The 227299

  • 17K Views
  • Last Post 16 July 2014
joeb33050 posted this 03 November 2013

In 2003 I spent a lot of money and time not getting a Savage 12BVSS in 223 Rem to shoot accurately. In January 2013 I bought a Savage12FV and have spent the intervening ten months duplicating the ten year old failure. I have a Lyman 225415 mold that doesn't help, and just got a Lyman 225646 that looks to continue the march. I've considered a Shilen 5.7 X 28 barrel and attendant apparatus, and a 221 Fireball barrel-but came to my senses before the cash went down the swirley. I think that the problem is the mold design. The Lyman 31X299 is the best 30 caliber gas checked cast bullet designed to date. The Lyman 22 designs aren't close. Enter the 227299. Let us design a bullet with the advantages of the 31X299, in 22 caliber. I can't draw, can't cad, (can dance), and know that there's a cad/drawer out there. Here are some numbers to get us going. 31X299 is about 1.175” long, weighs around 200 grains. In 22 caliber: 227299
BULLET MINIMUM EST. WT.B.C. WIND DRIFT LENGTH “TWIST “ GRAINS 31X299=1 31X299=1 1.175 6.4 109 1 1 1.1 6.8 102 0.94 1.07 1 7.5 92 0.84 1.18 0.9 8.3 83 0.76 1.31 0.8 9.4 74 0.68 1.47 0.7 10.7 65 0.60 1.68 0.6 12.5 55 0.50 1.98 0.5 15 46 0.42 2.37 Minimum Twist is Greenhill, Est. Wt. is my estimator. B.C. is ballistic coefficient. If we call the B.C. of 31X299 1, then B.C. of a 22 caliber version the same length is 1, and B.C. falls as bullet length is decreased. Wind drift varies as B.C., inversely. The shorter the bullet, the more the wind drift.

So, for my 9” twist rifle, a bullet .8” long weighing 74 grains would have a B.C. = .68 times 31X299 B.C., and wind drift would be 1.47 times 31X299 wind drift.

Attached Files

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
joeb33050 posted this 03 November 2013

After the nose is done, A should be .217", tapering to .220” at B. I don't know that the band at C does anything for us, maybe no band and the .220 dimension at the grease groove? C, the gas check shank, has to stay. 2 grease grooves? I don't use the top one, maybe 1 grease groove? What would a 1 grease groove, no-top-band, .8” long .227” on the remaining 2 bands bullet look like? I do like .227".

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 03 November 2013

Here's the table, more clearly shown.

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 03 November 2013

Joe,

Good project. I believe you are right about being frustrated with the current 22 bullet molds on the market. Although some of them can be made to shoot OK usually after a struggle but only out to 100 yards because of excessive wind drift. Trying a scale model of the successful 299 makes sense.

I agree with your thought to eliminate the front lube groove. My somewhat similar Mos bullet has only one groove and I don't even use that and only have lube in the little space ahead of the gas check.

If you have a diameter .217 at A most of your nose will only touch air and will provide no guidance ahead of the point where it is at least .219 and maybe .220 in the factory barrels I have had. I would suggest .220 all the way.

The trick will be to convince someone to make the molds but there surely will be someone out there willing to give it a try if there is interest.

John

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 06 November 2013

I think this maybe what you need.

  1. The freebore in the 223 is .224 x .025 long. Note the first band of the bullet is designed to fill that freebore.

  2. I can see no need at all to make the base band any larger than .226, as the largest part of the chamber throat is .224.

  3. I gave the bore riding nose a .002 taper, starting at bore diameter to make it easier to chamber and get the .224 band into the freebore but, it might need to have only .001 to do that. Or as John suggests, .220 if that diameter will allow it to fully seat.

  4. I did two lengths, JoeB's .8 and a .9, because it will stabilize in a 9 twist.

As you can see, with bore riders and grooves, you don't get to  Determine the weight, the volume of lead alloy does that.

Frank

 

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 10 November 2013

Thanks for the drawings, Frank. Would either of these fit in a 5.56 X whatever current military ctg. case AND fit in the gun AND fit in the magazine; without the g.c. below the neck? Thanks; joe b.

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 10 November 2013

Since the 31X299 as modified above is the acknowledged best bullet design in the world, what would the above designs look like in other calibers. Golly kids,imagine the “299 family” of bullet designs, from 22 to 45 caliber. I'm starting to get excited.

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 10 November 2013

John Alexander wrote: Joe,

If you have a diameter .217 at A most of your nose will only touch air and will provide no guidance ahead of the point where it is at least .219 and maybe .220 in the factory barrels I have had. I would suggest .220 all the way.

The trick will be to convince someone to make the molds but there surely will be someone out there willing to give it a try if there is interest.

