Handgun Accuracy Shocker !!!!!!!!

[Bass Ackward]

Awhile back John Beagle made a statement that he was hollow pointing every handgun mold he owned. I did not think about what he was really saying and let this statement pass without question. I have heard people talk about recovering handgun bullets with bullet lube still in the grooves. Still I didn't catch the hint.

Thank You Mr Beagle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In "every" situation that I have tried, using every bullet design I could get my hands on, in several different guns, accuracy has improved by drilling the meplat of the bullet.

Here is the BIGGIE!!!!!! The .... WORSE .... the accuracy potential of the handgun has been in the past, the more .... dramatic .... has been .... the improvement.

Stabilization, stabilization, stabilization has replaced ignition as my first test for accuracy problems. Simply drill the nose as little as 1/8th of an inch deep and compare before and after results. It doesn't have to be precisely done either as long as you have a stop to remove close to the same amount of weight.

Got a handgun that won't shoot no matter what you do? Try this simple test / experiment and see what happens.

[44man]

Very true! I even have one made to drill .22 bullets and they are much more accurate then what I start with.

[Glen]

Along those same lines, I made a tool to put a flat-point on .22 LR bullets (a la the SGB). From a S&W 617, CCI Stingers would group at 50 feet to the tune of about 2 1/4". When the Stingers were FP-ed, they would cut groups the size of a dime.

[porkchop bob]

Drilling a hole in the meplat of the bullet will move the CG away from the nose and towards the base. The bullet will be more base heavy.
_ Are we saying this simple change will improve stabilization and accuracy for both short and long ranges?
_ Too much of a good thing may not be good. What are the limitations?
_ For example, at the extreme, has anyone tried it with a DEWC?

Bob

[beagle]

bob...I haven't tried it in a DEWC but I have a old SC Lyman 358495 that I'll soon put the mill to and see if this concept works on WCs as well.

The trouble with WC designs is that they run out of steam due to the non aerodynamical shape and go unstable pretty quickly.

I'm not expecting much in the way of expansion past 50 yards with it but it will be fun to play with in my .38 Special loads loaded to .38/44 velocities in the .357 Blackhawk.

I'll post when I get it done. If that improves, I'll do a DEWC and see if that works as I have one here in the drawer somewhere./beagle


Drilling a hole in the meplat of the bullet will move the CG away from the nose and towards the base. The bullet will be more base heavy.
_ Are we saying this simple change will improve stabilization and accuracy for both short and long ranges?
_ Too much of a good thing may not be good. What are the limitations?
_ For example, at the extreme, has anyone tried it with a DEWC?

Bob

[Leftoverdj]

Drilling a hole in the meplat of the bullet will move the CG away from the nose and towards the base. The bullet will be more base heavy.
_ Are we saying this simple change will improve stabilization and accuracy for both short and long ranges?
_ Too much of a good thing may not be good. What are the limitations?
_ For example, at the extreme, has anyone tried it with a DEWC?

Bob

Many of us have shot inverted HBWC. My experience was that they shot fine to 25 yards, but were hopeless at 50. I did only the most casual of testing since I was unconcerned about more than combat accuracy.

[beagle]

There so far has been two exceptions to the rule that HP bullets improve accutacy.

The first is the Lyman 357446 and the second is the Lyman 429360.

I've heard people say that the 357446 shoots well but I only got marginal accuracy out of it in my vintage Colt Python 4" that shoots .356" bullets extremely well. This was testing from 25 yards out to some tank hulls at 600 yards in an extremely dry summer one time using my son as a spotter (I tend to run some strange accuracy experiments). I was able to so fairly well at 200 yards on a 2" armor plate man sized sillouhette but could detect many flyers. On the tank, I'd get in the vicinity of it sometimes....... This is extreme range but I could take the 358429 and usually keep them in and around the hulks pretty steadily.

I did notice that the 357446HP was useable after hollowpointing at near top end .357 velocities and not .38 Special velocities.

I have never been able to get the 429360 to work well and I swore by that bullet when younger out of a Model 29 . Guess I didn't know squat. I've HP'd it, beagled it and finally, we went in and milled out the grooves and front driving band to replicate the Keith to no avail. I still get a couple of nasty flyers in very cylinder full.

In talking with Glen Fryxell, he says he has been unable to get it to shoot reliably either and I know my son hasn't and he's a S & W shooter...not a Ruger man.

So, these are the two exceptions and my experiences. If these two shoot well for you....good going. /beagle

[Bass Ackward]

Drilling a hole in the meplat of the bullet will move the CG away from the nose and towards the base. The bullet will be more base heavy.
_ Are we saying this simple change will improve stabilization and accuracy for both short and long ranges?
_ Too much of a good thing may not be good. What are the limitations?
_ For example, at the extreme, has anyone tried it with a DEWC?

Bob


Bob,

Yes, on improving the ability to stabilize. I never thought that might be an issue. Compare 38 twist in 44 caliber rifles to most handguns. You would think the handgun would stabilize much better. At least I did.

And understand, I am not saying to forsake good reloading practices here. Just that after finding the peak in performance, what ever that is, try to hollow point and see what happens. Or to try this before you give up and sell a crappy revolver. I just use a drill in my lathe type case trimmer the size of the shank on the pilots. Set the depth, line it up half way close, and drill away. Ugly and off center as all get out. You would bet it would never work. And you would lose your money.

Small hole only about 1/8"deep and some crappy loads drop from 6" at 50 to 2". I have seen it stop leading too although I am not touting that here as it has not in other cases. The worst improvement observed was from 3" to a consistent 2 1/2. And not once in awhile, but every time! I can see no other rational for such improvement. The amount of weight we are talking is approximately 7 grains the way I am drilling. That's it.

So is that really telling me that I need to remove 7 grains of weight from my mold designs by shortening the nose or cutting the meplat size?

Limitations? I was hoping to get people started experimenting. I would think that the limitation is not to go so big, that you begin to destroy the olgive shape that is providing a / some ballistic coefficient. Nor to go so deep that you lose much weight as a percentage because these are drilled off center. Make the weight loss too great and eventually the outta balance is going to make you pay starting at longer range.

[45 2.1]

There so far has been two exceptions to the rule that HP bullets improve accutacy.
The first is the Lyman 357446 and the second is the Lyman 429360.
I have never been able to get the 429360 to work well and I swore by that bullet when younger out of a Model 29 . Guess I didn't know squat. I've HP'd it, beagled it and finally, we went in and milled out the grooves and front driving band to replicate the Keith to no avail. I still get a couple of nasty flyers in very cylinder full.
In talking with Glen Fryxell, he says he has been unable to get it to shoot reliably either and I know my son hasn't and he's a S & W shooter...not a Ruger man. /beagle

Beagle-
A couple of years ago, I had Buckshot redo a 429360 hollow point that was factory new, but had a hollow point pin hole that was out of line with the cavity. I used a very large pin that went to the grease groove in depth and had the pin tapered for the last 0.15". It has shot very, very well, with no fliers, and consistently considering that the solid version doesn't shoot worth a hoot. The boolit nose had a wall of about 0.065 to 0.07" at the meplat.

[felix]

Don't worry about the air going into that hole. It won't after it is full of compressed air anyway. If you drilled too much out, i.e., making the CG go back too far, fill the hole up with something lighter than lead (zinc powder?) and lock it in with a dab of airplane glue, elmers, or whatever is around the house. The hole is too far in the center of a 44 to cause an obvious imbalance at 50 or so. ... felix

[Ricochet]

I don't understand how moving the center of mass to the rear improves stability. Looks like it would do the opposite. Does gyroscopic action turn that around?

[arkypete]

Many years ago in one of the gun rags, maybe Handloader a fellow found at a yard sale a CH swaging tool with a few dies. He was primarily a bullet caster so he tinkered with the set up.
He was a machinest of some skill so he made some dies to swage hollow points into already sized and lubed cast bullets. He made a point of explaining that the lube grooves need to be full of lube or the driving bands would collapse.
He also found an increase in accuracy.
From my experience with hollow pointed cast bullets, it seems a very slow process for acheiving any number of bullets. The swaging of the hollow point would seem a faster manner of getting the same results.
Jim

[Four Fingers of Death]

I read an article in the Lyman Cast Bullet book about a re-enactment group in Canada. They preffered LHPs as they stabilised better. Mick.

