quote:

Originally posted by 45 2.1:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:
I am honest about facts and knowledge and don't care who it comes from, even from 45 2.1 Larry Gibson

Now there is spin.....from"Spin".
Almost as good as Junior and his politics.

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:

quote:

Originally posted by starmetal:

I'm not going to discuss your rpm threshold. I understand what I'm doing. I do very well with high rpm. Enough said.

Maybe your ex would have been a good bullet trap??? Just kidding. That raised fin bullet I captured in a rolled up rug that I soaked in my mtn stream. Shot into at the end and it was very gentle on the bullets as you can see. I too wish I had a really good trap and wish I had a very good test medium like the ballistic gel.

The 6.5 Swede has very deep rifling along with many military 7x57's.

You didn't reply to the firearms and calibers I've been fooling with lately. I thought you'd challenge my match 9mm 1911. Soon as I get around to it I'm going to try the Lee 312 155 out of my M1 Carbine. I need to make a tool to size the nose down. I miked one of the noses last night and they are .304. Too much of the carbine. If I'm just target shooting single loading doesn't bother me at all. Now in hunting I'd prefer something to work from the magazine, although I could use a single load first and rely on another feedable bullet from the magazine.

Ok, if your not going to discuss the RPM threshold then start another thread to discus the other firearms and calibers you are playing with. I'll join in there.

To discuss them here just confuses the issue.

Larry Gibson

quote:

Now, back to our discussion; I have little to no experience

quote:

Originally posted by starmetal:

I guess you're finished on that raised fin on the bullet I pictured?

quote:

Originally posted by swheeler:
Unfortunetely my exwife threw those bullets and a lot of other lead/reloading/casting stuff into the dump when the split came

She sounds like a very smart woman!

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:

quote:

Originally posted by swheeler:
Unfortunetely my exwife threw those bullets and a lot of other lead/reloading/casting stuff into the dump when the split came

She sounds like a very smart woman!

originally posted by Larry Gibson
quote:
Now, back to our discussion; I have little to no experience

Now something we all can agree upon!

swheeler


Hey folks, looks like Mr Imagination wants to show his ass too Does this make him a dumb "smart" ass

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:
Unfortunely I let myself fall into that name calling crap last night. Not going to again. My apologies to all three of you for that.
Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by 303Guy:
Today I recovered a "lost" bullet from my 'tube'. (Jacketed). It was trapped in some red cloth that had melted onto the bullet. The same bullet (and another I recovered earlier) shows heat discolouration where the bullet contacted the bore. Just mentioning this to show that bore friction and the resultant heat are the culprits in bullet failure - at least sometimes! I also wander whether this heat can cause the jacket to come loose from expansion causing imbalance in the bullet after it leaves the muzzle?

quote:

Well hell Joe that's 87000+ rpms over Larry's imaginary threshold max,

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:

quote:

Well hell Joe that's 87000+ rpms over Larry's imaginary threshold max,

Under carefully controlled test conditions with enough finesse you can often make anything work.
That does not mean it will work every time for anyone else.

quote:

Originally posted by swheeler:

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:

quote:

Well hell Joe that's 87000+ rpms over Larry's imaginary threshold max,

Under carefully controlled test conditions with enough finesse you can often make anything work.
That does not mean it will work every time for anyone else.

Sounds like the voice of inexperience that has drank from the "threshold Kool-aid" bowl.

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:

quote:

Originally posted by swheeler:

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:

quote:

Well hell Joe that's 87000+ rpms over Larry's imaginary threshold max,

Under carefully controlled test conditions with enough finesse you can often make anything work.
That does not mean it will work every time for anyone else.

Sounds like the voice of inexperience that has drank from the "threshold Kool-aid" bowl.

I have seen way more engineering tests performed than your silly cast bullet examples.
You can make almost anything work once. Your examples do not prove anything is generally true.

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:

quote:

Originally posted by swheeler:

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:

quote:

Well hell Joe that's 87000+ rpms over Larry's imaginary threshold max,

Under carefully controlled test conditions with enough finesse you can often make anything work.
That does not mean it will work every time for anyone else.

Sounds like the voice of inexperience that has drank from the "threshold Kool-aid" bowl.

