Cast Bullet Accuracy-Two Points Of View

[sundog]

Identifying, understanding, and controlling variables and their relationships. Each instance is an individual of its own. Our best ally is a transferable skill learned through institutional knowledge and experience.

Results vary from, "Aha!", to "oops...."

[45nut]

Guys complain here that deep discussions on important topics have disappeared and that everything is on the basic level. My point is that the irony of this board is that we may be dumbing down the next generation of cast shooters by removing their learning curve.

Discussions such as this are welcomed actually, exploring the boundaries of shooting lead is certainly not taboo, recently discussions such as this have been examples of decorum and civil exchange and that is all we ask from the participants. Even the McCarthy bill discussion has been tread with thought before emotion although it could have easily degraded, such is not the case.
The forum does not want to dissuade thoughts and opinions until they start to resemble matches of offense and defense. I come here to relax myself, my first thoughts are not as a moderator, rather they are as a cast boolit enthusiast like you all. None of the staff wishes to be here to conquer and divide, we are all here as members of a board that discusses CB's and have the same interests as everyone else that logs in. I have been a visitor to many other boards once, maybe twice and never again because despite an interest I cannot abide the sparring nature of the board.
We are all here as brothers of the silver stream, civil wars have not benefited anyone. Civil discussion can and does produce results and are welcome.
I would think a poll of the membership would show we try to err on the side of stepping back and not of stamping out free thought. The staff rarely has anything to discuss anymore. I prefer it that way myself.

[Harpman]

deep huh.well, just dont go start using those big words and stuff. .the folks that miss that discussion should start the topics they want input on..so far what I been reading here is all very critical to good loads and should never be forgotten or glossed over.

[45 2.1]

Deep discussions? Hardly! Two camps of accuracy? Hardly! there has been a dearth of really good discussions for quite a while. Maybe since a couple of past members left for various reasons. I agree with Bass for once on this issue.

[BABore]

Come on "Sour Puss", tell us how you really feel.

[45 2.1]

Come on "Sour Puss", tell us how you really feel.

Hahahahaha, can't ya tell! I does seem that your not getting much if any imput from the old timers here.

[Buckshot]

Hahahahaha, can't ya tell! I does seem that your not getting much if any imput from the old timers here.

................Who are they? And if they're Old Timers here, is it incumbent upon them to post to a particular thread for some reason? It's like what, a job?

..............Buckshot

[MT Gianni]

Probably more than 2. I like chicken and rice but am continually fiddling with ingredients to improve it. I don't change chicken or rice or a 350 oven but spices revolve to improve. I use a book load for a reference but change primers, charge weights up or down a few grains if it is under the max. Sometimes it is all upon the gun. My rossi 92 will never be a bench rest gun and my loads for that reflect it. I lean towards a 429421 over a 429244 because I have a 4 cav. vs a single cavity. The gc shoots a little better but none lead and if I am shooting over 200 yards a different gun comes out of the safe anyway. I guess I adjust for the purpose of the gun and get bored when I find a load that the gun likes. Then its write it down, load up a bunch and work on something else. Gianni.

[joeb33050]

I posted the first on Sunday, 24 June 2007, on the CBA forum and the Cast Boolits forum. Today is Tuesday, 26 June, 2007; there are 4 responses on the CBA forum, and 27 responses on the Cast Boolits forum. If there are really 572 members of the CBA forum, 560 of them are the quietest folks in the land.
(Some of the Cast Boolits guys are gathering in the village, with sharp agricultural implements, and looking this way.)
Now I ask the question or pose the proposition for a reason, maybe a couple of reasons.

The "small increment" guys live (CB) life on a knfe edge, any smidgn of difference in anything throws off the whole business, so accuracy goes away.

The "cookbook" guys live (CB) life on a table, minor differences in most things in the accurate load recipe do not have great effects on accuracy.

Both the "small increment" and "cookbook" guys maintain that there is not ONE accuracy solution, but a family of solutions. I think most people believe this.

To me, the "small increment" guys, at high levels of accuracy, have a problem with the numbers of groups that must be shot to show a significant difference in two load recipes.

I think that the way forward in understanding cast bullet accuracy lies with one of these approaches-Maven the Mediator notwithstanding. And I'm always interested in moving forward. Or sitting back and having a beer.

Neither set of guys has shown any interest in demonstrating WHY they believe as they do, nobody is showing their groups.