[felix]

Ricochet, you are correct. But those long flat noses we all like will become heavier than the base, in effect, when the wind hits them straight on, fast enough. As long as the twist holds up for the boolit design, all's good enough. Otherwise, any hiccup will tend to start a flip. The most stable designs are those condom needle nose jobs with sufficient twist. No friction up front to cause problems. In other words, we need twist because our boolits catch air; the other bullets need twist because of their length (and boattail). However, a faster twist hurts us because of the up front stripping. ... felix

[Jon K]

I agree with Felix on that, because design, bullet length to diameter ratio, speed, fit and twist, if all are right that's all that should be needed to stablize th bullet. I played with the HP of cast bullets a little in the late 60's- early 70's. The guns would key-hole the bullet @25 yds, before drilling.

This is what I believe, and maybe I'm wrong, but here it is: the bullet won't stablize, then you drill the HP, what you have done, is give the bullet an axis to spin on, and give the rifling twist a helping hand to stablize the bullet.

Lots of work, find a better fit and design to make the gun shoot.

Jon

:castmine:

[felix]

Jon, now you are getting into the dynamic inertia of the object. The inertia increases as the center is opened up, thus helping the twist to make rotation before stripping, and after boolit exit because the effect of the increased inertia remains. Keep in mind the design of SpaceStation #9 in the TV series. Nothing but a spoked wheel turning at a snails pace. Extreme inertia. ... felix

[Lloyd Smale]

not a scientist by a long shot but looked through all my reloading data over the years and theres no doubt a significant improvement in accuarcy in handguns with cast bullets that coralates with metplat size. In just about every gun ive tested a bullet at the same weight with a smaller metplat will outshoot the same sized bullet with a larger one. IVe got a few molds that i flat fell in love with when i saw them. Thought "what a great bullet for hunting" and couldnt get to shot well in anything. A good example is my .41 special single six and 41 mag old model conversion. They need short bullets to crimp properly and maitain overal lenght that will work in them. They tend to have short noses with big metplats. In my testing it seems like its more then just keeping the weight to the back of the bullet. What tends to shoot well is a bullet that has a longer nose with a smaller metplat. I guess elmer was on to something with his keith bullets with the smaller metplat and thats probably why lfns are about the easiest bullets to get to shoot well. There are some exceptions. The 270 rcbs 45 is one of them. But even it can be more difficult to get to shoot well then some other designs and im sure its why the wlfns are the worst bullet designs on the market. Ive got a few wfns to shoot well but never a wlfn

[arkypete]

Assuming that a gas check was placed on the bottom of the bullet and would not get blown through the hollow point, what would happen if the bullet was hollow all the way through, nose to butt?
Jim

[Bass Ackward]

Assuming that a gas check was placed on the bottom of the bullet and would not get blown through the hollow point, what would happen if the bullet was hollow all the way through, nose to butt?
Jim


Jim,

Why thanks for volunteering. Great experiment! Let us know how it comes out. :grin:


Jon K,

<<Lots of work, find a better fit and design to make the gun shoot.>>

Absolutely. But here is the $100,000 question: WHAT makes a better bullet design?

And what if mechanical alignment limits you unrealistically in this quest? Trials can be as much time or more than hollowpointing huh? And molds can get expensive.

And wouldn't we all like a down and dirty check to KNOW what the problem is so that you can attempt to fix it? This is what has rocked me. According to everything I have ever seen, 18 twist in a 44 should stabilize everything out to 350 grains. But that apparently AIN'T so if .... you don't have the (what) velocity behind it. And where do we stop? If the accuracy potential of bullet "A" is 3" at 25 yards, wouldn't we like to know?

The realization of this just brings on so many questions for me. Like how many accurate guns have been sold because this was never understood? Or how many times has someone blamed, ignition, case anneal, neck tension, crimp and on and on? Or do longer barrelled guns really shoot better because of a longer sight radius .... or just better stabilization velocity?

The two things that this information requires me to attempt to solve is:

1. What twist rate .... IS .... really necessary if you don't want to run wide open for certain calibers or guns? Evidently, velocity is a much larger factor for stabilization than some formulas take into consideration. Ever hear a handgunner say that he has to run right on the top to get accuracy? Well that velocity level won't last forever and then you are back in the same quandry. So does the sound barrier get blamed here or just a crappy design?

2. How should this information affect my bullet design considerations in the future? Evidently my 60% meplat rule is not correct, only down to certain velocity levels. And where is the trade off between meplat size and nose length? I know that Dan at Mountain Molds believes longer bearing areas resulting in deep seating of bullets. In my mind, this is just another way of saying keep noses short. Or keep the unsupported nose weight to a minimum needed for BC. Definately explains why I always seemed to get round nose designs to shoot in anything, at any velocity.

So maybe plinker designs should be almost a round nose for flexibility. I can go on and on. It's good to see the great minds also working on this. Be nice to see this take wings and foster some experiments that Beagle hasn't hit on yet.

Handguns used to be fun. Now I gotta think here too? :grin:

[Bret4207]

Great thread guys. You won't find this stuff at "Billy Bob's gunz and heavy metal music" website. Love this place.

I've often thought out loud here that many of the spire point type designs that are hard to get to shoot well, especially at the higher velocities, would benefit from hollow pointing. My thought was that the long unsupported nose would have less mass to throw things off, that being slightly less lead in the HP'd protion that some obturation might take place allowing the nose to "bump up" a bit and ride the lands, that the CG being moved to the more supported rear would help and that the shorter OAL of the boolit would be a boon to a marginal twist. Obviously the Louvern (sp) designs would in theory be the least likely to benefit, but we won't know until we try will we?

I have yet to try any of these ideas out, either in rifles or handguns. A spire point, like the 311359 that is hollow pointed is reputed to do all sorts of good things in 32WCF revolvers. This isn't a real comparison to BA's work or the Keith designs, but it's sitting in my head waitng to be tried.

Felix- Wouldn't HPing also contribute to less problems as rotational speeds increase? I'm thinking 6.5x55 here and the ongoing RPM contest.

[Bass Ackward]

Bret,

Well .... I don't think this is just stabilization here. Take a bullet transitioning from a cylinder throat. The more mass that nose has, the more momentum it has going in a straight line. Hollowpoint it and it is easier to turn and possibly doesn't deform as much. That is why I believe that it stopped the leading with small diameter bullets I had at the time was that they were deformed and unable to maintain seal.

Now lets take sizing in the cone and throat. Say you have large throats on a new or slightly worn gun. If you had a hollow center, the bullet could colapse easier and make what amounts to a better / easier / smoother transition into the bore. And the sizing would amount to less risk of the base going out of square. Sort of a reverse Taylor throat effect. Built into the bullet instead of the gun.

[45 2.1]

WHAT makes a better bullet design?
You've finally asked the right question.

And what if mechanical alignment limits you unrealistically in this quest? Trials can be as much time or more than hollowpointing huh? And molds can get expensive.
Autocad allows you to look at what you've got and basically shows you where to alter things.

And wouldn't we all like a down and dirty check to KNOW what the problem is so that you can attempt to fix it? This is what has rocked me. See above. According to everything I have ever seen, 18 twist in a 44 should stabilize everything out to 350 grains. But that apparently AIN'T so Correct if .... you don't have the (what) velocity behind it. And where do we stop? If the accuracy potential of bullet "A" is 3" at 25 yards, wouldn't we like to know? Wrong track, methodology is most of the cause.

The realization of this just brings on so many questions for me. Like how many accurate guns have been sold because this was never understood? A lot Or how many times has someone blamed, ignition, case anneal, neck tension, crimp and on and on? Or do longer barrelled guns really shoot better because of a longer sight radius .... or just better stabilization velocity? You need to look at the RPMs generated for the given velocity and twist.

The two things that this information requires me to attempt to solve is:

1. What twist rate .... IS .... really necessary if you don't want to run wide open for certain calibers or guns? RPMs generated again Evidently, velocity is a much larger factor for stabilization than some formulas take into consideration. Ever hear a handgunner say that he has to run right on the top to get accuracy? Well that velocity level won't last forever and then you are back in the same quandry. So does the sound barrier get blamed here or just a crappy design? Boolit fit, temper and load.

