Bison Hunt Load Development

[gitano]

I took the eleven cases with split necks, and turned the heads off of them. Thence came the first lesson of this exercise: Part the heads off before the cases are annealed. They were so soft that when the cutter first penetrated the wall, the case would 'grab' and tear the rest of the case off. I salvages all but one of the heads, but three of the salvaged ones were "short". I wanted the head to be 1.010" long from mouth to base. The shortest salvaged one was 0.8something.

After getting those heads 'dressed', I made the head expansion punch to enlarge the heads to somewhere near 0.510" outside diameter. The machining was pretty straight forward, but I was still concerned that it wasn't going to work "as designed". I was worried about "sticking", about splitting, and about not 'filling out' all the way to the bottom. All my concerns were for naught. It worked like I knew what I was doing.

There was another 'discovery'. Two of the cases were "copper-washed" steel. Those two heads did NOT 'fill out' to 0.510", and when I turned the rims off, it was obvious that they were not copper/brass. Maybe these copper-washed steel cases would 'soften' with a different annealing process but I have no interest in messing with those cases. There are plenty that are pure copper/brass.

So at the moment, I have 8 'test' bullets I can use for tuning QuickLOAD and powders, and 43 more cases from which I will get heads and maybe 'necks'. I'll have to make the "jacket-from-tubing" dies in order to use the 'necks'.

The bottom line is that I can realistically and effectively use 7.62x54R brass cartridge cases for jacket material for .51 caliber bullet swaging.

I'll post pictures of these first 8 bullets tomorrow.

Paul

PS - Using the 450-grain, .45-70 cast bullet, the weight of the finished bullets are grouped around 495 grains (the 'short-jacketed' ones), and 525-grains from the ones with 1.010" jackets. That's right where I want them weight-wise.  I only used one of the Lee Postell, 500-grain .45-70 bullets. The finished weight of that bullet was 615 grains. That's heavier than I want. However, the 5-caliber radius of the ogive of the Postell bullet makes swaging MUCH easier, and results in a nicer looking bullet. I have to figure out how to get 100 grains off of the weight.

Paul

[Paul Hoskins]

Paul, a relatively easy method of removing the rim from these cases can be done by making a "pinch trim" die with a straight hole thru it .510 inches in diameter and an internal punch .509 inches in diameter for pushing the case into the die. The top of this punch can have a short "tip" on it that is a bit smaller than the primer pocket in diameter to guide the punch on center of the die, IF you have removed the primer. The die and punch should be heat treated to work properly. The tip of the punch only needs to go in the die a few thousandth's in order to shear off the rim. The cases should be annealed for this operation. Die mouth and punch tip should have sharp edges. Cases can be removed from the die bu just poking them out with something thru the open top of the die. ......Steel cartridge cases suck for any purpose. ......Paul H

[gitano]

Paul - I had given "punching" the rims off of the heads some thought, but since I have to 'boat-tail' the heads in the lathe anyway, I decided to forego the fabrication of the die and punch, (and the requisite heat treatment), for now. I think that if I were using magnum case heads for jackets, I'd 'punch' the belts off.

A thought just occurred to me: I may put the word out that I'm willing to buy "old" magnum cases. Ones that people have reloaded several times and may have "incipient head separation" issues. I prefer magnum heads to these 7.62x54R heads because the magnum heads require very little in the way of preparation other than getting rid of the rim. .45-70 bullets 'drop right in' as cores and there is no requirement to boat-tail. Which brings me to another 'job'.

Some time back, I bought one of Lee Precision's mold blanks. At the moment, I don't recall what cartridge I was thinking of casting for, but I do recall that I was thinking about bullet cores. As I mentioned above, the Lee Precision 500-grain "Postell" bullet mold works really well as a core for the .510 bullets, but it has two 'problems':
1) It weighs 500 grains. Coupled with the ~120-grain 1" head of the 7.62x54R, the final weight of around ~615 grains is more than I want. (Using the front half of a "magnum" case as a jacket, the weight ends up about 550, and that's fine.)
2) It has lube grooves. This isn't a big issue for me, but if I am going to go to the trouble of getting its weight right, I might as well do away with the lube grooves as well.

