bcp477
06-15-2008, 05:53 PM
My quest has ended sucessfully. The quest for the holy grail !!! (Well, no, not really...but MY quest "for the holy grail"...in a manner of speaking.)
I have found a cast/ PP load that works nicely in in my sportered (8 x 57) M48, with 20" barrel. That load being about 31 grains of IMR-3031, with a pinch of cotton fibre filler added, under a 170 grain, plain-base, flat-point bullet....BHN of 15....the bullet sized to .314" with a Lee die.... paper-patched with two wraps of ordinary lined notebook paper, to a final dry diameter of .324"....and lubed with one coat of Lee Liquid Alox.
The bullet is actually one designed for the old .32/40 Winchester....available from an outfit called Hunters Supply, in Regina, New Mexico. As for results, this load will produce 1.5" or smaller groups at 100 yards with complete consistency (if I do MY part)....using the aforementioned M48, equipped with a 4 x long-eye-relief scope. The load chronos at around 2060 fps avg., with an SD of 22 and an extreme spread for ten shots of 74 fps.
The barrel on my M48 is a military "takeoff" barrel, a spare (apparently) never mounted before on a rifle, with a pristine bore. I cut and crowned the barrel at 20"....and it is free-floated on the rifle. The action and first two inches of barrel are epoxy bedded into the modified (cut-down) military stock. The scope mount I made myself, by machining down a spare rear sight base, converting it to accept Weaver-type rings (I use an all-steel, windage-adjustable ring made by Millet, which they call "Angle-loc"). The scope, which I finally, reluctantly adopted because my aging eyes will no longer work well with ANY iron sights, is a Swift Premier, model SP-661M, 4 x 32. Zeroing was no problem, as I carefully bore-sighted the gun after mounting the scope (today was the FIRST time out with the scope in place)....I had all shots inside a 6" diameter circle within 5 rounds....followed by 20 used to refine the scope adjustments. The cast/ PP load mentioned above shoots about 2 1/2" low and about 1" or so to the right - so next time out I will zero for THAT load at 100 meters (maximum distance for my local range).
As I said in the beginning.....Whoo hoo !!! Please pardon my boyish enthusiasm,
but I am more excited about shooting than in a long time. Now I can kiss all over-priced jacketed bullets goodbye....and I have a good 150 yard or so (max.) whitetail load for the coming fall (as well as a very acceptable target load)....which is cheap to shoot. I also have the fun of saying that I did it myself....MY way....from building the rifle to developing the load (and the paper-patching technique).
A few words on the paper-patching. Observations only, really....as I claim absolutely NO expertise in this field, or anything else.
1) First, the lined notebook paper seems to work best for me, even though it is a bit thicker than the vellum I have tried. The vellum is about 0.0020" thick, while the lined paper is about 0.0025" dry. However, after patching the .314" diameter bullets with both, using two wraps....the final dry diameter of the bullets (wrapped with the vellum) is about .325", or slightly less...while the lined paper bullets are about .324", which definitely works best for my rifle. So, it would seem that the lined paper shrinks more as it dries.....leading to the conclusion that the important factor is NOT the dry thickness of the paper, but rather the dry diameter of the PATCHED BULLET, wrapped with whatever paper works best. So, perhaps one should always test-patch some bullets with a prospective patching paper, before concluding whether the paper will be workable....rather than simply measuring the dry sheets beforehand.
Duh....this seems very obvious (I'm sure it is to those of you with lots of PP experience)....but it is a bit of a revelation for a newby like me.
2) Only ONE coat of Lee Liquid Alox is needed, on the patched bullets (if that is the lube you choose). I used to apply two coats, on the theory that one just didn't "seem" to be enough. Wrong....one IS enough. I have obtained better accuracy with ONE coat, every time.
3) It makes NO difference whether the bases of the paper jackets are twisted to close them...or folded over. I used to carefully fold them over, then glue on a base disc of paper, to make a nice, flat bottom. Totally unnecessary....a waste of effort and time, in fact. Now, I just carefully twist the end closed, being careful not to tear the damp paper, then trim the twist back somewhat with a sharp scissors. Voila...finished...and good enough.
4) The "standard" technique of cutting the patches on the bias, at about a 30 degree angle does not seem necessary. I patched my test bullets with straight ends....simply cutting the patch strips to the right length AS I patch each bullet, paying no particular attention to the exact angle of the cut (trying to cut them straight with scissors, but not always suceeding). This made no difference at all to my results. Now, I make my patches by simply cutting strips of the patching paper about 25 mm wide (about 1 inch)....and trimming to length as I patch the bullets. I usually get 3 or 4 bullets from each 8.5" long strip of paper, depending on whether I tear one patch or not. Of course, I do roll the patches on the bullets so that the end will not conflict with the right hand rotation of the bullets in the barrel (I wrap my bullets with the nose-end to my left, rolling away from me). But, the angle of the ends seems not to matter, in my experience. I do seal my patches with a tiny line of yellow glue, being careful to keep the glue OFF any portion of the bullet....perhaps this has something to do with the cut angle not being an issue.
5) I do not know if the cotton filler that I have tried in this load is really needed....that is, whether it actually makes any positive difference, but I decided to add it only on the theory that it probably wouldn't hurt. The results are fine, as stated above...but I will test the same load without it. Certainly a load of 31 grains of 3031 does NOT require any filler for safety, not in a case the size of the 8 x 57. I will test both ways...and report my results.
6) Lastly, for those who are considering PP'ing....do try it. It really IS easy, cheap and effective. It is also easy to learn. Heck, if I can get such good results with so little effort...I would bet that anyone can !
