Mac11700 -- Softnose Cast Bullet Article

[safetysheriff]

Mac,

I recently said that I'd like to post something that may be a little deeper into the subject than we often get on this forum.    I think an appropriate topic would be "Casting Softnose Bullets" by Ross Seyfried in the April-May 2003 edition of 'Handloader' magazine.    It might shed some light on how to cast some projectiles that will decently open up while still penetrating and reaching the vitals of some very large animals.   It also involves Ross' discussion of the 'how' and 'why' of his technique.  

The article might be of particular interest to our co-conspirators who enjoy downing their game with the .45-70 because of its proper rifling for such projectiles.    As much as I like the .44 mag', a micro-grooved rifle need not apply for the job of launching these projectiles.

I hope you'll look at the article on:   www.riflemagazine.com    You must get into the backissues section and then go to April-May 2003.

As usual, it is the excellent type of work that Ross Seyfried has long been known for; and I think it will illustrate the depth of our subject that we don't get into often enough.    I enjoy learning from someone like Ross.   GBO's e-zine might also be an answer for me.

Take care, Mac,

SS'

[quickdtoo]

Thanks, SS!! Here's a direct link to save ya all looking for it.

http://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/article.cfm?tocid=974&magid=71

[Leftoverdj]

As much as I like the .44 mag', a micro-grooved rifle need not apply for the job of launching these projectiles.
'

And why not? Have you tried?

All this has been around for 100 years. Matter of fact, we discussed it on the old forum and you poo-pooed the idea in favor of nose annealling. Do things magically change when Ross writes an article?

The two piece mould mentioned can be bought from www.mountainmolds.com. Lyman made and may still make a two mould system for base and nose to be epoxied together.

[safetysheriff]

leftover,

The point of the posting was not about process efficiency, it was about depth of discussion......with the somewhat more esoteric being given here as an example.  

Nose annealing is a quicker process (which some of our membership seem to greatly desire), but not achieving the same results as pouring two different metals -- with one a pure lead.      The use of alloyed lead/antimony as a detriment to hard-cast bullets comes to mind if the bullet engages a very large skeletal structure and has a tendency to crack from the impact.    Pure lead will not fracture from such impact at handgun and blackpowder-cartridge velocities.    Too much antimony can lead to cracking.   No, Ross being the author does not change a thing.    That would be simplistic thinking.

The shooting of 'naked' hard-cast lead in micro-grooved rifles is something that I have not advocated, believing that gas checks are a missing part of the puzzle with such bullets being shot at higher velocities.    I choose to generally work with heavier loads behind my projectiles.   I like power and flatness of trajectory within reason.    I don't worry about shooting cheap since the old anti-drug commercial was oftentimes right:  SPEED KILLS.    :eek:

I have shot very few lead projectiles out of my .357 micro-grooved barrel.    For my use jacketed bullets are fine.    Others on these forums have had enough trouble with non-jacketed types (before gas-checking them which you and jph45 seemed to belabor) that I think the work on them is a very difficult time.   To each his own, I suppose.  

I guessed ahead of time that I'd hear from you, leftover, but decided that the bulk of the guys might enjoy the article and went ahead with it.    They are entitled to form their own opinions.    You attacked the poster instead of the posting.    

SS'

[Mac11700]

safetysheriff:
 
As with any endeavor...casting ones own bullets...is certainly a mysterious art form to most and seemingly second nature to others...and few here on this forum have discussed the intracaties in full detail,and for good reason......and while I no-longer feel the need...nor do I shoot at Black Powder levels in my 45-70...I can see the need for the exchange of information and ideas...from any qualified source,being a plus for the readers here that are interested in making their own cast bullets...however...since we already have a forum for such discussion...we  should try to limit our debating and arguing here... wither..on the merits of such notable writers in general or to cast bullet making in general ...eh :wink: What I mean is... as long as it is directly pertaining to cast bullets in the Handi's it won't be a problem...but if for some reason it gets sidetracked...and starts heading off  into a general discussion...it might get moved to that forum...
 
I do think the idea is rather neat...and if I were set up to cast...I would give it a go....but...again...I don't cast anymore and mainly use jacketed bullets or gas checked ones...

