Alternatives to Gas Checks for Higher Velocity?

[flmason]

Hi All,
    Was reading about paper patching, primarily thinking of it as a method to achieve more rifle-like velocities with cast bullets.

At thought crossed my mind in reading about patches made from adhesive labels...

Anyone tried attaching something besides a gas check to the bullet base. Some sort of permanent or not so permanent wad of some sort?

The thinking being, a gas check permits higher velocities by protected the base of the bullet, paper patching seems to achieve same by wrapping paper over the edges of the base. So perhaps adhering something other than a gas check, maybe even just an adhesive label, could achieve same result?

[Missionary5155]

Greetings
Yes you can super glue a cereal box wad to the base which offers some protection. A double thickness is better.  Or cut an aluminum can wad & glue that on.  Can also glue a GC backwards on a PB bullet.  Now if using in a straight wall case the glue may not be necessary.  Then there are felt wads with or without a lube saturation.  It would be hard to exaust any list of what someone has tried.  Over at the Castboolit site there is a wealth of info about what can be used.
Mike in Peru

[Reverend Recoil]

I would only use a felt wad with it compressed over the powder charge in a straight wall cartridge such as a 45-70 or 38-55.  If a wad were to come loose inside a bottle-neck cartridge it could raise the pressure similar to a bore obstuction.  Paper patching is the way to go. 

[flmason]

I would only use a felt wad with it compressed over the powder charge in a straight wall cartridge such as a 45-70 or 38-55.  If a wad were to come loose inside a bottle-neck cartridge it could raise the pressure similar to a bore obstuction.  Paper patching is the way to go.

Good point. Was thinking about it myself. Was thinking even a gas check could get separated if it was seated too deep. Maybe not likely, but seems possible. Would have to have done a terrible job of seating the bullet for it to separate inside the case or get hung up on the neck, though.

Given that metallic gas checks only cover the base, see an value in the idea of taking a gas check bullet design of normal dimensions (say groove to groove + 0.002) and just wrapping the gas check groove and base?  Perhaps with some adhesive paper that would stay attached.

The purposes of checks and patches seems the same... higher velocity, but I'm unclear on whether the method is really different. The gas check seems to be about keeping the base intact and maybe scraping up any leading? The patch on the other hand seems to be almost more of a primitive sabot?

[Lloyd Smale]

what kind of velocitys are you looking for. Ive shot linotype bullets 2200 fps without a gas check in a gun with a good barrel and proper tolarnces without leading. problem you run into thats even more important then leading is that most lead bullets wont hold together when hitting game at those velocitys. Linotype can fracture softer lead will usualy deform under the pressures your using in the barrel so much that accuracy is nil. Softer lead even with a gas check can strip the rifling. Especially in rifle barrels that dont have deep rifling. When you get up about 2000 fps with any lead bullet gas checked or not. Getting a combo of accuracy and bullet performance is a daunting task. Alot of bullet lubes even arent up to the task. Powder selection is even very critical and ive even seen swapping primers make a differnce in leading at those speeds. I fooled one summer with dads old 24 inch marlin 3030 using 120 grain 32 bullets sized down. I was trying to get 2700 fps out of them. That old gun had a barrel like a mirror and would shoot jackted into an inch at 100 yards. Well i got them to 2500 but it took all summer experimenting. the would shoot 2 inch groups at a 100 at that level. Go to 2600 and you had all you could do to keep 5 on a target at a 100 yards no matter what you did. What i ended up using at 2500 was a 120lfn gc sized to 309. Lubed with lbt blue commerical and tumble lubed on top of it. Alloy was 5050 ww/linotype water dropped. I wont give a load because it obviously isnt a load listed anywhere and i have no way of knowing actuall pressure. but i will tell you to use the slowest burning stick powder that will give you the velocity your looking for and the mildest primer that will ignite it completely. bottom line is gas checks are pretty cheap. Id rather buck up for a box of checks then fool around with paper patching a bullet that wasnt designed to be paper patched

