ok guys, thinking of working up a new "chicken" load in my highwall 45-70, so i don't have to keep pouring 530-550 grain stuff unecessarily to the 200 meter distance. i'm figuring a little more economy of lead is in order here. anybody having much success with .45 cal.  diameter bullets in the 430 to 480 grain range??? who knows, might even pull acceptable duty on pigs at 300 meters????if so, which ones are you using??? could even push velocities to the 1200-1300 fps. range. i know they make moulds for these weight ranges, but don't have any feedback on who's using them and how successfully...at least as far as b.p.c.r. sillouette  shooting is concerned....any feedback on this would be greatly appreciated......many thanks....blue ???

thanks for the quick reply green frog. i may give that a try. what kind of accuracy were you realizing with that combo???? what kind of velocity???........ oh, b.t.w...great choice of action......blue

Blue,

I use a .405 grain flatpoint RCBS mould, that has had the gas check bored out, for chicken duty.  It came with another rifle (a light-barreled Browning 1885), and I decided to try it for chickens, and it shoots pretty well, even though I haven't done much load development...really just a case full (60 grains) of 2F Schuetzen and Federal 150M primers, and a .060 LDP wad.  Shoots pretty consistent 2" groups at 100 yds, and has accounted for 5/10 chickens a few times this season, when the shakes aren't too bad!  I also used this boolit to fireform a bunch of new brass, and it seemed to hold together on the pig swinger I was shooting at...would probably work fine out to there, at least, with a bit more work.

Greg

Blue

405 grs is about the lightest bullet that will perform well in a 45/70 with Black powder.  I shoot lighter ones sometimes but only with smokeless and even then you have  to use fast pistol powders to get complete ignition.   

There are lots of good stock mold 405's avalable

I would start with the standard goverment carbine bullet and loads from Wolf's book on Trapdoor loading.  Using his load and that bullet  I have shot my Cadet Trapdoor over the course to 1000 yards. I won't say it's the best for long range but considering recoil and the somewhat lighter Cadet rife it works OK.  Silouette is a mid range game and at 600 on paper it was fine.  Using Lymans Cast Bullet handbook tables I see the difference in drift with a 5 mph wind at 500yds 400gr vs 500 gr is 3/4 of one inch.

As long as you can get accucary with a 400 for BPCS I see no reason it would not do well for anything except Rams.

I shot High power Silouette for years and in a 7mm08 only used the 168 gr match bullets for Rams, all other critters I used a 139 gr boat tail.  No reason to get beat up with recoil unless the target requires it.

Boats

I am also working on a chicken load after talking with Steve Brooks at the Oregon State Sillouette match in Sept. I noticed he was shooting a lighter bullet (410 gr.) seated very deep in the case and I asked him what he was shooting. He was using a round nose bullet with a FILLER & about 45.0 gr. of 2f. Soooo since he just happened to have that mould with him I bought it but have not had the time to shoot it yet.
I also shoot 200yd. paper matches here in Ore. & cant wait to try this combo. I hope to hear more on this Lite Load from the rest of you!! 

Boats,

  Thanks for the reply. You have brought up some interesting points and maybe someone else can fill in some of the rest.

  I don't expect to give the top shooters around here the shakes, as I'll have to shoot from the sitting position. From what I hear the match people won't let you shoot on their range other than match days so the first match will have to be more getting sight settings. Computer programs can only take you so far and the farther out you have to shoot the less effective they are, other than to get you close. Since they are only holding three matches next year I don't think I'll give up Schuetzen any time soon! Just want to try it. Never met a shooting venue I didn't like.

  Having shot my share of offhand I feel a lighter bullet/load would be much more effective than using a heavier one for those chickens. In fact, if a guy could, I'd shoot them with my .32/40, and use the .40 for everything else. 

PETE

boats,

  My personal opinion on spotters is that they should be given the same prize as the shooter. Or, split it if it's a cash award. Seems I recall reading somewhere an article dealing with this subject. Possibly yours. Would you care to refresh my memory?

  My buddy and I have shot together for going on 40 yrs. or so and we're going to spot for each other. We both know what each other means when we call for sight adjustments. Otherwise I'd pass on shooting it altogether.

  I went up and observed one of the first matches held and I'll sure agree with you that most spotters don't seem to have a clue. I think I heard about the same thing as you mention. My favorite was "You missed that by about a foot", leaving the poor shooter to ask which side and then try to figure how many points that would be for the particular target they were shooting at. If he'd of pulled that on me we'd have had words!

  Been so long since I've shot .22 Shilouettes that I can't remember whether you are allowed a spotter. None of us used one if it was allowed. Well, you're one up on me.  I've only got the chicken and pig pins. Came awfully close a few times on the turkeys and rams but no cigar.

  Good idea about using cardboard boxes and painting targets on them. I just got tired of doing that for .22's so got a set of swingers that worked real well to.

  Well, since I didn't get any more responses for a chicken bullet/load I ordered the RCBS 40-300-CSA from BA this morning. It has the same nose shape as the 40-400-CS I have which is really accurate, so am hoping the 300 will be the same.

PETE

Pete

It might have been mine, it was a long time ago in BPCNews

The jist if it is the Spotter and shooter have to talk the same language.  MOA is whats universial.  If the spotter tells the shooter to " Add 2moa" The shooter needs to know how to do it right away without any errors.  You can't use different terms to mean the same thing  "bring it up 2mo" or increase 2 moa" or 2 moa higher" or put 2 minutes on the sight"  can cause confusion.

It's very milatary, orders, not discussions or request. Like the manual of arms or in my case helm commands on a boat  You don't have time for back and forth and don't need any mistakes.  Only one person should be in charge of the bullets strike. Thats the spotter. The guy behind the gun should only adjust sights and hold center.  When you get it down pat it's like a dance one leads one follows.

One thing that used to drive me crazy when running matches was the guy that was sighting in and working his way up or down the sight staff One MOA at a time.   If you see a 5 foot high strike on rams it's 12 MOA too high and you might as well take all 12 minutes off the sight at one time.

There are things that are hard to spot. A common one is the berm back a long way from the target and a high trajectory BP bullet skimming over the back but throwing dirt under the belly since the strike is so far behind the critter. All of that takes experence.

Boats

Pete

The flack was too regimented too strict they just want to have fun.  Well It's fun to shoot well and the truth of the matter is it's not a simple sport. Unless you apply yourself not many targets will fall.

Lack of berms is a problem but one that will be the same for all competitors. I bet someone who shoots a lot at that range has figured it out. On our club range we don't have berms behind the Turkeys, they share the same one with the Rams. you can see the bullet strike windage wise but it's difficult to tell the proper elevation. 

Watching the bullets flight is possable and a good thing. It's a whole lot easyier with a .45 than the smaller calibers.

The Spotting scope is going to be the key.  As long as the scope is up to standard and not too powerfull there is not much difference in how they will resolve a flying bullet.  77 or 80 mm and 20-27 x is the way to go with the 20 probably better.  A solid Tripod will make a big difference too. The big jump in resolution is a binocular set up. 