2. How should this information affect my bullet design considerations in the future? Evidently my 60% meplat rule is not correct, only down to certain velocity levels. And where is the trade off between meplat size and nose length? I know that Dan at Mountain Molds believes longer bearing areas resulting in deep seating of bullets. In my mind, this is just another way of saying keep noses short. Or keep the unsupported nose weight to a minimum needed for BC. Definately explains why I always seemed to get round nose designs to shoot in anything, at any velocity. Try thinking about reducing the meplat for less velocity considerations if you insist on harder than necessary alloy. Soft alloy with the correct design and big meplats do work.

So maybe plinker designs should be almost a round nose for flexibility. I can go on and on. It's good to see the great minds also working on this. Be nice to see this take wings and foster some experiments that Beagle hasn't hit on yet. There are several methods that have not been proposed yet that will give you results.

Handguns used to be fun. Now I gotta think here too? And you weren't before?

[Bass Ackward]

Bob,

You wrote, <<You need to look at the RPMs generated for the given velocity and twist.>>

That is kinda of obvious now since where we thought we were is where we were supposed to be. :grin:

What we need is a meplat to nose weight ratio for per so many RPMs. How do we determine that?

[45 2.1]

Bob,
You wrote, <<You need to look at the RPMs generated for the given velocity and twist.>>

That is kinda of obvious now since where we thought we were is where we were supposed to be. :grin: It wasn't so obvious that you asked the following question, now was it. If you understood this, then why haven't you understood the following question?

What we need is a meplat to nose weight ratio for per so many RPMs. How do we determine that? Plot known meplat/velocity per caliber that do work. One side of the line doesn't and the other side does.

[Cayoot]

I may be off base here (nothing new in my world), but wouldn't it be easier (than hollow pointing a mould), cheaper and faster, for the sake of experiment, to try different (read=lighter) alloys for the nose? We have all read of different experiments where the caster pours a measured amount of pure lead to fill the nose of a SWC into the mould, then fills the remainder of the mould with his normal alloy.

Couldn't the same thing be done with the goal of reducing the weight of the nose (instead of softening the nose) with say pure lyno or Tin? This would not be a permanent design, but merely an expedient way of experimenting with varying boolit nose weight. More or less of the nose could be filled with the lightest weight metal possible (I don't know if we could get molten aluminum to bind with ww alloy or not). Also, we would not have the concern of the hollow point shape affecting the dynamics of boolit flight (eliminating one more variable).

Maybe I'm completly confused....but I think it may be worth tossing into the brain storming here.

[44man]

I have tried the WFN many times and accuracy has never met what I wanted so I just stuck with the WLN designs. Then came the exception with my BFR .475. I tried some LBT and other WFN boolits before that a fellow sent me. They were so-so but I still wanted one for deer so I made a mould. The meplat runs about .380" diameter. It is .925" long and weighs 420 gr's. The front drive bands are .476 tapering to .478 at the base and it is a PB boolit.
This boolit is extremely accurate and will hold 1" at 50 yd's and I have put 5 into 5/8" on occasion. It holds up with great accuracy to 100 yd's which is as far as I have tried it. Driven with 26 gr's of 296, it gets me 1329 FPS, ES of 21.7, SD of 11.8.
Now it sounds like I will have to make a jig to drill the noses and to see if it can be improved upon. The quest for the one hole group will continue!
My WLNGC boolit is .970" long, meplat of .330", 430 gr's (with lube), .475" at the front band and .477" at the base band. 26 gr's of 296 will push it 1341 FPS, ES is 24.6, SD is 12.3. It has proven accurate with 1" and less at 50 yd's and is another candidate for a hollow point.
Then there is the Lee .476-400 RF that is the single most accurate factory boolit I have ever shot out of this gun and holds up to 500 meters. What will a hollow point do for it?
45 2.1, it was just luck that I got these boolits right for my gun. I shoot all of them with a hard alloy of WW's, tin and antimony added. The Brinnel is 22 to 25. I would say that you don't need a softer alloy for the WFN if the boolit fits properly. I have tried softer with not as good accuracy. This .475 is the most accurate revolver I have ever had in any caliber with a wide range of boolits. The twist is 1 in 15 and will outshoot every Freedom revolver ever brought to my range, BY A WIDE MARGIN. Of course, none of my boolits will fit the Freedom, they stick out the front of the cylinder. ( The Freedom has a 1 in 18 twist.) Pretty junk if you want my opinion!
I have had a bunch of S&W .44's that would hold 1/2" at 50 yd's with jacketed bullets but were so grip sensitive as to be useless for silhouette.
If I were rich, I would buy one of every BFR made just for grins.
Instead of sugar plums running through my thoughts, it will be hollow points!

By the way, I have tried a bunch of semi wadcutters in this .475 and none of them come close to being accurate.

[arkypete]

Could altering the nose length or shape be just as effective as hollow pointing?
Or would hollow basing achieve the same result, like the hollow base wadcutters?
Jim

[44man]

I would say no to both questions. The hollow base will give you more trouble then you want. As will a bevel base which I consider an abortion.
Boolit diameter, drive area in relation to twist, velocity needed to stabilize and nose length in relation to boolit length (balance) will do the job. Change one without the other and accuracy goes away.
The small hollow point will shift the balance without effecting the other dimensions.
I have to wonder if the hollow point will improve the wadcutter for longer range shooting too. I don't use any and if some of you shoot them, could you try a hollow point?
This is going to turn into one of those great postings.
I don't have the technical expertise a lot of you have, I luck into a lot of things that I can't explain because I work at things and experiment constantly. I could never explain why one boolit shoots and another will not. I never quit even after finding what many would consider the very best that can be shot.

[Lloyd Smale]

thats strange 44 mag. Ive never got a wlfn to shoot well in anything. Ive actually had better luck with wfns and not much with them.

[Bass Ackward]

Bob,
You wrote, <<You need to look at the RPMs generated for the given velocity and twist.>>

That is kinda of obvious now since where we thought we were is where we were supposed to be. :grin: It wasn't so obvious that you asked the following question, now was it. If you understood this, then why haven't you understood the following question?

What we need is a meplat to nose weight ratio for per so many RPMs. How do we determine that? Plot known meplat/velocity per caliber that do work. One side of the line doesn't and the other side does.


Bob,

I was trying to be diplomatic here. You talk as if you have this all figured out.

Quite honestly, the biggest improvement came from the plinker that you designed for the group buy. So I would say this may not be as easy as you think. :grin:

And by the way, that really aided that bullet out to 200 yards now.

[44man]

Here are just some of the boolits tried in my .475. I shot up the rest and don't have any left for a picture.
The ones on the left will not group. The center ones are fair with a few decent groups. The ones on the right starting with the Lee are all exceptional shooting boolits.
Can I tell you why some don't work? NO I can't. Just a strange twist of fate. But you can see that I did not quit with one or two boolits tried and that would have made me believe the gun is not accurate.

[45 2.1]

Quite honestly, the biggest improvement came from the plinker that you designed for the group buy. So I would say this may not be as easy as you think. :grin:

John-
How I go about things is completely different than you or anybody else does. Mr. Keith knew how to make a boolit shoot long before the current crowd and I have figured out why. You all get the results of that in the GBs.

[Bass Ackward]

45 2.1, it was just luck that I got these boolits right for my gun. I shoot all of them with a hard alloy of WW's, tin and antimony added.


44man,

This is the point I am making. You didn't make those bullet right for your gun. You made them right for the conditions that you use in your gun. I just got back from breakfast and was thinking about this as I ate.

Bullet fit in a rifle is very straight forward. You can control, to a degree, the conditions up until the time that the bore takes control of the slug. But in a handgun, you are fooling yourself if you think that you can predict bullet fit since conditions change based on the mix and load, case neck tension, blah, blah, blah. You are launching in an uncontrolled fashion a slug that is forced to obturate / deform and that process is uncontrolled. Then you say that you can match cone angles and such, but under a continuous set of changing, unpredictible perameters?

For rifles, good bullet fit means that you get success with this powder and that one, this primer and that, this hardness and that. All you need do is adjust. With a handgun, you have to mix and match to get it right. And then right varries based upon the velocity range you want to establish.

Now this may all be too deep for us to contend. My questions are basically rhetorical because I can see that this goes beyond our level of understanding. I was just blindly following a 60% formula believing that previous experts like Elmer had it figured out. He did. But at 22 grains of 2400 using a 16 to 1 mix.