John

John; The nose dimensions are sorta complex, I think.Call the bore .220” and the bullet nose tapered. First is the tolerances at mold manufacture. A smallest nose nominal .220” with +/- .001” would work fine, but at the largest end-of-taper dimension? OAL gets shorter with larger dimensions. Second is bumping. Bullet noses bump up in 45/450/4500 lubrisizers.The amount of bump up depends on 1. base band/s diameter delta. From .316” to .309” vs. .312” to .309" 2. alloy hardness So, a .220” nose in softer alloy with ex .227” base bands might bump up to not fit in the bore. This bump up ain't there with Lee or other nose-first sizing. BTW, with my 311299 and 314299 mold collection and bumping I can fit a bullet to about any 30 caliber barrel. So the nose dimensions must take mfg tolerances, bump up, and OAL into consideration-and I don't know what cherry cut mold tolerances are. It seems to me that a small small end (.217"??) and a small big end (.220"??) might allow tolerances, bump up and ~good OAL. But, I don't know. Hence, here.

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 10 November 2013

Joe,

You are right unintended bumping of the nose can throw in a wild card. But you do want the nose supported ("engraved by the rifling) for as much length as possible and I don't think starting with an undesized nose and depending on bumping is the best way to get uniform results.

My Mos 85 grain (.90") bullet has uniform nose diameter and I have lapped it out to fit the usual bore diameter better (which I have seldom found to be .219".

To avoid bumping and changing the nose diameter in an uncontrolled way. I first size to .226” and crimp on the gas check in a Lee push through die lapped out to .226.” I then lube in a conventional lubrisizer with a die that has also been lapped out to .226” -- no bumping. Thus the long parallel sided nose keeps the same diameter it came out of the mold with. If you can find a combination that will shoot well with tumble lube you could avoid the extra trip through a sizer. John

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 10 November 2013

The .800 long bullet would have a COAL of 2.437 in a .223 case, loaded as it should be. The .900 lg would be 2.537 COAL.

This bullet's base will occupy .165 of the case neck, well forward of the shoulder to neck junction.

For the bullet to occupy the full length of the case neck, it would need to be .070 longer in the driving band area, making it .87 long (that includes the .015 GC thickness).

If you made both bands and the greese groove .065 wide it would do that and you could shorten the bore riding area of the nose by .187 to get it in a AR mag, giving a bullet of .673 in length.

Frank

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 10 November 2013

Regarding bumping, I agree with John, It's better to have a oversize nose and co-axial size the bullet (size both the base and nose at the same time).

This design of mine will dictate that the forward band be .224 to engage the .025 long freebore (ball seat)of the 223 cartridge so, it would be a must that the forward band cast .224/.2238, not any larger or, it too would have to be sized. Your base band doesn't really need to be larger than .225 to seal the throat of the chamber unless the chamber is oversize.

John, have you considered pan lubing to avoid using the lubrisizer? I believe that it's much better to have lube in the groove before doing any sizing. The lube can not compress after it enters the sizing die and supports the grooves when sizing.

Frank

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 11 November 2013

Frank,

You give me credit for more sophistication in my loading than I deserve. I don't size the nose. I understand the process but like to keep it simple and try to cast the nose the diameter needed and then avoid enlarging it by bumping.

You must be dealing with a higher class rifle than the ones I am usually monkeying with to shoot in production or hunter class or for hunting.

It has been my experience that .224 is definitely not always big enough for the front band to seal in factory throats. The limited sample of rifles that I have slugged were all over .225” and some as big as .2265"

On your design the font band is very narrow. Wouldn't a wider front band reduce the possibility of the bullet “skidding” and opening up gaps in the front band on back side of the grooves being pressed into the bullet as it is forced to spin.? This problem is worse in the quick twists needed to stabilize the long bullets under discussion.

Pan lubing 22 bullets that would rather fall over than not is frustrating. I can't see that the bands are visibly distorted by the sizing so I am not sure it is necessary -- but I could be wrong.

The big question of course is who are we going to get to produce molds for these great designs. With all the fancy gear available it should be doable.

John

Attached Files

lmcollins posted this 11 November 2013

You are going for “The GOLD Standard” in scaling down this projectile.

The 223 is noted for its disgusting short neck. That is why anyone with any common sense that wants to shot cast goes to the 222 case. That is why John Wooters went to the 222 case for his 222/25 Copperhead. I built myself a 221 Fireball so that I'd have a short/small case to shot some cast in for small game. I havent gotten that far yet, but that is why I did it. For hunting, I thought that I might have to use short 40 grain bullets (jacketed) for the 22 Hornet.

Are you not asking for the impossible to have these small, relatively fragile cast bullets to perhaps work through a semiauto? A gentle crimp, and single load yes. But any more than that? I have hunted with round nose jacketed bullets in my 358 bolt action, and their noses are all buggered after being in and out of the rifle a time or two.

