How Perfect Should a CB be?

  • 14K Views
  • Last Post 24 January 2021
John Alexander posted this 12 December 2015

When do Bullet Defects Make a Difference?
 
In the thread “Casting with Lyman Molds” Joe Brennan recently mentioned that he had 40-50 rejects in casting a batch of bullets and that he didn’t know why.  Joe says he sorts under magnification so that started me wondering how bad those bullets were and if they would have shot just as well as his “perfect” bullets.

 
When I started casting I used to get a lot of less than perfect bullets and on some days I still do.  Being a depression baby, I don’t like to throw things way and when I got curious and shot the “rejects” against my “perfect bullets” they seemed to shoot just as well.  I reported on one such experiment with badly wrinkled bullets in TFS #213 in which the wrinkled bullet’s 5-shot groups averaged .78 MOA and the good bullets averaged .82 MOA. I have tried similar tests several times and haven't found a difference as long as I don't shoot the really gross defects -- parts of a band missing etc.
 
Joe rejected only about ten percent and throwing away ten percent isn't too painful even for me, so maybe this issue doesn't make much difference to experienced casters. But for beginners that rejection rate may include most of their bullets if they believe that any little wrinkle or slight rounding of sharp edges, or bump on the bottom must be remelted. And that’s what we usually tell them because we don't know ourselves.  That may be one of the reasons that beginning casters get discouraged and quit. Early success is important in sticking with a new hobby.  If we want more CB shooters we should avoid discouraging them unnecessarily. 
 
What do we know about the importance of defects? I think not much.  I hope others, out of curiosity, will compare how their rejects shoot compared to their “perfect” bullets and share their results. We have been at this business for several hundred years and really should know more about the importance of defects by now.


 
John

Attached Files

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
Larry Gibson posted this 12 December 2015

What difference do bullet defects make? Not much if the range is short and/or the velocity is low. if you are shooting at longer ranges (100+ yards) and the velocity/RPM is higher bullet defects can make a huge difference in accuracy.

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Ross Smith
358156hp posted this 12 December 2015

If the bullets are equally “flawed” around the whole bullet, and the diameter is correct, and the base is uniform, the effects could be minimal. Bullet weight does impact longer range trajectory though, and could cause erratic points of impact. I totally disagree with Mike Venturino that flaws are immaterial and that you can shoot anything you get out of the mould. He's primarily speaking about handgun bullets I believe, but I think his performance standards for most bullets are far below my own. In the same issues of whichever magazine he's working for, you can see him get really fussy over his black powder rifle casting, so I know he knows the difference.

My standards are the same for any bullet I make. They need to be of the highest quality I can produce.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Ross Smith
  • sudden thunder
RicinYakima posted this 12 December 2015

358156hp wrote: My standards are the same for any bullet I make. They need to be of the highest quality I can produce.
We are on the same page, pride of workmanship has a lot to do with what I keep and what goes back in the pot. Guys that love to chronograph, keep saying the small SD's make smaller groups, yet I have never seen that on the target. Some do, but some don't make smaller groups. Same idea, what you think affects your outcome.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Ross Smith
joeb33050 posted this 12 December 2015

I inspect under a 3X magnifier that has a quarter-sized 6x magnifier in it. With bright light. On a towel I put a bunch of bullets, and push each, point down, along with my finger, so the bullet rolls 360 degrees, as I inspect it. There are NO perfect bullets under 3X magnification. Some are clearly rejects. As the defect size diminishes, the likelihood that I'll reject it goes down. Yet every bullet has some flaw, no matter how tiny. I find it helps me to consider the whole area of the bullet, visible, at the flaw place. A teeny flaw represents a teeny percentage of the area. Like John, I've shot a lot of rejects into small groups. I just finished putting gas checks on a batch of rejects that I'll use as foulers. I find that I need to shoot at least 10 careful shots before going to the record target, and use these foulers to get settled. So, I don't know if defects matter, or how big the defect has to be to matter. Or how to express the size of the defect in what units. Maybe we need a unit of measure of defect. Since I find it easy to cast defective bullets, we could call the unit the joeb. Any bullet with a defect greater than 1 joeb shoots less accurately than those with a lesser defect. As the moving language has given us: “Just saying”

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 12 December 2015

LMG wrote: What difference do bullet defects make? Not much if the range is short and/or the velocity is low. if you are shooting at longer ranges (100+ yards) and the velocity/RPM is higher bullet defects can make a huge difference in accuracy.

LMG

LMG

I suspect your first sentence is right. Any way it matches my test results.

Do you have any numbers to go with your statement that defects make more trouble at at longer distances?  A certain size wrinkle or a certain radius rounding of the sharp edges  will make a bullet hit about ___ inches or feet from the group center in at 600 yards?   What rotation speed will start to cause trouble?  The bullets in my test reported in TFS #213 were rotating at 126,000 rpm so it must be higher than that.  

Does anyone know of any testing that answers the above questions or even indicates that long distance and/or high RPMs magnifies the effects of defects? i would really like to see it since I have heard both stated as fact for a long time. I have tried to find where these facts are established and haven't yet.

John

Attached Files

billglaze posted this 12 December 2015

John, I look at a lot of these statements that should be prefaced by “well, it only makes sense” or “well, everybody knows that that's the way it is.” And, I admit that many times, it only makes sense, or, in fact that IS the way it is. After all, a bumblebee can't fly, and, if God wanted man to fly, He'd have given us wings. Which he did, for Icarus, who, if you recall, came to a rather sticky ending.

I've loaded bullets that I figured would make foulers, and, when fired these defective bullets went right where they were pointed, I've loaded beautiful stuff, that just didn't shoot well; in a shooting session a few days before, they shot well. Same powder, identical in every respect that I could check. I still don't know why this stuff did/didn't shoot well.

And, as I sit here writing this, I still can't pinpoint the reasons for good/bad. And, if Joe, who has a tighter statistical hold on this subject than anyone else I've ever seen, well, if Joe can't quantify it, I'm not too sure it can be done. At least in Dr. Mann's lifetime and probably mine also.

But, I still don't intend to quit trying. It's too much fun!

Bill

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. My fate is not entirely in Gods hands, if I have a weapon in mine.

Attached Files

OU812 posted this 13 December 2015

Jacketed rifle bullets are more accurate in my 308 NATO chambered Remington, even with it's loose .311 diameter free bore and long jump to rifling. Is it because the jacketed bullets are more perfect and deform less when fired?

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 13 December 2015

Opinion: nope because they are about 15,000% harder than lead.

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 13 December 2015

Joe, I like the idea of using joeb as the unit to indicate the degree of a defect.  Figuring out how to measure joebs would be tough, maybe impossible because there are different types of defects and I can't imagine how to quantify a wrinkle.

I discussed that problem in my article and proposed using photos to show levels of defects. The defects in my photos are wrinkles (we would also need at least a rounded edges and base bumps as two other categories.)  My tested “reject” bullets had pretty hairy wrinkles yet shot slightly better than the good bullets so they would have to be less than 1 joeb -- maybe we could call them .8 joeb grade.

Even the results of that one test could be used to offer useful advice to a new shooter having trouble eliminating wrinkles.  I think showing my wrinkled bullet pictures and advising him that if the wrinkles don't look worse than these pictures they will shoot OK might be useful information.

Or we could give advice by description.  Rounded edges -- gas checked bullets will probably shoot OK unless the bands aren't full diameter (good if smoothed by the sizing die) and unsized gas checks don't fall off. I'm not sure that this statement is true but we could test and find out.

These proposed ideas may sound strange but I think some such approach would be better than telling a beginning CB shooter that the bullets should look perfect which is what happens now. That statement probably isn't true but it could  discouraging to a new shooters learning to cast.

John

Attached Files

Tom Acheson posted this 13 December 2015

On the fence on this one. Not so much the testing of the good, the bad and the ugly at long distances. But more of an inconsistency at the bench when we experience the “this load shot good a few days ago but today it stinks” conclusion. We need to look beyond the so called inconsistency of the quality of the bullets and look in the mirror and convince ourselves that our bench technique is repeatable day after day. Failing that bullet quality takes a way down the list second seat.

Tom

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • 2kbill
  • John Alexander
Pentz posted this 13 December 2015

Life is too short to compete with imperfect bullets. The easiest variable to eliminate, particularly in the PB class. If the base is good, the bands square, and no wrinkles, they go into my score box sorted into 1 gr weights. I'd rather spend my time doping wind and mirage than wondering if that “marginal” bullet cost me that 10 or X. C'mon, a glance will tell the tale, if it is not good in your heart of hearts toss it back into the reject can.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Ross Smith
  • 2kbill
Wineman posted this 13 December 2015

Well from the jacketed world, try a bag of 147 grain M80 pulled from 7.62x51 NATO cartridges. A few blemishes but not too bad, weights however vary by +/- 2 grains. Load them randomly and they have about 4 MOA at 100 yards from a M1903 A3 with iron sights, shot prone with a sling. Sort them into weight groups and you can maybe get to 2 MOA. The control would be to not know what I was shooting (If I know their better maybe I shoot better?). The same rifle in the same conditions shoots well sorted cast, fitted to the throat about 2 MOA at 100. A factory modern rifle, with a scope and bench rested might make everything tighten up but I believe the trends would continue.

I am with Ric, if you make them, make them as good as you can and you will have better accuracy.

Dave

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Ross Smith
  • 2kbill
gpidaho posted this 13 December 2015

Well said Tom. Folks go to great lengths to place the blame on small defects or this powder, that primer etc. All to get around the obvious, they have poor technique! No amount of fastidiousness in bullet prep. will overcome personal inabilities. That being a big part of why I shoot plates, gongs, and beer cans instead of benchrest targets. lol Gp

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Ross Smith
John Carlson posted this 13 December 2015

Early in my association with the CBA I read some posts on this subject so decided to try my own test.

After a few of my first casting sessions I weighed several hundred bullets. I was able to assemble two sixty bullet test batches. Each batch had 30 bullets in the middle of the weight range, 15 of the heaviest bullets, and 15 of the lightest bullets, slightly less than 4 gn spread from heaviest to lightest. I shot five shot groups at 100 yards alternating between groups with the “perfect” bullets and groups with either two heavy/three light or three heavy/two light. In the end the “perfect” bullets averaged 1/4” tighter groups (1.24” vs 1.52").

Coincidentally, my first win was in an informal match shooting groups at 300 yards. The margin of victory was 1/4".

Of course as always there's “the rest of the story".

As anyone should be able to tell you (though many can't) for the results of any experiment to be valid they have to be repeatable. Through the summer the second batch of test bullets sat in a box while I prepared for matches and learned more about casting techniques, shooting techniques, etc etc etc. Finally on a reasonably nice December day I headed for the range with the second batch of bullets. I have no idea why but this time I could barely muster groups around three inches and the most charitable way I can put it is that I was unable to validate my earlier experiment.

In the meantime I have learned to cast more uniform bullets, use more uniform pressure when sizing, work with seating depth, etc etc etc. Even so, as the winter gets longer and colder, when some of those “honeydo's” come along, I may find it useful to have a large batch of bullets that really need to be sorted..>

Holding public office should be viewed as an obligation to serve, not an opportunity to rule.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • 2kbill
R. Dupraz posted this 13 December 2015

I'm in the camp with Tom, gpidaho and John C. The human factor is rarely added to the mix and in my opinion should always be at the top of the list of why thing go right and then go wrong the next time out when everything else is the same. I have since quit worrying about bullets, powder charges, loading procedure etc, etc, etc,---.     Any more I concentrate and continually struggle with consistant bench technique and the fundamentals of marksmanship.   Over time, I have learned how my rifles shoot with the loads I use. That is the constant. My application of technique and the fundamentals are not, on any given day.         And as far as casting bullets go. I figure that as long as I am going to spend several hours and maybe days making bullets, they might just as well be as good as I can cast them and then let it go at that. Because I have also learned that the one great variable in all of this is me. 

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 13 December 2015

Now I remember. The memory is the second thing to go. 3.5 damaged bullets - See attached file below.

Attached Files

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 13 December 2015

John Alexander wrote: LMG wrote: What difference do bullet defects make? Not much if the range is short and/or the velocity is low. if you are shooting at longer ranges (100+ yards) and the velocity/RPM is higher bullet defects can make a huge difference in accuracy.

LMG

LMG

I suspect your first sentence is right. Any way it matches my test results.

Do you have any numbers to go with your statement that defects make more trouble at at longer distances?  A certain size wrinkle or a certain radius rounding of the sharp edges  will make a bullet hit about ___ inches or feet from the group center in at 600 yards?   What rotation speed will start to cause trouble?  The bullets in my test reported in TFS #213 were rotating at 126,000 rpm so it must be higher than that.   JohnThere is indeed and RPM Threshold where accuracy goes south due to adverse affect increased RPM has on the imbalances (what defects in the bullet cause).  With the ternary alloys we commonly use and the usual fast to medium burning powders the RPM Threshold will generally fall between 120,000 and 140,000 RPM.  The things that push the RPM Threshold up are better bullet designs that fit the throat, better balance of antimony and tin in the alloy, less defects in the bullets (consistent bullet weight and shape), consistent loading techniques, a proper lube, a slower burning powder to lengthen the time/pressure curve and numerous others.  If you do everything right you can push the RPM Threshold above 140,000 but at some point (the faster the barrel twist the sooner) you will cross the RPM threshold and accuracy will go south very quickly, especially at longer ranges as non-linear group dispersion occurs.Does anyone know of any testing that answers the above questions or even indicates that long distance and/or high RPMs magnifies the effects of defects? i would really like to see it since I have heard both stated as fact for a long time. I have tried to find where these facts are established and haven't yet.  There are several threads on the CBF and the NOE forum answering that very question(s).  Considerable work has been done pushing cast bullets of .30 caliber to higher velocities by pushing the RPM Threshold above 140,000 RPM.  This has been done with 10 and 12” twist barrels using the .308W and 30 XCB Cartridges.  The .308W and 30 XCB cartridges with 14” twist barrels has also been used very successfully pushing the Lyman 311466 and the NOE 30 XCB bullet to 2600 fps while maintain 1 - 2 moa accuracy to 300 yards with 10 shot groups.  A couple of us have pushed the ternary alloyed bullets to 3000 - 3100 fps with some success.  However with my 30x60 XCB cartridge in a 16” twist barrel I can consistently hold 1 - 2 moa through 300 yards.  I recently shot a 20 shot group at 300 yards that stayed very close to 2 moa with a velocity of 2900 fps.  The first five shots were in 1 moa and the first ten shots were in 1 1/2 moa.  A 20 shot test string is admittedly difficult at 100 yards let along 300 yards.  I am currently still experimenting to improve accuracy.      Given the fact that most “defects” in different bullets from the same casting will not be identical in shape, weight or location on the bullet the centrifugal force will act on them differently.  Therefore it is impossible to say they will hit “X” distance at 600 yards from the center of the group.  However, there are formulas in several ballistics books that you can compute the effect a consistent defect in your bullets would have.  However, I don't find I can cast consistent defects so I don't bother with such mental strain.  I cull the defects as best I can by visual inspection (pretty much the same as joeb does with a magnifier) and by weight sorting.  LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • 2kbill
frnkeore posted this 13 December 2015

I fall into the group that says, “why shoot bullets that don't look or weight well, in matches"

I shoot PB bullets at 200 yards and while I can repeat good results, I can't repeat them every time. Wind drift is the highest at the velocity range for PB (14 - 1500 fps) and I chock it up to that and me missing a condition.

I keep some imperfect bullets to use as foulers and they will almost always shoot into the same group, after the barrel is fouled BUT, I can't bring myself to shoot them into a record, match target.

It maybe interesting that they can do that but, why do we care?

Frank

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 13 December 2015

"1 - 2 moa accuracy to 300 yards with 10 shot groups."

I don't think that the above is really considered accuracy if measured against CBA, ISSA or ASSRA match shooting.

You gotta do better than that to have any relevance.

Mel Harris (Roseburg, OR) gets groups of 1/3 to 1/6 that at 158K rpm, with a 212 gr bullet.

Frank

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 13 December 2015

Wineman and Carison,Thanks for contributing results of actual shooting tests.  We need more such data.  It is interesting that the max wt. variation was about 4 grains for both bunches of bullets yet weighing reduced group size by a spectacular 50% in one case and only 16% in the other?

Joe,Thanks for all the data.  I tried to struggle through it and if I understood at least one part of it indicated that filing .2 is not likely to hurt accuracy enough to pick up in the number of groups a rational person would be willing to shoot.

Tom,I agree with you and the others that the most important action is at the bench but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to understand what counts and what is just a waste of time in making the ammo. The whole picture is what makes it interesting.

John

Attached Files

358156hp posted this 14 December 2015

NO! He said “bullet RPM". No,now I said “bullet RPM"

There is another reason that craftmanship is its own reward. When you show newer casters your work, and it inspires them to try just a little bit harder for better quality. They seem to appreciate their progress just a little more when they make their breakthroughs.

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 14 December 2015

frnkeore wrote: I fall into the group that says, “why shoot bullets that don't look or weight well, in matches"

I shoot PB bullets at 200 yards and while I can repeat good results, I can't repeat them every time. Wind drift is the highest at the velocity range for PB (14 - 1500 fps) and I chock it up to that and me missing a condition.

I keep some imperfect bullets to use as foulers and they will almost always shoot into the same group, after the barrel is fouled BUT, I can't bring myself to shoot them into a record, match target.

It maybe interesting that they can do that but, why do we care?

FrankFrank, I care first because I am curious and second because I think we drive off potential CB shooters by telling them they should examine their bullets under magnification and sort them to .1 grain lots.  Us fussy CB shooters like to do that sort of thing but a new shooter trying to get below a 2” group average shouldn't bother his head with such minutia because it won't help him and other things are so much more important.  If later he wants to spend his time sorting bullets and taking pride in his finely sorted bullets fine. In order to ask CBA members NOT to load extra unless work on beginners we need the facts.

I know that most competitors can't bear to shoot record shots with bullets they haven't sorted by weight.  Great, it's a hobby after all and we should do it the way we like. Personally I am afflicted with an engineering (or maybe depression baby) personality that makes it hard for me to waste time and effort doing things that I know won't improve my scores just because I can or ought to.  I weigh sorted bullets for many years until I ran tests and saw that it was a waste of time. I haven't weigh sorted bullets for twenty years. I believe my time is better spent as Tom suggests.  Different strokes etc. etc.

John 

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 14 December 2015

John, if they really want to learn CB benchrest shooting, it is 5 ten shot groups every week. After a few months of casting and shooting they will be good to go. They just have to learn two skills; making bullets and shooting them. If they just want to plink, they can start shooting with the first bullet they cast! Ric

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Ross Smith
tlkeizer posted this 14 December 2015

Greetings, joeb33050, thank you for the data and in a presentation and format easily understood. I, for one, find the data very interesting.

TK

Attached Files

billglaze posted this 14 December 2015

Once again, Joe has nailed it with systematic experimentation, a lucid explanation of what happened, and a numbered analysis to show how much. Quantitative-qualitative. Thanks. Interesting substance for those of us trying to improve our CB groups, and scores. I suggest that, while technique may very well enter into group sizes, technique won't explain 3” to 4” groups, when the same shooter/rifle can put jb's into

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. My fate is not entirely in Gods hands, if I have a weapon in mine.

Attached Files

billglaze posted this 14 December 2015

My last sentence was cut short.  I wanted to say that most of us can probably put jb's into <3/4 minutes.  Dunno what happened. Bill

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. My fate is not entirely in Gods hands, if I have a weapon in mine.

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 14 December 2015

i'll have some of what mel is having ...

ken

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 14 December 2015

Frank 1 - 2 moa at 300 yards holds “relevance” in hunting and it also holds the X and 10 ring on the 300/600 NRA NMC target which is “match shooting".

I have researched all the CBA records and find no records of anyone shooting 1/3 to 1/16 that at 300 yards at HV with 10 shot groups. Actually I find no matches of any sort held by CBA at 300 yards.  We have been through this before Frank so I'll take a moment and refresh your memory; the goal was to achieve 2800 - 2900+ fps with a naked ternary cast bullets holding 2 moa or under with 10 shot groups while maintaining linear group expansion to 300 yards. That is not the goal of CBA, ISSA or ASSRA so I see no relevance in the comparison. That is the goal of what I and several others are doing.  Is it stated somewhere that all cast bullet shooting discussed here must adhere to CBA, ISSA or ASSRA match records"?  However, let us consider the NRA does shoot matches at 300 yards with 20 shot strings. So far I have shot a “clean” (200 points with 20 tens) on the 300/600 yard NMC target with the 30 CXB bullet at 2900 fps . As I mentioned in my previous post I am now working on improving accuracy to shoot master level or better scores on the 300 yard “F Class” target. F Class is also a very popular NRA match. That's where the “relevance” is as that's the match accuracy consideration I am using for high velocity cast loads. 

