I've noticed in the tech sheets in the Fouling Shot that most shooters use heavy for caliber bullets. Why are heavy for caliber bullets more accurate? Is it the better BC? Do longer bullets align better in the bore? I'm interested in your opinions and experience.
Tyler
Attached Files
One reason is that you are limited in velocity with cast bullets. In order to get the energy up, you increase the bullet weight. This applies to hunting situations especially.
Attached Files
idahocaster,
Your observation is dead on and both your reasons are correct.
For similar nose shapes, the longer bullet will have a higher ballistic coefficient, and less wind drift, because BC is promotional to sectional density thus the longer the better as long as you have a twist fast enough to stabilize the bullet.
Longer bullets are easier to get aligned with the barrel and tend to stay better aligned while accelerating.
It is not just the fashion or a fad that you don't see any short bullets in a match.
John
Attached Files
Something else to consider. In the above pic, both are .35 cal., both have similar nose profiles, both have similar weights (actually the NOE is 2-3 gr heavier). Without a jacket, the same weight cast bullet will be shorter, therefore a heavier cast bullet is required to obtain an equivalent length.
Wayne
Attached Files
I don't shoot competitively, but I've accumulated a variety of .30 caliber moulds over many years. I'm sure there are exceptions, but it seems like those designs in the 190-220 grain range are usually more accurate than the lighter bullet designs in popular chamberings like the .308 and .30-06 with standard twist rate bores of 1 in 10" or 1 in 12".
Attached Files
Several factors:
At the Windhill Range many years ago, we had a bullet recovery box we used to experiment with light and heavy loads. The RCBS 45-300-FN bullet left sideways witness marks on opposite sides. This bullet was found to be traveling in the bore slightly sideways while the RCBS 45-4-5-FN was not. Then we next tried the RCBS 45-500-FN mold with the same results.
After this, I became a sincere devotee of the heaviest bullet the twist rate will sustain.
Farm boy from Illinois, living in the magical Pacific Northwest
Attached Files
Not a serious target shooter as such but my experience has been the same in 06 and 30/40 and especially in 243 Win.
Attached Files
Additional to the above mentioned reasons the heavier bullet allows the powders at the charge level used to ignite and burn efficiently while maintaining the lower velocity level needed for best accuracy.
LMG
Concealment is not cover.........
Attached Files
Years ago there was member of our gun club who worked for Honeywell, travelling the world as a consultant for the manufacture of small arms ammunition. Prior to our monthly club meeting this member conducted a 30-minute tech session. He picked the topic and when addressing ammunition, he related tecnical and experience related details about the subject ammunition.
One tech session he focused on the .30-06 Springfield cartridge. He had chrono teadings, charts, bc data, bullet examples, etc. He pointed out what you've read here....the heaviest bullet available in commercial ammunition was the most accurate for a given chambering. For the '06 at that time, it was the 220-grain bullet. That was a frequent question of his audience....what bullet is the most accurate in my hunting rifle? Of course there are trade offs considering bullet weight vs. accuracy.
We as handloaders have an advantage, we can expand that concept by increasing the length/weight of our projectile, as long the barrel twist rate can accomodate our choice.
Tom
Attached Files
The 30-06 and the 30-40 Krag make sense the heavier 220 grain bullet is more accurate because both calibers/rifles were designed to shoot the 220 grain bullet. This means the twist was too.
Attached Files
Yes, the '06 and Krag were "twisted" at 1:10 for the 220 Round Nose.
Not necessarily for really long 220s.
Mine have done well with 190-200 SBT bullets. I think about the same length as the 220 RNs
beltfed/arnie
Attached Files
I load for three .35 Whelens, one of which is an Ackley Improved with a faster twist.
NOE has a couple even heavier 358 moulds, one of which they call "Thumper". NOE 360.310 a 310 gr FP GC . The other is NOE 360.280 a 280 gr GC Spitzer.
I have used Thumper with a cast softnose on deer. Excellent results and good accuracy, although I have not yet shot it from the standard twist barrels. No bullet recovery from any deer. It would most likely exit even on a Texas heart shot.
I have not tried the 360.280.
Lee
Attached Files
Lee what twist is your 35 Whelen that you're shooting the heaver cast bullets from?
Attached Files
I shoot the NOE thumper 310 gr. but with my soft lead drops at 315 gr out of a 358 win. 1-14 twist, have shot several deer and several hogs, never recovered a bullet from them as they shoot both sides , also might add they are paper patched
Attached Files
Interesting point about the 30-40 and 30-06 twist rates being optimized for the 220 grain round nose bullets. I am currently trying the Lyman 311284 in my 1903 sporter. Haven't got to shoot them yet (too cold!), but hope to soon.
