PDA

View Full Version : Depth of seating.



lreed
11-08-2008, 10:17 PM
Hello. I've been tinkering with paper patching a couple of 8mm mausers,trying to get all my stuff togeather. The info gleaned from you have been really helpful. The .314 push die,16 lb paper size to.325 makes for nice smooth patching. Here comes the questions,the only bullet that seems to chamber well is the 170gr Lee the base is at the bottom of the neck and the nose is pressing the rifleing. I have a 323471 and a 323481 that I would like to patch,the only way these bullets will chamber is to cut the patch back to the first groove,not happy with this,as lead is exposed,and I often get zingers that don't even print on target.
How are patched bullets such as 323471 loaded in 8mm Mauser without going down in the powder room or cutting back the patch? Anything on patching 311284 for a .30 cal? As always thanks for your shared knowledge!
lreed

docone31
11-08-2008, 10:34 PM
I patch my castings pretty tall.
In my .30s, for example, my nose is .301, the bore is .30. The paper will be shredded by the rifleing.
I go above the top groove. I always have. My .303, I do the same thing. The nose is .305, the bore is .3035. Again, my paper is shredded.
I seat my castings so the rifleing just engages the exposed lead, then compensate to allow feeding from the magazine.
I also prime size the casting to .308, then wrap. My .303, I size to .314. My 30s, I so far, size .308, then wrap with tracing paper, then size, so far, .309. With the .30s, especially in my O3-A2, so far, so good. It took me a while to find the .314 for my Smelly. I tried most of the reccomended sizes, and it was like shooting without using the sights! Now, my Smelly prints better with paper than jacketed sized .312.
I do not know if that helps with the 8mm, but, I think the ratio might be a guide.
I do like to feed paper through the magazine. I usually single shot, but once in a while I like to load up.
It takes some time to wrap and size, so I do not rapid fire without targeting. I have not had keyholes however.

lreed
11-12-2008, 04:30 PM
Come on guys, work with me on this thing.:) I really need to know how you patch and seat the longer bullets in the 8mm mauser. I patch Lee's 170 gr 8mm over the ogive and it chambers,bullet base at the bottom of the neck, no torn patch, works very well, not so with the 323481 or 323471. If these bullets are loaded out,instead of down past the neck, then for sure they can't wrapped over the ogive, if you do successfuly load and shoot the longer patched bullets, please share your methods.
Thanks lreed

eka
11-12-2008, 09:25 PM
One thing is for sure, the paper has to be over the ogive and the boolit seated out into the lands. Now, have you tried the load with the boolit down below the neck? It may shoot just fine like that. Some loads I have are well below the neck and they do great.

Keith

RMulhern
12-15-2008, 09:57 PM
I seat these WAY OUT!

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b67/Sharps110/BPCR%20SHOOTING%20RELOADING/710grcuppedbasePPbullets50x90SS.jpg

rhead
12-15-2008, 11:34 PM
My Turk likes the 235 grain 8mm max from Lee through Mid South. I wrap it with two turns of Meade tracing paper far enough up the oglive that the leading dge of the papered bullet will be less than bore size then size it it .326 and seat it to feed from the mag. The base of the bullet is probably around 3/8 inch below the neck. It shoots fine for hunting 1.75 in at 100 yards ( about the size aiming point my old eyes can see at that distance. Not match grade but not too bad for an eighty dollar rifle. I have heard about not letting the base go below the neck but I forgot to tell my rifle. Why were you wanting to keep the paper back to the first groove?

docone31
12-15-2008, 11:43 PM
Before my Lee Collet dies were modified to take my .314 paper patches, my depth of seating was all over the wall! Deep, shallow, inbetween.
With the .314 sizing, they also gave me impressive groups for that old rifle. Much better than factory loads in the same rifle.
I had some that were way below the shoulder, some right where I wanted them. I did not notice any difference.
By the way, those are some fine looking patches! I like.
Clean, consistant, look well done.
I love the looks.

leftiye
12-16-2008, 07:23 PM
Sounds to me like there isn't a way to do what you want - the particular boolits that you mention won't chamber when seated out the way you want to do. So, you can use a different boolit, rechamber your gun with a longer freebore, or seat them with the bases below the neck. Sorry to not be more help, but I don't see much alternative.

