New Mould

[montana_charlie]

A few weeks ago I got it in my head to try a 'grooveless' bullet design.
Dan Theodore is the protagonist of the method, so I had several discussions with him ...in posts on two forums, via PM's, and finally by email.

He sent me a drawing of his bullet design, and I posted it in an earlier thread, here. Well, Rick Kalynuik (the Canadian who makes those excellent mould handles) saw that thread and contacted me about that design.
Rick isn't set up to cut moulds for grease grooved bullets, but he has been doing paper patch moulds for some time. This one looked like something he could produce, and the concept interested him.

Long story short, he made a mould for me...and here it is. It just came in today. Nacherly...it fits a pair of his handles like it belongs there.

This is a .45 bullet, with a .450" bore ride and the base band is .460". We had to play with the ogive arc as the original drawing had a number which must have been a typo (Rick did the 'playing' while I kibitzed.) and this one is caliber x 4.733.
In 20:1 alloy, it should throw a 550 grain slug 1.45 inches long.

I wanted to post a picture, but the site doesn't seem to be accepting them right now. I'll update this thread when (and if) that changes.
CM

[Buckshot]

.............Be glad to see it and hear about how it shoots.

...........Buckshot

[montana_charlie]

Here you go, Buckshot...and anyone else interested.

I still have to clean some lead and mix some 20:1, so it will be a while before I cast some...and I need to get some of that 'special' lube before I can shoot any.
But, it will be done...

The numbers in the diagram are all in inches, and the one dimension that is missing is the nose diameter...which is .250".

This started out to be a copy of the Theodore/Brooks 3G, but since the ogive had to be 'fiddled with' it probably needs a new designation. Call it the Kal-Max .45 Grooveless.
CM

[Tom Myers]

CM

That groovless design interests me so I transfered the dimensions to my design software to see what it would produce. the results are in the screen snaps below. You should be able to copy and save or print the data.
Tom Myers

http://breeze.linksky48.com/~tommyers/LinkSkyImages/Kalynuick%20Mold%20460-450-540%20%20541_gr.gif

http://breeze.linksky48.com/~tommyers/LinkSkyImages/Kalynuick%20Mold%20460-450-540%20%20541_gr_Sketch.gif

http://breeze.linksky48.com/~tommyers/LinkSkyImages/Kalynuick_Data.gif

[montana_charlie]

Pretty interesting stack of data, Tom. Not being a bullet designer, some of it leaves me wondering, while some of seems familiar. Many of your numbers are the same (or at least close to it) as the figures that Rick and I talked about.

The one detail that caught my eye is that Estimated BC of .5+. That is somewhat better than most of the .45 bullets that are popular for BPCR work. Is it also common for paper patch slugs to have a number like that?
CM

[Buckshot]

.............Wow! That's a great looking boolit. Very nice machine work on the cavity also. So hurry up and cast some! I want to hear about how it shoots.

...............Buckshot

[Tom Myers]

CM
First off, we must remember that estimating a BC is kind of a crap shoot. Calculating a BC from a Coefficient of Form returns a comparative value. The Ogive Radius on this bullet is large (Over 45% of the bullet length) compared to most BPC projectiles.

Most Paper Patch bullets that I have seen do not have an ogive utilizing as much of the bullet length and many of the swagged ones have a pronounced shoulder where the ogive joins the bullet body which greatly increases the turbulent drag characteristics.

Tom Myers

[45 2.1]

Not to shower on your parade, but I think your going to have trouble with this one. Please keep us up to speed with your trials as this is interesting being that you basically are using a base band lead boolit.

[SharpsShooter]

I'm gonna have to watch this one too. Interesting design. Will you use a lube cookie or other method. If shot exclusively with Black, a cookie seems in order.


SS

[montana_charlie]

.............Wow! That's a great looking boolit. Very nice machine work on the cavity also.
Yup...and any of you boys who like paper patch can get moulds made just as pretty.

you basically are using a base band lead boolit.
Yeah...the term that came to my mind is a 'lead patched' bullet.

Will you use a lube cookie or other method.
Other method. That would be 'dip' lubing...which is different from pan lubing.

Using a lube designed for the method, you bring some up to 190 degrees which is deep enough to immerse the bullet up to (about) the beginning to the ogive.
Dip the bullet, base first, and let it come up to a certain temperature (I guess so the lube will adhere properly).
Take it out of the lube, wipe the base clean, and finger-seat it into a charged case.

Lube on the 'base band' will scrape up into a ring at the case mouth, which gets removed after it cools. So, in the end, the bore ride area of the bullet has a thin coating of lube on it...and that is supposed to be enough for the job.

The primary 'tool' for all of this is a hotplate which will hold a desired temperature.
Not knowing the accuracy available from the Wal-Mart specials, I went to eBay...and found a laboratory-grade unit for twenty bucks.

When I have something to say, I'll tell you how it goes...
CM

[montana_charlie]

As all of you guys know well, everything happens in stages.

I'm still several steps away from shooting this bullet, but I tried out the new mould, today. I can't say it was a terribly successful session, as I got no 'perfect' bullets out of about fifty cast. But I'm positive that the fault does not lie in the mould...unless I just haven't cleaned it well enough, yet.

I did save one of the better slugs to weigh and take measurements from.
It looks like 20:1 alloy will produce 540 grain bullets, and if they are not perfectly round, the difference is too small for my dial caliper to indicate.

The base band reads .462" and the bore ride comes out at .452" - so the mould casts two thousandths over nominal, when using 20:1. I might be able to make it cast 'right on' by switching to 30:1.

Even if I stay with what I have now, I can resize the base to .460" as I already have that die (for use with my other bullets)...thanks to Buckshot.
And, I find the extra 2 thousandths on the bore ride is 'no problem' - as it stuffs up fully into the rifling with nothing more than firm thumb pressure when chambering the round. If that doesn't 'center' a bullet...nothing will.

I do have a question for you highly experienced casters...
I understand you can affect final bullet size by varying alloy temperature.
If I want a smaller bullet (using an iron mould), do I use more heat...or less?

Anyway, here is a picture of the bullet this mould will throw.
This one has a tiny imperfection on the back side, but it was good enough for the camera shot...
CM

[SharpsShooter]

That is purty! If you want less diameter, use less heat.


SS

[SharpsShooter]

Since it is pertinent to this boolit....I have to ask. If dip lubing is the method for this boolit then what will prevent the fouling from becoming hard and resulting in loss of accuracy? It would seem to me that a lube cookie would be the solution to that issue, but I'm interested in your take on that item.

SS

[montana_charlie]

CM
That groovless design interests me so I transfered the dimensions to my design software to see what it would produce.
Tom,
I said earlier (in this post) that my bullet weight agreed closely with the estimated weight shown in your data.
However, after discovering my calculations were grossly in error when mixing my alloy, I have corrected it, and my bullets now weigh 550 grains.

(There were quite a few occasions when I considered discarding that Lee tester. Assurances from members here about it's accuracy potential convinced me to keep it. Well, recent tests on certified 20 to 1 alloy have convinced me that mine must be defective. Therefore, I have edited my earlier assertions in this post to reflect my findings with a correctly mixed alloy.)


Since it is pertinent to this boolit....I have to ask. If dip lubing is the method...
Until I shoot it, I don't have a 'take on it', SharpShooter, but I'll tell you what I have learned, so far.

Dan Theodore says a thin coating (just on the bore ride section) is sufficient. He states emphatically that 'more is not better'.

Another shooter (who I won't name, but is well-known) sent me some 'private advice' when he read the discussion Dan and I were having on one of the forums. He had tried the method, and had some serious problems with it.
He eventually switched to using a grease cookie with no lube on the bullet, at all.

After I got a Word document from Dan which explained his lubing process, I realized the 'other guy' had been doing it wrong. Therefore (I guess) he had lube in the wrong places, which caused his problems...problems as serious as head separations because lube on the outside of the case mouth kept the case from releasing the bullet.

I'll try it the way Dan recommends.
If it works out, the advantage of the grooveless shape is supposed to be better BC, reduced drag, and better long range performance.

If 'more lube' seems to be desirable, this bullet will seat out so far there will be plenty of room for a grease cookie in the case to - augment the stuff on the bullet.

Heck, there might be potential here for a 'duplex lubing' idea that has a real soft cookie under the bullet...for the express purpose of carrying 'moisture' into the fouling. Who knows...?
CM

[Buckshot]

............MC, what I've found at least in Lee moulds and alloy temps is shown below:

http://www.fototime.com/2D536DBA57B9FA1/standard.jpg

This is the Lee 358-158RF from a 6 cavity mould. All three were cast at the same alloy temp which ran just over 900* according to the Lyman thermometer. You'll have to deal with the poor photo, sorry. On the left is a representative slug cast by filling the mould then touching the sprueplate to a damp pad, then dumping the boolits. On the way back to the pot, the base of the blocks were dragged across the same damp pad. Effectively a cooler set of blocks recieveing the very hot alloy. Well filled, diameter a bit OVER .359" and appeared chrome plated.

Middle boolit had the mould filled, sprueplate touched to damp pad and boolits dumped. Then directly back to the pot to refill the mould. Boolit even frosted all over and very well filled. Diameter ran about .358" and maybe a tenth.

Right hand boolit was cast by merely filling the mould blocks and then standing there (seemingly forever) until the sprue had shown signs of hardening, and waiting a bit more, then dummping the boolits. Surface of the boolit (not clear in photo) was definately exhibiting a crystalline structure evenly all over it's surface. This slug was EXTREMELY WELL filled out and measured the same OD as the very shiney boolit to the left.

http://www.fototime.com/E5D1D95CA0D988C/standard.jpg

These two 8mm boolits are the same thing. On the right is double cooled and on the left max hot. Both measure the same. Remember that these were all from Lee aluminum blocks. Alloy was WW approximate. Maybe a bit harder.

