The Accurate Reloading Forums
Re: oversize 30 bullet design
11 August 2004, 04:57
Lar45Re: oversize 30 bullet design
I'm thinking a 1 cavity to get enough interest to do the run with Lee's higher priceing.
Someone told me they had the dimensions of the 30HBC gascheck shank, but I don't remember who. If you could send it I'll include that or just ask for a snap on fit for a Hornady gascheck.
Also I don't have the lube groove dimensioned. Any thoughts on that? Should it be extra deep as there is only room for one.
07 July 2004, 03:53
DE HillyerHi All! ya, I know. We haven't got the regular 30 molds ( and they may be large enough to do what I need anyway)back to try yet but....I have a thought.
Have any of you shot the Lee CTL312-160-2R? That's the oversize 30 tumble lube gas check bullet designed by CE Harris. I was just wondering about accuracy/velocity/leading.
I like the long nose/bore riding designs ( if made correctly and if the lands/grooves are suited to that type of bullet) for my 'wide open' long range loads.
Anything you know would help- thanks, Dale
07 July 2004, 07:18
LeftoverdjI shoot Lee C312-155-2R. Same thing with conventional lube grooves. On limited shooting, it's the most accurate bullet I have ever shot in my Shaw barreled .308 Mauser. Sized .311, it stays under an inch on my fifty yard range at up to 2300 fps.
It does considerably better than that in my CZ 527. Groups are averaging around 5/8" at about 2000 fps over H-322 with bullets that have been only visually inspected and none too carefully at that.
Imho, the Fat .30 project could do a lot worse than just telling Lee to cut that design a little fat in six cavity blocks.
07 July 2004, 08:29
DE HillyerHi Leftoverdj!
Would you happen to know the size of the body and the nose as it falls from your particular mold? How much bigger would you want it to be? I don't necessarily want a plinker (like the one we just designed/ordered) in the oversize 30. But I wouldn't refuse to buy one either!
Why Lee doesn't catalogue all rifle bullets in 6 cavity is beyond me. ( LOL- Maybe that's why he's rich & I'm not!) I really don't care for the single and double cavity molds at all. Ya, they work ok ...but compared to the 6 cavity.....no comparison!
Oh, another question! How do the gaschecks fit on the base? I assume you are using Hornady ones. And have you ever heat treated your slugs?
So many questions....Dale
When do you think the oversize 30 will come up for order.
Here's a thought.
When will depend on when everyone wants to do it. If the group is ready now, then let's start the discussion on the parameters.
1. Length? I don't think we can go much over 1" in the 6 cav molds?
2. Weight? I've heard more requests for a heavy, so probably just how much a 1" bullet will weigh.
3. Nose length. I looked up the nose lengths for a few different cartriges. I'll have to find them and post them here. I think the list was 7.65 Mauser, 303 Brit, 7.7 Jap, 7.62x54R. Any others to look at.
4. Meplat diameter. Drawn is a .2". Do we want it more streamlined for a better BC? Or leave it fat for possible hunting or levergun use?
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"
Anything else?
Same as above but with smaller meplat.
13 July 2004, 16:15
Dutch4122Glenn-
My vote goes for the first version. Cut for Hornady gas checks, please. I'll be buying back a Longbranch No. 4 Mk I from a buddy soon and this "boolit" is just what I've been looking for. Might even order two 6 bangers like last time.
13 July 2004, 17:55
floodgateI'm still interested, even at the new pricing. This would be for 7.64 x 54 R and I'd like to see it cast .314-.315. The larger meplat would be OK, if it will feed in a M-N.
floodgate
Thanks for starting this. Count me in for the first design, with the larger meplat. Looks like a good hunting round, and .315 would be my preferred diameter. Ron.D
14 July 2004, 01:51
OldfellerLar,
Lee 6 hole blocks will support bullets at 1.100" long. The two rear driver bands could use up the extra length, rendering them a little bit more substantial. I'd move the ogive curve out nearer to the bore walls (a fatter curve to the nose ogive) and I'd leave the meplat the size it is now (the bigger one).
Me, I'm known to like a bigger meplated bullet shot at the magic speed range of 1,600-1,800 fps -- it shows, doesn't it?
