TargetTalk

A forum to talk about Olympic style shooting, rifle or pistol, 10 meters to 50 meters, and whatever is in between. Hosted by Pilkguns.com
It is currently Wed Jan 18, 2017 5:06 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 374 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2017 2:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:53 pm
Posts: 278
Pure speculation here on Zipp0's experience....
The one thing that struck me as odd was the practice of resizing a loaded round. Did I understand that correctly..... That you crimped a round and, for some reason, resized it?
If so, it is quite possible that the case sprung back a bit, but the bullet itself was slightly swaged down to a smaller diameter. You would have lost your case neck tension on the bullet. But, the crimp might have still held it well enough to feed. The ignition of the primer easily drove the bullet before the powder could ignite. (Smokeless powder is a progressive burning substance that will not combust without sufficient chamber pressure.)
Under the same circumstances, a magnum primer would have simply driven the bullet further down the bore.
For the tiny case capacity, a standard primer is all that's needed.

At least that's my conjecture, for what it's worth.

Best Regards,
Jim


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2017 8:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:13 pm
Posts: 35
An insightful post 6string and I too, am thinking about how a lack of pressure could have caused the problem, however, the failure was when I was using the 'PRO' dieset from Redding which does not need the resizing after the dedicated crimp die. It was the seat / crimp die of the original Redding dieset I received from Dillon that necessitated the resize. It would not have chambered if it had not been crimped so I am still scratching my head a bit.....

Worth mentioning that I have found the 32acp gauge from uniquetek to be very useful (certainly in the initial stages of the process).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 6:31 am
Posts: 38
I have sized loaded cartridges in 32 s&w l.
With and without crimp. The reason was to get a
309 bullet in a 308 barrel. No problem.
Loose bullets, yes, but no problem.

About mag primers, my experience is, again I'm talking
32 s&w l, they do push the bullet further than std
primers do. Hence you get a bigger chamber before
powder starts to build pressure. Less recoil, less
muzzlejump and less speed occurs. No problem.

None of the above can be reasons for squibs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 6:46 pm
Posts: 20
Location: West Australia
Hi Zip,
your post regards your Dad's muzzle loader was very interesting, it would be good to see a Digi pic of it.
I have a FWB History #1 which I use in the Aussie 50m BP match. It's a 40 shot [4 x 10 shot series] on the Mayleigh Cup target. I think the National record is 480.
After each shot I use a nylon brush with a very light spray of Windex [ a common glass cleaner] , every one uses it as it easily dissolves black powder residue.
After throwing the powder charge, I throw a similar amount of Polenta, then the patched ball or my swaged .371 HBWC. The polenta stops a damp or wet patch from contaminating the powder.
The FWB will easily hold the x ring when tested with a scope.
I bet you claimed the Yorker through the 10 ring!
Regards
Max


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 1:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:55 pm
Posts: 872
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Dipnet,

I've been reading this post again and I have a couple of questions for you (and everyone else...)
On page 14 of this tread you have these two sentences that I would like to ask more about,
Dipnet wrote:
My very carefully fired shots off my home made rest (a modified HySkore Parallax Pistol Vise Shooting Rest) nearly equal ransom accuracy at 25 yards (had to replicate at 50 though).

Can you post a picture of this... I'm looking for a cheaper alternative to a ranson rest to test some .32 S&W Long
Dipnet wrote:
Powder weights are checked using an analytic balance (+ or - 0.02gr accuracy), and bullets are sorted into 0.3gr lots (e.g., 61.7-62.0, 62.1-62.4, & 62.5-62.8 covers about 90% of Travis' bullets).

Do you notice any diference if you do not sort the bullets? I understand the need for uniformity, just want to know how much diference does it make.

By the way, this is probably one of the best topics on TT!
The only one that comes to mind that is equally good is the one on modifying a TOZ free pistol.

Thanks to all, I've learned a lot from this!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 1:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 543
Location: Chesterfield Missouri
I just use a sandbag front and back with an 8 power scope. You could probably use a rifle scope if it wouldn't bump the barrel . The gun doesn't kick that hard so it won't hit you in the face. If you do this, put some duct tape on the bottom of the scope where it goes in front of the barrel or it will smear junk all over it. For the Pardini 32 ACP I do everything with the scope because I didn't care much for the way it attached to the RR. I don't think there is a block for my Benelli 32 long. I would rather use my RR if it works well because it is so much faster and doesn't require the same level of concentration. It is hard to fire a lot of shots off a sandbag without wearing yourself out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:13 pm
Posts: 35
in answer to the .3gr cohort question..... (before I shell out for a dopplar chrono...)

I ran up a spreadsheet to calculate the theoretical muzzle velocity changes if the mass of the bullet changes .3gr from the base load - I assumed Ek (Kintetic energy .5M* V2) is constant (I Used Kg for Mass and ms-1 for V to give energy in Joules) and then knowing the energy (32acp 1.6 gr VV130 and 62gr bullet is at 850fs-1 is about 134 J I could calc the Velocity: (SQRT (134/.5M)). Not a lot: 1.6fs-1 - I then calced transit time based on MV and the drop (0.5g*T2) ITOO - -.7mm over 0.3gr (but I did not decay the velocity on the trip to the target). (The doppler radar gives the transit time)

The reason I did it was to look at the order of magnitude of the variances - the answer - not a lot (theoretically) but as I am basically an empirical type - time to test. The difference is an empirical guy has an easier time: how fast does a car go? - the theoretical guy calcs the power, gear ratios, transmission loss, wind resistance etc etc - I (on the other hand) need a straight road and 'give 'er'.....

PM me for the SS if you are interested: You can look at the difference between any velocity and mass ie 45acp 200gr vs 180gr to see the difference

~zip


Last edited by Zipp0 on Sat Jan 14, 2017 11:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 6:46 pm
Posts: 20
Location: West Australia
Bugger me Zippo, that has given me a migrane.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 11:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 543
Location: Chesterfield Missouri
Your math is good and so would be a Doppler chrono but what worries me is that neither method displays where the weight gain or loss comes from but assumes that it is even all over the bullet which may or may not be true.

When casting my own bullets I have learned that the faster the lead gushes into the mold, the better the fillout. However whenever casting from a bottom pour pot, the faster you pour into the mold the more likely you are to get particles that over time gather on the hole through the pot, break loose and get into the quickly swirling travel of the alloy wherein the dirt gets trapped somewhere inside the bullet.

When pouring slowly it gives a less perfect bullet but the dirt which is the same has a tendency to go into the sprue or at least to the back of the bullet if your speed is better but not perfect where you can see it on the base.

This is why pouring with a ladle works so well. When one is constantly whacking the ladle on the side of the pot to knock off the dirt it doesn't have as much chance to deposit any into the bullet. I use this method when casting BPCR bullets but since they weigh around 400 grains and are shot at 550 yards it is even more important. I weigh each of them and put them in categories where I only use the ones which are the majority in the middle.

For the little 32 bullets this would be very tedious. What I do is pressure pour with the spout on the bottom pour pot tight to the mold and I make the lead come out of the pot as slowly as is practical. I always look at the pour without the mold in place and I want smooth lead flow to turn into drips around an inch from the spout. If I am pouring a 200 grain 45 bullet I count to three and then move the mold. With the 32 it is less but I count to two. If I get the pour too fast I start to see dirt in the back of the bullet at which time I am worried some might be in the bullet so I slow it down.

The problem doing this is that unless your column height of the lead in the pot stays very close to the same, (around one inch variation) the pour velocity will get too slow quickly. To counter this I have a Waage pot with melted lead sitting next to my bottom pour pot and around every two pounds of bullets I pour two pounds of alloy back into my casting pot so the temperature doesn't vary. Dropping two pounds of cold lead in will make the temperature vary too much. It varies with the size bullet you are molding but I usually have the depth in the pour pot around 2-3 inches

If you don't cast for yourself and use bullets cast on a machine, they will not be pressure poured so you are at the mercy of whatever you get and I would expect they do it as fast as they can where the bullets still look good. You are also stuck with the alloy that they choose. The harder the bullet the easier it is to cast but that doesn't necessarily mean they will be the most accurate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:13 pm
Posts: 35
I have weighed TB Bullets (the dipnet technique).

Oldcaster - how do you factor in the lubricant weight? The 62gr TB bullet has 0.2gr lube in the groove (approx)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 2:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 543
Location: Chesterfield Missouri
I of course weigh them initially without lube and after they are lubed, who knows how much lube is left on the bullet the instant it leaves the barrel. With hard lube it is common to see all the lube still left but no guarantee. If the lube is real soft it all spins off the moment it leaves the barrel. The downside of soft lube is that it is messy and easy to get on the back of the bullet where it can change the powder charge with a few tenths of a grain sticking to it plus it makes the gun dirtier faster. This is one of D if you do and D if you don't situations and you have to compromise somewhere. I would be happy if the lube was something like Vaseline but it would take 10 minutes to load each bullet correctly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 5:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 6:46 pm
Posts: 20
Location: West Australia
Oldcaster is on the money, the Linotype printing machines of the past had two lead pots, one that poured to make the print slugs and the other was positioned above to automatically top up the bottom pot to maintain the operating level of molten lead and therefore the same pour pressure. This ensured clean sharp print.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 7:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 543
Location: Chesterfield Missouri
The big trick is to figure out how high your lead column should be along with what alloy and what temperature and somewhat how fast you go so your mold stays the temperature throughout your casting session. All of this to a particular mold because they vary especially between size and quality.

A lot of molds are so junky that they can't be pressure poured and some of the old H&G molds are designed so they can't be because of their sprue plate. However a junky mold with a properly designed bullet can be better than a quality mold of something that just isn't the right shape. A good example for me is the Saeco 130 185 grain 45 mold. None of my friends or I can get these to shoot but the mold sure casts well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2017 3:12 am 
Online

Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 4:52 am
Posts: 20
Location: Poland
rmca wrote:
Dipnet wrote:
My very carefully fired shots off my home made rest (a modified HySkore Parallax Pistol Vise Shooting Rest) nearly equal ransom accuracy at 25 yards (had to replicate at 50 though).
Can you post a picture of this... I'm looking for a cheaper alternative to a ranson rest to test some .32 S&W Long
I'm also curious about your device. A regular HySkore Parallax Pistol Vise Shooting Rest allows you to stabilize your gun only, more or less like a sandbag. It's not a Ransom Rest though, you still need to re-aim your gun somehow. A scope comes in handy, the only trick is how to mount it. I use a "regular" .32S&W Pardini HP - it is easy to install a picatinny rail on top of it.
rmca wrote:
Dipnet wrote:
Powder weights are checked using an analytic balance (+ or - 0.02gr accuracy), and bullets are sorted into 0.3gr lots (e.g., 61.7-62.0, 62.1-62.4, & 62.5-62.8 covers about 90% of Travis' bullets).
Do you notice any diference if you do not sort the bullets? I understand the need for uniformity, just want to know how much diference does it make.
I can't tell for .32ACP, I load .32S&W Long. Though I'm pretty much obsessed with the consistency of my powder charges (1.38-1.40gr), on the other hand I use plain commercial bullets (H&N 100gr). Since they are heavily lubed it is hard to tell their real net weight and it is pointless to sort them. At first I was eliminating even slightly nicked bullets, but then I realized it wasn't necessary. Now I just pick bullets right from the box and voila. I'm satisfied with results, as seen below.
Image
Image
And for comparison, a factory Lapua 98gr
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 374 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bking, Google [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group