Lube and boolit test

[44man]

I went to my shoot today with Lar's high temp lube and Postell's from my friends mould in my Browning. The lube worked great with no dry spots. It is as good as any I ever made. I had zero leading and the bore cleaned up fast. It is a very good lube!
The Postell however was a different story. I had fliers all over the place and shot the worst score ever. Pete turned up the power on the spotting scope and watched the boolits. He said they ran straight for a short distance and then started to wobble like crazy, some just dove down all of a sudden, some went all the way to the top of the berm. I could not even hit the pigs. The pigs I did hit had hits all over them. This was my experience when trying them before and since my home made boolit is very close to the postell, it explains why I have trouble at long range. If he had not watched the boolit, we would not have known what was going on. Mine shoots good to the pig line, then goes nuts. The Postell is only good to 200 meters.
Now I need a boolit that will shoot from the Browning and be stable all the way out. I have no idea how much drive area and bore ride will work.
Anyone have any suggestions? I am back to square one.

[montana_charlie]

Lots of people use the Postell successfully at ranges far beyond 200 yards.

For anybody to have a chance of figuring out what is going on, describe your barrel, your load, and the actual dimensions of the bullets your mould drops.
CM

[45 2.1]

I've had very good luck in a tight bore rifle with the Saeco 1881 500 gr. RN, but in the browning it needs to be a lot bigger.

[44man]

The barrel is factory (Badger?) with 1 in 18 twist, 8 lands and grooves, Slugs at .459. My boolits are .460 to .461, cast 1 to 20. I understand the shallower rifling of the 8X8 grooves need a different bore ride, usually less, then a standard rifling of 6X6.
My friend uses the Postell in his Pedersoli with great accuracy but mine will not stabilize it.
His Postells are .457 to .458 and I understand that they are not optimum for my rifle but my copy with the larger diameter only go a little farther before breaking down. The strange thing is, and the reason I had to try them, is that I have put 5 of his Postells in 1/2" at 100 yd's and 5 in 1" at 200 yd's. (scope from rest.) From that point on, they go crazy. Doesn't matter what powder, velocity or charge I use. As soon as they start to wobble, the wind plays havoc on them.

[Montanan]

Here is one I play with once in a while. This bullet, because of its hardness works very well with the whitepowder loadings, but if shooting hard cast bullets with a card wad over 80.0 gr of FFg Goex is your liking it does work well.

http://img336.imageshack.us/img336/9053/550grsuperhardcast9sq.th.jpg (http://img336.imageshack.us/my.php?image=550grsuperhardcast9sq.jpg)
Click on image to enlarge

[44man]

Can you give more specifics on the mold?

[45 2.1]

Can you give more specifics on the mold?

http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=181465

This has shown excellent long range accuracy for me.

[Montanan]

Can you give more specifics on the mold?


44man I would love to, BUT I purchased these from a castors wife who had passed away in Alberton, Mt. I got about 2,300 bullets for $170.00 so I couldn't pass that deal up.

They had a commercial casting business, and don't remember the mold that they were using. One was this 550-gr Creedmore and the other was for the 500-gr Elk Buster bullet. She offered me a deal on the two molds and machines I was interested in but didn't have the $$ for it at the time. HSM (http://www.thehuntingshack.com/) out of Stevensville, Mt bought it all from my understanding.

I'm hoping to get set up this next year for casting, as I have several applications for differant bullets that I use, such as the 510-gr Kodiak Bison Buster, 510-gr Paul Jones Flat Nose, and for long range either a Postel or Creedmore design.

I'm ordering from North Eastern Bullet Co (http://northeastbullet.com) a 520-gr Postel to try as it is cast 20:1 They only charge $46.00 for 250 which includes shipping/handling which is not the norm from most bullet suppliers. But I want to try the Postel in my Rolling Block 45-2.4" to see just what kind of accuracy I will get with it.

:coffee:

[montana_charlie]

Can you give more specifics on the mold?
I guess, from the flat metplat, that bullet was cast in a nose-pour mold. Otherwise, it looks like the Paul Jones Creedmoor. That shape is available from Paul Jones and several other places including NEI, as their 349F.

I have a 349F, and it is the bullet I am currently 'working on'.

But getting back to that Browning of yours. Must be some kind of 'range limiting' safety thing.
Does the owner's manual tell you which button to push to let it shoot beyond 200 yards? Might be in the section that's written in Japanese...

Seriously...
If you use charcoal for propellant, how much do you use?
If you use that nitroglycerin stuff, I wouldn't be able to make heads of tails of what you tell me.

You gave the groove diameter...what about the bore measurement on the barrel, and the bore ride diameter of the bullet?

I wondered how soft your bullets might be, but 1-20 sounds OK.
Have you tried harder ones...1-16, 1-10, WW?

Have you tried a shorter bullet just to see how it acts?
I have an NEI mould which casts a 500 grain roundnose...looks like 45 2.1's Saeco bullet...that I might be induced to part with.
CM

[McLintock]

Almost sounds like a velocity thing, after they drop below a certain point they lose stability. You said you've tried different velocities, what did they run or vary between. I'm using 71-2 grs of Swiss 1.5 in my Browning with a 540 gr Brooks and it seems to maintain stability; I generally hit more turkeys than pigs, which is hard to take, but indicates that the bullets aren't de-stabilizing on me. My barrel slugs at .459 also and I shoot the bullets at .460 with a 20-1 mix. Maybe get the velocity up to at least 1200 fps at the muzzle and see what happens, if they aren't already doing at least that. If that doesn't help then get another mould as you're looking at doing already.
McLintock

[44man]

Land to land measures .450" These were shot with 72 gr's of Swiss FFFG.
I contacted NEI and they said to use this boolit.

