swage .510" bullets in a reloading press.
(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o266/paulskvorc/Making%20the%2050%20Alaskan/Swaged50-550.jpg)
This is the first bullet I made from the swaging die I cut. I am pleased with it. It's a bit heavy at 550, but that's easily remedied. Dave Corbin, and others, have repeatedly told me that it is not possible to swage bullets larger than about .30 caliber on 'regular' reloading presses. When I pressed for reasons, the 'weather' suddenly got hazy. Continued pressing on my part lead to reasons like, "It takes too much pressure" and "The strokes are too short on reloading presses".
Both those justifications may be true for some kinds of swaging operations, but I was very clear - repeatedly - that my needs were simple. Of course "simple" often doesn't sell hardware. I need neither great force, nor a long stroke to make these bullets. The jacket - the forward part of a 'magnum' cartridge case - is nearly pre-formed, and the core is too, as it is simply the Lee 458 Postell 3R cast bullet. Here's a picture of the starting components.
(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o266/paulskvorc/Making%20the%2050%20Alaskan/Swaged50s.jpg)
On the left is a .338 Win Mag case. Next is the case with the head parted (I use the rear of the case as a jacket too after turning the belt off), and the neck turned off the shoulder. The forward part is what is used for the jacket in these bullets. In the middle is the Lee .458 3R Postell (507-grains from my mould). I simply insert the Postell into the front of the Mag case, and press into the swaging die.
Of course, I haven't shot them yet, but my previous experiments using the case heads as jackets was very promising. I expect these to do at least as well. Consistency will be necessary for good precision shooting, but I think I can get all the consistency I need in final weight by weighing each 'jacket' and core prior to swaging.
I also like the long nose on these bullets. That turns out to be purely serendipity (blind good fortune) as it is the profile of the "reamer" I used. That reamer cost me $21.99 (13.90 for the reamer, 6.10 for shipping, and 1.99 for "handling") off EBay. Custom reamer-making shops either said they couldn't make one, or quoted a price of at least $140 (some MUCH higher). The "reamer" is actually a 1/2" "tree burr". Here's a picture of one exactly like what I got. http://cgi.ebay.com/TITAN-1-2-SG-5-DBL-CUT-POINTED-TREE-CARBIDE-BURR-NEW_W0QQitemZ200135383124QQihZ010QQcategoryZ12578QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1742.m153.l1262
While the reamer is only 0.500" in maximum diameter, it occurred to me that I could mount it in my tool-holder and offset it the necessary 0.010" to ream the ID I wanted. (Actually I reamed it to 0.515" so I could run it through my .510" Lee bullet sizer for an exact final diameter.) Worked like I knew what I was doin'.
Reaming the die is tedious, as the whole surface of the burr is cutting. In order to make the cavity as smooth as possible, I was only able to take 0.020" cut between clearing chips from the cavity and the burr. Since the cavity is 1.5" deep (deep enough to make a 600-grain bullet), that was 75 cuts (1.500"/0.020" = 75).
It wasn't 'easy' to get to this point of actually making bullets, but it wasn't 'hard' either. It just required a hard head. Once the burr was found, the process went like this:
1) Thread a 3" piece of 1" diameter steel rod to 7/8-14 to fit a standard reloading die.
2) Drill a 3/16" pilot hole (later to become the hole through which the bullet is removed from the swage) through the threaded billet.
3) Ream to 1" depth with the burr mounted in the tail-stock.
4) Ream (with 1/2" drill) "shank" to 0.5" deep.
5) Install burr in tool-holder - off-set desired amount for exact diameter.
6) "Cut" (as opposed to "ream", as now the burr is only cutting on one side) into full depth of 1.5".
7) Polish.
8) Make a 'ram' that fits in the reloading die ram, for pressing the unswaged components into the swage.
Making the core should be obvious - it's just a cast bullet. Making the jacket is a bit more complicated, but not too big a deal.
1) Chuck the magnum case (.338, 7mm, .300, etc., any 'standard' magnum case) in the lathe with the head out.
2) Turn off belt.
