Die material or method?

[Mountain Prepper]

Recently a thought I consider a myth has resurfaced in the swaging community.

Let me preface this with some background, I have or have had several levels of swage dies available and I have been using them from the early 80’s I have had what is considered Artisan dies (made in small shops), Corbin dies, CH4D, and dies sets made sometime in the 50-60’s in the last upswing of “home swaging” I enjoy swaging jacketed bullets, handloading, varmint hunting and shooting for the hobbies they represent. I would enjoy that activity group active on the internet or not. My participation here is simply to keep tabs on new ideas, die makers, and related swaging products to support that shooting sport hobby.

All of that said I am concerned when the “carbide” issue comes up and the old myths start again.

Does anyone have any proof that “carbide” artisan dies produce bullets that:

Are more round and consistent.

Are of some superior design to ULD/VLD.

Are inherently more accurate.

That an artisan made die is more round or consistent than production steel dies.

How is a modified reloading press capable of producing a better product than a press specifically built to swage bullets?

Here are the points I do not have a problem with:

A correct “carbide” die made from the correct materials will last longer than a hardened steel die (a use/wear issue).

I fully support the artisan die producers, the small dieworks making a quality product need to recoup in money the time to produce that product and in the reality of today it is not uncommon to find a small dieworks that can produce your order faster than an order to Corbin who was 24 months behind on orders last time I checked.

What I worry about is that there could be a creeping “it is more expensive and therefore better” thinking and that same thinking is not based on available facts.

So the proposal is that the method of producing a quality bullet including sorting and choosing components for consistency and quality has an impact on the final bullet not the material of the dies.

There is no proof that any carbide die will produce a better quality, more in round, bullet than the high quality steel dies.

Or is there? If so I would like to see the evidence.

[deltaenterprizes]

I am more inclined to believe that the carbide dies will produce good bullets longer because of less wear and this is a valuable aspect in cut throat competition like benchrest shooting and the benchrest shooters are willing to pay for this.
This is why they are considered "better".

[martin]

Moutain Prepper,

I will jump in here. I have used both carbon steel dies and carbide dies and there is a huge difference in the hardness of the material having to do with grain structure. Carbide has a different feel when doing pointing. It is much smoother than carbon steel.

Now, does that make a difference in the final bullet - I don't think so. I am with you that each. if make correctly, will produce good bullets. I am also of the opinion that there are a large number of variables that go into bullet making and the dies are only one.

Look at it this way, some of the very best benchrest bullet makers have stated that in 15 years of making benchrest bullets, they are still learning. Now if these guys are still learning after 15 years, where does that leave the rest of us?

I think I still have a lot to learn :)

Martin

[M-Tecs]

A new steel die and a new carbide die will product equal bullets. For the low volume user’s steel are fine. As the bullet count increases the advantage goes to carbide. I know one part time bullet maker that is highly thought of in the long range competition that does about 150,000 rifle bullets a year. Steel is not an option due to die wear.

[Mountain Prepper]

A new steel die and a new carbide die will product equal bullets. For the low volume user’s steel are fine. As the bullet count increases the advantage goes to carbide. I know one part time bullet maker that is highly thought of in the long range competition that does about 150,000 rifle bullets a year. Steel is not an option due to die wear.


If we were going to make a chart with a pro/con division we have so far the following.

Carbide pro:

Smoother operation in point forming.

Longer life in regards to wear on parts.

Both sound reasonable, and one I had already listed.

[Mountain Prepper]

Moutain Prepper,

I will jump in here. I have used both carbon steel dies and carbide dies and there is a huge difference in the hardness of the material having to do with grain structure. Carbide has a different feel when doing pointing. It is much smoother than carbon steel.

Now, does that make a difference in the final bullet - I don't think so. I am with you that each. if make correctly, will produce good bullets. I am also of the opinion that there are a large number of variables that go into bullet making and the dies are only one.

Look at it this way, some of the very best benchrest bullet makers have stated that in 15 years of making benchrest bullets, they are still learning. Now if these guys are still learning after 15 years, where does that leave the rest of us?

I think I still have a lot to learn :)

Martin

We can agree on that 100% the moment you say you have nothing left to learn you have stopped thinking rationally and logically.

So let’s expand that and add the method part.

What methods add to the consistency of the final bullet.

