New MP Blackout-design

Spindrift

Well-Known Member
The other day, I was browsing the MP-molds pages. I haven’t seen this one before, MP311-230, for the Blackout.
I have no Blackout myself (at least yet). But if I had, this bullet would be very appealing...
Might even work in a 1:10 ROT 30-06... Hmmmm
What do you think, guys?

45E5F66C-F612-493E-940C-2DF8D2BF1D3D.jpeg

 

Ian

Notorious member
Been waiting on that group buy to come to fruition for about four years now. At 10" ROT will stabilize it just fine, especially the HP version.
 

Ian

Notorious member
One thing that has worried me about that design from the outset is the center of gravity vs. the center of pressure. A gas-checked solid will likely be nose heavy and require more velocity to stabilize fully due to the mass missing from the back end at the gas check shank and lube groove. A plain-based hollow point would be far more stable.

[Now, somewhere in Illinois and Tennessee some people are screaming profanities at me and throwing things at their computer. However, I've battled this issue with several bullets before and am acutely aware of the potential issues.]
 

Will

Well-Known Member
I am on the list for a plum base hp mold. Supposed to get an invoice the first week of the year.
I’m hoping it will make a cheap subsonic bullet for my AR.
 

Elkins45

Active Member
My invoice came today so maybe in a couple of weeks I will finally see one. I was signed up for the first run that never happened several years ago and really didn’t have much hope it would ever happen. I’m hoping it will be a better performer than the NOE 247 because I’ve never gotten it to shoot to my satisfaction out of three different barrels.
 

CWLONGSHOT

Well-Known Member
One thing that has worried me about that design from the outset is the center of gravity vs. the center of pressure. A gas-checked solid will likely be nose heavy and require more velocity to stabilize fully due to the mass missing from the back end at the gas check shank and lube groove. A plain-based hollow point would be far more stable.

[Now, somewhere in Illinois and Tennessee some people are screaming profanities at me and throwing things at their computer. However, I've battled this issue with several bullets before and am acutely aware of the potential issues.]
This has been my exact assumption. Having bought two of this style bullet Mold and never gotten acceptable results from it. (Lee 230 and NOE 247)
I LOVE my BO but 180/190 is about the heaviest I have been able to get to shoot with acceptable accuracy. 165’s shoot almost as well as jacketed.
my bolt will do honest 1/2 moa with preferred jacketed and powder.
CW
 

Will

Well-Known Member
Got a notification that mine shipped today. I’m hoping this one works good. I’ve been wanting a cheap plinking bullet for the blackout.
 

Spindrift

Well-Known Member
I found it very difficult to choose wether to get the PB, or GC version. The PB version would be the logical choice for subsonic loads, maybe. But the GC- version would possibly offer a very good bullet for higher power loads at longer ranges.

In the end, I made the only responsible choice; I got both :)

The moulds are not broken in yet. But upon inspecting the culls from the break-in session, there were some obvious differences, other than the presence or absence of a GC shank. The PB bullets have a generous base band, that make them longer and heavier. The noses are identical. In my alloy, the GC bullet weighs 210grs, while the PB weighs 225grs.

I still have no BLK. So, these bullets will be shot in my trusted «308 blackchester» and 30-06 springout», with 1:10 ROT. We’ll see how it works out, I’ll keep you posted. It might be a while, as all the ranges around here are closed due to the pandemic.

Ps discount at MP-molds these days.
Pps hope you all stay healthy, guys. Best of luck!CC9E3CB1-474C-4AB4-A721-9455CBBACD9D.jpeg
 

Ian

Notorious member
That PB needs about 2mm milled off the top of the blocks. It's almost like he got the depths backwards or something, the GC is the right depth for a nice plain base and the PB has plenty of length for a nice, wide base band and a long enough check shank to have some scraping room in front of it.
 

Elkins45

Active Member
Initial testing in two different barrels has been disappointing. This is with the GC version with HiTek coating. I haven’t tried conventional lube yet.

My opinion, however should be taken with a large grain of salt because I have yet to achieve consistent satisfactory results with any bullet over 200 grains.

I wish I had just half of the time and money back I’ve wasted trying to find a heavy subsonic hunting load for the Blackout. AFAIK I’ve tried every 200+ HP mold made. Plus a solid one from Accurate that I designed myself and every 200+ offering in the NOE catalog. And a second barrel because I thought that might be the problem. I’ve changed lubes, alloys, coatings, sizes, you name it. I’ve done everything the successful people here have suggested and nothing has helped.

I‘m starting to think the problem may be me :)
 
Last edited:

Spindrift

Well-Known Member
Sorry to hear you’ve had no luck. It might be worthwile to try it with ordinary lube? That’s where I’ll start, anyway. Oh, and how about trying it in a .308, or .30-06 at higher power? That bullet might be a serious contender for a long range bullet.
 

Spindrift

Well-Known Member
The 30-06 Blackout project is moving along. The moulds cast some fine bullets now. First, I’ll try the PB, with my homemade lube, sized .310. For the first range trip, I plan to chrony a few loads, with different powders. Hodgdon universal, vihta N32c, Vectan prima V and Vectan Ba9. I also have imr PB, and Vectan A0.

If I get good tesults with the PB bullets at subsonic levels, I plan to take the GC version to higher power levels, to see if it could be a good long range bullet.

In the Schultz&Larsen rifle, I could load to jam length, and just keep within the magazine length. Looking forward to shoot these pencils!

6D89AAE6-9F62-49CE-BC82-DA7A625AEA5B.jpegCEB10370-8AF7-446D-AB80-3C097EE13051.jpeg
 

popper

Well-Known Member
Recognize that mould now, done for BO by a guy on another site. Wasp waisted to get around 223 mag problem. It doesn't work! Several tried it for a yr and gave up. Several have cut the BT from the heavy Lee and got resonable results.
 

Spindrift

Well-Known Member
The apparent «wasp waist» is only a trick of the light in the photos, the nose is a complex-taper nose, like an elongated MP-SIL.
I shot some chrony ladders yesterday with a few different powders and the PBbullet. I had some cull bullets from the break-in, that I used. I shot one group with cull bullets and 8,5grs Universal (1030fps). Shot from prone at 100m. As you can see, the holes are oval. The group is about 3 MOA. Neither impressive, nor hopeless. But now, I have some basic data so I can do accuracy testing with proper, flawless bullets and a few different powders :)
I wouldn’t mind a bit of yawing, if I can get them to group.
D7FF67E6-C7FC-4161-8049-7C72414CC82B.jpeg
 

Ian

Notorious member
I assume 10" rate of twist?

If that was the plain-based, hollow-point version you may be against a wall. Those bullets don't have a significant delta between center-of-pressure and center-of-pressure and the gas-check version with a solid nose will be the worst case scenario for balance while plain-based HPs will be the best.

Alloy type, bullet age, sizing info and throat size/shape from a chamber cast would be helpful to throw ideas at you. At least you're back to shooting!
 

Elkins45

Active Member
I finally solved my subsonic cast accuracy problem in my 300 Blackout. I swapped the upper for a 458 socom.

Seriously, I’m getting marginally acceptable groups from my SBR with the HP GC version using Hitek coating and somewhere around 9 grains of 2400 powder. I might consider hunting with it if I limited my shots to 50-75 yards. It still shoots better than the HP version of the NOE 247 does for me.