Making My Own 8mm Jacketed Bullets

[gitano]

Now that I have all of the pieces actually in hand, it's time to start a new thread on the fabrication of my own 8mm (.323 caliber) jacketed bullets.

I still have to do some modifications to the press and make a floating punch holder, but the important 'thing' is that I have the press, I have the dies, I have 5000 jackets, and I have quarter inch pure lead wire. "You" can find some history on this endeavor here:  http://thehunterslife.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12747&page=1

I'll post pictures of the press when I get it reassembled after reboring and rethreading the ram so that it will hold the beefier bullet swaging dies.

Here are some dimensions on the jackets:
Average weight = 42.13 grains
Outside diameter = 0.323"
Inside diameter = 0.253"
Length = 0.71" (The pictures below will provide important information about the nature of this measurement.)
Wall thickness = 0.035"

Here is a picture of the jackets as I received them. On the left is a .416 bullet from the same manufacturer that made the jackets. On the right are two jackets; one "round" end up, the other open end up.



Looking at the bullets I have received from the company that sold me the jackets, it is clear that the rounded part of these jackets is the back end of the bullet. Using the place on the jacket where it goes from rounded to straight, I get a length of 0.595". Subtracting another 0.035" from that for the thickness of the bottom of the jacket when the bullet is in its final form, I get a "core cavity" dimension of 0.560" x 0.253", (length x diameter). Armed with that information, I can calculate the length of lead I must have to achieve a specific weight bullet.

Here's where using the metric system would be VERY helpful, but since the firearms/hunting community uses inches and grains, I'll do the 'messy' conversions. Lead has a density of 11.34 grams per cubic centimeter at room temperature. Converting that to grains per cubic inch, I get 2,876 grains per cubic inch for the density of pure lead at room temperature.

A cylinder with the length of 0.560" and diameter of 0.253" has a volume of 0.02815 cubic inches. Multiplying the volume of the "core cavity" (0.02815 cubic inches) times the density of pure lead (2876 grains per cubic inch) yields the weight of the core of a bullet made with this jacket IF it was filled to the top of the jacket with pure lead. That weight is 80.97 grains. Add to that the 42.13 grains of the jacket, and we get a finished weight of 123.09 grains. I asked the jacket maker to make the jacket lengths for a 125 to 130-grain finished bullet weight. I think they did a good job.

I am quite certain that the jacket is going to lengthen a bit when I form the ogive. That, (in combination with the fact that actual chemically pure lead is pretty difficult to come by so the true density of what I have on hand is probably slightly less than theoretical), means I should be able to produce an "open tip", hollow pointed bullet somewhere in the 120 to 130 grain range. If I want to make a "spitzer" with exposed lead tip, it will probably finish in the 130 to 140 grain range.

There are a couple of observations that I have made with respect to the relative size of these jackets and those of the 7mm and .308 versions seen in the other thread. (If you use the link above to go to that thread, look at post #58.) The length of the finished 7mm bullet is 0.93". The length of the .308 bullet is 0.84". The finished length of this 8mm jacket/bullet is calculated to be something slightly longer than 0.6". Since the ogive is a fundamental and immutable characteristic of the dies, I don't have much leeway when it comes to the nature of the ogive of my bullets. The curvature of the ogive on my dies is 8 times the radius of the caliber (8R). In other words, the radius of curvature of the nose of bullets made in my dies is 8 times 0.1615" or 1.292", (a circle with a diameter of 2.584".)

I may be able to 'fiddle' with the ogive a LITTLE bit by adjusting the distance into the die that I push the bullet. In other words, if I push the jacket-with-core into the die "all the way", I'll end up with a "closed tip" hollow point. (See other thread for explanation of differences between "closed tip" and "open tip".) If I don't hardly push it in at all, I end up with a "cylinder" shaped bullet. Somewhere in between "all the way" and "hardly at all" is where I have a LITTLE 'room to move'.

The significance of this is the length of the bullet's BEARING SURFACE. The bearing surface lengths of the Hornady, 8mm, 125 grain closed-tip HP AND their exposed lead spitzer of the same weight, are fairly short - 0.285" (0.88 calibers) and 0.338" (1.05 calibers) respectively.  The bearing surface length of the Speer 115 grain 7mm open-tip HP, (the bullet design upon which I am basing my 8mm design), is 0.465" (1.64 calibers). The length of the bearing surface of Speer's 130 grain, .308 open-tip HP (the same bullet design as the 7mm caliber), is 0.453" (1.47 calibers). I'm guessing that the bearing surface of my finished bullet will be pretty close to 1 caliber. We'll see.

IF these calculations turn out to be correct - and I will be surprised if they aren't close - this is just the weight of bullets I wanted to make.

Next step is "reality"...

Paul

[22hornet]

Good stuff Paul.

I noticed the jacket thickness you have measured at 0.035". How does that compare with Speer .308 130gn HP and their 7mm 115gn HP? If the jacket thickness is the same you should expect similar performance on game with the same size HP.

A guy here in OZ was making projectiles for the .303 British. He was annealing the jackets first. He claimed that this would make for a softer jacket and therefore expand better at lower velocities. Shooters that used these bullets claimed they worked too. No hard evidence for it though.

Standing by for the next installment.....

[RatherBHuntin]

Now this looks very interesting, too bad no one has told you that you can't make your own jacketed bullets but have to buy them from the factory:nana:

[gitano]

too bad no one has told you that you can't make your own jacketed bullets but have to buy them from the factory

Who said they didn't! People practically lined up to say "you can't do that" (without spending $2000+ on hardware to do it).

22hornet - The .035" wall thickness is actually pretty thick as factory bullets go. The jacket on most bullets is in the 0.015" neighborhood, as are the jackets on the 7mm and .308 Speer HPs. Of course bullets like Accubonds and other "specialty" bullets have fairly complex, non-uniform wall profiles.

As for annealing: That's PROBABLY not necessary with these jackets. MOST bullet jackets are made of so-called "guilding". "Guilding" is a copper alloy not too different from bronze. These jackets are pure "electrical grade" copper. (Or so I'm told.) As such they are pretty soft as they sit. Of course even pure copper work-hardens, so we will see what happens after seating the core and point-forming.

The thicker wall and the "dead soft" copper are why I like this manufacturer's bullets.  Barnes bullets - the ORIGINAL bullets made before Fred Barnes sold the company - were made with pure copper jackets. One of the reasons manufacturers shifted to "guilding" was the increased fouling of pure copper that showed up when bullets started being launched at higher and higher velocities. I may have that problem with these bullets out of the 8mm SLT at 3200+ f/s muzzle velocities. I'm quite certain there will be no fouling at subsonic velocities, and I'm hoping it won't be too bad in the upper 2000s.

It is my opinion that the combination of the thicker wall AND the soft copper will enhance the terminal performance of this bullet. Since the Speer 7mm and .308 bullets are labeled "varmint" bullets, and I KNOW they are big-game 'hammers', I'm hoping the terminal performance with the thicker wall and soft jacket material will make this hollow point something other than a "varmint" bullet.

Have you seen these https://cuttingedgebullets.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=TALON_M

Paul

PS - Turns out that there is a Cutting Edge Bullet distributor about 15 miles from my house. I just ordered 25 of those "Talon Tips" from him. We shall see what we shall see.

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

Wow, price of those 'tips'.....
Definitely going to have to make the injection moulder...

[gitano]

Yup, AND they insist on using UPS for shipping, so 25 tips that weigh maybe an ounce, cost $15 to ship to AK via UPS. USPS would be $4.80 Priority. However, when I spoke with the distributer here, he said he'd split the shipping fee with me for "some samples of your bullets". I told him emphatically that I was NOT in the bullet-making BUSINESS. He said he understood, but would still make the offer, so I took him up on it.

Honestly, I have my doubts that these tips will work WELL in my bullets. However, once I can get them in my hands, I expect to get some ideas about how to accomplish the same thing for my bullets. In the end, I suspect it will be as simple as spec'ing a point design and contracting a company to make "a million of them" for me. If I can get 1000 as a minimum batch at a price of say less than 10 cents a piece, I'd be happy with that.

I want to use these Cutting Edge tips to help me see what MY bullets need for specifying a tip to a small parts manufacturing company. Because of the length of the jacket and the extension of the tip into the jacket, I think one of my bullets with a tip will weigh even less than 120 grains. Lighter is OK with me.

Have to make some bullets first...

Paul

[Hunterbug]

Paul, you know that you can always have stuff shipped to me and I'll forward it USPS flat shipping or whatever is cheapest.

[gitano]

Funny you should mention that... :D

For those that don't already know, A-Square Bullet manufacturers went out of business. All of their stuff was auctioned off about a month ago. I got a number (10) of "test" barrels (Krieger and Lothar Walther). Cost for the barrels - $214. Cost for shipping BY UPS $274. I was going to ask if I could have them UPS'd to you and you could USPS the to me. I'll give you a call.

Paul

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

Interesting jacket, will have to pursue the tube jacket maker now!

[gitano]

EXACTLY what I was thinking!

I've been looking at 5/16ths "refrigeration" tubing. At ~0.75" per round-bottomed jacket (meaning actual length of tubing would be slightly longer), I'm thinking I could get at least 12 jackets per foot of tubing. At ~$1/ft in 50-ft rolls, that's 600 jackets for $50, or 12 cents per jacket. A bit cheaper than 28 cents per jacket.

Wall thickness of THIS ASTM 68 tubing is 0.032". OD is nominal 0.3125", ID is 0.2485". All those are about "8mm" bullet dimension. HOWEVER, I suspect that "drawing DOWN" 3/8ths might be easier/better than swaging UP 5/16ths. Therefore, the "better" choice MIGHT be 3/8ths (0.375 OD) tubing. When drawn down, it would probably have a wall thickness of ~0.035". By the way, wall thicknesses up to 0.065" are available in ASTM 68.

Paul

[Hunterbug]

Paul, Think that you could have some in 150gr to 200gr to me in time to work up a load to hunt deer with this fall?

[gitano]

Not with these jackets. They'd be more than half exposed lead. The 200s at least. HOWEVER, I would like you to try the light ones once I get some made. They might convert you to a light-for-caliber fan.

Paul

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

EXACTLY what I was thinking!

I've been looking at 5/16ths "refrigeration" tubing. At ~0.75" per round-bottomed jacket (meaning actual length of tubing would be slightly longer), I'm thinking I could get at least 12 jackets per foot of tubing. At ~$1/ft in 50-ft rolls, that's 600 jackets for $50, or 12 cents per jacket. A bit cheaper than 28 cents per jacket.

Wall thickness of THIS ASTM 68 tubing is 0.032". OD is nominal 0.3125", ID is 0.2485". All those are about "8mm" bullet dimension. HOWEVER, I suspect that "drawing DOWN" is easier/better than swaging UP. Therefore, the "better" choice MIGHT be 3/8ths (0.375 OD) tubing. When drawn down, it would probably have a wall thickness of ~0.035". By the way, wall thicknesses up to 0.065" are available in ASTM 68.

Paul

The 10.5 thou 'swage up' is close enough at a guess - saves making a drawing die...

[Hunterbug]

Paul, if you send them I'll shoot them and see what I can do. My K98 likes the 185gr Core Locks but I'll try lighter stuff.

[gitano]

The ram has been bored and threaded and reinstalled in the press. The floating punch holder (hereafter FPH) has turned into a bit of a challenge. (I guess the 'challenges' never end 'til you die.) Nobody in The Valley has any 1-inch bolts with 12 pitch needed for the lock-nut.  There are plenty of 1-8s and 1-14s, but no 1-12s. Ditto for the 1.5-in 12 pitch All-thread for the die body. Plenty of 1.5-8 and 1.5-14. No 1.5-12. Gee I wonder why Corbin would choose an "odd" thread pitch for his dies? (It's a rhetorical question.)

It's not too big of a deal. I can find the 1-12 bolts in Anchorage or on the web if necessary and I can simply thread the outside of the die body myself. It's just that a bolt and some Allthread would have greatly decreased the time I will have to wait to start making bullets.

Paul

[drinksgin (deceased)]

You would not suspect that Corbin was trying to make it as hard as possible to use something HE did not sell you?
Nah, he would not do such a sneaky thing!
;<)

[gitano]

I could understand not using 8-pitch threads because it could be argued that they were too 'coarse' for precise adjustment of the dies. However, that argument obviously fails when considering the MORE COMMON 14-pitch version. The guy makes good stuff, but he's really "a piece of work". I avoid doing business with him if AT ALL possible.

Paul

[gitano]

The issue of the 1-12 bolt for the "locking nut" is easily resolved by not using 12 pitch threaded bolt. DUH. Since I am making the FPH and the INSIDE threads don't have to match anything Corbin-made, I can get a 1-14 tap, (or even 1-8 for that matter), and be 'done with it'.

Still have to deal with the 1.5-12 male thread of the FPH matching the 1.5-12 female thread of the press.  Not too big of a deal as cutting outside threads is a snap.

Paul

[gitano]

Two, 3" long, 1" diameter, 14 pitch, "tap" bolts, ("tap bolt" a is threaded all the way to the cap), cost $17 at Fastenal. A 1-14 tap from EBay, (with shipping), is going to be about $10-$15. I haven't found and priced any local 1.5" steel round stock. I'm hoping I can FIND some locally.

I found it locally - $50 for a 3-foot stick. Ouch!

Paul

[drinksgin (deceased)]

Online Metals, 1 1/2" cold rolled . 10-12" random length, $13.20 plus shipping.

[gitano]

Thanks, Don, but I've tried to do business with them before. They will ONLY use UPS shipping. No exceptions.

I'll just get the $16.33/ft stuff here. I plan on making 3 of them anyway. One each for the Core Swaging die; one for the Core Seating die; and one for the Pointing die. They're going to be 5" to 6" long.

Paul

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

Pics of swarf making required...

[gitano]

OK.

This morning I'm blacking my friend's son's 1911 knock-off. I'll pick up the 1.5" stock this afternoon.

For future discussions, refer to the following image.



(All measurements in inches unless otherwise noted.)
I think the 'order of operations' for machining the FPH should be:

1) Drill/bore 0.840 hole in FPH body (from 1.5" stock), for floating punch head (0.800 plus 0.040 clearance).
2) Bore secondary diameter to ~0.915 for tapping 14-pitch threads leaving internal shoulder.
3) Tap about half an inch of 14 pitch threads into the ~0.915 bore of the FPH body.
4) Cut 12-pitch threads on outside of body of FPH for at least 4".
5) Part off FPH body.
6) Cut 3", 1-14 "tap" bolt, ("tap" bolt is threaded to cap), to length. (Total length from top of hex head to end of bolt that impinges on the lower edge of punch rim: 0.9" (punch body length) minus about 0.015 yields 0.75.)
7) Bore hole ~0.665 in diameter through bolt for punch (0.625 for punch body plus 0.040 for clearance).
8) Reduce OD of distal quarter inch of threads to ~0.820.
9) Reduce thickness of hex head by half taking excess off of top (the side of the hex head away from threads).
10) Face off the underside, (the side next to threads), of hex head.
11) Texture top of FPH using mill and indexing head.

If anyone thinks they should be otherwise, let me know.

Paul

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

Looking good Paul!
Just to expand for all in pictures, this is what Paul is attempting to achieve.
I made a few of these for my  Corbin CSP-1 press essentially the same as what he needs. Body here is 7/8x14 UNF.

[gitano]

Good illustrative pictures, "j0e".

With materials in hand, I can see some 'issues'. Not insurmountable, but challenges none-the-less.

