If someone is reloading and not checking every component and finished round, they should not be allowed near a reloading press!
This is especially true of target and hunting rounds. I don't see how you could load out-of-round bullets and not notice.
The title of this thread says it all. Not a question, not any speculation but an accusation right off the bat.
Someone has an agenda.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike_Dettorre:
Generally, I find conjecture, speculation, and assumptions, and pointless provocative comments stink.

They can be driven by ulterior motives.

Exactly,Well said Mike.
I buy all my brass,bullets, primers and powder in large lots of all the same lot # when i find a load that works in one of my rifles. When changing lot#s ajustments generally must be made.More powder, less powder, lead change,even different brass or primer and i have run into bad lots of all the above, big whoop.
I have found that there are reloaders and then there are Hand Loaders.

Paul K

I don't have a dog in this discussion and make no excuses or recriminations for how this situation was handled.

I do have a question for the reloaders in the discussion. No recriminations for your answers - I'm just wondering because I've been laying in my products for reloading again...

Here's your scenario...
You purchase and pay for a 1st quality product. You're now at your reloading table, open your new product, and upon inspection you determine the quality of this product is 2nd quality at best.

What do you do?

"Do you try the product to determine if it functions as your previous 1st quality did?"
"Do you return the product to the vendor for replacement or refund?"
"Do you contact the manufacturer for replacement?"
"Do you just move on and hope your next purchase of the item is the quality you expect?"

No I didn't spdesire to create a poll, I'm just interested in your responses.

Thanks,

Well, EXCUSE ME, for trying to explain how Rusty got taken unawares by the dastardly cosmetic blemishes. Forget that part, I was only hypothesizing.
Mr. Barnes did say it was cosmetics only and Rusty does not pay much attention to cosmetics.
OOPS! There I go hypothesizing again. Forget that too.

I am not hypothesizing about this:
I have spoken to Rusty since last I posted.
He assures me he did not tell Mr. Barnes that I exaggerated his findings on the BAD BULLETS.
Mr. Barnes prevaricated that one.
Pulled right out of you know where.

Rusty is a former R&D Engineer for Remington, just one of his adventures in the gun world.

He says the bullets had as much as .0007" runout, and that is a lot for a bullet, not a good bullet.
The bullets were undersized too, closer to .410 than .411, but they varied a lot between .410" and .411" diameter.
Just like they varied in base punch markings on the base of the bullet. Some had one ring on the base, some had two nesting rings on the base:
A sub-sub-caliber ring inside a sub-caliber ring, or just a single sub-caliber ring.
Just cosmetic though, right?

Rusty has also seen many times that crappy bullets shoot better from a factory test barrel, while they spray all over the place from a factory production barrel or best-quality, custom, end-user barrel we gunnuts routinely get.

The factory test barrel is tighter in bore and groove and tolerances and does indeed compensate for the banana-shaped bullets, irons them into better straightness and concentricity by the time they leave the muzzle of the machine-rested test-barreled action.

No doubt the tighter-bored test barrel in a machine rest indoors will shoot better than a Shilen barrel on a Mauser from the shooting range bench, outdoors.

The test barrel will shoot anything better.

I have solved my concerns about Barnes bullets.
I am going to just use carefully screened ones without the "cosmetic" defects.
But I will get one size larger caliber bullets (only those free of "cosmetic" defects mind you) and size them down myself to consistent diameter.
Rusty taught me how to do that.
.416 bullets become .411 bullets.
.411 bullets become .408 bullets.
I use a proper caliber-sized base punch and CH4D dies in two steps, last one being .001" smaller than the final diameter desired. The re-sized bullets spring back +.001", if you use water soluble RCBS Case Lube-2.

Yep, I can do it better than Lemuel and Rufus do it. I use the proper size base punch to fit the sizing die.
They are not interchangeable between .307-caliber and .410-caliber sizing dies.

If you want a .411-caliber Barnes bullet, you need to start with a bigger bullet and push it through a .410-caliber die for the final step.
BUT you need to use the base punch made specifically to fit the .410" sizing die.
(Pay attention Lemuel and Rufus.)