I have seen way more engineering tests performed than your silly cast bullet examples.
You can make almost anything work once. Your examples do not prove anything is generally true.

quote:

Originally posted by starmetal:
Larry, did you read the thread over on Castboolits on the The Wilkes Gas Check? If not read it. Very interesting. Look at the velocities he got with the 7x57 Mauser and 270 Win. The 7x57 was particularly interesting as he reached just over 3000 fps with very useable accuracy. This should tell you something. First let me say I'm very aware of this being done before, in fact the NRA Cast Bullet Book has a write up on copper groove bands. Back to telling you something. One is if those "cast" bullet had any defects the rpm sure didn't accentuate them to the point of no accuracy. Two is those little bands sure must have kept the "cast" bullet from bending...as Waksupi claims. So those are two things to eliminate from you threshold theory that could cause a "cast" bullet to have worsening accuracy at the rpm out of your rpm threshold theory...THAT IS IF YOUR THEORY IS RIGHT WHICH IT IS NOT. Let's round that over 3000 fps to 3000 fps and the rpm of it shot out the Ruger 77 with a 1 in 9.5 twisti is 227368 rpm.

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:

quote:

Originally posted by starmetal:
Larry, did you read the thread over on Castboolits on the The Wilkes Gas Check? If not read it. Very interesting. Look at the velocities he got with the 7x57 Mauser and 270 Win. The 7x57 was particularly interesting as he reached just over 3000 fps with very useable accuracy. This should tell you something. First let me say I'm very aware of this being done before, in fact the NRA Cast Bullet Book has a write up on copper groove bands. Back to telling you something. One is if those "cast" bullet had any defects the rpm sure didn't accentuate them to the point of no accuracy. Two is those little bands sure must have kept the "cast" bullet from bending...as Waksupi claims. So those are two things to eliminate from you threshold theory that could cause a "cast" bullet to have worsening accuracy at the rpm out of your rpm threshold theory...THAT IS IF YOUR THEORY IS RIGHT WHICH IT IS NOT. Let's round that over 3000 fps to 3000 fps and the rpm of it shot out the Ruger 77 with a 1 in 9.5 twisti is 227368 rpm.

Specific thresd?

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by swheeler:
Just finished reading that article and very impressed, jacketed velocities with cast bullets. The part about the nose fragmenting and leaving the body between the two ckecks intact was interesting, a Nosler partition in a cast bullet so to speak. One should also notice the BHN of the roifle bullets they were testing, 30-32 which makes me think back to the 6.5 Swede testing I did several years ago, I still have bullets left over that after alloying and oven heat treatment that tested 35 BHN back then, may have to dig a couple out and see how much age softening took place over the years. I printed out what was there for reference.

quote:

Originally posted by starmetal:

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:

quote:

Originally posted by swheeler:

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:

quote:

Well hell Joe that's 87000+ rpms over Larry's imaginary threshold max,

Under carefully controlled test conditions with enough finesse you can often make anything work.
That does not mean it will work every time for anyone else.

Sounds like the voice of inexperience that has drank from the "threshold Kool-aid" bowl.

I have seen way more engineering tests performed than your silly cast bullet examples.
You can make almost anything work once. Your examples do not prove anything is generally true.

If you read that fellow's article he kind of did make it work more then once. There were more rifles, calibers, and bullets he did it with then the one or two I mentioned here. He had success with handguns too, although that's not much of an rpm challenge as the rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:

quote:

Originally posted by starmetal:

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:

quote:

Originally posted by swheeler:

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:

quote:

Well hell Joe that's 87000+ rpms over Larry's imaginary threshold max,

Under carefully controlled test conditions with enough finesse you can often make anything work.
That does not mean it will work every time for anyone else.

Sounds like the voice of inexperience that has drank from the "threshold Kool-aid" bowl.

I have seen way more engineering tests performed than your silly cast bullet examples.
You can make almost anything work once. Your examples do not prove anything is generally true.

If you read that fellow's article he kind of did make it work more then once. There were more rifles, calibers, and bullets he did it with then the one or two I mentioned here. He had success with handguns too, although that's not much of an rpm challenge as the rifles.

