maximum méplat

[canuck4570]

rifle. Ruger no 1 with 1/20 twist. 20 inches barrel

what would be the maximum Meplat on a 300 gr. bullet to be accurate to 200 yards

want to retain enough velocity and the large méplat might give up to much

game. Moose

[JM7.7x58]

Caliber?

[Outpost75]

Good rule is a meplat 0.7 of the bullet diameter in whatever caliber.

[canuck4570]

44 magnum is the caliber...

[Outpost75]

Accurate has a bunch of designs which are suitable, either plainbase or GC. A few:

http://www.accuratemolds.com/bullet_detail.php?bullet=43-290SG-D.png

http://www.accuratemolds.com/bullet_detail.php?bullet=43-290V-D.png

http://www.accuratemolds.com/bullet_detail.php?bullet=43-300A-D.png

http://www.accuratemolds.com/bullet_detail.php?bullet=43-320C-D.png

[bmortell]

id probably say .32- .34 would be good max size. and just incase you didn't know already from accurate you can specify a meplat size on whatever boolit has the body design you like, don't pick something based on the meplat width pictured.

[canuck4570]

that's good I did not know this
I read that to big méplat accuracy goes down the drain past 100 yards

[bmortell]

I was just thinking of the LFN designs they use around that size rather than the standard .36 for WFN. and I haven't heard anyone say LFN is range limited

[white eagle]

have to be careful on maxing out the size of the meplat
to big and you have a wadcutter and stability can be an issue at long range
being a rifle you have a little better range than you would with a revo
Tom @ Accurate gives around 70-75% personally I would go 62% myself
in a swc or Keith boolit but thats what I shoot in a 44 and do not own a rifle in that cal
the diameter of the 44 cal boolit is what some expanding bullets strive to

[Hamish]

Problems can show when it goes transonic. A huge meplat is absolutely no guarantor of having accuracy problems, even when dropping back below the speed of sound.

[bikerbeans]

I shoot a 0.416" WFNPB with a 0.37" meplat. With a 1,700 fps MV i get 1.5 moa at 100 yards. I have not shot longer groups because i limit my hunting shots to 100 yards.

BB

[Crusty Deary Ol'Coot]

Canuck45/70,

A good read for you would be the little book by Veral Smith at Lead Bullet Technology (LBT)

My personal experience with a WFN cast bullet has been quite good.

In fact, I left the 45/70 in the rack during the 2017 deer season and used the little RUGER 77/44 rifle and a 275/280gr cast WFN. Two deer both dead where they stood.

However, while a moose from my limited experience seems to go down pretty easily, they are BIG, BIG bones, big body mass and I wonder if 200yds isn't stretching it a bit thin.

I tested the 275gr from the little rifle to right at 1900fps, but the best accuracy was right about 1750fps.

I'd feel MUCH more confident with my 45/70 and my 465gr WFN cast at 200yds then the .44, but one of the 2017 deer was at a measured 95 - 100yds and a side on shot behind the shoulder gave full penetration, dropping the deer where it stood.

But with just the front quarter of a moose weighing more then that entire white tail deer my thoughts are still the .44 is a stretch for moose at 200yds.

I consider my .44 rifle to be a 100yd. plus a bit, deer rifle.

Crusty Deary Ol'Coot

[John Boy]

what would be the maximum Meplat on a 300 gr. bullet to be accurate to 200 yards
1/8" metplat

[cwlongshot]

I gotta tell ya 200 y is a poke with a 300g 43 Mag...

I shoot a 45 Colt and the LEE 300 has quite a meplat. 40 cal Id say was near accurate. I can shoot 2” @ 100 maybe a lil less in my 20” Marlin, and I can ring steel at 200 no issue. But accurately shooting out there is another issue.

Its more than just the meplat thats up against ya. IMHO your better off gettin closer or choosing more caliber. Just sayin.

CW

[canuck4570]

1/8" metplat
that is quite small. only .0125
I was looking at the Saeco 265 gr. RNFP with is the smallest I have seen
here is a interesting view on this by the Los Angeles silhouette club
they speak about Seaco having the smalless méplat but having the most penetration and range capacity
just copy and paste the title below and it will bring you to it
Is the .44 Magnum becoming overweight?

