350 Legend and Cast Boolits

[Oldfeller]

So what has taken your mind off your molds and made you slow down your progress ????

Time has come to sprout and grow some tomato trays for the next growing season and to plan out the garden .......


========================================


Wife has requested that we grow green beans (snap beans) and baby lima butter beans and squash --- but they have to grow on a trellis so she can stand on the ground to pick them. No bending over, no ladders.

It is a challenge, or so she says ......

[lar45]

I use a Lee Classic Cast press to resize jacketed bullets. Speer .375" 235s to .368" for my 9.3x57 Mauser. I use Imperial sizing die wax and go down in 2 steps with the NOE sizers. When I tried going down in one step I bent the hollow handle on the Lee press, so I got a handle from a Dillon 550 on Ebay and use it instead. It's a near perfect fit and hasn't given a bit of trouble. I've since sized Speer .458" 350s down to .452" in a .451" sizer in one pass with Imperial sizing wax for my 450 Bushmaster and it seems to work great. Just use lots of lube. The first bullet through the die might want to stick, so back the die out a little bit, crank the handle all the way down to get the bullet part way through the die, then turn the die in a couple of turns and push it through some more until it pops out the top. The die should be lubed now and hopefully will only take one quick pull of the handle to size the bullets. Remember lots of lube! Have the press mounted on a heavy sturdy bench also so you don't tip the bench over accidentally. My bench is 2'x8' and is made of 2x10s and a couple of layers of 3/4" plywood. I have a shelf under the bench that is loaded with cast boolits to help keep it steady...

[rcav8r]

Just found this thread, after I ordered a Stoner pistol length upper, lee dies, CMMG mag, and 100 winchester cases. Still need bullets though!
Won't have time to read the entire thread til the weekend, so go easy on me, but has anyone tried various other light cast pistol bullets in this, sized, gas checked, such as a 158gr 38 special bullet sized to .356? Gas checked AND powdercoated?
ETA: The .357 bullets I have on hand are SWC, not RN, so reason for my question.

[Oldfeller]

Attachment 248416

Still waiting on a new full length case sizing die from LEE, so I worked on casting and powder coating a set of bullets instead.

Not intending for much very long range shooting, but instead desiring good nose mushrooming as a primary concern, I air dropped the bullets and intentionally ran the powder coat curing temperature over 325 degrees for 20 minutes, giving me a softer bullet that would upset in a feral pig or in a jug or three of water.

Powder coat is Easton Ford Light Blue and one coat yielded good coverage and flow as Ford Light Blue is wont to do. Learned from the taller gas check bullet that gravity flow is enough to overfill the gas check shank, so any future lots will be gas checked seated & not sized and then powder coated over the gas check and then sized once as a whole assembly.

Some would say "Why bother" with the gas check since this larger heavier slug won't exceed 2200 fps out of my 16' barrel gun and it would be the two smaller ones would hit the higher inaccurate speeds if any of them managed to reach up to those higher speeds.

So far no list member has volunteered to send me some as cast strings of 3 triple aught buckshot off a LEE mold for me to play with coating and loading, as I don't have a spare $60 to buy an eighteen banger mold as a "doubtful experiment".

So, no Evil AR experimental loads, sorry ....... rats

Short answer is YES. You will find this (along with pictures) on page one of the 15 pages of stuff.

[mehavey]

For what it's worth;

I just got back from the range tonight/heavy dusk with the CMMG upper and the loads I've settled as standard jacketed/cast combo.

100 Yds/Using WINCHESTER* Cases/Standard Expander/Norma-200 in both cases as max performance/fill/burn:

SPEER 180FP HotCor Sized .357" Norma-200/29.5gr/2.26 OAL/ QL:46,000psi/ALOX/2,081fps
0.72"

SAECO #352-240gr/Lym#2/ Sized .358"/Norma-200/24.3gr/2.26 OAL/QL:40,000psi/ALOX/1,721fpsfewer
0.93"
(ps: spotless bore)


pps: I've (re)discovered the secret in "crimping" as well.
Use the sizing die as final step--> mouth 0.378(+). It align/sets both jacketed and cast up beautifully/at the mouth / and totally reliable feed with cast. Quite frankly I've getting very comfortable w/ the cartridge and the AR action as currently set up. I might get surpised but I'll yell (literally) if/when I do.



