Cast Bullet Design

[BrushBuster]

As I consider purchasing my first cast bullets, I find the choice of designs a little confusing. Some have a lot of bearing surface, others much less. The number and width of grooves also varies considerably even within the same calibre and weight.

Then I read an article by Ken Waters that would seem to pin the choice down. I quote "The reduced bearing surface of the 250-grain _ _ _ _ bullets did result in lower pressures as indicated by an average .0005 less case expansion measured just forward of case rims, in comparison with the 250 grain _ _ _ _. However the price paid for this reduction in pressure was a serious loss of accuracy which I might add has usually been my experience with two-diameter bullets".

So, is it that simple, and why all those other designs? Is it not possible to have accuracy without maximizing bearing surface?

[Graybeard]

Drop down a bit to the Ask Veral Forum. He is THE expert in the area of Cast Bullets. Ask him your questions. Nope he's not gonna see them on this forum. We have a forum devoted just to folks asking him questions. Buy his book Jacketed Bullet Performance with Cast Bullets and then you'll know more than you ever wanted to know on the subject.

GB

[Aladin]

As I consider purchasing my first cast bullets, I find the choice of designs a little confusing. Some have a lot of bearing surface, others much less. The number and width of grooves also varies considerably even within the same calibre and weight.

Then I read an article by Ken Waters that would seem to pin the choice down. I quote "The reduced bearing surface of the 250-grain _ _ _ _ bullets did result in lower pressures as indicated by an average .0005 less case expansion measured just forward of case rims, in comparison with the 250 grain _ _ _ _. However the price paid for this reduction in pressure was a serious loss of accuracy which I might add has usually been my experience with two-diameter bullets".

So, is it that simple, and why all those other designs? Is it not possible to have accuracy without maximizing bearing surface?

First BrushBuster I think you might be taking some factors out of context.  Second, it's very difficult to compare loadings just on design features IF the other variables aren't exactly the same.  Bullet hardness and dia vs groove dia and powder speed are inter-related variables.

The first consideration for a cast bullet is how well that bullet fits your gun per land dia [if a rider] and what your throating specs are relative to that bullet's as shot size. This all going to pre-shot alignment of the bullet, which is more critical as the bullet is shot with softer alloys.

And several cast old myth's live on.  Sizing the cast bullet to groove dia is just lawyer speak. Cast bullets lead past certain speeds... Such and such design isn't accurate.. All are false.

Take the time to learn the principles of accuracy... their the same for cast. The cast slug is NOT as strong as the orange ones. It requires a decent gas seal to maintain continued target accuracy. Mastering cast bullets is a challenge worth the time-- and a learning experience that is very gratifing.

[Cat Whisperer]

Brushbuster -

Be wary of generalizations. First of all you need to READ - EXTENSIVELY.  You will find as GB has suggested looking to Veral - good advice.  You've heard from Aladin - a person who experiments, tests, and proves his theories with practice - also a good resource.  

Then there are people who expound their simplified theory (and often have a following) and will cut you down if you believe otherwise.  So, secondly, you need to do your own testing.  Whatever it is, design the test, record the results, change ONE variable and repeat the test - drawing your own conculusions.  Compare these to what others have written.  You too will quickly become an expert in one area after another - based on research and experience.

Good luck, keep reading, shooting, experimenting!

[Cat Whisperer]

Now, to answer your question perhaps a little more directly; you will find many different designs that work for one application or another.  Some survive commercially for those or other reasons.

Accuracy - at what range?  As you get above greater than pistol ranges you'd better look at putting a point on the boolet and having long bearing surface.

Other factors - there are many other factors other than maximizing accuracy that come into play; to menetion two, cutting a clean hole in a paper target and the choice between pennetration or knockdown in game.

Hence, LOTS of good designs - for their individually designed purposes.  

Again, pick your area of interest and research what works - isolate the principles and PROVE them by your OWN experience.