Mac

[Leftoverdj]

SS, I merely inquired as to the basis of your statement since it was couched as fact, rather than opinion. Surely, you made up such bullets and tried them before condemning them for use in microgroove barrels?

I saw nothing in the article that restricted two part bullets to plain base designs. Did I overlook something? Would my two alloy hollow base .45-70 bullets of about 420 grains at 1350 fps from a Handi be somehow less potent than the 300 grain .44 Magnum loads you so admire?

I would love to see a deeper level of discussion. If you'll post your experiments and results with two alloy bullets, I'll do the same and we'll have real world experience to discuss rather than the imaginative pen of a gunwriter. Been years since I made any up, but I could get to it and have some results to post by next week.  Would that be time enough for you to get some together?

And since you favor high velocity, shall we restrict our trials to over 1600 fps for the pistol caliber carbines? We'll do it all in microgroove barrels, of course. Just let me know when you have some of your own experiments and experience to discuss and we'll get right to it.

[Mac11700]

Guys:

While I haven't casted any bullets for the Handi's since doing some for my old 30-30 Topper many years ago...I would be interested in just how they preformed out of the micro-grooved barrels...and which type(plain-base...or Gas checked) gave the best velocity and accuracy....so when you guys get some done up...please post your results for all to see...not only here...but on the cast bullet section...and if you could...post a couple of pictures of the mold your using as well...


Mac

[safetysheriff]

SS, I merely inquired as to the basis of your statement since it was couched as fact, rather than opinion. Surely, you made up such bullets and tried them before condemning them for use in microgroove barrels?

DJ':  I can't see why anyone in their right mind would take the two-part bullet described in the article, with one half of it being pure, SOFT lead, and expect it to grip micro-groove rifling when 100% hard-cast has such a bad time doing it.    If NEF made the .44 mag' with regular rifling I might have bought one.   But that project will have to wait.    
-----------------------------------------
I saw nothing in the article that restricted two part bullets to plain base designs. Did I overlook something? Would my two alloy hollow base .45-70 bullets of about 420 grains at 1350 fps from a Handi be somehow less potent than the 300 grain .44 Magnum loads you so admire?

DJ': I will get much more than 1350 out of a .44 NEF if I do get one.     For an NEF I'd load bulk H-110 and get over 1850 fps with a 265 gr' bullet out of its 22" barrel.     Some of National Bullets hard-cast will not lead at that velocity, and their copper-coated might be perfect out of a Handi'.  
------------------------------------------
I would love to see a deeper level of discussion. If you'll post your experiments and results with two alloy bullets, I'll do the same and we'll have real world experience to discuss rather than the imaginative pen of a gunwriter. Been years since I made any up, but I could get to it and have some results to post by next week.  Would that be time enough for you to get some together?

DJ: I won't be developing ANY cast bullets for your study, since as I said already, the article was for Mac's benefit.    Anything else said was in reply to your incorrect assertion about what I poo-pooed and why.   I buy National Bullet Co's hard-cast and have EXCELLENT results with them out of handguns.    I buy bullets instead of molds.   I buy bullets instead of furnaces.    I will buy a .44 Handi' probably, when they change the rifling, and scope it so it'll be my deer and hog slayer out to 175 yds.    I believe the Handi' is that accurate.  
----------------------------------------------
And since you favor high velocity, shall we restrict our trials to over 1600 fps for the pistol caliber carbines? We'll do it all in microgroove barrels, of course. Just let me know when you have some of your own experiments and experience to discuss and we'll get right to it.

DJ: My micro-groove is out on loan, with some 158 gr' jFp's for nuisance deer.    It stays out on loan for that use.    I can beat 1600 fps with hard-cast out of a .357 carbine like taking a breath.    If anything, a .357 would be expected by a physics prof' to handle such two-metal bullets more readily than a .44 or .45, assuming a constant sectional density, of course.     Can you tell me why?     I know why!

[Leftoverdj]

SS, the reason we experiment is to get the answers to the questions. You never really know until you have tried it. I'm merely suggesting that you run some trials. Opinions without hands on experience are meaningless.