I don’t think there is any argument over bullet design basics, say spire point in comparison to ULD/VLD.

How about sorting jackets, how are they sorted and what impact does that have, this could include wall thickness variations and weight.

Core selection and forming, obviously a big impact on weight, how about the composition of the lead itself say hardness of pure lead and casting cores (and then trimming and shaving for weight).

Another area of possible contention is the idea of core oxidation is that viable or is it the simple procedure slowing production and creating a better product by that action.

Machines are more consistent than a human, but there is a point where machines are run fast enough to get “sloppy” a small maker of BR bullets will produce less in a year than Sierra makes in an hour, how is he making a more consistent product - slow careful selection and sorting.

[deltaenterprizes]

Jacket consistency is what determines "match grade" and is where the difference in cost comes from, same with the quality of the lead wire.
The guy that does his own can achieve the same results by different methods but in order to produce bullets the weights of the jackets and cores must be precise. The lead cores must not have voids and the jacket thickness must be constant to provide balance during flight to avoid wobble and yaw.
J-4 are supposed to be the best jackets available the last I had heard and are made by a company that makes lipstick holders.

[martin]

Moutain Prepper,

Please allow me to back up a little before moving forward.

From a philosophical standpoint, topics can be discussed subjectively and/or objectively. Subjectivity usually ends in varying opinions whereas objectivity end with proof and science.

The benchrest community as I know it has elements of both. Some have strong opinions with little in the way of science. Some do things a certain way because it provides the results that they are looking for. Some do things because it is the latest fad. Some do things because that is what they have always done.

There comes a point along the way that a benchrest shooter has to decide what is best for themselves. The usual track is to read, read and read some more to gain knowledge, go to matches and learn from others, and then put in a lot of time testing and practicing.

What works for one guy may not work for another. This is what makes benchrest shooting somewhat complicated and so interesting. So, you appear to want objective answers and not opinion. Unfortunately, so do I but it rarely happens then I go back to read, go to matches, test. and practice. If you can come up with something better, I certainly would like to learn from you.

Now moving forward:

To make a good bullet, ya gotta start with good components. A bullet is comprised of a lead or lead alloy core and a jacket.

I have tried both pure lead and lead antimony alloy (1/2 and 1 percent). Realistically, I did not see much of a difference between pure lead and lead alloy. I extrude my own lead wire with an H frame, 13 ton hydraulic jack, and set of dies. I found that extruded wire makes better cores than cast since they have less occlusions in them.

I cut my cores about 3 grains over desired core weight and wash them in acetone before squirting them. I squirt the cores using the same pressure each time and weigh them down to .02 grain increments. You have to remember that the final bullet weight variation is dependant on the core weight. Also, I do not etch my cores before seating them. My opinion is that when I seat a core, it is not going to move. I actually sliced some jackets apart with my seated cores and had a heck of a time getting the core out.

In terms of jackets, I have tried Sierra’s but really like Berger J4’s. The J4’s I have measured have less run out than the Sierra’s. I don’t clean nor sort the J4’s as their quality control is excellent. How much runout is acceptable, I don’t know but my opinion is that the further from the axis of the bullet the weight variation, the more the bullet will wobble and anything I can do to minimize runout is a good thing. Most match grade benchrest bullets are made from J4 jackets and that’s good enough for me until someone comes up with a better jacket.

Seating the core is an important process. It is very important that the punch used to seat the core be the correct size. Too small and lead will leak by the punch and up the side of the jacket. Too large and the punch will stick in the jacket or worse gouge the inside of the jacket. I bet I have close to 50 punches that I have made between 22 cal, 6mm, and 30 cal.

Also in seating cores, it is important that the press/dies be set up correctly to provide just the right amount of force to expand both the core and the jacket to the right dimension. This is one of the areas where a matched die set comes in. The seating die should be about half a thousands under the pointing die dimension. Note also that there is some spring back of the jacket when doing seating. This has the effect of gripping the core.

I use lube on the outside of the jacket when seating cores. The lube that I use is 50 percent anhydrous lanolin and 50 percent Vaseline. This lube stays on through the pointing operation.

Pointing is done so that every bullet is pointing with the same amount of press pressure and stroke. I make sure that the meplate is formed correctly and that the bases are well formed and exactly square. I think that the base of the bullet is extremely important in benchrest work.

