Handgun Accuracy Shocker !!!!!!!!

[beagle]

Pete...back in the old days when I was too pore to buy GCs, I'd cast 358156 bullets as I had that mould. We'd then take the lubed bullets and swage a HP cavity in them.

Full grooves are amust with the setup and frequent cleaning of any excess lube.

They shot very well out of a Colt Python and a Colt TRooper we were shooting at the time.

In fact, Orygun Mark has tinkered a bit with swaging shallow HP cavities in solid bullets using a Lyman or RCBS sizer. That procedure works providing the lead is soft and the cavity stays pretty shallow. A nose punch with a "tit" can be turned up pretty quickly on a lathe or even a DP for that matter./beagle

Many years ago in one of the gun rags, maybe Handloader a fellow found at a yard sale a CH swaging tool with a few dies. He was primarily a bullet caster so he tinkered with the set up.
He was a machinest of some skill so he made some dies to swage hollow points into already sized and lubed cast bullets. He made a point of explaining that the lube grooves need to be full of lube or the driving bands would collapse.
He also found an increase in accuracy.
From my experience with hollow pointed cast bullets, it seems a very slow process for acheiving any number of bullets. The swaging of the hollow point would seem a faster manner of getting the same results.
Jim

[beagle]

ViC...between Orygun Mark and I, we've modified probably 150 moulds for HPs.

The method I use is 1/3 the bullet diameter rounded off to the nearest common drill/reamer size.

A .25 gets .090". a .30 gets .100", the .38s get .125, the .41s, .44s and .45s get .140" and the .45 rifle bullets get .140s.

I normally shoot for a depth that is 1/2 the bullet length. Elmer used deeper cavities but I've found that 1/2 is enough./beagle

B A,

What method were you using to determine the diameter of the hollow point?

[44man]

Bass, my point exactly! I can't predict ANYTHING and most has been nothing but luck. Some of the boolits are so close that it makes me wonder why one shoots and another doesn't.
I have tried lighter loads and faster powders with the ones that do shoot good and they still shoot better then the ones that don't.
As you know, all of my loading steps are exactly the same for any boolit, tension, crimp, sizing, etc. Some great boolits don't come close to matching the forcing cone angle so that doesn't seem to matter. Some are a tad smaller in diameter like the Lee and still are super accurate.
And to tell the truth, I find it easier to work with revolvers then rifles to find accuracy.
None of my boolits will obturate to any extent as they are hard and either fit the throats or are larger. Besides, I don't believe in the theory anyway. Yes, the wrong size boolit, made soft, will shoot better then a hard one as it bumps up but this is never the most accurate process and is only a stop gap to make a boolit shoot a little better. Extreme accuracy will never be had that way. I have far too much experience with the process in muzzle loaders, it just doesn't work. The proper fit will! It works the same with modern rifles and handguns. I will NEVER agree with the bump up theory.
Sadly, everyone is stuck with the sizes of boolits that Lyman, RCBS and all the others think we should use. Every gun is different, why not moulds?

[Doughty]

beagle,

So if I understand you correctly, you don't concern yourself with the meplat diameter?

[Ricochet]

what would happen if the bullet was hollow all the way through, nose to butt?

Jim, I'm hollow all the way through, nose to butt. I've been known to wobble and tip over now and then.

[Bass Ackward]

I normally shoot for a depth that is 1/2 the bullet length. Elmer used deeper cavities but I've found that 1/2 is enough./beagle

Beagle,

Wow! Why so much? Expansion? Accuracy? And how did you arrive at these measurements?

While the temptation is definately there to hollowpoint, ain't gonna happen. But I will use this process in the future to grade my own reloading efforts at developing a load so that I can get a better handle on what I need to improve.

Fecmech had a good point about what you need for lower velocity work. Why is the round nose never considered? Well, I intend to remedy that one as another test. The problem for me is that it is getting cold now. Handgun experiments are limited for me in the winter as they are hard enough to shoot when it warm. (arthritis)

[arkypete]

Jim, I'm hollow all the way through, nose to butt. I've been known to wobble and tip over now and then.

Ricochet
Not to mention, whistling when ever there's a wind.
Jim

Didn't PMC make a bullet, made out of the red metal, like this? I think it got banned because it would penetrait the cops vests.
Jim

[Bass Ackward]

I know that this may seem like beating a dead horse, but here is a load that is normally a 2 1/2 to 3 inch performer @ 50 which .... ain't bad. But I hollow pointed it.

I have had people give me plenty of reasons of what I am doing wrong. Everything from ruining my bases, to poorly made bullets. In short, these are maximized reloading efforts of every factor from case preparation and anneal to neck tension from .002 to .020, to mix from 20-1 to WDWW. And sizes from .4295 to .4235. 2 1/2" was a good day, and 3 inches was more the norm until hollow pointing.