[waksupi]

Geez, Tim, how did you get to be a moderator? Are you in charge of the hallways, or the milk? Oh! That's a monitor!

You're right on different opinions. Everyone has one. I may not always be right, but I am ALWAYS positive.

[Graybeard]

The two most commonly used and highly respected designs in handgun bullets  are the older Keith (designed by Elmer Keith) and the newer LBT (designed by Veral Smith).

Both work and work fine. Some of what Elmer believed back in his day has since been pretty well proven to not be quite factual but still his bullet designs work today just as well as back when he first came up with them. I have some and they do nicely. There is another called Thompson that I've used and also like well.

But honestly some of the very best accuracy I've gotten from handguns has come with bullets cast in genuine LBT molds. Dunno if Veral knows it all, likely not as no one really does but he do know a bunch. I like the looks of his bullets and more importantly I like the way they perform. I honestly don't think you'll go bad wrong with bullets of any of the three designs mentioned here.

GB

[Cat Whisperer]

Waksupi -
  I think it's because Graybeard graciously provided us (we asked for it) the Blackpowder Mortar and Cannon forum.  DD & I co-moderate (well maybe we just co-stir-the-pot and instigate).  He's done most of the work in structuring and fleshing out the forum (there are many resource types of things we include) my role is instagation within sometimes sane limits.

[Leftoverdj]

Brush, cast bullets can get as complicated as you will let them. The casual shooter with a clear reasonable goal does not need to worry about most of that stuff.

Decide exactly what you wanna do with a bullet and someone here can point you to an appropriate design. The problems come in when you set your expectations too high or expect one bullet to do too many things.

[BrushBuster]

Those that have pointed out to me that shooters interested in CB's should do their homework, and learn from the experienced all that they can before making decisions on bullet design and application are absolutely correct. However, occasionally a hunter like myself will drop in on this forum and ask questions with the objective of finding a short-cut to trying out CB's for the first time.

Out of consideration to the professional bullet casters, orders should be substantial enough to warrant the labour involved, and from what I can determine, nobody gets rich at this profession and hobby!

So, a guy like myself may find himself with 500 or more bullets that will likely determine his initial impressions of how Cast bullets perform in his rifle, type of shooting and hunting. I think it's a logical and probably typical first approach to CB's, to ask the experienced how to make a wise initial purchase. That's where I'm coming from.

I'm a hunter, I shoot to kill, and kill fast if I can. Accuracy is a factor, but I'm not fanatic about it because I get close and use a rifle (.348) that shoots a fat heavy bullet (250 grain). I hunt Moose, and Mule deer in Grizzly country that is heavily wooded.

I would really appreciate a comparison of two very different cast bullet designs, their pro's and con's. I'm sure I could learn a lot quickly this way, and be off to a good start with CB's. I understand about matching bullet dia. to the bore, and how effective gas checks are. It's the bullet design for my application as a hunter that interests me.

At the NEI mold website, http://www.neihandtools.com/catalog/frame.html
listed for the .348 are two designs of heavy bullets  #107 and #108. Because these designs are so different, opinions must be rampant out there!  I would appreciate hearing your opinions and experiences with them.

Thanks

[Leftoverdj]

I'd go with #108 simply because it will do what you want done and it's the kind of design I'm used to. It's got a long bearing surface, multiple lube grooves, and a short nose that's round enough to feed well while blunt enough to be a killer.

The #107 is a much more radical design. It may do very well, but it's gonna take a lot more fussing. If I am reading things right, that long nose is supposed to ride on the lands. Means that you have get that nose just the right diameter. There's gonna be an awful lot of nose sticking out of the case which means you can't adjust COL much for feeding. That big meplate will make it a mighty killer, but it might also lead to feeding problems.

Keep your life simple and go with #108.

[BrushBuster]

Brother Leftoverdj, you have hit it right on the head! That was valuable.

Opinions, facts, impressions from your experience as a hunter, not as an alchemist. I have only so much time, and a limited number of grey cells left! I'm 62.