You see them at the big matches with the hot shots. I used one the other day that a friend had checked out of the Navy armory. It was a two Kowa 80 mm with 20x eyepieces.  They mount on a plate that has screw adjustments for width etc. It's amazing how well they resolve.

I bet  you do just fine

Boats

boats, and others:

I shoot the RCBS 300 gr in both my Browning 40/65 and my Shiloh 40/70 Straight.  I had a horrible time finding a good load for it, and I still don't have one that uses straight black powder.

In the 40/65 I use a duplex load of RL-7 and (of all things) Pyrodex P.  It shoots great!  I can't remember what prompted me to try this combination (probably desperation).  MV is around 1400 fps.

In the 40/70, a duplex load of RL-7 and Goex Fg is my best load with it, by far.  MV is 1450 fps.

These duplex loads are not allowed in Silhouette, but I use them for the offhand target at gong matches, where permitted.

Recoil is very noticeably lighter with this bullet.

Also, a comment regarding spotters.  I don't disagree with most of the comments, but it is a 2-way street.  Take a shooter who misses the ram to the left, and you tell him to put in 2 MOA right.  On the next shot he now misses 4 MOA left!!!!   What do you tell him?  Did he move the sights the wrong way (very possible) or is he unable to hold a group?   Trying to spot for a shooter who can't hold a group is just as frustrating as having a poor spotter.   

Similarly, when shooting, I don't like to be told, simply, which way to move my sight.  How does the spotter know what I did while I was shooting?   I much prefer the spotter to tell me WHERE my shot went, and then I can decide how much correction to put on.  Especially for silhouette, there are only 4 targets, at standardized distances, and it's not hard to memorize each target size in MOA.

Let's say I accidently pull a shot on the ram to the left, and I call it right off his tail.  The spotter doesn't know I did that.  If he tells me I missed the ram, 2" off his tail, then I know I'm OK and I'll probably leave my sights alone.  But if he tells me to "come 2 MOA right"  I'll have to ask for a clarification.

I think the important thing is to work all this this out with your spotter before the shooting starts.

As always I read the posts with much interest.  I thought I  would stick my neck out and reply to and area somewhat touched upon.  First let me say I am only interested in older style rifles, and their care and feeding with lead bullets.  I shoot much more blackpowder than I do smokeless, but my 32-40 loves the new stuff.  I live in Pa and enjoy the many shooting disciplines we have, of which there are many.  That being said, we have no regular Schutzen matches, in the regular type of format.  The BPCR matches are well attended, by others who also share an interest in singleshot rifles and lead bullets.  Still no Schutzen interest, when range facilities aren't near as demanding, and there is no metal target expense.  I have to ask myself, what is it, that does not attract shooters to a discipline that you would think they would have a great interest in?  When the state has many types of rifle matches, using what might be considered specialized equipment, that are attended.  The Schutzen rifles and the loading of them, I find fascinating, I guess I am dated.

hey 38-55, i've seen you shoot already and have witnessed your results. if you're dated, then i guess we should all be!! i agree with your assessment on the sillouette vs. schutzen game, there's a heck of a lot more opportunity to use these fine old weapons in the knock down steel game than the schutzen paper/ bench game. there certainly are some outstanding bench clubs here in central pa, just schutzen has not caught on yet. we may have to change that........blue

please, let us know!!! bath is certainly close enough. we'll try to do the same....blue

pete, there are some pretty fine benchrest clubs upto and including the 1000 yard stuff here in pennsylvania. just nobody has really grabbed the bull by the proverbial horns and gotten the ball rolling on the whole traditional schutzen end of things. you know, 'build it and they will come'. i'm certain the accuracy thing is not any issue whatsoever as the playing field will be level for everyone. if your sillouette rifle isn't cutting it. get a schutzen rifle in some traditional 32-40ish caliber and go for the sub minute of angle stuff. most true shooting afficinados need no excuses to buy a new rifle....just an excuse to use it. as far as the 2 clubs here in the state that do some schutzen shooting, it's not in the classic traditional schutzen match format....not etna green style anyway. we have the places to do it, just some people have to organize it and do it. i very much doubt it will replace sillouette shooting in popularity, as they are very well established and very well attended. you can actually get shut out of certain matches if you're not pre-registered. believe me, those guys may not be realizing 1/2 " M.O.A. in their sillouette rifles, but accuracy is paramount to most of them. there are actually enough shooters here in the east, that if we can get it to take a good hold, the available unertel , fecker, and targetspot scopes will start disappearing quickly, keep your fingers crossed.....blue

Amen, Glenn! 

One could deduce that every Schuetzen shooter at every match puts every shot in the 25 ring. An interesting article in the new Precision Shooting magazine comparing the great old-time Schuetzen shooters to great shooters in more modern offhand disciplines like Small Bore and comparing their targets to the Schuetzen target indicates that the best of the old-timers were as good but not necessarily better. Point is, a good shooter is a good shooter.

I would maintain that the level of accuracy to be competitive at either silhouette OR schuetzen is high and that a lot of the difference in who shoots either or both has to do with personality and attitude rather than the intrinsic shooting capability required for each.

I personally shoot more schuetzen for a couple of reasons, first and foremost is the more leisurely and sociable pace of the schuetzen game.  ASSRA was born from a growth in interest in getting together and shooting and discussing and swapping the single shot cartridge rifles that were inappropriate at Friendship but held interest for many of the same folks.  Second, I personally do not enjoy cleaning BP and all the extra effort I need to put into preparation and shooting of BP...this is strictly a personal bias and has nothing to do with the sport of BPCS, it's just me, but I would suspect some others feel this way as well.

If I have any complaint about the whole BPCS game, which I have dabbled with and watched from afar,  it is the artificial limits that have been placed on it as far as "legal" rifles (Borchardt no, Stevens 44 1/2 yes, for instance) and other of the arbitrary rules that to me at least have no purpose but to place some limit on otherwise suitable and historically relevant rifles and equipment.  Does ASSRA do the same thing with schuetzen?  You betcha!  How about the barrel length rule that seems to have been put into place specifically to exclude the T-C carbines, or allowing current custom race guns but excluding historically correct single shot schuetzen bolt action rifles?  Both sports reside in somewhat glassy houses!

I would be remiss in not saying that once I get to a BPCS match I totally enjoy hearing the big bangs, seeing and smelling the smoke, and hearing the clang as a distant ram or seeing the pirouette of a "tiny" chicken being hit.  (This is especially true on the rare occasions when I am actually the one hitting several of the ferrous beasts!!)  That doesn't make up totally for the extra prep time before and cleaning time after compared to my schuetzen participation, but I don't deny that they are a lot of fun and I do attend and join in with the BPCS crowd when time and resources permit.   

BTW, if you schuetzen guys think you are so hot as offhand shooters, fall by a silhouette range and try to clean a bank of chickens with your pet offhand rifle...I think you will find the experience humbling; and you silhouette shooters, I'm sure the actual scoring of the hits that you have come to expect will be revealing to you...that 25 ring is TINY at 200 yds!   

