Question for you BPCR long range shooters [Archive]

BRUCE MOULDS

01-25-2016, 02:06 AM

don is right about the greaser being easier to get a load for.
the problem with pp is not lack of inherent accuracy, but the amount of thought involved in getting started.
if you are prepared to put in the yards here it is well worth it
part of that is being prepared to make your own pp template and not go half way.
once you learn to wrap bullets that can be done in similar time to lubing greasers.
select a good low drag (not a spitzer) nose at least 1.5 calibres long, use thick bullets and thin paper, and seat the bullets no more than 0.150 in the case.
the gun will probably shoot really well with swiss just droptubed in the case, and this is the starting point with powder charges.
the bullet patched to a friction fit as you chamber the round is pretty safe too.
do the above and wipe consistently for consistent results.
the odg used one thin hard wad for max bullet bumpup with hard nose retaining bullets
modern practice has seen some pretty fancy wad stacks, but the old way works and is easier, while wasting minimal powder space.
here comes the big news. testing greasers vs pp bullets of similar nose shape at 500 meters required 10 points sight correction for the greaser, and only 6 for the pp bullet.
this repeatedly, not just a one off.
since that test I realized that 500 mt is the end of transonic flight for my bullets, so that test only pertains to transonic speeds
however, when shooting at 1000 yds, the pp bullet has a 4 point advantage by 500 mt.
reducing wind deflection is always reflected in better scores, whether it is fclass or bpcr.
keep safe,
bruce.

LynC2

01-25-2016, 08:49 AM

One other thing not mentioned is that it allows for a considerably larger powder charge which may be of little importance with larger cartridges, but certainly is with something like my 38-55 when used at the longer ranges.

BrentD

01-25-2016, 03:21 PM

Frankly, I find the greasers far harder to load for. It took me 2 loads to find a target quality load with paper patches in my silhouette rifle. Just one load has ever been shot in my long range rifle. One. My lever action rifle, loading bp greasers, I've got a dozen different loads though it and I still don't like it. PITA.

Greasers have to worry about what grease, how much crimp, how deep to seat, it's messy. I need to squeeze into the kitchen when the wife is not busy there.

Naw, paper is easier. It doesn't shoot any better, but it's easier.

Gunlaker

01-25-2016, 04:36 PM

Having an old rolling block with a new GM 45-70 heavy barrel and picking up a new pedersoli with 34" barrel to try LRBPCR shooting and silhouette, which works best, a lubed boolit or a paper patched?
What is the advantage if any of a paper patched boolit over a good fitting lubed boolit?
have read some for reloading BPCR and one thing as a primer disc/wafer?
what is this for?

I shoot both paper patched and grease grooved bullets and like them both. Probably the biggest advantage of a paper patched bullet is that it will never lead the barrel if the bullets are patched properly and you don't get gas cutting. They also look pretty cool too :-)

I think the ease of load development is a funny thing. If you start with a chamber and bullet design that has been proven to work in competition then you will probably have an easy time. If you stray too far you can make a lot of work for yourself.

With bore diameter paper patched bullets you have a little more of a balancing act between alloy hardness and wads so that you get a good seal and still retain the bullet's nose shape. With a fat grease grooved bullet like a Money bullet you can probably always ensure good results by selecting 16:1 alloy for instance. But if you follow what's been done with PP by those who have figured it out, you won't have too much difficulty.

Another difference can be fouling control. I generally use one more patch when shooting PP than greasers so it costs me a tiny bit more time.

Chris.

69daytona

01-25-2016, 09:36 PM

Thanks guys, off to Barnes and noble to see ifI can find some books on the subject.
some good info to mull over, I have a 535gr postell mold, any recommendations for a PP mold?
it will be used in a pederaoli Boss.

BrentD

01-25-2016, 09:39 PM

any recommendations for a PP mold?

http://www.buffaloarms.com/Bullet_Molds_it-1173820.aspx?TERM=Jim443

Don McDowell

01-25-2016, 11:06 PM

In that Pedersoli, I'ld be tempted to try a .450 diameter bullet wrapped in 8 lb paper. Those rifles have a chambers a bit large in diameter. .460-.461 diameter grease groove bullets usually serve well in those rifles also.
Randolph S.Wright ,Loading and Shooting paper Patch Bullets is a good book.

country gent

01-25-2016, 11:19 PM

Ive had good results with my brooks adjustable nose pour mould in my pedersoli 45-70 and hepburn 45-90. It casts a 442 dia bullet and allows for tuning of length/weight to just what the barrel likes. My base is cupped so there is a place for the fold over to go allowing for a nice flat base. I have a 40 cal BACo 420 grn flat based bullet here Ive started working with thats showing lot of promise also. Look to Buffalo Arms Co., Brooks and Old west Moulds ( you hae to contact Bernie Roweles with what you want and he sends pics of it to you in an e-mail). I believe NEI has some paper patched moulds available also.

