|
Post by Bullshop on Dec 13, 2015 14:50:41 GMT -7
Can cast bullets designed for gas check be used without gas checks?
This is a question I get a lot. Rather than give an opinion over the next few weeks Lord willing I hope to do much shooting in several calibers with several different bullet designs to supply enough irrefutable evidence that the reader can determine by fact rather than speculation an informed answer to this question. It just so happens that my newly acquired 22 hornet is a good platform with witch to launch this search for truth from. I plan to work in 22 cal first because I feel that this caliber is likely to show the greatest % of change in grouping with the smallest changes to bullets. In other words its likely the most finicky caliber to work with. Another area of search I hope to embark on with this project will address another common question about cast bullets which is "" how fast can I shoot a non gas check bullet"" Finding and documenting answers to these questions will be well worth the effort and the information gleaned from this effort should be helpful to many new as well as well experienced re loaders trying to decide what cast bullet will be correct for what application. Looking at the current cost of gas checks from the regular sources like Midway this information should be very helpful in keeping the cost of shooting down to a more affordable per round cost. Along the way I expect to have a heck of a lot of fun in developing and providing this information not only to our potential bullet customers but to anyone loading and shooting cast bullets either provided by us, The Bullshop or from any other source. Hopefully this will be the first of many such projects aimed at questions related to loading and shooting cast bullets that should prove helpful to all users of same. I hope you dear readers will enjoy this as much as I know I will. First efforts to begin as weather permits. Enjoy!
|
|
|
Post by Bullshop on Dec 15, 2015 14:35:04 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by Bullshop on Dec 15, 2015 15:23:13 GMT -7
The pictures in the above post are for me quite an eye opener. Here I will list some info about the load, Range --- 50 yards WW cases fire formed then neck sized in a 22 BR short die CCI #500 small pistol primer 3.7gn IMR-SR 7625 Bullet is the original Ranch Dog 55gn @ .2255" of enriched COWW lubed with Lotak Target on left is without gas checks, target on right with gas checks temp at about 25*F Each target contains 15 shots fired consecutively in perhaps 10 minutes each. both groups fired with the same 15 pieces of brass and fired within 15 minutes of each other The rifle is the 22 hornet converted Krag I recently received and had been fired apx. 100 rounds of cast loads before shooting these groups without cleaning. The powder charge was thrown not weighed, bullets were not inspected or sorted other than watching for flaws when lube/sizing. All bullets were from the same lot cast from the same pot of alloy. The K-6 Weaver showed parallax movement equal to the target height which is 2.75" at the 50 yard range from an extreme upper to extreme lower eye location. Velocity of the load estimated not chronographed is 1400 fps OK so there you have a first installment for this effort. I will not attempt to draw any conclusions from this test because first I plan many more such tests and I am looking forward to the fun in so doing and finally even I can afford to do this. When this is finished I hope to have established some positive answers to the questions in the OP of this thread. Stay with me and learn with me.
|
|
|
Post by Junior on Dec 15, 2015 16:11:07 GMT -7
Which group was shot with GC?
|
|
|
Post by Bullshop on Dec 15, 2015 18:48:04 GMT -7
Target on left is without gas checks, target on right with gas checks. Wierd huh!
|
|
|
Post by Junior on Dec 15, 2015 23:52:06 GMT -7
I'm sitting here wondering to myself, 22 bullets are pretty small, is it possible tge gas checks are not getting seat evenly?
