Making My Own 8mm Jacketed Bullets

[gitano]

Although your moose adventures would seem to need nothing more than a .22 lr at the ranges you shoot them.

And that's the way I like it, uh hunh, uh hunh.

Here's the latest on the bullet making front.

I decided to make 20, 130 grain ANVBs. First to make sure I could make 20 of some consistent weight. Second so that I would have some bullets for testing precision, trajectory, and terminal performance. With the 2.5 grains of the printed tip (hereafter "PT"), and the 42.3 grains of the jacket, the core needed to be 85.2 grains. From my tests, a swaged core of length 0.591" would weight 85.2 grains. After all of the fiddling was complete, the finished 85.2-grain cores were 0.602" long. With my newly-made wire-cutting scissors, I was able to cut billets that were between 86 and 88 grains.

Here are the swaged cores.


Here are the jackets.


Here are the cores seated in the jackets. Unfortunately, I didn't notice the 'movement' in the image when I took the picture, and now I can't go back and take another one.


Here are the bullets after the first step of point forming. In this step, the point is only partially formed so the PT can be inserted and it won't "fall in" the jacket.


And here are the finished bullets.


The above picture is a bit frustrating because it looks like the jackets are bit 'proud' of the PTs. However, looking at them 'in the flesh', and feeling them with my fingers, I cannot see or feel a 'lip' between the jacket and the PT. The way I set the die up was to 'look and feel' until there was no visible or tactile step between the jacket and PT. Do note the sharp tip still present on the PT. I got the extraction pin adjusted so that it did not impinge on the PT while the point was being formed. What little deformation you do see is a function of extracting the bullet from the die.

Here's a picture of a single bullet from a different angle. This more correctly shows the relationship between the jacket and PT.


Here's the bullet loaded 2/3rds of a caliber deep in an 8mm SLT case. Meaning that the rear part of the bullet that is caliber diameter is at the base of the neck of the case. There is about 0.050" more of the rounded part of the base of the bullet that extends beneath the neck into the shoulder area of the case.


Before you ask: No, I didn't get the terminal performance tested yesterday. I made a new box then realized I didn't have enough "paper" to perform the test even once, let along three times. I'm workin' on it.

Paul[/SIZE]

[gitano]

"MOM"??? Mind over matter?

Paul

[drinksgin (deceased)]

Minute of moose.

[gitano]

Shoulda known that!

Paul

[Jorge in Oz]

They look cool Paul. Going through the thread, it's no simple process to get everything right to make your own projectiles. Far beyond me I'm afraid but very interesting in following your process.
 
What are the tips made out of if you pardon my ignorance?
 
I'll be interested to see hoe they perform? Will you be testing them on an 8x57?
 
Great effort so far.
 
Cheers
 
Jorge

[22hornet]

Well on your way to a full on production line now Paul. They do look the goods, no doubt about that.


Just a thought, and only because I am living vicariously through this thread, how hard would it be to make these into a "bonded core" projectile? Not that I want you too, just asking out loud.

Would it be a case of tinning the inner jackets with solder, fitting the cores, re-heating untill the cores melt and hey presto, a bonded core projectile? Or am I making things too simple?

[gitano]

So I got to weighing bullets, and wasn't too happy about the variation I saw. Especially since I spent a lot of time making sure the cores were very consistent, AND weighing every core. However, I didn't weigh the jackets, because effecting a remedy for high variability in jacket weights would be challenging. (Remember what I said about 'challenges' early in this thread?)

Recall that I have weighed jackets several times, but, knowing there would be some variability, I always weighed at least 10 at a time, and found an average weight. Given the variability in the finished bullets, and the knowledge that the cores were essentially identical in weight, the only place for variability to show up would be in the jackets and PTs. Since the PTs only weigh on average 2.5 grains, I knew whatever their variability was, it wasn't accounting for the variability in the weight of the finished bullets.

So I weighed 25 individual jackets.

Here are the results:


Quite a bit of variation. The sample standard deviation is 0.83 grains. I'm not sure what I am going to do about this. There are a few options.