[444ttd]

the 275gr ranch dog is all you will ever need.
http://noebulletmolds.com/NV/images/N.O.E._Bullet_Moulds_432-265-RF_(GC)_Sketch.Jpg

[bluejay75]

I concur with going lighter. 270-280 is still a killer of a load carrying enough energy that most boolits will want to expand beyond 100 yards still holding 12-1300 FPS impact velocity.

44 magnum is my Armageddon load. I have 8 of them. Single shot, lever and bolt. 432640 or Ranchdog 265-275 have the book ratio of meplat to diameter for good down range ballistics as does the Keith boolit for that matter. I have found that the HG503 outshoots them both.

Check the ballistic tables and you’re going to see that beyond 150 yards you’re probably going to need a HP to get any of those 3 to expand out there.

I suggest the cup point or a larger pin milled down so it doesn’t blow up when you’re presented with a 50 yard shot and still expand when the boolit slows to 12-1300.

300 grain won’t carry velocity like that.

[canuck4570]

I will look at the Bullet design #43-280PG detail

also the Seaco 265 RNFP it has a smaller méplat but research says better for long range and penetration at long distances
wat you say

[Outpost75]

I will look at the Bullet design #43-280PG detail

also the Seaco 265 RNFP it has a smaller méplat but research says better for long range and penetration at long distances
wat you say

A friend of mine who was a licensed PH in several south african countries used the Saeco #430

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1010350316

265-grain plainbased bullets in .44 Magnum in both a S&W Model 29-2 and a Marlin 1894 carbine and killed multiple tractor trailer loads of plains game for biltong after 9/11. He used 16 grains of Alliant #2400 which gave about 1050 fps from a 4" revolver and about 1250 fps from a 20-inch carbine and said these never lacked for penetration or killing power. Air cooled wheelweights, not quenched, but simply air cooled. Lubed with Lee Liquid Alox as-cast and unsized, Redding Profile Crimp Die. His Dillon RL550B was set up for this load and he assembled them by the bucket full and used nothing else.

A fellow could do lots worse.

[canuck4570]

of all the loading data that I looked at a 265 gr. bullet goes up to 1600 fps
would a gas check be better at that speed
I am not too hot at gas check and in my Ruger no 1 4570 never had a gas check on
but never went over 1400 fps
but the 44 magnum being smaller would it be better to keep speed up
they have the same Saeco 265 with a gas check

[Outpost75]

of all the loading data that I looked at a 265 gr. bullet goes up to 1600 fps
would a gas check be better at that speed
I am not too hot at gas check and in my Ruger no 1 4570 never had a gas check on, but never went over 1400 fps, but the 44 magnum being smaller would it be better to keep speed up they have the same Saeco 265 with a gas check

My friend Greg never used GC bullets as in SA Hornady GCs cost $100 per thousand, but wheelweights were free. He used Lee Liquid Alox, loaded bullets as-cast and unsized and used the Redding Profile Crimp Die which I brought when I came to visit and hunt.

If you go back and read Keith's Book Sixguns and loads, he favored bullet weight over velocity and favored softer alloys:

Elmer Keith’s book Sixgun Cartridges and Loads (1936) on pgs. 69-70 states:

“For most revolver cartridges, including all light and normal pressure loads, there is no use to having the bullets harder than one part tin to twenty parts lead for really heavy loads a one to fifteen mixture is hard enough… For automatic pistols, the bullets should be very hard, consisting of about one part tin to ten parts of lead, in order for them to slide up easily out of the magazine into the chamber… A mixture of part tin and part antimony works very well for some heavy loads, but such very hard, brittle bullets are not needed for any revolver load except in the case of extreme penetration, where no upsettage or expansion is wanted.”



I have found Keith's suggestions to work in my last 50 years experience following them.

[bluejay75]

Just read this again. You’re going to need the GC for the 20 inch barrel. At that speed and pressure to get the best out of that boolit it’s going to hard for PC or lube to make it that far without giving out.

Send Miha a pm and ask for a 432640 4 cavity GC. He had over 15 of them last I checked his on hand. It will cast at 280 as a solid. All prices seemed comparable but a lot of us shoot that boolit and load data should be easier to find.