[Cat Whisperer]

Brushbuster -
  You're taking the right approach to life - very polite and persistant in asking questions!
  I don't have a 348 and what I hunt is more like woodchucks (with everything from .22 Hornet through .458Win Mag.).  So I'm not qualified to comment on hunting the big stuff.

  Leftoverdj did you right in explaining his reasons for his selection.  Good selection, good reasons.  

  In choosing between the two you might want to do a chamber cast (using cerosafe from, for example, Brownell's) to determine the diameters and dimensions of your throat (the gun's throat).  With both of those bullets you want only slight engraving of the bore-riding portion - and you don't want the bore riding portion to be too small.  It would seem to be less of a problem with the 108 than the 107 on diameters.  I like as well the longer major diameter of the 108 - better for support hence better angular alignment of the bullet to the axis of the bore, hence better accuracy.

[Aladin]

BrushBuster your post is well thought and speaks well of your yrs.

Essentially the two designs are the same category-- both bore rides. What you need to know is what dia that nose is CAST WITH WHAT ALLOY and then the land height of your gun. You need a slight engraving fit on the nose such that'll allow a chambered round to be unloaded and the bullet come easily otta the barrel. Then ya need groove dia of YOUR barrel and add a good 2 thou for good reliability.  There's absoulutely NO substitute for actually measureing your barrel... it often ain't what their stamped.

Then you need to know how the loaded OAL will fit/function in your gun. I assume you've a levergun?

Both of those designs are limited for speed-- maybe 2000 fps in a good gun & setup. The only real consideration is the one has a crimp groove and slightly longer bearing surface which is a mute point being riders, at those speeds. Ya need to find out what dia each casts and how they'll fit your gun.

You might detail your gun and possibly find someone "who's been there and done that" too.  For in the end, if the bullet don't fit it don't shooten-- and then an unhappy camper you'll be.

[BrushBuster]

Thank you gentlemen:

I will chamber cast my rifle; I just can't seem to measure these critical points well enough to be confident, and having the casting would provide the whole picture.

I'm not going to get into asking a lot of further questions; you've given me enough to go on for now. Just one though!  What is the rationale behind the Bore-Ride concept? My guess would be that it allows for heavier bullet castings for a given cartridge without the bullet being seated too deeply into the case neck and still allow the cartridge to chamber. So the balancing act here is to support the long bullet nose adequately and still allow chambering; delicate indeed! Did I get it right?

[Cat Whisperer]

Brushbuster -

It is indeed refreshing to have someone ask such fundamental questions!  I hadn't thought of WHY the long nose in years.  I agree with your rationale.  Add to that the problem associated with the Lovern style (which has no nose riding area - just bunches and bunches of grooves the whole length of the bullet) - the problem being there are grooves that may be lubricated that are out in front of the brass.  Not so good to put in your pocket for hunting, but excellent for accuracy.

Keep us posted.

[Aladin]

Thank you gentlemen:

I will chamber cast my rifle; I just can't seem to measure these critical points well enough to be confident, and having the casting would provide the whole picture.

I'm not going to get into asking a lot of further questions; you've given me enough to go on for now. Just one though!  What is the rationale behind the Bore-Ride concept? My guess would be that it allows for heavier bullet castings for a given cartridge without the bullet being seated too deeply into the case neck and still allow the cartridge to chamber. So the balancing act here is to support the long bullet nose adequately and still allow chambering; delicate indeed! Did I get it right?

That's one view of the rationale behind the long riders. Methinks the reason is to allow for throat wear and to maximize forward alignment.

Ask away BTW. We might not always be right but you'll get varying points of view which might lead to something that works for you. Alot of cast is finding what works for your given situation.

[BrushBuster]

One more Aladin:

Regarding the long bore-ride design. Is the reduced dia. of the bore riding portion of the bullet off limits to crimping should there be an OAL-feeding problem? In a well-fitting bullet, this would still amount to unsupported clearance between the case neck and bullet. Can a good crimp be obtained without neck buckling? It's probably a dumb question, but I suspect I would have a lever-action feed problem with that design if I don't have the option of moving the crimp point forward on that bullet.

