Check me on this

[I'll Make Mine]

I've been reading up, preparing to start casting and paper patching for my Mosin Nagant. My bore is in good condition (not new, but no visible pitting, slugged at bore .300 and groove .313), and the rifle is capable of something close to MOA with surplus light ball ammunition if I can see the target and sights and hold it steady. I want to produce loads that are close to either light ball (147-148 grain at 2965 ft/s) or heavy ball (174-180 grain at around 2700 ft/s) surplus loadings, in hopes of not having to readjust sights (with a hammer and punch, for windage, though I hope to improve that process by next summer) every time I switch from cast loads to surplus and back (surplus is cheaper than reloads, so I expect to continue to shoot it regularly).

In general, what I've read suggests I should size my boolits to bore size or, at most, .001 over (.300-.301), wrap them .004 or so over groove size (about .317), and size the patched boolit back down to groove plus .001 (.314) to compress the paper for better rifling grip and protection of the core. Assuming a double wrap, that implies paper about .004" thick -- on the heavy side of copier stock, though I think I have some uncoated specialty paper that thick. With right hand rifling, I should wrap clockwise (as seen from the base), so the forces spinning up the boolit will tend to tighten the patch, the patch should run over the ogive break so no lead contacts the bore, and it appears to be standard practice to angle the ends of the patch by 30º to 45º (not sure why other than that it's easier to line up the cut ends?).

Is that a reasonable summary of the process, pending actually casting, patching, loading and shooting to find where I need to tweak things?

[Nobade]

In my Mosin, wrapping a .303" core with 20# printer paper gives a .315" finished size - perfect for a thumb press into a fired case. No dies needed.

Shooting 200gr. cast boolits with slow burning cheapo surplus powder gives me loads that track very close to the sights. You can get a 200gr. boolit going 2400-2500 fps pretty easily out of a 29" barrel.

[geargnasher]

+1 on the slow surplus powders, if you do it right you can fill the case and get slight compression on the powder, which usually works very well with PPCB.

Gear

[I'll Make Mine]

I don't know that I want to get a 200 grain boolit up to 2500 ft/s -- I'm still getting used to the recoil of a full power military rifle (fired .300 Win Mag and 7 mm Mag in the past, but never owned a rifle heavier than .357 Magnum until I got my Mosin). My first time to the range, my last string I got the rifle up on top of my shoulder (bending down to support on the bench -- also produced my best group of the day) and wore a spectacular bruise for a couple weeks, despite a one inch butt pad. Second time out was much better, shot more and hurt much less, but 200 grains at 2500, based on simple momentum, ought to kick a good bit harder than the light ball.

That said, if I can get a 180 grain up to 2500, I'll be perfectly happy, as that will match heavy ball well enough to use the battle sights if I do ever get a long shot (pending some range time at more than 100 yards to verify), and shouldn't kick much if any worse than the light ball surplus or the Brown Bear 174 grain loads I've tried.

Surplus powders sound good -- any suggestions which ones to start with, and where to look for them that might be semi-local to Greensboro or Winston-Salem, North Carolina (driving to Charlotte or Raleigh isn't out of the question for a significant purchase)? Hazmat shipping sucks, and the local shop I've been talking to seems to just order stuff the same way I would and add the shipping on (in other words, they don't just add it to their next regular truck, they charge me for the UPS hazmat).

[Nobade]

The only one I know of that is near you is Widener's, in Johnson City, TN. The rest are quite a bit further North. If you ever get up to Knob Creek, Pat's delivers to there if you order ahead.

[I'll Make Mine]

The only one I know of that is near you is Widener's, in Johnson City, TN. The rest are quite a bit further North. If you ever get up to Knob Creek, Pat's delivers to there if you order ahead.

I can get to Atlanta in the same drive time as Johnson City, and Richmond in less. [smilie=b: And maybe I should, but for immediate, I'll stick with powders I can buy locally -- slow powders for rifle cases this size sound like I'll be headed to the slow side of the 4895s, on down to Varget, but probably not to the 4350s -- is that the right burn rate range? That's new territory for me (I've never reloaded rifles before, closest I've been is .221 Fireball for an original XP-100, which overlapped the powders I've used for maximum .357 Magnum loads).

[geargnasher]

Nope, for what we're talking about, Retumbo might barely be slow enough. This isn't the sort of stuff you'll find in any loading manual.