I’m not shooting a barrel that long nor am I planning on shooting that far. Otherwise I would suggest a larger meplat. Everything I killed last year was with one boolit. NOE 432-280 WFN. Got expansion each time with a solid, no GC and powder coated. They lead slightly pushed with 22.5 H110 and will shoot a fist size group at 100 yards consistently.

Expansion...Barely stayed together 1:3 SOWW:COWW Water dropped.

247240

Entrance wound. This one never moved.

247241

[Tripplebeards]

I tried a lee 300 grain pc and GC out of my 77/44. Never got the accuracy as I do with Lyman devastator 265 grain HPs. I’ve shot sub MOA with three different loads with the Lyman. A full throttle load of 23.8 grains of H110 was shooting under an inch but I was getting pressure signs so I backed off. I shot three deer with the same alloy(15.4 Bh) at a slower 1750 FPS, 21 grains of H110, and got complete pass throughs with ZERO expansion so IMO it would blow right through a moose as well. Use what ever so the most accurate in your gun.

[bowfin]

that is quite small. only .0125
I was looking at the Saeco 265 gr. RNFP with is the smallest I have seen
here is a interesting view on this by the Los Angeles silhouette club
they speak about Seaco having the smalless méplat but having the most penetration and range capacity
just copy and paste the title below and it will bring you to it
Is the .44 Magnum becoming overweight?

I think you have a zero where it doesn't belong in describing 1/8" as .0125"

[canuck4570]

you got me .125 is that what you mean by I get a zero

have you any comments on the Seaco 265 gr gc

[Crusty Deary Ol'Coot]

Hornady gas checks at over $100 per thousand.?.?.???????????????

Glad I don't buy them from that source!

Crusty Deary Ol'Coot

[Hamish]

Hornady gas checks at over $100 per thousand.?.?.???????????????

Glad I don't buy them from that source!

Crusty Deary Ol'Coot

Import tariffs, if I'm not mistaken,,,,,,,.

[canuck4570]

gator check are 67 dollars in Canada from Dragon Lube

and they are better than Hornady in my opinion

[longbow]

I suspect a gas check might help at max. pressures but I run all PB boolits in my Marlin 1894 with no problems even loaded right up. I have not tried same load with PB and GC boolits to see if the GC gives better accuracy at top end loads but I get no leading and good enough for me accuracy using PB boolits in the Marlin. Fat boolits are required though! I never used gas checks in my old 1895 .45-70 either and I ran that right to the max. for Marlin loads.

I am a bit lazy and cheap so if I can avoid gas checks I do.

YMMV

[canuck4570]

any one tried to use gas check bullet without them to see if they can reach top load without leading

[Larry Gibson]

I've shot a lot of 44 Magnum rifles with 16 - 24" barrels using various cast bullets, plain based and GC'd. 1st thing I learned about it years ago that even with a very, very hard cast bullet using plain base bullets with top end revolver loads will result in a much higher velocity out of the rifle. Accuracy will be mediocre at best. Yes, I've read all the post about it but not seen a single comprehensive comparison between similar plain based and GC'd bullets out of a rifle with top end loads posted on this or any other forum. Yup, lots of posts about "ringing steel" out yonder but seldom a mention of the range or the size of the "steel".

My own tests have always shown the GC'd 44 cast bullet to be more accurate than even a very hard cast plain based bullet out of the rifle. The GC'd bullet also gives the advantage of a softer more malleable alloy for expansion. As to the expense of GCs, even in Canada, considering the time, effort and money that is spent on hunting moose (even if you live there) we're going to quibble about the cost of GCs.....really?

Why not just get a plain based bullet mould and a GC'd bullet mould? Are moulds that expensive? Then you can cast all the PB'd bullets and load them to a lower velocity for accuracy (usually under 1400 - 1500 fps) and shoot them for practice. Consider the GC'd mould as "premium ammunition" since you'll not really shoot that many for zero, a bit of practice and hunting....perhaps 100 a year. That thousand GCs will last 10 years that way, you get a more accurate bullet with much better terminal performance.

