Arsenal 225- 45 RF

Spindrift

Well-Known Member
This is my first slick- sided mould. I’ve had it for a few months, but have only cast and shot a little with it yet- the mould is barely broken in. But time has come to find out what this little bullet can do, and I’ll post my experiences (for better or worse) in this thread.

First, a few notes and thoughts regarding the design. The bullets in the photo below are not sized yet.

38B13FCE-AA77-4F1E-88E4-3F97B91B4B3A.jpeg

52A8D5D6-6F34-42FE-B9A6-72719E865B0A.jpeg

As you can see from the technical drawing, a slick- sided, bevel- based bullet. I asked for a mould dropping .224 bullets. I wanted the option of sizing .225 or .226 after coating. If the bullet is quite over- sized in the first place, you might extrude a skirt at the base when sizing down. .224 works fine.

I wouldn’t have minded a slightly larger meplat and a more gently tapering nose. But I decided to get this mould, and see what I could get out of it.

To allow myself some speculation first, what are the pro’s and con’s of a slick- sided, bevel- based bullet?

Pros:
- the lack of grooves makes the bullets drop very easily from the mould
- there are very few sharp angles to fill out. You simply can’t make rounded driving bands on this one. Easier to make bullets in near- perfect static balance?
- the slick sides are extremely revealing to even minor imperfections that might otherwise escape your notice when culling
- the bevelled base provide a sort of refuge for metal, displaced during sizing or engraving

Cons:
- the lack of (displacement) grooves should increase stress on the base during engraving, and might increase risk of riveting in the throat/ barrel transition
- the bevelled base makes identification of bad bases more difficult (the trick is to identify the bad ones after cutting the sprue, before releasing the bullets from the mould)
- by choosing a slick, you loose the option of using conventional lubing techniques.

I hoped for a mould that would be very productive, with low cull rate, producing easily sorted/ inspected bullets that yet shot reasonably well with moderate loads- without decimating my alloy stash too much.

So far, I’ve shot a few groups with my CZ527 in .222 rem. This rifle has a slightly shortened barrel threaded for a suppressor, and is currently equipped with a 3-9x40 mil-dot scope.

I started quite low, and got some uninspirational 1,5-2 MOA groups. Yesterday, I decided to increase the load intensity a bit, to see what would happen.

The powder is the French Vectan Ba9, a short-grained single base extruded powder with listed burning speed similar to Unique. It meters beautifully. If you listen closely while shooting, it goes «bangue» on behalf of its French origin.

At 6,9 grs, I got about 1,5 MOA 5-shot groups. At 7,2grs (the hottest I’ve tried so far), the two groups tightened up nicely. I got one flier, as I (unwisely) tried to shoot through a bit of mirage (builds quickly with suppressed gun in cold weather). Looks like the bullet prefers to be pushed a little, and 1 MOA at 100m is quite achievable. Now, I have a rough idea of the preferances of this bullet. I also look forward to testing these in my .223.

Now, it’s time to fire up the pot and cast some more! Casting small .22 bullets in the winter cold can be a bit challenging.

3A905BFC-F163-415A-B1FF-7E8AA08A54AD.jpeg
 

fiver

Well-Known Member
that got me chuckling too.

you know Spin,,,, you've been paying attention.
that's a pretty good list of good/bad possibilities.

i'm kind of sorta on the fence about engagement and alloy moving.
not that the lands don't displace lead, they do.
but what exactly it's effects are, even if there is a trailing edge [which the slight bevel should help with]
stay with me here.
this is,, i think,, a large portion of why the slightly smaller diameters work better with the coated bullets.
it has as much to do with their success as the ease in which they enter the throat.
 

Spindrift

Well-Known Member
I’ve been mulling over the subject of grooveless moulds for a while, and decided it was time to get one, and just try it out! If this one turnes out successful, I have my sights on a NOE 30- cal with a Ranchdog-esque nose that’ll be making it’s way in my direction.
 