What stands out to me is that banking a bullet off a wall to enter a tube does things beyond my control no matter what reloading factor you think I should change. If hollow pointing and 7 grain reloval, from what ever ballistics property it posses, solves the problem, then why argue the point? You can see the off center holes and over all bullet. Recognize it Drew?

[Firebird]

There's a lot of talk about meplat diameter, but what actually counts for stability is aerodynamic coefficient. There are two forces working on a bullet in flight - the gyroscopic stabilization of the spin and the aerodynamic friction (I'm ignoring gravity because it's a constant and only determines the arc of trajectory, not whether the bullet is stable in flight). Gyroscopic stabilization works better if the center of gravity is toward the rear, and the aerodynamic works better if the center of gravity is toward the front.
It's obvious that the faster a bullet flies, the greater the aerodynamic force; and the faster the velocity upon leaving the barrel, the faster the rpm the bullet is spinning at. So the velocity of a bullet as it leaves the barrel is very important as it helps to determine both of the forces acting on a bullet in flight. The meplat of the bullet does a lot to determine the aerodynamic coefficient - but not all of it. Radius (length) of the nose, tangental versus secant where the arc of the nose enters the body of the bullet and a boat-tail or not also help to determine the aerodynamic coefficient.
The armor piercing ammo of the M1 Abrams doesn't depend on gyroscopic force at all - it is stabilized at 5000 fps solely by aerodynamic forces. Our cast bullets can't go 5000 fps, but don't forget that aerodynamics do play a large part of stabilizing our bullets. It's why wadcutters start tumbling at around 50 yards as the aerodynamic forces push the bullet over and cause the bullet to tumble, and why even a small ogival nose can help keep them stable longer. And also why round-nose bullets stay stable, even at low velocities that cause flat-nosed bullets to start tumbling.

Round-nose bullets aren't liked much in bullseye because they are hard to score. Why 22 rimfire target ammo uses them is a mystery to me as it would be MUCH easier to score them if they would use a SWC nose to cut a full diameter round hole instead of the round-nose's sub-caliber hole and small surrounding rips.

[felix]

Right on firebird, but you know what? The 22 scores are made using a punch tool with a circling magnifier. Magically, the 22 holes are perfectly round and easy to score. ... felix

[beagle]

Vic...I don't take the meplat diameter into consideration at all./beagle

beagle,

So if I understand you correctly, you don't concern yourself with the meplat diameter?

[beagle]

Bass...When we started all of this years ago. I measured all of the factory hollow points I had on hand at the time and punched them in a table.

I then constructed a mathmatical model and that's about how it worked out.

Now, I'll deviate from that if I think a HP cavity "looks" too big. The 358439 looks pretty big to me and as well as I recall, my factory moulds have .156" pins on them. Someone else must have thought so also as I have a factory "custom" 358429HP with a .125" pin.

Pistol bullets need bigger HPs as they normally require (according to Elmer and other sources I have seen) 1,000 FPS impact velocity to expand. Given a bigger HP with more fragile cavity sides, they'll expand at less than that. If this was not so, it would be a waste of effort to make HPs for the .45 ACP and .45 Colt and I've gotten expansion froom both with handguns.

Rifle bullets one the other hand usually don't lack for the terminal velocity so you can get by with a smaller cavity in them. In the .22s, a HP is about a devestating as some of the more fragile varmint special bullets like the Hornady SX and the Sierra Blitz. I've had the 22-55-SPHP at 2100 FPS expand on a starling at 100 yards and on a spectacular basis./beagle

Beagle,

Wow! Why so much? Expansion? Accuracy? And how did you arrive at these measurements?

While the temptation is definately there to hollowpoint, ain't gonna happen. But I will use this process in the future to grade my own reloading efforts at developing a load so that I can get a better handle on what I need to improve.

Fecmech had a good point about what you need for lower velocity work. Why is the round nose never considered? Well, I intend to remedy that one as another test. The problem for me is that it is getting cold now. Handgun experiments are limited for me in the winter as they are hard enough to shoot when it warm. (arthritis)

[ozonebob]

For those interested, the article that discussed swaging a hollow point after casting was written in 1989 by John Zemanek, and it appeared in Handloader issue number 140.

Ozonebob

[44man]

Swaging itself will make a boolit much more accurate because it eliminates any casting voids. Sadly, I sold my C&H swaging tool years ago. Why don't we just keep stuff?

