Being cheap, and sceptical I wasn't sure that the pressure on a bullet mould made much of a difference.

Well I caved and ordered a Cabine Tree Locking Mould holder last week.
I figured I couldn't loose because of  the warranty:
Warranty: If you are not happy with anything you buy from us, return it for a full refund or give us a chance to fix it, your choice.  If you have ANY kind of a problem with something from us, we WANT to know about it, no matter how small a problem.  We want to improve our products and all feed back is important.

So I got it this monday and tried it twice this week.

What a big difference in consistenty of  bullets weights.  I guess it does make a difference in  how the mould is held.

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

KAF;
I am happy that you found the Cabine Locking Handle worthwhile. I now use mine for all of my precision bullets. Jim Borton "sicked me" on the Locking Mould Handle and I am a believer.

Dale53

whiskeyralph wrote on Sep 29^th, 2007 at 11:50am:


I am a pretty intelligent and capable guy but have never been consistently able to get results that close. This is with much experimentation and with a number of moulds. Only with two moulds have I been able to get results that close, one a 6.5 mm and the other a .32. I have used the timer method as well as simply counting and found the two methods about equal. Until I am able to prove otherwise to myself I consider bullet weight consistency to as much about the individual mould itself as any other factor.
The most consistent results I have obtained were with a particular custom .32-40 mould. That casting session produced appr. 300 bullets, all but the first few of which were with .3 gr total spread. Of note is that the mould used happened to be one of the most cantankerous to find the ideal casting temp. for of any I have used.

Joe using a Jones Mould with the cabintree handles I cast 10 bullets and then start to save them. The first 15 to 20 raise in weight  about .5 grain then the rest will be with in .2 grains for the rest of the run.

40 Rod

40_Rod wrote on Sep 30^th, 2007 at 9:13am:

I inspect each bullet under a 4X lighted magnifier, then weigh them. I can cast a lot of bullets ~110 with a standard deviation of ~.12 grains. Attached is a workbook showing the results for 15,300 odd bullets. 
I would be amazed that anyone could cast 100 bullets after recycling the startups and inspecting them, that varied +/- .2 grains. It ain't impossible, but I'd be amazed. How about trying it and telling us the results?
joe b.

After thrashing this about on the CBA site, the general agreement is that small variations in bullet weight do not affect accuracy. Nobody has presented any data to the contrary. Now, what's a small variation? As I said above, I can cast bullets with S.D. of .12 or so, often better. For instance, on 6/24/07 314299, NO DOT, SOFT (1 cavity of a 2 cavity mold-the weights differ)
204.7 1
204.8 9
204.9 56
205.0 18
205.1 7
205.2 2
The standard deviation was .087 grains. The 9 + 56 + 18 = 83 were saved as "match" bullets. The other 10 were kept as "foulers". Thus, even with a S.D. of .087 grains, the "match" bullets were +/-.15 grain, and this is close enough for anyone.

So, with this kind of clustering (write that down, J0oe) in cast bullets, and knowing that small weight variations do not affect accuracy, even if the cited implement reduced S.D.s, and I'm far from sure that it does, where's the benefit? 

I do not understand how you guys shoot well without weighing those cast bullets, but the reports are scanty.
Now, go right ahead and buy the Cabin Tree  Locking Mold Holder, it gives you more equipment-always a plus-and something to talk about. And maybe, somebody will keep some records to prove its effectiveness.
joe brennan

in cast bullets, and knowing that small weight variations do not affect accuracy, even if the cited implement reduced S.D.s, and I'm far from sure that it does, where's the benefit? 

Any one thing may not make that much of a difference (selecting exact powder/primer combos, weighing charges, weighing cases, indexing cases, indexing bullets, checking runout.........) but together they make a great difference.  Why would one think that small bullet weight difference would not?  Is it not one more piece of the puzzle?

Joe, I challenge you to name me even one champion shooter who doesn't follow at least one of these culling processes you've named. According to your argument, a superior shooter who didn't cull to this degree would, by virtue of his superior shooting ability, be able to handily defeat anyone who did cull obsessively, simply because the culling (supposedly) didn't add any accuracy.

I very politely call that argument "horsefeathers".