And shooting a few commercial bulk cast bullets, tells you only the limits of those bullets. That limited experience has led you to a false conclusion, a good many false conclusions, in fact.

I shoot cast bullets in microgroove barrels. I do with reasonable accuracy and at velocities up to 2300 fps. My test standard is sub inch groups at 50 yards. When I can get to a hundred yard range, reshooting confirms that my loads stay under 2 moa. some loads quite a bit under 2 moa. So it can be done, fairly easily at that. There are folks who put more effort into it and get even better results.

I've also done a limited amount of work with two alloy bullets. I found that they increased my group size 25-50%, but still gave adequate hunting accuracy. I attribute the difference to the difficulty of getting complete fusion and a perfectly balanced bullet.

If you find that you would rather buy and shoot jacketed bullets, that is a wise choice for you. It does not entitle you to disparage the gun and the rifling because you failed to learn the basics of successful cast bullet shooting in microgroove barrels. The fault does not lie in microgroove rifling, but in your lack of knowlege.

[Paul5388]

SS,

As much as I like the .44 mag', a micro-grooved rifle need not apply for the job of launching these projectiles.

My micro groove .357 Handi is shooting 250 gr Beartooth LFNGC at around 1" at 100 yards.  I believe they are 22 BHN, but I'm only driving them at 1200 fps out of the Handi.  These are sized to .359" with a .358" gas check.

I tried some Oregon Trails Laser Cast 158 gr with 13.5 gr 2400 in .38 Special brass at 25 yards not too long ago and had a few keyholes and a shotgun pattern out of the Handi.  Too hard, too fast and too small at .358" to engrave properly.  Nice slow .38 Special swaged wadcutters shot better than the Laser Cast.  Swaged HBWC loaded upside down with 3.5 gr Green Dot shot better than the Laser Cast too.

[Mac11700]

DJ:

I shoot cast bullets in microgroove barrels. I do with reasonable accuracy and at velocities up to 2300 fps. My test standard is sub inch groups at 50 yards.

 :eek:  That's some impressive velocities and groups...which Handi you getting tat kind of performance out of...a 44 Mag...? Are you getting any leading with these...are they plain base or gas checked???Come-on...fill me in....

The fault does not lie in microgroove rifling, but in your lack of knowlege.

It might not be his lack of knowledge DJ...it could be a run of bad luck with the micro-grooved barrels...could it not???...I've seen a few that gave good results with cast bullets(pre-cast...and my own)...but quite a few more that wouldn't as well...so I wouldn't say with certainty that the man has no knowledge of them...can you? I only experimented with 1 Handi...in 30-30 with my own,the rest  were your typical Winchesters and Marlins...so by no-means am I an expert in the bullet making craft...but just offering a opinion and a little background...


Mac

[safetysheriff]

SS, I shoot cast bullets in microgroove barrels. I do with reasonable accuracy and at velocities up to 2300 fps. My test standard is sub inch groups at 50 yards. When I can get to a hundred yard range, reshooting confirms that my loads stay under 2 moa. some loads quite a bit under 2 moa. So it can be done, fairly easily at that. There are folks who put more effort into it and get even better results.

I've also done a limited amount of work with two alloy bullets. I found that they increased my group size 25-50%, but still gave adequate hunting accuracy. I attribute the difference to the difficulty of getting complete fusion and a perfectly balanced bullet.

.

At times, as already noted, I loan out rifles for nuisance hunting.     Nuisance animals may be shot straight-on at distances over 125 yds' with neck shots that need to do MUCH BETTER than 3 moa capability at 100 yds.    A Handi' for such use would have to 'thread the needle' among fruit trees at that 125 yd' distance in some cases.   If the accuracy is not there, the animal may be missed -- which merely educates them - or it may die a lingering death which they do not deserve just because we aren't accurate.      

I stand by my assertion that .44 mag Handi's need not apply for the kind of two-alloy bullets that Ross described......because such a great percentage of them have problems with accuracy.     Sure, it works with some, "a few" as Mac said; but it's seriously problematic with many more.

I'd rate gas-checked hard-cast as much more rational out of a Handi' with micro-grooving than Ross' two-part bullet.    THEN AGAIN, that was not the point of posting this article.

