I think this is a problem we all have at one time or another. Right now I'm having this problem with a Schoyen/Ballard in .32/40, so am wondering what you all do to solve this problem.

  The first problem could be me, and I'm not discounting that. But things were fairly decent today with a very slight wind from 9 o'clock and both the flyers I'll mention were out at 12. The SD's were pretty good and four of the five shots indicated the results should have been good.... which they were except for the flyer.

  The bullet I'm using is a 205 gr. cast, & bump swaged. First group was shot with 14.2 grs. of 4227. Four shots into .179" and the out flyer made it 15/16".  SD was 6.4. Second group was shot with 14.4 grs. of 4227. Four shots into 1/2" and the flyer made it 3/4". SD was 2.9.

  Maybe I'm picking at nits, but I think either one of these loads should have shot better, and would have if not for the flyer. So, I'd like to hear some comments on what you think I could do to bring those flyers into the group.

PETE

I think it`s because of the lube!!!! To much of it!!! try removing lube form one grease groove at a time and see what happens!!!!
I had a bullet mould made up with just 3 lube groove, NO FLIER ANYMORE!!!
I`ve also push this bullet at a high Vel. and had no leading problems!!!

Pete:
Maybe the wind did it. I accuse them nasty little wind gremlins sneaking between my wind flags for some of my flyers.  I am too lazy to put out more flags to catch them at it.

Pete Here is some stuff to think about.

1)  When you bump your bullets up are they lubed first?

2)  If you are casting and bumping your bullets there is no need for a witness mark if the base on your bump die is at a right angle to the long axis if the bullet and the die is concentric. The mark may be doing more harm than good.

3) Try using less lube, I am down to a .33 cal 213 gr. bullet with only 3 .040 lube grooves and still no leading.

4) try movenig your wing flags around to see if there is a condition that you are not reading. Often a change in wind direction will change where your flags should be. Like an up draft at a small rise in the range. Or just the way the wind filters through the trees.

Hope some of this helps.

40 Rod

Pete 
This is a definate possibility that the wind is moveing the bullet up as it travels over the burim. At Asheville the first 100 yards is at the shooters level and the last 100 in about 15' higher. I have seen windflags placed at the edge of the bank stand stright up when the wind is from 4:00 to 5:00.
40 Rod

Pete;
Whether or not it is lube purging or something else, it is pretty much demonstrated that "too much" lube CAN be detrimental. So, I agree with Jim and others who have suggested that. However, none has mentioned that it depends on what lube you are using. If you are using an "ordinary" lube (whatever that is) you made need every bit of it to avoid leading. However, if you are using a "good" lube (NRA's Alox/Beeswax comes to mind, just as an example) you may be better off by using less than a full bullet. This was even documented in pistols by E.H. Harrison's epic work when testing pistols and revolvers off a machine rest.

Therefore, it will be helpful when discussing this possible problem, to identify which lube you are using and what velocity range you are shooting at. Tom Gray, of the Cast Bullet Ass'n wrote the first words that I read on lube purging. He was using a lube (secret) of his own which he sells and is apparently very good (going by the record targets he shot and at high velocities). Of course, I believe that Tom only uses gas check bullets and shoots at relatively high velocities but the principles still apply.

FWIW
Dale53

MP,
 Hard saying what the commercial alox/beeswax actually contains anymore. Used to use Tamaracks A/B but they changed something in it a few years back and it wasn't the same stuff. Think the ywent from yellow beeswax to bleached. That's why I switched to Javelina. As far as I can tell it's the same as the original formula.

 But read/saw somewhere that Alox was bought out and they no longer sell 2138F, altho they say only the number has been changed. Apparently had to do with combining numbers so one product didn't have two numbers..... so they say. Used to be the smallest size you could get it in was 5 gallons. Not sure now what the minimum would be, but even that would be a little pricey if it turns out not to be the real McCoy. So will let someone else be the guinea pig.  

PETE

As Pete mentioned I gave it a try of not lubing the top band on my Hoch base pour bullet 25:1 for my 32/40. I am using Emmert's lube with a load of 14.2 of IMR 4227 with Rem 2 1/2 primers for a av. vel 1349.  I tried this on only one target but shot a 10 shot group of .7  . Want to try this more and in a clean barrel. I had shot several targets with all the lube grooves filled at first.
Bob

Pete:

I don't think I can buy into this lube purging thing, although I do beleive there is such a thing as too much lubrication. Too much lubrication is more a fault of very deep grease grooves which structurally effect the bullet allowing the bullet bases to slug up differently shot to shot. I have noticed that some combinations of powder, primer and lube cause a fouling condition to occur, this condition is a hard glass like substance in the throat area and will cause erratic muzzle velocities. Cleaning with JB Bore Paste will restore accuracy and consistant MV (with proper load). Recent testing has revealed that minimum lubrication will suffice to velocities over 1600fs (plain base bullets), throat fouling occuring before "leading".