I measure and measure again for dimension on consistency down to -.00005 and would go smaller if I could afford it. Yea, the bullet gets de-formed but I want to start with everything being the same as possible so that when it does get de-formed when fired it is done in the same way.

After saying all this, do I think I put out good bullet – yes and no. Yes from the perspective that they shoot pretty well (mostly in 1’s and 2’s) and no from the perspective that there are other bullets that shoot better in my guns – and I don’t know why.

As I said before, I’m still learning. There are so many variables in benchrest other than the bullet that have to be mastered. To name a couple, wind, mirage, bench setup, and technique are high on my list.

Sorry, I did not start out to make this as long as it ended up – got on a roll.

Good swaging and shooting,
Martin

[Mountain Prepper]

First, thank you Martin, very reasonable, and thanks for understanding that my “ribbing” of the benchrest guys is not an attack but rather identifying some points.


Moutain Prepper,

Please allow me to back up a little before moving forward.

From a philosophical standpoint, topics can be discussed subjectively and/or objectively. Subjectivity usually ends in varying opinions whereas objectivity end with proof and science.

The benchrest community as I know it has elements of both. Some have strong opinions with little in the way of science. Some do things a certain way because it provides the results that they are looking for. Some do things because it is the latest fad. Some do things because that is what they have always done.

Not only do I agree, I see this myself in my daily professional world. I am completely uninterested in many of the subjective things in life, shooting, and business.

“Because that is what they have always done” or "strong opinions with little evidence" could be an answer to a question, and the individual’s right to do as they wish, as long as the above and other irrational, illogical answers are not presented as fact or as support of “fact” - I want the real facts and evidence.


There comes a point along the way that a benchrest shooter has to ... put in a lot of time testing and practicing.

The last part probably the most effective.


What works for one guy may not work for another.

Believe it or not this is a well studied area in “science" - the study, identification, and analysis of “variables” clearly shooting has hundreds of variables. We have all seen the odd stock factory rifle that just “shoots” with a stock barrel and little modification and of course the “custom” rifle that gives a shooter fits trying to iron-out all of the problems.


This is what makes benchrest shooting somewhat complicated and so interesting.

Yes, and also why it has a relatively limited following, I think sometimes that some of the “voodoo” could be one of the factors limiting the entry by more who may be interested. (of course that is subjective :-) )


So, you appear to want objective answers and not opinion. Unfortunately, so do I but it rarely happens then I go back to read, go to matches, test. and practice. If you can come up with something better, I certainly would like to learn from you.

We are in the same boat, my interests have wondered into other areas, in part because of what you list yourself.


To make a good bullet, ya gotta start with good components.

Without a doubt.


I have tried both pure lead and lead antimony alloy (1/2 and 1 percent). Realistically, I did not see much of a difference between pure lead and lead alloy. I extrude my own lead wire with an H frame, 13 ton hydraulic jack, and set of dies. I found that extruded wire makes better cores than cast since they have less occlusions in them.

I would concur on all accounts, I prefer pure lead wire myself if only for the ease of use and to avoid the production melting pot.


I cut my cores about 3 grains over desired core weight and wash them in acetone before squirting them.

I do similar, wiping with alcohol before running into the wire cutter.


I squirt the cores using the same pressure each time and weigh them down to .02 grain increments.

You can get them even closer if you desire, but it takes longer (time) and would have little to no effect on bullets above 55gr. (total weight variation)


You have to remember that the final bullet weight variation is dependant on the core weight.

And of course the jackets - the jackets can vary from small amounts to over a full grain. I check the wall thickness and sort by weight - in a batch of 1000 jackets I can have five or more buckets of sorted jackets matching weight.


Also, I do not etch my cores before seating them. My opinion is that when I seat a core, it is not going to move. I actually sliced some jackets apart with my seated cores and had a heck of a time getting the core out.

I agree, as long as all of the swage lube is off of he core I see no factual, scientific reason for anything else including time to “breathe” or chemical oxidation.


The J4’s I have measured have less run out than the Sierra’s. I don’t clean nor sort the J4’s as their quality control is excellent.

I also have quite the stock of J4 jackets, and use them almost exclusively (I also make my own for pistol) but I sort them also, I can say I may not be as happy with the batches and consistency as you are.