Fwiw, there may be no problem with seating them below the shoulder of the cases, There probley isn't enough lube (even if you lube the patches and size them) to pollute your powder. It remains to be seen by shooting how concentricity and boolit start are affected by this seating though.

bcp477
12-16-2008, 07:27 PM
All I shoot (and patch for) is the 8mm Mauser. I like others, patch my bullets up to the lower portion of the ogive. I seat to only one bullet diameter, though with the (relatively short) 170 grain bullets I use, they still do not touch the lands. I have tried the longer, heavier bullets, but was never able to solve the chambering issue....as well as the fact that those bullets did not shoot well in my rifle anyway. So, I dropped them and went back to the 170's. Sorry, then, I cannot offer any help on this issue, other than to say that it is POSSIBLE, based on my (very) limited experience, that you will never get those bullets to work well. I hope that I am wrong about that.

montana_charlie
12-16-2008, 11:00 PM
How are patched bullets such as 323471 loaded in 8mm Mauser without going down in the powder room or cutting back the patch? Anything on patching 311284 for a .30 cal?
It appears to me that you need to have a mould made that meets your requirements. If you decide to do that, you may as well make it a bullet with smooth sides...designed from the start to be paper patched.

If you insist on using an established design that is intended for another purpose, you will always have to make compromises that may prevent you from achieving the results you seek.
CM

RMulhern
12-17-2008, 03:29 AM
MC

Another way of saying it is...."If you're gonna shoot SP.....just stay with regular HP bullets and FORGET PAPER PATCHING!!":kidding:
:D

45 2.1
12-17-2008, 08:13 AM
It appears to me that you need to have a mould made that meets your requirements. If you decide to do that, you may as well make it a bullet with smooth sides...designed from the start to be paper patched.

If you insist on using an established design that is intended for another purpose, you will always have to make compromises that may prevent you from achieving the results you seek.
CM


The mechanics of shooting patched with smokeless were laid out in contemporary writings by Col. harrison, Ross Seyfried and Lyman some time ago (smooth-sided boolits have problems unless they are deformed some prior to patching). Before suggesting what the blackpowder crowd does, perhaps some reading would be in order so the advise given is in line with what works. There is absolutely nothing wrong with sizing down grease groove boolits to patch back up to proper size.

pdawg_shooter
12-17-2008, 09:16 AM
I have had 3 smooth side bullet moulds and none worked as good as a grooved bullet sized to the correct diameter. As for seating below the neck, why not? I do on all most all my 300RUM loads and it causes no problems. The loss of powder space is way overrated. If you loose 10% it will affect velocity only 2.5%. Seat where you need to and go shoot!

docone31
12-17-2008, 10:23 AM
I second Pdawg.
I paper patch for my .30s and my .303 British. None of the molds are smoothsided.
I wasted 30 shots with both calibers untill I got dialed in. The .303 took the most experimenting.
When my patches dry, they shrink and the lube lands are visible as bumps.
I seat them to OAL specs. Some are in the case, below the shoulder. Great results.
I have seated some way out.
In all honesty, with my two calibers, I do not notice any difference with accuracy out of either depth of seating types.
It could be I am using smokeless powder rather than black powder.
If I were to wrap smoothsided castings, I would do as Ross Seyfried reccomended, roll them on a file to rough them up for the paper.
A fellow forum member sent me some beautiful, smooth sided castings. I can get them to shoot, they are the same grain weight as my lube castings, but, they do not shoot as well as my improvised paper patch castings.
I believe, it is my bore diameter that is important. That remains a constant. The sizing is critical for me, but, I can change that with dies.
To sum up, I just load them like jacketeds, and they hit what I aim at.

montana_charlie
12-17-2008, 02:31 PM
If you decide to do that, you may as well make it a bullet with smooth sides...designed from the start to be paper patched.
MC

Another way of saying it is...."If you're gonna shoot SP.....just stay with regular HP bullets and FORGET PAPER PATCHING!!"
I did not intend to convey that opinion.

Grease grooves detract from a bullet's aerodynamic performance, and paper patching precludes the need for grease. So, it makes sense to me (regardless of the propellant chosen) to use a bullet with smooth sides.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with sizing down grease groove boolits to patch back up to proper size.
I considered that possibility before posting my first reply. I discarded the idea because it serves no purpose.
The author of the thread has a patched-to diameter that he likes, but the bullet's nose is too large to take the paper as far forward as he feels he should. Running the bullet through a sizing die would not fix this problem...unless he sized the nose only.

If existing grease grooved designs are too fat in the nose to seat the bullet into the throat as deeply as desired, a mould cut to 'good' dimensions would cure that problem.

THAT is what I tried to suggest...

Once a person agrees with that conclusion, he can easily choose to eliminate the drag-inducing grease grooves. If he is unable to keep a patch on a smooth-sided bullet, perhaps it's time for him to seek advice from 'the blackpowder crowd'.

A fellow forum member sent me some beautiful, smooth sided castings. I can get them to shoot, they are the same grain weight as my lube castings, but, they do not shoot as well as my improvised paper patch castings.
A 'good shootin' bullet' is one that fits well, and is properly stabilized by the rifling.
If your smooth-sided bullets are the 'same weight' as your grooved ones, they can't be the 'same shape'.
If they were smooth-sided mirrors of your grease grooved, they would be heavier because the 'grooves' are full of lead.

