F
freebullet
Guest
Hmm, sounds like "the mangler" might be a good nickname for that gun.
43-287B
- Thread starter Brad
- Start date
No v block needed to measure groove diameter, it is 6 groove rifling. Luckily Ruger doesn't use 5 groove like S&W.
The coated bullets were also lubed with SL68.
This was an insightful day.
I got a 429 sizer made up so I can try a variety of sizes. Anyone else own 4 different Star dies for 44 cal bullets? Wait, I may actually have 6. 429, 430, 432, 432+, 433, and 434
I think a taper on the nose with a deeper V shaped crimp groove would help a bunch.
The coated bullets were also lubed with SL68.
This was an insightful day.
I got a 429 sizer made up so I can try a variety of sizes. Anyone else own 4 different Star dies for 44 cal bullets? Wait, I may actually have 6. 429, 430, 432, 432+, 433, and 434
I think a taper on the nose with a deeper V shaped crimp groove would help a bunch.
Just shoved one thru the 429 die. It was hard enough to spring back to just over 430. It wasn't easy to get thru the die either. I will likely run them thru a larger die on the Star to lube then use my loading press to final size then the Star die. The Star just isn't made for that kind of sizing down.
I was amazed at how little deformation I saw once the bullet was sized down. Groovess till there but crimp groove is a bit smaller. Nose taper became a little concave right at junction with bearing surface. You can see where the nose is pushed forward a bit.
I was amazed at how little deformation I saw once the bullet was sized down. Groovess till there but crimp groove is a bit smaller. Nose taper became a little concave right at junction with bearing surface. You can see where the nose is pushed forward a bit.
Those bullets are hard, over 18 BHn.
This is a 15 BHn bullet like shot today. This was sized thru a 430 sizer then fired with .8 gr of Titegroup. The bullet base ended up about 3/4" from the rear of the barrel. I tried .3 gr Titegroup but the bullet didn't fully exit the cylinder.
Look at the rifling mark on the left side of the bullet. Look at the fin of metal pushed forward. That lead is just going to smear down the side of the bore. pretty good evidence that lead does move forward with rifling engraving.
This is a 15 BHn bullet like shot today. This was sized thru a 430 sizer then fired with .8 gr of Titegroup. The bullet base ended up about 3/4" from the rear of the barrel. I tried .3 gr Titegroup but the bullet didn't fully exit the cylinder.
Look at the rifling mark on the left side of the bullet. Look at the fin of metal pushed forward. That lead is just going to smear down the side of the bore. pretty good evidence that lead does move forward with rifling engraving.
Last edited:
Here ya go Rick.
Until I took these photos I didn't notice something very important. Notice the ring above the full diameter section on the nose. That ring was NOThere before sizing. I would say that is pretty good evidence that significant amounts of lead is moving when sizing the bullet down. That is happening in the forcing cone of the barrel every shot!
Amazing what a photo can show.
Until I took these photos I didn't notice something very important. Notice the ring above the full diameter section on the nose. That ring was NOThere before sizing. I would say that is pretty good evidence that significant amounts of lead is moving when sizing the bullet down. That is happening in the forcing cone of the barrel every shot!
Amazing what a photo can show.
The die is polished! I final lap to size with 240 and 400 grit emery and oil. I suppose I could run a brush with a tight patch and a little 600 grit paste in the drill.
Once I get lube flowing thru the holes and put it in use those marks will go away.
Once I get lube flowing thru the holes and put it in use those marks will go away.
Pistolero
Well-Known Member
Yes, you can see where the slip plane exited the cone forward. So, learning experience. Big full diameter noses
are a bad idea, it would seem - especially if throat diam is significantly larger than groove diameter.
Also in the squibbed bullet, you can see lead displaced both ways at the rifling. And note no
lube groove erasure, too.
Bill
are a bad idea, it would seem - especially if throat diam is significantly larger than groove diameter.
Also in the squibbed bullet, you can see lead displaced both ways at the rifling. And note no
lube groove erasure, too.
Bill
mountainmolds
New Member
Thanks for posting all the neat information, Brad There aren't many people who do that.
While your slightly oversize throats are not ideal, I'm skeptical that is the main problem. If the bullet is obturating in your forcing cone then the oversize throats are irrelevant because then you're cramming a .445" bullet into the 0.4295" barrel. It may or may not obturate in the forcing cone depending on the alloy and the load, that's hard to predict. The only way to know for sure would be to recover bullets fired with the barrel unscrewed.
Your revolver vs. Marlin recovered bullets were very similar to mine, except my revolver and my Marlin both have similar groove dimensions.
That suggests that the uneven deformation on your Accurate bullet is not due to misalignment but due to the Paradox effect -- the bullet is getting slapped around when it slams into the rifling. If it were due to misalignment then the MP bullets would be unevenly deformed, too.