[Aladin]

One more Aladin:

Regarding the long bore-ride design. Is the reduced dia. of the bore riding portion of the bullet off limits to crimping should there be an OAL-feeding problem? In a well-fitting bullet, this would still amount to unsupported clearance between the case neck and bullet. Can a good crimp be obtained without neck buckling? It's probably a dumb question, but I suspect I would have a lever-action feed problem with that design if I don't have the option of moving the crimp point forward on that bullet.

To obtain a traditional crimp you need raised metal on the side away from the crimp/case to keep the slug from backing into the case. No rider would have a raised section to supply this.

Lee crimp dies do crimp where the bullet is full groove dia but are case specific for each caliber.

[Sky C.]

Hello Brushbuster-

From a fellow fan of the .348 - watch the OAL & nose profile.  I have the Browning M-71 and designed a hunting bullet for the gun.  Objective was to have as heavy a bullet as I could get while still staying within published max case OAL AND not having the GC or shank protrude below the base of the neck.  I went with a 72% meplat based on multitudes of folks recommendations about a large meplat being highly effective on game.  My bullet weighs in at approx. 235Gr. in WW alloy.

All is well - HOWEVER - the loaded round would not load thru the loading gate well - like only with great difficulty.  The trouble was the large meplat that wanted to hang up and not 'turn the corner' into the mag tube.  On the Browning - the leade into the mag tube is quite abrupt.  I pulled the gun apart and with some slight tinkering with the loading gate spring tension (which was extremely heavy and benefited greatly from being lightened) and some smothing of that leade area - loaded rounds feed thru the loading gate without trouble now.

I sent a couple dummy rounds to a friend that had a Winchester M-71 and he advised that they entered the loading gate of that rifle without a hitch - no need to tinker with the gun.  

Just something you may want to be aware of in your search for "the correct bullet".

Best regards-

Sky C.

[BrushBuster]

Sky C:

I too have noticed on my Winchester M-71 that when loading, I have to slightly nudge my cartridges around the bend so to speak, and this is with the Winchester 200 grain factory loads!  Your point is well taken, and I will keep it in mind.

Perhaps I'm going to end up chambering the "Perfect Bullet" by hand, and limiting the follow-ups in the magazine tube to the "easy feeders".

It sounds like we have the same goal in mind for the M-71. I appreciate your input as I struggle through the learning curve.

Thank you

[Aladin]

Sky & Brustbuster,

Sky I can readily understand NOT wanting the bullet base into the powder column.  But if memory serves correct, the stick powders used in the 348 go about 85% of capacity ?? Is that close?

What I'm getting to is adding a small amount of filler between powder and bullet base gives the tight loading desired and the barrier solves the potential migration of lube into the powder. It'd solve the wt problem of the bullet, make the OAL shorter and improve functioning too.

Finding a good filler isn't tough and adjusting the loading isn't difficult either. Your thoughts.

If you guys wanted to DE-sign another bullet for the 348 I'd have a few ideas for ya...

[BrushBuster]

Aladin:

I have enough trouble finding the right bullet, let alone designing one!

I certainly would like you to identify a filler that is readily available and without drawbacks.  My literature tells me that even Dacron, Kapock, Cream of Wheat and cornmeal all have the potential to damage the chamber-neck area with what is termed "ringing"?

Is there a filler that works without consequences?

[Cat Whisperer]

The ringing you refer to, typically occurs when a bunch of the material is placed next to thepowder.  It then is launched, hits the base and is deposited on the barrel - to be ironed by the next rounds, causing a ring in the barrel at that point.

By using a filler that takes up most all the space, one avoids the ringing problem.  

Dacron is one of the most available materials.  It is used as a filler for pillows etc. and is available most everywhere.

Granular materials are also commonly used and some will report they oft will keep the barrel cleaner too.