I just state these facts out loud as I think. Experience?

 

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 11 November 2013

John, The narrow front band is only to help align the bullet in the 223's ball seat so, that you have the most support as possible. A one band bullet was requested but, I didn't want to neglect that one area of the chamber.

I've pan lubed a lot of 25 caliber bullet w/o trouble. If you have any bump on the base a new sprue plate with a hole no bigger that about .080 should cure it.

Imcollins, I agree about the 223's short neck but, the 223 is here to stay (just as the 30/40, '06 and 308) and you can't buy a new 222 or 222 mag.

I'm a target shooter and not even a hunter so, I have no use for magazines, at all. But, if such a bullet did exist, there would be all kinds of guys trying to get it to shoot from the mag. at 3000+ fps.

For a source, I'd try to get a group buy going at NOE with my drawing.

Frank

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 11 November 2013

Here is one that will fill the neck.

 

Attached Files

JeffinNZ posted this 12 November 2013

This is a brilliant idea.

Cheers from New Zealand

Attached Files

RDUPRAZ posted this 12 November 2013

With some minor tweaking and scaled up to .30 cal, that's exactly the design that I have been wanting for my short necked .308's. If I could find someone to bore the mold.

RD

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 12 November 2013

I got side tracked on the gas gun/magazine business. I'm OK with the front band of any reasonable width. Greenhill says that a 9” twist has a max .225” bullet length of ~.8435", so I'm guessing that a safe 9” twist length is ~.82” or even .8. Opinions? So, Frank,would you make a drawing with the front band as required, and a length of .8"? Or, whatever length is decided on here. Now, the mold cutter. Lyman is my choice. We're the CAST BULLET ASSOCIATION, they're in the mold etc. business, they should take our advice and make these molds. We know about cast bullets and what's lacking-and it ain't the 225415 OR the 225646. If Lyman made a decent-design 22 bullet mold, of the correct size, they'd sell them. I think.

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 12 November 2013

Joe, just copy the drawing and edit the numbers as you like. Such as change the bore ride section to .230 and reduce the associated numbers above it.

Frank

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 12 November 2013

RDupraz,

divide 308 by 224 and multiply all the number to bring it to 30 cal.

Frank

Attached Files

RDUPRAZ posted this 12 November 2013

Works perfectly! Thanks

RD

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 12 November 2013

Frank,

My bullets don't have bumps on the bottom because I rotate the sprue cutter by hand and use down pressure. I think you are just more patient and less klutzy than me. How do you make those nice drawings?

Joe,

You are right about what Greenhill says but I have been shooting a .90” length bullet in competition for over ten years usually in a nine inch twist and have had some luck with it even with 1,300 fps loads. It even makes round holes.

However, I do think it is pushing things and maybe something a bit shorter would be prudent. The Mos bullets I just sent you are .85” long you can shoot them in your 9” twist and see for yourself.

Because that bullet has been proven to work in competition I think that might be a good design to try to get a mold maker to turn out.

John

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 12 November 2013

John, I bought the program about 1.5 years ago. The software company is shown at the bottom of the page.

Green hill is a old system and doesn't allow for the bullets CG. CG can make a big difference, GH won't solve for a wad cutter design. This is the best stabilization program availible.

http://www.border-barrels.com/barreltwist.htm

Adjust things around and see what I mean.

Frank

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 12 November 2013

Thanks Frank I will have to look into it.

John

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 14 November 2013

John; The Mos bullet has a bottom band of .228", one grease groove, then a .225” band, then, after a taper,goes to .220".This looks sorta like the 299 with a sharp point. Spitzery. At .85” long Greenhill twist is ~9". It looks like Frank's drawing of the 75 grain bullet-with a sharp point. (I have a prejudice against sharp pointed cast bullets, not sure it has any basis in fact.)

I'd like to get a design we can agree on, and a drawing I can start pestering mold makers with. All help is welcome. Everybody, chime in. joe b.

Attached Files

nimrod posted this 14 November 2013

I'm in and know of at least 3 more people that would want one.

RB

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 14 November 2013

i think that if you approach a moldmaker with a handful of twenties, you wouldn't be considered a pest.

i used to think moldmakers charged too much ... but then i made a couple molds myself ... one at a time, i had about 9 hours in each mold.

lathe boring the cavities is the fun part ... milling the blocks to me is just work.

hoping that lee will list their mold block blanks again. ken

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 05 December 2013

Here it is. I'd like to get a design set and start shopping it to mold makers.

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 05 December 2013

If you do that, please keep my Elco name attached to it.

Frank

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 06 December 2013

Joe et.al.,

OK if we are going to get serious about trying to get somebody to make molds for a decent 22 bullet design, it seem to me that we should first try to agree on what the objective or objectives will be.

