What nose shape for 300-500yds?

[.22-10-45]

Hello, I have a .40-63 Ballard A-1 Mid-Range. I was wondering how much importance nose shape would be for shooting 300-500yds? Bullets will be 330grs. paper-patched. I am leaning towards the original Postell nose shape but wondering if the elliptical shape would be better? Bore dia. on this one is .404" with a groove of .409". a patched bullet of .4045 is a tight push thru bore. Thanks!

[BRUCE MOULDS]

your patched to diameter sounds good for a wiping load, if the paper is thin and the bullet is fat.
for hunting it might be a little tight.
you won't go wrong with an elliptical.
keep safe,
bruce.

[.22-10-45]

Target only..yes, wiping between shots. Experimenting with "slicks" of .395' up thru .3995" dia. Papers from .0015", .0018", & .002". A patched bullet of .405 goes thru like a very tight patched muzzleloader but patch remains undamaged. Lots of experimenting fun for next season! Thanks.

[Don McDowell]

The original postel nose , or what some call the creedmoor nose today works fine.

[Lead pot]

22-10-45

What is the twist in that Ballard?

[BRUCE MOULDS]

the paul jones creedmoor bullet is usually easy to get to shoot.
however it drag characteristics leave somewhat to be desired.
it looks like a good bullet that has suffered a bad case of nose slump due to soft alloy.
in greaser form, this bullet also has the bad design of being bore riding.
the bore riding section will always bump into the rifling causing potential leading.
elliptical noses will along with money noses produce the least wind deflection for your task in hand.
you will need to work out how far up the nose to place the patch by studying the confetti.
sounds like 0.405 is a good size for that gun.
good luck and have fun.
keep safe,
bruce.

[John Boy]

13 replies to the OP's question on ASSRA forum ... not much more can be said that hasn't been

[.22-10-45]

I don't have notes with me, but I believe it has a 1-20" twist. What custom mould maker woould you guys recommend for a 330gr.ellipitcal nose paper-patch mould? Thanks for all your replys.

[Lead pot]

If that rifle does have a 1/20 ROT the Elliptical with a ogive as long as the shank is not a very good option. It might be ok for the midrange distances but it will give you problems at long range. I fought my 19 twists shooting the elliptical to keep them from digging dirt past 700 yards. Sometimes it's better to use a blunt nose and just screw that idiot knob on top of the sight staff and hold the accuracy.
Maybe Brent will comment. He has a Ballard.....s?

[BrentD]

My Ballard is an 18 twist - Or I thought it was. Now that I think about it some more, I think I thought it was 18 and it might have turned out to be 20. hmm. Guess. I'll have to remeasure it. Is this Ballard of yours an original barrel?

You could use an elliptical but where i like a 4:1:1 ratio of diameters, with a slower twist, a bit less nose might be good so perhaps a 3:1:1 ratio would be better. Basically, shorten up the nose a might.

[flatsguide]

Brent,
Can you please explain the the 4:1:1 ratio of what to what. Thank you.
Richard

[BrentD]

Richard,
The prolate bullets have noses that are the shape of a prolate - a three dimensional ellipsoid with two out of three axes of equal length (e.g., a rugby ball). I do not call it an elliptical bullet as many others do for two reasons, 1. ellipses are two dimensioned and bullets are not, but mostly 2. many of the bullets that are called ellipses are not even elliptical in two dimensions. They have hemispherical tips to their noses - mostly as a machining expedient. Anyway, so the prolate bullets I normally recommend have radii that are in the ratio 4:1:1. (a roundball is 1:1:1 for comparison). If we shorten up the long axis a bit, to 3:1:1, we retain the general stability of the ellipse type of shape in three dimensions, albeit we loose some aerodynamics. Such bullets should be shorter (ie., do not lengthen the base to compensate for the shorter nose) to retain stability.

[Lead pot]

Richard.

Here are some bullets I use in the 1/22 twist .50 Sharps. When I ordered a swage die from Corbin I asked for a 3:1.1 Elliptical and the second and third from the left is his 3:1.1. It's close but I think he missed it slightly. But it shoots very well at all ranges.

Don't pay no mind with those speed bumps on those bullets. I was trying to make some swaged GG bullets.

http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww43/Kurtalt/IMG_0226-1.jpg (http://s704.photobucket.com/user/Kurtalt/media/IMG_0226-1.jpg.html)

[flatsguide]

Brent, Led Pot,
Thanks for the explanation. I think I understand now your use of the ratios and the Prolate form. The relationship between the major and minor axis and if one was to spin a two dimensional ellipse around it's major axis one would see the form of a Prolate. Correct? All thinks being equal, is a true Prolate bullet that much better than a similar shape bullet having the hemispherical shaped tip that Brent mentioned ? Maybe at the longer ranges ??? Led Pot, what is the knurling on some of your bullets for, to bring them up in diameter ?
Thanks Richard

[BrentD]

Brent, Led Pot,
Thanks for the explanation. I think I understand now your use of the ratios and the Prolate form. The relationship between the major and minor axis and if one was to spin a two dimensional ellipse around it's major axis one would see the form of a Prolate. Correct?

Exactly


All thinks being equal, is a true Prolate bullet that much better than a similar shape bullet having the hemispherical shaped tip that Brent mentioned ? Maybe at the longer ranges ??? Led Pot, what is the knurling on some of your bullets for, to bring them up in diameter ?
Thanks Richard

Well that all depends on how big the hemispheric tip and who you ask. I don't claim to be objective, but I have a National Medal of Science rocket scientist on my side. :)

[Lead pot]

Yes Richard. The knurl does a couple things for me. It increases the diameter of the bullet as much as ten thousands if I want with that particular knurl pattern also I can use it as a lubed bullet at a little over groove diameter and it will hold more lube by weight then a 4 grooved GG bullet will and the whole surface including part of the ogive that might come in contact with the bore when the bullet upsets in the bore all lead is covered with lube.
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b302/940Leadpot/th_IMG_2594_zpsjghq1exe.jpg (http://s22.photobucket.com/user/940Leadpot/media/IMG_2594_zpsjghq1exe.jpg.html)

[flatsguide]

Thanks guys, this BPCR stuff can get interesting and I'm just scratching the surface. It's not rocket science...or is it. ;-)

[BrentD]

It's not rocket science...or is it. ;-)

It most definitely can be.

[flatsguide]

Well this has me thinking. I may want to order a prolate PP mould from Brooks for my Browning 1885 BPCR .45-70 that has a 1/18 twist. This would be for long range, 1000 yds, shooting. Would I be OK with a 4:1:1 nose and a weight of around 525 grains using a 16/1 alloy. I read elsewhere that this would be a tangential ogive so I guess the shank length is the variable. I have no idea what this bullets overall length would be. Do you guys think it would be stable out to the 1000 mark out of my rifle, assuming it would only be seated in the case around .125 inches + or - a bit.
Brent and Led Pot any advise or guidance in this area would be greatly appreciated.
thanks, Richar

[BRUCE MOULDS]

that's right brent, but as you slowly get the feel for it, the mystery starts to minimize.
it is a great journey.
what the odg did is possibly improved upon in some ways nowadays, but doing what they did is not the worst part of gaining an understanding.
that, and learning from successful current shooters.
black powder has more variables than smokeless, and sometimes you have to go with 2 at once - never the best thing.
increasing powder charges and having to compress to do so is such a case.
I was pleased to reread the definition of a prolate nose.
from my understanding, your noses are in fact 2 calibres long.
if they can hold that length on firing that should give good low drag characteristics.
the big gain in b.c. from increasing the long axis of an ellipse is up to 1.5 calibres, after which there is a law of diminishing returns.
my own long range kal elliptical has a nose of 1.5 calibres length will not have the b.c. of the prolate, but is not bad.
the longer the nose, the harder the alloy requirement to maintain that length when the flame is lit.
my own bullet could be described as having 2 b.c. values, one when transonic and one when subsonic.
it would be interesting to know the actual b.c. of mine vs the prolate under these conditions, but thid would be very hard to establish.
the above comment is based on comparative wind deflection out to 1000 yards when compared to a 308 palme load.
the thing which scares me about long noses is how they can adopt the shape of a bottle when they slump.
this would reduce b.c. severely.
kal and brooks both make lovely elliptical bullets to whatever axes you want in the formula, but kal at least needs to put a radius on the nose for tooling reasons.
I think he can get this radius down pretty small, so the bullet in only 0.003 shorter than the true ellipse.
will the man that made your prolate mould do so for the general public?
keep safe,
bruce.

