Plain Based bullets - how fast can they go?

[w30wcf]

I guess whomever made the cast bullet "Laws" years ago decided that 1,500 f.p.s. was the top velocity for a plain based cast bullet. No doubt, that is mostly true for cast bullets with higher sectional densities.

Phil Sharpe in his book, "Complete Guide To Handloading" (1937) talks about the "Cast bullet Laws". He said ...."At the Hercules Experiment Station, many tests have been run with both plain base and gas checks at velocities greater than "the law" with the result that we handloaders have gotta get us a new law."

"In the .30-30 Winchester, 23.0 grs. of HiVel #3 back of the of the 150 gr. plain- base bullet gives 1,950 f.p.s." Another entry indicates that a 76 gr. plain based bullet was pushed to 3,040 f.p.s. in the .30-06 with no barrel leading and accuracy at 100 yards of around 3"!! WOW!! Unfortunately no alloy or type of bullet lubricant was indicated for either of these loads.

A few years ago I was testing a load in the .30-30 that was referenced in a Winchester Powder Phamplet dated 1904. It showed a 100 gr. lead bullet and 14 grs. of DuPont No.1 bulk smokeless powder. Having been fortunate enough to have a small quantity of this obsolete powder on hand, I loaded 5 rounds and shot them for accuracy and velocity.

I was quite surprised when the velocity reached 1,800 f.p.s. and a 1 1/2" 5 shot group appeared on the 50 yard target. Upon examination of the barrel, I was even more suprised when no leading could be detected after those 5 rounds. The 100 gr. bullet does have a low s.d. of .15 which helped.

I do have some HiVel #3 on hand so before winter sets in I'll give the 23 gr. load a try to see what happens.

Have you been able to break "the law" and pushed plain based bullets faster than 1,500 f.p.s. with good accuracy and no barrel leading?

(Regarding gas checked bullets, Mr. Sharpe indicated that "the law" at the time was a maximum of 2,000 f.p.s. Testing up to 2,600 f.p.s. was done at the Hercules Experiment Station with good results.)

w30wcf

[Buckshot]

..............I've never personally shot cast lead boolits sans GC if it was designed for one. Very interesting that you should post this D: Today at the range, Glen who is one of the Burrito-istas was doing just that. He had some Lyman 311440's and was shooting them from a Ruger #1 chambered to 30-30.

He had complained that of all the boolits he had he could only get GC's to fit on a half dozen. Also interesting was that he was using Hercules Lightening powder and the charge was 20.0 grains. As Deputy Al and I were leaving to go pick up the Burritos and stuff, Glen was complaining.

As we walked past he said he'd fired 4 rounds with no GC and they had produced about a 6" group at 50 yards. He said he was going to fire some of the ones with GC's, and did so. The 4 he fired while we stood there all went into the 10 ring of his target. I have no clue as to the velocity, but they were 'bangie' :D

..............Buckshot

[JDL]

I haven't had much luck with plain base in rifles. I haven't gone to any great lengths testing, but it seems I always get a little leading no matter the velocity.
I read an artical a while back that stated a plain base boolit shouldn't be oversized to the bore, as inaccuracy would reslut. IIRC, Sharp in Complete Guide to Handloading, also had negetive comments about oversize cast boolits.
I hope everyone chimes in on this, as it is very timely for me. -JDL

[castalott]

Somewhere I've read that plain based bullets are dependent on case capacity. The example given was the 130 grain plain based bullet shot in the 30 carbine and the 30-06. at ~2000 fps, the 30 carbine was a-ok and the 30-06 was worse than awful. I can't remember if it was powder selection or the fact that the bigger case deforms the bullet from the increase in pressure due to the faster expansion of the powder in the larger ( and mostly empty) case. ( I'm trying to say...the bigger case lets a 'shock' wave crash into the base of the bullet.) Now whether this shock wave damages the bullet or just misaligns it...I dunno.... That's how I remember it anyway....

Dale

[Bass Ackward]

I guess whomever made the cast bullet "Laws" years ago decided that 1,500 f.p.s. was the top velocity for a plain based cast bullet.

Have you been able to break "the law" and pushed plain based bullets faster than 1,500 f.p.s. with good accuracy and no barrel leading?

w30wcf


Jack,

I think cast bullet popularity is based on success.

People with the interests of expanding the use of cast recommended loads that others could be guaranteed to find success with also. As a result we end up with the 16 grains of 2400 and 20 grains of 4759 type loads. And thus cast bullet "accuracy" was believed to be limited to 1800 fps.

This same thought process was applied to the PB bullet. And I myself, am guilty of continuing the trend.