................Buckshot

[montana_charlie]

Thanks for taking the time to write that up, Buckshot. The thing is...I'm not sure how well I can make use of the information.

As an answer to my 'more heat, or less heat' question as it applies to finished bullet size, it would appear that 'left slug came out a bit bigger than 'middle boolit'. Lefty was born in a cooler environment than middle was, so that might indicate that 'less heat' makes bigger bullets. Which is backward from what SharpsShooter said.

The differences (in mould material, technique, and alloy temperature) between how you made yours and how I make mine might be enough to skew results in a way that makes them unable to answer my question. Fer instance, I can't imagine a situation where I would use an alloy temp of 900°. Heck, I was starting to get frost at 775°. The only reason I kept casting that hot is that I wasn't getting a real sharp corner on the base.
(That might just be a lack of venting under the sprue plate.)

I also won't be using damp rags, pads, or sponges...except maybe to wipe my nose. I just don't need to resort to those 'speed up' tricks when 50 pretty bullets is my idea of a good casting session.

Nope, once I get this mould figgered out I'll find out how cool I can run the alloy. If that results in a change in bullet diameter, then I'll know which way to go for the size I like best.

Ordered that special lube today, so (pretty quick) I hafta get this mould casting right...
Charlie Maxwell (CM)

[omgb]

I've used Dan Theodor's White Lightning now for almost two and a half years. So far, it is the best all-weather lube I've ever used and a small amount goes a very ong way. If any dip lube was going to work, it would have to be WL. I've mentioned this stuff time and time again but it seems to fall on deaf ears. Seeing is believing. Try it and you will not go back to other lubes. In cool weather, just about any natural lube will do. But, when the weather gets hot and dry, or the barrel goes long or you have shallow or non-existant grooves, you need uberlube. Dan's WL is the cat's meow.

[montana_charlie]

You appear to be one of a small but select group of White Lightning devotees, RJ.
However, I assume you refer to the 'lubrisizer' variety...not the 'dipping' kind.

As one who likes to have a Plan-B available, and wondering what I would do with left-over 'dipping WL' if my project fails, I asked Theodore if it could be converted to the other kind of WL by 'adding something'.

He said, "No."

From that, I take it the two mixtures share little...therefore, success with one wouldn't necessarily transfer to the other. I guess the single thing they have in common is having been formulated by the same person. If the lubrisizer version worked well for your application, I'll place some faith in the 'dipping version' for mine...especially since there is no other option that I know of, right now.

Once I have some of the real stuff, I will be most interested in duplicating it...if possible...to have a way to re-supply if something were to cause Dan to stop making it (guess that's another Plan-B I would like to have available).

I'm hoping redneckdan can help with that.
CM

[omgb]

I have some of the (actually I have a 3 lb block so "some" is a misnomer ) lubesizer stuff and some of the dip. The dip lube is also used for pan lubing if I am not mistaken. I think the issue is the consistancy cannot be changed without changing the balance of ingredients. However, I think the basic composition is pretty much the same only the amounts are manipulated. Of course, that's just speculation based on visual and olofactory (sniff) testing. :drinks:


Dan is VERY tight-lipped about his formula as he seems to have a ton of time and energy in its development. AFAIK, he's never even hinted at what he has in it so I can even imagine how one would go about copying it. Too heady for my chemistry-challenged brain.

[montana_charlie]

The dip lube is also used for pan lubing if I am not mistaken.
I'll defer to your experience on that issue, but that is not how I take it from what Dan has said.
From discussions I have read (between him and others) I am pretty certain that pan lubers are told to use the 'lubrisizer type'.

Dan's directions for dipping has you holding the bullet by the nose and immersing it into lube which is at 190° until the bullet warms up to a predictable point, then drain it, scrape the excess off the base, wipe the base, and stuff it into a charged, as-fired case. After it's cool, you clean off the ring of lube that got pushed up by the case mouth. Judging from his description, that ring should be rather 'brittle'...not the 'softer' stuff you would want in a lube groove. I also have the impression (or just made the assumption) that the cooled surface is a pretty hard 'shell' that (probably) doesn't attract dirt, and is kinda 'durable'.

Of course, I'll know more when I get some...

Dan is VERY tight-lipped about his formula...
No argument there...

BTW, if you find yourself with no need for that 'dipping' stuff, I might be interested.
CM

[montana_charlie]

Since my dipping lube has not arrived and the weather is way too nasty for shooting, I am stuck with playing 'indoor games'.

In an effort to get this mould to cast well (for me) I totally disassembled it and let the ultrasonic cleaner work on the parts for thirty minutes...followed by a rinse in boiling water. It doesn't need water that hot to remove the residue from the cleaning solution, but it heats the metal so it dries quickly.

After some email discussions with Rick Kalynuik, we decided that the fit between the sprue plate and mould top is just 'too perfect'...and is the reason that bullet bases come out with a slight 'radius' instead of with sharp corners.

So...I used a jeweler's file to break the top corners of the faces, from the cavity out to the edges of the blocks. This creates that shallow groove which allows air to vent as the base finishes filling. I have seen moulds where this was overdone, and resulted in leaving little 'tits' on the base right at the seams.

When reassembled, each mould part received the lubrication it required...tiny dabs of anti-seize compound on all threads and on both sides of the spring washer for the sprue pivot...and spray graphite everywhere else except the cavity and faces.
I don't lubricate alignment pins or their holes, but my casting rhythm allows time to gently guide the halves together (a two-handed operation) while making sure the pins don't take abuse.

Then it was out to the shop to make bullets.

The venting under the sprue plate worked. The bases came out with decent corners, and no 'tits'.

So, I spent my time playing with alloy temperatures...to see if variations would create different bullet diameters...and searching for the 'just right' temperature for this mould.

Much time was spent waiting for the alloy to reach the next temperature level, and a lot of bullets went back into the pot because it was necessary to bring the mould back up to temp. The amount of time spent was further increased because I tried the dipper, and bottom pour, at each level.

In the end, I had ten 'keepers' from each setting of 650, 700, 750, and 800 degrees (measured with a Lyman thermometer)...and all of the keepers came from using the dipper.

Keeping a pot hot for so long - while using up so little alloy - means there is a lot of oxidation to deal with. That provided the opportunity to refine my 'stick fluxing' method.
It seems to be most efficient at preventing the loss of tin while not introducing substances (like beeswax) that can contaminate dippers and cavities. (I'm not addressing you bottom pour guys.)
I must have fluxed and skimmed twenty times, and doubt that (during the whole session) I scooped out enough tin to make a 'BB'.

Measurement of the bullets showed no difference in diameter.
Using averages within the four groups of bullets, it appeared that there was a slight difference in weight...with the bullets cast at low temperatures weighing slightly less than the hotter ones. But that difference, at the maximum spread, was only about one grain.

Under magnification, the bullets cast at 750° were just a bit closer to 'perfect' in appearance than those made above and below that temperature.

I think this mould would benefit from deeper face venting, as there seems to be a definite limit to how fast you can dump lead into it. That, I believe, accounts for the occasional (tiny) wrinkle or dimple which appears at random in the 'body', and never in the 'base band'. (Out of the forty I kept, three showed this defect.)
But the cavity produces bullets that are so 'round' and so 'smooth' you almost can't tell where the seam is.

So, gentlemen...that is everything I learned during the 'indoor games'. I hope the next chapter of this story can include some shooting results...
CM

[Char-Gar]

OK... Now for the truly dumb question. I realize there are something we do, just to try and do something different and that has value in and of itself. Having said that......

1. What are you trying to prove?
2. What are the hypothetical advantages of this design over a traditional lube design?
3. What is the measure of sucess or failure?

[montana_charlie]

If I were launching into some new financial venture, your questions, (or questions like them) would be in critical need of some good answers...and 'I dunno' wouldn't cut it.
Thankfully, that's not the case, here.

I started getting hooked on owning and shooting a Sharps rifle about 18 months ago. For the first six of those, I did nothing but read about it...trying to decide if I even wanted to get mixed up in something which seems to have become so intricate since the 'simpler' 1800's.

You can't read for long before you start getting the idea that your choice of bullet will have much to do with your chance of success in finding 'the perfect loading' for a given rifle. I had no visions of competing, but I felt that settling for anything short of 'perfection' would make the whole project a monumental waste of time and money. At the same time, I could not afford (or desire) to collect a dozen moulds while looking for the 'magic bullet'.

In all of my reloading for modern calibers, I had always chosen the bullet weight which had the best BC for that diameter...then picked the bullet best constructed for performance on game.
In most of that (BPCR) reading, it was apparent that grease grooves degrade the BC, but paper patching just seemed too tedious for me to get interested.

So, when I bought a gun, I also bought moulds for grease grooved bullets because that was 'the easy way'...and 'everybody does it'.

All of my shooting has been 'developmental', so far, while trying to find what works best with a given bullet. Therefore, I have not progressed beyond 100 yards, except for a few trial shots at a fence post known to be at 225.

I was somewhat surprised at how much elevation was needed for that change in yardage, and started envisioning what 1000 yard shots would require.
It was at about that same time I read a long post by Dan Theodore on the subject of ballistic coefficients and BPCR bullets.
(I would love to share the content of that with you, but a glitch on the Shiloh site caused the thread to be deleted...along with many more.)

In that BC discussion, Theodore praised the performance of several bullets, and his grooveless design was among them. They required less elevation for long range, and they were less affected by wind. That reminded me of having read an article on it, back during that initial 'reading' period.

I re-read that article, and started a discussion with Theodore which convinced me that I wanted to try the bullet.
Why? I guess it's the same reason I have always sought the best BC that was readily available.
What am I trying to prove? Whether a smooth bullet flies better than a lumpy one.
What constitutes success? If I can make it shoot accurately, and not have a leading problem, I can just bale hay and feed cows with a huge smile on my face...because my bullet has such a good ballistic coefficient.