The body of the punch is relatively short - ~0.900" - but with a "head" that is 0.800" in diameter. That mean that a hole 0.840" in diameter is required. That diameter in return means that a "large" - 1" - bolt be used for making the 'capture' screw. That in turn means that the length of the capture screw - including the head - will be shorter, (0.900"), than the diameter of the finished screw - 1". Have a look at the attached picture.



Not a lot of threads left there. It's not a strength issue for two reasons. First, there will be no "pull" on the threads of the capture screw. The forces applied to the punch when in use are 'upward' into the body of the FPH. The only "pull" on the threads will be when the punch is extracted from the Core Swaging, Core Seating, or Pointing, dies. Those "pulling" forces SHOULD be small. Second, I will be able to leave more than 3 threads on the shank of the capture screw. THEORETICALLY, 3 threads provide 100% of the rated holding capacity of a screw/bolt.

Paul

upon further reflection... I think I'll make the capture screw a bit longer than 0.90". I think I'll add maybe 0.2". I was corrected: 100% of rated holding capacity is realized with 3 times the bolt DIAMETER. That 'fits' with this bolt, as it is the shortest 1" tap bolt they have and it's three inches long.

Paul

[gitano]

OK... You wanted 'swarf-making' pics? Here they are:



The order of operations had to be modified.  I assumed that the threads would be perpendicular (within a few thousandths) to the head of the bolt. That assumption was false. It was out quite a bit. (I didn't need to measure it to see it was 'way' off.) Since the threads are the critical component, it was necessary to 'clock' (index) off of the threads. SO... I had to mount the bolt as you see above. Since I had to face off some of the profile of the under side of the head, I squared everything up there.

The next operation was to reduce the thickness of the head by an amount that would leave the overall length of the capture nut about 1.2".That meant removing about 0.6" of the 0.8+" of the head. Here's a picture of that operation.



Next was drilling and boring the through-hole for the body of the punch. J0ebl0ggs had already determined that the 'slop' needed for the punch head to 'float' in was 0.040". There was no reason to have less play in the body of the punch, so the diameter of the hole would be the body diameter (0.625") plus 0.040", or 0.665". First I drilled the through-hole into the bolt 1.5" using a 3/32nds drill bit. Then increasing in 16ths, I enlarged the hole up through 0.500". From that point I could use a boring bar to enlarge the hole to the necessary 0.665".

Here's a picture about mid-way through the drilling.


That's it for 'swarf-making' pictures. It took me 3.5 hours and I only took those three pictures. There wasn't too much else to see except reducing the terminal end of the capture nut to 0.815" and then parting it off. The 0.815" dimension was determined by the diameter of the head of the punch (0.800") and adding a "little bit" to it but keeping it smaller than the 0.840" of the bore for the head that will be coming when I make the FPH body. I figured 0.815" would be wide enough to 'capture' the head of the punch, and small enough to slip into the 0.840" FPH bore easily.

So here are pictures of the 'beast' with the punch and the die into which the punch will be pressed. In this case it's the Core Seating die.

This is a picture of the three pieces so far. On the left is the Core Seating die that will be screwed into the ram. In the middle is the punch Capture Nut, and on the right is the punch.


This is a picture of the Capture Nut on the punch as it will rest when inserted in the FPH die body.


This is a picture of the three pieces as they will be oriented (except the die will be "down" and the punch "up").


And here is a picture with the three pieces on their sides so you can see the relationship between the Capture Nut and the other two pieces.


Paul

[drinksgin (deceased)]

If you don't quit that, I shall have to go make a mess in the shop, too.

[gitano]

Fudge. I have just found ANOTHER problem with the press.

The 'way things work' is that there is a "top" punch (in this case that's the "Floating" punch), and there is a "bottom" punch. The top punch sits inside the Floating Punch Holder. The bottom punch sits inside the ram beneath the seated die.

For example:
When everything is in place, the FPH (top punch) is screwed into the top plate of the press. The body of the bottom punch sits inside a recess bored for it in the ram and the die (in this case the Core Seating die) is screwed into the bottom plate of the press with the shaft of the bottom punch sitting inside the die.

To seat a core in a jacket, one drops a sized core into a jacket then starts the jacket into the Core Seating die and raises the ram. As the ram moves up, the top punch slips inside the jacket and pushes the core into the jacket. As the ram is raised, the core (and jacket) are pushed farther and farther into the die. At some point, the bottom of the jacket engages the top of the bottom punch. As the ram continues to raise, the core is SWAGED into the jacket and the jacket expands to fill the inside of the Core Seating die. As the ram is lowered at the end of the core seating stroke, the bottom punch is forced upward into the die thereby pushing out the finished, cored jacket.

Here's the problem. The ram isn't bored out to the right size for my bottom die. This press clearly wasn't made for Corbin's "H" series dies.

This is a REAL problem. The diameter of the body of the bottom punch is 0.873"  (2 thou smaller than 7/8ths). Not only do I not have a 7/8th drill, I don't have anything that will hold a 7/8ths drill. Furthermore, I can't bore the hole larger as the depth is WAY longer than any borer I have. I'm not sure what the depth needs to be, but it needs to be AT LEAST three inches deepER than it is now, making it probably a total of 7".

Once I find out the max depth, MAYBE I can get the local machine shop to bore it out for me. If not, I'm "up the creek..."

Very disappointing.

Paul

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

Marathon cross planetary 'paper whipping' and have calculated working distance for the die set... (5 1/4")
Now needed a 57/64 bottom cutting multi lobe drill or reamer.... sheesh!

[gitano]

I received the 1-14 tap for threading the inside of the Floating Punch Holder (FPH) earlier in the week and was able to get some time in the shop on Friday to work on the FPH.

Here's a brief photo-essay on it's fabrication. Three things to note: First, photography isn't the first thing on my mind as I fabricate things on my metal-working machines. Keep in mind that I have no 'formal' training, and keeping my mind on task is very important to successful results. Second, lighting in my shop is "task-lighting", not "photographic" lighting. And finally, these pictures were taken with my cell phone so in some the focus isn't razor sharp. With those qualifiers;

Here is the 1.5" stock loaded in the lathe, trued to 1.491", and the internal hole bored for the head of the floating punch and the body of the punch capture screw.

and


Next you can see the internal threads cut for the capture screw.
]

This turned out to have its challenges. The tap I got off of EBay was a "plug" tap, meaning that it has a long, gradual lead to the cutting threads meant for cutting threads in a through-hole, or for starting threads in a deep hole. The hole in the FPH is neither "through" or "deep". However, I was able to get a good, straight start on the threads. Unfortunately, I was not able to even get close to cutting the necessary threads for the capture screw. What I needed was a "bottom" tap, which is designed to cut threads to the bottom of blind holes like the one in the FPH. So "Why didn't you get a bottoming tap, Paul?" Because there weren't any available on EBay for even close to the price of the plug tap. So... I had to turn the plug tap into a bottoming tap. Took about an hour on the grinder to grind off about half an inch. Thereafter, it worked like a champ.

And here is the 'proof of the pudding'.


Next cam outside threads. Pretty boring really.


And here is the finished outside threads.


Parting off a piece of 1.5"diameter stock is a chore.

I still don't have a knurling tool, but I wanted to texture the top of the FPH both for practical reasons as well as cosmetic. I chucked it in the dividing head on my mill, inserted a 1/4" round-nosed mill cutter in the head and cut grooves every 12 degrees (30 of them) around the top of the piece.


And


And here's the finished product with the capture screw and floating punch installed.


Here's what it looks like in the press:


And


And here's what it looks like in the press after blacking.


Still one more major machining operation to perform before I can start making bullets.

Paul

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

1st or taper, 2nd, then plug (bottom).


Yayyy getting there.... cough, locknut?

[22hornet]

Great going again Paul. Still watching this thread with great interest.

But I thought a plug tap was a bottom tap? At least that's my training. Maybe it's a twisted US / English thing?

[drinksgin (deceased)]

Our catalogs list the 3 types as ;
taper, plug and bottom.
I go through a lot more bottom taps than the other 2 types.

[gitano]

At least that's my training.

Remember, I've had NO training. At least none formal.

I'm just repeating what I've seen in the sales literature. I'd think a 'plug' tap was a 'bottom' tap too. Regardless of the terminology, I think everyone understands what I was up to.

When I think of lock-nut, I think of something acting on an 'outside' object; like the lock-nut on a reloading die acting on the press, not on the die. When the 'locking' is on the 'inside' or acting only on the object within itself - as in"capturing" something like the floating punch - I think "capture". Lock-nut/capture nut - pick your poison.

There's no good reason not to be accurate/correct with technical terminology unless there is disparity in 'convention'. For example, the "imaginary" operator in math is "i", while in physics, the exact same imaginary operator is "j". People actually argue about that. It seems reasonable to me to use "i" when one is discussing purely mathematical matters, and "j" when one is describing physical relationships.

While I don't "like" the misuse of the term "accuracy" in the place of the correct term "precision", and likewise "caliber" instead of "chambering", I can "live" with either of those two malapropisms as long as there isn't any confusion in the communication.

It is quite likely that I will continue to butcher machining terminology, and am perfectly fine with being corrected. One cannot learn if one is unwilling to be taught.

Paul[/SIZE]

[gitano]

Now I have to await the arrival of a 57/64ths core drill to rebore the ram so that it will hold the bottom punch at the appropriate depth relative to the die. TARNATION! All this "just one more thing" has got me spitting nails. I shoulda been making bullets months ago!

Oh yeah... Got the little pointy plastic tips. Have to make some bullets so I can use them.

Paul

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

Yep, probably was not clear, lock nut for Floating Punch Holder body!

As to tap nomenclature plug/bottom is the same thing  (at least here it is).

Taps usually come in 3 types – usually as a "set", starting a first cut, middle  or 2nd cut and lastly a bottoming or plug tap. 1st cut has the most  taper and is design to start the thread in a new hole, 2nd has a bit  less, bottoming will cut threads all the way to the bottom of a blind hole.

Have no problem with you 'butchering' the terminology   :D

The essays teach everyone...  keep it up!

[gitano]

lock nut for Floating Punch Holder body!

Ah so... Gotcha!

I thought about it, but probably will not do it unless it becomes necessary. Bigger pain in the butt than the FPH was. Have to find 1.5" stock, inside thread, cut to reasonable thickness. The fit of the die in the press is snug, so unless some problem arises due to no lock nut on die, I'll leave it as it is.

Paul

[gitano]

I forgot I could just ORDER hex nuts. So... I ordered three 1.5-12 hex 'jam' nuts from Fastenal. http://www.fastenal.com/web/products/detail.ex?sku=36277 I will use them 'as-is' or maybe 'split' them and get two-for-one if it seems reasonable once I have them in hand.

I mounted the press to my former reloading bench. (Recall the renovated reloading room.) The weight of the press meant that I had to strap the bench to the wall. This press really is at least 1/3 'over-built'. By that I mean that ALL of the square stock could be reduced in thickness by 1/3. Possibly even 1/2. The round stock should remain the same as they are now. The ram because of the dimensions of the dies and their associated components, and the guide rods just because there's no need to reduce their diameter.

Paul

[gitano]

I also need to make a core cutting device. You can see j0e_bl0ggs' here http://thehunterslife.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16328&page=6 at post 57, and here http://thehunterslife.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16328&page=4 at post 32.

I went looking for square stock at the local Home Depot, and the biggest they had was 5/16ths. The core of the 8mm bullets I will be making will start at 0.250" in diameter, which would leave only 0.031" per side. (0.3125/2) - 0.250 = 0.03125") I have some 3/8ths thick plate that I may make into a 'scissor'. I'm working on the design of the 'depth gauge' part of it now.

Paul

[gitano]

So... in anticipation of making the core wire cutter, I thought I'd do a little number crunching to help with the design.

Here's an Excel table I generated to estimate the length of quarter inch lead wire I would need to cut in order to make a 125-grain bullet with the jackets I have on hand. You might want to look at  post #1 in this thread to re-familiarize yourself with these jackets.


As you can see in the table, in order to get a 125-grain bullet, I'd have to have a core of length 1.5 cm. That's a bit of a problem since the depth of the jacket's core is only 1.4 cm. (You'll see the dimension in the first post in this thread as 0.560". That equates to approximately 1.4 cm.) A core of length 1.5 cm would have the lead projecting out from the mouth of the jacket - an "exposed lead spitzer". In the "grand scheme of things" that's not a "bad thing", but in this specific endeavor - making an open hollow pointed bullet - it most certainly is not "good". HOWEVER...

The target weight of 125 grains was a VERY casually chosen value. I really didn't want to have to go up in weight over 130, but I'm just fine with going down in weight. Remember, this bullet is by design supposed to be LIGHT for caliber.

Another thread to read in the context of this whole project is this one: http://thehunterslife.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12747. In it you will find some pictures of the bullets I am trying to emulate - the Speer 7mm 115-grain HP and the .30 caliber 130-grain HP. Both have large, OPEN hollow points.

The depth of that "open" hollow point is 0.20" in both the 7mm and the .30 caliber bullets. Interesting - at least to me - is that the tenon on these add-on tips http://www.midwayusa.com/product/347096/cutting-edge-bullets-esp-raptor-bullets-talon-tips-338-caliber-polymer-bag-of-25 is also 0.20". Therefore:

1) If I want to truly mimic the Speer bullets, and
2) If I want to use the plastic inserts,

I will want to have the core of my finished bullet be back 0.20" from the mouth of the hollow point of the jacket. 0.20" translates to 5.08mm. Here is the reworked table showing the core weights if the core is shortened 5.08mm.


So I have to reduce the length of the core by 5.08mm. Since there is about 5.55 grains of lead in a .25" diameter lead wire that is 1mm in length, that 5.1mm reduction in length will mean a weight reduction of 5.1 * 5.55 = 28.3 grains. From the new table that includes hollow point considerations, I get a finished weight of almost 92 grains. THAT is certainly LIGHT for caliber! I actually expect the weight to be less because the core will get 'pushed forward' a little bit when the ogive is formed, and I will therefore have to shorten it even more  than the 5.08mm.

I think there will be some 'fiddling' required to find the "sweet-spot" between final weight and finished core dimensions.

Paul  

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

What is the dimension of the swaged lead core?

[gitano]

Hmmm....

So I went to my ballistic coefficient (BC) calculator and 'crunched some numbers' with a 90-grain, 8mm, open hollow pointed bullet. The news was "bad". Weight has a big effect on BC.

The BC of that bullet is only .165. Started at 3700 f/s (from QuickLoad calculations) at 300 yd, impact velocity is only 2000 f/s and impact energy is only 800 ft-lbs. If I put a plastic point on it which ups the weight by 4.34 grains, the BC goes up to .270. Which in turn changes the 300 yd ballistics to 2602 f/s impact velocity and 1353 ft-lbs of impact energy. Those are BIG improvements. Looks like I may be forced to put plastic tips on these bullets.

The differences between m bullet and Speer's derives from the thick jacket on mine. It is just over twice the thickness of the Speer jackets - 0.015" vs 0.035". Therefore there is a considerable loss in weight due to the differences in density between copper 'gilding' and pure lead. Also, my jackets are only producing a finished length of about 0.6" whereas the Speer bullets are 0.9" long.

This is going to be interesting.

Paul

[gitano]

What is the dimension of the swaged lead core?

Before inserting in jacket?