SS'

[Mac11700]

SS:
 
The article...even though it is a good read...doesn't validate a few simple facts in regards to the 300 grain Nosler Partition's supposed failure...this was brought up.by myself...and others...shortly after the article appeared in print...  and debated on the forums..to which I'll reply again...at what yardage was the cow elk shot??? and what was the muzzle velocity of the round??.....I do know what this paticular bullet will do when fired from a 45-70 and takes a deer with complete penatration at 152 yards...and have seen plenty of pictures from others who have taken elk with it in the 45-70 and their respectable yardages ...all under 200 yards...and all of the test preformed on the ballistic medium too...those that have been written...and my own experiments at various yardages...and to say that this bullet is one of the best I've used would be understated...but again...I choose my yardages very carefully...and do  try to get withing 200 yards if possible....but what has that to do with his 2 parts cast bullets...well...since he is trying to duplicate the similar characteristics of the performance of the Nosler...plenty...would a 50 gain weight difference make that much more difference to an elk's shoulder knuckle...with the velocities a 45-70 offer??? I really don't see how...but..stranger things have happened too.....and since the 45-70 has taken much larger bison at very long yardages with a 405 grain bullet...at...BP velocities...I do understand the premise of using a much heavier bullet at longer distances...but I question why anyone elk hunting would try exceedingly long shots anyway...without first looking at the ballistics of the load....and having an understanding of  it...but ofcourse..if he's trying to imply that they were hunting up close and the bullet failed...that is a different story...and one from my own experiances wouldn't believe...

Mac

[Leftoverdj]

I got the 2300 fps and 1" 50 yard accuracy from a .25-06 barrel and 100 grain GCs. That load does not have a lot of practical application, but it's the only microgroove barrel I have around that's chambered for a high velocity cartridge. It's also one of the barrels that comes without a sight dovetail.

That's important. It ain't coincidence that most of those happily shooting cast in microgroove barrels are shooting .45-70s. That's another barrel that comes without a sight dovetail.  The problems with the barrels come not from the form of the rifling, but from the method by which the dovetail is formed and from the fact that Marlin/NEF barrels run a tad on the loose side. Loose is unimportant, just means a slightly fatter bullet is needed.

A tight spot is another matter. The dovetail is formed by driving a broach through the steel. Very often, this results in a tight spot from steel being displaced into the bore.  It's often possible to feel this with a tight cleaning patch, but when you drive a soft lead slug through to bore to determine proper bullet size, you can easily feel a constriction. Cast bullets don't like this at all.

The solution, if you're into cast bullets, is to buy one of the barrels that is drilled and tapped only.

I'm fortunate in that my other barrels are not badly constricted. The barrel I .357 Maxed will give me my sub inch 50 yard groups with 180 grain GC bullets at just under 2000 fps. That's about as fast as I can push them. My .44 Mag 1894 Marlin gave me incredible 100 yard groups with 255 SWC GCs and the old 2400 at 1750 fps. I have not worked up a good load for that rifle since the formulation changed, however.

But I'd sure love to see some groups from that magic .357. Been my experience that when you can beat 2 MOA with a pistol caliber carbine, you're doing pretty good, jacketed or cast. I've posted my groups in the past and will post more in the future. Expect Wlscott to post a few more for me when he posts on the Postal Match. I'm kinda amazed that Safety Sheriff don't enter the Postal Matches to show how bad jacketed will beat cast.

[Mac11700]

DJ:

A tight spot is another matter. The dovetail is formed by driving a broach through the steel. Very often, this results in a tight spot from steel being displaced into the bore. It's often possible to feel this with a tight cleaning patch, but when you drive a soft lead slug through to bore to determine proper bullet size, you can easily feel a constriction. Cast bullets don't like this at all.

I have heard this too...but...that one problem can be elimanated by lapping...and I haven't been unfortunate to have one of the oversized Handi's I've heard so-much about...and most of them...that has been discussed...has beeen the 38-55...not the 44mag.....and whenever I've talked with Jennifer at NEF...about warrenty work...ie...replacing bad barrels...getting an oversized barrel replaced is sure a-lot easier to get...than having a long chambered one done...and ...( I hate this word)  I assume your 25-06 is a Handi??? I didn't know that the 25-06 barrels were micro-grooved...that's a new one,on me, if it is......would that be a newer version...or older version...?