How much runout is acceptable, I don’t know but my opinion is that the further from the axis of the bullet the weight variation, the more the bullet will wobble and anything I can do to minimize runout is a good thing. Most match grade benchrest bullets are made from J4 jackets and that’s good enough for me until someone comes up with a better jacket.

Agree, they may well be the best choice available, I have not found anything better myself.


Seating the core is an important process. It is very important that the punch used to seat the core be the correct size.

Agree, have you ever tried true hollow point punches for rifle, it does seem to help with the later step of forming the point. I cannot say it has any effect on the accuracy as I have not noted any.


Also in seating cores, it is important that the press/dies be set up correctly to provide just the right amount of force to expand both the core and the jacket to the right dimension. This is one of the areas where a matched die set comes in. The seating die should be about half a thousands under the pointing die dimension. Note also that there is some spring back of the jacket when doing seating. This has the effect of gripping the core.

Observations similar.


I use lube on the outside of the jacket when seating cores. The lube that I use is 50 percent anhydrous lanolin and 50 percent Vaseline. This lube stays on through the pointing operation.

Pointing is done so that every bullet is pointing with the same amount of press pressure and stroke. I make sure that the meplate is formed correctly and that the bases are well formed and exactly square. I think that the base of the bullet is extremely important in benchrest work.

Similar, agree with the base observation.


I measure and measure again for dimension on consistency down to -.00005 and would go smaller if I could afford it. Yea, the bullet gets de-formed but I want to start with everything being the same as possible so that when it does get de-formed when fired it is done in the same way.

We may differ here slightly because I propose that the action of deformation in the rifle is far more of a determining factor, than -5 digits out, I would say that .000 plus or minus .0005 would be inconsequential, I have no extensive testing for this only that I stopped worrying about perfection in roundness when I could not note any changes at .0005 when the deformation in the rifle was so much greater.


After saying all this, do I think I put out good bullet – yes and no. Yes from the perspective that they shoot pretty well (mostly in 1’s and 2’s) and no from the perspective that there are other bullets that shoot better in my guns – and I don’t know why.

Finding the why would be the trick, what changes were there? Ogive? Base? Weight? Core? who knows I bet we could list fifty variables without thinking too hard.


There are so many variables in benchrest other than the bullet that have to be mastered. To name a couple, wind, mirage, bench setup, and technique are high on my list.

My point was that there are some variables more important than .0 grain in bullet weight and so many want to find anything other than their own performance to blame when if measured and studied what they blame may have nothing to do with the final results.

I always try to think to myself “never underestimate my ability to make a mistake, be wrong, or miss an observation that is key."

[martin]

Mountain Prepper,

Good responses and no problem about the ribbing – I had a feeling you were a good guy at heart. In reality, you and I are pretty much on the same page. We could even agree to disagree :)

I too have many gun interests. I shoot skeet every weekend, was a competitive pistol shooter (bulls eye) I do a fair amount of gunsmithing work for myself (including re-chambering and re-barreling) gunstock work (including checkering) and am currently teaching myself engraving. Bullet making and bullet making dies are sort of a sideline in all of this. When I get bored with one aspect, I move to another and then it all seems to come back around sooner or later :)

I am not a serious competitor in Benchrest because I have neither the time to commit (seems like work always gets in the way of fun) nor the capital to invest to be truly competitive but maybe that will change (wishful thinking). By the way, I think that these are the reasons why more people do not compete and thus the “limited following”.

You mentioned in your response about “true hollow point punches for rifle”. I am not familiar with hollow point punches and how they are used. Are they used in forming the core to a hollow before it is seated or are they a seating punch that forms a hollow in the core?

Being somewhat inquisitive, over the years I have cross-sectioned many different manufacturers bullets lengthwise. One things that I look for is how the core fits in the jacket, how far the lead extends into the nose, and how the folds appear in the ogive of the jacket. During this examination I found one benchrest bullet and one major manufacture would form and seat the core with a partial ogive smaller than the actual ogive which would leave a small gap (maybe .015 between the core and the ogive so that no lead was pushed into the ogive when the ogive was being formed. I thought about this and it makes sense that it would form a more consistent bullet from a center of axis perspective. Ever heard of this?