Paul

[gitano]

Here's the problem that j0e_bl0ggs was getting to: The core diameter of the core swaging die is 0.250" meaning that the sized core will be 0.250" in diameter and whatever length the die setup is set to. However, the core SEATING die is 0.2945" (see picture in post #23 of this thread). The inside diameter of my jackets is 0.253"! The core seating punch - the 'thing' I made the floating punch holder FOR, won't fit inside the walls of my jackets. "Regular" factory jackets are about 0.015" thick or less. My jackets have 0.035" walls. More than twice as thick. Therefore, the core seating punch will not work.:angry: ANOTHER 'thing' to deal with before I can make bullets. HOWEVER.

In the end, this will force me to make another core seating punch, and I can make it specifically to form the "hollow" in the core that will accept the plastic tip. This will hold the tip better and, probably allow me to increase the overall weight a little bit. I would be very happy at 105 grains as a finished weight.

I can make the new core seating punch while I'm waiting on the 57/64ths core drill bit.

Paul

Oh by the way.... I can get a 95 grain bullet going in excess of 4000 f/s at the muzzle from an 8mm Remington Mag cartridge. :D:D:D

Paul

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

Iron out them wrinkles then good to go!
Was thinking about the plastic tip... might be better to form the point 'around' the insert on reflection...
Need to work out the dims for the insert stem part of the punch.
I do not thing that much 'point forming' will be going on as the base of the plastic tip was a quite large ø.
This should be quite an interesting bullet and performance well 8mm mag +4kfps...wow!

[gitano]

So.. There was - as expected - another 'wrinkle'. If you look at the pictures above of the core seating punch, (the punch for which the Floating Punch Holder FPH was made), you will see that the 'business end' of that punch is 0.2945" in diameter. That punch was made by Corbin for "regular" bullet jackets whose wall thickness is no greater than 0.015" and closer to 0.010". If you subtract 0.028 (two times 0.014) from 0.323 (bullet diameter in inches) you get 0.295". That punch fits inside a "normal" jacket. My jackets are not - by design - "normal". They have walls of 0.035" thickness.

As I pointed out above, if you subtract 0.070 (two times the 0.035 wall thickness) from the bullet diameter - 0.323 - you get 0.253. Making quarter inch lead wire (0.250 nominal) just about 'perfect' for the core material. Unfortunately, that means that the Corbin punch that has a diameter of 0.2945 is too large to work with my jackets. I had to make another core seating punch.:frown:frown:frown:frown:frown (That's as close to cussing as I can get on THL.)

So here's the new punch (0.255" in diameter in the 'business' end) that I just completed, beside the Corbin punch.


As usual, there is a silver lining on this cloud. I now have the confidence to make any of the other punches necessary for swaging bullets. Now the only thing left for me to get comfortable making are the dies. I don't think I'll have a problem with the core seating die. The core swaging and pointing dies will be more of a challenge.

Paul

Oh yeah, I had one of my jackets in hand when I made the new punch, and it fits on with 0.001" of "slop" on each side.

[gitano]

Voila' - Sort of. Swaged, but not in the press designed for this. However, it was in the dies I will be using.



116.9 grains
1.071" long
Ballistic Coefficient - 0.305 at 3500 f/s

If launched from the 23.25" barrel on the 8mm SLT, 3500 f/s MV is easily attained.
At that MV:

300 yd Impact Energy is 1543 ft-lbs.
300 yd Impact Velocity is 2438 f/s.

Trajectory with scope settings for the 8mm SLT and allowing bullet to go 1.5" above line of sight:

100 yd: +1.2"
150 yd:  +1.5"
200 yd: +0.8"
225 yd: +0.0
250 yd: -1.0"
260 yd: -1.5"
300 yd: -4.1"

If this 'thing' hits where I aim it, it should have considerably "better" terminal performance than the 115-grain 7mm Speer after which it was designed.

I am pleased with the paper-whipped results - to say the least. :D

Paul

[gitano]

When I first started loading the Speer 115-grain 7mm bullet in my 7x300 Weatherby, It wasn't difficult to get it going 3500 f/s. I decided to take it out to the "range" (back in the woods behind Eielson AFB) and give it my normal terminal performance test - a 1 gallon plastic milk jug filled with water at 100 yd. Just so happened that there was  55 gallon steel drum laying on it's side where I stopped to shoot. I set the milk jug on the side of the drum, backed off 100 paces and 'let fly'. HOLY COW! It bent the 55 gal drum almost in half! The opposite ends were almost TOUCHING! (Think bending a beer can in half.) THAT is serious "shock", or what I call the "hammer effect". I used that bullet in that rifle to take MANY big game animals in Alaska and Outside. They all died without moving more than a body length from the point of impact.

Here's a visual comparison.



Here are the ballistics for that 7mm bullet to compare with the 8mm:

115 grains
0.925" long
Ballistic Coefficient - 0.250 at 3500 f/s

If launched at 3500 f/s:

300 yd Impact Energy is 1431 ft-lbs.
300 yd Impact Velocity is 2352 f/s.

Trajectory with scope settings for the 8mm SLT and allowing bullet to go 1.5" above line of sight:

100 yd: +1.2"
150 yd: +1.5"
200 yd: +0.7"
222 yd: +0.0
250 yd: -1.3"
255 yd: -1.5"
300 yd: -4.5"

Almost identical, but the 8mm technically 'wins' in every category. Then I get to add 0.039" in diameter. :D That's like going from .269 (~6.5mm) to .308. Most folks believe that the .30 caliber "hits" harder than the .264 if both have the same impact velocity. I certainly do.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention... The jacket on my bullet is more than twice as thick as the one on the 115-grain 7mm. :D This ain't no varmint bullet!

That might be what I call it - The 8mm ANVB (Ain't No Varmint Bullet).

Paul

[gitano]

For those of you shooting 8x57s:

116.9 grains
1.071" long
Ballistic Coefficient - 0.275 at 3319 f/s

If launched from a 24" barrel, 3300 f/s MV is easily attained.
At that MV:

300 yd Impact Energy is 1349 ft-lbs. (1500 ft-lbs out to 260 yd.)
300 yd Impact Velocity is 2279 f/s.

Trajectory with scope settings for the 8mm SLT and allowing bullet to go 1.5" above line of sight:

100 yd: +1.3"
130 yd: +1.5"
150 yd: +1.4
200 yd: +0.5"
214yd: +0.0
246 yd: -1.5"
250 yd: -1.7"
300 yd: -5.4"

That's not shabby...

Paul

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

Way to go!  8mmANVB
Pat on back well deserved.
Smug smile allowed for the weekend...

Will be interesting to see how much extra lead will 'fit' when using the core seat properly, but then I quite like that radius style 'boat tail'.

[gitano]

Smug smile is wiped off by realizing WAY too late that I made the core seating punch out of 12L14 stock I had laying around, instead of 4140. Bent with first use. While that means I almost wasted the 4 hours I put into it, it wasn't a total waste. The 'exercise' was good. I'll make another out of appropriate steel.

The bullet shown above was seated with a lead core that 'mostly' filled the jacket's cavity. Swaging the point was too easy as there is very little 'squeezing' done when the plastic tip is 0.240" at the point where it intersects the ogive of the bullet. I then chucked the bullet in the lathe and bored a 5/32nd (~0.156") hole in the core, 0.200" deep relative to the mouth of the jacket. I might be able to get another 2 or 3 grains of lead into the bullet were I to choose to "drill" every bullet, but that is NOT the case. In fact, I am thinking of reducing the weight to 115 grains.

The plastic tip is significant with respect to the BC of the bullet. However, I REALLY hate having to install one. MOSTLY because they are 50 cents a piece! Add to that the 28 cents a piece for the jackets and about 2 cents of lead and you have a cost per bullet of 80 cents a piece. That's $80 per hundred. THAT is an expensive bullet, and TWO THIRDS of the cost is the little plastic tip! I either have to get the tip makers to lower their prices (maybe a volume discount) or find another source - maybe self-made.

I'm not rationalizing when I say I "like" the rounded 'butt' of this bullet. Making boat tailed bullets is difficult and expensive for the "hand swager". The reason for boat-tails is to "ease" the turbulence at the base of the bullet, thereby increasing the BC and maybe the "accuracy". While this round butt is NOT a boat-tail, it WILL accomplish - at least to some degree - a reduction in the turbulence at the base of the bullet. That "works" for me.

Paul

[drinksgin (deceased)]

Modified Kamm-back?
What is the plastic, can it be melted and poured, could you stamp it out of Lexan, can you turn it of one of the high density plastics being used for bearings?
Sorry, just a bunch of questions, nothing actually helpful.

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

Hah! Now make the punch from real steel.
As discussed the ø of the punch above the jacket should slip fit the die, this helps with the 'bending' problem by supporting the punch. Stepped punch is the way to do it!
Anyone here have access to a 3d printer?

[gitano]

While I understand 'what for' and 'why' you suggest a stepped punch, I am not convinced that it is necessary. It:
1) adds complexity to fabrication,
2) decreases flexibility in use, and
3) increases the probability of damaging/destroying the core seating die.

Modified Kamm-back?

I have no idea what you are referring to, Don.

The tip could be turned out of delrin rod, (or any reasonably machined plastic), but turning it would be more expensive than these tips are.

I don't think it could be "stamped", but I could be wrong.

One should be able to "pour" it, but I think "injection molding" would be the better choice in "hot, liquid plastic" methodology.

What j0e_bl0ggs is referring to with the 3D printer is that 3D printers can be used to fabricate small objects. http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=3D+printer+fabrication&view=detail&mid=32FBE62946B891FF7E8F32FBE62946B891FF7E8F&first=21&FORM=NVPFVR http://www.makershed.com/Articles.asp?ID=301 This plastic bullet tip would likely be an excellent candidate for 3D printing, but;
1) I have no access to a 3D printer,
2) I have no experience with 3D printers,
3) I have no idea how the cost of 3D printing compares to injection molding.

I THINK that the most likely best choice for making these is to contract out to an injection molding house.

Paul

[22hornet]

Awesome looking projectile Paul!


I have heard of guys using plastic Airsoft BB's to make plastic tips. I'm not sure how they make them pointy other than a forming die.

On Castboolits some guys are using ski binding plugs(?) They should be super cheap, might be worthwile investigating......


I am watching this unfold from the sidelines. Sorry I have nothing constructive to add, this is all above my level of expertise.

[gitano]

"Constructive" additions aren't required to participate in this thread or in general at THL, 22hornet. Thoughts help. I had forgotten about the Airsoft BBs. That warrants a look as do the ski-binding plugs, though I don't know what those are.

I'm thinking seriously about asking Nosler and Hornady to sell me some of theirs.

Paul

[drinksgin (deceased)]

Kamm back refers to a German engineer who designed a shape for the rear of a car that reduced turbulence and increased speed, his name was "Kamm".

[22hornet]

Ski binding plugs.

http://www.slidewright.com/plastic-binding-hole-plugs-pk_svpbhp.html
 
Just by looking at the picture, do you think they could do the job?

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

While I understand 'what for' and 'why' you suggest a stepped punch, I am not convinced that it is necessary. It:
1) adds complexity to fabrication,
2) decreases flexibility in use, and
3) increases the probability of damaging/destroying the core seating die.

1, not really.
2, again, not really
3, where do you get that idea from?

Complexity in reality is 1 extra dimension with the advantage that the punch stem will be a larger ø therefore will be stronger.
The length of the punch that bears upon the lead core can be say 1/8 -1/4 long so will not decrease flexibility of use with this jacket - remembering that you will not be able to use this punch with a 'standard' jacket.
The real advantage is applying the swage pressure concentrically and having support guiding the punch to avoid bending the stem, in all probability it will reduce the possibility of die or punch damage.

When setting these dies you have to sneak up on your finished dimensions regardless of the punch shapes being used - if you don't, well it's only a 2 year wait from Corbin for a replacement!

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

Awesome looking projectile Paul!
 

I have heard of guys using plastic Airsoft BB's to make plastic tips. I'm not sure how they make them pointy other than a forming die.
 
On Castboolits some guys are using ski binding plugs(?) They should be super cheap, might be worthwile investigating......
 

I am watching this unfold from the sidelines. Sorry I have nothing constructive to add, this is all above my level of expertise.

Airsoft bb's and binding plugs have one small problem, they do not form very well having too much 'spring back' as you will see from the attempts at cast bullets.
I have experience of them and have jettisoned that idea!

Now a home made injection moulder would seem to be the way to go assuming the tooling for the tip can be made - bit of edm machining needed for this fiddly part!
Will ask my bruv if he can get some printed on the 3d printer...

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

OK need a solidworks drawing of the plastic tip, bruv is ok with printing 'a couple hundred'!

[gitano]

I can be just as hard-headed as you can. :)

Complexity in reality is 1 extra dimension with the advantage that the punch stem will be a larger ø therefore will be stronger. "1 extra dimension" is MORE complex.
The length of the punch that bears upon the lead core can be say 1/8 -1/4 long so will not decrease flexibility of use with this jacket - remembering that you will not be able to use this punch with a 'standard' jacket. I can concede that point.
The real advantage is applying the swage pressure concentrically and having support guiding the punch to avoid bending the stem, in all probability it will reduce the possibility of die or punch damage. There isn't a issue with concentricity as the 'system' forces concentricity regardless of punch diameter. The punch will stay in the center of the jacket if it touches the jacket. I can handle the 0.0005" of eccentricity caused by the 0.001" of 'slop' between the jacket wall and the punch. There will be exactly the same concentricity issue with the side of the die wall as there is with the side of the jacket. I'd rather have the 'slop' with the die wall.

I truly believe "bending" due to applying pressure won't be an issue when the punch is made from "real" steel, and probably hardened as well. (12L14 will NOT harden.)

The 'damage' issue comes from 1) hitting the side of the inside of the die with a punch that barely fits in it, and more likely, 2) capturing a bit of "schmutz" between the punch and die wall. I didn't say it WOULD cause damage, I said it would increase the likelihood of damage. I'll stick with that assertion.

When setting these dies you have to sneak up on your finished dimensions regardless of the punch shapes being used - if you don't, well it's only a 2 year wait from Corbin for a replacement! All the more reason to not increase the likelihood of damaging one.

I'll genuinely reconsider a 'stepped' punch end.

The more I think about it, the more I 'like' the "Kamm" back. It has fabrication implications, (easier on dies AND extraction), as well as external ballistic ones. The one POSSIBLE 'negative' is complete fill-out of the jacket in the core swaging die. That is "non-negotiable". I don't THINK that will be an issue with the "Kamm" back as the OD of this prototype was 0.323'. Which reminds me, I didn't mic it, I only used my dial calibers. I need to mic it. I'm pertty sure I would prefer that  the finished diameter be 0.3235" instead of 0.3225".

I need to find out what the diameter of the "ski binding plug" is. However, I agree with j0e_bl0ggs that the 'spring-back' is likely to be a 'deal killer' without some form of heat applied. I think injection molding, (self or contracted out), and 3D printing are the methods to focus on to start with. Also asking Hornady and Nosler if they will sell me some of theirs.

j0e, can your brother use a DWG file as long as it's a rendered 3d?

Paul

PS - Ski Binding plugs are nominal 5mm (0.197") in diameter. That keeps it 'in the mix'.

Paul

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

That radius base grows on ya!

[gitano]

I sent the following to Nosler and Hornady:

Gentlemen,

I have been a satisfied customer of yours for quite a while now. (I'm 61 so you can make your own guess on exactly how long.) While you do make some 8mm bullets that I use, you do not make a bullet of the type I want to use in the 8mm rifles I make for myself. Since I 1) make my own ammunition, and 2) make my own firearms, I'm sure you can imagine that I am inclined to 'have things my way' if at all possible. When manufacturers won't make a product I want, I do my best to make it myself. So... I have acquired all the equipment and materials necessary to fabricate my own jacketed bullets.

