Hi Folks. I want to experiment with swaging or casting straight shanked bullets. (With a slight taper to facilitate ejection from the mould/die. The question then is lube.I will be seating the bullets in a paper cup arrangement which is soaked in wax/lube mix or straight lube. A small amount of lube would remain on the bullet, BUT would I need to knurl the bullets to hold the lube? Are there lubes that will stay in place on a smooth bullets. Are there alloys that need less lube?

The idea is to cast into the mould then drive a punch down on the setting alloy to squeeze out the excess and thereby gain a well formed, sprueless, uniform bullet, ready for loading.

Thanks in advance.

Interesting. I would think the bullets would have to be very soft. Either pure or almost pure lead. I've heard of people who cast bullets, lubed them and then swaged them to remove any potential internal imperfections. I think, IIRC, they were doing that in the early to mid 1960's. I suppose you could cast a bullet that was of the weight you want in a smaller diameter and then swage it to the form you want, but again, they would have to be soft.
You might paper patch them I guess, but that might be a bit of fun unless the bullets were fairly large. You might try teflon plumbing tape rather than paper as well.
Paul B.

quote:

You might paper patch them ....

I was thinking along those lines just today!

quote:

.... swage it to the form you want, but again, they would have to be soft.

The idea is to swage them while still hot or even still semi-molten. Today I made a mold with an ejection pin that doubles as the hollow point former. This bullet has the same shape as a 215 Norma 311 RNSP bullet (where I got the profile from). I am just busy trying to get my first bullet out of it! It still needs warming up and I did not account for the limited height under the casting pot spout - which I haven't fired up for about seven years. This mold does not have the 'swage' potion of the plan yet.

quote:

.... might be a bit of fun unless the bullets were fairly large ....

Hah! ...
I gave up casting 223 bullets years ago.
I still have a few samples left which I have recently tried in my hornet. The hornet is the perfect cast bullet caliber (2700 fps with a 55gr cast bullet). But the damn things are so small

Edited to add; Cast my first perfectly formed bullet after a few refinements to the mold - like turning it upside down and casting in through the hollow point punch hole and using the punch to 'cut' the sprue while the lead is still molten. I always thought air escape grooves were a necessity but have found otherwise - provided the mold and lead is hot enough. (The cast bullet goes through a sizer die to remove the slight taper in the shank, necessitated for removal from a one pies mold).

A goodly number of competitive shooters have tried swedging cast bullets in the past. Although they seem to work well enough for pistol competition, they have generally not been proved to be an advantage in rifle competition.

Some of us, whose moulds were slightly undersize for our chamber throats, took to "bumping up" bullet diameters by swedging, and that sometimes helped significantly. The reason was (and still is) apparently not because of the "compression" of the bullet metal, but because of the better fit to the throat when the bullet was thereby enlarged.

In theory, swedging will have the advantage of eliminating "air pockets" and other voids inside the cast bullets, but in practical terms "as cast" or minimally-changed (by the least-possible sizing down to a specific diameter) bullets often work better in-so-far as shooting accuracy goes.

With the "as cast" bullets, the bullets with air pockets are identified by weighing each bullet right after casting, and the light ones (with air pockets) are then not used for competition.

I think perhaps "swedging" is not the fully correct term for what you are describing. I think "pressure casting" where the molten metal is held under pressure until it sets might be more descriptive. It seems to me it would then parallel "injection moulding" of plastic in its strong points, and might work very well for reducing"scrap". Hopefully, it could be done to the point bullet metal was forced into all the intended parts of the mould, thus reducing the number of rejected bullets. Reduction of "scrap" can be pointless though, if the bullets are no better for shooting accuracy. I mean, who needs more of a less than best bullet?

There are some other technical difficulties too...one of which is that lead alloys most commonly used in making bullets tend to shrink very suddenly the instant they "set"...and they shrink the most where the bullet is largest...both in length and width. Nor do they shrink overall at the same exact time(s). The thicker the mould metal at any given points, the hotter those parts of the mould stay for longer times, and the later the bullet fully solidifies (and shrinks).