The process of forming TSX bullets from a roll of copper wire is very interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiw5EkqxnQQ

http://bulletin.accurateshoote...-the-barnes-factory/

Barnes Bullets has produced some videos showing the processes used to make Barnes’ popular TSX (all-copper), Match Burner (lead-core, copper jacket), and Varmint Grenade (copper jacket, powdered metal core) bullets.

Drawing Copper Wire for TSX Bullets
The first video features the TSX. These all-copper bullets start by drawing and cutting solid copper wire into slugs. The material is first drawn down to the correct diameter and then cut to the proper weight on a large industrial shear press. Great care is taken to ensure the most consistent weight possible. The machines are checked frequently. The video below show how copper wire is sized (in the first black box on the green machine) and then travels over a series of rollers to the cutting station.

More here:

http://home.earthlink.net/~mhc...20Factory%20Tour.pdf

... The tour was conducted by Ty Herring who is the customer service lead technician ...

... Once the bullets are made they have a proprietary machine that cuts the grooves in them. It is amazing to
watch the process but no photos are allowed of that machine and a couple of others which is totally understandable. The bullets are cleaned in a large tub that contains ball bearings which shines them up really nice ...

After I re-size .416 bullets to .411 and .411 to .408, I will have to polish them with rouged-media in a tumbler,
instead of steel ball bearings like Barnes does ... or a vibratory tumbler full of steel BBs? That might shine them up as good as Lemuel and Rufus do.
Get those cosmetic stretchmarks off the sides of my re-sized bullets.
No base marks.

I'm wondering if some of this is a factor of less common diameters?
.411" is not the most widely stocked diameter.

In .510" I had a potential problem with the 570gn TSX's. They were listed at .509" but in fact were closer to .508". That is starting to get a little thin for a .510" barrel. Unfortunately, my rifles were not bedded well enough when the Barnes bullets were shot so as to test for any loss of accuracy due to the thin diameter. When the bedding was temporarily solved I had moved on to 450 GSC HV's, 360gn tipped LeverRaptors, and plinkers (Woodleigh 450s).

Tanz,
In my experience the Barnes ".509"/570-grainers shoot OK in the 1:10" twist McGowen .510-grooved/.500-bored barrels.
But GSC bullets with true drive bands that are about .5105" diameter (proprietary secret) and minor diameter that fits the bore,
CNC machined, shoot much better.

No ulterior motives here. Just the facts.

THanks, RIP.

Yes, I look forward to getting the 500ARNyati restocked and rebedded a third time and being able to put the GSC 450gnHV through its paces. I expect sterling accuracy and it should strike like thunder and lightning out to 300 yards. The bullet just looks -- well designed.

Sounds like it'll save a lot of time at the bench and at the end of the day, you're still buying Barnes....

Pretty fucking funny.

Yep, it is liberating to know that I must be responsible for Quality Assurance inspections of the Barnes bullets myself.
Sort them into load development chronograph burner batches for any "cosmetic" problems or "blems."

I guess Rusty got good enough use out of 60 of the 100 "blems" he had. Barnes just owes him for the 40 blems they re-po-ed.
A single nice new box of .411/300-grain TSX bullets to Rusty ought to do,
if they can be had without the visible ringing from undersized base punches.
No excuse for that, use a proper diameter base punch.

Maybe Barnes should thank us for pointing out that Lemuel and Rufus got a little careless with base punch diameter on a batch of .411 bullets.
Changed the die but forgot to change the base punch? That is an easy fix ...
But that is just me hypothesizing again, about Barnes proprietary manufacturing processes.


Re-sizing the Barnes bullets myself: Now I feel good about it.
They run the bullets through sizing dies at the factory.
I get to fine tune them to fit at home.

This has made me decide to go whole hog and use Barnes .416 TSX and TTSX bullets for fun in the 400 Bateleur, 300, 350, and 400 grainers re-sized to .408.
The cannelures cut on those bullets are sub .400" diameter, so reducing the .416" major diameter to .408" is cool.
I can seat these to short enough C.O.L. to use them in bolt action magazine rifles for 400 Bateleur with either 3.6" or 3.8" box length.
This also works for the .408 Chey-Tac with a PH action and +4.0" box length.
I am not stuck with using only single-shot loadings of the higher quality .408 bullets available, like from GSC or CEB,
though this can still be done for ultimate accuracy.