I have a bullet design that I like - nothing fancy by any means - and have produced a couple of prototypes with which I am very pleased. The bullet can be both an 'open tipped' hollow point or have a 'plastic tip'. It is simply a light-weight (117-grains), heavy-jacketed (wall thickness of 0.035"), open-tipped hollow point similar in design to Speer's 130-grain .30 caliber HP. It goes very fast out of a wildcat 8x376 Steyr.

It's the plastic tip I would like to ask you about.

For the prototypes of the plastic-tipped version, I have purchased tips made by Cutting Edge Bullets. https://cuttingedgebullets.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=TALON_M

As you can see, they are VERY proud of their tips. Which brings me to my question of you: Would you be willing to sell me some of your plastic bullet tips?

Maybe it is relevant to say that I am not now, nor do I ever intend to be a manufacturer of bullets for sale. I will not compete with Nosler. My interest is solely for personal use. I buy your reloading components and don't resell them as loaded ammunition. I make my own rifles and do not sell the guns I make. I would greatly appreciate a supply of plastic tips for my "handloaded" bullets that I didn't have to pay more than 50 cents a piece for.

Thank you for your consideration,
Paul Skvorc

The ONLY hope I have is that the worst thing they can say is "No".

Paul

[gitano]

The above bullet mics at 0.3233"

Paul

[gitano]

Just for comparison's sake. 7mm Speer 115-grain HP, .30 cal Speer 130-grain HP, 8mm 117-grain ANVB.



Paul

[gitano]

So I thought I'd measure the length of the bearing surface of the 8mm ANVB instead of guessing about it.

Here's the total length of the bullet - 1.068" (Subtract exactly 1.000" from reading to account for gauge.


Here's the length of the bullet NOT considering the part of the "Kamm" back that is smaller than the "caliber" diameter of 0.312". (0.312" is the land diameter of one of my Remmington 700 8x57s.)  0.9975". That makes the "Kamm" back 0.0705" long.


Here is the length of the bearing surface at "caliber" diameter (0.312") back from the tip but INCLUDING the "Kamm" back. 0.350".


So... To find the actual length of the bullet that is greater than the land diameter of the bore, all I have to do is subtract the "Kamm" back length (KBL) from the Total length (TL), and then subtract that value from the length of the bullet at a point back from the tip where the diameter is 0.312". (I'll call it Nose Length (NL)).

So the equation looks like this:

Bearing length = NL - (TL - KBL)

Numerically:

BL = 0.350 - (1.068 - 0.9975) = 0.2795"

Since a "caliber" is 0.323", 0.2795" represents ~87% of a caliber.

While that measure applies to the length of the bullet that is actually touching the lands, it is NOT the measurement to be used for actual reloading/bullet seating. There is some more 'cyphering' necessary to get seating depth/cartridge overall length (COL) values for QuickLoad.

COL is determined from bullet length, seating depth, and case length. COL does not 'care' about the "Kamm" back (or any kind of boat tail). Therefore, the amount of bullet AVAILABLE to seat into a case is simply the NL plus the KBL, or

0.350 + 0.0705 = 0.4205".

That in turn is 130% of one caliber. (0.4205/.0.323=1.301)

The length of the bullet's nose (ogive) that is larger than 0.312" in diameter (land diameter) is the total length minus the bearing length plus the "Kamm" back.

1.068 - (0.350 + 0.0705) = 0.6475"

So the "nose" is ~half again as long as the bearing surface part of the bullet. Generally speaking, that's not a great characteristic for gyroscpic stability since that puts the center of mass well behind the center of form. However, 0.4" of the "nose" is actually the plastic tip.  I has almost "no" mass relative to the mass of the bullet that is larger than 0.312". So the "real" length of the bullet that is ahead of the land diameter is TL minus the length of the tip or

1.068 - 0.4 = 0.668"

Now compare the "non-nose" length of the bullet - 0.4205" with the length of the bullet discounting the plastic tip (because it has "no" mass relative to the total bullet mass), and the part of the nose ahead of 0.312 is only

0.668 - (0.350 + 0.0705) = 0.2475

Now, the proportion of the bullet's length that is "real" nose is;

0.2475/0.668 = ~37%. That, speaking in the context of gyroscopic stability, is WAY "better" than 150%.

All of this number-crunching has two purposes:
1) To get numbers to use IN QuickLoad so I can get good numbers OUT of QuickLoad,
2) to get precise measurements for cutting a new 8mm Steyr Short Throat (8mm SST), chamber, and
3) to illustrate WHY these "stubby" bullets - the Speer 115-grain 7mm HP and 130-grain .30 caliber HP - shoot so straight.

I expect an 8mm bullet that has a similar nose-length-to-total-length ratio as the Speer bullets, (that shoot so straight), to shoot "straight" also. (The "short nose" means that the center of mass is close to the center of form). AND... because it is nearly a cylinder in form, I expect it to "hit" like a "hammer".

Armed with the precise dimensions of the bullet, I can cut the leade on the chamber of the 8mm SST to "fit" the 8mm ANVB 'perfectly'. For example:

If, after I do the barrel timing calculations in QuickLoad, I find that I want the seating depth of the 8mm ANVB to be one caliber (0.323"), that leaves exactly 0.0975" of bullet that is "caliber" (.323) in diameter ahead of the mouth of the case. Since I am not interested in loading bullets "on the lands", I need the throat to be at LEAST 0.098" long. In fact, I prefer the "jump" the bullet has to make to reach the lands to be AT LEAST 0.030". I prefer it to be in the 0.050" to 0.150" range. If I were to load a bullet to one caliber deep, and have a MINIMUM 'jump' of 0.030" to the lands, the throat would need to be

0.0975 + 0.030 = 0.1275" long.

If on the other hand, I want to cut the throat for that circumstance where I might want the bullet loaded "out" and the 'jump' to be 0.150", the leade would have to be cut to a length of

0.107" (1/3rd of .323) + 0.150 = 0.257"

We'll have to see what QuickLoad says about seating depth and barrel timing.

Paul
 

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

ANVB _ PFC...

[gitano]

The above tips were made by j0e-bl0gg's brother on his 3-D printer. Took less than an hour to 'print'. (I think it's an $80,000 printer). Pretty darn cool!

Here's a closer shot:


I like the translucent look.

Paul

[gitano]

So... Finally got the blasted press squared away and commenced the process oflearning what there was to getting the 'set-up' right. I figured I would just start simple, and make some "regular" "spitzer" bullets, and maybe some closed-tip bullets. No need to work on the plastic-tipped set-up yet.

I cut the appropriate length of lead wire, (final weight - 124.5 g), inserted it in the jacket, (no need to swage core at this point as I was only interested in forming issues, not weight), lubed jacket, put jacket and core in die and rotated the arm.

Hmmm.

Kinda tough sledding. I looked at the bullet. The core was well-seated, but the 'butt' was still very round.

I put it back in the die and leaned on it a bit more. A little movement, but not much.

I reinserted it in the die and leaned on it as much as I dared. Essentially no change.

Hmmm....

I thought maybe the place to 'flatten' the butt might be in the point-forming die, (PFD), so I removed the core-seating die, (CSD) and installed the PFD in the press.

I lubed the jacket-with-seated-core and "leaned" on it as hard as I dared.

Hmmm.... Not much of a point, AND no butt flattening.

I lubed it again, and leaned on it again. Broke my bench:stare: - 3" glu-lam - Not much change in the "point".

"OK" I think, it's not 'closing' up because the lead is so close to the mouth of the jacket that it can't. Fine. I'll use less lead.

I remove the PFD, install the CSD, and repeat the core swaging with less lead, (final weight 89 g). Still no flat butt out of CSD.

Removed the CSD, installed the PFD, and 'leaned on it'. Same result as last time.

Repeated process with NO lead - just an empty jacket.

NO CHANGE (essentially) in the "point".

Hmmm....

It APPEARS that there is a reason why the "factory" bullet manufacturers don't use   jackets with wall thicknesses of 0.035". I am pretty sure that is the reason why I can't get the tips any more closed than you see in the following pictures.



and


When I look at the bullets that the manufacturer of these jackets make, I note that the diameter of the jacket of their bullets right where the exposed lead tip starts, is just about the diameter I am seeing on these bullets I am making.

So, what does that mean for my bullet-making?

First, it means I have to get/make a stronger bench.

Second, I think it will be essentially "impossible" to make "closed-tip" hollow-point bullets with these jackets. There's no heartburn there for me. I'm not interested in such.

Third, I don't think I am going to be able to square the base without making a die to perform that operation specifically. At the moment, I'm not interested.

Fourth, I am going to concentrate on fin-tuning the process of making the ANVB style bullet with the long, pointed, plastic tips. I LIKED that bullet form before I realized this issue with the thick-walled jackets, so this is pretty much all the incentive I needed to FOCUS on the ANVB.

More when there is more to report.

Paul

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

Woah there son...

I thought maybe the place to 'flatten' the butt might be in the  point-forming die, (PFD), so I removed the core-seating die, (CSD) and  installed the PFD in the press.
I lubed the jacket-with-seated-core and "leaned" on it as hard as I dared.
Hmmm.... Not much of a point, AND no butt flattening.
I lubed it again, and leaned on it again. Broke my bench:stare: - 3" glu-lam - Not much change in the "point".

This is how you break stuff, dies punches or bench!

There should be no 'lean on it' going on.
After consideration - and you will not like this - you need an extra punch for your core seat die to square the base of the jacket before seating the lead core.

I would suggest that the gitanogorilla is reigned in a little - it is not the time to jettison the analytical mind... easy there son!

And you are not going to like this but it is worth measuring up your dies and punches with the jackets just to check that 'working distances' are correct and a boo boo has not been made.
Oh just a thought does the press 'cam over' at  the bottom of the levers stroke?

Can you set up your dies to make a lead only bullet just to check operation?

There were sample bullets with the die set if I recall, can you take pics of these too?

Most importantly is that you have not broken the dies or got a jacket / bullet stuck in the point form die  - yet...  

TANBF

This Aint No Boiled Frog...:D

[gitano]

Those comments indicate far too many assumptions. I don't "break things" by strong-arming them. Things break sometimes because they are not up to the task given to them, which is the case with my bench. I knew it when I attached the grossly over-built press.

Unfortunately, there is no 'cam over' with this press. The handle hits the floor before that point is even close. Even if the table were high enough so that the 3-foot handle wouldn't hit the floor, it would require almost 180 degrees of rotation to achieve 'cam-over'.

I set the dies up so that the face of the capture nut on the FPH meets exactly the face of the die. With the FPH screwed to a specific depth, the action, and range, of the press is correctly set.

With respect to the bullet that was provided with the die, I would point out that it was to demonstrate the correct configuration of the die, not the press. Also, the jackets of the samples Corbin supplied are about 0.012" in thickness; almost one third of the thickness of mine (0.035").  You can't cram copper into a space smaller that it will fit, unless you have some serious mechanical advantage. Closing the tip on a jacket with 0.012" walls is considerably easier than closing the tip on one with 0.035" walls. I will run a solid lead billet through the pointing die.

Paul

[gitano]

Here is a picture of a swaged solid, pure lead bullet formed in the point forming die. Adjacent is the finished bullet Corbin provided. (I'm not going to take it out of its sealed bag for this exercise.) If you look closely, you can see that the jacketed bullet's tip is actually larger than the lead bullet's tip, even though I pushed the lead billet slightly into the extraction tube.



Paul

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

Those comments indicate far too many assumptions. I don't "break things" by strong-arming them. Things break sometimes because they are not up to the task given to them, which is the case with my bench. I knew it when I attached the grossly over-built press.

Unfortunately, there is no 'cam over' with this press. The handle hits the floor before that point is even close. Even if the table were high enough so that the 3-foot handle wouldn't hit the floor, it would require almost 180 degrees of rotation to achieve 'cam-over'.

I set the dies up so that the face of the capture nut on the FPH meets exactly the face of the die. With the FPH screwed to a specific depth, the action, and range, of the press is correctly set.

With respect to the bullet that was provided with the die, I would point out that it was to demonstrate the correct configuration of the die, not the press. Also, the jackets of the samples Corbin supplied are about 0.012" in thickness; almost one third of the thickness of mine (0.035").  You can't cram copper into a space smaller that it will fit, unless you have some serious mechanical advantage. Closing the tip on a jacket with 0.012" walls is considerably easier than closing the tip on one with 0.035" walls. I will run a solid lead billet through the pointing die.

Paul

Cam over is the part of the stroke where the 'work' is done.
Again you misunderstand, not worried about the "correct configuration of the die"
I am more concerned regarding how the dies have been set up in your press.
The handle hitting the floor before the stroke is finished is not good.
35 thou jacket will close up - no problem.

[gitano]

By the way, the wall thickness at the mouth of the hollow point of the bullets shown in post #70 is 0.040". They have thickened at least 0.005" after having been closed only about 0.055" per side .

Paul

[gitano]

There's a heckova lot of "work" done before cam-over. That is just the place in the stroke where the mechanical advantage is greatest.

Set up is correct. As I said, in order to reach the point in the stroke of the ram where the lever arm 'cams over' would require the press to be high enough off of the floor that the handle was pointed straight down - 180 degrees from the "load" position.

Since;
1) an EMPTY jacket would not "close" up, I seriously doubt a 'full' one will.
2) Not ONE of the other bullets made by the jacket supplier have jackets closed more than the ones I made are, I seriously doubt the jacket will close up "no problem'.
3) The jacket walls thickened by AT LEAST 15% with the very small amount of "closing" done, I do not share your opinion that the "35 thou jacket will close up - no problem."
4) The lead billet swaged INTO the extraction port of the PFD illustrates beyond any doubt whatsoever that the stroke is WELL past a point where the copper jacket could close up f it were possible to do so.

I'll say it again for emphasis: The dies are properly set up.

Paul

[gitano]

OK - The problem is "solved" (as inspector Clouseau would say).

The problem was  the where the ram attached to the 'base unit' that attached to the handle. There are two positions one can connect the ram. One for "swaging", and one for "reloading". I had the ram connected in the wrong place.

Once that was rectified, I was able to ''squeeze" the jacket "no problem". However, there will be no "closing" the tip on these jackets as they are too short to do that. By the time the tip approaches the place in the die of minimum diameter, (about 0.115"), there is no bearing surface left. In the picture below, you can see some of the pieces I swaged. They range in weight from left to right 123 g, 119 g, 103g. As you can also see, the 'mouths' close up progressing to the right. (Although the middle one doesn't look smaller than the one on the left, it is.) There is only about 0.125" of bearing surface on the bullet on the right. Note also the 'flat' bases.



All of this is 'fine' to know, but it doesn't change the focus, which is the "Ain't No Varmint Bullet".

Next on the "to do" list, is make a core seating punch that helps form the cavity for the plastic point. At that point, (pun intended), I can fine tune the final weight.

I am seriously thinking about skipping the core seating operation. The swaged core comes out of the the core swaging die at 0.250" and that fits right in the jacket. The round bottom of the jacket 'captures' the edge of the core sufficient to hold it enough to get it placed in the point forming die. As the point is swaged, the core is swaged into the jacket. Therefore, I could simply make another core SWAGING punch with the proper 'nose' profile, and skip the core seating operation. SInce I am not one of those that considers it "bullet failure" when core and jacket separate, I'm not particularly concerned about how well the core is "bonded" to the jacket.

I'll be thinking about this.

Paul

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

So they do 'close up' then?

[gitano]

That depends on what you call "close up".

