Development of PP loads for the .44-77.

[Distant Thunder]

Gavin,

I went with Arnie's dimensions and he goes a little more pointed than I do on these ellipticals, but his bullets do shoot well. It's kind of funny but when I look at the mold cavity it looks like something I would design, but when the bullets drop out of the mold it looks more like what Arnie designs! Must be some sort of gremlins at work in there when the mold is closed up.

Arnie drew up the design almost immediately after he heard I was working on a .44-77, but I had to wait until I had the rifle in hand before I could adjust diameters to fit my barrel. Fit is very important.

Arnie goes with about 25% of caliber for the nose radius and I like the 33% that Dr. Gunn used so effectively in his designs. That said I'm not entirely sure if there is much difference. I always feel that the more pointed and therefore longer the nose is the more leverage there is for the wind demons to pry the bullet off it's intended course. Especially those quartering headwinds.

And yes ladies and gentlemen there are demons out there that work very hard to keep our bullets out of the center. I have actually seen a bullet completely disappear on the way to the target from 800 yards. Well, at least it never hit where anyone could see it and the guy I was spotting for was pounding the 10-ring pretty hard at the time. When the target came up a miss we were sure that something was amiss! We never did figure out where that bullet went. DEMONS!

I had a shot from 600 yards once that looked perfect, the target went down, stayed down and eventually came up a miss. I had been shooting pretty well and my shots were near center so after the match I asked the guy pulling for me what happened on that miss, he said he had no idea. The shot came in and hit in the group on the berm but he and two other guys could not find a hole in the paper! If you have a better explanation I like to hear it. Oh yea, they're out there alright! That's one of the reasons I shoot paper patch, the smooth sided bullets are much harder for demons to get ahold of! With grease groove they can so easily get ahold of the bullets and they can almost turn a bullet around and make it go back where it came from. You grease groove shooter best keep your heads down!

That's my story and I'm sticking to it! There is a difference between facts and story telling, I trust that most of the readers can tell the difference! I hope so anyway or I may find myself being fitted for a straight jacket!

I'll patch up some of these new 505s and load them over 86 grains of my newest lot of Swiss and shoot them at 220 yards along with some of Matt's 2-D bullets and both the loads I used at Rapids. Then I'll know what I'm working with and if things are shooting as well as they appear to be.

I'm hoping the 450 grain bullet seated deep shows as well on paper as it did on the gongs. If so it could make for a pretty good silhouette load while not using too much powder and lead.

I've got so much experimenting to do with this .44-77 that it is going to take me quite a lot of shooting and time. So stay tuned and I'll be back with more.

[beltfed]

Jim,
I think we are mostly on the same page on that nose radius of 0.11 /0.22 diameter as in 50% of bullet body diameter
Combined with the Shorter Elliptical Ogive profile of 45% of bullet length
that I think we decided together is best for stability , to make
for a total conservative profile that is less sensitive overall to shifty winds, esp headwinds.
Sure isn't like the True Prolate "pointies" that Brent shoots. HAHAHAHa!
Arnie

[Distant Thunder]

Arnie,

If that's not what I said it is what I meant. Any differences we have in our approach are small enough that they have no measurable effect on the target.

Also I figured BACO would be more likely to take on a "new" design that was along the lines of what is know to be working well, The Seitz Design. They have a good number of Seitz designed bullets listed and it must be a selling point because they make a point of it. I'm am good with your design.

When Brent and I first started with his .45 caliber prolate design he had the nose length at 50% of the length and a true prolate is very pointy at 50% of the typical .45 caliber long range bullet's length.

When I designed my .50-70 bullet I used a true prolate but in the very short, fat .50 cal. not intended for long range a prolate is necessarily blunter. That bullet only weighs 490 grains and has a very good form. It shoots very well out to 400 yards and probably a bit beyond.

   

I must admit that I started modifying the .45 prolate design because I wanted get the weight up and that is hard to do with a prolate bullet short enough to be stable in an 18-twist. Our first prolate bullets were only 500-510 grains, pretty light in .45 caliber. To gain more weigh Brent and I went in two different directions. Brent had me cut a prolate at 1.520" long which proved to be too long for his 18-twist barrel. I capped the prolate from with a nose radius and lengthened the shank to keep the 1.460" length I wanted for my 18-twist.

My version would work in an 18-twist most of the time but seemed to struggle a little in switchy headwinds. Brent had some good results with his "long" prolate, but not always. The length was too much for an 18-twist to stabilize well enough to hold up in anything but calm conditions.

   

I decided to shorten my version to 1.440" and BINGO, my Lodi bullet (EPP 4B) was born and has been a winning design ever since. Brent's approach was just as effect if more costly, he rebarreled his '77 Sharps with a 16-twist barrel and that was a winning combo with his long prolate. That ended for him when Swiss 1 1/2 took a dump starting with the 2003 lots. I believe he has found a way around that problem and he will return to the winner's circle and I believe already has. It's hard to keep a good shooter down.

