PDA

View Full Version : Alloys-ratio or part in?



The Double D
04-10-2007, 11:59 PM
Lets see how many pages we can get with this question.

Bullet alloys are often expressed in terms such as 20 to 1, 30 to 1 or something similar.

Does this mean a ratio of 20 parts of lead to 1 part tin or is it part per as in 1 part in 20 is tin?

wills
04-11-2007, 12:15 AM
As in thirty pounds lead, one pound tin.

Or 35 pounds lead, 1.2 pounds tin.

SharpsShooter
04-11-2007, 07:15 AM
If the parts are equal in weight, then yes, 20 parts lead to 1 part tin is 20:1. As Wills pointed out, it is typically expressed in pounds, making it very simple to create and replicate for future use.

SS

WBH
04-11-2007, 10:28 AM
Usually I just take 20# of pure lead and add TWO 1# rolls of 50/50 solder and leave it at that for my "20:1" mix.

Now I know it is really 21:1, but if I use it in all the boolits, then I have the consistancy to compare with other variables.

John-n-va
04-11-2007, 12:41 PM
I use 19# pure lead and 2# 50/50 solder in the bars. That gives 20-1.

Nrut
04-11-2007, 07:29 PM
This all sounds good, but I was wondering if these measurements are by VOLUME or WEIGHT...hmmm???.........[smilie=1:

Dale53
04-11-2007, 09:45 PM
Weight...

Dale53

floodgate
04-11-2007, 09:48 PM
Nrut:

I checked this out with Kester - the solder people - a couple of years ago, and they said their mixes are all by WEIGHT. I believe Bill Ferguson ("the antimony man") confirmed this, as do other references we have checked out . Practically speaking, it would be hard to measure out metal components of our alloys by volume, anyhow. Though some of us weigh bars of tin or solder, and calculate weight by the inch, mark and cut accordingly.

floodgate

joeb33050
04-12-2007, 06:30 AM
Lets see how many pages we can get with this question.

Bullet alloys are often expressed in terms such as 20 to 1, 30 to 1 or something similar.

Does this mean a ratio of 20 parts of lead to 1 part tin or is it part per as in 1 part in 20 is tin?

20:1 means 20 of something to 1 of something else. the : means "ratio" in arithmetic. "1 in 20" means that there is one of something along with nineteen of something else in the batch or set.

This question has been explored elsewhere on this forum, so I sort of ignored the question here. Now I wonder if there isn't some confusion or disagreement in the CB community over this. Lyman's formula of 95 lead, 5 tin, 5 antimony looks suspiciously like an attempt to be around 100%. Else why not say 19:1:1?
While I don't think the ratio is very important, I'm beginning to suspect that the aforementioned confusion or disagreement may be common in the CB game.

joe brennan

Tom Myers
04-12-2007, 08:09 AM
Joe,

When I write an alloy designation as 1/20, it implies that the ratio is 1 part tin divided by the total alloy which is 1 part tin and 19 parts lead, totaling 20 parts. I also sometimes refer to it as "1 in 20". This alloy would be 5% tin and 95% Lead

When I write the designation as 1:20, it then implies a ratio of 1 part tin and 20 parts lead and the ratio would be expressed as 1/21, ie 1 part tin and 20 parts lead, totaling 21 parts. Sometimes this is referred to as "1 to 20". The alloy would be 4.762% tin and 95.24% Lead

The foundry alloy that I have used was a 5% tin and 95% lead and was referred to as a 1 in 20 alloy;

Whether it is correct or not, I am not sure, but I understand the " / " symbol to imply "divided by" and the " : " symbol as implying "and".

Tom Myers
Precision Ballistics and Records (http://www.uslink.net/~tom1/)

montana_charlie
04-12-2007, 02:14 PM
The foundry alloy that I have used was a 5% tin and 95% lead and was referred to as a 1 in 20 alloy
Disregarding the various ways we bullet casters 'name' the alloys, I think the above description is probably the most correct way to look at it.

Sure, the actual amounts of the two metals in the alloy would be very similar when comparing '1 in 20' with '20 to 1'. So, the shooter would probably see no functional difference between them.

