700-1100 fps- How do you do it?

[crabo]

After reading the other discussion, it seems that there are several camps of thought. There are several posters who have held the same views since I have been on this forum. It seems though, that the targets posted, have all been shot at upper end velocities for the gun. I also have had better sucess with WDWWs when I have a near max loading.

But when we want to throttle it back down, what do you do? To those who think that harder boolits are best, what happens when you want to shoot in the lower range velocities? Are you finding out by your targets that you can still get the same accuracy when you go slower?

Is the only way to accuracy through the hard and fast gate? I have my own opinions about this, but I would like to hear from you.

I am not talking close range here, I would like to set the bar at 50 yards plus.

[NickSS]

I shooot a fair amount of 38 spl and 357 mag ammo in both revolvers and rifles. I generally use the same bullet for both as I am lazy I usually use ones cast from a lee six cavity mold so that i do not have to spend a lot of time. My favorite bullet for the 38 and 357 is the lee 158 gr round flat point. I generally load the 38s with 3.5 gr of Red Dot and the 357 mags with 7 gr of Unique. I get excellent accuracy with both loads in the same gun and generally they shoot about the same size groups.

[DanWalker]

Here's what I do.
I take a 45 COLT case and I put a new primer in it. Then I pour in 6.5 grains of RED DOT. On top of this I seat a 454424HP cast out of a Lyman mold that has had a cramer HP conversion done to it.
The boolit itself is tumble lubed with a 50/50 mixture of LLA that has been thinned 50% with Mineral spirits and JPW. The boolits have a Brinnel hardness of 10 according to my LEE hardness tester. This load chrono'd at 900fps from the 5.5" barrel of my blackhawk today. It normally runs around 1200FPS from the 16" barrel of my trapper carbine.
I had to have the cylinder throats reamed before my blackhawk would shoot this load well. My Win 94 Trapper shot it fine from day one.
If you look at the videos I posted, ALL the clips where I'm not blowing something up, including the 200 yard shots were made with this load.

[Old Grump]

I can't say for all handguns or all calibers but in my experience my accuracy loads have been on the lower end of the scale. For hunting loads I crank up and keep cranking till accuracy takes a substantial dip then back off. Not the most accurate but good enough at the ranges I am willing to use a handgun.

Just dos centavos from an old dinosaur

[44man]

After reading the other discussion, it seems that there are several camps of thought. There are several posters who have held the same views since I have been on this forum. It seems though, that the targets posted, have all been shot at upper end velocities for the gun. I also have had better sucess with WDWWs when I have a near max loading.

But when we want to throttle it back down, what do you do? To those who think that harder boolits are best, what happens when you want to shoot in the lower range velocities? Are you finding out by your targets that you can still get the same accuracy when you go slower?

Is the only way to accuracy through the hard and fast gate? I have my own opinions about this, but I would like to hear from you.

I am not talking close range here, I would like to set the bar at 50 yards plus.

It is not the velocity but how the velocity is attained. 700 fps will still ruin a boolit if the pressure is applied instantly. This is where I find harder is more accurate. A load of Bullseye or Unique will destroy a boolit faster then a full load of 296.
Yes, you can shoot soft slow with either powder but you will be at the point you can watch the boolit in flight and might stick a few in the bore.
Those that load to 800 fps or more with soft lead and fast powder no longer have more then a hunk of out of shape lead leaving the barrel.

[DanWalker]

hmm. Interesting. Out of shape hunks of lead you say?
How would one prove this? High speed photography? Any attempt at recovering these "soft" projectiles would surely distort them.
Sounds like a fun project for the rest of my summer. I think I'll start with my usual air cooled alloy at 10bhn and compare it for accuracy at 50 yards with Water quenched boolits of the same alloy.
50 yards good enough for our purposes?
I'm thinking of shooting 5 ten shot groups with each boolit and averaging them. Not as extensive a test as some would like, but I think it'll show me what I want to know.
I will, of course be documenting the process with pictures, and I'll even drag the wife along, just to eliminate any cries of foul play(She won't even let me lie about how cool I USED to be!)

[sqlbullet]

I cast my bullets to run under max loads of blue dot, 2400, power pistol or AA#9. When I want lower velocity bullets, I switch to faster powders like Unique, AA#5, Bullseye, etc, but still load to max loads. This keeps the pressure up, obturates the bullet, etc, but gives much lower velocity and recoil.

[Harry O]

I developed some rules that work for me. I use plain base cast bullets up to about 22,000-25,000psi. I use gas check cast bullets up to about 35,000-38,000psi. Above that, I use jacketed. When near the upper end of each, I use the slowest powder that works in that caliber/cartridge. I use faster powders near the lower end.

