Cast Bullet Myths !

[Papa smurf]

Just finished a very good article by Mike Venturino in December Handloader.
It should be required reading for all of us , new and old alike.
Good Shooting------------------------------Papa Smurf

[Bret4207]

Mines not here yet. I sure hope I find something saying, "Fit is King!" and "Harder isn't necessarily better!"

[Shiloh]

Mines not here yet. I sure hope I find something saying, "Fit is King!" and "Harder isn't necessarily better!"

That works for me.

Proper fit solves or prevents MANY problems.
Softer alloy are made possible with proper fit.

Shiloh

[montana_charlie]

"Fit is King!" and "Harder isn't necessarily better!"
That's what she said...

[Echo]

...as the Bishop said to the actress...

[shooter93]

I'll be the odd man out...again...on atleast parts of the article, most notably the part about jacket fouling and accuracy. Almost everything has an effect, the question is how much or is it measurable. Personally I'd say the test was much to short. Two Milsurp rifles and 3 cast bullet groups just isn't enough. And one of those groups had a "flyer" so I shot another group. Since he had stated earlier that the one of the keys to cast bullet accuracy is casting perfect bullets and the flyer wasn't called then it was in group so in 3 groups he saw a difference.
My personal experience with fouling involved several hundred groups fired from gilt edge rifles including a rail gun. Granted it is comparing extremely accurate rifles against rifles of moderate accuracy but a difference could be seen and measured. Copper fouling did effect accuracy of cast bullets negatively in every case. Several calibers and many many rounds.
Now granted I'm talking about the best of accuracy and in all probability the average milsurp or even basic hunting rifle would see little or no difference or atleast a difference that wouldn't matter for hunting to say copper fouling doesn't degrade accuracy is a pretty broad statement. Again this is my personal experience but over a rather large number of shots and I'm convinced the copper fouling can and does make a difference. At the upper edges of accuracy, sand bags versus top of the line rests, bench type and construction and even small differences in hold make a difference.

[Mike Venturino]

The conclusion I drew in that article wasn't based on three groups. Those were fired as a demonstration for that specific article. My conclusion is based on cast bullet shooting for 43 years this coming December.

That said, now I have to admit that my experience IS NOT with benchrest quality rifles. It is with military surplus, hunting rifles, and handguns. I will grant you that in the extreme you probably have a valid point base on your extensive experience. However, I think in the everyday world, firing cast after jacketed is a non-issue.

I think I did say in that article that I wasn't encouraging everybody do their shooting with badly fouled barrels from whatever materials.

Night all.
Mike

[idahoron]

Mike, I enjoy your articals on casting a bunch and you were the reason I got into it. Thanks for the info. Ron

[sqlbullet]

It was bad enough reading the first few posts in this thread, getting excited to find my December Handloader when I got home, and then not finding it.

Now, adding insult to injury, the author joins a conversation. Without the article, I have no basis for meaningful addition to the discourse.

Grrr....Well, at least my post count is closing in on Mike's. I guess I will take some solace in that!:p

[beagle]

No less a shooter than the great Townsend Whelan gave us the cast small game load for the .30/06 for taking grouse while big game hunting with full powered jacketed ammunition and I'll bet for sure he didn't stop and scrub a barrel after shooting a grouse with a cast load to remove fouling and I've never seen any comments from him in writing that it degraded accuracy too much.

I've also seen Master class bullseye shooters in the Army use cast ammo for practice and then run a magazine of hardball through a custom match .45 to clean any lead out. Zero changed but accuracy remained the same.

If you get right down to splitting hairs, fouling might make a difference and probably the "benchies" could prove it what with the efforts they go to to acheive accuracy but I don't beleive it's worth jousting at windmills over.

I'd rather spend my remaining years casting and shooting than facing Mecca all day praying for all my bullets to go into one hole./beagle

[felix]

Bench guns are a completely different animal. They are indeed worthless to anyone who is not interested in shooting groups as the ONLY objective in all kinds of weather. The idea of that gun type these days is to eliminate the gun from the nature of the competition, and to make the weatherman of the day stand up. ... felix

[NickSS]

I have been shooting cast bullets since 1964 and can tell you that a lot of them were through mil surplus rifles that had copper fouling in the bore. My standard of accuracy during all this time was for my cast loads to shoot at least as good as my jacketed loads. I found that this is easy to achieve in most guns except bores that were severely pitted. Now I do clean my rifles and when copper fouling is noticeable I use an aggressive copper remover to get it out but I am not a fanatic about it. I only really worry about it when you are talking match grade guns. But with them I either shoot all Jacketed or all cast and never mix the two.