In summary, good shooting is good shooting and tastes differ as to what constitutes fun for a shooter, but these two single shot disciplines have much to recommend them and we all can enjoy both or either one individually as our personal inclinations dictate.  Let's just shoot more of something!

Longwindedly yours for more and better shooting,
the Green Frog

PS And I still like the 405 gr Lyman mould 457193 for an all around 45-70 bullet on steel or paper!   

Green Frog, very well said!

Ok, for what it may be worth, a lighter chicken bullet reply.  I shoot a 38-55 the most at Silhouette.  I am about as light as it gets using a 338 gr. bullet.  However I do have a 45-90 and I use a 545gr bullet.  The advantage to me of a lighter bullet would be either less recoil, or maybe economics.  The economic issue is not an item, or I would not be in this game.  As to the recoil, if it bothers me, swith to a 38-55.  Maybe others see some advantage to it, but I am not able to see where it gives me another target over using my standard load.  I find that I would be picking the fly dirt out of the pepper.

glenn, sounds like sage advice there. when your fingers are rested up, how about telling what that light .45 load is? trying a hoch 430 bullet in my rifle next, will see what results. would really like to try those 410 grain 'chicken' bullets of paul jones........seems like alot of people like that 405 bullet, but the 350 may have some merit...hmmmm. would really like to see some more buff-gun, sillouette weight bench matches. paper tells us just exactly what our match rifles are capable of. i'll bet 1 1/2" to 2" at 200 yards are within reach with even the 45-70.....NOT EASY, but doable. scopes would almost be required for that kind of accuracy to be achieved. 2 1/2" to 3" should be my personal benchmark, then try to whittle it down......may just improve our sillouette scores if we knew the exact limitations or cababilities of our buff guns. [i'm sure a number of you out there already do!].i'm assuming that the light chicken loads that have been suggested here are capable of 3"ish at 200 yards???........blue

glenn, i'll check on availability of bullets in the 350 to 410 grain range, then make my call accordingly.i suspect my best accuracy will be in the 400 grain stuff. i need all the accuracy i can get as those chickens are small at 200!!!!!!! i don't think finding a load in the 3" range should be TOO hard....we'll see.....thanks...blue

Pete,

Back to were we started.

Based on my 45/70 experence which is all Trapdoor there is no future in trying to make a bullet under 400 grs perform well with Black powder.  The Springfield Arsenal tried many years ago and settled on the 405 gr carbine bullet for good performance and low recoil in the Carbine and Cadet Rifle.

The ligher bullets can perform very well with light charges of fast pistol powder. But they don't develop the preassure to properly ignite anything but real fast powders. Black of course is very fast but if the case is not full it's not consistent in burn rate.

Ignititon is going to be your problem not bullet fit. No doubt you can get a light bullet mold to fit your chamber. But unless you go to some extream method like lots of fillers or strong crimps you won't get good performance with Black powder and a light bullet.

Boats

Asking strictly as a casual shooter both of BP and of silhouettes, I am curious to know of my friend HST and others of his ilk with far more experience at these than myself...is the most convincing evidence on the firing line that the flat point of the 457193 and others, which looks so familiar on the schuetzen line, is less effective on the chickens than a spire point or long round nose??  Having used this bullet to establish baseline accuracy in a couple of new barrels on .45-70s, I am more than a little baffled that it gets so little respect from the silhouette crowd.  Thanks in advance for satisfying my personal curiosity!   ???

Froggie

PS  Contrary to popular belief, an "ilk" is NOT an ugly relative of the deer and moose.   

I only once had a try at chickens, and that was last Trafalgar in Bisley, shooting at a paper silhouette of the darn poultry...  I used a 45-70 with a 526gr bullet.  That bird is VERY small out there indeed, and I only managed 2 hits out of 5.  Granted, part of the problem was the lack of feedback after the shot (paper target), so you just had to hope your sights were "on"...
BTW, the rifle used was a Greener GP converted to 45-70, with a rubber buttplate, weight around 11-12 lbs...  No recoil problem there!  Bottom line, if your proven LR load doesn't hurt you, just shoot it at the birds.  If it hurts you, you shouldn't be using it for the other animals either, because your performance will suffer.  Standing position is always less recoil-sensitive than prone.

Good morning, Board;

It's not fair.  Y'all started a really good thread while I was gone for a couple of weeks.  Now, I have to play catch up.

First to the light bullet thing.  I have used light bullets for chickens and pigs in both .45-70 and .40-65.  For the .45-70 I first tried the Lyman 325 (thereabouts).  With a full case of Goex 2Fg, I could not get good accuracy, but I did get excellent leading.  I then tried the same bullet with reduced charges (without wads) and got pretty good results, but it was sporatic.  It did best when I pointed the gun up and tapped the butt before each shot, but it still wasn't as consistent as I wanted.

Still following the same idea, I had mountain moulds make me a 408 grain bullet with the same length lube groove section as the SAECO 745 that I usually shoot.  Using a charge of Goex 2Fg that compressed about 0.125 inches, I got outstanding accuracy and reduced recoil both.  At the chickens it would group between two and three inches (off of sticks).

With this bullet at the pigs, I once hit 27 in a row and the 28th was my fault entirely.  The pigs fell over very well.

When Effie Bee tried shooting for a while, I built her a .40-65 and bought both the 300 and 400 grain RCBS moulds.  The idea was to let her learn on the 300 with reduced recoil.  I worked up a good load - something under two minutes - and let her shoot the entire match with it.

I didn't check the velocity of that load, but at the chickens, we got comments about how fast it must be going.  The arrival time was very quick.  This 300 gr bullet is said by some to have too little room for lube.  We shot it during cooler weather, but there was no leading at all with it.

To my surprise, every target she hit with it went down - including the rams.

When she decided not to shoot any longer, I just put the gun and load aside and didn't think anymore about it until recently.  Now, I am in the process of changing to a .40-65 for silhouette (different gun) and I am going to order a mountain molds mould in about a 300 gr bullet with larger lube grooves for chicken and pigs.  My specific reason for changing is to reduce recoil, reduce barrel weight for balance and use a lighter weight (and faster) bullet for chickens.

I like the lower recoil of the lighter bullets, but for chickens, I think the biggest advantage is not lighter recoil, but shorter barrel time.  Shorter barrel time leaves less time to wander around between trigger pull and bullet exit.

So, I've given a long winded answer to a simple question, but I think lighter bullets especially for the nearer targets make really good sense.

Y'all be good.

horsefly

Choken,

  Yes..... The problem of speed for the chicken bullet does present a problem. As you mention you have to get enuf MV to get the necessary accuracy. Here's the problem as I see it. What happens if the MV necessary is such that it negates any reduction in recoil?

  The old action-reaction thing raises it's head. A light bullet will have less recoil than a heavier one at the same MV, but if you raise the MV to far then you are back to square one and have the same recoil as the heavier bullet. If that happens then the argument can be raised...... why bother with a light bullet? Just use your full house load across the board.