Maybe it's enough to get others to think about the futility unless we over compensate and use roundnoses for plinking. I have always had better luck with accuracy in the 38 bores and now maybe that is because BCs tend to stay below a problem point to a degree. After all, a 38 meplat can't get over .358.

All this is just food for thought as it has really forced me to think about future plans. And if you think you have it all figured out, then God Bless ya. I gotta work on it some.

[Bass Ackward]

Quite honestly, the biggest improvement came from the plinker that you designed for the group buy. So I would say this may not be as easy as you think. :grin:

John-
How I go about things is completely different than you or anybody else does. Mr. Keith knew how to make a boolit shoot long before the current crowd and I have figured out why. You all get the results of that in the GBs.


Bob,

Evidently.

Look. I am claiming no expertise here. Quite honestly my confidence has been shaken in what I THOUGHT I knew or understood.

But I disagree about Elmer too. He believed that a 64% meplat was tops for accuracy. Well, his 250 Keith was another big improver using 15.4 grains of 2400. So he got it right, but for a very narrow set of conditions too. That's my point. Handguns can't be made like rifles. No way. So they will always be finicky. As long as you understand that, you can adjust, but adjust you must. But can we increase our odds?

And after the load is perfected, then how do you know if accuracy could be better? That's WHAT I WANT to figure out cause I don't have the handle on this that I ignorantly believed I did. Just like that little blurb you alwyas post and the end of your posts.

[Glen]

Tpr. Bret -- Concerning your question about 6.5x55 and HP's as a way of dealing with the fast twist rate -- I can offer the following observation:

My Mauser 96 target rifle will shoot the Loverin Lyman 266469 (sized .266" and lubed with my homemade moly lube, 16.0 grains of H4198) as well as I can hold iron sights (just under 2 MOA). The same load with the 266469 HP (a bullet I would VERY much like to hunt with), sized and loaded exactly the same way, has yet to group any LESS than 4 MOA for me. I don't know why...(I hope to learn....)

Back to the original thread -- as a general statement, I too have noted better accuracy with HPs relative to the corresponding solids (one of many reasons I'm so fond of cast HPs), especially in handguns. With the exception noted above, almost always the HP bullets shoot notably better for me.

I don't know that this applies here, but I'll throw out a tidbit for discussion. Ever notice that all of the serious jacketed TARGET bullets are JHP's? It was noticed many years ago that high speed shadow photography picked up the fact that a small cavity JHP actually had TWO bow waves coming off the nose in supersonic flight -- more or less, one from the inner edge of the cavity and one from the outer edge of the cavity. It has been postulated that this stabilizes the bullet by having the outer bow wave serve to dampen any yaw by dampening the inner bow wave.

I'm not sure I can see how such a mechanism might come into play with, for example, a Keith HP, but it does provide food for thought....

[rhead]

When a bullet is spinning isn't the outside of the bullet (down) due to the angular momentem? If a bullet is hollow pointed the mass is concenterate toward the outside. This will effectivly lower the center of gravity of the bullet and make it more stable. Just one more thing that has been changed on the bullet.

[Doughty]

B A,

What method were you using to determine the diameter of the hollow point?

[Bass Ackward]

B A,

What method were you using to determine the diameter of the hollow point?


Vic,

No determination was made or even attempted to be made. My Lyman lathe type case neck turner would accept one drill size in the place where the pilots went. I drilled to the point that the drill loaded up and removed it. That's how I started. So there is plenty of room for experimentation here. And I am not sure we aren't re-inventing the wheel again. Take Lyman hollowpoint molds. They have pins that go far deeper than what would be needed for the purpose of expansion. And I am sure that it would have been apparent to them that a shorter / smaller pin would have been easier to use when molding, so is the purpose really for accuracy?

One point I need to clarify. I incorrectly said that Elmer didn't know his bullet design was flawed as well. It was pointed out to me, that he long claimed that Lyman ruined his design by shortening his front band. If this claim by Elmer is correct, then this would have shortened the unsupported nose weight of his 250 grain bullet and maybe improved it. Who knows?

But Elmer was a prideful man. He wrote an addendum to his book "Six Guns", where he made sure he took credit in print for the development of the 44 Mag for all time. Now, .... if it was so important you wanted credit for a cartridge that was made specifically to shoot his Keith "Wonder Bullet", why if you felt it had been ruined, would you not clarify your bullet design for all posterity by putting a picture or dimensions into print for all to see at the same time? In my mind, the bullet design was of much greater importance than a case shape. In fact, all Elmer wanted 1200 fps with that bullet design and the slowest practicle powder he had was 2400. Had he had H110 or 296 available to him for use in the 44 Special, the 44 Mag would never have been persued by him.

So if you want to believe that Elmer had a handle on bullet design, and the defining line for bullet design is so close that narrowing a front band can ruin it, then this subject is probably way beyond the scope of most of us here.

[fecmech]

"Definately explains why I always seemed to get round nose designs to shoot in anything, at any velocity. So maybe plinker designs should be almost a round nose for flexibility. Be nice to see this take wings and foster some experiments that Beagle hasn't hit on yet."

I realise this may be "heresy" on this board which is primarily dedicated to heavy for calber, large meplate style boolits but how many do you really shoot at game?? Maybe 2-5 per year?? How many of you are shooting "Bullseye" and worried about being scored a 9 instead of just touching the 10 ring. A few maybe. So why is everyone so tied to swc's and and flat nosed boolits??
IMO the area of least exploration on this board as far as handguns is concerned is the RN boolit. Sure some fellows use them in autos for feed reliability but the platform is inaccurate to start with so the results are skewed.
From personal experience in the .38-.357 handguns the least fussy and MOST accurate boolit I've found is the 158 gr rn, and that includes Factory wadcutter match! The later is very very close at 25 and 50 yds but not even in the running at any range beyond 50.
I guess the old homely Rn just is'nt sexy enough for what we think bullets should look like. I would'nt have my H&G rn mold if a friend had not given me a matched pair of 4 cavs. Now they would be the last of my molds to go. Who knows, maybe the aerodynamics of the RN design are particularly suited to the transonic and subsonic region that handgun bullets normally operate in.
Another thought is that if RN designs are are found to be more accurate in handguns they certainly would be easier to cast in quantity than HP 's. Oh well, just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in.

[felix]

Not "heresy" in the least. Take the two Saeco GC designs at 180 each in 358. The sillywet version is twice as accurate as the cowboy version in any 35 rifle I shot them in. I tend to use the Lyman RN 158 grainer (38 special design) in the longer cylinder revolters over the others. In the shorter cylinder guns, I tend to use the Lyman GC Thompson and naked mini-keith, 158 and 150 grainers respectively. ... felix

[beagle]

Pete...back in the old days when I was too pore to buy GCs, I'd cast 358156 bullets as I had that mould. We'd then take the lubed bullets and swage a HP cavity in them.

Full grooves are amust with the setup and frequent cleaning of any excess lube.

They shot very well out of a Colt Python and a Colt TRooper we were shooting at the time.

In fact, Orygun Mark has tinkered a bit with swaging shallow HP cavities in solid bullets using a Lyman or RCBS sizer. That procedure works providing the lead is soft and the cavity stays pretty shallow. A nose punch with a "tit" can be turned up pretty quickly on a lathe or even a DP for that matter./beagle


Many years ago in one of the gun rags, maybe Handloader a fellow found at a yard sale a CH swaging tool with a few dies. He was primarily a bullet caster so he tinkered with the set up.
He was a machinest of some skill so he made some dies to swage hollow points into already sized and lubed cast bullets. He made a point of explaining that the lube grooves need to be full of lube or the driving bands would collapse.
He also found an increase in accuracy.
From my experience with hollow pointed cast bullets, it seems a very slow process for acheiving any number of bullets. The swaging of the hollow point would seem a faster manner of getting the same results.
Jim

[beagle]

ViC...between Orygun Mark and I, we've modified probably 150 moulds for HPs.

The method I use is 1/3 the bullet diameter rounded off to the nearest common drill/reamer size.

A .25 gets .090". a .30 gets .100", the .38s get .125, the .41s, .44s and .45s get .140" and the .45 rifle bullets get .140s.

I normally shoot for a depth that is 1/2 the bullet length. Elmer used deeper cavities but I've found that 1/2 is enough./beagle


B A,

What method were you using to determine the diameter of the hollow point?