[Char-Gar]

Metal fouling, like many things in life must be talked about in degrees. How much metal fouling is there in a barrel is a key question. Too much metal fouling will degrade accuracy with jacketed bullets as well as cast.

Back in the early 60's my shooting/hunting buddy and myself thought the .243 Win. round was pretty much the nee plus ultra of deer rounds and we shot our rifles every week. Somewhere around 700 rounds the accuracy of my Winchester 70 started to go south. At first I thought I had shot out the barrel, but it proved to be a buildup of metal fouling. In those days, all I had to clean with was Hoppe's No 9 and it won't do squat on metal fouling. This is when I discovered Blue Goop or something like it. The rifle is still chugging along today turning in good groups, providing the barrel is treated in a decent manner.

The smaller the bore the faster the fouling will become a problem. The wise shooter is aware of this and doesn't allow the metal to build up to the point it becomes a problem.

We see shooters on this board with much used rifles trying to shoot cast bullets without much sucess. When they clean these barrels down to the steel, things get much easier. But rifles with only a modicum of metal fouling handle cast very well. The trick is ,most folks just don't know how much it too much or how much they have in their barrels.

I believe Mike to be correct in that the shooter who takes care of his rifle barrel can switch back and forth with decent if not outstanding results. Allow the barrel to become grossly fouled with metal and it is a different story.

To treat metal fouling as the kiss of death for cast bullets is incorrect, but it is equally incorrect to dismiss metal fouling as a factor in cast bullet accuracy. As I said...it is a matter of degree.

[beagle]

Bought a 1949 era M336 Marlin about 5 years ago at a gun show. Barrel looked ...well okay. This was a Saturday and Saturday night I ran a bush through it, loaded a couple of boxes and headed to the range on Sunday morning. After zeroing, I'd get 2-2 1/2" groups at 100 with a scope. I was fairly satisfied.

Got back home and I mean I mined lead out of that thing. Rifling looked weak but I was encouraged by the results at the range. In the next two weeks, I put 1/2 a can of Shooter's Choice through it and the greener the rags came out overnight, the sharper the rifling looked. Finally, I started getting clean rags overnight and said enough. Took it back to the range and the groups shrank to an honest 1 1/2" with cast and no leading. I was happy.

Evidently this old rifle had been used all those years and never had been properly cleaned. Pulled out every fall, three rounds to check zero and a couple for hunting. Then an oily rag through the bore and back in the closet. Year after year.

I suspect many rifles are out there like that and to get them to shoot cast, you need to "delouse" them good first before you shoot cast. Then, it's a matter of cleaning after firing whether it's cast or jacketed.

But, don't make the mistake that the military did. In ROTC, we had to clean our M1s three times a week and they were never used except for drill. Darn waste of good barrels and worn crowns. I've noticed that in a lot of foriegn coutries too. Big crowns on M1 carbines and M1s in Korea and the flash hiders almost worn through by improper cleaning on M14s in Honduras./beagle

[jleneave]

It was bad enough reading the first few posts in this thread, getting excited to find my December Handloader when I got home, and then not finding it.

Now, adding insult to injury, the author joins a conversation. Without the article, I have no basis for meaningful addition to the discourse.

Grrr....Well, at least my post count is closing in on Mike's. I guess I will take some solace in that!:p

I feel the same way!!! I would have thought that a subscriber would get the magazine before it went on the newstand?? Anyone know why that is?? I would have thought that would be a "perk" of subscribing? I subscribe to 8 or 9 different gun rags and it's like that with all them. I'm done crying now, sorry about that.

I will now procede to butt kissing.......

Mike, I also enjoy your articles. Especially the ones about your new WWII collection.

Ok, done with that. We can now get back on the subject.

Jody

[Bret4207]

Mine still has not arrived. Nothing new there.

On fouling, etc. While my experience runs about the same time frame as Mikes (40 +/-) I didn't really start paying attention till about 1982. In my opinion each gun is an individual and fouling is a "in some guns" issue. I have some guns that are just easy to get shooting with anything and everything and others that need just the right thing to perform.

I generally don't get overwrought about a bit of fouling. My FR8 doesn't seem to care one way or the other. My '03 on the other hand won't handle cast at all which is likely due to the fact I haven't gone at the bore yet and you can clearly see the fouling. My 35 Rem 336 loves cast, my 93 Mauser 7x57 is finicky on cast. My Ruger 45 convertible eats everything, my Ruger 22/45 Mk3 needs 25 or so rounds of whatever new type of ammo I shoot to really settle down after changing brands.