I will state mine and others can agree or disagree. My interest is in a bullet that will be competitive for CBA competition, win turkey shoots, work in factory rifles with a 9 inch or faster twist when used as single shots with only conventional sizing, or no sizing. In other words, bumping or tapering should not be required if we want to interest more shooters. I am against compromises to make the bullet better for other uses such as fitting into a box magazine or effectiveness on game. The objective boils down to maximum accuracy and the best BC obtainable.

Let's hear your ideas.

John

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 06 December 2013

John; Your definition is fine by me. It looks like a ~.84” long bullet at ~72 grains will stabilize in a 9” twist barrel, Greenhill, Powley or Miller. What about that point? Pointed makes me uncomfortable. ?? Also, nose dimensions. If I understand, 22 cf barrel bore diameter is .220". Should the nose tapet from .219” to .221", or what dimensions? Should the nose be tapered? I'm thinking .219” +.002/-0 would be nice. ??? .219” allows for some bumping during sizing. How much does bore enlarge as the rifle is fired, .000"? /?? shots??

John Alexander wrote: Joe et.al.,

OK if we are going to get serious about trying to get somebody to make molds for a decent 22 bullet design, it seem to me that we should first try to agree on what the objective or objectives will be.

I will state mine and others can agree or disagree. My interest is in a bullet that will be competitive for CBA competition, win turkey shoots, work in factory rifles with a 9 inch or faster twist when used as single shots with only conventional sizing, or no sizing. In other words, bumping or tapering should not be required if we want to interest more shooters. I am against compromises to make the bullet better for other uses such as fitting into a box magazine or effectiveness on game. The objective boils down to maximum accuracy and the best BC obtainable.

Let's hear your ideas.

John

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 06 December 2013

If we don't come up with objectives radically different from the ones I proposed above, I think the 85 grain 75 grain bullet designs I have been using in competition for the last twelve years come close to a promising design and I have had some success in competition with them so they are somewhat proven designs. They are quite similar to Frank's design with some important dimensional differences. They are also somewhat similar to Joe's design which appears to be a scale model of Lyman's excellent xxx299 bullet but my design has only one lube groove which may still be one too many since I never fill it with lube.

As with any bullet design they have their faults. The front band was originally only about .224 in diameter. This should have been OK, as Frank has noted because the SAAMI specifications call for a .224 ball seat. However of the factory rifles I have used in competition, .224” wasn't big enough to seal in any of them. I have since enlarged the front bands by lapping. (.225” for the 75 grain mold and .2255” for the 85grain mold) and plan to lap them out more.

The original design called for the noses to be .220” in diameter and cylindrical from in front of the front band to the start of the nose taper for the “spitzery” point (.31” in length for the 75grain and .36” for the longer bullet.) David Mos hit the .220” dimension on the nose and was also able to make the very sharp point I called for. If other mold makers can't make the sharp point I think the design with something somewhat pointy would still be better than anything now available.

The .220” bore riding nose section has not been too big for any of my rifles when using alloys of less than 16 BHN. However, it would probably be wise to specify .219” to allow some tolerance. If the mold's noses came out too small a little lapping could fix them but if too large the bullet wouldn't work. To fully take advantage of the cylindrical nose it may be required to size in a push through die like Lee as I do to avoid the nose bumping and the diameter being all over the lot with softer alloys.

Joe, I believe your prejudice against sharp pointed bullets does probably have some basis in fact, I believe that the long full diameter bore riding portion of the designs above aligns and supports the spitzer nose well enough to attain good accuracy while some other spitzer designs with less support have a reputation for poor accuracy. Quite a few competitors, including some plain base shooters are using pointed bullets.

I also think the one lube groove could be smaller to allow more band length

The short taper you noted ahead of the front band on the 75 grain bullet was caused by my lapping out the front band with a sloppy technique that I have since improved.

I agree that the ideal length for the 9” twist of many 223s is probably .85”, the length of the 75 grain bullet. I have used the 85grain bullet (length = .90”) successfully in 9 inch twists but that is pushing it. The shorter the bullet the more you give up both in length of bore riding nose and ballistic coefficient. I think both are important.

John

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 07 December 2013

My thoughts:

  1. The only reason that you need larger bullets is to seal the groove from gas pressure. The base band does that. I would leave the front band at NO larger that .2245 if it has a SAMMI spec chamber. You need to ascertain what your chamber specs are before going larger than .2245 on the area that goes into the ball seat. If it's larger, it can not help with aligning the bullet. Extruding the lead in a bullet isn't a good thing, it can deform and/or tear the band.

  2. Tapers align things, we in SS use them to align the bullet during breech seating. I thought it important to the design, especially with it shot from the case. Alignment is the name of the game in fixed.

  3. With my design, there is virtually no space ahead of the GC area. So, you'll not have much lube at all if eliminated. I would suggest that the bands be increased to .075, leaving a .045 lube groove, if you want to minimize the amount of lube.