[44man]

Bass, my point exactly! I can't predict ANYTHING and most has been nothing but luck. Some of the boolits are so close that it makes me wonder why one shoots and another doesn't.
I have tried lighter loads and faster powders with the ones that do shoot good and they still shoot better then the ones that don't.
As you know, all of my loading steps are exactly the same for any boolit, tension, crimp, sizing, etc. Some great boolits don't come close to matching the forcing cone angle so that doesn't seem to matter. Some are a tad smaller in diameter like the Lee and still are super accurate.
And to tell the truth, I find it easier to work with revolvers then rifles to find accuracy.
None of my boolits will obturate to any extent as they are hard and either fit the throats or are larger. Besides, I don't believe in the theory anyway. Yes, the wrong size boolit, made soft, will shoot better then a hard one as it bumps up but this is never the most accurate process and is only a stop gap to make a boolit shoot a little better. Extreme accuracy will never be had that way. I have far too much experience with the process in muzzle loaders, it just doesn't work. The proper fit will! It works the same with modern rifles and handguns. I will NEVER agree with the bump up theory.
Sadly, everyone is stuck with the sizes of boolits that Lyman, RCBS and all the others think we should use. Every gun is different, why not moulds?

[Doughty]

beagle,

So if I understand you correctly, you don't concern yourself with the meplat diameter?

[Ricochet]

what would happen if the bullet was hollow all the way through, nose to butt?

Jim, I'm hollow all the way through, nose to butt. I've been known to wobble and tip over now and then.

[Bass Ackward]

I normally shoot for a depth that is 1/2 the bullet length. Elmer used deeper cavities but I've found that 1/2 is enough./beagle


Beagle,

Wow! Why so much? Expansion? Accuracy? And how did you arrive at these measurements?

While the temptation is definately there to hollowpoint, ain't gonna happen. But I will use this process in the future to grade my own reloading efforts at developing a load so that I can get a better handle on what I need to improve.

Fecmech had a good point about what you need for lower velocity work. Why is the round nose never considered? Well, I intend to remedy that one as another test. The problem for me is that it is getting cold now. Handgun experiments are limited for me in the winter as they are hard enough to shoot when it warm. (arthritis)

[arkypete]

Jim, I'm hollow all the way through, nose to butt. I've been known to wobble and tip over now and then.

Ricochet
Not to mention, whistling when ever there's a wind.
Jim

Didn't PMC make a bullet, made out of the red metal, like this? I think it got banned because it would penetrait the cops vests.
Jim

[Bass Ackward]

I know that this may seem like beating a dead horse, but here is a load that is normally a 2 1/2 to 3 inch performer @ 50 which .... ain't bad. But I hollow pointed it.

I have had people give me plenty of reasons of what I am doing wrong. Everything from ruining my bases, to poorly made bullets. In short, these are maximized reloading efforts of every factor from case preparation and anneal to neck tension from .002 to .020, to mix from 20-1 to WDWW. And sizes from .4295 to .4235. 2 1/2" was a good day, and 3 inches was more the norm until hollow pointing.

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r267/ba2_shoot/429hol.jpg


What stands out to me is that banking a bullet off a wall to enter a tube does things beyond my control no matter what reloading factor you think I should change. If hollow pointing and 7 grain reloval, from what ever ballistics property it posses, solves the problem, then why argue the point? You can see the off center holes and over all bullet. Recognize it Drew?

[Firebird]

There's a lot of talk about meplat diameter, but what actually counts for stability is aerodynamic coefficient. There are two forces working on a bullet in flight - the gyroscopic stabilization of the spin and the aerodynamic friction (I'm ignoring gravity because it's a constant and only determines the arc of trajectory, not whether the bullet is stable in flight). Gyroscopic stabilization works better if the center of gravity is toward the rear, and the aerodynamic works better if the center of gravity is toward the front.
It's obvious that the faster a bullet flies, the greater the aerodynamic force; and the faster the velocity upon leaving the barrel, the faster the rpm the bullet is spinning at. So the velocity of a bullet as it leaves the barrel is very important as it helps to determine both of the forces acting on a bullet in flight. The meplat of the bullet does a lot to determine the aerodynamic coefficient - but not all of it. Radius (length) of the nose, tangental versus secant where the arc of the nose enters the body of the bullet and a boat-tail or not also help to determine the aerodynamic coefficient.
The armor piercing ammo of the M1 Abrams doesn't depend on gyroscopic force at all - it is stabilized at 5000 fps solely by aerodynamic forces. Our cast bullets can't go 5000 fps, but don't forget that aerodynamics do play a large part of stabilizing our bullets. It's why wadcutters start tumbling at around 50 yards as the aerodynamic forces push the bullet over and cause the bullet to tumble, and why even a small ogival nose can help keep them stable longer. And also why round-nose bullets stay stable, even at low velocities that cause flat-nosed bullets to start tumbling.

Round-nose bullets aren't liked much in bullseye because they are hard to score. Why 22 rimfire target ammo uses them is a mystery to me as it would be MUCH easier to score them if they would use a SWC nose to cut a full diameter round hole instead of the round-nose's sub-caliber hole and small surrounding rips.

[felix]

Right on firebird, but you know what? The 22 scores are made using a punch tool with a circling magnifier. Magically, the 22 holes are perfectly round and easy to score. ... felix

[beagle]

Vic...I don't take the meplat diameter into consideration at all./beagle


beagle,

So if I understand you correctly, you don't concern yourself with the meplat diameter?

[beagle]

Bass...When we started all of this years ago. I measured all of the factory hollow points I had on hand at the time and punched them in a table.

I then constructed a mathmatical model and that's about how it worked out.

Now, I'll deviate from that if I think a HP cavity "looks" too big. The 358439 looks pretty big to me and as well as I recall, my factory moulds have .156" pins on them. Someone else must have thought so also as I have a factory "custom" 358429HP with a .125" pin.

Pistol bullets need bigger HPs as they normally require (according to Elmer and other sources I have seen) 1,000 FPS impact velocity to expand. Given a bigger HP with more fragile cavity sides, they'll expand at less than that. If this was not so, it would be a waste of effort to make HPs for the .45 ACP and .45 Colt and I've gotten expansion froom both with handguns.

Rifle bullets one the other hand usually don't lack for the terminal velocity so you can get by with a smaller cavity in them. In the .22s, a HP is about a devestating as some of the more fragile varmint special bullets like the Hornady SX and the Sierra Blitz. I've had the 22-55-SPHP at 2100 FPS expand on a starling at 100 yards and on a spectacular basis./beagle


Beagle,

Wow! Why so much? Expansion? Accuracy? And how did you arrive at these measurements?

While the temptation is definately there to hollowpoint, ain't gonna happen. But I will use this process in the future to grade my own reloading efforts at developing a load so that I can get a better handle on what I need to improve.

Fecmech had a good point about what you need for lower velocity work. Why is the round nose never considered? Well, I intend to remedy that one as another test. The problem for me is that it is getting cold now. Handgun experiments are limited for me in the winter as they are hard enough to shoot when it warm. (arthritis)

[ozonebob]

For those interested, the article that discussed swaging a hollow point after casting was written in 1989 by John Zemanek, and it appeared in Handloader issue number 140.

Ozonebob

[44man]

Swaging itself will make a boolit much more accurate because it eliminates any casting voids. Sadly, I sold my C&H swaging tool years ago. Why don't we just keep stuff?

[leftiye]

Lottsa thoughts on what is being said here. One thing I was perplexed to NOT see was someone DOUBTING that flat meplats (not to mention large ones) were aerodynamically stable! I kinda think that besides being horrible as concerns ballistic coefficient, they probably produce such nasty turbulence that flying straight at all is a wonder. I have long marveled at this as concerns cast bullets in general. How much better a RNHP made of softer lead when it comes to BC, and also tissue damage!
The hollow point may just help the turbulence out, though also in effect shortening the bullet, and thereby improving stability at a given rpm. When I was first getting into reloading a gunsmith told me that hollow points were inherently more accurate than both flat points,and spire points. He may have had something?
Especially if we shoot these things too slow as has been alluded to, they probably are marginal as to rpm, and can use any help that can be afforded. Ironically, faster twists may well be called for in less high performance loads. On the other side of the coin, if not overdone the faster loads wouldn't suffer.
Something that you might help me with, If spin rate doesn't decrease as velocity wears off, why do bullets "run out of steam and lose stability"? One possibility would be that flat noses are sensitive to velocity in order to be stable.

