maximum méplat

[Outpost75]

of all the loading data that I looked at a 265 gr. bullet goes up to 1600 fps
would a gas check be better at that speed
I am not too hot at gas check and in my Ruger no 1 4570 never had a gas check on, but never went over 1400 fps, but the 44 magnum being smaller would it be better to keep speed up they have the same Saeco 265 with a gas check

My friend Greg never used GC bullets as in SA Hornady GCs cost $100 per thousand, but wheelweights were free. He used Lee Liquid Alox, loaded bullets as-cast and unsized and used the Redding Profile Crimp Die which I brought when I came to visit and hunt.

If you go back and read Keith's Book Sixguns and loads, he favored bullet weight over velocity and favored softer alloys:

Elmer Keith’s book Sixgun Cartridges and Loads (1936) on pgs. 69-70 states:

“For most revolver cartridges, including all light and normal pressure loads, there is no use to having the bullets harder than one part tin to twenty parts lead for really heavy loads a one to fifteen mixture is hard enough… For automatic pistols, the bullets should be very hard, consisting of about one part tin to ten parts of lead, in order for them to slide up easily out of the magazine into the chamber… A mixture of part tin and part antimony works very well for some heavy loads, but such very hard, brittle bullets are not needed for any revolver load except in the case of extreme penetration, where no upsettage or expansion is wanted.”



I have found Keith's suggestions to work in my last 50 years experience following them.

[bluejay75]

Just read this again. You’re going to need the GC for the 20 inch barrel. At that speed and pressure to get the best out of that boolit it’s going to hard for PC or lube to make it that far without giving out.

Send Miha a pm and ask for a 432640 4 cavity GC. He had over 15 of them last I checked his on hand. It will cast at 280 as a solid. All prices seemed comparable but a lot of us shoot that boolit and load data should be easier to find.

I’m not shooting a barrel that long nor am I planning on shooting that far. Otherwise I would suggest a larger meplat. Everything I killed last year was with one boolit. NOE 432-280 WFN. Got expansion each time with a solid, no GC and powder coated. They lead slightly pushed with 22.5 H110 and will shoot a fist size group at 100 yards consistently.

Expansion...Barely stayed together 1:3 SOWW:COWW Water dropped.



Entrance wound. This one never moved.

[Tripplebeards]

I tried a lee 300 grain pc and GC out of my 77/44. Never got the accuracy as I do with Lyman devastator 265 grain HPs. I’ve shot sub MOA with three different loads with the Lyman. A full throttle load of 23.8 grains of H110 was shooting under an inch but I was getting pressure signs so I backed off. I shot three deer with the same alloy(15.4 Bh) at a slower 1750 FPS, 21 grains of H110, and got complete pass throughs with ZERO expansion so IMO it would blow right through a moose as well. Use what ever so the most accurate in your gun.

[bowfin]

that is quite small. only .0125
I was looking at the Saeco 265 gr. RNFP with is the smallest I have seen
here is a interesting view on this by the Los Angeles silhouette club
they speak about Seaco having the smalless méplat but having the most penetration and range capacity
just copy and paste the title below and it will bring you to it
Is the .44 Magnum becoming overweight?

I think you have a zero where it doesn't belong in describing 1/8" as .0125"

[canuck4570]

you got me .125 is that what you mean by I get a zero

have you any comments on the Seaco 265 gr gc

[Crusty Deary Ol'Coot]

Hornady gas checks at over $100 per thousand.?.?.???????????????

Glad I don't buy them from that source!

Crusty Deary Ol'Coot

[Hamish]

Hornady gas checks at over $100 per thousand.?.?.???????????????

Glad I don't buy them from that source!

Crusty Deary Ol'Coot

Import tariffs, if I'm not mistaken,,,,,,,.

[canuck4570]

gator check are 67 dollars in Canada from Dragon Lube

and they are better than Hornady in my opinion

[longbow]

I suspect a gas check might help at max. pressures but I run all PB boolits in my Marlin 1894 with no problems even loaded right up. I have not tried same load with PB and GC boolits to see if the GC gives better accuracy at top end loads but I get no leading and good enough for me accuracy using PB boolits in the Marlin. Fat boolits are required though! I never used gas checks in my old 1895 .45-70 either and I ran that right to the max. for Marlin loads.

I am a bit lazy and cheap so if I can avoid gas checks I do.