But when I think of '20 to 1 alloy', it is actually the 95-5 mixture that I want to end up with...and that is what the foundries sell.
CM

Rambunctious
04-12-2007, 08:04 PM
Dang it Charlie, you must be gettin' bored! What's the matter, gumbo stickin' to your boots so bad you can't get outta the yard to do some shootin'?
:-D

Linda and I made it to the Townsend shoot last Saturday and it felt great to be knocking down animals again. It was Linda's first silhouette match and, even though she started out being nervous and not hitting much, she ended up doing good on the ram line and is looking forward to the next match.

I was doing mediocre, but everyone else was doing more mediocre than me and I won my class... Good start. High score of the day was from Steve Brooks with a 28.

I have to get you out to some of these events. You're crotchety enough to fit right in with the rest of us!

joeb33050
04-13-2007, 06:47 AM
Joe,

When I write an alloy designation as 1/20, it implies that the ratio is 1 part tin divided by the total alloy which is 1 part tin and 19 parts lead, totaling 20 parts. I also sometimes refer to it as "1 in 20". This alloy would be 5% tin and 95% Lead

When I write the designation as 1:20, it then implies a ratio of 1 part tin and 20 parts lead and the ratio would be expressed as 1/21, ie 1 part tin and 20 parts lead, totaling 21 parts. Sometimes this is referred to as "1 to 20". The alloy would be 4.762% tin and 95.24% Lead

The foundry alloy that I have used was a 5% tin and 95% lead and was referred to as a 1 in 20 alloy;

Whether it is correct or not, I am not sure, but I understand the " / " symbol to imply "divided by" and the " : " symbol as implying "and".

Tom Myers

Precision Ballistics and Records (http://www.uslink.net/~tom1/)

Tom;
The "/" means "divided by", so 1/20 means "1 divided by 20" -at least to me and Excel and a lot of math guys. I've not seen, or can't remember, this notation having anything to do with ratio. (A "rational number" is one that is the result of dividing one whole number by another. Thus 1/2 and 21/4 are "rational" numbers, but I think we're going astray here.) While the first amendment is still in force (unless you're Imus), and you can say what you want; I think most people would not understand this use of "/".

":" means "to" in the sense of a ratio. Thus, "1:19, tin:lead" means 1 to 19, tin to lead; or 1 part tin to 19 parts lead. "1:19::tin:lead" reads " 1 is to 19 as tin is to lead", and is the proper expression of the relationship. Multiplying means and extremes we get "1 lead = 19 tin", in the "1:19" alloy there's 19 times as much lead as there is tin; so the mathematical business works.

joeb33050
04-13-2007, 07:01 AM
Disregarding the various ways we bullet casters 'name' the alloys, I think the above description is probably the most correct way to look at it.

Sure, the actual amounts of the two metals in the alloy would be very similar when comparing '1 in 20' with '20 to 1'. So, the shooter would probably see no functional difference between them.

But when I think of '20 to 1 alloy', it is actually the 95-5 mixture that I want to end up with...and that is what the foundries sell.
CM
This interests me, although it may not be of great importance to the world. I like the language and the shades of meaning.
Part of the confusion comes from not putting the names of the variables into the statements. Let's say that we're talking about alloys of lead and tin.
We say "one to twenty" or "1:20" and mean "1:20, tin to lead". Means that there is one part tin and twenty parts lead.
When we say "1 in 20" we mean that there is one part tin in 20 parts total, means that there are a total of 20 parts. Properly, "1 in 20" should read " one part tin in the total of twenty parts of the tin-lead combined", 1 tin lump in the box of 20 total lumps. (all lumps =)
So putting the names of the variables into the describers makes everything clear.
joe brennan

Black Prince
04-13-2007, 12:56 PM
All of this is interesting and informative as most discussions that you boys do here are, but what I want to know is, if I make my bullets from an alloy that is one in twenty, and an alloy of one and twenty, will the bullets know the difference?

Will the bullet performance change? Will the accuracy potential change?

Uhhhhhh . . . what percentage difference is there in the bullet composition of a one in twenty bullet and a one and twenty bullet?