Horsefly,

  I think the fact that you were able to find a bullet that would allow you to compress the powder charge is what made it so effective. As we all know when working up BP loads you start with zero compression and add either powder or wads to increase compression until suitable accuracy is obtained. Sounds like the bullet of yours was traveling at a good clip.

Glenn,

  You mention getting a bullet to travel fast enough to get to the Rams with as little vertical dispersion as possible. I didn't know vertical dispersion was dependent on speed? I've always been under the impression that consistency in MV was the key? As in low SD/ES's.

  But, you bring up something I've been trying to get on this thread from the beginning.

  I read in the Garbe/Venterino handbook where their load for a 400 gr. .40/65 amounts to 51 grs. of 2F...... I'm assuming Goex since Swiss wasn't available at the time it was written. This load has a MV of 1181 fps. Locally at least one shooter has had problems knocking the Rams over with a similar load, only using Swiss 1 1/2. He's told he needs more powder. 60 to 61 grs. if I recall right.

  Now I know that 59 grs. of Swiss 1 1/2 goes right at 1250 fps with a 417 gr. bullet, as that is the accuracy load in my gun. Using Winchester cases this amounts to .170" compression with a .060" Walters wad and with the bullet seated to just touch the lands.

  Ok! The question is..... Just what MV do I need to reliably knock over the Rams with a decent hit?

PETE

glenn, i ran a thread a few months ago about b.p c r accuracy and how much was necessary, and got some good response from it. on that thread i mentioned about working up separate loads for the different distances, [at least as far as chickens, pigs, and turkey/rams were concerned], and got responses back basically saying it was more trouble than it was worth. i'm still not convinced that it's not worth investigating. i think for me i'm going to break sillouette into two different load groups. chicken/ pigs, and turkey/rams. still relatively simple, but effective in principal. i'm thinking that 400 grain stuff should suffice for the first two easily, if accuracy permits, and a 500grain[ish] bullets for the billys and birds. even if i demands that i shoot goex for the first two and swiss for the other two. who knows??? i never minded the 430 grain stuff in the 40-65 so i guess i don't need to deviate too far from it on my lighter load .45 cal stuff. i'm glad i started this thread as there has been some awfully good info doled out and it's interesting to see the diversity of opinions shared by all of you. just goes too prove once again that there's more than one way to skin a cat......blue 8)

sorry glenn, can't be there...gotta' fly a top secret sortee that weekend.you can't help me with THAT one!!! our paths will cross though.....i'm sure. i'm also gonna' test out that 400-430 grain idea on rams, if accuracy permits....who knows???....thanks.....have some fun without me that weekend....the 'mysterious' blue 8)

First Shirt,

  I knew this head & Tail wind idea would come up.  I certainly agree with your thinking, but locally I find head or tail winds usually stay one way or the other and you can adjust your sights accordingly. I see your point if they would change back and forth at unpredictable moments. If the speed of either wind changes, as it normally does here, I would guess that it doesn't really matter what wgt. bullet you use if you're not on top of it you'll miss the Ram anyway since the bullet will be subsonic most of the way and most likely affected.

Blue,

  No idea is not worth trying if for no other reason than you put another nail in the coffin of the idea. With the chicken load idea it seems we have a split as to it's effectiveness so you & I should at least try the idea out in our guns to see what happens. All the good shooters will try any idea out they can think of. If it adds a Shilouette or two to their score it might make a difference in winning or losing. I know in Schuetzen it can come down many times to how many 25's you shoot that determines the winner. If it's still a tie then we use closest shot to the center as the tie breaker.

  Part of the reason for me trying out a lighter load is the fatique factor. The less fatique you experience as a match goes along the sharper you mind stays and the better your scores will be. It's why I use a lighter bullet and fixed ammo for those 100 shot offhand Schuetzen matches. I'm not good enuf to use the extra accuracy that breech seating would give me. I once shot 75 rds. of full house .50/90's in one day and I guarantee you that I didn't have any trouble sleeping that nite. I was REAL happy to fire off that last round! There are some that say they aren't affected by recoil. Not me! So if I can get acceptable accuracy with a reduced chicken load I'll use it, and if it increases my chicken count and causes less fatique, so much the better.

  I agree with you that a lot of good info is starting to come out in this thread.

Glenn,

  Good food for thought about different velocites, besides SD/ES's, making a difference in vertical spread. Hadn't thought of it that way. Will have to think on it a bit.

  I wish I knew more about Transonic velocities as I'm guessing that as our bullets pass thru that region they can be affected more than if they stayed supersonic all the way. Maybe this is the cause of vertical stringing even tho you have small SD's. Since the flight curve is downward at the time, and gravity affecting it also, I can see where some vertical dispersion would occur. I think as our bullets go from supersonic, to transonic, and then subsonic is why the idea of keeping the bullets subsonic all the way had such great appeal for a while. Also modern High Power shooters seem to want to keep their bullets supersonic all the way, even to 1000 yds. The Transonic region must do more to affect the bullets flight than we realise.

  I agree with your idea that a fast Ram load would be better than a slow one. Makes sense. I was assuming what the Garbe/Venterino handbook said would work, but locally this doesn't seem to be the excepted thinking, and is the reason why I wanted to get some input as to what you and others felt was exceptable. Actually a coupla of the local Shilouette shooters are on here and I wish they'd get in on this thread so I/we can learn why they think the way they do.

  My main thrust my whole shooting life, except once, has been to go with the most accurate load, but shooting Shilouette brings up the fact you also have to knock the target off the rail, which, I was thinking, might mean I would have to sacrifice some accuracy in order to do it. The exception was when I was shooting the NCOWS Buffalo match. In order to be able to shoot 25 rds. in under 10 minutes, you don't have time to blow tube or wipe out, so I had to adjust to a load that wasn't the most accurate.

  I do thank you for your response on this to. Nothing like sitting here wondering if the load you've worked up will do the job. Punching paper at 500 yds. is not like knocking over a 50 pd. Ram at 500 meters.

  You're saying a "heart" shot on the Ram is not especially good. Where would you suggest hitting them.... if possible.... for best results?

  And, yes. I know I'm gonna ring Rams. I can even see me ringing a chicken.  Altho that might get a little embarassing! Has anybody ever rung a chicken?

Greg,

  Thanks for making me feel good! When I do it I'll know of someone who beat me to it! 

  You need to do what we did after the first year of shooting the NCOWS Buffalo match I mentioned above.

  They set the targets in the dirt and you have to knock them over in order to have it count as a "kill". At the time they had three different sizes and the heaviest weighed at about 50 pds. The longest distance we shot them at was about 275 yds. No way of really knowing as they didn't know either, but that was where my sight setting said they should be.

  Well, my buddy and I were using .45/70's and altho we didn't have any "dingers" some of the farther ones out went over kind of slow. We decided the next year we were'nt gonna be caught in that situation again.