Best Regards,

Pete;
Keep up the good work. I am really interested in this subject. I, specifically, am interested in the details. Discussions like this can prove extremely helpful to a lot of people struggling with various issues.


Dale53

Pete,

Sorry I haven't been on the forum more lately, I,ve been spending as much time as possible doing some ballistic testing while the good weather lasts (no snow).

The comments I made regarding minimum lubrication refer to the actual experience I have had during Jim Bortons tests here. Jim's 3 groove bullet showed no signs of leading and was actually spraying lube particles on my chrono screens 10ft from the muzzle. Jim did encounter fouling (not leading) at higher velocities which resulted in erratic MV's and enlargement of group sizes. As a result of Jim's tests I am of the current opinion that a 2 GG bullet will have a excellent chance of performing well. 

With respect to not filling all the GG's of bullets, while it may prove that lesser amounts will not cause "leading", I'm not sure that it will prove to add to the accuracy of that bullet, in otherwords a bullet made especially made for less lube would be structurally more sound. In the past when I was making bullet moulds, my designs where round bottom grease grooves, .030 wide x .012 deep for 32 cal with 5 GG's, this design is identical to Jim's 5 groove bullet. If I where to make moulds again, I beleive I'd reduce the depth of the GG's even more, to .005 perhaps and 2 or 3 GG's, ideally no grease grooves I think would be best. 8)

The MV's for Jims 32 Miller are very consistant in every way, single digit ES's and SD's., some of the best I've ever seen regardless whether cast bullet or jacketed. His uniformity is equally well at the downrange screens. 

More test work is needed to suggest any conclusive results, so far this year I've noticed some unexpected trends with cast bullets, but until I complete my testing I prefer to remain mute, lest I sound like a total moroon. ??? Its not that I have secrets, just want to make sure of the facts and not create new myths.

Regards,

  Ok! Here's what I came up with on the testing today. Was windy enuf to get the flags standing straight out at times so had to wait for the conditions, so the groups migth not really be indicative of what could have been done.

  Test gun, of course, was the .32/40 Schoyen-Ballard with a 1-16" twist. Bullet was a taper bump swaged Barnett clone weighing 205 grs. with 6 grease grooves. Powder charge was 14.2 grs. of 4227. SPG lube. Rem. 2 1/2 primers. Breech seated 1/32" ahead of the case which engraves the bullet about 1/3rd into the base band. Three alloys were tested..... 1-20, 1-25, & 1-30. Two 5 shot groups were fired with each alloy...... one group with 4 grooves filled with lube, and the other with all grooves filled. All groups measured center to center of widest shots. All shots were chronographed. After each group was fired the gun was cleaned and one fouler shot fired before starting the next group. Here's what I came up with.

1-20 with 4 grooves lubed. Group = 13/16"
MV = 1405.2
SD = 9.4
ES = 25.5

1-20 with all grooves lubed. Group = 5/8"
MV = 1403.2
SD = 5.4
ES = 12.8

1-25 with 4 grooves lubed. Group = 5/8"
MV = 1402.6
SD = 12.8
ES = 30-9

1-25 with all grooves lubed. Group = 3/4"
MV = 1407.9
SD = 5.7
ES = 14.3

1-30 with 4 grooves lubed. Group = 11/16"
MV = 1402.3
SD = 4.7
ES = 12.2

1-30 with  all grooves lubed. Group = 7/8"
MV = 1400.0
SD = 9.4
ES = 23.7

  Since this was a pretty small sample probably nothing conclusive can be taken other than the MV's were fairly steady thru-out the whole test, and the gun seems to like 1-25 best, which has been the case in all previous work.
  Not being a statistician maybe someone else can pull something else out of this. would like to hear about it if you do.

PETE

Dale53,

  If you knew me better, and as my friends will tell you, I'm never satisfied with what I get out of any rifle. Just gets to the point where I get tired of foolin' with it and move on to something else.

