300M competition coming up this weekend so had already loaded up my usual greased loads but think I might just go with the PP and see how they go.
    Don't follow me, I'm lost too!

  5. #25
    Boolit Master Lead pot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In a State that is #1 with people migrating out.
    Posts
    3,004
    Gallot.

    When I see an oblique string like you shot with this test load I see a lot of potential in it. I call that group, fat fingering, not having a good control of the rifle. That low vertical is a good start. When they cut shot by shot like I see your group it's control.
    I see this with some of my loads now and then and I take a deep breath, spit in my hand and get behind the butt stock so I feel comfortable and grip the rifle with the damp hand and fire 5 rounds without looking through the scope till they are finished and most generally they look like a nice cluster.

    Using a sling, uneven pull will give you problems like that string.

    Kurt

  6. #26
    Hey Kurt

    Yes you are bang on with that and I know I am in need of getting back to form after a long lay off, that will be the first time I have shot that rifle in over two years so I am very rusty.

    I didn't have the right feel on each shot that's for sure when you look at the group. I'm pleased you think it shows promise though.

    I think I maybe could do with a slightly bigger slick, the one above is .443.

    What is confusing me id my two reference books, the Matthews one in particular is using a slick of .448. But what I'm reading in here is a smaller slick is better.

    Has there been a shift slightly to the smaller slick these days?

    Rob


    Here's a 100ex100@100M off the sling from a completion a few years ago when I had younger eyes.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	3e7ga7.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	35.1 KB 
ID:	250131  
    Last edited by Gellot Wilde; 10-24-2019 at 06:28 AM.
    Don't follow me, I'm lost too!

  7. #27
    Boolit Buddy Distant Thunder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Northeast WI
    Posts
    135
    With Mathew's book, "THE PAPER JACKET" you have to be very careful. He is talking about smokeless and black powder paper patching and he is not always clear which one he is referring to when it comes to diameters. I have that book and it is well worn from use, but I was very confused on the subject of diameters in the book until I started to understand how bore diameter ppb work with black powder.

    Once I moved to patching to fit the bore diameter I actually began to see usable accuracy with black powder. It still took me a number of years to realized how important the proper fit to the bore was for match type accuracy. Just any diameter patched bullet doesn't work the best and one size does not fit all. It has taken many years of trial and error but I'm finally happy with my understanding of black powder and paper patch bullets and the result I now get.

    So much depends on what you are happy with, but if you stay with it the level of accuracy a good rifle can achieve with paper patch bullets and black powder is amazing.

    When reading any of the books about paper patching it helps if you understand the author's own preconceived ideas of how it is done correctly. We all tend to bend the truth toward our own beliefs and author's of books and people on the internet are among the worst in that area.

    YMMV
    Jim Kluskens
    aka Distant Thunder

  8. #28
    That's so true, he does bounce about and it can be confusing at times understanding if he is talking about smokeless or BP.
    Don't follow me, I'm lost too!

  9. #29
    Boolit Master Lead pot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In a State that is #1 with people migrating out.
    Posts
    3,004
    Both bore and groove diameters or slightly under bore diameter will shoot well. With my .45/325 I used to load groove diameter patched mainly to use up powder room because the 3 1/4" case is more than needed for powder and it shot very good.
    I retired that barrel.
    I also have a old Tom Ballard tapered mould that drops a 560 gr tapered that is .454" at the based I still use this bullet in the .45-2.4 with a 16 ROT.
    When I breach seat I use a .454" to .458" diameter patched, they out perform the bore diameter.

  10. #30
    Boolit Buddy Distant Thunder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Northeast WI
    Posts
    135
    Kurt,

    I shoot 3 different types of paper patch bullets with match winning accuracy, 1) straight sided snug fitting bore diameter, 2) groove or slight over groove diameter (also straight sided), and 3) 2-diameter.

    The last one is a combination of the first two, having a snug fitting bore diameter forward section and a groove to slightly over groove diameter base section. These work very well in grease groove chambers and reduce or eliminate the need to size your brass excessively. The place they become almost a necessity is in a gg chamber with a longer freebore section.

    With any lead bullet, but paper patch especially, the important thing to accuracy is to fill all available space with the bullet. There should not be any area of the bullet's length that is unsupported as it rests in the case/chamber/throat/lead/bore. The bullet should fill all those details as much as is possible.

    The idea being not to have any area that the chambered bullet is resting in that it will bump up into when the powder explodes and then have to be changed in shape or size as it moves out of the chamber and into the rifling. The less a bullet is distorted and reshaped as it proceeds through the throat/lead and into the rifling and then out the barrel the better the chance of a high level of accuracy.