[9.3X62AL]

I'm not certain that a "hard and fast" rule can be asserted to this question. Oh, BAD pun.......sorry.

Too many people have experiences that almost diametrically conflict with one another's in this sphere to make categorical statements. I am pretty sure that if ALL the variables could be isolated and controlled in a ballistics lab, we might be able to make better estimates--but whether a scientifically-sound and proven assertion is possible.......not so sure.

An example to illustrate........9mm Luger and 40 S&W loads using cast boolits of 92/6/2 alloy. Doing the "Brinnell formula" on this 13 BHn alloy (13 x 1422) shows that we can expect the alloy to slump and begin deformation at 18,486 PSI, and assume that formless and likely inaccurate shape referred to in a prior post. The loading data for the calibers show pressures running from 25K to 33K PSI in some of the loads used in these calibers.

But that doesn't happen, apparently. I have recovered dozens of boolits fired from my pistols into soft sand that bear impact indications to noses, but the drive bands--lube grooves--and most of the sidewalls appear to be largely unaffected. This same result occurs using faster powders (WW-231)--medium powders (Unique or Herco) or slower fuels like Blue Dot and AA-7.

(Pure speculation from this point on, and by a social sciences major I might add). I believe there is quite a bit of "cheat" in the internal ballistic equation when it comes to cast boolits and the influence the pressure impulse has on the boolit's base and overall form. I agree wholeheartedly that cast boolits are "plastic", are fragile, and gain considerable strength from their surroundings--those surroundings being the grooves and bore that can support them during their accelleration downbore. The closer the reloader can get that boolit to the dimensions of the barrel environment prior to firing--and the better that close dimensional relationship can be maintained (no boolit diameteric reductions by overtight case mouths and enthusiastic taper-crimping), the less variability in the equation results. There should be a reduction in or absence of leading--and an uptick in downrange accuracy from said efforts.

My point, summarized--size boolits to fit closely, DON'T SPOIL THEM WITH THE TOOLING, support them downbore, and good results should be produced.

Mi dos centavos. Free advice, and possible worth it, too.

[44man]

A rubber mulch trap does the least damage to a boolit unless another boolit is struck. Even XTP bullets do not expand.
But slump is real and even the Lee 500 gr pointed nose BPCR boolit has shown bad slump and much is off center.
You should also add don't spoil them with powder thump either.
I refuse to go by PSI deformation because of the position of the pressure peak with different powders. A given boolit can sustain double the pressure depending on the pressure peak time.
A boolit started gently, reaching velocity down the bore, fully engaged with the rifling when the pressure peaks, will not have any damage.
That is different then full pressure while the boolit is still in the brass.

[DanWalker]

Excellent point AL!
Off topic.... You shooting the postal match AL? I'm calling you out sir!

[Bret4207]

I'm not certain that a "hard and fast" rule can be asserted to this question. Oh, BAD pun.......sorry.

Too many people have experiences that almost diametrically conflict with one another's in this sphere to make categorical statements. I am pretty sure that if ALL the variables could be isolated and controlled in a ballistics lab, we might be able to make better estimates--but whether a scientifically-sound and proven assertion is possible.......not so sure.

An example to illustrate........9mm Luger and 40 S&W loads using cast boolits of 92/6/2 alloy. Doing the "Brinnell formula" on this 13 BHn alloy (13 x 1422) shows that we can expect the alloy to slump and begin deformation at 18,486 PSI, and assume that formless and likely inaccurate shape referred to in a prior post. The loading data for the calibers show pressures running from 25K to 33K PSI in some of the loads used in these calibers.

But that doesn't happen, apparently. I have recovered dozens of boolits fired from my pistols into soft sand that bear impact indications to noses, but the drive bands--lube grooves--and most of the sidewalls appear to be largely unaffected. This same result occurs using faster powders (WW-231)--medium powders (Unique or Herco) or slower fuels like Blue Dot and AA-7.

(Pure speculation from this point on, and by a social sciences major I might add). I believe there is quite a bit of "cheat" in the internal ballistic equation when it comes to cast boolits and the influence the pressure impulse has on the boolit's base and overall form. I agree wholeheartedly that cast boolits are "plastic", are fragile, and gain considerable strength from their surroundings--those surroundings being the grooves and bore that can support them during their accelleration downbore. The closer the reloader can get that boolit to the dimensions of the barrel environment prior to firing--and the better that close dimensional relationship can be maintained (no boolit diameteric reductions by overtight case mouths and enthusiastic taper-crimping), the less variability in the equation results. There should be a reduction in or absence of leading--and an uptick in downrange accuracy from said efforts.