[44man]

Back many, many years ago in my varmint hunting days, I always found hollow points more accurate (Jacketed bullets.) but they had such tiny holes in them that there was no way it would effect airflow and turbulance. I would bet that bullet balance is what made them better. Even now the hollow point .22's are more accurate and most of the time there is wax in the hole.

[leftiye]

44- Fine logical argument. But (you know how people are) I've just gotta put in a couple of cents still. I'm not arguing that taking weight off of the extreme front of the bullet, in effect shortening the bullet, doesn't improve the stability. You'll notice that I agreed to that in my earlier comment. The question IS- is that the whole effect by which the profit in accuracy comes to pass?
Do those little dimples in the noses of the bullets in the pictures make that much difference in the weight distribution of a flat nose bullet? Does a soft point varmint bullet suffer that much for stability as compared with a hollow point? And is the wax in the hollow point even still in place as soon as the bullet leaves the barrel? These things are spinning at rpms that have brought some to question why the bullets do not fly apart due to centrifugal force. That should be sufficient stability maybe.
At this point it becomes smart to bring attention to the idea that we are walking all over the lines as to what are special purpose bullets. Wadcutters are designed to make nice holes in paper. Semiwadcutters, ditto plus same in small animals. A general purpose bullet (which may be much better if cast with a conical recess for a nose instead of a flat point). And as previously mentioned far outdone in meat gathering by a hollow point bullet with some ballistic coefficient which expands. We haven't really explored how much the hollow point might improve the round nose bullet's accuracy. This would be interesting too. Is it unthinkable that the hollow point is superior to other nose designs aerodynamically?

[45 2.1]

The hollow point (even a dimple on the nose) reduces the air turbulence around and behind the boolit. This technology was brought about and proved while making the common golf ball fly straighter and farther.

[Pilgrim]

If anybody can speak to hp'ing cast boolits, beagle and Orygun Mark can.

This thread has gotten me to thinking about making a hp setup for my Wilson case trimmer to try hp'ing my .32 H&R and .45's (ACP & Colt) loaded ammo. The down side is I'm not skilled enough with a handgun to be able to say anything definitively about accuracy effects, unless they are very dramatic (2.5" down to 1.5" @ 25 yds for example). Nor do I believe my handguns are capable of the kind of accuracy 44Man is getting with his handguns. On the other hand, I do know that hp bullets are more accurate than those without hp's.

Also, if you look carefully at 44Mans' photo of his .475 boolits, the boolits on the left have longer noses with relation to the body of the bullet that those on the middle or right. At least that is what my eyes tell me. It's not hugely obvious though, but 44mans results would suggest that even a small change can cause significant improvement/reduction in accuracy. Finally, my limited experimenting (success and failures) have lead me to the conclusion that in rifles a boolit designed like the RCBS 35-200, if of a diameter at least .001 larger than groove diameter, and GC'd are much easier to get to shoot accurately than any other boolit design I've tried. I've proved this in the .35 Rem, .358 Win., .375 Win., and a few others. Most of the RCBS rifle boolit moulds seem to be of this configuration, more or less, and that is why I use them first and exclusively unless a custom mould is required. Their warranty support plays into this, but is way second to performance for me.

The short nose of the 35-200 won't slump during acceleration, while bore riding designs will/can slump, and pointed designs are almost guaranteed to slump unless very hard. A second thing about the 35-200 is there is a lot of the bullet that fills the grooves so that the alignment is maintained. And lastly, the maximum bore contact with a short (non bore riding) nose means that you can use a softer alloy and still get accuracy because there is no place or way for the boolit to deform as it travels down the bore. You need a good lube, but with that type of boolit design, a bunch of our other "accuracy" problems mostly go away in my experience. A bore rider will work if the alloy is hard enough (or heat treated), or shot "gently" but even with a lot of contact with the lands, the nose can still deform into the grooves if pushed too hard for the alloy. If that deformation happens, you will see it in decreased accuracy. It may not be a huge decrease immediately, but as your pressures and boolit acceleration increases, at some point accuracy will start to decrease, and my opinion is it is due to slumping/deformation of the nose for the most part. The GC helps as it protects the base of the boolit both during loading and during shooting. So I always use a GC boolit in my rifles. This formula has permitted me to shoot the 35-200 to greater than 2400 fps in my .358 Win. with ACWW metal, LBT blue, with the boolit essentially sized and lubed so it is "as cast". I do not know how fast I can push this configuration as I am starting to get to the upper limit of pressures I'm willing to use in my .358 BLR. How much do I believe this? I've sold virtually all of my bore riding boolit moulds and replaced them with the "RCBS" design.

Peestols are a different critter altogether as BA has noted. For extreme accuracy (as 44man gets) you MUST have the cylinders in perfect alignment with the barrel; you MUST have a boolit that fits the chamber throats; the chamber throats MUST be correct for the groove diameter of the barrel; and the alloy MUST be hard enough that it won't lead, but soft enough that all of the deformation going through the throats and forcing cone doesn't leave any room for gas blow-by. When you add in a long nose, regardless of meplat, things start to go to hell due to deformation IMO. A large meplat probably causes grief in long range accuracy due to aerodynamic stabilty issues, but that has to be balanced against the proven fact that a meplat (larger is better) has substantially more impact on critters when you shoot them. So for a handgun hunter, long range accuracy demands (smaller meplat) starts to hurt long range effects on a critter. How much meplat is needed for both hunting efficiency and acceptable accuracy? I don't know, but since handgun ranges are usually fairly short, it probably isn't of any great significance as long as it isn't a WC boolit.

John Zemanecks' experiments with swaging was directly addressing the voids inherent in our favorite projectiles. He proved conclusively in those experiments that swaged boolits (after casting and sizing/lubing them) were more accurate than cast boolits that weren't swaged. The swaging eliminated the voids. (I misss him as he died very young.) His experiments did not address the meplat vs. nose length vs. hollow pointing at all. In fact, I've never seen any published experimental information on hp'ing vs nose length vs meplat accuracy effects. I mean good solid testing using the same mould and gun. John (beagle) has probably done more of this than anybody I am aware of, but John hasn't published much. He's pretty doggone quiet about his experiments. I'm not sure how much accuracy increases (% wise) with hp depth. I believe that there is a pretty steep accuracy rate increase with hp'ing as depth increases up to some peak increase (rate of improvement) at which additional depth doesn't add much. I also suspect hp diameter coupled with depth will give you a different curve. I suspect that the smaller the hp diameter, the deeper you have to go to get the same accuracy improvement compared to a wide diameter hp, but again this may not be terribly significant. Small diameter may be as good as we need, empirically. I don't have the empirical evidence to back this up, and one would have to have a good & patient machinist to develop the data. You would have to start with a small hp, with shallow depth, and slowly deepen the hp cavity it as you go. Then you would have to have an IDENTICAL mould to increase the hp diameter, etc. The whole thing would be spendy and rest assured, it would take a long time and a whole lot of ammunition will be expended to get sufficient statistical data to be able to back up your claims when it's is all done and over with. All this assumes that the handgun/rifle was accurate enough in the first place to show the effects.

I'm not trying to throw water on anybody's desire to experiment, in fact I hope a lot of us do test these ideas out and then report back via this forum. I just want to make sure everybody understands that a little data is decidedly "dangerous" relative to conclusions. There are just too many variables inherent in our hobby that affect the results that we simply can't control to draw any conclusions that are general in nature. Conclusions relative to loads for one specific gun, mould, alloy, and lube, yes for sure. Beyond that, I dunno. Personally, I believe that a "short" nose (minimum bore riding), groove diameter GC boolit, hp'ed would be the most accurate boolit we can get. However, the boolit has to have some sort of nose configuration other than a WC so its stable beyond 50 yds. I suspect hp'ing our boolits would help improve accuracy, provided the hp'ing doesn't result in too rapid expansion if used on critters. On beer cans...who cares?