Gear

[I'll Make Mine]

Okay, all the way at the END of the burn rate charts -- I don't get what I'd gain with that in a cartridge like 7.62x54r. The manufacturer's blurbs say it's for very large capacity cases relative to bore -- like some of the 1960s and 1970s vintage 7 mm and smaller belted cases -- while the 54r has a similar ratio to .308, .303 Brit, and .30-06. I'd tend to expect the same powders that work well in .30-06 and .308 to work well in the Russian -- starting with 4895, from other reading. What am I missing?

The rule I learned long ago when I started reloading is that I'd get the highest velocity from the slowest powder that would let me load a maximum pressure load. Slower than that, and I start spitting unburned powder out the muzzle, which means propellant energy is being wasted (though in some cases, like a big charge of H-110 under a 125 grain j-word in .357 Magnum, the fireworks are enjoyable in their own right). Sure, the 91/30 has a long barrel, but the barrel time difference between a cut-back 18" carbine and my 28"+ tube is under a millisecond with a full power load -- there's some point at which, as I use slower and slower powders, the reduction in initial pressure costs more velocity than I gain from the better pressure support as the gas expands. Or is it just not possible to get that far down the pressure-time curves with a long barrel rifle and paper patched cast bullets?

[geargnasher]

PPCB have less barrel friction than either grease-groove cast or copper jacketed bullets, so you're relying on inertia of the boolit for resistance, and some other tricks to get cannon powder to light. The really slow powders need things to help them burn uniformly, and much of this is best left for the more advanced experimenter to be honest. Things like duplex kicker charges and building artificial resistance by introducing controlled bore obstructions overcome the high deterrent coatings of the slow powders and help them burn more cleanly. What is the advantage of all this? It boils down to managing the pressure on the boolit base by lengthening the pressure/time curve as much as possible, and insulating it during the engraving process. Insulation can be done with powder itself if the burn rate is slow enough, or the use of certain fillers.

A safer, simpler route with PPCB is simply select an equivalent-weight copper-jacketed bullet load from your manual using the slowest powder, preferably ball powder, data listed. Start with the starting data, and make sure it fills the case to 80% or so. If it doesn't, use a 3/4 grain or so tuft of Dacron fiberfill to locate the powder against the primer. DO NOT pack the Dacron in there, but loft it up and make certain it fills the space between the boolit base and the powder with a slight natural compression. If you tamp it all down against the powder and leave a big, empty spot between the boolit and powder column you're creating a condition that has been proven to "ring" chambers, not good.

Gear

[I'll Make Mine]

I get a little chill every time I hear someone talk about a duplex load -- not my idea of something I want to carry around and hunt with, though I might experiment with making them on the bench at the range if I knew enough about them. I'm not primarily a paper puncher, though -- for me, a rifle is a tool for bringing home meat (preferably at below supermarket or Costco beef prices) or for having fun, and punching paper (especially at long range -- beyond 500 meters -- which is something I'd like to learn) is part of having fun, not an end in itself.

I think for now I'll get a can of 4895, which I'm pretty sure I can get at one of the local shops. I might stretch things to Varget or even 4350 if/when I find 4895 doesn't do the job.

[Nobade]

Since you are determined to ignore the advise you are getting, let me offer you a warning. Several weeks ago I was working with Singleshot and the 91/30 and we tried 4895 in it. Since the cartridge holds 4cc, I thought half of that (2cc) with half filler on top (we used farina, but BPI shot buffer is better) would be safe. It was not. It produced very high pressures, cratering the primers and making very hard extraction. We did find a good load with a 155gr. boolit and 1.7cc powder + 2.3cc filler, but even that was not a low pressure load. That was something like 23gr. of powder.

Now you could load it as Gear says, with a little dacron fluff, or none at all, but you will not see any meaningful accuracy at high velocity.

If you want good performance with PPCB, you want to use a progressive burning ball powder that is safe with a completely full case charge. Then back that off some and substitute granular filler for powder, the pressure will still be up there but you will start to see accuracy. If you still insist on ignoring what you are being told, go ahead, but be careful because any powder that is not safe to fire a full case of can potentially become dangerous when you start using fillers, which you will eventually come to if you want accuracy along with power.

[geargnasher]

.... Now you could load it as Gear says, with a little dacron fluff, or none at all, but you will not see any meaningful accuracy at high velocity.