My point, summarized--size boolits to fit closely, DON'T SPOIL THEM WITH THE TOOLING, support them downbore, and good results should be produced.

Mi dos centavos. Free advice, and possible worth it, too.

Oh Al, there you go again bringing logic and common sense into a urinating contest....

[9.3X62AL]

Not disagreeing with ya, 44 Man. Your points make empirical sense to me. Just because I haven't seen it myself, or can't create it (so far), doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Like I said, too many folks whose experience and knowledge I trust hold views that are counter to my own. So, I'm open to your points and authorities.

In this hobby field, I think it is unwise to say "never" and "always". All viewpoints within reason have potential merit, and a suggestion or recommendation made from any quarter might resolve a shooting issue for a reader. I've been pouring the silver stream for almost 30 years, and I still learn new things here--at the bench--on the range--and in the field.

Bret, it's just how I rolls, mang.

[44man]

Not disagreeing with ya, 44 Man. Your points make empirical sense to me. Just because I haven't seen it myself, or can't create it (so far), doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Like I said, too many folks whose experience and knowledge I trust hold views that are counter to my own. So, I'm open to your points and authorities.

In this hobby field, I think it is unwise to say "never" and "always". All viewpoints within reason have potential merit, and a suggestion or recommendation made from any quarter might resolve a shooting issue for a reader. I've been pouring the silver stream for almost 30 years, and I still learn new things here--at the bench--on the range--and in the field.

Bret, it's just how I rolls, mang.

Thank you. I NEVER go by theory or gun comics. Everything I post is something I see for myself, they are not ideas that pop into my head or something I read. I have always worked backwards and set out to disprove theories first.
There is just to much repetition of what someone read, printed and also read somewhere else. This line of thinking goes all the way back to the first revolver shot with BP and for some reason it continues today. I have recovered thousands and thousands of boolits and can look at one, tell what is wrong and how to correct it. I have posted more pictures then anyone ever has on the sites in the hope you will also do the work and your own thinking, throw the gun comics in the trash.
Some here do not like me but over the years I see more and more fellas repeating me and that is a good feeling, I try to help, I have nothing to gain and make no money.
You will not believe what I have done with archery equipment by proving the printed word wrong. Those guys are worse then revolver shooters so I now stay away from archery posts, it is hopeless over there. Super light arrows and speed dominates, it is like shooting a deer with a 100 gr, soft, hollow point from a .44.
The .460 is a case in point, super high velocity and flat shooting with a light boolit but is it any better then a .44 or .45? Has it improved on the .454? Load either right and they are wonderful but the old .44 still works.

[fecmech]

Here are some of my limited experiences with with hardness and pressure levels.
Most of what I shoot is in the .357-.38 spl line and this is what I see from bullets recovered from the snow. My standard load in .38 spl is 4.2/BE and a 158 H&G #39 rn cast out of ACWW. According to the Lyman manual that is about an 18,000 psi load and does 900 fps out of my K38. It is a dependable 3 moa load out to 100 yds and recovered bullets show no slump or widening of the fwd edge of the rifling grooves. The bullets look the same as when they were cast only with rifling grooves. I have tried water dropping these bullets but there is no accuracy gain at this pressure level( none lost either!). That same bullet over 10 grs of Blue Dot out of my .357 shows nose slump and a wider rifling groove at the front driving band indicating slippage and accuracy suffers badly.
Shooting 358429 at magnum velocities and pressures with ACWW's shows nose slump and skidding on the rifling and deteriorating accuracy. The accuracy level is in the range of 3-4" 50 yd groups. Water dropping the WW's helps and the accuracy improves to the 2.5-3.5" range but for some reason a mix of 50/50 WW/lino or straight lino will group sub 2" at 50 yds. The 50/50 mix is no harder than the WDWW but it out shoots it consistently.

[crabo]

44man, how would you do the 700-1100 fps loadings in a revolver? What powders and hardness would you recommend?

[44man]

44man, how would you do the 700-1100 fps loadings in a revolver? What powders and hardness would you recommend?