They are slimmer or shorter...or have a different nose profile. Something allows them to come out as light as your greasers.

Since they do not constitute 'the same bullet', it's reasonable to find they don't have the 'same performance'.

Everything in this reply is simple logic, boys. It requires a little knowledge, but not much understanding. If you need to go deeper, there are those who possess that information...if you can get them to share...

CM

RMulhern
12-17-2008, 03:15 PM
MC

Nope....that was my impression!

Now....answer me this! Here's a scenario to think about! I've shot smooth-sided bullets most of my life....competition and hunting and of course shooting smokeless powder and have always gotten great performance. Therefore I'm sitting here thinking.....why would I consider shooting PP bullets through a modern rifle using smokeless powder other than possibly to give me something to do....to occupy my time! Now...I've shot thousands upon thousands of CAST BULLETS with a gas check many years ago.....through 03A3 Springfields because it was basically for plinking and as a kid....I didn't have the $$$$$ to buy so-called 'smooth-sided' bullets available today. It wasn't because I didn't know about PP bullets; rather it was because I never considered it because in my opinion it's pure folly! Every maker of bullets in this country makes 'smooth-sided' bullets from Sierra on down so I just don't see the practical use of using PP in modern rifles with smokeless powder....other than the fact that some might consider it a challenge!

But hey.....whatever blows folks skirts up is fine with me! Have at it!!:drinks::castmine:

docone31
12-17-2008, 03:25 PM
I do it for independance.
I read about paper patching, and kinda forgot about it. Later, I wondered if I could always get store boughten jacketeds.
Maybe I can, who knows.
I like casting, sizing, paper patching, and actually hitting something. My Palma in 7.62 absolutely loves my loads. If I ever compete, if I can, it will be with paper. I get better results with them.
I also have lots of zinc contaminated lead. Paper saves the day with them. Smokey cases from the lighter weight, but I can clover leaf with them.
Playing with them like I do also keeps me from being under the wife's feet. I am casting silver today, after sprueing, investing, I have two hours at 360* to dewax, steam out the mold, and prepare for 1350* for 2hrs to bring down to casting temp. That is a lot of sitting around and being available to be spoken to.
Paper patching is a good way to have silence. Shoots well also.

lreed
12-17-2008, 03:39 PM
Hello: Wow, and I had almost forgotten this thread. Some of my questions were addressed on the thread S. W. Kansas started by Pdawg shooter. Thanks to him and Docone I have started making some changes, cutting new sizing dies, changing to harder alloy and a slower powder.
The seating of a pp bullet below the neck is a surprise, but I will sure give it a try. There are some who say that a bullet must be patched past the ogive to give success,however this might not be an absolute,because so far I have patched both 311284 and 323471 to the forward g-grove with success, as far as shooting clean,no leading and round groups. No brass ring yet,I want what Pdawg shooter and Docone get,j-bullet velocity with accuracy, tall order I know.
I know success might come easier with molds specially made for this kind of endeavor, but I must work with what I have,a slew of g-v molds that were acquired back when no body wanted them,an old Atlas lathe and limited financial resources. Everything I do seems to be a "work-in-progress". If I ever hit pay-dirt I will surely report.
lreed

45 2.1
12-17-2008, 03:59 PM
MC-
Its really not worth argueing about, but you really need to try out your suggestions for yourself to see if they're up to snuff. A lot of other people have tried what you suggested and have written the results up. They don't agree with you.

bcp477
12-17-2008, 07:31 PM
Ah, now we have an issue into which I can "sink my teeth". Why paper-patch with smokeless powder in this day and age, you ask ? VERY simple. As I am not interested in BP rifles, issues regarding them are moot to me. So, smokeless (so-called "modern" rifles it is, just because I happen to like them). As for paper-patching.....because I can then avoid being RAPED by all of the bullet manufacturers. I tried cast bullets (in my SP-powered, 8mm Mauser) as an alternative to jacketed bullets....and their now outrageous prices. I then tried paper-patching, again, with SP, as an alternative to paying upwards of $30/1000 for simple gas-checks (perhaps a small expense, really, but one that stuck in my craw). As I've found success with PPing, I've not looked back - and don't intend to. I doubt that, now that the bullet manufacturers have gotten prices to the level they are now, that they will ever lower them again.
Besides, PPing simply adds to my knowledge base of handloading for my rifle.....it is interesting to me....and it is a somewhat unique skill for SP shooters (since few do it).

I should mention that I do NOT cast my own bullets - and have no intention to do so, for my own personal reasons (partial physical disability, to be exact). So, sources of good, suitable bullets for my rifle are important to me, rather than just sources of metals suitable for bullet casting, as is the case for most people here.

