Proposed bullet design for an 1851 revolver.

[Erebos]

I'm working on a concept for a symmetrical double-ended semi wadcutter design for my 36 caliber 1851 revolver. The idea is to make something that's more effective on the target than a conical or a round ball, but easier to load than both, including for use in paper cartridges. The diameter as modeled is .375", with a weight in pure lead of about 129 grains. Thoughts, feedback, suggestions?

276402276403276404

[TNsailorman]

Isn't that going to require a reshape of the rammer nose? I like the idea though. james

[Erebos]

I "think" the rammer nose on mine is mostly flat. I'll double check and see if I can get a decent photo of that.

ETA: The end of the rammer has a shallow cup shape. It'll probably deform a flat bullet nose slightly, but I don't really see a problem with that.

[bedbugbilly]

Interesting . . and thanks for the post.

I have been shooting '51 Navies for probably close to 58 years now - I have always had good luck with round ball - currently have the eras gone Colt Cartridge conical and it shoots well out of my 36s. Some conicals I have had luck with and some not so good.

I think what you show has some possibilities - the taper on both ends should allow it to seat well in the chamber - lube groove and bore bearing area should give decent lube and flip through the bore. The only real way to know is to cut a mold and give it a try and see how it flies.

Do you have the ability to cut a mold or are you going to have to have it cut? Tom at accurate hold be able to make one if you don't have the tools, etc. to do it.

Keep us posted on how it ends up. If it worked well, I'd certainly give it a try.

[Hellgate]

You might consider two more diameter steps. You've got the .375 driving band on either side of the grease groove. I would consider another band the same width next to it of .370 and a 3rd band at .365 so when the bullet is positioned in the chamber it automatically lands on a band that aligns it vertically for ramming. One of the problems with bullets (as opposed to balls) is getting them rammed in but canted off center. I could see your bullet getting a slight tilt unless the lips of the chamber catches on the edge of the .375 diameter band. Different manufacturers and worn tooling can create some varied cylinder chamber diameters. The stepped diameters would make it more adaptable to a variety of 36 calibers.

The central grease groove is certainly thinking outside the envelope and looks quite modern.

[waksupi]

I would bet it won't shoot worth a darn. Not enough bearing surface.

[Markopolo]

looks like an invitation to tumble ?? but what do I know.

[Erebos]

I don't have the tools or skills to cut a mold, so I'll have to have someone else do it. I'll check out the company you suggested, bedbugbilly.

[Erebos]

"I would bet it won't shoot worth a darn. Not enough bearing surface."

It's got more bearing surface than a round ball, and those shoot just fine. Of the several concerns voiced here, this is the only one so far that doesn't seem to make sense to me.

[Thundermaker]

I'm assuming one of the intended benefits of this design is that it won't matter which end goes in the chamber. It will most likely require some modification to the gun for loading, but just about all conicals do. The angle could help center it. Only one way to know for sure.

[Erebos]

The first design posted here is .47" long from end-to-end, and the opening in the frame is about .56" tall, so no modification to the gun should be required to get it to fit.

[Thundermaker]

The first design posted here is .47" long from end-to-end, and the opening in the frame is about .56" tall, so no modification to the gun should be required to get it to fit.

The height isn't the issue, it's the width. The repros have narrower windows with less bevel than originals. I had to significantly widen and bevel my 1851s for the lee conical. These may not protrude enough to have to worry about it. Like I said, only one way to know for sure.

[Erebos]

I'm trying a few of the other suggestions here on a second model. There's no really good way to have 3 driving bands, 2 grease grooves, a .365" guide step, and keep the weight around 130 grains without just turning it into something very close to a full wadcutter. I also have concerns that it might take a lot of force to ram in 3 driving bands. Adding an extra driving band and using a guide step instead of a taper adds a lot of weight. On the upside, this makes the design even shorter and easier to get into the loading hole in the frame. This second version is only .44" long.

276521276520

[Erebos]

Like I said, only one way to know for sure.

The point of modeling it in the computer first, is so I can measure everything and I don't have to guess. I don't like guessing. Guessing is expensive and wasteful. Using a short, squat bullet design that seats partially into the chamber before entering the loading window ensures there won't be an interference problem.

It'll also have a better effect on the target than the pointy originals. Putting a sharp point on a pistol bullet that's going to be used inside 25 yards always seemed really pointless to me. Pun fully intended.