  You and the guy I bought the Schoyen from seem to think that what I get with it are ok, and he claims it's as good as he ever got from it. Well, I think it can do better! Thus the other question about "Another Powder".

  I'll agree, and I'm sure we'll hear the same from Brent, that more shots are really needed to gather enuf data to make an analysis meaningful. I think the data I put up pretty well proves that! But, things could be so close in any event that nothing can be proven other than either way would be ok.

  Tomorrow I want to settle the question of whether 1-25 is the best alloy, and then we'll see how it goes. Will you give me a little slack and say another 10 rds. of each would be enuf?? 

PETE

Brent;
I have read and do not disagree...

And it is STILL pretty dern good shootin'

Dale53

This is, indeed, a very interesting & informative thread. The discussion about sample sizes etc is similar to another discussion re set triggers vs accuracy that's happening now on Rick Shay's BPCR forum. Very interesting discussions about testing methods, sample sizes, trends, group sizes etc etc.

I ain't no statistician or even a good mathematician, I quit studying calculus after 5th semester Differential Equations at the State Cow & Chicken School. But I did absorb one or two things about some of it.

First, one group (or one of anything else, for that matter) isn't enough to predict anything. Even three of something isn't really enough data to reliably indicate much other than a (barely) possible trend.

Second, in my mind the trend is the important thing. If a trend can be identified and then quantified, future results can be reliably forecast. Sure, occasional aberrations will appear but then they can be ID'd as aberrations outside of the established trend line, and their relative importance can be better evaluated.

If we have only one or two samples of something, how can we know that these aren't anything more than chance aberrations instead of reliable repeatable data? Answer, we can't! That's why I don't carry around any 'braggin' groups' in my wallet, they don't mean nuthin without knowin' the (Paul Harvey) Rest Of The Story.

Reminds me of a very enthusiastic silhouette shooter of my acquaintance, who has been on the cusp of making Master for some time now but just can't seem to get over the hump. I believe it's because he chases his spotter, IOW he's using too small a sample from which to predict his trend. He will always correct his sighting to compensate for the previous shot, regardless of how it correlates to anything before that. He is assuming (there's that word again) that his previous shot was a perfect cartridge that was fired in a perfect manner under absolutely identical conditions and so naturally if he missed then his sighting needed adjustment.

Well, sometimes that just ain't so. Sometimes a single sample is indeed an aberration, and a second or third sample is needed to show the true direction of the trend. I believe my friend would do better in the long run if he would fire a second or even a third shot with the same sighting before deciding to change, instead of chasing his last shot all over the place. A lotta Highpower shooters have discovered this over the years, but my friend just can't resist anyway.

Same with accuracy testing. To assume a single sample is conclusive or even very indicative is often the grossest folly. Folks end up chasing their tails without ever establishing any sort of reliable repeatable trendable data, and they never are able to figure out what happened except that they KNOW they coulda woulda shoulda done better.

So I think we need to pay attention to Brent when he tells us how many samples we need.

JD,

  Found the thread on BPCR about set triggers interesting to. Guess I'm a believer in them for both bench and offhand, even tho the argument against them seems to revolve around their increased lock time due to the lag time it takes for all the parts to move.

  I agree that one or two samples of any load are not really indicative of much of anything. When developing a load I will run the same load over several different sessions in order to build up a confidence level for it until I'm satisfied I have what I want. Every load gets at least two chances to prove to me that it acceptable. I don't keep chasing a load if it can't show me in two groups that it will perform. As they say.... The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.  Those that are good will be kept in the test procedure over a period of days and used as base lines to test others against. Sometimes these base loads will be replaced by another. No load I take to a match will have less than about 10 different trials at the range, either in tests or practice. That's what I was doing today. Both 1-25 and 1-30 have shown that with 14.2 grs. of 4227 they will both shoot pretty good, so I'll keep shooting them till I can determine a winner.

  Had to laugh at your comment about chasing the previous shot around. We've got a few of them at the local club to. Even when I KNOW, after a coupla rounds, that I need to move my sights I will only move them half the distance. I've been caught out to lunch to often not to.