The problem I'm facing with making the cherry for this mold is that EVERY "reamer" I have attempted so far has been COMPLETE KRAP. I was considering using a tree burr, like I did to cut the point-forming die, but of course "they" don't make one of the proper diameter. There isn't one of 0.510" diameter either, but 0.500" is close enough to 0.510 that it was only necessary to offset it ~0.005" and get the desired final dimension of 0.510". The nearest diameter of burr available to get to ~0.457" is 3/8ths (0.375"). That means offsetting by ~0.040. Not "undoable", but will leave a 0.080" meplat on the resulting core. Again, not a 'deal-killer' but not exactly what I want either. Since this is 'just' a core mold, I will probably just use a 29/64ths (0.453") drill bit and call it "good". I could also go to the trouble of making it "adjustable" in order to get different weights from one die, OR I could just buy another blank mold. Come to think of it, this mold blank MAY have enough room for two cavities. I know the sprue plate only has one hole, but I can buy (or make) another sprue plate.

Anyway, that's the 'nature of the beast' as of today, April 4, 2019.

Last night I called a friend that shot a bull bison, (at 30 yards), on this hunt back in '06. He gave me some contact info for accessing private property. Back then, there was a $300 'trespass' fee, but only if you actually shot a bison. I imagine it will be at least $500 by now. Still cheaper than shooting a deer in Colorado. That is if I ever actually shoot something in Colorado...

Paul

[gitano]

I went out to my shop to look at the blank mold, and lo and behold, it is in fact a two-cavity mold. MORE interestingly, I found an Ideal 45S 640 mold. A picture is worth a thousand words:



As you can see, it's a .45 caliber adjustable mold for making bullet cores.

Actual diameter of the cavity is only 0.407" which makes it 0.050" 'sloppy'. I'll cast a few cores with it and see how it works. In the end, I'll probably use the Lee blank to make what I actually WANT.

News at 11.

Paul

[recoil junky]

Interesting . . .

RJ

[gitano]

Using the process described here: http://www.thehunterslife.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19428, "The Number" for a 0.407" diameter core is 373.04. Since the boat-tailed head weighs about 110 grains and I want the finished bullet weight to be between 495 and 525 grains, I will set the adjustable 'bottom' of the mold to throw a billet 1.086" long. The resulting slug in pure lead should weigh ~405 grains. We'll see.

News at ll.

Paul

[gitano]

Hmm...

I was fixin' to make the core mold from the Lee blank and needed to do some cypherin' to get the drill-to depth right. I hadn't calculated the BC of any of the bullets I made yesterday, so I thought I'd do that and see if there was any reason to change my current plan of making bullets that weighed somewhere between 495 and 525 grains. One of the short-jacketed bullets weighs 493 grains, and the long one that I put the Lee Postell core in weighs in at 587 grains so I decided to compare those two as the 'bookends' of the weight range I would consider.

Didn't turn out like I thought it would.

The heavier bullet had a significantly higher calculated BC. (I emphasize 'calculated' because these numbers REALLY should be taken with the appropriate level of skepticism due to the fact that they are NOT measured numbers.) The 493-grain bullet's calculated BC was .383 while the 587-grain bullet's calculated BC was .522. That's a BIG difference.

Launching the 587-grain bullet at 1800 f/s produces a muzzle energy of 4223 ft-lb. About my upper limit for this hunt. (In contrast to the ~3400 ft-lb that is my 'standard' for every other hunt I go on.) Sighted in 6" high at 100 yards, that bullet is only 20" low at 300 yards and is still carrying 2600 ft-lb of energy. It's 57" low at 400 yards, (essentially FIVE FEET), but it's still got 2261 ft-lb of energy.

On the other hand, the 493-grain bullet launched at 1961 ft/s, (producing the 'same' 4226 ft-lb of muzzle energy so that the comparison is "apples to apples"), has 2251 ft-lb of energy at 300 yards and is only 16" low. At 400, it's 51" low and is carrying only 1825 ft-lb of energy.

One issue at hand is the depth of the Lee blank mold. I didn't measure it yet, but I noticed that it is not going to allow a core a whole lot longer than 1". That would be a core weight of 466-grains leading to a final bullet weight of about 581 grains. I could make the jacket a little longer and get to an even 600 grains. Which in turn would produce a bullet with a calculated BC of about .591. A MV of 1780 f/s for a 600 grain bullet produces the same 4223 ft-lb of ME. At 300 yd, the drop would be 17.5" and the impact energy 2789 ft-lb. At 400 yd, the impact energy would be 2427 ft-lb and the drop would be 56".