I was able to ''squeeze" the jacket "no problem". However, there will be no "closing" the tip on these jackets as they are too short to do that. By the time the tip approaches the place in the die of minimum diameter, (about 0.115").

An opening of 0.115" is not my idea of "closed". However, the thickness of the jacket is not what is preventing "closure".

As I acknowledged, there was "no problem" getting the jacket to conform to the point forming die's shape. Further pressure would simply force the point into something like you see in the right hand bullet in the picture in post #77. More importantly,
1) there is no bearing surface left, and
2) I'm not interested in 'closing' the point other than as an exercise.
That exercise is over. I know what I need to know about the press.

There is one other operation that might change 'things' a bit with respect to 'pointing' a 0.6" bullet with an 8R ogive. It might be true that forcing the bottom flat in a separate operation would change the behavior of the core such that when the proper amount of lead were used, it wouldn't "poke out" of the tip. Still, that remains irrelevant, as I am completely uninterested in either a flat base or a "sharp" (0.115") point.  I will achieve what I want with plastic tips, not PSI.

Paul

[drinksgin (deceased)]

Re , handle position, old quote, "If all else fails, read the instructions on the bottom of the boot heel!"

[gitano]

I DO read instructions just like I DON'T strong-arm things. However, this is a "made in a garage" press that did not come with instructions to read. HOWEVER, I should have realized what the problem was. I was just tired of screwing around with this &$*^%$ press and didn't give enough thought to which hole to use when I assembled the thing.

Paul

[gitano]

Here is Hornady's response to my request for them to sell me some of their plastic tips.

Paul

Thank you for your email.   It sounds like your keep busy making bullets.   Unfortunately the tips are made under contract for us and they are used in our manufacture.   So we are unable to sell you any.
Thank you again.

Hornady Sales Team
Phone 1-800-338-3220


Pretty much what I expected. I expect the same thing from Nosler.

Paul

[Jamie.270]

My contact at Nosler confirms your expectations Paul.  Sorry

[gitano]

Thanks for checking, Jamie.270. I didn't have high hopes for either place. Personally, I think they are 'missing the boat'. It's another component that they 1) have on hand, and 2) could sell for a tidy profit I'm sure. That's not speculation on my part. You'll note that Cutting Edge is selling theirs, so the 'business model' is already in place. Oh well, these bullet manufacturers never ask me for my opinion. :)

Thanks again,
Paul

[Jamie.270]

Aside from investing $80K in a 3D printer, ( ) are you interested in making your own tips?

I have an idea for molding your own, which would be fairly cost effective, (<$.06 ea. after start-up costs) and not too time consuming.

[22hornet]

The above tips were made by j0e-bl0gg's brother on his 3-D printer. Took less than an hour to 'print'. (I think it's an $80,000 printer). Pretty darn cool!
 
Here's a closer shot:

 
I like the translucent look.
 
Paul

Wow! They look do look good.

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

Aside from investing $80K in a 3D printer, ( ) are you interested in making your own tips?

I have an idea for molding your own, which would be fairly cost effective, (<$.06 ea. after start-up costs) and not too time consuming.

Looking into polycarbonate injection moulding.
The injection moulder for home use is pretty simple to construct, getting the 'tooling' for the part is a little more challenging!

[gitano]

Aside from investing $80K in a 3D printer, ( ) are you interested in making your own tips?

I have an idea for molding your own, which would be fairly cost effective, (<$.06 ea. after start-up costs) and not too time consuming.

YOU BET! ALWAYS open to ideas about "rolling my own".

Lemme know what you have in mind.

Paul

[gitano]

Getting pretty close to 'punching paper'. Should have some for testing this weekend. Won't have the British tips for a bit, but I have 25 of the Cutting Edge 50-cent-apiece ones. That should allow me to:
1) Get some muzzle velocities,
2) Kill some milk jugs, and
3) See if several of them will "hit close together."

Paul

[RatherBHuntin]

How do they attach the tips to the bullet?  Are they just squeezed in there? Pressed? Glued? Bullets swaged around them?

[gitano]

How do they attach the tips to the bullet?  Are they just squeezed in there? Pressed? Glued? Bullets swaged around them?

"Yes"... mostly. By that I mean some are pressed, some are 'squeezed in there', and some are swaged around them.

The one you see in the above pictures was pushed in with my fingers after drilling a pilot hole of appropriate size for the stub (tenon) of the tip. I am working on a core seating punch that will form the cavity for the tip tenon. I will then put the tip in the point forming die followed by the bullet. The tip will then be pushed into the bullet at the same time the ogive is formed on the bullet.

Paul

[gitano]

OK - Spent some time today 'getting serious' about making bullets of consistent weight in the form that I want - with and without plastic tips.

The first order of business was to make a new floating punch for the core seating operation. It needed to be profiled to form the cavity for the tenon of the plastic tip. Having made one with a flat tip already, making the profiled one went at least twice as fast. (I now know what steps are important and those that aren't.)

Once the punch was made, I needed to 1) see how it worked with respect to the point forming operation, and 2) determine EXACTLY what weight of core would give me the best grip on the tip.

The trial and error associated with "1" produced some 'errors', but the good news is that I was able to salvage all but one of them. The order of operations is:

1) Cut 0.25" lead wire to 0.5",
2) Swage to 0.489" ('wastes' approximately 2.5 grains of lead in 'squirt' (swaging) die,
3) Seat core in jackets,
4) SLIGHTLY swage bullet in point forming die so that mouth of bullet is too small to allow the widest part of the tip to drop below the edge of the mouth of the jacket, THEN,
5) Drop plastic tip in point forming die and finish swaging ogive.

Here's what they look like;


Note the ones on either end. They were boogered by the extraction pin. The one second from the right end is what they end up like when the tip falls down below the edge of the mouth when the ogive isn't formed a little first.

In this batch of nine bullets, there are 3 "bad ones" and 6 "good" ones. The good ones weigh (grains):

116.3,
115.8,
115.5,
115.5,
115.5, and
115.3

For an average of 115.65. As you can see, the spread is 1.0 grain. I am pretty sure the variation in weight is due to the jackets. I didn't weigh the jackets before I seated the cores, but as you will see later, there is some variance in the jacket weights.

I swaged the ogives completely of the first batch of bullets seated with the new core seating punch. Unfortunately, that made the cavity for the plastic tip too small to receive the tenon of the tip. Not wanting to waste those bullets, I just 'closed' the hollow points up to a diameter I 'like'. Here's what they look like:


You can see the small hole remaining in the three bullets to the right. That hole is present in all seven of the bullets, but you just can't see it in the four to the left. The amount of "closure" on these bullets is considerably more than that on the ones with tips.

As you can see, those three on the right have boogered 'mouths'. That's what happens when a stepped core seating die isn't properly aligned when the core is seated. These will be used 'test' (with VERY small sample size), the effect of deformed noses and "out of balance". The weights on these bullets are (grains):

111.0,
110.8,
109.8,
109.6,
109.5,
109.5, and
109.3

For an average of 109.93 grains. Add to that the average weight of the plastic tip, 4.5 grains, and you get 114.43 grains. Which is very close the 115.65 of the ones above with tips. The difference is the repeatability of setup of the core swaging die. Once I get a bench for the press what will allow me to rotate the handle completely to 'cam over', I should be even more precise than 1 grain from setup to setup.

I also decided to "salvage" the bullets I had made when I had the press in the "reloading" configuration instead of the "swaging" configuration. Here's what they looked like:


Here's what they look like now:


Finally, here are 11 bullets I made before I made the profiled core seating punch. I made these just to mimic the 7mm and .30 caliber HPs of Speer design.


Notice the difference in the amount of lead showing in some of them. Those cores were swaged to uniform weight and length. The difference in "fit" can only be due to variations in jacket cavity uniformity.

God willin' and the creek don't rise, I intend to shoot all of these bullets tomorrow. I'll be looking at muzzle velocities, precision, and what they do to 1 gallon plastic milk jugs.

More when there is more.

Paul

[recoil junky]

i'll be looking at muzzle velocities, precision, and what they do to 1 gallon plastic milk jugs.

Rj

[gitano]

So here's what we've ALL been waiting to see - a 'range report'.

The charge was 62.6 grains of I3031. From the 8mm SLT, QuickLoad (QL hereafter), predicted a muzzle velocity of 3465 f/s with an associated maximum pressure of 52,440 PSI. The seating depth was 0.233" or 72% of a caliber. (I will seat it a full caliber deep in the SST, but the long throat of the SLT required this shallow seating depth.) Cartridge Overall length (COAL) was 3.220" for the black-tipped bullets, and 2.845" for the tipless versions.

I measured muzzle velocity on five rounds. They were:

3491
3515
3519
3527 and
3541.

The above is the order in which they were shot. The last one was a tipless bullet. Average for the first four is 3513. Max spread is 36 f/s. I've seen better, but 36 f/s in 3500 isn't too bad.

Here is the trajectory table based on the average MV and the calculated ballistic coefficients:


As you can see, 1.5" high at 150, and 4" low at 300. Impact energy at 300 is over 1500 ft-lbs, and impact velocity is over 2400 f/s. This bullet meets all of my personal ballistic criteria.

I shot five bullets at the target at 100 yd. Here is the target:


Number "4" was a called 'yank'. (Gotta work on that military trigger a little bit.) Number "5" was a tipless. I didn't want to change the scope setting from the one for the 220 grain Sierra. While these are 'a bit' right, they are right on the same elevation as the 220. That's great, but I don't intend to be shooting these bullets from this rifle much.

This rifle has a barrel length of 23.25". Not exactly what I wanted, but I was using a Carl Gustaf barrel, and since it shoots so straight, I wasn't going to fix what wasn't broken. The SST (Steyr SHORT throat) will be getting a new Shilen barrel that will finish very close to 27". (The barrel that is on it now is a 29.2" Turk milsurp take-off.) That rifle was built to shoot light-for-caliber (and therefore SHORT) bullets. This bullet was made for use in the SST.

From a 27" barrel, QL predicts a muzzle velocity of 3587 f/s. Since that is about 150 f/s faster than the 3465 that QL predicted for the 23.25" barrel, and the actual measured average was 3513, I will assume that the velocity from the 27 " barrel will average something like 58 f/s faster than predicted  - ~3645 f/s. That's smokin'. :D

I forgot that when the kids left the house, we quit buying milk in 1-gal containers, so I couldn't kill any milk jugs. Instead I had to use half-gal juice jugs. Turns out juice jugs are WAY thicker plastic than milk jugs. There is no way to quantify "how dead" the jugs are, but I will tell you this:

1) It was impressive to see the impact, and
2) The jugs exploded before the bullet could make an exit hole.

I measure the plastic on the jugs at ~0.015" thick. It's WAY tougher than milk jug plastic. Here are some pictures of dead juice jugs.




Notice in this one the bottom 'cone' is everted. That is some really thick plastic down there.



I don't think the 'carcasses' can accurately reflect the impressiveness of the impacts. I'll have to find a way to photograph the moment of impact.

So there it is.

I only have about 15 black tips left, so I'll put those on bullets and wait for the Limey 'printed' tips to get here. When I get those, I'll make up "a bunch" and send some to Hunterbug for him to shoot and see if he likes them. I might make up some more without tips. Not sure about that. The calculated BC is pretty anemic. Any one else that wants some can send me a PM.

I got an email from the Alaska Department of Fish & Game today notifying me that I would get an email on the 15th, notifying me IF I was successful in any of the drawing applications I submitted. Maybe I'll get a chance to use one of these bullets on a bison. :)

I am pleased. :D

Paul

PS - Forgot to mention head expansion on brass - ~0.001" :)

[recoil junky]

A short video is the best way I've found to see the impact. I can view them in slo-mo but I'm not sure if you can in a "posted" video.

RJ

[davidlt89]

OUTSTANDING!!!! al ot of stuff is "over my head", but been following along, real impressive!!! God Bless.

[RatherBHuntin]

I would qualify the jugs as "very dead". If the jug was split along every axis and there was an exit, I would say "very very dead". Clearly they are more than "dead" as they evidence severe "bustage" in addition to an entrance wound. Of course, when no solid remains larger than the cap can be found, the designation is "very very very dead".
 
Try dropping a bit of gelatin in there to get more of an explosion, and dyed to make it easier to see. Like RJ said, best way is to video and then screen shot of the impact.
 
Edit:  My original intent was to say congratulations, very impressive results for an ol tinkerer and some home made boolits.  I only hope you had a grin from ear to ear as you were shooting these.  Next thing you know you'll be making your own barrels.

[drinksgin (deceased)]

Glenn, watch what you say, I sent him a book on rifling barrels.

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

Cool, it has been a slog, but worthwhile.

Hopefully last batch of 'limey tips' will be printed today.

[gitano]

Barrel making was on "the list" before bullet making was. I was just able to accomplish the bullet making first.

From a distance, 'making' one's own stuff looks somehow better than 'buying' stuff. While there are elements of the whole process of 'making' that are better than 'buying', those elements may not be what 'you' think. To sum those 'better' elements up; learning is the only true 'good' that comes from 'making' your own stuff.

Unfortunately, all too often observers get the impression that the "maker" is somehow a more independent, or self-sufficient cuss. In large part, that is an illusion. Let me provide some personal examples.

One might say that I "made" the 8x376 Steyr Long Throat rifle. That process entailed finding a Mauser military surplus receiver, a bolt, the 'guts' for the bolt,  (firing pin, spring, shroud, etc.), the bolt release for the receiver, the trigger assembly, polishing all of those parts and getting them blued. Then I purchased the reamer for the 8mm SLT chamber. I purchased a barrel from another 'take-off'. I threaded the barrel for the Mauser receiver and then chambered it and installed it. I sent the bolt off to have a 'butter-knife' handle put on it, and drilled and tapped the receiver for 'scope mounts. I bought a cheap plastic stock as a "starter" stock. I purchased a Simmons 'scope for sights. I made the dies for reloading the wildcat cartridge from die blanks I purchased. Ultimately, I have succeeded in "making" the bullets that are the topic of this thread. While superficially that list of things 'done' might look 'significant', let's go through the list and see just exactly what I really "made".

I did NOT mine the iron ore that was smelted and turned into the steel used to make the receiver and all of its parts, or any other of the metal pieces of this rifle. I did NOT mill or forge the receiver from a steel billet. I did not form the rod, drill the hole or cut the rifling of the barrel. I did not mill any of the parts of the trigger assembly or trigger guard and floor-plate assembly. I did not make the reamer that cut the chamber. I did not mine and smelt the brass for the cartridge. Neither did I form the cartridge cases. I did not make the jackets for the bullets and neither did I mine and smelt the lead for the bullet cores. I did not make the extruder that made the lead wire for the cores. I did not make the plastic used in the tips, neither did I make the extruder or the tips. The list of things I didn't make is significantly longer than the list of things I actually made.

In other words, I pretty much didn't "make" anything. If "the lights go out", I could no more make a rifle than I could build a car.

I am reminded of one of my favorite jokes. It goes like this:

At some point in the not too distant future, Man has become pretty good at "making" stuff. He has learned all about genetics, and genetic manipulation and has become convinced that he can 'make' pretty much anything he needs. Therefore he no longer cares to put up with the 'burden' of worshiping God. So, a bunch of the world's leading scientists are selected to go to God and tell Him that He is no longer 'needed', and ask Him politely to "butt out" of Man's life.

God listens patiently, and asks, "So you can make everything you need?" They respond "Yes". He says, "What about life itself?" They respond that they indeed can even create life, without ANY assistance from God, and that they are only more than happy to prove it in a demonstration. God says "Good. Show me."