So let me ask Frank, what moa have you shot with 10 shots, let alone the 20 shot strings required for the relevant NRA NMC and F Class matches, at 300 yards at 2800 - 2900 fps? Have you “cleaned” the 300/600 with 20 shots? Has Mr. Harris of Roseburg with that 158K load?  Doesn't the “relevance” come only when apples are compared to apples and not oranges?

BTW; if you read the NOE forum on my HV testing in 10 and 12” twists you will see I also demonstrated how you can push the RPM Threshold up. I shot numerous 5 shot groups into sub moa over 140,000 RPM; 145 - 171,000 RPM actually. However, none of those were at 2800 - 2900+ fps. Excellent accuracy is quite possible at over 140,000, especially at 100 yards, I consistently demonstrate that. The same can also be done at 200 yards but it is much more difficult, especially if you consider the 20 shot strings required for the NMC and F Class matches. So Frank, please,when you can shoot 10 shots, let alone 20 shots, consistently into 1 - 3” at 300 yards (that's what your claimed “of 1/3 - 1/6 that” really is) at above 140,000 RPM would you please come back and show us how it's done. I for one would really be interested to know.

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 14 December 2015

Ken Campbell Iowa wrote: i'll have some of what mel is having ...

ken Mel is exceptional. He is recovering from colon cancer and is a little off his game, right now. He shot 199's, in his last two matches. He was second in Nov. and won the match in Dec. The Dec. match was at Roseburg and he also put the match on. Frank

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 14 December 2015

John Alexander wrote: "I care first because I am curious and second because I think we drive off potential CB shooters by telling them they should examine their bullets under magnification and sort them to .1 grain lots.  Us fussy CB shooters like to do that sort of thing but a new shooter trying to get below a 2” group average shouldn't bother his head with such minutia because it won't help him and other things are so much more important.  If later he wants to spend his time sorting bullets and taking pride in his finely sorted bullets fine. In order to ask CBA members NOT to load extra unless work on beginners we need the facts."

John, please don't get me wrong, I agree 100% with what you said (quote).  Yes I do get “fussy” and into the “minutia” as it is necessary.  It is necessary when pushing cast bullets to high RPM and for the utmost in accuracy.  However for most cast bullet shooters who shoot at close range (100 yards and under) the requirement to weight sort and anally inspect the bullets is necessary at all.  For most of my casual handgun loads I have shot many a wrinkled bullet down range.  They shoot just fine,  Usually the only thing I cull such a handgun bullet out is when the base is not completely filled.  On rifle bullets small wrinkles don't bother me at all and I shoot a lot of them.  Actually I shoot most of the “culls” from my match bullet sorting in other rifles at more sedate velocities at targets such as gongs, racks and dirt clods.  Even in some match shooting such as cowboy action (SASS) the steel targets are large and at close range (10 yds and under for pistol and seldom over 25 yards for rifle) so wrinkled bullets do just as well.  Even with my Trapdoor 45-70s which I use for longer range shooting I don't weigh the bullets.  I just give them a cursory visual inspection when casting.  Those with wrinkles, not filled out or other defect are usually put back into the pot. You are right though, a lot of cast bullet shooters are turned off on this forum because some members here want every one to adhere to strictly their own style of match shooting and accuracy standards.  That certainly turns a lot of probable members off.  LMG 

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 14 December 2015

heh, yep i used to converse a bit about the exploits of your area successful cast shooters .. with my friend and national record holder lloyd de vore . one of the few shooting books i hang onto is a copy of _single shot actions ...their design ... _ autographed by both de haas and publisher lloyd de vore .

haven't heard from loyd for a few years ... hoping he is still around .

ken

-

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 14 December 2015

OK Larry, I encourged you to shoot matches with the CBA, back when you still lived in WA but, you wouldn't do that. You have a group of High Power shooters where you live now. Have you shot any matches with them, if so, where are the published match results from that? It's nice that you can shoot 3000 fps w/o leading but, please don't tell us that it's even close to match accuracy. BTW, velocity has never won a match that I know of! You are now talking to match shooters, we have our results published in in national publications for all to see and to be varified. We don't put targets up at some un-witnessed and un-varified distance and shoot at them and score them ourselfs.  I could put targets up at 50 yards and shoot 50 shots into them and tell everyone it was shot at 300 yard target but, I choose to compete in matches. Although I don't hold any national records, I do hold all but, one of our club records, all shot at 200 yards. These 3 targets that I will post are between .097 and .030 off the ASSRA national, match records, shot in matches and published in the American Single Shot Journal. I will also post the target you said was shot at 300 yards and I assume it's the single best CB target you've ever shot at that range but, I really want to see your published match results, I know the Hi Pwr boys will let you shoot CB with them. Personally, I don't care about velocity or RPM, what I do care about is that you tell people that as RPM goes up, accuracy will go down, and that it has crossed some “threshhold", the word threshold means that you've crossed something and it's different on the other side. If someone proves you wrong, you just say that they have pushed “your” threshold up, not that your wrong about it. CBA results prove that match (not casual, unvarified) accuracy is good to around 160,000+ RPM. I believe you need to rethink what you tell everyone. Mel Harris:   Single, 10 shot, 200 yard, group records:   UnR, .886   UnP, 1.009   10 shot Agg. group records:   UrR, 1.0225   UrP, 1.267     100 & 200 yard, (combined) MOA, 10 shot group record:   UrP, .645 MOA   Those are just a few of his more than 12 different CBA records. Frank

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 14 December 2015

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 14 December 2015

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 14 December 2015

Larry's

Attached Files

OU812 posted this 14 December 2015

How Perfect Should a CB be? That would probably depend on how hard an alloy is. Softer 12 bhn bullets could probably get away with more defects than harder alloys. Bullet fit is way more important.

Now what is the best design? A good fitting bore rider that works well in a good tight chamber designed for jacketed. Or a taper bumped bullet that is subject to throat erosion over a period of time and not fitting well later on. What about the original LBT designs that require a longer leade no larger in diameter than .0005-.001 over groove diameter.

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 14 December 2015

Frank, give us a break. I am talking about accuracy at HV, not just accuracy. I have told you that time and again. You invite me to just shoot for accuracy which is not what my intent is. I have invited you, since you are critical of what I am doing, to attempt what I am doing; accuracy at HV. You won't, yet you still post targets that are just for accuracy, you won't attempt what I am doing yet you still criticize what I am doing.  Maybe you should “walk the walk” before you criticize. 

How many groups did you shoot that day? How many groups did you shoot before you figured out what it takes at 200 yards? You show us the best you have done. I showed you the first and only target I've done at 300 yards with a 20 shot string and stated load development was still in order.  

So let's see, on the target of mine you posted it is the 1st target I shot for score at 300 yards and if you'll notice there are 20 shots there, not 5 shots at 200....not 10 10 shots at 200.....but 20 shots at 300 yards. That target is the 300/600 NRA target for the NMC. It is the “standard” for accuracy and competition matches which I shoot. I've since switched to the 300 yard F Class target on which the 10 ring is the same size as the X ring on the NMC target. The X ring is half that size. That is the measure of “accuracy” I'll be using at 300 yards.

What measure of accuracy are you using at 300 yards with HV cast bullet loads? Oh, I forgot, you're shooting cast bullets at 1400 fps at 200 yards. Why don't you double that velocity and add another 100 yards to the range. Then come show me what you can do. You also continually post records.  How many times are those record size groups shot?  Did the record holders fire that group as the first group they fired with that load at that range?  What was the worst group the record holder ever fired with that load?  What was the average? Has the record holder ever fired a cast bullet load at 2900 fps at 300 yards?   Yes I do still shoot local unregistered prone matches.  We shoot once a month.  Everyone else (usually 8 - 12 shooters) shoots F Class.  I am the only one shooting NRA NMC Match Rifle.  All shooting is done prone at 300 yards.  The others use the 300 yard F Class target.  Since I shoot prone with only a sling support and with iron (match) sights instead of a 20 - 35X scope I use the NRA 300/600 reduced target.  We shot yesterday as a matter of fact.  I switched from a 69 gr MK to the Hornady 75 gr Match bullet so my zero wasn't any good.  Took my 2 sighters and 6 more shots to center up (targets are not pulled and marked so I had to spot the shots which is very hard to see .22 cal holes at 300 yards even with a 25X spotting scope).  Thus my fist string was a 189-6X.  The next, now having a good zero was 197- 8X and the third string was a 198 - 8X.  The last two strings were my usual High Master level scores.  If that doesn't suit your idea of accuracy or ability to shoot it's just too bad Frank.   LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 14 December 2015

Larry, i hate to say this but, how do we know that target was even posted at 300 yards? How do we know that Mel's targets and my targets are posted at 200 yards?

We have all seen people post targets over on the boolit site :)

It's much easier to shoot in registered matches, you only have to pull the trigger, others do the rest.

The people on this site, have no doubt as to a person or a rifles accuracy when they shoot in matches.

"How many groups did you shoot that day? How many groups did you shoot before you figured out what it takes at 200 yards? You show us the best you have done. I showed you the first I've done."

I've shot singles shots, since 1985 and I'm still learning and improving.

As far as the first you've done, you've post a huge amount of targets that would place you at the bottom of CB matches, so to date, I'd say that although not match quality, it's is your best.

Want everyone to believe you about what you exspouse about shooting, get with those Hi Pwr guy and prove it, there will be no doubt if we see it published!

That's all I ask and it should be easy for you to do.

As for me shooting at any other velocity than I choose, that is for me to decide, not you. If you would like a challenge, try shooting competive single shot groups at 1400 fps. Most bolt actions have a lock time advantage so, it should be easier for you to do with a bolt gun.

Again, it's nice that you can shoot at HV w/o leading :)

Frank

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 14 December 2015

"Yes I do still shoot local unregistered prone matches. We shoot once a month. Everyone else (usually 8 - 12 shooters) shoots F Class. I am the only one shooting NRA NMC Match Rifle. All shooting is done prone at 300 yards. The others use the 300 yard F Class target. Since I shoot prone with only a sling support and with iron (match) sights instead of a 20 - 35X scope I use the NRA 300/600 reduced target. We shot yesterday as a matter of fact. I switched from a 69 gr MK to the Hornady 75 gr Match bullet so my zero wasn't any good. Took my 2 sighters and 6 more shots to center up (targets are not pulled and marked so I had to spot the shots which is very hard to see .22 cal holes at 300 yards even with a 25X spotting scope). Thus my fist string was a 189-6X. The next, now having a good zero was 197- 8X and the third string was a 198 - 8X. The last two strings were my usual High Master level scores. If that doesn't suit your idea of accuracy or ability to shoot it's just too bad Frank. LMG” It's a High Power match, where might we find the published results? Can you give us a link to it? Why not shoot CB's in that match? Frank PS I forgot to post my 600 yard target, it wasn't shot in a match though 

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 14 December 2015

I do not, nor will I ever, understand why it has to be this way. I built the rifle Larry used to shoot the targets he has posted. I built it for the pleasure of seeing what could be done, and the objectives were clearly stated as being tailored towards HV shooting where very few cast bullet shooters have successfully achieved any level of predictable accuracy. I had hoped to get help from people who have made it their business to achieve accuracy in any circumstance and any set of rules, but the entire project was met with resistance from the very beginning from those who only accept results if they fit they're style of shooting.

At no time were targets posted that were shot with jacketed bullets or at lower velocity, or at closer range just to prove the point that people can lie about their targets and there is no way to prove otherwise. We would not stoop that low. LMG's results were personally witnessed and reproduced on his range with his rifle by another shooter.

It was extremely difficult and took significant expense by myself and others in order to make what progress we have achieved a reality, but there are those who would give their last dollar to make sure that our efforts are buried and forgotten forever because they care more about an adolescent vendetta than they do about the science that is being pulled up by it's bootstraps.

I don't understand this. I will NEVER understand this. This sport used to be pure, and now it's corrupted by those who reduce the sport to a convenient size and shape that fits perfectly in a box of their own design, at which point the lid is slammed shut and anything that is hanging over the edge gets cut off and thrown in the garbage. Why would I want to be a part of that? 

Attached Files

bjornb posted this 14 December 2015

Frank, Your classless attempt to smear Larry Gibson is duly noted. I have shot with Larry and to me and many others there are few shooters out there who are held in a higher esteem than Larry, especially when it comes to personal integrity.

Let me assure you that targets were indeed posted at the correct distances.

Attached Files

John Carlson posted this 14 December 2015

Each of the various marksmanship disciplines has it's own set of standards. Comparing the results one achieves with a Rem 700 sporting a match grade barrel with those someone else achieves with a Garand is meaningless. No one discipline is superior to any other, they're just different, and that's supposed to be OK. BTW is one checks the Military Match Records you will find that the CBA does indeed sponsor 300 yard matches. 

Holding public office should be viewed as an obligation to serve, not an opportunity to rule.

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 14 December 2015

Calm down guys, your on a competitive web site, all I'm asking that you post results, shot in matches. There are CBA matches, held, all over the USA. Is that really to much to ask? I shoot in matches, at least 15 times a year. The ISSA & ASSRA matches that I shoot in are restricted to non-bolt action rifles but, I also shoot in the Roseburg, CBA matches in the PB class. My results there, aren't posted on this site because, I'm not CBA member.

Match shooting is fun and can certainly hone your skills, especially if you ask questions of the fellow competitors.

About two years ago, on the boolit site Larry, questioned the CBA, equipmemt lists, indicating that the info, from match results, that I posted from there is suspect because, it didn't adhere to his “threshold” so, I'm not sure what his motive is, posting here. Trust goes both ways.

I'm only interested in accuracy, if it's not there, it just isn't of interest. HV with low BC bullets is counter productive when it comes to accuracy, also. For accuracy, we fight wind drift more than any other thing and low BC bullets have more wind drift.

Frank

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 14 December 2015

There ARE NO MATCHES for our type of shooting. We are doing something NEW. For us, targets posted is as good as it gets because this is not a mainstream discipline. You sit on a high horse because you chose the path more followed and thumb your nose at my hard work and that of anyone else? Brilliant. Accuracy is all any of us really care about but for a man who is disciplined in one in one form of shooting to call BS on the hard work of a man shooting in another because he is unable to demonstrate the same level of accuracy is just plain absurd and carries an impressive deficit of class or courtesy. That's not competitive spirit, that's acting like a thug with a target rifle. Bad form! You are comparing 200 yard groups to three hundred yard groups and wagging your head. You are comparing groups shot with lead at less than 2000FPS to groups shot with similar bullets at 1000FPS faster. What we are doing is inherently more difficult and more challenging in every way and cannot be compared flippantly to normal cast bullet shooting. We do not have the benefit of hundreds of years of real competitors shoulders to stand on. We've only been at this for about 2 years and who knows how accuracy will improve once we learn how to refine the process over the next hundred years or so. 

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 14 December 2015

John Carlson

I checked into those also. Problem is I'm not shooting a military rifle. Nor am I shooting a single shot. I also am not shooting just for accuracy but for high velocity and accuracy. I see a lot of familiar names on the scores posted. I used to belong to Paul Bunyon and shot in many of Mitch's military matches (not cast bullet matches) there.

Let's take a look at just accuracy anyway. Noting the match wining 20 shot agg was 3.086” at 300 yards in the modified/scope class I knew I still had a bit of work to do as I mentioned. Noting the 20 shot for score (agg of 2 ten shot strings) was 200 - 12X score I may still have been “in the running” so to speak. The match results do not mention the target used at 300 yards though and I'm unable to find it in the rules.

What I didn't claim with the target Frank posted here in the original thread on the CBF it was posted in was that it was the bestest and greatest. I simply was posting the results of continued testing.

Now the difference between those CBA Military rifle match results and my results are this: I was also pushing the cast bullet at 2900 fps. The competitors in that match were pushing their bullets at about (+/-) 1000 fps less. That is a difference, a very big difference.

Do you know what target was used at 300 yards in those matches?

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

billglaze posted this 15 December 2015

Can't someone put a stop to this meaningless bickering?   The very same reason I never go to that “other” forum.Bill

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. My fate is not entirely in Gods hands, if I have a weapon in mine.

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 15 December 2015

Frank

Do we belong to two different Cast Bullet Associations? Oops, I see you're not a member of this CBA. I ask because apparently you have the mistaken impression this is just a “competitive web site". Well if you were a member perhaps you would have read the CBA Bylaws, particularly this;

The Cast Bullet Association Inc. Nature and Purpose

The Cast Bullet Association is an organization of shooters who enjoy shooting cast lead bullets in rifles and handguns for competition, hunting, or informal target shooting. The Association's central purpose is to help shooters enjoy cast bullet shooting by:

Stimulating and encouraging experiments in casting and handloading cast bullets that will improve the design, accuracy and effectiveness of the ammunition and increase the satisfaction and enjoyment of shooters.

So, in line with the Bylaws of this Association of which I am a member I shall perceiver to endeavor at casting bullets that improve upon the design, accuracy and effectiveness AT HIGH VELOCITY and there by increase my satisfaction and enjoyment in doing so. I shall also post the results here and in other forums regardless of your inane objections.

And BTW; regarding your “blowing smoke” 600 yard target......there is an old saying that “1st liar doesn't stand a chance"....that target of mine was actually shot at 1000 yards.....I only said 300 yards because I didn't want to embarrass you.........:wnk:

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Brodie posted this 15 December 2015

Bill,  there is a solution to the “bickering".  Just take what the man says at face value.  If you chose not to believe him do so, but don't attack him at least that is the most polite way of handling it that I can see.  Frank has been after these guys on at least two forums.  It is analogous to calling them liars because they can do something that he or you or whomever can not.  There must be a lot of liars in his world. Brodie

B.E.Brickey

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 15 December 2015

Sorry, I vowed to stay off the forum today to get ready for a trip and I guess I picked the wrong day.  I didn't know things had gone off the track. I apologize.  I will delete any further posts that are uncivil.

Several times on this forum I have asked that we all be tolerant and respectful of each others interest whether it is plinking, hunting, experimenting, or one or another of the competitive games.  The CBA need all kinds of CB shooters.  No one variety is any more virtuous than any other.  This is a hobby for crying out loud. Aside from the interests of the CBA it is stupid and uncivilized  to do otherwise.

That does NOT mean that we shouldn't disagree with and challenge one another's theories and opinions in a respectful manner. Without such honesty there is little use for a forum and we will never learn from each other. Since honest and civil disagreement is necessary we also should't  always be looking for offense in every sentence either.  I'm sure many fewer of these ugly outbreaks would happen if we were talking to each other face to face.  We all have to be extra careful with the written word or misunderstanding happen.

Your cooperation would be appreciated in the future.

John

Attached Files

gpidaho posted this 15 December 2015

Larry Tim and Bjorn: Thank you guys for your contribution to the Cast Bullet hobby that I enjoy, Reading of your work with HV cast holds a particular interest with me. I'm not interested in organized match shooting but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate an accurate load, especially Hv loads. Keep up the quest Guys. Gp

Attached Files

Brodie posted this 15 December 2015

Me too.

B.E.Brickey

Attached Files

Jeff Suever posted this 15 December 2015

New caster. Never done rifle only handgun. Really intrigued at the thought of a 3k fps boolits. If only because a friend of mine is all gaga over the new Hornady ELDX bullet and I know 300 yards is about his ethical limit even with a rifle and scope that costs more than I'll ever spend on a hunting rifle. The thought of doing it with a home grown lead bullet warms my heart.

Glad I suffered through the other stuff to see that tidbit.

Keep the HV stuff up.

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 15 December 2015

Jeff, if you want to hunt at long range with HV cast bullets, the trick is to use a slow twist barrel, and a 30 caliber bullet. I actually think a 7mm would be better, but getting slow twist barrels in 7mm pretty much limits you to the top end custom barrel makers. If you go with 30 caliber, you can get a 1-17 twist barrel from Shilen for $200 that will put you right in the drivers seat for 3000FPS. Have it chambered in 30-06 (if you would like, I can do it and use the 30XCB chamber reamer so you get a tight .337 neck which helps a little). Then you go and buy the bullet I designed (with the help of LMG) that is for sale at NOE bullet molds. Use Hornady checks, White Label 2700+ lube and load good concentric ammo, and you can shoot deer at 300 yards no problemo. My personal recommendation for alloy is to use either Lyman #2 or cut Lyman #2 50/50 with pure lead. I have built quite a few of these rifles at this point, and I guarantee it works like a charm (of course, that's not a literal guarantee unless I personally build the rifle, but you get the point).  It really is just that simple. Even if you screw everything up and use the wrong alloy, powder, lube, and stuff the bullets in crooked. If you are using a slow twist barrel, you'll probably still be able to make decent hunting groups at 2700 FPF. However, if you want to really roast the atmosphere at 2900FPS or faster and keep your groups less than 1.5MOA, you're going to have to pay a lot of attention to.........drum roll.......BULLET QUALITY. The closer you come to 3000FPS, the more bullet quality (or lack thereof) will start to bite you in the beehind. If you've never shot cast bullets faster than 2400FPS, then all this agonizing over bullet quality really doesn't mean much, but if you want to shoot Copenhagen can sized ten shot groups at 300 yards and in excess of 2900, you find out real quick that you begin shooting an excellent group at the casting bench. That's why there's some who claim bullet scrutiny is a worthless waste of time, while others make it their life's mission. It just depends what your objectives are.