3) Remove and chuck case in lathe with mouth out.
4) Turn off neck.
5) Part case at predetermined length for specific bullet weight.
At that point, it's just a matter of inserting the nose of the core into the 'jacket', applying a little lube, and pressing into the swage. A tap on the nose through the top hole drops the bullet out of the swage. It pops out at about 0.5145" in diameter. I then run it through the Leee sizing die, and it is 0.5103". Voila'.
And it didn't cost me $2000 dollars, which is what it would have cost me (including shipping) to get Corbin's complete set-up. Of course his equipment might very likely make 'better' bullets. However, if these shoot as straight as the seriously clunky ones I made "by hand" before shot, I'll be happy as a clam.
I'll post a 'photo essay' on the whole process later. It's a bit dificult to work efficiently on a lathe and try to take pictures too - especially if you're a novice. :confused:
Paul
PS - Calculated BC for this bullet is .454 - :D
Paul, just like I told you before, we are not qualified to do this hi tech work without at least 20 years serious training, just keep that in mind the next time you want something and the experts say to forget it.
;D
Sounds like quite an operation Paul. I've never attempted anything like that, but it sounds interesting.
Looking forward to the picture show. :)
Daryl
:biggthumpup: :biggthumpup: :biggthumpup: :biggthumpup: :biggthumpup:
I am impressed!:bowdown: Now you just need to figure out how to "bond" them. Do you have any guesses as to how high an impact velocity they can take and still hold together?
You might have to draft your daughter as "photo journalist" so that those of us with less than average understanding of tooling can follow along.
Can't wait to see the results on game with these. They're for the Alaskan right?
Wow... My earlier reply just vanished in to the 'ether'. Anyway...
Thanks Glenn.
These are indeed for the Alaskan.
As for the 'bonding', I'm not too worried about it. Even if the jacket peels away, the .458" core will still make some serious hurt. Also, the earlier ones I made "by hand" held together well even after hitting some big rocks. To me, and especially for this rifle, the primary purpose of the jacket is to prevent leading of the bore.
That said, Paul Hoskins told me how he bonds his jackets and cores, and it sounds like a good idea. Essentially, it is soldering the core to the jacket by "tinning" the jacket, inserting the core, swaging the bullet to size, then heating just enough to melt the solder - voila', bonded jacket and core. If that doesn't hold it together, not much will.
If these end up shooting as straight as the Northwest Custom Projectile 500s do, (6" groups at 300 yds), I'll be bringing these to Colorado this fall for elk. I'd love to plug an elk with the .50 using home-made bullets.
I'll see if I can get one of my daughters to be the photographer when I make the die for the Lachmiller press.
Paul
A big BOOOM!!! I can't wait:MOGRIN:
Are you going to reload a few that might even make me regret shooting it :greentongue:
RJ
QuoteAre you going to reload a few that might even make me regret shooting it
I didn't realize that was possible... ;)
Paul
Definitely interesting now that a box of factory ammo for the lowly .30-06 is $40.
The first thing I thought of was starting with .223 or .22 Hornet cases and some appropriately smaller cast bullets. .30-30 brass might make for some nice .35 cals.
I have an assortment of "trees" already - but no lathe. I have used mine in a die grinder for port work on manifolds.
NOt really Paul, I just want to test you. :biggthumpup:
RJ
Interesting procedure...I'd be interesting to watch you make one....maybe you can make a video and post it on you tube...:D
Well...
I spent a few hours today working on getting consistent weights, using difference parts of the mag case, and generally getting to know how things work. I'll post some pictures tomorrow of the "good, the bad, and the ugly". I learned a lot today.
I won't be videoing it, but I will be creating a photo-essay. When I broached the subject of one of my daughters being the photographer, I was pleasantly surprized when when both volunteered. I'm going to continue to get educated for the next week or so before I put a "how to" together. Hopefully by then I'll have most of the kinks worked out. I figured out how to make a good boat-tail, but there were several "uglies" before I got it right. Looks like I can easily keep the BC above .400 if I stay at least 500 grains. If they shoot straight, I'll have an elk and buffalo bullet that should let me shoot as far as I care to.