I hope to make an experimental bullet for my revolver in the next few days and fire it into a water tank, to see if it solves the deformation I was seeing -- not as severe as your Accurate bullet but still too much for my taste.
If I understand the Paradox effect properly then a wider, deeper groove in the nose will make a significant difference. I'm leaning towards a groove that basically moves the front of the crimp groove forward and deepens it.
Will be interesting to see what your new bullet tests show Dan.
Will be interesting to see what your new bullet tests show Dan.
Ian
Notorious member
I'm still thinking maybe there's one elliptical throat or a defect in the lockup on one chamber, since only some of the bullets will get one side wiped off. Some of the 278s appeared to have the whole cone of the nose on a different center axis than the rest of the bullet after firing, and I don't think it was berm damage.
Here's another thought to throw into the mix: Why do so many of us who have ACP cylinders for our .45s experience far better accuracy with them than with the .45 Colt cylinder? There's a very, very long throat there, and hardly any taper from chamber mouth to cylinder throat due to headspacing requirements. Yet they shoot very well, and at low ACP velocities there is very little engrave widening at the front from slamming into the rifling twist after jumping well over an inch.
Here's another thought to throw into the mix: Why do so many of us who have ACP cylinders for our .45s experience far better accuracy with them than with the .45 Colt cylinder? There's a very, very long throat there, and hardly any taper from chamber mouth to cylinder throat due to headspacing requirements. Yet they shoot very well, and at low ACP velocities there is very little engrave widening at the front from slamming into the rifling twist after jumping well over an inch.
fiver
Well-Known Member
I think it's because of the long run up.
think about it you went right into a throat just like the lever gun does but in effect your just pushing the bullet into a size die.
the pressure event is over by the time it gets to the throat of the barrel, the alloy has already broken down, so it just pushes into the rifling.
it's almost the opposite [and yet the same] of engraving a bullet into a rifle's barrel before accelerating it.
Dan: it's good to see you over here.
I was following your work over on the CBA forum.
think about it you went right into a throat just like the lever gun does but in effect your just pushing the bullet into a size die.
the pressure event is over by the time it gets to the throat of the barrel, the alloy has already broken down, so it just pushes into the rifling.
it's almost the opposite [and yet the same] of engraving a bullet into a rifle's barrel before accelerating it.
Dan: it's good to see you over here.
I was following your work over on the CBA forum.
fiver
Well-Known Member
the thing about the magma lube is it is paraffin [micro-wax] and a little carnuba.
it has a higher melt point, but I'm pretty sure it still goes liquid under pressure.
I have shot [good lord] pounds of the stuff and never had a real problem with it.
I didn't know it was wrong until I got to the C/B site.
but I was melting it and adding a tsp of Vaseline to a stick of lube.
it has a higher melt point, but I'm pretty sure it still goes liquid under pressure.
I have shot [good lord] pounds of the stuff and never had a real problem with it.
I didn't know it was wrong until I got to the C/B site.
but I was melting it and adding a tsp of Vaseline to a stick of lube.
mountainmolds
New Member
A couple years back I fired my standard 357 revolver load into a water tank and noticed that the lube grooves were nearly wiped out -- not as severe as Brad's bullet, but enough to be concerned. Also the bullet seemed to engrave / smear more on one side than the other. The grooves survived much better when the same load was fired from a rifle (same 0.358" groove diameter, by the way). I wondered if the "Paradox effect" was to blame for smearing the revolver bullet's grooves? If so, a Loverider design might help. Note that those oven treated COWW bullets were about 10 years old at the time so their BHN was probably only 19 - 21.
Despite the severe damage to the grooves and the uneven engraving, that load was a good shooter by snub standards, averaging 5 shots into 5" or better at 50 yards when I did my part.
For today's experiment, both the old standard truncated cone bullet and the experimental Loverider bullet were cast of J.R. brand reclaimed shot, sized 0.358", oven treated at 470F, lubed with BAC in an oversize die, then seated on top of my usual load of 18.2 gr. WW296, ignited by a Winchester magnum small pistol primer. They clocked 1350 fps, about 25 - 50 fps faster than usual, perhaps due to the 35 BHN alloy instead of the 21 - 25 BHN COWW alloy that I used in the past.
(Yes, that's a hot load; Quickload puts it at 45,000 psi, and pressures can rise quickly when you push WW296 that hard. I'll have to drop the powder charge if I'm going to use reclaimed shot instead of COWW. The SAAMI 35,000 psi spec is pretty tame, and I'm comfortable pushing low 40's in a strong gun like the Ruger, but there's no point in overdoing it since you don't gain much additional velocity, anyway.)