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 15 December 2015

I loaded 5, 5.5 and 6 grains of Titegroup with 60 gr. 225646 gc, lla bullets in 223, looking for a load of titegroup.

Enough for 5,5 shot groups each.

Also loaded 50 reject bullets for foulers, 5/titegroup.

I'll shoot later this week and see how the rejects do next to good bullets.

Attached Files

gpidaho posted this 15 December 2015

Joe: FWIW, TiteGroup out of my 223 Handi 24” 1 in 9 twist. Lee 55gr. Bator Gas checked and powder coated. 5.5gr Av 1927 fps Sd 19, 6gr. Av 1999 fps Sd 10, 6.5gr Av 2119 Sd10 and 7gr. 2261 Sd17. I've been looking over a few 22cal. moulds since loosing my fear of the small pellets. Makes a pot of lead go a long way. Gp

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 15 December 2015

gpidaho wrote: Joe: FWIW, TiteGroup out of my 223 Handi 24” 1 in 9 twist. Lee 55gr. Bator Gas checked and powder coated. 5.5gr Av 1927 fps Sd 19, 6gr. Av 1999 fps Sd 10, 6.5gr Av 2119 Sd10 and 7gr. 2261 Sd17. I've been looking over a few 22cal. moulds since loosing my fear of the small pellets. Makes a pot of lead go a long way. Gp Today I spent 2 casting hours with the 4 cavity NOE 227-80. Inspection found 4 good, 50 bad-I melted them all. I surrender, I clearly don't know how to cast with aluminum molds. You can have the mold, for 100 good bullets cast in it. Or for nothing.  John A. says it will stabilize in a 9” twist, it did in my Savage. If you want the mold, PM me your address. I'm done trying. joe b.

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 15 December 2015

Joe, I would like to give that mold a try. I am really curious.  And if I can't make it work I will send 100 bullets from my mold.  Mine has cavities lapped to different nose sizes so I might have one that works in your guns. John

Attached Files

gpidaho posted this 15 December 2015

Joeb: PM headed your way. Gp

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 16 December 2015

I find aluminum molds require lots of care to make perfect bullets. Give me a brass mold any day (from an excellent maker) and I'll have it behaving in no time. Iron would be great if anybody made one that had a smooth interior instead of machining marks that make the surface of the bullet look like it was threaded with a 100 TPI pitch. Yes, I know there are higher quality Iron molds to be had, but I have to step over brass molds in order to get them and I see no reason to do that. 

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 16 December 2015

Joe, Upon rereading your post I see that you were offering your mold to gpidaho. Sorry to butt in. John

Attached Files

gpidaho posted this 16 December 2015

No foul John, I always think of you as a gentleman and a friend here at the CBA. We've all had those frustrating casting sessions and maybe Joe will give it another try before passing it along to anyone, that's fine with me also. Thanks to all here for your help and kindness. Merry Christmas. Gp

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 16 December 2015

The mold is off to GP in Idaho this morning. Maybe he'll let John and Ft. L. give it a try. I'd like bullets to try, but that's not important. The 225646 modified is working well-I cast 182 good ones after the 227 80 failure. joe b.

Attached Files

Mike H posted this 16 December 2015

Good steel,               Whilst I am happy to plink away,I would still like to shoot gc's at serious velocities,even of only now and then.I am not sure that at my age,73 YO, it is important,but I would still like to be able to do it.You suggest a 1/17 twist barrel,could I ask what cast bullet would handle that twist.Or more specific would say a 311041 or a RCBS 180 flat nose,work if the velocity was down around 2,000 feet/per/second.Today I shot with a 1/14 twist barrel in a Omark,using RCBS 150 SP GC ,and 45 grains of 2213 SC, Regretably, I an not able to post pictures,but with 20 shots on one target at 100 yards,the spread was 57.20mm vertical and 57.00 horizontal,but 15 shots were 25 mm  vertical and 35 mm horizontal..This gave me a lot of confidence as we have a lot of gusty winds here as well as a lot of mirage and I had no wind flags.Plus the bullets were not weighed.Keep up the good work,the HV threads you and Larry put up are of great interest to me.Cast bullet shooting is a recreation for me,from serious competitive shooting,and I am past worrying about the perfect bullet.Today I felt that the bean cans were in danger.Just realized that I didn't mention that I am using a .308 Winchester calibre.Mike.

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 16 December 2015

just as there are evil children, i suspect that the infamous 225-80 mold that haunted joeb will be passed on from caster to caster like a grinning zombie doll ....a year from now it will be advertised here monthly, and the previous owner will need to find unsuspecting new members ... probably have to include a couple twenties to boot to get somebody to pour hot lead into it's soul and reap the consequences ...

.....may have to try casting silver alloy ...

be aware ...

ken

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 16 December 2015

Now you'll find goodsteel and I agree on a whole lot of things but the one thing we disagree on is about aluminum vs brass moulds. I'll take the aluminum any day. I've a lot of moulds of iron (Ideal, Lyman, RCBS, SAECO), aluminum (Lee, NOE, Rapine, TC, BRP) and brass moulds (MP). I also have a couple Iron moulds of unknown origin. Additionally, over the years I have used numerous iron, aluminum and brass moulds of various makes.

I have absolutely no problems with any of the iron, brass or aluminum moulds casting quality bullets. In 30 cal I use primarily two moulds for my high velocity loads; an iron Lyman 4 cavity 311466U and a 4 cavity NOE aluminum 310-1650FN XCB. Both cast very uniform and smooth bullets as proven out during the visual inspection and weight sorting. The rejection rate is very similar for both moulds. In .22 cal I use a 2 cavity Lyman 225462 mould. It also drops very uniform bullets.

I have one MP brass mould that drops excellent bullets of #2 and linotype alloy....that is after you beat them out of the blocks. The mould is supposed to drop bullets at ,311 but it drops thos alloys in the .313 - .314 range. Obviously if was cut for the COWW/lead at 50/50 alloy of which the designer is very happy. However, with that alloy the bullets are of varying dimensions bullet to bullet measured in the same place and many of the noses are slightly out of round. The visual culling for defects results in a large % of rejects. Weight sorting shows a tremendous variation. This is the only mould out of the 90+ moulds I have that does not cast quality bullets for their intended purpose.

My 4 cavity brass MP 227-60 mould on the other hand casts excellent bullets w/o problems.

As I have mentioned before and goodsteel also mentions the quality of the alloy is a must for casting truly uniform quality bullets for high velocity use or where the RPM Threshold is being pushed. I prefer COWWs + 2% tin and #2 alloys for this purpose. They should be HT'd or WQ'd to increase the strength of the bullet to resist deformation.

I've found cleaning the mould is of paramount importance also when casting quality bullets, especially the smaller calibers of .30 and under. Some here would have an absolute conniption if I told the simple yet effective way I clean all my moulds prior to casting. I used to live in high humidity areas and rust was a real problem if the moulds were not oiled after every use. That always caused a problem with bullet quality when using them again. I developed the method I used based on the advise of a metallurgy engineer who worked for Boeing. It is easy and fast and quality bullets come easy as soon as the mould of aluminum, brass or iron comes up to proper casting temperature. I have helped many others over the years with this method on moulds they could not get to cast good bullets with.

I fully understand that there are defective moulds from all makers. I am not referencing any defective moulds above. I believe the problem with the 30 cal Brass mould is bullet design related and not mould related.

For all around use I have no preference over the material the mould is made of as I find all 3 materials can produce the same quality of bullets all other things being equal. However, I do find the lesser weight of the aluminum moulds to be a benefit (as I grow older) during a long casting session.

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

fa38 posted this 16 December 2015

FM LMG >>>Some here would have an absolute conniption if I told the simple yet effective way I clean all my moulds prior to casting. I promise no conniption.  What is it?

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 16 December 2015

I am easily offended so probably will have a conniption or two or even a hissy fit, but I would like to know  as well.  Why the mystery? John

Attached Files

John Carlson posted this 17 December 2015

Me too. After all, a good conniption not and then never really hurt anybody.

Holding public office should be viewed as an obligation to serve, not an opportunity to rule.

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 17 December 2015

Don't tell me you wash them thoroughly in Makers Mark after filtering it carefully through your kidneys.Whether you do or not, nobody should be shocked after that mental image. LOL! :wow:

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 17 December 2015

Okay......

With the mold blocks on the handles with sprue plate attached I spray with carburetor or break cleaner and scrub with an old but still stiff (no Viagra jokes please)used tooth brush. This may take a couple sprays of the cleaner as it evaporates quickly. I scrub the block faces parallel to the vent lines and in the cavities. The top and bottom of the sprue plate is equally scrubbed.

Then rinse again thoroughly with the cleaner and let dry for a few minutes. The warmer the ambient temp is the quicker cleaner will dry. I do this outside over a 5 gallon bucket as the fumes can be obnoxious. Although in the winter I have done it in my garage over the bucket. Also do not do this anywhere near an open flame or while smoking. This doesn't take long, probably less time on a fours cavity mould than I've taken to type it.

Now here's the conniption part; use a hand held propane torch with the flame adjusted to a little over medium strength to play over the surface of the mould. I usually do the block faces and cavities first, the sprue plate next and then the outside. Apply just enough heat so you sea the “moisture” come to the surface and evaporate.......it is not necessary to apply any more flame/heat to the surface after the “moisture” has evaporated. If the “moisture” bubbles and boils off you are applying too much heat. You want the “moisture” to just come to the surface and then disappear. Go slow with the flame/heat so you can see the “moisture".

Let the mould cool and then swipe out each cavity with a q-Tip. Then apply what ever mould prep you use and the mould is ready to bring to temp and cast.

This whole procedure goes fast as I mentioned. It takes less time to do than to type or read this post. I usually set the cleaned and prepped mould over the top of my Lyman Mag 20 to heat up while the alloy is melting. It then takes very few casts, usually 2 -3, and perfect bullets begin dropping out. Many times perfect bullets drop out of those first 2 -3 casts and many times I use them too.

I also will corner dip the mould in the brought to temp and fluxed alloy to pre heat the mould with other types of furnaces. I've never used a warming plate.

Once the above is done on aluminum or brass moulds there is no need to oil them after use. I will usually dry brush the block faces with a clean dry tooth brush and Q-Tip the cavities before additional uses. The iron handles, if used on those blocks should be oiled but won't need to be cleaned before re-use.

With iron blocks in humid climates, or if not to be used again soon, the mould blocks and handles should be oiled after every use to prevent rust. I favor Kroil for this as it cleans off very quickly with this procedure.

So that's my procedure. It's easy, quick and I have yet to find a mould of iron, brass or aluminum it did not work on. It is the “moisture” that does not get cleaned off with the boiling and scrubbing methods that causes one to cast a seemingly endless amount of bullets before getting any good ones. This is especially true with smaller caliber cast bullets such as the .224s of this thread. They do not hold much heat as larger caliber/heavier bullets against the same size mould blocks used for each. Thus it take a lot longer for the smaller bullets to burn off that “moisture", even with aluminum blocks.

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 17 December 2015

lg:: my system of pre-casting prep starts out the same ::

i use crc brake cleaner and a toothbrush ... then spray again with the brake cleaner .

i don't use a torch tp pre-heat; but dp lay it on the pot ...if aluminum i usually dip a cprner in the hot hot hot melt.

if the cavities are a large volume compared to the blocks it takes less heat soaking and fewer reject castings to achieve good ones.

and here in humid iowa i oil iron molds after use. leaving castings in the last throw isn't good enough. but then it might be 3 years before i use that mold again ....


oh i recommended crc brake cleaner to john a. to clean after honing out a mold... apparently it just de-greased the grit and left it in the cavities ... so perhaps universal truths aren't so universal ...

ken

and for long term storage i like FLUID FILM ... get it at napa ...

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 17 December 2015

I squirt Dawn Dishwashing detergent all over the mold and scrub with a toothbrush till the water will not break on the surface. This means there is no oil of any kind on the mold, but there may be other contaminates, so I then mount the mold blocks on the handles, fill an appropriate sized cup with alcohol, and submerge the mold in the liquid while the pot is heating up. After about a 10 minute soak, I scrub with a new brush (which soaked in the cup with the mold). I scrub, then swish about 2-3 times then blast the mold clean with an air hose. The only problem with my method is that the mold is now “chemically clean” on a molecular level, which is the perfect scenario if you want to solder something. In order to prevent the lead from trying to stick to the mold, it is necessary to heat cycle it a few times on a hot plate so the mold will form an oxide layer that the lead will NOT stick to. This sounds really involved, but it only takes about an hour. Still, I think I may try LMG's method next time. He's accomplishing the same objective.

Attached Files

beltfed posted this 17 December 2015

ONce I have initially tuned, cleaned and then cast with a mold, after use, brought into the house while still HOT. Let cool until blocks are still warm. Remove blocks from handles, and immediately place the blocks into a (good sealing) GIammo can in which there is also VPI paper. I have stored my mold blocks this way for 60 yrs. NO Rust, AND NO oil etc to remove prior to next use. The molds are ready to go out of the ammo can. Prewarm and go for it beltfed/arnie

Attached Files

gpidaho posted this 17 December 2015

Warning the moulds to just under casting temp. on a solid top hot plate after cleaning gets “the good ones” dropping by the third try for me. Best way I've found to warm the moulds. Gp

Attached Files

OU812 posted this 18 December 2015

When casting with a bottom pour pot, spout “flow rate” is very important. There is a sweat spot. On my RCBS I leave the locknut loose and turn adjustment screw by hand until I find it. Lead level in pot will change flow rate also.

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 18 December 2015

OU812 wrote: When casting with a bottom pour pot, spout “flow rate” is very important. There is a sweat spot. On my RCBS I leave the locknut loose and turn adjustment screw by hand until I find it. Lead level in pot will change flow rate also.
Spot on.  I do the same with my Lyman Mag 20.    Adding alloy to the pot keeping at a +/- where the flow rate remains constant is also one of the ways I do the same.

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 18 December 2015

Mike H

The 17” twist is the slowest that adequately stabilizes the 30 XCB bullet (NOE) at HV. It will not stabilize the bullets you mention at those lower velocities. Your 14” twist will do just fine for those. I do get very good accuracy at 2500 fps +/- with the 311041 in my 16” twist 3060 XCB.

Good to hear of your success.

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

billglaze posted this 18 December 2015

A whole lot of interesting postings here--thought I'd throw mine in.

I also use the warming shelf while the Lyman BP is coming up to temp. Than, I take the mold and heat it with a hot air gun I used for model airplane's. The warning on it says “350 degrees” and it's hot enough you don't want to touch the business end. I spend most of the 2 minutes or so on the cavities, and the sprue plate. Usually, after I've used this on the mould, it's ready to go, and the first castings are good. (Or at least as good as I can get.)

Another large benefit: In the winter, I “help” the Lyman sizer warm up by playing this hot draft over the die area, as well as the reservoir. Big help in getting the lube to flow.

Bill

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. My fate is not entirely in Gods hands, if I have a weapon in mine.

Attached Files

Mike H posted this 19 December 2015

LMG,      Thanks for your reply,I was starting to think that I may have caused some confusion by asking about 2,000 fps loads when the emphasis was on higher velocity ,but you have worked it out for me.I would like to shoot at higher velocities,but not all the time,so a very slow twist barrel would not handle the heavier bullets I have at medium to slower velocities.I will work with the 1-14 twist for the moment,as I see it,the main consideration  is to get the chambering and throating matched to the bullet.    When I think of the tribulations I have had over the years trying to get accuracy with a bit of speed and failed,the developments you have been working on are an eye opener.Merry Christmas to you and all the the Cast Bullet Forum people.Mike.

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 19 December 2015

Mike H

Can you get NOE Moulds? The 30 XCB and the 311466 are the best bets for top end velocities in the 14” twist .308W. I've been testing my own 14” twist .308W with 27.6” barrel for several years before I had goodsteel barrel a very nice VZ24 with a 16” twist Broughton barrel and chamber it in 30x60. I still shoot the Palma rifle though as it is easy to load HV for.

The first thing I learned in this HV quest though, which is the crux of this thread, is that the bullets must be the best we can cast. Even though I had been casting some excellent bullets for years that shot really good at the usual 1500 - 1900 fps range it took a bit of learning to re-learn how to cast really excellent bullets and how to properly inspect and weight sort them I'm still learning.

I just this last week cast about 500 30 XCBs. My visual inspection and weight sorting have rejected about 30+ % of them for HV use. The majority of those rejected bullets would shoot 1 1/2 - 2 moa in my .308Ws and 30-06s with 10” twist in the usual 1500 - 1900 fps range but they just don't cut it for HV. There isn't a single one of those rejected bullets I wouldn't have found suitable and used not too many years ago. Yes, I am still learning what HV with cast bullets really takes. One thing for sure that joeb is right about; it takes the best bullet we can cast.

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Mike H posted this 19 December 2015

LMG,      I could get NOE moulds here,just haven't done it.It appears that my casting and inspecting will need more scrutiny,I have been pretty relaxed about it,throw the really bad ones out and when seating the gc's,put the visually best in one pile and the others to what I call,semi rejects,into another.The fact that about 75% of the loads!whether 30 or 22 cal,go into a reasonable core should be telling me something.Mike H.

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 20 December 2015

Mike H wrote: The fact that about 75% of the loads!whether 30 or 22 cal,go into a reasonable core should be telling me something.Mike H. I would be very careful about concluding that because 75% of your bullets go into a “reasonable core” that it is telling you that the other 25% are on the outside because of small defects in the bullets.  The finest jacketed bullets which are far more uniform and defect free than our CBs usually have similar patterns.  That is just the nature of a group. Some have to be on the outside.

This idea is just a variation on the false idea that the worst shot in a five shot group is usually caused by a bullet defect. This is possible but actually defective bullets cause a small minority of the fliers we see -- no matter how tempting it is to suspect that it is a defective bullet.

To find out, make up a bunch of 15 of your most perfect bullets plus 5 of your “semi rejects” and shoot three of the perfect then one of the SR.  Repeat until you have a 20 round group while keeping track of where each type landed. I think you will find that the majority outside the “core” are more likely to be your “perfect” bullets.   The idea that defective bullets are the cause of most fliers is one of our favorite CB theories that can be fairly easily tested to see if there is anything to it.

John

Attached Files

Mike H posted this 20 December 2015

John,       When it cools down a bit,I will try your idea.

Attached Files

John Carlson posted this 20 December 2015

But if it isn't the bullets, and it isn't the equipment, then.......................................:doooah:

Holding public office should be viewed as an obligation to serve, not an opportunity to rule.

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 20 December 2015

John Carlson wrote: But if it isn't the bullets, and it isn't the equipment, then.......................................:doooah: There are a huge number of factors that prevent bullets from going through one hole. Rifle and shooters quality perhaps provide the most and wind and mirage are alleged to sometimes cause less than perfect results.

Cast bullet quality is only one of the many candidates but for some reason many shooters immediately assume that the fault for a “flier” is the bullet. There are no decent test reports that I have ever seen that offers the slightest bit of evidence that small defects or small weight variations are the usual culprit for having one or more shots outside the “core” group.

Aside from physical causes once you agree that all shots won't go into a single hole we are talking groups.  Groups come with some shots at the edge. One shot by definition has to be the worst It is very rare to have a group that one of the shots didn't make bigger.  That's the nature of groups no matter how perfect the bullets, rifle, and shooter.

It is truly amazing to me that with all the possibilities so many shooters think that “fliers” are caused by bullet quality without a shred of evidence that that is the reason.    John

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 20 December 2015

John Carlson wrote: But if it isn't the bullets, and it isn't the equipment, then.......................................:doooah:It IS the bullets and it IS the equipment and it IS the conditions and it IS the shooter. So we try Lapua cases and weigh powder and inspect bullets and buy $350 bench rests and develop precise barrel cleaning regimens and switch powders and change primers and trim cases and de-burr flash holes and orient bullets. And with a rifle that averages 1.5” for 5, five shot groups-not one of these “accuracy tricks” has been shown to reliably reduce average group size.  Use all the tricks? Yes, accuracy improves some, sometimes-but an unmeasurable amount for each trick. Big accuracy changes come when big changes are made-new gun or new barrel or new scope or new caliber or new mold or ...