And Oh Yeah! I almost forgot.
This particular bullet will seat much further out of the case than any of my others. That means I can get more powder in there. With my PJ Creedmoor, I had about topped out on muzzle velocity without getting much above 1200 fps.

If it turns out to be a can of worms, I may try paper patching...for the same (ulp) reasons(?).
CM

[montana_charlie]

Chargar (and others),
Still waiting for lube, so no shooting results, but back to your question about 'why'...

Dan Theodore has started a new thread on long range bullet performance, over on the Shiloh forum. He started out comparing a 'mini-groove' with the PJ Creedmoor bullet.
The better BC of the minigroove (for one thing) results in a wind deflection improvement of 32 inches at a thousand yards.

Now that the conversation is starting to get closer to the subject of 'grooveless' bullets, you might care to read along (like me). It is here http://shilohrifle.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7703

(As a side note, the nose on the minigroove sure bears a strong resemblance to my grooveless.)
CM

[montana_charlie]

Still waiting for dipping lube, so nothing new going on...but I thought I'd say a few words about hotplates.

You guys have seen the 'mould heater oven' made with a covered electrical box that has a thermometer mounted in the lid...that sits on a hotplate.
And, some of you use a 'whatever brand' of hotplate, and just put a mould on it to preheat.

Well, I am suggesting you look into laboratory-grade hotplates. The advantage is 'controlled and predictable temperature'.

If you do an eBay search for 'hotplate', you will get a page with a hundred hits. On the left, click on the Healthcare, Lab & Life Science link to get to the good ones.

You can pick and choose according to your wishes, but I suggest you look for a Thermolyne 1900 or Thermolyne 2305.

Here are links to old sales so you know what they look like.
1900 - http://cgi.ebay.com/THERMOLYNE-HOTPLATE_W0QQitemZ220036182044QQihZ012QQcategoryZ4 8729QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

2305 - http://cgi.ebay.com/Thermolyne-2305B-hotplate-used-alchemy-lab_W0QQitemZ120042331317QQihZ002QQcategoryZ26420Q QrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

As you can see, both of those sold for around twenty bucks...and my 1900 was about the same. They retail for over $200.

I was working on a tractor out in the shop yesterday. Since I was going to be out there for hours, anyway, I turned on my hotplate...put it at various dial settings...and checked it periodically with an infrared thermometer.

On the '200' setting the temperature stayed betweem 194 and 199. This was particularly satisfying to me, because that is the recommended temp for that dipping lube.
At the '300' setting, the plate maintained 296 to 300 very reliably.

There is nothing wrong with the 'Wal Mart Special' for melting lead or keeping ingots warm. But if you want controlled heat to bring a mould up to a certain temperature...and hold it there...a laboratory-grade heater seems like a good choice when they can be had so cheaply.

These units apply full power to bring it up to the set temperature, then they cycle to maintain it. Both of the Thermolyne units are 700 watt plates, and both dials go up to 700 degrees.

In an episode of CSI that I was watching a couple of weeks ago, they were using a 2305 in their lab.
If they're good enough for Grissom, that's good enough for me.
CM

[montana_charlie]

I have some of the (actually I have a 3 lb block so "some" is a misnomer ) lubesizer stuff and some of the dip.

Dan is VERY tight-lipped about his formula as he seems to have a ton of time and energy in its development. AFAIK, he's never even hinted at what he has in it so I can even imagine how one would go about copying it.
omgb,
I had this faint memory of reading a lube recipe (a year or more ago) that was a formulation devised by Dan Theodore. After searching all of the gun forums I read, I decided it must be on the 'lube page' at BPCR.net...because I have been unable to open it for months.

I asked the webmaster to check it out. He helped me get the URL right, and I found this:

"Great For Hot, Dry Conditions" - sourced from Dan Theodore

Ingredients, Procedures, Notes, etc.

All measures are by volume.

4 parts refined beeswax
2 parts LubeGard's "Valve and Assembly Lubricant"
2 parts anhydrous lanolin.

OR

5 parts refined beeswax
3 parts LubeGard
2 parts anhydous lanolin. "This makes a dandy lube for dry, hot conditions."

Note: LubeGard should be available at any NAPA Auto Supply store.
Note: Refined beeswax and anhydrous lanolin are available from: http://www.from-nature-with-love.com/soap/.

Melt the beeswax and anhydrous lanolin in a double boiler. Once both are well melted, add the LubeGard and stir for a minute. This lube works well for pan-lubing, as well as through a lube-sizer.

I don't know if it bears any resemblence to White Lightning, but it was posted a long time ago...maybe before Dan started selling lube, and felt the need to become so tight-lipped.
CM

[joeb33050]

Maybe 15 years ago I started on the no-grease-groove bullet trail, had molds cut in 30, 32 and 45 caliber. The 30 and 45 caliber molds make nice bullets that shoot well in some rifles, but when all the dust settled they don't shoot as well as some grooved bullets at 100, 200 yards.
I tested the 45 for BC, and got numbers in the .6's, this is a 446 grain bullet. I wrote it up in the ASSRA journal ~10 years ago, I didn't invent NGG bullets, "The Bullet's Flight" mentions them. I got on the wagon because I thought the BC would be high without the grooves, and so it was.
Werner Wolf cut the cavities in Lyman blocks, and did a great job.
I loaned these molds to Bill McGraw and Mustafa Curtiss a while back, they seemed to work fine for them. After moving to FL there's no Long Range range anyplace near, so I sort of quit.
I'd be happy to lend either the 30 or 45 caliber mold to anyone for a try out, hopefully at long range.
Dip lubed in Darr lube, or Liquid Alox works fine with no leading.
Cast mine of WW.
joe b.

[SharpsShooter]

Joe

I'd be interested in the 45 cal. Can you post a picture of the boolit it produces?

SS

[montana_charlie]

Dip lubed in Darr lube, or Liquid Alox works fine with no leading.
Interesting post, Joe.
Could you describe the dipping processes you used, and whether you loaded smokeless or black powder?
CM

[joeb33050]

Joe

I'd be interested in the 45 cal. Can you post a picture of the boolit it produces?

SS

The bullets don't look that bad in person.
Both have straight noses and short base bands, .452"/.462" and .302"/.312".
The 45 weighs 446 gr., 30 weighs 218 gr in WW.
joe b.

[joeb33050]

Interesting post, Joe.
Could you describe the dipping processes you used, and whether you loaded smokeless or black powder?
CM

Liquid Alox worked fine, shake in a plastic tub and put them on a wax paper with tweezers.
Or, melt the Darr lube with the bullets in it, in a pan in a frying pan with water in it. When it's melted, tweezers and out to a cookie sheet, cool, done.
I did some BP but mostly smokeless. 45 and 15/Unique with a grease or cardboard or plastic wad.
No leading problems.
I think Bill and/or Mustafa used BP.
joe b.

[joeb33050]

BTW, I shot the 45s from a C. Sharps 1875 at 600 yards at Camp Edwards several times and it shot fine. I have/had little experience prone, but was able to keep in the black and in the smaller rings most of the time.
I'd like to do more LR, but the nearest range is 350 miles away.
joe b.

[montana_charlie]

BTW, I shot the 45s from a C. Sharps 1875 at 600 yards at Camp Edwards several times and it shot fine.
That sounds encouraging...

I'd like to do more LR, but the nearest range is 350 miles away.
My neasest range is 3.5 miles away. Well, it's not really a 'range'...it's our summer pasture.

In the summertime, I worry about hitting a cow, and in the winter I worry about deep snow keeping me from getting out of there. Guess I need to find body armor for all of my livestock...
CM

[montana_charlie]

Not to shower on your parade, but I think your going to have trouble with this one.
OK, 45 2.1, I have some of these jewels loaded up on top of 85 grains of GOEX Cartridge. Now, I'm waiting for the wind to quit ripping up my irrigation system, so I have a chance of hitting a 100 yard target.

Tell me what you think I should be watching out for...
CM

[45 2.1]

OK, 45 2.1, I have some of these jewels loaded up on top of 85 grains of GOEX Cartridge. Now, I'm waiting for the wind to quit ripping up my irrigation system, so I have a chance of hitting a 100 yard target.

Tell me what you think I should be watching out for...
CM

CM-
I may be all wet on this, but I think the boolit is nose heavy with very little bearing surface. It will have to bump up evenly. If it fits your rifle well, it might be ok. A lot depends on that dip lube you use too. I hope it comes out ok for you and I am very interested in the results.

[montana_charlie]

Thanks for replying, 45 2.1

CM-
I may be all wet on this, but I think the boolit is nose heavy with very little bearing surface.
So, you think it might be unstable? Or you think it will get deformed in the barrel?

It will have to bump up evenly. If it fits your rifle well, it might be ok.
I don't expect this one to do much 'bumping up' at all...because it fits the important spaces.
The base band is the same diameter as my freebore...no room to expand there.
And the bore ride is very snug on the lands. I doubt it will 'fatten up' much, and I will be very surprised if there is any slumping of the nose.

The actual nose (in front of the bore ride) has a slimmer cross section than many BPCR bullets. That makes me think of it as a 'lighter' nose.
I hope that doesn't make the CG move too far to the rear of the CP...causing it to have trouble remaining stable at long range. I don't really understand the relationship between those two forces, so I'll just have to 'shoot and see'.

A lot depends on that dip lube you use too. I hope it comes out ok for you and I am very interested in the results.
That is the part I see as most critical (or maybe unpredictable is the word). With the bore ride 'jacketed' with lube, I can see the lands getting slicked up as the bullet passes, but I wonder about lead fouling in the rifling grooves.
The little worry that tickles the back of my mind is the realization that I have never seen a leaded barrel...and may not recognize it if present.

The final thing to wonder about is managing the BP fouling. I could incorporate a grease cookie, but I really don't want to have to go that way.
Wiping between shots is the recommended action, but others do well with blow tubing.

Time will tell...
CM

[omgb]

You will know leading when you see it. It will show up as clumps, bumps and thick streaks that are worse toward the muzzle. It's unmistakable. Worse, it remains after the fouling is gone. Then it really shows up. On a clean patch it will present as silver flakes.