* This is a serious case manufacture issue as the thinner Starline case "floor" can get you into all sorts of trouble with a not-quiiiiiiite-fully-rotated AR bolt when feeding cast.
https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...&postcount=205

[Oldfeller]

+1 on using the full length sizer die as your post assembly taper crimp die.

I have not seen anything work more repeatably or better than the full length case sizing die you already have. You control the insertion amount to yield no smaller than .377" measured right at the mouth knowing that if you do go smaller you are actually crushing the case into the bullet and crushing the lead bullet accordingly.

It will crimp a jacketed round or a cast (PC round) flawlessly and it will stay where you set it during an entire reloading run.

By definition, the case mouth always stands proud to the bullet enough to positively stop the insertion of the finished round in the manner that the 350 Legend is designed to work. Overcrimping is made "hard to do accidentally" which is a good thing.

[Oldfeller]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGDHZjKsP9U



Expect some additional folks to be checking out the Legend because they saw it on Hickok45's channel.

[rcav8r]

Just now finished the thread.
The way I'd do a PC bullet mold is to machine the 2 halves separate in a CNC mill. Downside is that there's always the chance they may not be perfectly aligned.
I just don't have the experience to make a custom cutter of any kind like that a bullet shape.

[Oldfeller]

Funny, none of the cutters look "bullet formed" at all. They look more like odd drill bits with one single carefully defined cutting edge and the other edge on the other side carefully relieved so it does not cut in all on the fine feeds ......

The one on the left is a round-flat form with a .300" diameter meplat.

The one on the right is a hand modified truncated cone with a 270" meplat.

Both forms have enough edge curvature at the loading end and are small enough to make it into the chamber.

Also funny, if we were shooting just for accuracy, I'd bet my dollar on the big bruiser of a bullet to have a smaller group size. Simply less chance of loading it off center and spinning it off center going through the throat and up the barrel. Plus the larger mass will tend to make the cheap ball powder behave more consistently.

Plus, the amount of bullet OD that isn't directly bore and land supported practically isn't there at all as a % of total bullet length ...... and the curve at the loading edge is actually bigger on the bigger bullet, so less chance of a stoppage jam on the large one as well.

It is brutal ugly boolit though, functional as heck inside 200 yards -- but brutal ugly just to look at it.

But if I were looking down the barrel of my AR at a charging frothing tusker boar pig or an angry sow bear protecting cubs, brutal ugly is EXACTLY what I would be wanting it to be .....

A bullet length of .750" would park the weight of either of them between 180 and 200 grains, weights which a Legend can drive up to 1750 fps (the optimum wide meplat cast bullet speed range).


=======================================

4 varieties of red tomato, ranging from 1 pound to 3+ pounds in size.
I want even the "little runt tomatoes" I grow to be worth the trouble picking .....

[Oldfeller]

Playing around with numbers on the brutal ugly as it can go "too heavy" within what the mold blocks will allow to be cut depth-wise.

weight grains 170
length in mm 17.9
weight per mm 9.50

play w/ lengths
how long 18 19 20
what weight 170.95 180.45 189.94

18mm makes ~170 grains
19mm makes ~180 grains
20mm makes ~190 grains
21mm makes ~200 grains





Mocked up slugs can also be used for early feeding tests, once again a sensible reality check that can save a lot of time and effort being wasted on stuff that just ain't a gonna work out for you .....

Note that .240" of the .300 total throat depth is being used by this trial mock up, and because of the throat extension that was done the maximum brutal ugly assembled length that the converted PMAG magazines can handle will indeed auto-load. The assembled round will slide into the chamber and throat after taking a very mild (wide thin smile impact damage) on the front edge of the bullet as it cocks up out of the magazine and bounces off the forcing cone and the chamber wall.

Obviously, this bullet CAN be run forward far enough to INTENTIONALLY CAUSE feeding/chambering issues, it is after all "brutally ugly" in all its intentions. The fact it can be auto-loaded at all is somewhat of a miracle in itself .....

The wide area had very mild "flattened lip" damage to the nose edge which indicates the round is entering the chamber mildly cocked in an up/down fashion and the bullet itself is bearing the brunt of the "straighten up and align right" loading action. The bullet is getting slowly pushed back into the case by these impacts as well -- another symptom of the same loading conflict.

Mock ups do lack the PC thickness build up, so they aren't by any means "definitive" be all or end all tests, but just a reasonable excuse to proceed on to the next step. The very minor "smile" impact damage to the very edge of the brutal ugly would not be so noticeable (nor as large) on a properly powder coated bullet as powder coating is harder and tougher than air dropped WW lead.