I'm lazy so I don't want to water drop or go to other "extreme" shenanigans to get acceptable accuracy in peestol or rifle. I also am cheap, so I want to find an easily repeated, reasonably inexpensive alloy for my casting, with the same alloy for rifles vs. peestols if I can. Hollow pointing takes more time when casting or after casting compared to non hp boolits, and this falls into the "extreme" shenanigans in my view. Will I do it if it is required for accuracy?You bet. At least for those loads where accuracy makes a difference (target or hunting).
FWIW...Pilgrim

[44man]

Dog gone it Pilgrim, How much better could it be said?
I can only say one thing about hollow points. If I take .22 hollow point bullets and use my hollow pointing tool to open the points evenly, they do get more accurate. I will not profess to know why. Balance or air flow?????

[Hunter]

It is my understanding this is the very reason Sierra MatchKing bullets (designed for accuracy) are hollow at the meplat.

[mike in co]

Simple Question.
The Latest 44 Big Flat 44 Cal Group Buy Mould Is A 290 Gc.
What Would Be A Good /correct Size Depth Hp For It ?

Any Way Practical To Hp A 6 Gang Mould ?

Mike In Co

[Ricochet]

I don't think water dropping is "extreme shenanigans." I mainly water drop because it's a whole lot easier than dropping air-cooled boolits and keeping them undamaged. I'd water drop from the mould even if using an alloy like pure lead or linotype that shouldn't benefit from it metallurgically. It's the lazy man's way to get better boolits.

[robertbank]

Well you boys have given me a headache and also an idea. I tried to sell my Lee approx. 200 gr RNHP mold and there were no takers. Well you guys have given me a reason to fire up the casting pot tomorrow. Will take some time to cast up 100 or so bullets but if having a small hole in the nose helps with accuracy then why not. I know the mold won't cast a bullet that will expand but now an accurate bullet might help a tad in IDPA.

If I cast tomorrow and lube I should be good to go by next Monday when it warms up here. Relative term -25C right now and 10 - 20 cm of snow for tomorrow. God I hate my ancestors, go south young man go south not west! I swear next winter I am spending in Arizona even if I have to live in a tent!

Take Care

Bob

[slughammer]

.... If hollow pointing and 7 grain reloval, from what ever ballistics property it posses, solves the problem, then why argue the point? You can see the off center holes and over all bullet.

What is that group? Bout 1 1/2"? Very fine. I can't believe they fly that well with the off center holes! But there it is; in black and white (and orange).

I have the Forester stuff in a box somewhere, definately something to try on a tail chaser before throwing more money at it.

[Poygan]

Some time back I tried to HP a 358156 and had the hole drift off a bit (this was before I knew Buckshot would do it). Being a frugal fellow, I had to cast and try some anyway. As far as I could tell, they were as accurate as the solid nose, using a Contender with a 4X scope. Certainly not the results I expected.

[Pilgrim]

Well, I guess it's (shenanigans) all in the eye of the beholder. No offense intended. I add about 10% magnum shot to my WW + tin just in case I decide to water quench. The magnum shot will add a bit of antimony, but more importantly, it will increase the amount of arsenic (catalyst) in the alloy. I haven't had to water quench yet, and hope not to have to go to that extra step(s) {Quench, recover the boolits, dry 'em and then size/lube}. You have to do this in a fairly short time (<1 or 2 days) in order to size the boolits without damage to the sizer as the boolits will harden up fairly quickly. At least that is what I have read and have understodd from those who have quenched in the past. I also do not like having the water in the vicinity of my lead pot. Just squeamish I guess.

I "drop" the boolits from the mould from about 1" to 2" above a folded towel. I cast from a sitting position as I usually cast for at least an afternoon when I get started, and my back won't take that long of an interval on my feet. When I get 20 or so cast, I gently scoop them to one end of my cake pan so the next falling boolits don't cause damage one to the other, and repeat. My boolits aren't showing any damage as near as I can see due to the casting process I use. The boolits air cool and test at 14 to 15 BHN after a week or so. I don't know how long it takes them to reach that hardness, but suspect it is significantly less than a week. I also suspect that they are too hard for best accuracy my pistols. I may have to go to a second (softer) alloy for the handguns. Right now 1.5" to 2" is as good as I can group from a padded rest with any of them (Bisley .45 colt, Kimber .45 ACP, Single Six .32 H&R, K-38). I'd like to do better, but my current alloy may not allow it. I'm not getting leading to any noticable degree, so I'm in a bit of a quandry as to my next step with the pistol boolits. Rifle boolits seem to be just fine with ACWW, so for now I'm gonna stay the course with those. FWIW...Pilgrim

[pjh421]

Hey, if you load a LSWC boolit backwards you'll get a WC with a rebated boat tail. Zero base drag and nice, round holes to score. Should be great sub-sonic bullseye fodder. Man, I should patent that!

Paul

[Bass Ackward]

What is that group? Bout 1 1/2"? Very fine. I can't believe they fly that well with the off center holes! But there it is; in black and white (and orange).

I have the Forester stuff in a box somewhere, definately something to try on a tail chaser before throwing more money at it.


Slug,

Having more time to think about this hasn't produced many clear answers. But it has the wheels turning for bullet design that should have turned LONG before this. I never really measured the group and it has been tossed. But the accuracy IS reproducible. And with every design in my inventory. It was the .... percentage of improvement, on a semi wadcutter design that already has reduced unsupported nose weight, that just drove this home.

I have tested hollowpointing the same way on some rifle bullets. And while some would argue that hollowpointing makes everything more accurate, this has NOT been the case. I have seen no measurable accuracy difference in rifles. So my theory (at this point) is that hollow pointing improves stabilization .... if .... it is a problem.

I just never translated stabilization to handguns because most of my life I had a 38 twist, 44 rifle in my hands. So going to an 18 or even 16 twist, 44 caliber handgun, stabilization (or the lack of it) .... never .... entered my mind as an issue.

Bullet design remains the key. It's not just the meplat width. Or unsupported nose weight. It's a balance question needed for a certain velocity level too.

IF .... you have enough weight (length) the balance point is pushed far enough back that stabilization occurs. You have much more room for error on a heavy design. You always hear and read where ol timers said to use the heaviest bullets per caliber. Now I am learning why .... again. So it is much more difficult to design a short pistol bullet than a rifle bullet for accuracy. And .... ignorantly, I always assumed it was the reverse.

For handgun bullet design, I can see disadvantages to GC bullets in lighter weights now. Cutting lead from that shank on the back removes weight from the back of the bullet and shoves the balance point forward unless some creative work is done to lighten the nose. Same with lube groove depth and location. So from now on, my PB bullets will have a slightly wider base band in the future to keep the weight and balance point back. Say about .150 minimum. I will use shorter noses and reduce unsupported nose weight. I will hold front drive bands to about .100. Increase bearing length and move towards aerodynamic noses for general plinking or target work where shock is not a requirement. This is not going to guarantee a "more accurate" bullet. But it should offer better accuracy across a wider velocity range, should "balls to the wall" .... NOT be a desireable goal.

As somone else already pointed out, there is no reason for 95% of general shooting to need to launch any meplat really.

[robertbank]

I hope everyone realizes that if you are a lousy shot you still will miss just might miss closer. At handgun ranges do you really think it makes that much difference. Holding steady at 100 yards with a six inch pistol is largely a contradiction in terms for most of us from my observation.:mrgreen:

Take Care

Bob

[Dale53]

robertbank;
I would like to gently disagree with you here, Robert. When I was in pistol shooting shape, I was confident that I was sure on a deer to 125 yards. This from a sitting position with the revolver supported (ala Keith). I never lost a deer because of this, either. Prone is seldom possible in the hunting fields, but from a "roll over Prone" position on the range, I could make hits at 100 yards that you could cover with your hands.

I was never shy about using "field expedient rests" either. However, I killed two deer standing two handed at 75, and 85 yards repecttively.

I did practice a lot before deer hunting. My hunting partner and I often shot our .44 magnum revolvers as much as 2500 rounds in the weeks before hunting season. We wanted to be READY! To put things in proper prospective, during my five years with IPSC, I shot 75,000 .45 ACP's (using cast bullets cast by me).

Both of my deer hunting .44's are scoped (two power scopes) and are a Model 29 S&W 8 3/8" and a Ruger Red Hawk 7½".

Dale53

[robertbank]

Oh shucks no disagreement, I am sure there are lots of guys who are good at ranges you are talking about and with the right equipment probably even longer. I shoot mostly defensive pistol (1911/CZ/HP), we can't hunt up here with handguns so ranges are a lot closer. Most guys I shoot with couldn't hit a barn at 100 yards with a handgun but would scare you how accurate they are at 15 yards. From a rest I have hit regularily clay pidgons (sp brain cramp) at 100 yards with my Model 27 in .357 mag. Free hand standing though and I am out of my league.