[leftiye]

Lottsa thoughts on what is being said here. One thing I was perplexed to NOT see was someone DOUBTING that flat meplats (not to mention large ones) were aerodynamically stable! I kinda think that besides being horrible as concerns ballistic coefficient, they probably produce such nasty turbulence that flying straight at all is a wonder. I have long marveled at this as concerns cast bullets in general. How much better a RNHP made of softer lead when it comes to BC, and also tissue damage!
The hollow point may just help the turbulence out, though also in effect shortening the bullet, and thereby improving stability at a given rpm. When I was first getting into reloading a gunsmith told me that hollow points were inherently more accurate than both flat points,and spire points. He may have had something?
Especially if we shoot these things too slow as has been alluded to, they probably are marginal as to rpm, and can use any help that can be afforded. Ironically, faster twists may well be called for in less high performance loads. On the other side of the coin, if not overdone the faster loads wouldn't suffer.
Something that you might help me with, If spin rate doesn't decrease as velocity wears off, why do bullets "run out of steam and lose stability"? One possibility would be that flat noses are sensitive to velocity in order to be stable.

[44man]

Back many, many years ago in my varmint hunting days, I always found hollow points more accurate (Jacketed bullets.) but they had such tiny holes in them that there was no way it would effect airflow and turbulance. I would bet that bullet balance is what made them better. Even now the hollow point .22's are more accurate and most of the time there is wax in the hole.

[leftiye]

44- Fine logical argument. But (you know how people are) I've just gotta put in a couple of cents still. I'm not arguing that taking weight off of the extreme front of the bullet, in effect shortening the bullet, doesn't improve the stability. You'll notice that I agreed to that in my earlier comment. The question IS- is that the whole effect by which the profit in accuracy comes to pass?
Do those little dimples in the noses of the bullets in the pictures make that much difference in the weight distribution of a flat nose bullet? Does a soft point varmint bullet suffer that much for stability as compared with a hollow point? And is the wax in the hollow point even still in place as soon as the bullet leaves the barrel? These things are spinning at rpms that have brought some to question why the bullets do not fly apart due to centrifugal force. That should be sufficient stability maybe.
At this point it becomes smart to bring attention to the idea that we are walking all over the lines as to what are special purpose bullets. Wadcutters are designed to make nice holes in paper. Semiwadcutters, ditto plus same in small animals. A general purpose bullet (which may be much better if cast with a conical recess for a nose instead of a flat point). And as previously mentioned far outdone in meat gathering by a hollow point bullet with some ballistic coefficient which expands. We haven't really explored how much the hollow point might improve the round nose bullet's accuracy. This would be interesting too. Is it unthinkable that the hollow point is superior to other nose designs aerodynamically?

[45 2.1]

The hollow point (even a dimple on the nose) reduces the air turbulence around and behind the boolit. This technology was brought about and proved while making the common golf ball fly straighter and farther.

[Pilgrim]

If anybody can speak to hp'ing cast boolits, beagle and Orygun Mark can.

This thread has gotten me to thinking about making a hp setup for my Wilson case trimmer to try hp'ing my .32 H&R and .45's (ACP & Colt) loaded ammo. The down side is I'm not skilled enough with a handgun to be able to say anything definitively about accuracy effects, unless they are very dramatic (2.5" down to 1.5" @ 25 yds for example). Nor do I believe my handguns are capable of the kind of accuracy 44Man is getting with his handguns. On the other hand, I do know that hp bullets are more accurate than those without hp's.

Also, if you look carefully at 44Mans' photo of his .475 boolits, the boolits on the left have longer noses with relation to the body of the bullet that those on the middle or right. At least that is what my eyes tell me. It's not hugely obvious though, but 44mans results would suggest that even a small change can cause significant improvement/reduction in accuracy. Finally, my limited experimenting (success and failures) have lead me to the conclusion that in rifles a boolit designed like the RCBS 35-200, if of a diameter at least .001 larger than groove diameter, and GC'd are much easier to get to shoot accurately than any other boolit design I've tried. I've proved this in the .35 Rem, .358 Win., .375 Win., and a few others. Most of the RCBS rifle boolit moulds seem to be of this configuration, more or less, and that is why I use them first and exclusively unless a custom mould is required. Their warranty support plays into this, but is way second to performance for me.

The short nose of the 35-200 won't slump during acceleration, while bore riding designs will/can slump, and pointed designs are almost guaranteed to slump unless very hard. A second thing about the 35-200 is there is a lot of the bullet that fills the grooves so that the alignment is maintained. And lastly, the maximum bore contact with a short (non bore riding) nose means that you can use a softer alloy and still get accuracy because there is no place or way for the boolit to deform as it travels down the bore. You need a good lube, but with that type of boolit design, a bunch of our other "accuracy" problems mostly go away in my experience. A bore rider will work if the alloy is hard enough (or heat treated), or shot "gently" but even with a lot of contact with the lands, the nose can still deform into the grooves if pushed too hard for the alloy. If that deformation happens, you will see it in decreased accuracy. It may not be a huge decrease immediately, but as your pressures and boolit acceleration increases, at some point accuracy will start to decrease, and my opinion is it is due to slumping/deformation of the nose for the most part. The GC helps as it protects the base of the boolit both during loading and during shooting. So I always use a GC boolit in my rifles. This formula has permitted me to shoot the 35-200 to greater than 2400 fps in my .358 Win. with ACWW metal, LBT blue, with the boolit essentially sized and lubed so it is "as cast". I do not know how fast I can push this configuration as I am starting to get to the upper limit of pressures I'm willing to use in my .358 BLR. How much do I believe this? I've sold virtually all of my bore riding boolit moulds and replaced them with the "RCBS" design.