Attached Files

Mike H posted this 20 December 2015

It certainly is a question or problem,depending on how you look at it,if the same rifle and the same shooter over a reasonable time or number of shots,is able to shoot groups with match quality jacketed bullets that are far more uniform and smaller,than cast bullets,we are left with either the inability of the operator to find a load for cast bullets,but can do it with jacketed,or that there is a problem with cast bullet uniformity.All I am trying to do is have fun and with the interest in higher velocities for cast gas check bullets,I would like to speed things up.Mike.

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 20 December 2015

In my humble opinion, the #1 thing that makes small groups at any velocity possible is barrel quality, and cast bullets show barrel quality better (or worse as the case may be) than jacketed bullets. There are no punches pulled with cast bullets. If something is not quite right, you'll see it on the target, and it gets worse (much worse) as you shoot faster and faster. If you are shooting faster than 2700FPS with a match grade rifle built to exacting standards, and a good shooter is behind the rifle, and the brass has been prepped with the normal match grade tricks, and a good load has been established, you certainly will see a difference in bullet quality! In fact, bullet quality becomes the main thing you war against to maintain consistent groups.

On the other hand, if you're shooting a store bought Savage, and you're just trying to make something happen at 1900 FPS that looks like a group, there is so much static in the system with the quality and design of the bore, chamber, action, stock, trigger, rings, mounts, brass, and alloy bullet quality is like trying to listen for a tick in the engine of your pickup truck when you're rolling along at 70 MPH with mudgrip tires and a bed full of beer cans. Put the same tick in a new Cadillac coup, and it will drive you nuts. The guy in the truck hears the guy in the Caddie complaining and laughs at him. Different strokes. Not that I have anything against Savage rifles nor the people that shoot them. All I'm saying is that at low velocity, you can get away with a lot of things that will kill your groups in the cradle at HV. 

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 20 December 2015

Mike H wrote: "we are left with either the inability of the operator to find a load for cast bullets,but can do it with jacketed,or that there is a problem with cast bullet uniformity."

Mike, I respectfully disagree with your statement that only two possibilities are left.  Joe's post has a good starting list. I would add bullet design and variations in bore condition from shot to shot and that would still be an incomplete list. I think Goodsteel nails it with his pickup truck vs Caddilac analogy.  Bullet uniformity gets lost in the noise of all the other more important factors.

But make no mistake most fliers are out there because in any group some have to be on the outside.  Read my Fouling Shot article that includes Landcasper's twenty five shot group and stare at the individual five shot groups for awhile. I think that make it easy to see.

In their efforts to improve accuracy and eliminate fliers, cast bullet shooters seem to be obsessed with chasing uniformity of bullet appearance and weight, powder weight, case weight, neck tension and a bunch of other things that “seem reasonable and logical,” -- but have never been verified by testing. Some say that it gives them “confidence” and it may make them feel better but they almost never test to see if any of these things make the slightest difference in either the size of their groups or the number of the dreaded fliers they get. Why is that?

I don't know why that approach is so popular, but I have theories.  One is that the human animal is perfectly happy operating on faith and what he perceives as “logic” and has minimal interest in using anything resembling the scientific method to see if his cherished beliefs have any truth in them. 

When the weather get cooler, I hope you will follow up on running the test I suggested.  What you find from two or three 20 shot groups would make a good article in the Fouling Shot.  The only way to settle such differences of opinion is testing.

John

Attached Files

gpidaho posted this 20 December 2015

Mike H: Come on out to Idaho for a visit, it's plenty cool enough here already and I'll put you up. Jokes aside, adding the extra Jokers to the deck is a big part of why I shoot cast. It certainly hasn't saved me a bunch of money. For me it's the frustrating fun of making a malleable little pill fly strait when odds say it shouldn't. Gp

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 20 December 2015

As a match shooter, I fail to see the point of trying to prove that bullet quality doesn't matter much.

If you shoot in matches and I believe a majority of people on this site do, you probably cast at least 1000 bullets a year. That's enough to become good enough at it, that you shouldn't be casting wrinkled bullets, for sure. With inspection (you have to do that, regardless) you can see the smaller imperfections (like rounded and unevenly filled out bands) and work thoughs problems out (with help if need be).

As for myself, I'd have a ethics problem, incouraging people to shoot sub standard bullets for anything other than sighting in.

As I said before, I've shot “foulers” into the same group but, they don't always make that group, either (neither do my good bullets) but, once you pull the trigger, you can not get that bullet back. Now, that's the technology we need to be investigating :)

I'm forunate, in one way, I don't have to worry about GC squareness, case prep or bullet alignment to the bore. My biggest problem is wind drift, that's why I promote spitzer bullets.

Some of the preceived problems can be related to that as well as the GC squareness, case prep or bullet alignment to the bore.

Frank

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 20 December 2015

i wish i still had my match 22 lr rig ... i would pull some bullets y disfigure them heh .... every time i thin k * gotcha * with cast bullets i get hit in the logic gland by the 4 lb. mallet of rimfire success .

too short, not well engraved , too slow round nose nose ...

about the same as shooting 30 carbine castings in your 30-06 ... hows that work out for us ?? maybe i should take another look at that approach ...

as gpidaho says, maybe we aren't meant to know ...only to understand that we don't know ...

ken

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 20 December 2015

ok, not to leave on a down note ... i think maybe i am almost 90 per cent sure that excellent accuracy comes with bullets leaving the barrel in excellent condition .

there ... a goal to ...er ... shoot for ...

ken

Attached Files

John Carlson posted this 20 December 2015

Mike H wrote: It certainly is a question or problem,depending on how you look at it,if the same rifle and the same shooter over a reasonable time or number of shots,is able to shoot groups with match quality jacketed bullets that are far more uniform and smaller,than cast bullets,we are left with either the inability of the operator to find a load for cast bullets,but can do it with jacketed,or that there is a problem with cast bullet uniformity.All I am trying to do is have fun and with the interest in higher velocities for cast gas check bullets,I would like to speed things up.Mike. Precisely.  With my 223 shooting 52/55/60/64 grain Berger bullets I can routinely shoot sub 1/2” groups with the match bullets, somewhat larger with the varmint bullets.   With my 03, in a 40 round match, it's not unusual to have 1 or 2 or 3 “fliers” that turn a 1 1/2” 9 shot group into a 3” 10 shot group. Same day, same bench, same target, same shooter, different gun, different scope. Weighing bullets didn't help, at least not that I can verify.  Visually inspecting bullets beyond culling the obvious rejects didn't help.  Varying powder charges didn't help (well, I can make it worse).  Varying seating depth didn't help (also can make it worse).  Practice casting bullets and practice shooting them. Hey, that's what this was all about in the first place!:D I know I can never shoot enough to make all the mistakes myself.  What success I have had has from the generous sharing of knowledge by some experienced CBA shooters I've had the good fortune to meet both here and in person. And so I'll continue to read, to ponder, and even ruminate as I plot my strategy for the 2016 shooting season (whenever I'm not shoveling snow:cusout:).

Holding public office should be viewed as an obligation to serve, not an opportunity to rule.

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 21 December 2015

frnkeore wrote:  As a match shooter, I fail to see the point of trying to prove that bullet quality doesn't matter much.

As for myself, I'd have a ethics problem, incouraging people to shoot sub standard bullets for anything other than sighting in."

Frank, I tried to explain at least my point of knowing whether minor defects affect bullet quality or whether weigh sorting is worthwhile. I will try again.

 I think it is an interesting question and would like to know. I am surprised that any serious CB shooter wouldn't want to know something so basic about his sport.

 If culling small defects and weigh sorting is indeed a waste time as my testing indicates,(And there is no testing that I know of that shows that it is time well spent.) it seems to me clearly unethical to tell a beginning shooter that he should do it. Certainly at the one or two MOA level where beginners are it wastes his time. You are not only wasting his time but also making a false statement (usually considered unethical) as well as making CB shooting look more difficult than it is which isn't helping our sport.

Even an experienced caster like yourself apparently casts some less than perfect bullets and a beginner may throw away half or more of his bullets for no good reason so it isn't a small amount of his time that you are causing him to waste.

In no way am I arguing against doing our best and urging beginners to cast well.  But there is no proven reason to throw away bullets with minor wrinkles or slightly rounded edges. Until we have evidence to counter the existing evidence that they don't matter we shouldn't be giving out such advice.

NOTE: All of my above statements about defects are only for CBs at under 2,000 fps.  I am not challenging Goodsteel and EMG's contention that small defects are important at higher speeds. I do wish they would publish a description of the tests they have run and the results found to show which defects become more important at higher speeds. Getting such test results down in writing in some shooting journal is important so we don't just keep discovering the same wheel.>

John

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 21 December 2015

John Carlson wrote"

"With my 223 shooting 52/55/60/64 grain Berger bullets I can routinely shoot sub 1/2” groups with the match bullets, somewhat larger with the varmint bullets.  With my 03, in a 40 round match, it's not unusual to have 1 or 2 or 3 “fliers” that turn a 1 1/2” 9 shot group into a 3” 10 shot group."

=========== John,

I think we tend to look more closely at big groups, because we are less pleased with them than at small ones -- at least I tend to.

I think that if you examine those half inch groups looking for fliers I think you will find just as many and just as many big fliers as with the 1.5” groups.  I examined a long series of five shot CB groups and  found that the percentage the worst shot enlarged the groups was LESS NOT MORE than the amount the average the worst shot enlarged the groups in a series of groups with Bergers  and Sierra MKs.

The Bergers and MKs also had fliers that doubled the size of the group more often than for the CBs.

I think that if my samples had been bigger the results would have been similar but there was NO evidence that the CBs had more or worse fliers than jacketed match bullets.

Since the bullets with the most defects had fewer and smaller fliers, this casts serious doubt on the widely held belief that fliers are caused by defects in the bullets.

John

Attached Files

John Carlson posted this 21 December 2015

Actually I did look at that. I find it extremely rare that any of my five shot groups with the 223 could be reduced to 1/2 their size by removing one hole and in most of the cases where they could, I knew where that hole was going to be before I heard the bang because I caused it.

Holding public office should be viewed as an obligation to serve, not an opportunity to rule.

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 21 December 2015

frnkeore wrote: As a match shooter, I fail to see the point of trying to prove that bullet quality doesn't matter much.

FrankI think that you failed to see several points. Nothing I read here suggests that bullet quality doesn't matter much. Nothing I read here suggests that anyone is trying to prove that bullet quality doesn't matter much.

Cast bullet quality varies. Anyone who's looked at bullets he's cast knows that. Quick visual inspection and the worst are easily put aside. Visual inspection under magnification and good lighting shows that all cast bullets have flaws, no matter how tiny. Mental “flaw-definitions” allow segregation into classes. Three categories might be “really good” and “not so good” and “rejects". Four or five or seven categories are feasible. Up to the inspector. Bullet weighing allows segregation by weight into categories. These categories might be +/- .5 gr., +/- .2 gr., and +/-.05 gr.---which category includes bullets with identical weight to .1 grain, the limit for most reloading scales/balances.

We do this inspection and weighing to segregate and shoot bullets by category, to improve/increase accuracy.

I find that accuracy improvement decreases rapidly as the time spent categorizing bullets, visually or by weight, increases.

If it looks pretty good under a 3X magnifier in good light, it shoots pretty good. After that, more attentive inspection and weighing produce little or no accuracy improvement.

I say that because of the tests I've conducted, shown above, and the absolute absence of test results from anyone to the contrary.

If you think some of your bullets are perfect, mail me a few, and I'll show you pictures of the defects.

If you think that intense visual inspection or weighing bullets improves accuracy; show us some sets of experiment targets -sets of 5, 5 shot groups, 100 yards.

Let me know if there's anything else you need clarified on this topic.

joe b.   

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 21 December 2015

<user=8839>John Carlson wrote: Actually I did look at that. I find it extremely rare that any of my five shot groups with the 223 could be reduced to 1/2 their size by removing one hole and in most of the cases where they could, I knew where that hole was going to be before I heard the bang because I caused it. In almost all cases, and I've measured a lot of groups, there is 1 center to center distance on any group that's larger than any other. When I see 2, it's probably the accuracy of my measurer. A flyer or outlier is a shot that makes a 5 shot group 1.7 times as big as the 4 shot group. For a 1/2” group we divide .5 by 1.7 and get .294. Then, if the smallest 4 shot group out of the 5 is .294” or less, the 5th shot making the 1/2” group is a flyer. Measuring your 4 and 5 shot groups of around 1/2” may be tricky, but if you measure you'll probably find flyers. Please let us know what you find.      7.15.9 OUTLIERS IN GROUP TESTING  7.15.9 OUTLIERS IN GROUP TESTING - see attached below.

 

Attached Files

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 21 December 2015

Joe wrote: "Nothing I read here suggests that bullet quality doesn't matter much.Nothing I read here suggests that anyone is trying to prove that bullet quality doesn't matter much.

====== Joe, Frank is right.  I have been saying that bullet quality (in the form of small wrinkles, weight variation much larger than most CB shooters sort to, small bumps on bases, and minor rounding of corners) doesn't matter much. In fact I haven't been able to show that they matter at all. I have been saying it for years and backing up my claims with rest results published in the Fouling Shot. (Note: all my testing has been done with production rifles and loads capable of about 1 MOA accuracy and at ranges under 200 yards.  So I make no claims for more accurate set ups or for accuracy beyond 200 yards.)

On the other hand, in spite of almost everybody believing small defects ARE important,  I have never seen one report of a study that supported that belief showing that minor defects actually affected accuracy or caused fliers. I have no quarrel with folks who BELIEVE they matter or just like sorting bullets.  But please don't tell me I am wrong unless you have done enough testing to back up your claim. Opinions don't count.

When I say small defects I am not talking major defects like part of a driving band or part of the base missing.  On the other hand, the “defects” in the bullets I have tested and found to shoot as well as he good ones don't need magnification to see even by 82 year old eyes. As an example, in my TFS article a couple of years ago on wrinkled bullets the wrinkles could be seen at arm's length.  The article had pictures.  I shot six five-shot groups with the defects alternating with six groups of “match” bullets. The average group size for the rejects were smaller than the average for the match bullets.

Similar articles reporting actual test results may have convinced a few open minded shooters but they have apparently had little or no affect on what most readers continue to believe about small defects.  Conventional Wisdom is hard to kill.  This isn't news, Roger Bacon described it very well 800 years ago.  People tend to ignore evidence counter to what they want to believe. Human nature is a bit strange.

John>

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 21 December 2015

John Alexander wrote: Joe wrote: "Nothing I read here suggests that bullet quality doesn't matter much.Nothing I read here suggests that anyone is trying to prove that bullet quality doesn't matter much.

====== Joe, Frank is right.  I have been saying that bullet quality (in the form of small wrinkles, weight variation much larger than most CB shooters sort to, small bumps on bases, and minor rounding of corners) doesn't matter much. In fact I haven't been able to show that they matter at all. I have been saying it for years and backing up my claims with rest results published in the Fouling Shot. (Note: all my testing has been done with production rifles and loads capable of about 1 MOA accuracy and at ranges under 200 yards.  So I make no claims for more accurate set ups or for accuracy beyond 200 yards.)

JOHN, WE AGREE, FRANK IS WRONG. Bullet quality matters, but doesn't matter with imperfections less than 1.0 joeb. (Watch out for Frank!) Given the 1.0 joeb threshold, you and I agree, and others are scrabbling to catch up. Defining units of measurement gives us a leg up. Maybe 2 legs.

John>

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 21 December 2015

Come on guy's, your confusing me (:thinking: ), am I right or am I wrong to incourage new or old shooters to cast (as much as possible) “match” quality bullets, to shoot in matches? Frank

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 22 December 2015

frnkeore wrote: Come on guy's, your confusing me (:thinking: ), am I right or am I wrong to incourage new or old shooters to cast (as much as possible) “match” quality bullets, to shoot in matches? Frank

Frank,

I thought I had answered this pretty clearly in Post #96 with the following statement.

"In no way am I arguing against doing our best and urging beginners to cast well.  But there is no proven reason to throw away bullets with minor wrinkles or slightly rounded edges. Until we have evidence to counter the existing evidence that they don't matter we shouldn't be giving out such advice."

Having said this a couple of times I don't know why you are dragging out the red herring of quality again. I argue against giving beginners advice that will make CB shooting much harder for them to no purpose.  Telling beginners things they MUST do that aren't true seems wrong to me and drives potential CB shooters away.  Your post seems to be twisting my easy to understand argument into my being against high quality work. I don't think you would do such a thing so I assume that you simply didn't read my post correctly. So no harm done.

John

Attached Files

OU812 posted this 22 December 2015

I have a couple of moulds (not venting well)that are very difficult to cast well filled out bullets from. So I had no choice but to shoot them.

John, If I ever figure out how to shoot 1/2” groups at 100 yards consistently, I will try your theory.

Attached Files

HuskerP7M8 posted this 22 December 2015

John Alexander,

If the Gmail address I have for you is still correct from about 1 1/2 years ago, I'd like to send an email.

Landy Larry Landercasper

“In God we trust; all others must bring data.” “Without data, you're just another person with an opinion.” “If you can't describe what you are doing as a process, you don't know what you're doing.” “It is not enough to do your best, you must know what to do, and then do your best.” W. Edwards Deming (October 14, 1900 - December 20, 1993)

Attached Files

John Carlson posted this 22 December 2015

That's interesting criteria for defining what a flyer is, certainly gives everyone a common reference to work with. My own criteria varies with the discipline. For the 223 I consider any hole that expands a group to where all holes won't touch the 10 ring on an International Benchrest target to be a flyer (assuming the rest are in a separate group). For the cast bullets in the 03 I consider holes outside the 9 ring using NRA MR 31 and MR 52 targets.

I compared 10 5 shot groups from the 223, 5 groups at 100 yards, 5 groups at 200. Of these groups there was one that met the 1.7 criteria. In this case the 5 shot group measured .427 while the 4 shot group beside it measured .224 or 1.9 times the 4 shot group. I'm afraid my “flyer” in this case was the result of my shooting an exceptionally small 4 shot group. There were a total of 3 shots outside the 10 ring but, if the group were centered, all would have touched the 10 ring and no other single hole met the 1.7 criteria.

I also found the targets from a practice session with the 03, one five shot group and one 10 shot group at 100 yards, same at 200. Of these 30 rounds I found three that met my criteria of reaching the 8 ring but only one that met the 1.7 criteria and that one turned a 2.4 inch 200 yard group into a 7.4 inch 200 yard group. Now that's the flyer I need to learn how to eliminate.

Great to see all the input here, it's giving me a lot of new ideas to digest over the winter.

Holding public office should be viewed as an obligation to serve, not an opportunity to rule.

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 23 December 2015

I have to agree with Frank on this (don't have the big H on me Frank.....).  and have to politely disagree with Johns on this; “Until we have evidence to counter the existing evidence that they don't matter we shouldn't be giving out such advice."

Small defects in the bullets do cause flyers because the bullet is imbalanced. Given equal imbalance in the bullet how far that flyer will be out of the group depends on the range to the target and the RPM of the bullet. Another problem I see is insufficient sampling of most loads to determine what the actual group size capability of the rifle/shooter/load combination is. 

Let's say we have our average 30-06 sporter rifle and we are shooting a 311291 over 2400 at 1800 fps.  If we shoot four separate 5 shot groups with 2” being the largest and 1” being the smallest the “average” is 1.5".  The problem then is most thing all their groups with that load should be within 1.5"..  Such is not the case.  Actually if no sight corrections were made and we overlaid the aiming point of the four groups we would probably find the 20 shot group size would be larger than 2” and probably closer to 2.5".  That 20 shot group is a much better indicator of the actual accuracy capability. Thus if we expect a five shot group of 1.5” or less and we get 4 shots into 1.25” and shot “out” making it a 1.9” group is that one shot really a “flyer"?  No it is not.

So in agreeing with you with the above example the question is does a defect/imbalance effect accuracy enough to be concerned about it?  If you are satisfied with an actual accuracy capability, using the above example, of 2.5” moa at 100 yards then no you probably shouldn't be concerned and probably shouldn't waste your time either visually inspecting and weight sorting to excludes any defects.

However, if you want the utmost in accuracy from your cast bullets in your rifle then visual/weight sorting can indeed be beneficial.  If not we would not see the consistency of group size or scores in the competitions.  Several times John mentions not having seen and tests which demonstrate this.  I've conducted a lot of such tests over the years as have numerous others proving the point to our own satisfaction.  I'm not sure what John would accept as a test?