So, like you said, the idea is to avoid it. Dan says he has no trouble with it.

[45 2.1]

So, you think it might be unstable? Or you think it will get deformed in the barrel?
Maybe a little of both plus some hard fouling. So, shoot it and see. Everybody is waiting for the results.

[felix]

I have always wondered about this kind of boolit design because of the accuracy delivered by the 16-18 inch guns using it. A football field full of holes at 20-26 miles ain't too shabby of a score. Therefore, I would be willing to contribute into a kitty for the experimentation. What I don't know is where the CG should be placed, and maybe with some heavy duty internet searching we can find what was used in these big bullets. We can alter the current design by using a fake lube groove in front of the groove riding section to move the CG foward some. We can also gas check (custom = 600 bucks) the groove riding section to also move the CG foward. ... felix

[Bass Ackward]

Personally, I think that the CG should always be to the rear because that is where it is easiest to stabilize. What you sacrifice is drive area by trying to achieve BC. But you loose drive strength by having too many lube grooves too. So it is a trade off. And in this case, rifling height may be better, lower as with the Marlins and the tumble lube designs to prevent pressure on the base?

We always used to hear that grease grooves had to be deeper than the rifling height and obviously, tumble lube designs disprove this as a law. But I can't shoot tumble lube designs in taller height rifling guns either, for what ever that's worth.

In the end, this will probably have a velocity ceiling at the very least if not an accuracy one too. It will be able to tell by how fast it can be driven. Then you have to see if the trajectory pans out better with the compromise.

No free lunch.

[felix]

True about the land height. The big guns use micro-micro-lands(grooves). Thousands of them. They look like razor sharp triangles. ... felix

[carpetman]

Montana Charlie--You are waiting for the wind to quit ripping up your irrigation system. What should you be watching for? Leaks.

[montana_charlie]

Wind is still trying to relocate the county line, so no shooting today, but a quick (uneducated) word about CG.

Felix...We can alter the current design by using a fake lube groove in front of the groove riding section to move the CG foward some.

Bass Ackward...Personally, I think that the CG should always be to the rear because that is where it is easiest to stabilize.
If you take the various forces that are acting on a flying bullet and combine them into an averaged pressure point on the bullet, that is what they call the Center of Pressure (CP). Then, there is that balance point called the Center of Gravity (CG).

It's said by those who know that if the CG and the CP are at the same place on the bullet, it can't tumble - even if it has no spin. The round ball has this property.

On 'conicals', the CP is generally closer to the nose than the CG. The further apart they are, the more easily the bullet can be destabilized.

Knowing these two things (if not actually understanding all that they mean) makes me wonder if the absence of weight-reducing grease grooves in the rear, coupled with a somewhat slimmer nose, might cause the CP and CG on this bullet to be kinda far apart.

Rick and I did not set out to make a slim nose. The diagram from Dan Theodore had an impossible value for the ogive, so we (actually Rick) chose an ogive radius which made the smoothest transition from the .250" nose sphere to the .450" bore ride section.
It is only when comparing it by eye with pictures of other grooveless bullets Theodore uses that I see it as a 'slimmer' shape.

Here is an article by Theodore that mentions the CP/CG thing.
http://www.bpcr.net/site_docs-results_schedules/documents/Dan_Theodore_Bullet_Stability.htm

Here is another by him, which is what first (a year ago) got me interested in grooveless. The pictured bullet has a slightly 'fatter' nose than mine.
http://www.bpcr.net/site_docs-results_schedules/documents/Dan_Theodore_Magic-Bullets_3G-45-90.htm

Oh, yeah! Felix,
To me there can't be any fake lube grooves. While this is a trial of grooveless bullets...if there was a groove, I could not stand to leave it empty...

CM

[omgb]

The velocity ceiling will be moot if BP is used. You're not going to go much faster than 1400 fps with a bullet over 200 grains.

Here's a funny point though I'm not too sure what it's worth. Hatcher, in his "Hatcher's Notes" discusses firing bullets straight up to see if they are lethal or not. He noticed during the testing that many spire-point bullets tended to land base first. this indicated that they were more stable falling base first. I'm not too sure how that enters into this discussion but, I found it interesting and thoght I'd like to share it.

[45 2.1]

If the boolit does indeed fly good, the easiest way to modify it would be to hollow point it with an adjustable depth pin. Hollow pointing a boolit usually increases the accuracy potential quite a bit.

[felix]

Very true, Bob. All BR bullets are hollow point types of some sort. ... felix

[montana_charlie]

Hatcher, in his "Hatcher's Notes" discusses firing bullets straight up to see if they are lethal or not.
I saw a segment of The Mythbusters where they tried to answer that question.
Based on penetration of spent slugs into the soil, they decided they weren't lethal...but they had a heck of a time FINDING bullets after shooting them straight up.
CM

[felix]

It's said by those who know that if the CG and the CP are at the same place on the bullet, it can't tumble - even if it has no spin. The round ball has this property.
... CM


True, it won't tumble, but it will dart, and that might even be worse! Now here is a salient fact: A true knuckle ball must have a very slight rotation, like one full rotation in 60 feet, to make the ball even more unpredictable at the plate. I don't think any of the present day pro teams have not one person who can deliver any kind of knuckler or forker with controlled rotation, either still or slight. ... felix

[45 2.1]

From the second article:
The Theodore/Brooks bullet dimensions are:
Length: 1.400"
Weight: 555 grains cast in 20-1
Ogive Radius: 4 calibers
Shank Length & Diameter: 0.400" & 0.4590"
Bore-riding Section Length & Diameter: 0.400" & 0.450"
Nose Length: 0.600"

Everything is OK, but he neglected to tell you the nose radius is about 0.168" which would make everything work as he said. He has 0.1" more bore ride/bearing than you do also.

[montana_charlie]

Speaking of velocity limit...RJ is right.
I'll be using BP, so I don't expect to get very far beyond 1200 fps.

For this first session, I only loaded 15 rounds because that is the number of new, annealed, cases I had on hand. I wasn't intending to shoot them over the Chrony...just fire for group at 100 and watch for leading and fouling problems, and fireform the cases in the process.

But the Chrony's available, so I'll add that to my plans...just for the additional data.

From the second article:
The Theodore/Brooks bullet dimensions are:
Yeah...I filed away that set of dimensions back when I first read the article, but that was a long time ago. I'm pretty sure he has modified the dimensions over time and testing, as the diagram he posted for me on the Shiloh forum is different.

Those numbers are:
Length: 1.450"
Weight: I'm getting 547 grains cast in 20-1
Nose Radius: .125"
Ogive Radius: 6.4 calibers (this was the 'impossible' number we changed to 4.733. He may have meant 4.6 calibers.)
Shank Length & Diameter: 0.400" & 0.460"
Bore-riding Section Length & Diameter: 0.300" & 0.450"
Nose Length: .750"

I assume his ongoing testing of the design made him come to settle on this shape, and the diameters are specific to the dimensions I gave Rick for my rifle.

I have the bullets thumb seated .3" into the case on a mildly compressed 85 grain charge with a .030" veggie wad. That makes for a very long OAL, but they chamber easily (with no fouling present).
My freebore is .1", and the exposed base band should be filling that completely. Basically all of the .300" bore ride should be laying snug in the lands. The bullet 'sticks' just enough to partially pull it, if I extract the cartridge without firing.

To me, this seems like a 'perfect fit'.
CM

[grumpy one]

I saw a segment of The Mythbusters where they tried to answer that question.
Based on penetration of spent slugs into the soil, they decided they weren't lethal...but they had a heck of a time FINDING bullets after shooting them straight up.
CM

I suggest being somewhat skeptical about that conclusion. I read an item in (I think, from memory) The Economist about three years ago regarding case reports of AK (7.62x39) military projectiles occasionally penetrating skulls slightly in Lebanon. Like several Arab cultures they have a tendency there toward vertical firing on festive occasions, even in urban areas, and once in a while someone gets hit. Occasionally that someone experiences a minor amount of penetration of the top of the skull - just the tip of the bullet, but nasty. The Mythbusters claimed that such cases must have been due to high-trajectory firing rather than true vertical firing. Personally I found the Mythbusters' methodology unconvincing, but the possibility of high-trajectory firing being the problem is also worth considering.

Geoff

[45 2.1]

Those numbers are:
Length: 1.450"
Weight: I'm getting 547 grains cast in 20-1
Nose Radius: .125"
Ogive Radius: 6.4 calibers (this was the 'impossible' number we changed to 4.733. He may have meant 4.6 calibers.)
Shank Length & Diameter: 0.400" & 0.460"
Bore-riding Section Length & Diameter: 0.300" & 0.450"
Nose Length: .750"
CM

CM-
Here is the 6.4 caliber ogive boolit. Nose radius is 0.1662". Should you want to try it, I could give you a detailed enough drawing to cut it with.

[montana_charlie]

CM-
Here is the 6.4 caliber ogive boolit. Nose radius is 0.1662". Should you want to try it, I could give you a detailed enough drawing to cut it with.
No, thanks, 45 2.1...at least for now. I want to stay with the .250" nose diameter (.125" radius), even though Dan's thread - where he explained the value of it - got deleted by a glitch on the Shiloh site. The (probably 4.6) ogive radius in his drawing was meant to go with that nose size.

In any case, I am much more interested in seeing what this bullet will do, than considering the next shape to be tried...and the shape you drew is pretty much the 'old' one from the previous generation, anyway.

If this one shoots accurately, displays the long range benefits that an improved BC is supposed to have, and doesn't cause barrel problems, I will stay with it.
If it doesn't perform at all - or it is bad for leading, I'll go back to the 'easy way' and use grooved bullets...leaving it to others to carry on with the search for grooveless perfection...'cuz I hate the thought of continually fighting lead.
If it leaves the barrel cleanly, but needs some 'adjustment'...then I would look at a different shape.