[9.3X62AL]

I confess to being one of the herd followers when it comes to cast boolits in rifles--I use gas check designs almost exclusively in rifle barrels. The 44-40 in my Win 73 and the 45-70/Ruger #1 are the only rifles that use plain-base boolits in any number. I should add that I'm not the experimenter or tinkerer that many posters are--my goals with cast boolits are very similar to those with the j-word critters, to get the rifle or handgun field-capable to hunt with, and not do a large number of gymnastic moves to get there. Gas checks are a convenient short cut for me, in other words.

[carpetman]

MOA Shooter---Phil Sharpe didn't give all the details you mentioned. I think he was using training wheels to help facilitate his accomplishments.

[Char-Gar]

I hold the opinion that even the most rigid "cast bullet" law has allot of flex in it. There are so many factors at play it is hard to codify such things without a long list of exceptions.

Velocity/speed is just one factory. How fast the peak pressure which produces is reached also is a major factor. A bullet which is "shoved" out of the barrel with a slower powder can go faster without damage, than the same bullet which is "spanked" out by a faster powder.

I think we are on safe ground to say that GC bullets can be fired at higher speeds with good results than PB bullets. That is about as far as I am willing to go without some very definite parameters.

The more I know about cast bullets, the less certain I am about anything I know on the subject. Trying to codify cast bullet shooting is like trying to nail Jello to a tree.

[44man]

My opinion is that there is no law concerning PB V GC. The law should read soft alloy V hard alloy. A soft boolit driven too fast will strip the rifling that a harder boolit will still engage. The GC will also tend to grip the rifling. Twist rate also comes into play with a very fast twist allowing the boolit to strip faster when velocity is increased.
The one thing I do know, is that some boolits designed for GC's will not shoot good when they are left off. The same boolit designed for PB will shoot good. Loss of drive area is the culprit. If your boolit is for a GC, use it!

[w30wcf]

Thank you all for your input and insight. Interesting discussion!

It's unfortunate that Mr. Sharpe did not go into further detail regarding the loading components for the supposedly successful higher velocity plain based .30 caliber bullets.

In the 1930's, a 10 parts lead/1 part tin alloy was popular for rifle bullets as was linotype and any combination of lino and lead in between. Various bullet lubricants were in use ..... japan wax/graphite, japan wax/cylinder oil, cup grease, "Ideal" bullet lube, etc.

I will try a 90/5/5 alloy for the 150 gr. (311241) plain based bullet trial. That has sufficient strength for the task at hand and has worked very well with 150 gr. gas checked bullets up to 2,200 f.p.s.. Lube will be the standard 50/50 NRA Formula.

It is certainly possible that a base wad was used as they were popular at that time. That would act as a gas check and allow accurate higher velocity shooting with plain based bullets. For example, two years ago I experimented with poly shot buffer in the .30-30 under a 160 gr. plain based cast bullet. Using 748 powder and 2.5 grs. of shot buffer, accurate shooting was achieved at 2,200 f.p.s. and no leading was experienced in the 26" barrel.

We shall see.........

w30wcf

[45 2.1]

Base wads of various types work very well (the old graphite wads come to mind also) as do freechecks. Just keep the heat and gas off the base and they can be pushed alot more than you think.

[PatMarlin]

The more I know about cast bullets, the less certain I am about anything I know on the subject. Trying to codify cast bullet shooting is like trying to nail Jello to a tree.


Amen to that... [smilie=b:

[9.3X62AL]

Amen to that... [smilie=b:

I second the motion, Chargar.

[six_gun]

I posted this to the same type of question on another forum on Tuesday. I think most of it applys here also:

Let me tell you what I have found in my 30 years of shooting cast bullets.

The variables in how fast you can shoot cast bullets are many. I will attempt to list them but may leave some out. They are:

Bullet alloy, Bullet design, Your gun, Primers, Powder, Lube, sizing diameter, Your location on the earth, and what you need the bullet to do.

In a nutshell, no matter what anyone else will tell you, you can push a cast bullet until you get lead in your barrel, at that point, you need to clean your barrel and back off. Sometimes you have to shoot the bullet slower but maybe just changing the lube or alloy will alow you to go to an even higher velocity. Sometimes a good load will start to lead in the summer when it gets hotter than you have been shooting it. Sometimes changing primer manufactures will cause lead to form.

After a while you will get a feel for how fast you can shoot cast bullets in different situations and avoid leading, just from prior knowledge.

Some of the things that I have found that work are:

If I get lead from a commercially cast bullet I lube them with Lee liquid alox and try it again. Most of the time it works.