[montana_charlie]

Have you tried a shorter bullet just to see how it acts?
I contacted NEI and they said to use this boolit.
Well...that is a shorter bullet...and it sounds like it is intended for your barrel.
Do none of your buddies have something in a similar length that you could try?
CM

[44man]

No, I will try to get the measurements from the pictures I printed and maybe make a mould. It is $80 to buy one but might be worth the money.
The boolit is short but the drive band is long and the bore ride is short. They will be deep in the case but not a problem. Veral Smith says the type of rifling in a Browning does not shoot good with a long bore ride section.
Almost every weight boolit I have shot has a drive area almost the same size with a long nose and might be the reason I get such poor results. The Brooks Creedmore has a drive band of about .715 to .720". The Postell is .675", the Gunn modified is .610", the Rapine Gov't is .540", my copy of the Postell is .700" and my Hoch is .730". The Hoch has shot the best so far so if I go with a longer drive band, I might get what I want.
I have read many times about the boolit length a twist needs but I think the length is only part of it. No one has taken into account the drive band versus length a particular rifling needs.
I wish the hell Badger would have used regular rifling. I can't afford another rifle!

[Montanan]

44man and 45 2.1

Just remembered the mold that 550-gr bullet was thrown by was a Magma mold.

[McLintock]

My Brooks 540 Creedmore's driving bands are .690 long and the top one is a reduced diameter. It's .430" while the bullet nose is .425", and the rest of the bands are .460", so it's not a bore rider. Overall length is 1.412". 72 grs of 3F Swiss ought to give plenty of velocity, so that's not the problem, that's a pretty healthy load I'd say. One thing I was told when I was talking to Brooks and another well known shooter when I was looking at ordering a mould, was that the thickness of the bottom band made a lot of difference. The Brooks is .142 or so and I know that the Lyman Postell is a lot thinner than that. They said if it's too thin like that, you get deformation of the base by the gases, and with that heavy load of 3F maybe that's what's happening. Just something to think about and check on your bullets.
McLintock

[montana_charlie]

No, I will try to get the measurements from the pictures I printed and maybe make a mould.
The pictures in the catalog are supposed to be actual size...and accurate enough to take measurements from.

My dial caliper says that 346-F Badger/Browning bullet is 1.340" long, and .845" from the leading edge of the front band to the base.
It looks like the front three bands are bore riders at .450" diameter, while the base and two rear bands are .460".

Does that help?
CM

[powderburnerr]

you didnt mention using an over powder wadwith black . you might try that if you havent already ..I had 4 different postel moulds by lyman, all were different size and none of them shot well for me . it wasnt the weight that caused me problems but the longer nose .I believe it was slumping offset .. I can get real good core groups but always have outside fliers in groups with long nose bullets. . Dean

[44man]

That helps a lot guys. I think it is nose slump because we have tried all kinds of wads. We might just be driving it too hard. I heard the Lee slug slumps bad.
I will have to cast up some Creedmores to get a better measurement. I was just trying to measure the mould. Maybe the Creedmore nose is stouter and won't slump.
I need a way to catch some without damage, very hard without upsetting the nose more.
Does anyone have the 346-F so it can be measured directly?

[44man]

I don't know about the long bore ride section on the 346-F. It looks like only 1/3 of the boolit is engaged into the rifling and would depend on the front 3 bands upsetting into the rifling. I would like it better if only the front band was .450 and maybe not even that, just engrave it into the rifling. It would fit very deep into the powder space though.This boolit takes on the characteristics of the Gov't bullet with the long bore ride and short drive band, with just a few more grease grooves. Would I gain anything over the Gov't boolit? ( I have the Rapine .460 Gov't.)
I don't think I would go more then the two front bands at .450.
Montana, can you get me some measurements of the width of the base band and the other bands plus grease grooves? What diameter is the nose in front of the first band?
I wish we had someone here that was using this boolit. It looks like I will have to cut three cherries and make three versions.
Then a fourth possibilty is the front band at .450 and the second at .457-.458 to make it easier to engrave.
My head hurts already!

[martinibelgian]

1:20 sounds unlikely to get nose slump, FWIW - maybe you need to weigh your bullets and see whether you have some serious weight differences. Also, to make sure, check your barrel twist. I know the specs are for a 1:18, but is it??
FWIW, I spec'd a custom 457125 with a tapered GG section, starting at around 453, with the base band at .461. Yes, it allows you to seat out the bullet quite a bit indeed ,and as long as the boreriding section is land diameter, shoots quite well too.

[44man]

It is 1 in 18 and I have tried lead all the way to water dropped WW metal. It improved over the soft but leaded my barrel something awful which took away any advantage. My boolits weigh within 1/2 gr.
The 457125 shoots poorly in my Browning, being too small but your custom mould sounds better. My Rapine shoots OK at .460, .450 but still not good enough to hit them all. The Browning is not easy to fit a boolit to and if I want to do better I have to get the gun shooting so that only conditions and vision control my scores.
I could understand a bad boolit going bad, but everyone of mine goes nuts after a certain distance.

[montana_charlie]

I can't say I know much about the details of how the bore rider section of a bullet acts when fired. I also don't claim any knowledge of what constitutes 'too much' or 'too little' length for a bore rider, when taken as part of the overall length of a bullet.

If a 'long bore ride' could (by itself) cause a bullet to become unstable, how could anybody ever get good results from a paper patched bullet wherein the whole length is bore ride...and only the patch (which falls off) really fits the grooves?

But in this discussion about a GG bullet, it seems to me...
Say you have a bullet which has .500" at groove diameter, .200" of bore ride, and .300" of nose...creating a 1-inch long bullet.

When fired, the rear half-inch surely obdurates into the throat diameter, and then takes on the shape of the rifling and grooves. But, that rear end is being pounded by the powder against the restriction of the leade...causing the rear end to 'fatten up'.

The two tenths-inch bore ride section has no 'restriction' in front of it other than the weight of the 'nose', so I just imagine that it moves forward with no (or certainly less) obduration.

The (unsupported) nose might get thrown to one side (slump), as the bullet begins to spin, if it's too soft to hold it's shape under the acceleration.
This could be more true in the Postell with it's 'long nose' in front of a short bore ride.

If all of these suppositions are basically true, it would appear that the bore ride, supported by the lands, cannot be part of the 'slumped' portion...so it's length is more a product of how far out of the case the bullet can be seated than an element concerning bullet stability downrange.
A 'long one' has the added advantage of getting more of the bullet centered up in the barrel prior to launch.

If the question of bore ride length is to be compared with how much of the bullet is gripped in the rifling to avoid 'stripping', it seems the answer is simply to increase bullet hardness so that the amount which is gripped is strong enough to keep from being stripped. Of course, you can only increase hardness up to a point.