I'm sorta new at this and sometimes I get completely confused by all of the complicated technical stuff ya'll throw out and it makes my head hurt. Then I have to drink several sour mash bourbons to make it stop hurting. Then something in the ice cubes floating in the bourbon makes me dizzy.

Since ya'll know all about mixtures and the percentages of things, do any of ya'll know what the percentage of hydrogen is in ice cubes because I suspect it is what is causing the dizziness. I think it is about 66.66666 percent hydrogen, but this stuff is waaay over my head. Does freezing change that percentage? Does the temperature of the hydrogen make a difference? Does oxygen have anything to do with it?

Somebody hep me heah. My head is beginning to hurt again and I am gonna hafta go medicate myself with those dern ice cubes and it's all Double D's fault for starting this. I think the least he can do, since it's all his fault, is to send me a couple bottles of good sour mash so I'll have something to float those dern hydrogen based ice cubes in.

Has this also given any of you boys a headache? If so, maybe Double D should send ya'll a couple of bottles of sour mash too. I perfer Evan Williams because it's cheap, but I don't want to be choosey. Any brand you boys decide on will be just fine with me and I don't care what percentage the proof is.

I'm thinking that as soon as we receive the shipment from Double D, we can compare notes on the percentage of it to ice cubes, and who knows how many pages of postings we can get here?

montana_charlie
04-13-2007, 01:41 PM
if I make my bullets from an alloy that is one in twenty, and an alloy of one and twenty, will the bullets know the difference?
Will the bullet performance change? Will the accuracy potential change?

Sure, the actual amounts of the two metals in the alloy would be very similar when comparing '1 in 20' with '20 to 1'. So, the shooter would probably see no functional difference between them.

Dang it Charlie, you must be gettin' bored! What's the matter, gumbo stickin' to your boots so bad you can't get outta the yard to do some shootin'?
Actually, I've been a bit hobbled up, lately.

I 'acted unwisely' while trying to help a crippled cow, and managed to tear muscles and tendons in both legs.
I have ammo loaded and targets printed, and last Friday was a bluebird day for shooting. But, just trekking back and forth to change targets seemed like more than I could manage.

I feed cows every day (a necessity, no matter what) and that slows down the healing, but things are getting noticeably better...especially today.

Just might fire a few, if the wind lets up this evening...

My best to Linda, glad to hear she (and you) did well.
CM

The Double D
04-13-2007, 02:50 PM
Okay just for you Black Price, change it to 12 to 1....

Black Prince
04-13-2007, 03:50 PM
Wal just dang thar Montana Charlie. That ain't no good for an old man, no it ain't. I discovered that I don't heal up near as fast as I used to, and once we pass the 65 mile marker, it seems like everything sorta runs slower, even my Massey Fergerson tractor. I'm sorry to hear about your mishap partner, dang shore am. We need you around here to try to keep Double D in line cause, as you can see here, he's making my head hurt again. Wills trys to keep him straight, but it doan do no good, no it doan.

Now Double D, like I said, I am not gonna be picky about tha brand or proof. Just whatever tha boys decide on is fine with me and if it's 12 to 1, wal thass jiss right. Send it on.

Would that make it Jim Beam or Ezra Brooks er whut? NOT that I'm being picky mind you, no I ain't none. Jiss sorta need to know how much hydrogen to put in them ice cubes to mix with it ya know cause I'm tryin' to think ahead. And that makes my head hurt so I gotta go take sum medicine with sum ice cubes.

But while we on tha subject ah bullet alloys an sech as zat, I need to axxed ya'll ah question. I've read about the various alloys and the merits of them as have all of you. I'm shooting a Browning BPCR in 40-65 that has .200 of what is sometimes called "fee bore." I call it the chamber. It is that space between the cartridge lip and the begining of the rifling that I call leade. We can set the bullet out so that it engages the lands, but once the bullet base clears the cartridge lip, it is unsupported until it also enters the barrel and is constrained by it from distortion.