So, as you can see, 'food for thought' on the final weight of the bullet. There are some more tidbits to consider though.

1) These are CALCULATED BCs, reality may be quite different.
2) I'm not certain at this time that I can achieve these MV with these bullets in these rifles and keep the pressures below 30 kPSI.
3) Impact velocity of the theoretical 600-grain bullet at 400 yd is 1350 f/s. I wouldn't concern my self with that impact velocity if we were talking about Hawk bullets. However, the performance of these "cartridge case jackets" at those low impact velocities is an unknown. Given what I have seen at the swage and lathe, I would expect them to expand similarly to the Hawks, but that is pure speculation. Of course I am TRULY loathe to take a 400 yard shot when I would have to aim FIVE FEET HIGH of my intended point of impact!

I must think a bit more about this 'new' information.

Paul

[Paul Hoskins]

Paul, I know you have your heart set on killing a bison with the Martini and I  don't blame you one bit. This hunt is why you built it. A bison isn't a Cape buffalo even if their size is similar. North American wildlife just isn't tough like African game regardless of the variety. I would, by far, prefer accurate bullet placement over power. The lighter bullets you describe would shoot  MUCH flatter to 3 or 4 hundred yards than the heavier ones. It takes a lot of guesstimation out of holdover. I wouldn't shoot at a bison with anything over 300 yards. Bullet placement is EVERYTHING regardless of what I'm shooting at. That has been my success. Almost all my deer and black bear have been killed with 17 and 22 calibers. Few people have had the success I have with one shot kills and no chasing after wounded critters. Remember W D M Bell killed truckloads of elephant with the 7-57 Mauser. He placed his shots. I would use the lighter, flatter shooting bullets you mention IF THEY"RE ACCURATE and not worry too much about point of impact energy. .......Paul H

[gitano]

That's pretty much my perspective too, Paul. I DO want to deliver MINIMALLY 1500 ft-lbs to the bison regardless of range, and with these cartridges, that's not difficult. That does mean I can shoot lighter bullets. Normally, I like light-for-caliber bullets. However, at a point in any caliber, when the weight gets very light, the bearing surface gets very short and as a rule (I personally haven't experienced an exception), the precision goes to pot as well. A 350-grain, .510 caliber bullet has a VERY short bearing surface. The thing is almost a "round ball". I "think" the sweet spot as far as weight goes with the .510 is somewhere between 450 and 550 grains.

While I have been talking a lot about these handmade bullets, my intent at the moment is to be hunting with the Hawk bullets that weigh 500 grains. I LIKE those bullets. These handmade bullets are solely for getting QuickLOAD tweaked so I don't have to waste the Hawk bullets working on a precision hunting load. The only reason I'm talking about hunting ranges and energies with these handmade bullets is because I WILL test them "at range". If by some miracle they shoot straight "out there", I'll take them along. While using the Martini is a 'big deal', using my own handmade bullets is not. Like I said, I've already killed a moose with a bullet made from these very components and dies, so "that box is ticked" as far as I'm concerned.

Were it not for the desire to use the Martini, I'd be using either the .338 Win Mag or the .416x.348 Win. That .416 is a GREAT cartridge in the Ruger single-shot action. While the .338 WM is plenty of medicine for a bison, and, contrary to popular mythology, shoots flatter than a 7mm Rem Mag, that .416 with the right Hawk bullet is pretty darn close. The more I work up loads, the more I drift toward using the .416 instead of the .338 if the "need" arises.

It is almost a certainty that I won't be shooting at a bison at anything over 300 yd, and even that range will be if-and-only-if I CAN'T get any closer. Keeping the max range to 300 and less means I will not have to aim "off hair" with any of the rifles I am considering using. In the end, between the Martini, the Quigley, and the .416, it will be the one that shoots the straightest that gets taken. I am assuming that all three will shoot "about the same". If that turns out to be true, then the Martini will get the nod. However, if the best the Martini can do is 2 MoA, and either the Quigley or the .416 shoot 1 Moa, the Martini won't be going bison hunting.