That is too wide a span. For 700 with a very fast powder I would use harder lead and about 28 BHN has been the best. When close to 1100 with slower powders I find WD WW at about 22 BHN is OK. This works all the way up to the .50 caliber monster guns and up to 1400 fps. It also shoots good at over 1600 fps but I find a little tin and antimony will increase accuracy. These will be around 25 BHN.
This is for maximum accuracy and the smallest groups. For plinking with light loads I use WD WW metal for everything because it is cheap and I don't shoot as far.
You will be surprised how wide a range WD WW metal has.
Only looking for tiny groups needs a lot of work and different lead but that is my game.
Air cooled WW's have never been as good and softer gets worse.
But even a 50-50 mix when oven hardened will shoot good with slow powders. These NEED a gas check as do air cooled WW's. PB MUST be harder. As the lead gets softer you need slower powder like 296 or H110. As powder gets faster like 231, make the lead harder.
I firmly believe the skin on the boolit, a little thicker then the rifling depth, should be as hard as you can make it. The rest of the boolit must only resist slump. Make your boolit act like it has a jacket. Hard to do with lead so if the hardness goes deeper it is really better.
WD WW's really shoot good in every caliber until you start to thump them hard with fast powders, then you are better off changing the alloy to make the boolit tougher. It only takes a little tin and antimony or a little lino to prevent boolit damage.
Not rocket science but soft never works for me with smokeless powders. Pressures are too high and develop too fast.
The very best way is to catch and examine boolits, then adjust.

[healey55]

44man. I have been shooting for decades and casting slugs on and off since the late 70's.

I water dropped everything because it was easier for me to cast that way. I noticed that the bullets were pretty hard.. they seemed about like the pure lino that I found from time to time but not as likely to shatter. I used the bullets in 44 mag almost exclusively and some 45 auto.

A rough bore would lead but mostly these bullets would be fine out to about 1300 or so which is about as hot as I loaded 250-260 grain slugs in 44 mag.

I have to say that when I did air cool the bullets.. they leaded badly compared to the water dropped. I thought I had made a discovery but I guess lots of people had been doing the same thing all along.

I also agree that the faster the powder the harder the bullet needs to be. In my experience anyway. I was using some 700x that was given to me and even some of the water dropped bullets of wheel weight and scrap mix were leading. Going to a slower powder like 2400 or blue dot stopped the leading.

Not sure if I have ever seen any "slump" but the bands all look good on any bullets that I recovered over the years from water cooled WW material.. if they hit something solid they would deform of course but areas not hit would look crisp. Is that what you mean by slump or.. in this case.. lack of slump?

With my 4" open sight guns I am not shooting anywhere near as well as you guys. I am lucky to shoot 2" groups at 25 yards but don't mind a 2.5" group.. at 50 yards I am shooting almost double that but.. I don't do any better with jacketed rounds. Worse with commercial cast except leadhead bullets that I can order at .431

The only thing that dead soft works on for me is light 38 special loads. I do find that my hard cast ones don't do any worse tho.

What is your theory on 22 rimfire. That has always puzzled me. Here is a dead soft slug.. sometimes nicked and of all things.. a heel type.. It is being shot out at 1200 fps or more with real fast powder and is a relatively high pressure round.. yet.. It is one of the most accurate rounds anyone can shoot.

Oh.. I shoot all plain base bullets.

[Edubya]

44man. I have been shooting for decades and casting slugs on and off since the late 70's.

What is your theory on 22 rimfire. That has always puzzled me. Here is a dead soft slug.. sometimes nicked and of all things.. a heel type.. It is being shot out at 1200 fps or more with real fast powder and is a relatively high pressure round.. yet.. It is one of the most accurate rounds anyone can shoot.

Oh.. I shoot all plain base bullets.

healy, you make some good points here but I want to point out that the "match grade" .22 RF are running around 700-750 fps and they are shooting them off-hand, prone and bench 50-70 meters in the Olympics and getting 2" and less five-shot groups. Makes me think that the proper training and a helluva lot of practice just might be the difference between us and those that can.

I've had a couple of targets that I'm mighty proud of but dad-gummit, they are few and far between.

EW

[healey55]

Ed.. Oh, I understand that the subsonic 22's that are match quality are more accurate but just plain old pocket fuzz covered, dented up 1200 fps 22 ammo that is made of dead soft lead is more accurate than most of us can shoot. My K22 will shoot MOST brands of 22 into tiny little groups.

I noticed that with my centerfire handguns the bullets have to be sized pretty close (at at least on the large end of things) and pretty hard with medium to slow powder for that kind of velocity or the accuracy is simply gone.

The fastest powder I use in 44 mag is AA#5 at about 1100 fps and the slowest is 296 I am starting to like AA#9 also. Unique won't work in any of my 44 mags at anything more than 900 fps.