If the group wants a fat 30 then we will need some input as to what is desired. On the custom mold thread it seemed like there was interest in a tumble lube plinker for standard 30 cals and also for a fat 30.
Posts: 2924 | Location: Arkansas | Registered: 23 December 2002
lar45: I'll take it with either tumble-lube "grooves" or conventional lube grooves. From the discussion on the "other" .30 plinker, it appears tumble-lube designs CAN be re-sized (I have no experience - yet! - with these). I still like the tapered heel and a non-GC base, but am definitely in for one however the consensus shakes out. floodgate
Lar 45, that looks like an excellent cast bullet design as is, for an all around .30 caliber boolit. I would like to see the nose a bit longer for a 180-200 grain weight, but that is just me. What really intrigues me about the design is the possibility of a really good .30 caliber all purpose mold in the very good Lee 6-cavity design. I wish that Lee would make ALL their molds in the 6-cavity configuration.
I'm going with Nevada on the heavier than 170 gr. design. I have an older Lee 190 gr. that my 30-30 Winchester just loves. I was thinking of something to shoot in my Moisin Nagant. I like the gas check design and conventional lube grooves. I use Lee Liquid Alox in all the stuff I shoot & none of the 20+ .30 cal moulds I have are tumble lube. I like that bigger meplat you have. Count me in on anything 180 gr. on up. Love this stuff!
I have shot Lee tumble lube bullets in pistols with good results, but have never tried the tumble lube bullets in rifles. I have always used Lee liquid alox on the non tumble lubed bullets with very good results. So I guess what my question would be is what is the advantage of the tumble lubed design? Also, gas checked designed bullets seem to work well for me. I have tried to shoot gas checked designed bullets without the check with horrible results. On the other hand I have never had the opportunity to shoot a rifle bullet that was designed without the gas check. These are just some of my personal results. --sticky
I definitely want one of these "Fat 30" in a gas check. If it goes for 170 or 190 grain (Edit to add that a 200 grain is OK too, as long as we are still talking 6 hole) is all about the same for me. I also like the idea of "standard" lube grooves.
Presume this will be a 6 banger regardless of final weight?
Good looking boolits!! I'd like to get either (or someday, both!).
As best as I recall, the max length in a Lee 6-holer is 1.100". But, that gets the aluminum down to paper-thin at the nose end of the mold. They cast ok, but you have to be real careful to avoid damaging the mold when you set it down or bump it into things.
Question: Wasn't the "fat 30" supposed to be .314 or .315 in diameter? All these molds under discussion are getting me mixed up. <GGG>
Posts: 300 | Location: W. New Mexico | Registered: 28 December 2002
Couple other things: it might be a good idea to indicate somewhere on the drawing that the gas check shank is to be cut for Hornady GCs and the intended material to be used for casting is wheelweights.
Posts: 300 | Location: W. New Mexico | Registered: 28 December 2002
OK, now it looks like we've got THREE .30's in orbit: the TL "Plinker" on the other thread; and here, the .311" with GC, conventional lube grooves, and two crimp grooves, and the "FAT .30" which has now grown to .317, also with GC and two each lube and crimp grooves. I'll bid right now for the FAT .30 (somewhere in the range .315" - .317") as shown in the lower drawing. I miked a set of 6-hole blocks at 1.136, so length should be OK.
trk- just out of curiosity- would you have the specs for a 311410 (Lyman 130 grain) and if so- would it be a lot of trouble to show it with tumble lube grooves and a flat point to fit in tube magazines?
I'll remember you in my will or something! Thanks, Dale
OK, now it looks like we've got THREE .30's in orbit: the TL "Plinker" on the other thread; and here, the .311" with GC, conventional lube grooves, and two crimp grooves, and the "FAT .30" which has now grown to .317, also with GC and two each lube and crimp grooves. I'll bid right now for the FAT .30 (somewhere in the range .315" - .317") as shown in the lower drawing. I miked a set of 6-hole blocks at 1.136, so length should be OK. floodgate
Just TWO. This is the FAT 30. I did the two boolets side by side to show how much growth in size affected weight. It is the bottom one that is coming in close to where we're headed. That leaves the other thread for the tumble lube 160gr flat base plinker.