Tyler
Attached Files
Been shooting the 311284 from my Krag and 03 Springfields for longer then I care to remember. Excellent bullet for them with great accuracy.
Attached Files
My "recollection" is 1 in 14. To be certain I'd have to look at Shilen receipt. I'm certain that it is either 1 in 12 or 1 in 14.
The rifling on a Shilen (at least circa 1980s) is very fine and relatively shallow.
Attached Files
My "recollection" is 1 in 14. To be certain I'd have to look at Shilen receipt. I'm certain that it is either 1 in 12 or 1 in 14.
The rifling on a Shilen (at least circa 1980s) is very fine and relatively shallow.
Lee, My 35 Whelen is built on a 1903 Springfield and according to some experts of these they believe I may have a A.O. Nieder built rifle. It has all the taletale signs of one of his rifles. With that said my twist is 12". It shoots really great. It's a 1911 action and Nieder knew about reheat treating them, but I'm not going to shoot any hot jacketed loads from it.
Attached Files
What would "heavy for caliber "be for 25 caliber? Obviously 120g would, but how about 105g??
Attached Files
I have the following .358 moulds. Only a couple have shot really well for me. Thumper and the NEI are both good.
Lyman 3589-1 280gr HP GC
Lyman 358009-2 280gr RN GC
Ideal 358315-2 200gr RN GC
Lyman 358318-2 250gr RN GC
NEI 358-290-1 290gr FN GC
NOE 360.280-4 280 gr GC Spitzer B
NOE 360.310-5 310 gr FP GC “Thumper”
SAECO 358-2 200gr PB FN
Attached Files
Give it a try. Just remember that you are shooting cast and not jacketed.
I have this mould NEI 257-115 115gr FP GC, but at the time I was working with it I was still loading like it was jacketed.
Attached Files
The heaviest I've shot from my 35 Whelen was a 272 grain bullet meant for the 9.3 caliber rifles. I sized it down and you would think it's not going to shoot good. Well it did and it did stabilize it. I quit using it because it was a too much a thumper on the shoulder just for plinking. That and I don't have the mould for it anymore and I'm conserving them for my 9.3x57. It too shoots them very well. Right now my go to load is a 217 grain hollow point designed by 45 2.1. It shoots extremely well especially for iron sight and is much easier on the shoulder. If you're going to shoot deer it's all you need and good for boar too. Without the hollow point it casts at 225 grains.
Attached Files
I have two Whelens, both 1:14 ROT, and both shoot the CBE 360-300 very well. Actual bullet weight is 310grs. I powder coat these bullets, size the bands .360 and the nose .351. Propelled at 2030fps with Vihtavuori N150.
The CBE358-250 shoots equally well, but I’ve not been able to achieve similar accuracy with lighter bullets yet.
Attached Files
Hopefully interesting side comment.
While it is pretty clear that long CBs are best if precision and wind resistance is the object, the opposite seems to be true for JBs.
For precision and wind resistance jacketed bench resters use 130 grain for 30 caliber, 68 for 6mm and 52 for 22. Different game, different best solutions.
John
Attached Files
I don't know John. Here's how I see it. Large caliber are most often used for hunting large big game and often dangerous game. You need a heavy bullet for both penetration and breaking bones. Large calibers a not often used as target rifles or varmint hunting. On the other hand small calibers are the exact opposite. There are NO CB's that can equal the jacketed VDL bullets for wind resistance as that is their initial invention. Because many hunters can't afford numerous rifles of different calibers more suited to the type of game they wish to hunt, they make do with the smaller caliber they may have. Thus heavier long bullets were made for the smaller calibers in order to hunt larger game such as deer and up. In the .224's you'll see 70 grains and up to the 90's. In .243 you're see over 100, and so forth for the other small calibers. Those 52 grain .224 bullets you mentioned have to deal with most popular calibers having the slower twists such as 1-12, and 1-14, sometimes even slower. Sierra made the 63 semi point bullet specifically for the .224 caliber that have the slow twist so they can shoot heavier bullets. More the often this didn't work. Had a friend that had a 22-250 with a 14 twist and those Sierra's keyholed from his Ruger. Those 52 grain bulllet do shoot very accurately from many .224 caliber rifles, but there are others a little lighter and a little heavier that shoot equally well.
Attached Files
i think
that shoot-for-score mj benchresters shoot 30 cal because the fatter but heavier bullets make for up the very slight loss in ease of accuracy compared to lighter PPC 6mm 65 gr bullets ... by easier touching the scoring rings simply because they punch a bigger hole. rifles with130 gr 30 cal recoil jump less than 163 gr 30 cal. so at 100 yards the compromise favors the lighter but fatter bullets. also, these guys build the rifles to the optimum for the lighter 30 cal bullets ... custom barrels with twist just fast enough to stabilize bullets at the range they are shooting ... 14-15-16 twist .
apparently even with near-perfect custom mj bullets, the slower twists aggravate less the teensy imperfections as the bullet leaves the muzzle.