I spent the afternoon 'fiddling' with the various components, and certainly have all I need figured out to make 'QL test' bullets.



In the picture above, the bullets on the left are two of the 8 that I made yesterday from cases whose necks split. The one on the far left is the one in which I stuck the whole 500-grain Lee Postell bullet as the core. It's a pretty good looking bullet but it's just a little on the heavy side. Moving to the right, the next one is the "light" 493-grain bullet with a core made from one of the round-nosed .45-70 cast bullets I have. It's OK, but the bearing surface is a bit short.

The next two are bullets I made today using "good" cases. Yesterday, I couldn't use the tailstock to align or support the mouth of the cases because the necks were split. With these cases with unsplit necks, I was able to part the heads off without incident. The jacket length for the leftmost bullet was 1.219" coming off of the lathe. After getting swaged out to 0.510", it was 1.168". I wanted to get the finished weight right at 525, and to do so, I trimmed the 500-grain Postell bullet on the lathe until the combined weight of the core and jacket was 525 grains. Unfortunately, I did the weighing and trimming of the core before I trimmed off the rim of the jacket, so it ended up three grains 'light'.:angry:

The reason I use the Postell bullet for a core is that it's nose is very close to the ogive of the pointing die I made. It just 'fits'. However, in the end, it didn't cause the 'fillout' that I wanted. I got there, but I had to work at it.

The next bullet was made after 'learning' from the previous ones. First, the jacket was shortened so that the length coming off of the expansion punch was 1.125". The slug that came out of the Ideal core die was 1. 086" long and weighed 403 grains. Dropped inside the jacket, the top of it was just about level with the rim of the jacket, but it was VERY sloppy inside the jacket. I decided to 'press on' and see how that worked out. Turns out, it worked better than the Postell core, and I didn't have to trim any weight from it or the jacket. Also, because it was completely inside the jacket when I started the point swaging, it filled out the jacket better than the Postell did. The only real problem with it is that the meplat is twice as big on this bullet as it is on the one with the Postell core. Of course, as "test" bullets, BC is immaterial, and the meplat doesn't matter. If it looks like these 7.62x54R jacketed bullets have potential as hunting bullets, I'll work harder on 'pointing' that core.

Finally, casting the core was "good". The weight turned out to be within one half of one percent of the predicted weight, and more importantly, it produced a good bullet without having to fiddle with it any more after it came out of the mold. However, that's "it" for weight. I have run the 'bottom' of the adjustment slug to it's maximum length. There's no more length/weight to be gotten from that mold. Nice to know that "The Number" process worked as well as it did.

If I get any farther down the road with these 7.62x54R cases, I WILL need to make a core seating die. Trying to get uniform 'fillout' with the Postell bullet is problematic. It will be better to simply use the core from the Ideal mold and seat the core 'properly' with a core seating die before putting the bullet in the pointing die.

I thought I'd get some shooting in today, but I spent the afternoon working on perfecting the bullet manufacturing process. Tomorrow I will be doing some testing.

News at 11.


Paul

[gitano]

I finally got loads for four bullets calculated. (The four bullets you saw in post #54 above.) My idea was to increase the previous loads, (post #11 above), by 5 grains and see how the powder (that I adjusted) responded to different weights, as reflected in QL's ability to predict MV with the different bullet weights. I was planning to use 5 bullets, but I couldn't use #2 because it was too big for the .50 Alaskan. Also, the Magnetospeed didn't catch on of the four, (because the recoil disconnected the controller), so I have only 3 data points. However, they are pretty good trends so I think I can move on to a different load and see how it does. The recoil wasn't "pleasant", but it wasn't "brutal" either. Yet. MEs were in the low 30s. About .338 WM category. Here's the data:



The 38 f/s difference between the actual and predicted is larger than I would like, but within my tolerance of 50 f/s. Also, being the bullet weight in the middle lends more credence to it being some artifact of the bullet, not the powder.

Tomorrow, God willin' and the creek don't rise, I'll get some more testing completed. I'm itching to get to the Quigly and .416 Ruger. The Quigly will launch bigger bullets faster without beating me up, and the .416 will launch similar bullets faster.

News at ll.