It does not seem very practical or easy to me for home casters to work out a set-up where the parts which shrink at the very last moment can be refilled to eliminate that shrinkage. If that could not be done, how would the effort and expense of pressure casting improve what we are already getting just by allowing gravity to provide the pressure?

I'm NOT recommending you give up the idea. If it can be made to work to produce better quality bullets it may be very revolutionary. Please keep us all up on how it goes. The most interesting test will be the one where you fire them in competition with regular cast/sized bullets on your targets.

quote:

There are some other technical difficulties too...one of which is that lead alloys most commonly used in making bullets tend to shrink very suddenly the instant they "set"...and they shrink the most where the bullet is largest...both in length and width. Nor do they shrink overall at the same exact time(s). The thicker the mould metal at any given points, the hotter those parts of the mould stay for longer times, and the later the bullet fully solidifies (and shrinks).

You have given me an idea! Thin out the mould in the areas I want the bullet to freeze first! I have given up on the hollow point creating punch because of the shrinking and the need to keep the metal hot enough for it to work. I will now allow the lead to shrink and hopefully fill itself from the sprue. With your input, I will now try a larger sprue reserviour. Thanks for the idea!

Another idea you have given me is a punch acting on the bottom of the mould, pushing up as the lead freezes. (Using a mould that freezes the noze first). That one will come later.

quote:

The most interesting test will be the one where you fire them in competition with regular cast/sized bullets on your targets.

Yup. The proof will be in the testing! The first test will be for lube effectiveness and leading. For that, I can use the reject bullets.

I haven't mentioned, I tried casting with the gas check in place - works great! It simplifies the sealing of the mould base and produces a rather nice bullet base. But again, the proof is in the testing! One could even design a regular split mould to hold the gas check and with the sprue on top. Mmmmm.... You think I might be on to something?

quote:

Originally posted by 303Guy:

I haven't mentioned, I tried casting with the gas check in place - works great! It simplifies the sealing of the mould base and produces a rather nice bullet base. But again, the proof is in the testing! One could even design a regular split mould to hold the gas check and with the sprue on top. Mmmmm.... You think I might be on to something?

Thanks to you too, 303Guy, you've given me some really interesting information with the part of your post about casting with the gas checks in place.

You may or may not know that a fair number of bench-rest cast bullet competitors anneal their gaschecks before they put them on their bullets....or at least used to. Generally that was done by putting them inside a piece of steel pipe, capped on both ends, and then heated red hot and allowed to cool. A piece of paper was usually put inside with them to use up any oxygen inside by burning, and thus avoiding any scale developing on the gaschecks.

Why did they do that? Multiple reasons, but probably mainly to soften the checks so they would more easily devolp fairly sharp, full-die diameter corners on them when the bullets were sized, and to not distort the bases of the bullets by requiring much force to push the gaschecks into the die.. Second reason was likely to allow the gas checks to obturate more easily if the cartridges are loaded to low pressures.

ANYWAY, by pouring the molten metal directly into the gas checks, I'll bet they anneal to some degree (another bad pun) in the process. Could very well save folks from having to do both steps. (It still might be faster, though, to anneal the checks separately...it's pretty slow to have to use a pair of needle-nose or something similar to put GCs into the mould one a time, I would imagine. Iknow it is awfully slow to put the zinc washers individually into my Harvey "Protex-bore" pistol moulds.)

I no longer anneal any gas checks, as tests have proved that with my loads in my rifles, accuracy is better with un-annealed checks. But, if I ever have a rifle which does seem to require them, I think I'll try your way to see if that is enough annealing to do the job without having to heat a piece of pipe red hot.

Thanks,

AC

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:

quote:

Originally posted by 303Guy:

I haven't mentioned, I tried casting with the gas check in place - works great! It simplifies the sealing of the mould base and produces a rather nice bullet base. But again, the proof is in the testing! One could even design a regular split mould to hold the gas check and with the sprue on top. Mmmmm.... You think I might be on to something?

