Why arent there more nose pour design moulds around? Is it just the cost to cut them this way Or are there other reasons?
Tim
|
   
   
|
|
Why arent there more nose pour design moulds around? Is it just the cost to cut them this way Or are there other reasons?
Tim
If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!
I guess to keep the nose uniform.
The nose would be a bad place for a sprue.
"I have enough ammo and guns to shoot my way into Nevada." - California resident.
better a jacked-up nose than any kind of imperfect base... I too would like to see more nose-pour molds.
Tim sends
Hmmm, I don't know, I question which is more important, the nose or the base.
I personally, would like to have completely perfect boolits.
I guess I'm going to need to do some playing.
Make some imperfect based boolits, and some imperfect nosed boolits and see which one affects accuracy more.
Yay, another reason to shoot!
"I have enough ammo and guns to shoot my way into Nevada." - California resident.
Good deal but it doesn't cost anything to throw imperfect boolits back into the pot.Originally Posted by thx997303
No it doesn't, but I'm going to intentionally make imperfect boolits so that I may test the effects to the accuracy.
I want to see for myself whether an imperfection caused by a sprue on the base or the nose of the boolit would have the largest effect.
"I have enough ammo and guns to shoot my way into Nevada." - California resident.
I am still a beginner but from what I have read on this board , I think the gereral consensus is that the base of the boolit is the more critical factor. A good base with a deformed nose will shoot better than the other way around. Perhaps some of the more experienced casters would like to give us their opinions?
From what I have read the base of the boolit is the stearing end and needs to be as near perfect as possible. There have been several test done to verify this over the years. There is an article in the book The Art of Bullet Casting on page 142 that was written by Wayne Blackwell years ago that goes into details about how defects affect cast bullets. If you check it out the base defects affected accuracy more than did the nose defects....Wes
The problem in America today is, there are to many fools making to many rules that don't apply to themselves. Now just wait until the new pres. takes office and see what happens!!!!!
180gr, .309 ,"salvage" from reject bucket , alox , .308 , alox , no gascheck
50 yards, 3 shots groups, H&R 30-30, Weaver KT15, supressor, front and rear benchrest supports.
What the matter with poor nose or base ?
None were good, by any mean. Only 50 yards, but I was quite surprised.
I too would like to see more nose pour moulds. I think Ed Harris did a series of accuracy tests on bullets with damaged noses and bases. I'm pretty sure someone(Ed Harris) at the CBA would know where to find the article.
US Govt mantra: If it's moving tax it. If it's still moving regulate it. If it stops moving subsidize it
Eagan's nose pour molds dominated CBA competition for years. That together with traditional knowledge that produced very good results would indicate that nose pour is a good idea.
Grouch
Don't bother. Get a copy of Dr. Mann's The Bullets Flight and read it. He did this and proved it scientifically around the turn of the last century. It's the base that is important.
Wayne the Shrink
There is no 'right' that requires me to work for you or you to work for me!
Thats exactly what I was thinking with a nose pour the base is more likely to be consistant than with a traditional mould. no fillout issues no torn sprue hole perfectly flat and even every time. So IF it is a better way to pour a boolit ,whats the reason there arent more of them made?
Tim
If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!
Seems to me that it's a whole lot cheaper and easier to manufacture a base pour mould. No doubt that's the reason for the lack of nose pour moulds.
Don
Nose pour cavities are hard to machine unless the boolit has a reeeealy big meplat.
“an armed society is a polite society.”
Robert A. Heinlein
"Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, cum pars servitutis esset."
Publius Tacitus
Thats why Hoch does their molds the way they do.
Some where between here and there.....
It would be almost impossible to lathe-bore a nose pour mold. Too small a meplat would really cut down on the strength of a cherry used with the traditional self-centering vise method leading to lighter feed rates/more time. It can and is done but look at the prices and production rates - they're essentially tool room products.
because not everyone wants a flatpoint I presume.
Just an observation, I am wondering why nobody has commented on "pascalp's" post and the results he shows with really rubbish boolits.
Are his results common, and not worth commenting on or heaven forbid has he thrown up something to the board that none of us have an answer for?
Or maybe I am just on the wrong tram!
Ron.
FESTINA LENTE
Like everybody said it's the base that is the most important . As far as Pascalps results I didn't notice if he used a GC or not, if not that is a great rifle . Chub Eastman did a article in the last year or two in Handloader about the same thing with jacketed boolits and he deformed them with a file . The results were interesting to say the least some of em he really buggered up the nose and still got good accuracy but if he fooled with the base it went to pot . James
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
