What's next in developing this boolit for hunting?

[BrushBuster]

I am at a bit of a crossroads early in my experience with cast boolits, and would appreciate some advice. I'm an experienced hunter, including use of commercial cast boolits but have limited actual casting experience.

I hunt with a 1957 Marlin 336RC .35 Remington with Micro-Groove rifling, and I have succeeded in building up a very accurate load with the RCBS 200-35 FNGC boolit weighing 210 grains, H4895 powder, Fed. 210 primer and delivering a velocity of 2150 fps. This load is giving me 5/8" groups at 50 yards with iron sights and to say I am pleased would be an understatement. In fact, I am tempted not to change a thing! Beginners Luck! However, accuracy is only part of this equation and above all, I want to go hunting with the best boolit for the job.

My goal is to produce an effective hunting boolit that will suffice for mule deer and the occasional moose (both in season here at the same time). My boolit alloy is wheel-weight and 2-3% tin, and it was oven heat-treated to a BHN of approx. 25+. It is obviously performing well in the Micro-Groove barrel even though boolit diameter at .358 is the same as the groove dia., not the .001-2 oversize usually required for accuracy in these barrels. I would suspect the power level applied here is bumping up the boolit diameter nicely.

My question is, where to go from here to improve the boolit for hunting? Should I begin changing the alloy by adding pure lead to a point where accuracy begins to fall off, then back up to the proportion that provides the softest boolit while still maintaining accuracy? On the other hand, should I maintain the hardness of the boolit bearing surface and start developing a soft-nose utilizing the double pour method outlined recently by BruceB? Or perhaps just leave it alone, and go hunting?

I have already experienced good success killing mule deer with boolits at the same hardness level, and I'm inclined to stay this hard to keep the meplate intact as long as possible and provide greater wound channel diameter on deer. The greater penetration of a hard but tough (ductile) boolit would also seem to be a benefit when hunting moose, and I hesitate to reduce that factor.

Since I never know what species will present itself while I am hunting, I'm looking to make the decision that would be most effective on both species. Would a softer boolit be just as effective on both? Those of you that hunt both deer and elk with cb's might have a little more insight on this.
What would you do? I would appreciate your thoughts.

BrushBuster

[JDL]

BrushBuster,
Why argue with success? Load them up, go out in the woods, and slay furry critters! I have the same boolit made from 1-3 (Lino- Lead) and water dropped that is 21 BHN. I shot it into water soaked newspaper @ 2060 fps to compair it to a 200 grain Sierra @ 2270 fps and found them virtually identical regarding penetration and expansion. RCBS -.733"; Sierra - .744" but, the RCBS is prettier:-D. You can always try air-cooled WW to see how they do. -JDL

[waksupi]

Kinda like a sore peter. Don't screw with it.

[Bass Ackward]

I am at a bit of a crossroads early in my experience with cast boolits, and would appreciate some advice.

My goal is to produce an effective hunting boolit that will suffice for mule deer and the occasional moose (both in season here at the same time). My boolit alloy is wheel-weight and 2-3% tin, and it was oven heat-treated to a BHN of approx. 25+.

What would you do? I would appreciate your thoughts.

BrushBuster


BB,

You are NOT going to like my thoughts I can see.

All I can tell you is that we have a board member (Shultz) that put 5 of those hard RCBS bullets at about that same muzzle velocity into a Moose and was NOT impressed with the action. The hint was the number "5".

My experience is that most of the reputation of truely hard bullets has come at the coinsidence of shot placement. After all, an arrow will kill under those conditions as will a 22LR. The question is not, would it be effective, but would that be my preferred method?

My rules:

1. Hard bullets when weight or velocity is inadequate to guarantee expansion. 2. Soft bullets for everything else.

If "1" is unattainable in one caliber for me, I step up in bore diameter so I can go to "2" as opposed to compromising my results. If you do not have that flexibility, then .... you must make the decision .... to adjust. I have developed this outlook because my experience has dictated it or quit hunting with cast.