Oldfeller
14 July 2004, 02:17
DE HillyerHi All! I was wondering if we could shorten the nose on the 1st design a little. I am only thinking of all that unsupported weight out there. Oldfeller's idea on the nose would give a little more bearing or support....I would be in favor of it. Only concerned about accuracy...I 'think' the 2nd design might shoot more accurately ( as drawn)at a higher velocity....opinions? Dale
If the Lee 6 cav blocks can support a 1.1" bullet comfortably, then we can make it longer for more weight. I drew the base the way that it is to see what it would look like being made to fit the necks of the intended cartriges. We could make the base longer, but then it won't fit inside of the necks. We could add a .302 bore rideing surface for part of the nose and move the ogive out further towards the nose.
I can turn a brass bullet and try it in my Nagant to see if it will feed.
14 July 2004, 10:09
Oldfeller"We could add a .302 bore rideing surface for part of the nose and move the ogive out further towards the nose."
This would be a far better way to add the .100" of extra length and maybe even use up a bit of the existing nose (along with fattening up the ogive curvature a bit).
Oldfeller
.2" bore riding section with nose lengthened.
As above, but with ogive pushed out further to make a heavier nose.
?? Do we need to keep the base short to be contained inside the neck ??
14 July 2004, 17:40
<Guest>I would vote for No. 2 (on the first page). As-cast diameter of .316 would be even better, as would smaller meplat, or better yet, do away with it entirely.
Resp'y,
Bob S.
15 July 2004, 01:59
45 2.1Quote:
1. Length? I don't think we can go much over 1" in the 6 cav molds?
2. Weight? I've heard more requests for a heavy, so probably just how much a 1" bullet will weigh.
3. Nose length. I looked up the nose lengths for a few different cartriges. I'll have to find them and post them here. I think the list was 7.65 Mauser, 303 Brit, 7.7 Jap, 7.62x54R. Any others to look at.
4. Meplat diameter. Drawn is a .2". Do we want it more streamlined for a better BC? Or leave it fat for possible hunting or levergun use?
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"
Anything else?
Glenn, thats a good thought process. What is the neck to throat dimension for each of these? You could take the shortest inside the neck dimension (0.24") and add the shortest neck end to throat of rifling from the above calibers to get the body length for the bullet. A crimp groove or grooves could be put anywhere on the body so that no bullet body would be below the case neck and the body of the bullet would end up at the throat of the rifling to engrave it for best accuracy. The neck length would be whatever is left to meet bullet weight. The nose diameter needs to be at least .303" or .304" so that it lightly engraves, otherwise it will just hang out there with no support. A bullet length of 1.1" is too long, thats what the 8mm Karabiner has and it leaves very little in the bottom of the 6 cavity mould. A 1" maximum bullet length would be much better. I'm looking for a plinker myself, so I would want a smaller meplat or a blunt round nose with a tumble lube body with no check. A 175 to 190 gr. weight would match most of the above calibers also.
Darn computer wouldn't show the bullet drawings until I posted this, oh well. I have had a couple of molds that produced the above dimensions. They WERE NOT the answer to producing good accuracy. Please rethink the design as I have given the above a good tryout and they were disappointing.
16 July 2004, 09:33
OldfellerBob, why don't you propose an alternate design to cover your what your hard earned experiences have taught you and post it so we can all appreciate your points better?
(ie, go ahead -- we know you already have it lined out on CAD anyway -- dazzle us with the pretty bullet)
Other than that, I could go for the first one listed way up above with the big flat nose with the ogive moved out closer to the bore walls (more curve, less cone).
Oldfeller
16 July 2004, 11:27
DE HillyerHi All! I have a radical thought! ( I'm not a wingnut...at least not a left wingnut!!
) What about the 30 plinker we just ordered except .314 body/.304 bore rider with a gascheck base? The only problems I see are crimping the gas check on without going thru a sizer (not a problem for me) and is there enough lube on the bullet for full power loads.
Could we 'crimp' on any of the tumble lube grooves to get the AOL we want? ( Some cartridges might have the base of the bullet below the neck of the cartridge.)
"Quick, Scottie...Raise the shields"
Dale
16 July 2004, 15:07
Dutch4122Only question I would have at this point is will there be any problems with either design feeding from the magazines of the typical Enfield, Mosin-Nagant, Arisaka, Etc.