To start the demonstration, one of the scientists bends down and grabs a handful of dirt to start the process. "Unh, unh, unh." Says God. "Get your own dirt, that's my dirt."

The point is, it is all too easy to get kocky when one accomplishes a goal that has been pursued for some length of time and at some significant effort, as if the achievement is somehow one's own. I can no more "make" a rifle than I can create life. My accomplishment in this endeavor has only been what I have learned. Nothing more.

So, as I inch 'forward' in my "gun making" endeavors - like making barrels and bullet jackets - all I am really doing is 'learning'. I "make" nothing. And if that learning isn't ultimately about how God works in my life, then even the learning is wasted, as it too will pass with me.

The primary 'thing' separating me from everyone else here at THL that might want to "make" a rifle, or bullets, or whatever, is money. If "you" were willing to spend your money the way I have been, then you could do at least as much as I have done with respect to "making" a rifle. All I am willing to say is that I have learned a great deal for the money I have spent, and that learning hasn't really been about 'techniques'.

Paul

[recoil junky]

Unfortunately, all too often observers get the impression that the "maker" is somehow a more independent, or self-sufficient cuss.

 

That's how I'd desrcibe you, except possibly by adding "old"

"Unh, unh, unh." Says God. "Get your own dirt, that's my dirt."

[/SIZE]


RJ[/SIZE]

[gitano]

:D:D:D:D:D

"Rebellious and hard-headed" can often be substituted for "Independent and self-sufficient".

Paul

[22hornet]

Great result Paul. Excellent in fact.  Those results are the work of many, many man hours. You should be proud.

I'm certainly not in a position to take on work like this at the moment, but whne I do, and I do intend to, I'll dig this thread up.

Now I'm waiting for the field report....

[22hornet]

In other words, I pretty much didn't "make" anything. If "the lights go out", I could no more make a rifle than I could build a car.
 
Paul

Not many people are in a position to "make" very much. What you have done is far greater than 99.9% of shooters will ever do.
Even the vast majority of gunsmiths don't "make" anything.

Have you ever watched "Sons Of Guns"? (I hate that show! :angry:) These guys make out that they "make" guns. In fact all they do is bolt pre-manufactured gear onto rifles. The same stuff you could buy from almost any online gun shop.

Don't sell yourself short Paul. This is a fantastic project.

[gitano]

Thanks, 22hornet.

"Sons of Guns" (I hate that show!)

Pretty much how I feel about it too.

Paul

[gitano]

I updated post #30 to fix the problem created by moving pictures around in Photobucket.

Paul

[gitano]

Paul, Think that you could have some in 150gr to 200gr to me in time to work up a load to hunt deer with this fall?

HB made that request in post #11 of this thread, and I responded to it by saying that I didn't think I could do that with these jackets. However... That's "inside the box" thinking. Giving it a bit more thought, I concluded that there's nothing wrong with a 'large' exposed lead tip, so I made a 150-grain bullet with these jackets.

Here's what it looks like:


Personally, I have NO problem with that much exposed lead, and even more. However, my view of the world isn't often what would be considered "normal", so I don't know what others might think. At any rate, I can send some that look like this should you want to see how they shoot from your 8mm rifles.

Paul

[22hornet]

Is that much of a lead tip for increased projectile B.C. and weight?

I think that this one will work well. A big lead tip and heavy jacket could be a winner.

Hmmm,  Paul, you need some field testing. :D

[gitano]

The increased amount of exposed lead is simply a function of having a 'short' jacket, 22hornet. I wasn't thinking "normal" bullet weights when I conceived of swaging my own jacketed bullets. So when HB asked about "150 to 200", I just said "No", because I was thinking only in the context of what one always sees for exposed lead in 'factory' bullets. Upon further thought, I thought "Why not try it and see"? At 150 grains, this looks OK to me. At a MV of 3200 f/s (from my 8mm SLT), the BC is about .341. At 2800 f/s it's about .324. Assuming those numbers are close, they're not bad.

I'd love to have some Australian field testing! Would there be any "official" hassle with sending them to you in the mail? Send me a PM and we can discuss.

Paul

[gitano]

I have several hundred bullet jackets for .44 caliber (OD = 0.425"). They are 0.5" long and have the 'typical' 0.012" jacket wall thickness. I think I will make a swage to form those down to 8mm.  Once reduced to 0.323" OD, they will 'grow' in length. At the least, I will have another jacket to fiddle with.

Paul

[22hornet]

I'd love to have some Australian field testing! Would there be any "official" hassle with sending them to you in the mail? Send me a PM and we can discuss.
 
Paul

No problem with sending them Paul. I would just need to declare them to customs.

But I don't shoot an 8mm. The only guy I now know of that does would be Andy.

Now if you made some in 7mm....

[gitano]

Haven't seen Andy around THL for quite a while.

Paul

[22hornet]

He posted in the Australian Outdoor a few days ago. I don't know what he is currently up too.
 
I would like to arrange a Victorian Sambar hunt with Kombi, Jorge and Marcus sometime this winter.

[gitano]

So, as I mentioned, I decided to make another top punch for the core seating operation. One with two steps: One for the stub tenon of the plastic tip, and one to make certain that the punch was centered in the die. Because the body of the single-stepped punch fits just inside the jacket, if the punch was off-center even a little, it boogered the mouth of the jacket. This punch takes care of that nicely:


You'll note the set-screw in the head of the punch. You may recall that the first punch I made was made of 12L15 steel which has A LOT of lead in it. It is very nice to machine, but it does NOT harden, neither does it 'color', AND it is VERY 'soft'. Which means it bends easily. Since the "business end" of the punch is so small in diameter (0.175") relative to the diameter of the head (0.840"), there is a lot of waste in making these punches. Also, the "body" of the punch is a convenient 0.625" (5/8ths inch) in OD. Since tool ("hard") steel (O1, D2, W1, etc.) is more expensive, j0e_bl0ggs suggested that I make the working part of the punch from 0.625" round stock, and make a separate head from all of the 12L15 I have on hand. So I did.

I bought a 3' stick of O1 steel, 0.625" in diameter. I turned the body and shaft of the punch out of that, and turned the head from some of the 0.875" diameter 12L15 round stock I have on hand. I bored the head for a very tight fit of the body of the shaft; drilled and tapped for a 6-48 set screw; inserted the shaft, tightened the set screw, and 'there you go'. I also made it a little longer. These dies were not made for making "small" 8mm bullets. The existing punch lengths were just barely long enough to make "short" bullets.

The process of making a separate head is certainly more time consuming than simply milling all of it from one piece of stock. HOWEVER, there is much less waste, and significantly less cost, and the one commodity that I have a moderate surplus of is "time".

In the future, I may make the head and body of 12L15 and the shaft of 0.375" (3/8ths inch) "tool" steel.

I also removed the 3-foot-long handle, (remember how OVER-built this press is), and just used the handle off of an RCBS press. It's too small for the 0.75" hole for the long handle so I'll make a short handle that fits the swaging press's 0.75" hole. This bullet requires so little pressure to form, that a short handle works just fine, and allows me to get to "cam over" using this table, which in turn establishes a consistent "stop" thereby increasing the uniformity of the sizing/swaging.

Paul

[davidlt89]

Now if you made some in 7mm....

YEP!!! its discrimination against 7mm owners 22Hornet!!!:grin: God Bless.

[gitano]

The next "thing" I intend to try my hand at is the point forming die. The core swaging and core seating dies I have no doubt I can make. However, the point forming die requires a "reamer" of proper dimension, a straight extraction hole, AND fine polishing. None of those operations are "trivial", and trivial are the kind of milling skills I have.

Some of you may recall that I made a point forming die for my .50 Alaskan. What facilitated that fabrication was an over-the-counter, carbide, "tree" burr. The 0.500" version had the perfect profile for a 50 cal bullet. I haven't looked for .338, 8mm, 7mm, etc., tree burrs, but I'm not optimistic that they will have the proper ogive curve even if I find an appropriate diameter.

What that means is that I will have to make a reamer. I'm 'girding my loins' to take that task on again. The first one I will make will be in .338 caliber. If that turns out "ok", I'll branch out to 7mm, and others.

Paul

[drinksgin (deceased)]

The worst you can do is mess it up!
I seem to recall a similar conversation a few years ago that lead to you making a sizing die rather than waiting several weeks for someone to get around to making one for you.

[gitano]

WEEKS?!?!? It would have been YEARS for Corbin to make the .50 Alaskan bullet swaging dies.

We'll see what comes of this, but you're right. The worst it can be is "doesn't work.

Actually though, tomorrow I am going to make a fitted box for the dies I have. The floor on my reloading room is concrete, and if one of those dies rolls off onto the floor, the least that would happen is a dent. They are very brittle, and it is entirely possible that one would break. I am going to make a box that fits each die and punch so they will have a specific place to 'rest' while I am using one of the other ones.

Paul

[drinksgin (deceased)]

Just my rules for reamers, KISS and an odd number of flutes.
Just inherently lazy!

[gitano]

Sounds like good rules. I'll be making a "D" type for this initial effort. I think those are fine for "one off" operations. The one I made for the 8x39 chamber for the AR worked fine. It was the fourth reamer I made, and the only one that has worked. The others were made of the wrong alloy, or had some other problem that prevented them from cutting.

The first order of business is making/buying a radius cutter for my lathe. I'm looking at these:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Lathe-Radius-Ball-Turning-Tool-Concave-Convex-Radii-Turner-Ball-Attachment-/251227941636?pt=UK_Home_Garden_PowerTools_SM&hash=item3a7e5a2b04

And
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Lathe-Radius-Ball-Turning-Attachment-Plans-/321062682813?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4ac0d3c0bd

Being able to specify and set up to cut a specific radius will facilitate the process immensely. I like the first one, (Repton), but they sold like 'hot cakes' before I could get a review on them.

The next "delicate" operation after proper PRECISE shaping is hardening. I have the kiln, so getting heat-soaked at 1400 F isn't an issue. However, controlling scale and uniform quenching (to prevent warping) is no small matter. I have some "paint" that provides the oxygen barrier to prevent scaling, but ensuring an even quench has still to be worked out.

And that's just the reamer. Then the die has to be cut, hardened and polished. According to j0e_bl0ggs, (who has actually made a set of swaging dies), one of the challenges is drilling the hole for the extractor rod. The diameter of the rod on the point forming die I have, is 0.090". The hole is about 0.160" according to Corbin's writing on the die. I have about an inch of die to drill through to get to the bullet cavity. That's 8-times the diameter of a 0.125" drill bit. Hitting the DEAD CENTER of the point is of course critical. The way to ensure precision placement of the ejection rod hole is to drill it first, then follow that hole with the reamer. However, doing that means drilling a 0.125" diameter hole through 2.5" of steel. None of which is "impossible", but it is certainly challenging.

Polishing, I am told, isn't too big a challenge. Then of course there is hardening the die without warping it.

Making dies in A GARAGE SHOP OPERATION is definitely challenging. For a business shop set up to do it, it's really not too big of a deal. There is no reason on God's green earth that it should take two years, ala Dave Corbin.

I can't understand why the likes of Pacific Tool and Gauge - a business that specializes in reamers - REFUSES to make bullet reamers. There are zillions of companies making "tree burrs" INCLUDING PTG! When I called to ask them to make a bullet point forming die reamer Dave Kiff - proprietor of PTG - flat out refused. Made me wonder if he doesn't have some kind of "agreement" with Dave Corbin. They are both located in White City, Oregon.

That may sound paranoid, but look at it objectively. A business (PTG) that is FOCUSED on making CUSTOM reamers INCLUDING "tree burrs", REFUSES (without explanation), to make what is essentially a "tree burr" if it is to be used to make a bullet point forming die. Coincidentally,
1) one (Dave Corbin) of only two businesses in the country making bullet swaging dies, and
2) the only one NOT using carbide, ($$$), and
3) that essentially has a monopoly on the business,
resides in the same SMALL town as the business (PTG) that FOCUSES on making reamers - except bullet point forming reamers.

Anyway... I'm going to 'make' my own, or break my sword trying. AS I said, next up is .338. Other calibers I'm interested in - like 7mm and .257 - already have a good selection of 'factory' bullets. I think after the .338, I might look at .416.  I'm happy with the .510 I already made, but I might make another one for this press IF making the other calibers 'works out'.

I am also going to make a "shearing" die to shear the belts off of belted magnum cases. You will  recall from this thread http://www.thehunterslife.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6608 that my first attempt at making bullets for the .50 Alaskan used the rear end of belted magnum cases. I was talking with Dave Corbin about that and he commented that 'lots of people' have done that. He then added "some even made dies to shear off the belt".

When I changed from using the butt of the case to using the front of the case for jackets, removing the belt became moot. (I was turning it off in my lathe.) However, now that I have a "real" swaging press, and at least some confidence in make dies, I think I will make a "belt shearing" die. That way I won't have to go through the labor of turning them off on the lathe, and I will be back to using all of the case instead of just the front end. It'd be nice to figure out how to "press" a boat-tail into the base, but I don't think even this press is up to that kind of pressure.

Paul

[drinksgin (deceased)]

Paranoid, just because 2 companies are whip sawing you for their economic benefit?
Now, now!
Surely they would not clobarate,(deliberate misspelling) against a customer!


;<)


Cute radii cutters, may just have to make one to play with.

[gitano]

Got the "limey" printed points today in mail (FedEx actually). THANKS, j0e_bl0ggs and brother!

Here is the first of them seating in the 8mm ANVB:


As you can see, there are some refinements to make. The first of which will be cutting about a quarter inch off of the extractor pin. I am also going to have to refine the core seating top punch again. The tenon on these is shorter in length and smaller in diameter than on the Cutting Edge tips. All in all, I think these will work just fine. And they have an 'interesting' look.

Paul

[gitano]

I called Dave Manson to ask him if he would do it, and his response was:

"We do all of our grinding between centers, and you would have to grind to a point, so we can't do it."

That makes sense, and would be a reasonable excuse for PTG too, except that I know that they make "tree burrs". If you can make a tree burr, you can make a bullet pointing reamer.

For those that haven't read the thread about making the point forming die for the .50 Alaskan or don't know what a "tree burr" is, here's a picture:


The price on eBay for this particular CARBIDE, half inch diameter, tree burr is $8.99. And I can't get a single one of these hotshot reamer makers to make something as simple as this. It makes me crazy!

Paul

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

A little finessing needed to the ejector punch but we knew that was going to happen.
I like the fact that they deform rather than crumble!

[gitano]

Yeah. I'm pretty sure the deformation that you see is happening during the forming/swaging operation, not during ejection. The small amount of force required to eject these bullets is surprising. I can't tell for sure, but I think the ejection rod is actually projecting into the bullet forming cavity a little bit. If it isn't, it is certainly exactly at the junction of the the "point" and the ejection hole.

IF we were to make any more points, the tenon should be strengthened by widening where it attaches to the head. It doesn't take much lateral pressure there, even after insertion into the bullet, to break it off.

I was expecting the points to be a bit hard/brittle. It was a pleasant surprise to find them "soft" and pliable.

Paul

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

Hopefully tough enough for some live testing!

[gitano]

Don, I don't remember what thread it was in that you asked about the BC of those .30 cal cast boat-tail spitzers you sent me, but here's the answer: about .451.

I get a weight without gas check of ~125 grains. With gas check: 127.5 grains. BC on gas checked is less (.424) because it negates boat-tail.

Paul

Oh yeah... That's at a velocity of 1800 f/s.