Posts: 621 | Location: Virginia mountains | Registered: 25 December 2002
Quote: trk- just out of curiosity- would you have the specs for a 311410 (Lyman 130 grain) and if so- would it be a lot of trouble to show it with tumble lube grooves and a flat point to fit in tube magazines?
I'll remember you in my will or something! Thanks, Dale
Don't have any other drawings; perhaps someone else does? Doing the drafting takes a little time, but is easy.
If you leave me something in your will, make it something valuable - like your sense of humor, or something of that nature.
Posts: 621 | Location: Virginia mountains | Registered: 25 December 2002
Quote: Wow! It has grown! 2 more weeks and 1 good rain and it will be ok for 8MM! I'd have to have one for sure!
I think there's room for an 8. It just takes someone to make the decisions and push the publicity to get the numbers up to beat the minimum setup fee that Lee charges. Further, the costs are reduced if you can find an FFL holder to accept the shipment for you.
Posts: 621 | Location: Virginia mountains | Registered: 25 December 2002
Quote: Couple other things: it might be a good idea to indicate somewhere on the drawing that the gas check shank is to be cut for Hornady GCs and the intended material to be used for casting is wheelweights.
Agree with the WW stipulation. The dimensions are EXACTLY what we gave Lee to work with on the HBC boolet and the gas checks fit VERY well. I think we held the tolerances in a little tighter there too.
Posts: 621 | Location: Virginia mountains | Registered: 25 December 2002
I'm ready to order one of these "Fat 30" moulds. Just for the record, though, which one are we going to go with?
The one at the top of this thread, with 3 lube grooves and 1 crimp groove, or the one pictured along side the .311 diameter example which has 2 lube and 2 crimp grooves?
At almost 200 grains are the two lube grooves enough? Or do we really get a lot of flexibility with the two crimp grooves?
I gotta ask these questions, dumb as they sound, 'cause I sure aint no boolit designer!
Fat thirties vary a large amount in the base of neck to throat engraving length. A good example is trying the Lyman 311284 in the 7.62x54R, 303 British, 7.65 Mauser, 7.7 Jap and several other lesser known militaries. The hardest one to fit, which is the most common, is the 303 British. Seat a flat based jacketed bullet backwards in a round and chamber it to get this length. Try this in the other calibers and see the difference. This will give you a range to shoot for on the body length. A 180 to 190 grain bullet is pretty good for these also. Too long a body just creates alot of trouble when you trying to get it to shoot. I like the two crimp groove idea, but please try to put them in the places where they will fit the bearing length and cartridge neck lengths for the above calibers. This would help all of us. It is also a difficult thing to do.
Quote: I like the two crimp groove idea, but please try to put them in the places where they will fit the bearing length and cartridge neck lengths for the above calibers. This would help all of us. It is also a difficult thing to do.
GOOD THOUGHT!
These exercises in designing boolets have produced a wealth of (not information) knowledge about boolet design.
Posts: 621 | Location: Virginia mountains | Registered: 25 December 2002
A Fat 30 sounds like a great idea to me and I hope that the concept hasn't "run out of steam." I'd also like to see something on the heavier than 170 grain side; as a matter of fact, something like Tim's design around 196 grns WW and dropping from the mold at .315" would seem to be very versatile. It certainly could be sized down to suit most rifles while still working in some "oversized" bores.
You can count me in for two 6-bangers if the idea goes in for a production run.
Posts: 47 | Location: Mid-Michigan | Registered: 23 June 2002
I don't think that the Fat 30 has run out of steam. It has just been put on the back burner while the 30 tumble lube is going through. We have the 45 PP, the 30 TL going already and it looks like the 25 cal is getting close. So we want to do the Fat 30 now also or let the others work some first?
Posts: 2924 | Location: Arkansas | Registered: 23 December 2002
Quote: I don't think that the Fat 30 has run out of steam. It has just been put on the back burner while the 30 tumble lube is going through. We have the 45 PP, the 30 TL going already and it looks like the 25 cal is getting close. So we want to do the Fat 30 now also or let the others work some first?
Agree with ya. It's alive and well. Need to sort out the issues & what folks want. For me, it'll be after the 45pp, 30TL and 25 (which may have two versions) get finished (drawings - not manufacture).
One option is to mimic the 30TL if it does well. Some have called for something heavier. This project needs a champion or two co-champions to drive it.