As to the debate regarding smooth-sided bullets vs. grooved ones, I couldn't care less. I have found a good source of bullets which work for ME (which happen to be grooved) ....and that's good enough for now. In future, should I ever have occasion to take up casting or swaging my own bullets, whether by choice or necessity, that would be a different matter.

In closing, I should like to say that I don't think it very kind of anyone to take a dismissive attitude about whatever part of this that doesn't appeal to them - if one is a BP shooter (whether PP or non-PP)....that is certainly fine.....nothing whatever wrong with that. If, on the other hand, one is an SP shooter (again, by whatever means)....that is equally fine. We can all co-exist without trying to turn things into some kind of childish rivalry. I, for one, have no less respect for the BP shooter than I do the SP shooter.....and I can't understand why anyone would make such a distinction. In my opinion, if anyone here can't seem to deal with this "diversity" among us, then he or she should take the proverbial "long walk off a short pier".

docone31
12-17-2008, 07:42 PM
I make a point at the range to be near smokepoles!! I love the smell.
Once in a while one of the folks asks me how to wrap. I have them write down this site.
Even repro Sharps look like just what I need. I had several originals years ago. I miss them.
Divorce did it. She got them.
Maybe one day I will get a Rolly Block. I am a lefty.
Those BP shooters have my eyes, and respect. I kinda leave them be, but I watch everything.
They did pave the path.

RMulhern
12-17-2008, 08:31 PM
bcp477

Like I stated...."Whatever blows ya skirt up!":drinks:

You'll EVENTUALLY find out that 'smooth-sided' PP bullets will offer you better performance! No nasty grooves to induce drag!:castmine:

docone31
12-17-2008, 08:53 PM
I am inclined to agree.
I use standard castings to size down, as I am still finding my size.
I just loaded up 50 more for R/D, with the cases at the new neck size. I had been trying to make .312 sizing dies work for .314.
Once I get my size dialed in, I am going to experiment with straight sided castings.
With my prime casting sized down to .308, then wrapping to .317-318, and sizing down to .314, I do not have that much paper in the diameter. It is not that I somehow lose the paper, sizing does not do that, it is just, in my opinion, thin. I do not know.
We will see how this batch does, then I am going to look into straight sides.
I can see how sizing straight sides to exact size, then wrapping, can make a definate difference.

montana_charlie
12-17-2008, 08:59 PM
MC-
Its really not worth argueing about, but you really need to try out your suggestions for yourself to see if they're up to snuff.
The suggestion was to have a mould made that casts a bullet which he feels fit's his rifle the way he thinks it should.
As a matter of fact, I am working with a mould maker to achieve that very thing.

A lot of other people have tried what you suggested and have written the results up. They don't agree with you.
Am surprised to hear that having a mould cut for a particular purpose has turned out to be a bad idea for so many...!
CM

bcp477
12-17-2008, 09:09 PM
I do not debate and never did, that smooth-sided PP bullets should perform better (ballistically) than grooved ones. That follows logically from the most basic understanding of aerodynamics. "Duh", in other words.

The only thing to which I have taken issue is the dismissive attitude of some that, if I may paraphrase : 'why would anyone bother to shoot PP bullets with SP... or in an SP rifle'..... as if is simply a big waste of time to PP for anything but a BP rifle. That attitude is simply put, a "load". It is inherently elitist, or snobbish. I tried to explain my reasons - and reasoning. But hey, if anyone doesn't understand that, or can't relate...... or isn't tolerant enough to accept and value the fact that we are not all identical.... well, "whatever blows their skirts up". However, THAT kind of individual I have NO respect for - and NO need to associate with.

RMulhern
12-17-2008, 11:16 PM
bcp477

Good idea! I don't associate with him either!:???:

45 2.1
12-18-2008, 07:58 AM
The suggestion was to have a mould made that casts a bullet which he feels fit's his rifle the way he thinks it should.
As a matter of fact, I am working with a mould maker to achieve that very thing.

