Rifle Accuracy/PC/Hardness

[4and1]

Most accuracy driven shooters use fairly hard lead and GC, lino type or some variant of it. I use it and powder coat and have some pretty good success in the cast benchrest matches. Since the PC eliminates the leading issue, which is pretty much the reason for the hard lead, would a softer alloy PCd give any advantage?

I cast some bullets with COWW with my rifle mold, put them through the same process I use and coated them. It's a little too cold to go shoot from a bench right now, but these are ready for a test as soon as I can.

This is a big step in hardness, lino around 26 and ww at 13 or so. Just wondering if anyone has tested for accuracy with coated bullet of varying hardness.

 

[Bret4207]

With all due respect I think you wrong regarding "hardness". A relative Bhn tells you one tiny part of the whole story. People have been chasing this number down that rabbit hole forever and it's not the answer. Plenty of reading here and elsewhere, have at it and good luck.

 

[Ian]

Speculating on this is a can of worms.

First of all, the cast bullet competitors who make their bullets from drop-forged cat chit and sintered pixie dust are doing it for a variety of reasons (most of which are poorly researched), but barrel leading isn't one of them.

The second consideration is that the dynamics of the system are completely altered when changing bullet alloy, surface CoF, propellant flavor, and FIT.

What that means is you might, or might not have more favorable results from wheelweight alloy if you change nothing else in your SYSTEM. You may have even better results than before if you optimize the system to your "softer" alloy by sizing the body a touch smaller and adjusting overall length so the bullet has a little bit of run at the ball seat.

 

[4and1]

I fully understand the need to tune a load when changing something. I have done extensive load development with both jacketed and cast bullets. I also understand the fit aspect and have done that as well. My question was if anyone had tested different hardnesses using powder coating. I don't shoot naked bullets, and use grease.

 

[popper]

IIRC, data from a HP & milsurp shoot (Lee Summit from several years back), most were using real WW alloy ~ 1800 fps and grease lube. There were no real specifics on what 'additives' might have been used or alloy treatment. One 'class' of shooters were plain base and listed the same alloy. IIRC varget and H4895 were predominate.
My 308 experience is about the same, ~4% Sb (I add a tad of Cu), heat treat, sized close to bore size and 4895/varget - 1:10 twist works.
I did shoot ~36 BHN (COWW with 2% Cu, H.T.) from my 1:10 BO, 2100fps 145gr PB, H110 - shot very well. I've not tried slow rifle powder (Rx15) with soft alloy like others have done. Like Ian stated, lots more than alloy in the equation.

 

[JWFilips]

Before I started shooting Low and Show in my rifles I taxed my .243 Win Ruger Varmint rifle with different Hardnesses of cast bullets. These were shot all between 2000 and 2500 fps. Granted pure Linotype shot at 100 yds exceptionally well! However So did my 50 % COWW and 50% Pure with additional of 2% tin! All were gas checked and Traditional lubed in Ben's Red and a BLL overcoat. all were sized .246" The powders were 2400 and Reloader 7 Both shot excellent groups ( Quick load data gave me anywhere from 2100 fps to 2300 fps)
Seriously with the targets in front of me I can't say the very hard shot any different then my softer alloy!
BTW my alloy was shot both water dropped and air cooled & I still so no major difference
As for leading: Usual after about 75 shots I could pull some small flakes with a bronze brush for all versions even with using gas checks.
I have not tested any of these with PC coating however.
The most I have shot with PC have been light loads ( max 14 gr 2400 with the NOE 105 grain) Of course no leading at all

 

[Ian]

I fully understand the need to tune a load when changing something. I have done extensive load development with both jacketed and cast bullets. I also understand the fit aspect and have done that as well. My question was if anyone had tested different hardnesses using powder coating. I don't shoot naked bullets, and use grease.

Yes, I have. My results will be meaningless to you because you're trying to put something in a box that cannot be put in a box. For example, one CBA member spent a month of Sundays testing various coated alloys in a very accurate rifle and the softer he made the bullets, the worse his accuracy got and the more wild flyers he had. Was his problem the alloy? I don't know, but am strongly inclined to say no, not necessarily. It was likely his fitment technique (1/2 degree per side throat taper and matching bullet nose) which does NOT suit anything more weak than Lyman #2 alloy as the softer alloys will rivet in the neck before overcoming the force needed to start the nose moving against all that contact surface area all at once. If he had adjusted his bullet shape for a gradual increase in engraving resistance, given it some self-aligning properties, and some room for a head start, his results likely would have been much better with softer alloys.