Fouling does matter IMO, just not so much in some guns as others.

[BruceB]

For many years, I've used the de-coppering of any rifle to be used with cast bullets as a personal way-of-doing-things.

Never having conducted any tests on the matter, it seems to me that whether or not gilding-metal fouling HARMS accuracy with cast bullets, I seriously doubt that the presence of such fouling HELPS my efforts with cast bullets. Ergo, I remove it and will not shoot cast through a barrel that contains it if it can be avoided.

Like the rifles owned by most of us, mine are ordinary examples, with no "true" target rifles in the bunch. Results have mostly been very gratifying, but then maybe I'm too-easily satisfied. Entertainment is the name of MY game, and the casting, loading and shooting certainly supply plenty of that! Making an old rifle speak again is a real accomplishment.

I'm reasonably sure that the 500-plus rounds I fired through my "new" M64 Winchester .32 in its first week with me was more than it had fired in the first fifty-seven years since its manufacture in 1952. That's a mighty fine thought, too. (It showed almost no copper fouling at all).

[Bullshop]

Being a rather lazy sort and seeing the damage an over active cleaning rod can do to a muzzle I have adopted a cleaning system well suited to lazybooliteers for removing jacket fouling.
First I simply wet the bore with a copper solvent for the prescribed time recommended by the manufacturer of the solvent. Then one pass with a dry patch to remove excess solvent. Then simply fire a couple low pressure rounds of boolits through the barrel.
If not done to satisfaction repeat.
The solvent will loosen the fouling and even a low pressure load is tighter against the bore than any patch or brush.
There are three ways to do everything, the right way, the wrong way, and my way.
BIC/BS

[Papa smurf]

Papa Smurf here again-----I knew this post would get an awful lot of opinions,and some of them awful. Been casting and shooting for 54 years. Mike's opinion is the one I value the most. Your still the man Mike !
Good Shooting-----------------------------------------Papa Smurf

[truckmsl]

I'd rather spend my remaining years casting and shooting than facing Mecca all day praying for all my bullets to go into one hole./beagle

Amen, brother Beagle, amen. Some of us already know how good our head feels without having to bang it repeatedly and then stop.

[1Shirt]

Yep, like Beagle says. I enjoy getting one inch 5 shot groups, but am happy with 2 and 3 inchers as well depending on the rifle and my old eyes. Being an old yankee, am fond of old yankee sayings and "H'aint nothin more rightous than a reformed prostitute" comes to mind. Am to old to get upset or bent out of shape by the thoughts of some. Life is just to short for that! Mike, I like what you write, the way you write, and enjoy you on this forum. Hang tough!
1Shirt!:coffee:

[Mike Venturino]

I thank all you guys for your comments pro and con. As for the guys feeling put upon because they haven't gotten their new Handloader Magazine yet, you're not alone. I haven't gotten mine either.

Funny how aging is. I don't much worry about groups anymore although I've shot them for scores of years. Somehow it finally dawned on me that the real point of unleashing a bullet is to actually hit something with it. The point of group shooting - aside from the fun of experimenting - is two fold. One is for sighting in. The other is for insuring that the firearm and load are delivering the necessary precision for the job.

After that the point is hitting something. To that end I have put up steel targets at various ranges here on my home range, and instead of shooting for groups on paper, for my own enjoyment I now shoot at them. Mostly I take away the sandbags, and seldom shoot more than twice at a given piece of steel before moving on to another. I guess you could say that instead of developing loads I'm working on developing marksmanship.

Just this week my water well had to have a new pressure tank. the old one is about five feet tall and bright blue. Can you guess where its going to go and what I'm going to do with it?

Anyway, I sincerely do appreciate your comments.
Mike V.

[KYCaster]

Just this week my water well had to have a new pressure tank. the old one is about five feet tall and bright blue. Can you guess where its going to go and what I'm going to do with it?
Mike V.


That's a bit larger than Quigley's bucket. [smilie=1:

Jerry

[MT Gianni]

I'm guessing the BAR will be involved.

[theperfessor]

Not being much of a rifle shooter, and drawing on anecdotal evidence and my limited experience and training in materials scince and tribology (the science of friction and wear) I would like to offer a hypothesis on barrel fouling.