I also think the ability of the bullet to slide forward is one factor in preventing stripping. This might be an element of the barrel's interior finish, or the quality of the lube, or both.

Maybe my suppositions have validity in this particular discussion, and maybe not. It's also possible that my suppositions are not even true.
But it's my opinion that if you (44man) opt for a 346-F modified to have (say) one bore riding band, the only real difference you will acheive is less powder capacity in your cases.

I'll post those other measurements of the 346-F later today.
CM

[martinibelgian]

Also, it is not normal for the harder alloys to lead like that - unless the bullet was undersize. A bullet will not stabilize for following reasons:
1. Too long for the twist
2. Too slow MV
3. imbalance in the bullet itself
4. bullet too small
5. bad lube performance; causing severe leading and fouling
6. bad crown
If your bullets are within 1/2 grain, the correct size and have no large voids, you'll have to look at the other reasons - but a 1:18" twist will amply stabilize both the postell and the gov't bullet, even if the nose is undersize. Even a bullet .002 underbore will do so with BP, so...

[44man]

Any gun from my revolvers to the BPCR will lead with WW metal. Don't ask me why because I don't know. If I make them harder with tin and antimony, or softer by adding pure lead and a touch of tin, the problem goes away. Something about the alloy used around here. I can shoot 20 to 1, 25 to 1 or 30 to 1 in my Browning and do not get any lead. A few WW boolits and there it is! Even the undersize Postell did not leave a speck of lead in the bore.
I have played with the Postell from day one and have never gotten it to shoot distance. The Lee will not shoot either. The RCBS boolit would not shoot. The Rapine Gov't did pretty good and the Hoch shot nice. The Hoch has a .730 drive area and is 1.345" long. I made a mistake trying to find a better boolit when I should have stayed with the Hoch.
On the BPCR site there were many references to boolits recovered from snow that showed the bore ride had expanded fully into the rifling. Maybe that is what the 346 will do. Maybe the old timers with the Gov't design were smarter then we are after all.
Anyway, none of it makes much sense, I have more different boolits for this gun then any I have ever owned. Most do not work. Only two work fair. Maybe the answer is a new barrel. Might be the reason Browning quit making the gun, too many compaints, too stubborn to fix it. This gun is like finding the right boolit for a Marlin Micro groove.

[45 2.1]

44man-
If you want some help fitting a boolit to your browning, PM me as i've had one since they came out and the barrel/throat is fat on them.

[montana_charlie]

Montana, can you get me some measurements of the width of the base band and the other bands plus grease grooves? What diameter is the nose in front of the first band?
Keeping mind that I am measuring a picture, not a bullet...

Base band thickness: .160"
Groove width: .055" (all 5 grooves same width)
Band thickness: .085" (all 5 bands, drivers and bore rides)
Nose diameter: .440"
Bullet Length: 1.340"

As near as I can tell under bright light and using magnification, these are very close to the 'real' numbers. But, when I figured the nose length at .490", then added everything up, the total came out longer than my measurement of the bullet length...by one hundreth.

What can I say? It's hard to know which side of the black line to measure from in a drawing.
CM

[44man]

I do the same thing when laying out a boolit on paper, even with a calculater.

[Black Prince]

44 Man

I sympathize with you. My Sharps shoots a variety of bullets well, but my Browning does a similar thing as you describe. As you know, bullet stabilization is a function of the rotational velocity and that is a function of the barrel twist rate and the linear velocity.

I discovered my Browning likes bullets that are as short as they can be for their caliber and weight. That means it does not like bullets with long tapered noses regardless of their weight.

A bullet isn't necessarily accurate because of the rate of spin on it, but we know that you can't get any accuracy unless the bullet is spinning enough to cause the gyroscopic effect that stabilizes it, and the further down range the bullet goes and experiences a loss of both linear and rotational velocity, at some point, it looses stability and accuracy goes to heck. That may be what is happening to your bullets out past the chickens.

You know that longer bullets must spin at a faster rate to stabilize them than a shorter bullet of the same caliber and weight. It seems to me then, that if you get a bullet that is of the same weight and one has a long tapered nose and the other has a full caliber shank and rounds off rather quickly, the later bullet will be shorter and therefore take less linear and rotational velocity to stabilize it.

When I use bullets designed like that in the Browning, it shoots fine, but if I use a long nose bullet design that shoots fine in the Sharps, forget it out past the chickens. The Browning just likes a different bullet if I keep the velocity the same as the Sharps.

I have discovered that if I crank up maximum loads and thus the linear and rotational velocity on the longer bullets in the Browning, I can get them to shoot a lot better, but when I do that with the heavy bullets I like, it isn’t much fun to shoot anymore. My Browning also likes softer bullets than the Sharps. I don’t know if any of this will apply to your situation since these rifles seem to be individuals, but that is what I have discovered this far in trying to make this particular Browning shoot.

[44man]

With 45 2.1's help, we are going to make a better boolit. I started a cherry. He also says to use softer lead.
The one thing I remember is from Veral Smiths book where he says the boolit with a long bore ride doesn't work in the type of rifling the Browning has so it is going to be a trade off with powder space versus what sticks out of the case.
I think Browning made a mistake with 8 lands and grooves.

[4060MAY]

I think the barrels on the Browning BPCR are made by Badger and chambered in Japan.
some of the original 40-65's were chambered off center.

[45 2.1]

I think the barrels on the Browning BPCR are made by Badger and chambered in Japan.
some of the original 40-65's were chambered off center.

I think that is correct also. With a fat Hoch nose pour boolit that actually almost fit the Browning rifle, the boolit would produce 3" 200 yard groups until I oriented them the same in the chamber, then it shot a very nice 1.25" group in the lower right hand side of the 3" group. The cases were oriented for the rifle and completely fireformed out, then neck sized. That tells me that the chamber and bore aren't quite in line. After I found that out, I continued testing it placing the index mark at various clock positions in the chamber and could call the position in the group repeatedly.