You get what you pay for.
In the machine-rested, tight, test barrel, 10 shots of the bullets below would probably go into one hole.
Just another one of my assertions subject to verification or proof ...

Any cosmetic blemishes on the GSC HV bullets above are due to me carrying them around in my pocket to admire now and then.
I might have to to polish up one of my new .408/350-grain TTSX bullets for pocket carry now.
Like Chief Lone Watie and his single piece of hard rock candy.

So why not just buy GSC and be done with it? Might save some time....

Well, considering that literally thousands of hunters have gone to Africa and collected thousands of animals, from dik-dik to Elephant with Barnes Bullets over the last half-century; I think we might give them a second chance.

16 Bore,

Chalk it up to my only having made three Safaris,but would you care to enlighten us as to whose bullets you use on your African hunting trips...

thanks,

Rich

Wouldn't step foot in the fucking place and Africa has diddly shit to do with the OP crying like a bitch about Barnes, then isn't happy when they respond, followed by the precious time he spends at the reloading bench, only to be followed up with more "time consuming" shit with the same bullets he's bitching about.

Quite the conundrum....

So do me a favor, get on the horn and get my 6mm 60(ish) TTSX's going. I'll poke one in some vittles, then bitch about it.

Time is of the essence!

16Bore,

There are other manufacturers who make shorter monos in the 60gr class as well. Why not use them?



Foul language is a sure sign of an inadequate vocabulary or a bad upbringing.

I was born a poor black child. Before I left home, dad showed me the difference between shit and shinola. Then a gal at the circus taught me how to use my special purpose......

Have you any 62's?

Gerard:

I need another special purpose bullet,
THE GAME FIELD DOMINATION BULLET: .408/3XX-grain GSC HV with 0.750" to 0.800" nose projection

This is to be used in a 1:13" twist, both .408 Chey-Tac and .408/.338 Lapua Magnum aka "400 Bateleur."

I reckon it should be no lighter than 315 grains and no heavier than 350 grains.

What weight would you pick for plains game, yet adequate for cape buffalo, with short nose projection of no more than 0.800"?

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Barnes Bullet:

Rusty got a new box of bullets, 50 to replace the 40 he sent back to Barnes for analysis.
Ten bullets for his trouble.
He was not too excited about using them: They look exactly like the ones he sent back. Same lot inspected by Lemuel and Rufus? ... Checking the CPU on the pasted-on paper label on the box end ...
Yep same lot number.

30 of the bullets had the "dreaded base doughnut," 20 of the bullets were not deformed on the base. How does that happen?
Lemuel and Rufus changed pusher rod size in the middle of the bullet sizing run?





Measurements of these bullets prove that I can improve them by resizing for my .408 wildcat, using a CH4D bullet sizing die.
Might even be able to flatten out the concavity of the base with a proper diameter push-through rod, improve the concentricity and uniformity of the diameters and the base shapes.
The spread on the bullet weights is good as is. Just need to beat them into shape.
Should work great for chronograph data.

Vernier Micrometer minimum and maximum diameters to 1/10000th-inch, weights to 0.1 grain,
and
OO = ring(s) on bullet base
X = no ring(s) on bullet base:


1. .4102 .4105 300.4 OO
2. .4102 .4106 300.8 OO
3. .4100 .4105 300.3 OO
4. .4100 .4106 299.7 X
5. .4100 .4107 300.4 OO
6. .4102 .4108 300.4 OO
7. .4102 .4105 300.3 X
8. .4102 .4105 300.1 OO
9. .4102 .4106 300.1 X
10. .4102 .4106 300.3 OO
11. .4101 .4105 300.3 OO
12. .4104 .4106 300.9 OO
13. .4102 .4105 299.8 OO
14. .4104 .4107 300.6 OO
15. .4105 .4107 300.2 X
16. .4103 .4107 300.7 X
17. .4099 .4104 299.9 X
18. .4101 .4104 300.3 OO
19. .4100 .4101 300.5 X
20. .4100 .4103 299.5 X
21. .4100 .4104 300.2 X
22. .4103 .4106 300.6 OO
23. .4101 .4107 299.9 OO
24. .4102 .4105 300.3 X
25. .4103 .4105 300.5 OO
26. .4103 .4105 300.0 OO
27. .4102 .4107 301.0 OO
28. .4100 .4104 300.3 X
29. .4103 .4105 300.3 X
30. .4100 .4105 300.5 X
31. .4101 .4104 300.4 X
32. .4103 .4104 299.9 OO
33. .4100 .4103 299.9 X
34. .4102 .4104 300.3 OO
35. .4101 .4105 300.4 OO
36. .4103 .4111 300.4 OO
37. .4102 .4106 299.7 X
38. .4100 .4105 300.4 OO
39. .4102 .4106 299.9 X
40. .4102 .4106 300.4 OO
41. .4101 .4106 300.2 OO
42. .4100 .4105 300.7 X
43. .4103 .4107 300.6 X
44. .4103 .4106 300.8 X
45. .4100 .4104 300.0 OO
46. .4102 .4105 300.2 OO
47. .4103 .4105 299.9 OO
48. .4101 .4105 299.5 OO
49. .4104 .4105 300.0 OO
50. .4102 .4111 300.1 OO