Thanks to you too, 303Guy, you've given me some really interesting information with the part of your post about casting with the gas checks in place.

You may or may not know that a fair number of bench-rest cast bullet competitors anneal their gaschecks before they put them on their bullets....or at least used to. Generally that was done by putting them inside a piece of steel pipe, capped on both ends, and then heated red hot and allowed to cool. A piece of paper was usually put inside with them to use up any oxygen inside by burning, and thus avoiding any scale developing on the gaschecks.

Why did they do that? Multiple reasons, but probably mainly to soften the checks so they would more easily devolp fairly sharp, full-die diameter corners on them when the bullets were sized, and to not distort the bases of the bullets by requiring much force to push the gaschecks into the die.. Second reason was likely to allow the gas checks to obturate more easily if the cartridges are loaded to low pressures.

ANYWAY, by pouring the molten metal directly into the gas checks, I'll bet they anneal to some degree (another bad pun) in the process. Could very well save folks from having to do both steps. (It still might be faster, though, to anneal the checks separately...it's pretty slow to have to use a pair of needle-nose or something similar to put GCs into the mould one a time, I would imagine. Iknow it is awfully slow to put the zinc washers individually into my Harvey "Protex=bore" pistol moulds.)

I no longer anneal any gas checks, as tests have proved that with my loads in my rifles, accuracy is better with un-annealed checks. But, if I ever have a rifle which does seem to require them, I think I'll try your way to see if that is enough annealing to do the job without having to heat apiece of pipe red hot.

Thanks,

AC

There's a third, and what I thought the first reason, and that's because gaschecks have move spring back then the bullet alloy when sizing and thus it having a bigger diameter it ruins the neck tension on holding our bullet. The larger size gascheck in a sense swages the neck out, must like the expander plug in your reloading die, when seating the bullet.

I use to anneal and now don't. I found no difference in accuracy.

Well, I have a few samples coming out quite nice now after a few refinements to my mould. Fitting the gascheck in my arrangement requires simply flaring the cup a bit then placing it ove the mould base and seating it in my press (which has a flat platten). I then heat the mould on top of the molten lead so the GC will be annealed. So far, the bullets I am getting only have defects in the nose - an area I believe is not too significant. We'll see! With a bit of luck I will be sending my rifle to the range with a mate for proto-trials tonight! (I have had some beer already. )

Oh, ... my bullets are big. 8mm (0.315") at the base for a 303Brit. There is going to be a bit of bore swaging taking place! This will be a lube/leading test. Only surface lube - no lube grooves. Can't wait!

quote:

Originally posted by 303Guy:
Well, I have a few samples coming out quite nice now after a few refinements to my mould. Fitting the gascheck in my arrangement requires simply flaring the cup a bit then placing it ove the mould base and seating it in my press (which has a flat platten). I then heat the mould on top of the molten lead so the GC will be annealed. So far, the bullets I am getting only have defects in the nose - an area I believe is not too significant. We'll see! With a bit of luck I will be sending my rifle to the range with a mate for proto-trials tonight! (I have had some beer already. )

Oh, ... my bullets are big. 8mm (0.315") at the base for a 303Brit. There is going to be a bit of bore swaging taking place! This will be a lube/leading test. Only surface lube - no lube grooves. Can't wait!

I'm sorry if I missed it, but what alloy are you using? Do you plan on heat treating your bullets? What type of lube will you be using?
Most 303's I've encountered have a pretty fat groove so I think your .315 will be in the ball park.

starmetal, I'm not sure what alloy is in the pot - it's been there for years. At a guess I'd say it was high in lino-type. It casts pretty hard and has that zinc rich appearance. So, for now I won't be heat treating.

My lube is a mixture of candle wax and bullet lube - RCBS plus any other I had lying around. I was/am using it to hold jacketed bullets in a paper cupped, unsized neck. (The principal allows for quite a bit more performance from my hornet - using Lil'Gun - but makes no difference in my other 303 - nor in the hornet with AR2205/H4227).