Glaciers

Alaska Land of the Midnight Sun
Well I’m hoping you will do a comparison of slick sided to conventional lubed bullets. Well as close as you can anyway. Slick and coated make since.
I’m hoping CW will do the same, actually I know CW will chime in on this subject when he gets the opportunity for comparison. I believe he has a 40 cal slick he’s starting to play with.
Obviously you’re not going to have a 45 grain slick and a 45 grain conventional to compare, but….
 

Spindrift

Well-Known Member
John, I have a fair selection of .22- cal moulds with more conventional profiles that I’m also using. I’ll post some comparative notes when I have more data!

I must say, the .222 rem is a joy!
Beautiful, well- proportioned cartridge that offer lots of fun and challenges, but depletes very little resources. All relevant components and tools easily, widely available. I love it!
 

CWLONGSHOT

Well-Known Member
Morning all,

Yes, I have a Arsenal 403-200 HTC mold and recently received a MP 358-165 rf NLG mold. Both slick sides.
I also have a Accurate 36-310W coming. (Also a slick sider)

My concern is obturation and with a lack of LG where can that lead go & whats it gonna do to preformance. These first two being "pistol" bullets maybe will not show any appreciable difference. But Ill bet that 310g 35 will!

Last year I was gifted use of a mold made by one of the members on that "other site". Actually a friend received the mold and to save trouble and postage he cast a sampling for both of us. One was a 180 and the other 200g. Standard bullet shape, plain base. I have only shot one loading and it was not impressive but need to try more loadings.

Same with some 30cals for use in a 300 bo. Or thats what I want to test them in. Four different bullets from 140-177g all slick side and powder coated.

Once warm weather returns.

CW
 
Last edited:

Ian

Notorious member
I'll add one to the "cons" list that I haven't proven myself (no PC-able slicks in my mould cabinet) but member Bama experienced with frustrating frequency at high velocity: Jacket fouling. Hard, miserable, accuracy-destroying PC bore fouling which was all but impossible to remove. Maybe it was lack of displacement grooves on the bearing surface, maybe it was something else unrelated? We don't know for sure, but watch for it.

I can also confirm that "slick" paper jacket cores do not work well at high velocity in the .270 Winchester or .30-'06. My guess is too much extrusion or engraving resistance going on and the bullet gets squished out of form somehow and isn't balanced in flight. If velocity is kept low, they do ok, but there's no point in paper jackets for 1500 fps loads.
 

fiver

Well-Known Member
the original paper jacketed bullets only had a hollow bump in the base to tuck the papers tail into.
i'm pointing this out because they were doing it differently than our modern high speed paper jacketed loads at 2700 fps.
they were sizing [well casting] to bore diameter and using the fast powder speed to slump everything into the grooves and tear the paper.

i'm kind of wandering my eyes over to slightly under sized coated bullets.
one of the jacketed swage dies i had made make 223 diameter bullets but only near the base and then they have a slight 224 diameter right at the base [think a ring at the bottom end]
PITA to load if your necks are freshly annealed, but the accuracy results are a step forward in everything i've shot them in.
i also have a 31 cal die that's tapered to 310 then it goes to almost 311 near the base.
it makes pretty darn good 30-30 bullets since they only use the 310 portion at the base also.

i don't have the stuff here to prove it but i'd really like to run a PC bullet in a 30 cal at 307
unfortunately i can't predict the core size necessary to do that.
paper would suggest 301, but how you gonna get 301-2-3-4 powder coat cores, and enough coat on them, to prove out the theory?
 

Jeff H

NW Ohio
That is a good-looking little bullet, and my cast-bullet 22 is a CZ 27 (1:14) as well. I'm happy with the two bullets I shoot out of it, GC'd and T"'d, but wouldn't mind pushing it past 1840 fps for a flatter-shooting load.

Two things I'm watching are the lack of grooves and the bevel base. No assertions here, and not even necessarily questions - just stuff that comes to mind when these two things come up.

My hypothesis regarding lube grooves (I like the "micro-bands") isn't as much about metal displacement related to preventing bullet deformation as having multiple narrower patches of contact area, which could more easily squish into the root of the lands - the corner between the bottom of the groove and the "wall" of the lands. I envision there being a better likelihood that multiples thereof may stand a better chance at sealing the bore. Say, if one band has a defect, or doesn't squish in to seal it up, maybe the one(s) before or after will. Total conjecture, of course. Most bullets I tumble-lube don't even get lube in the grooves, so I don't see the grooves holding tumble lube meaning anything significant in that way. I'm open to trying a "slick" bullet with PC OR even with TL.