  So we put together a coupla .50/90's. Man! Does that ever slam them Shilouettes down.  After we got done shooting they turned the targets the other way. Something was said about the targets getting bent.  Not gonna make any claims it was our fault, but you never know!

  I did see one strange one like you had. Someone hit one of the heavy targets. The hind end reared up, hit the nose on the ground and came back down still standing. I have no idea how that could even happen.

  Just got done loading up some of those RCBS 40-300-CSA bullets with 59 to 62 grs. of 1F Goex and compression running from .050" to .170". If the weathers decent Monday will see what happens.

PETE

hi ho all,

first of all, i'd like to clear somethig up. the h,fly is a straight upward person.. he has NEVER dressed the truth.thats because you can't dress something you never said....

howsomever, he has dressed in a pink tu-tu now and again..

back in my sillhouette days i used a 45-110 for all the iron. used a 405gr bullet 25%lead and 75% lino. that alloy gave me plenty of 'hoop' strength to do the rams proud.. it allowed more energy to be transfered to the iron instead of generating heat and splat..

for a charge, 45gr to 70gr 2FF with the balance fillers seemed to get the job done with no pblms.. if a 405 seems a bit lite for rams, remember. the 40-65's seem to be taking over the game and they shoot a 400gr bullet with less 'hoop' strength than the 45's.

..ttfn..grampa..

Vic,

  I like some of your ideas, but tend to disagree with going subsonic all the way from the muzzle.

  Several years ago the rage in BP Shilouette was to do as you suggest because computer models showed this gave the best results. I disgreed with it then and have never seen anything to change my mind. Computer modeling can't take into account the myriad things that make each rifle an individual.

  A good example..... A lot of people believe that the lowest SD/ES's should give the best accuracy, and think it's something they're doing if they don't get it. What people forget is that what you get on the chronograph has no relation to where in the vibration cycle the barrel is when the bullet leaves the muzzle. Naturally you do need low SD/ES's, but, I've never seen where the lowest gave the best results. Maybe someday! 

  I have always believed that the most accurate load you can come up with for a given range or venue is the load to use, no matter what the MV. After all, it is the most accurate no matter what the computer models say it should be. Apparently this subsonic idea has pretty well fallen by the wayside as far as BP Shilouette goes. HAven't heard anything about it for a coupla years now. I don't know if it was ever an accepted idea in Schuetzen since most have always seemed to favor MV's in the 1300-1500 fps range.

  I don't know if this has been done..... be strange if it hasn't..... but someone should shoot thru light paper spaced every few yds. out to somewhere beyond the Transonic region. It would be real interesting to see where the greatest disturbance in the bullets flight occured. As the bullet left the muzzle and changed over from center of form to center of gravity, or as it passed thru the Transonic region. I'm betting on the changeover at the muzzle.

PETE

Thanks for the comments on the subsonic BPCR loads... I didn't know others had already experimented with that... I'm relatively new, 2 years into this and having too much fun.

So far I'm getting encouraging initial results, but I can't say if it is because of my MV, the particular bullet, loading techniques, a good barrel, etc.  I don't have a broad enough experience to compare.  We'll see.

I'd like to hear from anyone who has done some extensive testing on loads 1100 fps and under, and what was the best they could achieve, as well as any technical explanations. 

I agree, the best load to use is the most accurate one, period.  that is why I haven't focused on a particular "chicken" round, per se, or a schuetzen round, etc.  I shoot the same load for schuetzen and bpcr, and that is the most accurate load I have, and I'm trying to improve on that.

Vic

Martini,

  At our club we have 200 yd. matches for .22's and under reasonable conditions will do quite well. Checking the web site I see quite a few scores in the mid 240's with a high of 247. Favorite ammo seems to be the Federal 900 series. Sometime next year tho the guys will have to find something else to shoot.

Vic,

  Don't let me discourage you from trying your ideas out. In fact I encourage you to do so. You might find a new wrinkle that makes your ideas possible. Also your gun just might work with it.

Boats,

  What I'm mainly looking for are nice round groups in the 1 1/2 to 2 MOA area maximum. Preferably the former, and with a MV high enuf that if a Ram is well hit it "should" go down. I figure since there usually aren't any wind flags set out that I'll get plenty of horizontal so the rounder the better.

  Never thought of "mud" or "wind" holding one up.  Clamps sound like a neat idea to! Maybe I ought to break out the .50/90!? What happens if you hit one of those "clamped" Rams and it doesn't go down but all the rest fall off the rail? 

  At this point in time we don't have a place to do any test work beyond 200 yds. so that was why I was asking what you guys thought would be a decent MV to work from. Seems I have that with my 417 gr. load. So far the only time I tried it out at 200 yds. it put 15 rds. into a 3 5/16" group (widest shots) under breezy, cold, conditions. Tended to be a little more vertical than horizontal (2 3/4").

  I agree it's not possible to down any of the Shilouettes all the time, but if you don't have a load that can do it under reasonable conditions then you need to do some more work.

  I have read where you don't want to hit the Rams low. If I recall right it was mentioned an above center back shot was best, so it was kind of a surprise to hear hitting them in the rump was good. I can see the point of it tho because if the back end goes off the rail it'll pull the rest of the Ram over to.

  Shot the 300 gr., .40/65 gr. bullets today. Quite an education! As I mentioned I started out with 59 grs. of 1F Goex at .050" compression. Kind of a surprise that the MV was 1310 fps. Altho not what I'd call good accuracy it turned out to be the best load as far as group size went. SD/ES was 7.7/18.8. 61.0 grs. gave the best SD/ES's at 4.1/9.9 but the group was terrible. About 6"! Rest of the loads (60.0 & 62.0) were even worse. If past experience is any indicator it looks like I need more compression, so will work on that tomorrow. Maybe drop the powder charge a gr. or two so as to get into the 1250 fps range the gun seems to like.

PETE

Pete

For the Rams round is what you want and as small as possable. They are not very high and even if they are about 4 moa wide at that distance windage is a problem too. My lack of complete sucess on rams  (no 10 in a rows and very few 5's) with any silouette rifle is largely due to accucary, or lack of it. 

I would not give a thought to knockdown. Any accucary-sucessfull bullet in your .40 will have adequate power. With my .38 it's something I had to think about.  A short fat bullet in a .45 can have marginal energy at that range. too  The balistic coeficent on your .40 is a lot better for the same weight than a 45 and at ram range it's a big factor.

Having said all of that it's about impossable with a black powder single shot rifle to counter the lack of weight with velocity.  The potential gains in speed are not enough.

Boats

Pete 

I am a bad one to comment on various loads. I amost never test anything but I do pay a lot of attention to whats winning matches and the loads top shooters use. I think match conditions are the best possable test and most bench rest testing shoters go through is not adequate to get a true picture of a loads performance.  It takes long runs to find out what will stand up and what won't

Once I have something that works it takes a lot to get me to change it, if only because I keep carefull records of sight settings at different rifle ranges.  Anyway enough preaching from me not many people will agree anyway.