I've read Dr. Mann's book "The Bullets Flight" and seen all of the photos of what happens to an unsupported bullet base between the time it exits the case and the time it enters the barrel proper. Ya'll have probably read the book too. Now my question to you boys is since this effect has been clearly demonstrated by Dr. Mann, why wouldn't we want our cast bullets to be on the hard side so it will be less likely to have the bullet base distorted as it goes through the "free bore" or chamber section unsupported, and then have it swaged back down as it goes through the barrel? It seems to me that the less change to the bullet shape once it leaves the case, the better off we are gonna be as far as consistency is concerned, which of course, has a direct effect on accuracy potential. So why would we want to shoot a "soft" bullet cast of say 30 to 1?

Like I said, I'm sorta new to this BPCR business, so I hafta axxed ya'll these questions so I'll be up-to-speed around here. I been reloading since 1958, but most of it has been jacketed bullets and smokeless powder in rifles anyway. My casting bullets have all been for handguns, and although that has been a lot, I never thought much about what happens to the bullet when it makes the jump from the cylinder to the forcing cone. But then, the sofest metal I cast them from was wheel weights, which are much harder than 30 to 1.

So this business of casting soft bullets has me mystified. When I got the Browning, everything I read said to cast 20 or 30 to 1 bullets cause it has a Badger barrel with deep grooves and alla that business. So I did that. The groups were unimpressive. So I cast some bullets in the same mould of wheel weights and dam if they didn't cut the group from four inches down to two!! Wal that got my attention sho-nuff. Then I found an address of the feller out in Tejas whut owned that rifle before me so I jiss call him up and say, whut load and bullet didja shoot in it? Him say, wal I cast'em outta wheel weights inna Snover 400 grain mould an I shot 60 grains ah 1.5 Swiss in it. I say, thass exactly tha mould I got and I'm shooting 1.5 Swiss and I found what you are saying to be true. Him say, wal everbody done tole me to cast 20 or 30 to one when I furss started shooting BPCR matches cause I didn't know nuthin' about how to do it , but I couldn't get me no accuracy no, so I shot wheel weights after that with no problems and got me 2 inch groups at 200 yards and thass about as good as I can see to shoot anyway.

So now I've gotta real headache and I need ya'll to comment on alla that whut I jiss typed out heah. I'd especially appreciate it if ya'll would comment on how or why the softer bullet would likely shoot any better in barrels designed for black powder having deeper grooves, and whether or not the unsupported distance between the case lip and the start of the rifling (the leade) is important enough to be of concern to a BP rifleman. Since BP "bumps up" bullets, it would seem to me that when the bullet traverses that area of the chamber where it is unsupported, that the bullet base would do what Dr. Mann said it will do, ie. "bump up." Then it has to swage back down as it enters the barrel. What do ya'll think about that business and do you think it is of concern?

I ask that because I never had any accuracy problems shooting cast bullets in revolvers with an unsupported area between the chamber and the forcing cone, BUT I was shooting 2400 smokeless powder and not the holy black and bullets cast of wheel weights, which are much harder than the alloys typically recommended for BPCR rifles.

BTW, my Browning barrel mikes .4085 and I size my bullets .410, so they are nice and tight going down that barrel and there is no gas passing by the bullet on accounta it doan 'bump up" and fill tha grooves. I doan see no disadvantage to using a harder bullet, but I doan know much about this BPC & R business yet and I'm ah hoping that yew boys will hep me.

Now dang it Double D, see whutcha done went and got started ? Send me that sour mash rat now cause I gotta powerful headache and it's all yer fault!!

Someah ya'll boys hep me heah.

montana_charlie
04-13-2007, 07:36 PM
I'm shooting a Browning BPCR in 40-65 that has .200 of what is sometimes called "fee bore."

We can set the bullet out so that it engages the lands, but once the bullet base clears the cartridge lip, it is unsupported until it also enters the barrel and is constrained by it from distortion.

BTW, my Browning barrel mikes .4085 and I size my bullets .410, so they are nice and tight going down that barrel...
Even though you shoot .40 caliber, and I am totally ignorant of common dimensions, the basics still apply.

You actually have three diameters you are interested in knowing:
- Bore diameter - so you can figure a good nose size for your bullets.
- Groove diameter - so you know how fat the bullet needs to be (or get to) to fill it.
- Throat (or freebore) diameter - so you know the fattest bullet you can chamber.

If the bore is .400", and the groove is (call it) .409" - then a .409 'freebore' would be nice for reducing the number of times the bullet gets 're-sized' on firing...and would eliminate the 'unsupported bullet' effect you mentioned.

