Good morning, Pete, Board;

It looks like we've taken over the thread.  I surely didn't intend to. As you have said, I would like to hear from others as well.

I don't think we are as much disagreeing on the hardness thing as exploring the limits of what is happening.  Soooo...  One of my favorite themes whether it is shooting or wood working or a heck of a lot of other things is that the old guys were a lot smarter than we give them credit for.  Their ways were different - not wrong - often with beautiful results.  Their ways were different, but not always best either.

The point I'm sneaking up on is this:  the old guys may have gotten great results (indeed many of them did), but their way is not the only way to do it.  To continue making the point, I need to tell a story.  I've told it before.  So if you've heard it, bear with me.

Many years ago I set out to find out what was most important for a .222 Rem in a very accurate heavy barreled rifle.  Of course it was with flavorless powder and funny yellow bullets.

One of the tests was to change both seating depth and powder charge.  As I remember, I came up with five different powder charges and five different seating depths (25 loads in all).  I plotted the results in a table with seating depth increasing vertically and powder charge increasing horizontally.  What I found was that each column had a best load, but that each column's best load was different from the others.

When I colored in each "best load", there an upside down "U" in the middle of the plot.  There were several different combinations that worked well.

I'm pretty sure that you will agree with me that the best way to find a good load is to start with a reasonable combination and change one continuous variable at the time.  A continuous variable is one that you can choose the amount of variation like seating depth or powder charge or in the case in point, bullet alloy.  When you don't get satisfaction, you can change a non-continuous variable like primer or wad or case...and start over.

The old guys believed that the hardness was so important that they used it as a continuous variable in working up a load.  So what did they find?  They found a load with an (what we consider now) an odd alloy.

Is there anything wrong with that approach?  Absolutely not!  I just don't believe it's necessary and I prefer to vary other components.  My philosophy is that a good load comes not from a particular component, but from a successful relationship between all of them.

Now, let's revisit slumping.  I think we agree that plastic deformation behind the bore riding section is a good thing.  That produces obturation.  You are much more concerned about slumping in front of the first driving band than I am.  I think we also agree that slumping is not bad.... the bugaboo is non uniform slumping that unbalances the bullet.

Your solution seems to be to make the bullet hard enough that it won't slump in front of the first band.  An excellent solution.  If the bullet is straight in the bore when the big white light comes on, it has to start straight down the bore - whatever its hardness.

I have recovered many bullets that show rifling marks on the bore riding section.  I know good shooters that want rifling marks ahead of the first band.  I have used similar loads.

Now, my point here:  If a bullet is crooked in the bore, its hardness doesn't matter.  It's not going to shoot well.  If a bullet is concentric with the bore it will slump uniformly and it will shoot well.  Again hardness doesn't matter.  Well, hardness does matter, but I think you and I feel differently about how MUCH it matters.  I concede that a soft bullet that is started crooked in the bore will slump more and give worse results than a hard one under the same conditions.

You Schuetzen shooters seat the bullet into the barrel to make sure it's aligned with the bore.  Silhouette shooters don't have that luxury, but proper bullet seating and alignment is just as important.

Come on, folks, chime in here.  You know what Pete and I think...  Feather, Froggie, Mr. Night Court....XX.... somebody.

Y'all be good.

horsefly

horsefly,

  Dang! I can't believe it! There's nothing you've presented that I can argue with.

  I think tho, that as you show, there are so many variables a person can try that it would be impossible to try them all in one lifetime. That's where I think you and I have a little difference of opinion as to how we go about achieving probably the same thing.

  whoops! I see a point I can jump on. 

  Slumping..... Your point is well taken that if a bullet enters the bore in a straight line it will slump uniformly. But, you are assuming that the bullet is perfect. I had a long discussion once on BP-L with a guy who stated very emphatically that there are no bullets that don't have a void in them. Him and Charlie Dell had sectioned many bullets to prove the point. So, what happens when this perfectly aligned bullet has a small void in the nose? It won't slump evenly.

  A lot of people like to use nose pour bullets because it is assumed.... correctly I think..... that as the Lead cools it does so from the bottom to the top, and from the sides to the middle. If any voids are to be found they will more than likely near the center in the nose. Base pour bullets would be just the opposite which could cause slumping to even tho the bullet is over groove size. But, that's another story.

  So, if a void in the nose is present, and you push the elastic limits of that bullet to the point that it's collapsing in the nose, there is no way it's going to collapse uniformly.

  Your thoughts? Anyone?

PETE

Pete and horsefly,

Boy, take a day off from the Forum and it's hard to catch up.   
I'm glad to see the discussion is still evolving.

We seem to be breaking down ito two distinct components.  One being bullet hardness and the other being lubricants.

Let me begin by saying that I don't advocate changing bullet hardness every time I have difficulty getting accuracy.  I recommended changing to the wheelweight and tin alloy because of the short bearing surface of the 317 grain bullet that Pete is trying to get shooting accurately.  The combination of light bullet weight and short bearing surface means that any bullet deformation will have a greater impact on the bullet's accuracy than if it were a heavy bullet with a long bearing surface (which most of us shoot).  The harder bullet is an attempt to minimize the amount of deformation.  Besides, I've already got enough pieces of leftover lead with different alloys and I don't want to have one for every different bullet that I shoot.