I do readily agree, however, that at a certain level of (in)accuracy, any small variations would be lost in the general spray.

Somehow I don't believe you'll shoot any 250s without culling to a fairly rigid standard but if you do, please let us know.
Good luck, Joe

I guess I usually try to do everything to make the shooting more accurate if I find it makes a difference and usually even if it does not. After all it is difficult to get too consistent. I just find it odd that on a  couple of occasions I have lent my practice bullets to a fellow compeitor only to have him beat me with them.

Have any of you tried bullet swaging?  Lord only knows how many tons of lead I've cast, but I never did any swaging. However, I think I am about to try it.  I sure would appreciate any advice or recommendations any of you might have who know about it.  Corbin seems to have the name on equipment and I have talked to Dave Corbin about what I will need to get started.  Is there any other maker I should contact?

The late Charlie Dell was a firm believer in swaging his cast bullets.  He would first cast, then lube his bullets, then he would make them ready to shoot by swaging them in a set of dies he made for himself and mounted in an old RCBS Rockchucker, IIRC.  People have accused him of being a poor bullet caster, but whatever the reason, his best efforts in both offhand and especially his rail gun experiments came from bullets that had gotten the full treatment.  I sure do miss having him around to talk to and discuss shooting concerns. 

Froggie

hi ho john boy,

your 4 senarios bring to mind a question..  how can one expect to have consistant weight with changing conditions???

the locking handles remome one variable condition, that is weight variation caused by inconsistant grip..

some molds have little to no pblm.  some  very much need the handles. depends on the 'spingyness' of the blocks

any howsomever, the handles will not help your 4 senarios. they are a horse of another colour..

..ttfn..grampa..

john,


think one big advantage they have is, less fatige. aloowing longer casting sessions.

think one of the biggest causes of bullet inconsistancy is, waiting for the bullet to firm up. holding the mold closed during hardening is tuff to do after a couple hrs of casting. any little relaxing of the pressure 'mite' cause a very slight increase in dia or wt or both.

the handles do reduce the chances of one more variable.. and when you shoot for money, that means a lot..

tt.g

Quote:


The bullet weight doesn't change with changes in ambient, mold or pot temperature. The bullet SD doesn't change either, or with the alloy.
I don't know about bottom pour, but believe that weight and SD will be the same.
I don't know what you mean by " ......bell curve range of 1-2 grains...never had a batch that were within 0.5 gr."
If you visually inspect bullets before weighing-setting "bad" bullets aside;
Then weigh the bullets;
You will find now and then one or two bullets that are WAY low or high in a lot, in weight.
I discard these.
The rest of the lot will weigh +/- .5 grain of the average, at least MOST of them will-this has something to do with your lot size. I cast ~100 good bullets per cavity at a session, maybe a few more. I RARELY get a bullet .5 grain or more from the mean. The SD averages .151 for the last 15,000 bullets, including experiments and failures. I can hold a SD of ~.12, so can you. If you cast a zillion bullets at a time, the chances of an outlier are greater.
I believe that anyone can cast bullets that weigh +/- .5 grain, and that with attention and experience anyone can cast bullets that weigh +/-.3 grain-except for the OCCASIONAL unexplained outlier. 
I haven't heard any comparison here of the results, bullet weights, of lots cast with and without this device.
joe b.

FEB

Thanks for your suggestion that I read Brent Danielson's pages about paper patching bullets and swaging.  I had previosly done that awhile ago before becoming an ASSRA member and had forgotten how good a job he did explaining it.  It is an excellent overview of the process and I found it very informative and useful. I additionally found it to be written in a "conversational" manner, very readable, and almost as if he were talking to me about it.  It's unfortunate he doesn't use that particular technique more often as I believe he would be a much more effective communicator and people would accept his positions more readily if he did. 

I am going to follow his advice and use the short nose and shouldered bullet and try paper patching and swaging.  This ought to be an interesting new area for experimentation. Paper patching will be a much more traditional approach as well and I am trying to go in that direction every opportunity I get.  I gave up magazine rifles about 20 years ago for hunting and have been retrogressing since then.  Or as Brent says, maybe I am just catching up with the 19th century before the calandar rolls over to the 21st.


Thanks for your tip on where to find information and all the best to you.