More later.
Paul
It's later so...
Attached are a couple of pictures of my latest attempts.
(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o266/paulskvorc/Making%20the%2050%20Alaskan/TheGood.jpg)
The first order of business was to get the components weighed so that they can be assembled into a specific weight. That involved a lot of trial-and-error. The 560-grainer is bigger than I thought I wanted, but if I can live with, (literally), 3450 ft-lbs at the muzzle, (1675 f/s MV), this bullet will deliver 2000 ft-lbs to 300 yds and drop only about 27" at 300 when sighted in dead on at 190 (+6" at 100). That's a thumper for sure. Unfortunately, it 'thumps' at my end too. My current 500-grain load produces about 3216 ft-lbs at the muzzle.
The 500-grainer drops about 32" at 300 and retains "only" about 1750 ft-lbs.
I suspect that the true BC of the flat-base 536-grainer won't really be .416. (Which reminds me, I have the BCs swapped on the two right-hand bullets. The boat-tail should be .416 and the FB .414.) There is no practical difference between .416 and .414. The variability in muzzle velocity between shots will generate greater point of impact differences than 2-one-hundredths of a unit in BC. And that boat-tail angle is the one that yields the highest BC for that bullet.
I learned a couple of things in this exercise so far. First, ALL of the bullet MUST be in the swage, regarless of whether it is touching the walls or not, before the real swaging commences. Otherwise you end up with the left and middle bullets below.
(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o266/paulskvorc/Making%20the%2050%20Alaskan/BadUgly.jpg)
Also, the swage probably needs a little "easing" at the mouth, lest you end up with the bullet on the right.
Swaging a .50 caliber bullet on a handloading press DOES require some definite muscle. However, I figured a way to do it that minimized the groaning. I seat the swage 'til the lever 'cams over' fairly easy. Then I retract the lever, rotate the die 1/4 turn deeper, and 'cam over' again. I repeat that until it's all I can do to cam over - so far about 4 times. Then I rotate only 1/8th of a turn, and use some 'extra' muscle. Usually, the second 1/8th rotation completes the forming.
It should also be noted that the core material here is NOT pure lead. Pure lead will make a BIG difference. I simply wanted to see what I could do using a lead alloy with a BHN of about 22-ish. I MAY be able to do all of the forming in one stroke with a pure lead core. I am annealing the jackets, but I really don't think that matters too much with regard to the swaging.
I've decided to make a 'jackscrew' swaging press. (The kind of screw represented by a vice.) With a jackscrew with a pitch equal to the pitch on my lathe's leade screw (8 turns per inch), and a 15" wheel/lever, I can get about 40 tons of pressure on the base of the bullet. I like a jackscrew better than either a lever like a reloading press or a hydraulic-driven one. Just seems like I'd have more "feel". While the hydraulic-driven ram might deliver more force, the jackscrew will definitely deliver more than the lever-driven ram.
More as more comes.
Paul
Paul, I hate to rain on anyones parade but the core should be swaged into the jacket before the point is formed. This will eliminate air pockets. Even cores that have been bonded to the jacket should be swaged with a punch in a die before forming the point. This will bring the bullet to the finished diameter. Then the point can be formed. The point forming die has to be a couple tenth's bigger than the core seating die. This will allow the bullet to enter the die with no trouble. I always make my point forming dies with a body long enough to allow the entire bullet to enter before any forming is done. If not, you will wind up with something akin to the wrinkled bullets you show. Those grease grooves in the original cast bullets shouldn't be there for good performance. The outside of the core should be smooth and solid. This will minimize air pockets. Swaging the core in the jacket will bring the bullet to the proper diameter AND eliminate air pockets. I suspect the cause of the wrinkles is because the die cavity and the bullet are the same diameter. You CANNOT put a pin in a hole of the same diameter. You need at least .0001" clearance. Lube on a core or in a jacket is a defnite no no. .............Paul H
I'm not sure I'm following Paul.
Quote...the core should be swaged into the jacket before the point is formed. This will eliminate air pockets.