Otherwise I'll be happy to accept what those who are more experienced recommend.
Just say when!
16 July 2004, 16:32
beagledogBeing a new member, I have recently gotten in on some of the TL rifle mould orders but have no experience shooting them until the moulds arrive. I have shot the TL handgun bullets and found them satisfactory in handguns with barrel lengths up to 7.5".
I would like to hear from those who have shot TL bullets (with or without gas checks) in rifles with a 22-26" barrel, velocities of 1600 to 2000 fps, linotype/wheelweight alloys, as to how well they shot. Specifically, what velocity limitations were encountered before accuracy or leading problems appeared. Are there any shooting problems with a TL bullet that a bullet with standard lube grooves would not have, assuming the bullets are the same except for lube groove type.
If a few experienced TLCB rifle shooters can answer this, it may be easier to decide which design the majority will be happier with.
Thanks. Phil S.
17 July 2004, 01:40
45 2.1Quote:
Bob, why don't you propose an alternate design to cover your what your hard earned experiences have taught you and post it so we can all appreciate your points better?
(ie, go ahead -- we know you already have it lined out on CAD anyway -- dazzle us with the pretty bullet)
Other than that, I could go for the first one listed way up above with the big flat nose with the ogive moved out closer to the bore walls (more curve, less cone).
Oldfeller
Kelly-
This isn't my show, it's Glenns show. I have said what I thought already. The above bullet is much like the several (over the years) versions of Lymans 311299/314299 amongst other Lyman creations. For the FAT 30's, the nose on all of them is too small at .302" or .303". A .304" nose would make a good bullet, but if its left at .302", it will shoot just like whats available and thats not too good! I have enough trouble posting let alone putting up a CAD drawing and none I have given to Glenn or Trk were put up anyhow.
17 July 2004, 02:59
OldfellerGood point about the bore rider diameter needing to be larger (.304") for the group of guns we are talking about.
This really isn't a tumble lube design thread, it has always been a lubricizer-based thread as you have to adjust the .314-.315" sized main bands to fit the gun you are dealing with, be it argentine or brit or whatever.
Yeah, good point about letting them design their bullet -- I will take that one to heart. Go guys go !!!
Oldfeller
I'm not a bullet designer. I don't have a fraction of the experience in shooting cast bullets in rifles that others here do. I mostly shoot handguns. This doesn't need to be my thing. I'm just giveing out ideas for discussion. If anyone wants to jump in on this one, then go ahead.
I'm willing to place the order and mail the molds out if someone else wants to run the design. I just keep the envelopes in a stack to the right of my monitor. I put the zips and stuff in an excell file, sort and post.
You have the added problem of designing for "something". That "something" is "bigger-than-standard-30-cal". But how much bigger? That's the problem with all the other stuff that is somewhat bigger than the standard 30; hence this one should be "somewhat bigger" too.
I hate to stir the pot, but perhaps a list of bore sizes that would be popularly supported would be in order. My personal interest is in .303 (two groove) and .30 Martini Cadet.
Mine would be used for 2, 303's. One has a .314 bore and the other is only slightly smaller. I'm still very interested in anything fairly heavy, gaschecked, and leaning somewhat towards a hunting design. I'd love to see this project fly. Ron.D
20 July 2004, 02:02
45 2.1The problem is, with this size or sizes, that there are two ranges in the fat thirty. One is the 7.62 x54R and the 7.7 Jap which take .312" or .313" normally and the other is the 7.65 Arg and the .303 British which take .313" to .316" normally. Exceptions occur all over the place even in these ranges. I think the most common of these is the .303 British. It is also the hardest to fit. The 7.62 x 54R, 7.65 Arg and the 7.7 Jap have several commercial moulds which fit them pretty well, but the .303 British has mostly undersize bullets available for it. Did I mention the EXCEPTIONS which drive everyone nuts trying to fit bullets to! I would be for a specific caliber, i.e. the .303 British with its problems.
20 July 2004, 07:46
OldfellerAnd these are nominal .314-.316" bore wall sizes, not the actual "even somewhat larger" sizes some worn Brit guns can have near the end of their throats ... this is going to be a lubriciser controlled bullet I am afraid.
Oldfeller
1" long, same base, .304 nose, ogive pushed further out. .2" meplat.
