New Mould

[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-HOTPL...QQcmdZViewItem

2305 - http://cgi.ebay.com/Thermolyne-2305B...QQcmdZViewItem

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.