I'm assuming you refer to air pockets between the jacket and core. With the grease grooves in the core, that would appear to me to be a non-issue, or conversely, the issue of "air pockets' would be so big that anything trapped during swaging would be trivial in comparison.
Even cores that have been bonded to the jacket should be swaged with a punch in a die before forming the point. This will bring the bullet to the finished diameter. Then the point can be formed.
I don't follow this. Do I understand you correctly to be saying that the core and jacket should be swaged to a cylinder first, then a point swaged?
The point forming die has to be a couple tenth's bigger than the core seating die. This will allow the bullet to enter the die with no trouble. I always make my point forming dies with a body long enough to allow the entire bullet to enter before any forming is done. If not, you will wind up with something akin to the wrinkled bullets you show.
This I understand. :)
Those grease grooves in the original cast bullets shouldn't be there for good performance.
I understand that is the conventional wisdom, and it makes some sense. However, I've got a hard head, and I can see where it may be "theoretically sensical" but a non-issue in actual practice. Here's my thinking. First, what we KNOW based on past experience and fundamental physics of rotational motion:
1) Bullets with grease grooves can be "super-accurate". (Over a hundred years of experience.)
2) The "issue" with "air pockets" is gyroscopic imbalance due to the center-of-mass (CoM) not being coincident with the center-of-form (CoF). (Physics)
3) An object rotates around the CoM, not the CoF. When the CoM is not coincident with the CoF, the circle described by the bullet's rotation is larger than the circle described by the bullet rotating on it's Cof (its long axis). (Physics)
4) If a bullet's core were only half the width of the bullet's diameter, the total displacement of the CoM would only be 1/4 of the bullet's diameter off the CoF. It is true however, that as range increases, the diameter of the spiral that the bullet's path describes increases - it looks like a cone. However, fairly long ranges and fairly large imbalances have to be involved before that cone is larger than one bullet diameter. (Physics)
Of course ANY deviation from the "best possible" is unacceptable to target shooters... They're the ones that started the whole "air pocket" issue.
5) The variability in weight of lube in grease grooves is hugely in excess of the variability in CoM due to "air pockets" unless the air pockets are huge. (Reality)
And remember #1 above.
6) I've shot bullets made like this before, and they are not less accurate than 'factory' bullets. In some cases they shot better. (Personal 'knowledge')
Now to what I'm making an educated guess on:
1) The grease grooves, and their associated air pockets, are not going to move the CoM of the bullet far enough for me to measure it in the context of all of the other variables that cause the point of impact to move around (muzzle velocity, wind, operator error, etc.).
2) While I do like the best precision I can get within reasonable limits, I am not a target shooter. I'm guessing, and hoping, that the variability that I am introducing due to procedure, technique and tools, is tolerable with respect to target precision.
I suspect the cause of the wrinkles is because the die cavity and the bullet are the same diameter.
Nope, it's becaue the whole bullet wasn't in the die before swaging started. The die is 0.515" in ID, the pre-formed bullet is 0.5105 in OD. The formed bullet pops out at 0.5145". I then run it through a Lee 0.510" sizing die, and it ends up 0.5105" OD.
Lube on a core or in a jacket is a defnite no no.
That I understand.
.............Paul H
I appreciate your experienced advice here Paul, and should 'things' go south at the range, I'll be back looking for more specific guidance on how to get where I want to be.
Paul
Paul, I try not to leave anything to chance when making bullets. I always swage the core into the jacket first. Bullet jackets ,as bought, are usually around .002" smaller than the finished bullet. When the core is swaged in, it brings the bullet to proper diameter or the size of the die cavity. This will also minimize the chances of an air pocket. At the same time the jacket springs inward gripping the core even tighter. Air pockets DO happen. Especially with cast cores. They may be minimal but air pockets nonetheless. After the core is swaged in the jacket, you have a cylindrical bullet. The next step is making a point on it. This point forming die cavity has to be larger than the finished bullet diameter. This cavity also has to be long enough to allow the entire bullet to enter before ANY point forming takes place. Obviously you have determined that already. Dropping a core into a jacket and not swaging it in will not give good contact all over no matter how tight it feels. You cannot squeeze a jacket down on a core and have a good bullet either. The jacket will spring back while the core doesn't change. It may work but it's just not the best way to do it. It can shed the jacket on impact with most any hard object like bone or even if the bullet mushrooms.