The bevel base thing eludes me. I've shot bevel-based bullets with no problems and am not a bevel-base hater. I'm still trying to imagine them preserving the base for a more even radial dispersion of muzzle-pressure as it escapes when the bullet clears the muzzle. I can imagine that a perfect, flat base would hypothetically be ideal so that a little jet of gas didn't escape at some one point before the rest of the edge of the base clears the muzzle and pushing the bullet a bit in the opposite direction.

With a bevel base, the actual base seems moot with regard to escaping gas at the muzzle, because the leading edge of the bevel would clear the muzzle first, and if there were a chance to have a jet of gas push the bullet in a direction other than straight forward, THEN is when it will happen, so protecting the base from "finning," which causes irregularities on the base doesn't really solve that perceived problem. I've seen "finning" on most bevel-based bullets I've retrieved too and maybe those irregularities matter or maybe they don't.

Regardless, this little slick-sided bullet has my attention.
 

Spindrift

Well-Known Member
Thank you for your feedback and ideas, guys!

I cast some more bullets yesterday. Casting .22- bullets with ambient temp below freezing is a bit of a challenge. Add in a stiff breeze, and keeping adequate mould temp is nearly impossible. Actually, keeping adequate temp in the bullet caster is also an issue.

With a furious casting pace, and a bit of extra alloy heat, I got a little handful of good bullets in the end. And lots of rejects, showing signs of insufficient mould temp. At least, I have some more bullets on the shelf that will reach maturity in about 4 weeks.

Sorting and culling small .22- bullets is generally not my favourite task. But the process was actually quite quick with these bullets, due to the revealing nature of the slick sides.

Note to self: cast a bunch of these in the spring and summer!
 

Glaciers

Alaska Land of the Midnight Sun
I'll add one to the "cons" list that I haven't proven myself (no PC-able slicks in my mould cabinet) but member Bama experienced with frustrating frequency at high velocity: Jacket fouling. Hard, miserable, accuracy-destroying PC bore fouling which was all but impossible to remove. Maybe it was lack of displacement grooves on the bearing surface, maybe it was something else unrelated? We don't know for sure, but watch for it.

Going by memory here, but wasn’t the slick sided bullet originally designed with High Tech coatings in mind? The PC fouling you mention would seem a danger as size of an extra .001 or .002 thousands might create extra heat as the bullet travels the bore.
This “fit” problem could be a reality with a slick where it’s not with a standard LG bullet because of alloy displacement has a place to go?
Did Bama possibly have a problem with the cure of his bullets causing fouling?
HT coatings are thinner then PC, don’t know how they differ in chemical makeup, maybe reacting differently to pressure.
Does the advantage of PC and a softer alloy go away at higher velocity in a slick versus a standard LG?
Having relief for the alloy displacement in the form of LG allow for a less critical “fit”? Where with slicks and PC the fit and bore condition becomes critical?


That is a good-looking little bullet, and my cast-bullet 22 is a CZ 27 (1:14) as well. I'm happy with the two bullets I shoot out of it, GC'd and T"'d, but wouldn't mind pushing it past 1840 fps for a flatter-shooting load.

Two things I'm watching are the lack of grooves and the bevel base. No assertions here, and not even necessarily questions - just stuff that comes to mind when these two things come up.

My hypothesis regarding lube grooves (I like the "micro-bands") isn't as much about metal displacement related to preventing bullet deformation as having multiple narrower patches of contact area, which could more easily squish into the root of the lands - the corner between the bottom of the groove and the "wall" of the lands. I envision there being a better likelihood that multiples thereof may stand a better chance at sealing the bore. Say, if one band has a defect, or doesn't squish in to seal it up, maybe the one(s) before or after will. Total conjecture, of course. Most bullets I tumble-lube don't even get lube in the grooves, so I don't see the grooves holding tumble lube meaning anything significant in that way. I'm open to trying a "slick" bullet with PC OR even with TL.