YMMV

[canuck4570]

any one tried to use gas check bullet without them to see if they can reach top load without leading

[Larry Gibson]

I've shot a lot of 44 Magnum rifles with 16 - 24" barrels using various cast bullets, plain based and GC'd. 1st thing I learned about it years ago that even with a very, very hard cast bullet using plain base bullets with top end revolver loads will result in a much higher velocity out of the rifle. Accuracy will be mediocre at best. Yes, I've read all the post about it but not seen a single comprehensive comparison between similar plain based and GC'd bullets out of a rifle with top end loads posted on this or any other forum. Yup, lots of posts about "ringing steel" out yonder but seldom a mention of the range or the size of the "steel".

My own tests have always shown the GC'd 44 cast bullet to be more accurate than even a very hard cast plain based bullet out of the rifle. The GC'd bullet also gives the advantage of a softer more malleable alloy for expansion. As to the expense of GCs, even in Canada, considering the time, effort and money that is spent on hunting moose (even if you live there) we're going to quibble about the cost of GCs.....really?

Why not just get a plain based bullet mould and a GC'd bullet mould? Are moulds that expensive? Then you can cast all the PB'd bullets and load them to a lower velocity for accuracy (usually under 1400 - 1500 fps) and shoot them for practice. Consider the GC'd mould as "premium ammunition" since you'll not really shoot that many for zero, a bit of practice and hunting....perhaps 100 a year. That thousand GCs will last 10 years that way, you get a more accurate bullet with much better terminal performance.

I do just that with my own 44s casting and shooting mostly 420-200-RF, TL430-240-SWC, 429360, 44-250-K and the Lyman 429421 bullets. For hunting I've found the 429244 HP to be excellent but since have found the "Devastator" 429640 to be more accurate and give better terminal performance than any hard cast plain based bullet regardless of the meplat size. I cast both the latter out of 16-1 alloy which holds up to the 1600 - 1700 fps range top end loads of 4227, 2400 and H110 give in the 44 Magnum out of rifles. The 429215 (also GC'd) is my favored "high velocity" rifle load at 1700 fps out of my 20" M92 44-40. I also cast that bullet of 16-1 alloy.

Given your rifle is a Ruger #1 44 Magnum and moose is the end game if the Lyman Devastator (mine runs 270 gr cast of 16-1) is not your cup of tea then you might consider the RCBS 44 -300-SWC, the Lee C430-310-RF or a similar custom mould which are GC'd and I'd still cast them of 16-1 alloy and load them over a top end charge of H110/296.

[Bigslug]

.30" is what Veral Smith states for his 250 grain .44 LFN, which is his notion of an improved replacement for the Keith (.27").

Mind you, I'm only dealing with a sample of one, but I've seen going too big with the meplat (.34" on a 420 grain .45-70 pill) can lead to groups starting to come unglued past 200 yards. I'd be inclined to save the maximum blunt force designs for the pistols and be a little more conservative for the carbines.

[canuck4570]

I don't find gas check expensive when you see good result at the range
my goal is to practice with hunting load all year (in Canada just the summer months)
so I will be shooting about 500 to 1000 round
for this reason I want to practice with these full load so when come hunting season I am used to my rifle and shooting characteristic of my bullet drop etc.....
has you said softer aloe and also I have a Forster hollow pointing tool so will be experimenting with different depth of hollow point to see what is best
your reasoning makes a lot of sense.....

[Crusty Deary Ol'Coot]

Canuck4570,

Forget the hollow point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cast bullet hollow point expansion is and forever will be a factor of bullet alloy - hardness/softness - and velocity at impact due to not having the controlling influence of a jacket.

Just use a Wide Flat Nose/large meplat bullet and be done with it. They are highly effective and the results are consistent while as said, results of hollow point cast bullets is variable. The results could be very good or way less then desirable depending on the situation, while the WFN cast bullet is always a WFN and pre-expanded.

Before the days of personally hunting with WFN cast bullets, I needed to approach their use with a lot of faith that what I was reading, was in fact true.

Only took one critter to make a believer of me. In fact, that first critter taken with a 355gr WFN at a muzzle velocity of 2300fps was WAY OVER THE TOP and made me rethink the bullet selection. Following some excellent council that in a 45/70 a cast bullet of 400+gr. in weight typically shoots better then those of lighter weight, I went with a 465gr WFN at 1650fps and have had excellent results on deer and elk, of course as always, with proper bullet placement.

Crusty Deary Ol'Coot

[waksupi]

Canuck4570,

Forget the hollow point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cast bullet hollow point expansion is and forever will be a factor of bullet alloy - hardness/softness - and velocity at impact due to not having the controlling influence of a jacket.