BTW, Rick made two moulds for me. The second casts a few ten-thousandths smaller in the two diameters, and it's vented a little more aggressively. At this time, I don't know which one I will keep, but I don't need both.
If any of you are interested having one for your own testing, let me know by PM.

If there are a number of guys interested I might put it up on our new little auction board...so everybody gets a crack at it.
But, that will be after I decide which one to keep.
CM

[SharpsShooter]

Sure hope the wind lays down soon. I am real interested as to how this turns out.

SS

[Red River Rick]

45 2.1-

That 6.4 ogive radius design would be interesting as well. If your offer for dimensional info applies to others, I'd be most greatful. I'd like to compare the dimesions of your design to the cavity I cut for MC.

I'd like to input your numbers and see how well they work out on the CAD program. Who know's, if things work out well mathematically, I may cut a cavity and some lucky person can do the range work.

RRR

[45 2.1]

45 2.1-

That 6.4 ogive radius design would be interesting as well. If your offer for dimensional info applies to others, I'd be most greatful. I'd like to compare the dimesions of your design to the cavity I cut for MC.

I'd like to input your numbers and see how well they work out on the CAD program. Who know's, if things work out well mathematically, I may cut a cavity and some lucky person can do the range work.

RRR

The nose dimension I gave is for a tangential ogive. The dimensions given by CM will not produce that, they will produce a definite break at the ogive/parallel part of the nose. You will have to decide which you want and give me your CAD parameters for your setup so I can dimension it correctly for you. PM me and we can discuss this.

[montana_charlie]

45 2.1,
Rick already has this drawing. I'm posting it just so you can see what 'square one' looked like for us...
CM

[martinibelgian]

Well,
MC isn't the only one active on the bullet front... This is my latest mould, but destined for PP:
http://users.pandora.be/Gert.Claes1/Metford%20bullet.jpg
Modern design? Absolutely not - just a faithful replica of the most succesful Brit LR match bullet in the late 1880's. See any similarities? Bearing surface is - of course - longer on this one, but that nose....
The bullet looks a bit messed up as it is the one that was shipped with the mould. Diameter .451, slight tapered section (0.150" long) between shank and nose to .441, nose 0.610" long. OAL is 1.5" for about 545grs in 20:1 alloy. Nose radius is 0.135".
Destined to be shot in following rifle, after rebarrel:
http://users.pandora.be/Gert.Claes1/2musket2.jpg

[montana_charlie]

See any similarities? Bearing surface is - of course - longer on this one, but that nose....
I see your nose as 'an encouraging word' which I hope to hear 'pronounced' tomorrow...winds are predicted to be 5 mph from the west.

I was under the impression that PP bullets were normally pure lead, but maybe that's because many guys like to make them by swaging.
I guess you'll depend on a grease cookie to manage BP fouling, and the patch will prevent leading...right?

I have to depend on the dip lube for both, and it's a bit of a hassle, but I think I can dip 'em faster that you can put those diapers on...just hoping it is as effective.
CM

[martinibelgian]

Charlie,
There are 2 kinds of PP bullets - 1 theory is to have the patched bullet at land diameter, use pure lead, and rely on bump-up.
Not with this one - the naked bullet is groove diameter, and it is patched up to groove diameter, so I can use a harder alloy, no bump-up needed. And yes, I'll depend on a lube wad for fouling - I will try paraffine-soaked felt wads, as they were also used back then. I will also try no wad, and wiping between shots though. Shouldn't be a problem. Of course, this bullet will be shot in a period-correct cartridge - 500/450 #2 Musket, which was the Westley Richards LR BP match round of those days.
This one is about rediscovering things whch were generally known back then, but have disappeared from use since.
Mind you, I could also use it naked and-dip-lubed in my ML rifle :-)

[montana_charlie]

the naked bullet is groove diameter, and it is patched up to groove diameter, so I can use a harder alloy, no bump-up needed.
I'm guessing you meant to say the naked bullet is bore diameter, and patched up to groove diameter...no?

Of course, this bullet will be shot in a period-correct cartridge - 500/450 #2 Musket,
So...that's the bullet the little German gunsmith used to make reloads for Quigley!


Back to grooveless...
The wind dropped enough to satisfy me, so I went out to shoot. I did wipe the bore with a lightly lubed patch...using the dipping lube that's on the bullets.
I decided to just fire away as though it was a normal session... unless something made me change.
So, after setting up the bench and target, I loaded the Sharps and fired. With the sight where it is, I hit three inches right and an inch higher than I expected, but it was in the five inch bull.
Then, I blow tubed five breaths - and the second one loaded - but only with a strong thumb. After blow tubing for the third round, I could not get it deep enough to close the breech.

My target backing is a standard brown grocery bag with the target taped to the center, and it sits on a folding stand I made. While there were a number of rounds that hit the black (4 out of 9), I was doing good to keep them all on the bag. I think I could have got a better group with a bow...shooting from the hip.

I quit after 9 rounds (of the 15 I loaded) because the BP fouling was so heavy, and the leading so severe, I ran out of cleaning patches.
I had only taken a handful with me for wiping between shots, but it turned out that I basically had to clean the barrel (two wet patches and a dry one) and then dry the chamber, to load the next shell easily.

The amount of lead slivers coming out on the patches was surprising, and I know I wasn't getting all of it.
I didn't chonograph the load (forgot to take the box), but I doubt the velocity was too high for the 20:1 alloy.

The BP fouling might be less if I put more compression on the charge. GOEX is supposed to like a good bit. So, I'll add some more over-powder wads and pack it down some more. But the leading might be a permanent problem.

Cleaning the barrel (back at the house) with water-soaked patches brought out plenty of lead (perhaps enough to weigh) but the bore seemed to clean up, OK. I have a wipe of Kroil soaking in it now to see what else works loose.
(EDIT - Ran another patch through after the Kroil had two hours to soak in...that's when the work started. I think it's clean, now - but I'll check again in the morning. Whew!)

I haven't quit, yet. I'll make some adjustments and try some more. Maybe even go for some of those dang 'cookies'. But if things continue in the direction they started, I may lose my facination with grooveless bullets.
CM

[SharpsShooter]

Just my thoughts......grease cookie....lots more compression and .......if the boolit fits as well as you think, a bit harder alloy may be a help also. I guess I would try the cookie and compression first as they are easiest items to easily adjust. I might also be tempted to reduce the charge and work up to the point of boolit failure. 85 grains is far to much for a starting load. 55-60 would be a better choice IMHO. I have shot heavy boolits with large charges and on several occasions, reducing the charge corresponded with better groups and eliminated leading issues.




SS

[montana_charlie]

I guess I would try the cookie and compression first as they are easiest items to easily adjust.
The cookie will be easy enough if I place it between .030 veggie wads. I don't have a tool for punching wax paper, and other materials. Compression can be increased quite a bit if I make thick cookies.

I might also be tempted to reduce the charge and work up to the point of boolit failure. 85 grains is far to much for a starting load. 55-60 would be a better choice IMHO.
I'll tell you why I settled on 85 grains. First, this is a .45-90, so there is quite a bit of case to fill up.
Then, I have this formula for determining max loads based on case capacity, and with the bullet and wad only seated a bit over three tenths into the case, the maximum comes out 95 grains. That seemed a little rich, so I filled the case with powder to one tenth below the mouth...figuring on two tenths of compression. Weighing that charge came out at 85. So, you see, that was the least I thought I could get by with and still have enough compression to be useful.

And...Theodore uses 85 grains under this bullet in a .45-90, although he uses Swiss. GOEX usually doesn't get as much velocity as Swiss under equal conditions.

Of course, there are other ways to use up space. I just didn't want to get complicated if not necessary.

Maybe I'll have to look for some of those lubed felt wads that martinibelgian likes...
CM

[SharpsShooter]

Ok your choice of charge makes a bit more sense. I did not recall the mention of it being a 45-90 and thought you were simply seating them out to increase case capacity in a 45-70. Still, I would not look to start with nearly full throttle loads. 70-75 grains, a .030 veggie wad, a .20 cookie and a .030 card wad at the boolit base. I know most would say seat it out to the lands, but that is not a law. I have a 75 C.Sharps that likes to jump .025 or it will not stay under 1.5" at 100yds.

I predict you will get a good bit of trigger time before you find the proper combination. That's half the fun.

SS

[joeb33050]

I've had some luck with cream of wheat over the powder, under the bullet, to eliminate leading in my C. Sharps and other BP rifles. I put a card wad over the BP, then COW, then compress the whole business a little with the dipped bullet.
Works for me, hasn't failed yet, although getting great accuracy ~ 1.5 moa is still a struggle. You could try COW even when it's windy-you need to get rid of the leading.
joe b.

[martinibelgian]

CM,

Of course you're right - land diameter naked bullet to be patched up to groove diameter.
As to your grooveless bullet - maybe next time try 1st wiping between shots, and blowtubing afterwards. That way, you'll get the leading later...
FWIW, I shoot a mini-groove 250gr .323 bullet in front of 76gr of Swiss 1 1/2Fg, no leading, but I normally wipe between shots. I did try a few blowtubing though, and I had no problems if I didn't seat the bullet too long. This one has a 1: 9.5 twist, and based upon bore diameter and mowder capacity, it should really be a fouler. Apparently, it works out much better than I feared. Now I still have to get good accuracy...

[45 2.1]

CM-
Sorry about your results. I will note one thing though, if you go back to that magic boolit article and look at the 3G boolit, it DOES NOT match the dimensions given there or any others on this thread. The bore ride nose is a lot longer than given and the nose radius is a lot larger. That would give a more than adequate bearing surface. The picture could be measured and scaled to get a very close replica of it also. He also mentions a damp patch on a bore brush wipe on each shot. With the leading issues you got, something about the dip lube looks suspiscious also. I sent Rick a drawing last night. You might want to discuss the 3G boolit picture with him before he cuts another to try.