Posts: 621 | Location: Virginia mountains | Registered: 25 December 2002
"One option is to mimic the 30TL if it does well."
Frankly, that'd be MY choice; TL grooves, flat base and all. I'd think Lee could re-program the .30TL run to just produce a larger-diameter cut. Probably wouldn't save on our costs, but would save time. But let's keep them separate for now, to avoid confusion. Wait and see how the .30TL goes, then run the .25 (I don't need one myself, but it seems to be taking root), then back to the "Fat .30".
I THINK I like the 196 gr. Like the two crimp grooves. Got to go with what you all say BUT could the grease grooves be bigger or would that cause a problem? Kind of glad we have a short hold on this bullet. Going to have $83 out now on moulds. gregg
For a boolit of about 190gns looks like it will need to be about 1" long. It was mentioned to make the crimp grooves to fit the mil surplus necks. 7.62x54R .39" neck 303 Brit .332" 7.7 Jap .285" 7.65 Mauser .24"
It looks like all the above cartriges will accept a nose length of about .85"
With the base of the boolit made to fit the necks, then it leaves a Looooong nose. Just as a thought, instead of putting a .1" long .302" bore rideing section, I tapered it up to the front driveing band. I don't know if this would be a good idea or not?????
1. what size of bore rideing section do we want? 2. With a 1" bullet, what size of base and nose will work. It doesn't look like it will be practicle to have the base fit in the intended cartriges. 3. What about a way longer bore rideing section?
Thoughts?
Posts: 2924 | Location: Arkansas | Registered: 23 December 2002
If you shortened the length by removing the last driving band nearest the base and retained the gascheck I'd be all over this. I could use it in my .30-30 and 7.62x39. That might get the weight nearer to 150 grains.
Posts: 4865 | Location: Lakewood, CO | Registered: 07 February 2002
Quote: 3. What about a way longer bore rideing section?
Suggest considering using a cylindrical portion at bore diameter with a quick ogive at the nose. At bore diameter would slide in just touching - at moment of firing it would slump slightly to fit well; thus giving a looong supported area.
Posts: 621 | Location: Virginia mountains | Registered: 25 December 2002
Lots of bullets out there already that are like this, and it wont fit anything too well. Try a .303" nose minimum, with a body length that fits the shortest bearing length (thats from the base of neck to throat, not in the powder room or the end of the case)of any of the 4 calibers listed. Nothing wrong with .315", but .316" would fit better. Why the gas check? I think these guys are starting to like tumble grooves, why not use the tumble groove as a crimping point? Tapering in a long nose IS a bad idea if the bullet isn't supported well, and they slump off center when booted with alot of pressure. Been there and it doesn't work too well most all of the time.
"One option is to mimic the 30TL if it does well."
Frankly, that'd be MY choice; TL grooves, flat base and all. I'd think Lee could re-program the .30TL run to just produce a larger-diameter cut. Probably wouldn't save on our costs, but would save time. But let's keep them separate for now, to avoid confusion. Wait and see how the .30TL goes, then run the .25 (I don't need one myself, but it seems to be taking root), then back to the "Fat .30".
But I really DO like the TL design!
floodgate
flood, I got my hands on TL314-90-SWC Lee 6cav just two days ago, trolling thru Ebay. It's the solution to my worn and pitted bore in a Marlin 1889 in 32W. A first run yielded a coupla' hunnert boolits, an overnight tumble lube, no sizing, and off to the range last night. What was with factory ammo, the shotgun effect, I was lucky to get a hole in paper at 25yds, and when I did get there, it was clearly keyholing. I was able to start getting groups of 6" at 25yds, and ROUND holes!, yeeehawwwww. Other problems have surfaced, failure to eject consistently, been tweaking that and a complete dissambly and some carefull polishing and filing on the innards, and hopefully a better load, 12gr of Rx7 was leaving a LOT of unburned powder, I've switched to 6gr of Herco. Try that later this afternoon. It is indeed a "fat 30", the TLubing is dead ez,, and shooting just as it drops has given a remarkable improvement. What was a problem child now has some potential! Cheers all, R*2
Posts: 129 | Location: NorthEast | Registered: 20 January 2003
[/url]
Kind of glad we have a short hold on this bullet. Going to have $83 out now on moulds.
gregg