I do just that with my own 44s casting and shooting mostly 420-200-RF, TL430-240-SWC, 429360, 44-250-K and the Lyman 429421 bullets. For hunting I've found the 429244 HP to be excellent but since have found the "Devastator" 429640 to be more accurate and give better terminal performance than any hard cast plain based bullet regardless of the meplat size. I cast both the latter out of 16-1 alloy which holds up to the 1600 - 1700 fps range top end loads of 4227, 2400 and H110 give in the 44 Magnum out of rifles. The 429215 (also GC'd) is my favored "high velocity" rifle load at 1700 fps out of my 20" M92 44-40. I also cast that bullet of 16-1 alloy.

Given your rifle is a Ruger #1 44 Magnum and moose is the end game if the Lyman Devastator (mine runs 270 gr cast of 16-1) is not your cup of tea then you might consider the RCBS 44 -300-SWC, the Lee C430-310-RF or a similar custom mould which are GC'd and I'd still cast them of 16-1 alloy and load them over a top end charge of H110/296.

[Bigslug]

.30" is what Veral Smith states for his 250 grain .44 LFN, which is his notion of an improved replacement for the Keith (.27").

Mind you, I'm only dealing with a sample of one, but I've seen going too big with the meplat (.34" on a 420 grain .45-70 pill) can lead to groups starting to come unglued past 200 yards. I'd be inclined to save the maximum blunt force designs for the pistols and be a little more conservative for the carbines.

[canuck4570]

I don't find gas check expensive when you see good result at the range
my goal is to practice with hunting load all year (in Canada just the summer months)
so I will be shooting about 500 to 1000 round
for this reason I want to practice with these full load so when come hunting season I am used to my rifle and shooting characteristic of my bullet drop etc.....
has you said softer aloe and also I have a Forster hollow pointing tool so will be experimenting with different depth of hollow point to see what is best
your reasoning makes a lot of sense.....

[Crusty Deary Ol'Coot]

Canuck4570,

Forget the hollow point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cast bullet hollow point expansion is and forever will be a factor of bullet alloy - hardness/softness - and velocity at impact due to not having the controlling influence of a jacket.

Just use a Wide Flat Nose/large meplat bullet and be done with it. They are highly effective and the results are consistent while as said, results of hollow point cast bullets is variable. The results could be very good or way less then desirable depending on the situation, while the WFN cast bullet is always a WFN and pre-expanded.

Before the days of personally hunting with WFN cast bullets, I needed to approach their use with a lot of faith that what I was reading, was in fact true.

Only took one critter to make a believer of me. In fact, that first critter taken with a 355gr WFN at a muzzle velocity of 2300fps was WAY OVER THE TOP and made me rethink the bullet selection. Following some excellent council that in a 45/70 a cast bullet of 400+gr. in weight typically shoots better then those of lighter weight, I went with a 465gr WFN at 1650fps and have had excellent results on deer and elk, of course as always, with proper bullet placement.

Crusty Deary Ol'Coot

[waksupi]

Canuck4570,

Forget the hollow point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cast bullet hollow point expansion is and forever will be a factor of bullet alloy - hardness/softness - and velocity at impact due to not having the controlling influence of a jacket.

Just use a Wide Flat Nose/large meplat bullet and be done with it. They are highly effective and the results are consistent while as said, results of hollow point cast bullets is variable. The results could be very good or way less then desirable depending on the situation, while the WFN cast bullet is always a WFN and pre-expanded.

Before the days of personally hunting with WFN cast bullets, I needed to approach their use with a lot of faith that what I was reading, was in fact true.

Only took one critter to make a believer of me. In fact, that first critter taken with a 355gr WFN at a muzzle velocity of 2300fps was WAY OVER THE TOP and made me rethink the bullet selection. Following some excellent council that in a 45/70 a cast bullet of 400+gr. in weight typically shoots better then those of lighter weight, I went with a 465gr WFN at 1650fps and have had excellent results on deer and elk, of course as always, with proper bullet placement.

Crusty Deary Ol'Coot

Agreed, forget the hollow points. Not necessary.