[45 2.1]

My experience is that most of the reputation of truely hard bullets has come at the coinsidence of shot placement. After all, an arrow will kill under those conditions as will a 22LR. The question is not, would it be effective, but would that be my preferred method?
My rules:
1. Hard bullets when weight or velocity is inadequate to guarantee expansion. 2. Soft bullets for everything else.
If "1" is unattainable in one caliber for me, I step up in bore diameter so I can go to "2" as opposed to compromising my results. If you do not have that flexibility, then .... you must make the decision .... to adjust. I have developed this outlook because my experience has dictated it or quit hunting with cast.

Pretty good rules and methodology John. There is a third option, but it is only starting to be discussed, ie a soft alloy that is heat treated giving a harder boolit than #2 alloy which will stand 2200 fps and expand easily in the animal.

[Bass Ackward]

Pretty good rules and methodology John. There is a third option, but it is only starting to be discussed, ie a soft alloy that is heat treated giving a harder boolit than #2 alloy which will stand 2200 fps and expand easily in the animal.


Bob,

Yes. But I have no experience with that strategy to comment.

And anything from hollowpointing, to nose annealing, to multi-mix bullets would all qualify as soft bullets if the penetration performance is there. That .... hard method may just be the answer that makes the hard bullet work. Especially, where .... no gun would really qualify as "big enough" for a garantee. Like agressive bears.

So what opinion will be right from this whole thread? The correct answer is: None or maybe all. Test before use. Test close. Test far. Test inbetween.

Before Ol Gramps ever made a heavy decision, he needed a little hit off the jug. Seems like logical advice here too. Line up the milk cartons filled with water. Place enough wet pack in front to assimilate the entrance thickness from the worst angle shot you might make and go for it. See with your own eyes if you have shock. And if so, from what distance to what distance. And is the relationship of the shock contained between the entrance and exit distance. It's just that simple and the best advice I can give BB.

Not that this method of testing is superior to any else, but what it is clearly superior to .... is my opinion. And the real thrust of BB's question is so that "he" could be happy with and have confidence in what he is doing. That can only come from actual use. But testing is the tie that binds .... and the crossroads everyone .... should choose.

[45 2.1]

Not that this method of testing is superior to any else, but what it is clearly superior to .... is my opinion. And the real thrust of BB's question is so that "he" could be happy with and have confidence in what he is doing. That can only come from actual use. But testing is the tie that binds .... and the crossroads everyone .... should choose.

Yep, thats a really good thing to do, but before any of these new guys take what any of us say as the gospell truth, they need to be aware of most all the possibilities to be able to do what you've said. And that is what i've tried to do.

[BrushBuster]

I hesitate to comment at this point, because I appreciate the advice being given.....all of it, and hope it continues.

I just want to say that I have not given up on the necessity of boolit testing . Collecting milk jugs and paper media is still happening, and won't stop until I have completed such tests later this spring. Whether I am qualified or intelligent enough to interpret those tests correctly is debatable, but I will try. I admit I'm not anxious to give up the accuracy I've achieved with the harder boolit, but will continue to target shoot at differing hardness levels until I have determined its parameters.

I started this thread to find (if possible) a commonality among the experienced as to the general direction a casting newbie should take in regards to hunting boolit makeup. It is obvious that I am prodding an old divisive issue, hardness vs. expansion. Throwing two different game hunting species into the discussion has not simplified things, but it is a reality of my daily hunt.

As a hunter, experience tells me that I want several things from any boolit-bullet. Foremost I want sufficient penetration to have the projectile pass-through the animal. Entry only wounds bleed out poorly, and tracking such animals on dry ground is not a pleasant task. I have never lost an animal that was shot-through. The characteristic of cast boolits to penetrate deeply was seen by me as a positive feature that I felt I could tailor to the game I hunt. At no time would I consider a hardness level so high that it would break-up on contact with the largest bones.