Barnes TSX: It is what it is, and it has its uses.
Over and out.

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
Barnes TSX: It is what it is, and it has its uses.
Over and out.

My thoughts exactly,, it's like adding another 10grs of gunpowder in the penetration department.

Doesn't prove jack shit until you do the exact same with GSC bullets, then measure the exact same lot of Barnes after your magic. Then check the standard deviation of course.

Or did I miss that part?

Barnes Bullets,

I have high procurement expectations; if I purchase a product in an unopened box as an "unblemished/unmarked retail item(s)" and identify the item(s) to be blemished/marked goods once the box is opened, I expect the retailer or manufacturer to replace the blemished/marked items with a new unopened box of unblemished/unmarked items. In the past 40+ years I've only had one retailer/manufacturer not replace my blemished/marked items with unblemished/unmarked items or issue a full refund of my costs for the product/items. I've never purchased another item from that retailer/manufacturer that failed my expectations.

With my expectations noted, "Is it Barnes Bullets' business model to replace a box of blemished/marked bullets that were purchased as "an unopened retail box of unblemished/unmarked bullets" with a "factory replacement box containing primarily blemished/marked bullets"?"

Thank you beforehand with your response.

16Bore,
There is no way that GSC bullets should be run through a sizer die. It will destroy the drive band diameter relationship with the shaft diameter. We make them within 0.005 mm of where we want them to be and, if a different size barrel is used, tell us and we will make them the right size.

Didn't say to resize them, just measure the GSC with the exact same technique as he did the Barnes. Then measure the Barnes after they are resized to see how much he "improved" them (meaning SD). Let the math work itself out. Course, ruling out bias and variance in measuring.

This assumes that several other bullets proved themselves beyond doubt and the powder is the exact same lot, primers same lot, brass properly and consistantly prepped, bore condition the same, temperature, wind, barametric pressure the same, and the same shooter.

From the "hvpage4" GSC website:



Something like the second bullet from the left above would be interesting in .408 caliber,
with a 0.75" nose length and weight of 350-grains or less, for .400" bore, .408" groove, and 1:13" twist, velocity 2700 to 3000 fps ...
As long as it does not have sizing die punch marks on the bottom of it ...

Have you shot the new bullets for group?

It looks like #36 and #50 might be slightly different though in general the bullets look like they are following the policy of being approximately .0005" under bore.

In the 50 calibre this lead the policy to produce ".509" bullets (though in reality this becomes .5085").

Anyway, how do they shoot? Is the circle cosmetic and hidden from a loaded round or significant?

416Tanzan,

Barnes has already tested these bullets for you,
they used a tight test barrel on a machine-rest action.
10 bullets with no rings on the base, compared to 10 bullets with rings on the base.
Barnes gets the last word on this box of chocolates:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Barnes Bullets:

Group with bullets with ring on the base.


group with no ring on the base.

Well, I don't know how accurate the machine tests are supposed to be. Some machine setups are sloppier than human shooting. Apparently, though, this batch meets standard. There was a time when some of the Nosler partition larger bore were pretty ugly. Looks like Barnes .411" were an ugly run.

What bothers me is the BC of .284. That would propel me to get those GSC's with their .42 BC, or else to re-size the .416" blue-tips. They start at a .444 BC so they should end up with a BC even higher. Since the Wheelen is going to be chugging along at relatively slow velocities, I would recommend the 317grain GSC over the 350grain re-sized 416.