Normally, (almost always) three dies are needed to make soft point bullets. The first die swages the core in and brings the bullet to final diameter. The second die forms the point. The third die forms the lead tip. The tip forming die is another cylindrical die like the core swaging die but a bit larger. The point formed bullet will have a little lead "pipe" sticking out the tip where the lead is extruded into the ejector punch hole. The tip forming die will have a punch that closely fits the die cavity and has a blind cavity of it's own that matches the point shape. The cavity in this punch can have a form that will make the point as sharp as you want it. I see little sense in making it very sharp pointed. It will batter very easy no matter how carefully you handle it if pure lead is used for a core.
I'm well aware cast bullets with grease grooves can be accurate. These grooves are concentric. A bullet with an air pocket on one side can't be consistently accurate because of being out of balance. Paul, making your own jacketed bullets is no big deal. A bullet making press just makes it easier and more consistent if you make the cores all the same weight and out of the same material. I'll send you a couple of Corbin's books on swaging bullets if you don't have them. They don't tell you a lot. It's mostly BS and patting himself on the back as king of the home bullet making business. ..............Paul H
You gotta keep in mind Paul, that I'm a pretty hard-headed guy :Banghead: and when I set my sights on somethin', I'm kinda difficult to 'turn'.
You are absolutely right about the core and jacket not 'bonding' together if swaged as I have done. On occasion, I can actually turn the core inside the jacket after it comes out of the Lee sizing die. However, those cores that twist in the jacket do not come out of the jacket.
At the following thread, http://www.thehunterslife.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6672 you'll see six pictures in the first post. The last four of them are of recovered .510 bullets made essentially the way described in this thread. As you can see, some retained their jackets after crashing into serious rocks, and some didn't.
Those that didn't keep jacket and core together don't bother me one whit. A .50-ish caliber chunk of lead bulldozing through the vitals, and a 100-grain chunk of brass with razor sharp "pointies" winding its way off on another path does not describe "bullet failure" to me. The .17 cal bullets that I kill big game with literally explode into tiny little pieces in the animal, and I've never lost a critter and I've never had to chase one. I'm just not concerned about core-jacket separation once the bullet leaves the muzzle.
Keep in mind, that my primary reason for having a jacket at all is to keep the barrel from excessive leading. I would prefer an unjacketed cast lead bullet, but I can't get one to keep from leaving a HUGE amount of lead (10 grains of lead after 5 shots!), in this rifle's bore. A very distant secondary reason for the jacket is ballistic coefficient improvement.
Put simply, I just want to sling a big chunk of lead down range nad not leave half the lead bullet scraped off in the bore. I have complete confidence that 500 grains of lead whacking into a big game animal at at least 1300 f/s is going to have the desired effect. Precision of bullet placement is important - very important - but elk, moose, bison, and brown bears are very large targets. If these bullets, so made, don't shoot straight, I'll start working on refining the manufacturing process, and I'll be expecting you to 'show me the way'.
Paul
Yeah Paul, I know you are hard headed. There's nothing wrong with that. Nothing duplicates persistence. I'm aware you are trying to alleviate the leading problem. I sure don't understand why your fifty is leading so bad. I've had leading problems with rifles before but nothing like you describe. A good cast bullet with the proper alloy and a gas check shouldn't give you any problems at velocities up to around 1800 fps. At the velocities you are using I doubt copper plating the bullets would help much either since it leads so bad. You might try teflon coating the bullets after greasing them and seating a gas check and letting them dry good. You can get it in spray cans in grocery stores. Prolly wouldn't hurt to wet the bore with it and let dry either. You can block off the chamber with a lead slug to prevent getting the teflon in it. Have you tried polishing the bore with diamond dust in grease? I have used a short piece of rubber hose with a mandrel through it and threaded to fit a cleaning rod. I smear the greasy diamond dust on the rubber hose. Takes a lot of elbow grease. You might con the girls into doing the polishing for you. Don't bet on it tho. I'm still working on a solution for you at this end but it won't be cast bullets. I'll keep you informed of the progress by email or phone. .............Paul H
Keep working on it Paul.
