Possibly my best cast bullet group ever!

quicksylver

quicksylver

Well-Known Member
this is how much lube I use...this is a plain based 407 mod. Boy that's a big picture!
HKwdHG9.jpg
 
JWFilips

JWFilips

Well-Known Member
OK Guys,
I'm adding some photos today Of some groups I shot with my NOE 165 ( targets marked wrong @170) ranch dog bullets In my 340 Savage.
I figure this article would give some folks continuity with Similar groups I fired earlier. Today I decided to shoot the same load of 6.0 grain American Select however Instead of Ben's Red and BLL overcoat they were PC coated with Smoke's Clear powder coat and Were the Gas checked mould / without the gas checks. These were my best however I shot at least 50 rounds with very similar results. We did have some high winds from the right today but I tried to shoot between gusts. I also shot similar tests of the clear PC in my 223 Remington Sportsman 98 Restuts were promising but the wind was a problem for that rifle.
What I can say after my first time out with an accurate rifle shooting PC bullets is: No loss of accuracy...if not better accuracy.
I hate to have to say this but I'm impressed with PC
Jim
RDPCd-311-340.jpgRDPCd-310-340.jpg
 
oscarflytyer

oscarflytyer

Well-Known Member
JWFilips said:
Well the Mount was suggested by Lee Roy http://www.leeroysramblings.com
He has done a lot of work with 340's He machined a special mount he designed Unfortunately after checking with my good friend who is a machinist
he told me it has to be a labor of love since if he did it it would be costly. I have the plans
So I contacted Lee Roy to see if he may have an extra to purchase ( he doesn't make them!) but he told me that he has found you can use a a Commercial Base
This are his letters to me :

"I made that base before I found a commercial one that is very close to fitting & with little modifications. In all probability you will need to take it to a gunsmith for the drilling & tapping anyway(as these guns are not drilled & tapped), so suggest you have him acquire the Weaver #60A base, install it & make the modification at the same time. Have him look at my article showing the modification."


"I understand their dia is to match the barrel, however I just looked at the gun I put the Weaver base on and there is possibly .030 clearance between the top of the receiver and the center of the base. It bears on the outer edges rather good.
It would be hard to machine that down (not a lot to get a good grip on). It would be easier to mount it & then release agent the receiver, & Bondo or JB Weld to fill the gap."
Try it & see
LeeRoy

So I got the 60 A base and change the radius with JB weld But I had to seek out a machinist to D&T the from of my receiver for 3 - 6-48 screws ( yes it is only held on by these!)
He used the factory provided screws for the just the front hole ( at the barrel / receiver mating area) He used longer screws for the middle & rear holes.
I did not machine the extra clearance on the bottom of the mount as Lee Roy suggest ( & I have no problem ejecting cartridges)
This way the mount strength has not been compromised ! Now as an addition : Since I have a williams 340 Receiver sight base on it. I'm making a elevation arm that I can drill & tap for a rear screw ( that is if I feel I need more strength) but As of now I'm pretty satisfied the way it is. I do wish the mount was steel instead of aluminum but it is very strong and there is no flexure shooting light cast loads ( which is all I want it for)

fiver hit it on the head: With aperture receiver sights and a Lyman 17a Aperture front sight I was used to getting on average 3/4 inch groups at 50 yards after the work I did ( except the mounting of the scope) I got a few 3 in one holes and ten shot groups around 5/8 inch but they were far and few between. However the big question to myself was "Did I make it better?"
And with the guidance of the great folks here I have to say yes! Thanks go out to Ben and Ian.......but I have to say I gain a little bit of knowledge from all of you here at this great site!
The thing that is different about this place is when folks speak you can take that to the bank! The knowledge here is outstanding!
I would like to thank Brad for pulling us all together!
Jim
Click to expand...