Powder-coated rifle bullets don't need grease as far as my testing has gone. Lube introduces its own set of variables and problems whether using with a coating or not and I prefer to avoid it. I've run powder-coated cast bullets up to full jacketed max pressure velocities in several calibers and gone hundreds of rounds without cleaning and had zero accuracy deterioration or fouling problems. Now, an important disclosure is I typically only use alloys suitable for hunting and only as tough as necessary for the velocity, range, and barrel twist rate. The other disclosure is 1.5 MOA at 300 yards is plenty good enough for me, and I don't compete for score.

You will have to find out for yourself in your system what works and what doesn't, but so few people truly understand what is dynamic fit and how alloy and propellant choice work for or against those dynamics that it is easy to arrive at false conclusions regarding one variable or another.

 

[4and1]

Well Ian, you finally made a non-sarcastic post, almost. Cast bullets have so many variables, it's endless. That's why I had to wait until I retired to put some time into it. I ask questions on forums to see if anyone has tried similar to what I'm thinking, and not many go down the PC route, and test, and shoot for real accuracy. Not the off chance good group, I'm talking a rifle/load combination with the consistancy that can shoot a 8 target aggregate well under 1/2MOA.

1.5 MOA is not good enough for me. Period. I've been doing the cast bullets for 2 years, but have shot benchrest for over 20, so tuning, powder testing, etc is common place. You have no idea how many powders I have tested.

I shot one perfect score this past season, and came close a number of times. I'm working for more.

 

[Brad]

PC and softer bullets will need a different design and methodology from Linotype.
Something like the MP 30 sil cast from wheel weights and PC’d would be a good start point.

I would love to see a good test on PC soft bullets. What happens as we change alloy, seating depth, etc. A good known rifle and shooter would lend much credence to the results.

Just keep an open mind and sometimes fight the urge to treat yours softer bullets like you did Linotype, they won’t respond the same. Just the same, a design for softer bullets can often do poorly cast from Linotype. Is the design intended to let the alloy flow under pressure or resist flow?

Ian isn’t intending to be sarcastic, just comes across that way. He has done a bunch of testing on just this sort of stuff and has been a bit burned when others “tried” PC but didn’t follow the methods prescribed. Results were predictably poor.

 

[fiver]

we have to remember the system the ''cast'' BR guys are using compared to what the rest of the world uses.
they really should be called the swage bullet bench rest association, and not the cast bullet blah blah.
what they are doing is having a complete system put together to compete with higher velocity slow twist barrels.
their bullets are shaped in a swage die that matches their throat [cut from the same reamer actually]
if you were to coat and swage then load and shoot you'll have similar results if your alloy has enough internal support to make it into the barrel.

Brad and Emmitt have a small sample of coated and swaged bullets, but they are for revolvers and not rifles.
I have a system that's some short of a true bench rest setup, only I haven't had the curiosity, or inclination to put it together enough to shoot any targets.
I know the system works because I have tried it in other rifle types just not on the bench looking for .00's.

 

[Ian]

Neither one of my posts were intended to be sarcastic. I was attempting to explain that using a weaker alloy in your system will require a different approach (that you are likely wholly unfamiliar with) than you are currently using to good effect with Linotype metal and if you don't understand that approach then you probably won't have good results and will erroneously blame it on the weaker alloy itself.

 

[Joshua]

Not the off chance good group, I'm talking a rifle/load combination with the consistancy that can shoot a 8 target aggregate well under 1/2MOA.

1.5 MOA is not good enough for me. Period.

I believe that you are making an apples to oranges comparison. I just spent a few minutes nosing around past CBA threads dealing specifically with match accuracy. Are .50” groups at 100 yards achieved in competition? Yes. Which class are they most likely to be seen? Heavy Rifle. What is a good group for Modified Scoped Military Rifle? A 1.50” group is considered good in that class. The same size group is considered good in the hunting class.

I am not a great shot. But, from field positions (no bench for me until COVID restrictions are lifted) I have been able to shoot consistent 2.50” groups with a 1970’s 4X fixed Tasco on top of a 103 year old sporterized 1917 Enfield. Alloy was guesstimated Lyman #2, GC, PC, Lee 312-155-2R.
Powder charge is 40gr Shooters World Precision.

