My test of the 6.5 Cruise Missile

[Larry Gibson]

TEST OF THE 6.5 “CRUISE MISSILE”

Back a couple years ago when I did the 6.5 Swede HV test the individual who sent the GB 6.5 Kurtz bullet mould also sent a Lee mould for the 6.5 Cruise Missile” 175 gr cast bullet he acquired from Midway. This is one of them that casts bullets over size in driving band diameter and in nose diameter. The owner requested I test them when I got around to it. After moving from Washington State to Arizona and having most everything in storage for almost a year I finally got around to conducting a test. These are my trials and tribulations with this bullet.

Before moving I at first cast the bullets out of COWWs + 2% tin and WQ’d them. I found the driving bands to be .272 +/- and the very long nose to be .269 +/-. When seated to any reasonable oal in the Swede case and chambered the hard bullets would be pushed way down in the case a only the 1st part of that long nose would go up into the bottom of the chamber throat. Others reported this same thing. I attempted to sized the noses down with bushings in a modified H&I die in the 450 Lubrasizer. The bullets were too hard and they bent or the noses were swaged off center. A softer more malleable alloy was needed. The cast CMs went back into the pot. The alloy was changed to linotype with 20% lead added. This results in a usable CM cast AC’d bullet that at least could be sized down w/o destroying the bullet.

The 80/20 linotype bullets were first pushed through a .268 H sizer (I die removed) to size the driving bands and seat/crimp the Hornady GC on. The I die was replaced and they were then lubed in the same .268 H&I die with Carnauba Red lube. A .266 H&I die was put in the 450 Lubrasizer and bullets pushed in nose first up to the driving band to size the noses to .266. A .264 H&I die was also used the same way to partially size the nose half way back so when seated the ogive of the nose would be up into the throat at the leade. While I like a good challenge and enjoy casting bullets the gyrations I was having to go through to get these CMs to “fit” the 6.5 Swede throat were quickly getting out of the “fun” category to say the least.

92324

We see in the above photo the 175 gr CM is a sleek “missile” indeed with the promise of that 1st kiss from a young maiden……and we all know how well that turned out……..actually though, we see that when the oversize CM is sized as such the driving bands at .268 “fit” the bottom of the tapered 6.5 Swede throat (all the milsurp M96s and M38s that I have measured have tapered throats as such) and the .266 to .264 of the nose allowed the bullet to slip up into the throat to just kiss the leade. As we also see the GC remains right at the base of the case neck which is good also. The actual cartridge OAL was 3.019”.

Thus the bullets sat until a few weeks ago when I finally got around to conducting the test. After sitting around that long the BHN was still at 18 and the fully dressed weight was 171 gr due to the linotype alloy used. I used the same cases that were carefully prepared for the 6.5 Kurtz test. They are formed from U42 ’06 cases. They were NS’d with a Lee Collet die to give .002 - .003 neck tension on the .268 sized CMs. Primers used were WLRs.

Since I only had enough bullets for one completely thorough test I chose to go with a slow burning powder to maximize potential velocity while maintaining minimal thrust on the bullet; in other words to lengthen the time pressure curve which is an important technique if one is to push the RPM threshold. Might be good to refresh our minds with what the RPM threshold is or at least what happens;

the bullet is unbalanced or becomes unbalanced due to obturation in the bore during acceleration. The unbalanced bullet is forced to conform while in the barrel and its center of mass is revolving around it's geometric center. When the bullet is free of the barrel's constraint, it will move in the direction that its mass center had at the point of release. After exiting the muzzle, the geometric center will begin to revolve about the center of mass and it will depart at an angle to the bore (line of departure). At 54,000 RPM to 250,000 RPM, depending on velocity and twist, the centrifugal force can be tremendous. It will result in an outward or radial acceleration from the intended flight path (line of departure) and will try to get the bullet to rotate in a constantly growing helix.

As stated many times and posted in a sticky the RPM threshold for regular cast bullets in rifles most often falls in the 120,000 – 140,000 RPM range. It can be pushed by using various techniques. I shall not go into all of them here as they are available in the sticky. Suffice to say increasing RPM has a distinct negative effect on this very long thin bullet. The 7.8 twist of the milsurp barreled 6.5 Swede rifles exasperates the RPM problem. I’ve measured the twist of my own four 6.5 Swede milsurp barrels and many others. The twist measurements fall between 7.7 and 7.9” so I just use 7.8 as the twist. Thus in the 6.5 Swede we find right at 1500 fps is close to 140,000 RPM. If we are to get any usable accuracy above that we must use an appropriate powder. With the very long nose of the CM I chose to go with RL 22 powder. Since load density would be below 80% a ½ - ¾ gr Dacron filler would be used also.

Not a lot of load data available for the CM so I just initially “SWAG”d” it. To initially get a feel for the powder/bullet loads I loaded 5 shot test strings of 30 – 44 gr RL22 in 2 gr increments. This would give me a quick assessment and I would then switch to 10 shot test strings for final testing and/or tweaking.

[Larry Gibson]

Chapter 2

At the range I set up the Oehler 35P to record the velocities and put the target at 100 yards. The test rifle was my M38 that is sporterized as a “scout”. The scout scope is the Leupold 2X. This rifle is capable of sub moa with jacketed and MOA with other cast bullet loads. This was to be the test rifle throughout. The test rifle barrel slugs out at .266 groove diameter with a pin measured .254 bore. The throat tapers from .268 at the case mouth to .266 at the leade.

92331

The initial starting load of 30 gr was a surprise. Velocity was 1814 fps! Four of the shots went into 2.5” which is promising. However there was one flyer which opened the group to 4.9”. I am very good at calling my shots and that was a flyer. It was telling me something. The RPM was 167,446, already a bit over the RPM threshold or had I already pushed it up?

92330

The 32 gr RL22 put all 5 shots into 2.6” at 1924 fps and 177,600 RPM! Hmmmmm, just maybe I was on to something here!

92332

Then came the 34 gr RL22 load……only 4 of the 5 shots hit the 21x24” target paper! One of the bullet holes was showed signs of severe key holing or yaw. The one shot that went off target went high to the right (was observed hitting the back stop berm). Velocity was 2019 fps at 186,369 RPM. Internal ballistics based on the ES and SDs were showing very good.

Tried the 36 gr RL22 load and only 2 shots hit the 21x24” paper target and they also key holed or were yawing severely. Velocity was 2220 fps at 204,923 RPM.

Moved the targets into 50 yards for the remainder of the 5 shot test strings hoping to hit paper.

The 40 gr RL22 load ran 2280 fps at 210,461 RPM with all 5 shots hitting the 21x24” target. All were key holing and the group size was 20”.

At 42 gr RL22 only 2 of the 5 shots hit the 50 yard 21x24” target. Both were Key holed. Velocity was 2406 fps at 222,092 RPM.

The last test also only produced 2 hits on the 21x24” target at 50 yards. They were key holed. Velocity was 2500 fps at 230,769 RPM.

A friend was spotting for me and said all misses went way off target in all directions, no consistency to where at all. He was watching the impacts in the backstop/berm.

Well that sure was exciting, eh……back to the drawing board………..

Back home the rifle was cleaned with no sign of leading. The cases were cleaned, NS’d and primed for the next go ‘round. Looking at the targets and data from the initial test it appeared things were going good through the first “starting load” 30 gr load of RL22 at 1814 fps and 167,446 RPM. So I figured that would be the top end for the 10 shot tests. After several days and thoughtful sessions of further cogitation, extrapolation and another SWAG I decided on 23 gr RL22 as being the best place for a “starting load”. Thus 10 shot test strings of 23 – 30 gr in 1 gr increments were loaded up.

Another nice and pleasant day with little wind found me at the range with the Oehler M35P set up and targets at 100 yards. The start load of 23 gr was almost a very pleasant surprise…..almost. The 10 shot group is 1.75” and there are actually 4 shots into that bottom 2 holes! Velocity was 1401 fps at 129,323 RPM. When we look close we see 4 of the 10 shots show signs of key holing. All the stability formulas say that bullet should be fully stable in a 7.8” twist at 1400 fps. Yet there are obviously stability problems. The thought crossed my mind; is this one of those cases where the bullet will “go to sleep” and give closer grouping at 200 yards? That was a question I really wanted an answer to.

92334

[Larry Gibson]

Chapter 3

Note in these 10 round tests I’ve also summarized the data after 5 shots and then after 10 shots. This is to give the reader an idea of how a statically poor sampling of 5 shots can give an erroneous idea as to what the actual velocity, ES and SD of a load might be as compared to the statistically valid 10 shot sample.

The 24 gr RL22 load produced a somewhat ragged 3.8” group pushing 1463 fps at 135,046 RPM. All 10 holes exhibited Key holing or yawing(?).

92335

The 25 gr RL22 load was interesting. It produced a 10 shot 2.88” group and 9 of those were in 2.12”, looking good except all also showed key holing or yawing. Velocity was 1518 fps at 140,123 RPM.

I’d like to mention what is called “random selection” with regard to groups of less than a statistically valid number. Were we shooting 3 shot groups I can pick out 8 different 3 shot groups that are 1” or less. Had we picked any one of those 8 combinations and just test those 3 shots we would be led to believe the accuracy capability was a lot better than it really is.