MIEagle

01-26-2016, 06:59 AM

Re: the overprimer wad, I think I read somewhere that it's to retard the primer ignition. I use a .38 cal newspaper wad as it's easier to flutter down in the case with tweezers. A .45 wad gets sideways and I have to fool with it. I learned about it in a phone conversation several years ago with a man named Johnny Stepp, from whom I bought a disassembly/assembly kit for the trigger group of my Browning Hiwall. He related that's what the California guys were doing. Now, I haven't tested my loads with and without, but I figure if I copy what the Big Guns do, I can't be too far off. Otherwise, why ask anyone their advise?

BrentD

01-26-2016, 08:36 AM

Primer wads are a complete waste of time.

Lead pot

01-26-2016, 10:40 AM

The only useful use for a in the primer pocket wad is seating a pistol primer at the correct depth in the pocket. The wad under the powder I don't think retards the flame any. When that primer is set off it will blow through a .030" thick wad. A newspaper wad would have no effect slowing the flash down. The only benefit it might have is keeping the dust out of the flash hole and I don't think even this would make a difference.
If you want to retard the primers flash find the primer.

Here is what can happen when you seat a primer with a wad in the primer pocket. What your looking at in this photo is the face of my Sharps breach block that has gas cuts from the primer blowing gas back past the primer because of the paper restriction in the primer pocket.
http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww43/Kurtalt/th_breachblock_zpsd280ea3e.jpg (http://s704.photobucket.com/user/Kurtalt/media/breachblock_zpsd280ea3e.jpg.html)

Don McDowell

01-26-2016, 10:46 AM

There's enough folks that shoot very well in long-range that use wads between the powder and primer that I would be pretty hesitant to say they aren't useful. If they do nothing other than give the shooter confidence to shoot better, then they are proving useful..

montana_charlie

01-26-2016, 01:58 PM

In that Pedersoli, I'ld be tempted to try a .450 diameter bullet wrapped in 8 lb paper.
I have that mould, if somebody wants it.

ketland

01-26-2016, 07:40 PM

I would add this, there is a deep sense of satisfaction for me in shooting paper patched heavy slicks. The accuracy at long range is amazing, and the feeling of stepping back into the days of the buff hunters is worth whatever little extra it takes to learn and get used to the process of shooting paper patch, which is really pretty simple, especially with all the help you can get here from knowledgable paper patchers. I shoot a very heavy barreled sharps chambered in 45-2.6, as well as a rolling block creedmoor style rifle which I chambered in 40-65, my loads are relatively simple compressed charges with an .030 card on top of the powder, a grease cookie which I extrude from a little tool you can buy online that extrudes about an 1/8th" ribbon 1/2" wide of lube, after compressing the powder under the card, I use the shell casing as a "cookie cutter" to get a perfect round grease cookie right into the case mouth, then place another card on top of the grease, and finger seat the bullet on that. Very simple, very quick, very accurate. I find that usually the hottest powder charge I can run is the most accurate at long range, so there is usually only about an 1/8th of an inch of paper patched bullet in the case, sometimes maybe a quarter inch if using a lighter load. After firing, I size the case neck back to where it just allows for the patched bullet to be pushed snug into the case. You will need a set of dies to size, punch the primer, and a powder compression plug to compress you powder and patch. After each shot, I wipe with two wets and two drys, (water and Ballistol) and then load and shoot again. I can use the same 5 shell casings all day, and load right at the bench, easy peasy.

montana_charlie

01-26-2016, 09:39 PM

After firing, I size the case neck back to where it just allows for the patched bullet to be pushed snug into the case.
If you can find some paper that is just a tiny bit thicker than what you have now, you can stop resizing the neck, unless you are patching to bore diameter.

I use my press for powder compresion, nothing else.

BrentD

01-27-2016, 08:51 AM

ketland, You seem to have a good system going and you seem to be pleased with the results. However, have you tried a thicker wad? I prefer 0.06" fiber or LDPE wads. With the thicker wad (and NOT two 0.03" wads), I think you will be able to forego the grease cookie all together. This might make your shooting a little simpler, without the slightest loss of accuracy.

I know many folks like Ballistol or some sort of water soluble oil in their wiping fluid, but try without. It might be as good if not better, though again, the differences might be small.