[44man]

From everyting I can measure, I think my chamber is cut straight. I tried aligning cases and boolits but it made no difference in the way it shot. I made Cerro Safe castings and turned them in my bullet alignment checker and they were OK. Loaded rounds have almost no runout. I just checked my home made boolit in a loaded case and out on the ogive near the nose, I measured .001" runout. Can't beat that considering the parting line on the boolit.
I have shot a lot of 1" and slightly larger groups at 200 yd's with a variety of boolits. It is beyond that that they go wacky. I start to notice it on the pigs where groups open and by the time I get to turkeys, it is tough to hit them. At the ram line, I have been luck to hit any. This is with the Postell and my version which is larger in diameter with larger grease grooves. Mine shoots better then the Postell by far. The Hoch did MUCH better and I should have kept shooting it. I used to get 8 or 9 rams and 9 turkeys. This dummy thought he could do better! Even the Rapine Gov't shot decent.
I have based my tests on Pete's Pedersoli which shoots the Postell great, but he also has some unexplained wide misses. Maybe the boolit just isn't as good as claimed.

[Black Prince]

You boys are waaay ahead of me designing and shooting bullets. Heck, I'm happy to find a good mould somebody made and be able to use it effectively. But since ya'll have decided to do this project, I'll offer this information from Dan Theordore whom I'm sure you know.

BULLET STABILITY

The issue of BPCR bullet stability has been quite the puzzlement, for quite a while, to this crank. For the past 6 years there has been a considerable focus on optimizing bullet design for a given twist and vise-versa. Some solidification of understanding is starting to take place through extensive testing by shooting bullets through heavy corrugated cardboard at distances from 50 yards to 1,000 yards and applying a measurement technique to estimate bullet yaw angle or wobble about its center of mass or gravity. The short story is, all is not as it would seem.

Now for the medium length story about to date findings, theories and hypothesis concerning stability of BPCR cast bullets.

Common wisdom, a reasonably approach to the problem, says that bullet length and barrel twist are all one should be concerned with, well and muzzle velocity. So far that has been disproved beyond a shadow of a doubt in this crank’s mind through actual live fire testing at various ranges using numerous calibers, barrel twists and bullet designs. All is not as it would seem nor is it what we typically hope for when attempting to design The Long Range Bullet.

Where to begin, where to begin, let's start with the easy stuff and work through some basics required for bullet stability and then proceed to experimental findings and current thinking.

The easy stuff has nothing to do with bullet design, barrel twist or muzzle velocity concerning appropriate bullet stability. It is simply a loading technique issue. Since our bullets are cast with relatively soft lead alloys the back of them bumps-up to fit the bore. If the nose of the bullet is not in line with the barrel-bore axis the back of the bullet will bump-up and be centered about that axis but the bullet-nose axis will be out of alignment with the bullet-shank axis. That is a less than optimal way for the bullet to start its flight down range. It will have an alignment induced yaw during its trajectory which no amount of barrel twist or MV can overcome. To make sure that does not happen one must load their ammo so that the bullet is as far into the barrel as possible when the shank bumps up due to the pressure created from powder ignition. I’ve personally seen holes through a Creedmoor target that were quite elliptical created by a 45-110 launching the Lyman Postell bullet to over 1,400 fps out of an 18-twist barrel. There was plenty of rotational stability for the bullet, but it was no longer a symmetric bullet along its longitudinal axis after bumping up and was therefore wobbling a lot. When this happens to a bullet in the transonic range, where our bullets spend most of their time from muzzle to target, the drag on the bullet will be much higher than it should be. That means the BC plummets, trajectory angle is steeper and the wind moves the bullet around more. The way to overcome this problem is to use a bullet that fits your chamber and barrel snugly and stick it as far into the barrel as possible and still be able to close the action. Simple, no? Oh, and put plenty of powder behind that puppy if shooting LR matches. At this time I’m convinced that faster is better so long as you can deal with the recoil, accuracy is topnotch and fouling is not an accuracy reducing problem in the weather conditions you will be shooting in.

Now for the next issue, what forces are making the bullet stable and what forces are trying to make it wobble or tumble? Most of us know that the barrel rifling spins the bullet which helps it spin on its longitudinal axis as it flies down range. Base drag, the drag caused by the base of the bullet also helps to keep the bullet spinning on its longitudinal axis, sort of like fletching on an arrow or fins on a rocket. The aerodynamic forces on the bullet as it flies from muzzle to target exert an overturning moment that can induce bullet wobble. This force is called the Center-of-Pressure. The Center-of-Pressure (CP) is the vector summation of aerodynamic forces acting on the bullet in flight. It is always in front of the Center-of-Gravity (CG) for a spin stabilized projectile. We really don’t need to know much about the CP except that the aerodynamic forces can be summed to act at a single point on the spin stabilized bullet in front of the CG and it will make the bullet wobble or tumble if not spun fast enough. Think of the distance between the CG and CP as a lever. The longer the lever the greater the force applied to making the bullet wobble. If the CP and CG acted at the same point the bullet would not tumble even if shot from a smooth bore. That type of bullet is commonly known as a “round ball.” Through bullet design we can work to shorten the distance between the CP and CG and improve bullet stability.

One issue that should be discussed when talking about spin stabilized bullets is that increasing MV does not always deliver enough added stability to optimally stabilize a particular bullet. The stability does do up due to the increased spin rate which is a function of the velocity squared but the over-tuning moment or CP also goes up with velocity but only in a linear fashion. Designing the bullet for the barrel twist and desired MV is really the way to go, not stuffing more powder into the case and hoping for better bullet stability.

Some findings that were a bit of a surprise might shed some light on this bullet stability issue. A very good example can be shown by relating what bullet holes looked like at 1,000 yards through the target using two different rifles and bullets. One rifle is a 10-twist 38-72 and the other is a 12-twist 38-70. The bullets in question are a 1.496” long grooveless G3 design that weighs 405 grains and the other is a 1.54” long spire point what weighs 373 grains. One would assume using current common wisdom that the 405-grain, 1.496” long bullet would be more stable out of the 12-twist barrel than the lighter, longer spire point. Not at all! The 1.496” long bullet produces quite elliptical holes through the target even at 800-yards. It shoots great out of the 10-twist barrel. That seems reasonable. But here is the kicker, the 1.54” long spire point that only weighs 373 grains will punch round holes at 1,000 yards when launched out of the 12-twist barrel. Go figure! So what is going on? My current understanding is that the CP for the spire point is much closer to the CG than that distance for the 1.496” long, 405-grain 3G bullet. This phenomenon has been seen with a number of other bullet designs, calibers and twists also.