Perhaps thanks to the 35 BHN alloy, all the grooves on both bullet designs survived the water tank. One side of the bullet still engraved a little deeper than the other, but the difference is slight and you wouldn't notice it if you didn't examine the bullet carefully. It's conceivable that the uneven engraving is due to cylinder/barrel misalignment, a common condition on mass produced revolvers, or the "Paradox effect" could be slapping the bullet around in the forcing cone and pushing it to one side. Either is possible.
The base of both bullets somehow shrank to about 0.355". The base had a scoured appearance and I'm guessing that the shrinkage is due to water scouring the base in the water tank, but I can't rule out something happening to the base in the barrel.
The Loverider's front band gained diameter, perhaps due to a mild Paradox effect as it was slapped by the forcing cone?
The Loverider's lower two bore riding bands seem to shrink 0.0005". That also could be due to a mild Paradox effect. The upper bore riding band remained 0.347".
You can't tell from this photo, but both bullet designs "skidded" slightly on the front band, normal for magnum revolver loads and nothing to be concerned about. Despite having much less groove diameter bearing area, the Loverider did not skid any more than the truncated cone design. That suggests to me that not much bearing area is required to grip the rifling.
What did this little experiment prove? So far it seems to prove that 35 BHN bullets resist deformation better than 19 - 21 BHN bullets.
I like hard bullets.
I haven't tested the Loverider on paper yet. It's been 11 years since I shot a revolver to any extent, so I'm rusty and my bench has not yet been set up for a revolver, so it may take me a while to dial in the powder charge and see how the Loverider does in the accuracy department.
Despite the severe damage to the grooves and the uneven engraving, that load was a good shooter by snub standards, averaging 5 shots into 5" or better at 50 yards when I did my part.
For today's experiment, both the old standard truncated cone bullet and the experimental Loverider bullet were cast of J.R. brand reclaimed shot, sized 0.358", oven treated at 470F, lubed with BAC in an oversize die, then seated on top of my usual load of 18.2 gr. WW296, ignited by a Winchester magnum small pistol primer. They clocked 1350 fps, about 25 - 50 fps faster than usual, perhaps due to the 35 BHN alloy instead of the 21 - 25 BHN COWW alloy that I used in the past.
(Yes, that's a hot load; Quickload puts it at 45,000 psi, and pressures can rise quickly when you push WW296 that hard. I'll have to drop the powder charge if I'm going to use reclaimed shot instead of COWW. The SAAMI 35,000 psi spec is pretty tame, and I'm comfortable pushing low 40's in a strong gun like the Ruger, but there's no point in overdoing it since you don't gain much additional velocity, anyway.)
Perhaps thanks to the 35 BHN alloy, all the grooves on both bullet designs survived the water tank. One side of the bullet still engraved a little deeper than the other, but the difference is slight and you wouldn't notice it if you didn't examine the bullet carefully. It's conceivable that the uneven engraving is due to cylinder/barrel misalignment, a common condition on mass produced revolvers, or the "Paradox effect" could be slapping the bullet around in the forcing cone and pushing it to one side. Either is possible.
The base of both bullets somehow shrank to about 0.355". The base had a scoured appearance and I'm guessing that the shrinkage is due to water scouring the base in the water tank, but I can't rule out something happening to the base in the barrel.
The Loverider's front band gained diameter, perhaps due to a mild Paradox effect as it was slapped by the forcing cone?
The Loverider's lower two bore riding bands seem to shrink 0.0005". That also could be due to a mild Paradox effect. The upper bore riding band remained 0.347".
You can't tell from this photo, but both bullet designs "skidded" slightly on the front band, normal for magnum revolver loads and nothing to be concerned about. Despite having much less groove diameter bearing area, the Loverider did not skid any more than the truncated cone design. That suggests to me that not much bearing area is required to grip the rifling.
What did this little experiment prove? So far it seems to prove that 35 BHN bullets resist deformation better than 19 - 21 BHN bullets.
I like hard bullets. I haven't tested the Loverider on paper yet. It's been 11 years since I shot a revolver to any extent, so I'm rusty and my bench has not yet been set up for a revolver, so it may take me a while to dial in the powder charge and see how the Loverider does in the accuracy department.
Great write up Dan, thanks for taking the time to do that. 35 BHN, wow. 32 is as hard as I've ever gotten CWW and 30 is much more common. 5 inches from a subbie at 50 yards sure ain't nothing to sneeze at. Yeah that's really cookin at 18.2 gr even with the 160 gr bullet. Hottest I've gone is 16.2 gr H-110 with the RCBS 35-200 a little over 200 gr from an FA 9 inch, shot quite well and flattened 55 pound steel rams at 200 meters.
Looking forward to your shooting results and BTW . . . Welcome to the forum.
.
Looking forward to your shooting results and BTW . . . Welcome to the forum.
.