"Depending on the nature of the barrel's interior surface, and the type of metal fouling present, it might be possible for some barrels to shoot better if lightly fouled in the proper way."

- If a barrel has a smooth interior surface and no metal fouling then the accuracy depends on things such as fit, twist rate, etc. and it will probably be an accurate barrel.

- If a barrel is pitted or heavily fouled with metal in a manner that leaves a rough interior surface to scratch and deform the bullet and/or changes the dimensions of the bore, then that will probably be an inaccurate barrel.

- If the barrel is pitted but the metal fouling fills the pits and leaves an interior surface that damages the bullet less than the pit would if it were not filled with metal fouling, then that barrel may never be great but it might shoot better if it were clean and smooth but still fouled than it would if it were totally cleaned of all fouling. It sounds like many military barrels might fall into this category.

I remember reading an article by our own Mike V about not getting too fanatical with cleaning up pitted barrels and still have a good shooter. Other anecdotal evidence suggests might be true. I don't know if there have been any studies of this. Maybe some other members might know.

I know from industry case studies that the overall surface texture and not the apparent surface roughness, combined with the effects of lubrication, have a big influence on life expectancy of parts subject to high relative rubbing speeds.

I offer this as a hypothesis only for further discussion. I don't really have a dog in this fight.

[Cloudpeak]

Just this week my water well had to have a new pressure tank. the old one is about five feet tall and bright blue. Can you guess where its going to go and what I'm going to do with it? Anyway, I sincerely do appreciate your comments.
Mike V.

Mike, Just shoot the top half of the water tank (in a horizontal plane). Once it's cut in half, use the bottom half to really smelt some lead. You're gonna need a bigger burner:smile:

[Mike Venturino]

Professor: Ain't nobody fighting. What you say does seem to have some merit. I know more than one fellow, mostly varmint shooters, who used the Outer's Foul Out machine to get the fouling out of their relatively decent shooting barrels only to find that they were badly eroded beneath it. And they shot more poorly afterwards. Again those are merely ancedotes.

KY Caster: To paraphase Matthew Quiqley; I ain't Matthew Quigley and this ain't Australia.

Later.
Mike

[sqlbullet]

Just this week my water well had to have a new pressure tank. the old one is about five feet tall and bright blue. Can you guess where its going to go and what I'm going to do with it?

I am betting the same thing my neighbor invited me to do with a toilet that he has in his yard after a bathroom remodel. Just trying to find the right place where we can get a clear 500 yard shot.

Which begs the question (tongue in cheek)....Should I use the 300 Win Mag or the AR-15 when toilet hunting?

[Bullshop]

I am betting the same thing my neighbor invited me to do with a toilet that he has in his yard after a bathroom remodel. Just trying to find the right place where we can get a clear 500 yard shot.

Which begs the question (tongue in cheek)....Should I use the 300 Win Mag or the AR-15 when toilet hunting?

Be sure to pick up your trash when done shooting. Leaving it gives all shooters a bad rep.
BIC/BS

[waksupi]

I am betting the same thing my neighbor invited me to do with a toilet that he has in his yard after a bathroom remodel. Just trying to find the right place where we can get a clear 500 yard shot.

Which begs the question (tongue in cheek)....Should I use the 300 Win Mag or the AR-15 when toilet hunting?

I'm not sure which one is more appropriate. On one hand, I have never known a toilet to charge. On the other hand, I have known them to back up!

[Bret4207]

Not being much of a rifle shooter, and drawing on anecdotal evidence and my limited experience and training in materials scince and tribology (the science of friction and wear) I would like to offer a hypothesis on barrel fouling.

"Depending on the nature of the barrel's interior surface, and the type of metal fouling present, it might be possible for some barrels to shoot better if lightly fouled in the proper way."

- If a barrel has a smooth interior surface and no metal fouling then the accuracy depends on things such as fit, twist rate, etc. and it will probably be an accurate barrel.

- If a barrel is pitted or heavily fouled with metal in a manner that leaves a rough interior surface to scratch and deform the bullet and/or changes the dimensions of the bore, then that will probably be an inaccurate barrel.

- If the barrel is pitted but the metal fouling fills the pits and leaves an interior surface that damages the bullet less than the pit would if it were not filled with metal fouling, then that barrel may never be great but it might shoot better if it were clean and smooth but still fouled than it would if it were totally cleaned of all fouling. It sounds like many military barrels might fall into this category.