  4. Regarding the point....... I like full spitzers but, put a 299 radius on it because that was requested and in general, people feel more comfort able with a 299 nose because it's arguably the most successful design out there.

If it were me, I'd put a 4 caliber ogive on it and make the nose tip a .015 mepat.

Frank

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 07 December 2013

i'VE HAD TROUBLE GETTING GAS CHECKS ON 22S. nOT WITH lYMAN MOLDS, WITH Eagan and others. The gc shank should be correct!

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 07 December 2013

Frank,

Well, we can agree on most things.

Alignment is the name of the game not only in fixed ammunition but all CB shooting. And tapers align things. It is just done in a different way in breach seating as you note.

I agree that excessive extruding is a bad thing. All successful CBs are extruded a bit unless cast at exactly groove diameter which isn't what we usually do. I guess you would also have to cast the grooves into the bullet to eliminate all extruding but that is picking nits.

We both like full spitzers and mine are a two caliber ogive, not four as you suggest because I didn't want the nose to take up too much length but they are still pretty spitzery as Joe observed. The meplat is about .03”. This is half the diameter of Sierra 53 grain Match Kings and very sharp. However, that is only because David Mos is extraordinarily skillful and other mold makers that will make 22 caliber molds at all, either can't or won't do it. So we probably will have to settle for a bigger meplat if the maker uses lathe boring.

As far as the gap ahead of the gas check, your design could be changed. Is there some reason to minimize the gap? My Mos molds have a gap of about .015” which seems to hold all the lube needed. However, I have no objection to having a small lube groove after all it is traditional to have grooves and it might be needed. If the bullet had both a gap and a small groove it would give more lubing options.

How the bullet seals the bore and aligns itself is where we don't agree. Maybe you are right that the rear band can seal the deal. In breach seating that is true, but with fixed ammunition the rear band is back in the case mouth when the things start to happen and has to move forward before it touches anything solid except case. Maybe this works if things are right but with the rifles I have been shooting unless I get a good seal on the front band with the seated cartridge I have trouble.

It seems to me that with a properly sized bore riding nose the bullet alignment is completed by the nose before the cartridge is fully seated and before the front band touches anything. So I don't think the front band has anything to do with alignment ”€œ at least with either your or my designs. The tapers involved in alignment by the nose are the throat taper and the curve of the ogive just before it reaches full size and both are very gentle. Of course if the nose is undersized the front band is all you have to align the bullet but then the taper involved is the much sharper taper leading to the ball seat. This would work but I don't think either of us is assuming an undersized nose.

The only other area of disagreement I see is whether the bore riding part of the nose should taper or be a cylinder. If the bore diameter were exactly .219” your bullet would be a bore rider for the full length IF it were fairly soft. But if of linotype, or harder, the .221 rear part of the nose would be very difficult to engrave and would probably push the bullet back in the case somewhat ”€œ at least that has happened to me when trying to engrave linotype bullets even less than .002” over bore size. However, if the bore dimension was .220”, as some of my factory rifles are, only half of your bullet's nose would be touching anything and the front half of the nose would be ineffective. I think a cylinder is the right shape for the bore riding part. Of course it may have to be fitted by lapping, alloy adjustments, or even beagling but when fitted it will be guiding with the full length.

I suspect that some of our differences of opinion are because you may use more custom barrels and carefully cut chambers and swage bullets after casting and thus may have more confidence in the SAAMI numbers than I do. My main interest is in getting accuracy with factory chambers and bores with all their warts.

John

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 07 December 2013

Frank,

Well, we can agree on most things.

Alignment is the name of the game not only in fixed ammunition but all CB shooting. And tapers align things. It is just done in a different way in breach seating as you note.

I agree that excessive extruding is a bad thing. All successful CBs are extruded a bit unless cast at exactly groove diameter which isn't what we usually do. I guess you would also have to cast the grooves into the bullet to eliminate all extruding but that is picking nits.

We both like full spitzers and mine are a two caliber ogive, not four as you suggest because I didn't want the nose to take up too much length but they are still pretty spitzery as Joe observed. The meplat is about .03”. This is half the diameter of Sierra 53 grain Match Kings and very sharp. However, that is only because David Mos is extraordinarily skillful and other mold makers that will make 22 caliber molds at all, either can't or won't do it. So we probably will have to settle for a bigger meplat if the maker uses lathe boring.

As far as the gap ahead of the gas check, your design could be changed. Is there some reason to minimize the gap? My Mos molds have a gap of about .015” which seems to hold all the lube needed. However, I have no objection to having a small lube groove after all it is traditional to have grooves and it might be needed. If the bullet had both a gap and a small groove it would give more lubing options.