[drinksgin (deceased)]

Thanks, that should make an interesting medium velocity bullet, game or target.
I shall have to run some drop figures on it.
I knew the gc would negate the bt, but it  may be necessary if a certain barrel does lead or if I wanted to push it a bit.
I think water dropped, at BHN 25-30 would not  lead if kept below 2100-2200 fps, but shall have to try to be sure.
Sure cheaper than buying some of the now fictional .308 bt bullets.
If the chicken littles ever quit running about squealing and throwing money at anything doing with guns things may settle down some, but I do not expect prices to ever go down to the level of 5 months ago

:angry:

[gitano]

I noticed that Larry Potterfield of MidwayUSA has instituted a policy of restricting bullet purchases to 5 boxes per "event". (Some are 10 boxes, but most are 5.) MAYBE some other retailers will follow suit and we can stop the stupidity, but as you say, it will NEVER be back to what it was. After the last Obama scare, prices didn't go down one red cent.

Paul

[drinksgin (deceased)]

Gitano, you may want to look at ;
pete@newenglandcustombullets.com
He reportedly sells special order jackets for swagers to play with and what I have read, is reliable.

[gitano]

Thanks, Don. I'll check him out.

Paul

[gitano]

He quoted 32 cents apiece. (I didn't ask about quantity discounts.) Wall thicknesses of 0.016" and max length of 1.1". Is willing to send samples so I can order correct lengths for weights desired. Seems like a square guy.

I'll have to try my hand at making some jacket-from-tubing dies. If I can get 5/16ths "refrigeration" tubing swaged up to .338, I'll make my own jackets. Besides the cost savings, I can get wall thicknesses up to 0.035" easily.

Thanks, Don.

Paul

[gitano]

Here is a picture of the 113 grain "black-tipped" ANVB, the 116 grain "print-tipped" ANVB, and the 132 grain "print-tipped" ANVB. The 113 has a caliber bearing surface length of 0.350", the 116 has a caliber bearing surface length of 0.250", and the 132 has a caliber bearing surface length of 0.400".


Here they are again, reverse order, with the Speer .30 caliber 130 grain bullet. (Sorry for the "fuzz". I got too close and I'm too tired of fooling with this stuff to take another picture.)


The 130 'grabs' the tenon of the printed tip better because the lead comes VERY close to the mouth of the jacket. I MIGHT be able to add 5 grains, but it might not fit. In other words, looks like 130-ish is the max weight for this jacket with the printed tips.

Paul

[gitano]

Look what that 130 does in the 23.25" barrel of the Long Throat. Pmax = 54,447 PSI.


Six inch vertical deflection - 1700+ ft-lbs at 300 yd and an impact velocity of 2400+ f/s. And of course these figures are from right on a timing node. Ain't too shabby even from a "short" barrel.

Paul

[drinksgin (deceased)]

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

[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.

[RatherBHuntin]

Paul,
You know I am in the same camp as you with explosive bullet expansion and their correlation to bang flops, and the lack of long trudges up hill dragging a carcass as heavy as me. I am absolutely convinced this bang flop is a product of the shock from energy transferring to the animal's nervous and circulatory systems, not from an exit wound ro even a wound channel, at least the permanent one.  The transfer is accomplished in large part due to the frontal area of the projectile.  
 
That said, the majority of the weight, and therefore the work performed will be done by the core, yes? Regardless of frontal area, if the weight is not behind it, there is no energy stored to transfer, the energy left with the weight(core).  What I have had happen, and what I am sure everyone has seen, is the core squirting out of the jacket and leaving just a tiny exit hole from the lead core. One of the reasons I dont like this is lack of a blood trail if it does run. Also, so much of the energy is not expended on the animal it seems the probability of a runner is increased.
 
So the question I am getting at is, are you concerned that the the core will slip the jacket without significant expansion?  If it does expand but still punches through, how much energy is lost and is that "too" much?  I am guessing a simple stack of phone books and measuring the bullet will answer much of this, but...have you considered devising a method of measuring kinetic energy transferred to the target?  Ok, so I had a couple of questions, you asked for them:laugh:    Is the ANVB core and jacket put together the same as a PowerPoint or Interlock bullet?

[gitano]

First to 22Hornet's comments on Nosler Ballistic Tips and my jacket's weight variation.

Nosler's Ballistic tips got a bad reputation shortly after they were introduced. Lots of whining about "blowing up on the skin", (THAT makes me CRAZY), and "too much meat damage". Nosler listened, and thickened the jacket walls and gave them a profile which progressed from thin at the nose to thick at the base. That is the form of Ballistic Tip we see today. While I didn't have any problems with the originals, the later version is a better bullet. Still... how dead is dead?

I would like the 'error' in the weight of ANY bullet I use to be less than 1%. In other words, if the bullet is supposed to weigh 130 grains, I don't want to see one that weighs more than 131.3 or less than 128.7. And frankly, compared to factory bullets, plus or minus 1% is A LOT of variation.

It is relatively simple for me to weigh and sort the jackets into 10th-of-a-grain batches. For example: 43.2, 43.3, 43.4, etc. I already know I can get the weighs of the cores to within a 10th of a grain of the target weight. Assuming that there is only a 10th of a grain of variation in the PTs,  (which would actually surprise me if it was that large), the variation in finished bullet weight should be smaller than two 10ths of a grain. Two 10ths of a grain out of 125 grains is 0.0016 grains, or 0.16 percent. That, I believe is achievable, and is "good".

RBH - While I do not in any way doubt your representation of a separated jacket "shooting through" an animal and poking a small hole on exit, and not making a significant wound channel, I have not personally experienced that. The only jacket core separations I can recall were on Remington CoreLokts from a .270 Winchester. Both the core and jacket were found in the animals, and of course the animals were dead.

I did absolutely nothing to bond the core to the jacket of the .50 Alaskan bullets I made, and I almost always found the two together even after they hit a rock. In the only animal I have taken with those bullets, the bullet passed completely through. Since there was only one exit hole, I assume they were still together on exit.

I think I will "section" one of the 130s to illustrate the internal configuration. Even if the jacket and core do separate, I don't THINK the core will fail to "mushroom" and stay in the big game animal. Before I section one and take pictures, let me put to words what the inside of one of these looks like.

If you look at the crummy picture of the seated cores in post #136 of this thread, you will see that there are 3 'steps' in the profile of the bullet's  nose. The jacket wall makes up the forward-most step. Next is the step formed by the body of the core being "smashed" into the jacket. It is the level of the core in the jacket. The third step is the hole swaged to receive the tenon of the PT.

As the point is formed, the lead gets swaged together as the diameter of the point is reduced. This does two things. First, it forces the "body" of the core forward in the "nose" of the jacket.  There's nowhere else to go as the nose diameter diminishes. Second, the hole for the PT tenon squeezes in around the tenon, effectively "grabbing" on to it.

It is my opinion that upon impact, the PT is going to get driven back into the body of the bullet, accomplishing two things. 1) Starting the process of opening up the jacket's "hollow point"., and 2) driving the tenon of the PT back into the core starting the process of "opening" the core up too. I can't really imagine how these cores could fail to "open up" or "mushroom" even if they separate from the jacket.

That's the theoretical assumptions. When I get my hands on 32 large-format phone books, we'll have a better idea about how good an assumption that is.

Paul

PS - By the way, the design of the Speer 115 grain, 7mm, and 130 grain .30 cal are "wimpy" in comparison to the ANVB. The jacket walls on the Speers are 0.012" at most, and there is no 'special' formation of the 'hollow' inside the point of those bullets, and you and I KNOW how they work! Honestly, I am more 'concerned' about this bullet being "too" tough. I'm hoping the high impact velocities make the thing behave something like an Accubond or what used to be called a Solid Base Ballistic Tip. We'll see.

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

but...have you considered devising a method of measuring kinetic energy transferred to the target?

There is a known mass and velocity which will furnish an energy figure.
If the bullet is captured by the 'target' that would equal 100% 'transfer' n'est-ce pas?
The difficulty would be measuring the transfer loss of a pass through unless the target was arranged on a sort of ballistic pendulum / load cell arrangement.

[j0e_bl0ggs (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.

Thanks, I will look out for some!
Unfortunately we only seem to have 'new' plumbers and they know (Exp. deleted) about soldering - in fact we can include 'plumbing' in that as well....

What is the world coming to?

ETA:  Bakers fluid contains the magic stuff, that is still available!

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

Yup Bakers fluid #3 contains the Zinc Chloride...
Have a litre now!

[gitano]

With respect to using, (no hope of getting any in Alaska I am afraid), it still means melting the core, right?

Paul

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

With respect to using, (no hope of getting any in Alaska I am afraid), it still means melting the core, right?

Paul

Yep, still melting the core but trying to achieve an easier 'bonded' core.
As I mentioned before I was hamstrung a little with the modern flux 'alternatives'.
Now I have a bottle complete with the 'skys falling' warnings...
I cannot completely put the bonded core to rest until I have produced something that I'm happy with - have furnace will play...!

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

Actually Paul, you can get your paws on some....

[Jamie.270]

Paul, (and anyone else)
Look for Forney welding/soldering products, or get a hold of McMaster-Carr.
They market a flux called "Ruby Fluid" which contains Zinc Chloride.
Paste or liquid.
http://rubyfluidflux.com/

MSDS for RubyFluid:
http://rubyfluidflux.com/uploads/Rubyfluid_Flux_MSDS.pdf

Many ACE Hardware stores carry Forney products, and they should be able to order you some if they don't have it on the shelf.

[gitano]

Thanks, Jamie.270. There is an ACE Hardware in Wasilla.

In the end, I still have to melt the cores, and I just have a basic aversion to that. Regardless of the hole in the bottom of my jackets.  

Paul

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

Dilute Hydrochloric acid and dissolve some zinc in it until it will dissolve no more, hey presto, Zinc Chloride acid flux...

Thanks Don, for making me look it up! Lazy git that I am...

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

Yeah, that hole in your bottom could be a problem...

[gitano]

Hawk Bullets have the hole in the bottom, and they get rave reviews on their bullet's terminal performance. Either they have solved the problem, or they don't "bond" their cores.

Paul

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

As noted before, I do not think the bonded core is much more than bells n whistles, but I like to experiment and have the facility to do so.

[gitano]

I THINK the "dead soft" PURE copper jackets of the Hawk bullets may mitigate the NEED for bonding the core to the jacket. Also, in general, they make "heavy-for-caliber" bullets for big calibers. As such, they will have lower impact velocities than light-for-caliber bullets in smaller calibers.

Paul

[drinksgin (deceased)]

My question is, at how low a velocity will the bullet expand enough to be satisfactory?
Thinking of people who use .30-30 - .32 sp, .35 rem. class cartridges.

[gitano]

I did some very modest experiments with .375 Accubonds. The minimum velocities Nosler publishes for "as designed" terminal performance was in the 2000 f/s vicinity. I got some pretty impressive expansions into wet phone books down at 1750 f/s.

Based on that experience, and that on animals with the Speer bullets, I feel comfortable at impact velocities of 2000 or better. I get 'twitchy' at impact velocities below that.

I need to find 32 large-format phone books before I can test these. The velocities I will be using are: 3100, 2750, 2400. I am confident that these speeds will be "enough".

For other cartridges, I'm not so sure. If you have some specific velocities in mind, lemme know and I can test them if you are interested.

Paul

[drinksgin (deceased)]

Just thinking of the still large number of people who drag out a lever action each year, most operate at 1800-2300 fps at the muzzle, quite a bit less at 100-150 yds where most animals are shot.
Wondering if a hp or very large flat nose is the better bullet at those ranges.
I have experience with big,slow bullets in .44-40 and .45 -70 and know even at 1000fps or less,they work very well in a decent location, I even did a stern to stem with a .44-40 and it went right on through with it being a bang-flop. this was a pig that did not even have time to get out a squeal.

[gitano]

but...have you considered devising a method of measuring kinetic energy transferred to the target?

Have a look here: http://thehunterslife.com/forums/showthread.php?t=566&highlight=physics

Paul

[drinksgin (deceased)]

Just for grins, I went to Midway and Graf and looked at .224 bullets, Midway had 0, Graf had 1 .222 Jet 40gr , a 90 gr thing that may require the rifling pitch to be in TPI,( threads per inch), a tracer and a few light Speer bullets.
It is just silly, appears the speculators and hoarders have just gone out of their heads.
Did a bit more looking, almost all .22 and .30 bullet molds are gone, even the Lee push through sizers in usable sizes.
Lemmings on parade?

[gitano]

So here is the first terminal performance test. Not terribly surprising or elucidating except for one particular issue.

Let me lay out the 'starting conditions':

1) I decided not to try to wet the phone books because... this is Alaska, and keeping water liquid in February isn't easy. While it probably would have not frozen before I got the shots off, since I was also dealing with the chrono, AND the wind was blowing, I decided to 'simplify' matters and not wet the books.

2) Since I wasn't wetting the phone books, I wasn't going to put wet deer skin on the front of the box either, and for the same reason: simplify.

3) The box was approximately 3 foot from the muzzle.

4) I also decided that I could get all six shots - three with black tips and three with printed tips - in one loading of the box. At first, I thought I was going to only shoot three per box load.

5) The chrono was set against the box and the muzzle was about 1 foot shy of the front screen of the chrono.

6) The black-tipped bullets (~115-grain) were shot from the 8x57 in the top row starting on the left with the 100-yd/3100 f/s load; then the 200-yd/2750 f/s load; then the 300-yd/2400 f/s load.

7 The printed-tip bullets (130 grains) were shot from the 8mm SLT in the same order and velocities as above.

Here is the front of the box after the shots.


Here is a picture of the box from above. It is 24 inches deep (front to back), 11 inches wide, and 10 inches high.


Here is a close-up of the two lower, right holes.


See anything 'funny' there? Yeah, me too. Obviously the bullets didn't enter the box with the tips first. Note also that these are the two higher velocity, (2750 and 3100 f/s), charges. After inspection of the recovered bullets, it is clear that the bullets entered straight, but the points were coming off as they exited the muzzle.

It was a little surprising that the penetration was for all intents and purposes identical between the black-tipped bullets out of the 8x57, and the printed-tipped bullets from the 8mm SLT. No surprise there as they were loaded for the same MVs.

The 300-yd charge yielded a penetration of 7 inches in both tips. The 200-yd charge yielded a penetration of 6.25" in the black-tipped bullet, and 6.5" in the printed-tipped bullet. The 100-yd charge yielded a penetration of 6" in both tip types.

The actual muzzle velocities were:


Here is a sequence of images as the phone books are "peeled" back. FOr some reason only known to Photobucket, the pictures are rotated. There is NOTHING I have been able to do to correct this. It is really infuriating, but there's is nothing I can do about it. As such, the upper right corner of the image you see is the lower right corner of the correct orientation.

This is the outside of the first phonebook just on the other side of the front of the box:


Here is the front of the second book. Things are starting to "open up".


Here is the front of the third book. Lots of "damage".


Here is a close-up of the hole punched by the high velocity bullet from the 8x57 with the black tip in the fourth book.


Here is the inside of that fourth book where all the bullets were found. (Why didn't Photbucket rotate THIS picture!:mad: :frown)


And here are the bullets.

These are the 3100 f/s-ish bullets. In all the following pictures, the black-tipped bullet will be to the right. (Again randomly rotated by Photobucket.)


2750 f/s-ish -Note part of the black tip still attached.


2400 f/s-ish - Again part of the black tip is present.


So here are MY conclusions.

First and foremost, there is something "amiss" with the printed tips. It is my opinion that the ignition explosion is dislodging the tip and it is completely disconnected as it travels down the barrel. That's a bummer.