*******************
our silly-putty lead bullets by the time they leave the muzzle have more imperfections ... most of them incurred in the first inch of travel ... so one might think that>>
longer bullets are proportionally less distorted in that first inch.
maybe the little gremlin that takes a whack at each bullet in that first inch only has so big a hammer ...
makes it fun, don't it ... ?
ken
Attached Files
MP1886
I agree with everything you say.
My post was only meant to refer to what the jacketed benchrest guys are using in group and score matches. I should have been more clear.
Ken -- iYou're right about the IBS score shooters. I shot with a bunch of those guys in Maine and ten years ago one by one they were switching from 6ppc to 30BR and relatives for exactly the reason you mention.
As a 22 shooter in CBA score matches I sometimes wish I had a fatter bullet.
John
Attached Files
I have had real good results with a newer Lyman 280gr round nose bullet. in my Douglas 1-12 barrel
Attached Files
So a question please, what do you consider the signigicant diff in reloading between cast and jacketed?
Hogdon's website advice is (or was when I started out) that bullets of different style from cast to part jacketed to full jacketed can use the same load data by weight of projectile provided the load is worked up from their minimum recommended charge.
I ask because I have a qty of .308 dia Smith & Wesson jacketed RN SP 180gn bullets I plan to load and try in my 1984 made Marlin 336C 30-30 with an 18.5in barrel. Given there is no official load data for above 173gn jacketed bullets, I'm accumlating data from cast bullet shooters/sources to cross-reference and provide a starting point to work up a load for my 180gn jacketed. If this is the wrong place to ask this please say and I'll move it. Cheers.
John - New Zealand
Attached Files
i always took this to mean that with the same powder charge the cast bullet gives a little less initial ( peak ) pressure compared to the mj bullet. due to the initial deforming resistance of the MJ.
so when extrapolating loads from cast loads to MJ, i would look for higher pressures from the MJ.
and of course, work up from unquestionably safe loads in either case.
hope this helps,
ken
Attached Files
Unless there was a huge difference in bearing length, I would think that there would be little difference between safe loads of 173 jacketed and 180 gr jacketed. In that case I would try data for the 173 grain bullet, but start at the bottom loading.
Attached Files
SkinnerD, Lyman manual #44 had loads for the .30-30 up to 190 grain (using the .303 Savage jacketed bullet). I'm fairly sure it can be found on-line.
Attached Files
Thanks gentlemen, and sorry to hijack the thread. I'll disappear now lol. I'll go search out the Lyman data. Also from elsewhere I got sent this article which may be if use to someone else following this path
https://reloadammo.com/30-30-rifle-loads/
Cheers
John - New Zealand
Attached Files
Umm so I found and downloaded the Lyman #44 Manual. P61 has the 30-30 data. It tops out at 173gn projectiles. I am looking at it on my phone sitting in a motel so may have missed another section. Nevertheless I'll go searching other older manuals. I have found some good data online however so pretty much sorted. Thks again.
John - New Zealand
Attached Files
The Fouling Shot Has a few articles written pertaining to the 30-30.
.30-30 (7.62 x 46R) #20-4, 29-3, 33-7, 46-5, 46-28, 60-2, 66-9, 109-4, 152-13, 176-9, 181-13, 184-12, 187-3, 188-9, 194-13, 210-3, 237-3, 257-3, 257-9, 255-3
Attached Files
Huh, that's...interesting. I checked the version that I downloaded some time back and then dug out my paper copy. They definitely do NOT match. The paper version has the .30-30 data on pages 91-93 and goes to 190 gr on jacketed,183gr on cast. Curiouser and curiouser.
For reference ONLY (insert lawyer weasel words), their 190 gr jacketed recommends 30.0 Gr of IMR 4350 for 1791 fps as an accuracy load. Their MAXIMUM loads listed are 27.0 gr IMR 3031 for 1978 fps, 29.0 gr IMR 4064 for 2013 fps, 29.0 gr IMR4320 for 1903 fps, 27.0 gr IMR 4895 for 1923 fps, 33.0 gr IMR 4350 for 1955 fps, all RECOMMEND starting 3.0 gr lower. Should give you some ideas. I'd scan it but the computer hooked up to the scanner has ISSUES for some reason.
ADDENDUM: It looks like the covers might have become swapped on my #44 and #45. Both came off some years ago and are in the same place. I don't know if the #45 is available on-line.
Attached Files
jeff houck
20
Aaron
17
Wilderness
14
Tom Acheson
14
John Carlson
13
sghart3578
10
Spindrift
5
alphabrass
5
SkinnerD
5
cfp4570
5