As for 1 in 20 and 1 in 30 tin/lead alloys being traditional, I have old catalogs from ammuntion manufacturers showing bullet alloys anywhere from pure lead to 1 in 10 tin/lead combinations.  They may even go beyond 1 in 10 but I haven't looked hard enough to find it.  In fact, they even show paper patch bullets loaded in cartridges with a 1 in 20 alloy as well as pure lead.  I don't know if the variations were to satisfy the requests of the purchasers or if those were the alloys that worked best in those particular cartridges.  Keep in mind that today we are using rifles with much faster twists and heavier bullets than were typical in the old days.  I suspect the ammunition manufacturers had a reason for doing what they did but unfortunately, we don't have access to their reasoning.

My example of nose slumping was what I consider an unusual situation.  A 38 caliber bullet weighing 395 grains is a very long, small diameter bullet.  The bullet is 1.450" long with 0.710" being nose length.  The nose diameter is 0.364" and well below the bore size.  It just wouldn't work with a soft alloy.  As for voids, I try to avoid them.

I'm sure I've missed some of the questions posed to me but I confuse easily.  Regarding the lube issue, I'm going to start a new thread on that topic.  Some members may have a lot of information to share but they may not be looking for a lighter chinken bullet in silhouette.  Maybe we can pick their brains if they see that the topic is about lubricants.  I'll see you all on that thread.

feather

Pete,
Seems like we agree - I would also prefer soft lube, because it eliminates the need of wiping between shots (especially hard in a Martini...).  And I also prefer oversize bullets of a hard alloy, basically on the premise that an oversize bullet doesn't need being bumped up, but can be squeezed down (and also because I'm cheap, right!  Those WW's are free...). I also prefer a tight borerider to align the bullet to the bore.  And good fouling management is the key to consistency.
Any way to kinda conserve this thread? While it has developed into something else, there's quite a bit of good information in here, and some food for thought...

feather,

  One question on your WW + 2% Tin. I guess I don't see the wasting of Tin like that since I've never had any problem casting ww's. In fact the 50/50 WW/PB I use in the 03 Springfield casts very well to.

  Bullet alloy

  I guess I should have qualified that 1-20 to 1-30 as being the range that most in Schuetzen have found to be best.

  I am definitely going to try a harder alloy for the "Chicken" bullet. We're gonna have to discuss the hard lube angel a bit more tho. 

  As for you not finding any references to going harder than 1-10, it's my understanding that adding more will not harden the bullet anymore and is a waste of Tin. It's suggested to start mixing in Antimony if something harder is wanted.

  References in old Sharps catalogs says they used 1-16 for their PP bullets. I've used everything from pure Monotype to pure Lead and got decent results using it in PP bullets. Back in the days before I knew much about PP'ing I used Lino exclusively as I had a lot of it (still do), and was never disappointed in it's accuracy. 

I agree about the lube issue. Glad you started the other thread. Threads tend to take on a life of their own after a while and the main topic can get lost, but I felt alloy and lube should be discussed here as they all contribute to what makes a good Chicken load..... as well as any other load for that matter.

PETE

Hi Pete,

The reason I waste a little tin on the wheelweight bullets is because it is my understanding (limited as it is) that the addition of tin will make the lead flow better into the mould.  I also think that tin adds a little toughness to the alloy.  Hard is good, but hard can also mean brittle.  I don't raelly know if the tin has that much effect on the alloy but in my mind it seems like a good idea.

I wasn't taking anyone to task on the traditional alloy point.  I just wanted to point oput that traditional is .....relative?

If you and horsefly decide to pick on me I'm going to take my mouse and go home.  Oh, I forgot, I am home.

feather

Good morning, Folks;

Well, there's no use letting a good argument die.  Just for the sake of stirring the pot, lets consider this.  Pete states that, "Lead being what it is can only handle an "X" amount each shot and won't scrape it {ed: the lube} all out."  And that his guns lose accuracy after about 15 shots.

I also clean my gun after each bank and I seldom fire more than 15 rounds per relay, but I have fired as many as 60 just seeing if I could get by with it.  I found no decrease in accuracy.  I did not fire over a chronograph so I don't have those records.

Many really good shooters shoot a whole match without cleaning.  There are very credible stories of guns shooting upwards of 100 rounds in competition (shared gun) without cleaning or losing accuracy.

Now, I don't doubt Pete's observations in the least.  I put out the two contrasting observations for the sake of discussion.  Something is going on in one situation that is not happening in the other.  What is it?

The only thing that comes to my mind is how well each bullet cleans the bore ahead of it.  I know... cleans might not be the right word, but let's use it anyway.  Good BP lube with a properly used blow tube lays down a layer of soap in the bore.  I wonder if a good soap layer prevents the built up lube that otherwise causes the "purge".

If you blow before cleaning, usually the patch will slide through with minimum effort so I don't think there is always a fouling build up.

Feather......  don't touch that mouse!!

Y'all be good.

horsefly

now. if i can just figure out how to apply the last 50 responses to which "lightweight" chicken bullet will work best, i'm in business!!!!! i'm not sure i know which weight it will be, but i darn well tell ya' i'll bet i know how hard it will be!!!! this has transformed into a whole new, very informative thread, but does anyone out there have anything "new " to add to the whole "lightweight" issue?????????? as for me personally. the last few weeks have proven that my 1:18 twist barreled .45/70 dosen't especially care fot something even as light as 430 grains. at least not nearly as much as the heavy [500+ grain} stuff. about 4" at 200 yards!! might as well shoot the more accurate 500 grainer.....2 3/4" at 200 yds.  agreed???????.....blue