The lighter, drive-band bullet should be able to get about 200fps over the 350gn re-sizer. Either would work from a deerstand. Maybe 2400 over 2200fps? I prefer something else with more powder capacity for Africa, and I think that you do, too.

From the measurements posted for the 30 "blemished" bullets...

Average min diameter - 0.4102"
Average max diameter - 0.4106"
Average difference - 0.0004"
Average weight - 300.28 gr.

For the 20 unblemished bullets...

Average min diameter - 0.4101"
Average max diameter - 0.4105"
Average difference - 0.0004"
Average weight - 300.25 gr.

And the entire box...

Average min diameter - 0.4102"
Average max diameter - 0.4105"
Average difference - 0.0004"
Average weight - 300.27 gr.

As far as maximum deviation, the worst offender is #50 (blemished) with a difference of 0.0009" between min and max diameter, but bullet #4 (unblemished) has a difference of 0.0006", so it's not like the marked bullets are exceptionally worse than those that aren't. Keep in mind we're talking about 3 TEN THOUSANDTHS of an inch here. That is a VERY consistent box of bullets, in my opinion.

Oddly enough, the two most concentric and consistent bullets in the box are both blemished, #32 and #47, one sitting at a perfect 300 grains, and the other at 299.9, both with only 0.0001" difference in min and max diameter. Figure that one out, if those marks on the bottom are so bad. Ugly? Maybe, although only the powder would know once they're loaded. Bad? Not based on the measurements provided.

RIP, if it'll get you to shut the hell up, I'll pay for that box of bullets and let you and Rusty keep them. Either of you can fire a few groups and you can post them to show how horribly accuracy is affected by the "massive" deviation between marked and unmarked bullets, and how it caused Rusty so much mental anguish. Really? I mean REALLY?!?

Then we can all move on after you promise to only buy GSC bullets in the future, since you like to promote them so much, and Gerard promises to act more professionally and refrain from participating in a thread about a competitor's product. Deal?

I'm still waiting for the "measurements" on the GSC bullets,

Given that I participate on the forum and Barnes does not (unless 4 posts on one page of one thread constitute participation) how do I deal with direct questions and misconceptions about GSC?

Can Barnes be defended and GSC cannot? Why can CEB, by way of several posters, participate, critisise, be defended and I cannot? Why can any other manufacturer, including GSC be discussed and I cannot participate? Why the double standard?

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
Given that I participate on the forum and Barnes does not (unless 4 posts on one page of one thread constitute participation) how do I deal with direct questions and misconceptions about GSC?

I didn't see any questions or misconceptions about GSC bullets. I did, however, see you post an unsolicited photo of recovered Barnes X bullets and then disingenuously imply that they had failed to function properly and were therefore obviously not GSC bullets.

"Obviously all animals shot with these bullets died so one could maintain that these bullets were successful. The shapes tell their own story."

"It appears that the bullets mushroom with four petals and that they are stamped not turned. That excludes RSA manufacturers."

This was a Barnes-bashing thread from the very start. That alone should have indicated that you should stay out of it, but if you don't know what the high road looks like, there's no point in my trying to describe it to you.

quote:

Can Barnes be defended and GSC cannot? Why can CEB, by way of several posters, participate, critisise, be defended and I cannot? Why can any other manufacturer, including GSC be discussed and I cannot participate? Why the double standard?

There is no double standard. When you find a GSC-bashing thread, be my guest to defend your product.

When in doubt... don't post. I've found that to be the best policy in working for my company for the last 17 years. Words never posted never have to be retracted or apologized for.

For what it's worth, if the situations were reversed I'd defend your product against a bunch of conjecture posted by someone who was obviously just out to grind their axe down to a toothpick at your expense.

Barnes shut the door in four posts and actually posted a target of sorts. RIP hasn't posted anything but a bunch of measurements that mean diddly dick.

Odds are GSC bullets shoot just as bad, but the Ripper aint talking...

OK, I am shilling for GSC.

Being precision turned on CNC machines, GSC bullets are just a different class of bullet compared to Barnes bullets.