Paul

[gitano]

Round 2:

I loaded 5 handmade bullets for the .50-90 Quigley with charges of 'tweaked' Accurate 2495. The 'tweaking' consisted of upping the charges from the previous 'anemic' ones by 5 and 10 grains to either 66.2 or 71.2 grains. "Tweaking" consists of modifying certain powder and case parameters in QL and getting new predictions of MV and max pressure.

Here is a picture of the 5 loaded rounds:


All of them have 7.62x54R jackets, but the jacket for #9, (the one on the far right), was not part of the "batch job" of 54 cases. Therefore its core is not quite the same as the other 4. Later you'll see why I mention that. The "waist" on #6 (second from the left), was due to me forgetting to put the 'adapter' on the case before I ran it through the .50 Alaskan Factory Crimp die.

The bullet weights, charges, predicted and actual MVs for each cartridge were:
#2 - 587 grain bullet, 66.2 grains of Acc2495 - Predicted MV = 1661 f/s, Actual - 1747 f/s, Delta - +86 f/s
#6 - 515 grain bullet, 66.2 grains of Acc2495 - Predicted MV = 1657 f/s, Actual - 1893 f/s, Delta - +236 f/s
#7 - 495 grain bullet, 71.2 grains of Acc2495 - Predicted MV = 1775 f/s, Actual - 1849, Delta - +74 f/s
#8 - 495 grain bullet, 71.2 grains of Acc2495 - Predicted MV = 1775 f/s, Actual - 1737, Delta - -38 f/s
#9 - 485 grain bullet, 71.2 grains of Acc2495 - Predicted MV = 1774 f/s, Actual - 2066, Delta - +292 f/s

Notice the two cartridges that deviate most from the predicted are those that had something 'amiss'. Even in general, those are far from pretty bullets. I wouldn't even use them if I were doing anything other than test-firing FOR MV.  All I really need is "weight". Sort of. You'll see below why I wrote "Sort of". If I decide to try to use handmade bullets with 7.62x54R case jackets for any purpose other than checking MVs, (like hunting or shooting at targets), they will look, and BE, GREATLY improved from this rogue's gallery.

Here's the graph of that data:

To someone not present at the reloading or test-firing, that data may look very ambiguous. However, since I was 'there', it is much easier for me to draw conclusions from that set of data.

The two cartridges with the REALLY big differences between predicted and actual were cartridges in which the bullet (#9) or case (#6) were inconsistent with the other bullets and cases. As a result, the 'smoke is clearing' a little bit with regard to the reason for QL's gross underestimate of MVs with these big, straight-walled cartridges. What is coming out of the fog is not any great revelation, but, it does allow me to move forward in my reloading with greater confidence that I won't be making a catastrophic mistake. The 'issue' - as one would suspect - is pressure. These big cases, WHEN NOT FILLED TO 100% OF CASE CAPACITY WITH SMOKELESS (progressive) POWDER, don't develop the INITIAL pressure necessary to fit the mathematical characteristics of the burn rate model for smaller, bottle-necked cartridges. Without that INITIAL pressure buildup, the whole burn sequence is muted. The charges for the .50 Alaskan better filled the case, therefore the QL predictions were closer to actual because the initial pressure built fast enough. In the .50-90 case, I moved 'closer' with the 5-grain increase, but what really "did it" was increasing the resistance of the bullet in the bore (#9) or reducing the case capacity (#6). So, what's my 'take away'?

1) Bullets need to be as consistent in 'form' as possible. "Form" means: a) Jacket material, including the "annealing process". b) Weight. Weight establishes the inertia to be overcome at ignition. c) Bearing surface. Bearing surface dictates the amount of friction the bullet has in the bore. Which in turn determines the initial resistance to the bullet entering the bore and therefore the intial pressure. The easiest way to get sufficient consistency in bullet 'form' is use commercially produced bullets. I am certain I can get the necessary uniformity in my handmade bullets. The question is: Do I want to invest the time, RIGHT NOW, to develop the procedures to ensure that consistency? The answer to that question is, "I don't know."