If you want good performance with PPCB, you want to use a progressive burning ball powder that is safe with a completely full case charge. Then back that off some and substitute granular filler for powder, the pressure will still be up there but you will start to see accuracy. If you still insist on ignoring what you are being told, go ahead, but be careful because any powder that is not safe to fire a full case of can potentially become dangerous when you start using fillers, which you will eventually come to if you want accuracy along with power.

Very true, it's tough to get that big case to go to work accurately unless you really work on the pressure curve. The "slowest ball powder listed for equivalent-weight copper-jacketed" load with Dacron as an option is just a starting point for lower-velocity stuff to help get the patching technique down and get the rifle shooting well. After that, some other techniques could be tried with powders an order of magnitude down the burn-rate spectrum, but like I said before, this stuff is NOT for the novice reloader, because there is enough energy in a case full of slow powder to do bad things even to a strong Mosin if a person doesn't know what they're doing.

I.M.M., I'm not trying to discourage you, but you obviously aren't quite ready to go off into the Twilight Zone with this. Those of us familiar with controlling the risks associated with specialized and esoteric loading techniques for accurate, high-velocity PPCB loadings may seem rather casual with our discussions of it, but we know each other's abilities and have worked up to what we do very carefully. You don't just stumble into this and start trying it without a really firm foundation of understanding. If you think you're going to get anywhere near your goals by using Larry Gibson's 4895/Dacron load you're definetely not ready for the more advanced stuff.

Gear

[45 2.1]

I.M.M., I'm not trying to discourage you, but you obviously aren't quite ready to go off into the Twilight Zone with this. Those of us familiar with controlling the risks associated with specialized and esoteric loading techniques for accurate, high-velocity PPCB loadings may seem rather casual with our discussions of it, but we know each other's abilities and have worked up to what we do very carefully. You don't just stumble into this and start trying it without a really firm foundation of understanding. If you think you're going to get anywhere near your goals by using Larry Gibson's 4895/Dacron load you're definetely not ready for the more advanced stuff. Gear

Good Advice................. especially about the 4895 powder.

[I'll Make Mine]

No, not trying to ignore the advice I'm getting -- trying to make sense out of it.

You guys can't even agree on what if any filler to use, and you're telling me I'll blow myself up if I try to do what you do. My rifle is just like any other Mosin Nagant, about average for wartime production with post-war refurbishment. I'm starting from scratch on casting, no equipment and little prior experience (loaded a couple boxes of .357 with purchased grease-groove boolits years ago -- worked well, but there wasn't much cost advantage over jacketed and, without control over the whole process, no ballistic advantage either).

Now, if the only way to get my Mosin to fire cast bullets at what I'm used to thinking of as rifle velocity is to spend years in wizard school, I'm probably ahead to go back to firing surplus for everything except hunting and hunt with Prvi Partizan soft points, then reload the cases with similar jacketed bullets and data from the nearest loading manual. If, on the other hand, it's as easy as Nobade made it seem to get jacketed performance from paper patched cast (and it ought to be, lower bore friction means higher velocity at lower pressure), why is it suddenly being cast as mysterious and dangerous?

If 4895 is the wrong powder, then at least suggest a range of "right" powders for 170-180 grain PPCB in my 91/30 -- since I'm guessing that not everyone who paper patches for smokeless fires powders so slow they seemingly don't even have names, much less appear in published loading data. If I really need something in the class of H1000 or Retumbo, that's fine -- but I'd gotten the impression from the context in which the super-slow powders were mentioned that this was "Optional, advanced" information. Further, I can't afford to buy ten powders and try them all (at present, it costs me $20 in gas to get to my "local" range and back, plus $10/hr range time and my ammunition or components -- I get to shoot, at most, once a month). The whole super-slow powder idea goes against what I'm used to thinking anyway; lower barrel friction, less neck tension/crimp (to avoid patch damage), both seem to point toward faster powders than I'd use for jacketed bullets to get consistent ignition and complete burn, so if that's wrong, it'd be helpful to get some understanding why it's wrong.