I must say also that I always had in the back of my mind the details the late Dr. Gunn used in many of his very successful designs. Somewhere I read what he had to say on the subject and it all made sense to me and I have used his ideas in my designs. It's hard to come up with something new in a sport that has been around for 144 years and I have no problem using what has worked in the past.

So that is a short story on my journey through long range BPCR bullet design. Many shooters are handicapped by the supersonic bullet designs that have come out of smokeless powder. If you don't understand the transonic velocities we shoot in you need to read up on it or just keep buying bullet molds that don't work the best! Been there done that!

[COBPTR]

Many shooters are handicapped by the supersonic bullet designs that have come out of smokeless powder. If you don't understand the transonic velocities we shoot in you need to read up on it or just keep buying bullet molds that don't work the best! Been there done that!

Are you referring to Money Bullets here? Spitzers? Curious as to what you think the best nose shape is and what qualifies as "best" since most of the bullets I've seen from Creedmoors, Moneys, Ellipticals, Postell's all enter LR paper with round holes when loaded correctly.

Robert

[Distant Thunder]

Robert,

How are you doing? Fine I hope!

The best design in Creedmoor bullet for me would be one that is well stabilized and can handle even the really challenging winds I often see, it would also be at least reasonably accurate. The more accurate the better, but even that has limits. For me stability is more important than a high BC number which generated by a computer program that just produces numbers based on what we know and understand when the programs are written. Accuracy is always important, but it must be accurate over time and through many different conditions from calm to nasty. One group at any distance is not necessarily an indication of accuracy over time.

"Many shooters are handicapped by the supersonic bullet designs that have come out of smokeless powder. If you don't understand the transonic velocities we shoot in you need to read up on it or just keep buying bullet molds that don't work the best!"

By that I meant only that we all have grown up in the smokeless powder era and with the VLD type of long spitzer bullets that require the high velocities of smokeless powders to generate the very high rpms that are needed to stabilize these long nosed jacketed bullets and that can be an influence on how we see the "best" bullet design for BPCR. Even if we don't think it influences our thinking.

In the search for high ballistic coefficient bullets some BPCR shooters often use bullets with nose profiles and/or OAL that would work better at higher velocities than what may be possible or practical with black powder. Also if we had a better working knowledge of the requirements of the transonic zone better bullet designs might exist and be used.

I've pulled a few targets at 800, 900 and 1000 yards and I have often seen holes that are not round but to one degree or another show some tipping. All bullet experience some degree of yawing at times in their flight.

Today's money bullet came from the Metford design of the 1870s but has evolved into a longer more slender nose over time. That may not have been a move in the best direction in my opinion.

I am a big fan of the elliptical or prolate design. Elliptical if you look at the nose profile and prolate if you are the professor type and view it in 3-D. I have found that they work better when they follow the modifications that Arnie Seitz and I have been using. That being a nose that is about 45% of the OAL and a hemi-spherical nose radius of between 25 and 33% of caliber and of a length that is well stabilized by their ROT. That design has been the best bullet for Creedmoor in my experience. Bullets of that design have handled the difficult winds better than any others I have used.

I shot a Lyman Postell for years and it served me well. Is it the best bullet? No, I don't think so, but it is a good one.

I never really worked with a true Creedmoor design, though the Postell is similar and I had a Leeth mold that was also similar. Both were very accurate for me, both were short enough to be well stabilized in my 18-twist .45 calibers. I do not think they were the best designs for transonic velocities but they are both good bullets.

I often say that the things I post on bullet design are "my opinions based on my 30 years of shooting BPCR" and that "YMMV". Every shooter should use what works best for them.

I try very hard to not tell any one that what they are doing is wrong. I do often say that I've believe I found a better way and freely tell anyone who is interested exactly how I do things.

I am not an expert on ballistics or bullet design. I would describe myself as a problem solver that has found a home in the BPCR sports and I apply my efforts toward that interest. It is just a hobby for me.

I am a shameless advocate for the use of paper patch bullets over grease groove, but only because of the superiority of paper patch bullets. That too is my opinion based on my experience and YMMV.

[Kurt]

Jim I agree with what you put down above. I have always said that the length of the ogive of the money bullets with the relation of the shank length is wrong for stability when the winds kick up. This is why in the last 5-8 years the barrel rotations got tighter to stabilize the MB profile.
The Metford design was developed for a reason for the long range shooting. The ODG's had the capability to make the MB ogives but they stayed with the blunter nosed bullet. The postal I think is an all around fine design for the GG or PP bullets.

[Distant Thunder]

Robert,

I would also say that the original Metford design had a nose length that was about 35% of the OAL. Today's money bullet is a higher %.