How the bullet seals the bore and aligns itself is where we don't agree. Maybe you are right that the rear band can seal the deal. In breach seating that is true, but with fixed ammunition the rear band is back in the case mouth when the things start to happen and has to move forward before it touches anything solid except case. Maybe this works if things are right but with the rifles I have been shooting unless I get a good seal on the front band with the seated cartridge I have trouble.

It seems to me that with a properly sized bore riding nose the bullet alignment is completed by the nose before the cartridge is fully seated and before the front band touches anything. So I don't think the front band has anything to do with alignment ”€œ at least with either your or my designs. The tapers involved in alignment by the nose are the throat taper and the curve of the ogive just before it reaches full size and both are very gentle. Of course if the nose is undersized the front band is all you have to align the bullet but then the taper involved is the much sharper taper leading to the ball seat. This would work but I don't think either of us is assuming an undersized nose.

The only other area of disagreement I see is whether the bore riding part of the nose should taper or be a cylinder. If the bore diameter were exactly .219” your bullet would be a bore rider for the full length IF it were fairly soft. But if of linotype, or harder, the .221 rear part of the nose would be very difficult to engrave and would probably push the bullet back in the case somewhat ”€œ at least that has happened to me when trying to engrave linotype bullets even less than .002” over bore size. However, if the bore dimension was .220”, as some of my factory rifles are, only half of your bullet's nose would be touching anything and the front half of the nose would be ineffective. I think a cylinder is the right shape for the bore riding part. Of course it may have to be fitted by lapping, alloy adjustments, or even beagling but when fitted it will be guiding with the full length.

I suspect that some of our differences of opinion are because you may use more custom barrels and carefully cut chambers and swage bullets after casting and thus may have more confidence in the SAAMI numbers than I do. My main interest is in getting accuracy with factory chambers and bores with all their warts.

John

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 07 December 2013

Regarding the tapered bore riding nose, if you have a .219 bore, it will take the same amount of pressure to seat the .002 taper as the straight .001 oversize nose. The displacement of metal is the same. You also have to remember that there is a transition area of .045 from the ball seat of .224 into the bore of .219.

Yes, I use match quality barrels but, if your trying for a group by for your mold, you'll have to be able to caiter to most barrel configurations, here the taper will work better for all. Not many will want to buy a mold and then lap it to size, especially with the risk of going to large while doing it.

For the front band, if you want that larger, taper it from .224 up to what ever you want for less extrusion and chance of damage.

Little things can help and I'm only trying to help, too.

Frank

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 07 December 2013

frnkeore wrote:

"Regarding the tapered bore riding nose, if you have a .219 bore, it will take the same amount of pressure to seat the .002 taper as the straight .001 oversize nose. The displacement of metal is the same. “

You are right that the total displacement of metal would be the same. The work (Ft. - #) will also be the same to engrave the whole nose. However, the maximum force required at any one point to engrave will be twice a much when engraving .002” (back end of bore riding section) as when engraving .001” and force is what causes the bullet to slip in the neck not the overall work of engraving the length of the nose.

"You also have to remember that there is a transition area of .045 from the ball seat of .224 into the bore of .219.”

Yes that would come into play as the front band advanced.

"Yes, I use match quality barrels but, if your trying for a group by for your mold, you'll have to be able to caiter to most barrel configurations, here the taper will work better for all. Not many will want to buy a mold and then lap it to size, especially with the risk of going to large while doing it."

It may be a toss up depending on the relationship of the individual barrel and the actual mold dimensions. There is one other factor. Lathe boring the extremely slight taper for the nose will be tough. I think you will get a series of steps but I guess that would be OK so no problem.

"For the front band, if you want that larger, taper it from .224 up to what ever you want for less extrusion and chance of damage."

My original design called for exactly that but it came back without the taper. I assumed that lathe boring a 22 bullet mold is tough enough without doing tapers and I didn't complain.

"Little things can help and I'm only trying to help, too."

We are both trying to get the best design. Too bad we can't sit down and sketch things on paper while we talk.

We are probably driving Joe mad with our different ideas.

John

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 08 December 2013

You're not driving me mad, I've been there for years. I have 311299 SC and DC, and 314299 DC. Having a choice of 5 slightly different bullets is great. I wonder if we could get 2 different-dimensioned (slightly) cavities-or is that too much. Maybe the cavities will vary a little anyhow. Mashing a ctg in a chamber is about dimensions, but also about hardness. A hard bullet with an oversize nose is MUCH harder to chamber than a softer bullet, same dimensions. Among the things I don't know is interference fits/metal displacement. With, ex, .220” lands, what is the relationship between bullet dimension and force-to-seat? Hard .225” bullets do NOT go in my rifle, but soft noses up to .303” go in some/most/all? of my guns-with some force. So, I don't know if a .221” bullet is hard to push into a .220” bore gun, etc. Grease grooves hold grease; reduce surface area/friction and provide a place for displaced metal to go. See conventional/pope/multi groove bullets. Do we want the 2nd groove to go away? You guys keep at it. I wish I knew what tolerances a lathe-borer mold maker can hold, reasonably.

