Eagan bullet base chamfering tool

  • 3.9K Views
  • Last Post 17 February 2015
joeb33050 posted this 10 February 2015

1997 Handloader's Digest "Designed to bevel bullet bases to facilitate full seating of gas checks. Uses scraping action to minimize metal loss. For 22 through 45 calibers. From Donald Eagan." Does anyone have one, or a picture, or know where I could get one? Thanks;joe b. 

Attached Files

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
Hamish posted this 10 February 2015

http://noebulletmolds.com/NV/productinfo.php?cPath=21&productsid=28

I would imagine it was very close to the current offering from NOE.

Attached Files

bandmiller2 posted this 10 February 2015

I don't see how one size fits all, it must just true the base. Frank C.

Attached Files

Tom Acheson posted this 10 February 2015

How about a good 'ol fashioned case mouth deburring tool? One size fits almost all.

Tom

Attached Files

j35nut posted this 11 February 2015

Try this link to his catalog, scroll down near the bottom there is a diagram of the tool

http://www.slideshare.net/mtngun/don-eagans-mold-catalog

-----J

Attached Files

rockquarry posted this 11 February 2015

I bought one of these years ago along with a mould from Don Eagan. Still have it, though it has never been used.

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 11 February 2015

rockquarry wrote: I bought one of these years ago along with a mould from Don Eagan. Still have it, though it has never been used. Are you taking offers? This might just be the secret for my .22 CF shooting.joe b.

Attached Files

rockquarry posted this 11 February 2015

joeb33050- I'll keep it. Sure as I got rid of it, I'd find a use for it. Though I haven't seen it in a while, I think it's basically a chamfering device, similar to something we would use on a rifle case mouth.

Just got out my old Eagan catalog. He called it a “Bullet Base Chamfer Tool - Universal .22 to .45", price, $6.00.

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 11 February 2015

Joe, find one of the old style Lee case neck tools. They are easier to use, and sold for $.99. Ric

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 11 February 2015

RicinYakima wrote: Joe, find one of the old style Lee case neck tools. They are easier to use, and sold for $.99. RicRic;Only the needlefingered can chamver 22 bullet bases with the Lee toolI have brawny manly fingers. Those left.joe b.

Attached Files

Brodie posted this 12 February 2015

Joeb, If your fingers are too large buy the handy little bullet holder from NOE , which is also unfortunately out of stock. Broie

B.E.Brickey

Attached Files

j35nut posted this 12 February 2015

I have the Eagan tool as well.

Just curious what problem are you trying to solve.

----J

Attached Files

M. W. Curtess posted this 14 February 2015

The problem I have had to solve was little areas of flashing, usually not uniformly all the way around.     Beginning with longer 45-70 cb's, the Lee tool worked well, but for smaller/shorter ones it didn't. The various “other” ones, those 3 sharp prongs, had to be ground shorter and rounded slightly with the Dremel drum sander to protect my fingertips, but after that I just give each bullet a twist in it when culling them prior to anything else. Form a distinct “chamfer” if turned one direction, or just barely break the wire edge turned the other way. I can't imagine any other tool that would be simpler or more effective. The “best” ones are anything rusty or dull in the junk box or drawer, too.

Attached Files

bandmiller2 posted this 14 February 2015

I misunderstood this one thought the tool would shape the tapered base for a gas check. Probably a lee tool could be modified on a grinder to make it easier to grip and chamfer shorter bullets. Frank C.

Attached Files

M. W. Curtess posted this 15 February 2015

In my experience, it was usually that tiny bit of flashing ( or even the really perfect sharp edge ) that  caused the problem inserting them into the GC's. Once I toyed with chamfering briefely, it was obvious that even when the bullet heels entered tha GC cups easily, a problem remained : There is a radius down there where the flat base transitions to the “skirt", and if you look real closely, that results in slightly “cocked” and deformed seated GC's.     Mind you - it probably had no measureable effect - but it “just isn't RIGHT"!  So a chamfer that is enough to snuggle comfortably into that radius  just always results in a lubricised GC bullet that has a flatter base (with less ram effort) and the  GC skirts always end up the exact same distance fom the lower (rear?) edge of the nearest driving band all the way around the base circumference.   Yeah! - I know - Maybe that is totally anal-retentive, but it IS a random variable that can be eliminated while we are looking for bullet defects any way. (Just Say'in-------!)

Attached Files

M. W. Curtess posted this 15 February 2015

To old coot. I run into that far too often, and can't imagine  how it happens. Seems to me that if a man wants to run a profitable enterprise, he would just automatically make more of his top sellers. But it somehow rarely ever works that way, does it? (Helluva Way To Run A Railroad !)

Attached Files

Tom Acheson posted this 15 February 2015

Makes you think...really sharp square bases are desirable for plain base bullets but are they really required for GC types of bullets? But one way to get the GC base nice and flat and square cornered is to “bump” the bullet. The greater the pressure in the bump press the flatter and squarer. That little slight bevel on the base after being “trimmed” before attaching the GC may be losing the influence we might think that it has. An old subject that has been discussed extensively and earlier here. Tom

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 15 February 2015

It would be amazing if a base more than a few degrees away from perpendicular to the long axis of the bullet didn't have some effect on group size.  I have reported in Fouling Shot #212 results of a limited test that seems to confirm that.  I have also see it written that a square edged base is good and rounded is not so good.  But is  there any evidence (as opposed to opinion either oral or written) that the base should have square edges?

I would think that a small radius or bevel might even be a good thing to reduce the effect of small fins forming on a square base.  Maybe a radius or bevel wouldn't improve things but do we know that they hurt?  Certainly boat tailed bullet work OK.

John

Attached Files

M. W. Curtess posted this 15 February 2015

For that matter, I have shot plenty of bevel-base handgun cb's. in rifles and aside from being rather short, I never saw any problem of any kind. no indication that they gas-cut or anything, and with a PVC wad under them, they can be driven really fast with no problems, either. Pressure probably drives the edge pf the PVC into that little vacant wedge and makes it seal even better than it does on a flat base. Works equally on a bare GC heel, maybe for the same reason. Fact is, that I rarely use GC's any more.

Attached Files

bandmiller2 posted this 17 February 2015

Cause and effect is hard to predict with cast bullets there are so many variables. If a bullet is booted in the arse with high pressure little imperfections mean little, its kinda reswaged in the bore. I do think that leaving the barrel a bullet is steered by its base. Plain base should be square, GC rounded fits the check better. Base nubs are a whole nother story as base voids and should be avoided. Frank C.

Attached Files

M. W. Curtess posted this 17 February 2015

Agreed. I've often toyed with the idea of the actual as-loaded bullet heel (PB or GC both) having a chamfer that exactly matches the angle of the land tops to the grove bottoms at the crown to insure that all areas of the bullet heel lose contact simultaneously.

Attached Files

Show More Posts
Categories
Search
Popular Tags
This Weeks High Earners
Hot Topics
Close