Development of PP loads for the .44-77.

[Distant Thunder]

JB,

I began with just two matches a year both shot at 800, 900 & 1000 yards, one in the spring and one in the fall. All my load development and testing was done at those two match. It was a long, slow learning curve. Sometimes there would be little improvements, sometimes there would be catastrophic failure and I learned from both. Many, many better shooters helped me along the way and I am forever grateful for the help they gave me.

Eventually I found out about other smaller matches, some closer some not. I was doing a lot of shooting and any shooting is good even if it's not your best score there are things that can be learned. Sometimes it's what not to do ever again!

The first match with this rifle should be interesting. I'll review my notes on the development of my loads for the .40-65 and figure out where I go from here with this one. It would probably be better to shoot when it's not so gusty or at least set out my ribbons so I can watch for those gusts and hold up.

With the scope this rifle weighs about 13 1/4 lbs but 80 to 82 grains of 1 1/2 Swiss is about all I care to be shooting under a 520 grain bullet at least from the bench. I'll be moving to prone off sticks pretty soon to get ready for match shooting.

[Kurt]

A lot of us living on the wrong side of the Mississippi River have to do their load development during a match. I know I'm one also that is why I take several different loads and pick the best showing during the unlimited sighters we get at Lodi and go with the least dirt diggers.
Lodi would be a lot better if they would open the range the day before the match for sight settings and checking the loads.

Jim. I cast 200 of the BA Jim 430/520 bullets today that is enough for me to use at Rapids this month. I can send you that mould and I also have a good KAL .44 elliptical that really shoots well at the 1K I can send you these instead bringing them so you can see how your rifle shoots them before Rapids and bring moulds back to Rapids this month.
The 520 is a little longer then I want at 1.473" and .430" diameter. I'm going to change it to a DD when I get a smaller boring bar for the mill that will fit the mould. I have a index chuck that holds a 3/4" shank but the bars are to big for the .44's. and I think I will shorten it up to 1.425 or 1.430" depending how the vent lines work out. I might also open the shank .001" per side to the start of the ogive so I can use thinner paper than the .0022" I need for this bullet.
I also have a smaller diameter and shorter with the same ogive I use for shooting dirty but .428" is not the best unless you have the right paper.
If you want me to send them send me an e mail with your mail box again. I'm not sure I saved it when I sent the box of bullets. But I think I put some of those in the box.

[J.B.]

Just a few observations I made yesterday as I put together some rounds to load some of my new base pour Kal dd pp bullets. Initially using the J.B.A. cases.. several times fired & oal @ 2.246", I set my MVA powder tube to 2.4". Using Swiss 1.5.. lot. Oct-27-14 .. was producing 84.9 grains. Drop tubed and with 1 x .06 card & no compression I had .163" of clear space for seating. Set the tube @ 2.45" for 87.2 grains with the same 1 x .06 card left me with .109 of space.. again with no compression. I chased up the '1' example of BACO. 50/110 converted brass.. also once fired and tried the same load. The BACo. shell was slightly shorter at 2.244" long. Loaded with MVA @ 2.45" ie. 87 grains.. 1 x .06 card and no compression, left me with .108" of seating space. As a rule of thumb I rarely load with less than .06 - .1" of compression.. as much to ensure the loads are level and c.o.a.l. is the same as anything else. I was hoping to get by with no neck sizing and indeed I possibly could if I was prepared to have less than friction tight bullets...but I was having a hard time dealing with that. I've avoided annealing as I'm a bit nervous of ruining cases and this is probably contributing to some 'bounce back' in some of the necks. As they fire form around .467/ .4675 at most... I ran them through the .466 CH neck die I have and this solved 'most' of the inconsistencies. I settled on the MVA @ 2.425 which yielded 86 x S. 1.5. Card wad at .134 & compressed to .170". Loaded with the Kal 510 grain bullet and wrapped in S.C. yellow I have an overall length of 3.522". This cartridge slides in without issue. Seth Cole white is the same but you can feel the engagement...though very slight. I tried with some 100% cotton onion skin paper I got from BACo years ago ( should have bought more )and it wrapped beautifully and took up the slack in the necks well. Designed for the S.C. paper though...these slicks wouldn't chamber with paper at .0022" thick. Shame as that paper just plays the game really well... and this paper roller... really needs all the help he can get . I'll try and get some photos up of the the three loaded examples showing the three bullets to be trialled. Pandemic permitting
As an aside.. I was curious ..just for the exercise...to see how much 2f or indeed 3f could be loaded if I needed too but alas I had none to try. I would hazard that a shallow loaded gg or pp with 3f could be loaded with close to 90 grains if that was your goal. Not sure there would be much to be gained though as most of my 'better' results have been between 76 and 84 grains of 1.5. I'd be keen to try some 2f though.

Gavin.

[J.B.]