I'll have to see if I can do that 3d volume thing to get an estimate on weight.
I have a family reunion to go to this weekend, but I'm thinking that maybe we should do a chamber cast to see how long we can make the .304 bore rideing section. I have a 7.62x54R and 303, but none of the others. Or does someone have access the the dimensions of the military chambers?
23 July 2004, 06:57
OldfellerFor a generic design, it looks nice ....
I sorta like the nose form, starts out at .300" and picks up to a straight band of .304" so the variety of mil-surp guns can each pick up the land tops depending on how far out you seat it (OAL customized for the individual gun).
Rifling wear can be accomodated, the different type military rifles get accomodated. By the time the very worst of them has allowed the bullet to move say a quarter inch all of them will be in complete nose support (assuming they couldn't start out that way -- and that would have to be one some more worn out gun).
Alignment at firing should be good as long as you can reach the rifling as you CAN size this puppy big enough to pick up the walls of your throat.
Only way you are going to do much better than this generic is to design a bullet to actually fit each gun.
Oldfeller
23 July 2004, 07:36
floodgateLooks good to me, too. I'm ready to go for it any time. floodgate
23 July 2004, 12:54
45 2.1For a bullet this length, the nose would engrave at the .300" point on the drawing. If it was .304" at that point, then it would engrave some. As it sets you will find that its hanging out in air now. Try this with the 314299 and see for yourself. The 314299 is too small for a fat thirty, but works for worn 30-06 throats.
23 July 2004, 12:59
DE HillyerHi All!
A few thoughts..
Do we all agree on .304 nose diameter? Too big,too small?
What about .302 tapering to .304 ( Or whatever)? .300 seems a little small to me.... or am I wrong here?
Everyone should understand that this bullet may not do well in everything...especially at full speed.......ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances...only shooting will tell.
Speak up everyone....
Dale
23 July 2004, 14:24
Dutch4122I'm with floodgate. Let's do it.
I'll try to get a chamber cast of my 303 and 7.62x54R the first of next week after I get back from a family reunion. I think the .302 to .304 sounds better so the nose won't be hanging out there unsupported. We could also move the straight .304 band farther out if need be.
How deep do you think that we might need the lube groove to be? With the short base to fit the necks, then it doesn't look like there will be much room for lube.
Thoughts on this?
24 July 2004, 01:36
OldfellerIf you have an existing bullet that is too small on the nose to catch an impression of your rifling, you can paint it with white out (typing correction fluid) to bulk it up.
Let it harden good then insert it into your throat/rifling. Just measure over the rifling marks that you do get, ignore the lumpy mess elsewhere.
You can make just about any existing bore rider bullet into a bore ride "fit slug" using this trick.
This way you can get lots of feedback from lots of guns as a half dried out bottle of white out generally can be found at our houses anyway (your wife knows where she keeps it).
Oldfeller
26 July 2004, 14:53
drinksginI am using the Lee 1602r in a '.303 Savage '99, 20" barrel,.300x.308, a K31 with a .297x.307 barrel and a M44 with a .304x.314 barrel.
I size .308 for '99 and K31 and have excellent results, one group of 5 with the K31 was 3/8 " at 50 yds.
I tried .308 in the m44 but got 3" at 50 yd, went to .311 and dropped group to 1 1/2 " and am now going to try sized at .314 by running the bullet through a .314 sizer to crimp on the gc, which is .320 before crimping, the bullet comes out of my mold at .313 with ww with 2% tin.
I should have some results by next week.
Most of my loads are at 1400-1700 fps, bullets test 23,000 ,25,000 psi strength.
Don
26 July 2004, 18:05
lewisgoldsteinHas this mold order already gone through? What is the final design and weight?
I would like to get one of these. - Lew
Hi Lew, the order has not been put in yet.
The design is still being tweaked. I think we need to look at the long throats of the different milsurp guns and bore diamter to adjust the nose to. Then we should be close.
27 July 2004, 11:50
DE HillyerHi All!
Assuming Hornady checks fit the base of the bullet, the back 1/2 looks fine to me...
After thinking on this and talking to some I think know about this, I wonder if the nose shouldn't be .304 all the way or even .304 tapering to .305 at the 1st band.
I would rather take a chance on this bullet being too big than too small, but that is just me.
Dale