It occurs to me that we can shoot rockets to the moon, that the rules and science and knowledge and cause-and-effect are now-have been-figured out. And it occurs to me that shooting cast bullets accurately ain't quite as hard as shooting a rocket to the moon.

So who wants to tell us about what they did and what happened accuracy-wise that supports their position? It's show and tell time!

(Are those Cast Boolit guys coming up the hill?)
joe brennan

[leftiye]

Firstly, I want a budget like NASA's, then I'll have it all down in a reference volume in a few centuries! Then you'll all hate me cause there won't be any problems to figure out anymore.

[porkchop bob]

Good afternoon, Joe.

IMO, the folks that wrote the cookbooks we use did a lot of the "small increment" development. When I work up a load, I load 25 of each batch to be able to see how they shoot. Once I determine which one gives me the best results, I load 500 and put then in the can for the next trip to the range. I try to keep as few variables as possible. Most of my shooting is with the S&W 625 using moon clips and the Marlin Guide Gun in 45-70. The guns shoot better than I do. The cookbook or small increment methods to my opinion are the two sides of a coin. Once I have a load worked up, it becomes my cookbook for the next time I load that caliber.

Good luck with your quest,

Bob

[sundog]

Leftiye, even the ground maintenance portion, or some such, of the NASA budget would be okay. It's the TIME ting that's sooooo precious.

[Maven]

What Maven, "the mediator" does [attempting] to achieve accuracy* in rifles:

Melt "alloy," which is increasingly a Heinz 57 Varieties mixture as WW's are hard to get in my neck of the woods.

Cast and inspect bullets. Any flawed CB's are reserved for foulers. The remainder go back into the furnace. I'll weigh them only to determine a benchmark for a particular mold and/or for a match.

Size, add GC's and lube CB's. The diameter has been established by slugging the bore. However, lately I'm finding that my .30-06 is a bit happier with .311" v. .310" CB's. Also, at the velocity I seek (was going to say "aim for," but thought better of it!), I tend to agree with Joe that lube brand/type really doesn't matter. Rarely-never do I heat-treat even with WW + range scrap mixtures and rarely do I get leading. I let my CB's age harden mostly because I'm too lazy to size them immediately.

Case prep. I inspect them deburr and "uniform" the primer pockets , but really don't think it has any effect @ 100yds. Occasionally I'll turn necks in the same manner that Joe does (pix on CBA site), but I can't demonstrate that it has any positive effect. OAL is checked on new and/or 1x-fired range pick-ups. I'll anneal after re-forming (e.g., .30-06 -> 7.65 x 53 mm) or after ~6 - 10 firings. I'll weigh them if for a match or to establish a mean wt. for say Rem. v. Win. v. LC brass.

Case sizing. This can be controversial, e.g., FL v. partial neck sizing v. neck sizing in a neck die (Have you checked the run-out in these?) v. neck sizing in a collet die v. sizing without the expander ball. In short, I use the Lee collet dies whenever possible; partial neck sizing in those cals. for which I have no collet die; and FL sizing minus the expander ball for range pick-ups. I use the M-die to expand & flare the necks after sizing in almost all instances: 2 of my collet dies don't require it. Btw, in my .45-70, I often use a Lee Loader to neck size the brass and continue to do so until the loaded rounds become difficult to chamber in my Marlin #336.

Powder selection. I don't think anyone within 30mi. of my home sells powder anymore. Ergo, mail order, especially milsurp powder, is both appealing and necessary. For the milsurps, a chronograph is absolutely necessary as the lot no's. and characteristics of the powder vary so widely. Then again, as IMR 7383 demonstrates, it's unclear what exactly the stuff is or even what its good for. In all cases, efficient burning (low ES & SD; cleanliness of fired rounds, etc.) and down-range performance dictate which ones to use ...or avoid. As I said in my earlier post on this topic, I really haven't run across too many powders that gave terrible results with CB's, although "Surplus .30-06" (once sold through River Valley Ordnance) certainly comes close.

Case charging. I used to weigh each charge, but since I've been using WC 820, I just use a Lyman pistol powder measure + different "rotors" to charge my cases. However, with the extruded powders, e.g., IMR 7383 and IMR 5010 especially (huge kernels that don't measure well), I have to weigh. Ditto for match ammo. The thrown v. measured charge argument is very much like the "less filling - tastes great "brewhaha" IMHO. I once loaded my .243Win. at the range with a Lee Loader and "Surplus .30-06" charged via a dipper and put 10 jacketed bullets into a nickle-sized red dot @ 100yds (witnessed). My thrown WC 820 charges do about as well.