|
|
|
Post by Bullshop on Dec 16, 2015 6:48:07 GMT -7
I'm sitting here wondering to myself, 22 bullets are pretty small, is it possible tge gas checks are not getting seat evenly? That is possible but I think there is more to it than just that. Notice the POI shift slightly downward and maybe even a bit right. I take that to mean the addition of the gas check is changing the pressure the load is developing so possibly going beyond optimum for the powder being used. Its possible that with the addition of gas checks a slight reduction in powder charge may group equally as well as the load without the gas checks. There are too many possible reasons and is why I am looking at this as a long term project with a large enough volume of shooting to eliminate some of the possibilities. In the end though I am not trying to find if one is potentially better then the other but only to answer the OP question,"" can gas check type bullets be used without gas checks". I should add to the question "with good accuracy". Learning more than I set out to learn in the process will be a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by Bullshop on Dec 16, 2015 15:47:23 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by Bullshop on Dec 16, 2015 16:29:35 GMT -7
And the plot thickens! This is becoming more interesting as I go. The test targets today were fired with the same hornet rifle, same brass, same powder and primer and all as yesterday accept today I used the Lyman 225107 at about 38gn checked. Pretty much the same results as yesterday. Why? I dare not even try a guess right now. I had hoped to try two other bullets today the NEI#2 at 48gn checked and the CBE at 55gn checked but my search for same turned up nothing. To continue with this rifle I will first have to cast some of each of the mentioned designs. Today I did cast some of the Lyman 225438 at about 48gn checked so didn't want to shoot them today before they have a chance to season a bit. After I have fired with and without checks targets with each of the designs mentioned I will leave the hornet and go to a larger case faster twist 22 perhaps a 221 FB then maybe even a 22/250 Akkley. When I have fired 22's to my satisfaction I hope to slowly work my way up the caliber ladder maybe departing from 22 starting with a 6x45 I am fond of for its grouping ability. Stay tuned.
|
|
|
Post by Bullshop on Dec 20, 2015 10:36:55 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by Bullshop on Dec 20, 2015 10:41:06 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by Bullshop on Dec 20, 2015 10:42:43 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by Bullshop on Dec 20, 2015 14:25:58 GMT -7
OK so Tina just added three more targets fired with the 22 hornet. These will be the last targets fired with the hornet for this project. From all the targets posted I will point out my observations on the subject I am on a quest for answers of.
#1 First I will say that this rifle did not particularly like this load and that is OK because I was not in a search of an accurate load here but only comparing any difference in grouping between loads with and loads without gas checks all else being as equal as I can make it.
#2 Judging from all the targets I believe it can not be denied that loads without gas checks shot at least equal to and perhaps even slightly better than loads using gas checks. This puzzles me somewhat because I did expect an equal level of accuracy between loads with and without gas checks at the velocity these were fired at which I estimate to be about 1400 fps. Why the non gas checked bullets might shoot better than the gas checked ones at this load level is a mystery to me. Perhaps there is something about a heeled bullet ala 22 long rifle at 22 LR velocity that is inherently accurate. This may be another subject to further delve into in the future to compare two bullets of the same design one being heeled and the other flat base. A couple other things I learned from this shooting are that this rifle seems to have a balance point for bullet length. The very light short Lyman # 225107 didn't do as well as I had expected. As bullets get longer and heavier they seem to do better until they exceed a certain length then they don't do very well. This became quite obvious when I developed loads with slower powder at higher velocity. Then the longer bullets like the 52gn CBE shot extremely well. This CBE design seems to be the longest bullet that will shoot well in this barrel with 1/16" twist because going to a slightly longer design in the RCBS 22/55 spt shows some sign of bullet tipping at the highest attainable velocity and not nearly as accurate as the shorter CBE design. Also as expected the Ranch Dog design a very short for weight design shot very well perhaps best in these trials. Another point that became obvious when I started shooting higher velocity loads was that the extreme parallax in the old Weaver K-6 at 50 yards was part of the reason for poor grouping. This because when I put the target at 100 yards where the parallax was far less than at 50 yards group size stayed the same at 100 tards as at 50 yards. Another thing I was very happy to learn has to do with a load I worked up for this rifle. For the first time in quite a stretch I was sent to town with cash money in hand. While visiting the local gun emporium I found they had a surplus stock of Alliant # 410 powder at $17.00 per pound. This powder intended for loading the 410 shot shell shows up on the burn rate chart beside Alliant 2400. Knowing from past experience with the hornet that anything that is intended for loading the 410 is about perfect for the 22 hornet. Phill Sharp in his 1930's loading manual pretty much pegged 2400 as the best hornet powder at the time and things haven't changed much. Alliant has re invented 2400 in their 410 because both are the same burn rate and both are very short grain extruded type powders. Anyway starting out with load data for 2400 from Phill Sharpe and substituting Alliant 410 yielded very pleasing results at the top end velocity range for the hornet with cast bullets. Working up from 6.8gn to the best accuracy load of 7.4gn and continuing up to 7.7gn where groups obviously began to open. Dropping back down to 7.4gn confirmed best accuracy with that load. Now here is a very interesting point especially concerning the well established cantankerous nature of the hornet that this was the best load for the several cast bullets tried between 48 and 52gn as well and including one jacketed bullet tried the Sierra 45gn. All bullets tested with this load of this powder shot to the same POI and knowing well the hornets thoroughbred nature I find this amazing. So with that if anyone is looking for a powder to feed your hornet This Alliant #410 may be a good place to go. I fear though that the reason it was so reasonably priced is that it may be in line for discontinuance. What I do know is as funding allows I will be acquiring the remaining stock that store has available before this fine hornet powder is no longer available. I looked for published load data for this powder in the hornet but was unable to find anything but as is my way was only slightly set back by the inconvenience. Perhaps if someone had published some data for the hornet with this powder it may not be on the chopping block as I suspect it is. I guess I should also mention here that there is another question to be addressed here being the "" how fast can I shoot cast bullets with good accuracy"" part of the OP. I hope to continue working with this hornet rifle toward an answer to this question starting in the very near future so stay tuned.