[flmason]

what kind of velocitys are you looking for. Ive shot linotype bullets 2200 fps without a gas check in a gun with a good barrel and proper tolarnces without leading. problem you run into thats even more important then leading is that most lead bullets wont hold together when hitting game at those velocitys. Linotype can fracture softer lead will usualy deform under the pressures your using in the barrel so much that accuracy is nil. Softer lead even with a gas check can strip the rifling. Especially in rifle barrels that dont have deep rifling. When you get up about 2000 fps with any lead bullet gas checked or not. Getting a combo of accuracy and bullet performance is a daunting task. Alot of bullet lubes even arent up to the task. Powder selection is even very critical and ive even seen swapping primers make a differnce in leading at those speeds. I fooled one summer with dads old 24 inch marlin 3030 using 120 grain 32 bullets sized down. I was trying to get 2700 fps out of them. That old gun had a barrel like a mirror and would shoot jackted into an inch at 100 yards. Well i got them to 2500 but it took all summer experimenting. the would shoot 2 inch groups at a 100 at that level. Go to 2600 and you had all you could do to keep 5 on a target at a 100 yards no matter what you did. What i ended up using at 2500 was a 120lfn gc sized to 309. Lubed with lbt blue commerical and tumble lubed on top of it. Alloy was 5050 ww/linotype water dropped. I wont give a load because it obviously isnt a load listed anywhere and i have no way of knowing actuall pressure. but i will tell you to use the slowest burning stick powder that will give you the velocity your looking for and the mildest primer that will ignite it completely. bottom line is gas checks are pretty cheap. Id rather buck up for a box of checks then fool around with paper patching a bullet that wasnt designed to be paper patched

Hmm... based on your experiences, then I guess the bottom line is... if you want the higher velocity performance .30 caliber rifles are a capable of delivering, probably best to just accept that like powder, primers and cases, you pretty much have to buy jacketed bullets.  I s'pose one could try to make jacketed bullets, but what little I've looked into on that seems like it's a pricey endeavor.

Oddly I recall some half jacketed bullets a family member had on the bench decades ago, but can't recall what they were about. I think they may have been large caliber pistol bullets. Perhaps another possibility. Probably easier to fabricate a cup than a jacketed bullet.

Somewhere I saw a set of molds designed for two piece bullets. Hard cast in back, mated to soft lead in front. Another perspective I imagine. Though exactly the opposite of the old black powder double rest shooters who hard cast the nose and soft cast the base.

[.22-5-40]

Hello, flmason.  I have read where the gas-check should have really been called a "driving cup"..as it acts more like a wrench..giving a more substantial purchase on rifling than plain lead alloy. 
I use a wad under cast bullets of .40 cal, for base protection..not from flame temp..but from powder..either smokeless or black damage..from powder grains deforming base.
  Interestingly..these wads in a .38-55 Win. always decreased accuracy..but I was using IMR4227..which is a fine grained powder & probably didn't do much base damage as say 4895.
   Is anyone still using the Wilke type driving bands..that were cast in place?

[Nobade]

I'll have to disagree with Lloyd here. Since I figured out how to get paper patched cast bullets to work in high velocity smokeless powder rifles I haven't looked back. I have zero need for jacketed bullets anymore except for very long range precision target shooting. At any practical hunting range my PP loads do the same or better than jacketed, for much less money. I even shoot highpower silhouette with them in my 260 and 30-06 with as good effect as I get with jacketed. Plus they're more fun.

[Lloyd Smale]

I have no doubt it can be done Nobade and i apploud you for taking it on. But most guys just dont have the time and patients to fool with it. Bottom line is a 30 cal bullet a 2000fps with a decent metplat will kill deer. It can be made to shoot accurately enough for hunting out to 200 yards and is alot less work. If i want more performance then that its jacketed for me. But then im not someone that shoots a 1000 rounds a year out of each of my bolt action rifles. I may shoot that combined in all of them for a year. Now talk guns like 4570s 444s 44 mags 45colts in lever guns and its a differnt story but then its easy to make cast work in them. Ive found out one thing over the years. Never say it cant be done as someone will come along and do it. Throw enough time or money at a problem and it can usually be licked. I proved it to myself with my 3030 project. I never hit 3000 fps but was defineatly in jacketed velocity ranges. The one remaining thing you have to address though is alloys. To do that you about have to start shooting animals. An alloy that works at 2200 fps wont work at 2500 and one that works at 2500 may fail miserably at 3000. Its one reason i shelved the high velocity cast rifle project. I didnt want to experiment on live animals. Jacketed bullets have a much better way to control expansion and the guess work is for the most part done before there packaged and sold to you. Even with jacketed  bullets there are bullets the same weight for differnt game shooting purposes. Just dont think that killing a deer or two with your high velocity cast loads is a guarantee that the third time they  wont fail you. In my opinion and its only my opinion cast bullets for shooting game animals shouldnt be pushed over 2000 fps and a .30 cal bullet with a decent meplat will kill deer with no problems at that level. . If you want to blast rocks have at it but living animals are differnt.