If the freebore (throat) is smaller than groove, you have a problem that's hard to solve...and if it's bigger, you have some 'down-sizing' going on when you light the fire. If it can't be perfect, bigger is usually better than smaller.

In a .45 (using that caliber because I know it better) nominal groove diameter is .458", but guns vary.
I load .460" bullets because they fit the throat. Lucky for me, the groove size is the same.
As the case walls press out to the chamber limit, the bullet bands (already the same size as the throat) glide on out till they hit the leade. I imagine those bands as being 'supported' for the entire trip.
At least, that's the way I picture it in my mind. Who knows what's actually happening in there?

I size my bullets .410.
Have you ever measured them after sizing?
CM

Black Prince
04-13-2007, 09:07 PM
Yes CM, I have measured the bullets once they come out of the Lyman sizer/luber and they measure .410 as measured with a micrometer. I passed a dead soft round ball down the barrel and it measured .485 with the micrometer. The bore diameter is .400 and the groove diameter is .4085. The Badger barrels are claimed to have a groove depth of .004 and this one is close enough to that for the kind of girls I go with.

I measure what I am calling “fee bore” by full length sizing a case so it will hold the .410 bullet tight. I make sure the case length is standard for the cartridge as given in my Lyamn manual. My cases are all Starline nickel, fire formed in my chamber, and have 40-65 Win. on the head stamp. They are not made from resized 45-70’s. Then I seat the bullet in the case point forward leaving the flat base forward to engage the lands. I seat it close to closing the action fully and then use a wood rod and a plastic mallet to drive it in the last few thousands until I can close the breech block completely. Then I open the action and very carefully bump it with a rod down the barrel to remove it. I measure from the bullet base to the case lip. That measurement taken with a good dial caliper is .200 on the Browning 40-65. So I say the throat or “free bore” is .200. In talking to other Browning owners of 40-65’s, they all report having the same throat measurement.

I don’t have any complaint about how it shoots. I just want to know about that throat business because it seems to me that area is where a lot of mischief can occur to the bullet base when shooting black powder as I am. I am getting a clean burn on the powder and can shoot 50 shots using the blow tube between shots and without cleaning the barrel. Because I don't resize my cases once they are fire formed in my chamber, I don't have any case neck tension to hold the bullet and drive up pressures to cause a clean burn like you need to do with black powder loads. So I make up for that by shooting heavy bullets (400 grains in the 40 cal.) for the caliber and set the over-all-length so that they jam into the rifling leade when the action is fully closed. If I then attempt to remove that cartridge, the case will come out and leave the bullet firmly stuck in the lands. That seems to work fine and the barrel and chamber stays about as clean as you can expect shooting black powder, indicating a clean burn.

I am also curious about what constitutes a “standard” throat length. I have not paid enough attention to these dimensions until now. I guess when shooting jacketed bullets it is not as important, or all of mine have been what they should be, because I’ve never had any problems getting most rifles to shoot MOA or less with smokeless powder that had any sort of good barrel on them.

I may have been reading too much stuff about shooting BPCR’s lately. There is so much CRAP about the subject out here. It is simply amazing what you can read that is pure bullspit and anyone who knows much at all about firearms would know it. THAT is why I come here. You boys ain’t much fer bullspit, no ya’ll ain’t.

So let me get this straight, if I understand what you said, my throat or “free bore” should be somewhere nearer to .400 rather that the .200 it actually is. If that proves to be a problem, running a reamer in another.200 inch ought to fix that. But I’m not going there until I REALLY give this sucker a good workout for about a year. I don’t like messing with things like that because most times it improves nothing and can make the situation worse if it is not done correctly. A knucklehead can dam sure ruin a barrel with a reamer quick.

So let’s get back to the question of bullet alloy relative hardness and what effect, if any, it has on accuracy potential given barrels cut with .004 groove depth designed for shooting black powder. Do you have any thoughts on that issue?

13Echo
04-13-2007, 10:14 PM
Black Prince,
I think Charlie means the diameter of the "freebore" or throat should be the same as groove and bullet diameter, or, in his discussion, .409" in diameter, not .409" long.