I have done some Cronograph work but truithfully I think it's not time well spent unless you have a problem that needs to be diagonosed. The crono will at best eliminate somthing to worry about. Since your Sd's are OK the accucary is not a ignition problem so I would not worry about the powder charge, primer etc. The screens are too close to the muzzle to realy find out whats going on at the target.

Neck pull is another matter and I think it's a real factor in obtaining good black powder loads. It's probably the hardest thing to get right too. A fine edge between enough and too much which will damage your carefully cast bullet.  The pretty standard bench rest methods on cases, temper, size, trim, expand, seat, and crimp are about all you can do about it.  Wow thats 7 things that can go wrong. No wonder we like breech seating.

One  thing I did when shooting a lot of fixed in my 38/55 or modern high power target rifles was to make long runs of loads in order to get consistency. I loaded 500 at a time and would not reload any untill all were empty going through the exact same routine with all cases.

I realy can't say about the 40's but it could be that 300 grain bullet will not stablize and you have to go to a longer one. I think you mentioned before a drawer full of molds and two or three you get good results from. Bet thats at the bottom of the group size.

Boats

Pete,

Lots of ground. I am not so sure we disagree on any of this.

On testing. I was thinking about most people, having seen so many guys at the range touting a new load they put 20 rounds or so through there pet shooter at 100 yards.  For BPC Silouette or Schuetzen take the load out to full match distance and run the same string as an actual match on paper and you have some indicaton of how it will stand up.  Even then you need to see what a couple of relays, cold morning or hot afternoon does to it.  Shoot the same load for a year and you know what it will do under conditons. 

I don't mean to knock testing it's a hobby in itself but I truly think most of it is either not adequate to tell anything meaningfull or required to shoot good scores.   

I put Cronos in the same category. No sense in running 14.5 grs of 4227 in a breech loaded 32/40 over any machine, or 41grs of Varget in a 7mm o8 or 18 grs of 4759 in a 38/55  5 grs of 231 in a .45 acp etc. Perhaps once to confirm velocity in your particular rifle or to work up to levels safely but thats about all thats required. Proven match results have worked the kinks out of standard loads.

Now if a person is looking for the magic load with some new or obscure powder thats another story, but again it's not required to shoot good scores in orginized matches. It's like the guys that are always looking for cheap rimfire ammo that will shoot as good as match. Fun but not productive and will cost them points in the long run.

As far as stabalizaton I guess I used the wrong word I can't spell it either.  I know the greenhill formula gives some indication of what will fly properly but in actual fact the very short bullets and very long bullets have trouble at times. Could be more bullet fit than anything else.  I had a lot of trouble with a 366 gr in my 45/70's at distance but they are very accurate for sub sonic gallery loads. Who knows why ? same story for 125 grs in my 32/40 it ought to be very stable but is purely a gallery load.

Well to finish it off. I truly believe in long runs of consistent ammo. It takes less time to clean, prime etc 500 at a time than it does to work it up in small lots. Changing and set up time etc. plus once you roll you figure out ways to become effecient. Old stuff can have problems but if it gets old I won't use it in a match either.

Boats

Hi Pete,

I finally got caught up reading this thread as you suggested and I would like to offer the following food for thought.

Your 417 grain bullet gives you good accuracy but your 313 grain bullet doesn't even though they are the same bullet configuration.  Your lighter bullet has less bearing surface than the heavier one.  With soft lead bullets, any deformation of the leading edge will reduce the bearing surface as the bullet travels down the barrel.  Perhaps your 313 grain bullet doesn't have enough bearing surface to to maintain accuracy down the barrel.

With a full case of powder and a lighter bullet, initial velocity must be faster than your 417 grain bullet.  Is it fast enough to distort the leading portion of the bullet as it enters the rifling?  Is the soft lead bullet skidding into the rifling?  Perhaps you need a harder alloy.

You failed to mention which primer you're using in this load.  If you aren't using pistol primers, you ought to try them with this load.  The light bullet and light or limited neck tension can cause the bullet to move forward by the simple process of primer ignition.  It creates a double clutch effect which doesn't enhance accuracy.

I'm not sure if 1F powder is an optimal choice or not.  Although it is the slowest burning powder of the choices, I recall reading an article by Mike Venturino in which several different black powder granulations were fired through a pressure gun to record chamber pressures.  Contrary to expectations, 1F powder produced the highest chamber pressures and the slowest velocities.  Mike wasn't able to explain why that was the result and indicated that more testing was needed.  The slower velocity would be beneficial in your case but you certainly don't need higher chamber pressures perhaps deforming the bullet.  You want it to obturate but not deform.

Finally, I can tell you what effect your 50-90 would have on a pig that was c-clamped to the rail.  I saw one hit in the back area with a 650 grain bullet from a 50-90.  The c-clamp holding the rear foot onto the rail was pushed off the rail and foot but the clamp on the front foot held and the pig swung rearward about 120 degrees.  Since the front clamp held and the animal didn't go down, it was considered a miss.

feather

Hi Pete,

I spent quite a bit of time yesterday evening composing a response to your post only to have the moderator tell me that it was too long when I submitted it.  I think you know that I can become long winded at times.  I was advised to shorten it but when I went back to do that, it was gone.  So, I’m composing this response offline and I will post it in several installments.  I’m not sure how long is too long a post, but here goes nothing.

Installment 1: Bullet Alloy

I suggested a harder alloy because of an experience I had in the past.  I was shooting some Remington 300 grain jacketed hollow-point bullets in one of my 45-70’s and they worked quite well out to 200 yards.  They did not have an exceptionally long bearing surface.  When I tried shooting a soft cast bullet with a comparable bearing surface, the groups were horrible at only 100 yards.  I came to the conclusion that the tougher material of the copper jacket allowed the bullets to engage the rifling with less deformation than the cast bullet.  I would suggest that you try an alloy that is between 11 and 13 bhn.  I know that hardness is not the same as toughness but hardness can resist distortion also.

When I was developing a load for my 38-50, I used soft alloys.  The bullet had a very long nose that was several thousandths smaller than the bore diameter.  With the soft alloys, the nose would slump upon ignition and accuracy was an occasional thing.  I started using bullets cast from an alloy of wheelweights and 2% tin.  It reduced the weight of the bullet from 395 grains to 391 grains but it became a very accurate bullet.

I’m afraid that I can’t offer an opinion on where the bulk of the bullet weight should be relative to the center of bullet form.  It’s a subject that I haven’t given a lot of thought.  It’s a topic that would be of greater interest to a mathematician or an engineer.  I would probably get a headache if I thought about it very long.  The topic is important, but only after the shooter has solved all the other accuracy mysteries like casting a perfect bullet, loading a perfect cartridge and consistently using champion caliber shooting techniques.