If a bullet is designed for a gas check, I use a gas check. I have shot lots of bullets, so designed, without gaschecks but I always get better accuracy with those bullets, with a gas check.

The base of the bullet is the steering wheel of the bullet. To get good accuracy, it has to be close to perfect. As a result, some guns just shoot better with a gas check design and a gas check installed.

I have never had consistent accuracy with bevel based bullets. Some people have had good luck with them but I haven't. I just sent a mold back to Lee to get a bevel base removed.

I usually get higher velocity, in some cartridges, with cast bullets than I do with the same weight of bullet that is jacketed. These include most pistol cartridges and older, long necked, rimmed, rifle cartridges, like 30-30 and 22 Hornet.

Most of the time, I get the best velocity with cast bullets using faster powders. This isn't always the case but I try fast powders first and usually stop there.

Accuracy almost always wins over velocity. You got to hit it before you can kill it.

I probably didn't answer the question, but I feel I have given good solid advice.

Sixgun

[BruceB]

Once upon a time, I tried a side-by-side test with 311291 in the .30-06 at 100 yards, with gaschecks on one set of rounds and NO gaschecks on the second set. The difference was so astounding that it quickly convinced me to never try it again.

In some combinations of cartridges, bullets, and chamber dimensions, I have managed to use gaschecks successfully with non-gascheck bullet designs. If the case design is compatible with the technique, it can offer greater utility for plain-based boolits.

In .30 caliber, the .30-30 and .30-40 Krag have necks which are long enough to accept an inverted gascheck under the base of a plain-based and fairly-light bullet. (This is where chamber dimensions enter the equation....just how far out can the bullet be seated, thus saving on neck length to retain the gascheck under the base?) Some careful experimentation is needed here.

.404 Jeffery cases also have very long necks and lend themselves nicely to neck-seated gaschecks under the old Lyman 427103 RN sized at .424". In that example, I also sized the .44 gaschecks in the .424" sizer die before using them. This was my most-successful venture into the inverted-gascheck field.

To install the gaschecks, I just placed them upside-down in the flared neck of the case and let the bullets push them to the final depth, which means there is never a chance of any airspace between bullet and check. Note that inverting the checks ENSURES that they will depart from the bullet in a consistent manner (I clean the bullet bases rigorously) and removes any awkward issues about just how the bullet and check interact when seating, It also removes the airspace which would exist if the gascheck was seated in the normal orientation.

It's a good idea to check the bore after each round for at least the first few firings with a new inverted-gascheck load, just in case a check got loose inside the case and lodged in the bore after firing. I've NEVER had that happen, but I also try to assure that the gascheck is well within the caseneck (i.e.: not too close to the body of the case, below the neck) after seating to minimize the possibility. Fillers and compressed loads can help with this issue as well, of course, since the check is left with no place to go.

It's a limited-use option, but it works well if the cartridge and rifle lend themselves to it.

[StarMetal]

bruce

I done the inverted gascheck in getting my 7mm-08 up to 2700 fps for Dan's rpm contest, it really kept the bore, but concider there was a gascheck on the base of the bullet in addition. Anyways this is defeating the subject of this thread, plain base without checks. The best thing I've found is kapod or dacron. If kapok is used in a revolver it not only helps keep the bore clean, but the cylinder face and throats are remarkably clean. I tried the discs cut from clear plastic coffee can lids and to tell you the truth the kapok and dacron was better.

Joe

[w30wcf]

I once shot some 150 gr. gas checked bullets without the gas check and the groups at 200 yards were virtually the same as the bullet with the gas check.

Velocity was on the lower end at 1,215 f.p.s.
Alloy: w.w.+2% tin
powder/ charge: 231 / 6.5 grs.
firearm: .30-30 Rem 788
group size for 5 @ 200 yards: 3"

Now I need to speed things up to see at what speed the plain based bullet begins to lose accuracy.

w30wcf

[BruceB]

Now, Joe, amigo....

The thread title asks "How Fast Can They Go?" If the inverted gascheck allows a lot more speed on a plain-based boolit, then I'd say the use of such a check is a legitimate expansion of "how fast they can go." If a man only had one decent mould, it could extend the uses of that mould a whole bunch by allowing much higher speeds. No biggy, anyway. I only used the inverted method on a very few occasions, and there are so many good moulds available now that I don't see much need for doing so in the future.

I've never tried any fillers in handgun rounds, and your findings are interesting. I reckon there must be an insulating effect, with the clean faces and all.
What sort of pressures were you running in the revolvers? Which calibers?

[StarMetal]

Bruce

I reckon if a fellow just has a plain base (no groove for a check) he could use an inverted gascheck.