    Also the better a bullet fits the details of the chamber the better it is held in alignment with the axis of the bore so that when the powder does explode the changes to its shape and diameter are maintained in the best possible alignment with the axis of the bore/grooves.

    All that being said, I have no doubt that this principle can be ignored and a level of accuracy can still be seen, I just doubt it will be seen as often or to the highest level possible.

    In the end you have to shoot what works best for you in your rifle.
    Jim Kluskens
    aka Distant Thunder

  11. #31
    Boolit Grand Master

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northwest Ohio
    Posts
    11,255
    I prefer Randolph S. Wrights book Loading and shooting the paper patched bullet A Beginners Guide over Paul Matthews books. Its more in tune with BP and layed out much better and more to the point. He does a vey good job on the who what where and why.

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by country gent View Post
    I prefer Randolph S. Wrights book Loading and shooting the paper patched bullet A Beginners Guide over Paul Matthews books. Its more in tune with BP and layed out much better and more to the point. He does a vey good job on the who what where and why.

    I have that one too, it's a nice read, but not as in depth as the Matthews one.
    Don't follow me, I'm lost too!

  13. #33
    Boolit Buddy Distant Thunder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Northeast WI
    Posts
    135
    They are both good books and worth reading, but I agree Wright's book has a clearer presentation of the procedure for loading paper patch bullets with black powder and is probably better for that reason. My Mathew's is well worn from many years of reading and rereading, it just isn't as well laid out and he bunches around between black powder and smokeless making it confusing to most people just starting out with BP and PP, at least it was for me.
    Last edited by Distant Thunder; 10-30-2019 at 07:55 AM.
    Jim Kluskens
    aka Distant Thunder

  14. #34
    What do you gentlemen consider as 'shooting well' with PP?

    I was speaking with a very competent group of shooters over the weekend all had shot PP and one was still shooting them. They all had come to the conclusion that the only real way to get excellent accuracy was to breech seat the bullet. None of them had been able to get assembled PP ammo to deliver the accuracy they were looking for.
    Don't follow me, I'm lost too!

  15. #35
    Boolit Master


    rfd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    NJ via TX
    Posts
    3,458
    "None of them had been able to get assembled PP ammo to deliver the accuracy they were looking for."
    that statement is far too broad - what kind of consistent accuracy were they looking for, at what distances, and with what cartridges, guns and aiming systems? that's a lotta ground to cover ...

    "What do you gentlemen consider as 'shooting well' with PP?"
    "shooting well" is when you win a match.

    once you have the PPB Way sorted out well enuf, and good consistent cartridges are built, the rest is up to the shooter's eye and trigger finger.

    for me, and my poor to fair shooting skills, a consistent 2moa at 200 to 800 yards with iron sights of a PPB .45-70 would be wonderful.

    ymmv.

  16. #36
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,517
    Quote Originally Posted by Gellot Wilde View Post
    What do you gentlemen consider as 'shooting well' with PP?

    I was speaking with a very competent group of shooters over the weekend all had shot PP and one was still shooting them. They all had come to the conclusion that the only real way to get excellent accuracy was to breech seat the bullet. None of them had been able to get assembled PP ammo to deliver the accuracy they were looking for.
    They will shoot as well as breech seated bullets when done properly. Basically, they ARE breech seated bullets. More than likely, they were not assembling their ammo correctly for best accuracy. Most breech seating, benchrest shooters load paper patches like they were grease grooves and then complain that paper patches won't shoot.

  17. #37
    Boolit Buddy Distant Thunder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Northeast WI
    Posts
    135
    Because match conditions can vary so much from match to match I'd have to agree with rfd, I feel I'm shooting well when I win the match. Sometimes the overall scores can be low compared to other matches. I don't pay much attention to what the scores of other shooters are through a day of shooting. If the scores are posted at the end of the first day I'll look to see how I did compared to the other shooters in general. I think about what I could do to shoot better tomorrow.

    More than once I have finished a match rather disappointed in my scores only to find out I won or placed in the top three. So you can't just look at scores. I've shot some pretty decent scores, in the 95% area, only to lose the match by a few points. One match I'm thinking of was actually my personal best for a 2-day match, someone else just shoot a little better than I did and I shook the winner's hand as I always do when I lose.

    I don't believe winning matches is the only measure of "shooting well", I don't always win and there was a time when I hadn't ever won a match. I look at my shooting over time, year by year, and I look at how I've done compared to years past, where I placed in the overall standings. My biggest obstacle has always been ME! Keeping my head in the game and not making stupid mistakes is where I think I've improved my shooting the most in recent years. That's where most matches are won or lost. So no matter where I am in the standings I feel I've shot well if I gave it my very best and didn't do anything stupid that cost me points.

