311413
- Thread starter porthos
- Start date
fiver
Well-Known Member
which end do you want to start at?
the overly long gas check shank, the extruded lead into the lube grooves, the scraper type drive band at the front, the unsupported nose, the pointy tip on the end of the unsupported nose, or the too square lube groove walls?
the nose shape is the least of it's worries.
other than that it's wonderful.
the overly long gas check shank, the extruded lead into the lube grooves, the scraper type drive band at the front, the unsupported nose, the pointy tip on the end of the unsupported nose, or the too square lube groove walls?
the nose shape is the least of it's worries.
other than that it's wonderful.
Ian
Notorious member
It's a simple, two-diameter cylinder which doesn't fit any throat shape known to man. Lack of support in the right places during HV launch causes crooked starts which cause the thing to be unbalanced once it comes out of the barrel. Unbalanced bullets don't group well at HV.
If you're thinking it's the pointy nose "slumping", you've been reading too much speculation by those who don't understand dynamic fit.
If you're thinking it's the pointy nose "slumping", you've been reading too much speculation by those who don't understand dynamic fit.
RicinYakima
High Steppes of Eastern Washington
The back story is that it was Lyman's answer to the Belding and Mull and Modern Bond designs of the Miller-Squibb bullet. Those two guys from Long Island spent years working on the best 200 yard bullet for the 1903 Springfield. Since it only had to do 2 MOA, but feed 100% of the time, this is what they came up with for the design. Yes, I know, old time thinking (the scraper band was suppose to reduce bore fouling) and big lube grooves for lots of "Banana Lube" for their 15% antimony and 10% tin alloy. "Dynamic Fit" wasn't even thinkable. Still, if you can mechanically fit and align it to the throat, it isn't a bad subsonic plinker.
Ian
Notorious member
Same as today, some understood how to do it then and most did not.
Charles Graff
Moderator Emeritus
I have Lyman, Belding and Mull, Cramer and Modern Bond versions of this bullet. I read to much really old stuff for my own good.
RicinYakima
High Steppes of Eastern Washington
Well, they didn't get bent. Another common alloy was 18% antimony with no tin. Lots old stories of buying block antimony and pulverizing it with a hammer, grinding it and covering it with charcoal and trying to dissolve it with the lead on natural gas burners. The "common knowledge" then was that if you made the bullet hard enough, it would straighten out in the barrel. Plus they were not straight in the chambers either when fired. Remember that military shooters didn't require anything over 2 MOA, unlike the Schutzen crowd that was doing about one and a quarter MOA at 40 rods.
Bret4207
At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
If you can find copies of the old Rifleman and other periodicals of the day, the "Squibb" design was a common subject. Everything I have read boils down to a not real great design failing at higher speeds. It's a "bullety looking bullet" to quote one writer back then, but it's just not a great design. Fiver and Ian covered the problems.
The scary part is that the Squibb was a lot better than some others that came along back in the day!
The scary part is that the Squibb was a lot better than some others that came along back in the day!
fiver
Well-Known Member
a lot of them were fired in the armory [remember those?] to simulate 300 or 600 yard shots at much closer ranges.
they scaled the targets down to like the size of an Aspirin, and let the soldiers/guardsmen shoot.
you didn't need anything real fancy or fast you needed something that could be made and loaded on sight then chambered and fired by ham fisted conscripts.
they scaled the targets down to like the size of an Aspirin, and let the soldiers/guardsmen shoot.
you didn't need anything real fancy or fast you needed something that could be made and loaded on sight then chambered and fired by ham fisted conscripts.
Charles Graff
Moderator Emeritus
Cramer made a 150 grain version of the Squibb bullet for use in the short neck 300 Savage. I have one.
Charles Graff
Moderator Emeritus
Yes, 311414 - 150 GC with much the same nose but a short body for the 300 Savage case neck.
Last edited:
RBHarter
West Central AR
I have a Cramer 30 cal in that design and a Lyman in a 270 cal . I can't swear to it but I think probably the Herters 25-80 is also .
I've been tempted to cast the 270 in something like lino/WW and paper it to 7mm just to see if it's really a lousy design or just a bad naked bullet design . Of course I'm sure someone has probably done that with 12 alloys , 9 powders , and 3-4 papers . I might try the 25-80 that way too but in a 264 WM that might be hard to get anything useful whether or not it's any good that way or not . I have a couple of more sedate cartridges in 7mm .
I've been tempted to cast the 270 in something like lino/WW and paper it to 7mm just to see if it's really a lousy design or just a bad naked bullet design . Of course I'm sure someone has probably done that with 12 alloys , 9 powders , and 3-4 papers . I might try the 25-80 that way too but in a 264 WM that might be hard to get anything useful whether or not it's any good that way or not . I have a couple of more sedate cartridges in 7mm .