Have you come accross the English two groove? It has narrow grooves so the majority of the bullet is swaged to bore diameter (.304 in my case).

I got to fire one of my cast bullet loads last night. This in my five groove 303 (with mint bore). The loaded round, coated with lube and seated in a paper cup, chambered just fine and did not leave any lead residue in the bore but I have no idea of where the bullet went. I would have thought that at 25m the bullet would at least land somewhere on the target! Estimated velocity would be around 2100 fps with the charge used and pressure seems consistant with the starting load pressure one would expect. (The bullet is tapered toward the nose with only the base area being parallel. It engages the rifling from about 1/4 way from the tip).

Paul B, Have you tried plumbing tape? I did once with standard two diameter cast bullets but the results were dissappointing. I found the tape tended to unravel. Also, most 'teflon' tapes we get are not 100% teflon - not that that matters. This might be worthwhile revisiting. (If I knew how to do it right).

quote:

Originally posted by starmetal:

There's a third, and what I thought the first reason, and that's because gaschecks have move spring back then the bullet alloy when sizing and thus it having a bigger diameter it ruins the neck tension on holding our bullet. The larger size gascheck in a sense swages the neck out, must like the expander plug in your reloading die, when seating the bullet.

I use to anneal and now don't. I found no difference in accuracy.

Starmetal- For hunters, you are probably correct about that being the first reason. Notice I was speaking only about cast bullet benchrest shooters. Many of us cast bullet benchresters don't use bullets any tighter in the case neck than just enough to barely pass the CBA "shake" test as described in the rules of competition.

For those of us who do that, springback (spring -out"?) of the gas check is pretty much irrelevant.

In my own loads, I use the powder as a bullet seating stop, and never size my case neck. I say case neck, because I only use one cartridge case in shooting matches. As I never size the case neck down to start with, I never have any noticeable amount of neck tension, and in fact never use a seating die either. I just seat the bullet with my fingers, and the slightly sprung back Hornady gas check both holds onto the bullet AND fills the case neck.

The nice thing is, it acts sort of like a "gimble" and allows the point of the bullet to move just enough to absolutely center itself in the bore when the bullet is out far enough to just barely kiss the lands.

I've shot an aggregate of my 10-shot groups in a 100-yard registered match which measured 0.467 MOA, so unannealed, sprung-back, gas checks don't harm the accuracy as far as I can tell. (And as you also said.)

quote:

I use the powder as a bullet seating stop, and never size my case neck.

That's what I do but with jacketed bullets! But I seat into a paper cup which then gets soaked in waxy-lube to hold the bullet firm and seal the case. With this trick, there is no runout than I can measure. I get no copper fouling, even though my rifle's bore is pitted. Accuracy is only slightly better than with sizing but with the use of Lil'Gun in the hornet, I get a lot more performance.

0.467 MOA 10 shot! With cast bullets! .... WOW! Now I am impressed! (And interested). Most folks quote 3-shot group sizes (without telling us how much each 3-shot group shifts around!)

May I ask what caliber and what powder you are using? I would like to find a powder that will act as a bullet stop for my 303 but actually have no idea where to start. I did not know I could let the bullet align itself in the bore. Thanks for the tip!

Say,... since I have a tendency to seat in a paper cup, would a cardboard wad between the cup and the bullet negate the need for a gas check? (The wad would need to be between the two to keep it in place if I seat to the full length of the neck and if the powder is not compressed).

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:

quote:

Originally posted by starmetal:

There's a third, and what I thought the first reason, and that's because gaschecks have move spring back then the bullet alloy when sizing and thus it having a bigger diameter it ruins the neck tension on holding our bullet. The larger size gascheck in a sense swages the neck out, must like the expander plug in your reloading die, when seating the bullet.

I use to anneal and now don't. I found no difference in accuracy.