I do agree with you (and my testing has shown this) that bullet weight variation has less effect on accuracy than other things like the base being square and free of voids, ogive being formed the same on each bullet, the meplat being clean and true. Seems like there are more important variables to be considered but weight is one that guys do because it is easily accomplished with a scale. From a practical perspective, anything I can do to make the bullets more consistent including weight is a good thing.

You and I agree that there are a huge number of variables in bench rest. One of the largest variables is the human element – knowing how to read wind and mirage. It is human nature to blame poor performance on anything other than the performer. This is true in just about every competitive sport. What separates those that win from those that do not win is the ability have a mindset of always questioning, always practicing/testing and never giving up. My observation is that winners in most sports are typically very driven and extremely focused people (sometimes to a fault). I, on the other hand, am out for the fun and enjoyment and probably will not break into the top 50 at any time. I am ok with this because at this point in my life, if I had to make winning an obsession, it would no longer be fun and I probably would find something else that would provide more fun and enjoyment.

Good swaging and shooting,
Martin

[Mountain Prepper]

Mountain Prepper,

Good responses and no problem about the ribbing – I had a feeling you were a good guy at heart. In reality, you and I are pretty much on the same page. We could even agree to disagree :)

My main point is that building a mythology based on “old wive’s tails” will not help improve anything, on the other hand seeking facts, identifying the variables, good records, practice and objective analysis will improve things.


When I get bored with one aspect, I move to another and then it all seems to come back around sooner or later :)

Expensive isn’t it? ;)


You mentioned in your response about “true hollow point punches for rifle”. I am not familiar with hollow point punches and how they are used. Are they used in forming the core to a hollow before it is seated or are they a seating punch that forms a hollow in the core?

I have been wondering to the point of starting actual testing about using a true hollow point punch with the core seating to find if the lead inside would aid in point formation consistency the lead would already mostly or all the way against the inside walls of the jacket but not have the lead travel up the ogive in point formation as it would to some point with a standard core seating punch. Just a pet hypothesis at this point, I no longer make money making bullets so my interest is low in starting the slow, long process of testing.


During this examination I found one benchrest bullet and one major manufacture would form and seat the core with a partial ogive smaller than the actual ogive which would leave a small gap (maybe .015 between the core and the ogive so that no lead was pushed into the ogive when the ogive was being formed. I thought about this and it makes sense that it would form a more consistent bullet from a center of axis perspective. Ever heard of this?

That would be an unusual punch shape, have you actually seen the punch? Or is this a pre-formed core pushed into the jacket? Nothing of this smacks of “jooboo” like oxidizing cores does.


I do agree with you (and my testing has shown this) that bullet weight variation has less effect on accuracy than other things like the base being square and free of voids, ogive being formed the same on each bullet, the meplat being clean and true. Seems like there are more important variables to be considered but weight is one that guys do because it is easily accomplished with a scale. From a practical perspective, anything I can do to make the bullets more consistent including weight is a good thing.

The example I received from a shooter was that “when shooting 150 or heavier bullets the heat of the barrel on the rifle had more effect on the results than even a full two grains of weight variation”.


You and I agree that there are a huge number of variables in bench rest. One of the largest variables is the human element.

That stands on its own.

[scrapcan]

Good stuff guys. I am just reading from the sidelines and adding to the information at hand.

[martin]

Mountain Prepper,

I read and re-read your last posting and have the following to contribute:

In terms of a “true hollow point punch for forming hollow point cores, I have not seen this done before. If I understand what you are saying correctly, you have a punch that comes to a point that is used when doing core seating. This would then form a hollow in the core displacing the lead outward towards the jacket. Then when the ogive is formed, the hollow would remain but the lead on the outside of the jacket would form more uniformly. I would be interested in what your testing results when you do your testing. Heck, if you do them in 6mm or 22, I would even volunteer to test some of them for you. The only thing that concerns me in what you suggest is that depending on the jacket thickness. I found the lead flowing into the ogive does assist the formation of the ogive. I found that with 22’s the ogives will not form correctly unless there is lead in the ogive. I suspect that this is because the copper jacket is very thin and there is nothing to hold it in place. I have actually seen indentations in some that I experimented with but when I increased the core weight and pushed lead into the ogive, they went away. This may not be the case, however, with heaver walled jackets such as 30 cal.