|
|
|
Post by Bullshop on Dec 21, 2015 10:58:39 GMT -7
Oh yea and one more thing I wanted to mention, WOW! this rifle really seems to like the short blunt nature of the Ranch Dog bullet. I look forward to trying this bullet at the high end velocity range for the hornet as I have with the CBE and NEI designs. Since the effort of this thread is not about developing good loads for this rifle I will be posting the results of these trials in the "rifles" forum in the thread started about this rifle. Anyone loading cast bullets in 22 hornet rifles might want to tune in on the ongoing effort to develop fast and accurate cast bullet loads for this wonderful old rifle.
|
|
|
Post by Bullshop on Jan 5, 2016 10:36:48 GMT -7
There has been and interruption in the progress of this thread because our weather got rather on the cold side. We have been in the -0 down to double digits which brought testing to a halt. We are supposed to get more of the same this coming week so I don't expect to get back to this in earnest for a couple more weeks. Don't despair though because there is still lots to learn on this subject and much shooting to be done. We should start to see some warming by 2/16 so hopefully Lord willing get back to some progress in this to answer not only the OP question of " can cast bullets designed to use gas checks be fired without the gas check and deliver good accuracy". That was the main objective but that also leads right into another question " what is the top end velocity cast bullets can be fired accurately without gas checks. In addition to this second part of the question I have come to another question directly related to the first and is " does a heeled base have any benefit over a flat base cast bullet ". When I get around to posting some pics of how well my 22 Cooper shoots the NEI #2 without a gas check I think you dear reader may begin to wonder too. After all the 1 billion 22 RF's produced and used each year seem to have something going for them shooting a heeled bullet to extreme accuracy in small bore competition. The heeled design being a necessary evil of the 22 RF or is it perhaps a blessing?
|
|
|
Post by todddoyka on Jan 11, 2016 12:02:13 GMT -7
i have a tc encore in 22-250ai(1in8"twist) with a 27" MGM heavy factory barrel. i use 75gr amax with a load of superformance that goes .1-.2" at 100 yards. i really don't shoot it much as i have also another tc encore in 20vartarg(16 1/4" MGM factory heavy barrel) that goes groundhawg hunting with me.
i may try to shoot cast(60-70gr) with the ai. your question has alot of promise, esp the heeled vs flat based. i never thought about the 22rf.
|
|
|
Post by goodsteel on Jan 20, 2016 6:45:59 GMT -7
Based on those groups, I would say the answer to the original question is: It depends. My theory is that high pressure loads need a GC, and a GC needs high pressure loads in order to work correctly? If this is true, then the problem could be that the GCs are not getting ironed out enough by the pressure, and could benefit from annealing to make them conform under lower pressure?
It would be easy enough to find out. Just pour a few GC in a black iron pipe with a piece of burning paper, screw the cap on, and throw it in the wood stove over night. Then try it one more time. I'd bet you dollars to doughnuts the results would be a little closer together.
Great test Dan. Makes my want to try my 45-70 without GCs to see if it shoots better! LOL!
I suppose the subsequent conclusion to this is that gc should not be used if they are not needed eh? Either that, or you need to quit mixing up your ammo. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by Bullshop on Jan 27, 2016 8:10:35 GMT -7
Great input Tim! That adds another facet of required investigation that Lord willing I will have time to explore.
|
|
|
Post by goodsteel on Feb 27, 2016 7:33:52 GMT -7
I'm not sure it's very conclusive, but I decided to try this out in a rifle I am trying to get shooting well. The rifle is a beautiful 1886 Browning in 45-70. The best accuracy I have been able to get for ten shots with this rifle is 3" at 100 yards. I wanted to use the Lyman 457483 bullet mold, but the mold I have casts a bullet with a GC shank that is altogether too large for modern crimp on checks. I solved this about a month ago by making a GC uniforming tool (read about it here: www.goodsteelforum.com/) At that time, I used a push through die to crimp the check in place squarely. This was the result when fired with 41.5gr of IMR 3031: Last Sunday, I tried the exact same load, only this time, I sized the bullets and crimped on the checks with a Lyman 450 that sizes the bullets crooked. I was probably running too many tests at once here, but I wanted to compare GC to sans GC and see if the old 450 would work for 45-70 bullets. First, I shot the ones with the GC, and this is what happened: Hmmmm. Guess the 450 gets thrown into the attic. Curses! Just shows how much a crooked base can jack up your world. However, the surprise came when I shot the same bullet sized the same way only without the GC (the 450 can't bend a base that was cast flat): Put me back at 3 MOA. I'd say Dan is onto something here, and I stand behind my previous statement. I'll just bet a softer check would do better.
|
|
|
Post by firsttimecaller on Jun 15, 2016 21:33:02 GMT -7
Has there been any updates on this? Do you have enough evidence to form an opinion? Did you find a "magic" velocity?
|
|
|
Post by Bullshop on Jun 16, 2016 7:09:17 GMT -7
No no and no. Bummer ha! Please forgive my tardiness in getting back to this subject for further development. This is my busiest time of year adding gardening and fire wood gathering to my normal chore list and trying to keep bullet customers happy. I do hope/intend to add more to this search. I started out with small calibers but hope to work up through calibers to see if results may change as caliber increases. Hopefully when gardens are harvested and the needed volume of fire wood put up I will have more time to add to not only this but other subjects I have touched on here. Well that is after hunting season of course.
|
|
|
Post by David on Apr 14, 2020 3:10:02 GMT -7
Hello my name is David, I want to very first start by saying your website is awesome! I feel like you can use a bit more text material though.. and I know it's rather irritating developing everything yourself. Do you by chance also have problems making Reports, Guides, Digital Info for you product & services or even E-BOOKS? Basic things like even offering an E-book can help you get countless new leads per month! New innovative innovation has actually JUST been released that allows you to INSTANTLY create professional Ebooks, Reports, Guides, Lead Magnets, Whitepapers, and digital info-products AUTOMATICALLY, and "ON-DEMAND" ... at a push of a button! > sqribble.site/
|
|
|
Post by Bullshop on Apr 14, 2020 7:25:06 GMT -7
Thank you Sir for your thoughts It is very likely though that I am just too old to accept such change. Also my business is running at maximum capacity so we have little interest in attempting expansion. As I go about business I do have thoughts of putting my experience in book form to share with others so that it will not be lost with my end. The plain simple fact of that matter is I do not have the time and energy required. For that reason if anyone has any questions best get them asked as when the Lord calls me I will not be stalling for more time here. Perhaps if I was a younger man but thank you anyway !
|
|
|
Post by 450 on Sept 28, 2020 3:04:12 GMT -7
Folks- You have a good site and you may have read my earlier comment on a serious issue with GCs coming off inside a bottle neck 338 cartridge some years back. Caused rifle damage and I no longer use gas checks-for any reason. Too risky on BN cartridges, especially lever action 1886 or Model 71 rifles. I use lead 400 gr bullets in a pre-war Model 71 for fire forming. No problem at all with no gas checks. Also velocity and straight wall cases are less risk. The 450 Fuller and 450 AK are 458 bottle neck cartridges-but no problem has been encountered as no gas checks are used. Hawk and Kodiak 400 gr FP bullets are effective on Alaska bear-moose. There have been an increase in bear attacks in AK & the inter-mtn West-so a heavy 86 or M-71 in 450 is just the ticket to save your hide-450 brass is annealed and made from 348 cases. works well.A 348 Ackley took a nice moose a few years back near Wien Lake, AK.
Best-
LTC R Marriott
|
|
|
Post by Bullshop on Dec 22, 2020 10:46:47 GMT -7
I just realized that photo bucket ruined this whole thread by holding our pictures hostage and asking for ransom for their return.
|
|
|
Post by missionary on Dec 22, 2020 14:59:23 GMT -7
Correct me if I a wrong but I cannot understand how a GC can stay in the rifle barrel if there is sufficient pressure in the barrel to be driving the bullet all the way to the muzzle.
|
|
|
Post by Bullshop on Dec 22, 2020 15:20:22 GMT -7
I can think of one possible situation where it could happen. With Lyman gas checks that do not crimp onto the bullet if a bullet wearing a Lyman gas check is seated in a case so that the gas check has been seated past the case neck and into the powder chamber. In such a case the gas check could come off the bullet and be lying randomly somewhere on the powder. Such a condition could cause the gas check to remain in the case during the peak pressure of the powder burn then at a much lower pressure barely exit the case and get stuck in the barrel. The way to avoid such a situation is to first of all not use Lyman old style non-crimp gas checks and also to never seat bullets so deep into the case that the gas check is past the case neck.
|
|
|
Post by missionary on Dec 22, 2020 15:34:18 GMT -7
Thank you Dan. I can understand that happening
|
|
|
Post by grasshopper on Aug 21, 2021 14:55:47 GMT -7
Dan, I know I’m late to the game here and this question might seem silly to the folks with much more knowledge and experience than me. I really found the question about what difference a GC may or may not have. Try and stay with me because I may not be able to actually describe what I’m thinking and asking but I will try. When using a bullet without a GC could the bullet have a better chance to expand at the base and “grab” or engage the lands and grooves faster and more evenly? I’m just not sure but have faith you will be able to tell me that a bullet with a GC may not expand a bit when first fired and “grab” or engage as quick like I said before. I know you will say no questions are necessarily dumb but please forgive me if this is just a silly question and isn’t the way the whole process works at all. Thanks a bunch!
|
|
|
Post by Bullshop on Aug 21, 2021 18:22:09 GMT -7
You are correct in thinking that a gas check adds resistance to obturation at the bullet base. I have proven this to my satisfaction by loading gas checked bullets in muzzle loading rifles. I tried both annealed an un-annealed gas checks and only the annealed checks gave good accuracy. Now about the bullet base of an unchecked bullet that is designed for a gas check. In this case the actual base of the bullet no longer acts as the base but the bottom most drive band becomes the bottom most point that is fully engaging the rifling and bottoming in the grooves. The actual base where the gas check would be is receiving the same pressure to its entire surface and for the instant of ignition begins its forward motion before the forward end of the bullet thus causing a compression shortening of the bullet. What is happening is the alloy is trying to fill all voids think lube grooves and become a solid cylinder. This action maintains hydraulic pressure on the lube/barrel interface for is ride down the barrel. The base proper is taking the full butt kick of ignition acting as a ram and forcing the new mechanical base , the base drive band to obturate and make the gas seal at that point. If you have ever recovered any of your revolver bullets you will notice they are shorter than the same bullets unfired. The shortening is somewhat due to expanding on impact but if you have ever recovered bullets that have been fired into snow and decelerated more slowly without impact expansion they too will be shorter. The amount of shortening depends on the depth and width of the lube grooves, the type of lube used, and the chamber pressure. This is something Elmer Keith had a good handle on when he designed his bullets we now call Keith bullets. Most folks improperly apply his mane to bullets he would not claim. He was very upset with Lyman when they changed his design from a square bottom lube groove to a radius bottom lube groove. He said the radius bottom was weaker and compressed more quickly thus using its lube volume more quickly. The gas check shank void of a gas check basically becomes a square bottom lube groove so the bearing area of the bottom drive band is being lubed from both sides top and bottom. Truth is I really dont know why for sure other than things I have mentioned but it became pretty clear that bullets designed for gas checks when loaded to chamber pressures that are compatible with plain base bullets shot better without the gas check but when pressures were pushed to beyond what a pain base bullet would normally tolerate then they shot better with the gas check. That is good to know because if someone has limited resources they can just obtain one mold for a gas check design bullet and not sacrifice accuracy on either end of the chamber pressure spectrum. There ya go bud I used up a bunch of words but didn't really say much !
|
|