1) Take the lightest weight, and file all of the others down to that weight.
2) Make each individual core weight match a specific jacket to achieve the desired final weight.
3) Weigh and sort all of the jackets and match 'batches' of jackets to specific core weights.

#3 is what I will start with. It would be nice to have some way to automatically weigh and sort all of these jackets. I suspect that is what the "factories" do. Then make batches of core weights to match batches of jacket weights. Of course I also suspect that "factory" jacket weights are less variable than these are.

The max spread on the above sample of 25 is 3.4 grains. In a 115 grain bullet, that's an error of 3%. I don't like a variation of 3 % in the weight of my bullets. Something must be done to mitigate the variability of the jacket weights.

Paul

[gitano]

Sorry 22hornet. I didn't see your post before I posted the above or I would have started with an answer to your question about "bonded cores".

First, please feel free to ask questions and offer suggestions. It is because someone else may someday want to do this, that I am going to all the trouble of writing all of this minutia down publicly. There's precious little self-gratification going on here on my part. My "gain" is when people ask questions that make me think about things I didn't think of before, and offer suggestions for solutions to "challenges".

Would it be a case of tinning the inner jackets with solder, fitting the cores, re-heating untill the cores melt and hey presto, a bonded core projectile? Or am I making things too simple?

Personally, I wouldn't call that "simple".

Doable, yes.

Simple, no.

I think Corbin makes a powdered compound that cores can be dipped in before seating, that, when seated and then heated, provides a "bond" to the jacket.

That said, I am personally uninterested in "bonded cores". I don't "believe" in the need for them. I am not one of those people that thinks that a bullet has failed, especially one recovered from a dead animal, just because the core and jacket separated.

Recall that the primary goal of this bullet design is to deliver a "cylinder" (caliber frontal area at impact) to the animal. "Big Flat Front End" means more "work" than "little pointy front end". To me, the jacket and PT are just "carriers" for the cylinder/core. While it is certainly "nice" to have jacket and core remain together, if they come apart they have EXACTLY the SAME momentum as the two pieces together do. It's called the law of conservation of momentum. It can not be violated by mere mortals, no matter what gunwriters (ptooey) might say.

From my perspective, if the jacket and core separate, there are TWO projectiles tearing their way through the critter's vitals. That's not "bad" as far as I'm concerned. Remember, I am a "keep it inside" proponent. I am not interested in pass-throughs. If that bullet transfers all of its kinetic energy to the critter, "work" is done, and "work" is what ultimately kills the thing. Some of the "work" will rend flesh. Some of it will generate a hydrodynamic wave. Together, the rending and the wave kill the animal. The energy cannot be "dissipated" just because the projectile breaks into smaller pieces.

Let me offer a example in a completely different 'arena'. Consider the meteor that 'whacked' Russia last week. It had a specific mass and a specific velocity, which imbued it with a specific kinetic energy. As it hit the earth's atmosphere, it created an aerodynamic wave (usually called a "shock wave".) THAT WAVE did MOST of the damage to the structures on the ground. I don't recall if any of the thing actually hit the earth. I think not. Regardless, DAMAGE was done as the kinetic energy of the meteor was transferred from the meteor to the earth. In doing so, "work" was done. Buildings were "mashed", windows broken, people killed.

Let's modify the scenario a little and say that SOME of the meteor actually HIT somebody/thing. In fact, let's say that the meteor broke into thousands of pieces all weighing about 115 grains. As those thousands of pieces of meteor hit the "earth", they did "work" by killing all the people they hit, and damaging all of the objects they hit. All together, they represented the total kinetic energy of the meteor. Separately the sum of all of their energy was exactly the same. The SAME amount of energy was transferred the earth whether it was one big object, or a thousand small ones.