I remember reading an article by our own Mike V about not getting too fanatical with cleaning up pitted barrels and still have a good shooter. Other anecdotal evidence suggests might be true. I don't know if there have been any studies of this. Maybe some other members might know.

I know from industry case studies that the overall surface texture and not the apparent surface roughness, combined with the effects of lubrication, have a big influence on life expectancy of parts subject to high relative rubbing speeds.

I offer this as a hypothesis only for further discussion. I don't really have a dog in this fight.

I'm no engineer but I can tell you this- SOME guns shoot better (markedly so) with a barrel fouled with the type of lube you're using on the boolit. This shows up in my 52 Winchester using different brands of 22's, several my CF rifles and IIRC at least one of my revolvers. Others don't seem to care about lube fouling at all. Jacketed is another story.

Like the Prof. said, in SOME it makes a diff.

[Char-Gar]

Well Bros Beagle and Mike, you got me thinking about where I am on this one hole scale. I am not a Mecca man so that doesn't apply. I have been a serious rifle shooter for something like 55 years and I was wondering if my thinking has changed since I last considered the matter at hand.

My whole notion of handloading, riflecraft and shooting is to get each rifle to shoot as well as it can with a good cast bullet load and then go have fun with it. I know from experience, there is nothing that will replace having confidence in your rifle and ammo.

I don't have a fetish for one hole groups. Just like my real children, I want my rifles to do the best they can even, if another rifle can do better.

I don't spent months seeking the holy grail of loads, trying every conceivable combination of primer power,bullet, alloy and lube. I pretty much know when I have arrived and to keep on trying to sqeeze the last smidge of accuracy isn't where I am at.

At the range and I notice many folks there ,seeing how many rounds they can get off in the shortest amount of time. They treat their guns as if they were noise makers/firecrackers. They are amused with the noise and smoke and are happy if the bullet land in the same county as their target.

Still, despite my years, I still cherish that one well aimed shot that flies true to the target. IMHO that is what riflecraft is all about.

Benchrest shooting has never intrested me. I think Felix has it right, when he states than benchrest shooting today, devolves into who is the best weatherman that day. It isn't about rifles, loads, sight picture, breath control or whatever. It is all about the ability to deal with the weather on any particular day.

Standing here in the waters of calm reflection, I don't think I have changed that much since I drew that first tight sling well over a half century ago.

[TAWILDCATT]

I got my handloader to day so the rest of you may have yours now or tomorrow.
I flashed the article so cant comment.but seemed interesting.
My cast rifle is a 1903 [1914 barrel] and low number 585,***.I have never fired full loads,for obvious reasons. but shot 311291 and lee 312-160TL with 13.5 of red dot. both stay in one inch at 100yds.thats good enuf for me.and I just like to shoot.
as to the poster about the shooters who shot of hundreds in a sitting I agree whole heartedly. they cant be enjoying it but I think their idiots and its "cool"
another phrase I hate. I shot pistol bullseye for 30 yrs.wish I had eyes like now.
the cataract operations were fantastic and I can see a blade of grass at 100 yds.
may be an exagerating but not to much.:coffee:
stole my coffee again.it keeps traveling.

[sqlbullet]

Hope the eyes stay that sharp. My dad had that surgery, and could see fantastic for about 3-4 months. His vision isn't poor now by any means, and is still ahead of the last 20 years, but doesn't compare to those first few months with new lenses.

[Pat I.]

I've been shooting cast bullet benchrest for a number of years now and I wish it was a easy as people seem to think it is. Of course doping for conditions is a big part of the program but I don't know how anyone could even attempt to work up a load for any rifle without doing it. Wind plays havoc with these low velocity cast bullets so how do you know if it's the wind or the load without paying attention to it. Getting a cast bullet BR gun to shoot takes the same determination as getting any other kind of gun to shoot. It's not quite as easy as just cobbling something together and learn all you can about reading the wind.

I also don't ever hear many people bragging about the 8 inch group they shot at 100 yds so for the most part I have to believe that there's a lot more interest in getting accuracy out of a gun than most people will admit. Like it or not if you sit down at a bench lay your rifle or hand on a sandbag and shoot your guns to see how well they'll shoot it's benchrest shooting.