I also want a sufficient degree of expansion and/or hydro-static displacement to destroy life-sustaining organs as the boolit passes through. Here I get a little confused, because the effect of the meplate as opposed to boolit diameter change also seems to be a contentious issue. If I knew for a fact, that the meplate is significantly effective in tissue destruction, then it would seem obvious that it should remain intact as long as possible (the harder Boolit).
No meplate will remain effective very long after impact if constructed of soft lead.

My thinking at this point is that perhaps I should focus on producing a boolit most effective for hunting the larger species (moose), and place my shots differently on deer; breaking them down rather than the usual lung-heart shots. This might be the inevitable compromise.

If there are new developments in alloy formulation, I've not heard of it, and would appreciate more detail.

[Bass Ackward]

BB,

Everything works with limitations to detailed to be specific about it. Let's see if I can generalize it some.

My mix hardness affects my bullet design. The soft bullet can have a smaller meplat and still expand out. The hard bullet must have as wide a meplat as possible to begin with. Thus the soft is more aerodynamic than the other and maintains velocity and accuracy better than the other at longer ranges. The limiter for the soft bullet is minimum range because it will round off giving the performance edge to a hard bullet. The limit for a hard bullet is maximum range where it loses enough velocity that all it does is poke a hole.

So if you have the discipline to to see the whites of their eyes, go hard. If you think you may want or need follow up shots or just need to take a shot out to 200 yards, then soft metal wins out in my mind.

I don't shoot 40 yards with rifles. That is handgun stuff. And I don't go beyond 80 yards with a wheeler as that is rifle territory. Still, I prefer soft bullets for both if I can still meet the penetration criteria.

That's about the long and short of it.

[MTWeatherman]

Lyman Cast Bullet #3 has an article entitled "Cast Bullets for Hunting" in which the author did some testing with various alloys and hardness. Goal was to get good expansion while minimizing fragmentation for bullets between 1500 and 2100 fps. The results indicate a BHN of about 13.5 as the best tested.

I used that information in developing a load for a .32 Special and use a 3 part WW to 1 part Lino alloy to get an estimated 13.5 BHN. I drive a 178-179 Gr. RCBS FN bullet at just about the same muzzle velocity(2150 fps) you quoted for the .35 Rem. Although, you might need the hard alloy with the Microgroove...the .32 Special has shallower lands (about .030) than standard also and this alloy provides excellent accuracy in the Winchester. It might work for you but you sure would find it hard to beat the accuracy you already have.

I have taken deer with this load...however have yet to recover a bullet. I took one last year at about 170 yards (I underestimated the range and had backup for the shot. Its in a previous post here in "Hunting with CBs" from last November if you're interested in the details. I don't make a habit of shooting at that range with iron sights). The bullet hit both ribs on the way through at an estimated 1575fps and the 1.5 inch exit hole implies to me that it still had some expansion.

I consider the alloy to be a good one for hunting...certainly preferable to a hard bullet. You might give it a try to see if it works in your .35...or, if you don't have linotype, use Lyman's recipe of WW + 4% tin to get about the same BHN (tin is expensive but you won't need many bullets to hunt with).

[BrushBuster]

Thank you for the advice given.

Those who lobby for softer hunting boolits have made a strong case, and I'm impressed enough that I'll begin experiments with lower hardness levels. I'm sure I can find a comprimise that will allow me to combine accuracy with expansion.

Time to move on to testing and evaluating my own efforts. Getting to that point was so much easier with your help, and this forum has proven to be a great source of information and advice. I just recently purchased my first digital camera, and perhaps next fall I can check in here with evidence of my prowess and progress. Until then, best wishes.

BrushBuster :drinks:

[nighthunter]

Wow ..... I got censored for a lot less. Who is watching all the posts?
Nighthunter

[versifier]

Who shall guard the guadians? (Roman Proverb) :mrgreen: [smilie=1:

[Char-Gar]

Paco Kelly creates "soft nose" hardcast bullets, by standing the sized and lubed hardcast bullet in a pan of water slightly past the top of the body and heating the nose with a propane torch and let them air cool. Supposed to work like a charm. You get the shooting advantages of a hard alloy in the barrel and a softer nose when it smacks the critter.