Starmetal- For hunters, you are probably correct about that being the first reason. Notice I was speaking only about cast bullet benchrest shooters. Many of us cast bullet benchresters don't use bullets any tighter in the case neck than just enough to barely pass the CBA "shake" test as described in the rules of competition.

For those of us who do that, springback (spring -out"?) of the gas check is pretty much irrelevant.

In my own loads, I use the powder as a bullet seating stop, and never size my case neck. I say case neck, because I only use one cartridge case in shooting matches. As I never size the case neck down to start with, I never have any noticeable amount of neck tension, and in fact never use a seating die either. I just seat the bullet with my fingers, and the slightly sprung back Hornady gas check both holds onto the bullet AND fills the case neck.

The nice thing is, it acts sort of like a "gimble" and allows the point of the bullet to move just enough to absolutely center itself in the bore when the bullet is out far enough to just barely kiss the lands.

I've shot an aggregate of my 10-shot groups in a 100-yard registered match which measured 0.467 MOA, so unannealed, sprung-back, gas checks don't harm the accuracy as far as I can tell. (And as you also said.)

You are probably correct. Like I said I've gone back to shooting them as the come from the box.

I have a 20 inch heavy barreled AR15 in 7.62x39. My best 5 shot group using the Lee 312 155 bullet is .375 I haven't tried it for 10 shots.

quote:

.... AR15 in 7.62x39. My best 5 shot group using the Lee 312 155 bullet is .375 ....

Wow! I always supected lead bullets could shoot real good and now I know! I can see a lot of casting ahead of me. So much experimenting to be done!

Is the 1 in 10 twist of the 303 Brit OK for good cast results?

I have come up with a variation on my mould; I am going to make a tapered filling nozzle that protrudes just into the bullet nose. The idea is that when the lead sets, I just pull this nozzle out. I should then leave a uniform indent in the bullet nose with just a small rough break in the middle. I shall let you folks know whether it works!
In the meantime - I should be finding out how you folks do it since your methods actually work!

quote:

Originally posted by 303Guy:

quote:

.... AR15 in 7.62x39. My best 5 shot group using the Lee 312 155 bullet is .375 ....

Wow! I always supected lead bullets could shoot real good and now I know! I can see a lot of casting ahead of me. So much experimenting to be done!

Is the 1 in 10 twist of the 303 Brit OK for good cast results?

I have come up with a variation on my mould; I am going to make a tapered filling nozzle that protrudes just into the bullet nose. The idea is that when the lead sets, I just pull this nozzle out. I should then leave a uniform indent in the bullet nose with just a small rough break in the middle. I shall let you folks know whether it works!
In the meantime - I should be finding out how you folks do it since your methods actually work!

Yes, cast bullets can shoot very, very small groups, when one learns how to fit them to his rifle and load. (And, to read the wind well enough to shoot tiny groups with ANY kind of bullet...)

There are at least 4 of us in this one small Oregon city who have shot 100-yard caliber .30 5-shot cast bullet groups of UNDER .100" either in matches or in front of many witnesses. (The one shot in a match was officially measured at less than .09", but after it had travelled all about the nation, being plugged and handled by numerous officials, only was credited with .15" in the record book...which all of us who saw it the day it was fired disagreed with strongly. We feel some regional politics MAY have distorted some of the measuring devices.

The 5-shot CBA group aggregate record (average size of four 5-shot groups shot consecutively) was in the .2s almost 10 years ago and may be even better now.

quote:

groups of UNDER .100"

Wow!!! That must be very satisfying!

Does it take a special rifle? Match barrel? Or do I 'simply' need to get the bullet and load right? I use the word 'simply' loosely! (I don't seriously hope to equal your score - just to keep improving mine!) Can I hope for 1/2" groups from a good 303 barrel (assuming I do my part)? I do not mind experimenting with bullet shapes and designs if I know the holy grail is attainable. (I find it quite fun spending hours creating a few bullets and then shooting them off, knowing their time value).