JW - just stumbled on this! Recently got a 340 in 222 Rem. At some point, it had been built into what I believe is a poor man's benchrest rifle. Been bedded, extra screw in the rear, etc. But it still uses the original side mount for scope. Hate it. Also have read Leroy's Ramblings, but as your guy told you, a Labor of Love (and $). And I only have $200 in the gun! It DOES have a custom fancy feathered walnut stock on it tho! Real reason I bought it. Anyway. I am really interested in the scope mount. Your post means I will probably send the rifle to MY Machinist/gunsmith, and have the same mount put on as yours. Thanx for the info!
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2103.JPG
    IMG_2103.JPG
    137.7 KB · Views: 20
  • IMG_2106.JPG
    IMG_2106.JPG
    112.4 KB · Views: 19
  • IMG_2109.JPG
    IMG_2109.JPG
    128.9 KB · Views: 16
fiver

fiver

Well-Known Member
jezus Oscar that stock is worth more than 200$

good Job Jim.
looks like you got your technique straightened out.
 
oscarflytyer

oscarflytyer

Well-Known Member
fiver said:
jezus Oscar that stock is worth more than 200$
Click to expand...

Duh! Yep! LOL! I have wanted a 222 Rem for a LONG time, but I honestly bought this one purely for the wood alone! I LOVE beautiful wood! Really didn't even give the gun the once over I should have... And may still need to trim 1-2" off muzzle if it keyholes. AND the stock has been fully glass bedded. Only real ugly thing is the big fat flathead screw added to the back of the trigger guard - but my research says that is how the built them for BR.
 
fiver

fiver

Well-Known Member
yep they would add a spot to the tang area behind the trigger and pull the receiver down in tight when they bedded it.
this balanced out the band in the front and sometimes guy's would free float the band up there and kind of leave it in place so the rifle just looked stock.
 
oscarflytyer

oscarflytyer

Well-Known Member
fiver - yeah - but the honkin' big ass flathead screw they used on mine is butt ugly! BUT... IF it shoots like I HOPE it does, ugly is as ugly does.
 
Brad

Brad

Benevolent Overlord and site owner
Staff member
I suppose I better get busy and load some ammo.

Nice shooting Jim.
 
Ian

Ian

Notorious member
Jim, that's good stuff there. I forgot to mention when you were asking some Q's about PC yesterday that I tend to split the difference in sized diameter between what a rifle seems to prefer in a greased cast bullet, and a jacketed bullet. Most of my .30-caliber rifles seem to like PC at .309 to .310, depending entirely upon throat entrance diameter. If it's .310" or bigger, I size .310, but I have several rifles with .309" throats. Looks like your rifle might prefer the coated ones at .310" instead of .311, and that doesn't surprise me a bit. I wouldn't mess with removing the gas check shank for PC, in my experience bevel base and check shank bullets shoot better when stood up to bake on their bases. The little defects on the base edge from standing up on the foil have no effect if the sealing surface that exits the crown is a well-cast base band.
 
JWFilips

JWFilips

Well-Known Member
Ian said:
Jim, that's good stuff there. I forgot to mention when you were asking some Q's about PC yesterday that I tend to split the difference in sized diameter between what a rifle seems to prefer in a greased cast bullet, and a jacketed bullet. Most of my .30-caliber rifles seem to like PC at .309 to .310, depending entirely upon throat entrance diameter. If it's .310" or bigger, I size .310, but I have several rifles with .309" throats. Looks like your rifle might prefer the coated ones at .310" instead of .311, and that doesn't surprise me a bit. I wouldn't mess with removing the gas check shank for PC, in my experience bevel base and check shank bullets shoot better when stood up to bake on their bases. The little defects on the base edge from standing up on the foil have no effect if the sealing surface that exits the crown is a well-cast base band.
Click to expand...

Ian,
I must have been reading your mind otherwise I never would have chosen .310" sizing since this rifle likes .311 but something was telling me to run a batch at .310" now that they had PC coating on them...Hands down those were the winners of the day.

I did the same thing with my .223 bolt action...while those light bullets & light loads got blown around in the winds; I shot enough of them to tell me that the PC coating worked for that caliber too since I shot some bullets that I could never get to shoot right in it ....now I see small groups forming.
Looks I got lots of new things to experiment with this year.

Thanks to all you guys for the kind words. I like a challenge....like making a lowly Savage 340 30 WCF into a poor man's bench rest rifle....tackling this new PC thing ( which I swore I would never do) or trying to make worn out Mauser barrels shoot again with customized bullets.
It keeps life exciting
Jim
 
J

John

Active Member
I don't mind posting it here. The only work I have done is with IMR 4198 and 50 gr bullets. I got my best groups at 19 gr but did not run it through a chronograph.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.