What sorts of bullets are you using in your two rifles?

ketland

01-27-2016, 11:42 PM

Montana, and Brent, I have three thicknesses of paper, but the accuracy seems better with the lighter paper, so I size the case mouth back ever so slightly to get the right feel. When I push the cartridge into the chamber, the lands impress (engrave) into the paper just a bit, enough that if I remove the bullet from the bore, I can see the impression of the rifling in the paper. Both barrels, the .40 and the .45 came from Green Mountain. I chambered both rifles using reamers from PTG, after having a fairly lengthy conversation With Dave Kiff about what is working for top BP cartridge shooters, as far as lede, taper, etc. and so far, my accuracy has been exeptional with both rifles. I do not cast my own bullets, so far I am only using the buffalo paper patch slicks, and SPG lube. I have a few different types of paper ( I would have to run out to my shop to get the brand names), but they are all tracing paper that came from my local stationary store, except for some I got a few years ago from Buffalo. If you are interested I can give you the exact diameter of the bullets for each rifle and the thickness/ brand name of the paper. I have two thicknesses of the card wads, .030 and .060 both of which I use at different times, and both of which I bought from buffalo. Generally speaking I find the more powder I can put in the case, the better the rifles shoot at long range (600 - 1000 yards), so I put quite a bit of compression on the loads. I just checked my join date here, April of 2013, and I started shooting paper patch bullets about then, so even though what I am doing now is working, I am (and always hope to be) still learning. So far for me the hardest part about starting PP'ing was getting the right diameter bullet for my bore coupled with the right thickness of paper to derive the best accuracy. If I weren't so insane about accuracy, I could have probably settled for a looser loading which would have simplified things quite a bit.

Brent, I have not tried the LDPE wads, but I would like to give them a try. Also, I have tried using water without ballistol, however so far I like it better with than without. Any advice on using LDPE would be greatly appreciated.

BrentD

01-28-2016, 09:47 AM

I just use the 0.06" LDPE wads from BACO. I extensively tested them in two different guns one with a 16 twist barrel one with an 18 twist barrel (both Green Mt). Both chambered with the same reamer. Both with identical loads. I used the best statistical testing I could muster. In the 16 twist, it showed no statistically significant difference. In the 18 twist, it showed a very slight improvement relative to the 0.06" fiber wads (John Walters).

Then with the same bullet and the same powder charge but in a muzzleloader, I find that they are substantially better than fiber wads.

So, I have switched to LDPE for the most part. I never use any lube except for hunting bullets. Not on the patch or under the bullet. My paper adds about 0.007-0.008" of diameter to the bullet when wrapped twice. It is 9# onion skin paper. I don't think paper thickness matters so long as the bullets fit snug. If your thumb gets sore after loading 20-30 rounds, your bullet is too fat. If they drop in with hardly an resistance at all, they are too skinny. You need to find the Goldilox zone where everything fits just right.

Gunlaker

01-28-2016, 04:14 PM

Brent I've been meaning to ask your opinion on ideal paper thickness for a while. I have primarily shot ~1.6 thousandths thick paper with a .446" bullet with snug fit in the bore. I get deep rifling engraving on the bullet this way. It would seem that thin paper should help in this regard, yet you use a wrapped thickness that is very close to your rifling depth.

I would imagine that you've tried thinner paper and larger bullets as you've been doing this for a while :-). Do you think that a .443" bullet with your thickness of paper is superior to .446" with thinner paper, or do you think performance is similar?

I do use some thicker paper in a CSA 1874 in .45-110 that shoots pretty well with a .444" bullet, but have not tried it in my other rifles.

Thanks,

Chris.

BrentD

01-28-2016, 05:40 PM

I am not certain that it matters that much. I have not shot a lot of thinner papers, mostly because I have something that works so well.

My .443" bullets generally measure closer to .444 and with my paper, the final bullets really come close to .451. But it is the fit that matters. In some guns this is tighter than others. In my muzzleloader I have to size them to .449 after wrapping.

I have shot with thicker papers, up 0.0025? Thick enough anyway that when wrapped around a bullet it grows 0.010" in diameter. I have thought, w/o a lot of what I would consider rigorous testing, that these thicker papers do not shoot quite as well. However, the main goal for these papers was hunting, or at least shooting over/through fouling. Hence, I have opted to stay at paper that is roughly the height of the lands or so.

ketland

01-28-2016, 06:10 PM

Brent, I like it, Goldilocks zone, that is my experience also. Thank you for the advice on the LDPE, I will give them a shot and try it as you are suggesting without the lube. Hey if it makes things easier, all the better!