I'm not interested in "controlled barrel obstructions", duplex loads, or anything else prone to blowing my face off or destroying my rifle before I get a load I can hunt with. I'm not (primarily) interested in punching targets or ringing gongs at a quarter mile or more, other than that developing the shooting skill to do so is likely to be useful for more practical shooting. I don't have a scope and won't have this season, but likely will by the time I'm ready to hunt with PPCB in 2013. I am interested in rounds I can load from stripper clips and feed from the magazine, chamber and extract (probably more than once), carry in the rifle all day and haul back and forth to the game lands repeatedly -- I might well go the whole season without getting a shot at a deer (I'm not a feed plot or permanent stand hunter), but if I get that shot on the last day, I need the rounds I loaded before season start to work just as well as if I'd loaded them the night before. If this last (actual field practicality) is outside the realm of paper patched boolits, tell me now and I'll shut up, abandon all thought of casting (at least for my rifle), and save my money to buy jacketed bullets and loading manuals (since I won't be able to afford swaging equipment this decade).

[Larry Gibson]

Gear

I’ll Make Mine states;

“I'll stick with powders I can buy locally -- slow powders for rifle cases this size sound like I'll be headed to the slow side of the 4895s, on down to Varget, but probably not to the 4350s -- is that the right burn rate range?”

Obviously he want’s to use a slower burning powder than 4895 and he makes no mention of a dacron filler. Nowhere in this thread is there any recommendation from me of using 4895 with a dacron filler. I do not ever recall recommending the use of 4895 with a Dacron filler with any PP’d bullet in any cartridge in any other thread. As a matter of fact I usually defer recommendations for PP’d bullet loads to Nobade and Pawdog. If I’ll Make Mine gets, because it is all he can get locally, and uses 4895 it is his decision. My recommendation would have been AA4350 or RL 19 if he wants to get 2500 fps with a 200 gr PP’d bullet with no filler, Dacron or otherwise. I lay no claim to being a expert with PP'd bullets, are you?

You took your shot at me but only get a “maggies” drawers” here. You might be better served to take your axe to grind back over to the AR forum, eh? 'Nough said.

Larry Gibson

[onceabull]

Beginning to look like a gathering of the cheap shot artists... Onceabull

[Nobade]

Looks more like trying to hit a moving target to me.

Looking at the original post, the goal is to create paper patched ammo that will duplicate military Russian ammo. Instructions on how to do that were given. Then it was stated that that was not desired. Powder choice was indicated, and discouraged as being too fast. Different powders were suggested. Those were discounted. An explanation of why those powders would be good was offered. More warnings given as to why this advise should be followed. Today confusion reigns and the OP is more lost than ever.

SO.... let's take it a little slower, shall we?

What is the goal? What are we trying to achieve? If it is to duplicate ball ammo, that has been achieved in the first few posts. If it is something else, let's be clear as to what it is. The PM I sent to the OP also contained instructions as to how to achieve his goal, and was never answered. I don't know what happened to that. Cost has been mentioned as an issue, but mail ordering inexpensive powder has been ruled out. So costs are going to be fairly high if powder is to be purchased locally. This can be done very cheaply, but mail order or a long drive to the sources of this powder must be employed.

To make high velocity paper patched ammo work requires a good deal of experimentation and practice, does not usually come easily, takes time and some creativity. It can be done, as is evidenced by the many posters here and the results they have achieved. If that time and patience as well as expense is not available, then this is not the avenue to be following. Load up some jacketed bullets with book loads and go shoot. It will work great. But if you want to learn how to do this and have decent success much faster than most of us achieved it, the advise available here does work.

The point here is to have fun, do something useful, and not get hurt. Not to insult anyone or hurt feelings, there is plenty opportunity for that elsewhere. But we must keep the target still long enough to hit it!

[geargnasher]

This all started out on another thread here: http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=163643, I was basing my advice on that. Essentially it's a tall order. A person with basically no experience with cast boolits in a rifle wants to build a load that will achieve up to 2600 FPS with hunting accuracy in a military MN, while having limited access to components or range time. I attempted to paint a realistic picture of learning to hunt within the range of mild, grease-groove loads and quickly got put down for that by some other members. I also gave and overview of how I would go about loading PPCB to match military ball performance, and was intentionally brief in an attempt to determine the interest and understanding level here. I'm not giving specific instructions all at once because people have a hard time doing exactly what they're told, and if certain liberties are taken with the method I had in mind then dangerous conditions can certainly arise. I don't see any reason to continue at this point until at least some experience shooting cast boolits, and mild paper-patch boolits too, is gained.

Gear

[Larry Gibson]

Yup

2600 fps is a tall order, chances of succes with regular cast bullets is slim to none with slim being gone. At least with regular ternary alloys. With special cast bullet designs and really hard alloys with copper in them it may be possible. Some of us are working in that direction.