[Aladin]

Aladin:

I have enough trouble finding the right bullet, let alone designing one!

I certainly would like you to identify a filler that is readily available and without drawbacks.  My literature tells me that even Dacron, Kapock, Cream of Wheat and cornmeal all have the potential to damage the chamber-neck area with what is termed "ringing"?

Is there a filler that works without consequences?

Brushbuster if you want to design one possibly Veral from LBT or Dan at Mountain Molds could supply the knowledge needed to fit your gun. I have a few ideas for you too. I'm sure there's no shortage of people around willing to help too.

By settling the powder and adding a filler like Bf [which is ground bran fiber] or some of the commercial shotgun filler products-- your making a 100% loading density and avoiding any potential problems with ringing [which isn't even a rare occurrence-- seldom ever seen BTW].

When using these fillers that flow you want just mild compression just so you can barely feel it seating the bullet.  Tim's correct is saying they do help keep the tube cleaner too. Myself-- I do NOT like the plastic shotgun fillers that coat the bore. Their not as accurate as something like Bf.

Get to the stage of using a filler to top off a load and we'll run it thoroughly.

[BrushBuster]

Aladin:

With your help, I just discovered the Mountain Molds website. I can see now that designing a custom mold is not beyond me!

I don't feel quite ready to make that step yet, but I sure want to thank all of you for initiating my enlightenment. Fascinating stuff.

Let me do some chamber casting, shooting and learning; then I'd like to call back in the future and maybe take you up on that generous offer.

I guess a thread can get too long, but you can all be sure that I've got this one on file.

Thanks to you all

[Sky C.]

Howdy all-  Some of this may be of some use to Brushbuster depending on what feedback it generates but I could use the expertise and suggestions folks on this forum may have to offer as well.

I was back out to the range today to work on that elusive load for the .348 with my home brewed CB.  

Ran a few shots over the chronograph while the wind would permit:  Noted that extraction started to become a little stiff with loads exceeding about 2100fps. for my 235gr. CB.  Although I was initially targeting to be at 2200fps with this bullet - I think 2050 may become the revised plan.

Baseline:
235gr. CB, GC, heat treated WW for BHN =  , sized .350", Hornady GC, Gray's #24 lube, all of the loads today sparked by a CCI-250 primer. Bullet is a bore rider design - nose is engraving about .0015" for about 30% of the total length of the bullet.  the forward 25% of the bullet is not supported in the bore.  Driving bands are .002" over bore dia. when sized.  overall - about 70% of the bullets length is supported once it's into the bore.  Gun is a Browning M-71 lever gun.  Due to the throating and COAL - the bullet has about 0.080" jump to the lands.  Not ideal for accuracy I'm sure - but that's what I've got to work with.  

Testing results:
Varget:  47grs is clocking in the 2100fps range average but ES for 5 shots is running near 100fps.  Verified on a couple different occasions.  Case is on the order of 75% full near as my eyeballs can tell.  

AA 2200 (data powder):  41grs was clocking in the 2200fps range & was giving extraction a bit on the stiff side.  As noted above - I think this may be a bit high for this gun/bullet combo.  Performance was poor - ES in 5 shots going almost 150fps.  Case was on the order of 70% full.

RL 19:  55grs clocked an average of 2074fps with ES for 4 shots (chrono missed one) of 37fps.  Case was on the order of 85% full.  This load showed the most promise and will get a further test session.

H4831SC: 58grs clocked 2075 avg. w/ES 34 for the 5 shots.  Case on the order of 85% full.  Another load that shows some promise and will receive further testing.

AA 4350:  53grs clocks 2080 avg. ES running about 70fps.  Case about 85% full.  Poor grouping.