Mac

[Leftoverdj]

Mac, my .25-06 barrel is just over a year old and has about twice as many shallow lands and grooves as seems reasonable to me. I'd call that microgrooving.

I'd heard about lapping the tight spot out and might try it some year if I got desperate, but doing so is essentially wearing the barrel out in one spot. You are always going to take more off the lands than you can off the grooves. Also, lapping is a bear of a job. I've done it to a couple of milsurps to polish frosted bores and I'm not eager to do it again.

I've only slugged a handful of Marlin/NEF barrels, but every one of them has been over nominal groove diameter, sometimes not by much, but always over. The serious cast bullet shooters on some other boards at which I hang out are convinced that these barrels run oversized.

The .38-55 Target Model is a special case. Those who buy one to shoot are overwhelmingly either bullet casters or about to become bullet casters because of the shortage of suitable bullets. These rifles come under much more scrutiny than any of the other calibers. The second factor is that mould makers and commercial casters want compromise designs for either the .375 Win or the .38-55 and there's just too much spread in bullet diameter.

I'm just a dabbler and still learning new stuff as I shoot, but I do know that microgroove barrels can shoot cast exceedingly well. I also know that anyone who just buys a box of commerical cast of nominal size and stuffs them on top of his favorite jacketed bullet charge is gonna come away telling all and sundry "Microgroove barrels won't shoot cast." Nevermind that he has never shot cast in anything, has no idea of the requirements of cast bullets, and has put no real effort into it.

[Mac11700]

DJ:

I also know that anyone who just buys a box of commerical cast of nominal size and stuffs them on top of his favorite jacketed bullet charge is gonna come away telling all and sundry "Microgroove barrels won't shoot cast." Nevermind that he has never shot cast in anything, has no idea of the requirements of cast bullets, and has put no real effort into it.

OK...lets set this straight here...I don't ...and I can't say for SS if he does...but ...I don't load up cast bullets on any jacketed round data...period...that's stupid and wastefull...to even try it...and can be dangerous as well...so please don't make blanket statements like that...I work up any cast load ...with cast data...as do most reloaders,and usually I'll try various diameter bullets...and even mic them so I know the size...prior to loading them...and keep notes to their performance,granted it isn't cheap...but at least for me it works that way.........and if I've read more into this than I should have ...I apologize...

Microgroove barrels can be a real pain in the butt sometimes to get them to shoot with cast bullets...notice I didn't say always...because that certainly isn't the case...but,as you know, just as some rifles will shoot jacketed great and cast lousy...others will be just the opposite...and that is the way it is...nothing will change that...even after spending tons of money,and spending time to get them to shoot...some never will...and that is unfortunate...but in reality...would spending even more money on casting equpment be the answer...to some yes...but certainaly not to all...it too varies from person to person...each have different criteria and circumstances that will determine this...


What I'm getting at is quite simple...and this is for all...just as each of us is different and unique...so to are are our rifles...and everyone has an opinion...as long as we note that it is our opinion,and not fact... and one can go as far as to explain why he/she feels this way... then there shouldn't be a problem with it...

Soooo now that that's said...lets get back to the real reasons of casting bullets for our Handi's and it's merits...shall we...


Mac

[safetysheriff]

Mac, my .25-06 barrel is just over a year old and has about twice as many shallow lands and grooves as seems reasonable to me. I'd call that microgrooving.

I'm just a dabbler and still learning new stuff as I shoot, but I do know that microgroove barrels can shoot cast exceedingly well. I also know that anyone who just buys a box of commerical cast of nominal size and stuffs them on top of his favorite jacketed bullet charge is gonna come away telling all and sundry "Microgroove barrels won't shoot cast." Nevermind that he has never shot cast in anything, has no idea of the requirements of cast bullets, and has put no real effort into it.