Am surprised to hear that having a mould cut for a particular purpose has turned out to be a bad idea for so many...!
CM

I'll try to make it crystal clear this time, smooth sided boolits don't shoot nearly as well as those with grooves with smokeless........

docone31
12-18-2008, 09:55 AM
I have to agree.
I got some smoothsided castings from a person here. I shot them side by side with my "converted" castings, with lube grooves.
There is a difference in lead though. My lube groove castings are water dropped wheel weight, the smooth sided castings, plumb lead. Both were the same size on the bore.
In .30cal, +.001.
With 50rds each, I got better groups, with the same rifle, with the lube groove castings.
Same day, same set, same bench, same load, same headstamp.
The plumb lead was a little larger in grouping then the water dropped wheel weight!
The paper thickness on the bearing surface was thicker on the plumb weight castings.
The wheel weight castings were sized to .308, the plumb castings were .301.
Possibly, the sizing of the paper itself made the jacket harder and more stable.
In all cases, no leading.
I can tell you. It has been exciting for me!
Never in my wildest dreams, would something so simple return such results!
Instead of opening a box of commercials, I sit, cut my patches, roll em, let em dry. Next day, snip the tails, size em down. Next day, load em up!
Hostage to one less item.

montana_charlie
12-18-2008, 02:45 PM
I'll try to make it crystal clear this time, smooth sided boolits don't shoot nearly as well as those with grooves with smokeless........
Well...that is certainly clear!
It is a degree of clarity I am unaccustomed to seeing from you. I would very much like to see you continue to be so forthcoming.

I will bow to your experience in the realm of paper patches over smokeless.

I would be interested in learning 'why' that is true, but it would just be a passing interest unless I become disenchanted with using black powder.

I feel certain there must be a 'why', but I can only presume it must have something to do with the way lead bullets react to the differences in propulsion caused by the two powder choices...assuming equality in bullet shape, weight, and hardness.

Do you have any 'why light' to shed...or is it just one of those things that can be be proven, but not explained?
CM

docone31
12-18-2008, 03:18 PM
One day, I will experiment with my Smelly. The .303 British was originally designed for black powder. That is one of the reasons I like it. Small bore black powder.
Of course, if I had another one, we WOULD be talking 45/70 here.
At any rate, one day, I am definately going to shoot smokeless and black powder in the same rifle, with the same casting.
Another factor is bore diameter.
That might have a lot to do with differing results.
I have seen wave photography of both smokeless, and black powder bullets in flight. There is a difference in the wave patterns. Speed is a factor, bullet design a little bit.
Smokeless loads seem to produce a shock wave in front of the bullet, whether spitzer, or round nose. Black powder show much different patterns in wave, and wake. The base wake also shows different patterns. Both with boat tail, and flat base.
The same with muzzle exit.
I tried some real good castings with flat sides out of my .30s. They were a little loose compared to my converted lube castings. Same rifle, same load.
I have wondered, with my loads and smokeless, if the paper does not act more like a gas check rather than a jacket. The bore diameter castings plus paper, there is more paper than with the sized down lube castings, even though the same paper is used. I did not need to size plain wrapped vs sizing down lube wrapped.
I don't know. I do hope to someday though. Might make a great trivia question.

45 2.1
12-18-2008, 03:20 PM
Well...that is certainly clear!
It is a degree of clarity I am unaccustomed to seeing from you. I would very much like to see you continue to be so forthcoming.

I will bow to your experience in the realm of paper patches over smokeless.

I would be interested in learning 'why' that is true, but it would just be a passing interest unless I become disenchanted with using black powder.

I feel certain there must be a 'why', but I can only presume it must have something to do with the way lead bullets react to the differences in propulsion caused by the two powder choices...assuming equality in bullet shape, weight, and hardness.

Do you have any 'why light' to shed...or is it just one of those things that can be be proven, but not explained?
CM

Ross Seyfried and Lyman both commented on smooth boolits not being rough enough for the paper to adhere or grab. I've confirmed the premiss that it is true. Part of the reason is smokeless won't bump lead as hard as blackpowder (which is dependent on the alloy used). Many things in this hobby are unproven by many people. Most just read about things and pass them on, but a few verify results. Nothing replaces trying it yourself on most things.

montana_charlie
12-18-2008, 04:01 PM
I feel certain there must be a 'why', but I can only presume it must have something to do with the way lead bullets react to the differences in propulsion caused by the two powder choices...Part of the reason is smokeless won't bump lead as hard as blackpowder.
So, my presumption was (at least partially) correct.

If that characteristic will always prevail, someone using smokeless will never be able to enjoy all of the benefits attributed to paper patching...as in the aerodynamic improvement resulting from the smooth side.

I suppose that may explain why the NEI catalog (with 14 pages of cast bullet designs) shows no "PP" designated moulds for any of the designs that are normally used in 'modern' calibers.
A person afflcted with an excess of 'simple logic' could take that as an indication that many (most?) people involved with cast bullets don't consider paper patching and smokeless loads (at least in small calibers) to be a useful expenditure of effort.

That would be one explanation for why 'thirty caliber paper patchers' are limited to those experimentors who wish to enjoy some of the advantages...even if they must forego having all of them.

It seems to be generally believed that smokeless paper patched loads in the large, straight-walled calibers are quite successful when patched to groove diameter.
Does the need for 'texture' extend into the large bullets as well...when smokeless is the propellant?