[felix]

That is correct, Pat. But in reality, It's the other way around. If you cannot read through the media, then by default you cannot see the target. In the BR game the target size is 0.0, and can only be estimated in size by the total optical system, including eyes, scope, and distortion presented by the media. It is much more relaxing for most of us to have a target which can be hit 90 percent of the time WITHOUT personal effort. ... felix

[StarMetal]

That is correct, Pat. But in reality, It's the other way around. If you cannot read through the media, then by default you cannot see the target. In the BR game the target size is 0.0, and can only be estimated in size by the total optical system, including eyes, scope, and distortion presented by the media. It is much more relaxing for most of us to have a target which can be hit 90 percent of the time WITHOUT personal effort. ... felix


Felix,

I was reading an article and it said that Pat McMillan shot a perfect 0.0 back in the 70's with a rifle and bullets he made himself. I was under the impression that nobody had done that. What's the scoop on that?

[Ricochet]

Well, if the 0.0 has already been shot, then it'll take negative group size numbers to beat it. It'll look like the group size is going up of course, but that's because they're crossing over the other way.
:kidding:

[felix]

Joe, that's not to be discounted in the least. The warehouse experiments, during the 70's in Houston, provided group sizes continuously within 0.05 when the guns were "finally" tuned. There was one guy who did the tuning and shooting, the name of whom I don't recall. He was not a circuit shooter, and seldom shot outside of that array of connected buildings. His value was in taking well made 0.15 groupers and turning them into 0.05'ers by altering cases for the most part. The cops finally had enough, and made the area off limits. The place was gradually approached by housing, and the shots eventually heard throughout the late night, early morning hours. ... felix

[45nut]

KY Caster: To paraphase Matthew Quiqley; I ain't Matthew Quigley and this ain't Australia.

Later.
Mike

Since the focus of most of your shooting is Marksmanship lately,, have you considered taking part in a Appleseed Shoot?

I wish I was in shape to travel and take in one myself,, physically and financially.

:coffee: *sigh*

[Nora]

I don't beleive it's worth jousting at windmills over.


They only do that in Spain. We're safe here.:kidding:

Nora

[StarMetal]

Joe, that's not to be discounted in the least. The warehouse experiments, during the 70's in Houston, provided group sizes continuously within 0.05 when the guns were "finally" tuned. There was one guy who did the tuning and shooting, the name of whom I don't recall. He was not a circuit shooter, and seldom shot outside of that array of connected buildings. His value was in taking well made 0.15 groupers and turning them into 0.05'ers by altering cases for the most part. The cops finally had enough, and made the area off limits. The place was gradually approached by housing, and the shots eventually heard throughout the late night, early morning hours. ... felix

Felix,

The article was by Layne Simpson in a past Shooting Times. He was testing a new McMillan rifle and first part of the article dwell on the history of the McMillans. There was the part about Pat not only made barrels, but built complete rifles, and made his own bullets. I believe it was in 222 Rem back in the 70's that he shot that perfect 0.0. I agree with Ricochet, we need to shoot negative group sized in order to beat that now. I'll see if I can dig up some more info on it.

Joe

[felix]

Joe, that warehouse was used continually by the "notables" in the sport. Ed Shilen was among many there on many occasions that I know of. Prolly, that is where the gun was tuned and shot. ... felix

[StarMetal]

Joe, that warehouse was used continually by the "notables" in the sport. Ed Shilen was among many there on many occasions that I know of. Prolly, that is where the gun was tuned and shot. ... felix


Felix,

Here's the article and Pat did it at the NBRSA match.

http://www.shootingtimes.com/longgun_reviews/ST_legacyofPS_200911/#cont

[shooter93]

The infamous 0.0 group is an interesting tale. "Mac" Mcmillian had what appeared to him as a zero group with one shot left. He made his last shot and the fellow on the next bench who was now watching his target asked him...Are ther 5 in there? mac said...yes and the backer verified it. The target was measured and declared a perfect 0.0 at that match. It was then sent to a bunch of people to be confirmed but it was then decided that it was really something on the order of 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001....I can't remember the exact score it was given but it wasn't a perfect 0.0. So there has never been an official zero group but a lot of people say Mac infact did do it. It was done with a rifle he built that had the locking lugs closing opposite of what is standard and a trigger that was completely neutral...no up force on the bolt at all. Several people had speculated for years was the only way a zero group would ever be shot was with a rifle built like that.
I'm not a bench shooter myself. While I have shot countles rounds from a bench in various tests I'd never call myself a bench shooter. I can handle a sporter pretty well across the bags and high grade sportes are my first and foremost passion and I shoot them offhand. I did follow bench shooting very closely for years and still do somewhat. I remember the Houston warehouse saga and at times these guys are doing cutting edge stuff which I've always found interesting and it's more difficult than it looks, a lot more difficult. All types of shooting fascinate me. For over 40 years my only too passions have been my job as a builder and shooting. I have no other hobbies but shooting and I like to experiment and learn about other people's experiments simply to know what it is they found.