Getting back to the advice we give new shooters I also agree we many times overwhelm and do a disservice to new shooters with insistence the do the minutia and some times anal things we do.  If all they want to do is hit a 12” gong, bust dirt clods on the berm at 100 yards or shoot a couple thousand cowboy action loads at 5 - 10 yards on large steel targets with a cheap and simple cast bullet loads then perhaps we shouldn't discourage them with a the technical and anal aspects and minutia we do.  

However, if they, the new shooter, want to compete where accuracy is the name of the game or shoot cast bullets at high velocity then we should encourage them to use the same correct casting, visual and weight sorting techniques we use.   Because if we don't we do the same disservice to them.....just as Frank suggests.   LMG      

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 23 December 2015

Personally, I think admonishing shooters to be honest about their groups, and to shoot groups that are unable to be misinterpreted is of paramount importance. 

I always want to know what my capability is with a given load, and what the true cone of fire is. It is imperative that I be aware of this, otherwise I cannot improve. This is speaking strictly of practice and not of competition. Now when I'm competing, I have a very real and honest knowledge of what my capabilities are, but I will not be looking to function within them. Rather I will then be looking for that lucky break, and those lucky 1 inch groups shot with a 2” rifle. However, to “practice getting lucky” when not in competition is foolish in the extreme in my humble opinion, and should not be encouraged either.

Good shooting is not about getting lucky. It's about knowing your firearm, functioning within it's abilities, and always always always trying to improve its potential. I believe this is the true goal of a marksman weather he is reading this upon return from the purchase of his first firearm, or sitting down after shooting a very tough competition all day. Improvement is the name of the game, and improvement cannot happen if some reliable standard of measurement is not established, admonished, and adhered to whether in competition or not.

If a standard for accuracy is established, admonished, and adhered to, the ability to gauge failure, progress, and success is a constant beacon, and shows whether subtle things like bullet quality are of any concern for the shooter and where he is at. Obviously, if there are more egregious offences the shooter is committing, such a thing as bullet quality might be of no consequence whatsoever till those other things are taken care of, but the standard for accuracy leads each shooter to that which they must work on most for where they are at in their personal education.

I see no reason to tell another shooter how perfect his bullets must be unless that is the obstacle most offensive to him at the time. If you ask me “does bullet quality matter?” the answer is “It sure does to me now, but it didn't used to". Just like any number of things that I now insist on, that I used to let slide. My path has led me to this, but there was a ton of water under the bridge getting here.

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 23 December 2015

Here is an example of a test I ran back in March.  The question was basically; “How important is weight sorting?"  That question was related to high velocity with cast bullets.  As you can see I was pushing this 30 XCB bullet hard at 2875 fps (15 ft from muzzle) from my 30x60 XCB rifle.    I had visually inspected and culled out all bullets with any defect.  I then weight sorted the bullets that all “looked” the same and had passed visual inspection.  For this test I used a 10 shot test.  Six of the bullets all weighed the same at 154.3 gr.  I selected 2 lighter weight bullets; a 153.4 and a 153.8 gr.  I then selected 2 heavier bullets; a 154.8 and a 155.1 gr.  That was a 1.5 gr difference.  Yes that is a bit of a spread but the test was to see if there was a difference.  I shot 2 foulers prior to the test.  You can see the light and heavy weight bullets were tracked in the order they were fired.  I mixed them in with the median weight 154.3 gr bullets so as to not give any advantage to any during the test string.  As we see from the target results all 6 of the 30 XCBs that weighed the same went into a nice .85” group.  The 8 shot group including the 2 heavier bullets went into 2” which might not seem all that bad but it's obvious they were “out of the group".  The lighter weight bullet at 153.4 gr is the real “flyer.  The total group size at 3.3” is not good at all. One might think this test was not relevant given the 1.5 weight spread.  However, the test is relevant because all the 10 bullets looked the same and passed the visual inspection.  Without the weight sorting we would not have known there was that much difference.   LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Westhoff posted this 23 December 2015

Since I only shoot Production and Issue Military classes, where half-minute accuracy is much more a happy accident than the rule, I have stayed out of this discussion so far. But I finally have to put in my 2 cents worth, when we talk about advising new shooters regarding inspecting/culling CB's.

I very carefully inspect every bullet I cast, under a lighted magnifier. If I see a visible flaw I toss it in the reject bucket and remelt it. Then I weigh every bullet. I find the average weight and cull everything over +/- 0.25 gr. from that. (I treat bullets from a 2 cavity as two separate castings.)

The primary reason I do this? When I get a “flyer” I don't want to be tempted - ever - to blame the bullet. If one goes out of the group I figure it's my fault; I got sloppy with my hold or trigger squeeze or something. Whenever something goes wrong, it's human nature to blame it on SOMETHING. It's also human nature to prefer to find that SOMETHING to be out of our control (so it's not really my fault). This is my way of trying to keep from getting sloppy and blaming it on something “out of my control.”

Does that make sense?

Wes

Attached Files

gpidaho posted this 23 December 2015

Wes has said it very well, eliminating the ability to blame something other than yourself is a very good reason to shoot the best bullet your capable of producing. My opinion exactly. Gp

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • 2kbill
R. Dupraz posted this 23 December 2015

wes & gp:   Makes perfect sense!       Couldn't have said it better myself.

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 23 December 2015

The final solution is always: learn how to shoot better! When I was learning how to shoot benchrest, the most reduction in group size was practice. FWIW, Ric p.s. I'm not posting any more on this subject, I'm done.

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 24 December 2015

I too think that Wes's approach makes sense. He has good reasons.  I understand that a lot of people have a similar way they like to operate.  That is all fine and good and I am not trying to convert anybody.  However, remember a fair number of plain based shooters believe that they must size, lube, load, and shoot all bullets in the same order they were cast.  However, just because they like to operate that way and believe in it doesn't mean that it's necessary.  I suspect that most of you who chimed in after Wes's post don't shoot in the same order as cast.  

I have never seen published reasonable test results supporting the shoot-in-order-cast theory.  However, I also have never see reasonable test results confirming that rejecting small defects or weigh sorting bullets improves accuracy.

Does that mean Wes is wrong?  No, he gave good reasons, and neither is the guy shooting in the order cast if that's the way they like to do it.  However, it doesn't start to prove that either theory improves accuracy. If it is true, it should be easy to prove with a little work.  Something similar to my test procedure in post #101 but finding that those wrinkles do make a negative  difference would be a start.  I am amazed that some of the true believers of sorting under magnification etc. haven't run such a test and shut me up since my ravings seem to annoy some folks and I regret that.

If any of this sounds aggressive it isn't meant to be but I am trying to speak clearly and have the feeling that I am not doing a good job.

John

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 24 December 2015

Goodsteel, I agree with what you say in post #103.  However, I have no idea why you wrote the first paragraph.

"Personally, I don't see admonishing beginners to be honest about their groups to be a detriment. There's a big difference between honestly observing a new shooters proficiency at the bench, or behind a rifle, and shaming him over that information. Seems that encouraging a new shooter to have illusions about his own proficiency or that of his loads, leads to much more heartache in the long run. “

I don't believe anybody on this thread thinks or has implied that we shouldn't be honest while helping beginners certainly not tell them they are doing better than they are.  In fact that is one of my major reasons for starting the thread.  I think we are recommending several time wasting procedures to beginners that will not help them improve and I believe that is bad information although I don't think the people giving the advice mean to be dishonest because they believe the advice themselves. But believing doesn't make it true and unless it is true it is wasting their time and making CB shooting seem worse than it is.

I think your end of message applies exactly to the point I am trying to make.  

"Precision in the wrong place does nothing but act as a placebo." 

Thanks for keeping it on your messages we can all use a reminder.

John 

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 24 December 2015

John, I apologize. I should have worded it differently. I have edited for clarity. 

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 24 December 2015

No need for an apology. I was just puzzled. John

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 24 December 2015

I would like to thank all who have posted to this thread so far and encourage everyone to keep on posting your thoughts.  Everyone has contributed in one way or another.  However, I suspect that I am not the only one feeling some frustration because in spite of many thoughtful posts we haven’t made as much progress as hoped. Since I started the thread I would like to try to focus our discussion with the following understandings that I haven’t made clear before.

  One -- The type of shooting that I would like to find answers for is the area that the vast majority of serious CBA members shoot in – under 2,000 fps, under 200 yards and at accuracy levels between 1.0 and 2.0 moa (AVERAGE for five-shot groups).  This is the area of interest for most hunters, most casual experimenters, and for most competitive shooters in CBA’s production, hunting rifle, and military rifle classes.  A quick look at match reports will show that very few serious shooters in these classes are out of this bracket. (The work goodsteel, LMG and others are doing in high velocity CB shooting is fascinating and important and I wish them well and appreciate their, hopefully continuing, participation in the thread but any topic has to have boundaries to focus the discussion.)

 Two --I understand that small defects in bullets cause the bullet to go off course.  Of course they must, but that isn’t a useful fact in itself.  A practical question is do they go off course enough to matter in groups that average between one and two MOA at the velocities that win CBA matches and at ranges under 200 yards.

 My testing has strongly indicated that small defects and small weight variations do not measurably affect accuracy above 1MOA for velocities under 2,000 fps and under 200 yards. Much of the data posted by Joe in post 17 also cast doubt that small defects significantly affect accuracy. The remarks by John Carlson in post # 95 report that eliminating small defects and weight variation didn’t solve his problem. If small defects and weight variation don’t affect accuracy at the 1 MOA level (and I know of no published test results indicating that they do) it isn’t because small defects don't affect accuracy a small amount. We know they do.  It is because the effect is so small that it is lost in the noise (various variations in accuracy caused by all the other stuff.) These results say nothing about the effect of small defects at either accuracy levels below 1 MOA or velocities above 2,000 fps.  Those should be topics for other studies.

The reason this is a practical question is that if small defects don’t significantly affect accuracy we can quit worrying quite so much about bullet quality and concentrate on other aspects that may result in more progress.  We should also quit loading up new CB shooters with a pile of detailed work that won’t help them. We can also quit blaming bullet quality for most of the fliers and work on other possibilities.  If small defects don’t significantly enlarge groups it is unlikely that they are the major cause of fliers as commonly assumed.  

 However, as indicated by some of the posts, most shooters are not convinced that small defects don’t significantly affect accuracy and aren’t the major cause of fliers so to settle this issue we need more testing to find out the truth. If the additional testing refutes the evidence quoted above and shows that small defects do affect accuracy at levels above 1 MOA we will be able to say that eliminating those defects is important based on evidence instead of just on unsupported opinion.

 Encouraging more testing to gain more information about this issue (or learning about testing already done but not published) is the major reason I started this thread. The kind of testing I am trying to encourage isn’t complicated or time consuming, nor does it require additional equipment. The simple test reported in post #101 and in TFS 213 of six 5-shot groups of seriously wrinkled bullets and six groups of unwrinkled bullets is an example of a decent test although maybe a little low on the number of shots fired.  I stopped early because the wrinkled bullets were averaging .78 MOA and the good bullets were averaging .82 MOA and I thought I had the answer.

 I hope some of you will be curious enough to make good use of some of your decent but rejected bullets the next time you cast. Please take some time and shoot them in direct competition with your good bullets and report the results in the Fouling Shot so others can benefit.  Let’s see if we can’t end this discussion of dueling opinions.

 

John

Attached Files

Tom Acheson posted this 24 December 2015

John's plan for a more focused search is a good one. It's been a while since I did some group testing but if I re-chamber my XP-100 this winter I'll set those “rejects” aside and test them in comparison to what is believed to be “the load". This will be “blind testing” where I don't know which load is being shot so any personal bias is removed,

This whole discussion reminds me of an old phrase..."facts always trump a smart person who has an opinion.” So....all of us are smart (just ask us) and all of us have opinions, whether it is something we developed on our own or heard spmewhere,....so now for the facts!

Merry Christmas everyone!

Tom

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 24 December 2015

First, are we allowing 200 yard groups? Your statement says under 200 yards". Are you limiting the rifles to be used at Hunter and Production? I ask because many/most Heavy and UN class rifle shoot under that limition.

Keeping the above constraints (post #119) in mind, I think you need to define the imperfections involved and I think that will be hard to do when the contexts is “new shooters".

How will the new shooter know when to limit imperfections? Or are all imperfections considered shootable?

As we know, many, if not all new shooters can make mistakes that we wouldn't consider reasonable, because we just “know” they aren't.

It would be helpfull to post pictures of what is considered allowable imperfections and imperfections that can and will cause a group to open.

BTW, only about 10% or less, PB shooters, shoot in the order cast. They are almost all set in their ways, regarding it and wouldn't do it any other way BUT, they get out scored as often as random bullet shooters.

Frank

Attached Files

358156hp posted this 24 December 2015

In the spirit of Johns last post, or at least my interpretation of it, I'd like to add my view of symmetry and balance being critical to consistent accuracy as well. In the olden days, we only had a relative few mould manufacturers, and therefore mould selection was limited. “Fixes” that gained following in those days included such tricks as marking individual cavities for identification and orientation, and carrying this orientation throughout the entire loading and even chambering process. As mould quality improved over the years, a lot of these processes fell by the wayside. We do all know that cast bullets all have at least some voids in them, and we cannot identify the locations or even the presence of said voids without destroying the bullet, which is a bit counterproductive. Now, my question is: is anyone still following these indexing procedures, and do you feel they are benefiting you? The reason I ask in this manner is because we are in some cases down to dealing with the issues we cannot see, and casting voids are one of them.  If repetitive accuracy (groups) show notable improvement with alignment and sorting, perhaps this is demonstrating to us that there is a repeating pattern (if you will) in the voids due to mould design and construction, particularly venting. This could explain why one manufacturers moulds may seem to offer greater potential accuracy than another manufacturers near identical design. Or it could simply mean that I drink too much coffee, and need to get more sleep.

Attached Files

Westhoff posted this 24 December 2015

O.K. - I'll have to confess: I blindly follow Frank Marshall's advice. He wrote an article for the NRA Cast Bullet Handbook titled “Orientation and Selection, Two Keys To Accuracy.” I weigh my cases and try to keep them grouped within +/- a couple of grains, and I mark them so they always go in the chamber with the same side up. My bullet molds are all marked with a small punch mark so the bullets always go in the rifle with the little bump up.

I don't find it takes much effort or time, and I do it for exactly the same reason that I explained in my post above. To avoid, to the best of my ability, anything I can blame for that “flyer” but my own sloppy shooting technique.

And no, I haven't run any tests to prove that any of those things I do really make my cast bullet loads more accurate. They DO make me work harder to perfect my bench technique.

Wes

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 25 December 2015

Tom interesting that you mention blind testing.  I was just thinking this afternoon that I should do that as well when I get back to it. It wouldn't be hard just ask a friend to mark the two sets of ammo with X and Y without telling the shooter which is which until after the groups are measured. Thanks for bringing up that refinement. John

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 25 December 2015

Frank
 
Thanks for your estimate of the percentage of PB shooters that still shoot-in-order-cast.  Yes some people are set in their ways. Old habits die hard and often very late or never.  That’s why I am a PITA ranting about testing to see what makes sense and what is a waste of time. 
 
The “under 200 yards” was sloppy writing on my part. I should have said 200 yards and under. 
 
I hope shooters using gunsmithed guns will try to see if the defects, as they have been defining them, are actually hurting accuracy.  However, I am proposing that we try to pin down what’s what at 1MOA and above first.  If it turns out that my testing has been flawed and small defects and small variations in bullet weight do make a significant difference there will be no need for looking at the effect of small defects on smaller groups.  Some folks that now can’t break a 3MOA average are weighing bullets and rejecting small wrinkles as well as some pistol shooters in a vain effort to improve.  [As usual I have to add they should if they want to but they may not be using their time productively.] 
 
Yes rating defects will eventually need to be addressed and it will be difficult.  For now if shooters would just test the rejects that they keep for initial zeroing, fouling shot, offhand, and such it would a good start. I think most would agree there is no point in testing grossly misshapen bullets or ones with part of the bands missing.  In my wrinkle article I posted pictures of the wrinkles which were not small. Maybe eventually we could post typical wrinkle pictures or rounded edge pictures that we have determined to be 1.0 joeb (the point where we have been able to see a significant difference in groups.) That would give beginners some idea when to worry.  When I get home I will send you a pdf copy of the Fouling Shot with the wrinkle article along with an invitation to join CBA.  John
 
We can talk about reasonable weight variation in a good casting run and use that for testing to see if weighing is doing anything for us.  Or we could start at the other end and test to see if the folks are sorting into .2 grain lots (One tenth of one percent for a 200 grain bullet) are wasting their time and go on to .5 grain lots etc. 

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 26 December 2015

      To 358156hp,

 Interesting thoughts about why indexing has perhaps fallen out of favor although not extinct. Mold quality may indeed be a factor, although I couldn't get any improvement by indexing when I tried it forty years ago.   The dreaded voids are indeed a vexing problem. The right approach may be to find a casting procedure that eliminates them. See Bob Birmley's Fouling Shot articles on exposing surface voids to improve groups and later finding a casting procedure that eliminated them.   John

Attached Files

Tom Acheson posted this 26 December 2015

John,

I put the blind test loads in a ziplock bag. On one bag I write a screwy 10-digit character with letters in it. On the other bags again a 10-character label, with just one charcter being different. A list is made with load data and the bag ID. The list is put aside. Then they are left to rest a couple weeks.

When I go out and shoot I just record the bag ID on the target and then at home write the load data on each target as it is seen on the master list.

Doing this I don't need to have someone with me to hand me unknown (to me) loads to shoot. This practice works for various powders and charge weights and different primers but would not work with varying bullet designs because you would probably know by looking at the load what the bullet is. But it could work with good vs. “defective” bullets out of the same design/mould.

Tom

Attached Files

Paul Pollard posted this 26 December 2015

John A. wrote: “The dreaded voids are indeed a vexing problem."

I've been casting with a single cavity 80 grain Eagan mold. I inspect and weigh ALL bullets and note any visual defects under each weight. The usual range of weights is .20 grains. Discarding some high and low weights (either end of the bell curve), I end up with 80 - 90 % of the bullets cast in a .10 range. 

Even with defects, the weights fall in the same range as the visually good bullets. In a recent batch of 219 cast, there were 21 bullets with base defects which were in the range of 80.06 to 80.14 grains. These fell right in the range of the visually good bullets.

Nine visually good bullets were rejected for low weight.

This leads me to believe there are voids in the “visually good” bullets as well as the rejects which have their defects at the surface.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • 2kbill
joeb33050 posted this 26 December 2015

Paul Pollard wrote: John A. wrote: “The dreaded voids are indeed a vexing problem."

I've been casting with a single cavity 80 grain Eagan mold. I inspect and weigh ALL bullets and note any visual defects under each weight. The usual range of weights is .20 grains. Discarding some high and low weights (either end of the bell curve), I end up with 80 - 90 % of the bullets cast in a .10 range. 

Even with defects, the weights fall in the same range as the visually good bullets. In a recent batch of 219 cast, there were 21 bullets with base defects which were in the range of 80.06 to 80.14 grains. These fell right in the range of the visually good bullets.

Nine visually good bullets were rejected for low weight.

This leads me to believe there are voids in the “visually good” bullets as well as the rejects which have their defects at the surface.Paul, what scale/balance do you use that measures weight to .0x grains, to one hundredth of a grain? Thanks; joe b.

Attached Files

358156hp posted this 26 December 2015

John Alexander wrote: To 358156hp,

 Interesting thoughts about why indexing has perhaps fallen out of favor although not extinct. Mold quality may indeed be a factor, although I couldn't get any improvement by indexing when I tried it forty years ago.   The dreaded voids are indeed a vexing problem. The right approach may be to find a casting procedure that eliminates them. See Bob Birmley's Fouling Shot articles on exposing surface voids to improve groups and later finding a casting procedure that eliminated them.   John Thanks for the suggestion John. I was a CBA member until money got tight a couple of years ago, and have read Bobs articles up to that point. There may be later ones that I haven't seen of course. It was a pretty hot topic for a few months IIRC.

Attached Files

Paul Pollard posted this 26 December 2015

Joe,

Gempro 250. It has a resolution of .02 grains. So, in .1 grain, there are five of these divisions. 

Paul

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 28 December 2015

Paul Pollard wrote,

"This leads me to believe there are voids in the “visually good” bullets as well as the rejects which have their defects at the surface."

Paul, Don't be so pessimistic.  Why not assume that you aren't creating voids.  I have sectioned lots of bullets with a fine file looking for “the dreaded voids” and have never found any.  So they only vex other people.  I don't believe they exist except very very rarely in the small bullets I cast. John

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 29 December 2015

Note the light bullet at the top of the bell curve:

THAT is a void. I have sectioned dozens of light bullets trying to find out why an otherwise perfect looking bullet was so far out of whack, and I have discovered several like this. 