[montana_charlie]

I will note one thing though, if you go back to that magic boolit article and look at the 3G boolit, it DOES NOT match the dimensions given there or any others on this thread. The bore ride nose is a lot longer than given and the nose radius is a lot larger. That would give a more than adequate bearing surface.
So.....Thedore's numbers don't match his pictures, his new numbers don't describe a bullet that's as functional as his old numbers, and the bullet in his picture looks better than any of his numbers.
Is that what you are telling me?

Comparing the differences between 'mine' and his picture, the first that I notice is the bore ride length. When you first expressed doubts about 'mine', you said, " I think the boolit is nose heavy with very little bearing surface."
From watching threads where you guys talk about 'bearing surface'...and the term seems to be applied to the grease groove portion...I took your opinion to mean that you didn't like the length of the base band, compared to the rest of the bullet.
This understanding (of mine) was strengthened by the sample bullets sent to me by another shooter. The base band on them is almost half of the overall length. But, he admits to having poor luck with them.

Am I to understand (now) that you feel the .300" bore ride is the weak spot?


He also mentions a damp patch on a bore brush wipe on each shot.
Yes, and that is wrapped on a nylon brush. Doing it the way he did it requires 'tools' I don't have, yet. My good cleaning rod is not flexible, and my Delrin rod has not arrived. So, when I damp patch between rounds, I run a patch on a nylon jag in from the muzzle, and shove it into the empty case (numbered in felt tip pen) which is still in the chamber...where it stays as the jag comes out. This is an effort to keep the chamber dry, and provides 'storage' for the patch so I can keep track of which round it followed.
I don't mind using Theodore's method, but I'm not 'equipped' for it, yet.

With the leading issues you got, something about the dip lube looks suspiscious also.
THAT is the thing which has been haunting me since getting into this project.

When Theodore agreed to be my mentor on grooveless, the way he worded his offer made me think he was planning to send me (for free) enough of his lube to give it a try. When it came down to it, I had to buy two pounds...and it ain't cheap. On the chance that I might fall out of love with the project, I asked him if the dipping lube can be 'modified' to make it into his lubrisizer stuff...just to have a way to use it up on grooved bullets...and he said "no".

So, I have to assume that he developed this lube for this purpose, and that it is so 'specialized' it doesn't closely resemble anything else.
Since he specifies 20:1 for alloy, that leaves me having to trust his lube engineering to prevent leading...and right now, I can't say that it works.

I applied it to the bullets exactly as his instructions described, and even observed the color change that was supposed to happen. So, I have to believe that it is on there the way it should be...at the right temperature. And, while there isn't any way to 'put more on', Theodore clearly says, "Don't go there." if wondering whether 'more is better'.

I pulled the bullets on those six left-over rounds from yesterday. For simplicity, I increased the compression enough to seat the base band fully in the case, and replaced the bullets. Now, the compression should be somewhat closer to what GOEX typically likes. If I have time, I'll shoot those today to see what, if any, difference that makes in BP fouling...and ease of chambering. Since this would be to check 'gun condition', I may not even put up a target...
CM

[45 2.1]

So.....Thedore's numbers don't match his pictures, his new numbers don't describe a bullet that's as functional as his old numbers, and the bullet in his picture looks better than any of his numbers.
Is that what you are telling me? Essentially yes, you've noticed the nose ride length isn't as he gave.

Comparing the differences between 'mine' and his picture, the first that I notice is the bore ride length. When you first expressed doubts about 'mine', you said, " I think the boolit is nose heavy with very little bearing surface."
From watching threads where you guys talk about 'bearing surface'...and the term seems to be applied to the grease groove portion...I took your opinion to mean that you didn't like the length of the base band, compared to the rest of the bullet. I count all the boolit length that touches metal, lands or grooves. Your boolit has a bore ride length of 1.555 calibers, not good on so heavy a boolit and one that is soft.
This understanding (of mine) was strengthened by the sample bullets sent to me by another shooter. The base band on them is almost half of the overall length. But, he admits to having poor luck with them. Boolit fit and temper problems

Am I to understand (now) that you feel the .300" bore ride is the weak spot? Partly. I have no basis to judge the fit in your rifle having no lead throat slug to measure.


Yes, and that is wrapped on a nylon brush. Doing it the way he did it requires 'tools' I don't have, yet. My good cleaning rod is not flexible, and my Delrin rod has not arrived. So, when I damp patch between rounds, I run a patch on a nylon jag in from the muzzle, and shove it into the empty case (numbered in felt tip pen) which is still in the chamber...where it stays as the jag comes out. This is an effort to keep the chamber dry, and provides 'storage' for the patch so I can keep track of which round it followed.
I don't mind using Theodore's method, but I'm not 'equipped' for it, yet.

THAT is the thing which has been haunting me since getting into this project.

When Theodore agreed to be my mentor on grooveless, the way he worded his offer made me think he was planning to send me (for free) enough of his lube to give it a try. When it came down to it, I had to buy two pounds...and it ain't cheap. On the chance that I might fall out of love with the project, I asked him if the dipping lube can be 'modified' to make it into his lubrisizer stuff...just to have a way to use it up on grooved bullets...and he said "no".

So, I have to assume that he developed this lube for this purpose, and that it is so 'specialized' it doesn't closely resemble anything else.
Since he specifies 20:1 for alloy, that leaves me having to trust his lube engineering to prevent leading...and right now, I can't say that it works. It hasn't in your case for sure.

I applied it to the bullets exactly as his instructions described, and even observed the color change that was supposed to happen. So, I have to believe that it is on there the way it should be...at the right temperature. And, while there isn't any way to 'put more on', Theodore clearly says, "Don't go there." if wondering whether 'more is better'. Maybe soaking a felt wad in it and useing it behind the boolit base as a lube cookie.

I pulled the bullets on those six left-over rounds from yesterday. For simplicity, I increased the compression enough to seat the base band fully in the case, and replaced the bullets. Now, the compression should be somewhat closer to what GOEX typically likes. If I have time, I'll shoot those today to see what, if any, difference that makes in BP fouling...and ease of chambering. Since this would be to check 'gun condition', I may not even put up a target...

[montana_charlie]

Essentially yes, you've noticed the nose ride length isn't as he gave.
I assumed the dimensions in the drawing he posted for me were different because he had modified his thinking after further testing...and after that Magic Bullet article was written.

This assumption was heavily based on his (unfortunately deleted) post where he lauded the .250" nose tip diameter, and slightly longer (1.450 versus 1.400") bullet length.

Am I to understand (now) that you feel the .300" bore ride is the weak spot?
I have no basis to judge the fit in your rifle having no lead throat slug to measure.
If a 'verbal picture' would suffice, here is the description of my chamber from the guy who cut it:

The chamber length should be 2.410", so full length 2.4" cases will clear.
Neck diameter is .483"
Freebore length of .1" with a diameter of .4595"
Throat angle of 1.5 degrees.


This understanding (of mine) was strengthened by the sample bullets sent to me by another shooter. The base band on them is almost half of the overall length. But, he admits to having poor luck with them.
Boolit fit and temper problems
Well, if there is one thing everybody knows, Kelley O. Roos does have a temper...but his problems were case head separations, caused by dipping his bullets differently than Dan recommends.
Seems he was getting lube caked up outside the case mouth, and that raised pressure.

He says he went to a lube cookie only, and had some success. He never mentioned anything about 'leading'...
CM

[45 2.1]

If a 'verbal picture' would suffice, here is the description of my chamber from the guy who cut it:

The chamber length should be 2.410", so full length 2.4" cases will clear.
Neck diameter is .483"
Freebore length of .1" with a diameter of .4595"
Throat angle of 1.5 degrees.

Take an actual impact throat slug a good inch + up from the case mouth, what is said and what is done are different most of the time. The throat and land transition a inch up the bore are very important to know if you want accuracy. You basically want smokeless dimensions for boolit fitting as you say you are wipeing and have a clean throat on each shot.

Well, if there is one thing everybody knows, Kelley O. Roos does have a temper...but his problems were case head separations, caused by dipping his bullets differently than Dan recommends.
Seems he was getting lube caked up outside the case mouth, and that raised pressure.

Don't know him, I tested black and smokeless against each other and found smokeless to be more accurate at range, long range at that. What I read of BP group sizes are not all that impressive.

He says he went to a lube cookie only, and had some success. He never mentioned anything about 'leading'...

If he, Dan and you are all useing the same dip lube, then what gives with the leading? I've not seen a dry (dip) lube work with full BP loads yet, maybe it does, but I want to see it.

[montana_charlie]

Take an actual impact throat slug a good inch + up from the case mouth, what is said and what is done are different most of the time. The throat and land transition a inch up the bore are very important to know if you want accuracy.
Noted.
The chamber was cut by Lee Shaver, a fairly well-known single-shot specialist, and BPCR shooter. The reamer was made for him to his specifications. I'm not a 'name dropper' as a rule, but the chamber description does come with 'credentials' of a sort.

I don't have materials on hand for slugging, but might be able to come up with something which would work...if it becomes a critical requirement.

You basically want smokeless dimensions for boolit fitting as you say you are wipeing and have a clean throat on each shot.
I should be more clear. Some wipe, some blow tube. I would prefer not to wipe, but will if necessary.
As to 'smokeless dimensions', I don't know the difference. I do know that the rifle is intended for BP, and the gunsmith would not have cut a smokeless chamber unless requested.
If you are referring to reduced diameters in the bullet, to allow for fouling, that's different...


I tested black and smokeless against each other and found smokeless to be more accurate at range, long range at that. What I read of BP group sizes are not all that impressive.
I don't know what it would take to impress you. A one MOA group at 500 yards would be (about) five inches wide. Dan's description (in the article) of a group you can 'cover with your palm' sounds pretty impressive to me.
In any case, I won't be using smokeless powder.