H 4895:  44grs averaged 2053fps but ES ran about 100fps.  Case capacity ran about 70%

Other & questions:
I had reported previously on another forum that I see significant POI variation that correleates with velocity variation.  I tried a number of different bench techniques today but all result in the same observation.  The .348 does not have insubstantial recoil & it's my thought at this point that the rifle shooter combination is sensitive to the degree of recoil impulse.   (Note - I am not refering to flinch here - I'm shooting all these loads using a PAST recoil shield and have no problems on that front).  Faster charges are printing higher on paper by a significant amount - on the order of 4.5" for variations on the order of 200fps (this at 50 yds.).  Some of this is no doubt limitations with sighting equip. (Williams FP rear & bead front) but I shoot enough other calibers with the sme kind of sighting equipment and can regularly hold about 1" at 50 yds. with loads the guns like.  

Also note - Didn't seem to make a difference as to the powder.  The slower shots printed low & the faster shots went higher; shots in the same velocity range printing close together.  This is suggesting to me that this gun/load will be quite senstive to ES in velocity as far as grouping.  I have a great combination using AA 5744 that's giving ES <10fps & it shoots very well (1.25" range) - but only makes about 1800fps.  For hunting elk - I'd like a bit more zip.

Any suggestions about how to drop the ES with loading techniques (other than for fillers) or is this just a trial of different powders/primers seeking the one that's most consistent?  (Though I don't mind using fillers in straight walled cases like the .45-70, I don't feel comfortable using them with BN cases).

Thanks-

Sky C.

[Aladin]

Howdy all-  Some of this may be of some use to Brushbuster depending on what feedback it generates but I could use the expertise and suggestions folks on this forum may have to offer as well.

I was back out to the range today to work on that elusive load for the .348 with my home brewed CB.  

Ran a few shots over the chronograph while the wind would permit:  Noted that extraction started to become a little stiff with loads exceeding about 2100fps. for my 235gr. CB.  Although I was initially targeting to be at 2200fps with this bullet - I think 2050 may become the revised plan.

Baseline:
235gr. CB, GC, heat treated WW for BHN =  , sized .350", Hornady GC, Gray's #24 lube, all of the loads today sparked by a CCI-250 primer. Bullet is a bore rider design - nose is engraving about .0015" for about 30% of the total length of the bullet.  the forward 25% of the bullet is not supported in the bore.  Driving bands are .002" over bore dia. when sized.  overall - about 70% of the bullets length is supported once it's into the bore.  Gun is a Browning M-71 lever gun.  Due to the throating and COAL - the bullet has about 0.080" jump to the lands.  Not ideal for accuracy I'm sure - but that's what I've got to work with.  

Testing results:
Varget:  47grs is clocking in the 2100fps range average but ES for 5 shots is running near 100fps.  Verified on a couple different occasions.  Case is on the order of 75% full near as my eyeballs can tell.  

AA 2200 (data powder):  41grs was clocking in the 2200fps range & was giving extraction a bit on the stiff side.  As noted above - I think this may be a bit high for this gun/bullet combo.  Performance was poor - ES in 5 shots going almost 150fps.  Case was on the order of 70% full.

RL 19:  55grs clocked an average of 2074fps with ES for 4 shots (chrono missed one) of 37fps.  Case was on the order of 85% full.  This load showed the most promise and will get a further test session.

H4831SC: 58grs clocked 2075 avg. w/ES 34 for the 5 shots.  Case on the order of 85% full.  Another load that shows some promise and will receive further testing.

AA 4350:  53grs clocks 2080 avg. ES running about 70fps.  Case about 85% full.  Poor grouping.

H 4895:  44grs averaged 2053fps but ES ran about 100fps.  Case capacity ran about 70%

Other & questions:
I had reported previously on another forum that I see significant POI variation that correleates with velocity variation.  I tried a number of different bench techniques today but all result in the same observation.  The .348 does not have insubstantial recoil & it's my thought at this point that the rifle shooter combination is sensitive to the degree of recoil impulse.   (Note - I am not refering to flinch here - I'm shooting all these loads using a PAST recoil shield and have no problems on that front).  Faster charges are printing higher on paper by a significant amount - on the order of 4.5" for variations on the order of 200fps (this at 50 yds.).  Some of this is no doubt limitations with sighting equip. (Williams FP rear & bead front) but I shoot enough other calibers with the sme kind of sighting equipment and can regularly hold about 1" at 50 yds. with loads the guns like.  