We can use this information to optimally design bullets for a given caliber and barrel twist as well as targeted MV. When doing so for BPCR Target Rifle competition we are not concerned about target knock down, just accuracy, wind deflection and trajectory. For BPCR Silhouette we need to add ram knock down to the decision process if shooting one of the smaller calibers, more on that later.

Cheers,

DanT
March, 2005

[45 2.1]

Black Prince-
That was a nice little speech by Dan, BUT you all seem to miss the entire point, and that is, don't let your boolit have room to bump up and it won't go out of line! Soft boolits bump up almost before they move much. Boolit temper is extremely critical to accuracy that way. Get the boolit into the bore straight and it shoots very well. Three areas of boolit contact are critical and the majority of shooters are missing two of them.

[felix]

Lookin' good, Dan! Keep it up. ... felix

[felix]

Bob, I think Dan is inherently assuming good fit during his conversation. Like you say/imply, getting a good boolit to serve multiple guns is a major downfall to accuracy in all but one gun.

[felix]

If you get egg shapes on target, just make sure the shapes are identical in distortion AND direction. Mis-reading the conditions will cause one to think the boolit design, excluding boolit fit, is no damn good. Becomes more obvious at the longer distances, naturally. The boolit will turn on its CG to meet the wind like an airplane trying to fly in a straight line from point A to point B. ... felix

[44man]

I have kept track of all of Dan's Knowledge when on the BPCR site. I can no longer sign in to it but still get E mail. For some reason, my AOL shuts down as soon as I try to log on. I think Mickysoft hates AOL.
The entire problem with all of this knowledge is that no one has drawn up boolits that work in different rifling and twists. It is fine to ramble on relating theory but nothing in nuts and bolts has been done leaving us as much in the dark as ever. How do you design a boolit where the CP is in the same place as the CG? I see many tests for yaw at long range but if a boolit is found to have reduced yaw, it is only good in that one rifle with that one load. How can a blanket statement ever be made that this is the only boolit that works? Is the solution to make 500 moulds, spend 10 years on each to see if it works? What happens if one buys another rifle?
Most rifles shoot well with a variety of boolits, but the Browning is a special case that does not like a lot of them. All the work done with boolits by Dan has never addressed the Browning.
Dan is very smart, but I don't know anyone that has been able to use what he says to come up with the right boolit for their gun. Theory is theory and a boolit in the hand is a different thing. I have used what he has said for boolit length for twist and it has not worked. He never addresses drive area, bore ride length, CP or CG as it relates to twist and rifling design. These are variables that change as fast as the powder charge does.
I can't afford to buy 500# of powder and cast 1,000,000 boolits and spend every day trying to shoot a round hole through cardboard at 1000 yd's. (Hard to come by also.) I want some one to come out and say that such and such boolit is the one for the Browning, Pedersoli, Sharps or whatever and this is the powder charge to use for each. All of us know very well that this will never happen! Those that lucked into the right barrel and the right boolit will continue to win the matches while the rest of us blunder about trying every boolit ever thought of.
One thing I have noticed both in BPCR and IHMSA is that most of the top shooters have a lot of money and time. I did give the IHMSA shooters a run for the money, having won both Ohio State big bore production and .22 production with Rugers. I had a pile of 40's in that game until it just got too costly.
I could hit more rams with a revolver then I can with this Browning!

[45 2.1]

Bob, I think Dan is inherently assuming good fit during his conversation. Like you say/imply, getting a good boolit to serve multiple guns is a major downfall to accuracy in all but one gun.


I agree that he is assuming good fit, but what is good fit? Certainly not when a loaded cartridge doesn't slip fit in the chamber nor when you hear a thunk or plunk when it stops. My point is just how much slop or lack thereof is a good fit. I have addressed those points and found out what it takes to get a good fit for a particular rifle. The problem after that is getting a mold maker to provide that and a bunch of guys to cast the same overall to get it..

[Black Prince]

Wal now, thati is why I am here on this forum. I can not use theory either. It doesn't shoot for beans in my rifle. I'm just a shooter trying to find somehting that works and I don't have unlimited time or money to do it either. I am happy that you boys are working on designing a bullet and making a mould that might work in the Browning cuase if it does, I need one.

So please stamp out a pocket of ignorance here and tell me WHAT are the three areas that a bullet needs to fit?

[44man]

Looks like I will be cutting all sizes of cherries to get it right and using a lot of scrap aluminum. To keep from spending money, this is what I have to work with on a cheap Smithy, mill, lathe setup. The hardest thing to do is to cut the stuff into right angle sides and keep everything flat. Making a square or rectangle is very hard.

[Black Prince]

Been there and tried that in making knives and you are correct. Without proffessional quality tools, it is difficult. It sounds like you and 45 2.1 know a lot about bullet design and fit. I don't. I just like to shoot as well as these 65 year old eyes with cataracts will let me so I need all the help I can get. I read all this stuff and it sounds good, but I don't know it it will work and have no way to find out so I'm here with you boys trying to learn what I can.

For example, Theodore says the following bullet designs shoot very well out to 1000 yards, but I don't know if he knows what he is talking about or not.

Weigh: 545 grains
Length: 1.45”
Meplat: 0.24”
Ogive Radius: 5.2 calibers
Nose Length: 0.690”
Boreride Diameter: 0.450”
Boreride Length: 0.300”
Driving Band Length: 0.140”
Driving Band Diameter: 0.458”
Grease Groove Length: 0.200”
Grease Groove Depth: 0.020”
Base Band Length: 0.150”
Base Band Diameter: 0.458”


Weigh: 543 grains
Length: 1.450”
Meplat: 0.23”
Ogive Radius: 7.8 calibers
Nose Length: 0.89”
Boreride Diameter: 0.450”
Boreride Length: 0.100”
Driving Band Length: 0.100”
Driving Band Diameter: 0.4570”
Grease Groove Length: 0.250”
Grease Groove Depth: 0.020”
Base Band Length: 0.100”
Base Band Diameter: 0.460”

Click on the following address and you can go to the site and read the full report and see photos of the above two bullets.

http://www.bpcr.net/site_docs-results_schedules/documents/Dan_Theodore_NASA_Bullet_Report_MAR_2005.htm

From what little I know about this stuff, neither of these bulet designs seems to be one that my Browning likes to shoot. But he says they are way cool. What is going on here? Who should a redneck believe? I have a Sharps 45-70 and the Browning is 40-65. The Sharps does good with about anything I shoot in it. The Browning is VERY picky about what it likes to shoot and that's all I know right now.