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 29 December 2015

This is a mediocre run, but I am certain that what we are seeing is my casting error in cadence and temperature control. There are no voids in this batch. They are too consistent for that. 

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 29 December 2015

Here is a run of 340 bullets that I cast with my 30XCB mold. There was one bullet that deviated more than .4 grains from average, laying next to the scale. The other 40 on laying on the bench were less than .2 grains from target, and the 299 in the tub weigh 163.9 grains exactly. The bullets all measured within .0002 inches of eachother. The bullets all were perfect in appearance. That is consistency, and that's what I am satisfied with. Since I used my bell curve method to scientifically determine exactly what temperature to run the alloy, the mold, and the dwell time between pours, and i wrote it down, I can pull this mold from the rack and repeat this performance on demand as many times as I please, and I KNOW the bullets are as perfect as is humanly possible to produce. This is what I consider to be a good run, and since I know how to use this four cavity NOE mold to produce these results, I don't know why I would do it any other way, and if I care about excellent shooting, I don't know why I wouldn't take the time to make this happen. 

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 29 December 2015

so the bullets on the heaviest line are fully filled out ... assuming you can't add more lead than fully filled ....

does this mean that all the bullets on the lighter lines have voids ... varying in volumn ...


if we do a full swage/squish of all the bullets...the weight would still vary ... but they should be concentric ....and thus more accurate ..ok, statistically more predictable ... if the voids are a problem ...


i am trying to remember why we aren't trying the full swages we talked about 3 years ago .... i think i share some guilt in that project ... i will put it back on the list ...

ken

when we were building toy racing dc motors ...we balanced the armatures on essentially razor blades ... i have thought it possible to build a balancer for bullets ... 1000 r/sec would be easy ...with a piezo crystal sampled by  one of the new fast chips we could find the relative out-of-balance ones .  then shoot them .  are the voids significant compared to the distortion caused by firing ?  

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 29 December 2015

GREAT idea, Ken! That would be something well worth pursuing.

Frank

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 29 December 2015

Ken, Not at all. Once a certain level of consistency is realized, voids show up as drastic anomalies  in the bell curve. What you are seeing is varying degrees of bullet size. Heat effects the size of the bullets and that is effected by both the temperature of the alloy flowing into the mold, and the mold temperature itself. By controlling both of these, I have controlled the size and shape of my bullets better than most think possible, and because I am controlling my bullets to such a degree of precision, I see immediately if something is not quite right, and also, I would submit to you that even though bullet weight itself matters very little to us, by taking things to the degree of precision I have, I am effectively controlling EVERYTHING including what we cannot see nor measure.  Someone who does not take the time to systematically pin down the precise casting rhythm, mold temperature, and alloy temperature has so much static in their casting process, they couldn't see a void if half their bullets had them present. On the other hand, I have made it so that both me and the fellow who thinks it doesn't matter, spend exactly the same amount of time casting, but my bullets come out absolutely consistent, and his come out all over the place. The only difference is that I know how to run my mold, and the other guy does not.  So, now lets move on to the range. That's a subject for another time, but if he runs his rifle like he runs his molds, I'm probably going to stomp him.  This is very simple. I just applied common shooting principles to my casting regime, and I am more consistent because of it. No matter what you do, you will be able to find the most accurate/consistent method by changing one thing at a time, recording the effect, and repeating. It only took me a week to design a way to plot a path to success with any of my molds, and I can find that sweet spot in only a few casting sessions now. Write it down and it will not change unless I change alloy. 

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 29 December 2015

goodsteel !! i love it !!!

i appreciate your attention to detail and hope you continue to serve us with your thoughts, methods, and results .

ken

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 30 December 2015

You're welcome Ken, and I hope the membership will forgive me if I come off as being pompous and obtuse. This is not for everybody, it's just what I have come believe I need to do. When I brought my method before the castboolit crowd, I was immediately accused of weight sorting which is not, I repeat NOT, what I am doing here. I'm using my scale to judge my consistency. The object is to learn to walk up to the pot with a mold, and cast hundred of bullets that weigh, measure and appear exactly the same, taking no more time to do it than I normally would to cast jacked up misfits. If it were possible to measure the bullets in exactly the same spot with a super micrometer, the same thing could be done with a different instrument, but since the scales is the only tool I have that can precisely measure the entire bullet at once and give accurate comparison, that is the instrument I use. It's not about finding the bad bullets. It's about learning to make perfect bullets easily and quickly. Once the combination is understood, you write it down, memorize it, and it becomes part of your process.

Now, I still weigh my casting sessions sometimes. I need to see if anything has changed as I go along. If I suddenly start getting static in my bell curves, it means the alloy has changed, or the temperature has changed. It can be nothing else. For instance, I can make my bell curve go from a single line into a Christmas tree just by adding the sprues back in as they fall from the mold. That temperature variance is all it takes. I think that's pretty cool.

Attached Files

beltfed posted this 30 December 2015

goodsteel,

Nice pic of that bullet with the inclusion/void. Looks like you got “slag” in it.

Is not there a visual manifestation of the slag also visible in the (not filed on) grease groove?

Also, upon close look at the surface of the bullet next to your filing, I think I see tiny pinholes- a further indicator that there is “something” about this bullet that is not right.

beltfed/arnie

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 30 December 2015

Part of the void collapsed as I filed on it. I found no slag in the void (although I have found pieces of crud trapped inside the bullets which is why i no longer use sawdust as a flux.) This was just one I took pictures of because it was so obviously predicted in the bell curve. Before I went to filing on it, it honestly looked perfect on the surface to the naked eye, but keep in mind that the pictures I posted magnified the bullet greatly. There could have been evidence on the surface of the bullet if I had put it under high magnification, but as it was, I just saw a disturbance in the surface of the bullet like a swirl in the appearance and I started filing. I didn't take care to use a clean file either. I think it was one of my wood rasps actually, which left some fiber in the lube groove IIRC. 

Attached Files

beltfed posted this 30 December 2015

goodsteel,

Again,my compliments on your work. Your pictures.

Still, I was looking especially at your second pic of the light bullet with voids.

If you look next to your thumb, IN the grease groove, there is a void that is visible. It looks larger than the one exposed by your file work. Interesting.  I used the term “slag” because the voids look very jagged. But perhaps this is just crystal structure that formed in the bullet, and was exposed in the voids.

What alloy are these bullets?

regards

beltfed/arnie 

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 30 December 2015

I think what you are seeing in the lube groove is crud deposited there by my wood rasp when I filed the bullet. If you look in a previous picture you see that bullet before I cut it, and it appears to be perfectly fine except that it is outside the bell curve.  The alloy I use for nearly everything is what I call “House alloy” because it services 99% of the rifles and handguns I cast for. It's 95.4% lead, 2.3% tin and 2.3% antimony.This is the alloy I was casting with when I plotted those bell curves. 

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 30 December 2015

Goodsteel,

Great posts and beautiful pictures and bullets. Your experiences matches my own.  Once you reach a steady state, don't stop or vary the timing for anything and weight variation becomes very small.

That is one probably one of the reasons that I have never been able to show an accuracy difference when testing alternating groups of bullets in the middle of the distribution vs. groups made up of the light and heavy bullets from the ends of the distribution mixed -- the variation simply isn't enough to make any difference. As a result I haven't weight sorted my match bullets for years.  I don't know if that is a safe assumption that holds true at ranges over 200 yards or for CBs at very high velocity

Are the bullets shown from all the cavities from a multicavity mold or from one cavity of a multi cavity or a single cavity?I have found little to no weight difference in bullets from the cavities of NOE molds.

John

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 30 December 2015

John, yes. these bullets are cast from four cavity brass molds which is my personal preference. The first pictures are the MiHeck 30-SIL mold, and there was no difference between cavities. The run that I made 299 exactly the same weight, size, and appearance was indeed an NOE mold of my own design. I have also used Accurate Molds of the same style (brass 4 cavity) that perform like this. For this reason, I have a deep love for these companies and the products they make for me. 

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 01 January 2016

Tom Acheson wrote: John,

I put the blind test loads in a ziplock bag. On one bag I write a screwy 10-digit character with letters in it. On the other bags again a 10-character label, with just one charcter being different. A list is made with load data and the bag ID. The list is put aside. Then they are left to rest a couple weeks.

When I go out and shoot I just record the bag ID on the target and then at home write the load data on each target as it is seen on the master list.

Doing this I don't need to have someone with me to hand me unknown (to me) loads to shoot. This practice works for various powders and charge weights and different primers but would not work with varying bullet designs because you would probably know by looking at the load what the bullet is. But it could work with good vs. “defective” bullets out of the same design/mould.

Tom Tom,

I am slow in reacting to your post because I was having trouble getting the airlines to get me home back to Maine, but that is a great idea for doing blind testing. It will be even easier for me.  I certainly won't need your elaborate ten character label to avoid remembering which is which. With my short term memory, probably just an x and Y would do.  Because it is so easy to do, we all should probably be using blind testing if we really want to see which group is best.

John

Attached Files

mtngun posted this 03 January 2016

John Alexander wrote

Do you have any numbers to go with your statement that defects make more trouble at at longer distances?  A certain size wrinkle or a certain radius rounding of the sharp edges  will make a bullet hit about ___ inches or feet from the group center in at 600 yards?   What rotation speed will start to cause trouble?  The bullets in my test reported in TFS #213 were rotating at 126,000 rpm so it must be higher than that.  

Does anyone know of any testing that answers the above questions or even indicates that long distance and/or high RPMs magnifies the effects of defects? Harold Vaughn's book, “Rifle Accuracy Facts."   The catch is that he built a device to MEASURE his bullet's imbalance  AND he didn't have to worry so much about his jacketed bullets deforming in the barrel, like we CB'ers do.    Vaughn verified the theory by drilling holes in bullets to deliberately create an imbalance.

The physics are the same for cast only with the added imbalance due to deformation inside the barrel, which may be significant.

Dunno if you can download this pic and zoom in enough to read it?

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 04 January 2016

             I wrote:

  "What rotation speed will start to cause trouble?  The bullets in my test reported in TFS #213 were rotating at 126,000 rpm so it must be higher than that.

Does anyone know of any testing that answers the above questions or even indicates that long distance and/or high RPMs magnifies the effects of defects?"

OK. I tried to shorten and simplify these questions and wound up asking dumb questions.  What i should have asked is:       1. For the type of minor wrinkle or rounding that most of us reject what is the rpm where it cause a significant group enlargement. I asked this because it has been suggested that there is some kind of threshold which Vaughn's work doesn't imply.     2. Does anyone know of any testing that answers the above question or indicates that long distance magnifies the deflections caused by defects beyond a proportional to distance effect plus the effect of wind which is exponential with distance.  Higher RPM does increase the deflection by defects.     The question I am trying to get at isn't do defects cause decrease in accuracy -- they do. But rather does the deflection caused by the usual minor wrinkle or rounding cause a deflection great enough to show up as a significant decrease in accuracy or is it too insignification to matter?  My testing so far implies that the defect has to be pretty gross or the groups are the same.  I hope others will try and see what happens.

John        

Attached Files

mtngun posted this 04 January 2016

John Alexander wrote:  1. For the type of minor wrinkle or rounding that most of us reject what is the rpm where it cause a significant group enlargement. I asked this because it has been suggested that there is some kind of threshold which Vaughn's work doesn't imply.     2. Does anyone know of any testing that answers the above question or indicates that long distance magnifies the deflections caused by defects beyond a proportional to distance effect.  Higher RPM does increase the deflection by defects.     The question I am trying to get at isn't do defects cause decrease in accuracy -- they do. But rather does the deflection caused by the usual minor wrinkle or rounding cause a deflection great enough to show up as a significant decrease in accuracy or is it too insignification to matter?  My testing so far implies that the defect has to be pretty gross or the groups are the same.  I hope others will try and see what happens. Just my opinion combined with a little understanding of the physics:

1)  all cast bullets are unbalanced when we load them, some are just worse than others.    Even if we could create a perfectly balanced cast bullet, it would probably be unbalanced by the time it exits the barrel due to yawing, skidding, slumping, tipping, gas cutting, base deformation, or whatever your pet theory of CB failure.

2) some people hold to a  "threshold” theory where accuracy falls off a cliff beyond so many RPM, typically 200,000 rpm.   I am not aware of any physics to justify that assumption  unless you are using a soft alloy that “explodes” beyond a certain RPM like some jacketed varmint bullets.    If that were the problem you could easily solve it by using a harder alloy.    I personally have shot many groups at 200,000 RPM that while they were not great groups (3” typical)  they didn't fall off a cliff.    Instead, groups opened up gradually as velocity increased, just as Vaughn's formula predicts.     Example below in the lower right corner from a 1-10” twist at 2757 fps at the chrono.      

Attached Files

mtngun posted this 04 January 2016

Re: physics.   The physics of a spinning object are well understood and accepted, even if some people slept through that part of physics class.  ;)   I question many particulars of Mann and Vaughn's and Harrison's work  but they got a lot of things right and advanced our sport.    

The importance of balance and rpm is is widely accepted in the jacketed benchrest community.    Why are benchrest matches won with custom bullets that have more uniform jackets than mass produced bullets?   Why are benchrest matches won with slow twists that barely stabilize the bullet?     Have benchrest shooters been duped by crackpot theories?    

That said, if your cast bullet is yawing or gas cutting or being gouged or god knows what else inside the barrel, that may hurt accuracy more than minor casting defects, and that's probably why most of us can't detect a difference. 

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 05 January 2016

It doesn't take a brain trust to understand what happens when a bullet rotating around an axis that isn't along the center of gravity suddenly leaves the muzzle and starts rotating around the c.g. -- the bullet has to move a bit imparting a slightly different direction to the bullet.  I won't say I would have thought of it without reading it in Mann years ago but it isn't rocket science to understand it.

However,  the effect isn't huge (compared to the size of groups with CBs) unless the amount the c.g. is off the long axis (size and location of defect) is substantial.  In my limited experience, Savage 22-250s with 9” twist usually outshoot others with 14” twists even with 45 and 52 grain JBs.  I have never seen or heard of a 14” twist 22 that was competitive in CBA competition although a lot have been tried.  On the other hand 8” and 9” twist 22s have had much better success over many years. That doesn't deny the importance of balanced bullets and slow twists it's just that many other things are simply more important. Your last paragraph suggests some defects involving the indignities that happen to a CB inside the rifle.  i think there are a lot more possibilities for inaccuracy including bore quality, bore condition, shooter skill, and conditions. 

The question isn't that slow twists and perfectly balanced bullets aren't desirable in theory -- they are. I will also concede that they probably are of practical importance in JB benchrest where groups are in the ones and twos.  I think the practical question for CB shooters is do the usual (non-gross) defects we reject make a difference in actual practice.  We can find out by testing and the hardest part will be finding a practical way to quantify the defects. 

John

Attached Files

Brodie posted this 05 January 2016

John, There is a simple experiment you can do so see if an imbalanced bullet  will wander off course. Take a foot ball and tape or glue a weight to one side of it.  Make it a fairly large weight, but not ridiculously so.  Go out in the yard and throw a number of passes at a mark.  Say a 100 or so.  If you could hit the mark without the weight on the ball x no. of times and could not hit the mark the same percentage of times you should get a pretty good idea of what an out of balance bullet does.  Brodie

B.E.Brickey

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 05 January 2016

heh old coot ... thank you for the mental image of john a. out in his front yard in 4 feet of snow throwing a football with a wheel weight duct-taped on it ... ... bet the neighbors would be calling in some help..

thanks...

ken

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 05 January 2016

Old Coot wrote: John, There is a simple experiment you can do so see if an imbalanced bullet  will wander off course. Take a foot ball and tape or glue a weight to one side of it.  Make it a fairly large weight, but not ridiculously so.  Go out in the yard and throw a number of passes at a mark.  Say a 100 or so.  If you could hit the mark without the weight on the ball x no. of times and could not hit the mark the same percentage of times you should get a pretty good idea of what an out of balance bullet does.  Brodie

Actually if the weight isn't too big and you start the throw with the weight in the same position when it leaves the hand, you should be able to “adjust your sights” then be able to hit the target as often as before.  If the imbalance in a bunch of bullets is identical and is oriented at the same position as it leaves the muzzle  for each shot the group won't be much if any bigger than with balanced bullets -- just in a different place.  The problem with taking your advice is although there is only a foot of snow on the ground here, I couldn't throw a football with enough accuracy to do the test too much noise in the system.

John. 

Attached Files

Brodie posted this 05 January 2016

"Actually if the weight isn't too big and you start the throw with the weight in the same position when it leaves the hand, you should be able to “adjust your sights” then be able to hit the target as often as before.  If the imbalance in a bunch of bullets is identical and is oriented at the same position as it leaves the muzzle  for each shot the group won't be much if any bigger than with balanced bullets -- just in a different place.  The problem with taking your advice is although there is only a foot of snow on the ground here, I couldn't throw a football with enough accuracy to do the test too much noise in the system."

John.

Since you/we are unable to determine exactly where the void is in a bullet without destructive testing you would be dishonest in orienting the foot ball the same each time.  Or, you could use the stitching (as you are supposed to) and move the weight for each throw.   Since neither of us can throw a ball worth a hoot anymore get some teenager to do it.  It is not definitive proof of how a bullet traveling at a higher rate of RPM is going to react, but it is a valid demonstration of out of balance effects of rpm  on linear flight.  And it would give all us arm chair physicists something more to argue about and poke fun of.  Of course the weight would have to be proportional to what a void in a bullet would be.  I don't know off hand what a foot ball weighs, about a couple of pounds ???  So, maybe you could use a Nerf Ball (smaller and much lighter)  you could get the proportional data from what Good Steel posted. 

All this depends upon whether or not you want to actually do something repeatable about answering  this question or just keep talking about it.  We are very good at talking about it. Brodie

B.E.Brickey

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 06 January 2016

Old Coot wrote: John.

Since you/we are unable to determine exactly where the void is in a bullet without destructive testing you would be dishonest in orienting the foot ball the same each time.  Or, you could use the stitching (as you are supposed to) and move the weight for each throw.   Since neither of us can throw a ball worth a hoot anymore get some teenager to do it.  It is not definitive proof of how a bullet traveling at a higher rate of RPM is going to react, but it is a valid demonstration of out of balance effects of rpm  on linear flight.  And it would give all us arm chair physicists something more to argue about and poke fun of.  Of course the weight would have to be proportional to what a void in a bullet would be.  I don't know off hand what a foot ball weighs, about a couple of pounds ???  So, maybe you could use a Nerf Ball (smaller and much lighter)  you could get the proportional data from what Good Steel posted. 

All this depends upon whether or not you want to actually do something repeatable about answering  this question or just keep talking about it.  We are very good at talking about it. Brodie

Brodie, You are right it wouldn't be fair to compare your football test with the weight in the same position every time to the effect of internal voids.  I was thinking of comparing it to manufactured defects such as Mann, Landercasper, and Joe have done with the defect in a controllable position to demonstrate the bullet behavior. 

As far as answering the question that depends on what the question is. The football test would only answer the question do defects degrade accuracy and Mann answered that question 110 year's ago and Vaughn gave us an equation to put numbers to it. In the absolute sense there is no doubt that defects degrade accuracy. 

The practical question for CB shooters seems to me to be the one in the last paragraph of my post #152 and that is a lot more complicated question to answer.

I think I have done something repeatable to show that some pretty gnarly wrinkles have no effect on actual average group size.  The simple explanation for why those defects didn't matter is that they didn't cause a big enough deflection to make a noticeable difference among the much bigger factors preventing the bullets from going through the same hole.  Now I wish somebody would repeat the test and either refute or confirm my results. 

John

Attached Files

Brodie posted this 06 January 2016

I would like to see your wrinkle test re-done as well John.  But, wrinkles spread the weight loss of the bullet over a larger area of the bullet's circumference.  A void is a POINT source reduction of weight, and therefore has more effect on a bullets stability.

John, like you I did not believe in “hidden voids” until I saw Goodsteel's pictures.  It makes me question : “How many of my own bullets have such voids in them, and how do they get there."  What are the mechanics of casting a void in a bullet, how do we do it and once we know that : How can we prevent or at least limit the formation of such  accuracy damaging voids? Those are some fun questions to play with. 1. Does casting hotter, thus giving the trapped air more time to escape, produce fewer voids in bullets? 2. How does the mode of casting, bottom pour verses ladle, effect void formation? 3.  If voids are more damaging to a bullets accuracy doesn't it make more sense to use bullets with the greatest weight? 4. Does the bullet with the heaviest weight shoot the best? 5, Is some weight bullet weight variation due to a lack of uniformity of the melt?   6. Do the molecules of the various components of the melt clump together or are they uniformly distributed throughout the melted alloy? 7. How is the above effected by temperature?