Check M

45 2.1
12-19-2008, 07:52 AM
So, my presumption was (at least partially) correct.

If that characteristic will always prevail, someone using smokeless will never be able to enjoy all of the benefits attributed to paper patching...as in the aerodynamic improvement resulting from the smooth side. You presume a lot there. The accuracy difference between smokeless PP and BP PP is astounding. What BP guys consider good or excellent accuracy with PP is poorer in comparison to smokeless results (in the same caliber). I've seen no one shooting BP PP that could match a smokeless PP group in the smaller 45 caliber cartridges. That would be at 380 yards and less which is far past any use for hunting that I would have. A bit of overlapping uses, and possibly the larger BP 45 calibers would change the results past that distance, but that is part of their game also.

I suppose that may explain why the NEI catalog (with 14 pages of cast bullet designs) shows no "PP" designated moulds for any of the designs that are normally used in 'modern' calibers. I remember some for the 30 calibers, if they're still listed.
A person afflcted with an excess of 'simple logic' could take that as an indication that many (most?) people involved with cast bullets don't consider paper patching and smokeless loads (at least in small calibers) to be a useful expenditure of effort. A lot of articles were written about it in the past. Most people who use PP with smokeless hunt with it, not target shoot plus its easier to just size down a normal GG boolit and patch it back up. No need for special molds plus you usually get excellent results doing so.

That would be one explanation for why 'thirty caliber paper patchers' are limited to those experimentors who wish to enjoy some of the advantages...even if they must forego having all of them. Assumptions get most people in trouble. Sounds like the arguement between boat tail and flat base bullets to me.

It seems to be generally believed that smokeless paper patched loads in the large, straight-walled calibers are quite successful when patched to groove diameter. Throat diameter is better.
Does the need for 'texture' extend into the large bullets as well...when smokeless is the propellant? That has several variables, among which is alloy, pressure, rifling depth, boolit diameter and weight, patched diameter. Your not going to make a blanket staement about this and have it stick due to differences between rifles and the ways different people do this.

CM[/quote]

montana_charlie
12-19-2008, 02:17 PM
Does the need for 'texture' extend into the large bullets as well...when smokeless is the propellant?That has several variables, among which is alloy, pressure, rifling depth, boolit diameter and weight, patched diameter. Your not going to make a blanket staement about this and have it stick due to differences between rifles and the ways different people do this.
That makes it seem that your answer is "Maybe, maybe not".

It almost seems to negate the earlier 'blanket statement'...

I'll try to make it crystal clear this time, smooth sided boolits don't shoot nearly as well as those with grooves with smokeless........

But thanks for your participation in the discussion. I (and certainly others) have benefitted from your experience.

Check Mate

bobk
12-27-2008, 11:48 AM
I have read and reread this thread several times, trying to learn about PP. My experiments with this years ago were mediocre, but with all that I now think I know, I'm ready to include this in my winter experiments. First off, I don't know how far I'm going to go with this, because all I want are good hunting boolits. If I can get 1 - 1 1/2 inch groups with a boolit that expands sufficiently to give quick kills, I am lazy enough to quit right there.

That said, one of the things that bothers me a bit is the assumption that grooved boolits are ballistically inferior to smooth siders. Yeah, it's an intuitive statement, looking at the boolits, but just HOW inferior are they? If you had two loads with one of each type, of similar weight and nose shape, that shot to the same POI at 100, how much elevation difference would there be at 200? In this area, someone experience with the Barnes banded bullets, versus their smooth siders, should be able to shed some light on this question. If we're talking 1" elevation change at 200, this is minor.

One idea that I had was changing the shape of the lube grooves. Instead of having this 90 degree angle hanging out there in the wind, why not have all the lube grooves shaped like crimp grooves? The design be a little better at resisting length compression, but the main advantage might be that the air flowing back along the side of the boolit would encounter a 30 degree(?) angle, rather than a 90.

For this idea to make any sense, this change should be based upon a spitzer-type boolit, otherwise the advantage, if any, might get lost in the clutter of other aerodynamic compromises. Also, it should not be a Loverin design. With so many grooves close together, I question whether the airflow would be able to get back into the side of the boolit before the next groove shows up. In fact, a thought just occurred: does the front band plus the crimp groove kick the air out to the side enough to make this whole idea a moot point? The Army might have some data on banded artillery rounds, too. Before I spring for a custom mold, I'd like to avoid reinventing the wheel.

Anybody have any empirical data on this?