[BrentD]

Flatsguide (bone fishing guide?) - your the prolate will be an excellent choice in your rifle, all the way to 1000 yds. Your bullet's length will be aoubt 1.46" or so. This mould from BACO will get the job done every time
http://www.buffaloarms.com/Bullet_Molds_it-1173820.aspx?TERM=Jim443. Load about 82 grs of Swiss 1.5fg and a 0.06" wad then compress to 0.1" below the case mouth (do not seat deeper than 0.1") and you are good to go to 1000.

If the bullets in your cases are too floppy after you set the bullet in them, you might try taking the depriming stem out of your FL sizing die and sizing the neck of the case. This is effectively a taper crimp and you should be able to get just enough crimp to barely hold on the bullet.

Bruce, My noses are not 2 calibers long - that would be 0.9"! I don't know anyone shooting noses that long. In fact, they are usually around 0.74" - or roughly 1/2 the length of most of my bullets.

This is my long range bullet. It has the 4:1:1 nose of about 0.74" but it is a little longer in the shank to be 1.51" overall and weighing 537 grs. However, this bullet it TOO LONG for an 18 twist. I use a 16 twist with this bullet.
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~jessie/PPB/Bullets/Prolate%20534%20g%20small.jpg

The guy that made this mould only does them from time to time. Brooks has made a 1.46" long version for my 18 twist silhouette rifle. However, the BACO mould linked to above, is the easy way to fly. It is effectively the same bullet.

[flatsguide]

Hi Brent,
Yup, fly fishing guide in the Florida Keys for over 25 years. Bonefish ,Permit, Tarpon and sharks. 8 to 15 weight fly rods. It was a grand time.

[BrentD]

"was"? Sounds like a bunch of fun. last time I tried to fish the keys, I ended up in the hospital with a severely busted left arm. :(

Tarpon.... :) too cool.

[BRUCE MOULDS]

brent,
i'll have to restudy the formula for an ellipse!
this is why people with a cad programme are my friends.
keep safe,
bruce.

[BrentD]

Ah, the formula for an ellipse in three dimensions is an elegant thing. You can find it quickly on a wiki page actually.

In fact, the only reason I ever started shooting these bullets was because I could write the equation from memory. It was later that I found out there as a good theoretical reason for why it is a very good shape. As is often the case in nature, the simple elegant solutions are often the best. Of course, many others have been there before me, but at the time, no one was using truly elliptical bullets, but rather these things that were called ellipses with but had hemispherical tips. What's coming next will be a lot different - but very familiar nonetheless.

[BrentD]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spheroid

https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/7/3/7/737a6c8ee209bc704f2d297bdbccf6dc.png


Oblate on the left, prolate on the right:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Ellipsoid-rot-ax.svg/459px-Ellipsoid-rot-ax.svg.png

[BRUCE MOULDS]

what's coming next, that is the question.
you have been dropping hints about such things recently.
please tell us more.
keep safe,
bruce.

[BrentD]

Well, I'm hoping it will be the ultimate and final bullet improvement possible in BPCR. But right now, all I have in a drawing, and a few bullets from a failed mould-making attempt. Another attempt is being made now and time will tell if it will work. I hope to shoot it in March. But until it is proven, I'll keep it to myself. I've been told so many times that nothing I ever did would work. So, I'll just keep the naysayers at bay for a while longer.

[Gunlaker]

Bruce, this wikipedia page is an interesting read when it comes to noses. You might find some nice ideas here.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nose_cone_design

Chris.

[BRUCE MOULDS]

thanks chris.
I have seen that before, but limited education equates to limited understanding.
possibly some of the power series might be like money/metford?
keep safe,
bruce.

[Gunlaker]

I think the chart at the bottom is interesting. I would imagine it'd be difficult to find a mold maker who would be willing to cut some of them.

One thing I've always thought about is that a carefully crafted shape will become a slightly different shape after bump up. If you wanted a bullet that was a prolate after bump up, you could probably model the deformation and then cut the mold with that taken into account. But that's a lot of effort.

If the current best bullet has an average BC of say 0.520 to 0.550 over the full trajectory, I wonder what the maximum possible would be for current twist rates.

Chris.

[Chill Wills]

One thing I've always thought about is that a carefully crafted shape will become a slightly different shape after bump up. Chris.

Bingo! - Hard bullets are needed for the high Bc designs. Many a spiffy design going in the chamber comes out looking very different with the accompanied low Bc and poor accuracy when cast too soft. Pb-Sn-Sb alloys are my friend. What others choose to do is of course, up to them.

[Gunlaker]

I think I'm going to experiment with one of Dan's antimony alloys this summer or fall. Not likely in the paper patched rifles, bu in my grease groove rifles.

A while back I bought a 14lb Borchardt in .45-2.4" but it has a long throated chamber. I have yet to do a chamber cast, but the freebore is something like 0.5" long! The case holds enough powder that I think it wants a pretty stiff alloy . It didn't like the Buffalo Arms 459535 Money bullet at 20:1, but doesn't mind a Creedmoor bullet with that alloy.

Chris.

[BrentD]

Chris, that will be a bastard to load for with a bore diameter bullet. I would go right to whatever diameter is necessary to fill that throat. I had a rifle like this too - only worse. I killed and elk with it, but that was the end of it - I rebarreled immediately thereafter.

[Gunlaker]

Brent I definitely won't try bore diameter PP bullets in that rifle :-). It's a really neat rifle, if you like Borchardts. It was originally a sporter in .45-2.1" and was reconfigured to look like the old long range Borchardt's, except with a heavy 32" barrel. I've only shot it twice since I bought it last christmas. It weighs about 14 lbs so even a heavy .45 cal bullet at 1350fps or so is comfortable to shoot.

I was dissapointed to see the long throat, but it was built by Curt Hardcastle ( and I think action and trigger work by Al Story ), so I imagine that the throat configuration is better than the old Farmingdale Shilohs. A .459" bullet seems to fill the throat but I need to cast the chamber to be sure. As long as the throat is a consistent 0.459" and the leade angle is reasonable I'll bet I can get it to shoot.

I find that most of my time is spent with three or four rifles that I'm taking to matches and spend little time with the others. I'd like to get this one shooting well enough to try it in competition, but we'll see.

Chris.

[Lead pot]

I think I'm going to experiment with one of Dan's antimony alloys this summer or fall. Not likely in the paper patched rifles, bu in my grease groove rifles.

Chris.


Chris.
A long time ago :) Dan T made a post on the Shiloh forum about using antimony, along this line, that it is poison for black powder accuracy. I disagreed with him saying that it was a plus for holding the ogive from getting set back and getting distorted and he went into one of his rages that extended into the PM's he sent to me. I still have them. but they will stay under. But I don't know what made him change his mind about the use of antimony.
Maybe he saw it in one of the old Lyman manuals. Lyman had more then #2 alloy they used to list. They had #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5 and 6 also.
But that is in the past.

Kurt

[BrentD]

Dan pretty much raged about everything that anyone did differently at one time or another. He used to rage at .45 calibers - all of them - and paper patched bullets too - also all of them. Yet, in the end, he was heavily into both and touting their advantages.

I have some lead plates, maybe 300#s of worth, that appear to have antimony in them. They test for hardness like Lyman #2 and they cast nice bullets but a slightly different texture of color to them than normal tin-lead, and the melt point and optimal casting temperature seem considerably lower than lead-tin.

Assuming this was Lyman #2 or darn close to it, what would one mix with it to get the equivalent of 16:1?

[jimofaz]

Brent,
Try adding 150% of Pb to your Lyman #2 alloy for a 16-1 equivalent. Example: 8 lbs. of 15 BHN Lyman #2 + 12 lbs. of pure lead for a 20 lb. batch of 11 BHN 16-1 equivalent alloy.
Jim

[.22-10-45]

Would a nose pour mould with the elliptical nose negate any advantage of said nose shape due to small cut-off flat on end of bullet?