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 08 December 2013

About being mad. Maybe cast bullet shooting has done that to all of us who have been at it seriously and i'm not talking about lead poisoning.

I like the idea of asking for two slightly differently dimensioned cavities especially for the nose. It couldn't hurt to ask.

You are right about the right interference fit (the amount the male part (nose diameter) is bigger than the female part (bore diameter)) depends on bullet hardness. The softer the bullet the more leeway you have and heat treated WW would have little or no room for error.

My experience is limited to five factory rifles(four Savages and one Tikka) but in all these cases .219 was too small to engrave and .221 was too big to seat without driving the bullet back in the case for the alloys I used with BHN between 12 and 16. For harder and softer alloys the numbers would be different as Joe notes. And of course the numbers would be different for barrels with different dimensions. So it is going to be somewhat of a crap shoot but no different than anybody else buying a mold for a bore riding nose. It is well know that there are a lot of them on the market that are undersized. (Oversized nose molds are returned because they won't chamber but undersized noses only won't shoot well and are probably kept by the frustrated buyer so it is good business practice.)

Frank and I apparently want the second groove to go away since both of our candidate designs have only one groove. I think the good record on one groove RCBS “SIL” type bullets also argues for one groove which allows a longer bore riding nose.

John

Attached Files

Millelacs posted this 11 December 2013

While the 227299 is being designed for maximum accuracy in a bolt action rifle, are there any aspects which would make it undesirable in a semi-auto, say a Mini-14 or AR?

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 11 December 2013

Millelacs wrote: While the 227299 is being designed for maximum accuracy in a bolt action rifle, are there any aspects which would make it undesirable in a semi-auto, say a Mini-14 or AR?=====The three designs being discussed are all long bullets (maybe .85") with long noses to maximize getting good alignment in the bore and maximum ballistic coefficient. I believe the best way to load them would be to follow the late John Ardito's lead and have only a small portion of the bullet in the case neck.  This makes alignment dependent mostly on the long nose and bullet fit and makes case neck concentricity irrelevant or at least have very little effect. But this would result in a bullet much too long for most box magazines.   Long jacketed bullets can be used in the AR and such by just seating them down into the case body.  It is not clear (at least to me) that seating CBs with the rear hanging into the case body hurts anything or is just thought to be “bad practice” but this would take away most of the reason for the long bore riding nose.  If such a bullet is successful in a bolt gun I don't know why it couldn't be shot as a single shot in the AR, although people with ARs don't seem to be much interested in that possibility.  The LBT approach to bullet design might be a better design for AR use. John

Attached Files

Tom Acheson posted this 11 December 2013

This post may not coincide with the 227299 subject, I don't know for sure. I don't own a .223 but a friend does. He recently sent me (3) targets he shot (attached). The notes are a bit sketchy but here is what I know. He is using a Savage Stevens with what he calls a “really skinny” barrel. There are two moulds involved, both NEI. One weighs 82-grains and the other 72-grains, which I think are both 6-cavity. He sizes them at 0.228” and he bumps the bullets in a 1⁰ taper bump die and the bases are very flat with sharp corners. The alloy is 50-50 (lino-mono) and the hardness is about 28 bhn. His preferred powder is AA 5744. Targets were shot at 100-yards, using a (Caldwell?) Lead Sled. The bullet photo is from a cell phone so it's a lousy photo.   Thought you .223 guys might be interested, IF the 227299 is a .223 subject.   Tom

Attached Files

Tom Acheson posted this 11 December 2013

Here is the target pdf.

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 11 December 2013

i likka like that ..

ken

Attached Files

tturner53 posted this 11 December 2013

Thanks for posting that, Tom. It's useful to me re. the powder choice, 5744, and twist. I believe the Stevens .223 has a 12” twist. If so, this would support my suspicion that Greenhill doesn't apply quite so much in the little bores. Anyway, I'll be attempting to campaign a long for caliber/twist bullet in my .223. Now I'll give 5744 a try. I know, monkey see, monkey do!

Attached Files

Tom Acheson posted this 11 December 2013

The shooter is a machinist and makes his own dies, etc. He shoots 5744 in just about everything he owns. There is another guy in our area who only uses 4756 in everything he owns. So as I delve into a new gun/load matrix, I always ask myself...should I be including those two powders?

It is also interesting what the sized diameter of those bullets is. Seems a bit fat for a 223 but what do I know!