That is someone else. How about you?

quote:

Originally posted by starmetal:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:

quote:

Originally posted by starmetal:
Larry, did you read the thread over on Castboolits on the The Wilkes Gas Check? If not read it. Very interesting. Look at the velocities he got with the 7x57 Mauser and 270 Win. The 7x57 was particularly interesting as he reached just over 3000 fps with very useable accuracy. This should tell you something. First let me say I'm very aware of this being done before, in fact the NRA Cast Bullet Book has a write up on copper groove bands. Back to telling you something. One is if those "cast" bullet had any defects the rpm sure didn't accentuate them to the point of no accuracy. Two is those little bands sure must have kept the "cast" bullet from bending...as Waksupi claims. So those are two things to eliminate from you threshold theory that could cause a "cast" bullet to have worsening accuracy at the rpm out of your rpm threshold theory...THAT IS IF YOUR THEORY IS RIGHT WHICH IT IS NOT. Let's round that over 3000 fps to 3000 fps and the rpm of it shot out the Ruger 77 with a 1 in 9.5 twisti is 227368 rpm.

Specific thresd?

Larry Gibson

Sorry Larry, that stuff does tend to get buried after a few days. Here's the link:

http://castboolits.gunloads.co...d.php?t=43418&page=2

Read the part where the poster copied the pages from the magazine it was in. You may have to enlarge it on your monitor for better reading, but please do read it entirely, especially where he tested those checks on various rifles and caliber.

quote:

Originally posted by swheeler:
Told ya Joe! Spin

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:

quote:

Originally posted by starmetal:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:

quote:

Originally posted by starmetal:
Larry, did you read the thread over on Castboolits on the The Wilkes Gas Check? If not read it. Very interesting. Look at the velocities he got with the 7x57 Mauser and 270 Win. The 7x57 was particularly interesting as he reached just over 3000 fps with very useable accuracy. This should tell you something. First let me say I'm very aware of this being done before, in fact the NRA Cast Bullet Book has a write up on copper groove bands. Back to telling you something. One is if those "cast" bullet had any defects the rpm sure didn't accentuate them to the point of no accuracy. Two is those little bands sure must have kept the "cast" bullet from bending...as Waksupi claims. So those are two things to eliminate from you threshold theory that could cause a "cast" bullet to have worsening accuracy at the rpm out of your rpm threshold theory...THAT IS IF YOUR THEORY IS RIGHT WHICH IT IS NOT. Let's round that over 3000 fps to 3000 fps and the rpm of it shot out the Ruger 77 with a 1 in 9.5 twisti is 227368 rpm.

Specific thresd?

Larry Gibson

Sorry Larry, that stuff does tend to get buried after a few days. Here's the link:

http://castboolits.gunloads.co...d.php?t=43418&page=2

Read the part where the poster copied the pages from the magazine it was in. You may have to enlarge it on your monitor for better reading, but please do read it entirely, especially where he tested those checks on various rifles and caliber.

I read that article and several others at the time when they came out. Very interesting but exactly what does that have to do with a regualr cast bullet/ The reason I ask that is the author did fire that same load with the same bullet only as a regular cast bullet. To quote the results the author got; "The first 5-shot group with the standard bullet scattered over 6.5" at 100 yards form a solid benchrest."

So the difference was he got go very poor accuracy with that bullet when shot as a regular cast bullet. That was a solid example of how accuracy suffers when a regular cast bullet excedes the RPM threshold. It was only after modifying the bullet by adding the copper driving bands that he got"useable accuracy" as yo state. That is tatamount to putting the PP on the bullet. It is no longer a regular cast bullet.

Hey, I've got a better idea. How about we make some really long GCs so the cup fits clear up to the nose of the bullet. We can then swage those GCs onto the cast bullet! I bet those bullets would shoot very accurately at high velocity and high RPM don't you? Let's see...since the cast bullet is then wearing a sort of "jacket" how about we call them "jacketed bullets"! Novel concept, eh?

Seriously, the RPM threshold has to do with regular cast bullets. It does not have to do with cast bullets modified by adding paper jackets or metal bands or jackets. Can we stick with regular cast bullets in this thread.

Larry Gibson

quote:

So why do the banded or paper patched ones shoot so well?

quote:

Okay, we're changing the rules for the rpm threshold now?

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:

quote:

Okay, we're changing the rules for the rpm threshold now?