How long did it take you guys to get to that point of achieving your holy grail?

quote:

... only was credited with .15" in the record book ...

Well, for what it is worth, WE know your true score!
How does one measure such a tiny hole anyway? That means that one of the bullets was a mere .1" off the center of the others. (It must have been a flyer!)
My mind is boggling here - sorry!

303Guy - To keep the record straight, it was not MY group which was measured at below .09" at a registered match...it was shot by Gary Long, one of my local shooting buds. He no longer shoots I believe because mainly of the result of a marital discord costing several million U.S. dollars. And it should have read .09" in my post, not .009"...my fingers must be stuttering, got an extra zero in there.

I have shot a group of almost exactly the same size before witnesses (.085") but only once. Usually my very best 5-shot groups on a given day with cast bullets are in the .15" to .20" range. In matches, where one has to shoot when and as directed, I have only shot cast bullets into 5-shot groups in the .2"s realm (one I can recall was .211"). Usually, of the 4 groups shot in a 100-yard match, at my peak I would usually have one or two in that range, and another one or two in the .3"s, and usually one in the .4"s. Cast bullets are very susceptible to wind, so all of us occasionally get caught by a gust we were not holding properly for, which really enlarges groups in a hurry...especially when you don't have the time to wait the wind out, like in a match.
-----------------------


How are tiny groups measured? By using an optical device which attaches to a dial caliper, made especially for that purpose. Even so, it is hardly an exact science. Two officials will often measure a group slightly differently than each other. Usually the measurements are pretty close to each other, though.

They used to use plugs which fit in the bullet holes. Each plug had a vertical shaft of known diameter running out of its center. They'd measure outside to outside of the shafts with the plugs sticking in the farthest apart holes, and reduce that measurement by one shaft diameter (half of each shaft, same thing). That method could no longer be used when groups began getting smaller than the size of two holes.

-----------------

Does it take a special rifle? Yes. CBA Heavy class rifles are usually single-shot bolt actions, with long, heavy barrels, chambered for short, efficient cartridges such as the .30 BR or the .30 PPC.

Generally, the bullets are also special, the best I am aware of having been designed by John Ardito and the moulds produced by the late Don Eagan. What has worked the best of Ardito's designs for us have been the MX4-A and the MX4-ARD, weighing about 195 and 215 grains respectively when cast of pure straight linotype. Three of the four of us use N-135 as propellant, while the fourth (David Lee) uses a variety of both stick and ball powders with equal or sometimes better success. We load at velocities ranging from circa 1,950 fps (Dave Lee) to 2,302 fps (me), with Gary long and Mel Harris in between at about 2,050 to 2,100 fps.

Our rifles weigh about 13 pounds, with a max allowable of up to but not including 14.0 pounds. Ours have 36-X or higher power scopes, with fiberglass benchrest stocks. All four of us also use Jewell triggers, adjusted down to about 1 oz. pull weight. Generally we use mostly 1-in-11" twist 28" or 29" Hart barrels for the 215 grain bullets. I use a 1-in-12" twist 29-1/4" Harris barrel for the 196 grain MX4-A mould which is my favorite. Clearly they are not practical guns for use in the field, but they do serve to teach us some things about how to make cast bullets shoot in useable field rifles.

Incidentally, they are chambered not using gauges, but by "feel" to fit a particular piece or pieces of brass loaded with a bullet or bullets cast from our mould(s). (No powder or primer of course, when we are chambering and running the round in and out of the action and barrel.)

---------------------

Is it fun? Yes, during the shooting, both practice and competition. Testing is also usually more or less enjoyable. What is NOT fun to me is bullet casting and preparation.

I got my best results sorting all the bullets into lots varying by .1 grain, and throwing back into the pot the heaviest lot and the two or three lightest lots from each run. (Some say that is a waste of time, but my tests proved it is a valuable step for me. All four of us decided that same thing, independently, BTW.)