I have been impressed with the original Sharps design which as I understand the old Ideal Postell was paterned after. The Lyman Postell moved toward the Creedmoor design. The original nose is a very good design and is somewhat similar to today's elliptical design but in a simpler form, using 3 radii instead of an ellipse.

In the end Creedmoor is more of a shooter's sport than a bullet race and that is a big part of the appeal.

We know that the ODG tended to shoot bullets that we consider too long for their ROT by today's standards. Even then they did some fine shooting. I just feel my chances are better if I use the best bullet I can find and I need all the help I can get. So since 2009 I have been using one form or another of elliptical. I just don't push the length limits of my twist and that more than anything has helped me come out on top once in awhile. That and paper patch bullets of course!

[Distant Thunder]

Kurt,

I think you said it better than I did. We have moved to faster and faster ROT to accommodate the longer, more slender noses of our evolving bullet designs, but the limitations of BP helps to prevent the longer and heavier bullets from taking over at least for the most part. That's a good thing too, I for one don't want to have to shoot a .45 caliber 650 grain bullet to play the game! Ouch! There is a limit to what a man can stand.

[beltfed]

Jim and Kurt,
AAAAAAMMMENNNNN for now
got to go to an Elders meeting
Arnie

[Distant Thunder]

This morning I loaded 6 of these new 2-D EPP bullets from BACO (JIM441505EPP). I also wanted to test the two loads I used a Rapids this past Saturday because I hadn't actually ever tested them on paper and I had some loads left over after the match. I also had 7 bullets that Matt had given me at Rapids, these are also a BACO 2-D EPP but require thinner paper to fit my rifle. All shooting was done at 220 yards (200m) from a bench.

First was Kurt Sagebrush bullet at 510 grains wrapped with my 9# onionskin and sized in my .4375" push through die. I used 6" diameter paper plates for aiming points because they work fairly well with my 6X scope and the holes show up well if I actually hit the plate.

   

The 3rd shot went wide right and I have now explanation for it. I had 6 cartridges thinking I would use one for a sighter to get on the plate with the different bullets. The other 5 shots stayed inside 2" ctc. This bullet shows very good potential, but I do not own the mold so it not likely going to be my match bullet. It would serve me well if it was my mold.


Next up was Matt Steckel's BACO 443495EPP. Matt gave me 7 of these to try and since at the time I did not have my new BACO mold I thought it would be a good test to see how the 2-D bullet would shoot in my rifle. Because the diameters are made for Matt's rifle I had to wrap these with some paper that is .0016" thick and that made them fit my rifle pretty close.

   

There are only 6 shots on the plate because one cartridge would not chamber, I'm not sure why. The 6 that did chamber went into 3 1/2" ctc. That's not too bad and I'm sure I could work with to improve it, but this is not a mold I own so this is where it ends for me and this bullet. Again not a bad group for a first try.

Next up was my new BACO JIM441505EPP cast from my 17-1 alloy and wrapped with my 9# paper. I used a .060" LDPE wad over 86.0 grains of Swiss 1 1/2" (lot# 18/01/2016) in JBA cases primed with Federal 210 primers. This group show exactly why I have always started with the .060 poly wads and 210 primers when using Swiss 1 1/2. That combo has shown to be a good starting place over the years.

   

The low right shot was my sighter and came up 1 moa and left 1/2 moa and shot the 5 for a group. The shot to the right just off the plate I actually broke about 1/2 moa right and I was disappointed to see it went so far right. Even with that shot the 5 are in 2 7/8 ctc. For this being the first load with this new bullet the group looks pretty good. I will load some more and see if it repeats. If it does I'll start looking to improve the load as much as I can.

This will is the bullet I will use for the August 22 match at Rapids. That will be a paper target match shooting prone at 300 and 600 yards and will give me very good feedback on whatever the load is at that time. If everything looks good I'll shot the .44-77 and this bullet for the Fall Classic at Lodi, WI at the end of September. It's looking pretty good right out of the gate!

So far this .44-77 has shown itself to be very forgiving for powder charge and bullet choice making it very easy to develop accurate paper patch loads with both straight bore diameter and 2-D paper patch bullets. There remains a lot of experimenting and shooting yet to do but I am really impressed with the cartridge. It will do everything I want it to, silhouette, mid range paper and gongs and long range paper and gongs. It will also make an excellent hunting cartridge. I am thinking I may have finally found the Sharps cartridge that can really do it all.

All of this begs the question, why has this cartridge been so overlooked by BPCR shooter today? I suspect it is in part all the negative things I've read on the internet and that is a shame. Because it is a truly obsolete cartridge with no SAAMI specs in effect it would not be a good choice for a beginner, but for the experienced BPCR shooter looking for the coolest cartridge with a high degree of versatility it is an excellent choice. At least that the way it seems to me so far. More time is needed but it is a paper patcher's dream!