Sorry for the long post, guys. I just wanted to share my good fortune. Thanks for listening (reading).
I have found a cast/ PP load that works nicely in in my sportered (8 x 57) M48, with 20" barrel. That load being about 31 grains of IMR-3031, with a pinch of cotton fibre filler added, under a 170 grain, plain-base, flat-point bullet....BHN of 15....the bullet sized to .314" with a Lee die.... paper-patched with two wraps of ordinary lined notebook paper, to a final dry diameter of .324"....and lubed with one coat of Lee Liquid Alox.
The bullet is actually one designed for the old .32/40 Winchester....available from an outfit called Hunters Supply, in Regina, New Mexico. As for results, this load will produce 1.5" or smaller groups at 100 yards with complete consistency (if I do MY part)....using the aforementioned M48, equipped with a 4 x long-eye-relief scope. The load chronos at around 2060 fps avg., with an SD of 22 and an extreme spread for ten shots of 74 fps.
The barrel on my M48 is a military "takeoff" barrel, a spare (apparently) never mounted before on a rifle, with a pristine bore. I cut and crowned the barrel at 20"....and it is free-floated on the rifle. The action and first two inches of barrel are epoxy bedded into the modified (cut-down) military stock. The scope mount I made myself, by machining down a spare rear sight base, converting it to accept Weaver-type rings (I use an all-steel, windage-adjustable ring made by Millet, which they call "Angle-loc"). The scope, which I finally, reluctantly adopted because my aging eyes will no longer work well with ANY iron sights, is a Swift Premier, model SP-661M, 4 x 32. Zeroing was no problem, as I carefully bore-sighted the gun after mounting the scope (today was the FIRST time out with the scope in place)....I had all shots inside a 6" diameter circle within 5 rounds....followed by 20 used to refine the scope adjustments. The cast/ PP load mentioned above shoots about 2 1/2" low and about 1" or so to the right - so next time out I will zero for THAT load at 100 meters (maximum distance for my local range).
As I said in the beginning.....Whoo hoo !!! Please pardon my boyish enthusiasm,
but I am more excited about shooting than in a long time. Now I can kiss all over-priced jacketed bullets goodbye....and I have a good 150 yard or so (max.) whitetail load for the coming fall (as well as a very acceptable target load)....which is cheap to shoot. I also have the fun of saying that I did it myself....MY way....from building the rifle to developing the load (and the paper-patching technique).
A few words on the paper-patching. Observations only, really....as I claim absolutely NO expertise in this field, or anything else.
1) First, the lined notebook paper seems to work best for me, even though it is a bit thicker than the vellum I have tried. The vellum is about 0.0020" thick, while the lined paper is about 0.0025" dry. However, after patching the .314" diameter bullets with both, using two wraps....the final dry diameter of the bullets (wrapped with the vellum) is about .325", or slightly less...while the lined paper bullets are about .324", which definitely works best for my rifle. So, it would seem that the lined paper shrinks more as it dries.....leading to the conclusion that the important factor is NOT the dry thickness of the paper, but rather the dry diameter of the PATCHED BULLET, wrapped with whatever paper works best. So, perhaps one should always test-patch some bullets with a prospective patching paper, before concluding whether the paper will be workable....rather than simply measuring the dry sheets beforehand.
Duh....this seems very obvious (I'm sure it is to those of you with lots of PP experience)....but it is a bit of a revelation for a newby like me.
2) Only ONE coat of Lee Liquid Alox is needed, on the patched bullets (if that is the lube you choose). I used to apply two coats, on the theory that one just didn't "seem" to be enough. Wrong....one IS enough. I have obtained better accuracy with ONE coat, every time.
3) It makes NO difference whether the bases of the paper jackets are twisted to close them...or folded over. I used to carefully fold them over, then glue on a base disc of paper, to make a nice, flat bottom. Totally unnecessary....a waste of effort and time, in fact. Now, I just carefully twist the end closed, being careful not to tear the damp paper, then trim the twist back somewhat with a sharp scissors. Voila...finished...and good enough.
4) The "standard" technique of cutting the patches on the bias, at about a 30 degree angle does not seem necessary. I patched my test bullets with straight ends....simply cutting the patch strips to the right length AS I patch each bullet, paying no particular attention to the exact angle of the cut (trying to cut them straight with scissors, but not always suceeding). This made no difference at all to my results. Now, I make my patches by simply cutting strips of the patching paper about 25 mm wide (about 1 inch)....and trimming to length as I patch the bullets. I usually get 3 or 4 bullets from each 8.5" long strip of paper, depending on whether I tear one patch or not. Of course, I do roll the patches on the bullets so that the end will not conflict with the right hand rotation of the bullets in the barrel (I wrap my bullets with the nose-end to my left, rolling away from me). But, the angle of the ends seems not to matter, in my experience. I do seal my patches with a tiny line of yellow glue, being careful to keep the glue OFF any portion of the bullet....perhaps this has something to do with the cut angle not being an issue.
5) I do not know if the cotton filler that I have tried in this load is really needed....that is, whether it actually makes any positive difference, but I decided to add it only on the theory that it probably wouldn't hurt. The results are fine, as stated above...but I will test the same load without it. Certainly a load of 31 grains of 3031 does NOT require any filler for safety, not in a case the size of the 8 x 57. I will test both ways...and report my results.
6) Lastly, for those who are considering PP'ing....do try it. It really IS easy, cheap and effective. It is also easy to learn. Heck, if I can get such good results with so little effort...I would bet that anyone can !
Sorry for the long post, guys. I just wanted to share my good fortune. Thanks for listening (reading).