I'm keeping a keen eye on this thread and want to know the end result.
Have you tried any of the "polishing" bullets? Some people swear by them, but I don't know if you can buy them in that caliber. Have you tried different lubes? Maybe you have already been down that road and I'm jumping in late. Anyway, quite the fun experiment. Keep posting.
Shooting cast lead in some rifles can be quite exasperating. I hear ya on that! It's been my experience that the tips and tricks that work for one fella for a given set up don't always work for another. And there have been times I felt that I had discovered "The Load" for a cast bullet only to go back to the range later with the same "Load" and it shot like ****.
One thing I can tell you that during a range session, it only takes one "bad" bullet to lead the barrel and the rest of the session down the tubes, literally.
Some oldtimers say its a matter of the cast bullet properly fitting the throat and there may be some truth to that. If some of the hot gasses get past the bullet base before the bullet "fills" the grooves, it's not good for the bullet, and I believe that is the scenario that gives me the most grief.
You ought to google a fella out there that goes by Ranch Dog. He has spent a great deal of effort in examining the throat dimensions of big bore Marlin barrels and custom designing cast bullets (moulds) to fit those Marlins precisely and seems to be having a lot of success with it. I'm not saying that his bullets will work for you, but there might be something to glean from his method of dimensional fitting that might.
Nels
With respect to "polishing bullets", I have the "stuff" (thanks to Drinksgin), but I have yet to employ it. I've gotten a tired of swimming against the cast bullet current when a jacket eliminates the problem. I do intend to "polish" the bore, and maybe I'll fix up some coated bullets for the next range session.
QuoteShooting cast lead in some rifles can be quite exasperating.
I'd say so!!! I woulda thought that the bigger the bore the less the required voodoo. Actually, my cast bullets shoot accurately enough - at least the few I get out the barrel before leading is so bad it's visible. I'll look up Ranch Dog - the name's familiar - and see what he might have to offer in the way of troubleshooting my cast bullet woes. Still, I'm gonna stay after this bullet swaging 'til I get it down. It's fun, AND, it includes casting bullets as cores. :)
Paul
As usual, yous guys got me to 'thinking' about things, and I got some new insights. (THL is good. :)) Sometimes I feel really stupid when the 'light bulb finally comes on'. :rolleyes: To wit:
1) Since I am swaging bullets with "copper" jackets and lead cores, I should be able to swage bullets with just the lead "cores" as the starting points. Duh!:clown:
2) Once I swaged the lead-only bullets, it was obvious that I could swage a true lead core - instead of simply using the 500-grain Lee Postell unmodified - eliminating the grease grooves and getting the exact diameter I wanted for a core. Double Duh!!:clown::clown:
See, I told you that when I lock onto something I tend to get 'focused'. That's both good (tenacity:yes:), and bad (tunnel vision:no:). Oy!
The pictures below are the result of that exercise. The swaged bullet has its cast bullet 'parent' to its left. Notice that I even used the Lee 500-grain Postell as a starting billet. Of course, the swaged .510 has only the vestige of lube-grooves, and is likely to lead this rifle's bore like crazy without some form of leading mitigation.:stare: I'm workin' on that.
In the middle is the swaged .457" core for using with a jacket. Notice that it has no lube grooves. :) This would be the core used instead of the Postell. I form it by swaging one of the .50 cal cast bullets in the swaging die. That then gets 'sized' to .510 in the Lee sizer. Then it gets forced through a .4595" sizing die, (made by Drinksgin), which shaves about 30 grains of lead off of it, and finally it gets put through Lee's .457" sizing die. Viola'! a core of proper size without grease grooves, to be used for jacketed bullet forming.
Paul