2) Charges need to be "near" 100% of case capacity for best ignition. Of course that begs the question: "What does "near" mean?" Without the benefit of further experimentation, I would say 'above 90%, and 100% would be better'. Unfortunately, this raises two related issues: a) Max pressure, and b) Recoil. I'm trying to keep max pressure under 35 kPSI for the 50 Alaskan and 30 kPSI for the .50-90. The 50 Alaskan for the reason mentioned in the last two paragraphs of post #1 in this thread: http://www.thehunterslife.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6504, and 30 kPSI for the .50-90 because that's what Pedersoli says to use as a max when using progressive (instead of 'black') powder in it's reproduction Sharps rifles. The good news is that the 50 Alaskan is already 'there' by virtue of its smaller case capacity. With regard to the .50-90, it's a bit more complicated. I CAN get closer to case-full by using a slower powder. However, that will require further experimentation so that I can tweak QL as necessary. I can also use some form of inert filler. I can also up the bullet weight. Both increasing charge and upping bullet weight up recoil. So even when the gun can 'take it', it may be that I won't want to. That remains to be seen. None of the test-firing of the Quigley was "unpleasant". Even for #9, the one that launched at 2066 f/s. A 485-grain bullet doing 2066 f/s has 4600 ft-lbs of energy. If that wasn't 'intolerable', then I can up my muzzle energy 'standard', (max of about 4200 ft-lb). The Quigley weighs 13 lbs. Also, because I was in a t-shirt, AND the Quigley has a hard-edged, STEEL BUTTPLATE, I put a slip-on recoil pad on it. The slip-on pad won't be going into the field, but in October in central Alaska, I will have a heavy coat on.

So, the question for the Quigley is now, "Do I go with 'filler' or experiment with another, slower powder?" Filler is certainly easier, but consistency is important, and 'consistent filler', while not an oxymoron, is certainly easier said than done.

The .416 (and of course the .338 Win Mag) doesn't suffer from any of these 'maladies'. Here's a picture of the .50 Alaskan and .416x348 Win bookending the 5 .50-90 cartridges I shot yesterday.


Paul

[gitano]

While the initial load workup, (adjusting QL), mostly required only "weight", I don't particularly like looking at skanky-looking bullets so I decided to go ahead and move to the place where I was producing better-looking at least, bullets. My primary interest is not particularly 'looks', but consistency in looks HELPS with consistency in performance. The bullets in the following picture look a little better, but are VERY consistent in weight and bearing length measurements. In weight, the four on the left have a maximum spread of 0.6 grains in weight. That equates to ~0.1%. That's as good or better than commercially produced bullets of the same weight class. The max spread of the bearing surface length is 0.004". Again, that's better than ANY commercially-made bullets I have in hand and have measured. The bullet on the right is 'different' in that I decided to take the WHOLE rim off instead of just "the rim". What that means is that instead of moving the tool (cutter) on the lathe "in" from the edge of the rim until it reached the head diameter, I put the cutter outboard of the center of the head and took ALL of the metal off until the rim was gone. This resulted in a shorter (and lighter) jacket. Hence it doesn't 'match' the other four bullets fabricated at the same time.



There are a few things to notice:
1) The 'waist' on every bullet. Knowing that waist was there, I was very careful to make the final diameter of the remnant of the rim be 0.5105" in diameter. Still, that waist was bothering me.
2) In the fourth bullet from the left, you see the 'wrinkle' in the top of the jacket. That's a function of the jacket tearing as the front of the case was parted off. :frown That was the first one I cut. I quit using that cutter and ground one to the exact profile I wanted that would eliminate that problem.
3) While the weights are surprisingly similar, the absolute lengths are not. I don't 'like' that.
4) The waists aren't uniform/consistent. If you could see 'around' the bullets, you'd see even more variation. That 'bothers' me.

So...

While I DON'T want boat-tailed bullets, the simplest way to eliminate the waists and significantly improve the consistency of the FORM is to taper these bases. I went back to the shop and trimmed the bases with a 7 degree taper. I also trimmed the points to 'flat' AND drilled a UNIFORM hollow point. Here's what they look like now.



How about the consistency of weight and bearing surface NOW, I asked myself.

Weights of the four similar bullets have a max spread of 3.2 grains, or 0.6%. About what I see in commercially-made bullets with weights over 200 grains. "Ogival length" - which is NOT "bearing surface length" - remain exactly the same as 'before' because I didn't remove any metal from the base of the bullets. However, because the taper was exactly the same in length and angle for every bullet, the bearing length relationships have the same max spread of ~0.006". Because I "uniformed" the meplats (noses), the bullets now have similar, but not exactly the same, total lengths. Given that the long one is also the heavy one, I can shave a little off of the length and reduce the weight difference.