[Gunlaker]

Dan was at one time using alloys with a very low percentage of antimony. Between 1.5 and 2 percent if I remember correctly. The alloy hardness was stable over time only if there was not more tin than animony in the alloy. I think the hardness was on par with 1:16, maybe a tiny bit more.

Mr. Rix has posted on these alloys a while back.

Chris.

[Chill Wills]

Chris.
A long time ago :) Dan T made a post on the Shiloh forum about using antimony, along this line, that it is poison for black powder accuracy. I disagreed with him saying that it was a plus for holding the ogive from getting set back and getting distorted and he went into one of his rages that extended into the PM's he sent to me. I still have them. but they will stay under. But I don't know what made him change his mind about the use of antimony.
Maybe he saw it in one of the old Lyman manuals. Lyman had more then #2 alloy they used to list. They had #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5 and 6 also.
But that is in the past. Kurt
It was me.

Dan could not argue with the targets and the scores I shot when I used Sb in my alloy. This, at any number of matches. Long night over beers and many emails between us. This lead me to asking Mike Lewis to use some of my alloy and another shooters Sb alloy to cast and shoot long 35 cal bullets into North Park, Colo snow banks along with 20-1 and 16-1 alloy bullets to compare with. The outcome of these bullet tests became fodder for a lot of Dan's (revised) writing on alloy. Shortly after that I won the NRA Creedmoor championships with 96.5-2.0-1.5 Pb-Sb-Sn.
Dan was a long time supporter by September 2014 BPTR nationals when I shot his original 40 cal mini-groove bullet (the first mold to later be called Money Bullet in 45cal) in the 600y event and broke Dave Gullo's long standing record score. In the 40 cal I was using 97-1.5-1.5. Dan and Doc Lay were shooting on the next target to my right and Dan was beaming like a proud parent. His bullet design - my alloy.
The internet is full of truisms that just aren't necessarily so. In truth, there are a lot of right ways to do something.

[Lead pot]

Well he called me some names I wont repeat here on this forum with the stuff I posted with alloy tests.

It does not take much antimony to hold the ogive and still lets the bullet expand filling the grooves properly. This is even better using a GG where you don't need to worry about filling the grooves and just hold the nose from getting setback.
My favorite alloy is 18# pure lead and one roll of no lead solder that consists of 95% tin 5% antimony. This holds the bullet profile better then a mix of 1/16 T/L and perfectly fills the grooves using a PP bullet patches .001" over bore diameter.
Yes no lead solder is high priced at $22. a pound but if you watch E-Bay you can find it for less then tin.

[Chill Wills]

Well he called me some names I wont repeat here on this forum with the stuff I posted with alloy tests.

Tho it is not my place to apologize on behalf of anyone, I am sorry that that happened. Dan could get pretty wound up and let it fly sometimes. Thankfully, that never happened between us but I sure witnessed Dan and other personalities go at it. Back down and cool off isn't in some peoples DNA. And too, after a given hour in the evening the ETOH would start to kick in.

Funny thing about high octane people is often they have a very soft generous side.

Anyway, I hear you! I give you a great deal of credit and thanks for sharing your tests freely.
I hope to see you sometime this summer!

[BrentD]

Michael, it wasn't just getting a little wound up on the internet sort of stuff that Dan was mailing to folks. And it wasn't just people on forums. He also did it to people who never posted on forums anywhere. Those messages were so far over the top that you had to see them to believe anyone could write such things much less send them others. I don't know what was up with Dan, but this was something far beyond anything I've ever seen. Some sort of switch flipped for some reason, and it happened to a whole bunch of people were in his sights to attack.

And many thanks for the alloy info. It will be helpful.

[Gunlaker]

Dan was never anything but nice to me. I never met him in person, but one of my posts prompted him to call me and we spent an hour or so discussing a bunch of interesting topics. We talked times about various topics until he passed away. To me he was a rare individual and I miss bouncing ideas off of him.

Brent I've seen people say nasty things about you on the Shiloh forum. You've never been anything but extremely friendly and helpful to me. I take everything I read on line with a big dose of salt. :-)

There are a few people in the shooting world that have honestly good information to share, and are pretty free with it. The information that all of you have gave me has been, and still is, extremely helpful. Mind you, you characters have cost me a lot of dough. I would have been blissfully unaware of the joys of BPTR/BPCR and still have been shooting much cheaper lever guns :-)

Chris.

[BrentD]

Chris, you were lucky then. He was a bright guy, but he had something going on that is just better forgotten if possible or ignored for those of us that can't forget.

As for my "fans" on Shiloh, they are a small but pretty vocal clique that resent anyone who questions their belief system on bullets, rifles, or god-forbid how the NRA runs such HORRIBLE national championships. Dan was, unfortunately, one of them. I could and just did write a small book about that ****, but deleted it. Let's move on to something a lot more pleasant and maybe a little more productive.

I'm out of my virgin lead and now much gamble on what do for bullets this year. I have various forms of scrap lead (x-ray room lead, the mystery Lyman #2-like plates, and some totally unknown "pure" lead stuff). What will work best I don't know and really the only way to find out is to shoot it. That sounds simple enough to me, but since I can only shoot long range at matches, it means that, at some level, each match this year becomes a loading experiment, and I really don't like that at all.

[Chill Wills]

This turned into poo
He is not of this Earth anymore
Some class would be good about now

[BrentD]

Michael, I disremember any other time when you have said the same for one of Dan's posts or any of your other friends when they frequently crossed a much more egregious line.

Like I just said, let's move on to something more pleasant and productive.

[Chill Wills]

Would a nose pour mould with the elliptical nose negate any advantage of said nose shape due to small cut-off flat on end of bullet?

Sorry your Q got lost in all this. I have found FWIW that the small flat on any bullet used in our game will not have any effect on outcome to 1000y. that we can see A small flat at midrange, even less. We are talking the net difference between two small amounts. Some of the most accurate loads I have are developed are using nose pour or flat (0.050"0 base pour bullets. That and $2.65 will get you a cup of coffee.... :kidding:

[Gunlaker]

Michael, how large a meplat are you talking about? I have only shot two of those out of my BPCR rifles, the Saeco 740 and 745 which shoot very well. But I've never tried them past silhouette distances.

I think I remember reading of Dave Maurer doing very well with a Saeco bullet at long range.

I shoot a few nose pour bullets out of my .32-40's and .38-55's and certainly at 200-220 yards they can shoot very well if I'm having a good day :-)

Chris.

[Chill Wills]

Michael, I disremember any other time when you have said the same for one of Dan's posts or any of your other friends when they frequently crossed a much more egregious line.

Brent, All the players were alive. Get it?
I'm done. You get the last word.

[Chill Wills]

Michael, how large a meplat are you talking about? I have only shot two of those out of my BPCR rifles, the Saeco 740 and 745 which shoot very well. But I've never tried them past silhouette distances. Chris.

Chris, I do not really know what works best or how big is too big. Nose pours like most molds are made are what I am talking about. Have you ever seen the size of the flat point Brad Rice shoots? It is huge. How many matches has he won with it???

[BrentD]

Brent, All the players were alive. Get it?
I'm done. You get the last word.
Well thanks for that. I'm sure you will be so kind to step on your buds what will certainly disparage me in death as they have in life should I pass before them.

You are the one that doesn't get it, because you were never targeted by him.

[.22-10-45]

Just recieved a reply from Steve Brooks..smallest nose-pour hole would be .125" dia.

[BrentD]

I would never choose a nose pour target bullet mould myself. Just call me crazy.

[Chill Wills]

Just recieved a reply from Steve Brooks..smallest nose-pour hole would be .125" dia.

22-10-45 that should be about right.
I looked at and measured some nose pour molds just now. Pioneer, Walt's NEI, Lyman, Tom Ballard and Hoch all run about .125 - 150" and that is what a regular base pour top plate is too.
If you can imagine a Money Bullet, the hemispheric nose; the proper diameter nose is 55% of bullet diameter. That would scale to about 0.230" on a 45 cal bullet; less for smaller calibers. Now picture that same bullet with the mould/cavity cut down to remove the hemispheric nose to the 0.125" diameter. You have maybe removed 0.030" from the nose and over all length of the bullet and lost 3-5 grains of lead.
They fly the same.