[shooter93]

And i believe the warehouse shooters name was Virgil King. He's probably the best indoor shooter who ever lived and a large part of it's closing was I believe his simple burn out. It may not seem it but it was strenous and nerve racking undertaking but did put forth good information on case prep.

[StarMetal]

The infamous 0.0 group is an interesting tale. "Mac" Mcmillian had what appeared to him as a zero group with one shot left. He made his last shot and the fellow on the next bench who was now watching his target asked him...Are ther 5 in there? mac said...yes and the backer verified it. The target was measured and declared a perfect 0.0 at that match. It was then sent to a bunch of people to be confirmed but it was then decided that it was really something on the order of 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001....I can't remember the exact score it was given but it wasn't a perfect 0.0. So there has never been an official zero group but a lot of people say Mac infact did do it. It was done with a rifle he built that had the locking lugs closing opposite of what is standard and a trigger that was completely neutral...no up force on the bolt at all. Several people had speculated for years was the only way a zero group would ever be shot was with a rifle built like that.
I'm not a bench shooter myself. While I have shot countles rounds from a bench in various tests I'd never call myself a bench shooter. I can handle a sporter pretty well across the bags and high grade sportes are my first and foremost passion and I shoot them offhand. I did follow bench shooting very closely for years and still do somewhat. I remember the Houston warehouse saga and at times these guys are doing cutting edge stuff which I've always found interesting and it's more difficult than it looks, a lot more difficult. All types of shooting fascinate me. For over 40 years my only too passions have been my job as a builder and shooting. I have no other hobbies but shooting and I like to experiment and learn about other people's experiments simply to know what it is they found.


If it was really that many decimals points, which I doubt, that's 0.0 in my book.

Joe

[shooter93]

As I said Starmetal I can't remember the exact score it was given...but it was sooooooo close to zero that a number of people still call it a true zero. There is also a story that Harry Pope once shot a 10 shot 1/2 inch group at 200 yards with his 33-47 but the target gone blown into the river when it was left lying around so it was never official either. Dr. Mann was quoted as saying that Harry fired numerous groups like that and smaller while visiting Mann's personal range.

[Ricochet]

There's no way a hole in paper could be measured with that precision. They just decided it wasn't going to be zero.

[felix]

Yes. yes, good ol' Verge. ... felix

[Bret4207]

There's no way a hole in paper could be measured with that precision. They just decided it wasn't going to be zero.

Bingo. Two fibers of the paper intrude into the hole so someone counts them. Far as I'm concerned when you have to go past the tenths reading you're into an area beyond anything I can ever hope to even approach.

[Ricochet]

Speaking of which, surely it's been well investigated and discussed how different types of target paper affect group size. Some papers punch cleanly cut holes. Some tear and make larger, ragged ones. Some might tend to close up and make smaller holes. Do the bench rest records require a standard sort of paper?

[felix]

Not that I know of, but moving paper behind the target is required. ... felix

[StarMetal]

Not that I know of, but moving paper behind the target is required. ... felix

Felix,

Aw shucks, you mean the one real load and 4 blank trick won't work? :kidding:

Joe

[felix]

Yeah, Joe! Some folks like to cheat in different way, like destroying a good target next door! Happens often enough when a match is held with a few CRS folks on the line. ... felix

[44man]

I don't have my December issue yet.
But for them that scrub ANY gun, you need a muzzle protector so the rod does not rub the bore. No rod goes in my bores without one. Even when seating balls in my muzzle loaders, there is a muzzle protector, even on the long starter.
Then the guys that use aluminum rods need to learn they are very bad, Use hard steel or a new coated rod but do not forget a muzzle protector.

[mooman76]

I just got mine today and it was a good read. I have often thought along the same lines or wondered at times. I can't say I agree 100% on everything but who would. Good read none the less!

[MtGun44]

Mike,

I don't know how far you can shoot on your range but put that big old clanger (tank) out
as far as you can and you can have a real challenger to ring. It is quite amazing to see
how far you can hit a metal gong with a handgun. Years ago we used to shoot 1911s
at a 24" round gong at 200 yds. standing. I was amazed when a guy I knew to be a
real good shot was hitting nearly every time standing with an open sighted 1911 in
.45 ACP! Then I tried it. After remembering Elmer's method of holding up the front sight
in the notch so you could still aim at the target rather than holding over, I started hitting.
I was amazed to find that with some practice I could hit it most of the time, too. Really
fun. Your tank would be a really great handgun target at 200 yds or rifle at 400 or so.