    So here is a photo of the 'three' to be trialled on steel hopefully in a couple of weeks time. The photo magnification makes the errors in my patching more evident. My limited exposure to pp has told me that .03" overlap...seems to be forgiven..while the same in shortfall..or cover...is not so much. Still...I need to adjust my template to allow for the taper given the dual diameters. Always a work in progress. The first is the Kal dd Gibbs, the middle is the DD diameter nose pour I had Steve Brooks make for me based on a 45 mould I got from Tom Ballard nearly 30 yrs ago. The third, another dd Kal design, carrying a little more weight in the nose.

[beltfed]

Looking Good, J.B.
Arnie

[Distant Thunder]

JB,
Bullet shape wise the one on the left looks good to me, I like it.

I my experience you do NOT want your patch ends to overlap at all. A .020 to .030" gap is preferred. I have been a little more careful about that in recent years and it seems to have helped.

[J.B.]

Well clearly I dont have enough runs on the board .. especially on paper... so I'll take your advice on board Jim. I'm too lazy to unwrap what I've done..so I'll take an eccentric line from one point of the template and see if I cant eliminate that overlap altogether. Never a problem with parallel sides designs but these are a little more challenging for me... and having three different diameters probably isn't helping either. I've another 35 to wrap so I'll see if I can improve on what I've done. I'm keen to see how you guys go with that BACo mould on Arnies design. I'd bring up the diameters probably two thou on the shank and one on the base if I put in an order. My experience with moulds is that most come in a hair under rather than over. I guess you can always use thicker paper.. although the option is there to size overall too with a push through die.. but that doesn't work so well on the shank in a dd design. . Thanks for the tip .. I'll see how I go.

J.B.

p.s. finally looks like I've got a rough idea of what I'm doing....rough. Trimmed the top of the patches back about .04 or so and they are looking tidier... either just meeting or only a hair between.

[Distant Thunder]

As far as my own development work goes I have checked my notes from my .40-65 and have decided on the steps that I will follow.

1) Test several different wads or combos and find the two that give the best results.

2) Test different primers with the two best wads and see which two are the best.

3) Using the two best wads and two best primers start increasing the powder charge a grain or two at a time looking for the sweet spot.

4) Take the best looking powder charges and retest each until the best one can be determined by results on target.

I may not go through all the steps with this bullet because it is not the bullet I plan to use in the end and I'll just have to go through the whole process again once I have my long range bullet and again for my silhouette bullet. I am leaning toward a lighter bullet for silhouette.

The whole process took two shooting seasons to go through with my .40-65 and there I started with a nose pour adjustable mold just as I am with my .44-77. With my .40-65 there was the question of length for the twist rate, but I also used the adjustable mold for my early load development. The results were very good.

With the .44-77 the adjustable mold will help me decide what bullet weight I want to shoot and what powder charge works best with that weight. For long range I would like a bullet about 520 to 530 grains. For silhouette I'm thinking more in the 450 grain range.

Over the next week I will start working my way through the 4 steps above using this adjustable mold and see how far I get before I have to put loads together for the Wisconsin Rapids match on the 25th.

I remember 4 years ago when I went to Rapids with my early paper patch loads in my .40-65, it was a disaster but I learned a lot and improved my loads using those hard lessons. It will probably be the same with this .44-77, but always having room for improvement is what keeps me going.

[Distant Thunder]

JB,
Didn't mean to be critical of your patching job, other that the overlap they look as good as mine do. I am not as fussy as others about my patching. Minor little variations have not seemed to hurt me, but I am always trying to do a more consistent job cutting my patches and that results in more consistent patching.

I've wrapped enough 2-D bullets that it doesn't bother me. My .40-65 has been very forgiving about patching variations, not all rifles are that way.

I think the most important things in patching are a narrow gap at the ends (NO overlap for sure), the leading edge of the patch has to be very near the correct location. Some rifles like it forward a bit, my Hepburn likes it back a bit, but consistency is important. I also think it is best to be consistent with the fold over at the base. And usually less paper folded over is best. This has been an area that I haven't been careful enough with, but I think I'm getting that under control now. Again, it starts with the patch cutting.

[J.B.]

No problem here Jim... happy with any and all helpful advice. I've only dabbled in pp now and again & I'd like to get a handle on it. Too much time to fiddle and no time spent testing is one problem that has always plagued me. Just finding that with these dd bullets it seems the finer paper is working better at conforming to the variation between shank and base. The flat base is a new experience too. Parallel bullets with cup bases won't phase me at all after this . That Gibbs ogive runs from a fair way back on the shank so the patches are coming up shorter in order to stay even. The old story really.. " won't know till I give it a go " ! Should provide some entertainment for the gg brigade at our next match...no matter what the result. . Watching and reading with interest. I may try wet patching too...as I always use to do..but I've got enough to deal with now without adding water
Gavin.