Then one has to fit gaschecks to them, size them, lube them, wipe any excess lube off the bottoms of the gaschecks, package them so the lots don't get mixed, etc. The process was exacting enough that it took me two full days once a month to prepare 120 bullets that I felt were good enough for a match, and another full day every week to prepare a couple hundred good enough for practice each weekend. As you can see, that combined with two days of practice every week EATS lots of time, so I eventually quit match shooting altogether. That and the fact that the place I was shooting the matches began running them as if they were foot races rather than a form of recreation.

Best wishes,

AC

Thanks for a very interesting and informative post AC.

Reading between the lines it seems I am on the right track with high lino and 200 gr range bullets at a target velocity of around 2100 fps. Since I will only be competing with myself, I shall not be spending quite that much time making bullets!

What I do intend doing is making a single mould block with a row of up to ten cavities which I paln to heat to near lead melting temp before casting. That's because my test mould is so slow to operate and the method lends itself to 'batch' casting.

It is interesting that "Cast bullets are very susceptible to wind, ..."!
Now I can to blame my bad bullets/shooting on wind!

quote:

Originally posted by 303Guy:
Thanks for a very interesting and informative post AC.

Reading between the lines it seems I am on the right track with high lino and 200 gr range bullets at a target velocity of around 2100 fps. Since I will only be competing with myself, I shall not be spending quite that much time making bullets!


It is interesting that "Cast bullets are very susceptible to wind, ..."!
Now I can to blame my bad bullets/shooting on wind!

You are very welcome.

As to being on the right track, I'd say you are. It will be very interesting to see what you can achieve with a SMLE. One of my friends in England who is into shooting cast bullets from his .303 couldn't get it to shoot well no matter what he tried. He then "slugged" his bore and found it ran about .316" bore and about .318" throat!! He has since increased his bullet diameter to circa .3175" and is shooting 3" groups or sometimes slightly better at 200 yards WITH IRON SIGHTS.

My comment on the wind has to do with two causes, I believe. One, the really, really, good shooting cast bullets do not usually have shapes which create a high BC. There are lots of moulds that can cast very pointy bullets with high BCs, but although I have over 100 moulds, I have never found a pointy one which provides exceptional (1/4 MOA) accuracy. I suspect that is due to the nose not being supported for much of its length by the lands, and thereby "slumping" erratically often enough when fired to ruin groups. There may be a different reason that affects the interior ballistics, but that is my guess. It is possible if a guy slowed the velocity (and decreased the pressure) that would not happen. But then the exterior ballistics problem with cast bullets would come even more into play.

The second reason for being sensitive to wind probably has to do with the extended time of flight to the target...gives the wind a chance to apply diversionary force longer.

Anyway, if you can get your SMLE down to groups of 3/4" on a pretty consistent basis, I think you will have done outstandingly well...Well enough to win a U.S. National Championship or two in cast bullet "Production Rifle" Class.

So, there's a goal to shoot for...pun intended.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:

quote:

Originally posted by 303Guy:
Thanks for a very interesting and informative post AC.

Reading between the lines it seems I am on the right track with high lino and 200 gr range bullets at a target velocity of around 2100 fps. Since I will only be competing with myself, I shall not be spending quite that much time making bullets!


It is interesting that "Cast bullets are very susceptible to wind, ..."!
Now I can to blame my bad bullets/shooting on wind!

I'd say you are. It will be very interesting to see what you can achieve with a SMLE. One of my friends in England who is into shooting cast bullets from his .303 couldn't get it to shoot well no matter what he tried. He then "slugged" his bore and found it ran about .316" bore and about .318" throat!! He has since increased his bullet diameter to circa .3175" and is shooting 3" groups or sometimes slightly better at 200 yards.