92336

The 26 gr RL22 load put 9 in 3.1” but there also was a flyer that opened the group to 5.6”.. Velocity was 1572 at 145,107 RPM. Again, all bullet holes exhibit key holing or yawing.

92337

The 27 gr load was another surprise putting 8 shots into 2.1” with a called shot out of the group. That is where I called it so I assume it would have been in the group. There also was 1 flyer opening the group to 3.2”. Velocity was 1642 fps at 151,569 RPM. All the bullet holes exhibited key holing or yawing but not as much as before. Are we getting somewhere? Is the CM finally settling down with good stability?

92338

The key holing or yawing was back in the 28 gr RLL22 load. Group size was 3.7”. Velocity was 1702 fps at 157,107 RPM. Obviously we are exceeding the RPM threshold as the 100 yard group size is steadily getting larger. Only testing with some of these loads at 200 yards will tell us that for sure if the groups show non–linear expansion. Or perhaps the bullets will “go to sleep” and all will be great?

92339

Well, things got no better with 29 and 30 gr RL22. The 29 gr load went into 5.1” with 2 shots really key holing. Velocity was 1762 fps at 162,646 RPM. The 30 gr RL22 load (starting load in the initial 5 shot test strings) put the 10 shots into 5.4”. Considering “random selection” and the initial 5 shot group with the same load that put 4 shots into 2.5” and looked good I could find four 5 shot groups of 2.5” or less in that 10 shot group. Had we just been shooting 5 shot groups we could still have been led to believe the load was good. Is it though? A 200 yard test will tell the tale……..

So I went home, collated all the data, cleaned the rifle (no leading), cleaned the cases, neck sized and primed them. Then going over the data I selected the following loads to test at 200 yards; 23 gr, 25 gr, 27 gr and 32 gr (it had shot a 2.6” 5 shot group at 100 yds). The purpose for the 200 yard 10 shot group tests would be to see;

Would bullets go to sleep and stop yawing?
If so would they should smaller groups?
Was the expansion between the 100 yard groups and the 200 yard groups linear or non-linear?

[Larry Gibson]

Chapter 4

I loaded up the 10 shot test strings of each listed load and a few days ago found me back at the range on another beautiful sunny and warm day with little wind. I set up the Oehler 35P and put the targets at 200 yards.

The 23 gr start load that shot the 1.75” 100 yard group was nothing to write home to momma about! The 10 shots at 200 yards went into 6.1” ……not hardly linear expansion at all. Actually twice as large as a group with linear expansion would exhibit. Also every bullet was still key holing or yawing so they did not “go to sleep” as many sometimes think. Velocity was 1374 fps at 126,850 RPM.

92340

The 25 gr load of RL22 fared no better. The 10 yawing shots went into 9.3” with no “sleeping” there either. Definitely non-linear expansion also. The velocity was 1497 fps at 138,184 RPM.

92341

The 27 gr load went into 8.25” at 200 yards. Considering the very hopeful 8 shot 2.1” group at 100 yards this obviously is non-linear group expansion. However, as with the 100 yard target the bullet holes here exhibit much less key holing or yawing than with any other loads. Velocity was 1622 fps at 149,723 RPM. If I had this mould (no I don’t want one thank you) and was going to hunt deer with it I might use this load but would restrict any shot to 150 yards or less, preferably 100 yards or less.

92342

The last 200 yard test was the 32 gr RL22 load that shot the sweet 2.1” 5 shot group at 100 yards. The velocity here was 1891 fps at 174,553 RPM. Sure looked darn good at 100 yards and if we didn’t understand that a 5 shot group could lead us wrong we might have blissfully loaded a bunch up. Problem is 5 shots is not a sufficient sample. Here’s where we find that out. Also this is an excellent example of why we, if we are pushing the RPM threshold, we test a sufficient sample at 100 and at 200 yards before we make claims. The target doesn’t lie. Out of the 10 shots with this load only 2 shots hit the paper! The other 8 shots went of randomly around the 21x24” target. One shot that hit the target exhibits no key holing or yawing. The other bullet hole exhibits minimal yawing.

92343

Obviously the 6.5 Cruise Missile cast bullets were stabilized to some degree and flying point on or they would not have hit the target at all at 200 yards, at least up through the 27 gr load. It is quite apparent the bullets had exceeded the RPM threshold somewhere around 1400 – 1500 fps as they were doing just what the definition describes; “It will result in an outward or radial acceleration from the intended flight path (line of departure) and will try to get the bullet to rotate in a constantly growing helix.”. It also apparent that his particular bullet has some serious stabilization issues that add to the problem as even at 1400 fps there was severe yawing. It seems just as the bullet was becoming stabile ( at 1600 + fps or so) it had so far exceeded the RPM threshold that while accuracy was gained with one it was then lost with the other.

My comments and results apply only to the oversize 6.5 Cruise Missile as tested with the components used. Those with the correct size CM may or may not get similar, better or worse results. Those with the same oversized CM may also get the same, worse or better results with different components. That is as it is. I am only reporting the results of my tests. Should anyone have a criticism please show us your results as I have shown mine.

Larry Gibson

[swheeler]

No criticism, thanks. One question though, could you try a few at a milk jug at 300 yds, just for grins?;)

[AlaskanGuy]

Holy cow batman, them boolits are L.O.N.G..... Those aint cruise missiles, they fly like a scud missile... :)

[Rainier]

Brilliant work Larry! Thank you for the write up - on my project list is a 6.5 Creedmoor with an 8 twist barrel and this is very useful info.

Please correct me if my understanding is wrong anywhere along the way. The question(s) I have is when it comes to stability at 200 or even 300 yards is RPMs as they relate to velocity. My understanding is velocity degrades faster then RPMs. So, if your attempting to shoot at say, 200 yards with a cast boolit, that may not be perfectly concentric, as your velocity degrades how does the continued RPMs, at whatever threshold, affect potential accuracy? Is there a formula of optimal velocity to RPMs at given distance/velocity? Or is it simply that the concentricity of the boolit for twist rate is adequate to stabilize the boolit or it isn't? I guess one of my concerns is can I push a boolit fast enough to stay out of the transonic barrier at 300 yards and still stabilize it within the RPM threshold?

I really enjoy spending time at the range and working on different loading problems but would much prefer to avoid wasting time reinventing the wheel - thanks in advance for the help!

[JeffinNZ]

So even a Swede with the fast twist won't fix "wobbly bottom syndrome" in the CM. So would is the problem with the boolit?

All theories aside, the wallabies I shot with my wobbly boolits ex the Carcano died oblivious to the problem.

[PS Paul]

I read every last word, waiting for the magical revelation of "the miracle combination" to unfold before my eyes. Ha ha!

Nice, Larry. I'm glad someone has been to the range cuz it's been crummy up here. Bet you don't miss our winter, eh?

Oh, yeah. The 300 yd. milk jug suggestion? Pretty funny, wheeler. Pretty funny, man!

[Pb2au]

Many thanks for your work Mr. Gibson.
Even though I do not cast and load for the venerable 6.5, a thread of this caliber is simply fully of valuable information that any student of the craft needs to read.
Thank you again sir.

[Larry Gibson]

No criticism, thanks. One question though, could you try a few at a milk jug at 300 yds, just for grins?;)

I thought about that but my last post mentioning the unmentionable was deleted by a moderator.......

Larry Gibson

[swheeler]

I thought about that but my last post mentioning the unmentionable was deleted by a moderator.......

Larry Gibson


We won't mention "it" then!(FWIW I had one of those not long ago) I think your findings were pretty much what was expected by those who have come to understand the RPM threshold. The cruise missle is a dog of it's own demise, my belief nomatter what diameter/s it casts at. I couldn't help but notice the oval holes in targets posted by Dutchman a few days ago, nice groups, but most of the holes showed bullet tipping at target, 50&100 yds IIRC, design flawed bullet? Anyhow thanks again for doing the leg work and taking the time to post. I'll bet you could explode a jug at 50 yds though, maybe say it was at 300;)

[Larry Gibson]

............... The question(s) I have is when it comes to stability at 200 or even 300 yards is RPMs as they relate to velocity. My understanding is velocity degrades faster then RPMs. So, if your attempting to shoot at say, 200 yards with a cast boolit, that may not be perfectly concentric, as your velocity degrades how does the continued RPMs, at whatever threshold, affect potential accuracy? Is there a formula of optimal velocity to RPMs at given distance/velocity? Or is it simply that the concentricity of the boolit for twist rate is adequate to stabilize the boolit or it isn't? I guess one of my concerns is can I push a boolit fast enough to stay out of the transonic barrier at 300 yards and still stabilize it within the RPM threshold? .................

RPM is determined by fps (time), rate of spin (barrel twist) and distance (velocity). Even as the velocity degrades with distance the rate of spin (RPM) is still the same for the distance traveled. Many mistakenly assume the bullet spins faster as the velocity decreases with range. Across the practical ranges we shoot at, even to 1000+ yards, the RPM degrades very little.

The RPM threshold is based on muzzle velocity. The degradation of accuracy begins immediately. The bullet will either go into that slow helical arc around the line of flight that increases non-linear as range increases or it will simply go off on a tangent to the line of flight. There is no formula for down range because of the immense variable involved.