Now you have a nose pour bullet mold and a great flat square bullet base. What is not to like?

[Lead pot]

Order it with two base plugs, one cup and one flat. I think you would like the flat better. I have a nose pour from Steve that has a .125 hole and it shoots just fine.

[Don McDowell]

I like Brooks' cup based bullet, it's not so deep as to make casting smooth rims a task, and it works to wrap the patch into so well, seems to really make a tight fitting patch that isn't prone to premature unwrapping. Thinking on another of the dual diameter bullets, only this time maybe have him put the original postel nose on it.

[kokomokid]

Chill, taking .030 off the nose could just make a bullet stable to longer range in a slower twist bbl.
I have a Lyman factory nose pour that is same as 457132 otherwise and will try to measure metplate next time i have it out.

[Chill Wills]

Yup, I am sure a nip off the nose will have some effect in that regard too. It is hard to change just one thing at a time.
However, experience shows it will take more than that to change the groups location, even at distance.

[SgtDog0311]

Appreciate this thread!! I'm considering both an elliptical in 40 cal and trying some of the 97/1.5/1.5. Not necessarily at the same time but I suppose it could work out that way.

Am I correct to gather that 1.5 x diameter for nose length is the optimal? The one I'm considering has .750 in front of a 1.25 bore diameter followed by first lube groove in a .408 groove. If I'm understanding this correctly 1.5 x .408 is .612 and if you were to include the 1.25 of bore diameter it would be even greater. Not sure that should be included but .750 is still greater than .750, so would backing off that be advisable?

[.22-10-45]

I forgot all about this post. I went with a Brooks elliptical nose..but in a nose-pour adjustable...I asked for the smallest sprue hole and nose flat is about .095" dia. I am so far limited to only 100yd. range so small flat probably doesn't matter. On a whim..I made up a nose punch with a small radius using a 1/8" ball end mill..I can swage nose flat to blend with ogive radius. bullets all patched up & ready to go last Spring..but a summer painting project turned into a major job that lasted well into Sept. Looking forward to this Spring to try them out.

[SgtDog0311]

I see I might have picked that 1.5 up from this excerpt of a Bruce Moulds post on a related thread:
"it just so happens that the elliptical and metford/money noses have the least nose pressure in the transonic zone, where nose pressure (read drag) is at its maximum. with these nose shapes, maximum reductions of nose drag come with a nose length of 1.5 calibres".
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?297532-Gunn-Danielson-bullet

Further reading in that same post tells me the nose can be longer than 1.5 but the concern of slump should then be managed with harder alloy.

Would still be appreciate any input on that length of nose. It obviously comes at a cost to the distance between center of gravity and center of pressure.

[SgtDog0311]

.22-10-45, enjoy your Ballard. I shot my Pacific 40-63 with original bore at the Q this year. Used a hunting bullet profile of all things. Had a great time! I've shot a couple thousand cast in mine since I got it but been engaged with 40-65 for a couple months so it is taking a break for a while. Looking forward to more work with relined Perfection chambered in 35-40 Maynard. That ought to be fun!

[BRUCE MOULDS]

john,
this comes from experience, but not all agree.
I have had made many moulds, both greaser and pp types.
firing the bullets has revealed many things, including some of the things that cause leading, how noses both set back (bump up), with different lengths and alloys, and how they can bend on firing.
lacking snowbanks which are ideal catching media, bullets recovered from earth backstops will still tell a lot of the tale.
rifling marks forward of the front driving band are obvious, as are rifling marks forward of where the front of the patch is.
the answer of how far forward the patch needs to go is revealed by studying confetti.
certainly a 30:1 bullet will need a longer patch than 16:1, due to more of the nose bumping up.
16:1 needs a longer patch than 12:1, but not much longer, and less difference than 30 and 16.
incidentally 12:1 shoots just as well today as when the creedmoor shooters used it in the 19th century by choice, using bullets patched to bore.
if we look at noses, a no calibre length would be a pure wadcutter, and have immense drag.
a 1/2 calibre long nose would have a hemisphere on the end of a wadcutter and have less drag, but still a fair bit.
as the nose goes longer in calibres, drag decreases.
however the rate of reduction in drag decreases after 1.5 calibres. this for a 45, 50, 38, or whatever.
patches and recovered bullets have revealed that when noses get longer than 1.5 calibres as cast, they pretty much end up at 1.5 to 1.6 calibres when you light the fire.
most greasers with much bore ride will end up with that section having rifling on it, and hence potentially leaving lead behind.
lubing the bore by blowtubing or oiling will help here.
a clean dry bore will make the problem more manifest, as when firing a first shot or correctly wiping.
the paper jacket is your friend.
in the end combining muzzle velocity and sight settings at different ranges will reveal the true ballistic coefficient of the bullet.
some of the overly long noses come out no better here than 1.5 calibre noses.
keep safe,
bruce.

[SgtDog0311]

Thanks Bruce! No one could elaborate too much or in too simple of terms for me!

This one I'm looking at is about 1.85 x caliber. Appearance is even 'more so' with the .125 of bore riding section. I like everything about it and reportedly performs well at 1000yds.

The originator just gave me permission to try and put his hand drawing in my TMT software. I say "try" since I've never done an elliptical nose and replicating the exact rendition will be an interesting exercise.

May experiment with lengths closer to 1.5 it if I can keep the weight equal to or greater than it presently is.

[BRUCE MOULDS]

john,
I would be quite concerned about that bore riding section.
it along with a bit of the ogive will end up in the rifling when you light the fire.
lightly lubing the bore after wiping might help.
if it were a pp bullet, there is no question that bore riding section would be patched.
just because it is a greaser does not mean it will not bump up.
the big danger is looking at the bullets as cast, and not translating that into what they will be as fired.
that antimonial alloy you mention will also bump up the bore ride section, even after a couple of weeks for the hardness to settle down.
I have about 5 or 6 moulds of such design that I cannot use for this reason.
one shoots moderately well blowtubing, but being a micro mini design carries not enough lube to do so properly.
keep safe,
bruce.

[Lead pot]

I stay away from bullets that have a longer ogive then the shank.

[SgtDog0311]

I'm paying attention fellahs. Have not made up my mind yet.

So far gonna try a couple production molds. Have the Snover and getting ready. Also have a kind offer for a some Saeco bullets and a Money. I liked what was said about the elliptical though still not sure if I should be saying Prolate instead. But that's my own slow intellect.

Questions then first for Bruce and then Kurt.

Bruce, am I correct in thinking your concern about the bore riding (.125 length) is only do to all that long nose in front of it. I ask because a Creedmoor looks to have an even longer bore riding length, so the much shorter nose in front must be the difference. Is that a good understanding? I do get that it will be increased by setback or slump.

Kurt, when you say shank, how much of the bullet are you including, only the lube groove and driving band section or would it include the bore diameter length in front of the top driving band if there was any? And if you are looking for a particular length, say 1.325, but wanted an elliptical nose, would you then move the driving bands forward to shorten the nose, and do you look for a ratio... like 50/50, 60/40, etc?

[BrentD]

John, say Prolate. It is technically correct. Elliptical is not. besides, most bullets called ellipticals aren't even ellipses in 2D (but that's another matter).

More important is that you sound sophisticated, which will go well with your new image on the shooting line using such finely dressed cartridges in such a celebratory fashion, each one providing its own confetti-parade. You want to look and sound your best when using the PPB. :) :) :)

Of course, if you don't miss, you can call them anything you want. :)

[SgtDog0311]

That's pretty good Brent!

btw... I'd show you my bullet but it has speed bumps.

You'll have to give me time to catch up to you more sophisticated gentlemen. In the time being I'll have to content myself with your cast off pearls. I have good intensions. I promise.

[Lead pot]

John.