I suspect that might be enough for this installment.

feather

Hi again Pete,

Installment 3: Bullet Tension and Primers

I have tried numerous methods of applying tension to the bullet because I didn’t want the bullet falling out of the case when I handled the cartridges.  I’ve used taper crimps, roll crimps, full length resizing die crimps and even the factory crimp die that one company sells.  I think the company is Lee, but don’t hold me to that.  It’s on one of the shelves in my reloading room somewhere.  At the present time, I neck size all my cases and expand them with an expander plug that is 0.001” smaller that the diameter of my bullet.  This practice has given me the most consistent and most accurate tension.  It is extremely important that the case necks be completely clean to provide consistent bullet pull.  None of my rifles shoot well with a lot of bullet tension.  Little or none seems to work best.

When I first began shooting black powder cartridges in silhouette matches you were in the dark ages if you weren’t using magnum rifle primers.  They worked okay in my 45-70 but when I started working with the 38-50 I discovered that they were too potent for the smaller capacity case.  I started using standard large rifle primers and that eliminated a number of flyers.  One evening, I had some cases that I had pulled the bullets from and dumped the powder from and decided to fire the primers off rather than pulling them.  I went to the cellar and when I fired the first one, I saw a long shaft of flame come out the muzzle of the 34” barrel.  Naturally I wondered what other primers would look like under the same conditions.  I primed a bunch of cases with different primers and headed for the cellar.  All the rifle primers generated a similar shaft of flame at the muzzle but large pistol primers generated a shower of sparks such as you would see if you spark tested a power grinder against metal.  I felt the shower would ignite more powder at the rear of the case than the long shaft.  I’ve been using large pistol primers in all my loads ever since.

If you think about it, ammunition manufacturers had to develop new “hotter” primers when smokeless powder came into prominence because the old “weaker” black powder primers wouldn’t consistently ignite the smokeless powder.  Another consideration is that in a cap lock rifle, the flame from the cap has to pass through a very small hole and turn ninety degrees to light the powder charge behind the projectile.  How powerful or how massive does that flame have to be if it can do that?  I think it takes a lot less fire to ignite the powder column than many of us realize.  I don’t know if the compound used in pistol primers is different from that used in rifle primers or if the amount of compound is different.  I do know that they seem to work better for me.

feather

feather,

    Know what you mean about long posts. I've had to separate a few on here myself. Like you, I can get a little long winded as I try to explain a point that requires more than a yes or no. Sometimes I think I can hear people snoring!

Bullet Alloy

  This is interesting. Your idea of a WW plus 2% Tin alloy is something I don't believe I've seen mentioned in relation to Shilouette, and I know I've never seen it in relation to Schuetzen.

  I'm sure you're right about your conclusions as I've been a firm believer in adjusting the alloy for the MV in order not to exceed the elastic limits of the nose and cause the slumping you mention. I've just never thought of it in relation to what would happen with a shorter bullet. I'll be giving that idea a try.

  As for bullet wgt. in front or in back of center of form, I'm not an expert on this either. It's something that Dick Gunn will discuss with you at some length tho, and I think he's got some good points about it. Personally I just try to get the moulds I buy to work well. To follow the C of F idea you'd have to be ableto design your own bullets.... which is way beyond me. But, i am aware of the idea and resulting problems it can create. Your alloy idea tho might be an answer to the problem.

Volume & Compression

Been thinking that I should get some Starline brass and see how that works as I understand it has the smallest case volume. As I get it... from most to least volume it's Win., Rem., Federal, & Starline. Is that your understanding?

  I'll throw 2F & 3F powders strictly from the measure after it's set for the wgt. I want. I also check it every tenth throw to make sure things are ok. Powders like Goex have enuf fines and in the past have shown wgt. changes as you go down in the can. Swiss on the other hand has been pretty even from the top to the bottom. 1F is another story, and all charges get weighed. But even after dropping them thru a drop tube there is enuf variation in powder column hgt. that I have to make sure it's reasonably close before compressing. About .010" variation is best and anything more and I start to see unacceptable differences at the chronograph.

  Yes... I've run into this wgt. vs vol. thing with different lots of powder. The latest being Swiss 1 1/2. An old lot (bottle with no lot#) and a new lot with a lot # label showed a difference of 4 grs. between the old and the new for the same VOLUME. But, when I used the same WEIGHT, and didn't change any other setting on my dies (more compression), the MV's were the same, as were the SD/ES's and accuracy. Haven't figured that one out yet! I imagine tho that if the situation reverses with the next lot I will have to reduce the powder charge.

   I'm a great believer that a particular gun wants to be shot within a narrow MV range. Compression is important for maintaining a consistent flame front from shot to shot as it travels thru the powder charge. This also has a very short range that works well but doesn't seem to be as critical as the best MV. Actually it gets to be a balancing act to get both correct in order to get the best accuracy.

  Guess I better cut this one off to and start another message.

PETE

Hi Pete,

Perhaps I am going against accepted practice by using a hard lube.  However, what oracle decreed that only soft lubes could be used with black powder cartridges?  Let’s admit it, loading black powder cartridges after so many years of not doing it left all of us wondering where to begin.

Simplistic logic suggested that because there was fouling remaining in the barrel after each shot, we had to shoot a bullet with soft lube in order to deposit that lube in the barrel to keep the fouling soft enough to be removed by the next shot.  Since I’ve always wiped between shots, I’m not bound by that logic.  In reality, only the smallest amount of lubricant can be deposited in the barrel because the rearmost driving band of the bullet and any wads behind it will remove any surplus lube.

Is it the number of grease grooves and their depth that determines whether or not a bullet will run out of lubricant before it reaches the muzzle or the rotational velocity of the bullet?  There is a lot of linear and radial force working against the bullet at ignition.  I believe that a hard lube will have more of a tendency to stay put in the grooves of the bullet than a soft lube.  As I said in an earlier posting, it also helps prevent distortion of the driving bands because they can’t collapse into the grooves vacated by a soft lubricant.  I’m currently working with some hard lubes and black powder and initial results are promising but there is a lot more testing to do.  Remember, I’m the guy that shot paper patch bullets in silhouette matches when they said it couldn’t be done.  Either I’m simply too dumb to know any better or I’m an iconoclast.

feather

Good morning, Board;

I don't want to get in the middle of this good discussion except to question two things: (1) bullet hardness [temper], and (2) lube hardness with application to the bore.

(1).  Adjusting bullet hardness to the chamber pressure has become an article of faith to a lot of folks.  That's fine.  But to me, hardness is not nearly as important as consistency.  I shoot mostly 20-1 and 30-1 in black powder cartridges, but that's because it's traditional, it works and I don't have enough life left to try everything else.  Other hardnesses work, too.  Wheel weights work - easiest with a little tin to make them flow.

If adjusting the bullet hardness were so important, why do those funny looking yellow bullets shoot so well over such a large pressure and velocity range.  It's not the pressure of the load or hardness of the bullet.  The important thing is adjusting the load components so everything works together.