Just use a Wide Flat Nose/large meplat bullet and be done with it. They are highly effective and the results are consistent while as said, results of hollow point cast bullets is variable. The results could be very good or way less then desirable depending on the situation, while the WFN cast bullet is always a WFN and pre-expanded.

Before the days of personally hunting with WFN cast bullets, I needed to approach their use with a lot of faith that what I was reading, was in fact true.

Only took one critter to make a believer of me. In fact, that first critter taken with a 355gr WFN at a muzzle velocity of 2300fps was WAY OVER THE TOP and made me rethink the bullet selection. Following some excellent council that in a 45/70 a cast bullet of 400+gr. in weight typically shoots better then those of lighter weight, I went with a 465gr WFN at 1650fps and have had excellent results on deer and elk, of course as always, with proper bullet placement.

Crusty Deary Ol'Coot

Agreed, forget the hollow points. Not necessary.

[canuck4570]

I usually hunt moose with my 450 Rigby and a Seaco 545gr. cast
the rifle is a Sako model 85 Brown bear
the load is 56 gr of reloader 7 1650 fps
but practicing with this rifle is a brutal experience and also at 11 pounds carrying it all day is not pleasant specially at 72
my choice up to now is ether the Saeco 265 or 300gr. gas check
it has a reasonable méplat so extending range has compared to a wide méplat should be good and still have a good penetration having a smaller méplat.
the méplat on these bullet is .270
and the 265 has more velocity so these long range. shot (under 175 to 200) should be better than the 300
I must say that the longest shot moose up to now is 178 yard laser marked
would like to have comments on these 2 bullet please

[white eagle]

large or small meplat
hp or not
it makes no difference if you can't hit
where you aim
find what works for your rifle and trust it will work

[canuck4570]

like I said above I like to practice often with what I hunt

and to hit where its count I think I will go with the 265 fort better trajectory lest Kentucky windigae

[Larry Gibson]

"Not necessary"......for what? To kill, which is the real question here a HP isn't "necessary and neither is any meplat. A pointed or RN bullet will also kill, just won't kill as effectively (as in time to go down and die with minimal pain and suffering) as one (given same caliber and velocity) with a meplat. Expanding bullets also kill more efficiently because the expansion actually is and increasing meplat.

In canuck4570's case with the 44 magnum out of the Ruger #3 he apparently want's maximum terminal bullet performance out to maybe 200 yards with a cast bullet. The answer is simple; a 250 - 300 +/- gr cast HP bullet with a GC at maximum safe pressure for the Ruger #1 rifle. There's no sense reinventing the wheel, just cast them out of 16-1 alloy (pure lead and tin....no antimony what so ever) and with the 1/8" Forster HP tool HP them to 3/16" deep. Or, just get a Lyman 429640 Devastator HP and cast them of the same alloy. Size at .430/.431 GC with Hornady or Blammer GC and lube with a good lube (I prefer 2500+).

Also, canuck4570, with his Ruger #1 rifle might consider that crimp may not be necessary so he might be able to seat the bullet further out from the crimp groove so the drive band of the bullet just touches the leade. That will increase the case capacity a tudge allowing a bit more powder. In the single shot rifle chamber w/o the revolvers long cylinder throats (essentially "free bore) the crimp many times adds nothing to the burning efficiency of the load, especially at the higher end pressure levels.

[Larry Gibson]

I usually hunt moose with my 450 Rigby and a Seaco 545gr. cast
the rifle is a Sako model 85 Brown bear
the load is 56 gr of reloader 7 1650 fps
but practicing with this rifle is a brutal experience and also at 11 pounds carrying it all day is not pleasant specially at 72

Now that's a rifle!....

my choice up to now is ether the Saeco 265 or 300gr. gas check
it has a reasonable méplat so extending range has compared to a wide méplat should be good and still have a good penetration having a smaller méplat.
the méplat on these bullet is .270
and the 265 has more velocity so these long range. shot (under 175 to 200) should be better than the 300
I must say that the longest shot moose up to now is 178 yard laser marked
would like to have comments on these 2 bullet please

Your reasoning is sound. Just cast out of the 16-1 alloy and experiment a bit with the Forster HP tool as you mention. I've found the 3/16" depth of the HP to be sufficient with that alloy. It will get the bullet expanding with minimal sloughing off of expansion petals. If it doesn't then the bullet will be just as effective as w/o the HP.