[felix]

All things being equal, you have to shoot the largest diameter boolit that will fit in the case with absolutely no more than 0.002 total slop, actually more like 0.001 for best results. Then work the boolit diameter downwards in very small increments, holding the boolit alloy constant to visualize any improvements, if any.
It is always best to design the boolit and throat (freebore + leade) together where there is zero clearance in the throat, such that a positive stop occurs allowing the boolit to slip into the case upon "bolt" closure. ... felix

[44man]

Black Prince, Felix and 45 2.1 are correct. All of those boolits dan says will work are too small for the Browning. Need .462 to .463 depending on the chamber. Might as well throw rocks instead of a .457 or .458 boolit.

[45 2.1]

Wal now, thati is why I am here on this forum. I can not use theory either. It doesn't shoot for beans in my rifle. I'm just a shooter trying to find somehting that works and I don't have unlimited time or money to do it either. I am happy that you boys are working on designing a bullet and making a mould that might work in the Browning cuase if it does, I need one.

So please stamp out a pocket of ignorance here and tell me WHAT are the three areas that a bullet needs to fit?


I've measured over two dozen 4570 chambers from original trapdoors to modern. All of them will take a 0.462" boolit in WW brass, two would take a 0.463" boolit. What that means is that there is at least 0.003" slop with the normal 0.459" soft boolits I see wrote up in publications. Just where does that boolit metal go when bumped up? Is it concentric when it bumps up in a cartridge that usually lies in the bottom of the chamber. You get the idea? Now, try to get the boolit body so it has 0.001" to release and you will likely have a concentric bumpup. This is assuming the guy has fireformed his cases up to center in the chamber also and neck sizes thereafter. If the body is fired case inside diameter, this will satisfy the rear point being centered and not be allowed to get off center. The center bearing point depends on if you throat engrave the boolit. Some rifles like a little run. Either way the full front body diameter will be centered in the case neck or engraved litely into the throat. The last point is the nose or the parallel part of the nose engraveing the lands or the BP fouling to provide guidance and prevent slumping. Mann (and Veral Smith) showed that the boolit obturates less as it gets farther from the boolit base, all dependent on the alloy and pressure. If you get those three points bearing at the point when the cartridge just locks up, it will give excellent accuracy thru its range again dependent on the load parameters.

[montana_charlie]

45 2.1,
Let me say what I think you said...and you tell me if I got it right.

- The bore ride section of the nose should fit the bore diameter, not rattle around in it.

- The first driving band should be shoved into the 'funnel' created by the leade (throat) so that it is centered...or should be centered when it contacts that 'funnel' in rifles that prefer some 'jump'.

- The rear diameter of the bullet should fill the freebore as completely as possible.

- The bullet should be loaded in a case which has been fireformed in that particular chamber, with no resizing other than (perhaps) the neck.

Right/Wrong?
CM

[44man]

You might also find a new boolit will not go into a fire formed case if the boolit is the right size. The brass springs back a lot farther then you think. You might have to expand the neck instead of trying to size it. If a round chambers OK it is good to go. The old saying that a new jacketed bullet must slide into a fired case is not good enough for cast.
I am shooting a .460" boolit now and do not size or expand because they fit snug by hand. I do flare the case for two reasons, to start the boolit and to center the case mouth in the chamber. I do not remove the flare. The mouth of a loaded round measures .480" with no flare but the flare will up the measurement to .485" and they drop right in the chamber. Subtract the normal .002" for case expansion shows I can chamber a round with a .463" boolit and still have .002" for case expansion.
The only factory mould you can get at .460 is a Rapine. All others will vary from .457 to .459 depending on if the cherry is new or resharpened. That means a custom mould is the only way to get a larger boolit. Most guys still order a .459" mould when they can go much larger because they worry about bore size instead of chamber size. Since the soft boolits bump up while in the chamber, too much will not expand evenly before entering the rifling. Then the long pointed noses also bump up unevenly so there are two problems to solve.
The nose on that Lee 500 gr will give you fits!
Most of you think of a boolit looking like a boolit when fired, best to think of it as a blob of putty.

[45 2.1]

45 2.1,
Let me say what I think you said...and you tell me if I got it right.

- The bore ride section of the nose should fit the bore diameter, not rattle around in it. Or in the case of BP, ride the fouling hard as long as it chambers.

- The first driving band should be shoved into the 'funnel' created by the leade (throat) so that it is centered...or should be centered when it contacts that 'funnel' in rifles that prefer some 'jump'. As long as 0.001" chamber clearence is there.

- The rear diameter of the bullet should fill the freebore as completely as possible. Nope, the body of the boolit should be large enough when loaded so the the case walls are a minimum 0.001" to 0.0015" under chamber dimensions. applies at the case mouth and the base of the boolit.

- The bullet should be loaded in a case which has been fireformed in that particular chamber and is centered in that particular chamber (helps to index also), with no resizing other than (perhaps) the neck. Dependent on load, crimp helps in a lot of cases also.

Right/Wrong?
CM

Thats the basic scheme, but it is a little more involved determining those dimensions.

[Black Prince]

If I am hearing (and understanding) you boys correctly, it seems that what a shooter needs to do is make a chamber cast and perhaps a small section of the rifling and send that to a mould maker and have the mould throw a bullet of sufficient diameter to meet the measurements you say are critical.

If that is true, then it would seem to me that the shooter would also have to send the mould maker an unsized case that had been fired in that chamber and also say that he was going to use that make of brass when using that bullet since different brands of brass are built to different thicknesses. It would seem to me that the thickness of the brass at the neck of the case is going to play an important role in making sure the fit is correct in the chamber.

But then, I'm new at this esoteric sorta stuff and you boys don't exactly make it clear to me what you mean. That ain't your fault because I don't know the terms you use. I needed to ask the same questions Montana Charlie asked, (THANKS MONTANA) but he beat me to it. I THINK I understand what ya'll ( 45 2.1, 44 Man, Felix) are saying now.