Second, the black tips do not have any problem with staying attached.

Third, I found essentially nothing but small pieces of the cores. Otherwise, there was lead 'smeared' over the jackets.

Fourth, "deformation" wasn't really any different than other commercial bullets I have fired into dry phone books.

Fifth, I was surprised a bit at the lack of difference in penetration between the 100-yd loads and the 300-yd loads. Essentially an inch.

Sixth, I will try this again with wet books. Now that I can be assured that there won't be complete pass-through, I can conduct the shooting in my shop where I can keep the books unfrozen.

While I would certainly "trust" these bullets (with the black tips) to be lethal on big game, I wouldn't be confident that I know what they're going to do yet. Still needs "wet" shooting before I can be confident of consistent terminal performance.

More later.

Paul

[22hornet]

Hmmm. Not stable? Wobbling around?
Was it just those two projectiles?

How did they look after you removed them from the box? Those pics didn't show up.

[gitano]

I was trying to fix the #$%^&* Photobucket screwup and wasn't finished posting. You'll find "the rest of the story" up there now.

Paul

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

Interesting how the tips cut a near perfect silhouette in the plywood facing!

[gitano]

I had to sleep on it, but I think I figured out why/how the PTs separated from the bullets.

Reviewing what I know:

1) The PTed bullets were shot from the SLT.
2) The Low Velocity bullet (~2400 f/s) didn't exhibit the problem even from the SLT. (Although it might have just been "straight" when it hit the board.)
3) The black-tipped bullets didn't exhibit the same issue even though they were shot at essentially the same velocity.

So what's different? I believe it's the steyr LONG THROAT.

Because I wasn't interested in "accuracy", the bullets were seated for a specific seating depth (one caliber - .323") that gave me the velocity/pressure relationship I wanted. The whole reason for making two rifles chambered for the same cartridge was because one chamber isn't suited for both "long" (heavy-for-caliber),  and "short" (light-for-caliber) bullets. In a rifle whose chamber is cut to accommodate long bullets, short LFC bullets have too far to "jump" from the case mouth to the lands to be "accurate"; hence a rifle with a chamber cut specifically for LFC bullets. THIS rifle has a LONG throat but was shooting a SHORT bullet.

Upon ignition bullets are expelled from their cases. If they aren't close to the lands to start with they have a chance to develop sufficient momentum such that when the bullet does finally hit the lands, it is almost slammed to a halt. In the case of the PTed bullets, the tip's momentum was sufficient to pull it from the mouth of the bullet when the bullet finally contacted the lands. Then, at some point down the barrel, the bullet catches up to the PT and it was re-accelerated to full muzzle velocity by the time it exits the barrel, then being slammed into the target with the full momentum of the bullet behind it. That's why you see the cutting "near perfect silhouette in the plywood facing".

Because there wasn't enough distance between the muzzle and the target for the bullet to turn 90 degrees, (and that would be wacko anyway), I am convinced that this "ejection" of the PT from the bullet mouth as a result of the bullet slamming into the lands is what happened.

I will test that theory today by loading some more PTed bullets for the SLT, but I will seat them as far out as I can so the "jump" will be as short as possible. I will also load some for the 8x57 with the same intent. Not "ON" the lands, but say 0.050" off. I am pretty sure I won't be able to get that close (0.050") with the SLT, but we'll see how close I can get. I will load them to 100-yd impact velocities (~3100 f/s). I will also soak the phone books first.

Paul

[drinksgin (deceased)]

I really think you have some VERY dead phone books!

[gitano]

They should be! I shot them six times!

Paul

[gitano]

Don - How come you didn't notice the error in the velocity table. Yur gettin' old!

The 300 and 100 yd velocities are backwards. Photobucket is down, so I can't change the original post, but I can add the correct image here.

Paul

[drinksgin (deceased)]

All I can plead is just numbers overload and a lack of sleep.

[gitano]

Here are the results of the second terminal performance tests of the 8mm ANVB.

Two soaked phone books occupy the same space as four dry ones. That was fine with me, but I did have to cram the wet ones in.

I conducted the test in my shop, so it was much more comfortable, but there was no chronograph. Therefore I used the "100-yd" charge.

I only used the 8x57. Even in that chamber, the overall length of the cartridge when the bullet was seated 0.050" off the lands was 0.250" longer than when seated with the bearing surface a caliber deep. The amount of bearing surface left in the neck of the case was only 0.125". That's not a practical OAL.

Here is a picture of the front of the box after the second shot. (Crummy phone camera again.) It didn't look much better after the first.


Here is a picture of the top of the box after the two shots.


Here is a picture of about the middle of the inside of the first book.You can see the "wound" cavities. They are about the size of a softball. For those unfamiliar with softballs, they are a little over 3.18" in diameter or about 10 cm.


Here's a close-up of one of the cavities.


This is "entrances" and "exits". The "entrance wound" is on the right, and the "exit wound" on the left.


This is a view of "entering" the second book. The "exits" from the first book are in the lower part of the picture.


Here's the same from a bit farther out.


If you look closely, you'll see pieces of jacket. I'm in about 5" here, and pieces of the jacket started showing up. The majority of the jacket was in about another inch.


I found the right bullet has penetrated the back of the second phone book, but had not perforated the cover of the third, dry book. What you see here is mostly bullet. There is considerable core attached to the remaining jacket.


Here's another picture of the general 'mayhem'. It was impressive.


Here is a picture of the second entrance hole in the plywood front. As you can see, it's "round". There is no suggestion that the PT came off prior to impact.


And here's the first shot's hole. (It's the lower one in the split of the wood.) It's difficult to tell whether this tip came off or not, but it doesn't appear to have. However, this first bullet didn't hold together as well as the second one did.


Here is a close-up of the second bullet with some of the paper cleaned off of the forward-most part of it.


All in all, the "wounds" were very impressive. I have no concern about terminal performance IF I can be assured that the PT can be relied upon to remain intact until impact. I anticipate complaints of "too much meat damage" rather than "didn't penetrate". But, since I won't be selling these, those shooting this bullet will be among a select few, and I wouldn't anticipate silly complaints.

I think on small white-tails at 100 yd and less, there are going to be pass-throughs with devastating "bang-flops", and maybe "large", (3 inch-ish maybe), exit holes. On small whitetails over 200 yd, I expect bang-flops and complete destruction of the contents of the chest cavity. On large white-tails and mulies over 150 yd, I would expect the same. On anything larger, like elk and moose, I would expect one-shot kills, with devastating damage to the organs in the chest cavity.

There is still some "work" to do. The PT is too "fragile" for my tastes. J0e_bl0ggs and I were discussing modifications to the printed tip that would render it considerably more robust. First is make it of a different material like the poly-carbonate that other "ballistic tips" are made of. Second is to redesign the shape so that the jacket encapsulates the base of the tip. I kinda like that idea. It eliminates the hole required for a tenon, and I would get to keep these 'clear' tips which I like the look of. Of similar importance, is working on the the seating depth/ chamber. This experience makes it quite clear that the ANVB with THIS printed tip will NOT work in the 8mm Steyr LONG Throat. I will have to use the short-throated Steyr if I am to use this bullet with the this printed tip. I'm not sure if it's usable in the 8x57 or not. It's certainly not with a seating depth that is only 0.050" off the lands.

Paul

[22hornet]

These are going work Paul, and work well!


I would have every confidence in using these projectiles. Fantastic work.

[drinksgin (deceased)]

I thought you were developing a HUNTING bullet, not a new design paper shredder.
Oh, well.

[RatherBHuntin]

Very nice.  I cant wait to see pictures of the first game animal you take with this.

[gitano]

Thanks, fellas.

Very nice.  I cant wait to see pictures of the first game animal you take with this.

Me either! :D

It is remotely possible that it could happen this spring. One of my friends that got drawn for the same caribou I did, hasn't filled his tag yet. I doubt he is going to want to, but there is maybe a 10% chance. If we go, I will take an 8x57 and I might get a chance to put a 'second round' in his caribou if necessary. As you can see, it would require several stars to line up.

Elsewise, the odds are very good for next year. I have permits for two caribou and two moose. At least ONE of those should die from an ANVB.

I would add a couple of comments to the narrative on the second terminal performance test.

Maybe it's obvious, but the reason the box "blew up" is because of the added water. When the bullet hits the wet paper, the water "homogenizes" the energy, spreading it out uniformly in all directions, including rearward toward the shooter. That's what "busted" the front piece of plywood, and what caused the uniform symmetry of the "wound" channels.

This is what is often erroneously called the "hydrostatic" shock wave. The erroneous part is the term "static". When we discuss airplanes flying through the air or bullets moving through the air, we don't say "aerostatics", we say aerodynamics. "Static" means stationary or not moving/changing. "Dynamic" is the opposite; in motion. So the correct term for the wavefront caused by the impact and path of a bullet in a "wet" target is "hydrodynamic" shock wave.

In the dry phone books, the energy of the bullet is "guided" by the first failure of the compressed paper (which is really quite like wood). That's why one sees "splits" in dry media and "craters" in "wet" media.

The "wave" does damage. Quantifying how much damage, and the mechanism of that damage, is very difficult. We can determine the nature of damage IF the amplitude of the wave is sufficient. If it is, a phenomenon call "cavitation" occurs. Cavitation occurs when water molecules are literally torn apart by the pressure differential between the "crest" (high pressure area), and the "trough" (low pressure area) of the wave. If shrapnel doesn't "get ya", cavitation is what "kills ya" in an explosion.

I would cough up the cost of ballistic gelatin if the cost of the gelatin were the only issue, but the reality is that there is A LOT of logistical hassle in being prepared to make, use, and re-use ballistic gelatin. You have to have BIG pots - like 10 gallons MINIMUM - to heat the gelatin in to start with. THEN you have to have LARGE - 12"x12"x24" MINIMUM - molds to pour the gelatin in. You also have to have refrigeration space large enough to hold the gelatin that you have made up and used, and are waiting to 'reconstitute'. It's a BIG deal. Too much hassle for me to bother with UNTIL I wanted to start SELLING a new bullet design.

Paul

PS - With regard to getting these bullets 'blooded' this spring, I completely forgot about spring bear. You can bet an ANVB will be used! God willin' and the creek don't rise, I'll have multiple opportunities to 'test' them on game.

Paul[/SIZE]

[gitano]

These are going work Paul, and work well!


I would have every confidence in using these projectiles. Fantastic work.

Those are very kind words indeed!

THANKS!

I think this particular thread is nearing it's end. The title is "Making My Own 8mm Jacketed Bullets", and I think for a first pass, that has been accomplished. There remains A LOT of work to do to refine the various processes and to move forward with new ideas like die and tip making. As usual with all of my projects, I relied heavily on the assistance and comments of THL members. I sincerely thank you all for that!

Of course this isn't "the end" of the 8mm bullet making saga, but future posts should probably be put in threads that deal with specific subject matter. This thread can be referenced - maybe it should be "stickied" - in those future threads.

For those of you shooting 8mms of any sort that want to try the ANVB, send me a PM and we will see what we can do. I'm sure "you all" will be able to put more dead animals on the ground - and post threads with pictrres about it - than I can by myself.

Thanks again,
Paul

[gitano]

I'm getting the hang of making these "identical". I just made 40 of them that are 125 grains plus or minus something less than 0.1 grains. I also figured out how to get the printed tips seated well, and without disturbing that really sharp point.



On the left is the 8mm (.323) 125-grain ANVB; in the middle is the Speer .308 130-grain HP; on the right is the Speer 7mm (.284) 115-grain HP.

Paul

[gitano]

So...

After the debacle with the sharp-pointed printed tips, I went looking for two 'things':

1) A good tip, and
2) Some bearing surface.

You may recall that ultimately, I want a large meplatted, light weight, bullet. Since the printed tip wasn't working all that well in its current configuration, I made some "spitzer" (lead-tipped) 125-grain bullets. They weren't particularly satisfying for two reasons:

1) I want a hollow point, and
2) At 125 grains, the bearing surface was only about .250".

While mulling this "point issue" over in my head, it occurred to me that I could simply use another bullet for a point. Since the inside of the 8mm jackets I have are about 0.250", I figured .243 and .257 bullets might just serve as both cores and points. In a fashion, the 8mm jacket could be a kind of 'sabot'.

Here are the first efforts along this line.

First is a Barnes 90 grain Banded Solid I had left over from a penetration experiment my youngest daughter did for school.


Probably the best use I could ever find for these bullets, but in reality exactly what I'm NOT looking for. Not looking for a SOLID for sure.

Next I tried another Barnes bullet, an 80-grain .243 VLC.

This actually might work.

Next was a 60 grain .257 Speer "pistol" bullet.
This is actually the second one of these I made the first one got the placement correct - at the cannelure, but the ejector pin ruined it. This one's tip is OK, but it's not exactly the right position, but you get the idea. With some tweaking, this is another one that might work.


The last one is a 90-grain .257 Speer BTHP. This one might ultimately work, but I'll have to taper the mouth of the 8mm jacket to 1) reduce the overall weight, and 2) fair the jacket mouth onto the .257 bullet.


The point is - pun intended - there MAY be another bullet that I can use as a point for the 8mm jackets.

I also tried a point swaged of aluminum foil. Remember, the point serves only as an aerodynamic fairing. I couldn't care less how "sturdy" it is as long as it can stand up to handling and "wind". Unfortunately, it can't stand up to the ejector pin. I'm still toying with this idea.

The fact is, the ejector pin is a problem. It really boogers the points of everything. Note how the point on the SOLID BRASS Barnes bullet is noticeably blunted.

Finally, I am contemplating using a .22 RF case as a point. I think it might work with the butt in the 8mm jacket and the mouth "out". I'll be trying that tomorrow.

Paul

[gitano]

Couldn't wait...



The Long Rifle case is on the left, the Short, on the right.

They're not pretty, but this was strictly quick and dirty. I think this has real promise!

Paul

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

See what happens when you have a swaging press?
Just don't mash the fingers!

Good ideas coming there...

[22hornet]

Hmmm. A projectile within a projectile? Never thought of that.
I would be very interested in seeing how these go. Expansion from the two projectiles?

Keep it coming Paul.

[gitano]

A projectile within a projectile is really just a sabot. In this case, the 8mm jacket is acting as the sabot. Of course with the .243 bullet, I will be adding some lead to the base of the jacket to provide support for the .243 bullet.

Actually, my interest is most piqued by the .22 RF case points.

Paul

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

RWS make a similar hunting bullet with a brass 'tip' admittedly not so pointed and also not 'open' at the point.
Found a pic of something similar.




Just got to love the 'marketing' eh?

I have a few of these without the plated jacket.
The Nickel coating would absolutely stop me from using them!

[gitano]

Wow! I thought Barnes was "aggressive"...

Paul

[Jorge in Oz]

You'd hate to miss intended targets with the price you are paying for those RWS bullets.

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

Not paying anything for them. Not actually buying them either!

[drinksgin (deceased)]

Don't know if I would buy a used car from that fellow!
I am being eaten alive by the coompooter, it refuses to behave in the normal manner, I have lost all cookies, restoring cookies has not helped, loose the ability to type anything if I have been on more than 24 hours without a restart, just a pain in the posterior!

:>(

[gitano]

I am "locking" all "stickied" threads. By doing this, I am hoping to get people that are interested in the topic to open a new thread in the main section of the forum. It is my desire that this will increase the number of people involved in conversations.

If the thread starter wants to add to the thread, they can contact me and I will open it for them, and then reclose it after they have added the content they wish to.

Paul