Per your next post in response to Gunlaker, I agree too that using too thick of paper does not seem to work well. I was going for the bullet that would utilize two wraps with the #9 onion skin (or similar) and adjusting only if I was not getting the right , as you say, fit. I am not hunting with these rifles, strictly range work, for accuracy. I am guessing that the buff hunters must have run a slightly looser load as I don't see wiping every shot a practical out in the field....... but ...... then again, maybe they did? Thoughts?

BrentD

01-28-2016, 07:24 PM

Some folks advocate for ever thinner paper. I bet they cannot prove reasonably that it matters, but even if it does, there are pragmatic issues to concerned with in a match with real-world constraints. Mucking up even one patch in loading fast to take the last shot in a silhouette match could cost you the match. So, I do not feel like I need to go skinnier but I have experimented just a little with 8# tracing papers that would probably work if my bullet was just a titch bigger. I'm just not willing to hone out a mould or have a new one cut just to use a thinner paper. I am competitive with what I have so I have become very conservative about changes to anything unless forced to.

I don't think anyone really knows that the buff hunters did in the field between shots. We hear about what one or two guys did, but we have no sense of the norm. And more extreme things like peeing down the barrel are the things that stick in folks' memories, but may not represent much of a reality.

I can only say what I have done when shooting fast and dirty. Sometimes I just kept shooting - the targets (silhouettes at varying distances) might be mostly close and big and so precision was not an issue, but then a few minutes later the distances are longer and maybe one wipes after every buff (4-5 shots/buff was the norm according to many) and so on.

Here is something that is somewhat of that ilk - ten minutes for everything in the photo (25 targets total), average distance here is only 150 yds maybe.
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~jessie/PPB/Herd%20B%20Spring%202006.JPG

And then here the targets are 300-400 as I recall
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~jessie/PPB/Herd%20C%20Spring%202006.JPG

Of course, these are smaller than real bison but you get the idea, where distances are long, smaller angles of error are required so wiping (or whatever) probably picked up relative to when they were closer.

As an aside, I do not recall ever seeing a painting or a set of gear where a blow tube was part of the kit.

Lead pot

01-28-2016, 07:46 PM

Hey, I have seen that water and hillside before at Ackley Iowa

BrentD

01-28-2016, 07:59 PM

Yup that be it

Gunlaker

01-28-2016, 08:50 PM

Thanks very much Brent.

Chris.

Ron Williams

01-28-2016, 08:52 PM

I still dream about that shoot.

BrentD

01-28-2016, 08:54 PM

I still have 150 rounds of .45-100 loaded for it and ready to go. Man, that was the most fun of any match I've ever shot.

ketland

01-28-2016, 11:19 PM

I second that, Thanks very much Brent.

Hiwall55

01-29-2016, 07:27 AM

They still do a variation of that shoot with the Ackley targets at Milan twice a year. It is a BLAST!

jimofaz

02-05-2016, 07:13 PM

Brent ... re: "I just use the 0.06" LDPE wads from BACO."

What diameter is your LPDE wad from BACO? Just curious if you like oversize wads to maybe help get a better gas seal. Remember reading somewhere 9was probably on the internet - so it had to have been true!:grin:) about some PP'ers liking to use a wad diameter closer to their patched boolit diameter, but have never tried it. Have speculated for, no particular goal in mind, that it would take a tight-chamber & no case sizing to allow for a smaller wad to do it's job.

Thanks,
Jim

Gunlaker

02-05-2016, 08:17 PM

In my .474" danT PP chambered .45-70 I have tried .450", .454", and the full diameter ones that Baco sells ( I think they are .460" or maybe a bit bigger ). All are 0.060" thick and made of the same source material. I'm pretty confident that the bigger diameters are better even though you have to force them into the case. The .450" ones had occasional burn marks on the paper fragments which means likely they were gas cutting a bit. This was in the .45-70. In the .45-90 with the same style chamber I didn't even bother trying anything but the larger diameter wads. They work really well.

Chris.

jimofaz

02-05-2016, 10:54 PM

Thanks Chris. My Fred Cornell press-mounted wad punch cuts .060" LDPE at something .463" Seem to work fine for me, maybe especially so in my generous SAAMI chambers. My only 'DanT' chamber is a .400" OD mouth in two .38-50's, both with 12-twist barrels, although not from the same maker. Both rifles perform much better than I do, but I think the Schnieder barrel outshoots the Badger by an relatively insignificant margin. Another DanT chamber I had was in a Borchardt .45-90 I had built up for BPTR use, but I had to give up shooting that rifle due to the issues that came up with the recoil. Having had to deal with spinal stenosis & a long history of 3 spinal surgeries, I should have given that project a bit more pre-thought.

Jim