I have to ask Joe. Since you've failed to give us the correct definition of the RPM threshold how do you know wat the "rules" of the RPM threshold are or if we've changed them?

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:

quote:

So why do the banded or paper patched ones shoot so well?

"So why do the banded or paper patched ones shoot so well?"

I've already answered the question on PP's bullets. The answer to that hasn't changed.

As to the banded bullets; The auther makes numerous observations. One of which is; "Loads which produced good accuracy with standard (cast) bullets never produced the same accuracy with Wilk bullets - and vice versa."

The author then gives to examples which are loads that are in the RPM threshold. The 7mm and 270 loads give better accuracy with regualr cast bullets than with the Wilks bullets. He further states; "Of course Wilk bullets always produced better accuracy with loads that developed higher velocitys, most of which exceeded 2600 fps. If moa accuracy is achieved with standard (cast) bullets at lower velocities, don't expect to improve performance by simply switching Wilk bullets for standard slugs - or via versa."

The author further notes; "When best accuracy is delivered around 2-3 moa by cast bullet loads that range from 2,200 to 2,600 fps, the Wilk bullet will usually reduce groups by half, possibly more."

Note there that the admitted "best accuracy" of those loads was well above the actual "best accuracy" the regular cast bullet was capable of in those rifles when down in the RPM threshold. That demonstrates that accuracy had deteriorated from the actual "best accuracy" when the RPM threshold was exceeded. That is the whole point!

The author draws some bit of a conclusion at the end of the article that may or may not be the answer as to the banded bullets accuracy. I do not know if that is correct. My guess as to the reason the banded bullets are able to exceed the RPM threshold is because the bullet is held more concentric (same as with a PP'd bullet) by the front and rear band. It is thus not allowed to set back unevenly as is a regular cast bullet when fired at high accelleration. My guess at this time only and remains to be proven by further testing if I decide to get into banded bullets.

Larry Gibson

quote:

How to achieve better cast accuracy easier for the novice cast bullet shooter

quote:

Originally posted by starmetal:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:

quote:

So why do the banded or paper patched ones shoot so well?

"So why do the banded or paper patched ones shoot so well?"

I've already answered the question on PP's bullets. The answer to that hasn't changed.

As to the banded bullets; The auther makes numerous observations. One of which is; "Loads which produced good accuracy with standard (cast) bullets never produced the same accuracy with Wilk bullets - and vice versa."

The author then gives to examples which are loads that are in the RPM threshold. The 7mm and 270 loads give better accuracy with regualr cast bullets than with the Wilks bullets. He further states; "Of course Wilk bullets always produced better accuracy with loads that developed higher velocitys, most of which exceeded 2600 fps. If moa accuracy is achieved with standard (cast) bullets at lower velocities, don't expect to improve performance by simply switching Wilk bullets for standard slugs - or via versa."

The author further notes; "When best accuracy is delivered around 2-3 moa by cast bullet loads that range from 2,200 to 2,600 fps, the Wilk bullet will usually reduce groups by half, possibly more."

Note there that the admitted "best accuracy" of those loads was well above the actual "best accuracy" the regular cast bullet was capable of in those rifles when down in the RPM threshold. That demonstrates that accuracy had deteriorated from the actual "best accuracy" when the RPM threshold was exceeded. That is the whole point!

The author draws some bit of a conclusion at the end of the article that may or may not be the answer as to the banded bullets accuracy. I do not know if that is correct. My guess as to the reason the banded bullets are able to exceed the RPM threshold is because the bullet is held more concentric (same as with a PP'd bullet) by the front and rear band. It is thus not allowed to set back unevenly as is a regular cast bullet when fired at high accelleration. My guess at this time only and remains to be proven by further testing if I decide to get into banded bullets.

Larry Gibson

I don't see it totally the way you explained it above. Did you look at the one chart on the 7x57 loads that listed the powder charges, velocities, and group sizes carefully? You stated in your your test, especially with the fast twist 30 caliber bore, that increasing velocity (after it had passed your suppose threshold theory) got worse and worse..bigger groups as the velocity and rpm went up. Look at that chart. It doesn't support that theory. The second to the highest velocity groups was smaller then the ones that preceded it.

Bravo! Bravo! Larry...on your explanation on the why the banded bullet shot so well. To boil it down some...fit...which is one thing you basically said.