    I haven't shot for groups with my long range rifle in several years so I can't show you any pictures an impressive group or two. I'm actually not very good at shooting impressive groups anyway. I almost always have one or two that I pull and mess up an otherwise good group. I know my rifle and I know what it can do under match conditions and I know the results it has produced over the past several years with paper patch bullets.

    Could I have had the same results shooting grease groove bullets in a rifle designed for them? Maybe, I don't know and I don't care. I will continue to shoot paper patch because I believe they are more accurate, less problematic and otherwise superior to GG.

    I believe I have won a good many matches BECAUSE I shoot paper patch. So many times during my GG days I lost matches because I fouled out or leaded up or some other thing related to lubed bullets went wrong. With paper patch I don't have those problems to even worry about. Leading isn't a problem, ever! Lube isn't a problem, ever! Fouling isn't a problem, ever! At least not since I switched back to bore pigs. And my scores reflect all the positive attributes of paper patch bullets. Why would I ever shoot BPCR with all the problems associated with greasy bullets?

    I can't imagine loading grease groove bullets for BPCR and I don't even want to think about all the problems I'd have to deal with if I did. Nope, I'll stick with my paper patch bullets and not just because they are so COOL looking compared to the other option...…….., well there is that! Nope, I'll stick with them because they are superior to the others. I have no doubt of that.
    Jim Kluskens
    aka Distant Thunder

  18. #38
    Boolit Master


    rfd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    NJ via TX
    Posts
    3,458
    yes, match environmental conditions can vary a bunch, but so can allowed guns 'n' gear. my local club match rules only require a rifle cartridge that fits the buffalo runner's 19th century firearm period, iron sights, and the use of alloy bullets. since i'm the only shooter nuts enuf to load and compete with PPB BP cartridges, it's a real treat when i can top the white devil dust greaser boys.

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by rfd View Post
    that statement is far too broad - what kind of consistent accuracy were they looking for, at what distances, and with what cartridges, guns and aiming systems? that's a lotta ground to cover ...



    "shooting well" is when you win a match.

    once you have the PPB Way sorted out well enuf, and good consistent cartridges are built, the rest is up to the shooter's eye and trigger finger.

    for me, and my poor to fair shooting skills, a consistent 2moa at 200 to 800 yards with iron sights of a PPB .45-70 would be wonderful.

    ymmv.

    Sorry if it was a bit of a broad question, I took it as a given we were talking black powder 19th Century rifles with iron sights as in tang sights & globe front sights.

    So 2MOA @ 200yds

    The chaps I was discussing them with are extremely competent one of them is a regular competitor at Bisley 1000yds matches and isn't the type to talk rubbish just for the sake of it.

    I'm only shooting short range these days and to get an angle on the level of skill of the gents I was chatting with the winner that day shot 97@100M, 97@200M and 88@300M the latter in pouring rain so I guess that had some bearing on him not breaking 90.

    I've always been of the opinion that all these old smokers of the match quality type with match sights will shoot 3MOA consistently and better if the shooter pulls his finger out.

    So you are saying with the right bullets PP in assembled ammo will match if not better GG bullets without the need for breech seating?


    Quote Originally Posted by rfd View Post
    it's a real treat when i can top the white devil dust greaser boys.
    And that's just it, that would be the goal as I already have a greaser load that's a real tack driver but I like the original aspect of the PP bullet but don't really want to mess about with breech seating. If you are saying it's worth pursuing then I'd be very keen to see some targets/groups you have achieved with them.
    Last edited by Gellot Wilde; 10-31-2019 at 06:07 AM.
    Don't follow me, I'm lost too!

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by BrentD View Post
    They will shoot as well as breech seated bullets when done properly. Basically, they ARE breech seated bullets. More than likely, they were not assembling their ammo correctly for best accuracy. Most breech seating, benchrest shooters load paper patches like they were grease grooves and then complain that paper patches won't shoot.
    Believe me Brent, these guys are no slouches and it would be nice for me to be able to simply dismiss their advice as they aren't doing it right.

    I also set out with the wrong size bullet as I had it, but so far the wrong way is out doing the 'right' way in accuracy.

    I use PP in my M/L match rifle (Don Brown) with very good success indeed and it would be nice to get the same sort of accuracy with the cartridge rifle without the fuss of breech seating as we only have 30minutes for 13 shots.
    Don't follow me, I'm lost too!

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 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