Back to firearms and projectiles and big game animals. Shotgun vs rifle bullet. Let's say we shoot two sacrificial pigs; one with a shotgun and one with a rifle. Our 'systems' are set up so that the exact same kinetic energy is delivered to the pigs by the two firearms. Which will kill the pig 'deader' or even "quicker"? Neither, if the energy delivered is in fact the same. If the pellets come to a stop in the pig, all the little 'birdshot' pellets HAVE to transfer all of their energy to the pig. It's the law. If the bullet comes to a stop in the pig it HAS to have transferred ALL of its energy to the pig. The birdshot made hundreds of small holes, the bullet one "large" hole. As long as the birdshot had the energy to penetrate through the chest wall - and we said it did in the "delivered energy setup" - then both pigs die, and I am quite certain that they die essentially "simultaneously".

I apoligize for the "tirade", but this is one of the areas that gunwriters (ptooey) like to pontificate on, and I take advantage of every opportunity to rail against them.

So, I have NOTHING against bonded cores in bullets. I just don't want to jump through hoops to effect it when I don't consider it worth the effort. If I have Corbin's product right - just dip the cores in the "powder" before seating and heat modestly - I MIGHT be inclined to do it if 1) Corbin could get some to me THIS CENTURY, and 2) if I didn't have to take out a second mortgage to buy some. I'm not inclined to go through the 'solder' process (tin and heat). Too much trouble to heat lead to melting and try to keep things like shape and weight "consistent".

Paul

Looks like Corbin's bonding process isn't any easier than "soldering". http://www.swage.com/ftp/corebond.pdf

By the way, I am going to try to get all of the materials together tomorrow to do some terminal performance tests. This should illustrate whether the cores and jackets on these bullets have a tendency to separate.

Paul[/SIZE]

[gitano]

They look cool Paul. Going through the thread, it's no simple process to get everything right to make your own projectiles. Far beyond me I'm afraid but very interesting in following your process.
 
What are the tips made out of if you pardon my ignorance?
 
I'll be interested to see hoe they perform? Will you be testing them on an 8x57?
 
Great effort so far.
 
Cheers
 
Jorge

SHEESH! I missed your post too, Jorge.

First and foremost, it is NOT 'far' beyond you. It is actually quite simple once you have the hardware in hand. Now... getting the hardware. THAT is a challenge.

The tips are made, if I remember what was told to me, of a polyester that is cured "in situ" by the "laser" in the 3-D laser printer. If I understand the process correctly, the laser focuses on and heats/cures a minute point in 3-space. It then moves on to the next place and does it again, essentially "drawing" the object in three dimensions. All of this is done in a "matrix" fluid. I have now just about exhausted my knowledge on the subject.

I WILL be testing them from an 8x57. So far, all of my load paper-whipping has been for the 8mm Steyr Short Throat, because I am trying to decide if I want to keep the old Turk '38 take-off barrel on it, or put a new Shilen barrel on it. It was designed specifically for Light-for-Caliber bullets. However, after I removed the tunnel-vision glasses, I got to thinking about the Remington "Classics" I have in 8x57, and quickly decided that I was going to run some of these ANVBs through one or more of those rifles. It's not difficult to get over 3200 f/s with the 125-grain bullet. At 1445 ft-lbs at 300 yd, it doesn't quite get to the desired 1500 ft-lbs, BUT... If one wants to ignore optimal barrel timing and simply go with "pressure" as the limiting factor, the 125-grain ANVB can get to 3288 f/s at the muzzle which
yields 1544 ft-lbs at 300 yd. That ain't too shabby! The 115-grain ANVB can get to 3402 f/s, but because of the lighter weight and lower BC, only delivers 1440 ft-lbs to 300 yd.

But one must really keep in mind that 1500 ft-lbs is A LOT OF ENERGY to hit an animal with. I don't even think about "anemia" until delivered energy is below 1000 ft-lbs. The "standard" hunting round with the 185-grain bullet (and NOT the loaded down American 8x57), only delivers 1538 ft-lbs to 300 yd. Nobody thinks the 8x57 with 185s is an "anemic" cartridge. (Unless it is one of the stupid American factory 'downloads'.)

Thanks for the encouraging words.