Here’s yet another question in comparison of slick, standard LG, and micro bands when using PC. One thing I would certainly NOT want to experience is PC fouling. Would HT work better?

Do I like the idea of slick sided bullets because they look more jacketed normal? Fiver’s question about smaller diameter bullet with PC coatings is interesting. If I remember correctly Ian was using PC’ed bullets in a 223 and was having to have the bullet fit closer to the actual bore diameter rather then .002 to .003 over you might use with standard lubed bullets.
Ian raises a big, in my little mind, question about PC fouling which I want to avoid.
The advantages of PC are many depending on velocity desired and how hard of a alloy you want to use. To me being able to use a softer alloy at a higher velocity then with conventional lubes allowing for more controlled expansion in a wider range of velocities is the selling point for terminal performance of a lead bullet.
Other advantages of PC are less mess, faster assembly and other stuff, but, that’s convenience, not performance.
 

Jeff H

NW Ohio
...Ian raises a big, in my little mind, question about PC fouling which I want to avoid....
And THIS (actually your whole post) is the crux of my own questions.

Not poo-pooing the idea of slick bullets or PC, but curious about what is necessary to make them work to their potential - and I don't think we know for certain what their actual potential is. Maybe we're "there," and maybe there is a lot more benefit to come of it.

With regard to my and others' thoughts here, regarding "displacement," any jacketed bullet I've ever recovered had dark/black streaks along the engraving on the jacket, where the "copper" did not fully form to the terrain features of the bore - didn't get into the corners I'm talking about. I'm convinced (but open to correction) that any jacketed bullet I've ever fired has allowed significant amounts of gas to get by. An expected occurrence, as far as I have been concerned and never made an attempt to "correct it."

With PC, and slick bullets, will there be a similar phenomenon, and if so, does it matter as much on PC'd bullets as it does on "bare" lead alloy bullets? I don't know if copper deposits in bores are from gas cutting or smearing or what. I do (think) I know that it is a definite problem using lead alloy bullets, and that if I manage to seal more of the gas off, I get less leading in my bores - generally speaking, as I know other things come into play as well, but gas getting past the bullet has not been a good thing in any instance where I've allowed it to happen.

If gas does get by on a PC'd bullet, does it vaporize the PC and deposit on the bore? If that happens, what do we do to mitigate escaping gas, while using PC'd bullets? Do we do the same things as we do with lead alloy bullets? Do we use SOME of what we do to mitigate escaping gas past lead alloy bullets? Are we in for a whole new set of "rules?" I think some people have made good headway into discovering some things that work, but I'm not fully up to speed on what everyone else has done.

Just an odd note to throw out there; I've read over and over that PC'd bullets have less friction riding down the bore. They are a tad frustrating to pick up and handle, as they DO feel very slippery. I've even noticed that the natural angle of repose is lower when you pile them up. You can get a pile of lead alloy bullets to form about a 45 degree angle, but a pile of these really flattens out - just keep sliding.

YET, when I push these PC'd bullets through a sizer die, but especially when seating, they seem to offer significantly more resistance. Granted, they are larger before going through the sizer die, and not lubed. When they get seated into a case, they are the same size as the lead alloy bullets I normally seat, but they do offer significantly more resistance. That's neither a question nor an assertion, rather an observation based on VERY limited experience.

All that aside, that's a cool little bullet and I am intrigued enough that I want to know more. I have plans to run my current selection of (two) 22 bullets through my own 222, and have several hundred of each type PC'd and ready to go. Both of those bullets, however, have lube groves (both types) and gas check rebates, so I won't be experimenting with "slicks" personally any time too soon.
 
Last edited:

Jeff H

NW Ohio
Hey, another thought,...

I've never bought any bullet any more "premium" than some Nosler Partitions, and really didn't need those, so I am ignorant on this one, entirely.

I've seen pictures in magazines - that's the limit of my "experience" in this matter.

Some of the solid copper bullets I've seen are grooved, or "ribbed" (sounds wrong to say it that way). I assumed it was to reduce friction and allow for better conformity of the surface of the bullet to the grooves of the rifling, because there is no soft core to "give" and allow such deformation.