[Nobade]

There ya go - that's why this shooting stuff is so much fun, something for everybody!

[flmason]

I'm with Lloyd on not wanting to experiment on living animals. That's what's partly behind the original question. One part is wanting to reduce purchased components vrs. home made.

The velocity part comes from reading, as a kid, that the original M1 carbine loads were patently terrible for hunting. I read a story somewhere, might have been in "The Rifle in America" that one deer took some ungodly number of hits, like 30 and still didn't die.

So when I read of 150-180 grain loads doing 1600 fps or less... I'm thinking hmm... M1's were 110 gr. at 1800?  Just seems like asking for a fail.

Maybe I have the number wrong, will have to double check. But the thought was, using the "16 gr. of 2400" load was basically asking to maim something. Maybe the stronger loadings Harris mentions, say 21 gr. perhaps, but given I'm used to reading of 2400-3200 fps for .30 cal rifles with jacketed bullets in the same weight range, seems the cast are basically reduced loads and maybe problematic?

Though I guess, at less range and more precise shot placement one might could do it.

Anyway, hope was not to replicate what I'd read of the use of M1 carbine by mistake.

It's also what's behind comments about whether .44 mag would be a better choice in a smaller package. My experience with .44 with around 20 gr. of 2400 under 240 gr. KT seems to say it's more than good enough out to maybe 75 yard.

[Lloyd Smale]

believe it or not my first deer rifle was an m1 carbine. The biggest reason it was so inefective on men and deer was the bullet. A fmj 110 will not do much damage to an animal. It will kill and ive killed deer cleanly with them but you had to be surjical with bullet placement. We mostly though loaded 100 hps in them and it made it into a much more effective deer rifle. Ballistics exceded the 3220 which years ago was a pretty poupular deer gun. Dont get me wrong it wasnt a powerhouse but it makes the point that bullet selection means alot. Just as getting the alloy right for the velocity does in a cast bullet shooting rifle. Your alloy selection for the velocity your using will make or break a guns effectiveness. PS i have an uncle that was in ww2 and he about wanted to kick my ### for using an m1 on deer. He was in a situation where a snipe was shooting at his platoon and shot the sniper 4 times with his carbine before he stopped shooting. He himself was shot twice before it was over and even after 4 shots the sniper was taken prisoner still alive. He recieved a silver star and a purple heart for his actions that day. Said he never again carried one of those pea shooters.

[Nobade]

M1 bullets are the problem. Roundnose FMJs will just slip through a deer without causing a great deal of damage. A flat nose 44 at the same speed is a whole 'nuther thing and is quite destructive.

I don't hunt deer much any more since they don't live where I do, but when I did in Virginia it was either with a 44 revolver or a 45-70 rifle loaded with black powder. Neither is a high velocity thing, but both will put a deer down right now with proper shot placement, and I never had a bullet stay in one - they go clear through.

And no, I never said to experiment with very high velocity small bore bullets on living animals. Though I have no doubt a 30 caliber cast bullet at 2800 fps would kill something, I also see no need to do that since, as you said, one going 2000 fps will do the job just fine and will be certain to not blow up. But the original post never mentioned game animals, He just wanted to know how to make cast bullets go faster. Properly paper patched, a pure lead bullet can hit 2200 fps with good accuracy and will not lead the bore. But at that speed it will also expand violently and tear up a lot of meat. It doesn't have to be loaded so fast to work well, but it is possible if one wants to do so. It is up to the individual to work up his actual loads and test them himself to be sure of what is going to happen when the trigger is pulled. Paper patching is merely another tool to get you there once you learn how to make it work.

[Nobade]

Hey that's funny - Lloyd replied while I was typing. Looks like we agree on M1 bullets!

[Lloyd Smale]

I say i wouldnt want to experiment on animals but i shot those 120s at about 2500 fps into rocks and they smack them like the hammer of thor. Someday ill have to pop a crop damage deer with one to see. Like nobade said id bet that 120 flat point would kill. I just wouldnt go to the bank with it till i knew for sure and wouldnt risk a shot that was other then perfect or want to stick one in a trophy animal and take that chance.