Where the ogive radius meets the shank cylinder. This is for a PP or GG. I have never been able to get the most from a "money" where the shank is shorter then the nose using a 18 ROT .45 or a 16 ROT .40. I had Paul Jones make a MB mould that had a nose a couple thousands longer then the shank and it didn't shoot bad out to 200 yards after getting a load, but it just plain fell on it's face at long range when the winds picked up. But in the new 16 ROT .45-90 it shows promise.

http://www.buffaloarms.com/Bullet_Molds_it-1173820.aspx?CAT=4157

[BRUCE MOULDS]

john,
consider anything behind the ogive as shank, whether it be bore or groove diameter as cast.
it will most likely end up at groove diameter when you light the fire.
if the ogive is too long, some of that will as well.
alloys like taracorp magnum (read hard cast pistol bullets) might be hard enough to some degree avoid this, but in doing so are so hard they will not seal the bore.
jacketed bullets are supported and can hold shape. unjacketed not so.
the paul jones creedmoor bullet has proven easy for many to get to shoot, and is believed by paul to be based on an original creedmoor desigh, but if it is the original must have slumped a fair bit.
no early long range bullet ever had a nose like that.
again, consider that bullets bore ride as shank.
just ask yourself where the patch would go up to if it were a bore diameter pp bullet.
would you leave the front 0.125" of the shank of a pp bullet exposed to the bore?
kurt has a wonderful picture of a creedmoor design greaser in 50 cal with rifling marks in the so called bore ride.
keep safe,
bruce.

[Chill Wills]

Yup - the best laid plans and all - what you put in the back of the rifle isn't always what comes out the front.

It is not that you can over think this, because it is fun on winter nights to work this stuff out, but come match day, bullet design plays a very small part in sorting winners from losers.

Man! I sound like an old grump :mrgreen:

[BrentD]

Mr. Wills. I would have to disagree about the bullet design playing a small part. I think it is pretty major myself. Bullet design is probably the number two reason behind the increasing scores in both BPCR and BPTR over the last 25 yrs. I can't prove that, but I believe it. Gunpowder is the number one reason.

[Chill Wills]

I thought that might rattle your rock and get you to come out.:-D

I too think it can add a few points and that is why I have a high Bc bullet in my current LR ammo, but as we know, if as much time was spent on skills as engineering ammo, Gullo would have more competition.

See - I told you I sound like a real Grump today!:-D:drinks: Okay, I will crawl back under MY rock.

[BrentD]

Ah, yeah, you got me. Like a trout rising for a 14 Adams. :)

Unlike Gullo, I can engineer ammo in my basement after dark, but I can't practice at 800 yds in my backyard like he can. I'll beat him in Australia this year though! (gotta dream).

BTW, if that's the best Grump impersonation you can do, you really need to work on it like we all need to practice LR :)

[Lead pot]

Brent don't worry about Daves ability to practice on his back yard long range :) I'm restricted to 200 yards also and I have seen the finish line twice with his name below mine. :) and I see your name above mine :) we all have our good and bad days.

Here is a example of where the shank meats the ogive. This is Brent's prolate I was fortunate to get a mould for. It is a very good bullet that works! This bullet has a very small step down where the shank ends like a GG with out a reduced front band and it gives the nose a sort of bore riding portion. It is only .0012" down in my mould but adding the thickness of a double wrap of paper and when the charge is set off and the alloy is a proper mix for the load the setback on the ogive does not come in contact with the bore. The same will work with a GG bullet, but it takes some work to get the balance between the caliber and the alloy to keep the nose from leaving a lead smear behind that will build up and by the time the relay ends so will the accuracy lessen. This shows up more at the long range creedmoor matches where you will shoot several sighters and for score.
These 4 bullets where cast during the same session and shot with the same powder and wad stack. The one on the left was shot with the .45-90 and the other three with a .45-70. Just because a alloy mix will work with one caliber it might end up to much for a heavier or lighter load the way the alloy reacts to the charge. The wad stack will also alter the way the alloy reacts.
You can counter act the lead smear from a bore rider with to soft alloy by lubing the bullet that might make contact the bore. I use Johnsons one step liquid floor wax. I have not found anything that works better keeping lead off a dry clean bore. It dry's hard and with a thin wax film. I use it when I use a PJ or Brooks bore riding bullet.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b302/940Leadpot/5ab330e1-ad7d-4021-871d-af5dc45e2e8a_zps1zqfu7vk.jpg (http://s22.photobucket.com/user/940Leadpot/media/5ab330e1-ad7d-4021-871d-af5dc45e2e8a_zps1zqfu7vk.jpg.html)

[SgtDog0311]

Kurt, Bruce, Thanks for the clarification. Thought I had it right but wanted to be certain.

On BA's site I don't see a prolate (Elliptical) bullet for a GG 40 caliber. I have hopes but have not graduated to PP yet. Btw, not sure I said it yet but 40 caliber is a 16 twist.

Also, at the start of this thread the 40-63 twist was mentioned by the OP and others. Mine (Pacific) is a 20:1 twist. Shot that at the Q this year but had more of a hunting bullet at 369gr. Wind got me on the Buffalo I expect. Day before it didn't seem that difficult but second day of festivities proved otherwise.

[Old-Win]

Kurt, We both know that Brent has crappy tastes in beer [smilie=1:but knows a good boolit profile. Your pictures of the 3 bullets keeps bringing up a question in the back of my mind. Why do some loads shoot better with 1F than 2F? The picture of your 45-90 that has bumped up past the patch is why this keeps going thru my frigid MN mind. What do you suppose would happen to that round if you tried 1F instead of 2F? Do you think it would be more like the 45-70's that look good. I think the powder impulse needs to match the bullet hardness/toughness. I need another CW Bourbon Barrel Stout. Bob

[Lead pot]

Bob. Yes, but you and I where raised about the same day and age when your Mom would tell you when somebody offers you to eat or drink something even if you don't like it you smile and say thank you and drink or eat it. :)

I cant answer your question about 1F compared to 2F. I just about never use 1F. But I have used 1.5 and 2F Swiss and KIK and there is not enough difference the way the bullet reacts.
Kurt

[BRUCE MOULDS]

1f swiss works very well in 45/2.4" and 40/72.
so does swiss 1.5, which makes life better.
keep safe,
bruce.

[SgtDog0311]

Ok, last incursion across the border into PP territory. You guys have been patient with me. And you can't blame me just because I want to hear what you think:-)

Being a newcomer to BP and having trouble finding accuracy with a new bullet I wondered something similar but about OE. I started out shooting a 38-50RH in BPCR with 1.5f. Had these two 40-65s in the works so read where it looked like more umph called for a step up to 2f & grabbed what I thought was enough to get me through local BPCR this coming year as I went by BA. But now 'something' needs adjustment beyond the load and wondered if one of those might be a step back to 1.5F.

Now... one more touch on the help you guys offered concerning long ogive bullets. Figured I'd come out of the closet and tell you it's Beltfed Arnie's Elliptical Mini that I've got myself a little enamored with. There's no doubt that it's guilty of every concern mentioned. Thought I'd close the loop on those questions with these pictures. One is my first effort to render it. First time I ever attempted that nose profile so undoubtedly could improve on it. The other is a picture he was kind enough to give me.
184954184955

I have some aspirations in more conventional directions as well but I guess I ran across this one one-too-many times.

[Gunlaker]

John, I have a PJ mold that cast a bullet that looks identical to that minigroove bullet. The mold that came with my .38-50. This fall I cast a few to see how they would fly, but haven't tried them yet. I think the bullet is likely too long for my 1:14 gain twist barrel.

Interestingly, the bullet that I do shoot is a Brooks paper patched prolate bullet that I breech seat. It is incredibly accurate at 200m. I've never tried the rifle at further distances.

Chris.

[Lead pot]

I shot with Arnie at Lodi and pulled the targets. Arnie shoot that bullet very well. I was in the pits when he shot a 99/3 @ 800 but at the 1000 the holes showed some oblong holes. He also shoots that bullet very hard with WW, Linotype, with tin added. I have not shot with Arnie shooting the PP bullet.