PETE

I can't shoot this well, few folks that I've seen can.
I'd be delighted. 
But...
If making marginal changes in alloy, charge, size etc. don't make substantial and visible changes in group size, then probably/maybe they are making no difference. 
If we can't make a decision based on the available data, then maybe/probably there's no decision to be made.
In this case, I would suggest changing something major, like the bullet or the powder. I can't think what else is major in the system.
I changed from 14.5/IMR4227 to 12/AA#9 in my 30/30 Martini bench gun, because I read reports in the Journal/News that others were using the powder with good results. 
It made a substantial difference, quick. Averages of five 5 shot 100 yard groups went from around 1" to around 3/4", and the odd flyers were reduced.
I just got a M54 Win. in 30/30, with about a 9/16" dia muzzle and a 37# (est.) trigger pull. With my 30/30 load of 12/AA#9, 2 1/2, 311299 Alox (and a GC for no particular reason, don't use em in the Martini), this gun shot 5 in 1.1", .625" and 1.225". The powder works for me. 
I think I've read that AA#9 and H108 are about the same, and very like WW296/H110. 
Another suggestion is that you measure groups with a plastic clear ruler graduated in 1/10". This was suggested to me by John Alexander, and I find that it is easy to measure groups in .025" increments- the difference between say .900", .925", .950" and 1.000" is easy to see-and I'm old and trifocular.
Perhaps a more precise measurement wouls show differences in group size more clearly.
For me, if I can average 3/4" over the long haul, that's all I'll ever want or need from a SS gun. Bench matches can be won with the smaller groups making up the average.
Maybe AA#9 would work for you.
joe b.

Pete;
I'll be interested in your grease-grooveless 22 bullets. I've got no-grease-groove molds in 30, 32 and 45, the 30 and 45 cut by Werner Wolf. They shoot fine with no leading, the 45 is the one I use the most, it's quite accurate out to 600 yards.
I wrote these up for the ASSRA News years ago, chrono measurements at zero and 200 yards showed BC's of the 45 bullet higher than I could believe. The whole point was to see if lack of grease grooves increased BC and reduced wind drift.
Good luck;
joe b.

I'm just about to give up on a Savage 12 BVSS in 223 and Eagan 65gr and NEI 80 GR bullets. I can shoot averages about 1 1/4"-slightly better with the Eagan, slightly worse with the NEI. I've fored over 3000 lead bullets, can't make it go. I've shot 2 sets of 15 Sierra 52 gr hpbtm averaging .6+ or so. 
I've used Darr and Liquid Alox on the NGG bullets. 
With the 45 (446 gr bullet)I've max. 
records of 1162fps (17 Unique), 1279fps (23.5/SR4759)-I settled on the Unique load. No leading, except with Black Powder-which leaded FIERCE. Only 3/8" of COW over the Black stopped the leading. 
In 30/30 14.5/IMR4227 or up to 12.5/AA#9 gave no leading The bullet weighs 208 gr or so.
In 300 Win Mag, 24/IMR4227 or 17/Unique didn't lead. I've got no velocity records on the .30 that I can find.
The .32 is not pretty, it looks like a tin can with a bump on the top. With (max.)14.5/IMR4227 in a 32/35 Maynard, it didn't/doesn't lead.  At 12.5/IMR4227, velocity was 1395fps avg.
I cast almost all bullets from WW.
I have no idea what the max velocity without leading is. BTW, John Alexander shot the smallest 100 yard 5 shot group at the CBA Nationals in 2003 with a .223, he can average in the .6's with his Savage/s.
Good luck;
joe b.

Pete,

I've been following this subject for the past few days, I am very encouarged to hear of Mr. Alexanders results with the .223's accuracy. I beleive there is great potential in working with the subcalibers (under 30). I'm currently running very comprehensive ballistic tests with various bullets, powders at 100 and 200 yards, some of these tests have involved velocities in excess of 1700fs with the 32 calibers, no leading has been observed, however, smokeless powder fouling has been seen with some powder and primer combinations. I will have more to write when my summer tests are completed. As far as the subcalibers are concerned, I beleive any leading/powder fouling may be less of a problem than anticipated. I reluctantly refrain from making any concrete statement at this time so as to not lead anyone astray, interesting things are in the offing.

joe b,

I beleive the 30-32's popularity are as you state, mild recoil, much background loading experience and shooting. Very good accuracy and BC's are obtainable with the correct bullet designs, better than 50% less wind drift at 200 yds. The exciting thing to the lead bullet experimenter and the subcalibers  is the challenge of working with them to squeeze out the best accuracy. As a barrelmaker and moldmaker (25yrs ago) accuracy with the 28 caliber was equal to larger calibers if the shooter carefully read conditions. Shooter ability has eveything to do with the results where they count, at the target.