Group,

Sounds to me like we have two opinions here, and I for one am going to come under Mac's guidance on this that we don't argue, but get back to the real reasons for casting.    Assumptions about my/our experience and abilities are worthless.     I could say more; but Mac is right.    

I believe, that when we lay down our money on a Handi' we want performance.     I know I've gotten it richly from my .223 heavy barrel, and could get it from my .30-06 if I spent more time on it.     But, because of the odds of having problems with a micro-groove I'll say that they are not worth the gamble for a cast-bullet shooter.    Too many among us decry the cost of rifles and the situations we have financially.   Not all, but too many, such that I think by far most of us would be better off with a different form of rifling.

I hope that when we lay down our money in the future that we can purchase .44 mag's with faster-twist, more-deeply-cut rifling that will generally handle any bullet that comes down the pike.     I am a .44 mag FAN, but will not gamble with success coming from a micro-groove shooting cast bullets.   FWIW: I solemnly assure you, in Northeastern Ohio where I live, I can easily get cast-bullet supplies or buy finished cast bullets at a host of gun shows that go on around here.    I live in Gun Show heaven!      

Take care,

SS'

[Leftoverdj]

Well, Mac, when I do something and it works, it's a fact. Until it's actually been done, it's an opinion and best kept to one's self or clearly labeled as a mere opinion.

I got into casting like most folks do. It let me get in a lot more shooting for my limited funds. At first, I was casting mostly for pistol, and my inadequacies as a pistol shot masked my inadequacies as a bullet caster. I got extremely lucky and my first try at loading for a Marlin 1894 carbine was a howling success. From then on, I knew that it could be done and it was just a matter of finding how to do it.

Along the way, I found out that my cast bullets would let me do things that jacketed wouldn't. Shooting for 3 cents a pop is a major one. Hunting small game with my deer rifles is another. Shooting in a large lot subdivision without outraging the neighbors is a third. The fourth reason is that it let me shoot guns for which bullets are not readily available. For Handi shooters, the .38-55 Target Model is a prime example of that. A fifth reason is that I am never gonna run out of bullets.

Contrary as I am, I also derive considerable satisfaction from doing something that people tell me can't be done. There is also a considerable satisfaction in doing it all yourself. It's like the satisfaction in handloading, but more so, for me at least.

Cast bullet shooting is not for everyone. You have to be or want to be a high colume shooter to consider it. It's not for folks with magnumitis. It's not for folks with more money than time.

But for the fellow whose taste runs to .30-30s, 357 Mag., .44 Mag., .45-70 and so on, and who shoots more than a thousand rounds a year, casting is something to be considered. He can match factory performance in those rounds if he wants to and he can shoot much more cheaply and quietly if he wants to. And just because he shoots cast for most of his shooting, he does not need to use cast for hunting. All it takes to switch back and forth is a good cleaning and sighting in. You may even be able to skip the sighting in.

The fellow who has a reason to shoot cast should not be discouraged from doing so just because he shoots a Marlin or an NEF. They have their quirks, but once those quirks are learned, they shoot cast bullets as well as anything else will.

[mag41vance]

I for one am not interested in casting bullets. I do enjoy shooting them in all my firearms. I have found that all my Handi rifles shoot cast very well. My next Handi will be .308 winchester, .280 remington, or the .45-70. I fully expect them to shoot plenty of cast bullets. My Marlin FG .41 mag shoots Federal 250 gr cast core rounds with excellent results and accuracy. That has been the best cast bullet in the .41. The .41 mag is a project in the works when it comes to cast.
 My .357 max shoots well under an inch with plain base 150 gr RCBS (sized at .358) over 13 gr of H4227, with winchester SPP at 50 yards.
   A nice squirrel load.

[Mac11700]

Very good reasons to try...but I'll add something as well for those unable to cast their own...and wanting to shoot them...there are several manufactures that have the various diameters to try...and I too was extreamly lucky in trying Cast Performance offerings first off for my 45-70...they are excellent bullets and the lube holds up great with virtually no-leading at all...and can be driven to much higher velocities than one normally drives cast bullets...and are one of the toughest cast bullets around...I proved that to my self and a few others who want to shoot cast at home...with the 10lb sledge hammer test.....


Mac