[Thundermaker]

Well, cast out of pure lead, it probably won't be that bad. Casting it out of anything harder would be out of the question. I would still put a slight bevel around the edges of the wadcutter just to make sure the ram doesn't bite into it and try to pull it back out.

[Erebos]

I'm going to 3D print test items for both of these in the next day or so, then see what I see. Rapid prototyping FTW.

[Erebos]

I'll probably reduce the diameter of the guide step on the wadcutter design a bit to make room for the paper wrap when used in a cartridge.

[AntiqueSledMan]

Hello Erebos,

I'm no expert, but if you shortened the nose it might work.

AntiqueSledMan.

[Thundermaker]

Hello Erebos,

I'm no expert, but if you shortened the nose it might work.

AntiqueSledMan.

Don't know if I'd make the length shorter than the diameter.

[Erebos]

The suggestion to make the nose shorter does not seem to be accompanied by a reason.

[Thundermaker]

The suggestion to make the nose shorter does not seem to be accompanied by a reason.

The reason is so that it doesn't sit higher than a round ball when loading. That way, it won't require modifying the gun. Again, the height of the slot isn't the issue. It's the width and taper of it. Trust me, I just finished modifying my pair of 1851s to take conicals. It's not just a matter of getting them rotated under the ram. You also have to be able to get them started in the chamber.

[GARD72977]

It's got more bearing surface than a round ball, and those shoot just fine. Of the several concerns voiced here, this is the only one so far that doesn't seem to make sense to me.

No offense but if you dont understand why this differs from a round ball to a longer bullet then you are wasting your time.

[Erebos]

No offense but if you dont understand why this differs from a round ball to a longer bullet then you are wasting your time.

Are you going to explain the point you're trying to make, or are you just here to lord over me and act superior without making an actual argument?

I posted this to get meaningful feedback, not bluster. "No offense."

[Hellgate]

I was not suggesting a second grease groove, just two shallow steps on either side of the driving band to help center it in the chamber.

[Caswell Ranch]

I was not suggesting a second grease groove, just two shallow steps on either side of the driving band to help center it in the chamber.

Maybe a .36 cal R.E.A.L. type.

[Erebos]

I was not suggesting a second grease groove, just two shallow steps on either side of the driving band to help center it in the chamber.

You're right, Hellgate. I went back and read through again. I thought somebody somewhere along the way had suggested a second grease groove. Now, I'm not 100% sure why.

Perhaps I'll make a third version with a single large grease groove in the center, and long guide steps with a bevel at each end.

At any rate, versions 1 and 2 are on the printer now, and I'll know in roughly an hour if these designs have any merit at all or if I'm way off track.

[Caswell Ranch]

Ball ends up looking like this when pushed into the cylinder
276558

[Erebos]

Ball ends up looking like this when pushed into the cylinder

Yup. And that's why I was marginally concerned about tripling the amount of full diameter contact area with version 2 (the wadcutter style one).

[GARD72977]

No offense but if you dont understand why this differs from a round ball to a longer bullet then you are wasting your time.

I'm just talking general rules for good cast bullets.

1.Long unsupported nose do not promote accurracy.

2. Flat base bullets tend to be more accurrate than bevel base. Your base will not keep the bullet going straight down the barrel.

The round ball even though it is not truly round after its loaded and shot will not have much effect on accurracy if it does not stay on axis.

Your design seems the opposite of what I would design for accurracy.

[Erebos]

That unsupported section of the nose that you're fretting about is only .16" long. The entire bullet (version 1) length is only 125% of diameter. So it's not like it's extremely long to the point where the proportions are bizarre. .47" long X .375" wide.

[Erebos]

You may be correct about the rear-facing taper being detrimental to accuracy, however. It's a 9.9 degree taper from .375" to .319".

[GARD72977]

Bullets are steered from the base. Nothing to stop this design for cocking sideways as it goes down the barrel

[Erebos]

Yeah I get it. You don't like version 1. Noted. Thank you.

[Erebos]

So, to all the people who told me these won't fit in the loading window, this is why I take measurements and make models first. It's not a guess. They both fit with tons of room to spare.
276563276564

[VariableRecall]

So, to all the people who told me these won't fit in the loading window, this is why I take measurements and make models first. It's not a guess. They both fit with tons of room to spare.
276563276564

Wow! How did you make the mock ups? Lathe? 3D printing?

[Erebos]

3D printer. I had five of each ready in 45 minutes. The printer made them while I was eating dinner.

[VariableRecall]

3D printer. I had five of each ready in 45 minutes. The printer made them while I was eating dinner.

sure beats making a prototype mold that's for sure!

[AntiqueSledMan]

Hello guys,

My thought on making the nose shorter was to create the length closer to the diameter.
Weight could be adjusted by making the grease groove deeper.
Also it would have two .050" bands on a 0.1825" surface.
I must add personally I'd just stick with a round ball.
Apparently Erebos wants a heavier bullet as a .375 ball is only about 80gr,
and he doesn't want to have to load them in certain direction.
No matter the reason, I compliment him on trying something different.
I did build a swaging die to form a .375 round ball into a hollow base conical,
thus creating a conical which weighs the same as a round ball like the obsolete Ball-Ettes.

AntiqueSledMan

[waksupi]

No offense but if you dont understand why this differs from a round ball to a longer bullet then you are wasting your time.

I decided to not waste any more time on him. He has this in his head, and will need to learn on his own.

[Erebos]

Waksupi, you left one comment saying it won't work worth a darn because it has less bearing surface than a ball and then you peaced out, never explained your assertion, and then came back to make a second comment that also explains nothing. You haven't made any attempt to be helpful. I hope you don't waste any more time on me. It would be a blessing.

To those of you who have been genuinely helpful, I thank you.

[longbow]

I have to ask... why not just make a simple conical of length = ball diameter with a belt on it to ensure aligned loading? The belt will shear off as the boolit seats.

276592

A lube groove could be added if you want and if you want more weight length can be as long as the rammer will allow.

If you wanted a flat nose then RNFP but either way the nose would fit the rammer as is.

Just curious.

Longbow

[Erebos]

I want something closer to a modern design, with a broader flat frontal area than a conical so I could use it for dueling trees, plate racks, small game hunting, etc.

I already have conical molds on the way from Eras Gone. I want something different. Decades of advancement in bullet design theory never got applied to the 1851. That changes today.

[Erebos]

Version 3, based partly on feedback from Hellgate.

276638276639276640

[Thundermaker]

Maybe round the outer edges of the bands. That way, you ensure that everything stays centered.


BTW, what make is your '51? It looks like it has a lot more clearance than mine did.

[Good Cheer]

Erebos,
This was my version of the idea that I decided not to pursue with a mold for Pietta .44's.
The rounded ends were how I planned on preserving the accuracy enhancing benefit of a hind end like a round ball while obtaining a higher sectional density as well as having a relatively blunt nose.
The long straight sides were going to be just a wee bit less in diameter than Pietta made their chambers, thus allowing entry into the chambers with alignment maintained.

http://i.imgur.com/Dkihly2.jpg (https://imgur.com/Dkihly2)

One obvious problem with my initial design is that the opening in the blocks would have too much of a sharp edge. That would have been easy to fix. Still, I decided to pass on it and just enjoy tinkering with .45ACP and .45Colt molds.

[Erebos]

Mine is a new Pietta.

I'll ponder the advice in these last two comments. Thank you.

[Caswell Ranch]

If you could do a .36 copy of this maybe with square cut bands you may have a market for it,276660

This one is for the .44, drops into Pietta and Uberti cylinder with center band lining up the projectile and I'm sure on some guns the bottom band would drag, Over all length is .544 and the bands are top=.454, Mid=.449, bottom=.444 .
276661

[Thundermaker]

If you could do a .36 copy of this maybe with square cut bands you may have a market for it,276660

This one is for the .44, drops into Pietta and Uberti cylinder with center band lining up the projectile .

I have a dragoon that might do well with that. What's the weight?

[Caswell Ranch]

I have a dragoon that might do well with that. What's the weight?

185.2 grains

[Erebos]

A R.E.A.L type bullet would likely work well, but I'll have to give up the idea of having a guide step at both ends that makes the bullet super easy to seat.

[Caswell Ranch]

A R.E.A.L type bullet would likely work well, but I'll have to give up the idea of having a guide step at both ends that makes the bullet super easy to seat.

The both ends thing O.K. but the ease of seating, I'm missing something.
I would think a setup like Top=.380, Mid=.375 and bottom at .370 or T=.378,M=.373 B=.370, would work well.
The problem with this kind of project is the gun manufacturer, there is no continuity from one brand to another regarding cylinder charge hole size and for that matter barrel groove depth, in some cases from one gun to another from the same manufacturer .
Most times it's just easier to shoot round ball .

[Soundguy]

It's got more bearing surface than a round ball, and those shoot just fine. Of the several concerns voiced here, this is the only one so far that doesn't seem to make sense to me.

bearing surface should be ok.. but it might tumble or load canted as some say.

I think a DEWC with a taper at each nose might be better...more stable.. and accomplish the same think.. less problems..

[Soundguy]

Erebos,
This was my version of the idea that I decided not to pursue with a mold for Pietta .44's.
The rounded ends were how I planned on preserving the accuracy enhancing benefit of a hind end like a round ball while obtaining a higher sectional density as well as having a relatively blunt nose.
The long straight sides were going to be just a wee bit less in diameter than Pietta made their chambers, thus allowing entry into the chambers with alignment maintained.

http://i.imgur.com/Dkihly2.jpg (https://imgur.com/Dkihly2)

One obvious problem with my initial design is that the opening in the blocks would have too much of a sharp edge. That would have been easy to fix. Still, I decided to pass on it and just enjoy tinkering with .45ACP and .45Colt molds.

add 2 more driving bands to that and I think it would be perfect.. like the DEWC I was talking about.

[Good Cheer]

Not worried about maximizing the powder space in .44's these days so I just use .45 molds and size the back half of the boolits to slip into the chambers. Same for .41 caliber. For .36 caliber I use an adjustable length round ball mold with a hollow base.

[RU shooter]

add 2 more driving bands to that and I think it would be perfect.. like the DEWC I was talking about.
Agree or go with shallow grooves like a Lee TL design

[Soundguy]

Agreed.

[Good Cheer]

A Pietta isn't a cartridge revolver and I wouldn't want more bands or grooves.
With Pietta .44's the supplied chambers have been typically half way in between the barrels' bore and groove diameters. And, likely as not the chambers are going to have some amount of taper to them. But Pietta hasn't been consistent and my expectation is more changes in their manufacturing practices (but not in what I consider to be their unfortunate philosophy of chambers design). So accepting that a Pietta is a Pietta is a Pietta and unknown until thoroughly mic'd out, here's what I found when working towards maximizing the available momentum.

1) Lube grooves are a waste of space. You are giving up volume best used elsewhere.
2) Minimizing the amount of lead you have to shear is always the best policy. You can screw things up by forcing boolits into either Colt or Remington reproductions.
3) Seating depth of boolits can become even more important than usual depending upon how much taper your chambers have. Hence "length to suit" can be very important. If you're unlucky and aren't careful the hind end of the boolits will meet with resistance before the boolits are adequately seated into the chambers.
4) The chambers are undersized compared to the groove diameter so take advantage of the lead displacement caused by the rifling. Make the boolit fill the grooves by not letting it displace into lube grooves on the boolit.
5) Boolit designs that naturally create alignment with the bore and only need be seated into position provide the most consistent results.
6) The front end and the hind end are best rounded. That way you enjoy the benefits of a good steering end behind and a good lube holder crevice around the periphery in front.

As previously stated I ended up working with .45 molds, sizing the back half of the boolits to slip into the chambers and create their own alignment. They have lube grooves and long noses that just waste large amounts of powder space but so what, I'm not trying to flank a bunch of infantry or defend the wagons.

On a side note, the side of the barrel on an 1851 design turned into .44 can make loading anything but round ball a genuine pain.

For .41 caliber I use Ideal molds #41026, #41028, the Lee 195 grain semi-wadcutter and NEI's 185 grain round nose. For .36 caliber I use these rascals from an adjustable length mold.
http://i.imgur.com/5OCuzf3.jpg (https://imgur.com/5OCuzf3)

[Soundguy]

Cartridge revolver is a conversion cyl away...

[Tar Heel]

It looks to me that the center of pressure and the center of gravity are coincidental. That will make the projectile inherently unstable despite any attempts to stabilize it with rotational force. It should make an awesome whistle or drone as it tumbles downrange at 600-700fps.

Even though a round ball meets the same stability criteria, the tipping force and righting force cancel each other or are nonexistent if you prefer to look at it that way. Ergo, rotational force will enhance a RB trajectory. Your design will be subject to intense tipping force and with coincidental Cp and Cg, will go bonkers especially if you add rotational force.

Try it anyway. Should be fun eh?

[Tar Heel]

The idea is to make something that's more effective on the target than a conical or a round ball, but easier to load than both, including for use in paper cartridges.

If the Holy Grail is what you seek
be sure you wish to - do not be meek
The search will take more than one week
so continue forward - do not get bleak
Keep rocking away till the floorboards creek
for the Holy Grail is what you seek.

Rocinante

[TheOutlawKid]

I did 3 designs for .36 cal. Even one that is an REAL type design with a wider meplat. for some reason i cant load pics but heres a link explaining my designs and pics..
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/my-improved-colt-cartridge-works-and-remington-36-conical.865212/

And heres where i show a pic of the REAL design:

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/proposal-for-hb-conical-bullet-for-36-cal-revolver.883534/page-2

[Good Cheer]

Thanks for the link. Always interesting to see designs.
I'd like to have a percussion revolver set up to use .44 Special molds but for now will be happy with using .45ACP and .45Colt molds.

[indian joe]

If the Holy Grail is what you seek
be sure you wish to - do not be meek
The search will take more than one week
so continue forward - do not get bleak
Keep rocking away till the floorboards creek
for the Holy Grail is what you seek.

Rocinante

I must have missed something in the translation - I am absolutely mystified as to what you fellers are trying to achieve here ???

"more effective on the target" ? in what way ??? Its a 38 for gosh sakes - want more effective why not get a 45?

I dunno how any of these funny little pills would be easier to load than a round ball ? much more difficult I bet ....

more accurate ? I doubt it - maybe - but it takes an olympic standard shooter to wring the best out of a decent roundball revolver

Ream yr cylinder and fit ball to barrel properly and you can shoot round ball with full house loads and get good accuracy .

This looks like a big dose of cabin fever to me :bigsmyl2:

[Soundguy]

Ana.. It's called fixing problems that don't exist..practically.

[Good Cheer]

The difficulties of finding loading options was one of the factors that prompted me to have a .41 caliber 1851.

[Hellgate]

I think it's great to take on a challenge and come up with a new idea. Some people (including myself) figure that good enough is good enough but if it weren't for the tinkerers who can think outside the box we wouldn't have half the wonderful improvements we enjoy.
Go for it EREBOS!

[indian joe]

Ana.. It's called fixing problems that don't exist..practically.

aaah good so long as its done practically all will be well ................

[Mk42gunner]

I've never shot anything but round balls through any of the cap and ball revolvers I have owned or shot. I can see the utility of a heavier projectile, but since mine are basically plinkers or small game use, I don't need the potential extra penetration.

With all that written, I would make the diameter of a .36 conical .380 for general use, (I have three Navies, two do fine with a .375" ball, one needs a .380"). If only making a one of for a specific gun go with what that cylinder wants.

Robert

[405grain]

I like the first design that you posted. It has several advantages over a round ball or a conical design. The grease groove could be used not only to lubricate the bullet, but might also negate the need for putting grease over the cylinder charges to prevent chain fire. waksupi's concern about lack of bearing surface is well founded. With the narrow driving bands there might also be a tendency for the bullet to tip or become misaligned while being rammed into the cylinder. (A round ball doesn't cant like this because it's round and will always have the same surface area in contact with the cylinder walls no mater how you rotate it.) I'd suggest a modest alteration of the design of increasing the driving band width from .05" to around .08". This will increase the angle between the driving bands and the meplat a little bit, but not by much. I think that the original double-ended truncated cone design has more promise than the wadcutter design. As with anything that hasn't been done before, you won't know until you try.

[maillemaker]

Moose Moulds makes a similar "dumbell" shaped revolver bullet:

With rockets and aircraft and arrows, the center of pressure has to be behind the center of gravity (which is why the feathers on an arrow are at the back rather than the front". Otherwise the object wants to flip over and fly the other way. I don't know if this matters for a bullet that is spinning like a football.

https://i.imgur.com/p3gtEell.jpg

[Good Cheer]

I must have missed something in the translation - I am absolutely mystified as to what you fellers are trying to achieve here ???

"more effective on the target" ? in what way ??? Its a 38 for gosh sakes - want more effective why not get a 45?

I dunno how any of these funny little pills would be easier to load than a round ball ? much more difficult I bet ....

more accurate ? I doubt it - maybe - but it takes an olympic standard shooter to wring the best out of a decent roundball revolver

Ream yr cylinder and fit ball to barrel properly and you can shoot round ball with full house loads and get good accuracy .

This looks like a big dose of cabin fever to me :bigsmyl2:

I see a lot of that mindset. My interesting is the hobby itself. However, depending upon the individual revolver, the powder you use, the molds that you have or create, there are ways to increase penetration (depending upon what's being penetrated) and to increase the momentum of the striking projectile. And all that becomes a rather interesting problem to tinker with because the chamber volume is already set. Looking back through history the users of percussion revolvers developed means of overcoming specific problems such as how to poke a hole through multiple layers of cotton and wool, they put points on the bullets at the sacrifice of the volume of powder behind the bullet. They found a trade off that provided a solution to a specific task. These days there are people who hunt with percussion revolvers. My idea of hunting with percussion revolvers was rabbits in gravy not feral hogs but there's guys doing it, hunting tusky critters who are just aching for a chance to hook your femoral artery. More power to them and may their barbecues be many. I can see where they'd be wanting to up the penetration and the momentum. Rabbits didn't seem to put up much of an argument.

Some experiments I conducted years ago involved using various .45 molds in .44 percussion revolvers. To measure penetration mostly I used stacks of paper that had been soaked in water long enough to become a slimy gelled mess. A day or two soak time was generally enough. Great way to recycle old drawings and specifications.:rolleyes:

In broad general terms the penetration found in my standardized gooey mess showed that trading off powder volume for more lead volume didn't give more penetration. But, the same powder charge under bullets that basically only differed in the shapes of their noses would give very different amounts of penetration. SWC's and round flat noses penetrated best. Spherical noses not as good and wadcutters the least. All pretty much what experience told me to expect but if you don't try it out then you don't know.

It's fun to work with and I enjoy the hobby so I sometimes do more than bounce tomato cans around the front yard when the curiosity bug bites me. Something I've been wanting to play with is the Dance revolver made by Pietta.
http://i.imgur.com/yw3bUDJ.jpg (https://imgur.com/yw3bUDJ)
When you up the caliber to .44 the slab sides of the 1851 design interfer with the rotational radius of the chambers, making loading anything but a round ball a bit of a bother but I might be able to cobble up something with straight lead in a .45ACP hardball mold.
The reduced weight of the Dance model might make it a fun softball pitcher.[smilie=w:

[Good Cheer]

Moose Moulds makes a similar "dumbell" shaped revolver bullet:

With rockets and aircraft and arrows, the center of pressure has to be behind the center of gravity (which is why the feathers on an arrow are at the back rather than the front". Otherwise the object wants to flip over and fly the other way. I don't know if this matters for a bullet that is spinning like a football.

https://i.imgur.com/p3gtEell.jpg

In slower twist barrels at revolver speeds at might matter more than we'd think. Reminds my of the experiments in the 1800's finding that minies with lube grooves didn't need as fast of a twist as those with smooth sides.

[maillemaker]

I am absolutely mystified as to what you fellers are trying to achieve here ???

I don't know what OP is trying to achieve but for myself, I'm a competition shooter in the N-SSA. So for me it's all about accuracy at 25 and 50 yards.

I have not yet found a "Holy Grail" of a revolver bullet but I sure did for muzzle loaders - the Moose 577-420 Wilkinson. I'm always questing for that "perfect bullet". :) Maybe I'll find one for the revolver one day. I hope the Moose one does it - not enough testing yet though.

Steve

[robertbank]

48 posts vs 18,320 Mr. Frebos I have known Waksupi for a very long time, Some folks speak volumes with very few words. You might want to rethink your stand. Most of the guys that weened me into this hobby are gone now to my deepest regret. Enjoy those who remain. Just saying. My advice, cut the mold, and let us know what you learned.

Take Care

Bob

[Good Cheer]

Recently acquired one of the fast twist 1858's.
Definitely a good one for .45 pistol mold experiments.