Peestols are a different critter altogether as BA has noted. For extreme accuracy (as 44man gets) you MUST have the cylinders in perfect alignment with the barrel; you MUST have a boolit that fits the chamber throats; the chamber throats MUST be correct for the groove diameter of the barrel; and the alloy MUST be hard enough that it won't lead, but soft enough that all of the deformation going through the throats and forcing cone doesn't leave any room for gas blow-by. When you add in a long nose, regardless of meplat, things start to go to hell due to deformation IMO. A large meplat probably causes grief in long range accuracy due to aerodynamic stabilty issues, but that has to be balanced against the proven fact that a meplat (larger is better) has substantially more impact on critters when you shoot them. So for a handgun hunter, long range accuracy demands (smaller meplat) starts to hurt long range effects on a critter. How much meplat is needed for both hunting efficiency and acceptable accuracy? I don't know, but since handgun ranges are usually fairly short, it probably isn't of any great significance as long as it isn't a WC boolit.

John Zemanecks' experiments with swaging was directly addressing the voids inherent in our favorite projectiles. He proved conclusively in those experiments that swaged boolits (after casting and sizing/lubing them) were more accurate than cast boolits that weren't swaged. The swaging eliminated the voids. (I misss him as he died very young.) His experiments did not address the meplat vs. nose length vs. hollow pointing at all. In fact, I've never seen any published experimental information on hp'ing vs nose length vs meplat accuracy effects. I mean good solid testing using the same mould and gun. John (beagle) has probably done more of this than anybody I am aware of, but John hasn't published much. He's pretty doggone quiet about his experiments. I'm not sure how much accuracy increases (% wise) with hp depth. I believe that there is a pretty steep accuracy rate increase with hp'ing as depth increases up to some peak increase (rate of improvement) at which additional depth doesn't add much. I also suspect hp diameter coupled with depth will give you a different curve. I suspect that the smaller the hp diameter, the deeper you have to go to get the same accuracy improvement compared to a wide diameter hp, but again this may not be terribly significant. Small diameter may be as good as we need, empirically. I don't have the empirical evidence to back this up, and one would have to have a good & patient machinist to develop the data. You would have to start with a small hp, with shallow depth, and slowly deepen the hp cavity it as you go. Then you would have to have an IDENTICAL mould to increase the hp diameter, etc. The whole thing would be spendy and rest assured, it would take a long time and a whole lot of ammunition will be expended to get sufficient statistical data to be able to back up your claims when it's is all done and over with. All this assumes that the handgun/rifle was accurate enough in the first place to show the effects.

I'm not trying to throw water on anybody's desire to experiment, in fact I hope a lot of us do test these ideas out and then report back via this forum. I just want to make sure everybody understands that a little data is decidedly "dangerous" relative to conclusions. There are just too many variables inherent in our hobby that affect the results that we simply can't control to draw any conclusions that are general in nature. Conclusions relative to loads for one specific gun, mould, alloy, and lube, yes for sure. Beyond that, I dunno. Personally, I believe that a "short" nose (minimum bore riding), groove diameter GC boolit, hp'ed would be the most accurate boolit we can get. However, the boolit has to have some sort of nose configuration other than a WC so its stable beyond 50 yds. I suspect hp'ing our boolits would help improve accuracy, provided the hp'ing doesn't result in too rapid expansion if used on critters. On beer cans...who cares?

I'm lazy so I don't want to water drop or go to other "extreme" shenanigans to get acceptable accuracy in peestol or rifle. I also am cheap, so I want to find an easily repeated, reasonably inexpensive alloy for my casting, with the same alloy for rifles vs. peestols if I can. Hollow pointing takes more time when casting or after casting compared to non hp boolits, and this falls into the "extreme" shenanigans in my view. Will I do it if it is required for accuracy?You bet. At least for those loads where accuracy makes a difference (target or hunting).
FWIW...Pilgrim

[44man]

Dog gone it Pilgrim, How much better could it be said?
I can only say one thing about hollow points. If I take .22 hollow point bullets and use my hollow pointing tool to open the points evenly, they do get more accurate. I will not profess to know why. Balance or air flow?????