Those of you 'looking', will note the waviness of the upper edge of the jacket. The jackets start out VERY straight-edged. That waviness is a function of differential movement when the bullet is being swaged. Not much I can do about that considering that they start VERY straight. I'm also not concerned with that.

You will probably also note a small gap between the exposed lead 'nose' and the top edge of the jacket. I had to think about what was causing that for a bit. This artifact is caused by the lead core extruding out of the jacket AND CONTACTING THE SWAGE WALL before the jacket is swaged to its final ogive. In other words, the core extrudes AND is in contact with the jacket mouth as it starts to get pushed back by the wall of the swage. However, the jacket is still getting squeezed SMALLER so the part of the core that is out of the jacket gets formed into the nose WHICH IS THE EXACT SAME DIAMETER AS THE OUTSIDE OF THE JACKET, but the lead still getting 'squeezed out' of the jacket is the diameter of the INSIDE of the jacket. This creates the gap you see.

You will recall that I made cores using the core-making mold I found I had. It makes the perfect weight, but not the perfect diameter. It's only about 0.407", and the jacket ID is about 0.455". If I want to eliminate the gap between the core and the jacket mouth in the finished bullet, I need to make the core shorter. If it is shorter than the jacket when the swaging starts, as the final swaging is taking place it is just beginning to be squeezed out of the jacket mouth by the jacket being swaged to its point. Unfortunately, if I shorten this core it will produce a bullet lighter than I want. I can make the jacket longer, and I think I will try that and see how that works out. BUT... Because the core is too small in diameter, I won't be able to be CERTAIN that there isn't an 'air pocket' in the bullets with longer jackets.

The RIGHT way to do this is to make a proper core seating die. That die would "squish" the too-long-but-right-weight core DOWN INTO the jacket and fill-out the jacket to a pre-swaging diameter that is closer to the final 0.512 that comes out of the pointing die. (It is then run through a sizing die that takes it to it's final diameter of 0.5105".) With the core beneath the mouth of the jacket at the start of swaging, the gap between the core and the jacket mouth would be eliminated.

I could also make what is called a "squirt" die. This die takes a piece of core material, (like lead wire or the billet from a mold), that is slightly heavier than the desired weight of the core, and squeezes it to a VERY uniform and 'appropriate' diameter while also extruding the excess weight out 3 tiny little holes. (Hence "squirt" because the die squirts the excess lead out.) Squirt dies don't eliminate the need for core seating dies. They just make the core seating process and precise final bullet weights a little easier. The question is: Is it worth the effort and trouble to make these 'extra' dies? Squirt die: NO. Core seating die: Probably.

I'm not going to make a squirt die. Period. I will make a core seating die. I MIGHT also make a die that "punches" the rims off of these case heads. Not having to hold these cases in the lathe AND perform ANOTHER machining step in the lathe is appealing. We'll see about that one. I'm not confident it will produce something I will be satisfied with.

Another set of dies I am 'threatening' to make are those used to make jackets from copper tubing. AKA "jacket forming dies". Again, the question is: Do I use the 7.62x54R cases with all their idiosyncrasies, or do I go to the trouble to make jackets-from-tubing dies that eliminate the variations introduced by using cartridge cases for jackets? I haven't made up my mind on that yet. I don't think the "bison hunt" is a proper motivation for doing the experimentation that is required to get an informed answer to those questions. In other words; I don't need another monkey on my back before the bison hunt.

I did some more paper-whipping, (based on actually burning powder), on the load workup for the .416x348 Win. As a result, I loaded 5 rounds using I3031 behind the Hornady 400-grain round-nosed bullets. I will be shooting them "at range" and to get MV data for adjusting QL as necessary with I3031. It's time to finish with the paper-whipping and start pokin' holes in paper. Of note with these cartridges, is that I seated them to the cannelure of the bullets. On these Hornady bullets, that's 0.625" deep. That puts the bullet's ogive about 0.325" off the lands. That's quite a jump. We'll see how that 'works' at the target. It's been my experience, (much to my annoyance), that bullets with cannelures often shoot very well when seated to the cannelure. Not always, but more often than not. Of course, these bullets weren't designed for use with this wildcat's case. Nevertheless, I can get to a timing node, AND the MV I want (2000 f/s), while still keeping max pressure to just a little over 38 kPSI, with this "deep" seating depth.