Does anyone know why they do t hat and if it may have anything for us to consider regarding slick, PC'd bullets?

Not to drag this too far off course, as I want to see hoe @Spindrift 's experiments proceed without too much interruption.
 

Ian

Notorious member
Not poo-pooing the idea of slick bullets or PC, but curious about what is necessary to make them work to their potential - and I don't think we know for certain what their actual potential is.

Nobody does for sure. This is the bleeding edge of the technology at the moment and pioneers such as Spindrift will be the ones to find out.

Copper jax are usually undersized a bit in actual practice and I believe most jacket fouling is from gas cutting before the bullet gets fully engraved and bumped. I think jacketed bullets do upset into the lands to a degree from pressure behind because of the instructions for Tubbs lapping bullets which insist on nearly full-power loads so the most contact area possible is made. Yes, they still leak, but not as bad after full pressure is achieved in 2-4 inches of bullet travel.

I can also tell you that a PC bullet which is sized just at groove size will gas-cut and fly sideways (literally) because of severe gas cutting before it has a chance to slug up. So, I always say make sure your PC bullet is at least a thousandth larger than groove diameter at the origin of the rifling to ensure it corks the gas up behind it as soon as possible.

PC rifle bullets don't need to be a full scuff/fit and ball-seat match to shoot well, so making them as fat as possible and filling all available throat space for support upon firing isn't really necessary for the group sizes that make me happy. Match accuracy may have different/ better fit requirements, don't know, haven't gotten there yet. The reason for making the bullet as small as possible but still seal is to reduce overall deformation and stress on the bullet as it engraves. The primer and unburned powder charge pop the bullet out of the neck and into the throat before the powder lights or the neck expands from gas pressure. The slick, relatively tough skin lets the bullet scoot into the throat and pinball-around as required to find the path of least resistance (center) with less damage than an uncoated bullet would receive. The slick coating reduces engraving resistance considerably, so alignment and engraving happens SOONER and with LESS PRESSURE than uncoated (evidenced by needing more powder for same velocity as uncoated). This dies good things for us.

Now, if you remove the grooves, and size .001" over groove, where is that lead going to go? The bullet will have to extrude lengthwise. Since there is no copper jacket to contain the form on the ends and keep the base square, where is your insurance that the bullet will extrude uniformly and maintain a balanced form? Only testing will answer these questions.
 

CZ93X62

Official forum enigma
Threads like this one are why I belong here. THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN.

No deep experience with powder-coated bullets here, but some time-in-grade with The All Copper Condor Cuddlers by Barnes. Calibers are 22 centerfire and rimfire, 24 CF, 26 CF, and 30 CF. In no caliber or case have Barnes TSX or TTSX been more accurate than their conventional "Counterparts" of similar length & diameter. Overall, grouping of these centerfire copper fraud sequences runs about 30% to 40% larger radial dispersion at 100 yards, and 40%-50% larger at 200 yards than that given by their jacketed lead-core counterparts. The rimfire experience is similar, 22 LR goes to 50 yards and is utterly inaccurate past that point, 22 WMR is OK at 75 yards (1.0"-1.3") but is falling apart accuracy-wise at 100 yards; this is from my CZ-455 Varmint that runs 1" groups at 100 yards with several ammo types.

In short, I despise the need to use non-toxic metals to hunt things that I'm going to kill anyway.
 

Ian

Notorious member
Does anyone know why they do t hat and if it may have anything for us to consider regarding slick, PC'd bullets?

Yes, absolutely. Barnes bullets were originally slicks and they fouled TERRIBLY. Frank Barnes figured out that displacement grooves were essential because the copper doesn't draw like a lead/antimony wire core does. Coatings are also used on some models to cope with copper fouling. Same thing should apply to PC monoliths, and I believe this is what Bama was experiencing with his high-velocity rifle bullets.

I just had an idea for a slick, bevel base or gas-checked PC bullet with a narrow HP pin going almost all the way to the base.
 

Jeff H

NW Ohio
....I just had an idea for a slick, bevel base or gas-checked PC bullet with a narrow HP pin going almost all the way to the base.

Reminds me of a particular copper bullet PMC made some time ago, at least in form....