[canuck4570]

I usually hunt moose with my 450 Rigby and a Seaco 545gr. cast
the rifle is a Sako model 85 Brown bear
the load is 56 gr of reloader 7 1650 fps
but practicing with this rifle is a brutal experience and also at 11 pounds carrying it all day is not pleasant specially at 72
my choice up to now is ether the Saeco 265 or 300gr. gas check
it has a reasonable méplat so extending range has compared to a wide méplat should be good and still have a good penetration having a smaller méplat.
the méplat on these bullet is .270
and the 265 has more velocity so these long range. shot (under 175 to 200) should be better than the 300
I must say that the longest shot moose up to now is 178 yard laser marked
would like to have comments on these 2 bullet please

[white eagle]

large or small meplat
hp or not
it makes no difference if you can't hit
where you aim
find what works for your rifle and trust it will work

[canuck4570]

like I said above I like to practice often with what I hunt

and to hit where its count I think I will go with the 265 fort better trajectory lest Kentucky windigae

[Larry Gibson]

"Not necessary"......for what? To kill, which is the real question here a HP isn't "necessary and neither is any meplat. A pointed or RN bullet will also kill, just won't kill as effectively (as in time to go down and die with minimal pain and suffering) as one (given same caliber and velocity) with a meplat. Expanding bullets also kill more efficiently because the expansion actually is and increasing meplat.

In canuck4570's case with the 44 magnum out of the Ruger #3 he apparently want's maximum terminal bullet performance out to maybe 200 yards with a cast bullet. The answer is simple; a 250 - 300 +/- gr cast HP bullet with a GC at maximum safe pressure for the Ruger #1 rifle. There's no sense reinventing the wheel, just cast them out of 16-1 alloy (pure lead and tin....no antimony what so ever) and with the 1/8" Forster HP tool HP them to 3/16" deep. Or, just get a Lyman 429640 Devastator HP and cast them of the same alloy. Size at .430/.431 GC with Hornady or Blammer GC and lube with a good lube (I prefer 2500+).

Also, canuck4570, with his Ruger #1 rifle might consider that crimp may not be necessary so he might be able to seat the bullet further out from the crimp groove so the drive band of the bullet just touches the leade. That will increase the case capacity a tudge allowing a bit more powder. In the single shot rifle chamber w/o the revolvers long cylinder throats (essentially "free bore) the crimp many times adds nothing to the burning efficiency of the load, especially at the higher end pressure levels.

[Larry Gibson]

I usually hunt moose with my 450 Rigby and a Seaco 545gr. cast
the rifle is a Sako model 85 Brown bear
the load is 56 gr of reloader 7 1650 fps
but practicing with this rifle is a brutal experience and also at 11 pounds carrying it all day is not pleasant specially at 72

Now that's a rifle!....

my choice up to now is ether the Saeco 265 or 300gr. gas check
it has a reasonable méplat so extending range has compared to a wide méplat should be good and still have a good penetration having a smaller méplat.
the méplat on these bullet is .270
and the 265 has more velocity so these long range. shot (under 175 to 200) should be better than the 300
I must say that the longest shot moose up to now is 178 yard laser marked
would like to have comments on these 2 bullet please

Your reasoning is sound. Just cast out of the 16-1 alloy and experiment a bit with the Forster HP tool as you mention. I've found the 3/16" depth of the HP to be sufficient with that alloy. It will get the bullet expanding with minimal sloughing off of expansion petals. If it doesn't then the bullet will be just as effective as w/o the HP.

[canuck4570]

will experiment with crimp no crimp yes
to do this may have to go with reloader 2400
since the 110 and 296 need crimp to burn correctly
will putting the bullet against the rifling help in burning the 110 and 296 this in acting like a crimp

[Larry Gibson]

"since the 110 and 296 need crimp to burn correctly"

I do not find that to be the case with H110 under the 429244 and now the 429640 in the Contender. That is because there is no cylinder throat (freebore) in the Contender as there is none in your Ruger #1. It's completely different in those vs a revolver. Loading to the lands in your 44 Magnum rifle is no different than loading cast in other chambering's in that regard.....there is little need for the crimp. Even with such powders as H110/296.

Consider H110 is a fairly popular powder in Schuetzen matches. The shoot plain based bullets at 1300 - 1400 fps +/- at much lower pressures than you will in your 44 magnum. The H110 will burn quite efficiently in your 44 Magnum under either bullet you mention with top end loads without a crimp.