If he, Dan and you are all useing the same dip lube, then what gives with the leading? I've not seen a dry (dip) lube work with full BP loads yet, maybe it does, but I want to see it.
I can't answer the 'why' of it...at least not yet.
This is not a dry lube, though. It is meant for BP, so it's only going to have 'natural' ingredients. It has that beeswax feel to it, but the formula is a well-kept secret.
It is applied by melting it at 195°, dipping the bullet base first in a depth of lube which covers up to the front edge of the bore ride, leave it there until the lube touching the lead surface returns to a clear look (it turns white when the cold lead hits it), then wipe the excess off of the base and thumb seat it in the case...still warm. After cooling, the lube ring that was scraped up from the base band (by the case mouth) is gently cracked off and returned to the pot.

So, you have a bullet with a 'wax coated' bore ride, and has (I guess) a trace of lube left on the base band...but not much. The amount of lube on the bullet may nearly equal that found in the grooves on a regular bullet.
I'd have to do some weighing to determine that, for sure...and I don't have any loose ones right now.

Does any of this change your conception of how this works?
CM

[45 2.1]

The chamber was cut by Lee Shaver, a fairly well-known single-shot specialist, and BPCR shooter. The reamer was made for him to his specifications. I'm not a 'name dropper' as a rule, but the chamber description does come with 'credentials' of a sort.

I've talked to him over the phone about his 22 liner and have seen and played with his Soule sight conversions of the cheap Italian staff sights.

I don't have materials on hand for slugging, but might be able to come up with something which would work...if it becomes a critical requirement.

Only if you want it to fit in a wiped throat.

I should be more clear. Some wipe, some blow tube. I would prefer not to wipe, but will if necessary.
As to 'smokeless dimensions', I don't know the difference. I do know that the rifle is intended for BP, and the gunsmith would not have cut a smokeless chamber unless requested.
If you're referring to reduced diameters in the bullet, to allow for fouling, that's different... Yes, reduced nose dimensions to account for BP fouling and use without wipeing.


I don't know what it would take to impress you. A one MOA group at 500 yards would be (about) five inches wide. Dan's description (in the article) of a group you can 'cover with your palm' sounds pretty impressive to me.

1/2 MOA would begin to impress me somewhat.

In any case, I won't be using smokeless powder.

Your choice and an interesting one at that.

I can't answer the 'why' of it...at least not yet.
This is not a dry lube, though. It is meant for BP, so it's only going to have 'natural' ingredients. It has that beeswax feel to it, but the formula is a well-kept secret.
It is applied by melting it at 195°, dipping the bullet base first in a depth of lube which covers up to the front edge of the bore ride, leave it there until the lube touching the lead surface returns to a clear look (it turns white when the cold lead hits it), then wipe the excess off of the base and thumb seat it in the case...still warm. After cooling, the lube ring that was scraped up from the base band (by the case mouth) is gently cracked off and returned to the pot.

Interesting methodology. Have you tried it with anything else to see how well it does or doesn't work?

So, you have a bullet with a 'wax coated' bore ride, and has (I guess) a trace of lube left on the base band...but not much. The amount of lube on the bullet may nearly equal that found in the grooves on a regular bullet.
I'd have to do some weighing to determine that, for sure...and I don't have any loose ones right now.

Does any of this change your conception of how this works?

Your description is basically what I thought. I would like to see a confirmation of what I read though and some success from your efforts.

[montana_charlie]

I don't know what it would take to impress you.

1/2 MOA would begin to impress me somewhat.
Then I am assurredly not your guy. On a good day with my Browning 78 (7mm Rem. Mag.) I might see 1/2 MOA at 100 yards...using a scope...with jacketed handloads. With irons on a Sharps, if I can reliably stay within 1 1/2 MOA, at 300 and beyond, I will be thrilled.

In any case, I won't be using smokeless powder.

Your choice and an interesting one at that.
Unlike 'the annointed' on the Shiloh forum, I don't preach against the use of smokeless in BPCR guns on traditional grounds. But, I did buy the rifle to experience (and overcome) the vagaries of BP loading, and I'll stick with that goal.

It is applied by melting it at 195°.........

Interesting methodology. Have you tried it with anything else to see how well it does or doesn't work?
Nope...
If one gets interested in grooveless bullets by reading the articles of Dan Theodore, he will also be influenced by Dan's insistence that his WL dipping lube is the only thing that makes it possible.

Just as I'll use the manufacturer recommended oil in a new pickup, I have started with the 'approved lube'...which I went to some trouble and expense to acquire.
After a total of nine rounds downrange, I can't claim to have tried anything else.

When I received this lube, I did wonder (because of how it is labeled) if I had the right stuff. Dan assured me that I do.

Does any of this change your conception of how this works?

Your description is basically what I thought. I would like to see a conformation of what I read though and some success from your efforts.
As would I, and (apparently) some others...
CM

[martinibelgian]

MC,
Maybe it just is an irrelevant detal, but the wiping from the muzzle could make a difference - there always is some clearance between rifling and case mouth, and you might be pushing fouling in there, which will accumulate and lead to problems. I do believe you will need to clean from the breech end to keep all fouling out of the throat. A Delrin rod will help you there - I use one for my Martini, and it easily makes the bend.
As to the brush, why not just push a loose brush through the bore with the rod, and have it drop off at the muzzle? Works on my rifle. When wiping with 2 damp patches on a brush after each shot, I can keep on shooting indefinitely. FWIW, I am using a Mini-groove bullet.

[45 2.1]

CM-
Have you read this thread:
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=7801

[montana_charlie]

CM-
Have you read this thread:
Yup...a long time ago...but I didn't remember where. Glad you found it.
Have also read similar ones at other places, but never figured I would be interested in the method. Things change...

Tried using a three-piece aluminum rod to clean from the breech, but it's not really flexible enough...and it's too dang short!
I have ordered a Delrin rod, but the maker is 'out of stock' on the .45 caliber, right now. Shouldn't be long...
CM

[joeb33050]

How about that cream of wheat? Am I the only one who's eliminated leading with BP and COW?
joe b.

[felix]

No, Joe, you are not a singleton. Don't forget grits! ... felix

[montana_charlie]

Cream of wheat for Yankees, grits for boys in the Deep South...in Texas and the Southwest, it has to be cornmeal or masa harina.
CM

[Navahojoe]

Well, dang it, montanacharlie, did you ever recieve your new cleaning rod and git that boolit to shoot with your unknown formula lube, with accuracy, less fouling and no leading? I read 4 pages and wound up still not knowing if it works! Hope that this is not the end of the thread.
NavahoJoe
:castmine:

[montana_charlie]

No, Joe, I don't have that stuff, yet.
And, I haven't fired the remaining six rounds that are already loaded...though I did seat the bullets a bit deeper to try to avoid some of the powder fouling problem.

I also shared my results with Dan Theodore, and he advised me to change my lube application technique a little. That may be helpful with the leading...I certainly hope so.

We talked (here) quite a bit about the bullet shape, itself, so I also passed that on to Dan. His reply was that it looks good to him...'skinny' nose and all. As a matter of fact, this nose looks identical to the one on a bullet he is currently working on - which is a mini-groove design.

But, when something does happen, I will disinter this thread and carry on till the project succeeds...or the method proves to be too much hassle for me to stay interested. If that point comes, I will leave it to those more industrious (or smarter) than I am.
CM

[SharpsShooter]

Looks like I need to stir the pot a bit...What is happening? Anything?

SS

[montana_charlie]

What is happening? Anything?
Well...my Delrin rod arrived today so now it's possible to wipe between shots without disassembling the tang sight each time.

Other than that, not much...

I have an email from Dan Theodore where he recommends a minor change in the way I apply his lube. It may result in a thicker coating, and that might help some with the leading. He didn't say all of that...I just made the assumption.

Our weather is the main thing preventing new shooting trials.
While the winds were low the temperature was, too. Zero to minus ten, most days.
Now that the chinook is blowing, the temperature is up to 32° (today) but is expected to fall over the next few days. Might see something up close to 40° next week.

If that increase is due to a general improvement trend, things might get good enough to go out. But if it comes courtesy of the chinook, well, that means 'windy'.
CM

[SharpsShooter]

I suspected the weather had some influence. The wind will play havoc on testing, but I'm curious if the leading can be stopped or at least contained enough to see if this creation will fly.

SS

[montana_charlie]

I'm curious if the leading can be stopped or at least contained enough to see if this creation will fly.
I'm going to home in on that phrase, "contained enough" for a moment.

There is the question that asks 'how much containment is enough', and that can be compared with another question which asks 'how much leading is acceptable'.
In order for 'containment' to be necessary, it's must be determined that the leading is heavy enough to be classified as 'too much'.

I may not be the right guy to make that determination.

I base my beliefs on several things. First, there is my own experience, then there are those things experienced by others...things which they describe in enough detail to convince me they are right. Finally, there is simple logic.

As I mentioned in an earlier statement, I have never had a 'leaded barrel'. (At least, I don't think I ever have...)

When cleaning after a shooting session where regular bullets were used, I generally found a few slivers of lead on the patches. But, reading the words of others, a few slivers is nothing to worry about...so I didn't.

The kind of lead fouling where there are grey areas in the bore...well, that's something which still eludes me. When I look into a freshly fired barrel, the whole thing looks cruddy, and running a patch up the spout doesn't tell me much. And a 'drag' on the patch might be crusty powder residue just as easily as it could be lead.
I don't have the necessary 'touch' to feel the difference because I'm short on experience in that area.

So, when I say that these grooveless bullets leave a lot of lead, it's because I saw several (many?) of those slivers on each patch that passed through the barrel between shots. When cleaning after finished shooting, the first couple of patches were 'loaded' with lead slivers. (I didn't pick 'em off and count 'em, but there was somewhere between six and ten per patch.) To me, that's a lot of lead.
You, having a different experience background, might say, "Yeah, but they're still just slivers...nothing to worry about." If that's true, I might be raising Hell over nothing.