Ok, now that I have typed myself into a cluttered corner I think that I will go lay down. Brodie

B.E.Brickey

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 06 January 2016

Old Coot wrote: I would like to see your wrinkle test re-done as well John.  But, wrinkles spread the weight loss of the bullet over a larger area of the bullet's circumference.  A void is a POINT source reduction of weight, and therefore has more effect on a bullets stability.

John, like you I did not believe in “hidden voids” until I saw Goodsteel's pictures.  It makes me question : “How many of my own bullets have such voids in them, and how do they get there."  What are the mechanics of casting a void in a bullet, how do we do it and once we know that : How can we prevent or at least limit the formation of such  accuracy damaging voids? Those are some fun questions to play with. 1. Does casting hotter, thus giving the trapped air more time to escape, produce fewer voids in bullets? 2. How does the mode of casting, bottom pour verses ladle, effect void formation? 3.  If voids are more damaging to a bullets accuracy doesn't it make more sense to use bullets with the greatest weight? 4. Does the bullet with the heaviest weight shoot the best? 5, Is some weight bullet weight variation due to a lack of uniformity of the melt?   6. Do the molecules of the various components of the melt clump together or are they uniformly distributed throughout the melted alloy? 7. How is the above effected by temperature?

Ok, now that I have typed myself into a cluttered corner I think that I will go lay down. Brodie

Brodie, You're way overthinking this. The most common way that I get voids in the bullet is because of the way I throw the lead into the mold. You want a fat, slow stream that swirls into the mold cleanly. How do you pour Pepsi into a glass without getting 3” of head foam? Same difference. 

The weight your mold wants to cast at is the longest row in the bell curve. What I found was that the longest row was constant with a particular alloy regardless of the temperature of the alloy or speed of casting. If you start doing this, you'll find that the longest row is very obviously the target because of how consistent it is no matter what you do with your mold. So, your goal becomes making that longest row the only row in the bell curve. Impossible you say? Hardly. and once you have the combination, it's no harder than casting like a slob (referring to the way I used to cast before I refined this method).  The tools I used to make my single row bell curve possible was an NOE mold thermometer, a PID for my BP pot, and a digital scale. First I plugged in the pot and set the PID to 100 degrees hotter than the dwell in melt temperature (you know that long pause where the temperature stops climbing while the lead is half molten and half solid? Yeah, that spot + 100 which was 757 degrees IIRC) I went ahead and plugged in my mold and started heating it up on the hotplate.

I started by casting a bunch of bullets at my normal pace and noting what temperature the NOE thermometer said I was at, and the general temperature fluctuations the mold went through as I was casting. 

I took the bullets I cast and plotted a bell curve. It was disgusting. 

I decided that the first thing I needed to pin down was if all the cavities were casting the same, so with a small file, I witnessed three of the four cavities I, II, III. 

I cast 100 bullets again and plotted the bell curve. I took all the bullets out of the middle row, and separated them into cups marked 0, I, II, III.  Sure enough, the long middle row of the curve was comprised mostly of bullets from the rear most cavities (the last ones to be filled marked 0 and I). 

So next, I threw all the bullets back in the pot and cast again, this time filling from the back of the mold to the front and repeated the bell curve. I was pleased to see that the middle row was still comprised mostly of the last two cavities filled, only this time those cavities were II, and III. 

I logically surmised that this was not a mold issue, and must be the spout hanging out there cooling the lead from the first two castings.

I threw all the bullets back in and cast again, only this time, I primed the spout of the pot by running a 2 second stream into an ingot mold before beginning to fill the mold. This worked and the middle row was evenly comprised of bullets from all four cavities.  Cool!!!!!

So then, armed with the knowledge that alloy temperature makes a pretty big difference to the weight of the bullets, I cast a series of bell curves where I focused on changing the pot temperature 10 degrees each time. 

I found this had a big effect on the bell curve. If the alloy was cooler, the bullets would ere towards the light side, while hotter, they would generally ere towards the heavy side. I found the temperature with the alloy that gave even dispersion to light and heavy bullets with the peak of the curve extending right up the middle. I felt I had found the best place for the pot with this alloy, so I started focusing on another single aspect while maintaining what I had learned from the previous tests. 

I focused next on mold temperature. I found that I established that it's best to start with a mold that was 20 degrees hotter than operating temperature and throw away the first three cycles. The bell curve got smaller.

I found that the number of seconds between fills was far more important than the number of seconds after the drop. The bell curve got smaller. 

I found the exact number of seconds between pours to give me the best result. My bell curve was only .4 grains wide at this point and I started putting the peak in an orange tub because my bench wasn't long enough. 

I repeated the entire process from the beginning, and was able to cast 100 good bullets with only 10 that were not exactly the peak weight.  The next time I cast, I pulled a cold pot and mold from the shelf, heated everything up to temperature with the NOE thermometer and PID, and I simply cast 350-ish bullets. 

I stopped and took breaks every now and then, just took my time running in the specific groove I had established. Whenever I would come back to the pot, restarting casting consisted of throwing away the first three drops and continuing like nothing had happened, carefully monitoring my drop time exactly. 

The result was like the picture I posted a while ago. Just a handful of bullets were not exactly the same weight, they all looked perfect, they all measured the same, and they all had flat bases. All like perfect clones of each other.  Bingo. 

You see how I simply applied the same logic we use to establish a target load on the bench to my casting routine? Change one thing at a time and always head in the more accurate direction.  Now that I know a little more about how this works, I can dial in an unknown mold for a new alloy in about 4-5 bell curves, and as long as the alloy does not change, neither will the casting style. It's well worth it to me to do this routine with a mold that I intend to shoot good groups with. I only have to do it once, and then it's set. 

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 06 January 2016

"6. Do the molecules of the various components of the melt clump together or are they uniformly distributed throughout the melted alloy?"   It is much more difficult than your question. The atoms of lead, tin and antimony are uniformly distributed at temperatures above 700 degrees, just like alcohol in your beer. Molecules of lead oxide, tin oxide and antimony oxide will be floating in the top boundary layer of the pot plus adhering to the sides.

  As the alloy cools below 675 degrees, binding bi-metals of lead, tin and antimony (plus contaminates) will start to form microscopic solids floating through the liquid. Then pure antimony crystals will form, and then tin atoms will attach themselves to the antimony crystals. Depending upon the rate of cooling, various crystal structures will be formed. Frosting on bullets is the result of large antimony crystal structures from hot alloy and hot mould slowly cooling (relatively). This is the pasty phase of the alloy where it is not really liquid and not solid either.   Lastly, any remaining tin will equally form a structure with the lead remaining. This is the reason lead and tin only alloys casts so well. Lyman #2 is the exact ratio for even crystal structures, and linotype is without a pasty phase and goes from liquid to solid.   HTH, Ric

Attached Files

Brodie posted this 07 January 2016

Ric, I was jsut brain storming about how a bullet could become imbalanced,  I agree completely with Goodsteel that void prevention is best done by controlling mould temperature with casting cadence.  While I don't currently own any NOE molds or a mold thermometer I can see where this would be a very useful tool. Brodie

B.E.Brickey

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 07 January 2016

Brodie,

In my opinion, for what it is worth, you can not “over think” anything in shooting. There are too many variables, to just wander from point to point and it takes to long. The empirical, try something until you find a method that works, isn't the way for me. Research, careful thought and controlled experiments is the way I go about it.

Another opinion is that gas leakage around the bullet is the primary cause of imbalance. From too fast of powder and too high of pressure, to poor casting technique or non-alignment in the barrel makes the very outside of the bullet eroded.

Ric

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 07 January 2016

RicinYakima wrote: Another opinion is that gas leakage around the bullet is the primary cause of imbalance. From too fast of powder and too high of pressure, to poor casting technique or non-alignment in the barrel makes the very outside of the bullet eroded. Ric, Worth thinking about.  Take a look at the pictures of the fired bullets caught by mtngun before his water catcher froze if you have any doubt about bullet damage during firing.  Besides gas cutting several other unpleasant things apparently happened to the bullet that make a small wrinkle or a 1% variance in bullet weight look pretty insignificant. Mtngun has suggested this as a potential source of imbalance a couple of times in recent posts.

What happens after the bullet is in the chamber may be why I have never been able to show that small defects or sorting by weight improved my groups in the 1 moa range that were all under 2,000 fps and targets at not over 200 yards.

John

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 07 January 2016

John,

Yep, Mtngun's pictures do show that, but how do we control it? So many things could happen when the bullet is semi-plastic during acceleration and under pressure and passing over void space in case/chamber/throat interfaces.

Ric

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 07 January 2016

RicinYakima wrote: Brodie,

In my opinion, for what it is worth, you can not “over think” anything in shooting. There are too many variables, to just wander from point to point and it takes to long. The empirical, try something until you find a method that works, isn't the way for me. Research, careful thought and controlled experiments is the way I go about it.

Another opinion is that gas leakage around the bullet is the primary cause of imbalance. From too fast of powder and too high of pressure, to poor casting technique or non-alignment in the barrel makes the very outside of the bullet eroded.

Ric Totally agree, but there's no sense brain storming about gas economy till you've designed and built a working engine for the car.  If there's anything I have learned in this game, it's that you have to learn to solve your problems in order of importance, because if you correct a bunch of details while ignoring the obvious........see my sig line.

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 07 January 2016

John says; “What happens after the bullet is in the chamber may be why I have never been able to show that small defects or sorting by weight improved my groups in the 1 moa range that were all under 2,000 fps and targets at not over 200 yards."

Ric says;   “Yep, Mtngun's pictures do show that, but how do we control it? So many things could happen when the bullet is semi-plastic during acceleration and under pressure and passing over void space in case/chamber/throat interfaces."

With loads under 2000 fps (under the RPM Threshold) maybe we don't as John suggests(?). Perhaps we just mitigated it as best we can. It might be as simple as that to answer the question why accuracy has not improved with cast bullets for a long time?   LMG 

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 07 January 2016

"If there's anything I have learned in this game, it's that you have to learn to solve your problems in order of importance..." Thank you! I glad you have it figured out, and I will be watch your posts closely. Best wishes, Ric

Attached Files

OU812 posted this 07 January 2016

When doing a pound cast to measure throat diameter of a rifle. I know cast diameter will be larger than actual chamber dimensions if you hammer or pound too hard on lead. LBT recommends tapping on rod lightly and checking opening resistance when opening bolt. If bolt will not open easily you have gone too far pounding. Bolt should open with slight resistance.

So this tells me soft lead will expand after being compressed or sized. The expansion must be equal all around bullets diameter to be accurate on paper.

High compression taper bumping helps equalize before firing.

Attached Files

OU812 posted this 07 January 2016

A bullet cast of soft birdshot (arsenic) alloy that is swaged or compressed, then heated and water quenched may work. History repeats itself.

....

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 07 January 2016

RicinYakima wrote: "If there's anything I have learned in this game, it's that you have to learn to solve your problems in order of importance..." Thank you! I glad you have it figured out, and I will be watch your posts closely. Best wishes, Ric Ric, I'm really sorry. That's not the way I meant that statement. Put another way, in your opinion, how should a test be constructed so that its certain the results are true? What is the order of importance, and how might the issue be tested? Ie: what do you propose? 

Attached Files

Brodie posted this 07 January 2016

Totally agree, but there's no sense brain storming about gas economy till you've designed and built a working engine for the car.  If there's anything I have learned in this game, it's that you have to learn to solve your problems in order of importance, because if you correct a bunch of details while ignoring the obvious........see my sig line. Last edited on Thu Jan 7th, 2016 07:22 am by http://www.castbulletassoc.org/view_user.php?id=8104>goodstee

It makes a whole lot more sense to solve your design problems on paper rather than in the machine shop if gas economy is one of your goals in building the engine. 

B.E.Brickey

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 07 January 2016

Old Coot wrote: Totally agree, but there's no sense brain storming about gas economy till you've designed and built a working engine for the car.  If there's anything I have learned in this game, it's that you have to learn to solve your problems in order of importance, because if you correct a bunch of details while ignoring the obvious........see my sig line. Last edited on Thu Jan 7th, 2016 07:22 am by http://www.castbulletassoc.org/view_user.php?id=8104>goodstee

It makes a whole lot more sense to solve your design problems on paper rather than in the machine shop if gas economy is one of your goals in building the engine. 

Very true. I was only making the point and agreeing with Ric's previous post where he said the same thing in different words. I apologize, my post was badly worded. 

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 08 January 2016

don't give up guys .... remember jules verne wrote about going to the moon 100 years before we finally did it .... pope wrote about extreme cast bullet accuracy a hundred years ago .....see the pattern ? .... we must be right on top of it ... watch carefully ...

ken

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 08 January 2016

Goodsteel, You don't need to apologize, as I though you had a program already laid out you were going to enlighten us with at some point. Here are some things I know, from empirical testing. 1. In a cold shop (40 degrees) you can bend linotype bullets (Lyman 311284) at the top lube groove by just trying to crimp gas checks and size 0.002". It can be on the order of 0.004” by just hand pressure and I'm an old man. It takes place at the bottom of the top lube groove. This is much less force than the “smart” people tell you, as “hard” does not equate to strong, i.e. heat treated. 2. In a 940 shot test of 10 shot groups I did in 2004, how the bullet is aligned in the bore at ignition is how it will stay the whole time it is in the bore. It will never ever align itself from tapers, throats, etc. But there is another part of this, as this test was done with a Springfield Armory made NRA style sporting rifle with National Match chambering. This chamber has a run-out of 0.003” from in front of the extractor groove to just behind the end of the neck. If I loaded the bullet with 0.003” or less run out they would impact within the same group. If the bullet was more than 0.006” you can change the center (and size) of the group by placing the misaligned tip of the bullet at 12 o'clock or 6 o'clock. Don't know why. 3. At my age I am getting back into plinking, so I hope you can solve or at least theorize to advance the art of shooting cast bullets. Best, Ric

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 08 January 2016

Ya got 9 pages, and aside from my report, I can't find any data here that talks to the question. Lots of opinions, references to Mann and Vaughn, but no data. What did I miss? Who's shot the 50 shot 22rf test? Where's the data? HOW PERFECT SHOULD A CB BE?

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 08 January 2016

Joe,

I don't know! And I don't know how to design a test to determine what “perfect” is suppose to represent.

Ric

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 08 January 2016

I need to catch bullets fired above and below the RPMTH. That's what I'm working on.

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 08 January 2016

goodsteel wrote: I need to catch bullets fired above and below the RPMTH. That's what I'm working on.Do you have any data showing that light/heavy bullets, or wide bell curve bullets, or any imperfect bullets, are not as accurate as ...? Any data?

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 08 January 2016

      I hate to repeat myself, but making progress on this question isn't hard I have been doing tests for my own use for years and publishing some of the results. &nbsp;As Joe says we need data not more opinions. You do have to have some way to define how big the defect is and I think photos are the way to do that with wrinkles. &nbsp;We don't have to be exact to make progress. You know how big the wrinkles are that you reject. &nbsp;Shoot alternative groups of bullets barely bad enough to be rejected by you vs. &ldquo;perfect&rdquo; bullets. They should be shot blind. &nbsp;After enough pairs you will be able to see if you have a clear answer (clearly worse accuracy in enough groups to make your results significant) if not, shoot more pairs. &nbsp;If you can't find a significant difference you are rejecting good bullets. Pick out bigger wrinkles and repeat. &nbsp;I think you will find that you are rejecting a lot of good bullets but apparently shooters don't believe this unless they do it themselves. Publish your results in TFS to give at least rough guidance to others.

  Want to do something that's easier to quantify than wrinkles, tackle variation in bullet weights.  Lots of shooters think they have to sort to .1 grain.  Sort some to .1 grain and shoot alternate groups with bullets that vary .5 grain.  Keep at it until you can show a significant advantage to the .1 lot or until you wear out and have to admit that there is no difference in accuracy and you have been wasting your time.   If you say all this is foolishness and you just avoid the problem by casting perfect bullets or really like to sort under a 10X glass and weigh sort to .1 grain -- fine.  But don't say there is no way to find these things out. And please don't lay all this anal stuff on a new shooter and discourage him ”€œ unless you have proven it really is true.

John

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 09 January 2016

although as a plinker i accept 2 to 4 moa as just fine .... i am interested in john a.'s query .... because occasionally i get a combination that shoots 8-12 moa ....and the bullets look good ... no wrinkles ....

in a way these really big dispersions are more interesting than my 2-4 groups ...

ken

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 09 January 2016

RicinYakima wrote: Joe,

I don't know! And I don't know how to design a test to determine what “perfect” is suppose to represent.

Ric Perfect is whatever shoots well. For 5 five shot 100 yard averages, under 2” is GOOD, under 1.5” is GREAT, and under 1” is WONDERFUL.

Well, we got bullet weighers who have rejects. Shooting some rejects rather than melting them would give us some data.

We got bullet inspectors, same story. I save bullets that failed inspection and use them for foulers. Shooting these failed-inspection bullets for group would give us some data.

A 50 shot set of groups with carefully damaged 22 rf bullets, replicating my tests, would give us some data.

None of this is as easy as writing our opinions and acting scientific.

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 09 January 2016

I'm getting ready to cast bullets for the next match season, so I'll make extra and shoot the 10 groups. My scoped Springfield Modified Scope rifle should do as I have about 12 years of data for it. Alternating shots between target pairs? That should be good enough for an “observational study” and not an “scientific experiment” methodology that I learned in University.

Attached Files

billglaze posted this 09 January 2016

Ric: Thanks for introducing me to that term, “Observational Study.” I like it--a lot.

Now, when I come up with something I think the Forum Folks might find interesting, and post it, I won't be forced into a level where I feel as if I were defending a Doctoral Thesis.

Bill

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. My fate is not entirely in Gods hands, if I have a weapon in mine.

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 09 January 2016

In the social studies it is used rather than scientific experiments that have exacting criteria for all variables. That is why I get confused and off track, thinking too much.🤔

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 09 January 2016

I apologize. I have nothing. I have no data in the form of pictures and groups on paper in a side by side comparison.

My contribution earlier was simply to show how I fixed the problem by making it so that it's no longer a question that needs to be asked, and I demonstrated that I'm not just blowing smoke when I say that I can cast as accurately as I claim. That's all I've got. My logic is, in the time it takes to construct a halfway viable test for how well a badly cast bullet will work or not, I could find the sweet spot for 4-5 of the molds in my rack following the guidelines I laid down, and I know that's about as good as it gets, so I can move on to more important things like alloy selection, size, lube, and how square the base is (I've actually got good data for a GC uniforming tool I devised and how well it works in a good old fashioned side by side demonstration.)

Man asks exactly how dull does an axe has to be before its worth stopping to sharpen it so that he makes the best use of his time throughout the day. Guy next to him says he sure doesn't have any idea as he pulls the cord on his chainsaw.

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 09 January 2016

"Man asks exactly how dull does an axe has to be before its worth stopping to sharpen it so that he makes the best use of his time throughout the day. Guy next to him says he sure doesn't have any idea as he pulls the cord on his chainsaw."

Good one BUT, how long does the guy with the chain saw keep cutting after the chain starts to get dull and has to take the time to change or re-sharpen it?

:)

Frank

Attached Files

Brodie posted this 09 January 2016

Guy next to him says he sure doesn't have any idea as he pulls the cord on his chainsaw.Last edited on Sat Jan 9th, 2016 11:36 am by http://www.castbulletassoc.org/view_user.php?id=8104>goodsteel Having spent some time with a chainsaw I ask:  “How dull does the chain have to be before you stop to sharpen it." 

My answer:  ” When I feel like it.". 

We aren't here to find absolutes.  We like fooling with stuff (bullets, guns, components) and trying to make them work better for us.  Goodsteel, your work to improve you casting is terrific.  You have shown conclusively how to make perfect bullets every time on demand.  Not, just cast a bunch and use only the good ones. John, you don't want the minutia of the anal retentive caster competitor dumped on the new caster.  I applaud you desire and second it most strongly.  People new to our addiction don't need to have a bunch of obsessive compulsive and even toxic --to the new caster shooter-- dumped on them.  Leave them alone and answer their questions.  It's hard enough to cast a GOOD bullet when you first start anyway.

As to what is going on in the chamber, nobody knows for sure.  I am certain that there is a degree of bullet flexing as it enters the rifling or throat.  Deformation of the base is a certainty.  Gas cutting, skidding in the rifling, etc..  Nobody really knows.  303 Guy spent a lot of time shooting paper patched bullet into his “test tube"  and trying to figure out what was happening to them at firing.  Were his conclusions accurate?  I don't know, and I don't think anybody else does, but he had fun doing it.  Face it, even the ammunition companies don't really know, and they have better testing equipment than we do. 