Equipment. Other than a chrono., a good front rest or at least one with different front bags (to accomodate different forestocks) helps, as does a stiff rear bag. Don't underestimate how greatly forestock-to-front bag fit can affect downrange performance. (Don't ask how I know this!) Wind flags too, but you can cobble these up from sharpened re-bar and surveyors tape. I try not to complicate things and like to keep the number of trips from my car [trunk] to the shooting bench to a minimum.

Target inspection. 2 or 3 m.o.a. is the standard I use for "as issued" milsurp rifles and ~half that for my 'scoped rifles. By firing any/all of them over a period of time, you begin to get a sense of how they will perform. By saving targets and loading data, you're ready to critically evaluate the results. E.g., when your 1-2 m.o.a., starts throwing CB's into 4 "- 6" groups, you know there's a problem that needs addressing (and solving!). My .243Win. usually shoots into 1.2 - 1.4 m.o.a. with Ly. #245496 (87gr. Loverin), but when I tried Lyman's 95gr. bore rider and RCBS' 105gr. clone of it, the results were terrible, i.e., patterns not groups.

Operator error/the nut behind the trigger. If you've been watching golf or baseball lately, e.g., the travails of the Yankees, you can't help but realize that atheletic ability/performance is quite variable. So it is with shooters: Some days you can do no wrong. Others? Well, you get the idea....

What have I left out?



*1 m.o.a. or better for 'scoped rifles; 2 - 3 m.o.a. for open sighted rifles. Although not mentioned, 5 shots touching @ 25yds. is the standard for my pistols (all open sighted).

[44man]

Joe, I have posted many, many groups but you are right, there are only a few guys that have ever done that. I have complained about it when they talk a good load but show a 25 yd group with a big bore, others never post groups they claim.
A few have shown fantastic groups at 100 yd's with their rifles and I am proud of them. Some groups have been a little worse but they still did good and I appreciate seeing them. Those that NEVER show what they do should join in. We are not critical about them, we want to see them.
Yes, this is the best site there is with the smartest shooters in the country. I am humbled with the knowledge some have.

[Boomer Mikey]

I do things much as Maven does; I don't use anything but an "M" die type expander along with partial FL sizing for most loads but I use concentricity as a guide to help me find the best case prep/loading method for each application. I do all the case prep - uniforming even with cowboy loads. I check neck wall thickness during setup and case prep but I don't turn necks unless there is a serious issue or it becomes obvious that a slight cleanup would offer great benefits. I don't heat treat bullets and run everything with 50/50 Lino/WW and I don't size/lube bullets until I need them or load them. For general use at 100 yards and less I don't bother weighing and sorting everything but I will for long range, match, and silhouette loads. I weigh all large kernel powder charges and all charges over 45 grains and I'm finding that in many cases I no longer size bullets smaller than they fall out of the molds unless they won't chamber and use the largest sizing dies available or make my own "oversize" dies (thanks Buckshot!).

I use many "cookbook" loads to get me in the ballpark and fine tune from there but I must find a 10% range of loads that show potential to consider a combination eliminating those "twitchy" loads that only work when the moon is new at 73.5 degrees and I'll typically choose a load in the middle of an acceptable powder charge range in the interest of consistency.

I recently purchased Load From A Disk and I'm surprised at how many of my "pet" loads are recommended optimum load densities. I plan to take advantage of this feature for future load development.

I'm constantly amazed each and every day I spend on this site by the amount of knowledge available here and by the people openly willing to help others. I continue to learn something here every day (even things I didn't want to know).

Boomer

[Idaho Sharpshooter]

how many of you anneal and FL size all brass after each firing? I am finding out that the top 8-10% of the BPCRS guys do so. Steve Brooks and MLV tipped me off. Since I started that regimen I have just about eliminated split case necks...and one of my 38-90 cases got that treatment at the range 23 times last week. I am now testing my 308 benchrest rifle, and early results support that theory. Brass does work harden...

Rich
DRSS

[Bass Ackward]

Neither set of guys has shown any interest in demonstrating WHY they believe as they do, nobody is showing their groups.