Soft cast WW metal does tend to expand in water jug tests to a small degree (mostly seen in rounds going a bit faster than what the Legend will readily do with the full weight slugs) --- however in existing 350 Legend water jug and gel tests cast WW slugs don't seem to do much expanding and they just bore on through the jugs giving whatever meplat splash action the bullet form provides on the first 3 jugs with less damage to the later jugs.

Brutal ugly was built off this knowledge, within 200 yards it is intended to go all the way through a game animal leaving a blood trail from both of the splash expanded holes. Careful placement of the hole in the neck or intentionally breaking the front shoulders is desirable for not having to track or chase the game animal through the bush.



===========================================



There is a lot of information about truncated cone nose forms in the 350 Legend as well as lots of data off the LEE 200 grain .358 bullet. I feel these forms can be trusted off historical data and will run group sizes between 1-2" based on other folks published work.

I also feel that 50-50 plumbers lead and WW alloy is the most appropriate alloy for the truncated nose form (and the LEE 200) as they need a little help expansion wise.

Brutal ugly is intended to be shot in air dropped WW alloy at full Legend speeds and will simply do the job "as is".

[Oldfeller]

Having already done the first level feeding tests on the Brutal Ugly bullet, let's roll over to the Truncated Cone nose form and load them both up in the same magazine alternating who goes first each time to spread out the right-left effects and BANG THE SNOT OUT OF THEM WITH 10+ SLAM CHAMBERINGS just to see which one survives with relatively less damage.

I am curious for the results, anyway. Remember, Brutal Ugly starts as a .300" diameter meplat and the Truncated Cone starts as a .270" diameter meplat.

Both of these meplats will measure smaller after the nose abuse that is headed their way ......

[cwlongshot]

I hope that they feed for ya. But I gotta say I’m not holdin much hope.

CW

[rcav8r]

I just checked a bunch of the Winchester brass I ordered. Seems to run 1.703 to 1.705 long.
From what I've been seeing, it sounds like 296 powder might be the better one for this cartridge?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

[P Flados]

rca,

Did you size before measuring. Length of "as fired" will be shorter than "as sized".

WW 296 is middle of the pack for this round. I worry just a little about ignition with 296/H110 given that you can not apply a heavy crimp (a standard recommendation for this powder). Going with a hot primer is a good idea.

[rcav8r]

These lengths are out of the bag measurements.
I want to find a general purpose powder, since I may wind up using both jacketed and lead. Right now I want to find out if my Lee 158gr SWC'S will load smoothly. Need to make some dummy rounds.

Any other suggestions as to powder?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

[tomme boy]

Stick with the Win or Hornady factory brass. Been a few reports of Starline brass blowing out from the web being too far to the rear leaving an unsupported case wall. Brass has been completely blown out to looking like a belted mag when it comes out. Hornady and Win brass the web is still in the chamber while the Starline is not.

I'm about to let this one go. Been seeing way too many things with the manufacturers just putting out garbage and letting everyone else do their research for them.

[Oldfeller]

Observe the data. What we as a group have measured early on says the 350 Legend is a relatively robust round that can withstand a lot of variation in OAL from the factory, not that this is a good thing mind you, but the Winchester brass seems to survive it fairly well.

The newer batches of Winchester range brass have more primer pocket crimped rounds in them now (approaching 100%) the pocket stamping depth on the Winchester once fired stuff from Graf & Sons is getting military firm and deep. This once fired brass is starting to get smaller length variations after being once fired -- Winchester is getting their act together a little bit better while Starline is still in their learning curve.

I also note that Midsouth and several others are selling once fired brass to the public now, so there are other suppliers out there selling the once fired brass fairly cheaply.

More evidence of chamber mouth unsupported bulging showing up with Starline is showing up again, this sort of bulging action was noted by me in a very mild form on Winchester once fired because Winchester brass is simply much thicker in the web area than Starline in the first place.

[FLINTNFIRE]

Keep up the information I enjoy reading and following , Have not shot a 350 legend yet , picked a upper and some mags up and a couple boxes of winchester loads , they are a lot more standard length then the bags of once fired I got from grafs , have the dies , just do not have a mold yet , still in the research mode , but am leaning to a mold from mountain molds on their software design . Anyway enjoying this thread and your work.

[Oldfeller]

HOW TO RATE THREADS go to the very top of this page and look in the gray margin on the right hand side right below the page numbers where it says "Rate Thread"

It's funny, apparently the only one person who knows how to rate a thread on this board gave this thread a one star rating, so I doubt many people are going to read it.

