Oldie, Handloader 30-30 article, Goldie or Moldie?

[Canuck Bob]

https://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/PDF/hl63partial.pdf

Hoping this site is of some historic or entertainment value. Kinda fits the thread regarding old methods and data. Bolt action 30-30 accurate cast discussion from the 70's. It is a PDF but loads fast here. Moderators if such links are inappropriate please let me know.

Bob

 

[Dale53]

Bob;
I'd say that's approaching a "Goldie". I DO have one reservation, I do NOT reccommend "fillers" due to the danger of ringed barrels. I had a 30-30 Model 788 and it shot really well, too.

Thanks for sharing...

Dale53

 

[RBHarter]

Really just lino for everything ? How boring would that be ?

H335 in 8# cans for $20 now there's something I'd by a ton of . I'd bet that 4831 in the ad was still WWII surplus ......

 

[quicksylver]

Well I guess that reloading the same case over and over again at the bench would keep the barrel cool...it would also make a muzzle loader seem like a repeater..!!

Nice article ..thanks for the " look way back when"

 

[John]

I used to cast with sc molds but found todays makers do a better job of uniforming cavities. No lino for low psi here but a better lube than 50-50 and I like the idea of mid speed powders.

 

[fiver]

once again I see I do everything wrong

 

[Brad]

Wow, so much info I just don't agree with.
I am suprised I can hit the berm much less what I am aiming at.

 

[Rick]

Much has been learned in the last 40+ years. I try to keep good notes on all my loads and testing because quite often more can be learned from what didn't work than from what did.

 

[Brad]

So true Rick. If we found the right load the first time we wouldn't really learn much.

 

[Rick]

So true Rick. If we found the right load the first time we wouldn't really learn much.

Not only wouldn't learn much but where would the incentive be to learn anything new and advance from where we are today. Articles like the one posted here are invaluable if viewed correctly, don't read it as a bible and as this is what must be done but rather what were the authors results compared with what your doing differently. Without the work done so long ago and the changes to conventional wisdom of the time we wouldn't be nearly where we are today. I have little doubt that 40 years from now knowledgeable casters of the day will get a chuckle or two at our results. They wouldn't be wherever the craft is by then without us. we wouldn't be where we are without those that came before us.
.

 

[Bret4207]

I read a lot of the older stuff, articles and books going back into the early 1900's and even the late 1800's. Many people dismiss the old stuff as archaic, useless info. I don't think anything can be further from the truth. No, I don't have access to "pig lead" or tin toothpaste tubes and lino isn't a scrap metal often found free for the taking. But I can see how things developed, why certain methods, designs or tools were considered ground breaking. I can read why a developer or experimenter like Dr Mann, Phil Sharpe or Ned Roberts had the ideas they did and how they tested them out. Considering the vast amount of pure fluff and BS spewed out in todays gun rags and on the 'net, I think it's arrogant at the least to scoff at the way things were done back in the day. We've come a long way on the past 20ish years since some of us found each other on shooters.com, but we still haven't reached anything like perfection. Lets not let hubris blind us to the value of the past.

 

[Brad]

We are fortunate to have the quality moulds of today. Think of the 70s caster, he was stuck with Lyman to a large degree. We have better designs and far more precisely made moulds.
What I find most interesting in looking back is that Elmer considered 10:1 as really hard and 16:1 was pretty hard. I don't think he would have liked hardball alloy.

 

[fiver]

Elmer had antimonial lead available to him, so did Dr.Mann.
they both chose different routes.
Dr Mann thought anything much over soft lead was too hard for his interests.

the author of that article certainly had 4% antimonial lead available to him and in copious amounts if he just asked for it when getting his truck filled at the service station.
[shrug] who knows maybe it was beneath him to clean them up, he might have lived in a HOA, or maybe he just had lino available cheap and found it easier to work with.

he was just writing an article on how he done things [showing how easy it was to get started and that things didn't need to be perfect] and was more or less fostering the idea that a day at the range was fun and pretty cheap if you shot lead bullets..

 

[358156 hp]

The author is Wayne Blackwell of "Load From A Disk" fame. While I don't entirely agree with his approach to some aspects of casting, it was state of the art in his day. I can't even recall the last time I used pure lino, I just have different ways of achieving my goals now. Many guys used lino for target bullets in the olden days because of its consistency, including me. I glanced at his first bullet pics, the ones of the bullet bases & the whiskered 311291 Lymans, and knew exactly what he was doing. Lino makes such pretty bases, and the sprue cuts usually just looked like a small, slightly discolored spot on the base. No bumps, no divots.