Paul[/SIZE]

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

I've messed with the bonded core thing and in general I'm in agreement with Paul, a pass through not being a requirement.
Like Paul I prefer to see the bullet 'use' its available energy in the beastie.

As to making bonded cores it is actually very simple to achieve with a true drawn cup jacket.
If you look at Paul's jackets they have a hole in the base...

I used this Aluminium block for my bonded core .224 experiments.
Basically load all the  jackets and cores add a 'drop' of flux chuck the lot in the furnace ~425ºC and  Bob's your uncle, bonded core!
Oh yeah getting hold of an old acid flux, wow, like rocking horse poo nowadays.
The modern water based RoHS compliant stuff is $@&!, erm, not so good.
Is it worth it? That is something for the philosophers amongst you.

Ignore the flared cases here as they were part of the process to expand a 22LR 'jacket' up to 6mm.

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

As to jacket weight variation, now that was a surprise!
I would have expected far less from a 'commercial' product, sheesh.
Oh well another hoop to jump through - grading all of them...

[gitano]

If you look at Paul's jackets they have a hole in the base...

That is a large part of the problem I face if I use a bonding method that melts the core.

Heating the jacket with seated core isn't TOO big of a deal as I have a furnace. However, that whole process "puts me off". First, it uses 'energy' other than my arm - running a furnace uses a significant amount of electricity. Second, melting cores makes me uneasy for reasons I can't exactly put my finger on. I LIKE swaging cores into jackets. Everything gets "mashed" into a form. Everything is a 'known'. Heating things causes changes that are difficult to control. Corbin recommends swaging the core into the jacket AFTER melting the core into the jacket. That just seems wacko to me.

The one aspect of melting cores that I "like" is that it will anneal the jackets making them as "dead" soft as they can be. THAT I like.

Until I get the results of the terminal performance tests, I'm not going to worry about bonding cores.

The jacket weight issue is non-trivial, but I am getting my mind right about the whole "hand-made" bullet process. A large part of getting "right" is appreciating how long it will take to make one bullet. I am not a "factory", and the efficiency of a factory is NOT what I am after.

The 20, 130-grain bullets I made above took me almost two hours. That of course is long because of a variety of things that will change once I settle on a bullet weight, shape, and tip. Still, I would expect it to take me at least an hour to make 20 bullets. I'M FINE WITH THAT. One of the aspects of handloading that I like the best is the time it takes to 'craft' a custom reload. The best cartridge I can make. Just like EVERYTHING in the world, quality requires time.

So, if I have to weigh and sort all those 5000 cases in order to get the quality of bullet I want, so be it.

That's a nice aluminum block. If I do it, I will make one out of fire-brick.

Paul

[22hornet]

Joe, I like the "energy dump" too. A projectile that passes through is just wasted energy. Good to see we are on the same page. :smiley:

My thoughts on the bonded core was more like thinking out aloud of how it could be done.

[22hornet]

Paul, the variation in jacket weight, you already know it, but sorting out into various matched weights may be the best option.
Some testing will show how much difference this jacket variation will make in the real world. I know target shooters win or lose on less than .010" in a group.
Will a spread of 3% in weight still keep 1.5MOA?
Don't know but some basic tests could be run by removing some weight from, say, a .308 130gn Speer HP and groups shot. This might give an indication of what too expect. Remember the tests on group size shot v's the case weight?
I'm only saying use the Speer because it would save your projectiles and the large HP would make it easier to put in a lathe chuck and carefully remove up to 3% of the weight, Again just thinking out loud. I don't know if this would be a practical option.

[drinksgin (deceased)]

Joe, the most aggressive flux I know of is zinc chloride, is that what you are wanting?
Likely the best bet would be to find an old plumber and see if he has some left over.
I have tub of a very aggressive paste flux, but it is at least 35 years old, though it still does the job and I still have a squirt bottle of zinc chloride, too.
The US is over to 95-5 for all plumbing but 50-50 and electronic 60-40 rosin core are still available.