Then, as I continued to clean that barrel (which I believed to be well maintained) I thought I would never stop pulling 'black stuff' out of it.
Maybe that wasn't lead. Maybe it was layers of carbon left behind from earlier cleaning jobs. (I don't believe that...but maybe.) Heck, maybe that carbon was laid down before I ever got the rifle...just maybe. But the gunsmith who examined it with a borescope (before it got to me) only mentioned some minor traces of copper.

Anyway, it seems to be totally clean, now. The bore looks very pretty, but then it always has when I have finished with it. (Shoot, maybe I had a layer of lead in there which I had polished to a mirror finish....unlikely, but maybe.)

So, the question is...Do I have a leading problem with these grooveless bullets?
I think so, but your experience may cause you to disagree.

If that's the case, then we're back to that 'contained enough' phrase.
Dan Theodore recommends wiping between shots. Further, he says to do that after wetting the patch in 80% distilled water & 20% Ballistol. And the best way to do it is with a flexible rod inserted from the breech, then use a mop on a short handle to dry the chamber. He goes on to say that the patch should be centered on a nylon brush, and pushed slowly down the bore so it has a chance to wet the fouling well as it pushes it out.

That's not the way I did it. I didn't have those tools, so my method was a stop-gap effort using patches moistened with spit and run in from the muzzle.
Do it Dan's way, and perhaps you have 'contained enough' well in your grasp.
I now have the tools, so I will try it out...but not until the weather is nice enough that frostbite - from handling wet patches - is not an issue.

But for me, 'contained enough' is not the complete answer. I hope to find a way to shoot these devils with 'no leading'. Oh sure, I can live with a sliver or two, but not like the pile I found before. And I won't accept anything which results in smearing a layer into the bore that takes a basketful of patches and three days of scrubbing to remove. That kind of penance, for the pleasure of an hour of shooting, takes all the fun out of it.

I wish there was a way to lightly knurl the base bands on these bullets so - while still having no grease grooves - there would be a 'texture' that would hold a trace of lube after the case mouth cut most of it away.
That may not be enough lube to soften powder residue, but it might handle leading...I dunno. Just can't think of any way to do that without sizing the base band down in the process.

Once leading is conquered, there is the powder fouling issue. That can probably be handled with a lube cookie, so I'm moving toward a wad cutter (of some kind) to help with creating those. The cookie has the additional advantage of taking up room in the case...so I can drop the amount of powder a bit.

So, there you go, SharpsShooter. That's what I'm thinking tonight. It might be something totally different tomorrow.
CM

[martinibelgian]

CM,
THe grooveless bullet theory look sound to me - all the lube out front on the boreriding section. After all, you would want to have lube in the barrel before the bullet passes over it, no? So lube on the shank would just mainly leave lube behind for the next shot.
FWIW, when I tried wiping between shots with plain water with my 45-70 and GG bullets, my barrel turned into a lead mine, I could pull out strings of lead... No problems with mere blowtubing though. So wiping tehnique an materials seems to be important to me indeed. I'll keep my fingers crossed for you.

[45 2.1]

I wish there was a way to lightly knurl the base bands on these bullets so - while still having no grease grooves - there would be a 'texture' that would hold a trace of lube after the case mouth cut most of it away.CM

CM-
There is a way, one used for smooth-sided slugs and for patching up jacketed. Take a heavy single cut mill file and roll the boolit on a hard surface with it. It will impress the files teeth pattern into the smooth surface. You will see how hard to press when you try it. It works well for round balls and smooth slugs to patch against or to hold lube onto the boolit better.

[SharpsShooter]

The type and volume of leading you describe certainly fall outside of "containment". The fouling would be less of an issue with the use of a lube cookie. It seems to me if you treat it like a paper patch boolit, you might see better results. The lube cookie would keep the fouling soft and allow the boolit to pass with less resistance than a dry bore that has been wiped. This would only apply if you blow tube or possibly you could get away without blow tubing if you used Bullshops NASA lube for the cookie. I am not entirely sold on the idea of just a dip lube alone handling all the issues that shooting BP presents.


Just some rambling thoughts .................

SS

[montana_charlie]

I am not entirely sold on the idea of just a dip lube alone handling all the issues that shooting BP presents.
I share your doubt, but have elected to put my trust in the guy who developed the lube formula...and the grooveless design I'm using...in hopes of getting the improved performance that is supposed to be possible. Time will tell...
CM

[montana_charlie]

Those who are interested in this subject probably thought this old thread had been abandoned. Nope...it's just been on the back burner while I collect 'stuff'.

I did fire one of the rounds I had left from that first batch of fifteen...of which I only fired nine. Basically, I simply seated the bullet a tenth of an inch deeper to get a bit more compression on the charge...and fired it out into the coulee. Then I checked the fouling to see if it was reduced at all.
If it was, I couldn't prove it.

Then I cleaned the barrel to see how much lead was left by that one shot. There was plenty (from my point of view)...but cleaning it all out didn't take three days, this time.

I am not 'fully equipped', yet, so I have nothing new to report, but a new thread on the subject has started on the MSN BPCR site, titled "How much...really??". I posted to it (just a synopsis of my results) a few minutes ago, and plan to watch to see what develops. If you want to read along, it's here...
http://groups.msn.com/BPCR/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=31589&LastModified=4675604820061993604
CM

[Kenny Wasserburger]

MC,

Nope I dont shoot these bullest, I do shoot the Mono-Groove bullet aka the NASA II I think it was called.

I changed it just a tad shortened it to 1.425 (same length as my Ideal original Postell Bullet. WE call it the Neilson-Theodore Creedmoor Mono-Groove.

As for the lead patch or what ever bullet, couple things here:
1. First Saw Dan using this bullet in 2004 at Raton and the World Creedmoor Chamipionships that year. I think Dan had some leading issues, he has long since give up on this bullet design btw. The base band in my opinion is too big should be like 458 max!

When I first saw them thought they were PP bullets-I called em lube patched bullets after Dan pulled one out of the case. They shoot well and almost always have leading issues in any cut rifled barrel I have seen them shot in.
As to how they shoot in a Shiloh barrel? I bet they will still lead like hell. Saw enough in 2004 to make me certain I did not want to play with it.

Back to my MONO-Groove bullet.

Cut by Steve Brooks and is NOSE POUR! Perfect bases every time once mould up to temp.

Lubed with White Lighting lube, It wont fail in a 45-110.

First time this bullet was tested April of 2005 with a brand new lot of Goex Express Fg.

I shot it at 600 and 800 yards off my bench with my MVA scoped Creedmoor Shiloh.

I will refrain from posting Group sizes, I did have a witness to the groups, A very respected Shooter. We both about had a heart attack at the first group fired at 600 yards, at 800 the group was a tad and I mean a TAD smaller then the 600 yard group and by the order of 1/4 inch. Lets just say it was SUB MOA by a good bit.

After driving up and seeing the 800 yard group and then fainting dead away. WE collected our gear and called it a day. As the song goes I came home with a brand new plan.

I pretty much use that bullet all the time now in my 45-110 for long range Competition. in 2005 I was the top shooter at 1000 yards in scope at Raton, with this load-a bad mistake on my part day one at 800-900 yards, cost me the National Title. Day 2 of the Nationals I came back with a vengence and shot Master class and won the 1000 yard leg and the Agg for 1000 yards. A month later I went to the Sagebrush match and won the Scope class. In 2006 continued to use my Mono-Groove bullet. As we all know the 2006 season was a very good one for me. In Sept I repeated my winning the Scope Class at the Sage brush shoot and fired a perfect score at 1000 yards.

Quite a few people saw the group-I was in the bubble that day and Jimbo Terry was calling wind like noone else even could think of.

We did a rough measure of the group it was a bit hard as I had struck the center bolt on the Steel gong 5 out of my 10 shots the lead splat measured a rough 9-10 inches tall and about 12 or so inches wide. 5 of the ten shots struck a 1-7/8th inch size bolt head. The Scorer commented several times that the shots were hits but the radios sounded funny? Jimbo got to laughing and said thats because he keeps hitting the bolt in the center of the target! Many folks were watching this little show being played out. I was working very hard at shooting so did not notice our little crowd untill afterwords.

I could actually see the Lead splat developing in myscope and used it for a holding point, one reason I love Mil-Dots so much in that scope.

(Making me Give away one of my Secrets!)[smilie=1: :mrgreen:


I wish that would of been at Raton would of been a 100 with 6-8X count and A new national Record.

My pard Jimbo also had an excellent year, Jimbo has been shooting a Dan T Mini Groove bullet and just recently aquired a Micro Mini Groove bullet to begin testing soon.

Our Preception at this point in time is Jimbo's Mini Groove at 1000 yards requires a touch less Windage correction for a given condition then my Mono Groove. Its not much on order of 1 or 1.5 MOA usually but its enough we do notice.

This we have tested numerous Times pair firing our guns. I honestly dont think many shooters would be able to see the difference due to wind reading skills or varriables in rifles. However Jimbo and I both have 34 inch tubed Shilohs in 45-110 they are near as identical as we can have them.

So in closing we know how well Mini-Groove bullets work and the Mono-Groove also. The new Generation Micro-Mini-Groove bullet time will only tell.


Kenny Wasserburger

[montana_charlie]

Nope I dont shoot these bullest,

I think Dan had some leading issues, he has long since give up on this bullet design btw.

They shoot well and almost always have leading issues in any cut rifled barrel I have seen them shot in.

Saw enough in 2004 to make me certain I did not want to play with it.

Well, that pretty well tells me that more time and effort will not likely be any more fun than it has been so far.
Just wish Dan had been more forthcoming about the leading issue back when I first asked him for information about the design.

I am already following the discussions (on several forums) about the MiniGroove, and the MicroMiniGroove bullets. So I'll probably just skip the Mono generation...in spite of your success with it.

However, if you could post a diagram of it, there may be others who would like to look it over...
CM