[canuck4570]

Larry
this is good news for me
in my Ruger no 1 in 4570 never used a crimp
just a taper crimp to remove the bell
and this way will be able to seat the bullet in order to just touch the lands getting more space in the case and keep pressure down because I don't like to load hot.....

great. I see everything is falling in the correct place......

[Larry Gibson]

:2_high5::2_high5::guntootsmiley::guntootsmiley::h appy dance:

[longbow]

Hahaha! I have never crimped .45-70 or .44 mag. In my 1894 I got quite good results using H110 and heavy boolits though I tend to use IMR4227 for the most part these days because it works well too and I use it in my .308 and .303's.

Back to the "Hahaha"... a friend was looking to by a .44 mag revolver and wanted to try my handloads so off the range we went and first shot the cylinder jams... ***? Silly me! No crimp! The other boolits were jumping forward on recoil! Oooops! so we took to loading single rounds in the revolver. Worked just fine without crimp there too as long as we didn't load up the cylinder. I do not recall if those loads were H110 or IMR4227.

Longbow

[canuck4570]

I am happy to hear this
single shot Ruger no 1
so no crimp
thank you for confirmation

[Crusty Deary Ol'Coot]

Interesting posts!

I do use a light crimp on my RUGER #1 - 45/70 loads for one reason. It seemed to give me a bit better consistency then with the un-crimped loads.

I also crimp my .44 mag rifle loads simply because I maintain the same die settings for the rifle - RUGER 77/44 - as with my handgun.

However, considering my 5.5" RUGER RedHawk is up for sale, with this Ol'Coot finding that shooting the .44 hand gun is not nearly as much fun to shoot years back, maybe I'll need to try some un-crimped loads in the rifle.

Accuracy in the 45/70 --------- Well, a bit of experimentation and testing might show some preferences and considering crimping is simply a matter of proper adjustment of the seating/crimping die there is little to no reason not to do so IF it should happen to provide better results.

Crusty Deary Ol'Coot

[longbow]

Hmmmmm..... not sure if you are interested but... I was (and still am to an extent) toying with the idea of a .44 "Whisper" using a heavy boolit of about 400 grs. I found an article on Gunwriters on the web that showed a .45 cal. subsonic boolit design by Dr. Dick Gunn. At .45 cal. it weighed 480 grs. and states "for .45 Colt" which seems odd and the drawing shows 0.458" and it seems to me the article talked about .45-70. Anyway, I scaled it down to .44 (0.434") and it weighs in at 400+ grs.

I think 1:20" is enough to stabilize it though 1:18" is probably better. Dick Gunn recommends 1:16" twist for subsonic. Of course it could be lightened/shortened somewhat too. It might be too long for a .44 mag. to get enough boolit in the brass so it would chamber so might require a longer than normal throat or a change to a nose/bore rider design which would work fine for single shot.

Anyway, here's is a pic just in case:

247724

I was originally thinking of it for 444 Marlin but lately I've been toying with getting a .44 mag. CVA Hunter which also has 1:20" twist. Not nearly the gun your Ruger #1 is but more in line with my budget.

Anyway, just a thought.

Longbow

[longbow]

I can find and post the .434" version if you are interested.

[canuck4570]

always love to read interesting post
but for moose up to maybe 150 yard subsonic would be a real handy cap
for deer over in Quebec this would be OK

[white eagle]

Interesting posts!

I do use a light crimp on my RUGER #1 - 45/70 loads for one reason. It seemed to give me a bit better consistency then with the un-crimped loads.

I also crimp my .44 mag rifle loads simply because I maintain the same die settings for the rifle - RUGER 77/44 - as with my handgun.

However, considering my 5.5" RUGER RedHawk is up for sale, with this Ol'Coot finding that shooting the .44 hand gun is not nearly as much fun to shoot years back, maybe I'll need to try some un-crimped loads in the rifle.

Accuracy in the 45/70 --------- Well, a bit of experimentation and testing might show some preferences and considering crimping is simply a matter of proper adjustment of the seating/crimping die there is little to no reason not to do so IF it should happen to provide better results.

Crusty Deary Ol'Coot

I agree
some guns and cartridges do better with a crimp
I even apply a crimp on some bottle neck rounds