My comment on the wind has to do with two causes, I believe. One, the really, really, good shooting cast bullets do not usually have shapes which create a high BC. There are lots of moulds that can cast very pointy bullets with high BCs, but although I have over 100 moulds, I have never found a pointy one which provides exceptional (1/4 MOA) accuracy. I suspect that is due to the nose not being supported for much of its length by the lands, and thereby "slumping" erratically often enough when fired to ruin groups. There may be a different reason that affects the interior ballistics, but that is my guess. It is possible if a guy slowed the velocity (and decreased the pressure) that would not happen. But then the exterior ballistics problem with cast bullets would come even more into play.

The second reason for being sensitive to wind probably has to do with the extended time of flight to the target...gives the wind a chance to apply diversionary force longer.

Anyway, if you can get your SMLE down to groups of 3/4" on a pretty consistent basis, I think you will have done outstandingly well...Well enough to win a U.S. National championship or two in cast bullet "Production Rifle" Class.

So, there's a goal to shoot for...pun intended.

There's another thing that affects the bullet to and that's when it breaks the sound barrier.

My small groups are shot with an alloy that is not hard because of the alloys, but hard because I temper my bullets. You don't necessarily have to have lino in them.

Joe

Sub-MOA in a 303 with any bullet will be a real achievement! It's going to be fun (and challanging) to try!

It's good to know I don't need Lino. Thanks.

303 Guy-

It is important to realize that with a really good load cast bullets can often shoot better than jacketed ones when it comes to accuracy from a given rifle.

That is probably not fully true when comparing the very best especially made match bullets of each type for a particular gun, but it certainly is true of the cast bullets which best fit a particular rifle when compared to "popular" high volume jacketed match bullets which aren't perfect fits engineered specially for the same rifle.

ANYWAY, what I really wanted to tell you in this post is that HARD bullets are not needed at all for best accuracy. One of the fascinating things about cast bullets is that soft, medium-hard, and hard bullets can all perform in outstanding fashion.

Different propelling load & fit techniques are needed for peak performance with each level of hardness, but ALL CAN shoot sub 0.2" groups from a gun (and shooter) that is capable of shooting down to that level.

Schuetzen competitors shot groups of below 0.8" at 40 rods (220 yards) over 100 years ago, using very soft bullets (30-to-1 lead/tin alloys). CBA competitors shoot about the same size groups today at 200 yards using very hard alloys. They both shoot at different velocities, and using differing lubes, propellants, and bullet designs, but the results are similar.

Often what is presented as being necessary is what the presentor has found works for him/her. And they are right, that does work for whoever wishes to apply that specific approach. But, it is NOT the only system that will work.

Bullet fit to the rifle, bullet integrity & stability through both the barrel and the air and, most of all, shot-to-shot consistency are probably the most important things overall. How a person gets those things are not etched in stone.

Keep experimenting, and believe what your eyes tell you about your rifles and your loads. Change variables one at a time and keep records so you don't have to constantly re-invent the wheel.

Best wishes,

AC

Thanks for that, Alberta Canuck . Much appreciated!

quote:

Change variables one at a time and keep records so you don't have to constantly re-invent the wheel.

That's very sound advice. Thanks!

I have cast a few bullets, all a little different but I will shoot them off anyway to check for leading. (I have now started with fitting a scope mount to my No4. so the bullet mould will have to hold off a week or two).

Well, I am sort of arriving at a mould design that seems to work. The bullets are way bigger than the 'standard' 303 Brit bullets and are still an easy fit in the throat! But they are long and ride the bore quite well. I have not range tested them yet but the principle of surface lubing with waxy-lube seems to work (test tube firing). The waxy-lube is strong enough not to get wiped off during handling and chambering (and extracting). No signs of leading is apparent - and these bullets get swaged in the bore!

Flame cutting. Any suggestions?

I tested a shorter bullet with a base diameter of .311 (7.9mm), gas checked, in my two groove barrel and it flame cut! Right in front of the gas check there was this flame cut gouge. This was not a hot load. I did not get this effect with less powder and a longer and heavier bullet with a base diameter of .313 (7.95mm). I tried one bullet with no gas check (7.95mm) and the whole groove ridge was cut away, making it look like there was no rifling. The bullet did follow the rifling properly.