It occurs to me that we can shoot rockets to the moon, that the rules and science and knowledge and cause-and-effect are now-have been-figured out. And it occurs to me that shooting cast bullets accurately ain't quite as hard as shooting a rocket to the moon.

So who wants to tell us about what they did and what happened accuracy-wise that supports their position? It's show and tell time!

joe brennan

Is there really a best way?

The biggest rule violator I have is a 311284 that is outta round and UNDER bore size. Right out of the mold that bullet is .3075 to .3085. Heat treated and run at low pressure with 20 grains of 4759 in a 30-06 throat that can chamber a .311 bullet, that load will shoot sub MOA all day long out of a sporter weight rifle.

What skill did I use to find this technique? An accident. I had two 311284 molds and grabbed this one by mistake. Made up a pile of bullets and had to use them. The other mold throws a bullet that will clean up at .311 and this small one will shoot rings around it and almost anything else you want to see.

That is until I load a 154 LBT spitzer with 56 grains of RL19 sized .309 in that same rifle. Shoot rock hard with that and you have another pie plate killer on your hands. Soften them to ACWW and you get a holer. That's 2600 fps. Ain't I just a brilliant guy finding that load? Nope, a poor HT on a batch. Accident again.

SO should I champion hard bullets for low velocity and soft for high? Or should I champion under bore sized bullets? Well if I did, I would have missed out on a 92 Winchester 44 Mag that will shoot MOA, but .... only with .435 bullets in a .430 bore. How did I find that? An accident. Dad was loading for me and grabbed the wrong box of bullets that were lubed with LLA and waiting to be sized. Why were they lubed with LLA? Because they were to be sized from .435 down to .430 and I didn't want them galling up my sizer die and each bullet being a different size. Total accident? Huh uh, that's skill baby!

Oh, by the way, they are 280 grain Keiths and won't stabilize in a 38 twist either. Oppps. Violated that one also.

Should I fall on my sword for hard bullets at low pressures? Sure worked for that 311284 above? The most accurate load for 38 Specials I ever saw was the 358156 made from lino type (22 BHN) with 6 grains of Unique sized .358. That's +P territory but only about 20,000 psi. Works in every 38 Special I ever saw if you size to throats. That includes the most accurate pistol I ever owned. A Charter Arms snubbie.

Tried properly sized, ROCK hard 358156s in my new to me 357 and it was a pie plate killer at 25 yards. This 357 leads up the butt!!! It was that way when I bought it too. Want to guess why the guy sold it?

But soften those 358156s down to ACWW and use 12.5 grains of 2400 and it a holer. Was that my expertise and logical deduction? Nope, grabbed bullets from the wrong box that hadn't been HT yet. Ooops!

So can I draw conclusions from all of this? Any of this? Sad to say, but I am probably the biggest screw up on this board. Some screwy things work, and .... some don't.

The guy that is at a disadvantage using cast is the guy who looks for "one way" or a "best method" and forms a pattern. Cause that person becomes satisfied.

When satisfaction sets in, all experimentation stops.

[leftiye]

Course if ya read between the lines.......... It is knowhow. It is probly the case that you need to know the different approaches, and have the ability to guess when to try another tack. Not so hard really, when one model doesn't work (how hard is that to know?), think about it a bit, and see if another approach might not do better.

[TAWILDCATT]

what did he say I dont understand any one here.I learned the hard way.there was no one to teach me.fill the case with pulled gov 06 powder put bullet in and fire it.used a 73 win in 32.20.never noticed the unburned powder that fell on the floor.whoose guess some did not burn.filled 8mm mauser with bulk shotgun powder 220 gr lead bullet shot in 1918 mauser hammered bolt open big batch of little holes in target.must have melted bullet.learned to load in 1945.38acp in 1905 colt.modern bond tool and mold.still have them.now I load 38 spec 2.7 gr 700x and lyman wadcutter.3.6gr of 700x 200 gr sswc in 1911.and one load I swear by 311291 with 13 gr red dot in 1906 sprin made in 1913.common sence it the answer.and yrs of experiance.I found a lot of the experts wern't.and as yrs go by the answeres change as more knowledge is gained.

[PAT303]

All I know is cast boolit shooting isn't big in Australia and when I started out all I got was laughter,now with help from everyone on this board I can outshoot most of them and I'm the one laughing.When it comes to accuracy it the score that counts,weather paper or game.That is how I judge it and you should always listen to what people say,even if you don't agree.Even idiots have to be right once in there lives