On the revolvers I've used the filler from target loads to magnum loads. One magnum load was in my Smith Mod 19 357 mag. Just jusing WW's and hopping them up it sure made a difference in how clean the cylinder face and throats were, not counting the reduction in bore leading. Interesting story. A now deceased good friend of mine were shooting at his range one day. We both had Smith Mod 25's in 45 LC's. We both were shooting about the same range of loads, that is plinking, nothing really hot. He was laughing saying "What the heck is all that fuzzing stuff flying out of your muzzle?" I explained to him I was using kapok to cut the lead spray off the cylinder face and throats. We compared our revolvers and mine looked like it had been shooting jacketed, except there were not copper streaks in the bore of course, and his showed the old lead spray coating on the front of the cylinder faces, especially where the barrel breech face covers. He was amazed to say the least. He thought it was a big difference. It is time consuming to add it, but sure cuts down the time to clean that darn lead coating out of the throats and face.

Joe

[Bret4207]

Two areas that interest me are- working something out with PB boolits to act as a gas check or as Veral Smith says a "bore scraper". IIRC his theory is that the GC scraps any lead accumulating in bore out as it's fired. Got me, maybe thats so. I have some PB designs that I'd like to be able to GC, but I haven't made up the cutter or swage to form the GC heel. Another way would be to use very thin pliable gasket type material adn just form it over the PB as it went through the sizer die. It would just interst me to see if it would work.

The other area is wads. I know Ipco and a few other companies used to offer wads to place between powder and bullet. The big fear was the wad slipping down and causing damage to the rifle. I've wondered if a wad on top of a very bulky powder or a filler would help any. I have no data on this, just curiosity.

FWIW, I've had fair luck using 311316 w/o GC in the 32 WCF. This was back when it was my only mould and I'd never even actually seen a GC, much less purchased any to attach to a boolit. Using SR-7625 and Unique, my only cast powders, I got fair groups at 25 yards. Maybe 3-4" or so. Considering factory lead did as well out of the Stevens 44 I was using and the Colt Army Special did worse with factory, I called it good enough for rocks and cans till I got a better job and more $$$. Truth be told for 75% of my shooting a GC boolit isn't needed as I'm much more of a plinker/pest hunter than target shooter/big game type guy. A PB 30 Plinker we did out of the 303 Savage will do what I need, or the PB 25 DJ in the 25/20, or a 429421 out of the 44 Special. I just need more time to play with this stuff.

[StarMetal]

Trooper Bret

I tried aluminum from soda cans. Cut a round disc put in on my sizer, put the bullet on it, and well...no good. That lead that you are displacing with the aluminum, even though it's very thin, still has to go somewhere and the bullet just doesn't come out with a good looking base. At least not for me. You know, if moulds were nose pour one could make a check that fits in the bottom base area, pour your alloy viola!! Would even work for a regular gas check as long as it was sized so the mould could fully close. If you cleaned the check good it would even bond with the alloy. Not too many mould makers make nose pour mould though. Just a though.

Joe

[fecmech]

This is kind of off the wall but has anyone tried those different colored "stick-on" paper dots that they sell in stationary stores for reports and such as a gas check on plain base? The sizes of the standard ones would only match up with .25 or .375 calibers but I've often wondered if something like that would work. Simply peel one off , stick it to the base and then size & lube as usual. Nick

[Scrounger]

This is kind of off the wall but has anyone tried those different colored "stick-on" paper dots that they sell in stationary stores for reports and such as a gas check on plain base? The sizes of the standard ones would only match up with .25 or .375 calibers but I've often wondered if something like that would work. Simply peel one off , stick it to the base and then size & lube as usual. Nick

I wonder if someone perhaps makes something similar in aluminum foil? Maybe check a hobby store or large cooking department (decorations). Or cut them out with a hole puncher. I'm sure they make small gold stars from foil.

[PatMarlin]

This is kind of off the wall but has anyone tried those different colored "stick-on" paper dots that they sell in stationary stores for reports and such as a gas check on plain base? The sizes of the standard ones would only match up with .25 or .375 calibers but I've often wondered if something like that would work. Simply peel one off , stick it to the base and then size & lube as usual. Nick

Funny Nick... I've had that exact same idea, and was even looking around the house today for some yesterday.. ;)

[PatMarlin]

Git yur lathee furred up...

[Bret4207]

OK Pat, how does it work exactly?

[PatMarlin]

Welll- you punch that tool down on your favorite material- beer can, etc. then the punched part is pushed home with the other tool to form the gas check. Then the pin is used to push the gas check it out of the punch die.

That's your famous "Free Check" tool.