And please do rate the thread, only getting one customer response is sort of futile if the worth of a thread is determined by one review.


=============================




The nose form that took by far the most damage on the meplat edge was the Brutal Ugly --- but it loaded properly every time with zero failures to feed and chamber. This is significant because it means you got a choice between some minor non-important meplat edge damage and repeated stoppages due to failure to feed and chamber .....

By the looks of things, Brutal Ugly is just plain flying along when the edge of the meplat slams into the feeding ramp with the other edge of the meplat bouncing off the other edge of the feeding ramp cone/chamber wall resulting in an impact blunted meplat edge and a matching "smile form" that shows up on the cylindrical side of the protruding bullet (directly opposite to the meplat edge damage) .....

The Truncated Cone took very mild damage only at the change over line between cylinder form and cone form --- I was surprised to find that edge impacts to the meplat nose were very very slight to non-existent. Truncated Cone also had a 10% failure to feed and chamber correctly (see line across the nose) and an even higher incidence of failure to chamber completely when using my made from 5.56 brass.

I will redo the truncated cone tests using Winchester brass to see if it makes that anything much of a difference.

I suspect the mildly rebated case head in the 5.56 reformed brass is affecting the magazine pick up in some magazines as the case head rim diameter of the rebated case is also .010" smaller than the Winchester brass rim diameter.


=====================================


Testing in all the types of magazines (I have 3 of them) the truncated cone nose shape works the best in Winchester brass (has the least amount of loading damage to the bullet itself).

Success vs error (all kinds) actually favors the Brutal Ugly as it only got jammed up once due to a magazine feeding error / operator error that originated from a truncated cone round with the Brutal Ugly being the next round in line in the magazine.

The truncated cone nose form originated 2-3x more major bind errors over time. Just counting the depth and length of case scratches, lead gouges and case dents the Brutal Ugly feeds the best of the lot (in Winchester brass) followed by truncated cone (again using Winchester brass) and lagged behind by a good bit by the truncated cone using reformed 5.56 brass.

5.56 reformed brass sux, in other words.

At the end of the day, the meplat size on Brutal Ugly was reduced by dozens of repeated loading cone edge dents to be about the same size as the meplat on the truncated cone, but this was after dozens and dozens of slam loadings.


===================================


New theory that needs checking in your gun ---- truncated cone bullet forms do slightly better if loaded relatively deeper into a Winchester case.

New learning tends to say that the changeover line between the nose form and the bullet body form is what should be used to set up the OAL of the loaded cartridge. The main body diameter is what has to fight to get into the chamber through the throat/ramp cone, the nose is simply what gets in the way of that action.

[P Flados]

Any other suggestions as to powder?

Here is a list in order of burn rate with my thoughts. Note that I am probably biased against powders that are high $/lb, and that I have actually used only a few in my guns (a 357AR and several 357 Max guns). I have however, read a lot of stuff including the incredibly long but incredibly disorganized stuff from the Facebook 350L groups.

2400 is probably one of the fastest powders getting any use. The only load data I have seen for this powder is from a chart circulating on Facebook.

Lil gun is seeing quite a bit of use and has enough load data. Some think this powder is great, some worry about it. I am more in the second camp.

W296 / H110 has what looks to be an ideal burn rate and plenty of of load data. The only concerns noted have been the inability for a heavy roll crimp. It is getting quite a bit of use, and I do not recall much in the way of reported issues.

Alliant MP-330 is probably just as good or better than W296 / H110, but it has next to no 350L or 357Max data and the powder is not included with Quick load. If this one had more data they would sell a lot more of it

IMR 4227 is slower (and less dense) than optimum and has some but not much load data. It is a very safe powder, but will not give top velocities.

AA 5744 load data for 357Max has less velocity than AA 1680 below. I have not heard of it getting much use.

AA 1680 is a little slower than IMR 4227, but seems to works better than IMR 4227 because you can pack quite a bit more into the case. No published 350L data, but people use the vendor's 357Max data as a starting point and work up. Being just slightly slower than optimum, it does not give away too much in velocity for hunting loads. It is probably a good choice for a reduced risk of the pressure problems that seem to occasionally crop up with the more optimum burn rate powders. It also get use by folks for things like trying to get ARs to cycle on subsonic loads.

CFE Black is even slower than IMR 4227 and has some but not much load data. It will not give as much velocity as IMR 4227.