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 11 December 2013

Thanks for posting Tom.  If your friend is getting averages like the groups shown he is doing something right for sure.   I have sometimes found sizing bullets for the 223 as large as .227 worked well. I believe all the recent (last ten years) Savage or Stevens 223s have a one in nine inch twist.  I know nothing about the older ones. John

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 11 December 2013

hey tom ...tell your buddy we need more info on how to shoot inch groups with those pesky 22 guns ..

i would be glad to spring a years CBA membership for him if he feels like sharing with us .. let me know ..

ken

Attached Files

Tom Acheson posted this 12 December 2013

Joe,

He holds the MN State 100-yard CBA BR Heavy score (200-9x) and 10-round group (0.309") records. I've bought his CBA membership twice but he lets it lapse. He has become very sensitive to recoil and adjacent rifle concussions at the line so he now just shoots air rifle, .22 rimfire and .223 in non-match settings.

Not sure how he makes the Lead Sled work though.

He will tell you the same thing Gary told us on another post...bullet fit KING! He has long been a proponent bumping bullets.

Tom

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 12 December 2013

Tom, Different strokes for different folks I guess.  Thanks for making an investment in getting him to see the advantages of belonging to the CBA.  Thanks Ken for the offer to do the same. I am often amazed that the number of forum members who don't belong to the CBA.  If we could get more to join and then get them to share their considerable knowledge about CB shooting with short articles in the Fouling Shot we would all be better off and having a stronger CBA would ensure that this forum would continue to be paid for and maintained for us to enjoy. Something to think about. John

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 12 December 2013

The posts were made this morning over on the “223 update thread.  I thought I would copy them here because they have more to do with bullet design. joeb33050 wrote: If throats wear that fast, I'm wondering if a bore ride nose shouldn't be tapered. My 30 cal bullets are seated out further as throat wears, but no as much/quickly as the 22s.=========Joe, I was just thinking the same thing after remembering that I have seen the noses engraved more on the front than the rear. I was going to post something to for people interested in designing a 22 bullet that works. Maybe you and Frank are right and I am wrong in the discussion we have been having under 225299.  It wouldn't be the first time. John

Attached Files

Paul Pollard posted this 12 December 2013

Not to alarm anyone”¦the drawings went away. Did you try to fiddle with this again, John? Remember what happened last time?

Attached Files

jeff houck posted this 12 December 2013

 The LBT approach to bullet design might be a better design for AR use.

Attached Files

jeff houck posted this 12 December 2013

opps-----missed getting the question in on the last post for John Alexander ---- how does the LBT design differ from others? Jeff Houck

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 12 December 2013

getting serious, eh ??

ok, it occured to me to finally wonder how much contact the various tapers would get us ... i have chambered several rifles with a 1 degree throat ... figuring wow that has to be good ... and they did shoot well ... but ... ( blush ) never ...er ... never knew how much actual guidance i wuz getting.

being trigonometrically declined, i found an app at www.rapidtables.com/calc/math/Tan_Calculator to play with.

did you know that 1^ included only contacts 0.2 in. for a 22 bullet? we need a 1/2 ^ included to support 1/2 inch of a 22 bullet.

yep, i know .. soft lead will distort to fill any throat angle ... but do we wish to shoot bent bullets ?

ken

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 12 December 2013

I'll try to re-post the drawings and see if the new forum format will take them from me. Frank

frnkeore posted this 12 December 2013

I can't seem to post muliple pics in one reply

frnkeore posted this 12 December 2013

Updated, .227 base band, .15 of base in the case neck, .850 long, tapered front band, .020 more bore ride.

frnkeore posted this 12 December 2013

A little more areodynamic design.

John Alexander posted this 15 December 2013

Jeff Houck wrote: opps-----missed getting the question in on the last post for John Alexander ---- how does the LBT design differ from others? Jeff Houck Jeff, Sorry to be so long in replying.   The bullet designs being proposed in this thread are bore riding nose designs -- one approach to cast bullets and one some of us like because if fitted right they can be made to shoot very well. Veral Smith (Mr. LBT) has other ways of approaching bullet design and if fitted right they also shoot very well. Veral doesn't like bore riders.  In his own words -- "I detest bore ride nose bullets because if they fit well enough to do any good they constantly stick when a live round is ejected.”   Veral is a very smart guy, a great mold maker, and bullet designer.  The best way to understand his approach to bullet designs is to read his on-line catalog.  It is well worth the read anyway.  It is also well worth the price to buy Veral's book  "Jacketed Performance with Cast Bullets.”   John

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 16 July 2014

Al Nelson (NOE)is looking to make newly designed molds to sell and has his own forum now, for that purpose.

http://noebulletmolds.com/smf/index.php

It still takes 15 buyers for him to make the tooling to cut the molds. If you guys would like, I'll post the above bullet design to be discussed.

One thing we didn't talk about is adding a leade angle to the front band to match the chamber, that's a option.

Frank

Attached Files

Close