(2).  The lube reply really has two parts (I'm hung up on two parts today).  The first is how lube gets onto the bore.  I have seen everything from the lube grooves squeeze it out as the bullet slumps centrifugal force.  A .45-70 bullet spins in the neighborhood of 45,000 rpm - but only when it is well down the barrel.  When it starts, the rotational velocity is zero.  Rotation increases as the bullet accelerates so centrifugal force is not strong in the first part of the bullet travel in the bore.

Another idea I have seen is that minute variations in the bore cause the bullet to expand and contract slightly as the bullet travels and causes a "pumping" action.  This one I buy the least.

Now, to the point.  I believe lube is applied by simple inertia.  As the bullet accelerates at the rate of many many times the force of gravity, the lube is forced into the bottom of the grooves by its own inertia and tries to flow between the side of the bullet and the bore.

Harder lube would be less inclined to flow, but I have no idea at what point that would make a difference.  I believe that the soft BP lubes are effective not so much because they are soft, but are soft because of their composition.  A lot of folks adjust their lube formulas bacause they think one consistence works better in one kind of weather and so forth...  Again, I won't argue the point.  I just don't adjust mine.

The point was advanced that lube application to the bore was not important because the bullet base band and the following wad cleaned the bore.  I disagree.  If you place grease on a smooth surface and try to wipe it off with one swipe of a towel, you leave some of it behind.  In fact, you can work pretty hard to wipe grease up with only towels and it will be a long time before the surface is clean.

That lube film is important.  With conventional BP lubes, the remaining film is a fat.  The BP residue is alkaline (basic).  When you add moisture with a blow tube you get ...... ready for this?....... SOAP.

That is why BP lubes are made of organic fats instead of petroleum greases.

Of course, if you clean everything from the bore for each shot, the kind of lube is not as important.  If you clean everything from the bore.........

I apologise for running overly long, but I'm feeling much better now!

Y'all be good.

horsefly

Good morning, Pete;

You mentioned that these discussions are good at helping learn something.  One thing that I keep failing to learn is how careful I need to be to keep from sticking my foot in my mouth!  As I remember, I said that I didn't think one lead hardness per se was better than another.  As you point out with nose slumping, there are limits to the hardness thing.  If the bullet is soft enough that you get uneven slumping, then it is too soft.

But let's look at slumping for a minute.  It's not all bad.  Slumping is a plastic deformation caused by a conflict between the forces of acceleration on the base of the bullet and the inertia of the lead - the tendencey of the bullet to remain at rest.  Movement of the base of the bullet is resisted by the mass of the entire bullet.  Half the way up the bullet, its movement is resisted by only half its mass.  The point being that as you move from the base of the bullet toward the nose, the tendency to slump becomes less.  Slumping is most obvious just in front of the front driving band.  It is also what cases the base of the bullet to swell and seal the bore.

{NOTE: I don't intend to insult anyone's intelligence.  Most of the readers here know exactly what I'm talking about, but I always try to write this stuff so that folks less familiar with the ideas can also know where we're going, too.}

So, I maintain that slumping is not necessarily bad.  The bad part is UNEVEN slumping.  As you rightly point out, many moulds are too small on the "bore riding" section and can slump non-uniformly.  They don't shoot worth a hoot.

If the bore riding section is very near bore diameter, the non-uniformity will be much less and other things being equal those bullets should shoot better.  The "DD" bullet moulds designed by Dr. Mann (I think) and made by NEI have a small ring around the nose to center the bullet in the bore so the bullet will slump uniformly.

So, going the long way around, I agree with you the bullet needs either to be hard enough not to have the nose slump or the bullet needs to be good enough that it will slump uniformly.

I do still believe that a 19 to 1 bullet has every chance of shooting as well as a 23.5 to 1.  there is no magic mix.

The other thing I want to pick up is purging.  I am a barefooted pilgrim on this subject.  I don't know that I have ever seen it - that may be because I just don't look for it.

Your observations over the chronograph are very interesting.  The thing that really caught my attention was this statement: "This purging even happens when you wipe out between shots with BP, and when shooting smokeless."

As I read your description, one bullet establishes the condition and the next suffers from it.  If the bore is well wiped between the shots, how is there a lube buildup to bother the next bullet?  Beats the heck out of me and I look forward to the rest of the discussion.

Let me tell a story about visiting a bullet casting and reloading operation one time.  Their product was bulk pistol bullets and reloaded pistol cartridges with their own cast bullets.

As we got to the bullet seating station, I noticed that the bullets only had the lube grooves about half full.  That is each groove had some lube and some space.  I asked the fellow about these bullets and he told me that their bulk bullet sales always were lubed with the grooves full.  Otherwise, the customer thought there was something wrong.  HOWEVER, the bullets that they loaded were only half lubed because they "shoot better".

There is a lot to learn about this lube stuff.

Y'all be good.

horsefly

Is it possible that by leaving the front grease groove or grooves empty, the bullet shoots better because the bullet bumps up more, thereby filling the rifling better for a more uniform seal?
Keep on hav'n fun!

MikeT,

  I don't believe so. If your bullet is properly sized....  .001" to .002" over groove diam. ....... there shouldn't be any bump up involved. In fact, just the opposite. If the alloy is to soft and you leave lube out of the front groove, the groove is going to slump, and I think everybody agrees that ANY slumping that can't be completely controlled is not good.

  But, I dont want to rule out your idea entirely. The Lyman 457125 I mentioned up the thread a ways might prove your point. If I leave one groove empty accuracy improves over all groove filled. Leaving two grooves empty I get the best accuracy. If I leave three grooves empty accuracy goes down hill and is worse than having all grooves filled. Has a point been reached where slumping is occurring in the groove(s)? Should I go to a harder alloy and try it again?

PETE

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

feather,

  I'm not saying whether a soft, or hard bullet would be best for Shilouette. I just don't know.

  You bringing up that you think a bullet uses momentum rather than energy to knock down a Shilouette is interesting. I don't think I've seen that point suggested. Mostly it's suggested that dwell time on the target, and the energy that can be transferred in that amount of time dictates which is better. AND... there seems to be good arguments for both sides.

  The soft bullet side seems to be that more energy is transferred since it will stay on the target longer as it flattens out. The hard bullet advocates suggest that since no energy is wasted compressing the bullet there is more energy transferred to the target.

  The more I think on this the more confused I get as I can see merit in both sides. So, might just be a case of what works best in your gun, and it's a 50/50 toss-up as to which is better.

  On Pioneers and accuracy.

  It's not mentioned a whole lot but the Buffalo hunters did wipe their bores out after so many shots. Never have seen what would be an average but it appears all carried a wiping stick and canteen for the job. It purported that when they ran out of  that water they used a natural source.  Since most of the prime robes were taken during the Winter they would also put their rifles into a snow bank if it got to hot. It was thought, at the time, that a gun that got to hot lost it's accuracy. Possibly cooling the barrel down drew in enuf moisture to make a succeeding shot clean the hard fouling out.

  On the accuracy issue..... I don't know where they got their figures but one source said that it took an average of 4 + shots for each Buffalo killed. So much for the deadeye Buffalo hunters!

PETE