Ian may come off as sarcastic. But I personally prefer friendly sarcasm, to arrogance and condescension.

Josh

What do you consider to be good accuracy with a cast bullet?

What do you consider to be good accuracy with a cast bullet? What type of rifle or handgun do you

forum.castbulletassoc.org

 

[fiver]

heah... dammit I misspelled Emmett's name again.

 

[RBHarter]

Long ago after a lot of aggravation I approached the bullets that were plenty big enough , with sufficient lube , and a good alloy from a different angle .
I worked up with Red Dot until the groups blew up .
I worked from there with Unique until the groups blew up .
I worked up a couple of more powders each slower within a similar but climbing pressure peak .

I actually learned a lot about powder curves and why 3 powders , side by side and even swapping places on burn charts , one worked well with my cast , one didn't even think about a group , and one was a leaded up train wreck . Change guns in cartridge completely different results from each powder but the same cumulative results . Change cartridge and none of the 3 work until you change the bullet ......

That was just the fussing about with three 06's , and a 308 . I'm about 60 days from a 7×6.8 ( 7 RWH ) , 7×57 , and 280 . 1 alloy and 3-4 bullets in 3 brand new barrels , 4 rifle powders and Unique . I'll try to keep better notes this time .

There was a USMC DI that said "Try stuff , if it works you learned something new , if it doesn't work your out $3 and you learned something new " .

 

[4and1]

Thanks all for the info. Brad, I tried a search for the "MP 30 sil" and found nothing. I assume this is a style of a cast bullet?
Fiver, I am very familiar with the jacketed high speed slower twist shooting, done it a long time. And yes, this is a swaging thing, casting just gets you started. Before I started shooting cast, I did a fair amount of rifle work for cast shooters. I learned what they were after and why, and I have tooling for that.
(that you are likely wholly unfamiliar with)......again, a baseless assumption. I have had my success so far by thinking outside the box from the usual that doesn't produce good results.
Joshua, when I speak of accuracy shooting, I start with a platform that will support it. My sport is benchrest, my guns are made to the standards that will do the job.
RB, I have tested many powders. I spent hours searching past match results for cast BR. I have tried every single powder others use, and none shot properly for me. The DI you speak of is correct, you never know until you try it.

I have my own method of chasing the tune of a rifle. You change one thing, you change a lot. I have found a range of velocity that my gun likes with my weight bullet, called a node. It gives me a good starting point to work from.

 

[L Ross]

Welcome 4and1. I look forward to learning from your experience. I do not shoot BR, however any and all techniques that promote accuracy are of interest to me.

You say you have "tried every single powder others use, and none shot properly for me." Does this mean you have discovered a powder that does work in the quest for repeatable 1/2 MOA groups? Care to enlighten us?

Because I do not compete I am fairly well pleased with 1.5 MOA from factory rifles and especially so with surplus Springfields. 1.5 MOA means to me that at any given distance, my bullet will hit within .75 MOA of where I held as the rifle discharged. I would find it quite pleasing to be able to attain true single MOA groups out to 500 yards with my cast bullets.

 

[Bret4207]

FWIW- Ian stated "1.5 MOA at 300 yards", not 1.5 MOA at 100. If 1.5 MOA at 300 isn't good enough, well, best of luck.

Also FWIW- Ditto What Josh said about arrogance and condescension. We seem to have a lot of that showing up here. Based on personal experience, best to point it out publicly rather than in a PM lest you get put in time out with no recourse to respond. Be nice if all of us would grow a bit more respectful of the opinions of others. It's not just here either.

 

[4and1]

I changed my mind for this post. I'm being accused of being arrogant, condescending and disrespectful of others. Never happened to me before. People here should look in a mirror before casting accusations. Have fun among yourselves, I'm out.

 

[S Mac]

I have been following this thread, I must say I have missed all the sarcasm and condescending supposedly taking place.(By the way I think the proper spelling is clique)

 

[Rick H]

I guess it is all in your point of view. Were you asking a question or establishing a platform to pontificate from? I guess we will never know. Lots of people took the time and tried to respond to you in helpful ways. Evidently you didn't think so. Weren't their experiences good enough for you to listen to?

It is a pity you decided not to grace us with your presence.

"Bye!"

Oh! Yes I am being sarcastic.