Jerry Liles

montana_charlie
04-13-2007, 11:35 PM
Yes CM, I have measured the bullets once they come out of the Lyman sizer/luber and they measure .410 as measured with a micrometer.
I only asked because I bought a .459" sizing die, but my soft bullets came out .458". Just wondered if you had a similar thing going on with yours.
After Buckshot made me a 'true' .460", I have no need for others.

So let me get this straight, if I understand what you said, my throat or “free bore” should be somewhere nearer to .400 rather that the .200 it actually is.
Dear Black Prince, my good sir, Jerry Liles is correct.
I can't imagine what I said that made you take that meaning.
I think your freebore is plenty long enough, already. It was the diameter that I was referring to.
It seems that your diameter is (probably) .410", and that is a bit bigger than your groove diameter. That is not uncommon, and is better than having the freebore smaller than groove diameter.

So let’s get back to the question of bullet alloy relative hardness and what effect, if any, it has on accuracy potential given barrels cut with .004 groove depth designed for shooting black powder. Do you have any thoughts on that issue?
Nothing concrete enough say in public. I'm shooting 'soft bullets' because I read that I should...and (so far) they are shooting well. After I settle on a 'pet load' with each bullet I have a mould for, I may play with other factors...one being different alloys. Who knows, I may even try some wheelweights...if I can find any.

These here buckboards, freight wagons, and doctor's buggies we use in Montana don't have much call for wrappin' lead bars on the spokes to make 'em run smooth. If they was any bein' put on, it's certain they'd git shook off after a mile 'r two, anyhow.
CM

The Double D
04-14-2007, 04:05 AM
Free bore. Let me tell you about freebore. Here's the official description of my bore.

Nominal bore is .450. That means a .449 inch plug guage will run full length, but a .451 plug guage will be rejected. Total barrel length 33.2 .

For free bore a .451 plug guage will run for the first four inches after which a .450 plug guage will run for 4 more inches for a total of eight inches of. The groove depth at the start of the free bore is .009 for seven inches and for the balance of the barrel length the depth is .007.

Specified alloy is 12 parts lead to 1 part tin for this barrel. That's "part to". So with a bullet .468 in diameter it should fit the throat quite nicely. When it hits the .464 cylinder part of the bore the bullet swages down.

I have used both 12 to 1 and 20 to 1 and the 20 to 1 shoots better for me.

My theory is that the softer alloy slightly reduces the pressure spike that much comes when the .468 bullet hits the .464 cylinder section. I haven't tested this theory yet with wheelweight. But I haven't located much wheelweight metal here yet.

I only posted the question here about about part-to vs. parts-in after seeing a repsonse to a post JoeB33050 posted over on ASSRA forum. Some one posted a link to a spread sheet. I played with that spread sheet and like Joe came to the conclusion the spread sheet was flawed. The spreadsheet clearly seemed to think 20 to 1 was 1 in 20. (By the way Joe, the spread sheet authors are aware of the flaw and they are rewriting it.)

The real question I was asking was...If I have a 20 pound pot and want to make 20 pounds of 20 to 1 lead tin alloy how much tin do I need. The answer is....get a 25 lb pot.

Re sour mash etc, sorry Black Prince safety rules say guns and alcohol don't mix. Which must be why they have such strict gun control rules down here in RSA. Few Guns lots of booze, Jack Daniels being especially liked. If they aren't drinking Jack its Castle or Windhoek beer or one of the many wines they make down her. I must admit I am not a big fan of drinking vinegar, but have come to like an unoaked Groote Post Cchardonnay or a Kanonkop Pinotage. But the bottle comes open only after the guns are put awy, and thatr includes talking like this about them...safety you know.

Boz330
04-14-2007, 11:51 AM
Re sour mash etc, sorry Black Prince safety rules say guns and alcohol don't mix. Which must be why they have such strict gun control rules down here in RSA. Few Guns lots of booze, Jack Daniels being especially liked. If they aren't drinking Jack its Castle or Windhoek beer or one of the many wines they make down her. I must admit I am not a big fan of drinking vinegar, but have come to like an unoaked Groote Post Cchardonnay or a Kanonkop Pinotage. But the bottle comes open only after the guns are put awy, and thatr includes talking like this about them...safety you know.[/QUOTE]

As I remember Jack brings a pretty good price down there. Windhoek was my beverage of choice with Amstel running a close second. I did learn to appreciate a good wine while I was down there though, especially considering how cheap it was. Then a bottle of really good wine was R3.