Bill

[sqlbullet]

A whole week. My handloader finally arrived yesterday. Good article, as usual.

[1Shirt]

Got my issue Sat! Mike is probably the only reason I still subscribe to the mag.
1Shirt!:coffeecom

[dakotashooter2]

If the standard for measuring is 0.0 then It doesn't matter if it was 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001. It is still perfect under the standard used.

[BarryinIN]

I finally got my issue.

To me, the biggest myth busted in it was about the supposed dangers involved in casting. That section should be reprinted in bold print and put in every issue of every magazine as far as I'm concerned.
I don't know how many times I've been told how deadly casting was. Of course, I notice it always comes from people who have never read one paragraph of info on it themselves, let alone casted a bullet. It's always "Everybody knows...".

I admit I bought into it myself...when I was about 14, messing with muzzleloaders, and the local "gun experts" all talked me out of it for being "too danjurss". Later, when I learned spending five minutes of research on something paid off, I found otherwise. (I lost about 25 years though, since by the time I checked on that, I couldn't find the time to get started and that took me until this year.)
But some people still can't seem to teach themselves anything, and go on hearsay and "Everybody knows...".

And to back up Perfessor's findings on some bores doing better with some fouling, I have one rifle that really supports that. Maybe two.
The first Garand I bought is an IHC which I found had all the correct parts that makes collectors drool- but it has a rotten bore. It's pitted, corroded, and rough as a cob inside. It was shooting fair to OK, except for throwing a wild one now and then. When I cleaned it with copper remover, it shot everything poorly since that took the "filler" out of the low spots. I had to shoot it until it re-fouled and filled in and/or smoothed out all those potholes (which didn't take long). Now I'm back to "just OK" and will leave it alone.

I bought a Winchester 1895 in .30 Army last winter, and the barrel is in similar condition. I haven't shot it much at all, but so far, it's looking like things will go the same way with it. And it does seem to prefer cast.

[Ricochet]

I haven't read the article, and don't get Handloader so I won't get to, but the stuff I often hear from other shooters at the rifle range is "You can't shoot cast bullets in a rifle! They'll foul up your barrel with lead!" The slightly more knowledgeable ones tell me they're only OK for very low velocity loads, else they'll lead the barrel.

[45 2.1]

I haven't read the article, and don't get Handloader so I won't get to, but the stuff I often hear from other shooters at the rifle range is "You can't shoot cast bullets in a rifle! They'll foul up your barrel with lead!" The slightly more knowledgeable ones tell me they're only OK for very low velocity loads, else they'll lead the barrel.

I here the part in blue on this forum sometimes myself, especially concerning 6.5 Swede loads. :bigsmyl2:

I believe the standard for measureing groups is to the thousandth. That would be 0.000" in the mentioned perfect group.

[looseprojectile]

I been at this for more years than most of you guys. I have always been crazy for guns. When I got old enough to own and buy my own guns about 1953, I usually could only afford the guns that were broke or didn't shoot good.
After fixing the obvious mechanical problems on those guns I turned my attention to the bores. What I found was that most people did not know or care that their bores were badly fouled. I estimate that fouled bores was the problem with most of those guns. Of the hundreds of guns I have handled only maybe a handfull did not need the bore cleaned. Most were badly fouled.
After owning a gun shop for a while I determined that most people should not own or handle a gun. That's more than fifty percent. Just my observations.
A little training would have helped most but some will never fall in line.
I have always subscribed to the clean bore theory and even now I clean guns for relaxation in my spare time like when I am reading all the stuff on the gun forums.
I personally identify with Mike V. and like his writing but even he has to know that you can't please all the people all the time and some you will never reach.
Stupid is really frustrating. Ignorance can be dealt with.
I would ask Mike if he goes to a BPCR match with a copper fouled bore in his guns.:groner:

Life is good

[Bret4207]

I finally got around to reading the article. Pretty good. I don't agree with all of it, but it was pretty good.

[Mike Venturino]

looseprojectile: I WOULD NEVER fire a jacketed bullet in one of my match BPCRsin the first place!
MLV

[stephen perry]

Knowing bullet fit with either projectile is a good start.

Stephen Perry
Angeles BR [smilie=6: