.243 results

[charlie45]

Bullet: rcbs .244 95 Gr. from BullShop Actual checked & lubed 96.8 average with only .4 gr. variation in lot of 100. ( per digital scale)
Case r-p once fired and neck sized only.
Powder 2400, 10 @ 11.5 and 10 @ 12.0 (same scale)
Primers Fed. gold Match lr. Well try othere soon.
range 50 yards, light wind 5 to 10 ? 32 degrees.
How they shoot? almost no recoil, light report, speed ?? I don't have one of them things yet.
The 11.5 seemed under powered. Nice round holes but groups of 5 shoots were 1.25 & 1.38.
Now 12.0 as suggested by Deputy Al and others was better 1.0 & .88 .
Now I know its only fifty yards but I'am going to try with a few more flakes and see. Then its on to 100, 200.
To sum it up, this was the best yet with cast for me. The bullets from Dan & Tina were top notch. The powder was very clean burning. Clean up took 15 min. with just Hoppes#9 a brush & 4 patches no foam or harsh smelling stuf that burns the cracks in my fingers. But best of all they were all more accurate then rem. factory 100 grainers in my rifle.
So if you have a 6mm size rifle give them a try. I think you well enjoy!! :)

[Bullshop]

Charlie 45
Great!!! I just love when it all works out so good. Enjoy!
BIC/BS

[Bob S]

What a coincidence. I had just unearthed my Ruger 77V .243 of mid 70's vintage with the idea of resurrecting it for reduced range (100 yd) High Power matches this spring. The rifle has a clip slot and is fitted with a Redfield Olympic rear sight and a Redfield No.65 front. I had worked up both jacketed and cast loads in 1977 and 78, and then the pressing schedule of active duty caused me to drop the project. I did shoot one 600 yard match at Reading Mass in 1984 with the Sierra 85 grain HPBT ... and the first string was a miserable 93, but the second was a 97-2X. For those unfamiliar, the MR-1 target used at 600 yards has a12" ten ring and a 6" X ring. But this is the cast bullet board ....

I too used 2400 powder, but my bullet was the 243296, an 85 grain Loverin. It was the only thing I could find at the time, and the sizing die was .243, also the only thing I could find at the time. I had worked with 12.0 grains down to 10.0 grains, and settled on the lower charge for 100 yard shooting because the grouping was more reliable. Looking at my data book and notes, five-shot groups ran from 15/16" to 1-1/2", fired prone at 100 yards with the iron sights. Ten-shot groups were about 1-3/4" at 100 yards. In '77 and '78 I was shooting 97's and 98's on the MR-31 target, which has a 1-3/4" ten-ring. If I was perfectly centered, and holding hard, I should have been able to clean the target. I have learned how to shoot since then, so I hope to do better now.

At the time, I was using Tamarack and Javelina Alox/BW lube, Ideal gas checks, and casting with straight wheel weights.

Today I also have a Lyman 243297, the bigger brother of the 243296, and a .244 sizing die to work with. I am looking forward to putting together a load that will hold together for 200 yards, as well as improving the grouping of the old 100 yard load.

Resp'y,
Bob S.

[Bullshop]

Just for the record I wanted to mention that those were cast of straight ww and quenched. I didnt know how fast you would shoot them so I went hard.
They were cast using the Bull Plate method. The RCBS pot with the dial set midway between off and the lowest # setting of 650. Casting rate was between 4 and 5 cast per minute.
I over ran the order so I could shoot some in my 6x45. Of the 150 I weight segregated I got exactly the same extream spread at .4gn. I got a .2gn spread between the two cavities so that would be a .1gn standerd deviation for the lot. Not too shabby!! My point you ask. It is this that with proper technique I think I have dispelled the old myth that 2% tin is the minimum requirment for good fill out. For you fellas that think you have to add tin/money to your WW it may be your wasting your money.
As I have been saying for awhile now this casting method has changed the way I cast.
It has shown other benifits also but for now I have made my point.
BIC/BS

[Four Fingers of Death]

[QUOTE= no foam or harsh smelling stuf that burns the cracks in my fingers. [/QUOTE]

We have a lot of horse studs around here and they use a lot of irrigation. When you are working installing or moving this gear, your hands get wet and the skin splits and is painful while you work.

What the guys around here do is use superglue to seal the cracks up. Works a treat, quick too. This was what superglue was bought out for during the Viet war to seal up wounds quickly.

I have a brand new Lyman 243 mould that i bought about 15 years ago buried somewhere in my shooting gear. I gotta dust it off and run it through my mint pre 64 Mod 70 Featherweight.

[charlie45]

I am happy to see some more interest in cast in the .243 ( 6mm ) bullet. Dan I suppected from the look of the bullets that you were casting @ lower temps. I'am also with you on the tin. I have cast for 30-30, 45-70 and 357 mag. with just ww and I think lube and sizing are the big issue. I could be wrong but barrels don"t lie.
Super glue works great but Scotts bore shine will get under it. you got to trust me on this. It stings and is hard to wash out due to the super glue!
It sounds like that Ruger set up should do well with the 95 gr. bullet. Please give it a try and let me know you results. I have a buddy that has been trying to sell me one. The gun I shoot is more a bench gun then a field gun. With scope its close to 10 lb.
I have been pondering! Not always a good thing, but I now think before I adjust powder I will try a range of primers. I have found with jacketed bullets that as I get a tighter group, fine tuning is just a primer away. :lovebooli

[Bullshop]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/bullshop/ff7ad688.jpg
Well gents my photography leaves much to be desired but here is a pic of some castings. They are well filled with clean sharp edges on all bands and base.
The little dot you might see on the ogive of the 32's is my referance mark which also filled well.
I did this to reinforce what I said yesterday about the old belief that at least 2% tin is necessiary for good fill out.
I believe technique is more important than tin. I must admit that adding tin makes it easier but also more expensive.
I cast mostly in straight WW without adding tin and I believe the quality of my product speaks for itself.
The castings in this pic are in pure and very soft lead with nothing added and they are as clean as anything I can make with any ammount of tin added.
They were cast with the same method as the 243 boolits mentioned yesterday. The sprues were cut very soft. Some so soft they ran in my gloved hand.
I found that with pure lead the point in the sprue that gets cut was plenty hard enough to cut even when the top was still wiggling.
The mold lubed with Bull Plate had no smearing what so ever.

Make your own judgments fellas, but when I read of some of you using up to and over 5% tin I just kinda cring and shake my head and think what a waste.
Sumthin for yall to think on!
BIC/BS

[Bass Ackward]

I did this to reinforce what I said yesterday about the old belief that at least 2% tin is necessiary for good fill out.
I believe technique is more important than tin. I must admit that adding tin makes it easier but also more expensive.
I cast mostly in straight WW without adding tin and I believe the quality of my product speaks for itself. BIC/BS


Dan,

Three reasons to use tin.

1) Better fillout because melt stay molten longer.

2) Less barrel wear because tin counters the abrasive nature of antimony.

3) More ductile bullet for game especially if the bullet is hardened.

Number two and three are my reasons for using tin. Especially at higher RPMs. For handguns, I would use straight WW. The problem for me is that I never know 6 months down the road that my purpose for that molded bullet won't change and then it will need tin. So everything get's tin.

Bedides, all my WW is free.

[felix]

BA, actually the addition of tin makes the lead freeze a little quicker, but the lead is much more fluid when fully melted making fillout time much, much shorter. Dan, you made it obvious, with your picture of finished boolits, in saying that pure lead is fluid enough to make good boolits. But the major problem is keeping the lead/mold hot enough to fill out all the nooks and crannies when casting outside, or even within a very slight amount of wind. These statements become more factual when you are casting 22 boolits. ... felix

[Bass Ackward]

BA, actually the addition of tin makes the lead freeze a little quicker, but the lead is much more fluid when fully melted making fillout time much, much shorter.


Felix,

True. What I should have said is that tin lowers the melting point of lead enough that the mold must disipate more heat (takes more time) before solidification can take place. More time allows for better venting and fillout.

[Bullshop]

Bass
Dont take me wrong I was not trying to say that tin is bad. I was just blasting another one of the old myths that a minimum of 2% is required. You know that some folks think that if a little is good then a lot is better so we see these realy tin rich alloys being used
I know that anyone that has been at it for awhile has heard that 2% is the minimum and without it you cant expect good results. Well I think I have proven that wrong with alloys containing antimony and also with pure lead. Pure lead having of course zero tin and WW most often published as having .5% or less.
On the three points you made I can agree with #2 and #3 but as for #1 I believe it is the antimony in an alloy the keeps it fluid longer not the tin.
If you cast with lead/tin alloys and lead/tin/antimony alloys at the same temp the alloy with no antimony will freeze up quicker than the one with.
I also believe that higher tin contents in an alloy are one of the reasons some people have leading problems which would realy be a tinning problem with the tin making a solder. It seams to be more of a problem with alloys rich in tin and also containing antimony .
These are just my observations based on my own experiance. Before I had my own experiance I believed all the written word on casting and now I realise that about half of it wasnt true. If we can eliminate that half thats not true new casters will have a much easier time of it.
Felix
I have never tried to make pure lead 22 cal boolits but I make 1000nds from straight WW. I dont make many but do use some in lead/tin alloys as 30/1 and 50/1. These mostly get used w/o checks and subsonic. I have to agree that when casting light 22's a fast and consistant casting rythem is criticle. It takes a good coordination and dextarity and uninterupted fluid motion to make good 22's. Very slight variations in rytham show up as variations in weight.
BIC/BS

[StarMetal]

Dan,

I've been trying to tell these guys all along that alot of tin is no good. That I've found and heard it can cause leading. Seems you and I are cut from the same casting cloth.

Joe

[Bass Ackward]

Dan,

I suspect that your molding experience far excedes mine already being commercial.

What you are achieving without using tin is clearly above what most people get. I can tell you I can't do that with straight WW. I have one 240 grain, single cavity, aluminum mold that requires 900 degrees just before it quits wrinkling. Little alone talk about fill out. Steel molds maybe at 750 if they are not Loverin designs. So I add tin and can knock temp back.

Like everything else with cast. Not everyone obtains the same casting results at the same temps or techniques. Some guys may need tin. Especially if they get a contaminate in their mix. But they probably should at least try it first to know.

The tin / leading argument confuses people because it depends on the percentage of tin. If tin exceeds the antimony content .... you will have soft spot formations at unpredictable points on the bullet.

So while you measure a HTWW bullet at 22BHN on the nose, the side may only be 8 BHN where it contacts the bore. So too much tin can really mess you up. But did the bullet lead because it had tin in it or because it was too soft for the pressure / velocity? Well based on my 8 years of shooting high tin mixes, I say tin does not cause leading. If an 8 BHN bullet leads because of one of the possible causes, it will lead whether it has tin in it or not. Take out the tin and the 8 BHN will still lead. Maybe even worse because you will lose some bullet diameter.

Page 29 in the RCBS Cast Bullet Manual explains this very well as I believe John Marshall was the othor of it.

[David R]

Please read this

http://www.castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=3452&highlight=tin Skip all the crap and go to post #5 and 16.

David

[Bullshop]

Bass
I am with ya on the soft spot part. What I ment was when you get leading with high %tin alloys it is on there and a real bear to get out, it is bonded or solderd. When you get leading without tin not so. The guys shooting ML rifles shoot pure lead at some fairley high velocities aproaching 2000 fps without leading. What there is cleans up with reguler cleaning. I have shot acww (low tin%) at crazzy velocities in testing lube and even though the bore was completely gray with lead it cleaned out with normal cleaning. By that I mean a wet patch with solvent, then a few passes with a brush, then another wet patch then dry patches until dry.
Any alloy weather lead, copper, bronze or whatever will foul a bore under certain conditions, some are just harder to get out.
I guess the lube plays a roll in this. Bull Plate lube shure helps prevent lead from sticking to a mold and since it is what's in Speed Green it does the same thing in a barrel.
BIC/BS

[Bass Ackward]

What I ment was when you get leading with high %tin alloys it is on there and a real bear to get out, it is bonded or solderd. When you get leading without tin not so. BIC/BS


Dan,

I am trying to think back and I can't remember the last time I leaded in a rifle. Oh I have had the onset of it maybe where the GC cleaned it out. Results on a target indicated the unbalance.

I HAVE and do lead quite often with a handgun. I carry a brush all the time. I need to sew two bands on the outside of the holster for a cleaning rod with bore brush attached. This is mostly PB action. But for almost 8 years during the 70s, my free sourse of lead was babbit and lino. I shot tons of it. I blame shooting lino for the demise of a Blackhawk revolver as the forcing cone was so worn that the barrel cracked at the center of the wear point. Sometimes I shot babbit just by itself because I was too lazy to blend a batch when I was in a hurry. Some of that babbit was 49% tin.

I can't remember a leading problem that wasn't cleaned up dry. Not saying I haven't had one, just that I must have put that unpleasant memory away. I have had to use lead removal cloth when a brush failed to remove everything. But never any steel wool or anything like that. Copper has ALWAYS been more of a pain for me. And all I have pretty much ever shot had some tin in it. So I am not qualified to comment further on straight WW.


David did some tesing on tin as I believe he was referencing. I never thanked him for those tests.

Thanks Dave.

[Bullshop]

Dan,

I am trying to think back and I can't remember the last time I leaded in a rifle. Oh I have had the onset of it maybe where the GC cleaned it out. Results on a target indicated the unbalance.

I HAVE and do lead quite often with a handgun. I carry a brush all the time. I need to sew two bands on the outside of the holster for a cleaning rod with bore brush attached. This is mostly PB action. But for almost 8 years during the 70s, my free sourse of lead was babbit and lino. I shot tons of it. I blame shooting lino for the demise of a Blackhawk revolver as the forcing cone was so worn that the barrel cracked at the center of the wear point. Sometimes I shot babbit just by itself because I was too lazy to blend a batch when I was in a hurry. Some of that babbit was 49% tin.

I can't remember a leading problem that wasn't cleaned up dry. Not saying I haven't had one, just that I must have put that unpleasant memory away. I have had to use lead removal cloth when a brush failed to remove everything. But never any steel wool or anything like that. Copper has ALWAYS been more of a pain for me. And all I have pretty much ever shot had some tin in it. So I am not qualified to comment further on straight WW.


David did some tesing on tin as I believe he was referencing. I never thanked him for those tests.

Thanks Dave.
If you still have a worn Ruger they will rebuild them for a very reasonable price. I have had a couple done. The last was a dual cyl. BH 45. Cost as I recal with shipping was about $150. They replaced the barrel, both cylenders, grips, and some internal parts. Basickly just kept the origonal frame. What I got back was pretty much a brand new gun with an old serial #. I got it in trade for some 50 cal boolits at a gun show after it had been heavily bubaed. I am pleased with how it shoots now.
BIC/BS