Take Care

Bob

[mike in co]

I hope everyone realizes that if you are a lousy shot you still will miss just might miss closer. At handgun ranges do you really think it makes that much difference. Holding steady at 100 yards with a six inch pistol is largely a contradiction in terms for most of us from my observation.:mrgreen:

Take Care

Bob

bob,
i too will take exception. too much of a generalization on your part. i shoot..i shoot a lot. i shoot a 50 yard steel match with a 44 rem mag srh. i agree that a miss is a miss, but i dont miss very often.
( i suppose you dont want to hear about me shooting 300yds with a 9mm semi auto pistol and hitting a gong on a regular basis?)

[robertbank]

Nope! Not unless you want to talk about tossing snow balls at 50 paces.:mrgreen: If you can hit a gong at 300 yards with a 9MM pistol regularly you are out of my league by a lot. I would suggest to you that is not the norm for most folks. Not so sure I could do that with my 30-30 but maybe. Just another reason why this is an exceptional place to dwell.

Take Care

Bob

[BluesBear]

The reason many jacketed match bullets are hollow pointed is because it's easier to create a near perfect edge on a cavity than it is to create a perfect point.
Especially when used in autoloading rifles.
Feed ramp deformation of the bullet nose will ruin your groupings.



Assuming that a gas check was placed on the bottom of the bullet and would not get blown through the hollow point, what would happen if the bullet was hollow all the way through, nose to butt?


You'd have a ring airfoil. An extremaly aerodynamic shape.

PMC did it in 1989 with their Ultramag ammunition.
A copper cylinder bullet with a plastic base disk that drops away shortly after leaving the muzzle.
It works just like a cookie cutter. and creates a very nasty wound.

The original design as developed by Abe Flatau, had a steel ring in the center.
It was tested by the US Military. A moderl Kevlar GI helmet was placed on a goat and shot with a .45ACP loading.
It went through both sides of the helmet as well as the goat's head inside.
As I said, very nasty wounds and totally unacceptable by the Hague accord even though it didn't expand at all.
The copper version sold by PMC was designed to NOT penetrate police soft armor.
However the original Brass/Bronze offering would as as such is considered AP.

The Geco Action Safety bullet had a large funnel hollow point that taped to a small hole that extended completely through the bullet's base. It has an umbrella shaped plastic nose plug that actually exits the muzzle slightly ahead of the bullet and veers off. I recently just missed a new batch of 9mm that was imported as the Geco BAT (Blitz Action Cartridge)
The seller that had it thought it was plastic training ammo. But the buyer who noticed it 5 seconds before I did knew just what it was.

[Dale53]

I don't want to "steal the thread" but Bluesbear mentions something that makes my blood boil. The Hague Convention bans hollow point hand gun bullets, but I guess it's ok to use a flamethrower, land mines, and smart bombs? Please help me to understand the un-understandable...

Dale53

[robertbank]

THe US has never signed the convention to my knowledge so what does it matter?

Take Care

Bob

[hpdrifter]

I was reading a reloading manual tother day, Speer's I think, and it stated that Target shooters often prefered HP's just for this reason, but I'd not really thought about it making much difference at normal pistol ranges.

[ace1001]

"If it ain't a Colt it is a copy" Unless it's a Ruger, then its an improvement:). Ace

[Hunter]

"If it ain't a Colt it is a copy" Unless it's a Ruger, then its an improvement:). Ace

I hope you don't really believe that. I am a fan of Ruger firearms (especially their wheelguns) but their automatics are not the quality of the Colt 1911.

Here is a 7 round group I shot with my Colt Gold Cup Trophy last weekend using my cast 200gr LSWC and 5.6gr of Unique from a rest at a 100 yards.
I have managed to shot similar groups with it on 2 other range trips with the same load at a 100 yards.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h264/Hunter1911/2.jpg

[ace1001]

I have wanted a .452 200-230 gr Gas checked HP mold. Has any company made one? I finally bought the gas check mold and figured to HP it myself. Ace

[ace1001]

"If it ain't a Colt it is a copy" Unless it's a Ruger, then its an improvement.

What I refer to is the fact that instead of just copying Colt revolvers, Ruger improved the design. Coil springs, stronger, safer, (transfer bar) ect. and they did it for the price of a foreign copy. I wish they would build Winchester 86s and 92s, but I can't see how to improve John Browning's design. Ace

[Hunter]

"If it ain't a Colt it is a copy" Unless it's a Ruger, then its an improvement.

What I refer to is the fact that instead of just copying Colt revolvers, Ruger improved the design. Coil springs, stronger, safer, (transfer bar) ect. and they did it for the price of a foreign copy. I wish they would build Winchester 86s and 92s, but I can't see how to improve John Browning's design. Ace

Oh I see. Well you have a point. I do love my Ruger wheelguns and they have never give me a moments trouble but there is something about that Colt Python that is hard to beat.

[ace1001]

I am loading for 92s in 45cal. so my HP opening needs to be the size of a large primer for the tube magazine. Ace

[BluesBear]

My friend Robert Bank is correct that the US is not a signator to the Hague Accord.

But as a rule the US follows it's guidlines.

I always though it was pure folly to discriminate against certain small arms projectiles when high explosive based weapons are in use.
In my opinion a hollow point is a whole lot more humane than a land mine or a flame thrower or a fragmentation grenade.

Look at the remains of a tank crew after being hit by a HEAT projectile and say that a hollow point is inhumane.

When any of us go deer hunting (or elk or moose or any legal medium to large game animal) what do we use?
We either use a cast lead solid boolit with a good sized meplat (sometimes with a hollow point) or a jacketed expanding bullet with a soft or hollow point.
Yet these bullets, which are deemed humane for animals by the game departments of every state are considered inhumane by politicians half way around the world.

Now before you say that the official purpose of firearms in warfare is to wound the enemy and thus tie up their resources stop and think about this.
Ask any Jumpin' Jehosifat Jehad Yahoo if their goal is to wound all of us "infidels".
Ask Thin Dong Ill (or whatever his name is) if he wants to wound his way into political dominance.

I also feel compelled to commend my bretheren here. I have seen in many threads, various sincere yet logical attitudes expressed regarding proper hunting tools.
As responsible hunters and shooters we use the correct projectile for the job.
Why should our brave men and women on the front lines be denied that?


I appologize for my contribution to thread drift.
I will step down from the sopabox and behave now.

[hivoltfl]

Well after reading this I had to try it, I have a T/C contender in 7-30 Waters that has had me stumped for the last year with a Lee bullet, it was all over the paper, I tried this and got some great 50 yard groups today, many keyhole rounds I am amazed, RICK

[Lucky Joe]

This is an excellent thread, in response to arky pete in his post (11-12-2006) regarding a bored through boolit.
Jade Enterprise .45-70.......
http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k168/Luckyjoe_01/.jpg

[BluesBear]

The Jade slug was designed to be used with a Sabot in a muzzleloader.
What are you using for an endcap in that .45-70 load?

[Lucky Joe]

BluesBear,

I don't shoot the Jade slug, this was just a picture I happend to have. Endcap? Not sure what you mean.

[BluesBear]

When shooting a ring airfoil bullet you need an endcap to seal the base.
Without one the powder gases would just blast out through the opening leaving the bullet in the bore.
Provided, of course, the powder hadn't already fallen out.

When used in a muzzleloader the sabot seals the base.
But when you remove the Jade slug from the sabot and load it directly into a .45-70 case some sore of a plug must be used.
And the plug has to be sturdy enough to not collapse into the cavity.

The PMC Ultramag used a special T shaped plastic plug.

[Lucky Joe]

BlueBears,

OK, understood now. I didn't think this boolit would be used with anything but a sabot. Thanks for the explanation of the endcap.

[floodgate]

BluesBear:

Actually, there were attempts in the early 20th Century to make hollow-core projectiles with internal "rifling" grooves (like an inside-out Foster slug), saboted for use in smoothbore small artillery and large-bore shoulder weapons. As I recall, it didn't work out very well.

Floodgate

[rhead]

The wounding theory is based on the idea that your opponent is also sane and civilized.