Bob K

leftiye
12-27-2008, 12:32 PM
Various manufacturers _ Lee, Ranch dog, (I'm tempted to say Mountain molds) use micro grooves with well recieved results. I'm of the opinion that what you're advocating could be considered micro grooves, and if there were enough of them to contain adequate amount of lube, that they should work fine. I do agree that this design would be more streamlined, and have done tests that seem to prove it.

bobk
12-27-2008, 12:44 PM
leftiye,
I figured it wasn't an original idea, just something that occurred to me. In the "seems to prove" thing, what did you observe?

Bob K

bcp477
12-27-2008, 09:44 PM
Any inferiority of grooved vs. smooth-sided bullets logically will only appear at longer ranges. Certainly, a smooth-sided bullet will be superior aerodynamically, so should fly farther and have a flatter trajectory, especially at longer distances. At normal hunting distances however, (unless you normally take shots on game beyond 300 yards), there should be NO discernable difference. Also, just because smooth-sided bullets are superior aerodynamically, does NOT mean that they will be more accurate in a given rifle. That can only be determined by direct testing.

As it is, I consider that the argument about smooth vs. grooved bullets to be moot. It is to me, at any rate. I get great results with the grooved PP bullets I use....and I don't shoot at longer distances.....so I really don't care, one way or the other.

mommicked
01-11-2009, 11:54 AM
Here's a scenario to think about! I've shot smooth-sided bullets most of my life....competition and hunting and of course shooting smokeless powder and have always gotten great performance. Therefore I'm sitting here thinking.....why would I consider shooting PP bullets through a modern rifle using smokeless powder other than possibly to give me something to do....to occupy my time! Now...I've shot thousands upon thousands of CAST BULLETS with a gas check many years ago.....through 03A3 Springfields because it was basically for plinking and as a kid....I didn't have the $$$$$ to buy so-called 'smooth-sided' bullets available today. It wasn't because I didn't know about PP bullets; rather it was because I never considered it because in my opinion it's pure folly! Every maker of bullets in this country makes 'smooth-sided' bullets from Sierra on down so I just don't see the practical use of using PP in modern rifles with smokeless powder....other than the fact that some might consider it a challenge!

But hey.....whatever blows folks skirts up is fine with me! Have at it!!:drinks::castmine:

Your third sentence seems to apply more to BP shooters than to SP shooters. Why would any one load up an outdated rifle, that has been obsolete for a century for any reason other than to occupy their time? Whatever blows up yer skirt, man. Besides, if you want to shoot holy black, you should really get into ML.

I want to learn more about making my own practical home built hunting bullets without breaking the bank. It seems smokeless and patched fits the bill. We may not be able to buy bullets in a few years the way things are going. Ammo prices are going up faster than any other I can remember in my life. So maybe the folks wanting to do SP/PP are doing so for a reason, like to hunt. Not to sit on a log and beat their chest and say: "I am the exalted buffalo hunter reincarnate". :roll:

I came here to learn more about PPing.

montana_charlie
01-11-2009, 01:31 PM
I came here to learn more about PPing.
I learned some things...did you?
CM

windrider919
03-01-2009, 05:16 AM
Just for the record; I shoot PP because i cannot afford jacketed bullets and I still want to target practice and to hunt for sport / pleasure and for meat because I like the taste. I shoot 458 Win Mag and after much experimentation and advice from people like 45 2.1 and leftye and many others i found what works with smokeless.
Why smokeless: because i can get more variable performance from the different powders, with BP you only get one choice. AND it is a pain to clean, even the substitutes.


************************************************** ***************
Quote:
I'll try to make it crystal clear this time, smooth sided boolits don't shoot nearly as well as those with grooves with smokeless........
__________________
45 2.1
************************************************** ***************

For whatever reason, the best groups I got with smooth sided bullets were in the 4-5 " @ 100yd. If sort of knurled by rolling with a course file the groups tightened. Smokeless bullets Paper Patches need something to grip was what I was advised and found to be true.
I also found that for smokeless if I wrapped to just under throat size {that being .463 for my rifle, even thought it has a grove dia of .458 i got much tighter groups. The best accuracy I have gotten is with bullets slightly OVER bore which is contrary to BP standards. ODs of .452 or .453 then patched to .461 or .462 chamber and shoot with better than jacketed accuracy. The best jacketed groups (and I tried every jacketed bullet on the market including the customs) are twice the size of my better PP groups. At a fraction of the cost. Yes, I had to get a custum mould to fit my rifles chamber but the results have been worth it.

here is a picture of what I am shooting: The Windrider PP 460gr microgroved side bullet. I / we designed it a while back on this forum. See thread in 'bullet / mould design' -"like my cherry? 45 cal PP bullet"
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=33994
11847

Using 4198 powder, std primer, PE milkjug under bullet wad at 1800FPS I have groups as small as 3/4" center to center @ 100 yds from the bench rifle rest.

montana_charlie
03-01-2009, 02:24 PM
Quote:
I'll try to make it crystal clear this time, smooth sided boolits don't shoot nearly as well as those with grooves with smokeless........
__________________
45 2.1

For whatever reason, the best groups I got with smooth sided bullets were in the 4-5 " @ 100yd. If sort of knurled by rolling with a course file the groups tightened. Smokeless bullets Paper Patches need something to grip was what I was advised and found to be true.
I also found that for smokeless if I wrapped to just under throat size {that being .463 for my rifle, even thought it has a grove dia of .458 i got much tighter groups.
If you had read beyond the post you quoted above, you would have come to...



Does the need for 'texture' extend into the large bullets as well...when smokeless is the propellant? That has several variables, among which is alloy, pressure, rifling depth, boolit diameter and weight, patched diameter. Your not going to make a blanket staement about this and have it stick due to differences between rifles and the ways different people do this.That makes it seem that your answer is "Maybe, maybe not".

It almost seems to negate the earlier 'blanket statement'...
Perhaps, that 'blanket statement' you quoted works well for you in your .458 Mag because you happened into the right set of 'variables'.

But...did you ever try smooth bullets again after you learned that patching to .462 was a good idea?
Could it be that lead, displaced by rolling under the file, caused those bullets to grow to a size that got you closer to .462" without you noticing...and that caused your groups to tighten up?

CM

45 2.1
03-01-2009, 04:06 PM
Charlie-
It would help you to actually try this before you analyze everything you read. BP requires some different conditions to shoot half as well as WP does. There is no substitue for experience, get some!

montana_charlie
03-01-2009, 04:34 PM
Charlie-
It would help you to actually try this before you analyze everything you read.
Does it bother you that I may have given windrider another possibility to think on?

BP requires some different conditions to shoot half as well as WP does.
I understand that to be your belief, and I have no desire to contest that.

There is no substitue for experience,
I must disagree. There are substitutes, but their value depends on many factors. When experience is the best source of knowledge, it doesn't have to be one's own experience. If Byrd said it's cold at the North Pole, I think we all could take it as fact...without going there ourselves.
My question to windreider is an attempt to sample his experience...but just to satisfy my curiosity.

get some!
Get some on the use of smokeless and paper patches? I think not.
That, along with bungee jumping, is not one of my goals.

But, if I do gain some interesting information through personal experience, I tend to share it with everyone in as much detail as I can manage.

Why do you not...are your details copyrighted?

CM

45 2.1
03-01-2009, 08:02 PM
But, if I do gain some interesting information through personal experience, I tend to share it with everyone in as much detail as I can manage.
Why do you not...are your details copyrighted? CM

Been there and already done what Windrider tried. Already answered a lot of questions on paper patching since the shooters board. Try the archives, there full of things like this.

windrider919
03-07-2009, 08:12 PM
Apology on late reply, I only have Net access on Saturday usually.

You asked if bullet diameter grew after roughing rolling with a file. No, unlike knurling it did not. The roughing as the teeth dig slightly into the soft lead brings up gouges and bumps of less than .001 I would say. I even tried PP on jacketed .451 pistol bullets and they needed the roughing too to give any accuracy. Another method tried was course sand blasting the sides of the jacketed bullets. That worked too. Gluing the PP on with LLA did not work, giving a large group. I think the PP was not separating cleanly there.

I then took an old .357 BBWC mold and using a modified drill bit made a 547 gr round nosed bullet that had the drill tool marks on the side to hold the patch. The cast dia is .455 and I found is a little large BUT tightly patched to .463 it shoots into 1 1/2" all day long. Too heavy a bullet for me, I wanted a lighter bullet. Thus the evolution of the custom bullet which turned out to weigh 460gr with small grooves [similar to the Lee tumble groves], to hold the patch and reduce bore friction. Even wrapped to .462 and fired in .458 barrel the only marks on the bullet are the rifling. The patch seems to compress into the small grooves on the bullets sides and not swedge down the bullet itself because recovered fired bullets still mike .454 in the barrel groove section. If I had it to do again I would make the tumble grooves style .008 instead of .015, They seem deeper than they need to be.

leftiye
03-08-2009, 06:12 PM
I've been sloshing around in this thread for a couple of hours now (nothing came of it - except that there are varying positions and varying degrees of tolerance). I'd like to suggest that the reason that some prefer gg'd boolits for patching is that the grooves hold the paper from slipping. Apparently Ross Seyfried years ago found an advantage to roughening smooth boolits. A drilled (and therefore rough casting) cavity mold may be the cat's meow for smokeless shooters for this same reason. And, I suspect that smooth boolits may not shoot (as) well with smokeless for this reason. The bump up effect of black powder produces a tighter patch and squeezes it more tightly against the grooves, maybe carrying along better on a smooth boolit.