[beltfed]

Kurt, Thanks for the input. I had not recalled your mention at the time that some of my shots had oblong holes at 1K. --Not doubting your current recall...Nonetheless, that score at 1K was an 88/100. Not too bad for an old fart with a wimp gun.
It will be noted that I have had NO leading, thru these matches- a 99 at 800 after
having shot 25 plus rounds at 1k and 900 seems to show no problem.
No lead in the barrel after the match.
Notwithstanding that long ogive of the (get this Brent) Modified meplat Elliptical profile ogive/ Prolate nose and 0.125" bore ride. I don't think I have any slump to worry about.
My 9+1(90%/10%0 WW/Lino alloy is estimated at about:
94.5% Pb, 4.7%Sb, 0.8% Sn. Yah, I know--- it is just an estimate,based on averages of WW and Lino composition published in the NRA CBH and Lyman No 3 CBH.
Using the same alloy in the Double Dia Mod Prolate PP bullet John showed . Similar profile to the "E Mini' bullet. That one also does not lead and looks good so far with sub minute accuracy. Jim K did an excellent job cutting this mold exactly per my specs provided after he and Bob W agreed we would try the design. It is basically a knockoff profile of my "E Mini" from 2008 with appropriate dimensions for PP to provide a larger base dia(freebore/groove dia PP) for the typical freebore in our 40-65 chambers, with a forward bore dia PP forward body for added centering up in the leade and on the lands. Both the E Mini and the DDEPP bullets are seated only .125" or so in the case.
I had later learned that Bruce M from down under has also worked with two diameter PP bullets.
beltfed/arnie

But it works for me..
beltfed/arnie

[BRUCE MOULDS]

arie"s mileage is different to mine with that type of greaser.
however I never went harder than 16:1, and his alloy is obviously far more suited.
when I started getting success with dual diameter pp bullets, I thought I was the only one, but soon p.m. suggested that quite a few others, including arnie had come to the same conclusion.
a good way to turn a greaser chamber into a pp chamber.
it has always been known that more antimony than tin is the best alloy of this type, not only for stability of hardness, but also price.
I must try arnies alloy.
keep safe,
bruce.

[Lead pot]

Arnie, your spotter really let you down on the first relay for the 1000 or you would have finished in fine shape.

[SgtDog0311]

BPCR should be my primary focus (and I'm not putting that aside) but that Buffalo at the Q puts me to dreaming. I've been rightfully accused of chasing zebras when it should be horses I'm after but it has not spoiled my fun so far. Hopefully, with Arnie's help, of which there has been plenty, and for which I'm very grateful, I can master the alloy requirements.
I've plagued you all with questions over on http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?321697-BPCR-alloy but the answers I'd fastened on may not work for this one.
Not sure how Arnie's hardness will compare with an alloy I can create with what I'm smelting today. Anxious to test it myself and answer that antimony question for pre 1980 wheel weights.

[Lead pot]

It doesn't take much antimony added to lead to hold the setback. My favorite alloy is a mix of 17# lead and a one pound of no lead solder, 95/5 tin antimony or one roll in 18# for the .45 PP I shoot in it. One thing to keep in mind when you switch to a PP that is patched at or slightly below bore the super hard bullets are not malleable enough to fill the grooves for proper rotation in a lesser caliber. For the GG it is a lot more forgiving to have it at groove or a thousand or two over groove.
This .44/.432" bullet was patched .001" over bore and cast with 1# roll of no lead solder and 17# lead behind 93gr of 1.5 Swiss.
http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww43/Kurtalt/b622ccca-0bc7-405e-b24b-03e995dfa47f_zps1xzzesje.jpg (http://s704.photobucket.com/user/Kurtalt/media/b622ccca-0bc7-405e-b24b-03e995dfa47f_zps1xzzesje.jpg.html)

[SgtDog0311]

John, I have a PJ mold that cast a bullet that looks identical to that minigroove bullet. The mold that came with my .38-50. This fall I cast a few to see how they would fly, but haven't tried them yet. I think the bullet is likely too long for my 1:14 gain twist barrel.

Interestingly, the bullet that I do shoot is a Brooks paper patched prolate bullet that I breech seat. It is incredibly accurate at 200m. I've never tried the rifle at further distances.

Chris.

Chris, I hope I have the same luck you have with your prolate. Please think of me when you do get round to shooting that 38-50/bullet. Would like to hear how it goes even if we are not apples to apples on twist, etc. I did order a NASA from Bernie for my 38-55. It would work in my 38-50RH too but so far I'm having good results with the Mos mold that came with that rifle. It knocks down RAMs just fine when the shooter is lined out. New guy here so I've had my issues but have knocked down six and ran a bank of five once when I'm not a cluster behind my sticks. Ran out of time once after coming to the line without sight settings and had a crowd gathered behind me trying to find dirt on the first five. Geeze, being a turnup can be embarrassing. But I am anxious to try that NASA in the 38-55. Up to now all I had was my LBT levergun bullet. But they were very accurate at least. I'll apply some of what I've learned hear concerning the long nose on that NASA. I'm not looking at the profile right now but if memory serves some of this transfers, no?

Another kind soul is sending me some NASA for the 40-65 too, along with a BACO Money and production Saeco. Should be some interesting winter months!

[SgtDog0311]

It doesn't take much antimony added to lead to hold the setback. My favorite alloy is a mix of 17# lead and a one pound of no lead solder, 95/5 tin antimony or one roll in 18# for the .45 PP I shoot in it. One thing to keep in mind when you switch to a PP that is patched at or slightly below bore the super hard bullets are not malleable enough to fill the grooves for proper rotation in a lesser caliber. For the GG it is a lot more forgiving to have it at groove or a thousand or two over groove.
This .44/.432" bullet was patched .001" over bore and cast with 1# roll of no lead solder and 17# lead behind 93gr of 1.5 Swiss.
http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww43/Kurtalt/b622ccca-0bc7-405e-b24b-03e995dfa47f_zps1xzzesje.jpg (http://s704.photobucket.com/user/Kurtalt/media/b622ccca-0bc7-405e-b24b-03e995dfa47f_zps1xzzesje.jpg.html)

Thanks for that Kurt. I processed some of those 1960 vintage wheel weights today. Too bushed to test for hardness but hope to find a clue tomorrow for whether the claim of 9% antimony has any truth to it. I've found that claim on a few of the fishing weight caster's sites as well as bullet casting sites. We'll see. The BHN should give a clue and maybe a roadmap for reaching Arnie's hardness. If that does not prove out then I'll be turning to Arnie's mix or some of your suggestions.

I can see where the 'hardness constraints' for PP could conflict with 'hardness requirements' for controlling setback and slump with the long ogive.

I'd like to think I'll get to the PP later this year but I have a lot of catching up to do having just started down this SS & Black Powder path.

[beltfed]

John,
The NRA CBH published about 1980 or so
showed the following from analyses of WW:
WWscrap 1970 5.08% Sb, 0.44% Sn
WWscrap 1974 2.54% Sb,0.21% Sn
WWscrap Jan1978 3.06%Sb, 0.25%Sn
New WW Apr'78 3.03% Sb,0.23% Sn
Sb-Antimony, Sn-Tin
I wonder about earlier yet pre-1960s WW being
as high as 9%?
beltfed/arnie

[beltfed]

Remember the scrap from 1970 above mentioned is
likely to be WW from the '60s , some likely to be even older.
beltfed/arnie

[SgtDog0311]

Thanks for that Arnie. And you have an excellent point about that collected being older vintage. Had not thought of that before.

Yesterday I did finish my smelting of the 1960s stuff and recovering today. Here is the post

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?321697-BPCR-alloy/page2
recently condensed since I thought I'd made it tough to wade through and get to the question.

“I tested my pre-1980s WWs (16 hrs after smelting) with a Lee tester: debit with testing die measures .070 or 10.4 BHN. The Lee tester is the only one I’ve used so not sure how accurate my measures are compared to others but that’s what I have.

Also not sure how it changes over time so I’ll continue measuring at 48 and 72 hours.

Given Tom Myers observation that "composition of wheel weights to be 95.5% - 0.5% - 4.0% with a Brinell Hardnes of 9", what does a 10.4 bhn indicate for antimony content of these pre-80s WWs? If I can understand that %age I can move on to the question of how do I get desired hardness/alloy with what I have on hand using the 120lbs of pure lead I recently smelted and this pre-80s stock?”

I don't know how the added bhn could be extrapolated into antimony content so was hoping Tom Myers would weigh in.

By the way, regardless of how my blending turns out I'm tickled to have this done. Working on the ground is not easy these days and that was a lot to get done over two days of smelting. There is over 900lbs in this picture. Probably last one of you guys but a little while but it will last me a long time. 400lbs of recent WW and 400lbs of 1960 vintage on the right and 120lbs up on the bench next to the pots.

My main concern is to get to blend tough enough to match yours - and of course I was trying to refrain from more $$. I'm gonna see what Tom says if he sees it before I start to think about how to blend with what I have or simply go get some lino.

Thanks Again... maybe your post will stir some input from our friends.

Btw..
the Sheet lead on top was .1000 so dead soft.
the Modern WW hovers around 10 bhn
the old stock is the 10.4 (not yet aged)

So I'm guessing you are correct in your skepticism as I should be. Sorry for the orientation of the photo. Does that to me sometimes.
185142

[SgtDog0311]

Just tested again... approx 44 hours into it and it is now .08 so indicates softer. I thought it aged in the other direction but been a while since I observed the change so maybe I was wrong there.

At any rate, looks like I'll need to add something to make my blend harder/stronger.

[Chill Wills]

John, Because I may not understand clearly, This ww alloy you hardness checked is not mixed but rather all old batch WW ?? Correct?

Straight WW will age harden over time if cooled in air. Air cooling with my 1980's era WW will produce a hardness about = to 30-1 Pb-Sn after one hour from cast.

By the time it has aged two weeks its yield strength has increased about 50%. This will = an alloy of Pb-Sn about 12-1 or 10-1. There is almost no difference in Pb-Sn hardness at this point - hardening is non-linear as the tin ratio goes up.

(as you likely know, BHN is a measure of yield strength)
For hardness to happen, lead, anatomy and some small fraction of a percent of arsenic is needed in the mix.

[Chill Wills]

There is a caster on here that will test your alloy for free - sorta - he gets to keep the one pound sample.

I do not remember his name - you might have to look for it - it will come up.

In your case, because you have a lot of good lead scrap, maybe getting someone to check the makeup would be good.
It is enough lead to make smart choices worth your wile.

[SgtDog0311]

Michael, Thank You, That is correct. Happened on a motherlode a fellah had as ballast in an old crane he salvaged in the 60s so I got 700lbs of it. That is how I dated it.

I question my readings but two yesterday were perfectly consistent (.70/10.4 BHN) and the two I took today (.80) were also perfectly consistent. I was surprised it got softer nearly 24 hours later but a friend (30 year caster) though surprised as me, told me to give it a week or more and he bet it would get harder. Also said he had better luck with bullets opposed to ingots for accurate measurements. Both readings were clear however.

I'd be thrilled to donate a pound of led for an accurate analysis because you so right about being certain. I'll poke around here and see what I can find.

I have 400lbs of the old and 400lbs of the newer WWs. And I have two objectives, one being something close the Dan T's antimonial allow and the other being an alloy good for Arnie's long ogive elliptical/prolate bullet. Pretty set on trying that or a very close proximity, depending how they fit in two different chambers. Hope to make one mold work for both if I'm lucky.

Btw... just talked to another good friend out there in Cheyenne. He said he gets to shoot with you sometimes. Name of Steve Anderson of the Wyoming Herford Ranch there on the edge of Cheyenne. Good fellah!

Thanks again for your input. Appreciate it!!

[BRUCE MOULDS]

john,
if you ever find an alloy that will allow a nasa bullet to ride the bore and yet seal the gas pressure you will have hit the payload for greasers with black powder.
please post info on that if you do.
keep safe,
bruce.

[SgtDog0311]

john,
if you ever find an alloy that will allow a nasa bullet to ride the bore and yet seal the gas pressure you will have hit the payload for greasers with black powder.
please post info on that if you do.
keep safe,
bruce.

Not very productive back at the bench so glad to keep finding something of interest when I set down. Bruce, help me understand your meaning.

Didn't consider a NASA or know anything about the NASA until someone offered me some to test. But liked it just fine after looking around at images and dimensions (that was prior to Kurt's observation about ogives longer than the shank). One question I had was - upon ignition, as it moved forward would that wide lube groove let pressure escape? After mentally sketching it out I figured it like this, at least for a chamber without freebore. If both driving bands are .001 or .002 larger than groove, wouldn't the front band start to seal the groove nearly as fast as the rear driving bands would on any reduced-band bullet. Or am I overlooking the fact that I've intruded on a PP region of the forum, something I promised to do for the last time about four posts ago:-) Spose it could be you are talking about a PP NASA???

Be interested in your thoughts even if I'm looking at it wrong. Well, especially if I'm looking at it wrong. Might as well learn something since I'm not getting much else done today.

[Chill Wills]

john,
if you ever find an alloy that will allow a nasa bullet to ride the bore and yet seal the gas pressure you will have hit the payload for greasers with black powder.
please post info on that if you do.
keep safe,
bruce.

Bruce, For what it is worth I can answer that question.

That bullet came about in a conversation with my one time shooting partner Klaus and DanT while we were at one of the early AZ matches. Klaus wanted a very high Bc bullet for is Browning BPCR re-barreled to 45-90 with this odd ball reamer gunsmith Mike Lewis sometimes used that had a very long throat. -A Strange design chamber but shot well.

Anyway - this was early in the conversations Dan and I had about GG induced drag and the need for full lube (enough lube) under the hot sun of a summer Longrange match. To sum up all those conversations, if you thought 0.3" of bullet shank should be grease groove to impart enough lube to do the job, you could design six - 0.050" long grooves, maybe three 0.100" grooves, five - 0.060" long grooves or anything else you heart desires. It was supposed by Dan that just one long 0.300" groove may result in the least turbulent drag from air passing the GG portion of the bullet. In other words, fewer speed bumps.

This theory stuff was always hard to prove by just sight settings and comparative windage settings at matches.

A year earlier Dan and I shot and roomed together at the World Creedmoor Cup held in Raton NM and on one of the days before the International Competition started I set up my two chronograph system to record the Bc of some common and not so common bullet designs. Dan was excited to get some of his theory tested. Our findings are not the last word on Bc but it did help to have some supporting data.

Back to the NASA bullet;
That next year Dan drew up Klaus's bullet. I looked at the print, a one groove bpcr design. Hmmmm....

Living on Colorado's western slope and shooting the monthly Watkins match east of Denver was a lot of miles and car time. Gunsmith Mike Lewis and I carpooled about a dozen years and talked about a lot of singleshot related stuff on those drives to and from. Mike was making molds in those days and he turned out that first NASA mold for Klaus. He was going to give it to Klaus at the Watkins match and Mike showed it to me in the car ride down the mountain. It was like nothing I had seen before or since to be truthful. The NASA bullets offered currently are not true to Dan's design. Close, kinda.... maybe because they have the one large GG.

That first bullet and some of the scores Klaus shot with it turned some heads. Another mold maker, Bernie R at Old West Bullet molds shot the monthly silhouette match I held in Rifle, Colorado. I asked Bernie to make me up 20 NASA molds in 45 cal and 20 in 40 Cal and I took them to the Nationals to sell. Almost all did and Bernie put the cherry in his lineup. They are good bullets but they are not exactly the same bullet as Dan's first design.

So what is the correct alloy to hold the nose? Klaus always shot straight wheel weights with only enough tin added to get the bullets looking good. Based on what he said he added for tin I don't think there was even 1% in the mix.

I guess this is getting off topic because this is the PP area... Sorry, these topics get a life of their own sometimes.

[Chill Wills]

Michael,
Btw... just talked to another good friend out there in Cheyenne. He said he gets to shoot with you sometimes. Name of Steve Anderson of the Wyoming Herford Ranch there on the edge of Cheyenne. Good fellah!
Thanks again for your input. Appreciate it!!

Okay, Sure, I see Steve and may again tomorrow at the silhouette match if he comes. Very good guy and I always enjoy talking with him.

[beltfed]

John,
As Chill Wills has pointed out: I forgot to mention
that per NRA CBH alloy studies, WW alloys level off at
their hardness at approximately 20 days of aging.
My motto: "Shoot no bullet before its time"
Similar to the motto of Orson Welles years ago on an ad:
"Drink no wine before its time"

My 9+1 allow will hold functional hardness quite well for yrs.
Noted also that Dan T's alloy of 97/1.5/1.5 was shown to
come up to max hardness and then hold steady for a yr or better.
beltfed/arnie

[Lead pot]

Well while you guys been figuring out your alloy temper I been busy casting. John this is what 400 pounds of ingots should look like :)
I need about another 5-600 for the upcoming season. These are all patched and ready for the cases. :)

Kurt
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/759/31484335403_111bf73ebc_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/PYas22)IMG_2922 (https://flic.kr/p/PYas22) by Kurt (https://www.flickr.com/photos/leadpot/), on Flickr

[BRUCE MOULDS]

john and Michael,
yes we are a bit off topic, but this is important, and can also pertain to pp bullets a bit.
I have never used a nasa bullet, the reason being that bullets with less bore ride have always presented problems with the bore ride bumping into the rifling. this with 16:1 and 14:1.
the nasa is a case of the most extreme amount of bore ride that a greaser could have.
should I ever try to go there it will be a nasa with the entire bore ride section covered with micro mini grooves.
long bore riding noses have been tried with lyman no 2 in an attempt to avoid the problem, but that just plain did not work for the opposite reason.
it is too hard.
certainly the nasa would almost be like an arrow for stability with a major part of its drag potentially in the rear.
if you consider the shank as including the bore ride section and the gg section, then the ogive becomes shorter than the shank.
possibly a good bullet might be a nasa with the bore ride section patched to bore, but this would not work as keeping the patch on relies on the paper being folded under the base.
keep safe,
bruce.

[BRUCE MOULDS]

kurt,
you posted while I was typing.
the strength of your bench never ceases to amaze.
keep safe,
bruce.

[SgtDog0311]

Kurt, You really know how to put a guy in his place dontcha:( The truth hurts too. If this were a job I’da got fired yesterday.

Here is a picture that shows how far behind you I am. There are a few cubby holes (calibers) with a stack or two of sleeved bullets. But that’s it. Best case scenario is 450 bullets for the 38-50. I figure all of them together would last you a Sunday afternoon! Ha!!

I need to get giggy with it!
185217

[SgtDog0311]

This one is for anyone to wade in on since I don't want to upset Arnie's apple cart as he passes it off to me. He was kind enough to send me some samples and I'll be experimenting with the two 40-65 chambers I have before making any decisions but can't help but ask myself these questions and after reading Bruce's comments my conjuring seems appropriate.

So, I'm a little paranoid about lube capacity. Arnie has something that works but I was wondering about moving the driving bands forward (expanding that length if you will) maybe as much as the .125 bore riding section and either increasing the driving band number by one or just opening up the lube length with the same number of bands.

My hesitation of course is upsetting that apple cart which is known to work. Specifically was concerned with increasing drag by loosing the mini-characteristic. And of course then I'd either have to lose the bore riding portion or change the nose profile by retaining it since I'd have to move it forward. I don't really like the idea of changing the nose profile since that is likely the chief feature enabling it's long range capability.

What would be the sage observations about those changes? Keep in mind it's just thinking out loud at this point.

For you Colorado boys, hope you have a good day today at your shoot.

[Gunlaker]

Are you wiping between shots? I suspect that a lot of grease grooved bullets have excess lube capacity for wipers. In the .40-65 I use the Baco 409400M4 bullet and have not had fouling issues ( even when others have shooting in the same relays ). That one has minigrooves for the shank which is about 1/2 the length of the bullet.

For what it' worth, I have the BACO .45 cal Money bullet that has really tiny lube grooves on the bore-riding section of the nose. I don't think the bullet is any better, or worse, than any of the other grease grooved Money bullets I shoot.

Chris.

[SgtDog0311]

Thanks Chris! I have everything needed to wipe but so far been getting away blowing. I probably need practice if I'm to change that up. The old hands make handling everything look easy but I find myself pushed to finish as is with allotted time. I have to use a turkey seat and sticks since my back won't let me get down. Also, none of the few matches I got to shoot this year were on hot days. I shot three with my 38-50RH and the Mos bullet which has good lube capacity. One was shot with an all original 40-63 and no issues but for the wind that was whipping me about like a flag. I don't count the Quigley since I wasn't satisfied with the loads I had and settled for Smokeless. Appreciate the comments on your mini bullet.

[Lead pot]

Something you might want to think about and that is the deeper the rumble strip the louder the rumble. A GG deeper then the groove is a waste of lube. It never gets in contact with the bore I have measured several times picking the spun off a GG bullet laying on top of the snow. You can see where the land tops grooved the lube just like you see on the side of a bullet. A wide shallow groove does more good leaving lube behind then a narrow deeper then the groove is deep in the barrel.
If you want a bullet with a lot of lube capacity and not get the drag of a normal GG You can knurl it. You can even knurl a GG and have the whole bullet covered that comes in contact with the bore. When a knurled bullet travel through the barrel the high points will smoothen out and leave the lube hind more then a GG. By weight the bullet carries more lube then a normal GG.
You take a NASA bullet for instant, Wide shallow GG with a knurl that extends up on the nose covering most of the dry lead that will come in contact with the bore. I just rubbed lube on these with my fingers, normally I pan lube them and that covers the grooves and knurls better.
I saw a shadow graph of bullets in flight of Jacketed, GG and knurled pistol bullets. I been looking for it but I cant find it on the web, But there was no difference of the shock wave between the jacketed and the knurled bullets, as well as the wash behind the bullet base.

http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww43/Kurtalt/IMG_0323.jpg (http://s704.photobucket.com/user/Kurtalt/media/IMG_0323.jpg.html)http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b302/940Leadpot/ccccda58-b18a-4dc8-ab5d-7370b9676f90_zpsdjm8dgim.jpg (http://s22.photobucket.com/user/940Leadpot/media/ccccda58-b18a-4dc8-ab5d-7370b9676f90_zpsdjm8dgim.jpg.html)

[SgtDog0311]

Kurt, How do you put the knurling on the bullet? I've seen them but never seen it applied.

[Lead pot]

John I use the Corbin tool. http://www.corbins.com/hct-2.htm

[beltfed]

John, Kurt,
We can view the knurling as the next step beyond MicroMinigrooves
which, in turn are the next step beyong Minigrooves.
The thought in the micro/mini is that there is still plenty of
lube IF YOU ARE WIPING, AND, significantly lower "body drag"
than a bullet with larger, and deeper lube grooves.
Also, John, re. your idea to have another mini gg where the
bore ride area is: remember that section of the bullet is at bore dia.
I'm not sure how much added lubing you will get if you have a groove(s)
added forward into the bore ride section. Perhaps: It may indeed "sling" lube onto the bore
as it rides along. I have a 38 cal mold designed by none other than Richard Mann, which has a bore ride section with conventional lube grooves.
Remember also, the bullet taper, even in the forward
grooved dia, to enable it to be to be seated out for MORE POWDER and
thereby higher velocity. As said before, I have not had any leading
in shooting the existing E Mini bullet. But, again, as others have contributed,
Minigrooved bullets are not the best if you want to blow tube. I strongly suggest
wiping.
beltfed/arnie

[SgtDog0311]

Kurt... thanks!
Arnie, I always listen when more experienced hands say "strongly" in front of "recommend" or "suggest".8-)

[Chill Wills]

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by SgtDog0311 http://castboolits.gunloads.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?p=3909571#post3909571)
Michael,
Btw... just talked to another good friend out there in Cheyenne. He said he gets to shoot with you sometimes. Name of Steve Anderson of the Wyoming Herford Ranch there on the edge of Cheyenne. Good fellah!
Thanks again for your input. Appreciate it!!




Okay, Sure, I see Steve and may again tomorrow at the silhouette match if he comes. Very good guy and I always enjoy talking with him.

185281
Here is an OT picture of Steve at a silhouette match yesterday in Wyoming spotting for a shooter using PaperPatch 22rf bullets - Okay, maybe I made up the part about PP to keep from going too far off the topic rails 8-)

[SgtDog0311]

Good picture. And you made interloping legal with pp 22. That looks like Greg. I could shoot the breeze with that Cowpoke all day. That accent and enunciating sounds like someone paper patched his tongue!! Sometimes he can even shoot! I see Steve has access to a real scope tripod. I need to work on that too!! Too much for a newby to get it all done at once. Thanks for posting!!