311299 vs. 311284

[Bigslug]

Hoping we can get some educated comments from those who have extensive experience with both.

I've had great success with the 299 in the .30-06 (as well as in the .303 and 7.62x54R in its 314 and 316 variants), since I was guided to the bullet by a casting mentor.

I believe the 284 was originally conceived of as a Krag bullet, but its design does get away from the 299's bore rider nose design, and as such, I'm theorizing it may be a little stouter and have some edge if choosing to increase the velocity. I do know it has quite the following, but I have never dabbled.

Tell us your learned tales.

[405grain]

I've shot the 311299 in 30-06 and 308 and it works good in that application. In the 7.65x53 Mauser I've shot both the 311299 and the 311284. When loading for the 7.65 I powder coat the as cast bullets, then size them to .3125" Though the 311299 does OK in that caliber, the 311284 is extremely accurate. It will shoot into less than an inch at 50 yards, and only opens up to around an inch and a half at 100. I haven't hunted with it (Can't hunt with bullets that contain lead in California), but when shot at pumpkins and tree stumps it seems to pack quite a punch. I generally load the 311284 to around 1900 fps.

[paul edward]

Have used the 311299 in 303 British, 7.65 Mauser, 7.7 Arisaka, 30/06, 308 Winchester and 30/30.
Have not tried them in the 7.62x54R although I have heard they work well in some barrels.
With an average weight of 212 grains, these are really too long and heavy for the 30/30.
This is one of my first molds, with a single cavity, dating to 1963 when I first started reloading.

[nueces5]

A few years ago when I started loading up on boolits, there was a gun store here that had some molds on sale. One of them was 311284, I really regretted not buying it. Look at the lists of those who compete in bench rest with boolits, many use that mold.
I use a 314299 and it gives me very good results, this weekend I hit a metal at 600 meters using it.
Buy it, I don't think you can regret it.

[Larry Gibson]

I started out in '69 with a 311284 for use in a 30-06. Thought it might be good for the M94 30-30 but it was too long to feed and eject a loaded cartridge when seated properly. In the 30-06 I got very good accuracy in the 1750 - 1950 fps range. Above that accuracy when south rather quickly as the velocity increased. Designed my 308 CBC around it to give 2200 fps out of a new set back and chambered in 308 CBC to equal 30-30 ballistics. Found out accuracy still went south above 1950 fps same as in the 30-06 rifle. Didn't understand why back then.......

In the early '70s I began shooting cast in bolt guns chambered in the 308W and 300 Savage. I also got my first Oehler chronograph back then. The 311284 didn't work well in either cartridge as the GC need to be seated below the short case neck to fit and to keep all the lubed grooves inside the case necks. Had two .308Ws, a M70 and a M700, and a Savage bolt action (340?) in .300 Savage. Thus, I got a 311299 to try as the shorter neck fit inside the case necks perfectly on both cartridges. I found with the Winchester and Savage rifles I could push it upwards of 2200 + fps before accuracy went south. In the Remington accuracy started going south at the same old 1900 fps, same as in the 30-06 rifle. Still I did not understand why. [The "why" is because both the M70 and the Savage rifles had 12" twist barrels, The Remington 308W, the Parker Hale 30-06 and the 2 groove 308 CBC had 10" twist barrels]

Anyway, sometime later I sold the 311284 mold as it didn't perform any better than the 311/414299 cast bullets plus the 311/314299s were much better suited to the shorter necked cartridges. In the 30-06, particularly if one has a 12" twist, the 311284 would be a much better bullet w/o the front scraper groove.

[Bigslug]

Good intel as usual Larry. . .

Indeed, the front groove is a scraper. Does seem like an odd thing to do.

[Outpost75]

My observation has been that tapered nose bullets of full groove and throat diameter north of crimp groove perform consistently better than parallel-sided nose bullets which are not supported during initial shot-start. In particular if bore riding nose diameter is insufficient to positively engage the lands when the nose is pushed into the muzzle with hand pressure only, you cannot depend on target accuracy.

The #311299, Lee 312-155-2R and Accurate 31-160H are all good choices.

[lotech]

I've had the #314299 and the #311284 for a long time. According to my notes, the #314299 has almost always been the more accurate of the two bullets in the .30-40, .308, and .30-06, but my load development work has been far more extensive with the #314299. When I began using that bullet design, I didn't see much reason to continue with the #311284.

I use a SAECO .311" size die for all .30 caliber bullets but they come out of the die at about .3105", a diameter that has worked well for me. I never tried the #311299 as I thought it might cast too small.

[charlie b]

My observation has been that tapered nose bullets of full groove and throat diameter north of crimp groove perform consistently better than parallel-sided nose bullets which are not supported during initial shot-start. In particular if bore riding nose diameter is insufficient to positively engage the lands when the nose is pushed into the muzzle with hand pressure only, you cannot depend on target accuracy.

The #311299, Lee 312-155-2R and Accurate 31-160H are all good choices.

I agree totally with this. I also find best accuracy with any of the cast bullets in my .308 is when the nose of the bullet is firmly engaged with the lands.

I used the 311299 when I got my .308 and found it perfectly fit the bore. Was less than 1 1/2MOA and some less than 1MOA. My two current favorites are the 165gn XCB, which I load firmly set into the rifling, and the Acc 31-210E which is a long nose bore rider. I powder coat it and use a nose size die to make sure it engages in the rifling. Both of these are capable of MOA or less.

I am handicapped by the 1-10 twist of my rifle so velocities of both of those bullets is limited to less than 2200fps with best accuracy around 1900fps.

[Shiloh]

Both shoot well from the '06

Shiloh

[Bigslug]

My observation has been that tapered nose bullets of full groove and throat diameter north of crimp groove perform consistently better than parallel-sided nose bullets which are not supported during initial shot-start. In particular if bore riding nose diameter is insufficient to positively engage the lands when the nose is pushed into the muzzle with hand pressure only, you cannot depend on target accuracy.

Indeed, this was what had me giddy as a schoolgirl when NOE ran the 299 in 311, 314, and 316 variants, since the front bore rider sections run .300", .303", and .305", respectively. Owning all three makes a lot of tailoring possible. I've found it to run well up to the low 2,000's fps threshold those of us running stock 1-10" twists all seem to collide with, so it really does seem that the 284 would be a redundant thing with little advantage.