Personally I don't have the dollars to buy pressure measuring apparatus to play with.  It would be fun and informative, but I don't think it will answer the question our membership can pose. We do this stuff because we enjoy fooling around with it.  Keep that in mind when you read what another member has done, and if it isn't exactly what you would have done then go do it yourself and write it up so we can all have a good laugh.  Brodie

http://www.castbulletassoc.org/view_user.php?id=8104>

B.E.Brickey

Attached Files

bjornb posted this 10 January 2016

joeb33050 wrote: Ya got 9 pages, and aside from my report, I can't find any data here that talks to the question. Lots of opinions, references to Mann and Vaughn, but no data. What did I miss? Who's shot the 50 shot 22rf test? Where's the data? HOW PERFECT SHOULD A CB BE? Joe,maybe not the data you're looking for, but about a year ago I ran this test after casting a batch of NOE 30-165 (xcb) bullets: I loaded 30 rounds from the longest line in the bell curve  Then I picked 30 bullets randomly from around the curve, and loaded these. I gave the 2 loading blocks to my son who placed the loaded rounds in two differently colored ammo boxes, without telling me which was which. Only after I got back from the range did he let me know. Here are the results: Not very scientific, but it gives you an idea. Not conclusive at all: I continue to weight sort and shoot strings according to sorted groups of bullets. 

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 10 January 2016

after this long and great discussion i feel compelled to add a data point that i am not sure is relevant .... but it might be .... ” how good .... bullet ? “

a privileged officer buddy gave me a bucket of range fodder 308 ( ok, 7.62 military ) ... i save it to let visitors shoot up.... because those pretty shiny mj loads group about 3 to 6 moa ....and in my beautiful sako sporter .....

just sayin' that sometimes casted bullets outshoot pretty mj loads ....'

don't give up ..

ken

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 10 January 2016

bjorb ::: oh golly i hope john a. doesn't see those targets ...

ken

Attached Files

bjornb posted this 10 January 2016

Ken Campbell Iowa wrote: bjorb ::: oh golly i hope john a. doesn't see those targets ...

ken Why? They are certainly not match winning quality! The load was 52 grains WC867 surplus powder, horse-traded from Goodsteel.

Attached Files

goodsteel posted this 10 January 2016

Ya can't run a decent test with that stuff Bjorn. Its all janky and stuff. Also, you got your groups mixed up. heh heh.

Seriously, excellent test. As usual!

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 10 January 2016

bjornb wrote: Ken Campbell Iowa wrote: bjorb ::: oh golly i hope john a. doesn't see those targets ...

ken Why? They are certainly not match winning quality! The load was 52 grains WC867 surplus powder, horse-traded from Goodsteel. No surprise here but I hope it shocks some folks who spend a lot of time weigh sorting bullets. I have been doing this sort of test off and on for 30 years and the unsorted bullets shoot the best groups approximately half the time. Most of my tests have been done with guns and loads that average between .8 and 1.2 MOA.  Smaller groups may give different answers -- i wish someone with a .5 MOA rifle and load would find out.

Thank you bjornb for doing what I have been urging others to try. Joe is right we need more data.

John

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 10 January 2016

Today I cast for ~2 hours, got 283 good, 13 rejects. Last time casting this 225646M = MODIFIED mold, I got 262 good and 3 rejects. Visual inspection under 3x magnifier.

I haven't weighed bullets, agreed with J.A. , but now I've got to go back to weighing. Cleaned 22 cf rifles need ~ 10 shots with foulers to settle down. I shoot ~ 80 record shots per session, (3 X 25 + 1 extra each load = 78) I save foulers, rejects, and sometime mark them with magic marker-purple. When weighing, I'd save those outliers-way on the end of the bell curve or whatever it looked like that day. If I keep casting I get more foulers, but nopt enough-the perfect bullets keep piling up. The only way out is to start weighing again, get more rejects, foulers, get things back to normal. While accuracy may suffer due to the weight segregated bullets, at least the fouler problem will be solved.

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 10 January 2016

bjornb wrote: joeb33050 wrote: Ya got 9 pages, and aside from my report, I can't find any data here that talks to the question. Lots of opinions, references to Mann and Vaughn, but no data. What did I miss? Who's shot the 50 shot 22rf test? Where's the data? HOW PERFECT SHOULD A CB BE?   I continue to weight sort and shoot strings according to sorted groups of bullets. 

You SHOLD keep weight sorting and shoot as described. A couple of hints: Shoot the bullets in the order cast, don't mix them up! Clearly the fifth bullet of a certain weight is different than the ninth bullet of the same weight-shooting out of order affects the rotational Inertia, I sub R. Also, note the casting day of the week on each container of weight sorted bullets. If you cast them on a Friday, you've got to shoot them on a Friday. Mixing the days up affects the Static Inertia, I sub S, and as Newton said: “that ain't good".

Attached Files

bjornb posted this 10 January 2016

Joe, since our county range is closed on Monday, that will totally screw up my shooting since Monday is normally my casting day. But I do set up around 300 water buckets around my lead pot so the bullets won't get mixed up. And I could have sworn it's the dynamic inertia that's affected by mixing up days; the static inertia is affected by not priming cases in the order the primers were removed from the container. And it was John Moses Browning who said “that ain't good". Gotta have your facts straight.:hunt:

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 11 January 2016

back when i obsessed on 22 rf accuracy .... my excellent shooter buddy and i did ...obsessive ... sorting of 40 cent ammo in order to win win win at any ( really!! ) co$t .

we kept careful records and found that carefully sorted ammo shot worse than ammo shot right out of the box.

these tests were datafied to a statistical certainty ... quantity thousands of samples and double blind approach .


i shoot a lot for fun nowadays ...

ken

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 11 January 2016

Ken,

Isn't it interesting how often when we do something anal expecting improved accuracy and and then test it turns out that the “bad bullets", or what ever, group better than the more fussed over ammo.   That is if we test to see if does any good instead of just assuming that any time consuming diddling around MUST improve accuracy as most apparently assume.

I think the evil fairies in charge of cast bullet flight have a nasty sense of humor.

John

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 11 January 2016

John Alexander wrote: Ken,

Isn't it interesting how often when we do something anal expecting improved accuracy and and then test it turns out that the “bad bullets", or what ever, group better than the more fussed over ammo.   That is if we test to see if does any good instead of just assuming that any time consuming diddling around MUST improve accuracy as most apparently assume.

I think the evil fairies in charge of cast bullet flight have a nasty sense of humor.

JohnI'm not entirely sure, but I think that it is forbidden to write “evil fairies". There could be protesters in front of your house, when the snow melts. Early August.

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 11 January 2016

Joe, I sent you some pictures of wrinkled bullets to test. However I don't know how wrinkled to set up. Please email me back. Thanks, Ric

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 13 January 2016

      While packing up some things to ship this afternoon I ran into half a box of Berger 6mm bullets.&nbsp; A fit of curiosity struck and I weighed them.&nbsp; While about 90 percent of them were about evenly split between 66.0 or 65.9 grains, a couple were light at 65.8 and a couple were heavy at 66.1, no matter how many times I reweighed them, for a range of 0.4 grains or about 0.6%.

  The common practice of many CBA competitors involves weigh sorting their 200 + -- grain bullets to 0.1 grain or about 0.05%.  This is ten times as picky as Berger. Or put another way if a lot of 200 grain bullets ranged in weight 1 grain (horror) they would have the same weight uniformity as my box of Bergers.   The reason I can't get mine-run bullets to shoot worse than bullet of essentially the same weight is apparently because I cast too uniformly. I suspect most experienced casters do as well.   Of course the Bergers could just been having a bad day.  I think I have another box bought years later somewhere and will dig it out and see if those are better.

John

Attached Files

billglaze posted this 13 January 2016

A good friend of mine, who shoots Bergers said that he recently checked a box of .30 cal. which he shoots in his 30 BR, and found 4 different ogives in the same box.Apparently they all shot well at the 100 yd. stages (didn't ask about 200 yds.); the Bergers are what he shoots all the time; he couldn't be too disturbed, or he'd go to something different.  BTW: he's always on top, or near the top of the list. Just thought it might be interesting. Bill

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. My fate is not entirely in Gods hands, if I have a weapon in mine.

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 13 January 2016

Bill, It is interesting.  It is especially interesting if other Berger bullets vary .6 % in weight. (I will try to the Berger's in an unopened box that I have and see if the ones I weighed were non representative.)

The reason it is interesting is that it is over ten times the weight variation when we weigh sort 200 grain cast bullets to .1 grain (.05 percent).  Does this sound like evidence for weigh sorting to .1 grain?  Not to me.

John 

Attached Files

billglaze posted this 13 January 2016

It does make weight sorting seem sort of redundant but the other side of the coin is that I'm willing to bet that the winners using these bullets are probably weight-sorting them also. Probably other criteria to meet their own personal specifications also. (Checking ogives, perhaps?)

Just wondering--no evidence either way--strictly an itchy curiosity-bump.

Bill

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. My fate is not entirely in Gods hands, if I have a weapon in mine.

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 13 January 2016

just a thought ... but weight variance in pressure formed mj bullets are probably core length...and not likely to affect concentricity ( form/cg ) ...

wheras we obsessively weigh castings to find voids which ” do ” affect form/cg .

right guys ?

or not very much .

ken

oh, i bot some pretty mj bullets once that shot 3 moa in my accurate 222 . looked fine . all gone now, can't section them .

Attached Files

norm posted this 13 January 2016

John, About 15 years ago at a jacketed bullet bench rest match I was talking with a guy who made match grade jacketed bullets I asked him about weighing bullet. He said check weigh occasionaly. Did not say just how often. A couple of competitors were shooting his bullets and doing very well. Aggregates at .2 MOA. He also told me something that I have never heard or read about. Some electonic scales will develop a memory.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
John Alexander posted this 14 January 2016

billglaze wrote: It does make weight sorting seem sort of redundant but the other side of the coin is that I'm willing to bet that the winners using these bullets are probably weight-sorting them also. Probably other criteria to meet their own personal specifications also. (Checking ogives, perhaps?)

Just wondering--no evidence either way--strictly an itchy curiosity-bump.

Bill Bill,

Well maybe, but i read Precision Shooting for twenty years until they went belly up and I can't remember among all the crazy sounding thing those fanatics to to get an edge one mention of weigh sorting bullets.

I also have several JB benchrest books and don't remember it being mentioned. I wonder if Tony Boyle recommend it in his book?

John

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 19 January 2021

I posted this 13 January 2016 (pasted from above.)

=======

While packing up some things to ship to Oregon I ran into half a box of Berger 6mm bullets. In a fit of curiosity I weighed them. While about 90% of them were evenly split between 65.9 and 66.0, a couple were light at 65.8 and a couple were heavy at 66.1, no matter how many times I reweighed them. This is a range of 0.4 grains, or about 0.6%

  The common practice of many CBA competitors involves weigh sorting their 200 + -- grain bullets to 0.1 grain or about 0.05%.  This is ten times as picky as Berger. Or put another way, if a lot of 200 grain bullets ranged in weight 1 grain (horror) they would have the same weight uniformity as my box of Bergers.  The reason I can't get mine-run bullets to shoot worse than bullet of essentially the same weight is apparently because I cast too uniformly. I suspect most experienced casters do as well.   Of course, the Bergers could just have been having a bad day.  I think I have another box bought years later somewhere and will dig it out and see if those are better.

 

============

OK, so it took 5 years to get back to this. I didn't promise speed or lack of procrastination.

When I weighed a few of the Bergers in the full box, instead of being more uniform than the ones that varied by 0.4 grains, they were worse, much worse.  This inspired me to weigh each one of the 100 bullets.

The results produced a frequency vs. weight curve heavily skewed toward the heavy end, just as cast bullets often are. The weights varied from 64.8 to 65.7 for a range of 0.9 grains, or 1.4 % of the average weight. To put this in perspective, this is approximately 28 times the range CB shooters allow when they sort to 0.1 grain.  And 14 times as much as those who choose to live dangerously and sort to 0.2 grains.

If the percent weight range of CBs need to be sorted to at least 0.1% as is common practice then it seems unlikely bullets whose range is 14 times the percentage their average weight will shoot well. If so, how does Berger manage to sell the darned things.

[Note: Before I create an unfair impression -- I have weighed other Berger bullets as well as other brands of match grade jacketed bullets and usually find  that the range in weights as a % of average weight is much smaller and sometimes amazingly small.  So this box may be unusual. However, some of my other samples of JBs that are expected to shoot 0.5 moa or better out of the right rifles also wouldn’t meet the uniformity that many sort CBs to.]

This post is getting too long and I am running out of time this afternoon so tune in later (hopefully not five years later) for more.

For those of you who weren’t on the forum five year’s ago there are lot of interesting posts above if you are interested in what is needed and what isn't for CB accuracy.

John

Attached Files

45 2.1 posted this 20 January 2021

There are a lot of people in the world who don't follow anybody else's procedures. As they have found, you might also if: while weight segregating, you also diameter segregate. That has produced some very interesting results in the lowly 22 Hornet cartridge.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
  • Bud Hyett
RicinYakima posted this 20 January 2021

And only shooting the top 1/3 of the weight segregation. Sorry, can't prove it, don't have five 5-shot groups to show.

Attached Files

Wineman posted this 20 January 2021

The "Speaking Frankly" 30-06 article in the Lyman CB manual has volumes to say about perfection of cast bullets. Only a careful sorting of bullets was going to be enough for Frank. Lesser bullets had their place, but only for practice. Really imperfect ones went back to the pot.

However, a recent test showed that the shooter has more to do with accuracy than does the bullet. I matched jacketed bullets at the same velocity as cast and my scores were not any higher. Seeing the sights and holding steady had more influence than did the individual bullets. Just my two cents.

Dave

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 20 January 2021

Want to shoot better scores? Practice more!

Attached Files

4and1 posted this 20 January 2021

I'm in the camp of making the best I can and shooting the best I can make. I've made a lot of jacketed bullets, you go through the whole process, and you never know what you have until they are done and shot. And if they aren't good, it's all a waste. But if you cast a bunch of bullets, then look them over, weigh them, cull what you don't like, and toss those back in the pot. You've lost nothing but some time.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Maven
Squid Boy posted this 20 January 2021

I am late to this dance and a lot of great information being laid out. For what it is worth I think that whatever you do that makes you THINK you have the best bullet/ammo/gun on the line is worth it. Thanks, Squid Boy

"Squid Pro Quo"

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 20 January 2021

4and1 

 

I'm in the camp of making the best I can and shooting the best I can make. I've made a lot of jacketed bullets, you go through the whole process, and you never know what you have until they are done and shot. And if they aren't good, it's all a waste. But if you cast a bunch of bullets, then look them over, weigh them, cull what you don't like, and toss those back in the pot. You've lost nothing but some time.

I'm camped there as well.  

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 20 January 2021

Lots of opinions, quotes from favorite gurus, statements of personal philosophy. No test results. 

Some of that extra time mentioned by 4 in 1 would be more than enough to run some simple tests.  That might run the risk of learning something we may not want to know.

I have no interest in trying to convert those who choose to treat CB shooting like a religion and believe by faith what they want to believe, no matter the evidence. It's a hobby after all.  But please don't tell beginners, more casual shooters, and hunters they have to do things that make CB shooting a lot more work unless you have evidence. If it's too much a PITA they may just go away and if enough do, so will the CBA.

Squid Boy has a excellent point, but his point has to do with your feelings, lucky cap and rabbit's foot stuff, not physically reality.  However, feelings (confidence) may help you win a match so shouldn't be ignored.

John

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 20 January 2021

Here is the rest of the story.

I saw the box of Berger bullets with a substantial range of weights as an opportunity to get a better idea of just how damaging to accuracy variations in bullet weight really is. To get the most severe test possible I saved all of the bullets on both high and low ends of the distribution and did preliminary zeroing and crude load work up with the ones in the middle. After zeroing the rifle, I first tried a load of 12 grains of 4227 to produced MV, similar to a lot of CB velocities. This averaged 5 shot groups of approximately 0.5 moa.  Since I believed that both the rifle and the bullets were capable of better accuracy, I then tried 24, 25, and 26 grains of H322, somewhat closer to the hot loads many JB benchrest shooters use.  After this preliminary shooting I had 64 bullets left.

From the 64 bullets I was able to select 12 groups. Six with bullets that varied no more than 0.2 grain, (three of the six with bullets that all weighed the same scale reading.)  Although the other 34 bullets had a weight range of 0.9 grains, my best efforts could only sort out 6 groups that had a range of at least 0.5 grains. A couple of groups had a greater range.

The rifle used was a 6PPC with a Kelby action, a Krieger barrel, a 2 oz. Jewell trigger, and a typical benchrest style fiberglass stock, similar to many CBA Heavy or Unrestricted class rifles but weighing under 10.5 pounds with a 36X Weaver scope. Unfortunately, my front rest’s bag was for hunting rifle stocks but by stretching it out of shape it sorta worked for the 3” flat forearm. The friend I bought the rifle from said it would only agg. .25 moa on a good day with the best loads so was building a better one.

Without going into details, I used my limited brass supply to I shoot two groups with “good” bullets and two groups with bullets that varied at least 0.5 grains on three different trips to the range using loads of 24, 25, and 26 grains of H322 on successive days. Wind flags were not used but conditions were unusually good for the high desert with winds mostly from 10 to 2 of never more than an estimated 15 mph. All were shot from 100 yards, the limit of our range.

There was no significant difference in the size of the groups with the three powder loads.  On one day the good bullets shot slightly better and on the other two the bullets with the .5 grain range in weight shot slightly better. The average for the six five shot groups with uniform weight bullets was 0.33 inches.  The average for the six groups with the 0.5+ grain range in weights was 0.32 “.

Draw your own conclusions or ignore as it suits.

John

 

 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Spindrift
Squid Boy posted this 21 January 2021

John, I have seen the exact results you describe and wonder why. I have tried all sorts of voodoo and still see variation. One day a near one hole group and the next not so much. I am making the best ammo I can and this is why I believe some of it is a head game, hence the idea of it is just as important as what you do. At least to me. Plus I just flat out enjoy tinkering with this stuff and never want to stop till I am cold and stiff. Great forum. Squid 

"Squid Pro Quo"

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
  • Bud Hyett
John Alexander posted this 21 January 2021

Squid Boy,

I agree, shooting is to some extent a head game. This is most easily understood by serious offhand shooters where the the head is the most important part, less so in shooting a rail gun.

I think that much of what accounts for the day to day variation you mention, in addition to the head thing" is two things.  One is that most shooters refuse to acknowledge how much groups vary from one group to the next even when all conditions internal and external are the same. "My rifle will shoot  one inch groups all day". It won't.  If you shoot five or six groups in a "day" it is very likely that one group will be twice as big as the smallest even if the ammo is as perfectly uniform as possible. Some think this principle doesn't apply to accurate rifles. The strings of four 5 shot groups above the average ratio of largest to smallest group was 1.6 and four groups isn't a long string.

The other reason is, of course, factors we don't know or can't control. Mysterious changes in bore condition, weather, etc. And we will never know until we start experimenting to try and find out. We have good evidence that we won't  solve this problem by making bullet weights or neck tensions even more uniform.

John

 

 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Squid Boy
John Alexander posted this 22 January 2021

I should have added one more comment to the description of my test's above. 

Of the 60 record shots fired one was disregarded I called it out when shot. It was the only shot that made it's separate hole.  It would have made one of the groups of uniform weight bullets considerably bigger. A two oz. trigger takes some getting used to.

John

 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
  • Squid Boy
John Alexander posted this 24 January 2021

After thinking about the unexpected results of my test above where there was no significant difference in accuracy between weight sorted bullets and bullets that varied by 0.5 grains, it occurred to me that there might be more useful information in the groups.

If group size really did increased with the amount of weight variation in a group (the conventional wisdom) then maybe the best way to detect the effect of the weight variation is to measure the vertical dispersion of the groups instead of the extreme spread. I think that shooters assume that weight variation affects vertical dispersion.

I speculated that maybe a bunch of groups even with the same average extreme spread (as above) could still show the effect of weight variation in the vertical measurements of the groups.

I retrieved  the three targets and measure the vertical dispersion.  Alas, the average measurement didn’t support my speculation.

Average Vertical Dimension of Groups

       Uniform weight bullets,(range in weight 0.1– 0.2) --- 0.28”

       Varied weight bullets (range in weight 0.5+ grains ) - 0.19”

I don’t believe anyone would claim that weight sorting bullets caused more vertical dispersion, but there is no hint in these 12 groups that it reduces vertical dispersion.

Summary

1.  There was no significant difference in accuracy between  bullets that varied by 0.5 grains and bullets sorted to 0.1 and 0.2 grains.

2.  Vertical dispersion was not reduced by reducing the range in bullet weights within the groups from 0.5 grains to 0.2 grains.

John

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Spindrift
Close