Barnes bullets are excellent considering they are stamped/swaged/hammered out of drawn copper wire, pushed through sizing dies, grooved by cutting wheels, then polished by tumbling.

What is the proper term for stamping/swaging/hammer-forming a bullet from a piece of copper wire?

Barnes makes in an hour the number of bullets GSC would take a week to make.

I have compared GSC versus Barnes accuracy in several different cartridges and rifles over the years, and usually the best I can do with Barnes,
when all the load tweaking is done,
is twice the spread of what I get with GSC.
That is with non-ugly Barnes bullets.
The ringed-base/non-ringed-base mix of TSX in a new box of bullets is a new phenomenon for me.
I never saw it before this.

Sometimes amazing accuracy happens, for a duffer like me, with GSC.
Maybe just my compensating errors and the fact that I stop when three shots produce a bughole?

I will post some comparison groups later, when I have more time.

I am not going to waste my time measuring to find runout on 50 GSC bullets. That would be very boring and unproductive.
Akin to telling me to go sit in the corner of a round room.

jlabreck7316,

quote:

I didn't see any questions or misconceptions about GSC bullets.

If you have been here for only two months, probably not. I can assure you that there have been plenty in the last 13 years. Threads meander and do not stay with the original topic and some threads refuse to die, that is the nature of threads here and few people care about that. There is a candidness here that you will seldom find on any other forum and we have Saeed and Don to thank for that.

16bore,

quote:

Barnes shut the door in four posts and actually posted a target of sorts. RIP hasn't posted anything but a bunch of measurements that mean diddly dick.

Odds are GSC bullets shoot just as bad

If you call one an answer and the other means diddly dick, what is the point of insisting on measurements of GSC bullets? You do not accept RIP's means or ability to measure Barnes bullets, so why would you accept measurements of GSC? In any case, if it happens that one does not get grouping with GSC, because the GSC quality control is absolute (GSC measure weigh and check every bullet twice), we have a good starting point to troubleshoot the system. Batch to batch differences with GSC is a non-event but I do not expect anyone, who has not used them, to know this.

The only problem GSC has had is to supply from Africa. That has passed and GSC now makes product in the USA.

Statistics 101.

Take the same damn bullets that the Ripper has from Barnes and let someone else measure them and the results (spread) will be different. Now measure your shit with the same method and see the difference in "quality" between the two. Numbers don't lie, put up or shut up. Rippy obviously wants to be on the GSC "team" so he runs his yap about a product he doesn't like but continues to buy.

Not even 1/2 of the equation has been provided, nor a target of any sorts, that proves anything. And at this point, Ripster or you couldn't provide an unbiased result if you had to.

And all this because some unknown dipshits groups supposedly went to hell. No mention of mechanicals....


One 3 shot group doesn't prove diddly dick either.

16bore,

Thank you for clearing up your position, now I know what the extent of your knowledge/opinion is and what to make of it.

Numbers don't lie, provided the entire data set is provided. Figured the OP would have posted the GSC ones first to prove his "point". So far, it's nothing but hearsay and we're left to assume that ALL the variables are accounted for.

Reality isn't for everyone.

Here's some light reading, I expect OP is this attentive to his shooting too

http://www.angelfire.com/ma3/max357/houston.html

16 Bore,

I can see your point here.

That said, RIP (and we have had a few issues here over the last ten years) is meticulous, some say "fussy" to the point of borderline anal, in his experimentation. He was at a total loss to understand the Barnes base punch marks. So are the rest of us.
Just so you can see my background, I have been lucky enough to have hunted Africa three times.
I shot a nice Cape Buffalo with a .450 Dakota using Barnes solids. He never moved two feet.
I am a Barnes fan myself. This was a statistical anomaly, especially when you consider the Barnes volume. They fixed their "oops!".

I have not had the pleasure of meeting Gerard, just PM's. He truly is a craftsman, his bullets are literally turned out one at a time.

It would be sad if this initial discussion would turn into a pissing contest.

I look forward to meeting you at SCI in February. I am also hoping Gerard will be there so I can fondle his display line up.

regards,

Rich

Do you remember the dispersion of the measured GSC bullets compared to the Barnes in question?

16bore,

tried to send you a PM, but you have me on ignore.

Just so you know, Gerard has you on ignore.

That means he will not see anything you have to say here or elsewhere...

ISS