Also note - Didn't seem to make a difference as to the powder.  The slower shots printed low & the faster shots went higher; shots in the same velocity range printing close together.  This is suggesting to me that this gun/load will be quite senstive to ES in velocity as far as grouping.  I have a great combination using AA 5744 that's giving ES <10fps & it shoots very well (1.25" range) - but only makes about 1800fps.  For hunting elk - I'd like a bit more zip.

Any suggestions about how to drop the ES with loading techniques (other than for fillers) or is this just a trial of different powders/primers seeking the one that's most consistent?  (Though I don't mind using fillers in straight walled cases like the .45-70, I don't feel comfortable using them with BN cases).

Thanks-

Sky C.

Sky I used Bf in the 30/30 case with only XX grs of Blue Dot and the balance Bf-- with no trouble for 100's of shots. This likely 60%+ of capacity filler. Albeit I took care in the settling and a couple times a good burn didn't occur due to poor setting, but no trouble at all. This was kind of a test bed gun for Bf-- which I developed the use of.

Ringing isn't gonna happen with a Bf type filler if mildly compressed. Bf BTW DOES NOT absorb water-- one of the reasons I worked on it AND it's very lite weight per volume. It just holds the fuel in position long enough to uniform the burn. BTW-- I do not care for any wadding type fillers XCEPT pure cotton. Loading those agents is a PITA for many rds-- Bf can be dropped with a measure if the drum is the larger micrometer style. Coating the Bf with moly is another option which somewhat improves metering quality.

Negating fillers--which is fine by me.. I have no great desire to mess with loading them... your option is SLOW fuel. Your on the right track with 19 just downshift more for speed. 7828 will make MOA in my 06 at 50 grs whereas 63+ would be a max. Aliant 22 likewise performed well in my 06 target Hart.  Go slower and see what developes.

[Aladin]

Aladin:

With your help, I just discovered the Mountain Molds website. I can see now that designing a custom mold is not beyond me!

I don't feel quite ready to make that step yet, but I sure want to thank all of you for initiating my enlightenment. Fascinating stuff.

Let me do some chamber casting, shooting and learning; then I'd like to call back in the future and maybe take you up on that generous offer.

I guess a thread can get too long, but you can all be sure that I've got this one on file.

Thanks to you all

Threads can't get too long if someone's still learning something. Do you know how to make an impact slug of the throat? Saves the messing with Cerrosafe and cost-- and is more accurate.

[BrushBuster]

Sky C:

As far as the .348 is concerned, you are doing the research that I find impossible in my remote location. Your data is invaluable!

I have had to simplify my loading components, and even at that, I'm having trouble getting them.  I'm pinning my hopes on ReLoder-19, so I'll be hanging on every word.

Loading reliability seems to be a significant factor in limiting accuracy potential in this calibre, and I am seriously thinking of designing a bullet that takes the first shot, to be followed up by an easy feeder.

I haven't got a lot of kills with the .348 to my credit yet, but what I have has been very impressive. The 30-06 accounted for many of the Moose that I have taken over the years, and the .348 has it beat hands down for knock-down single shot kills (close-range of course).  My initial hunting with the .348 has been with the 200 grain Silvertip, and now as I move up to a 250 grainer with wide meplat I am confident of even greater things.

At this point, I think I can be very happy with an accurate heavy bullet moving at around 2000 fps. and it sounds like that's realistic. Recoil is also a concern; my smaller stature and preference for a tang sight factors into this as well. I know that a large Elk is just as hard to put down as our Moose, so I look forward to comparing notes with you in the future.

I also have not forgotten that it was you that provided me with an excellent spread sheet on .348 performance. I refer to it frequently.