I have been reloading smokeless cartridges and casting bullets for over 40 years and have never had to deal with this issue. Doing that, all I had to do is work out an OAL the rifle liked, and more times than not that meant engaging the rifling with the bullet once the breach was fully closed, and working up an accurate load. It was not a big deal. But this Black Powder business is a lot different and I am having to learn new stuff. At my age and with as many miles as I have on the odeometer, that ain't always the easiest thing I did today.

I appreciate you boys having patience and explaining stuff that ya'll all seem to know. I want to be able to shoot as good with black powder as I do with smokeless and that is proving to be a little more difficult to do than I had anticipated it would be. What is throwing me is that I have a Taylor ( Armi Sport) 45-70 Sharps and that sucker shoots GOOD with just about anything I shoot in it, either smokeless powder and jacketed bullets, or using five different cast lead alloy bullets and black powder, or duplex black powder.

But this Browning is a different colored horse and it won't even eat the same food as what I feed the Taylor Sharps. Course it is 40-65 instead of 45-70, but it is not near as forgiving as the Taylor Sharps when I use comparable loads and bullets scaled down to the 40-65, or when using the same loading methods and techniques that are successful in making good loads for the Sharps. I don't understand that, but like ya'll say, each BP rifle is an individual and you have to treat it as such. I don't know how to do that and it is why I am here trying to learn from you boys who have been there and done that and have the scar tissue to prove it.

[felix]

Must also keep in mind that the throat enlongates with shooting. Make sure there is enough full diameter in the case to allow for that throat change. Keep in mind that often, but not always, you can change powder speed to compensate for a crimp. A crimp, if used, should be very gentle and aid the resistance afforded by the leade. Sharper the boolit/leade-angle, the more resistance you get. Think truncated cone boolit design with perhaps a rounded cap. Yes, by all means do an outside turn on all necks before deciding on a final boolit diameter. A neck is defined where the boolit touches in the case. And, do trim a little further down the case than the exact bottom of the boolit. Perhaps the best thickness for brass where the boolit lies is .010-.011 (for a rifle). ... felix

[felix]

It won't hurt to have the chamber set up where the case neck has its own diameter, set to just barely compensate for the thickness of the final brass dimension. Shooting the gun will smooth all of these throat dimensions in a faster time than you would normally realize, especially when shooting "fire-forming" boolits, defined as those having double the amount of antimony over that of the tin content. ... felix

[iowa]

Black Prince: Re: your 40-65 Browning. I am sure you have already figured this out but Browning in their wisdom chambered their 40-65 and for that matter their 45-90's with about .200 freebore. Once you set the bullet out to accomodate this it should load with BP about the same as useing the techniques you are having good success with with your Taylor 45-70. I also have a number of Browning BPCR 45-70 rifles which I shoot and compete with on a regular basis. The 45-70 chambers are cut to industry standards, and do not have the freebore, and I have never found one othrwise. It is disapointing to hear of all the trouble 44man has with his. As a matter of fact I use the Lyman Postel bullet and find it shoots as well as anything all the way to 1000yds. Regardless the Browning BPCR rifles, except for their sights, are very fine rifles. One suggestion I would offer is to be sure and free float the forearm, as this will definately improve the accurcy on the Browning, and the trigger could stand some attention. Once these two items are attended to the Browning BPCR rifles will shoot with the best of them and for about half the price or less of any of them. Best regards steve witt

[44man]

Steve, the Browning sights are as good or better then any on the market and I don't know why you don't like them! I also free floated the forearm long ago.
I agree the trigger stinks and mine failed at a shoot. It wore and would fire when I closed the action. I had to hold the hammer back when closing the action. That cheap piece of aluminum with a steel insert was junk. I made my oun trigger out of tool steel and installed an adjustment screw. My trigger is way less then 1#. I have shot thousands of rounds with it with out a change.
I don't know how you can shoot the Postell unless your bore is very tight. Browning says the bores are .458. mine is .4592 or .4593 if I remember, maybe even larger. The Postell I have been trying is .457. Buy a Lyman mould and take your chances on the size.
Badger must have sold Browning all of their reject barrels. I see some at the shoots that are great and others, like mine, that stink.
It sounds to me like you have a tight bore and a mould cut with a new cherry so you can't tell the rest of us that we are wrong.
Why did Browning stop making the rifle? Could it be that word got around and they were not selling enough?

[martinibelgian]

44man,
sounds to me like you have some other issues too - I have a .452 - .460 barrel which will shoor a Lyman Postell (casting at .450 - .460) quite nicely, and the 457125 too...
However, I do admit to having custom moulds for it - with the borerider section the exact land diameter of the barrel, and a tapered bullet shank, which does double duty: seating the bullet out into the rifling (also more forgiving when having to push home a round that is just a bit too long...), but still having a full-diameter rear band for full obturation.
Still, those stock Lymans will also shoot quite well indeed, despite needing some bump-up
for a relatively cheap experiment, have the rear band on your Postell mould opened up .002 - .003, and see if that helps. I agree that .457 is a bit small for the bullet. Just give it a try, after all, you have preciously little to lose...

[Black Prince]

Steve and all of you boys who have pitched in here and help stomp out a pocket of ignorance where my BP loading is concerned, a big THANKS to all of you.

[felix]

Not only for BP, but WP as well. The gun rules are the rules for the gun, not ammo per se. ... felix

[44man]

Martinibelgian has explained it! His bore is .452 X .460 and he needs a custom mould. Did any Browning have the proper size bore as advertised?
I can't open the Postell mould because it is not mine and it shoots good from my friend's Pedersoli as is.
Anyway, the whole problem boils down to the vast differences in the bores of Brownings. I watched a friend do a long run on the turkeys with his, I think it was 32 straight. I duplicated his load and with my rifle on a rest with a scope I couldn't keep them on a pig. There is more to it then just other issues, this rifle either shoots or the next one is a pig and nothing off the shelf will work.
As I explained before, I have shot the tightest 100 and 200 yd groups with the Postell then you can believe. Anything farther and you can watch the violent flutter take over by watching the boolit in the spotting scope. It is an amazing sight. It starts with a perfect flight and all of a sudden goes wacky. I watch the same boolit from my friends Pedersoli with the same load and it goes nice and even until I lose sight of it.