After everything is said and done... I am thinking that the .50 Alaskan may not go bison hunting. It just can't 'compete' with the other three cartridges and rifles, and this hunt is too important to me to be foolin' around with a rifle that IN MY HEAD will be the most 'inadequate' of those I have available to use. The final decision isn't in yet, but all the paper-whipping just keeps pointing to the same conclusion: The .50 Alaskan is the runt of the litter. AND, no small matter in that decision, is the fact that the .50 Alaskan has already taken a bull moose. Moose is not PRIMARILY what I built it for, but still...

News at ll.

Paul

[Paul Hoskins]

Paul,For maximum precision of weight and diameter a core bleed die is necessary. It will produce 'exactly' the diameter and weight you want every time. You can cast cores or cut them with your lead wire cutter pretty close but for max precision of weight, diameter and length, only a core swaging die will do it. Three holes of 0.032 inches in diameter fairly equally spaced diametrically is sufficient for most bullet core swaging dies. Larger bleed holes can be used for larger diameter cores with no problem. For 17 thru 30 caliber cores, the 0.032 inch holes work fine. I make core seating dies exactly the diameter of the intended bullet. For some reason they always come out of the die about 0.0003 to 0.0005 smaller than finish size. I have no quarrel with that. They go in the point forming die with no trouble. I make a tip forming punch that fits in the core seating die to form the tips.     ......Paul H

[gitano]

We should talk, Paul.

I'm not very concerned about the exactness of the weight of the core before it goes in the core seating die. The reasons are that at final bullet weights like these - 500-plus grains - a few grains 'here and there' in the weight of the core can be mitigated by matching core weights with jacket weights. That's what I did with the above bullets and got them withing 0.1% (half a grain) of each other. I simply kept swapping cores and jackets until the combinations matched each other. I realize that that isn't very 'efficient', but there is NOTHING efficient about this process I'm doing!

My reticence in making all these separate dies is that 1) I will have to buy a WHOLE BUNCH of tooling, and 2) I will have to HEAT TREAT EVERY ONE OF THE DIES. Which in turn means that I will have to get the RIGHT material to START with, which in turn means IN ALASKA, a PITA, which in turn means MORE MONEY. AND THEN, SOME of them will STILL be 'trash', and I'll have to do it ALL OVER AGAIN!

The PRIMARY point of making my own bullets FOR THESE BIG CALIBERS is SAVING MONEY. (With the 8mm bullets, it was GETTING WHAT I WANTED.) I am perfectly happy with Hawk bullets for both the .416 and the .51 calibers. The "problem" is COST. The cheapest I can get 'factory' bullets is about $1.25 a piece. By the time I BUY all the tooling, all the materials, all the 'stuff' I need for heat treating, and make a bunch of them that DON'T WORK before I get it right, I will have spent more than I would have buying A LOT of 'factory' bullets! I would have a different attitude if the issue was getting what I WANT. It's not. It's COST. Therefore, my focus is on MINIMIZING the 'stuff' I have to buy and the number of operations I can screw up and have to REMAKE 'pieces'. Which just means MORE COST.

Paul

[recoil junky]

The use of copper tubing means the jacket has no base and the bullets WILL become "two piecers" upon impact. Original Barnes bullets did this and by sticking the nose in a potato and heating the base to in effect "solder" the core and jacket together, any "hollow" jacket will do the same thing sans a DEEP canelure (or two).

I can recall Dad and Walt trying the "solder thing" but having limited success as

1. the core and/or the jacket weren't clean enough to "solder"

2. The bullet wouldn't stay in the potato, being forced out by "steam" and when it hit the floor, the molten core "fell out".

If one could have the core and jacket clean enough to "solder" then keep the jacket upright and before the final swaging step, "solder" the two together . . . . .  

The original Barnes bullets were very accurate which is what initially was their selling point, but their performance on game was dismal which was their fall from Grace.

RJ