Following Nobade and Pdawg Shooter's (sorry for the mispelling in the earlier post) advice on PPing 2600 fps with a 200 gr cast bullet out of the MN may be probable. Not easy, as they say, but still probable.

With regards to gear's posting of http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=163643 if one researches it the discussion in my posts was about regular cast bullets, not PP'd ones. The discussion between gear and I was about regualr cast bullets at HV in milsurps, especially specific Lovern designs. I couldn't find anywhere in that thread either where I gave any advise to I'll Make Mine regarding 4895 and a dacron filler.

PPing holds real potential but is not as easy as some think. As Nobade says; "To make high velocity paper patched ammo work requires a good deal of experimentation and practice, does not usually come easily, takes time and some creativity. It can be done, " So I advise; go with Nobade and Pdawg Shooters advise.

Larry Gibson

[I'll Make Mine]

Nobade, I never saw your PM, and I just checked my PM storage -- from which I've deleted nothing since I registered here -- and still found nothing from you. I think it's safe to say there isn't another user here with a similar name; could you have clicked the wrong reply header?

As I've stated before, I don't insist on 200 grains at 2600; I'd be happy with 170 or 180 grains, and would accept a little less velocity (150 grains at 2300 will kill a deer as dead as it needs to be; the higher preference is mostly for sight conformance on a rifle with very limited sight adjustments).

It's becoming clear, however, that on my budget, there simply isn't any way to get where I want to go -- I'd spend far more on the learning curve than on genuinely duplicating surplus ammunition (jacketed bullets and similar charges of powder with similar characteristics to what the Russians, Bulgarians and such were putting in their cartridges forty years ago). I'd still like to learn this stuff -- I've been interested in paper patching since I started reloading in the early 1980s -- but doing so in my available remaining lifetime (best guess, twenty to forty years) will require more money for components, travel, and range time than I can foresee having, where I can buy reloadable ammunition and components, and range time to test the loads, when I get my occasional windfalls (tax refunds and two paychecks a year that don't have to pay either rent or bills, just groceries and gas). I bought the rifle with a tax refund, and a case of surplus ammunition with an "extra" paycheck -- I'll get a casting setup with the next, most likely, but I'll stick with gas checks and grease grooves, which are pretty well proven, non-experimental technology.

I guess the only way lower middle class folks ever get to shoot enough to be more than minimally competent or learn anything beyond "recipe" reloading is if they live in the country, where they can shoot off the back porch, and in a house that's paid off -- and don't have to drive fifty miles each way to work.

[Nobade]

I'll Make Mine.. my apologies about the PM. It wasn't you that I replied to. I thought it was, since the subject and the questions were the same as what we're discussing here.

And you're right, shooting does cost money. Doing it the way you have, buying a 91/30 and a case of ammo is about the most economical way I know of to shoot a high powered rifle.

I have never been what you would call a wealthy person, always doing things myself and learning how either because I couldn't pay anyone else to do it, or because I was curious as to how things work. Making paper patched ammo for a 91/30 is certainly one of the cheapest things you can do with a rifle. I don't use reloading dies at all, just decap/recap. No lubrisizer needed, and no gas checks. Just a bullet mold, a sizing die, press to use it in, some paper, and a way to cut it. Gunpowder that costs $4/lb, primers, and you're in business. If you are willing to put the time in to experiment, you most likely will find success at some point. It took me about three years of failures before I finally had what I would call predictable results. I would take a rifle and 10 rounds of ammo to the range whenever I went there, fire them, try to figure out what went wrong, go home and make 10 more with changes. Eventually it finally came together and now it's pretty easy to make all my rifles shoot with paper patch. But the main thing is I do the whole thing as cheap as I can manage. I like to shoot, and I can either buy a box of bullets for $30 or I can buy 8lb. of military gunpowder for the same money and make my own boolits. One way I get to shoot 100 times, my way I get to shoot 1,000 times for less money. There is a way to get what you want, and folks here will be more than willing to help out by sharing their knowledge and experience. That is what makes this forum so great and so different from most others available on the 'net.

So keep at it, pay attention to the details, and keep us posted on how it works! It will eventually work for you just the way you want.

[I'll Make Mine]

Yeah, Nobade. Cheap is what I'm trying to do, without giving up the better half of my muzzle energy (drop from 2900+ to 2100 -- practical max for a gas check bullet -- at the same bullet weight, and you're at half the energy). As you say, there isn't any cheaper way to shoot in this energy class than a Mosin and milsurp ammo (18 cents a round, shipped, for the 880 I bought last month -- and I got a nice crate and a heavy duty can opener at no extra charge); I've got less into my rifle, new front sight (on the way) and ammunition to date than some folks spend on a scope or a set of swaging dies. I *might* have a line on a closer, private land range (another member of this board is local to me, and has a friend); that'd let me shoot every weekend, if the logistics and schedules work out (as opposed to two months in five as it stands now).

Paper patch as you do it competes, but for my end use (hunting), I see some practicality issues with boolits that can be thumb pushed into a fired, unsized case neck (they won't stay in position in the magazine or on contact with the feed ramp, and if they contact rifling, as they should for best accuracy, they may pull out if I have to extract an unfired round -- as is likely in hunting, if I pass up a shot or don't need a second after cycling the bolt to be ready). Doesn't matter if I have a load that will let me thread the eye of an axe head at 500 meters, if I can't load a second one from the magazine or pass a shot without losing a round and getting powder everywhere. At a minimum, I think I'll have to neck size, flare to prevent patch damage, and then crimp lightly to smooth out the flare and retain the boolit.

I went back and reread some relevant posts on the other thread -- it seems as if you're getting good results with powders that threads on other boards warn of being *too* slow for a cartridge as "small" as .30-06. This seems like what Gear was talking about as well, for powders that are "off the chart" slow. I can visualize how this would reduce patch damage, which would help accuracy -- I just don't understand how you can load enough of this stuff into a case of this size to get pressure enough for a) a consistent, reasonably clean burn, or b) velocity comparable to a faster powder that still fills the case, like a 4350, Reloader 19, or 4831. Compression, sure -- but when I've reloaded for .32 ACP or .380 ACP, I used Bullseye or Red Dot because I couldn't fit enough of anything slower (say, 2400 or even Unique) in the case to do the job. Yet it's working for you -- and with 8 lb. costing about as much as one pound of local-purchase "garden variety" powders, it's probably worth trying.

I think I might need to print off a burn rate chart and visit the *other* small gun shop in my local area, see what they have and what they'll do for ordering in, and maybe call or e-mail one of the surplus powder dealers and verify what the hazmat and shipping would be for a jug of one of those super-slow powders. I need to go to the local place in the next month or two anyway; they're the only place I've found that stocks Prvi Partizan in my chambering, and I'll need that for this year's hunt and for reloadable (brass/Boxer) cases.

[supe47]

Finally, common sense prevails. I've been watching this from it's inception, smiling, frowning and sometimes shaking my head. I have been casting for pistols since the early 80's and I'm pleased with the results. It gives me great pleasure to beat my fellow sillywet shooters with my humble, homemade cast boolits knowing the price they pay every pull of their trigger launching their high priced j-word bullets. I was there at one time. Then i ran into a gent who would, while practicing, chuckle with every we touched off a round. With similar results downrange the question of "price per shot" came up. I shot the J-words, he shot cast. A short discussion ensued and I was hooked. A fellow club member was selling his casting set up (a Lyman #10'er that I still use and a half a dozen molds. My Star I bought from the factory in San Diego) and I was off. But, in the last year and a half I've started casting for my 1st rifle, a 30-06 returned to me after 25+ years. What a shock. I had to start from scratch and relearn casting and reloading for rifles.

I punch paper and slam steel, gave up hunting after Viet-Nam. Nothing against those that do hunt, I just don't. It's not that casting for rifles is any harder, it's with rifles you can easily exceed the "happy spot" a certain boolit likes. I can punch my cast well up past 2400 fps but accuracy suffers. It's not the 2 MOA accuracy that's hard to achieve, it's the 1/2 MOA that remains allusive.
I've been following the smokeless powder paper patching forum for some time now (even tried it with my 45-70......the reason I have a Highwall on order from C Sharps) and will get into the hands on portion of this addiction in the very near future. But, I do now realize the limitations and testing necessary to produce a quality, precise load. A person can't just punch in unreasonable parameters and expect an instant answer. The members of this forum can and will steer you in the right direction but as I've learned.....the pursuit of the perfect load can be long and tedious.

Nobade, Gearnasher, 45 2.1, Pdawg Shooter and Larry Gibson along with many others here are a wealth of knowledge. Heed their advise.
I'm not trying to discourage you, just saying perhaps you might want to "adjust" your requirements. My cast greaser boolits shoot great BUT I did not find the PERFECT load for my Remington 700P 308 shooting Lee 170gr boolits from a 26" barrel from any book or even on this website......but they came reeeeeal close.
45 2.1 offers great advise.
"Knowledge without understanding is a dangerous thing. For a little knowledge entices us to walk its path, a bit more provides the foundation on which we take our stand, and a sufficient amount can erect a wall of knowledge around us, trapping us in our own ignorance." Read more, ask questions and for heavens sakes give it a try. Just don't set unreasonable expectations.......pursue them. Who knows, you may get lucky and hit it right off the bat.
Just my opinion. Supe (still can't find any green bar paper, they must know I'm looking for it)

[I'll Make Mine]

(still can't find any green bar paper, they must know I'm looking for it)

Try to find a "covered wagon" era computer facility that still uses high speed pin feed printers -- multi-head dot matrix or even older style "chain printers". I used to carry home my code listings and output on that stuff, by the pound, when I was in college, but my Fortran days ran from 1978 to 1981, and I've hardly seen green-bar paper since then.

If you think you might get away without the green bars, Office Depot, Staples, and even Costco carry 4000 sheet boxes of pin-feed plain white paper. It's a little harder than the old green bar I used to use, but almost the same thickness and hardness as modern green-bar. If you find you like it, 4000 sheets is a lifetime supply for a small village; if you don't, you can probably sell it on Craigslist for 2/3 of what you paid.

[supe47]

I laughed when I read the "Fortran days". I do believe we used green bar paper in the printers at Ft Knox in the late 60's. Took a course in Fortran in the early 70's. Failed Cobol. Found construction, paid better. Not ready for the lifetime supply quite yet. Already have a small sampling of paper ready for experimentation. I do intend to paper patch and I'm also eyeballin' the swaging site. New press under the bed and dies on order. Casting will always be my "thing" but now that I'm retired I have lots of time to play.

[geargnasher]

......I went back and reread some relevant posts on the other thread -- it seems as if you're getting good results with powders that threads on other boards warn of being *too* slow for a cartridge as "small" as .30-06. This seems like what Gear was talking about as well, for powders that are "off the chart" slow. I can visualize how this would reduce patch damage, which would help accuracy -- I just don't understand how you can load enough of this stuff into a case of this size to get pressure enough for a) a consistent, reasonably clean burn, or b) velocity comparable to a faster powder that still fills the case, like a 4350, Reloader 19, or 4831.....

When you are far enough along with grease-groove, gas-checked boolits and work out your paper-patch techniques with conventional load data for similar-weight copper-jacketed bullets, we can help you understand how to get slow-for-cartridge powders to work safely. That is where you will see the best accuracy with very high velocity, not necessarily with the powders you listed. There are some cannister-grade powders that will work.

Gear

[I'll Make Mine]

Okay, I'll leave this alone, for now, until I have casting equipment, dies, and components in hand (another 2-3 months, it looks like -- a month or so too late for this hunting season even if I hit the "magic load" on the first try). I'll probably work on grease/gas check and paper patch in parallel, since grease groove at low velocity is the direction I need to go for small game loads anyway.

[0verkill]

I've looked into paper patch as well, but never tried it. Are you using slow powders because you have to. or because they're cheaper?

[Nobade]

Both.

I have found top accuracy and velocity at the same time in 30 caliber cartridges such as 30-06 and the Russian round with Winchester 780. It is a fairly slow ball powder, but faster than the surplus stuff. It's not cheap.

Move up to the 8mm or 375, and Win 760 gets the nod. The 416 loves Varget.

Using the 50 BMG powders in larger bores doesn't give top notch performance. In 30 caliber cartridges it is marginal and quite poor in the 8mm. It's just too slow and gives too much vertical unless duplex loaded in the larger calibers.

However, in the 6.5x55 and similar cartridges (270, smaller bore magnums, etc...) the surplus powders provide top performance, accuracy, and are low cost. If I had a 300 Weatherby I could likely duplicate 30-06 performance using cheap powder.

So you pick the rifle you want to work with, decide what level of performance you want, decide how much money you want to spend, and choose the powder accordingly. In the Mosin Nagant or a 30-06, using WC860, it is easy to exceed factory 30-30 power with plenty of accuracy to hunt with it to 200 yards reliably. But if you want to shoot at much higher velocity, or hit little targets way out there, you would be better served by choosing another powder even though you'll have to spend more money for it.