BP the stuff that I read when I first started shooting BPCR was that if you shot soft bullets that you wanted them groove diameter or smaller so that they would slug up. If you shot a harder alloy like wheel weights then you wanted them oversize so that they would seal since they typically wouldn't slug up.
When I got my 40-65 C-Sharps I used to shoot it with smokeless and BP but a duplex loading. At that time I had a lot of WWs so that is what I used a lot and used to get what I thought were pretty good groups with both, but at 100yrds. The problem that I had with the WW was that they leaded really bad. Since that time BP lubes have improved tremendously and with your experience I may have to try WWs again. When I started shooting BPCR a couple years ago, again, I just naturally went to the softer bullets cuz thats what everyone else was doing. If there is one thing that I have learned, it is that if it works it ain't wrong. There are a number of things that I do now, that I would never have thought would make a difference. Newsprint over the primer for instance. It seems that there is no shortage of things to try and see if it works, but then that is part of the fun. But it can also be frustrating to sometimes.

Bob

Black Prince
04-14-2007, 01:27 PM
Ya'll jiss wait a minute while I get my head outta my axx.

Whut Charlie said wuz: You actually have three diameters you are interested in knowing:
- Bore diameter - so you can figure a good nose size for your bullets.
- Groove diameter - so you know how fat the bullet needs to be (or get to) to fill it.
- Throat (or freebore) diameter - so you know the fattest bullet you can chamber.

READ THAT to say THROAT DIAMETER. He didn't say nuthin' about throat LENGTH.

Tha only trouble with using words to try to tell somebody whatcha mean is that the meaning ain't in tha words; the meaning is in each of us. And thars ah problem cause I had my head up my . . . wal dang it, I didn't read what tha man said. He TOLE me plain and simple, but it went right over my dern head. My wife tells me that I'm too big ah dumb axx to be ah playin' with rifalguns anyway and I shore hate it when she is right.

AND, to be sure, I was wondering whatinhell Charlie wuz talkin' about cause I wuz thinkin' (yeah, it made my head hurt) that a .200 throat or "free bore" wuz more than it oughtta be anyhow, but I didn't follow up on that and axed him whut he meant cause he knows so much stuff I figured he'd just make my head hurt sum more and confuse me with tha facts. Ya'll bad to do that ya know?

As soon as Double D sends me tha headache medicine, I gotta nuther question I need to axxed ya'll, but my head hurts rat now. Double D are you in Australia? *** are you ? If you in Australia, forget it. I'll send YOU sum headache medicine.

You know a guitar pickin' son-of-a-gun named Geoff Achison from down that way? He jiss moved his family to Atlanta on a two year visa to try the Blues music business around down there and in England. Been following his music for about that lass five years. That sucker can play tha strings offa dern gitfiddle. Tha wife and I went with him and His wife to a club where he played last Friday night up heah in tha North Georgia mountains in a little town called Dahlonaga. He wowed the crowd and sold a buncha his CD's. I hope this is a good move for him. He has paid his dues. If ya doan know him, ya can check him out rat chere: http://www.blues.org.au/bands/a/geoffachison.php

Well it done it again. I post ah edit and it tells me even though I'm logged in, that I can't edit my post. ***?

DD, now that I actually READ your post, you say you are in RSA, as in Republic of South Africa? Are you nuts? Git outta there quick cause it is gonna go the same way as all the African nations and for the same reason and ya'll are past due rat now.

GEEZE!!! You really NEED me to send you some headache medicine.

The Double D
04-14-2007, 03:57 PM
BP---

So does the alloy of the bullet matter if there is no throat or freebore as you describe it but just a long taper as I describe it.

You think you have a headache now wait till I tell you this rifle doesn't have lands or grooves either, just peaks and flats.

You could be right about the country becoming like all the rest of Africa...FIFA World Cup will be here in 2010....