As I mentioned before about a gap between the core and the ogive, I have several punches that I made to be able to do this. They look like a mini semi wadcutter punch and work well to form the lead to a smaller diameter flat tip with an angle similar to the ogive. In practice, the lead is still forced up into the ogive a short way (about .1 inch but the remainder is free floating inside the ogive. I do not have any empirical evidence that this either helps or hurts accuracy as in my initial testing it did not seem to make much of a difference.

By the way, one of my obsessions is making core seating punches that fit correctly. I must have 20 of various sizes for each caliber I swage. Too small and you get lead bleeding around the punch and too big the punch scuffs the inside of the jacket. The reality is that every jacket manufacturer is different, every time the length of the jacket changes (when making lighter or heaver bullets) and, anytime the weight of the core is changed (changes physical length of core), it requires a different punch to work correctly. In my opinion, this is one of the critical things in making good bullets since it affects the center of gravity around the axis of the bullet – but you can disagree.

Now that I am on obsessions, another area that I spend a lot more time on than I probably should is the meplat. When a bullet ogive is formed, the meplat is the opening that is left at the point. My experience is that the meplats come out with jagged edges and are non uniform. Sometimes there is slightly more material on one side. My theory is that this can affect the aerodynes of the bullet and thus the ballistic coefficient. In an effort to form better meplats, I tried a number of methods : re-forming the meplat in a separate die, larger extraction pin and hole and conical pointed extraction pins. I finally ended up making a hand tool that has a small milling cutter to true up the meplat as a finishing step. I also made another tool which follows the truing tool that takes the burr off after truing up the meplat. Testing showed that there was an accuracy advantage to having trued consistent meplats but it is a fair amount of time and effort.

You mentioned in your posting that you “no longer make money making bullets”. Can I ask why? The thought of this has crossed my mind several times but I always come down to a couple of things – not enough time (heck I don’t have enough time as it is now), the fact that it probably would end up being a labor of love and I wouldn’t make much (if any) money at it, and all the license **** that has to go into getting a license and keeping records of every sale. Then I think to myself - Naw, I’m a hobbyist that makes bullets for himself and a few close friends and that is as far as I am willing to go.

Good swaging and shooting,
Martin

[Mountain Prepper]

You mentioned in your posting that you “no longer make money making bullets”. Can I ask why? The thought of this has crossed my mind several times but I always come down to a couple of things – not enough time (heck I don’t have enough time as it is now), the fact that it probably would end up being a labor of love and I wouldn’t make much (if any) money at it, and all the license **** that has to go into getting a license and keeping records of every sale. Then I think to myself - Naw, I’m a hobbyist that makes bullets for himself and a few close friends and that is as far as I am willing to go.
Martin

I have stated before that swaging, at lest for me, makes a better hobby and self-supply source than a business.

I stopped running a bullet making business, abandoned my type 6 government mandated obsessive paperwork generating consistent anal investigation and probing “BS” and sold the business and equipment except a few presses and dies for my own personal use. The effects of the changes made under the Clinton administration were intolerable as far as I was concerned, I made far more profit with other business opportunities than this swaging thing I have a soft spot for - I like swaging I would like it to stay that way, jumping into hoops like the bureaucrats think you should, shreds any enjoyment.

Do speciality items for high price or massive volumes for competitive prices seem to be the most successful and the thought of making something exotic like combination frangible and penetrator core bullets for .x00 nitro express elephant rifles or additional banks of automated machinery to pump out thousands of rounds of .451 jacketed hollowpoints with a bevy of employees is just not my desire. (super precision benchrest would be an example of the former) I am too old to want to work that hard or on things that bore me to tears. The truth in life is that we get paid for things that take effort or pain or skill I am at that point in life where I am balancing that carefully, I want maximum return for minimum effort so I can have a bit of fun before the long dirt nap.

[Mountain Prepper]

In terms of a “true hollow point punch for forming hollow point cores, I have not seen this done before. If I understand what you are saying correctly, you have a punch that comes to a point that is used when doing core seating. This would then form a hollow in the core displacing the lead outward towards the jacket. Then when the ogive is formed, the hollow would remain but the lead on the outside of the jacket would form more uniformly.

That is the general idea, it is just a hypothesis at this point.


The only thing that concerns me in what you suggest is that depending on the jacket thickness.

And also the lead hardness... (more of the dang variables)


I found the lead flowing into the ogive does assist the formation of the ogive.

I am guessing that the angle of the lead in the hollow point formation would play a part as well as the depth of that hollow area and the wall thickness of the “tube” that would be formed.


I found that with 22’s the ogives will not form correctly unless there is lead in the ogive. I suspect that this is because the copper jacket is very thin and there is nothing to hold it in place.

I should have identified that I was thinking more in line with 7mm and above in dia. with this idea, smaller dia. bullets become a problem because of the size of the tooling needed and the properties of how lead flows and the jacket material forms under pressure.


I have actually seen indentations in some that I experimented with but when I increased the core weight and pushed lead into the ogive, they went away. This may not be the case, however, with heaver walled jackets such as 30 cal.

It plays a part, again this could well be our issues with the flow properties of lead under pressure - size changes make a huge change in the variables involved.


As I mentioned before about a gap between the core and the ogive, I have several punches that I made to be able to do this. They look like a mini semi wadcutter punch and work well to form the lead to a smaller diameter flat tip with an angle similar to the ogive. In practice, the lead is still forced up into the ogive a short way (about .1 inch but the remainder is free floating inside the ogive.

An interesting concept that I would expect has some merit, then you post this...


I do not have any empirical evidence that this either helps or hurts accuracy as in my initial testing it did not seem to make much of a difference.

Any conjecture as to why you did not note any difference, I would have expected some notable change?


By the way, one of my obsessions is making core seating punches that fit correctly. I must have 20 of various sizes for each caliber I swage. Too small and you get lead bleeding around the punch and too big the punch scuffs the inside of the jacket. The reality is that every jacket manufacturer is different, every time the length of the jacket changes (when making lighter or heaver bullets) and, anytime the weight of the core is changed (changes physical length of core), it requires a different punch to work correctly. In my opinion, this is one of the critical things in making good bullets since it affects the center of gravity around the axis of the bullet – but you can disagree.

I don’t think I would disagree on any point, it is one of the issues with bullets for accuracy and I would say your observations match not only mine but others.


Now that I am on obsessions, another area that I spend a lot more time on than I probably should is the meplat. When a bullet ogive is formed, the meplat is the opening that is left at the point. My experience is that the meplats come out with jagged edges and are non uniform. Sometimes there is slightly more material on one side. My theory is that this can affect the aerodynes of the bullet and thus the ballistic coefficient. In an effort to form better meplats, I tried a number of methods : re-forming the meplat in a separate die, larger extraction pin and hole and conical pointed extraction pins. I finally ended up making a hand tool that has a small milling cutter to true up the meplat as a finishing step. I also made another tool which follows the truing tool that takes the burr off after truing up the meplat. Testing showed that there was an accuracy advantage to having trued consistent meplats but it is a fair amount of time and effort.

How does that relate to the ideas involved with the artificial point inserts (non lead tips like the plastic “balistic tips”) including the idea of the aluminum or copper arrow shaped points?

One of the advantages of the VLD/ULD ogive designs was promoted as avoiding an area that created an additional “shock-wave” along a longer ogive.

Take the following high-speed photos as examples of this “shock-wave” generation.

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n636/MountainPrepper/Handloading/1s_high_speed_bullet.jpg

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n636/MountainPrepper/Handloading/High_Speed_bullet_Shockwave.jpg

Note the circled areas, the meplat on the spitzer bullet and the areas along the ogive that look as if additional waves are going to form along the ogive. (I should note that my expertise in not engineering or aerodynamics so my personal observations are based only on more basic levels related to the sciences involved).

My thought would be that a meplat replacing insert may create enough of an edge to cause a well formed shockwave. The second question would be is the formation of a sharp well defined wave actually better than an illformed wave as is obvious along the ogive and boat-tail.

All more questions with answers I cannot provide (I can provide numerous guesses but no documented answers based on testing).

[gitano]

Not that it matters much, but I am at a loss to find the words to accurately express my total agreement with what Mountain Prepper has written.

All I will add is that I have done a lot of testing - not speculating - over 44 years of reloading and I have found WAY more myths than truths in what has been purported to be "common knowledge".

Paul