[montana_charlie]

I guess the only thing left to ask is...
Are you certain your rifling is really 1 in 18?

It sounds like your bullet doesn't spin fast enough out of the barrel to still be spinning fast enough to stay stable...out beyond the 200 yard mark.

You can't make the twist faster (if it's 1 in 20 or 22), so the only other thing to do is shoot shorter bullets. Paul Jones has a mould for a 'short' Postell that has the same shape, but only goes 500 grains (I think).
CM

[martinibelgian]

I have heard that there were a few brownings barreled with other-than-badger barrels, don't know if there is any truth to the rumor, but...

[44man]

Yes, I measured the rifling and it is 1 in 18. I started with 65 gr's of Swiss 1-1/2, worked to 74 gr's. Then used Swiss FFG and then FFFG, 65 to 74 gr's so I have covered every velocity, also every primer, wad and compression. I have used 30 to 1 all the way to WW. WW metal leads the bore. (Leads my revolvers too.)
The bore is extremely smooth, doesn't lead and cleans easily. I shoot from the null point from sticks and from the forearm on bags, no difference found. The crown is perfect.
I have 8 or 9 different boolits for it all the way to the 540 Creedmore. The most dismal shooter was the 457193. I made sort of a copy of this boolit at .460-.461 and it shoots better so I use it for chickens. I should have went .462 to .463! I am going to make them softer to try and crank up the heat to see if I can get them larger.
By the time I get this gun shooting my eyesight will be older and worse.

[martinibelgian]

44man, if you want your bullet to cast larger, it needs to be harder... Not that the difference will amount to a lot, you'll never gain more than 0.0005 with tin. .001 is about max, but then you will need an anitmony alloy.

[Black Prince]

I am re-reading Mann's book, " The Bullets Flight," trying to get more understanding about this issue. 44man mentioned Veral Smiths book. I am not familiar with it. Can any of you boys point me in the right direction to get a copy? What was the title of that book?

[44man]

According to the great fella at Rapine, turning up the heat expands the mould more and will give a larger boolit regardless of the alloy. It is worth a try.

[martinibelgian]

Martinibelgian has explained it! His bore is .452 X .460 and he needs a custom mould. .
44Man, no, I didn't NEED a custom mould - the stock Lymans were accurate enough, but rather unforgiving as to seating depth, and could have been better re. bore fit, so I just went for it and designed my own bullet, then had the mould made...
I actually still use the Lymans in another rifle - a 500/450 #2 musket, where these bullets are just an abosulte perfect fit. Of course, a flukem but a happy one.
this is an original hunting rifle which just fits me, and I use running deer shoots. It just goes where I point it, no questions asked.

[44man]

You never said if they were accurate to 500 meters and beyond though! Yes I would be happy with them for deer at 200 and under but for BPCR silhouette, they fall apart for me.

[martinibelgian]

44,
I can only assume there is some other factor that will ruin your loads - it goes contrary to every theory (and practice) I know. Have you recently checked your muzzle crown under strong magnification? Just a wild guess... The twist should be amply sufficient to stabilize the bullet out to wherever you would want to shoot. Some variable that just screws up LR stabolity. Or maybe it just 'loses' it when it hitsx the transsonic region? To be honest, I am baffled. I use .462 bullets in a .465 bore, and don't have any problems whatsoever - even worse, the 577-450 Martini has such a large throat, that I cannot even seat out the bullet to touch the rifling. I am still shooting 520gr stabilized bullets at 400 meters, and hitting what I aim at, with a less-than-perfect bore. Bullet design nor diameter will be the problem, and twist certainly not. Nor MV, or bullet hardness. But I cannot tell you what it is...

[montana_charlie]

turning up the heat expands the mould more and will give a larger boolit
There is also that 'beagle trick'...

I admit to being as baffled as martinibelgian.
Your bullets are stable as they come out of the barrel. Otherwise, you couldn't get those good groups at 100 and 200 yards. They should be spinning fast enough, because you have confirmed that your twist is 1 in 18.
You are shooting bullet designs which have proven to be good for long range, but yours go haywire between 200 and 300 yards.

I doubt that bullet cast diameter can explain your problem, because I'd bet it fully fills the barrel when the light turns on...no matter how much undersized it may have been to start with. Sure, a good fit should shoot better than a poor fit...but whatever works at 100 should make it to 300 without massive problems.

The only thing I am left with is a void in the bullet that is so well-centered it has no effect at short range, but causes the bullet to be nose-light or butt-light when it hits the trans-sonic point.
Of course, to create that identical void in two (or more) bullets would take some practice.

Whatever the deal is...I want you to find the solution before I start shooting beyond 100 yards.
CM

[44man]

I am working on it to be sure! I still think it is the style of rifling with the 8 lands and grooves. The grooves are a lot smaller then the lands and there might be some stripping involved. Why they didn't make the grooves and lands the same size is beyond me. Looks like it was designed for jacketed instead of cast.

[martinibelgian]

44Man,
You can forget about rifling configuration too- multiple narrow lands actually were a favourite in BP days, they called it "Rigby rifling". They even trhought so highly of it that they used it for their high-end match rifles.
Í'm actually shooting 7- and 9-groove without any problems, so.... It won't be a conceptual problem for sure.

[44man]

Well, that gives me something to think about! I am not giving up. I think the thing is just fussy over the boolit design based on so many different sizes the bores came in. I know of two others at the range that are small, one is .457 and the other is .458. Then mine is .4593, then there are larger ones yet. I think it is a matter of luck whether one will shoot an off the shelf boolit.

[drmaynard3235]

44man and all
You mentioned that you bore is very smooth. Maybe it's too smooth. The old timers
would rough up thier bores when they felt that it was too smooth. I heard of an old
barrel maker who had problems with his barrles because he learned to make them so smooth.
Pres

[44man]

That is VERY true with a muzzle loader, but not so with a cartridge rifle.

[wills]

I am re-reading Mann's book, " The Bullets Flight," trying to get more understanding about this issue. 44man mentioned Veral Smiths book. I am not familiar with it. Can any of you boys point me in the right direction to get a copy? What was the title of that book?

Here

http://www.graybeardoutdoors.com/lbt/book.htm

[44man]

Oh boy, has the price gone up!