The RPM required for bullet stability is an entirely different requirement. Bullet stability has nothing to do with accuracy loss of bullets exceeding their RPM threshold. Bullet sill still be "stable" in flight and will fly point forward long after the RPM threshold is passed and inaccuracy begins. Again; bullet stability has nothing to do with the RPM threshold. The RPM threshold is basically about when the adverse effects of centrifugal force begin to cause the stable bullet to deviate (off on a tangent or in the slow helical arc) dramatically from what should be the normal flight path of the bullet. Apples and oranges.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

So even a Swede with the fast twist won't fix "wobbly bottom syndrome" in the CM. So would is the problem with the boolit?

All theories aside, the wallabies I shot with my wobbly boolits ex the Carcano died oblivious to the problem.

Note with the one load (27 gr RL22 load at 1622 fps) I stated I would hunt deer with it even though it had the "wobbly bottom syndrome", at least to 150 yards. Probably would be deadly alright.

Is your CM mould the oversize mould or the one that casts to correct dimensions?

Might point out that your Carcano probably has a gain twist? Mind posting some loads and groups at 100 yards (meters is fine) so we can see if the "wobbly bottom syndrome" is there?

Larry Gibson

[swheeler]

IIRC Jeff has a 91/41 with fixed 8" twist and settled for 1700+ to achieve basically same thing you got at 16K+ because of his ever so slightly slower twist

[swheeler]

SO in Jeffs case he had to exceed the RPM threshold to stabilize the loooooooooong bullet with an 8" twist, about 1750 required to make that bullet fully stable in the carcano

[Larry Gibson]

SO in Jeffs case he had to exceed the RPM threshold to stabilize the loooooooooong bullet with an 8" twist, about 1750 required to make that bullet fully stable in the carcano

Not by much as that is only pushing 157,000+ RPM. Would like to see a target though to see if there are the "wobbly bottom syndrome" with the 8" twist?

Larry Gibson

[swheeler]

Not by much as that is only pushing 157,000+ RPM. Would like to see a target though to see if there are the "wobbly bottom syndrome" with the 8" twist?

Larry Gibson

Yes he was still getting oval holes on target IIRC, seems it was just a couple years ago? I know not long after that he punched a few giant rats with it, killed em dead nuf.

[JeffinNZ]

IIRC Jeff has a 91/41 with fixed 8" twist and settled for 1700+ to achieve basically same thing you got at 16K+ because of his ever so slightly slower twist

Correct.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v505/JeffinNZ/Shooting%20stuff/SC3522157010030214370.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/JeffinNZ/media/Shooting%20stuff/SC3522157010030214370.jpg.html)

LARRY, my mould is the Lee ex Midsouth and throws at .270(ish).

Have to bend my cartridges to get them into the chamber....... LOL.

[45 2.1]

The original Lee GB 6.5mm Cruise Missile mold cast boolits that didn't need to be sized (I sure didn't size mine) in an original Swedish produced rifle. This thread shows what happens when you use a non original built parts rifle by somebody other than the Swedes with and an out of spec mold and size it 4 times........ you damage the boolit beyond redemption with the results shown above.

[madsenshooter]

Everything looks better than what I have thus far been able to do with Swede's 155gr bullet out of my Arisakas. Not faulting Swede's bullet, I just haven't done things right yet. Maybe Larry can do something with it to inspire me. Add about 1/4" to the tails of the bullet holes Jeff has pictured, and increase group size to about the size of the target black, that'd be my results so far, but I'm still working on it.

[swheeler]

ms you don't give velocity but I believe your Arisaka probably has a slower twist yet, 1:9?? if that 155 boolit is 1.150" long you will need about 1800 fps to get fully stabilized.

[madsenshooter]

Guesstimated velocity of around 2000fps. The bullet I'm talking about wasn't a group buy, it's 1.21" long. My dismal results could have been from not turning the necks on the cases I made from 30-06 (6.5x257). When I chambered the rounds the final closing of the bolt was hard, the neck was sizing down the bullet and I had no room for sizing, .270 groove diameter, .271 bands. Larry has the mold and will be working with it sometime. In the meantime I have a few more loaded in cases that I reduced the neck thickness of.

[Geppetto]

Larry,

I had to say that is a bang up job on the write-up. I think everyone should strive to perform methodical testing with clear, thorough documentation and your write up is exemplar.

Just wanted to say thanks for the excellent post . I hope to see more follow-up by others with this mold.

Greg

[swheeler]

Well you sent it to the right guy to test. If you do have a 9 twist that will take about 1850 fps to be fully stabilized, that would be where I started looking. I'm sure Larry will put it through the paces and share.

[Dutchman]

....and size it 4 times........ you damage the boolit beyond redemption with the results shown above.

This particular aspect of bullet concentricity between the body and nose would be easy enough to check using a precision Vee block and 1/2 thou dial indicator on a granite surface plate. If Larry wants to send me 2 samples of his CM I'll check them. I would tend to agree that the potential for creating eccentric diameters is pretty high so let's check a couple and eliminate this as a possible source of inaccuracy.

Dutch

[swheeler]

http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg234/kmw3291/swede_zpsab10ab56.jpg (http://s249.photobucket.com/user/kmw3291/media/swede_zpsab10ab56.jpg.html) All original, non matching numbers on bolt but original, they tip just like yours Dutchman. My Carcano has been sporterised, barrel shortened 2' to 25 and stock bubbaed up but all other is org, they tip, I still think it is just a design flaw in that bullet, the cruise missle that is.

[Dutchman]

I still think it is just a design flaw in that bullet, the cruise missle that is.

Larry's test just reinforces my thoughts that the CM is of dubious value in the 6.5x55 anything above 1500 fps.
I'll shoot up what I have both from the original mold and the Midsouth mold and that'll be it for me with this bullet. Done with it.

Dutch

[swheeler]

Larry's test just reinforces my thoughts that the CM is of dubious value in the 6.5x55 anything above 1500 fps.
I'll shoot up what I have both from the original mold and the Midsouth mold and that'll be it for me with this bullet. Done with it.
Dutch

That's exactly what I was saying in 04 or 05:) I think Kelly just ****e the bed on this design, sure like that 8mm max though. Somebody used to say there ain't no flies on the 6.5's, I think I here a little buzzzing on this bullet design. FWIW I put a 24x scope on the 91/41 Carcano and tested with Hornady(100 of them)160 gr RN Carcano bullets they were selling, various loads with powders in the 4350-4831 class, no tipping and moa or a little more, Im sure the Swede would do just as good if so equipped and correct jacketed bullets, SO I don't buy any of this "parts gun" hoopula. YMMV

[ktw]

Larry's test just reinforces my thoughts that the CM is of dubious value in the 6.5x55 anything above 1500 fps.
I'll shoot up what I have both from the original mold and the Midsouth mold and that'll be it for me with this bullet. Done with it.

If one of you has the oversized mold in good condition that you won't be needing anymore, I'd like to try it. The bullet may be a little heavy, but those dimensions look good to me for paper patching in the 270 Winchester.

-ktw

[JeffinNZ]

The original Lee GB 6.5mm Cruise Missile mold cast boolits that didn't need to be sized (I sure didn't size mine) in an original Swedish produced rifle. This thread shows what happens when you use a non original built parts rifle by somebody other than the Swedes with and an out of spec mold and size it 4 times........ you damage the boolit beyond redemption with the results shown above.

But I am only sizing 0.001-0.0015 at most. That will not kill a boolit.

[Nrut]

The CM is an overly long for cal. bore rider used in a fast twist rifle..
What could possibly go wrong?

Cut the nose off at the top of the top band and replace it with a short RN or RFN, taper the top band to fit the lead and you might have something..

Like a 6.5 Kurtz with wide bands..

I have never made a throat slug on a 96/38 so there may be more to it than that..

[Larry Gibson]

This particular aspect of bullet concentricity between the body and nose would be easy enough to check using a precision Vee block and 1/2 thou dial indicator on a granite surface plate. If Larry wants to send me 2 samples of his CM I'll check them. I would tend to agree that the potential for creating eccentric diameters is pretty high so let's check a couple and eliminate this as a possible source of inaccuracy.

Dutch

Dutch

I appreciate the offer but I have 2 concentricity testers; the loaded rounds are within .000 - .004 concentric. Most of the loaded round had .001 - .0025 run out. 45 2.1s post was pretty much what we have come to expect; long on criticism, short on offering anything constructive. Since he obviously has the superior mould and ability (both by his own admission) it would have been productive and much more positive had he ran a similar test and posted his results just as I did, eh? However that's not his style. He also likes to criticize everyone else's equipment. Seems only he and "a lot of people around where I live" have the equipment that does what he claims.

Seems hard to comprehend how a stock 6.5 Swede M38 barreled action pillar bedded in a composite stock that shoots sub moa with jacketed bullets and moa with other cast bullet loads isn’t as accurate with 45 2.1's designed CM cast bullet as it would be in a stock Swede milsurp M38 or M96. By his statement seems he would have us believe only the Swedes can build accurate rifles and only in military stocks………..that will shoot his cast bullet accurately..........The test rifle was a Swede made M96 action with a Swede made barrel installed by the Swedes. He might want to pay close attention to the bullet by itself and the loaded bullet in the photograph (I'll post it here again).......do they look "damaged beyond redemption"? I don't think so.......just another 45 2.1 grumble.........

Larry Gibson

92467

[Larry Gibson]

If one of you has the oversized mold in good condition that you won't be needing anymore, I'd like to try it. The bullet may be a little heavy, but those dimensions look good to me for paper patching in the 270 Winchester.

-ktw

I've not had the mould for a year and a half or so(?) as I returned to the owner. I have about 75 of the CMs left and like Dutch, that will be it for me. I've 3 other much better designed cast bullet moulds that shoot much better. No sense throwing good money after bad........except it may do just fine PP'd in a 270! I'd sure send it to you if I had it.

Larry Gibson

[NYBushBro]

I bought 500 of the CM's from Gardner's Cache a while ago, when he was still offering them (cast from one of the original molds, IIRC).

I also picked up some RL-22 a while ago (recommended in my Speer manual for 6.5 loads for military rifles/carbines), so when the weather breaks, I may try a similar test (although I'm not holding my breath for sub-MOA results.)

If these don't work, I did have the foresight to also get some Hornady 160 gr. J-bullets... so all is not lost.

[MUSTANG]

Larry Gibson:

I understand the reality of a cast boolit having a center of mass that can be viewed on an X axis (length of Boolit base to nose) that rarely resides at the center of the length. A pure cylinder would have the center of mass located closest to the center on the X axis, with impurities or voids causing a micro shift right or left on each boolit. On the Y & Y Axis (left to right, up or down on the diameter) the center of mass would be at the radius center (discounting impact of impurities, voids, or non concentric sizing, or lube grooves and lube applications).

1. Why is there such a difference in the Cast Boolit performance and Jacketed in a 6.5 x 55. Does a 10 grain difference between the long 160 grain round nose and the 170 Grain Cruise Missile account for it (complicated by an even longer boolit due to grease grooves)?

2. Are the problems for wide groups all attributable to "Swaging Actions upon Firing" the cast boolit round?

3. Is the problem "Irrecoverable" because of the potential wide range of center of mass shifts that can occur with impurities or voids in a cast boolit, compared to a theoretical lesser impact for a swaged core in a jacketed bullet? If so, would we not see some shooters with better quality control in boolits production getting better performance than those with lesser quality control, or is the design of the CM so bad that the difference is undetectable?

4. If the cast boolit inaccuracy is caused by rotating on two points: the center of mass, and the rotation around the center line of the radius; do we see the same thing with the 160 grain round nose jacketed in the 6.5 x55, but it is less noticeable because it is not as long as the Cruise Missile? Or, is it attributable to some other set of conditions?

[swheeler]

mustang those 2 bullets are the same length for all practical purposes, the Hornady with nice round exposed lead tip may actually be a couple thousanths longer

[Dutchman]

1. Why is there such a difference in the Cast Boolit performance and Jacketed in a 6.5 x 55. Does a 10 grain difference between the long 160 grain round nose and the 170 Grain Cruise Missile account for it (complicated by an even longer boolit due to grease grooves)?


The m/94 bullet is barely shorter than the Cruise Missile. The difference is in the diameter of the nose section. The CM needs the same tapered nose of the m/94 bullet and I think we'd be seeing much different results.

L to R:
266469
266673
m/41 139 gr
m/94 156 gr
Lee Cruise Missile.

http://images9.fotki.com/v1543/photos/4/28344/9430776/DSCF4168cb-vi.jpg

[Dutchman]

If one of you has the oversized mold in good condition that you won't be needing anymore, I'd like to try it. The bullet may be a little heavy, but those dimensions look good to me for paper patching in the 270 Winchester.

-ktw

Send me a PM with name & address. You can have mine.

With a 50:50 WW/Linotype alloy:
nose diameter .266"
4 bands top to bottom:
1- .270"
2- .2725"
3- .272"
4- .2705"
169.5 grains

Dutch

[Dutchman]

I appreciate the offer but I have 2 concentricity testers; the loaded rounds are within .000 - .004 concentric.

I was speaking only of bullet concentricity between the nose portion and the body, not the cartridge. The comment spoke of sizing the nose portion of the bullet and introducing eccentricity.

Actually I think you've put enough time into this.

Dutch

[45 2.1]

To paraphrase Shakespeare, Larry doth protest too much, methinks.

Besides some band and nose irregularities in the posted photo, the run out is poor. Too bad Dutchman can't confirm it. The little unseen things that happen with excess sizing works to give what he got. You want to see just how good you think you are Larry, go to a CBA benchrest match and try your hand at it.

[45 2.1]

But I am only sizing 0.001-0.0015 at most. That will not kill a boolit.

Jeff, you have a long skinny boolit that some claim bends when coming out of the mold. To get good long skinny boolits in the small calibers, you have to have a really good technique. Why don't you cast a bunch and weigh them to see what weight spread you get, then roll them on a plate glass dead flat surface and see what happens, before and after sizing. The part about being out of spec is a serious consideration as sizing anything this skinny has effects on it.

[45 2.1]

The m/94 bullet is barely shorter than the Cruise Missile. The difference is in the diameter of the nose section. The CM needs the same tapered nose of the m/94 bullet and I think we'd be seeing much different results.

L to R:
266469
266673
m/41 139 gr
m/94 156 gr
Lee Cruise Missile.

http://images9.fotki.com/v1543/photos/4/28344/9430776/DSCF4168cb-vi.jpg

Dutchman, just looking at the picture of that Cruise Missile gives me the shakes. If the rest of those you bought are of the same quality, then I can see why you're having trouble. That boolit should have been in the reject bin.

[Larry Gibson]

......... You want to see just how good you think you are Larry, go to a CBA benchrest match and try your hand at it.

Perhaps you should show us where your name shows up in the CBA records?

As usual, nothing constructive from 45 2.1........

Methinks thou doeth protest too much considering you designed the CM bullet...........is that the axe you're grinding? How about some posted velocities and targets with the correctly sized CM? Be constructive bob..........

Larry Gibson

[NVScouter]

I like the look of the CM..almost. Maybe replace the last band with a GC and bring it to 165g and try again. How far does the bore rider go up? Maybe shortening it and decreasing ogive would increase stability and not lose too much weight.

[nekshot]

Every time I wanted to order that mold I would get cold feet and back off. I still want to get it but I plan on milling it to a 145-150 grain boolit. I saw it done by someone and that boolit looked right compared to the original.

[Larry Gibson]

MUSTANG

I understand the reality of a cast boolit having a center of mass that can be viewed on an X axis (length of Boolit base to nose) that rarely resides at the center of the length. A pure cylinder would have the center of mass located closest to the center on the X axis, with impurities or voids causing a micro shift right or left on each boolit. On the Y & Y Axis (left to right, up or down on the diameter) the center of mass would be at the radius center (discounting impact of impurities, voids, or non concentric sizing, or lube grooves and lube applications).

1. Why is there such a difference in the Cast Boolit performance and Jacketed in a 6.5 x 55. Does a 10 grain difference between the long 160 grain round nose and the 170 Grain Cruise Missile account for it (complicated by an even longer boolit due to grease grooves)?

The difference is in the basic structural differences between the cast bullet and the jacketed bullet. The 160 jacketed bullets have the structural support (the jacket) to withstand the acceleration forces (both forward and rotational) of the fast twist in the swede. The long and heavy cast CM apparently does not. I think it was nobade(?) that reported his CMs actually twisted in two and gave 2 holes on the target for each shot. While I did not have that (different alloy) I do think the bullet had what appeared to be yaw but may have been that they were bent. They still had enough rotational stability to fly point on but at t higher velocity the "bend" (if that's what it was) was much more pronounced. Nobade(?) hypothesized the twisting in two occurred on exit from the muzzle as the long nose really hangs out while the base is still twisting at an increasing rotational rate. If that is the case then the CMs I shot didn't twist in two but the base, or nose, was twisted to the side a bit.

2. Are the problems for wide groups all attributable to "Swaging Actions upon Firing" the cast boolit round?

Considering the wobble/yaw was occurring down at .1400 fps I don't think that's the problem. All cast bullets will obturate/swage to a degree at higher psi's. As others have stated, and I tend to agree, there seems to be just something inherently wrong with the design. Perhaps NYBushBro's experiments (since 45 2.1 is not forth coming with any constructive information) with the proper sized CM will shed some light. Please remember here that I was dealing with the cards dealt; the oversized CM. In order to make it fit I had to sized the drive bands which is commonly done with many cast bullets w/o harm. I also had to size the nose down 2 times (the back half at .266 and the front half at .264) That is only sizing the bullet 3 times, and yet not the whole bullet 3 times, not the 4 times 45 2.1 erroneously mentions. A properly designed and made bullet mould would have allowed the bullet to go into the bore. The oversized CM does not. Thus I had to size it to make it fit.

3. Is the problem "Irrecoverable" because of the potential wide range of center of mass shifts that can occur with impurities or voids in a cast boolit, compared to a theoretical lesser impact for a swaged core in a jacketed bullet? If so, would we not see some shooters with better quality control in boolits production getting better performance than those with lesser quality control, or is the design of the CM so bad that the difference is undetectable?

I very seldom weight sort cast bullets but I did in this case. As I stated the weight of the CMs I tested was 171 gr "fully dressed". Prior to sizing, lubing and GCing I weigh sorted them to a +/- .5 gr. The mould I had with the 80/20 alloy using a bottom pour pot (Lyman Mag20) with the temp controlled at 725 degrees produced very uniform bullets in weight and diameter. I had few rejects. Thus I don't think any imbalance of the bullet was caused by impurities or voids. Weight shift during acceleration is/was entirely possible as the CM has a lot of mass for the diameter of the bullet.

4. If the cast boolit inaccuracy is caused by rotating on two points: the center of mass, and the rotation around the center line of the radius; do we see the same thing with the 160 grain round nose jacketed in the 6.5 x55, but it is less noticeable because it is not as long as the Cruise Missile? Or, is it attributable to some other set of conditions?

Of course we see the same kind of "rotation around the center line of the radius" with jacketed bullets as with cast bullets. The imbalance is usually much less in the jacketed bullet which is why the effect is not as pronounced. It's why we shoot groups with either bullet instead of one hole. There is a very good explanation of this in the front of the last few Hornady reloading manuals. That is a good read for everyone and will give you a basic understanding of how centrifugal force in the rotating bullet can have an adverse affect on accuracy. In the case of the oversized CM there may also be something to the "bent bullet on muzzle exit" theory which would also influence accuracy as we've seen.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

I was speaking only of bullet concentricity between the nose portion and the body, not the cartridge. The comment spoke of sizing the nose portion of the bullet and introducing eccentricity.

Actually I think you've put enough time into this.

Dutch

Exactly what I think.....thanks Dutch.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

I like the look of the CM..almost. Maybe replace the last band with a GC and bring it to 165g and try again. How far does the bore rider go up? Maybe shortening it and decracing oagive would increase stability and not lose too much weight.

Geargnasher did just that and had poor results also. I think he posted something about it on the other 6.5 thread I started this one from(?).

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?114825-THE-LOAD-in-the-Swedish-Mauser post #24

Larry Gibson

[45 2.1]

As usual, nothing constructive from 45 2.1........

Methinks thou doeth protest too much considering you designed the CM bullet...........is that the axe you're grinding? How about some posted velocities and targets with the correctly sized CM? Be constructive bob..........

Larry Gibson

I see you like the new phrase so you copied it several times. Too bad you believe nothing constructive has happened. To date the constructive things have been:
1. All the pictures shown have visible boolit flaws in them (either inclusions, rounded bands, nose extrusion etc.). Shooting visually imperfect boolits is usually a waste of time and components.... besides the great possibility of people taking results a what really would go on with well cast boolits. I would take it that what you've shown as well as others here are "normal cast boolits"? If so you are wasteing time and components if you wanted to achieve accurate results.
2. Any Cruise Missile boolit that requires sizing in the stock Swede rifles is OVERSIZE and out of spec, plus you have the very real possibility of damaging it more thru excessive sizing of the long thin boolit.
3. I don't size my boolits... yes, they go thru a 450 sizer lubricator, but that only applies lube and crimps on the gas check to the size I want it to be without putting any undue force on it.
4. I don't waste money on toys, I put it into powder, primers, rifles and molds. No digital camera though I have owned a Pact chrono for the last 25 years.
5. As far as posting results... that has been done already with instructions you didn't follow. All anybody has to do is compare what you wrote (in your various tests) versus the un-edited instructions by me in the milk jug thread to see that... that is if they want to. I really don't want to give you another soapbox to cause problems from, too much has been said in that regard already from you and I'm sure the mods are tired of it.

[onceabull]

AND all this & still not a word of record(s) shot in CBA bench rest matchs.. those among us who get the "Fouling Shot" can look into that themselves,of course... Onceabull

[NVScouter]

Thanks Larry. My M98 custom has a 1:9.5 twist I'd love to get a cast load for it for short range hunting.

Ive stayed away from most 6.5 threads due to the Larry/45 peeing matches. Proof is in the targets. I'm not 100% on your RPM therory but its:
1) good reading
2) interesting opionion
3) well thought out with lots of data
4) new information on an old subject

So either way I respect it and the work thats been done to it. 45's designs are also proven with lots of praise. So I'm not sure to recomend you two a room or a boxing ring. Cant mutual respect and agree to disagree mentality reign in the posts a bit?

-Jon


Geargnasher did just that and had poor results also. I think he posted something about it on the other 6.5 thread I started this one from(?).

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?114825-THE-LOAD-in-the-Swedish-Mauser post #24

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

45 2.1

In case you failed to notice.....this thread and test was about the oversized 6.5 CM and attempts to make it work. Many have bought this mould and the reported results are dismal to say the least. Something has to be done to the CM to make it fit.....only thing is to size it so it will enter the throat at least. That you may have a correctly made mould that fits w/o sizing is not relevant to this thread. This thread is about the oversized 6.5 CM that you designed. The rifle I used is a "stock Swede rifle" as far as the bullet fitting into the throat. It is a stock M38 action and barrel. What stock that Swede M38 barreled action sits in has no bearing on the fit of the oversize CM into the "stock" throat. Your continued insistence it does belies your attempt simply to confuse the facts.

Obviously you are adept at the use of a computer as evidenced by your computer driven cast bullet designs and many posts. Your excuse not to post pictures therefor has the max effective range of zero yards. You do not need a digital camera to post targets. Scan them and then post them. That's what I did with the targets posted in this thread. You also do not need a digital camera to post the details and data from your chronograph. The keyboard you are using will work just fine. If you can not handle that then I'm sure many of those 500 - 800 yard shooters with unzeroed rifles will have digital cameras or cameras in their cell phones. They can take a picture for you and can even post it for you. Your excuses are dogs that don't hunt........

I already posted pictures of the 6.5 Kurtz bullets I got from an unmentionable (that photo was deleted with the post by a moderator because it was attributed to the unmentionable...is that censorship?). Now you have raved numerous times, too many times actually, at the ability of HV with accuracy capability of those very poorly cast Kurtz bullets in the 6.5 Swede. And now you criticize my bullets and Dutch's? Also interesting how you fail to criticize geargnasher for his posts where he lops of the base of your bullet trying to get it to work and still thinks little of the 6.5 CM. Oh, I forgot....you and gear are buds.......

And now, once again,you post no pictures of your own to show what good bullets look like, especially after sizing and lubing? You rant and rave at how well a certain former member would size down one caliber clear to another lower caliber (.010+) and shoot them so well at HV and then criticize Dutch and I for sizing the CM down a mere .003-.004 (which is routinely done all the time with many cast bullets and they give excellent accuracy)?..........Rather a good case of the kettle calling the pot black.......It's bad enough that all you do is criticize but at the very least you should try to keep your stories straight.

BTW; YOU have not posted any results, you only post what "others" have done. Show us your own results with the 6.5 CM and and other cast bullets in your own 6.5 Swede "stock rifle". That you can't post any of it is BS and the "it's already been posted but you didn't follow instructions" excuse is just that; an excuse. And it is an excuse that has worn rather thin..........

So quit complaining and criticizing, try being constructive instead. As you told me "its up to you to prove your theory" and so now it is time for you to prove your theory and design that the 6.5 CM will shoot accurately at HV/RPM. Doesn't have to be with the oversize CM as we all know that one is a no go. Show us what the correctly sized and cast 6.5 CM looks like and what it can do for accuracy at HV/RPM in your own "stock" 6.5 Swede rifle.

I and several others have pretty much conclusively proved the oversized 6.5 CM is not a good performing cast bullet in the 6.5 Swede rifle/cartridge. You took your shot in your 1st post in this thread....so now it's up to you now to prove something constructively regarding that bullet. I'm sure, based on several years of experience, that by asking for something constructive from you and for you to post what you have done I am just :takinWiz: in the wind.........

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

NVScouter

I've made more than one offer to shoot with 45 2.1, even made the offer here I think. I am more than willing to learn from him and observe what he really can do. BTW; I have several of 45 2.1s designed moulds, even bought one recently from the unmentionable former member. For the most part I've found them to be excellent designs although many are simply plagiarized designs simply of larger spec for larger diameter bullets with straight COWW alloy. I've no problems with that either. However, the 6.5 CM is one design that just isn't working out, at least the oversized made one isn't. It is a dog, a dog that doesn't hunt.

I have made mistakes and have admitted them. Most all of us have......I got no problem with that either.

Perhaps it would be better to address;

"Cant mutual respect and agree to disagree mentality reign in the posts a bit?

to 45 2.1?

I started this thread with a simple report on the 6.5 oversized CM test results. I did not criticize anyone for the design. I merely conducted a test and reported. 45 2.1 instead of adding something constructive or admitting his design in this case wasn't so good chose to take a shot at me with his 1st post. When shot at I shoot back, especially when the shot is not substantiated with any facts. I expect you shoot back under those circumstances also, I would not expect otherwise. So would not that question be better directed at 45 2.1?

Larry Gibson

BTW; I'm done here anyway. Unless someone can post something about the correctly sized 6.5 CM so we can make a comparison then there's not anything more to add. The test speaks for itself. If anyone has any questions concerning the test please PM and we'll continue that way.

[45 2.1]

Hahahaha.... this is really good entertainment.

For the record... I didn't design an oversize Cruise Missile mold. The one I designed, with explicit dimensions works fine.... as evidenced by the first Oldfeller run GB. Unfortunately, those were the only ones faithful to the dimensions given to Lee. Lee continued, for quite some time, to produce -0.000" to +0.003" molds of which almost all reported were in the high end of their tolerance range. I've heard they have changed that tolerance range, but have no evidence of that. If you contact Mid South, who sells these Lee molds, you will probably find that they claim it is their design now....... so you can blame them for out of spec oversize molds. It all reverts to the original specs, which were not followed, then larry claims it doesn't work with an oversize mold........... Guess what..... those are the results, it don't work as you've said with an oversize mold. If you ever get a correct mold (there is a GB for it that is supposed to be made to the original specs) you may find different results (provided you follow the directions without substitutions and deletions). I know the correct one does work, and several other people know that also. It has been fired at over 2,400 fps with nice round holes that are very close together. The faster it goes, the better it works for me, but you won't do that with conventional reloading practices. As for shooting with me..... or visiting with me..... or receiving help..... get real, you have not received an invitation to do any of these things.

[leadman]

I have contacted Midsouth twice trying to get them to take a look on here at the issues with this boolit. So far the only response is "nobody has returned the mold so it must be ok".

Maybe a phone campaign aimed at Midsouth will help. 1-800-272-3000.

[JeffinNZ]

So the original CM in the Swede did produce round holes?

[madsenshooter]

If it ain't the original this, or the similar to that, or you don't do it the way we claim to have done it, you can't be doing things right.....A bullet that someone with little loading experience can't get to shoot right isn't much good and when an advanced reloader has to use every trick in the book and burn a lot of powder in attempting to get it to shoot it's even worse. I agree Larry, nuff time spent. Wish Don Eagan would have made a 6.5 mold, a conical based on his MX2-30H design, diameter reduced but length of 1.23" about the same. I really just don't believe there's any beating a nose pour. If I'd known how much better they work, I'd have bought more of the cherries when they were on ebay.

[Dutchman]

So the original CM in the Swede did produce round holes?

hi Jeff :)

If by round you mean the bullet does not yaw... No, they did not produce perfectly round holes.

This is from a single cavity Lee mold as cast by Gardner's Cache http://gardnerscache.com/6_5mm_170_fp_g_c.html His mold is from the first batch and one of the correctly dimensioned molds. He sizes to .267". This target below was fired at 50 yds with a high powered scope in a m/38 load was 13.8 grs 2400 which is probably very close to 1,400 fps. Clearly the bullets are tilting even at this velocity.

It's time, me'thinks, that we stop recommending the Midsouth Cruise Missile mold for the Swedish Mauser.

http://images41.fotki.com/v1580/photos/2/28344/157842/65x551701382400ab-vi.jpg

[45 2.1]

So the original CM in the Swede did produce round holes?

Yes, it has for me and several others (I and they don't shoot the CM at velocities under 2,000 fps though). If you size/lube the boolit for an original Swedish rifle anything below a 0.268" sizer is going too low....... for all the stock Swedes I've shot them in.


It's time, me'thinks, that we stop recommending the Midsouth Cruise Missile mold for the Swedish Mauser.

I would have to agree with that statement.... until the time they can sell correctly dimensioned molds.

[swheeler]

MS good for you, you may have to block his phone number if he has it though;)

[waksupi]

As has been said before, no Starmetal input whatsoever is allowed on this board. Do not repeat. Last warning.

[madsenshooter]

Oh, I see, sorry. Joe don't email me! Bummer, some good stuff in that disappearing post. Waksupi, problem taken care of personally!

[swheeler]

Thanks Ric!!!!!!!!!;)

[NVScouter]

I know why you two are going at it. I just think it muddles up decent threads. Also it takes two and 45.2.1 sure can't seem to be civil. Apparently he can't get over his bruised ego at a mold that somebody can't cut right.

The running at the mouth should be deleted and thread left in tact. If anybody like 45.2.1 has their results to add then great!

[kens]

I have a question, if I may.
I read this post and noticed the boolit was sized and or lubed .268 or other sizes. But, what groove dia. was the original rifle in this post slug at?
Did I miss that?

[Larry Gibson]

I have a question, if I may.
I read this post and noticed the boolit was sized and or lubed .268 or other sizes. But, what groove dia. was the original rifle in this post slug at?
Did I miss that?

Good question, forgot to mention that. The test rifle slugs out at .266 groove diameter with a pin measured .254 bore. The throat tapers from .268 at the case mouth to .266 at the leade.

Larry Gibson

[leadman]

Maybe instead of trying to fix the CM we work on determining what boolit works the best for the majority of guns and do a group buy on it?
I read NOE is months out on orders and when I spoke to Andy Lee about a week ago he said they are 6 to 8 weeks out. I was involved in the last group buy a few years ago from Lee so know what went on then. I do recommend that the lube grooves be about 1/4 of the depth of the Makarov special order mold so the boolits will come out of the cavities easier.

I have since bought at least 8 to 10 of their recent molds and quality is much improved as well as dimensions of the cast boolits from the molds.

I also thought I might call Andy Lee the first of the week and get him to read this thread so he has an understanding of what is happening with this mold. I know Midsouth is responsible for the specs but it is a Lee name on a mold that is not working very well.

[Nrut]

leadman,
Sounds like a plan to me..
I would much prefer NOE though..

[kens]

Another question, please.
How much does the boo lit swell up when the lands are engraved into the driving bands?
The matériel displaced by the engraved rifling must go somewhere, the boolit must get either longer or fatter, or a little of both.
Since the CM is very long anyway, and it is already .002 over, I hunch a bet that it is being squeezed too much, causing high friction (resistance) going down the barrel.
Can I question a test of that thing sized closer to groove dia.?

[Larry Gibson]

kens

The problem is the nose needed to be sized partially (half in front of the front driving band) to .266 and .264 (front of nose) just to get the bullet up into the throat. Thus the nose was at groove diameter during the test. And yes, the alloy displaced by the lands has to go somewhere. My guess is also that the bullet had to have elongated. Also the bullet may have further elongated because the alloy in the .268 sized driving bands also has to go some where. That may be swaged out into the lube grooves though(?) but I also suspect it adds to elongation of the bullet. If I sized the bullet to .266 on the driving bands it would jus be a long cylinder and someone would get very upset of the further sizing down of his bullet and also that it then did not "fit" the throat as he is so adamant and very critical about.

Other than testing a similar CM cast of the correct dimensions I really think that, as does Dutch and others, that we have done about as much as we can with the oversized CM in the 6.5 Swede. I do have a few bullets left and may try them sized down to .266 just to see but it will be with just the one charge of 27 gr RL22. Not sure when I will get to it though.

Larry Gibson

[Good Cheer]

Reading this thread with interest. The 6.5 Dutch is getting ready for boolits and key holing is going to be a characteristic to be deciphered during determining what's up.

[leadman]

I have been coating my boolits with the Hi-Tek coating and noticed that when I sized the boolits down by as much as .004" that the driving bands did not close up of spread. I did measure a couple of boolits before and after sizing and they did grow in length.
I have a 41 cal Lyman mold that is badly out of round and tried some of these coated with the Hi-Tek to see what would happen. They did get round and appeared to be good boolits. I shot some and they were as terrible as before sized.

On the new boolit design would a Loverin style work for the military 6.5 guns? I have a Rolling block in 8X58RD that I shoot both the Karabiner and the Lyman 160gr Loverin style. The Loverin fills the throat just as well as the Karabiner when seated out and is more accurate. The nose could be modified to make it better for hunting.

[Good Cheer]

Time to watch the group buy discussions!:grin:

[Larry Gibson]

Leadman

The 266455, the Kurtz bullet (any rendition of it), the 266469 and the BRP 269469 are all Loverin designs and do fill up the throat. I consider the 266455 and the GB Kurtz bullets to fit the case neck and throats of 6.5 Swedes just about as good as it will get.

Larry Gibson

[JeffinNZ]

I can't help but think the CM belongs in "The Twilight Zone".

[45 2.1]

I can't help but think the CM belongs in "The Twilight Zone".

Well... Oldfeller, the member who ran the first Cruise Missile GB with Lee, wanted a long hunting boolit. He also said getting Miss Karlina (the 6.5 Swede rifle) to shoot well was an equivalent of a PhD in terms of cast boolit knowledge. If you go here: http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?225673-Norway-Sweden-Trial-Cartridge-of-1893-6-5x55, you will find the 1894 bullet was 32mm long ( 1.2598" ). The Cruise Missile is 1.2530" long ready to load IF you have one of the original molds and don't size the heck out of it (which is unnecessary when done correctly). Not really a cause for concern there as the CM is shorter than the original boolit. So, it really is a question of how well you take care of business with the Swede rifle and the cartridges you put in it. I know those long Swedish bullets shoot well as those are the first ones I shot out of a Swede rifle. I also know the Cruise Missile shoots just as well as those military long RN's did many years ago for me. We also know the Mid South/Lee molds aren't up to the job from several tests here. Shooting cast boolits well isn't something that you intuit, it's something that you usually have to learn how to do from reading or from someone else, just like everything else in the world.

[kens]

OK. I re read this and see a .266 bore, with a boolit nose .269.
I don't see how this will work.

[Larry Gibson]

OK. I re read this and see a .266 bore, with a boolit nose .269.
I don't see how this will work.

That was the problem and need to "size the heck out of it" just to get the oversize CM to go into the Swede throat.

Larry Gibson

[kens]

That was the problem and need to "size the heck out of it" just to get the oversize CM to go into the Swede throat.

Larry Gibson

So, that is a oversize CM.
Is there a 'standard size' CM?

[Larry Gibson]

So, that is a oversize CM.
Is there a 'standard size' CM?

Yes there is, I only tested cast bullets from the oversized mould. I do not know the dimensions of the correct sized CM, 45 2.1 should be able to help with that as he designed the mould.

Larry Gibson

[popper]

The RPM required for bullet stability is an entirely different requirement. Bullet stability has nothing to do with accuracy loss of bullets exceeding their RPM threshold. Bullet will still be "stable" in flight and will fly point forward long after the RPM threshold is passed and inaccuracy begins. Again; bullet stability has nothing to do with the RPM threshold (sic. totally incorrect). The RPM threshold is basically about when the adverse effects of centrifugal force begin to cause the stable bullet to deviate (off on a tangent or in the slow helical arc) dramatically from what should be the normal flight path of the bullet. Apples and oranges.

I can agree with your 'observations'. I disagree with your RPM threshold concept, based on terminal velocity at the target range. Transonic fps varies, BC changes, wind speed, etc. What you are attempting to describe is the rate of change in yaw angle effect. If you change your concept to read ' fps & rpm range where the boolit is quite stable' then I can agree.

[Char-Gar]

The original CM molds were individually measured and numbered by Kelly/Oldfeller prior to shipment. Each of them came with a spec sheet from Kelly. I bought two of the molds at that time. Here is a pic of the spec sheet that came with #56. These are single cavity Lee molds. Those of you who wish can compare this to the current fatter CM molds if you like. Of course the individual bullet cast may or may not vary from the nominal dimensions due to alloy, heat and technique of the caster. At that time Kelly/Oldfeller also modified some Lyman sizing dies to .267 for those of us who wanted them, as there was nothing this size commercially available. I also have one of those sizing dies.

It should be noted that this mold was designed for the Military Swede which had been coming into the country at a very low price and most of us had one or two. Mine is in very high condition and it cost me a total of $89.00. Many of the other were somewhat more worn.

Many of us played with this mold and this rifle for quite some time. All of us came to the same conclusion (save one), that much above 1.5K fps and the bullet started to twist itself badly and go to high and they never reached the target. Within it's favored velocity limits, it did OK but it still had some yaw to it most often. I would call the design a qualified success, but nothing to write home about. It is all part of the learning curve that went on here back in the day.

The original designer of the bullet claimed to have reached velocities and accuracy far in excess of what anybody else had experienced. He claimed it was because the rest of us just didn't know how to do it. As can be expected, many challenged that assertion and the whole thing devolved into a morass of accusations and bad feelings. It now just seems to involve two folks in a grudge match to the death over this silly bullet.

My feelings is that anybody that wants to buy one of these, should do so and find out for themselves if it works to their expectations or not. It is not worth a 12 year conflict over something that doesn't amount anything of value or substance. Folks now are just squabbling over egos and nothing else. "At this point in time, what difference does it make!". :-)

I have tried very hard to stay out of the whizzing match that comes up every time this bullet is mentioned on this board, but thought you would like to see what the original specs were as many were not here 12 years ago, when the whole thing happened.

[geargnasher]

I think it was Lee that made the current faux pas in design, the Midsouth two-cavity moulds have (by numerous reports since I joined the board) universally been described to have the dimensions of the mould you demonstrated here. Mine is exactly the same as these. Only the orginal, from the group buy, is reported to be "correct" as Bob described a few posts back.

I never got the Midsouth boolit to shoot round holes consistently, even PP .270 at 2700+ fps, they shot patterns with occasional small clusters of round-hole groups. I thought I could "dial in" on the round-hole groups and find a sweet spot, but I spent a LOT of time and effort on that endeavor and never consistently got it to work in anything. If you study the Midsouth CM, you'll quickly see that it's nose-heavy and the CG is forward of the CP, just like a Foster slug or shuttlecock. That's fine for smooth-bores, but not so great for a spin-balanced projectile.

I DID finally get it to shoot in both the Swede and in the .270 by cutting off the rear band and nose-sizing to fit the throats, but I honed out a .258" H-die so that it fully-supported the entire length of the boolit and shaped the nose to closely fit the Swede throat. I did this after filling all the grooves with lube, and used 50/50 alloy that had just been cast and air-cooled. After swaging, I heat-treated them in an oven (no small task to stand them up) and waited a month before shooting in the Swede, I think the heat-treat post-swage sort of stress-relieved the boolit and let the dendrites do their thing so the boolits were strong, but that's more supposition than anything. I just know that they shot well up to ~2200 fps in my scoped M96 and up to the low 27s in my .270 paper-patched when using buffer in both rifles. Without buffer, nothing would work at the higher velocities.

I also did well with the Lyman Loverin in the Swede after I lapped one cavity to .268" and got the nose base hogged out large enough. I never got the velocity that some have reported with accuracy, but I'm no expert at HV shooting, either. I thought that staying well under an inch (usually 5/8 to 3/4") at a hundred at over 200,000 RPM was doing pretty good, regardless of anyone else's results. Things have to be "just so" so even approach the results I finally obtained with either the shortened CM or the lapped Lyman boolit. Much past 2200 FPS and I had troubles, might have been alloy strength or loading technique, not sure, but honestly I got burned out on the whole thing and called good enough, good enough.

Gear

[Char-Gar]

Gear...The specs posted above are from the original group buy. A sheet like this showing the specs and the actual measurements of the mold as produced, came in the box with each of the molds. Oldfeller, the original Honcho, measured and numbered each mold after he got it from Lee and before shipping to the buyer.

This is the real deal and there was none before it. All other information is anecdotal and I have two of the original group buy molds right here in my hot little hands. The other one has never been used and has the spec sheet with it as well. These are the original specs and as you can see the first run of molds from Lee conformed to the specs.

I have no idea what Lee or Mid-South did or didn't do after the original first run of CM molds, but I was in on the original buy and this is it. If somebody says, these are not the specs of the original group buy, they are just plain wrong.

It just may be that Lee/Mid-South didn't change the specs as everybody thinks. They couldn't get the bullet to shoot, so they blamed it on a spec change. I don't know if that is what happened or not, but these are the original specs as received by Lee and produced by Lee.

In the wake of this buy and the testing that followed their arose a great squabble between the designer and the Honcho with the designer accusing the Honcho of taking credit for the design. I am a little fuzzy, but I think this had something to do with Mid-South ordering some of these custom molds. I Honchoed some of the early group buys from Lee and part of the boiler plate in the agreement they sent the Honcho was that Lee owned the design and could make them if they wish. You agreed to this when you had Lee make them. Therefore anybody could contact Lee and have the design made from the specs in Lee's hands, if they bought the required number of molds for a custom run. Apparently this is what Mid-South did.

[Larry Gibson]

I can agree with your 'observations'. I disagree with your RPM threshold concept, based on terminal velocity at the target range. Transonic fps varies, BC changes, wind speed, etc. What you are attempting to describe is the rate of change in yaw angle effect. If you change your concept to read ' fps & rpm range where the boolit is quite stable' then I can agree.

Popper

You could be quite correct in regards to this bullet. I never had a single load from 1399 fps to 2500 fps that did not display yaw. Appears no one else, at least those who've posted on this thread so far, has either. One person who uses the proper sized CM claims to have very good stability at HV but that was not with the oversized CM bullet this thread is about. I did have one load that looked the best at 100 yards but at 200 yards the bullets did not "go to sleep" and only 2 shots of 10 hit the 21x24" target. In the beginning I noted the adverse affect the RPM threshold can have on a cast bullets accuracy. I also was looking for 3 other things mentioned half way through the test. In the end, on test completion, I made no judgment that the accuracy or inaccuracy of this oversized CM bullet was from the bullet losing stability or from exceeding the RPM threshold. There appears to be no basis of stability to begin with so it's hard to tell. I only reported the results. Actually I made no judgment on why this bullet was so inaccurate. I simply reported the test results. I think too many people here make too many assumptions on what is meant vs what is really said.

I don't think we are far from agreement.

BTW; for those interested I've no dog in this fight of a "grudge match". I said up front in the original post I did not own the mould and only conducted the test at the behest of another forum member. I had no intention of getting this mould even if it shot sub moa at 3000 fps. I already have three 6.5 moulds (266455, NOE 269-145-FN and the BRP 268469) that suit my needs just fine in my four 6.5 Swede rifles. If someone wants to use this bullet then more power to them although, if asked, I'd recommend against the oversized mould and recommend the correct sized mould. I believe I have already done that on another thread(?). That recommendation is simply based on the problems getting the oversized bullet to fit into the throat and the subsequent inaccuracy. My recommendation has absolutely nothing to do with who designed the bullet. My recommendation is no different than geargnasher's and a couple other forum members. So, no "grudge match to the death" here as I could care less about this bullet. Those who want to use this bullet feel free.

Larry Gibson

[Char-Gar]

Larry, I will be happy to send you an original group buy mold, so you can compare and test it with the current production. Then the possibility of bullet damage in sizing can be eliminated and the design given a fair shake.

[Larry Gibson]

Char-Gar

I appreciate the offer but you've missed the point of my test, just like several others. My test was not of the design, my test was of the oversize CM mould. I stated that right up front in that test results. That was all the owner requested and that was all I did. I'm really sorry the designer of this mould and anyone else with this or the original correct sized mould has gotten their nose bent out of joint. Was not my intention at all regardless of what one person believes.

Let me quote W.R. Buchanan from another recent thread;

“the "Mis-Understood Word" is the "root" of ALL conflict. NOTE: I Said "ALL"

How many times? have I warned you to read and re-read a post until you fully understand what the person is trying to say, before going off on him, or cherry picking a phrase out of context and quoting it to make YOUR point?

I consider it to be "Poor Form."

I said in up front in the beginning of the subject test of this thread;

“the individual who sent the GB 6.5 Kurtz bullet mould also sent a Lee mould for the 6.5 Cruise Missile” 175 gr cast bullet he acquired from Midway. This is one of them that casts bullets over size in driving band diameter and in nose diameter. The owner requested I test them when I got around to it.”

I said at the end of the subject test;

“My comments and results apply only to the oversize 6.5 Cruise Missile as tested with the components used. Those with the correct size CM may or may not get similar, better or worse results. Those with the same oversized CM may also get the same, worse or better results with different components. That is as it is. I am only reporting the results of my tests. Should anyone have a criticism please show us your results as I have shown mine.”

So there it is. I am not going to test another CM cast bullet let alone post the results here so whoever can start this BS all over again. Since you have the mould I’m assuming you’ve got some results? If so feel free to post them as I asked.

Thanks anyway, but no thanks for the loan of the mould to conduct another test....I’m sure you understand why.

Larry Gibson

[nekshot]

Thanks for the info Char-Gar and Gear. I finally get from this post the problem with this boolit. I simply liked the shape and meplat of the bullet and wanted to tinker with it but I now lay those ideas to rest for good. Too many molds that are proven are available to me to fuss with this. This is going off topic but is the 8mm maxim boolit maybe on the verge of the same dilema of this cm ? If this should be in another post that is fine with me.

[Char-Gar]

Char-Gar

I appreciate the offer but you've missed the point of my test, just like several others. My test was not of the design, my test was of the oversize CM mould. I stated that right up front in that test results. That was all the owner requested and that was all I did. I'm really sorry the designer of this mould and anyone else with this or the original correct sized mould has gotten their nose bent out of joint. Was not my intention at all regardless of what one person believes.

Let me quote W.R. Buchanan from another recent thread;

“the "Mis-Understood Word" is the "root" of ALL conflict. NOTE: I Said "ALL"

How many times? have I warned you to read and re-read a post until you fully understand what the person is trying to say, before going off on him, or cherry picking a phrase out of context and quoting it to make YOUR point?

I consider it to be "Poor Form."

I said in up front in the beginning of the subject test of this thread;

“the individual who sent the GB 6.5 Kurtz bullet mould also sent a Lee mould for the 6.5 Cruise Missile” 175 gr cast bullet he acquired from Midway. This is one of them that casts bullets over size in driving band diameter and in nose diameter. The owner requested I test them when I got around to it.”

I said at the end of the subject test;

“My comments and results apply only to the oversize 6.5 Cruise Missile as tested with the components used. Those with the correct size CM may or may not get similar, better or worse results. Those with the same oversized CM may also get the same, worse or better results with different components. That is as it is. I am only reporting the results of my tests. Should anyone have a criticism please show us your results as I have shown mine.”

So there it is. I am not going to test another CM cast bullet let alone post the results here so whoever can start this BS all over again. Since you have the mould I’m assuming you’ve got some results? If so feel free to post them as I asked.

Thanks anyway, but no thanks for the loan of the mould to conduct another test....I’m sure you understand why.

Larry Gibson

No problem. I actually understood your intent was to test the mold sent you, but I thought the intent might have morphed a bit. But I do understand why you want to let it lay and nothing would be settled if you tested from now till the cows come home.

It has been ten plus years since I shot this bullet, and the results pretty well were a mirror of yours. I used 4759, 2400 and WC872.

I have been toying with the idea of putting these molds up for sale, so folks could play with the original design. I may yet do it. Most likely I won't use them again.

[kens]

I got 2 different swedes. One a 29 inch barrel, other a 24?inch. Both are surplus from gun shows.
What should I expect a slug to measure the grooves at?

[geargnasher]

Charles, my apologies, your post appeared while I was composing mine, thus the impression that I was addressing your post in a contradictory manner, was certainly NOT the intent, mine was intended for a general audience. I didn't edit it, but read it in the context that your post with the spec sheet picture was below mine, rather than above. It appears we were making the same point about the original being cut the way it was designed and subsequent runs being severely oversized in both nose and body, so much so to prevent chambering in military Swedes as has been the universal report on moulds NOT from the original run.

Apparently, the original mould, with the smaller, lighter nose, is slightly more stable in flight and can, with some hair-pulling and gnashing of teeth, be made to shoot without alchemy or splitting atoms.

Gear

[leadman]

If it works I will have the specs that are on Midsouth's site for the 6.5 CM. from looking at the drawing and what Larry said are the dimensions of the one he cast with they are out of spec.
I printed the 22 Bator out also and am going to check my boolits from the mold I recently bought as these are too light. don't even make 50 grs with coating and gas check, should be 55 grs. 92946

[Char-Gar]

When we started doing group buys from Lee, we had the dickens of a time getting Lee to produce molds within tolerances acceptable to us. We had any number of conflicts with Lee on their loosey goosey tolerances and sent several entire runs back to them for a redo.

The last group buy I was the Honcho, was for a clone of 311291 with normal specs. When the molds were produced, they came out several thousands oversized on both the body and the nose. I fussed up at Lee about it, and they got upset with me. They reviewed the material and said, they had failed to state their plus or minus tolerances, so they would redo the run.

I told them to give me a while to contact the buyers and see if I could sell all 50 molds as "fat 30" molds. I was successful in finding buyers for the oversize 311291, but thereafter Lee had boiler plate in their contract material stating their very wide tolerances. I got out of the Honcho role and soon thereafter we got out of doing group buys with Lee.

NOE and a few other small run mold makers came on line and they have been a true boon to guys who want molds the big four (Lee, RCBS, Lyman, SAECO) choose not to make.

In light of our history with Lee custom molds, I am not surprised that the units they supply to Midsouth are not held to close specs. It looks like Midsouth just gets them in and sells them without checking them out or else they have contacts with Lee that call for a wide variation in tolerances.

This post is just to give the newer members here some background information on when went on before their arrival. I am glad all the new guys are here.

[Donor8x56r]

More I read about this boolit,the more I regret not getting this mold when Midsouth had it.It would make really nice PB boolit for my Carcanos.

Anyone has one they want to part with?PM me pls :)

[NVScouter]

Very well said.

Also the .261 nose is much more realistic than a .269 one.

When designing my .375 mold i was thinking about a slightly tighter than .375 nose and Tom from Accuracte Molds gave me this input: "Hey make it as tight as you want but you may have to use a hammer on your bolt every time". I stuck with .375 and was very pleased!

Hey
The original CM molds were individually measured and numbered by Kelly/Oldfeller prior to shipment. Each of them came with a spec sheet from Kelly. I bought two of the molds at that time. Here is a pic of the spec sheet that came with #56. These are single cavity Lee molds. Those of you who wish can compare this to the current fatter CM molds if you like. Of course the individual bullet cast may or may not vary from the nominal dimensions due to alloy, heat and technique of the caster. At that time Kelly/Oldfeller also modified some Lyman sizing dies to .267 for those of us who wanted them, as there was nothing this size commercially available. I also have one of those sizing dies.

It should be noted that this mold was designed for the Military Swede which had been coming into the country at a very low price and most of us had one or two. Mine is in very high condition and it cost me a total of $89.00. Many of the other were somewhat more worn.

Many of us played with this mold and this rifle for quite some time. All of us came to the same conclusion (save one), that much above 1.5K fps and the bullet started to twist itself badly and go to high and they never reached the target. Within it's favored velocity limits, it did OK but it still had some yaw to it most often. I would call the design a qualified success, but nothing to write home about. It is all part of the learning curve that went on here back in the day.

The original designer of the bullet claimed to have reached velocities and accuracy far in excess of what anybody else had experienced. He claimed it was because the rest of us just didn't know how to do it. As can be expected, many challenged that assertion and the whole thing devolved into a morass of accusations and bad feelings. It now just seems to involve two folks in a grudge match to the death over this silly bullet.

My feelings is that anybody that wants to buy one of these, should do so and find out for themselves if it works to their expectations or not. It is not worth a 12 year conflict over something that doesn't amount anything of value or substance. Folks now are just squabbling over egos and nothing else. "At this point in time, what difference does it make!". :-)

I have tried very hard to stay out of the whizzing match that comes up every time this bullet is mentioned on this board, but thought you would like to see what the original specs were as many were not here 12 years ago, when the whole thing happened.

[NVScouter]

I have an semi early production LEE bator and its about 57g lubed checked with alloy slightly harder than Lyman #2. I keep hearing the new ones are pretty light.


If it works I will have the specs that are on Midsouth's site for the 6.5 CM. from looking at the drawing and what Larry said are the dimensions of the one he cast with they are out of spec.
I printed the 22 Bator out also and am going to check my boolits from the mold I recently bought as these are too light. don't even make 50 grs with coating and gas check, should be 55 grs. 92946