[Flash]

what kind of velocitys are you looking for. Ive shot linotype bullets 2200 fps without a gas check in a gun with a good barrel and proper tolarnces without leading. problem you run into thats even more important then leading is that most lead bullets wont hold together when hitting game at those velocitys. Linotype can fracture softer lead will usualy deform under the pressures your using in the barrel so much that accuracy is nil. Softer lead even with a gas check can strip the rifling. Especially in rifle barrels that dont have deep rifling. When you get up about 2000 fps with any lead bullet gas checked or not. Getting a combo of accuracy and bullet performance is a daunting task. Alot of bullet lubes even arent up to the task. Powder selection is even very critical and ive even seen swapping primers make a differnce in leading at those speeds. I fooled one summer with dads old 24 inch marlin 3030 using 120 grain 32 bullets sized down. I was trying to get 2700 fps out of them. That old gun had a barrel like a mirror and would shoot jackted into an inch at 100 yards. Well i got them to 2500 but it took all summer experimenting. the would shoot 2 inch groups at a 100 at that level. Go to 2600 and you had all you could do to keep 5 on a target at a 100 yards no matter what you did. What i ended up using at 2500 was a 120lfn gc sized to 309. Lubed with lbt blue commerical and tumble lubed on top of it. Alloy was 5050 ww/linotype water dropped. I wont give a load because it obviously isnt a load listed anywhere and i have no way of knowing actuall pressure. but i will tell you to use the slowest burning stick powder that will give you the velocity your looking for and the mildest primer that will ignite it completely. bottom line is gas checks are pretty cheap. Id rather buck up for a box of checks then fool around with paper patching a bullet that wasnt designed to be paper patched

Hmm... based on your experiences, then I guess the bottom line is... if you want the higher velocity performance .30 caliber rifles are a capable of delivering, probably best to just accept that like powder, primers and cases, you pretty much have to buy jacketed bullets.  I s'pose one could try to make jacketed bullets, but what little I've looked into on that seems like it's a pricey endeavor.

Oddly I recall some half jacketed bullets a family member had on the bench decades ago, but can't recall what they were about. I think they may have been large caliber pistol bullets. Perhaps another possibility. Probably easier to fabricate a cup than a jacketed bullet.

Somewhere I saw a set of molds designed for two piece bullets. Hard cast in back, mated to soft lead in front. Another perspective I imagine. Though exactly the opposite of the old black powder double rest shooters who hard cast the nose and soft cast the base.

Lyman made a 44 and 45 caliber like this, back in the early 70's I believe. I owned one of the 44's and yes, there were two blocks, one for the back and one for the front. They were epoxied together and weren't worth a darn. Sold mine on ebay but wish i hadn't. They don't even catalog that mold, like it never existed.
 I'd love to get into paper patching but don't know where to start. Maybe one day

[azvaquero]

In a revolver, I have tried round pieces of paper cut out with a hole punch the same diameter as the bullet base, glued on.  I have also tried over-diameter paper rounds which would wrap up over the sides of the bullet as it was seated, kind of like a gas check.  The third thing I tried was sizing and lubing normally (i.e., filling the lube grooves with regular lube), then dipping the base in Lee's Alox solution (tumble lube stuff whatever it's called) to coat the bottom and up the sides a bit, and letting it dry.  The Lee Alox method worked the best.  It made seating smoother.  It cut down bullet base erosion significantly (nearly entirely, when examining recovered bullets), and eliminated leading (or nearly so, I don't remember exactly if it was ALL gone).  I would also imagine that the bullet pull was more uniform, but don't remember checking extreme spreads and std. deviation as one method of verifying this.  The paper checks had a tendency to fall off sometimes, and were more of a pain.  But the Lee Alox is much cheaper than gas checks, which is why I tried it.  One tube goes a long, long way.
I haven't tried any of this on a cast bullet for rifle, but would suspect it would help and would definitely be worth trying.  However, as mentioned above, I have also heard that a gas check does more than just protect the base from gas -- it grips the rifling better than lead, reducing stripping.  It is also tougher than lead, and can take more of a beating, possibly (partially) correcting an out-of-center lead bullet that has been beat up.  This is just what I have heard, but it may just be someone else's uninformed opinion.  Veral Smith says this in his book, but I don't know how he could know this for certain.  Maybe he had a method that I haven't thought of?